D&D 5E When Did 5E Peak Quality Wise?

[mamba]

THAT'S what a discussion about quality looks like. All this "oh, well, I just don't like the books now" crap is just people trying to pretend that their personal preferences are somehow important to anyone other than themselves.

if enough people have similar opinions that too is important, not that we have anywhere near enough people here for that

As to the rest, a book with a nice font and no typos but a story I do not like is not as good as a book with a decent font, a few typos and a story I love.
Restricting this to technical aspects only is inherently flawed, because then pretty much all TTRPG print products are of pretty similar quality

The same goes for movies, if I measure technical aspects only, then Die Hard and Battlefield Earth are pretty on par. And so forth with most things

I am much more interested in opinion about the content than the packaging. I agree that the latter has been pretty much constant and on the lower end of quality (glue binding, no markers)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sorry, but, no it shouldn't be. You asked about QUALITY. That means you can set a criteria, clearly and concisely, and then discuss whether something has met that criteria.

An example.

I use Fantasy Grounds. So, my needs and whatnot in a supplement are a bit different from a tabletop gamer. For example, the black and white Dyson Logos maps in many of the later WotC adventures aren't really useful to me since they're really not made for a VTT. For a tabletop gamer though, they're fantastic - easy to draw and reproduce for a table. So, are they good quality or not? Well, it depends on what your specific needs are. But, I can pretty clearly outline what I need and whether or not these needs are being achieved.

Or, take another example. I like monster books and WotC doesn't really publish many of them. So, I buy quite a few 3pp monster books for VTT. Now, again, that's the important point. This is for a VTT, not face to face. Kobold monster books in Fantasy Grounds are really top notch. The parsing is clear and accurate - they work in the VTT very, very well with few exceptions. OTOH, Necromancer Games' Fifth Edition Foes is a piece of garbage. The monsters frequently have parsing errors in them, meaning that they don't function in the VTT. Additionally, the images they used for the monsters are ENORMOUS. Huge PNG files. Which is fine when you show a picture of the monster to the players, but they use the same ginormous images for monster tokens.

Drop half a dozen tokens on the board and suddenly my poor old computer and not so fantastic Internet connection grinds to a halt as my game table crashes. Often. To the point where I offloaded the book and will never use it again.

Now, that's a point about quality. This is a product - a Fantasy Grounds Module - that doesn't work. It would work fine if I had a really good internet connection and a new computer, maybe. But, with my machine? Hot garbage. It crashes my game table.

THAT'S what a discussion about quality looks like. All this "oh, well, I just don't like the books now" crap is just people trying to pretend that their personal preferences are somehow important to anyone other than themselves. It's unbelievably selfish and arrogant to pretend that "I like this or I don't like that" means anything other than just what you or I happen to like.

But, I know that this nice little rant will fall on deaf ears. People have invested far too much of their ego into the idea that WotC is crap and that if WotC would only just listen to them, the game would be so much better. Thirty years of this same song and dance. WotC is killing the game because of the STL. WotC is killing the game because of the OGL. WotC is killing the game because it isn't supporting the OGL. WotC is killing the game because they publish too many/not enough books/books of the right type/on and on and on and on.

So, no, it's not an "Inherently subjective question." Not even remotely.

Do you have an example that doesn't involve computer programs? Technical compatibilities and limitations are inherently objective, but they are not necessarily representative of what is being discussed.

 

[nevin]

first few months. Nothing since has been high quality high usable information.

 

[nevin]

One I do like 5e even though it's a very light version of DND. But they are trying to make the perfect game that appeals to 12 year olds to 50 year olds and I'm not sure it's a good idea. I never liked it when we had different versions of DND but as they try to homeganize everything and make the old timer's happy I'm beginning to see the potential benefit of beginners rules and advanced rules etc.

 

[Retreater]

Let's see. I'll try to mark my history with 5e.

2012-2014 D&D Next Playtest Era
I was really excited about it. Marked a return to form and simplification of what we'd seen from the brand. Was fun trying out old adventures (converted Saltmarsh to Next, and it was great).
Rated: 7.5/10

2014-2015 Finding Its Footing
The PHB and MM were great offerings (the DMG not so much). The Phandelver Starter Set made a great introduction to the game - and I bought so many copies as gifts for family and friends. I was very excited about the game, but the "farmed out" published adventures left a little to be desired (Hoard of the Dragon Queen, Princes of the Apocalypse, etc.)
Rated: 7/10

2016-2017 Highmark of 5e Design
This era saw Curse of Strahd and Tomb of Annihilation, probably the two highest regarded adventures for this edition. Storm King's Thunder (while not a favorite of mine) is also well regarded. Volo's Guide to Monsters was also released. Xanathar's Guide to Everything gave new options for characters, suggestions for a magic item economy, and different encounter building rules.
Rated: 8.5/10 peak D&D 5e

2018-2019 Slippery Slope
Some misfire adventures (Dragon Heist, Descent into Avernus), comedy settings (Rick & Morty, Acquisitions Inc), Magic the Gathering settings - all contributed to a loss of direction for the game and a loss of interest to me.
Rated: 5.5/10

2020-2022 The End is Nigh
Re-Publishing stuff from the "good old days" of early 5e. Farming out adventures to independent designers (Radiant Citadel, Strixhaven) and 3PPs (Wildemount, Netherdeep). Tasha's tries to shake up the resuscitate the tiring system, but is a very mixed bag. The one highlight adventure of this era is called by some "a mess" - Rime of the Frost Maiden. Classic settings brought into the modern era (Spelljammer, Dragonlance) completely miss the mark.
Rated: 3/10

 

[Zardnaar]

Sorry, but, no it shouldn't be. You asked about QUALITY. That means you can set a criteria, clearly and concisely, and then discuss whether something has met that criteria.

An example.

I use Fantasy Grounds. So, my needs and whatnot in a supplement are a bit different from a tabletop gamer. For example, the black and white Dyson Logos maps in many of the later WotC adventures aren't really useful to me since they're really not made for a VTT. For a tabletop gamer though, they're fantastic - easy to draw and reproduce for a table. So, are they good quality or not? Well, it depends on what your specific needs are. But, I can pretty clearly outline what I need and whether or not these needs are being achieved.

Or, take another example. I like monster books and WotC doesn't really publish many of them. So, I buy quite a few 3pp monster books for VTT. Now, again, that's the important point. This is for a VTT, not face to face. Kobold monster books in Fantasy Grounds are really top notch. The parsing is clear and accurate - they work in the VTT very, very well with few exceptions. OTOH, Necromancer Games' Fifth Edition Foes is a piece of garbage. The monsters frequently have parsing errors in them, meaning that they don't function in the VTT. Additionally, the images they used for the monsters are ENORMOUS. Huge PNG files. Which is fine when you show a picture of the monster to the players, but they use the same ginormous images for monster tokens.

Drop half a dozen tokens on the board and suddenly my poor old computer and not so fantastic Internet connection grinds to a halt as my game table crashes. Often. To the point where I offloaded the book and will never use it again.

Now, that's a point about quality. This is a product - a Fantasy Grounds Module - that doesn't work. It would work fine if I had a really good internet connection and a new computer, maybe. But, with my machine? Hot garbage. It crashes my game table.

THAT'S what a discussion about quality looks like. All this "oh, well, I just don't like the books now" crap is just people trying to pretend that their personal preferences are somehow important to anyone other than themselves. It's unbelievably selfish and arrogant to pretend that "I like this or I don't like that" means anything other than just what you or I happen to like.

But, I know that this nice little rant will fall on deaf ears. People have invested far too much of their ego into the idea that WotC is crap and that if WotC would only just listen to them, the game would be so much better. Thirty years of this same song and dance. WotC is killing the game because of the STL. WotC is killing the game because of the OGL. WotC is killing the game because it isn't supporting the OGL. WotC is killing the game because they publish too many/not enough books/books of the right type/on and on and on and on.

So, no, it's not an "Inherently subjective question." Not even remotely.

The criteria is purely a personal one. I have 30-40 5E books iirc last purchase was Mordenkainen's or Ravenloft. Pretty much everything bought post Tashas was inertia vs enthusiasm though. And they were kinda free

 

[Zardnaar]

Let's see. I'll try to mark my history with 5e.

2012-2014 D&D Next Playtest Era
I was really excited about it. Marked a return to form and simplification of what we'd seen from the brand. Was fun trying out old adventures (converted Saltmarsh to Next, and it was great).
Rated: 7.5/10

2014-2015 Finding Its Footing
The PHB and MM were great offerings (the DMG not so much). The Phandelver Starter Set made a great introduction to the game - and I bought so many copies as gifts for family and friends. I was very excited about the game, but the "farmed out" published adventures left a little to be desired (Hoard of the Dragon Queen, Princes of the Apocalypse, etc.)
Rated: 7/10

2016-2017 Highmark of 5e Design
This era saw Curse of Strahd and Tomb of Annihilation, probably the two highest regarded adventures for this edition. Storm King's Thunder (while not a favorite of mine) is also well regarded. Volo's Guide to Monsters was also released. Xanathar's Guide to Everything gave new options for characters, suggestions for a magic item economy, and different encounter building rules.
Rated: 8.5/10 peak D&D 5e

2018-2019 Slippery Slope
Some misfire adventures (Dragon Heist, Descent into Avernus), comedy settings (Rick & Morty, Acquisitions Inc), Magic the Gathering settings - all contributed to a loss of direction for the game and a loss of interest to me.
Rated: 5.5/10

2020-2022 The End is Nigh
Re-Publishing stuff from the "good old days" of early 5e. Farming out adventures to independent designers (Radiant Citadel, Strixhaven) and 3PPs (Wildemount, Netherdeep). Tasha's tries to shake up the resuscitate the tiring system, but is a very mixed bag. The one highlight adventure of this era is called by some "a mess" - Rime of the Frost Maiden. Classic settings brought into the modern era (Spelljammer, Dragonlance) completely miss the mark.
Rated: 3/10

I was a bit sketchy of the MtG settings but after buying them Theros and Ravnica changed my mind. Eberron also xane a bit later.
Agree with Xanathars, Strahd and ToA.

 

[ECMO3]

Let's see. I'll try to mark my history with 5e.

2012-2014 D&D Next Playtest Era
I was really excited about it. Marked a return to form and simplification of what we'd seen from the brand. Was fun trying out old adventures (converted Saltmarsh to Next, and it was great).
Rated: 7.5/10

2014-2015 Finding Its Footing
The PHB and MM were great offerings (the DMG not so much). The Phandelver Starter Set made a great introduction to the game - and I bought so many copies as gifts for family and friends. I was very excited about the game, but the "farmed out" published adventures left a little to be desired (Hoard of the Dragon Queen, Princes of the Apocalypse, etc.)
Rated: 7/10

2016-2017 Highmark of 5e Design
This era saw Curse of Strahd and Tomb of Annihilation, probably the two highest regarded adventures for this edition. Storm King's Thunder (while not a favorite of mine) is also well regarded. Volo's Guide to Monsters was also released. Xanathar's Guide to Everything gave new options for characters, suggestions for a magic item economy, and different encounter building rules.
Rated: 8.5/10 peak D&D 5e

2018-2019 Slippery Slope
Some misfire adventures (Dragon Heist, Descent into Avernus), comedy settings (Rick & Morty, Acquisitions Inc), Magic the Gathering settings - all contributed to a loss of direction for the game and a loss of interest to me.
Rated: 5.5/10

2020-2022 The End is Nigh
Re-Publishing stuff from the "good old days" of early 5e. Farming out adventures to independent designers (Radiant Citadel, Strixhaven) and 3PPs (Wildemount, Netherdeep). Tasha's tries to shake up the resuscitate the tiring system, but is a very mixed bag. The one highlight adventure of this era is called by some "a mess" - Rime of the Frost Maiden. Classic settings brought into the modern era (Spelljammer, Dragonlance) completely miss the mark.
Rated: 3/10

Great way to present. I am going to put my spin/experience on it:

2014-2015: Not paying much attention. After playing 3E, then looking at 4E I pulled the old books out of the attic and my group went all the way back to 1e AD&D. I was reading about Next but I was convinced anything WOTC made would suck as the suckiness was a gradual increase with every edition from 1e-4e. So I was playing 1E in the mid 2010s with teens and having a great time.

2016: Got a copy of Legends of the Sword Coast video game. Based on the new 5E rules supposedly. This game 100% convinced me that the 5E rules sucked. Note if you haven't played this game - this is NOT based on 5e rules.

2017: 1E TPK of high level characters playing Paladin in hell (revamped for 1E) has us starting over. One of my players played a 5E pick up game with friends at school. He came back and told me we should try 5E. Went out and bought the starter set. Started a campaing and was amazed.

All the players loved the new stuff. Convinced they really did take the best from every edition! Played LMOP then continued with homebrew until 15th level. Picked up PHB, DMG and SCAG in that time. Halfling Assassin Rogue 7/Vengence Paladin 8 does the most damage on a single attack I have ever seen in D&D. Tryed the unearthed arcana ranger - meh!

2018-2019: played through some of the hardcovers (POTA, DOMM, TOD). Still having a great time.

2020: Purchased TCE and XGE together late in 2020. New spells and subclasses - Fey Wanderer, revised bladesinger are really awesome. Love moving ability bonuses.

2021: This is the golden era for me. Joined several lnline groups in addition to my P+P game. Played OOTA, DIA, ROFM, started SKT three times with three different groups and it fell through.

2022: We hear WOTC is pulling a book off the shelves, so naturally we have to go buy VGTM. Wow we can play an Orc with a penalty to intelligence .... then WOTC says don't do that. Strixhaven comes out, Radiant Citadel, WBW, Spelljammer. I like some of the new spells but otherwise none of this is appealing. Starting to feel bloated, too many options and rules. I like some of the new spells in Strixhaven, but other than that this is a waste.

2023: Moving on to 3rd party adventures instead of WOTC adventures. Still having fun but it definitely feels like end of an era. Looking at the ONE content it seems they are moving to more of a 3E format. I will probably stay on 5E.

 

[Hussar]

if enough people have similar opinions that too is important, not that we have anywhere near enough people here for that

As to the rest, a book with a nice font and no typos but a story I do not like is not as good as a book with a decent font, a few typos and a story I love.

Snip)

But that’s the point. That book you don’t like is just as good as the one you do like. War and Peace isn’t a poor quality story, despite the fact that virtually no one actually reads it.

“I like it” is perfectly fine. There’s nothing wrong with it. It’s the next step “ I like it therefore it’s high quality” that is wrong.

 

[mamba]

But that’s the point. That book you don’t like is just as good as the one you do like.

not to me, a book I enjoy reading is better than one that bores me

If your metric arrives at them both being equal, then it is a metric that is useless for my decision making

“I like it” is perfectly fine. There’s nothing wrong with it. It’s the next step “ I like it therefore it’s high quality” that is wrong.

Not sure it is wrong, we all do that, just look at reviews of pretty much anything.

It is not objective and people can disagree, so something one reviewer gives 5 stars might still be something you do not like. This is why these reviews only become relevant in the aggregate, or helpful if you can identify who has similar tastes (or differing ones and what made one reviewer not like it is something you enjoy, or vice versa)

By technical metrics, books, movies, etc. are much too similar, you need to consider the content if you want to know whether it would be something you like. Otherwise the difference between the same book as hardcover vs softcover is bigger than the difference between a story you like and one that bores you in the same format - and for me that is much more relevant than HC vs SC

All things being equal, this should also be reflected here. Different people like different things, so each adventure should have people that like it and people that do not, and the ratio should stay roughly the same.
If this is not the case then the content of some adventures is better than that of others (because we agree that the packaging barely changed). Yet there is consensus that CoS is better than SKT (ie significantly more like the former, not everyone vs no one).

If there were similar consensus that e.g. Tasha’s was a turning point, then that would be important information too. The only thing that is preventing it is that there are too few people here, not that the approach is wrong