What does well designed mean?

[RFisher]

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

That doesn't mean that it's wrong. (^_^)

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 doesn't readability directly depend upon whether it is blue on white or full color & which the individual reader finds readable?

 

[Hussar]

That doesn't mean that it's wrong. (^_^)



() But doesn't readability directly depend upon whether it is blue on white or full color & which the individual reader finds readable?

Again, just because something isn't absolutely objective, doesn't make it subjective. Heck, I'm color blind, so sometimes maps are actually hard to read for me, but, come on, I would hardly fault a map designer for not taking that into account. There does have to be a bit of a "common person" standard applied.

If a reader is trying to read the map on a dark, cloudy night, with no moon, while standing in a windowless basement, also unlit, and then complains that the map is unreadable, this doesn't mean that readability is a subjective term, it means that the complainer is a prat.

Take the idea of robustness from TwinBahumut above. An excellent criteria. Does the module have enough flexibility after the dice hit the table. Now, what constitutes "enough" will differ from person to person, but, by and large, we can agree on the extremes. OTOH, take the recent threads about small corridors. For some people, small, narrow dungeons are a bad thing, for others, it lends itself to a level of verisimilitude. That's a pretty decent example of a subjective criteria, since it is unlikely you could come up with any sort of reasonable standard.

Again, sorry, writing off centuries of criticism just because its not absolutely objective is ridiculous.

 

[RFisher]

Heck, I'm color blind, so sometimes maps are actually hard to read for me, but, come on, I would hardly fault a map designer for not taking that into account. There does have to be a bit of a "common person" standard applied.

But isn't this exactly the kind of thing that design guidelines are good for?

One of the criteria I use in judging UI designs in my daily work is whether anything is communicated strictly through color alone. That's a bad design.

(And incidentally, in that case, it's not just about color-blindness. Knowing color-blind people is what impressed it upon me, but it's bad design for users with normal color vision as well.)

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

Hmm...sounds like the Steven Colbert school of music criticism:

"It is truthy that Linkin Park is the most awesome band ever. Period. End of story."

 

[Raven Crowking]

You can make an objective appraisal under a particular set of criteria, but those criteria themselves are not objective. This means that all appraisal is subjective. However, it is IMHO a mistake to believe that because a thing is subjective it is valueless.

However, anything less than absolute objectivity is by definition subjective, and that is not mere pedantry. Knowing when you are looking at objective or subjective data, insofar as possible, is an important step in making rational decisions.

YMMV, but in this case I hope it does not!

RC

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

It seems pretty clear that if you create a map that lacks any of the elements listed, it becomes more difficult to use as a map. If there are elements of map-making, the absence of which always decreases the user's ability to use the map, those elements are objectively related to the quality of the map. If a map is not clearly labeled, for example, the chances that a user will make a mistake regarding the correct placement of objects increases. If increasing the clarity of labeling decreases the incidence of user errors, it is objectively an improvement.

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.

That's a bit of a straw man. I don't suppose anyone here would suggest that there is an objective standard to humour. However, there are often objective standards of utility. If we're considering the module to be a content delivery system that also facilitates gameplay, it's not hard to imagine that there are ways to make a better or worse module, just as there are better and worse ways to teach someone French. The objective measure is, there has been a gain in the sort of results we're looking for. For a method of teaching French, the results are, the subject speaks French in a shorter period of time than other methods would obtain. For a module, the results are "the gaming group had an easy time playing an enjoyable game thanks to the module."

While a particular group's enjoyment of the module may come down to subjective factors, and there may be groups that, unaccountably, are better able to use unclear maps, if a change in module design makes it easier in general for users to get good results from the module, it's an objective improvement that can be measured just like strength of language acquisition can be measured.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Nice post, Dr. Awkward.

As soon as we establish the criteria we are attempting to meet (what we wish to use the map/module/bludgehorn for) we can objectively determine whether or not certain things help in meeting that criteria.

Of course, some things may still be subjective aids, helpful to some while not helpful (or even harmful) to others.

RC

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Take the idea of robustness from TwinBahumut above. An excellent criteria. Does the module have enough flexibility after the dice hit the table. Now, what constitutes "enough" will differ from person to person, but, by and large, we can agree on the extremes.

Additionally, if increasing the level of flexibility does not negatively affect any other aspect of the module, an increase is always a good thing. Even if you don't use that additional flexibility, or care about flexibility in general, as long as it doesn't gain flexibility at the expense of something you are in fact using, the module itself is improved.

Again, sorry, writing off centuries of criticism just because its not absolutely objective is ridiculous.

Do people really suppose that Shakespeare is considered one of the greatest, if not actually the greatest, authors in the English language simply because a few critics happen to have a gut reaction to his works that makes them feel pleased? Could there not, in fact, be something about his writing that makes it more worthy of praise than the works of, for example, me?

I don't think that the difference between my writing and Shakespeare's is a matter of taste. He simply has more ability to structure, characterize, craft verse, and bring important human issues forth in a profound manner. I could, if I wanted to, go get some books and make use of hundreds of years of analysis to explain exactly why he is better at writing than I am.

I am actually a fairly bad writer, and I have taken enough writing courses to have a basic idea of why that is. I could study technique, practice, and become a better writer. I'm sure that everyone has witnessed writers get better over the course of time as they more fully developed their potential. That this is possible speaks to the existence of an objective standard of writing quality, which is perhaps well-obscured by personal taste, but which can be unearthed by careful analysis, studied, and turned into the sort of techniques that I could use in order to become a better writer.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't think that the difference between my writing and Shakespeare's is a matter of taste. He simply has more ability to structure, characterize, craft verse, and bring important human issues forth in a profound manner.

I would agree. But I think that this is because there are common subjective values that we hold as human beings. Likewise, while the criteria for maps may be subjective, we can say without fear that there are a number of commonly held criteria that impact the value of maps. Moreover, if we define a term, such as "maps", in such a way that it implies a particular use, any criteria that is objectively valuable for that use is objectively valuable for whatever that term describes.

This would still saying nothing about the criteria of another order of intelligence re: literature, however. Perhaps one day we will meet an alien intelligence that will exalt the writings of high school poets.

RC

 

[olshanski]

What do I consider a "well designed" module?

In order of importance

1: Portability (It should be "mudular", able to be used in my game with little modifications) This includes appropriate creature stats, environmental effects, and enough information to adjudicate most likely encounters.
2: Logically consistent (No 15' tall creatures in rooms accessable only by 5' high doorways, not having 10 orcs in room A, a unicorn in room B, 10 gargoyles in room C, a merchant caravan in room D, and a Gorgon in room E... and all of them located underneath the small town's tavern).
3: Engaging story: Should be interesting, but not railroading. Find a healthy balance between allowing players freedom to choose what to do, and having some limits in order to make the game easier to run.
4: Creative NPCs and encounters: things that I wouldn't normally think about... one NPC has a harelip, another NPC pines after a different NPC... a strange but logically consistent environmental encounter. This is also where the author's voice comes in... humor, clever writing, etcetera. In "the crypt of Srihoz", a picture of a trap that involves a long fall, and then a slide and a second long fall into crashing surf has a diagram for the DM with the text "the end of a very bad day" in the final landing area. In "Lost City of Barakus" the NPCs have some of the most engaging descriptions that I've read in any fiction.
5: Bells and whistles: player handouts and pictures are a bonus.