Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheAlkaizer" data-source="post: 8643344" data-attributes="member: 7024893">I've read bits of this thread.There seems to be confusion between people (or even yourself) enjoying something and that thing being of quality.There's products (novels, books, etc) that I deeply enjoy even though I know they're not high quality. And there's the opposite, products of great quality (which I recognize) that I just can't seem to relate to or enjoy. There's definitely part of the definition of quality that's objective. To take the example of the watch, one might value a watch that stays on time, and another one a watch that attracts attention because these two person wear it for different reasons. They might disagree on what is a quality watch, because one is talking about the quality of the timekeeping mechanism and the other person about how the watch feels and looks. But in both of these categories, it's possible to be somewhat objectives; some watches keep time better than others, some watches attract attention more than others.If brought back to RPG, the same thing applies even if the waters are a bit muddier. It echoes a bit that video of Matt Colville that was discussed a few weeks ago, but people often have different experiences, expectations or wants from RPG. I've seen many times people from the Pathfinder 2 subreddit say 5E was just a poorly designed RPG because it didn't offer enough options and freedom to the players to build their character. If that's your measure, it's hard to disagree that PF2 is a better product.But I agree with what some others have said, people often conflate enjoying an RPG, an it being of quality (or the opposite). And yes, people often claim that something is &quot;bad design&quot; even though they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about nor can they explain what's bad in the design. They just don't like the end result. The same happens in video games all the time, I'll see or hear people not enjoying a game just say &quot;it's bad game design&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheAlkaizer, post: 8643344, member: 7024893"] I've read bits of this thread. There seems to be confusion between people (or even yourself) enjoying something and that thing being of quality. There's products (novels, books, etc) that I deeply enjoy even though I know they're not high quality. And there's the opposite, products of great quality (which I recognize) that I just can't seem to relate to or enjoy. There's definitely part of the definition of quality that's objective. To take the example of the watch, one might value a watch that stays on time, and another one a watch that attracts attention because these two person wear it for different reasons. They might disagree on what is a quality watch, because one is talking about the quality of the timekeeping mechanism and the other person about how the watch feels and looks. But in both of these categories, it's possible to be somewhat objectives; some watches keep time better than others, some watches attract attention more than others. If brought back to RPG, the same thing applies even if the waters are a bit muddier. It echoes a bit that video of Matt Colville that was discussed a few weeks ago, but people often have different experiences, expectations or wants from RPG. I've seen many times people from the Pathfinder 2 subreddit say 5E was just a poorly designed RPG because it didn't offer enough options and freedom to the players to build their character. If that's your measure, it's hard to disagree that PF2 is a better product. But I agree with what some others have said, people often conflate enjoying an RPG, an it being of quality (or the opposite). And yes, people often claim that something is "bad design" even though they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about nor can they explain what's bad in the design. They just don't like the end result. The same happens in video games all the time, I'll see or hear people not enjoying a game just say "it's bad game design". [/QUOTE]

Verification