D&D 5E What is Quality?

[Oofta]

It does not follow. The Model T was hugely successful. Documented as not a quality product by the standards of that day. The Yugo, when originally released, was of low quality. Successful because it was cheap.

It was more reliable, more versatile and better suited to the roads at a time where the only paved roads were in the city. People could drive on the narrow muddy road to a field where they could detach a rear wheel and run machinery. It would run on gasoline, kerosene or ethanol and could be fitted with tracks and skis to go in the snow. People used it on trails that were normally only passable on foot or by horse.

You comparing apples to oranges. But it was also cheaper, a more functional vehicle for the target market. Even ignoring the price, it was a quality vehicle.

 

[Maxperson]

"not everyone agrees on if the objective number on a man made scale is useful to the discussion of the _____" may be better.

And what @Snarf Zagyg said is true. It objectively conveys the same information to everyone. The ability to understand and/or believe what the information being conveyed to you means is irrelevant. If I tell a 3 year old that 5x5=25, I have conveyed objective information to that toddler. That it doesn't really understand what that means and is infinitely more likely to start crying at the sight of my face than understand what I told it isn't relevant. The objective information was conveyed.

Perhaps you're hung up on the word "everyone" that Snarf used. If so, you know what he meant. He wasn't saying literally every single person in the world. He meant that it held the objective meaning that the world uses. We still have flat earthers out there. What they believe doesn't put the objectivity of the world being a sphere at issue. You don't need every last human to agree on something for it to be objective.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And what @Snarf Zagyg said is true.

okay but true is not the same as useful or relevant.

so agian "something can be objectively true and not helpful... or even misleading"

I am not arguing the number is wrong, but that what the number measures is not helpful.

If I tell a 3 year old that 5x5=25, I have conveyed objective information to that toddler.

the truth of 5x5=25 is 100% true... but if you give that true information to answer the question "what color is this crayon" it is still wrong.

The objective information was conveyed.

and was useless or missleading

Perhaps you're hung up on the word "everyone" that Snarf used.

partially. however I am far more hung up on the fact that both of you are arguing around what I am saying.

it is like someone came in and said "is it warm or cold" and you think "this device measures the number 60" is an accurate answer... it is not, and without more context it is just plane not useful.

If so, you know what he meant. He wasn't saying literally every single person in the world.

and what I mean is there is NOT A CONSESUSS on weather 60 is warm or cold in the same town let alone across the world.

He meant that it held the objective meaning that the world uses. We still have flat earthers out there. What they believe doesn't put the objectivity of the world being a sphere at issue. You don't need every last human to agree on something for it to be objective.

no but having something be objectively true in one sentence doesn't make it objectively true in another...

5 is bigger then 3. is objectively true

but 5 inches is smaller then 3ft is ALSO objectively true

an argument about if 5 or 3 is bigger based on weather they mean inches or feet is ENTIRELY useless when talking about what color the room is.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, it isn't at all ridiculous. Roll20 is already much of the way there. What remains are mostly things that videogames already know how to do, but are probably not computationally convenient in the Roll20 architecture.

The vast majority of the seemingly infinite options are GM judgements - typically choices about whether a thing is possible, and if so, what skill applies and at what DC. Since the rules do not give us these, they are not part of the rules complexity we are trying to measure! Our game only has to handle resolving the check once the GM has declared it must be made.

Indeed, even doing this as a thought experiment reveals to us something useful - the difference between how much of the complexity we experience at the table is because of the game engine, and how much of it is our own making.

Then you have some gaping holes in your methodology. If the GM is inserted as part of the ruleset -- ie, the GM is required to instantiate and enforce a rule -- then you're entirely missing this. Take, for example, stealth in 5e. The way this works is "ask the GM". If you elide this because it's not a codable rule, then you've missed a rather important and common part of rules adjudication. There's an entire class that relies heavily on how stealth works.

Or, for instance, some of the FKR approaches -- no rules other than GM says, and if the GM is in doubt, opposed 2d6 rolls prompt the GM in a direction. This RPG, in your proposed evaluation, scores extremely low in complexity because we can absolutely model all outcomes of 2d6. When these rolls are called for, what principles are used for adjudication, etc., are just left on the cutting room floor.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Then you have some gaping holes in your methodology. If the GM is inserted as part of the ruleset -- ie, the GM is required to instantiate and enforce a rule -- then you're entirely missing this. Take, for example, stealth in 5e. The way this works is "ask the GM". If you elide this because it's not a codable rule, then you've missed a rather important and common part of rules adjudication. There's an entire class that relies heavily on how stealth works.

this also then leads to stealth being useless at some tables and overly super almost invisible at others... and I would argue that disparity is a mark against the quality of the game.

yet others will (and I have no doubt quote me and argue with me) it is a pro not a con.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It was more reliable, more versatile and better suited to the roads at a time where the only paved roads were in the city. People could drive on the narrow muddy road to a field where they could detach a rear wheel and run machinery. It would run on gasoline, kerosene or ethanol and could be fitted with tracks and skis to go in the snow. People used it on trails that were normally only passable on foot or by horse.

You comparing apples to oranges. But it was also cheaper, a more functional vehicle for the target market. Even ignoring the price, it was a quality vehicle.

It was absolutely NOT more reliable. In fact, this was noted a major departure. It was NOT more versatile -- there were contemporary automobiles much more versatile. The Model T was designed as one-size-fits-all. And it certainly wasn't better suited to the roads -- contemporary automobiles generally had more comfortable rides on all surfaces.

The Model T was simple, easy to work on, and had plenty of available parts. The engine was quite reliable. But that's not the comparison of quality -- quality is the measure of a thing against similar things. And, compared to the available automobiles of it's time, the Model T made some very specific choices to reduce quality in favor of simplicity, cost, and availability. It was these features of the Model T that made it popular -- it was the first automobile the average person might afford and use, and it worked well enough for that purpose. This is not a display of quality.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It was absolutely NOT more reliable. In fact, this was noted a major departure. It was NOT more versatile -- there were contemporary automobiles much more versatile. The Model T was designed as one-size-fits-all. And it certainly wasn't better suited to the roads -- contemporary automobiles generally had more comfortable rides on all surfaces.

The Model T was simple, easy to work on, and had plenty of available parts. The engine was quite reliable. But that's not the comparison of quality -- quality is the measure of a thing against similar things. And, compared to the available automobiles of it's time, the Model T made some very specific choices to reduce quality in favor of simplicity, cost, and availability. It was these features of the Model T that made it popular -- it was the first automobile the average person might afford and use, and it worked well enough for that purpose. This is not a display of quality.

at least he is consistent on thinking the best selling is the best quality

i wonder if he thinks that the modal t never needed to be changed?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

and what I mean is there is NOT A CONSESUSS on weather 60 is warm or cold in the same town let alone across the world.

As long as we ignore Americans I'm pretty sure there is rather uniform consensus that it is not only warm weather, but insanely so!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

As long as we ignore Americans I'm pretty sure there is rather uniform consensus that it is not only warm weather, but insanely so!

and again... showing "it's 60 out" can be in fact correct, but not useful...if you are using a different scale.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And what @Snarf Zagyg said is true. It objectively conveys the same information to everyone. The ability to understand and/or believe what the information being conveyed to you means is irrelevant. If I tell a 3 year old that 5x5=25, I have conveyed objective information to that toddler. That it doesn't really understand what that means and is infinitely more likely to start crying at the sight of my face than understand what I told it isn't relevant. The objective information was conveyed.

Perhaps you're hung up on the word "everyone" that Snarf used. If so, you know what he meant. He wasn't saying literally every single person in the world. He meant that it held the objective meaning that the world uses. We still have flat earthers out there. What they believe doesn't put the objectivity of the world being a sphere at issue. You don't need every last human to agree on something for it to be objective.

Forum

Be on the lookout here on Bodybuilding.com, or subscribe to our emails below to stay up to date on the newest brand developments.

forum.bodybuilding.com

There are four days in a week you can workout if you do it every other day.

FOUR DAYS.

....you knew it was coming.