This comes up from time to time, usually in other threads, and often derails them, so I thought I'd give it its own thread.
Why Quality is Important:
Presumably quality is primarily important because a higher quality game will be more fun than a lower quality one. In Internet fora, quality is important because it gets used to judge games and to argue that Game X is somehow better than D20 since it's "higher quality."
I also see quality designations being used to judge gamers who play low quality games.
ISO and Quality:
The International Standards Organization defines quality as "conformance to requirements" -- this works for manufacturing and software development where requirements are explicit and fairly objective.
I think the idea of a requirements specification for an RPG is an intriguing one, but most people who invoke this only pay lip-service to the idea; I have yet to see a real requirements specification for a table-top RPG.
So for the purposes of this thread, we're talking about some other kind of quality measurement -- more of an artistic judgment, I expect (Although if anyone has another model, I'm interested).
What I'm looking for:
I'm looking for anyone who thinks they can identify a game of refined quality and especially interested in the criteria they use to make that judgment.
My Hypothesis:
I don't think artistic judgments of games are valid in anything beyond a personal sense -- in other words, if you think your game is "higher quality" than D&D in some objective way I think you're fooling yourself.
Note for clarity: Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and they're entitled to say it proud and loud. I've got no issue with anyone saying, "I hate Game X." I just don't think it's valid to say "Game X is better than Game Y in an artistic sense."
Why on earth would I think that when it's obvious that we (I mean humanity) judge entertainment all the time and find say, The Sopranos to be of higher quality than [insert average show]?
And, while I'm questioning myself, I'm aware that we do the make judgments about food and drink and art, so why not games?
Here's my reasoning: For a criticism to be valid beyond just being a personal opinion it needs to be informed by cultural norms and standards. That, in turn, requires a history of criticism and a sorting process with identifiable landmarks to judge against (A "canon")
Those things don't exist for games (yet) and may never exist for rules-sets, period. For other things we judge (food, film, books, music) they've existed for decades (film) if not centuries (everything else on the list).
In the case of other media we not only a history of criticism and canon, we also have time: we know that Shakespeare turned out to be good stuff since it's been around for a long time and people still like it.
For relatively new forms of entertainment (I count RPGs and computer games) we don't have much perspective (although we know that D&D has lasted in some form or another for about 30 years) and we lack anything like a respected body of criticism.
What we have no lack of is opinion -- everyone's got one, as the saying goes. On the Internet, they're all equally valid (after all, if *I* can post here, they'll clearly let *anyone* in, right?)
I think most people think some opinions (theirs) are "more equal" than others (often, it seems, mine) -- and maybe this is true (I've been accused of bad taste before) but I think everyone knows someone who thinks their opinion about what's good or bad is in some way objective fact; that person thinks it's all so clear. Everyone else thinks he's pretentious (if you are that person... trust me on this).
The exception would someone who gets paid or otherwise recognized to provide his opinion (if you're a paid movie reviewer or a highly-sought wine critic, for example) -- but plenty of people think their opinion is worth paying for, even when there's no evidence that's the case.
That's what I think is going on in the vast majority of on-line game judgment. I'd be interested to find out where I'm wrong (that is: where the necessary rigor and cultural consistency is developing a canon of games and a culture of respectable criticism).
That's what this thread is about.
So:
If you think some games are better than others and you can tell the difference, I'd like to hear what your criteria is and why your perspective is one worth paying for.
Also, if you *do* get paid to review RPG's for a reasonable publication, I'd like to know (and maybe I want in on that action!)
Couple of final notes:
I think some games are more or less objectively broken -- I'm talking about games so poorly written that they're hard to figure out how to play, or games where the mechanics seem to give extreme outcomes that don't match player expectations. I *do* think it's possible to judge these mechanically and not artistically, but I'm a little unclear on exactly how to do so (And one person's "mechanically broken" might be another person's "brilliant mechanic" so maybe we're back to square one).
Also: games with offensive subject material (e.g. racist games) are out-of-scope. Clearly a game can be vile without any reference to game quality. I'm only interested, in this thread, in looking at games that aren't repulsive because of their content.
Cheers,
-E.
Well, I am not looking with favor upon quality discussion, but I've actually got some idea, reading your thread which I would like to share with others.
As far as comparing one game to another might be problematic, one can (well maybe) identify some quality features comparing the game to itself. Or to put it differently, take you favourite game and think about criteria, which would improve or worsen it somehow.
Are the rules written clearly? Or could the presentation of them be better (or worse)?
Is the language smooth enough, well-written? Is it appropriate to the game?
Is the organization of chapters (and/or topics) appropriate to start playing easily enough?
What about artwork? Does it correspond with the presented game?
How is the print, paper, binding, form of the game adequate?
And more questions like this one. Now this might seem like a poor criteria for a game quality, but acutally, I think comparing game to its ideal form might be pretty much the easiest way to begin with something like that. But I have to warn you, that it would not be easy to tanspose the criteria to comaprison between games. That would be much more complicated.
I think--nine times out of ten, that when we talk about "quality," of a game, we're talking about the quality of the book. The binding, paper, layout, accuracy of the text, attractiveness of the illustrations, unification of design--stuff like that. And those are useful topics.
But game quality has more to do with the conistency of the rules, the focus of the rules and the millieu, and the integration of the rules with the theme of the game, where appropriate. That can be useful.
The quality of the play experience isn't dependent on either of those other qualities. The best gaming product--in terms of the fun it's yelded--for me, has been The Arduin Grimoire, and it does not demonstrate quality in either of the above catagories. The books were poorly laid out and difficult to use. The rules were clearly assembled by happenstance. But man--reading them made you want to play.
One of my preferred games in terms of the book is Castle Falkenstein. The physical book is good, the art and text are great, layout and design are attractive. The rules suit my taste, so I think they're easy, but explaining them to others has been difficult, so I has to admit that they are probably not clear. But they do suit the milieu of the game and the typical style of play.
A lot of the more prettily-designed books have rule clarity problems. Deliria, Nobilis, Weapons of the Gods, Everway--have nice layout, nice components, but the rules in these books are muddy or rife with errors. I like the games.
I think most of the longer-running generic games have tightly designed rules, but they sort of sidestep the artistic layout catagory. That said, the Gurps books have been pretty lately, and seem well constructed--since that first one where the pages fell out. I like nice, tight generic rules.
The new Star Wars has been mentioned in a number of threads. It has a nice layout, and consistent rules. Whether it suits the material or not can be debated. I think it does so well enough to call it a quality product. I'm playing later today--I think it'll be fun.
The importance of quality in games is still debateable to me, though. Higher quality games are more eye-catchy, and usually easier to find plyers for. You do pay a premium for quality. Less expensive, less slick games offer a lot of fun, if you can find the players. I mean--everyone loves their favorite game.
Quote from: -E.Why Quality is Important:
Presumably quality is primarily important because a higher quality game will be more fun than a lower quality one. In Internet fora, quality is important because it gets used to judge games and to argue that Game X is somehow better than D20 since it's "higher quality."
Quality comes in many forms -- it's entirely possible to have a game with stellar physical production values
and crap mechanics that haven't been tested well (or vice-versa).
We can't have an objective and meaningful discussion about all-encompassing "quality" because that term, in the context of RPG fandom, is largely a euphamism for "What I like".
Quote from: AlnagI think comparing game to its ideal form might be pretty much the easiest way to begin with something like that. But I have to warn you, that it would not be easy to tanspose the criteria to comaprison between games. That would be much more complicated.
I think that's a good way to start talking about improving games; it's also probably a pretty good game design approach.
I was aiming toward the kind of game comparisons that I see being made, but this is an interesting idea -- sort of a practical approach to measuring quality relative to a specific game.
Cool!
-E.
Quote from: stu2000I think--nine times out of ten, that when we talk about "quality," of a game, we're talking about the quality of the book.
I guess that depends on the discussions you're in -- but you're probably right. I'm a lot less interested in physical or design quality, though, but not because I think it's unimportant.
It's because I think physical quality is so important and also so well understood that I think it's well covered elsewhere.
The physical quality of the book is one of those factors that I think there's more agreement than disagreement on.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: jdrakehQuality comes in many forms -- it's entirely possible to have a game with stellar physical production values and crap mechanics that haven't been tested well (or vice-versa).
We can't have an objective and meaningful discussion about all-encompassing "quality" because that term, in the context of RPG fandom, is largely a euphamism for "What I like".
I agree with your formulation ("quality = 'what I like.'")
I don't think everyone agrees with us though: a few threads over, someone's saying they look down on people who play the wrong kinds of games, the way they look down on people who drink the wrong kind of booze (I paraphrase). If anyone's really saying "Anyone who disagrees with my personal and idiosyncratic opinion is an uncultured lout" that would be pretty pretentious...
So I assume people making those kinds of statements believe that quality means more than that...
I also missed being clear about what I'm focused on -- I'm not talking (in this thread) about production or design quality. I'm talking about the 'quality' of the mechanics -- whatever that means.
What I'm specifically focused on is whatever it is that makes people claim some game is a better game than, say, D20 -- I think that's rarely a physical quality thing.
Cheers,
-E.
E., we've had a whole bunch of discussions like this one in the recent past. By page 3 latest they tend to devolve into flamefests devoted to such compelling subjects as "WOTC = McDonald's" or "What is art?"
Can't you tell us about your current game instead? Seriously, I'd rather hear about your favorite charikter than read yet another thread in which people trade shopworn, abstract ideologemes and nothing concrete is learned about anything.
If that continues with the current frequency, this site will go to pot. Not because of too much acrimony but because of sheer tedium.
Quote from: stu2000A lot of the more prettily-designed books have rule clarity problems. Deliria, Nobilis, Weapons of the Gods, Everway--have nice layout, nice components, but the rules in these books are muddy or rife with errors. I like the games.
All of those four games also have their conceptual or mechanical quirks, as well, which may render the books somewhat less accessible to the casual reader. I wouldn't be so sure that their aesthetic choices necessarily have anything to do with an objective lack of clarity, but they might cause trouble to folks who prefer the "VCR manual" approach.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityE., we've had a whole bunch of discussions like this one in the recent past. By page 3 latest they tend to devolve into flamefests devoted to such compelling subjects as "WOTC = McDonald's" or "What is art?"
Can't you tell us about your current game instead? Seriously, I'd rather hear about your favorite charikter than read yet another thread in which people trade shopworn, abstract ideologemes and nothing concrete is learned about anything.
If that continues with the current frequency, this site will go to pot. Not because of too much acrimony but because of sheer tedium.
My current game is about a bunch of people on message boards who have different opinions about what quality is. I'd tell you about my character, but I'm the GM.
I do have an NPC I'm playing who's better at everything than all the PC's put together -- he's arguing that if they don't like a thread they're free not to post there... I don't think it's a winning proposition, but I gave him Insane Optimism as a disadvantage and I'm trying to play it correctly ;)
Any tips?
-E.
Quote from: -E.My current game is about a bunch of people on message boards who have different opinions about what quality is.
The quality of your game is much lower than mine... ;-)) Whatever that mean. :p
Quote from: -E.So I assume people making those kinds of statements believe that quality means more than that...
People believe lots of stuff that isn't supported by actual facts.
QuoteI also missed being clear about what I'm focused on -- I'm not talking (in this thread) about production or design quality. I'm talking about the 'quality' of the mechanics -- whatever that means.
I have no doubt that each individual who makes it a point to argue about 'quality' has a highly individualized, extremely unique, and
completely internalized definition for that term.
QuoteWhat I'm specifically focused on is whatever it is that makes people claim some game is a better game than, say, D20. . .
Oh, that's easy: self-centeredness and the belief that their worldview is an objective truth (if not
the objective truth).
Quote from: -E.My current game is about a bunch of people on message boards who have different opinions about what quality is. I'd tell you about my character, but I'm the GM.
I do have an NPC I'm playing who's better at everything than all the PC's put together -- he's arguing that if they don't like a thread they're free not to post there... I don't think it's a winning proposition, but I gave him Insane Optimism as a disadvantage and I'm trying to play it correctly ;)
Any tips?
-E.
Easy. PCs want to get involved, not lectured by a Mary Sue, so ditch him.
Quality means never having to houserule :melodramatic:
Regards,
David R
Quote from: David RQuality means never having to houserule :melodramatic:
Regards,
David R
By that standard, Classic Traveller sucks, because almost the entire skill system is basically left to DM fiat. ;)
The thing is I've seen discussions where quality = the perfect system...never mind that it may be the perfect system for that particular group and others may find that a little bit of houseruling is necessary to get the best out of the game for them. Guess I'm in a little bit of a cheeky mood this morning.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: David RThe thing is I've seen discussions where quality = the perfect system...never mind that it may be the perfect system for that particular group and others may find that a little bit of houseruling is necessary to get the best out of the game for them. Guess I'm in a little bit of a cheeky mood this morning.
Regards,
David R
I figured you were being cheeky, and thus my response was appropriately cheeky as well. ;)
Quote from: David RQuality means never having to houserule :melodramatic:
Regards,
David R
Heh. I've seen that said. Although I have no facts of any kind to back this up with, I think houseruling is almost completely a factor of the players and has very little to do with the system.
In other words, if a player is a house-rule-er, he'll house rule with *any* system... including all those systems that claim you don't need to!
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityEasy. PCs want to get involved, not lectured by a Mary Sue, so ditch him.
My theory is that players love to be lectured by Mary Sues, and any protests to the contrary is just an RPGing form of playing "hard to get."
(in the event it's not overwhelmingly obvious, I'm joking about this whole digression. I assume it's obvious, but on the Internet, it might be hard to tell)
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: jdrakehPeople believe lots of stuff that isn't supported by actual facts.
I have no doubt that each individual who makes it a point to argue about 'quality' has a highly individualized, extremely unique, and completely internalized definition for that term.
Oh, that's easy: self-centeredness and the belief that their worldview is an objective truth (if not the objective truth).
I agree across the entire spectrum of your post.
-E.
Quote from: -E.Heh. I've seen that said. Although I have no facts of any kind to back this up with, I think houseruling is almost completely a factor of the players and has very little to do with the system.
In other words, if a player is a house-rule-er, he'll house rule with *any* system... including all those systems that claim you don't need to!
Cheers,
-E.
I've yet to find any group that really truly runs a game exactly as written, even if it's to the extent of common misunderstandings, or "houserule by omission".
In D&D, for instance, I've yet to have a group that really paid the slightest bit of attention to spell components, especially the material ones.
The persistent presence of the latter in both my own play, and in the play of a lot of the groups I've run with, has been one of the driving considerations in my own design, in trying to analyze what rules tend to jsut be ignored, and then leaving them out.
Quote from: J ArcaneI've yet to find any group that really truly runs a game exactly as written, even if it's to the extent of common misunderstandings, or "houserule by omission".
In D&D, for instance, I've yet to have a group that really paid the slightest bit of attention to spell components, especially the material ones.
The persistent presence of the latter in both my own play, and in the play of a lot of the groups I've run with, has been one of the driving considerations in my own design, in trying to analyze what rules tend to jsut be ignored, and then leaving them out.
Agreed; if you throw in people who change die rolls that don't suit them, you get pretty close to 100% of the population.
Although I think we mostly ignored spell components in AD&D, I tend to see my selective use of ruling as being more situational (e.g. only using detailed rules when the situation calls for it).
There's a lot of rules I don't need often, but when I do want them, it's nice to have them available (e.g. falling lantern tables and so on ;) )
Cheers,
-E.