D&D 5E What is Quality?

[LadyElect]

That's a ridiculous standard.

And, yes, it is absolutely useful to suppose that some judgements are superior.

I believe these can hold true.

Because if we don't, then we accept bad faith arguments as valid as well as simply uniformed judgements as equally valid. The notion that all judgements are equal gets right back to the whole anti-intellectual thread that pollutes any conversation like this.

Without these following as the alternative.

Engaging in thought exercises over the subjective nature of perception doesn’t necessitate the acceptance of all views due to that nature. Judgements can be born of ignorance or inexperience or, hell, even dishonesty. They can be measurably harmful and deserve their disavowal by the masses.

And I certainly understand the view that engaging those exercises is unproductive or frustrating or abstracted to the point of uselessness in ordinary discourse. But anti-intellectual against the alternative of accepting agreement in lieu of true demonstrability? You’d have to take the fight back to Descartes to prevent that from popping up. And this:

You absolutely can objectively say that one is better than the other. 100%.

Only works for as long as you want to ostracize the very inevitable contention.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. Because popularity does not equal quality. That's one of the core points of the thread.

Digital watches are superior to pure analog watches in most respects: cheaper, easier to use, easier to read, easier to make, almost always more accurate, etc. I still love mechanical watches, particularly pocketwatches which let you see parts of the movement artfully displayed. I find them beautiful, even mesmerizing. But if the point of the watch is to perform the function of accurately and unambiguously telling the time, reliably, with minimal maintenance or replacement cost, then digital watches are clearly superior to mechanical watches, full stop.


My point was more that "evocativeness" didn't HAVE to come at the cost of sacrificing a lot of clarity. 5e took the easy way out, going back to the old way of doing things. And we are now seeing that they're not entirely happy about that choice, what with things like the changes to monster stat blocks to make them more clear and utilitarian even if that might come at a slight cost to "evocativeness."


Video game fans often demand the paradoxical mix of "change nothing so I get the exact same experience as before" and "add lots of new things so I feel my money was well spent, rather than just feeling like you sold me the same game twice."

Can you provide an example of a TTRPG where evocativeness was achieved without sacrificing clarity?

 

[Mort]

New players were always a secondary concern until now. Now they're about 80-90% of what they care about.

Are we talking about 5e or are we talking about "now" as in recent supplements?

Because 5e is ALL about bringing back old players and nostalgia - even now they're bringing back Dragonlance AND Spelljammer. That's not for new players that's a lets get the old crowd back to buying supplements!

And if they cared about new players more - they would care A LOT more about the new player experience and on-boarding. They haven't yet shown that that's the case. As I discussed upthread, Kate Welsh was ALL about that - and she quit (likely in frustration).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Are we talking about 5e or are we talking about "now" as in recent supplements?

Because 5e is ALL about bringing back old players and nostalgia - even now they're bringing back Dragonlance AND Spelljammer. That's not for new players that's a lets get the old crowd back to buying supplements!

And if they cared about new players more - they would care A LOT more about the new player experience and on-boarding. They haven't yet shown that that's the case. As I discussed upthread, Kate Welsh was ALL about that - and she quit (likely in frustration).

I meant now as in the last few years, mostly since Tasha's. The prime reason they are bringing back Dragonlance (kinda) and Spelljammer (more but still a little kinda) is because they own the IP, it's easier to mod an existing setting than write a new one, and it's still new to new players. Also, some olds might appreciate it.

All IMO, of course. Wouldn't want people to think I'm stating opinion as fact.

 

[payn]

How is it not easier to add ambiguity than to remove it?

Throw in more randomized actions: recharges, effects that vary wildly based on random die rolls, effects that have a chance to split the party so their synergy no longer applies (e.g. raising walls so they can no longer see one another). Randomize HP values, or other statistics if you feel like it. Roll a d6: 1-2 means reduce HP, 3-4 means keep it the same, 5-6 means raise it. Then roll some amount of dice (perhaps picking an arbitrary number of d6 out of a bag) and apply them as needed.

I could almost certainly write a full page (or more) on tools of this kind to make it harder to predict how things will go. You will, of course, be inviting more PC deaths and TPKs as a direct consequence, but I presume that that is a desired element here (otherwise you'd be wanting ambiguity and yet also wanting certainty which...doesn't work). Or I could just refer you to the "Nastier Specials" examples in 13th Age (sadly, I don't think there's a database of these, but it would be super cool if there was such a thing.)

In order to remove baked-in ambiguity, you'd have to rewrite most monsters from the ground up. That's a huge ask. Adding a couple quirks to any given monster is perhaps five minutes' effort. Rewriting the MM would take ages. I don't see how there's any way to argue that the above is even remotely the same level of effort. Yes, it will still be AN effort. Obviously. If you're playing a system that doesn't do everything literally exactly the way you want it, you're going to have to put in some effort, that's how this works. But all efforts are not created equal.

You just suggested a mountain of work. I am trying to do it right now with PF2. IT IS NOT EASY. So, I get where you are coming from, albeit, the other side. I'm just going to enjoy the system while I can. The bad news is that since PF2 has gone so tight with CR system, D&D isnt likely to follow in the near future.

 

[Irlo]

I've bought some of those clocks. Very pretty. Didn't tell time well, kept losing minutes per day. Went into the trash, despite the fact they were still pretty and I liked how they looked. A pretty clock that doesn't tell time is, at best, a piece of art not a clock.

Yes. My parents had an old grandfather clock in the house that didn't work either. They kept it, though, because it served a purpose other than telling the correct time twice per day.

 

[payn]

Yes. My parents had an old grandfather clock in the house that didn't work either. They kept it, though, because it served a purpose other than telling the correct time twice per day.

lol, I was thinking too expensive to fix, not worth enough to sell broken.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Can you provide an example of a TTRPG where evocativeness was achieved without sacrificing clarity?

13th Age would be a main example. A wonderfully clear system, particularly with how the books are presented (giving direct statements from the designers on how they chose to do things or how they disagree about how the system is best used. It has some of the best design in any d20 system, to the point that people regularly steal from it for other games (e.g. the Escalation Die). And the quality of that design is really easy to see; it's right there on the surface, no obfuscation required.

You just suggested a mountain of work. I am trying to do it right now with PF2. IT IS NOT EASY. So, I get where you are coming from, albeit, the other side. I'm just going to enjoy the system while I can. The bad news is that since PF2 has gone so tight with CR system, D&D isnt likely to follow in the near future.

...seriously? Rolling a few dice and tweaking a couple numbers is "a mountain of work"?

We clearly have very different ideas of what "a mountain of work" is. You sure as hell don't need to rewrite the MM to make it happen. Making CR actually useful definitely would require such a rewrite, and possibly even more fundamental work (that is, adjusting player-side values too).

 

[payn]

...seriously? Rolling a few dice and tweaking a couple numbers is "a mountain of work"?

We clearly have very different ideas of what "a mountain of work" is. You sure as hell don't need to rewrite the MM to make it happen. Making CR actually useful definitely would require such a rewrite, and possibly even more fundamental work (that is, adjusting player-side values too).

Dead serious. Sorry we cant agree on this.

 

[Umbran]

There's also the issue that there can be things that "car guys" prefer that detract from the car experience for anyone who isn't a car guy. My dad was a car guy of the 50/60s, and he sometimes waxes ecstatically about little touches that his favorite cars had -- little sliders that let you adjust both the heat that your heater put out, and which vents it came out of, but the admixture of inside and outside air, and so on; variable clutch this and that, transmission whatsits (I'm showing how much I paid attention, aren't I?), and so forth. All of those went to the wayside, apparently, because the average driver didn't want to futz with them (the experience was actually worse for them).

I agree.

There is an adage in the software world - 80% of your users will only use 20% of your software's features. Most of your features are bells and whistles that only power-users will engage with or care about - and if those features have user experience or performance impact, your are giving most of your users pain for features they will not use.