The first playtests of Dungeons & Dragons were by Gary Gygax, his kids, and his friends. The industry has evolved considerably since then and playtesting along with it. A new playtesting methodology was borrowed from software development, and it's likely to influence how game companies produce products in the future.
[h=3]The Early Playtests[/h]Gary Gygax, co-creator of Dungeons & Dragons, originally playtested early drafts of D&D with his kids according to David Ewalt:
[h=3]The Industry Grows Up[/h]Role-playing games are bound by a basic premise that "anything can be attempted," and thus while there are rules that can be playtested, there are a limitless number of potential unforeseen consequences in a game where players have full agency over their character. Video games are more constrained, although Massive Multi-player Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) have become increasingly complex because of the interactions between masses of players. To that end, video games use open alpha- and beta-stage testing. These playtests release the unfinished game to a limited audience so that the developers can observe and record feedback. Minecraft was an important example of how this works:
This same approach to playtesting was evident when Wizards of the Coast sold copies of the "Wizards Presents" series for Fourth Edition, which included early previews of the game before it saw the light of day. The playtest for the Fifth Edition, perhaps in reaction to the struggles of Fourth Edition, took on a whole new dimension with an open call that included over 120,000 playtesters. Mike Mearls, senior manager of research and design for D&D at the time, explained the strategy to Fortune:
The engagement with the audience in shaping role-playing games doesn't end with playtesting though.
[h=3]Night of the Living Games[/h]Mearls explained how feedback would be ongoing as a "living game":
Increasingly, playtesting is no longer limited to groups within a company, but rather open to all who are willing to put in the work of playing the game and sharing their feedback. It's not uncommon to hear the refrain, "who playtested this?" at the table.
These days, it's most likely one of us.
[h=3]The Early Playtests[/h]Gary Gygax, co-creator of Dungeons & Dragons, originally playtested early drafts of D&D with his kids according to David Ewalt:
The RPG industry didn't exist back then as we know it today, so the limited scope of his early playtests were understandable. He expanded that scope over time to include his friends and colleagues. Things changed once the RPG industry matured. Gygax would often publish early rules in Dragon Magazine as a form of playtest release. In later editions of D&D, this relationship between magazine and game became more formal:
That alignment happened around Fourth Edition, which was when D&D started borrowing elements of video game development for its roll-out, including playtesting.
[h=3]The Industry Grows Up[/h]Role-playing games are bound by a basic premise that "anything can be attempted," and thus while there are rules that can be playtested, there are a limitless number of potential unforeseen consequences in a game where players have full agency over their character. Video games are more constrained, although Massive Multi-player Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) have become increasingly complex because of the interactions between masses of players. To that end, video games use open alpha- and beta-stage testing. These playtests release the unfinished game to a limited audience so that the developers can observe and record feedback. Minecraft was an important example of how this works:
It's worth noting that playtesting is used as both a form of mass feedback on the game and a marketing opportunity to generate revenue, essentially asking players to pay for the privilege of making the game better in exchange for early access. In fact, the practice has become so commonplace that Game Informer changed its policy to review video games as soon as they begin charging customers instead of waiting until the game is considered "finished." For a particularly egregious example, see Fortnite Battle Royale, which has been in "Early Access" since 2017!
This same approach to playtesting was evident when Wizards of the Coast sold copies of the "Wizards Presents" series for Fourth Edition, which included early previews of the game before it saw the light of day. The playtest for the Fifth Edition, perhaps in reaction to the struggles of Fourth Edition, took on a whole new dimension with an open call that included over 120,000 playtesters. Mike Mearls, senior manager of research and design for D&D at the time, explained the strategy to Fortune:
Just as they did with Fourth Edition, Wizards released a playtest version for sale in Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle. Since then, playtesting has become increasingly a public, data-driven affair that has been used by other large RPG publishers, including Paizo:
Like Wizards, Paizo published print versions of the playtest for purchase:
There are downsides to this transparent approach to game development as White Wolf discovered in a 2017 playtest for the Fifth edition of Vampire. A character named Amelina was described as preying on children -- and the fallout from that playtest (among other issues) led to some serious changes to the company as a result.
The engagement with the audience in shaping role-playing games doesn't end with playtesting though.
[h=3]Night of the Living Games[/h]Mearls explained how feedback would be ongoing as a "living game":
Plenty of smaller publishers playtest too, of course. Chaosium is notable for including playtest notes in some of its products, so game masters can see how a scenario evolved. Fantasy Flight Games has its own playtesting program, to name a few.
Increasingly, playtesting is no longer limited to groups within a company, but rather open to all who are willing to put in the work of playing the game and sharing their feedback. It's not uncommon to hear the refrain, "who playtested this?" at the table.
These days, it's most likely one of us.
Last edited:
) Plus, game designers are not as keen as FOSS developers are on accepting help from others on "fixing" a specific problem -- the only difference there is that there are plenty of coders who are competent to design code fixes, whereas there are a lot of armchair game designers (such as myself) who don't understand all the ramifications of a proposed change, and some even take rejection of a suggested fix as if it were an attack on their character.
