Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What is Quality?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8647647" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Building off of this, we can name various intrinsic characteristics that are valuable in the generic, even if people might disagree about which deserves too billing. Virtues, one might call them.</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Functionality: does it do the thing for which it was designed?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Efficacy: does it function with minimal maintenance/issues?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Materials: does it have high production values, and/or use quality materials for its physical components?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Aesthetics: does its physical appearance hold up both in comparison to other products and when examined in isolation, but over time?*</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Price: is it well-priced for its nature and purpose? Does it cut corners to achieve this, or perhaps verge into conspicuous consumption?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Ease: is it quick or simple or other related characteristics? Does it involve a lot of overhead or learning just to get started?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Diversity vs Focus: how well does it target its purposes? Is it trying to be too many things at once, or hyperfocused on only one thing to its detriment, or balanced between them?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Suitability: is the purpose for which it was designed appropriate and reasonable?</li> </ul><p>If we wanted to go full bore Aristotelian on this, we could define all these virtues as choosing the (context-dependent) midpoint between vices of deficiency and vices of excess. E.g. beauty (virtuous aesthetics) is the midpoint between being ugly and showy; ugliness in TTRPGs (and games more generally) often manifests and criticisms of being a "spreadsheet" or "doing your taxes," while showiness is often called out for being "hollow" or "vapid." Good aesthetics are needed, but pursuing them to such an extent that they overshadow the rest of the product is a problem. (TTRPGs rarely hit the extreme end here because art is expensive and budgets are small; video games are much more likely to have issues with excess on this regard.)</p><p></p><p>Under these lights, people compare McDonald's to a variety of other restaurants specifically because doing so highlights some of these virtues. McDonald's makes great sacrifices in suitability (their food is extremely poor nutritionally), diversity (they specifically intend to offer near-uniform menus, at least in any given country, and strive for as close to uniformity worldwide as they can get), and materials (using the cheapest stuff they can justify), and some sacrifices in aesthetics albeit lesser ones (few people will intentionally eat food that looks outright "ugly.") In exchange, they offer extreme benefits in the other virtues: very low prices, incredible ease (most Americans live within two miles of a McDonald's restaurant), high efficacy (as stated, they strive for uniformity; their chicken nuggets should taste the same anywhere they are purchased), and maximal functionality (as said by others much earlier in the thread, their food is precision optimized for triggering human hindbrain positive responses, not for suitable nutrition). Other restaurants, even other openly fast-food restaurants, do not make such extreme emphasis on cheap food with incredibly basic flavor; as an example, a regional fast food chain, Burgerville, prides itself on offering much better quality food at only slightly higher prices, usually with seasonal variations. (I quite like their asparagus fries, for example.) Surely that must qualify as an apples-to-apples comparison, but that would absolutely say that McDonald's is (intentionally!) lower quality <em>in order to</em> sell more and be more popular!</p><p></p><p>*I'm thinking stuff like how "realistic" computer graphics often get outdated quickly, while stylized ones are often timeless, or how a metallic product with poor aesthetics can become rusty with age, giving the appearance of being badly made even if the actual material is still sound.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8647647, member: 6790260"] Building off of this, we can name various intrinsic characteristics that are valuable in the generic, even if people might disagree about which deserves too billing. Virtues, one might call them. [LIST] [*]Functionality: does it do the thing for which it was designed? [*]Efficacy: does it function with minimal maintenance/issues? [*]Materials: does it have high production values, and/or use quality materials for its physical components? [*]Aesthetics: does its physical appearance hold up both in comparison to other products and when examined in isolation, but over time?* [*]Price: is it well-priced for its nature and purpose? Does it cut corners to achieve this, or perhaps verge into conspicuous consumption? [*]Ease: is it quick or simple or other related characteristics? Does it involve a lot of overhead or learning just to get started? [*]Diversity vs Focus: how well does it target its purposes? Is it trying to be too many things at once, or hyperfocused on only one thing to its detriment, or balanced between them? [*]Suitability: is the purpose for which it was designed appropriate and reasonable? [/LIST] If we wanted to go full bore Aristotelian on this, we could define all these virtues as choosing the (context-dependent) midpoint between vices of deficiency and vices of excess. E.g. beauty (virtuous aesthetics) is the midpoint between being ugly and showy; ugliness in TTRPGs (and games more generally) often manifests and criticisms of being a "spreadsheet" or "doing your taxes," while showiness is often called out for being "hollow" or "vapid." Good aesthetics are needed, but pursuing them to such an extent that they overshadow the rest of the product is a problem. (TTRPGs rarely hit the extreme end here because art is expensive and budgets are small; video games are much more likely to have issues with excess on this regard.) Under these lights, people compare McDonald's to a variety of other restaurants specifically because doing so highlights some of these virtues. McDonald's makes great sacrifices in suitability (their food is extremely poor nutritionally), diversity (they specifically intend to offer near-uniform menus, at least in any given country, and strive for as close to uniformity worldwide as they can get), and materials (using the cheapest stuff they can justify), and some sacrifices in aesthetics albeit lesser ones (few people will intentionally eat food that looks outright "ugly.") In exchange, they offer extreme benefits in the other virtues: very low prices, incredible ease (most Americans live within two miles of a McDonald's restaurant), high efficacy (as stated, they strive for uniformity; their chicken nuggets should taste the same anywhere they are purchased), and maximal functionality (as said by others much earlier in the thread, their food is precision optimized for triggering human hindbrain positive responses, not for suitable nutrition). Other restaurants, even other openly fast-food restaurants, do not make such extreme emphasis on cheap food with incredibly basic flavor; as an example, a regional fast food chain, Burgerville, prides itself on offering much better quality food at only slightly higher prices, usually with seasonal variations. (I quite like their asparagus fries, for example.) Surely that must qualify as an apples-to-apples comparison, but that would absolutely say that McDonald's is (intentionally!) lower quality [I]in order to[/I] sell more and be more popular! *I'm thinking stuff like how "realistic" computer graphics often get outdated quickly, while stylized ones are often timeless, or how a metallic product with poor aesthetics can become rusty with age, giving the appearance of being badly made even if the actual material is still sound. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What is Quality?
Top