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

[AnotherGuy]

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'd say this is close to my evaluation of interest.
The fact that they marketed off ToD twice with little to no changes also irked me.

I will admit that I cannot though answer the question re quality though because I never purchased ANY of the items after the labelled Slippery Slope era. I can only attest that my interest dropped and thus any financial investment instead went to 3pp material.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

What is subjective? Quality? Not in the English language it isn't.

Like or dislike has zero to do with quality. It just doesn't. If your goal was to see when people stopped liking what WotC was publishing, then sure, whatever. But, your question was about QUALITY.

The second definition of Quality on Mirriam-Webster is "degree of excellence". This definition incorporates objective traits like book bindings, paper stock, and proofreading. It also incorporates subjective traits such as appealing art, interesting story, and engaging mechanics.

If one were asked to grade the quality of an RPG supplement it then stands to reason that their subjective opinions would be incorporated into that score.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't think that D&D has ever been at either peak or nadir.

At launch I found 5e bland, with a decent PHB, a mediocre MM with fluff, crunch, and ease of use that was a massive step down from Monster Vault and Threats to the Nentir Vale, and a poor DMG. The initial books, notably SCAG and Hoard of the Demon Queen were poor.

It got a bit more polished in 2016-18. Strahd is genuinely a good adventure. Volo's Guide to Monsters was a step up from the MM. I don't have much time for Xanathar's but understand why people do as it seems to be a "More of the PHB" or "things that didn't make the cut for the PHB with a little more polishing book".

2019-21 were when things actually got interesting. Tasha's I find a massively more useful and interesting book to Xanathar's; they fixed the problem classes, there' a lot of genuinely new stuff in there, plus the only implementation of psionics in D&D that made me feel like psionics in any other medium. On the other hand Twilight Cleric. They allowed the Echo Knight - again a genuinely interesting fighter subclass. The Wild Beyond the Witchlight is trying to do something genuinely interesting as is Van Richtens.

2022-23 has been a case where the focus is on One D&D. How was Spelljammer allowed to be published? On the other hand Radiant Citadel and Keys to the Golden Vault are genuinely good. And Monsters of the Multiverse is looking towards 2024

So if vanilla 5e is what you want 2016-2018. If you want something with a little more spice 2019-22

 

[Retreater]

Even the notion that SKT is poorly ranked is pretty ludicrous. Since when is SKT considered a bad module? It's highly ranked on Amazon (higher than many other modules), which, by your criteria, means it's a qualitatively better than most other modules. Curse of Strahd is 4.9 and SKT is 4.8 out of 5. If that's the range from top to bottom, I'd say that the quality (using your definition) is fantastic. It literally cannot get much better.

I'm famously critical on most of WotC's published adventures, though I do have my favorites. I have run many of them. Here's how SKT didn't work for us...

• The setup was pretty preposterous - having to get the backstory from a silly encounter with a Cloud Giant flying in a tower wearing a stereotypical wizard's hat (the tower wearing the hat, not the Giant) after searching a town that was pretty clearly destroyed by flying giants. And the party has to trust this guy - he's the only way they can learn what the heck is going on.
• Expecting a romp of fighting giants, instead getting a convoluted plot of behind the scenes political discord involving shapechanging enemies.
• Most of the adventure has nothing to do with the plot. It's just a meandering hexcrawl that doesn't properly convey the themes or connect the party into it.

 

[mamba]

But, "what people like and why" is NOT QUALITY. That is the basic definition of the word.

the definition is “the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something”. I do not see a requirement for this evaluation to be objective, and quite frankly it almost never is

Because if something is higher quality than something else, then it is objectively BETTER than that other thing. The goal of measuring quality is to create an objective (or at least as objective as possible) scale to measure against.

there is more than one scale to measure, quality is an aggregate, and in no small part a measure of subjective things

If you prefer gothic horror, that tells me absolutely nothing about why SKT is a bad module. It DOES tell me why you don't like it. Fair enough. OTOH, it's kinda pointless if I don't prefer gothic horror.

agreed, let’s say it is a jumbled mess that lacks a consistent plot to follow and spends half its pages on locations that in no way connect to the main story and contain widely unbalanced encounters. Is this objective or subjective? My jumbled mess with no plot could be your wide open sandbox.

That incidentally is also why I wrote for a review to be helpful you need to know the taste of the reviewer, because something they consider a negative could be a positive for you or vice versa. Just saying ‘it’s good’ or ‘it’s bad’ does not help, saying I did like X and did not like Y is better, because then I can decide how I rate X and Y

Even the notion that SKT is poorly ranked is pretty ludicrous. Since when is SKT considered a bad module?

since its release? it pretty consistently falls into the lower third or quarter when comparing / ranking official 5e adventures as far as I have seen, not infrequently very close to the bottom (but those are older, the 2022 releases could have changed that)

It's highly ranked on Amazon (higher than many other modules), which, by your criteria, means it's a qualitatively better than most other modules. Curse of Strahd is 4.9 and SKT is 4.8 out of 5. If that's the range from top to bottom, I'd say that the quality (using your definition) is fantastic. It literally cannot get much better.

yeah, on Amazon most are 4.9 to 4.7. It’s like rap records are highly rated by rap fans and rock records highly rated by rock fans. That does not mean either side will like both records, they do find their audience however.

The consistency of ratings on Amazon is also why I looked at sites comparing the various modules.

Why do you even care how they are rated, these are subjective ratings and therefore to be dismissed

 

[Zardnaar]

But, "what people like and why" is NOT QUALITY. That is the basic definition of the word. Because if something is higher quality than something else, then it is objectively BETTER than that other thing. The goal of measuring quality is to create an objective (or at least as objective as possible) scale to measure against.

The question isn't "what do you like and why". The question is "When did 5e peak in QUALITY?"

I'm not the one who should be calling it something else. This pretense that your personal tastes in any way are objective (because quality is measured objectively) is ridiculous. And frankly it's intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.

If you prefer gothic horror, that tells me absolutely nothing about why SKT is a bad module. It DOES tell me why you don't like it. Fair enough. OTOH, it's kinda pointless if I don't prefer gothic horror.

Even the notion that SKT is poorly ranked is pretty ludicrous. Since when is SKT considered a bad module? It's highly ranked on Amazon (higher than many other modules), which, by your criteria, means it's a qualitatively better than most other modules. Curse of Strahd is 4.9 and SKT is 4.8 out of 5. If that's the range from top to bottom, I'd say that the quality (using your definition) is fantastic. It literally cannot get much better.

The Amazon rankings ate so flawed as to be essentially useless.

You can't even play one of those adventures in fewer than 6 months for most people.

And a few just rank the Amazon service

 

[Vaalingrade]

But, "what people like and why" is NOT QUALITY. That is the basic definition of the word. Because if something is higher quality than something else, then it is objectively BETTER than that other thing. The goal of measuring quality is to create an objective (or at least as objective as possible) scale to measure against.

Please supply a means of objectively measuring quality in an RPG. Keep in mind that 'made sales' is not a measure of quality.

 

[Hussar]

Please supply a means of objectively measuring quality in an RPG. Keep in mind that 'made sales' is not a measure of quality.

That’s the point.

I don’t

Well, actually I did. Is it full of errors? Is it organized in a logical fashion? Is it easy to use at the table? Is the binding ok? How about legibility? 6 point black font on dark coloured paper would be bad for example.

There are tons of measures of quality that have nothing to do with whether or not I personally happen to like the product.

 

[mamba]

There are tons of measures of quality that have nothing to do with whether or not I personally happen to like the product.

agreed, and they along with whether I personally like the product go into my evaluation of quality. Since nothing about the ones you listed changed in the last 10 years, guess which one affects the result...

 

[MichaelSomething]

Are we not in an endless golden age already? Did not 5E unleash the potential of the DM to change and modify the game ad they see fit? Didn't 5E liberate us from the books and rules that restricted DMs everywhere? Are we not finally free?