What does well designed mean?

[RFisher]

Just because something is popular doesn't make it good.

Ain't that the truth!

But...is it?

Star Wars isn't a bad movie because of its faults. It's a great movie because of its strengths. This is true of almost any work. Nothing is good by all measures. The greatest works of humanity--by anyone's measure--have their weaknesses.

In a great work, however, the strengths will outshine the weaknesses.

But whether something is a strength or weakness sometimes depends upon the audience's desires or opinions. Likewise for the significance of a strength or weakness.

So, perhaps it is more correct to say that being popular doesn't mean that it qualifies as good for me. It seems likely that being popular does mean that it qualifies as being good for somebody.

Is this becoming pointless metadiscussion?

I think that in truth it's all horribly subjective, but that in practice we can get benefits from considering the topic. No set of "good design principles" will be perfect; but taking the time to create them, learn them, apply them, & understand that sometimes they don't apply--that is very worthwhile.

 

[RFisher]

There's a reason there's a technical component to figure skating.

You know. I enjoy figure skating, but I hate figure skating competitions. It's simply awful when Scott Hamilton's voice suddenly cuts across the performance.

I even hate that there's a technical aspect to the judging. I can understand technical aspects being important for training, but when it comes to performance, who is to say what is "technically correct"? Whatever enables the artist to communicate is what is technically correct, say I.

Yet it also bugs me that they've dropped the more technical actual skating of figures.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just because something is popular doesn't make it good.

Hey! We agree!

 

[Janx]

A good map should contain a number of elements:

• Easily readable
• Properly labeled
• Works in play (ie. the map probably shouldn't be an MC Escher painting ((Unless, of course there is a reason why it is))
• Scaled properly
• Fits with the encounters contained on the room (no Huge monsters in a 10x10 room for example)

These are great simple guidelines for quality checking the maps in a module. How about we list guidelines for other elements of a module. Here's my take on room locations:

Room description Guidelines:

• written as though it might be read aloud to players (some DMs read verbatim)
• most obvious elements of room described first (what does PC notice, allows for interruption by player, missing subtle room elements)
• room contents make sense, in relation to rest of site/story
• monsters fit in the room, and could logically get into room
• EL, treasure fits overall party level for the module
• any trap in the room makes sense for the location
• monster stat block is seperate from room description text
• treasure carried by monsters is listed in monster stat block
• treasure not carried by monsters is listed after room description text

 

[gizmo33]

Sorry, but Gizmo you are defining Good as "things I like" and Bad as "Things I don't like." Your personal preference does not define what a good map is. A good map should contain a number of elements:

According to the dictionary entry under "good map"? Now who's defining good as "things I like"? I could have just listed a bunch of things that I prefer in maps, and called that the definition of "good map" but I'd be doing the same thing. I'm not trying to say that "good map" should mean my preferences - I'm trying to show that such a definition is at the root of everyone elses definition. Even a list of objective criteria was arrived at arbitrarily (and prioritized that way).

And I really take objection to the "Mozart is better than Linkin Park" reasoning. This is not a settled issue amongst musicians - we're back to the "art heirophant" thing again. People are judged in music on a number of intangibles. Some people talk about objective quality and other people laugh at those people. I guess that's just going to be the way it is with this subject too.

Even if a sub-list of things that make a good map is arrived at subjectively, it at least tells me more about a map than "it's good". I think we agree more than you think, and if we disagree at an ultimate "meaning of objectivity" type of level, maybe it doesn't matter.

 

[Hussar]

I'm trying to show that such a definition is at the root of everyone elses definition. Even a list of objective criteria was arrived at arbitrarily (and prioritized that way).

The list wasn't prioritized in any way other than as they occurred in my head. There's a reason there is no value attached to each line.

I listed 5 elements (certainly not a comprehensive list, just a work in progress) that a good map should have. That's not subjective in the least. If your map does not have those five things, it likely is not a good map. Or, at the very least, there had better be a very good reason why one or more of those elements was ignored.

The idea that there can be no objective judgment of art is counter to pretty much every form of criticism out there. Whether we're talking about Lit Crit or whatever, there is always the attempt to create objective frameworks in which to judge something. Now, that attempt may not be successful, and other, frameworks are created which may be more objective (or less), but that doesn't change the fact that the attempt is being made to create an objective standard, divorced from personal preference, with which to judge something.

Does the color of the map affect how the map is used? Possibly, possibly not. There has to be some level of "common man standard" applied. However, it's uselessly overpedantic to write off anything less than absolute objectivity as subjective.

 

[gizmo33]

I listed 5 elements (certainly not a comprehensive list, just a work in progress) that a good map should have. That's not subjective in the least. If your map does not have those five things, it likely is not a good map.

AFAICT this is circular reasoning. Your list of five elements was arrived at according to your preferences. You could make a case for your preferences, and try to show that a large group of people would find your criteria useful. None of those things are objective though.

The idea that there can be no objective judgment of art is counter to pretty much every form of criticism out there.

Well, there are really degrees of objectivity. Say for instance someone decided that "humor" were supposed to be a key component of a module. Then a module could be judged for humor, which would itself be subjective. But the likelihood that I'd share a common definition with the reviewer regarding "humor" is greater because "humor" is a more precise term than good. But humor is not as objective as temperature.

IMO there are huge groups of people out there that don't understand the difference between subjective and objective. And what I'm really talking about here is the scientific method which even fewer people understand. People who want other people to take their opinions seriously do not like relativism because it runs counter to their desire to communicate preferences to others and be understood.

So if you want to propose a list of criteria for maps, that's fine with me. I wouldn't say you're wasting your time because it's not objective. All criticism and reviews by nature are subjective, but if you're clear enough about what you're doing (by listing criteria, for example) than someone else can come along and at least have a better chance of understanding what you're talking about.

However, it's uselessly overpedantic to write off anything less than absolute objectivity as subjective.

Well, useless for what? As I said before, I think I agree with your approach of listing criteria in a review. I would find your opinions on maps broken down according to the criteria you outline to be useful. What I find troublesome though would be to throw out the elements and just call things "good" and "bad". IMO that kind of clumsiness creates a sort of orthodoxy that is unhelpful in a creative field. I'm not saying you suggested that, so hopefully you take some of this as just statements and not refutations of anything.

If I use the fact that the sky is blue to "prove" that all artistic criticism is useless, you might want to examine the chain of reasoning rather than debate with me the color of the sky. I think the problem is that you believe that I'm equating subjective with useless - which is not what I've tried to do.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Whether objective or subjective, I think that the discussion of what makes a product useful, well-designed, etc., has value. Nor do I think that it matters whether or not you agree that the criteria are objective or subjective. What matters are what criteria you use and why, and how that can be applied to design.

At least, that's why I'm reading this thread.

RC

 

[Hussar]

AFAICT this is circular reasoning. Your list of five elements was arrived at according to your preferences. You could make a case for your preferences, and try to show that a large group of people would find your criteria useful. None of those things are objective though.

Not really though. All of those elements can be looked at and judged without resorting to my personal preference. And, if you leave off some or all of those elements, the map will likely be less useful than one that does include them. Thus, it is a worse map.

I can absolutely hate the map, but, if it has those five elements, it's still a good map. It might not be one that I find appealing, and that's fine. However, without those five elements, the map does not function as well as it could.

Thus, it is not as good as one that has those five elements.

I find it very strange that anyone can argue that easily definable elements that do not require any real subjective judgements are just subjective. Is the room big enough to fit the monster? Yes/No. What subjective judgment is involved there? Can I read it? Yes/No. Again, not a whole lot of subjectivity there.

Blue on white or full color? Ok, that's a totally subjective criteria based entirely on personal preference. But that doesn't make all criteria subjective.

 

[The Shaman]

The Crucible of Freya, from Necromancer Games, is a great module. It has a lot of pieces you can use. You can take it apart to use it, or you can use it as it is. It offers a plot, but can be used without a plot. It is not so detailed that you cannot easily fit it into your home campaign, yet not so lacking in detail as to be boring.

When I disposed of the bulk of my 3.x D&D books a year or two ago, I kept my three 3.0 core books and one adventure: The Crucible of Freya.