It’s a great design decision. It helps make sure they don’t waste their time as much chasing stuff that will never be popular, and don’t change the game for no reason.Feel free to join the club. Setting an arbitrary "almost everyone must like this before we even consider iterating on it" standard is the stupidest design choice they ever went with. And that's got stiff competition from the Champion subclass.
I would reinforce @darjr point, with reference to D&D that part of the core identity of D&D are elements that one probably not include if one went back in time and were starting afresh.I meant 98% of the design of other games.
Not 98% of all games.
Maybe I misunderstood the comment I was responding too.
Most games are so small in user base, or generally will be, that it might actually be an asset they are wholly designed behind a curtain.
Also many just dint have a big enough audience anyway, especially vs D&D.
So the concern between designing behind a curtain vs showing and asking the user base some if it is different when you are talking about D&D.
More accurately, people are entitled and irrational, and when you improve service they will just take it for granted that they were always due that and you should have been doing that before.Wotc raised the bar when 5e came out, it’s rare for customers to lower their expectations
And It’s also only a part of the design process. After all he did say there are changes comming that will not be in the playtest. Or at least that’s what I thought he meant.It’s a great design decision. It helps make sure they don’t waste their time as much chasing stuff that will never be popular, and don’t change the game for no reason.
Yep. There is a lot going on, not just the public playtest.And It’s also only a part of the design process. After all he did say there are changes comming that will not be in the playtest. Or at least that’s what I thought he meant.
no idea either, I am pretty sure getting feedback always helps and many do it to varying degrees (closed playtests, semi-open playtests, …).@mamba also I dint know if they have to be designed behind a curtain. Just that D&D is a different ball game and it probably shouldn’t be.
If McDonalds started giving you half the fries they normally do for the same price, should customers just "take it"? WOTC has opened up customer interaction to a new level with 5e and the initial playtests, and now have opened the door again with a new round of playtests. So I think people have a fair expectation that their feedback is going to factor into the final product.More accurately, people are entitled and irrational, and when you improve service they will just take it for granted that they were always due that and you should have been doing that before.
And nothing wrong with it...but data on users is probably an advantage that maintains WotC position about as much as name recognition.I meant 98% of the design of other games.
Not 98% of all games.
Maybe I misunderstood the comment I was responding too.
Most games are so small in user base, or generally will be, that it might actually be an asset they are wholly designed behind a curtain.
Also many just dint have a big enough audience anyway, especially vs D&D.
So the concern between designing behind a curtain vs showing and asking the user base some if it is different when you are talking about D&D.
Interesting.And nothing wrong with it...but data on users is probably an advantage that maintains WotC position about as much as name recognition.