D&D 5E What is Quality?

[Smackpixi]

WoTC products are “high quality” in the same way that a band’s 10th album is “high quality”. They’re putting out exactly what they want, it’s tested, it’s refined, it’s professional. And some people find it boring as naughty word Because of all the above. It’s never going to be brilliant in the way that a band’s first album can be. I mean, just for common, Listen to the Kingsman Louie Louie, it’s amatuers having fun and making a crazy classic they made for like 5 dollars. Taylor Swift’s next album will cost a couple million to make and involve dozens of people. 100% sure no songs on it will have the crazy energy of the Kingsman.

 

[soviet]

I think the OP conflates a few different things. The 'quality' of any RPG as a product includes not just game design but also art, layout, writing, editing, etc. I don't accept that quality necessarily can be measured by popularity, but if we did accept that, it is difficult to say which facets of that quality are being reflected, and in what proportion. I would suggest that when people on a forum like this talk about quality they are referring in large part to the game design itself and not so much the other factors. Thus, popularity = quality would not be a valid heuristic here even if it might be in other contexts.

 

[Mercurius]

If someone says "it's a low quality offering" I will disagree and I think looking at sales history is appropriate because it shows that the game works for a lot of people.

While I would agree with you that 5E is not a "low quality offering" I think you're doubling down on something from your original post: equating the word "quality" with "works for a lot of people."

And there-in lies the problem: you're throwing a bunch of things into the word quality, which probably should be separated out. Popularity, subjective preference, utility, etc. Quality is something different.

Umbran mentioned McDonalds up-thread. As he implied, McDonalds "works for a lot of people,' but you don't have to be a chef to know that it is low quality food (5E is not McDonalds, thankfully - but hopefully you get the point).

Justin Bieber "works for a lot of people," but if you take the world's one hundred most highly trained/skilled musicians, I'm guessing literally none of them cite him as an influence (although all of them know who he is, and some may even like his music).

Which brings up another point: liking something is separate from its quality. They can be related - especially for aficionados and experts, but they don't have to be. For what you're talking about, it may simply be best to remove the word quality altogether - that's kind of what I'm getting at. There are other factors that are being talked about about, that are a bit more specific and easy to define: how popular a game is, how much you or I like it, its production value, etc.

I like Snickers bars, but I don't see them as a high quality confection: they're mass produced, use cheap and non-organic ingredients, and rely on sugar and salt for their flavor. But I like them.

What I think you mean is successful. Is 5E a success? Even that requires some specificity. Economically, absolutely - there's no denying that. In terms of providing fun for millions of people, and generally being well liked? Again, impossible to refute. We could muddy the waters a bit if we focus on "success as creative innovation within the context of RPG design," because I'm not sure that it brings anything new to the table in terms of game design. But that doesn't take away its successfulness in terms of its primary objectives: selling books and being enjoyed by a ton of people.

(Someone equated 5E with a band's 10th album; I see it more as a Greatest Hits album: it has a bit of the best of previous editions, but is less distinct than any specific album. So in a way it is the "best" album, but in another way it is the least interesting and distinct - but that's just my perspective)

People are allowed their opinions, life would be boring if everyone disagreed. What I object to is the broad statements of "X is fundamentally flawed" said as a statement of fact instead of personal opinion.

I agree with you, but really that's just how people talk: language is set up so we all absolutize our own experience, or at least it seems we are doing so. It doesn't mean the person doesn't realize that it is a subjective opinion, just that they're choosing not to include disclaimers to be emphatic or because it is awkward ("Queen sucks" vs "imho, Queen is hugely overrated in terms of comparing my own subjective enjoyment relative to the collective viewpoint of certain sub-sections of the population"). Now some people do mistake their own subjective opinion for absolute truth, but most people here are smart enough that, for instance, they know that the suckitude of a band is based on their own subjective preference, not some sort of cosmic law.

Quality is in the eye of the beholder and what they value. I don't care for modern art, I prefer the old masters. But I wouldn't say [insert modern artist here] is poor quality, I just don't care for it.

Again, I would set the word quality aside - that is really another conversation. I think you are talking about preference and success (and, perhaps, utility). Preference is 100% in the eye of the beholder and has been expressed through the adage, "There's no accounting for taste"; but quality isn't the same thing as preference (or success).

 

[GMMichael]

And ... this is where we get into the argument about what is quality. . . So if the only way to judge quality is whether or not a person likes the rules, for you it is not a quality game. For me it is a quality game. . .

But...I didn't say anything about liking the rules. They're actually not half-bad. There's just nothing that justifies buying a new set of rulebooks when I already have 3e.

. . .But for the latter, I beg to differ. Bounded accuracy was a genius move IMHO and it may be exactly why 5ed was so well received. No more Xcell spreadsheet needed to calculate your bonuses and maluses to hit, save and damage depending on which spells work or do not work.

Concentration did also a lot of thing to contribute, but the mechanic could be better implemented. But it was a move in the right direction.

Bounded accuracy was fantastic . . . at raising my hopes that the game would have a lighter-weight feel to it. What clunkiness they were able to remove, however, just got replaced with new clunkiness (like concentration and attunement). So the quality of improvement over previous editions was not terribly high.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If someone says "it's a low quality offering" I will disagree and I think looking at sales history is appropriate because it shows that the game works for a lot of people. People are allowed their opinions, life would be boring if everyone disagreed. What I object to is the broad statements of "X is fundamentally flawed" said as a statement of fact instead of personal opinion.

You think it's "appropriate", but it's just not. It's an irrelevant issue you're bringing in to try and shut people up instead of having a discussion. Half the posters in this thread has pointed this out to you at this point, and I don't think a single one has agreed with you. Are you not seeing that?

If you disagree on quality, why not maybe argue quality rather than trying to get people to shut up by making an appeal to the mystic power of popularity? It's actually very easy to argue that 5E is high quality and doesn't require you to just say "But it's popular!".

As for "X is fundamentally flawed", it's impossible to judge the value of that argument in the abstract. I've seen times where that was very much a subjective opinion, and others where it was an extremely well-demonstrated and supported objective fact, replete with math. Unfortunately people are against both. So if someone says that, attack their actual argument, don't just bring in irrelevant sales figures. A game can be incredibly popular but have some fundamental flaws - this is extremely obvious and non-arguable in the videogame sector particularly - fundamental flaws that take a while to really impact you. I'd say 5E has very few - the one I immediately think of is in an optional rule (Sanity, which is inverted in how it works, so yeah that's fundamentally flawed and it's not really just my opinion man.

Quality is in the eye of the beholder and what they value. I don't care for modern art, I prefer the old masters. But I wouldn't say [insert modern artist here] is poor quality, I just don't care for it.

That's nice for you, but that doesn't mean other people can't say it. Personally, as a student of the old masters, I'd say their quality (imho) varied quite considerably, as did their actual level of apparent artistic talent. I'd even say some well-respected old masters weren't actually very good artists, and I'm not just talking about the clinical inability to draw horses.

 

[Reynard]

What I think you mean is successful. Is 5E a success? Even that requires some specificity. Economically, absolutely - there's no denying that. In terms of providing fun for millions of people, and generally being well liked? Again, impossible to refute. We could muddy the waters a bit if we focus on "success as creative innovation within the context of RPG design," because I'm not sure that it brings anything new to the table in terms of game design. But that doesn't take away its successfulness in terms of its primary objectives: selling books and being enjoyed by a ton of people.

I don't think you can broadly define something as "successful" or not. You must define a specific measure for success, and then determine whether it was successful at that specific thing. Which, ultimately, is a lot more valuable in the discussion of a thing than trying to determine whether it is a "quality product" or not. Does it succeed at providing entertainment? Does it succeed at making the company money? Does it succeed at bringing people into the hobby?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I feel like the OP is evaluating D&D as a product and not as a game. Like, it sells well, so it’s a great product.

Which, okay yeah, it sells well. Evaluating it this way sheds little light on how it performs as a game.

As a game, and considering the significant resources of WotC, it’s hard to consider it high quality, in my opinion. It’s passable, I’d say. But it’s very flawed in its design.

The problem seems to be that critique of 5e as a game is countered with facts about it as a product.

Like, inspiration sucks. It’s bland and tacked on and most fans of the game ignore it. I don’t care how many units moved last month… inspiration is terrible.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not worried about it. But when people state "Popularity is not quality" what do they think defines quality for a mass market product?

Selling a lot of something does not equate to quality. Little Caesars sells a lot of cardboard that they call pizza. It's not quality.

 

[Zardnaar]

I would say it's a quality product. Not perfect though.

 

[Mercurius]

I don't think you can broadly define something as "successful" or not. You must define a specific measure for success, and then determine whether it was successful at that specific thing. Which, ultimately, is a lot more valuable in the discussion of a thing than trying to determine whether it is a "quality product" or not. Does it succeed at providing entertainment? Does it succeed at making the company money? Does it succeed at bringing people into the hobby?

Yes, that's exactly what I said - thus speaking of its economic success, broad appeal, etc.