D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

[AgentPaper]

So... the way that these games have always been developed is (1) throw together a combat mechanic (2) test the combat mechanic (3) throw in new elements willy-nilly and see what sticks?

Other than the crack about "willy-nilly", you've just described iterative design. Which, yes, is how most games are developed.

How do you get a game like Mountain Witch or Bliss Stage or Burning Wheel working like that?

Burning Witch and Bliss Stage look like games that one person hacked together and which haven't been played enough to find all of the flaws that invariably exist. Burning Wheel seems a bit more used, but not much, and looks like a terrible system in the first place since all you do is sit around and throw a bunch of d6 to see whether the next part of your story starts with "fortunately" or "unfortunately", rather than making actual decisions.

The grass is always greener on the other side. Most of the "obviously better" games that people point to to show how bad DnD is aren't actually better, but simply less well examined. The rest aren't actually better than DnD, but instead are simply different types of games and thus appeal to a different sort of person.

When I design games I start with the Purpose of the game and then define Resolution Mechanics, Character Creation and Character Advancement before I start playtesting.

Wizards has done that too. Resolution is made with d20, adding player bonuses and compared to a target threshold. Character creation means assigning stats, picking race, class, feats, and skills. Character advancement uses a experience system which grants you levels. Each level gives your character more stats, and more character choices.

So far I've seen half of one of these steps (no definition on Skills, for example) and in the meantime WotC is tinkering with spell descriptions rather than, say, describing how non-combat interactions are resolved.

What do you mean no definition on skills? At any rate, skills aren't the focus of the playtest right now. They've got a long time to playtest, so it's better for them to focus on single aspects and resolve them one at a time, rather than rushing through everything.

Yeah, I don't buy that this is normal procedure for game design. Or if it is, then I guess that explains a lot

Game design is messy. You don't get a good game from a single stroke of genius, you get a good game from days, weeks, months, or even years of slow, repetitive, thorough, hard work by many different people.