WotC_PeterS talks about his "aggresive playtest" (with Le Rouse, SKR, & Noonan)
smetzger said:
Nah. 3.5 got years of playtesting by the poor saps who bought 3.0.
But really, 3.0 didn't get much effective playtesting, so I don't think that 4e is getting less. And I'm glad someone is doing what this guy is doing. It just should have been hardcoded into the design process.
A'koss
Explorer
Actually 3e had considerably more playtesting than 4th edition (my group PT'd for about 8 months IIRC) and was still nowhere near as much time I would have liked. In 3e though the game underwent significant changes over the playtest period and was a much more radical departure from the previous edition in general.Voss said:Nah. 3.5 got years of playtesting by the poor saps who bought 3.0.
But really, 3.0 didn't get much effective playtesting, so I don't think that 4e is getting less. And I'm glad someone is doing what this guy is doing. It just should have been hardcoded into the design process.
While I love nearly all the things they doing in 4e (conceptually), getting in enough playtesting is by far my biggest concern. Even though it is less a change than going from 3e to 4e, it is still clearly a big departure from the previous edition. Regrettably I will be very surprised if 4e isn't full of errata 90 days out of the gate.
small pumpkin man
Explorer
It shouldn't all be like this, due to the nature of the game, combat isn't actually the only thing that can be broken (3e diplomacy,among others) and they do have a new social encounter system to test, but the fact that this is considered a "new" and "grueling" idea to just have players make characters and fight monsters doesn't sound that great, also that most of the characters are starting at first and leveling up as per the normal rules is also not particularly heartening, I realize that some are starting at higher level, but the simple fact is that (as far as I can tell) the majority of this "playtesting" is just a bunch of guys starting normal campaigns at level 1, and leveling up normally, something which while it should be certainly be part of the playtesting, shouldn't be the "default".
Lonely Tylenol
First Post
All playtests should be like this. They're not supposed to be regular games. They're supposed to be tests. If they waste time in character chatting up barmaids, that's two or three rules they didn't put through the paces that day. Over time, I bet that adds up.Doug McCrae said:
Lonely Tylenol
First Post
90 minutes, you mean. As soon as that puppy gets sent to the printers, they'll be assembling a list of issues they would have caught if they had been given one extra day, or two extra days, etc.A'koss said:Actually 3e had considerably more playtesting than 4th edition (my group PT'd for about 8 months IIRC) and was still nowhere near as much time I would have liked. In 3e though the game underwent significant changes over the playtest period and was a much more radical departure from the previous edition in general.
While I love nearly all the things they doing in 4e (conceptually), getting in enough playtesting is by far my biggest concern. Even though it is less a change than going from 3e to 4e, it is still clearly a big departure from the previous edition. Regrettably I will be very surprised if 4e isn't full of errata 90 days out of the gate.
Similar Threads
