D&D 5E What is Quality?

Genetics runs havoc through lots of people's health status. We call it having "poor protoplasm" which is short hand for "their genetics makes them predisposed to... [name your disease]." Meanwhile the dude who smokes, lives on sugar, never exercises, etc., etc. who somehow remains healthy has "good protoplasm."
yeah that is a good way to put it
Unfortunately, it's near impossible to overcome "poor" genetics completely,
yup... big sad
that Overweight does not necessarily equate to Unhealthy. It probably does, but might not. Surprising I know, but true.
I think there is alot more in there too... at 24 I was overweight could run jump swim play ball stay up all night and still go work a physical job... I used to say "I am in shape, round is a shape" and "I have the body of a god... just not the one I might want" as jokes as I tried everything to 'get it better shape'

as I aged it got worse... in my 40's round is not in fact a valid shape.
As the joke goes "We put you to sleep for free. It's making it so you wake up again where we earn our keep."
thats a good one... as someone who (also) suffers from an Anastia problem I need to make that joke next time I need to go under.
Anyway. This is a derail of this thread. I'm gonna move on. LOL.
yup... Okay...sorry. It wasa good talk though. thank you
 

log in or register to remove this ad

This is a subtle goal post shift, and part of what I'm pointing out. Here's what I mean -- you can absolutely make a statement that within a price range you can evaluate the quality of items inside that range. However, at no point does that statement improve the quality evaluation of those items compared to the entire range. You can say, "for products less than $X dollars, product Y is the best quality." But you've included those qualifiers, and your statement doesn't, in any way, imply that product Y is of best quality compared to a wider set or the entire set. It's also worth noting that such narrowing of the range should be independent of the desire to claim a product is of a certain quality -- it's disingenuous to claim that product Y is the best quality by artificially limiting the field so that this is true or truthy enough.

So, when I made a statement as to the quality compared to the entire range, a counter argument that artificially narrows that range to achieve the desired outcome is special pleading.
the price thing also reminds me back in 3e days on the boards we used to joke that a game could be written that perfectly balanced everything and had every corner case.... it would take cost as much as a car and the books would look like the encyclopedia Britannica
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
i didn't say the numbers are 100% usless. I am just saying that by itself it is only a single peace of information that if true or not still can mislead. It also needs other information with it or it isn't the whole story.

and where those numbers do have a meaning (and yes made up) it CAN be useful in theory... but it doesn't answer the question "WOW, how steep of a climb is that?"

is useful for study, but wont help me decide if I need a jacket.
Unless you believe what the numbers are telling you, not much will until you go outside and see how warm-cold it is for yourself and then maybe go back inside and pick up a sweater or a jacket.
and again where in theory that can be useful (although since all cars loose gas milage I am not sure how or why) it doesn't answer "How much do I need to fill my tank?"
It can tell me how much more it's costing me to run that car, which helps inform me whether or not it's time to think about getting a new one.
and they are ONLY good at measuring 1 bit of information... the stink at answering any question OTHER than "what is the measurement of X"
Along with "how does this measurement compare with many other similar measurements of other things in other times and-or places"; and also "how does this measurement help me relate to previous experiences when the same measurement value occurred".

For example, if I remember going outside last week when school-net told me it was 13C and feeling damn cold without a jacket, that tells me that when school-net tells me it's 13C again today a jacket is probably a good idea. (and yes it was only 13C here during the day last week and is again today; its been a very cold spring here...)
 


Lanefan

Victoria Rules
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.
And though there were warning signs ahead of time for those who bothered to look, the market crash in September 2008 was, in the view of many, the start of the downturn.

Edit to add: and this general perception would have affected 4e sales at the time: probably gangbusters through the summer while people still thought things were fine then a sharp decline come October once it became obvious things weren't fine, then a slow steady recovery over the following year as stability returned.
 
Last edited:

Oofta

Legend
just to remind you earlier you listed BvS and the DC movies in general... they have all objectively made tons of money, more then I bet any RPG creator could hope to make a product have, and you have them listed subjectively at low quality.
That's like comparing a bicycle to a F1 race car. What's the point?
 

Oofta

Legend
This is a subtle goal post shift, and part of what I'm pointing out. Here's what I mean -- you can absolutely make a statement that within a price range you can evaluate the quality of items inside that range. However, at no point does that statement improve the quality evaluation of those items compared to the entire range. You can say, "for products less than $X dollars, product Y is the best quality." But you've included those qualifiers, and your statement doesn't, in any way, imply that product Y is of best quality compared to a wider set or the entire set. It's also worth noting that such narrowing of the range should be independent of the desire to claim a product is of a certain quality -- it's disingenuous to claim that product Y is the best quality by artificially limiting the field so that this is true or truthy enough.

So, when I made a statement as to the quality compared to the entire range, a counter argument that artificially narrows that range to achieve the desired outcome is special pleading.
Every product has a target market. I don't see how comparing completely separate target markets is a valid comparison.
 


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
"How warm is it?"
"Warm".

And though there were warning signs ahead of time for those who bothered to look, the market crash in September 2008 was, in the view of many, the start of the downturn.

Mod Note:
In the spirit of a holiday weekend, I'm going to assume you simply hadn't yet read the moderator warning.

Please drop these lines of discussion. Thank you.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Every product has a target market. I don't see how comparing completely separate target markets is a valid comparison.
Ah, so from cost we've moved to arbitrarily declaring target markets to sustain conclusions.

You didn't start there. I certainly did not. It's only in response that you keep moving the target.
 

Ah, so from cost we've moved to arbitrarily declaring target markets to sustain conclusions.

You didn't start there. I certainly did not. It's only in response that you keep moving the target.
so if I say 4e's target audience was "players who want a balance between martial and magic heroes" can i say that "4e out sold every RPG every in it's target market and as such is the highest quality RPG ever?"
 

Speaking to D&D specifically, no matter how popular it is, it's going to be replaced by a new edition eventually. Wizards of the Coast will want to sell us all new books, and once sales dip to X level, the stars align, the prophecy comes to pass, or whatever metric they use to prognosticate these things reaches a given value, they will unveil the next big thing. It could be 2 years from now, 5 years from now, or 10 years form now (I'm going to be cynical and assume sooner rather than later, but it's not like I have special knowledge on this topic).

When this occurs, should the new game sell more product, does that mean the new game is simply better? Does that mean 5e was less of a game because it didn't make as much money?

Do we take market trends or inflation into account? A rising population?

Would 5e, compared to this hypothetical edition be said to have "failed" because it didn't make as much money?

Obviously not. But in this grim future, will people who were perfectly happy with 5e and have problems with 6e, 25e, Super Advanced Dungeons AND Dragons ("ampersands are so last century!") Mega Edition, or whatever they call it be told "there is nothing wrong with the new D AND D because it's making more money"?
I believe that this is the belief of most game designers before 5E. That the market was limited by the number of players who would play an RPG. The only way to make money in the market was to put rule-book out, rewrite rule-book, and repeat. GW, Paizo, WotC and many others have used this model. 5E has shook things up for the better. RPG has almost become mainstream, it has shown that there are other ways to make a profit in this market.
 


Defining your terms exactly how you want and then declaring victory based on that definition is a tried and true tactic!
I mean now I feel like I am making a magic item in 3e... take 3 items (lets say belt of magnificent +6, belt of battle and belt of healing) take the cost of the highest, then 75% cost of second highest and 50% the cost of the third... but it only works for someone of my characters race (subtract 50% cost) and my characters 2 classes (1 a prestige class) (subtract 10% then another 10%) and have it have a weird restriction for another 20 or so % costs... then add a matrial component that was from a monster we already killed for another minus 25%... and it's cheaper to make my 3 in one belt then just making a generic copy of the expensive belt and it only takes up 1 body slot.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
so if I say 4e's target audience was "players who want a balance between martial and magic heroes" can i say that "4e out sold every RPG every in it's target market and as such is the highest quality RPG ever?"
No, no. 4e was the highest quality because it outsold in it's target market with appropriate price considerations and reasonable popularity ratings.
 

Aldarc

Legend
Every product has a target market. I don't see how comparing completely separate target markets is a valid comparison.
It's a valid comparison within relevant target markets, but if you are talking about the whole market, then that quality needs to be recontextualized within that larger context. Or to reframe things differently, being the fastest runner in your 3rd grade elementary school class doesn't make you comparable to an Olympic sprinter just because.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
It's a valid comparison within relevant target markets, but if you are talking about the whole market, then that quality needs to be recontextualized within that larger context. Or to reframe things differently, being the fastest runner in your 3rd grade elementary school class doesn't make you comparable to an Olympic sprinter just because.
I'm really curious what case @Oofta is building here to bring back to his OP about 5e's quality. What market is going to be identified? What price point?
 


Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
This thread really is just 4 or 5 people arguing with each other about ... something? ... now.
Naw, it's the same thing, mostly, with a bit of a side discussion. @Oofta keeps coming up with new reasons to restrict or limit consideration to hold onto his arguments about quality (it's not just popularity, now, but price points and target markets). Not really new. If you're looking to consider shutting it down, there hasn't been anything new except for special pleadings in a few pages.
 

Oofta

Legend
Ah, so from cost we've moved to arbitrarily declaring target markets to sustain conclusions.

You didn't start there. I certainly did not. It's only in response that you keep moving the target.
I long ago gave an example of Casio digital vs Rolex watches. One is a utilitarian watch, the other is jewelry that happens to tell time. I think they are different products with only superficial similarities and both can by judged as quality depending on the metrics people choose to use.

I don't care if we disagree. If you want to have a conversation, fine. If you're just going to continue to throw unfounded accusations I won't bother responding.
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top