D&D 5E What is Quality?

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

...all economic downturns are labelled in hindsight. No one knew that the Great Depression was happening the day it got started. It would have taken months or years for people to start talking about it that way. That's how economics works. It's always retrospective in analysis, because talking about this specific present moment is incredibly difficult, and talking about the future borders on crystal-ball-gazing.

Regardless of whether the thing began in 2007 (as the consensus of historians and economists agrees it did) or 2008, we can certainly agree that a clear and dramatic sign of Economic Problems had shown up before your cited date of September 2008: the collapse of Bear Stearns, one of the largest investment banks of the time. That occurred in March, and is where we get the phrase "too big to fail." The economy WAS in bad shape well before the June 2008 launch.

Edit for clarifying relevance: This means that we can, objectively, say that 4e launched during a really bad economic context, one that was unforeseeable by WotC even eight months before release. This is clearly an external factor which could (heavily!) influence a product's sales and popularity, even if it were universally agreed to be a good product. Obviously 4e was not universally agreed to be a good product (it would be insane to argue otherwise), but the point stands that there are and were major issues that happened unrelated to 4e's intrinsic characteristics that influenced its resulting success.

By comparison, 5e launched after the economy had definitively recovered (no timeline I have seen says the Great Recession lasted beyond 2013), employed much reduced staff the whole time so staffing was largely a non-issue until after publication (the whole "jury duty for one person delayed the conversion document by a year" thing), didn't try to make digital tools at all, and did not have to fight against 3rd edition partisans but rather had a lot of them actively championing it because they had finally grown weary of 3.5e after more than a decade of dealing with its issues and wanting (what they would call, though I would not call) a "moderate" fix. Combined with very intentional nostalgia bait marketing, a successful albeit not entirely accurate claim to "big tent edition" status, and a very popular (if, IMO, badly mismanaged) public playtest, on top of insanely expansive free advertising after release via Critical Role, Adventure Zone, and other D&D podcasts, 5e had nearly the best possible climate one could ask for to succeed. On top of this, it had radically lowered expectations because it wasn't trying to be a Hasbro core brand anymore, but a vehicle for coordinating with other brands (hence the MTG crossovers) and fostering other monetization (e.g. the upcoming film). Finally, by keeping staff low, outsourcing a significant portion of their work, and overall just publishing fewer books but specifically trying to make it so every book has some little piece in it that most customers will want even if they wouldn't normally buy the book for the rest of its contents, they have kept expenses very, very low while raising the per-book sales numbers.

These totally external factors have contributed to 5e being very successful in terms of sales. Again, this DOES NOT mean that 5e is awful and ONLY succeeding because of these external situational factors. But they are pretty clearly playing a significant part, and that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to conclude that 5e is a quality product solely on the basis of sales or popularity.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The thread premise was how do we measure quality, and my answer is (roughly) 'with much complexity, and the final measurement output (coming from significant discussion and disagreement) still ending up looking like an argument or position synopsis rather than a simple number.

yeah... I think that is wear most of us are.

 

[Oofta]

Of course it doesn't. Glad I didn't make that argument. If I had, it would have definitely deserve the thrashing you gave that strawman, though.

The handful of cars that were cheaper at the time were not very good, virtually all other makes were more expensive. As far as durability and being suited to the roads the main competitor there was probably the Willys (same company that made the original Jeep), which was ... wait for it ... more expensive. Of course by today's standards, any vehicle made during that period would be poor quality, although some probably qualify as works of art as much as function.

But I digress. I just wanted to point out that quality is not a zero sum game. You can have multiple things that are all reasonably high quality, it's not a competition. That, and something that is a quality product can likely be improved, because just about everything has room for improvement.

 

[FrogReaver]

The handful of cars that were cheaper at the time were not very good, virtually all other makes were more expensive. As far as durability and being suited to the roads the main competitor there was probably the Willys (same company that made the original Jeep), which was ... wait for it ... more expensive. Of course by today's standards, any vehicle made during that period would be poor quality, although some probably qualify as works of art as much as function.

But I digress. I just wanted to point out that quality is not a zero sum game. You can have multiple things that are all reasonably high quality, it's not a competition. That, and something that is a quality product can likely be improved, because just about everything has room for improvement.

Sounds reasonable. Is there any product you would say is poor quality despite popularity/good sales?

 

[Ovinomancer]

The handful of cars that were cheaper at the time were not very good, virtually all other makes were more expensive. As far as durability and being suited to the roads the main competitor there was probably the Willys (same company that made the original Jeep), which was ... wait for it ... more expensive. Of course by today's standards, any vehicle made during that period would be poor quality, although some probably qualify as works of art as much as function.

Expanding on your strawman does make it kess full of straw. Nor does you trying to goal post my comments about quality to some argument about cost. Irrelevant.

But I digress. I just wanted to point out that quality is not a zero sum game. You can have multiple things that are all reasonably high quality, it's not a competition. That, and something that is a quality product can likely be improved, because just about everything has room for improvement.

Ok. I mean I've made two previous posts, with explanations, on this exact thing, on how 5e is a quality game in a large group of quality games, so it seems very strange to make this point in response to me. Unless you're stuffing another argument with straw?

 

[Oofta]

Expanding on your strawman does make it kess full of straw. Nor does you trying to goal post my comments about quality to some argument about cost. Irrelevant.

Ok. I mean I've made two previous posts, with explanations, on this exact thing, on how 5e is a quality game in a large group of quality games, so it seems very strange to make this point in response to me. Unless you're stuffing another argument with straw?

Many people have been comparing McDonalds to 5 star restaurants. It's comparing apples to gold plated oranges which I don't think really makes a lot of sense. For their target audience the Model T was a quality car in comparison to other vehicles of the time whether or not you accept it. The comparisons to other cars of the time is a quick google search away.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Many people have been comparing McDonalds to 5 star restaurants. It's comparing apples to gold plated oranges which I don't think really makes a lot of sense. For their target audience the Model T was a quality car in comparison to other vehicles of the time whether or not you accept it. The comparisons to other cars of the time is a quick google search away.

That's not how quality works. You don't get to say that McDonalds is high quality food by only limiting comparisons for food to Carl's Jr. You are engaged in special pleading, trying to limit the scope of comparison solely based on how supportive it is of your desired conclusion.

And I fully encourage people to do that research, but actually look at the gamut of cars -- because all cars is the comparison set for quality. Cost is not a factor for quality. Trying to limit the comparison on cost is using a metric that isn't relevant to quality.

 

[Oofta]

Sounds reasonable. Is there any product you would say is poor quality despite popularity/good sales?

I was going to say the Kardasians (Kardashians?) but then I realized they actually do have an aspect that is high quality - the ability to make themselves famous for no reason whatsoever. That doesn't just happen. In addition, entertainment is almost completely subjective. I don't get it, but for their niche they are valid use of their entertainment time.

There are many brands that have let quality lag or tried to switch to a product that was not a high quality. It eventually catches up to them but they can get away with it for a while. In some cases there's so little competition that popularity is more necessity. It was only in the last couple of months that I had a real competitor to our cable company (I'm not using Verizon wireless for my home).

But things that I don't personally find high quality even though they are popular? Sure. I think 80% of people driving pickup trucks don't really need them. So for me they aren't high quality because I'm not the target audience. It's the same way with entertainment, if I'm spending my time on something when I have dozens of other options then it's high quality for me.

There used to be a restaurant that I loved (just a local place) that changed ownership. They got bought out because the owners retired, the new owners kept the menu more or less intact but the quality of the food really dropped. I stopped going after I realized how bad it was (at first I was hopeful that it was just a learning curve) and then a year or so later it shut down, presumably because of lack of customers. That's about as close as I can come.

 

[Oofta]

That's not how quality works. You don't get to say that McDonalds is high quality food by only limiting comparisons for food to Carl's Jr. You are engaged in special pleading, trying to limit the scope of comparison solely based on how supportive it is of your desired conclusion.

And I fully encourage people to do that research, but actually look at the gamut of cars -- because all cars is the comparison set for quality. Cost is not a factor for quality. Trying to limit the comparison on cost is using a metric that isn't relevant to quality.

Then we have different definitions. Can you actually define what quality is to you? I took a stab, do you have a different idea?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

In addition, entertainment is almost completely subjective. I don't get it, but for their niche they are valid use of their entertainment time.

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.