D&D 5E What is Quality?

[GMforPowergamers]

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?"

 

[House_Of_Dexter]

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.

 

[Mort]

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?"

Defining your terms exactly how you want and then declaring victory based on that definition is a tried and true tactic!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Morrus]

This thread really is just 4 or 5 people arguing with each other about ... something? ... now.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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]

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.