Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8641941" data-attributes="member: 59082">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)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.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).</blockquote>

Verification