D&D 5E What is Quality?

Not is, feels.
that is a distinction without a difference.

if it was 5 degrees but everyone had to wear shorts and even then 'feel' hot, or if it was 200 degrees but everyone needed winter jackets and still would feel cold, what are the numbers? they ONLY in the warm/cold test matter with the rest of the information... they can be part of the answer. they can be a way to try to get more informaation... but they also can be used to truely mislead.
That's the difference. You can universally measure what the temperature is but you can't universally measure* how that temperature feels to everyone who is experiencing it.
but you can give them more information... it just requires you NOT to stop at the 1 number scale.
* - though you can get a bit closer via factoring in windspeed, cloud cover, humidity and various other things to get a "feels like" temperature, which is what these weather channels try to do.
ding ding ding... you are starting to get the point... and to bring it back to the topic, like sales numbers, the number on this scale can be PART of an answer if given context.
This still doesn't tell you what each individual person or creature out there actually feels, though, as two people can perceive and-or react to the same thing - in this case, the weather conditions - very differently.
and nobody has suggested otherwise...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

This is a factual error. The crash of 2008 in fact occurred in September that year, and the recession followed from that.

Still crappy timing for 4e, but it had already been released and on the market for 3 months when the recession began.
3 months included in the the (at that time) best selling version of D&D

edit: but @Snarf Zagyg says that your numbers are wrong anyway... and I am NOT looking up more bad news history today to see who is right
 
Last edited:

The problem with the notion that qualitative elements cannot be objectively gauged is that it ignores some pretty large areas where it's done all the time.

Take teaching. Teachers evaluate qualitative elements all the time. A significant portion of your grade is the result of qualitative assessements Now, if qualitative assessments were subjective, then the assessments you received should vary widely depending on the assessor. So, you might get a great grade in one year, but a failing grade in the next year despite producing the same quality of work simply because these assessments are subjective.
this is another GREAT example I have from my real life (lets see if we can avoid the argument about my aunt and uncles difference in weather by reagin for a bit)

when my niece and nephew were in a private k-5 the grading system was bonkers. they didn't get A,B,C.D.F like I was used to and there was no % number reported... the reason that was given when we asked was "we don't want the children to feel bad about comparing grades" However it wasn't P/F either... it still had this graded system of E=Exemplary, S (capitol)= superior, M=meets expectations, s (lower case) satisfactory, D= doesn't meet expectations, N=needs additional resources, and X= not grasping concept... so they made 7 new letter grades that all had a bit of shadowey meaning... but were still basically A+, A-, B, C, D (funny that is the same letter), and 2 different levels of F.

do you know how I learned what they meant? when my nephew hit 3rd grade he let slip that the other kids and he found out how to translate into a basic % grade those letters... and so my sister asked a teacher and she confirmed they were SUPER close... because the teachers were still grading as % then just transferring to this system.

so how did my neice and nephew do when they got an E that meant they got A+ a 96+, what about a S then they got A- somewhere 89%-95%, if they got a M that was a B 78%-88%, if they got a s that would mean a C 66%-77%-, if they got a D that was stil more or less a D being a 55%-65%, if they got a N that was close to an F being 40%-54%. and the dreaded X that as far as I know no one in the school ever got was REALLY an F at less then 40%...

But wait there's more. they didn't "need a D or more to pass" like what I would think of as school (and now both in HS is true) they need anything other then an X AND a corresponding remark... these remarks were SUPER crazy you could get the same set of words on an E or a D... and they changed or modified the grade... you could get ANYTHING OTHER THEN AN X and a "tries and works hard" and still pass... but you could get a M or lower and "Doesn't show/do work in class" and fail... I still don't get it. but there were 7 or 8 choices of words the teachers had to check 1 for each grade.


so the question "Hey how is Joey doing in school" could be answered fully with "He got an 's' lower case, but a doesn't show work" and be 100% factually true... but it could also be said "He got somewhere between a D+ and a C+" and still be true but SUPER miss leading (since that sounds like he isn't failing) or you could say "He got about a 75% " can be technically true and STILL not express the info of 'how is he doing" because it obfuscates the fact that he failed...somehow.


so both are in public HS now (in a better town) and doing great. But I have to say having % grades to look at makes it WAY easier to see how they are doing... BUT I also have to admit that Joe is lazy (not unlike me) and doesn't always do his homework and sometimes day dreams through class (again like me) so well he is on honor roll half the time I do wonder if the "Doesn't show/do work in class" would most likely still pop up like it did from 2nd grade on (lucky for him he was getting E and S grades so it didn't turn it into a failure)
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
no one ever asked you "Hey I'm getting dressed is it warm out?" never? I don't know if I should not believe you or feel sorry for you
You're entire argument is that the numbers are useless because we all feel heat differently. Why would someone ask me such a useless question? I can't answer that for them. I can only give them the useful number of, "It's 73 out right now." and let them make the decision, because that 73 might be hot, cold or just right to me.

If you are correct and we all feel heat differently, then the most useful information is the objective temperature. If there are three of us and one of us feels 80 degrees as hot, another as cold, and the third as just right, then we can't say answer the question, "Hey I'm getting dressed is it warm out?" with a yes or no. We should tell the person that it's 80 and let them decide. They will know whether the objective temperature is hot, warm, just right, cool or cold. Not me.
I honestly don't even understand what you are argueing anymore. you are now ignoreing that without the context of the rest of teh weather those numbers don't convey the answers.
No. I'm pointing out that the numbers are all that convey the answers. We all know which numbers feel like what to us. The best thing that can be done is to give out the objective temperature and let people decide for themselves.
 
Last edited:

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
The problem with the notion that qualitative elements cannot be objectively gauged is that it ignores some pretty large areas where it's done all the time.

Take teaching. Teachers evaluate qualitative elements all the time. A significant portion of your grade is the result of qualitative assessements Now, if qualitative assessments were subjective, then the assessments you received should vary widely depending on the assessor. So, you might get a great grade in one year, but a failing grade in the next year despite producing the same quality of work simply because these assessments are subjective.

But ... it's not.

Just because (for example) multiple people can use an assessment rubric and generally agree on something, does not mean that the underlying thing being assessed can be measured using an objective standard.

In order to understand this, I will use the following two example:

A. Using an agreed-upon standard of time and an atomic clock (these are the objective external referents), 30 different people measure the passage of two periods of time (despite the listing in order, the periods of time are generated randomly within each set). They do it in various intervals and repeat it 40 times:
1. 20 seconds and 22 seconds.
2. 1 hour and 2 hours.
3. 35 hours and 1 second and 34 hours and 59 minutes and 59 seconds.

At the end of this, the compare notes to determine, for sets (1, 2, 3) wh. Now, absent mechanical error there should be universal agreement on the passage of time within each set and which was more.


B. The same sets are done, and 30 different people repeat it under the same conditions, but without any ability to measure the passage of time. Instead, they simply report which one felt longer. Given the lack of an external and agreed-upon (objective) referent, then you will see that while there is general consensus (and probably greatest consensus for 2 and perhaps none for 3), there is no ability to determine objectively which is correct.


In this example, I am specifically using something that there is, in fact, an underlying objective measure ... but no way to objectively measure it because the people measuring it are necessarily using subjective means.

Compare this with a rubric for quality. You have two problems with this-

A. The initial problem is defining quality. I'm not going to keep banging this drum, but most things that we think of as "quality" when it comes to art or design are societally determined. Hitchcock was relegated to the genre category until he wasn't. When Melville died, no one was reading Moby-Dick, until it gained a following after WW1. A Confederacy of Dunces was rejected for publication, after the suicide of the author, his mother found a smeared copy of the manuscript and she persisted (after numerous rejections) in getting a college professor to advocate for a university press to publish it 11 years after the death of her son. Authors, artists, styles ... most of them go in and out of fashion. Some are just mostly forgotten or not as popular as contemporaries despite the same technical merit (such as Juan Gris or Clyfford Styll) or sometimes styles are in, then out, then in again with the current people who choose what art should be emulated (such as Fragonard).

And the reason that this is important is if you are applying certain rubrics, you end up excluding a lot of very good stuff. This is something that is familiar to us geeks- it's only recently that our genre favorites have been "allowed" at the big boy's table, because ... people would turn their noses and say, "OBJECTIVELY this isn't quality. OBJECTIVELY this isn't art." Cool, right?

Well, those trash comics by people like Ditko and Kirby now sell for millions. Did the objective quality change? Or did the gatekeepers change their rubric for assessing what quality is? And if you can just change the rubric like that, is it measuring something objective? How do you define quality?

B. Which moves to the second issue; the assessment itself. As you acknowledge, different people will have different results when using these assessments. Just like, in the law, different judges (and juries) will have different results when applying the "reasonable man" standard. That doesn't mean that they are useless or that they don't do anything - far from it. But they aren't objective. Instead, they are an attempt to formalize and structure against a standardized and repeated form. Overall, this is a good system, and in the aggregate (assuming the rubric is designed to actually tease out what, inter alia, teaching quality is- which is not always the case) they should be able to generally distinguish qualities, especially when it comes to extremes (one hour or two hours).


But unless the assessments always end up with the exact same result, regardless of the person doing the assessment, means that they aren't objective.

And I will again reiterate the main point- It is completely fine that something isn't objective. Because most objective things, most things that are discussed, have nothing to do with that. But calling things like "artistic quality" objective is simply an attempt to say that your views as to artistic merit cannot be discussed, because you are objectively correct. That is something that should always be rejected, and has traditionally been used to suppress those without the power to affect the rubrics and assessments being used.
 

You're entire argument is that the numbers are useless because we all feel heat differently.
no it isn't

the number isn't 100% uselss... but it isn't the answer to all weather related questions and by itself it can be missleading
Why would someone ask me such a useless question?
I walk the dog every morning. My fiancé asks me that question when she gets out of the shower almost every morning. I used to ask my mother when I was growing up. I have even ask family members when visiting other states so that I can dress for the 'feel'
I can't answer that for them.
I'm sorry you can only give scientific numerical scale answers
I can only give them the useful number of, "It's 73 out right now." and let them make the decision, because that 73 might be hot, cold or just right to me.
but you COULD if you didn't want to withhold it give them MORE information and be useful.
"Its 73 but there's a slight breeze and it is clear out" or "It's 73 but there is no wind" or "it's 73 and a strong wind and it's raining" are all very different 73s

why withhold information?
If you are correct and we all feel heat differently, then the most useful information is the objective temperature. If there are three of us and one of us feels 80 degrees as hot, another as cold, and the third as just right, then we can't say answer the question, "Hey I'm getting dressed is it warm out?" with a yes or no.
i mean I assume the question is coming from someone you know... so you know they 'feel warmer or colder' then you... context matters.
We should tell the person that it's 80 and let them decide. They will know whether the objective temperature is hot, warm, just right, cool or cold. Not me.
but again you withhold all other information why?
No. I'm pointing out that the numbers are all that convey the answers. We all know which numbers feel like what to us. The best thing that can be done is to give out the objective temperature and let people decide for themselves.
and I can't believe people talk in scientific terms only
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
The Great Recession started in December, 2007.

Bear Stearns announced the implosion of certain hedge funds in July of 2007. That's when the writing was on the wall that lead to its collapse in March of 2008.

You are thinking about TARP and bailouts - a later policy response to the carnage that had been happening for almost a full year. But there had already been a full year of massive contractions, stock market losses, and job losses.
Sounds like arm chair quarterbacking.

Virtually No one in 2007 was contemplating anything as bad as what happened in 2008.

It’s easy to say it began in 2007 when looking in the rear view mirror. But at the time that certainly wasn’t clear it would happen and even if something did happen it wasn’t clear it would do so to that extent.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Sounds like arm chair quarterbacking.

Virtually No one in 2007 was contemplating anything as bad as what happened in 2008.

It’s easy to say it began in 2007 when looking in the rear view mirror. But at the time that certainly wasn’t clear it would happen and even if something did happen it wasn’t clear it would do so to that extent.

No, it's not just easy to say.

It's also, by definition, when the recession began.

 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
but it isn't the answer to all weather related questions and by itself it can be missleading
Of course it isn't. That's a silly argument that nobody has made.

Me: "is it raining out?"
You: "55 degrees!"

Isn't something anyone here has been suggesting.

The objective temperature is the answer to, and is not misleading when, someone asks if it's hot or cold out, though. 78 degrees and raining is still 78 degrees. You may need an umbrella or different shoes, but if you're going to be hot at 78 and dry, you're going to be hot at 78 and raining.
I walk the dog every morning. My fiancé asks me that question when she gets out of the shower almost every morning. I used to ask my mother when I was growing up. I have even ask family members when visiting other states so that I can dress for the 'feel'

I'm sorry you can only give scientific numerical scale answers

but you COULD if you didn't want to withhold it give them MORE information and be useful.
"Its 73 but there's a slight breeze and it is clear out" or "It's 73 but there is no wind" or "it's 73 and a strong wind and it's raining" are all very different 73s

why withhold information?
Nobody has argued that you should withhold other useful information when it's occasionally available. I don't know where you get that from. Here in southern California unless the Santa Anas are happening there is rarely wind and even more rarely rain. Also, when people ask how hot it is out, they generally don't expect you to go walk outside, lick your finger and hold it up to test how much of a breeze there is, check to see if it's partly cloudy or not, measure the humidity and then walk back inside to give information. Generally letting them know that it's 76 out is sufficient for them to gauge their own comfort level at that temperature.
i mean I assume the question is coming from someone you know... so you know they 'feel warmer or colder' then you... context matters.
No. That's a faulty assumption. My wife and I have been together for 13 years and married for 10. I'm generally cold when she's hot. However, body temperatures vary, so what is cold for me will vary from day to day and by up several degrees. Sometimes I get cold at 68, sometimes 70, even as high as 73 or 74 some days. It's the same with where she feels hot. And rarely, as in only a few days out of the year, I'm hot at the same time that she's cold.

I have a general idea of when it's likely for her to be hot or cold, but I'd never assume. I'd ask her if she was hot or cold, or provide her with the temperature and let her decide.
 

Of course it isn't. That's a silly argument that nobody has made.

Me: "is it raining out?"
You: "55 degrees!"

Isn't something anyone here has been suggesting.
except it is...
"how warm is it?"
"65 degrees"

again a true answer yet incomplete and without context can be misleading.
The objective temperature is the answer to, and is not misleading when, someone asks if it's hot or cold out, though.
no it isn't... because the objective temperature is at best a partial answer and again can be used to mislead... it is only 1 thing "the number on the made up scale we measure of the heat on the thermostat."
78 degrees and raining is still 78 degrees. You may need an umbrella or different shoes, but if you're going to be hot at 78 and dry, you're going to be hot at 78 and raining.
that is 100% false. the temperature is the air temperature . You are more then capable of being warm in 78 degrees dry and cold in 78 degrees wet.
the humidity in the air also effects the way the temperature effects living beings... I find it VERY hard to believe that in your life no one has every said so.
Nobody has argued that you should withhold other useful information when it's occasionally available.
then you admit I am right?
I don't know where you get that from.
from people saying that the 100% objective and only answer needed to "is it warm out" is a number with no context.
Here in southern California unless the Santa Anas are happening there is rarely wind and even more rarely rain.
and that is context information you have just shared now (never been to the west cost)
Also, when people ask how hot it is out, they generally don't expect you to go walk outside, lick your finger and hold it up to test how much of a breeze there is, check to see if it's partly cloudy or not, measure the humidity and then walk back inside to give information. Generally letting them know that it's 76 out is sufficient for them to gauge their own comfort level at that temperature.
generally here in NE we expect a full answer because our weather varies... I would assume that if someone from NE came to where you live they would be VERY put out by only being given a number answer... it is just only partial information
No. That's a faulty assumption. My wife and I have been together for 13 years and married for 10. I'm generally cold when she's hot.
then you KNOW that about the person... see, like i said people should (when they know each other for a length of time) be able to know. so when you are cold can you give her a run down of what she would most likely feel?

an example with my sister would be "It's warm today I'm going in shorts you probably want a jacket though"
However, body temperatures vary, so what is cold for me will vary from day to day and by up several degrees. Sometimes I get cold at 68, sometimes 70, even as high as 73 or 74 some days. It's the same with where she feels hot. And rarely, as in only a few days out of the year, I'm hot at the same time that she's cold.
and again this still is all context... that additional information that allows the numbers to MEAN an answer that wont mislead.
I have a general idea of when it's likely for her to be hot or cold, but I'd never assume. I'd ask her if she was hot or cold, or provide her with the temperature and let her decide.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
No, it's not just easy to say.

It's also, by definition, when the recession began.

Again. Hindsight is 2020
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
except it is...
"how warm is it?"
"65 degrees"

again a true answer yet incomplete and without context can be misleading.

no it isn't... because the objective temperature is at best a partial answer and again can be used to mislead... it is only 1 thing "the number on the made up scale we measure of the heat on the thermostat."

that is 100% false. the temperature is the air temperature . You are more then capable of being warm in 78 degrees dry and cold in 78 degrees wet.
the humidity in the air also effects the way the temperature effects living beings... I find it VERY hard to believe that in your life no one has every said so.

then you admit I am right?

from people saying that the 100% objective and only answer needed to "is it warm out" is a number with no context.

and that is context information you have just shared now (never been to the west cost)

generally here in NE we expect a full answer because our weather varies... I would assume that if someone from NE came to where you live they would be VERY put out by only being given a number answer... it is just only partial information

then you KNOW that about the person... see, like i said people should (when they know each other for a length of time) be able to know. so when you are cold can you give her a run down of what she would most likely feel?

an example with my sister would be "It's warm today I'm going in shorts you probably want a jacket though"

and again this still is all context... that additional information that allows the numbers to MEAN an answer that wont mislead.
You seem dead set on arguing that we are saying things that we aren't saying, so I'm going to step back now.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Again. Hindsight is 2020

I did not realize that it was a controversial statement to say that the Great Recession began when ... it began ... using the defined and accepted terms that everyone uses and is easily available at numerous websites and, as far as I know, is not contradicted. And ... I just provided you actual citations.

Then again, I also did not think that people would engage in lengthy debates arguing that things like math and temperature do not provide objective standards because someone might be asking you a question like, "How many eggs do you put in a angel food cake," and you reply, "The boomerang nebula, at 1 kelvin, is colder than the surface of the sun, at 5.8 kK."
 

You seem dead set on arguing that we are saying things that we aren't saying, so I'm going to step back now.

Then again, I also did not think that people would engage in lengthy debates arguing that things like math and temperature do not provide objective standards because someone might be asking you a question like, "How many eggs do you put in a angel food cake," and you reply, "The boomerang nebula, at 1 kelvin, is colder than the surface of the sun, at 5.8 kK."
I find it funny that I am being accused of misrepresenting this...
If today's temperature is 98 degrees, and yesterday it was 80 degrees, then today it is HOTTER than yesterday. The temperature is, quite literally, a fact that is dictated to you. You can't argue with it.
weather it is HOTTER is not JUST a measurement of the current reading on a device (heck just move one into the shade or into the sun and watch it change).

changing location, and other factors (humidity, and weather it is raining, and I believe elevation) changes what those numbers mean.

so you can say today this device reads 98 and in the same location yesterday it read 80 so the temperature is higher today. and be 100% factually true...

but if yesterday it was in direct sun light today it is in a shade, yesterday was breezy and raining and today is clear and humid... that answer well still being 100% factually true can still be misleading.

edit: so again the part I argue with is "You can't argue it would be wrong to say" yeah... you can argue it is a fact you stated that is misleading with out context... or is down right useless to the conversation.
 
Last edited:

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I did not realize that it was a controversial statement to say that the Great Recession began when ... it began ... using the defined and accepted terms that everyone uses and is easily available at numerous websites and, as far as I know, is not contradicted. And ... I just provided you actual citations.
The definition you cite for recession is one solely built upon hindsight. The market didn’t actually drop more than 20% from its Nov 2007 max until Nov 2008.

Actual news that a recession was occurring (not potentially going to occur) didn’t happen until last quarter of 2008.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
I find it funny that I am being accused of misrepresenting this...

weather it is HOTTER is not JUST a measurement of the current reading on a device (heck just move one into the shade or into the sun and watch it change).

changing location, and other factors (humidity, and weather it is raining, and I believe elevation) changes what those numbers mean.

But it doesn't change ... what those numbers are. Temperature is what it is. Humidity ... is what it is. Precipitation can also be measured.

What that means to you will vary. Some people like rain, some people like humidity, and some people ... don't. And guess what? YOU CAN DISCUSS WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ACTUALLY MEAN TO YOU. But no one (other than maybe you?) would actually say, "Hey, guess what, I know everyone measured the temperature ... but I'm going to disagree with it." Just like some people like mountains and some people like beaches.

giphy.gif
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
The definition you cite for recession is one solely built upon hindsight. The market didn’t actually drop more than 20% from its Nov 2007 max until Nov 2008.

Actual news that a recession was occurring (not potentially going to occur) didn’t happen until last quarter of 2008.

So ... I used the correct definition, had the correct citations, and had the correct timeframe, and you are still arguing.

Good to know.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Mod Note:
Folks,

This thread seems to have devolved into arguments about the recession, and the meaning of temperature, rather than gaming.

These also seem to have become entrenched arguments, in which people will refuse to back down.

You all know the drill - when your need to win becomes too great, a moderator shows up, and.. you lose.

So, cut it out. Make it constructive, make it relevant, or stop. Thanks.
 


<All things 4e>
Thank you, between this and Snarf's spoilered rundown, it is a very good summation. I'll try to look up the financial things referenced for a numeric analysis, but otherwise I consider this as answering my questions to my satisfaction.
I disagree. I think we can get much more specific, while still remaining 100% objective. For example, D&D is a cooperative game. (You can choose to play it competitively, but that's never been what it was designed for.) Being a cooperative multiplayer roleplaying game induces a variety of expectations and limitations that are significantly more specific than "is it literally at all possible for someone to use it" and "is it literally at all possible for someone to enjoy it."
Of course it does. However, we don't all agree on what is necessary for a cooperative game, nor the relative importance of these things in the game's quality. Therefore, a quality measure based on these expectations and limitations will be debatable, ending in differing people having differing ratings for the games based on which qualities of quality they consider relevant or most important.
When we make the only standard of quality something that is literally impossible to fail, the conversation becomes completely pointless. That's why it's unacceptable. You have reduced the conversation about "quality" to a triviality; this not only accomplishes nothing, it is actively caustic to actually productive, interesting discussion.
Calling someone else's position caustic does not meet my civility threshold. We don't need to continue if to do so would be in this manner. Regardless, I have not done this at all. I have drawn a line demarcating where I think universally-agreed-upon measures stop, nothing more. Honestly, I don't know why this is a problem, nor why it would intersect negatively with productive, interesting discussion. There's much more to be discussed when things aren't clear-cut than when they are (undoubtedly a component to why there is so much more discussion surrounding movies and art and the best hamburger than there are about jet engine performance or bridge structural soundness, and the like).
Again, I completely disagree. There are several functions beyond the "cooperative TTRPG" example I gave above that are useful for honing in on the design purpose of D&D specifically. Among them: "roleplaying" is clearly a factor, and that tells us things about what the rules are supposed to do; the "three pillars" (combat, exploration, socialization) are explicit design purposes, literally the designers saying what D&D is about (whether or not players use them is their prerogative, but the designers have been very clear that that's what they made 5e "for," and I have no reason to think this is not true of any other WotC edition); the need to be open to homebrewing, and yet also somewhat standardized so people can do things like "organized play" and "discuss the game on forums"; the overall thematic focus of the game being fantasy as opposed to sci-fi, horror, romance, or other themes; etc.
These are great examples, and they are worthy of discussion. Highly worthy. At no point have I implied that the components of a game are not important facets of discussion, nor that they do not contribute to a games' quality. Individual facets of a game are the places where things come closest to universal-consensus measures and judgements occurring. For example, 5e's stealth and vision rules -- these certainly rise to the point where one could find near universal consensus that they are not only bad, but diminish the quality of the game --although almost immediately the question of 'how much' becomes contentious. You can even make with/without comparisons like (see any number of write-ups about how Monopoly as-written is better than Monopoly with the common 'cash on free parking' variant).

It is once you start combining those facets into a cohesive measure of game quality that things get subjective, arguable, and potentially contentious. One person can say Bunions & Baggins is a better game because it accounts for hobbit foot damage while another person says that's a pointless mechanic modelling parts of the game for which no one really want a codified mechanic and clearly Hinfolk & Heroics is a better game for focusing on the action aspects, and neither can point to a specific unequivocal law declaring them right.

For that reason (and tying this back to the OP's thread-premising question), I think quality measures look less like ordinal numbers or the like and more like movie reviews -- potentially a numeric or 'thumbs up/down' score, but really being inseparable from a paragraph- to thesis-sized argument for the position, including some caveats and declared assumptions* with which the reader may or may not agree.
*example: I think it was Roger Ebert who was a little more agreeable to the notion that you didn't go to 70s-90s horror movies if you weren't expecting some hokey acting and unconvincing special effects and thus didn't hold those against such a movie as much as Siskel. This could be a parallel to a 'Well, gp=xp is a bad mechanic, because it only incentivizes treasure-centric dungeon crawls' 'But that's an expectation of the game.' - style disagreements.

The thread premise was how do we measure quality, and my answer is (roughly) 'with much complexity, and the final measurement output (coming from significant discussion and disagreement) still ending up looking like an argument or position synopsis rather than a simple number.

<also redacted tangent>
 
Last edited:

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top