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.
Does audience size dictate this in every medium?
Do famous musicians have to consult with their fans before making an album? Does Beyonce need to hit up the Beehive, or does she just make what she wants with strong vision behind it?
You can apply this to comics, animanga, movies, visual arts, etc etc. At the end of the day, game design is more of an art than a science. Even video games, which have far more mechanics and numbers behind them, are pieces of art. And when creating art, what matters most is the vision of the creator and how well they achieve that vision.
Letting the competing visions of the entire player base dictate the art is, to me, a fallacy. It doesn't actually improve the art, at least, not to the degree where it should be entirely relied upon. In reality, Crawford needs to have a vision in mind. If this is his vision, then I find it insufficient. What good is a vision that believes mechanical innovation will 100% always lead to overcomplexity? So many people want to point to complexity as a problem, or to the giant fanbase as something that will rage over every change, but at the end of the day, these problems are indicative of a narrow-minded view.
In game design, there's always another solution. In any art, actually. If Crawford doesn't want to spend the time and money given to him to innovate D&D and to take it to the next level, and if their only way of improving the game is strictly through player surveys, then I just don't think D&D will ever be the innovative giant it was at its creation. It's a game with a charming about of funk to it, it is the most popular RPG x10 over, but these things don't excuse you from having to improve. Perfection isn't real, but that doesn't mean we stop striving for it.
Always remember too that D&D at its origin is a game of innovation. Arneson had a vision — characters from a war game going on fantasy adventures in the wilderness and in dungeons to get strong and build armies and create dynasties. There was nothing like it before. THere was roleplaying and acting etc, but it was Arneson's unique vision that synthesized the elements of his day into a brilliant game.
Since its creation, D&D has never shied away from trying to innovate itself. The original games, BECMI, AD&D, 3rd and 3.5, 4E — never in the history of D&D has any team stirring it sat on their laurels and said "Yes, this is good enough, we do not need to change our game further." It's always "Ok so, how can we do this but better?"
And sometimes that "but better" hasn't actually been better. But the attempts at innovation, the design visions of the past, all of these things feel absent in 5th Edition now. Using surveys is a good strategy. Relying on them entirely is not. Surveys should be used to adjust a vision, not to dictate the future course of the game. The audience doesn't truly know if something innovative will be something that they want until they have it. An audiences total rejection of something is valuable, and knowing what parts of a thing they like is valuable, but the audience should never, ever, ever set the course for the future, because the audience does not have vision. It has millions of visions competing against each other. And the job of D&D's lead designer is to have a vision that appeals to many people while being THEIR vision, and not everyone elses.
People always want to say that D&D is a big game, it HAS to suit every audience, but that isn't true. D&D only has to make a good game. If the game is good, many different audiences will use it for their own purposes. Then the adventures and supplementary materials should be exploring and innovating on the base game, giving us new ways to use that game, to tell stories with it, etc etc. You want some adventures and options that cater to niche interests, but that doesn't mean bending over backwards for your audience. There is no obligation for WotC to create the perfect product that every single person can use, no matter their tastes or gaming background. To try and do so is to sabotage your product.
