D&D 5E What is Quality?

[Aldarc]

I think we can judge overall quality as a popularity contest, if it works well enough for a significant number of people, it has decent design and quality.

I think people telling you why this sort of thinking is completely fallacious goes in one ear and out the other with you.

 

[Umbran]

Besides one being a more polite way of sharing your feelings on a topic, I don't agree.

That's okay. I wasn't seeking your agreement.

 

[Umbran]

I think people telling you why this sort of thinking is completely fallacious goes in one ear and out the other with you.

Please don't make this personal.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would say that 5e represents "sufficiently good quality" design. The quality of the core engine and its architecture is strong for its design purpose and primary modes of gameplay, and this is what does a lot of the heavy lifting for the system. The problems or weaknesses tend to come from the variable design quality of the accessories or even smaller nuts and bolts that are attached to that core engine.

First, what, exactly, is "the core engine and its architecture"? Because you could say that about 3e if that phrase means "the d20+mod method." I would not call 3e any kind of good design on nearly any level. The designers of 4e, 5e, and PF2e have all said things to the effect of "yeah, 3e was pretty bad." On the flip side, one of the most common and (IMO) justified complaints about 3e was that its CR system sucked, and IMO/IME 5e has mostly followed in 3e's footsteps when it comes to CR. So the question of demarcation needs an answer before I can respond to the statements made.

Second, what purpose is it fulfilling? I cannot respond to a claim that X does what it is for if I don't know what thing it's supposed to be for. That's why, in my linked post, I referenced things like the three pillars of play. Those seem pretty clearly like a stated purpose, "these things are essential to the D&D experience," and yet the design is patchy at best for two of the three (exploration and socialization), doubly so when you factor in that every class has specific tools for the third (combat) but many classes offer either little to nothing unique for addressing the other two pillars, or what they do offer has a serious trivializing effect on them.

Finally, if you consider the design to be strong, where is it strong? What things does it do that provide great support for something? As others have argued, strong design is not "make it sufficiently minimal so the GM has to design their own solution," that's just not designing something in the first place. I gave my several, specific, clear examples of issues I and others have dealt with in 5e, so that people could see I wasn't talking in airy-fairy generalities, nor solely in pure anecdote.* If you assert the opposite claim, it would be very helpful if you had examples of your own. (I won't expect anyone to match my long-windedness and excessive circumlocution, but having some concrete stuff to discuss really would help.)

*Though I do just absolutely love the Morton's fork that people are so rip roaring eager to deploy. If you base your analysis on reasonable assumptions and objective facts, it's white-room theorizing and thus utterly wrong and irrelevant. But if you base it on actual lived experience, testimony from other players, and statements made by other people online, because the perspectives of a few finite players are subjective and thus irrelevant. So no analysis, other than praise, is valid! It's a brilliant "heads I win, tails you lose" approach. Very effective for dismissing any and all issues, especially when paired with softer or subtler versions of the Oberoni fallacy.

 

[Aldarc]

If you can't judge quality by how well it's received, by an attempt to determine aggregate satisfaction, how do you judge quality? Which was my question: if you disagree with me, that's fine. But if you disagree with me how do you judge quality?

On the product's actual merits using pertinent criteria! There are other metrics you can use to judge something's quality than just appealing to popularity or engaging in pissing contests. These metrics will vary based on the type of product (e.g., food, furniture, clothing, electronics, software, media, etc.). As a metric popularity tends to be a misleading indicator regarding a product's overall quality - i.e., "the mob can't be wrong" - which is why appealing to a product's popularity is fallacious, bad reasoning when it comes to discussing a product's quality.

 

[Morrus]

Quality will always be in the eye of the beholder and what they value. If you like schlocky slasher films then [insert slasher film I don't watch here] it will be a quality film for you. If I were to judge the overall quality of slasher films, I would look at which ones became cult favorites amongst people that enjoy that type of film.

If you can't judge quality by how well it's received, by an attempt to determine aggregate satisfaction, how do you judge quality? Which was my question: if you disagree with me, that's fine. But if you disagree with me how do you judge quality?

I feel like this conversation keeps getting rebooted to post #1. Whatever anybody says, you just repeat your OP again like the previous 365 posts simply didn’t happen. It’s quite frustrating. You’re literally ignoring anything anybody says and just repeating yourself over and over.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I feel like this conversation keeps getting rebooted to post #1. Whatever I say, you just repeat your OP again.

I suspect there is an unspoken underlying premise or set of circumstances to which we're not privy; or some other unspoken component. Otherwise, yes, we got it, there's no one objective measure for qualify (discussion over in 5 seconds, because OP clearly isn't looking for how others measure it, since anything people bring up are shot down with the same response).

OP, is this in response to a specific person or general trend of people making what are, in your mind, unfair disparagement towards 5e?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

First, what, exactly, is "the core engine and its architecture"? Because you could say that about 3e if that phrase means "the d20+mod method." I would not call 3e any kind of good design on nearly any level. The designers of 4e, 5e, and PF2e have all said things to the effect of "yeah, 3e was pretty bad." On the flip side, one of the most common and (IMO) justified complaints about 3e was that its CR system sucked, and IMO/IME 5e has mostly followed in 3e's footsteps when it comes to CR. So the question of demarcation needs an answer before I can respond to the statements made.

CR is one of those things that have been argued "doesn't need to be fixed becuse this sells and there for the market has spoken"

the three pillars of play. Those seem pretty clearly like a stated purpose, "these things are essential to the D&D experience," and yet the design is patchy at best for two of the three (exploration and socialization), doubly so when you factor in that every class has specific tools for the third (combat) but many classes offer either little to nothing unique for addressing the other two pillars, or what they do offer has a serious trivializing effect on them.

This is another GREAT example of things that people want to talk about fixing and have had people come in and say "well play a different game because 5e sells well so it must be right"
your entire post is a perfect example of how the premise of this thread has flaws.

 

[Mort]

CR is one of those things that have been argued "doesn't need to be fixed becuse this sells and there for the market has spoken"

This is another GREAT example of things that people want to talk about fixing and have had people come in and say "well play a different game because 5e sells well so it must be right"

your entire post is a perfect example of how the premise of this thread has flaws.

Both of these are related (at least for me) because they speak to one of the big problems I have with the 5e DMG.

It seems to be written to be read instead of used (as a reference/rules manual).

What does that mean? That the language is natural and that it flows well - but that it is not organized in such a way as to be easily referenced and it's grouped in such a way as to flow for reading as opposed to for looking up rules etc.

Exploration in the DMG, really suffers here, because instead of being presented whole AND with a good play loop example (essential for new players and VERY helpful to those experienced with older editions but not 5e) it is presented piecemeal and is very disjointed. So even if a how to IS there, it's not easy to find and often difficult to follow (but reads well!).

I haven't done the same look for Social Interaction - but suspect it's the same - with the rules/ideas there but not easy to actually find implement.

As I recall, one of the 5e designers made (I cannot remember her name, but I remember that she was first elated about getting her "dream job" and then disillusioned that she couldn't do what she hoped to do) a big deal about this and was REALLY disappointed at the pushback she was getting for trying to change the layout/design to be more new gamer friendly and helpful.

I'm hopeful (but not too confident) that one of the 2024 changes will be such a change.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

As I recall, one of the 5e designers made (I cannot remember her name, but I remember that she was first elated about getting her "dream job" and then disillusioned that she couldn't do what she hoped to do) a big deal about this and was REALLY disappointed at the pushback she was getting for trying to change the layout/design to be more new gamer friendly and helpful.

I have never heard this story... but boy is it discouraging if that is true.

pushback for making a game more gamer friendly sounds EXACTLY like what i would expect coming off 4e into 5e though.