log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E 5e and the Cheesecake Factory: Explaining Good Enough


log in or register to remove this ad

Sure, but that "high quality" is decided by preference for aspects of her work. There is no objectivity to that "high quality" standard. If in 100 years someone makes frames 10x better and you compare the two, the woman who you are using will be ranked at mid or low quality work. If quality were objective, that couldn't happen.
None of that contradicts anything I said. Yes, "high quality" is relative, and new things can exceed old things. A high quality computer display from 1987 isn't much today.
 


Quality is subjective. What you base that subjective opinion on can be objective.
Yes, e.g., the horsepower and fuel efficiency of a motor can be measured objectively, but what impressed consumers 35 years ago is disappointing today. This is what the "time" arrow on the Kano model of quality is referring to. Over time, things that make something "high quality" become baseline expectations. ("Wow! This hotel room has hot water!" Big deal in 1910.)

KanoModelPoster.png


With something like an RPG, I wouldn't work too hard to try to shoehorn everything into one of these three arrows, but it's still a helpful starting point to think about quality.

You don't want your customers to bring out their blue bow ties. You want them in pink bow ties.
 

Blue Orange

Explorer
Leaving aside the comparison of art critics to history's worst dictators...

Isn't one of the issues with D&D 5e network effects? I can download and play an obscure indie game on my own, but a tabletop RPG requires other people. It's a lot easier for me to find people to play D&D 5e than The Great American Novel or Everway.
 

pemerton

Legend
Presumably, cave painters painted paintings for others to look at for some reason or another, and could be considered bad at their craft if others felt they had failed in some purpose, whatever that was.
In many cases we can only speculate why ancient artists created the rock and cave art that they did. The cultural meanings and reasons are lost to us.

Does that mean we can't admire their beauty? That their destruction would not, or should not, matter to us?

Something that is poor quality is something that isn't very good at doing whatever it is that it's supposed to do, and in the case of consumer products, it's to be used by the consumer for some purpose. So, who's the judge of whether or not a consumer product actually does what it's supposed to? If it's not the consumer, who is it?
A high quality computer display from 1987 isn't much today.
When we're talking about the quality of a film, or a piece of rock art, or a novel, or a RPG, are we making an assessment of the utility of a consumer product?

Is utility the only metric for judging human creations?

This is not how I approach film, or literature, or RPGing. I'm not looking for something useful. Typically I'm looking for something that is moving - that evokes unexpected responses in me.

(Upthread I mentioned my tendency towards sentimentality. One way to think of sentimentality is as the creative coward's response to the threat of a truly unexpected response.)
 


Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
In many cases we can only speculate why ancient artists created the rock and cave art that they did. The cultural meanings and reasons are lost to us.

Does that mean we can't admire their beauty? That their destruction would not, or should not, matter to us?



When we're talking about the quality of a film, or a piece of rock art, or a novel, or a RPG, are we making an assessment of the utility of a consumer product?

Is utility the only metric for judging human creations?

This is not how I approach film, or literature, or RPGing. I'm not looking for something useful. Typically I'm looking for something that is moving - that evokes unexpected responses in me.

(Upthread I mentioned my tendency towards sentimentality. One way to think of sentimentality is as the creative coward's response to the threat of a truly unexpected response.)
There's a great deal of confusion between utility and quality in this thread.
 


When we're talking about the quality of a film, or a piece of rock art, or a novel, or a RPG, are we making an assessment of the utility of a consumer product?

Well, the word is used in a variety of ways. In the case of Dungeons & Dragons, it's a consumer product, so I feel pretty comfortable using it the way we do in any industry. It's a being sold to customers for a purpose, and customers overall seem really happy with what they're getting. Expectations appear to be met or exceeded on most fronts (book binding, not so much).

This is not how I approach film, or literature, or RPGing. I'm not looking for something useful. Typically I'm looking for something that is moving - that evokes unexpected responses in me.

Looking for something that emotionally moves you is still looking for that thing to fulfill a purpose, and you can still judge whether or not that thing did its job well.
 







Oh, you amaze me with your cleverness!

I'm not being funny, I'm being sarcastic.

"Oh I'm so clever! I know words in dead languages! That makes my argument so much better!"
Ad hominem is not even jargon, but accepted common parlance in English at this point. Loanwords exist, get used to it. Particularly since English is the magpie of languages, grabbing everything from other languages that looks shiny.

Or would you prefer that every foreign element be excised from the English language? In that case, hū sægest þū "idiot" in Ænglisc? Hafa gōdne dæg.

(Oh, and pretty much everybody in the thread dismissed your original point about citing less-than-perfectly-holy authors in your work as a black mark on your soul as complete garbage, maybe something for consideration)
 
Last edited:

Campbell

Legend
Ad hominem attacks are covered as part of middle school and high school level English units on how to present an argument. I think expecting most people to be familiar with material any 9th grader in the United States is expected to learn is a pretty low bar for conversation.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
I'm not being funny, I'm being sarcastic.

"Oh I'm so clever! I know words in dead languages! That makes my argument so much better!"

Mod Note:

And now, you're going to stop being sarcastic, and start being respectful to people.

This quibbling over when it is appropriate to use a Latin phrase is a deflection form the real issue - that you were treating folks pretty poorly. Start treating them better, now, please.
 

Ad hominem is not even jargon, but accepted common parlance in English at this point. Loanwords exist, get used to it. Particularly since English is the magpie of languages, grabbing everything from other languages that looks shiny.
I believe it means something like "the man". Which, taken literally, makes no sense in the context. Used to describe a type of argument, it's jargon.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top