Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 2949091" data-attributes="member: 22779">Which is a point of view that spawned this thread.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />But, what's wrong with that?&nbsp; Why should the &quot;Rules of Good Module Design&quot; be static?&nbsp; Any artistic genre is fluid and is constantly being changed by what is coming out.&nbsp; What is a good poem, for example, has radically changed in the past 50 years.&nbsp; Granted, DnD is a much younger form and, as Mearls so rightly points out, we're still in the black magic, voodoo phase, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make the attempt.Any critical thinking of any art form is not purely objective.&nbsp; It is a construct built by the society which spawns it.&nbsp; Thus, as you say, a 16th century work is not judged by the same standards then as it is now.In Quasqueton's module discussions, something that is brought up quite a few times is that Module X is good &quot;for the time&quot;.&nbsp; And that's a valid criticism.&nbsp; Using the standards of the day to judge the module is perfectly fine.&nbsp; However, it is also perfectly fine to judge by later standards as well.&nbsp; Thus a module could be judged by two (or more) different standards, come up with two almost opposite opinions, but, someone coming along later who looks at those two standards could make an informed (hopefully) decision for himself.&nbsp; If our hypothetical person ascribes to School A or School B, he can look for modules that receive good reviews from School A or School B.&nbsp; It's still subjective.&nbsp; Of course it is.&nbsp; Any judgement of an art form is subjective.&nbsp; However, it could be argued that it is less subjective, or at least more scientific (ugh, wrong word) than &quot;I like it so it's good&quot; or &quot;This sucks because I don't like it.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 2949091, member: 22779"] Which is a point of view that spawned this thread. :) But, what's wrong with that? Why should the "Rules of Good Module Design" be static? Any artistic genre is fluid and is constantly being changed by what is coming out. What is a good poem, for example, has radically changed in the past 50 years. Granted, DnD is a much younger form and, as Mearls so rightly points out, we're still in the black magic, voodoo phase, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make the attempt. Any critical thinking of any art form is not purely objective. It is a construct built by the society which spawns it. Thus, as you say, a 16th century work is not judged by the same standards then as it is now. In Quasqueton's module discussions, something that is brought up quite a few times is that Module X is good "for the time". And that's a valid criticism. Using the standards of the day to judge the module is perfectly fine. However, it is also perfectly fine to judge by later standards as well. Thus a module could be judged by two (or more) different standards, come up with two almost opposite opinions, but, someone coming along later who looks at those two standards could make an informed (hopefully) decision for himself. If our hypothetical person ascribes to School A or School B, he can look for modules that receive good reviews from School A or School B. It's still subjective. Of course it is. Any judgement of an art form is subjective. However, it could be argued that it is less subjective, or at least more scientific (ugh, wrong word) than "I like it so it's good" or "This sucks because I don't like it." [/QUOTE]

Verification