D&D 5E What is Quality?

[Ruin Explorer]

But yes. I don’t see playing separate sets of rulings over time as meaningfully different from playing separate games. Do you consider a group that might play different editions over time unbelievable as well? It doesn’t strike me as odd if you are particularly interested in the game design itself.

You seem to be changing what you're saying.

When has this actually happened? I'm fine with anecdotes involving specifics. When you actually seen DMs rotate out rules/features simply for the sake of variety. Not for verisimilitude. Not to emulate a genre. Not because they had different opinions on the rules. But simply for the sake of variety.

I've never heard of that happening, and I find it implausible.

Using different editions/rules-sets is obviously completely separate from rotating out rules/features within a game/edition, and that's not what you claimed.

 

[LadyElect]

we're seeing a goal post shift in many of these arguments, where "good" is moving slowly from actually being good, as in well designed, well executed, and effective in application, to a softer form of "good" where things aren't terrible, or being "good enough."

I can consider a game good, and not change it because it's meeting my needs. May not be perfect, but it's good enough.

I suppose I am just finding your own definition to be conflicting with how you seem to be applying it here.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

I've read bits of this thread.

There seems to be confusion between people (or even yourself) enjoying something and that thing being of quality.

There's products (novels, books, etc) that I deeply enjoy even though I know they're not high quality. And there's the opposite, products of great quality (which I recognize) that I just can't seem to relate to or enjoy. There's definitely part of the definition of quality that's objective. To take the example of the watch, one might value a watch that stays on time, and another one a watch that attracts attention because these two person wear it for different reasons. They might disagree on what is a quality watch, because one is talking about the quality of the timekeeping mechanism and the other person about how the watch feels and looks. But in both of these categories, it's possible to be somewhat objectives; some watches keep time better than others, some watches attract attention more than others.

If brought back to RPG, the same thing applies even if the waters are a bit muddier. It echoes a bit that video of Matt Colville that was discussed a few weeks ago, but people often have different experiences, expectations or wants from RPG. I've seen many times people from the Pathfinder 2 subreddit say 5E was just a poorly designed RPG because it didn't offer enough options and freedom to the players to build their character. If that's your measure, it's hard to disagree that PF2 is a better product.

But I agree with what some others have said, people often conflate enjoying an RPG, an it being of quality (or the opposite). And yes, people often claim that something is "bad design" even though they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about nor can they explain what's bad in the design. They just don't like the end result. The same happens in video games all the time, I'll see or hear people not enjoying a game just say "it's bad game design".

 

[Ovinomancer]

I suppose I am just finding your own definition to be conflicting with how you seem to be applying it here.

Fair enough -- it's easy to do this. Part of the problem.

I play various games I find to be good. They meet my needs without needing alterations outside of a acceptable amount -- which is rather low for me. To me, "good" for an RPG is a game that does not require modification to meet the needs of the user (outside of some small changes perhaps). To this, a claim that a change needed to be made, especially one that is a pretty major realignment of intent or use or authority (like Iserith's* Inspiration rules, which I have used in the past), is evidence against an overall good assignment to an RPG, but may still be within that acceptable change limit (which is going to be individual). It is strong evidence that the inspiration rule is not good for that table. Yet, people that make this change also claim the rule as written is good. I cannot reconcile this.

 

[LadyElect]

You seem to be changing what you're saying.

I certainly don’t intend to, but maybe I was unspecific enough to be misleading anyway.

Using different editions/rules-sets is obviously completely separate from rotating out rules/features within a game/edition, and that's not what you claimed.

Is it? If you yourself write out the first pairing and link an edition to a “rule-set” then how is changing out a set of rules and features within an edition so gravely different from changing edition?

When has this actually happened? I'm fine with anecdotes involving specifics. When you actually seen DMs rotate out rules/features simply for the sake of variety. Not for verisimilitude. Not to emulate a genre. Not because they had different opinions on the rules. But simply for the sake of variety.

I've never heard of that happening, and I find it implausible.

Does changing rules by setting or location and rotating around not fit this? If I play a featless, PHB run through Phandelver and then an Eberron campaign using its sourcebooks and then a homebrewed adventure with custom lineages then does that not fit? I think it does, at least how I intended to imply it, since I want the mechanical differences to help impress a certain feeling on the setting and vary them that way. But if you are approaching from a different angle then I can’t be sure.

 

[Oofta]

I've read bits of this thread.

There seems to be confusion between people (or even yourself) enjoying something and that thing being of quality.

There's products (novels, books, etc) that I deeply enjoy even though I know they're not high quality. And there's the opposite, products of great quality (which I recognize) that I just can't seem to relate to or enjoy. There's definitely part of the definition of quality that's objective. To take the example of the watch, one might value a watch that stays on time, and another one a watch that attracts attention because these two person wear it for different reasons. They might disagree on what is a quality watch, because one is talking about the quality of the timekeeping mechanism and the other person about how the watch feels and looks. But in both of these categories, it's possible to be somewhat objectives; some watches keep time better than others, some watches attract attention more than others.

If brought back to RPG, the same thing applies even if the waters are a bit muddier. It echoes a bit that video of Matt Colville that was discussed a few weeks ago, but people often have different experiences, expectations or wants from RPG. I've seen many times people from the Pathfinder 2 subreddit say 5E was just a poorly designed RPG because it didn't offer enough options and freedom to the players to build their character. If that's your measure, it's hard to disagree that PF2 is a better product.

But I agree with what some others have said, people often conflate enjoying an RPG, an it being of quality (or the opposite). And yes, people often claim that something is "bad design" even though they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about nor can they explain what's bad in the design. They just don't like the end result. The same happens in video games all the time, I'll see or hear people not enjoying a game just say "it's bad game design".

People saying something is poorly designed because they don't personally care for it is one of the issues I have. I get it if you don't like the direction they took with the stealth rules as an example. But it was a conscious design choice that works for me and nothing I've actually heard any complaints about at any table I've sat at. One person's rulings over rules being an abdication of game design to the DM can be another person's flexibility to adjust the tone and style of their game to fit their group.

 

[LadyElect]

To me, "good" for an RPG is a game that does not require modification to meet the needs of the user (outside of some small changes perhaps). To this, a claim that a change needed to be made, especially one that is a pretty major realignment of intent or use or authority (like Iserith's* Inspiration rules, which I have used in the past), is evidence against an overall good assignment to an RPG, but may still be within that acceptable change limit (which is going to be individual). It is strong evidence that the inspiration rule is not good for that table. Yet, people that make this change also claim the rule as written is good. I cannot reconcile this.

This is more granular and understandable to me, thank you. Apologies if approaching midway through (not) working simply caused me to misunderstand earlier.

Although, I’ll likely still find myself among the “enough”/good-as-a-spectrum side due to how I consider the game. I might personally consider the presence of a rule good even if only for how it may inspire modification instead of its strict removal. I’m not sure if that seems tenable against your thoughts, though, and it perhaps conflates a feature itself with its intention.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Does changing rules by setting or location and rotating around not fit this?

If that's what you meant, that's not what I understood, because you talked about changing rules for variety's sake, not changing setting for variety's sake.

If I play a featless, PHB run through Phandelver and then an Eberron campaign using its sourcebooks and then a homebrewed adventure with custom lineages then does that not fit?

I wouldn't have imagined that from what you said, because to me that looks like you're playing three different campaigns, and responding to the needs of the specific campaigns, rather than, as you said, which was "DMs simply rotating out rules/features over many games for variety’s sake.".

Like, if you're running PHB/Featless, it's unlikely, imho, to be "for variety's sake". It's likely to be because you want to run a pretty mechanically simplistic game, and given the Phandelver context, it would presumably be for new/newer players. That's responding to needs, not "for variety's sake".

That's why I bolded that bit. That's what I found strange. If you're just saying "people often use different rules for different campaigns", sure.

 

[payn]

In the US, most cola (certainly Coke and Pepsi) is made with high fructose corn syrup. It tastes quite different from soda with sugar (most people say worse) but is much cheaper to produce (at least in the US). Used to be, you could barely find the "real sugar" versions, but now they're around - though more expensive.

Yes, Coke from Mexico still uses cane sugar. I do enjoy it more. Its fairly available in the U.S. but nowhere near the U.S. high fructose syrup variety. Also, Mexican coke is made in glass bottles.

 

[Mort]

Fair enough -- it's easy to do this. Part of the problem.

I play various games I find to be good. They meet my needs without needing alterations outside of a acceptable amount -- which is rather low for me. To me, "good" for an RPG is a game that does not require modification to meet the needs of the user (outside of some small changes perhaps). To this, a claim that a change needed to be made, especially one that is a pretty major realignment of intent or use or authority (like Iserith's* Inspiration rules, which I have used in the past), is evidence against an overall good assignment to an RPG, but may still be within that acceptable change limit (which is going to be individual). It is strong evidence that the inspiration rule is not good for that table. Yet, people that make this change also claim the rule as written is good. I cannot reconcile this.

The problem is that, with gaming, even this is so subjective (relative to more than just my own personal belief) as to be REALLY hard to pin down for a company.

Take expertise. I like the mechanic, find it easy to implement and really like the fact that it gives rogues a leg up in the skills department. And I like the fact that other classes can get it - but at significant enough cost so as to both require thought AND to not impinge on the rogue. So, for me, it is quite good - I use it without modification of any kind.

Yet, there is disagreement - as seen here. Plenty of people seem to think it's a lousy mechanic that needs to be either thrown out or completely reworked.