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

[Aldarc]

The OP perhaps unintentionally played into this, through framing in terms of popularity and "favourite". Citizen Kane may be a great movie, without being a favourite. I agree that quality of an artifact in a technical sense is different from popularity, and both may be different from enduring contribution.

I was thinking - it would be interesting to get ratings on each system component, and the game as a whole, by experts in the field. Although then again, the view of the critic, and the view of the professional, can differ. And professional and acclaimed are too, different things.

In the case of 5e, I think that we can often see its weaker system components through some of the areas that people ask for help with or where we see 3pp support with some degree of regularity. I don't think that the core experience of 5e, for example, is strong when it comes to hex-crawling exploration. The ranger class and the Outlander background both address exploration only in terms of ways to bypass it as meaningful content. Likewise, what do players do with all their gold? Gold is commonly regarded as being absolutely worthless in this edition. But this was something that in older editions (1) the source of XP, and (2) spent on working towards mid and late game play (i.e., strongholds). Hence why Matt Colville's Strongholds & Followers was even able to fill in a gap.

So you deem it not "high quality" because ... huh? I'm not trying to be dismissive but you sound like an art snob. Those stupid plebs who enjoy the game just don't know what quality really is.

How is that not trying to be dismissive?

I've eaten at some very high end restaurants that were pretty "meh" for me. Maybe they were haute cuisine but I would have preferred pizza from my favorite restaurant. Does that mean either was higher "quality"? For me, for my personal taste preference, the pizza was higher quality. For me.

It's often about the quality of the ingredients, the proficiency of food preparation, the professionalism of the service, and the overall dining experience. Sometimes high end restaurants are not necessarily about trying to make the most wholesome meal ever anymore than a skilled artist is trying to draw/paint the prettiest or most satisfying picture ever.

Which is the problem with all of this. Quality, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. IMHO D&D is high quality for me because it does what I need and I enjoy it. You saying it's not is bordering on insulting whether you mean it that way or not.

So is it high quality? Who are you asking? There is no objective standard of quality for TTRPGs beyond basic clarity and cohesiveness.

But your point here is kind of the underlying issue: high quality in respect to what measure? In the case of D&D, you indicate here that it's quality is with respect to how "it does what [you] need and [you] enjoy it." The Marvel films are (mostly) enjoyable popcorn, blockbuster films, but they are lackluster, if not dreadfully dull, (IMHO) when it comes doing something actually interesting or provocative with storytelling through the medium of film, but that's also not what they are created to do. They are created for mass market appeal and raking in the greens.

"Quality" is personal preference dressed up as an objective standard.

If I served you an undercooked piece of rotting meat at a restaurant and told you that quality was simply a personal preference dressed up as an objective standard, you likely would think that I was trying to swindle or cheat you.

 

[Oofta]

That would make it hard to explain how someone might have as their favourite a film that isn't the best.

I really enjoy Con Air and the second Austin Powers movie. As movies, I think they're clearly not as good as (say) Melancholia. But I enjoy them more.

I've often discussed a related point with @Campbell. I have a strong tendency towards sentimentality in my GMing. I don't think that contributes to the quality of my RPGing - but it doesn't mean I find it easy to make the hard calls that might improve my games.

I'm not entirely sure what @Ovinomancer has in mind as the measure of quality in RPGing. In fact I suspect he thinks it is multi-faceted and perhaps relative to play goals. But I don't think he is just talking about his preferences.

Again, that's just your personal prejudice/preference escalated to something objective. It's not.

Movies are entertainment. The only judge of quality for me? Do I enjoy the movie. Does it matter if it's No Country for Old Men or the Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein? Which one did I personally enjoy more? The former? I didn't bother finishing it because I just didn't care. The Abbott and Costello movie? I watched it on late night TV long ago and had a few chuckles.
The one I personally enjoy more is higher quality for me. Completely 100% subjective opinion.

Anyway, have a good one.

 

[pemerton]

Movies are entertainment.

For someone who asserts that all judgements are subjective, you assert this with great confidence.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Again, that's just your personal prejudice/preference escalated to something objective. It's not.

Movies are entertainment. The only judge of quality for me? Do I enjoy the movie. Does it matter if it's No Country for Old Men or the Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein? Which one did I personally enjoy more? The former? I didn't bother finishing it because I just didn't care. The Abbott and Costello movie? I watched it on late night TV long ago and had a few chuckles.
The one I personally enjoy more is higher quality for me. Completely 100% subjective opinion.

Anyway, have a good one.

Yes, this is a common approach -- to substitute an evaluation of a thing for the preference for that thing. Nothing wrong with that. For instance, I absolutely LOVE the Ben Stiller flick The Secret Life of Walter Mitty. This film didn't do well commercially, and isn't often on the high side for people liking it (51% Rotten Tomatoes). However, I love it because the cinematography is brilliant -- the framing, the movement, the blocking. The blocking is really nice, as, if you pay attention, the main character is often blocked off-center in the shots at the start of the film, and moves closer to being centered as the character moves closer to being centers. Subtle, but brilliant. The use of palette, how the main character deciphers black and white close up pictures into full color wide shots through action in the film -- man, I love this. This film is really well made in a lot of ways most people just won't notice or even care about, and I adore it. One of Ben's strongest works (since he directed it).

So, yeah, if you're just going to use "I like it" as a measure of quality, then go ahead, just don't expect that to be given much weight. I like 5e, quite a lot, but I'm not going to substitute that for my evaluation of it's quality. Heck, I like Little Caesar's deep dish pizza, too. It's not quality at all.

 

[Oofta]

In the case of 5e, I think that we can often see its weaker system components through some of the areas that people ask for help with or where we see 3pp support with some degree of regularity. I don't think that the core experience of 5e, for example, is strong when it comes to hex-crawling exploration. The ranger class and the Outlander background both address exploration only in terms of ways to bypass it as meaningful content. Likewise, what do players do with all their gold? Gold is commonly regarded as being absolutely worthless in this edition. But this was something that in older editions (1) the source of XP, and (2) spent on working towards mid and late game play (i.e., strongholds). Hence why Matt Colville's Strongholds & Followers was even able to fill in a gap.


How is that not trying to be dismissive?


It's often about the quality of the ingredients, the proficiency of food preparation, the professionalism of the service, and the overall dining experience. Sometimes high end restaurants are not necessarily about trying to make the most wholesome meal ever anymore than a skilled artist is trying to draw/paint the prettiest or most satisfying picture ever.


But your point here is kind of the underlying issue: high quality in respect to what measure? In the case of D&D, you indicate here that it's quality is with respect to how "it does what [you] need and [you] enjoy it." The Marvel films are (mostly) enjoyable popcorn, blockbuster films, but they are lackluster, if not dreadfully dull, (IMHO) when it comes doing something actually interesting or provocative with storytelling through the medium of film, but that's also not what they are created to do. They are created for mass market appeal and raking in the greens.


If I served you an undercooked piece of rotting meat at a restaurant and told you that quality was simply a personal preference dressed up as an objective standard, you likely would think that I was trying to swindle or cheat you.

How do you decide if an ingredient is higher quality? Steak is typically aged, most people prefer steak cooked less than I prefer. Some people enjoy eating fungus.

For TTRPGs, there is a basic level of quality in coherence, conciseness, consistency. Those can be roughly measured: are there contradictions in the words, is the text understandable. But it's just a rough measure of can you get a decent understanding?

I think 5E has issues but like most modern games it passes that standard. The rest of it? Call it "quality" if you want, to me it's just personal preference.

 

[Oofta]

For someone who asserts that all judgements are subjective, you assert this with great confidence.

Do I have to qualify ever single word with "in my opinion"?

 

[Oofta]

Yes, this is a common approach -- to substitute an evaluation of a thing for the preference for that thing. Nothing wrong with that. For instance, I absolutely LOVE the Ben Stiller flick The Secret Life of Walter Mitty. This film didn't do well commercially, and isn't often on the high side for people liking it (51% Rotten Tomatoes). However, I love it because the cinematography is brilliant -- the framing, the movement, the blocking. The blocking is really nice, as, if you pay attention, the main character is often blocked off-center in the shots at the start of the film, and moves closer to being centered as the character moves closer to being centers. Subtle, but brilliant. The use of palette, how the main character deciphers black and white close up pictures into full color wide shots through action in the film -- man, I love this. This film is really well made in a lot of ways most people just won't notice or even care about, and I adore it. One of Ben's strongest works (since he directed it).

So, yeah, if you're just going to use "I like it" as a measure of quality, then go ahead, just don't expect that to be given much weight. I like 5e, quite a lot, but I'm not going to substitute that for my evaluation of it's quality. Heck, I like Little Caesar's deep dish pizza, too. It's not quality at all.

Well, don't expect techniques that only a film student will notice as a measure of quality either. Go ahead, just don't expect it to be given much weight.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The OP perhaps unintentionally played into this, through framing in terms of popularity and "favourite". Citizen Kane may be a great movie, without being a favourite. I agree that quality of an artifact in a technical sense is different from popularity, and both may be different from enduring contribution.

I was thinking - it would be interesting to get ratings on each system component, and the game as a whole, by experts in the field. Although then again, the view of the critic, and the view of the professional, can differ. And professional and acclaimed are too, different things.

Arghh!

No, the OP did not unintentionally, nor intentionally, play into anything. Nor was anything framed as you wish it to be in order to make your argument. And, to be completely honest, I have been specifically not engaging with what you are saying because I find your rhetoric and tone objectionable, but you keep employing me as a rhetorical device. Please stop that.

The thing that I find unenjoyable about your comments is that, in fact, I think what D&D (in 5e) has done is quite amazing; the vast majority of the time, I end up defending 5e from people who rubbish it because it's not the best at X, Y, or Z. Which, IMO, completely misses the point. There is a reason that there is the old adage that the perfect is the enemy of the good.

There are any number of things that can be designed to appeal to niche markets; it is very difficult to appeal to a broad base of people. This is even moreso when you think of things that are specifically designed to be done in groups. Whether it is choosing a movie to all go to, or a restaurant, or any other social activity, there is often a preference that is better for the group than for any given individual.

It is far too easy, and too common, for people to overlook what it is that makes things popular. And I am stating that by not trying to be "the best" at specific topics, D&D (and 5e in particular) ends up being the best as a choice for a group (and across groups) specifically because it appeals to a diverse group of interests.

TLDR; you seem to have come into this with the idea that I was rubbishing 5e, and I'm not. Now, if you want to make your own points, please do. But stop mis-using mine, please.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, don't expect techniques that only a film student will notice as a measure of quality either. Go ahead, just don't expect it to be given much weight.

I'm not a film student, nor have I ever taken a single film class.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not a film student, nor have I ever taken a single film class.

To expand, I'm a fan of how stories are told. I love the way that stories are told as much, if not slightly more, than the stories themselves. As such, I pay attention to the craft of stories, in film, in books, in games. I'd like to think I'm pretty decent at evoking story in games, and I relish the opportunity to do it in different ways. How story is evoked in D&D is very, very different from how story is evoked in Blades in the Dark, and I like both.

If you just want to consume a story, then how it's told is of secondary importance to you -- it matter only in that it provides you with a "good enough" story for you to enjoy. This is true of more than just stories, as well. However, the craft behind is important, even if you just want a product that meets your immediate entertainment/gustatory/material needs. And, to be clear, not caring about the craft is just fine -- it's perfectly fine to only look at how much you enjoy a thing and not the craft behind it. But, in a thread discussing the craft, dismissing it because you don't care doesn't contribute.