D&D 5E What is Quality?

[Oofta]

Of course, you're also paying for the atmosphere and the service. When I go out to dinner with friends, we'll be there for 3 hours or so, eat 2-3 courses, drink. It's not just the food (although that is often delicious). I'm not going to spend 3 hours eating a cheeseburger at McD's.

I have no doubt that it's higher quality for you. On the other hand I don't drink alcoholic beverages any more, I can find the ambiance of a hole-in-the-wall diner just as enjoyable as a fancy restaurant.

As a died-in-the-wool introvert having to make conversation for 3 hours without a distraction such as a game sounds like potential purgatory.

 

[payn]

Which to me is one indication of quality.

Yes, but is that judgement influenced by the actual quality of the beverage or the knowledge of it's rarity and price?

I don't think there will ever be a perfect way of judging quality. It's always going to be based on criteria. A bison burger is higher quality for me because I put value on lower fat and cholesterol content. Others prefer beef with a high fat content. I prefer Culver's over a "gourmet" burger because I don't eat all that much red meat and I can get a single burger Culver's (and is still an exception to my general "try to eat healthy" rule) where a gourmet burger will have additions I don't care for and be far more hamburger than I would ever want.

I will be the first to admit my wanting a cheap burger instead of a fancy meal is an oddity. Then again I grew up in farm country where I could get really, really good steaks when I wanted but general food choices were decidedly limited.

For the average laymen, no, probably not. Though, experts who have the knowledge on construction, application, and economics certainly can judge quality. Your Culver's example is a personal choice, one that is based on your own personal factors and not on the product itself. Its certainly something you should preface if you are trying to tell people about Culver's higher quality.

 

[delericho]

Which to me is one indication of quality.

One thing it certainly does is highlight that "quality" isn't a single metric. You can have a product that is high quality in some aspects and less good in others.

And, of course, the applicable metrics will vary significantly from product to product. Hopefully nobody is overly concerned about the nutritional values of 5e, for instance!

 

[Oofta]

For the average laymen, no, probably not. Though, experts who have the knowledge on construction, application, and economics certainly can judge quality. Your Culver's example is a personal choice, one that is based on your own personal factors and not on the product itself. Its certainly something you should preface if you are trying to tell people about Culver's higher quality.

I would say that Culver's (and McDonalds for that matter) is a quality establishment. That in no way makes them "better", or is any indication of quality of any other eating establishment.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, in your lexicon, Good cannot become Better?

Nope. "It's a problem" does not equal "good" in my lexicon. "Requires major change to become better" also doesn't equal "good" in my lexicon.

 

[Morrus]

And, of course, the applicable metrics will vary significantly from product to product. Hopefully nobody is overly concerned about the nutritional values of 5e, for instance!

You haven't met my dog.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What happened was a player asked "can I do this?", and I shrugged and said "yeah, whatever." I mean, I could have said "no, the rules say...", but I was overruled by my apathy.

I'm not really sure how that can be argued as there being something wrong with the rule as written.

Is that the argument, though? I mean, if you're introducing "I didn't enforce the rule" as a new wrinkle, we can talk about that. I don't think ignoring a rule saying anything one way or the other about the rule, until we get to why. "Couldn't be bothered" doesn't move the needle much.

It's perfectly fine for all tables, including mine.

And, yet, you felt the need to change it?

This is the argument -- "the rule is perfectly fine, but here's all the thing I did to change it because it wasn't working for me."

 

[payn]

I would say that Culver's (and McDonalds for that matter) is a quality establishment. That in no way makes them "better", or is any indication of quality of any other eating establishment.

That is sort of like giving out an automatic C tho. It's fine if that is how you see it. Though, someone who is really into food (consuming and/or preparing) there will surely be a better quality range between establishments. They will also compare like for like items I.E. burger vs burger or salad vs salad with no personal qualifiers like affordability or health requirements. Those are fine factors in judging an establishment overall, but they are yours personally and not a fair judgment of the product itself.

 

[Helldritch]

Nope. "It's a problem" does not equal "good" in my lexicon. "Requires major change to become better" also doesn't equal "good" in my lexicon.

Great can be improved.
As I said earlier. The concentration rule is used as is in one of my table (the exhibit one) and at two others it was modified because we play a modified version of the game with the rules found in the DMG. What can be perfect for one table might not be for another. And here, you have a DM that uses both the unmodified version and a modified version of the same rule. What do you make of that?

 

[Aldarc]

I have no doubt that it's higher quality for you. On the other hand I don't drink alcoholic beverages any more, I can find the ambiance of a hole-in-the-wall diner just as enjoyable as a fancy restaurant.

I could see how that would impair your ability to distinguish between the quality of wines based on taste.