D&D 5E What is Quality?

[Maxperson]

Popularity is not quality, but 5e is inarguably both popular and of high quality.

It's inarguably popular, but quality being subjective, it's hard to say that you can't argue that it isn't high quality. We're all going to have different standards of what satisfies high quality regarding the various aspects of the game, and while I feel that 5e is high quality, others may not. All we can do is point to the reasons we feel that it is high or low quality and discuss.

EDIT: Well, ok, inarguably is a poor choice of words, as people can and do argue both points. Rather, I think its popularity and quality are both self-evident.

Because you FEEL that it's high quality.

 

[Morrus]

and the distinction between correlation and causation can be hard to grasp

I think most people grasp it just fine. There's other stuff going on.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's inarguably popular, but quality being subjective, it's hard to say that you can't argue that it isn't high quality. We're all going to have different standards of what satisfies high quality regarding the various aspects of the game, and while I feel that 5e is high quality, others may not. All we can do is point to the reasons we feel that it is high or low quality and discuss.

Because you FEEL that it's high quality.

Yeah, you’re absolutely right about that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

There's also a difference between "quality" and "fit-for-purpose". The former requires the later, but not vice-versa. There are many examples of thing that are popular because they are fit-for-purpose but are not of high quality. In fact, most popular things are not the highest quality examples of thier kind, but are instead ones that are fit-for-purpose, in the right price range, and perceived to be desirable. Casio/Rolex is a great example of this. Another is the market dominance of Coca Cola despite equally acceptable alternatives.

 

[FrogReaver]

My reasons for saying 5E is a quality product is simple:

1. It's had relatively little errata and clarification. With 3.0 we had so many changes that they had to release 3.5. With 4E, it had a ton of errata starting almost immediately after release and Essentials was an attempt to make fundamental changes to the game (even if for many it was too little too late).*

I've been involved in tons of 5e rules disputes on these forums. I've seen countless twitter clarifications (and the clarification that twitter clarifications aren't official). I remember rules arguments for the dual wield hand crossbows, the hand crossbow and shield, the various twists they've done with shield master, the whole stealth - ignore the book, etc.

They may not have errated early, but they did countless rules tweets - often doubling down on unsensible readings of stuff.

1. The rules are coherent and largely without conflict.

I don't know that there are many 'contradictory' rules. But there are many very ambiguous ones.

1. It's the most popular TTRPG ever. WOTC's goal is to sell books, stopping churn of new editions is also beneficial.

a product can be popular and of low quality. Cheapness, accessibility, marketing can all drive popularity well beyond what a products quality is actually at.

1. People may pick up D&D because of brand, but they play and continue to play it because it works for them. History is littered with products that were once successful and are now forgotten because they let quality slip.

Or they play because it's easily accessible, because their friends play it and like it and the sunk costs of changing systems both financially and time investment can be great deterents from change (especially since many other systems may be around the same quality as 5e D&D).

1. My opinion based on what I value. This edition works better for me and my group better than any previous edition.

Same here, but I don't know it's universal.

I don't think your arguments make a good case for quality, but I think some others may.

 

[Helldritch]

You missed one objective aspect regarding the quality of the books: the actual writing and editing.

Poor grammar, spelling errors, mis-used words, lack of clarity, bad or no editing - all of these are objective rather than subjective, and each of them - and each instance of them - lowers the objective quality of the book..

Point taken. I should've thought of these. Thanks.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Oh boy great example.

Yeah, I think that’s the better way to evaluate quality. Examine the components first. Critique of specific elements of the game aren’t countered by comments about sales. Doing so is an attempt to dismiss criticism. Which is odd because I’d think most of us can easily rattle off some issues with 5e’s design. Or any game with which a person may be familiar.

Inspiration is, to me, emblematic of several of the flaws of 5e’s design, some of which you list.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I fixed Inspiration at our table with this one weird trick

 

[James Gasik]

I fixed Inspiration at our table with this one weird trick

This reminds me of those ads...

 

[delericho]

Quite frankly, I think most threads here get made that seem to me to be vehicles for getting into arguments, rather than just passing on information or asking for assistance. Rare is the thread where the poster says "Here's a problem I've found in D&D with my game, and here is what I did to fix it"... because usually that thread gets several responses of "Okay, that's cool" and then thread ends. There's nothing to discuss-- a problem was highlighted and immediately fixed. Then the thread drops from the front page and is never seen again.

Or the other rare type of thread is someone who has an issue, asks for assistance, and then receives several suggestions from other posters... and the person says "Okay, that helps! Thanks!" And that thread also ends because the question was asked, and the answer was received. And again, POOF!, off the front page.

Instead... what threads usually are is someone who makes a statement about something they have an issue with... and are not asking for suggestions on to fix their problem, they just want to vent. And they vent away. Which is fine! <snip>...

At the end of the day... if anyone makes an open-ended thread that doesn't end after like six posts with either an acceptable answer being given to a question or just a handful of "Good job!"s... you are going to get people arguing about it.

Wise words here. I really need to remember this!