D&D General The longer I play Baldur's Gate 3 ...

[UngainlyTitan]

4 tables of 4-5 players, over a 6 week period, paying players $25/hour and DMs more. Online is fine, they don't need to be the building.

I publish adventures on DMsGuild on a budget of like $1k or less and all my stuff is play tested 3-4 times before it goes to print. I have nowhere near their resources. It's far from some insurmountable obstacle, especially considering the revenue D&D generates.

Princes of the Apocalypse had in the region of 34 playtesters, Turn of Fortune's Wheel the Plancescape adventure dos not name the playtesters but thanks "hundreds of playtesters", Rise of Tiamat list 27 playtesters. So, they are employing playtesters.

 

[Andvari]

If players and GMs wanted to pay full price for the product to play test it, I'm sure WOTC would have more play testers for their adventures

 

[Burnside]

Princes of the Apocalypse had in the region of 34 playtesters, Turn of Fortune's Wheel the Plancescape adventure dos not name the playtesters but thanks "hundreds of playtesters", Rise of Tiamat list 27 playtesters. So, they are employing playtesters.

They are definitely playtesting, but something is wrong with their process. I suspect (but don't know) one or both of these things is happening:

- Playtesting is modular, not comprehensive. Groups are playing encounters, or chapters, or locations, but not the whole campaign - and then only giving feedback on their "segments" in isolation.

- Playtesting feedback is being undervalued during the editing process

 

[Shardstone]

I think a lot of people here are ignoring the self-imposed limitations on production. There are deadlines for books, there is a hard limitation to how many pages there can be, etc etc. This isn't like the third parties where we can do whatever we want and make a book of whatever page count due to KS; even though WotC has the funds to make 400-page god-like bangers with top-tier art, playtested content, and professional prose, they won't because that's not the cheapest way to create a book that'll sell.

First-party is essentially an exercise in minimalism and fluff. I'm personally ok with this, even though it might sound like I'm not. Now, could the content inside the books still be better? Yes. Look at the OSR, Free League, etc etc, just so many. But with competing internal visions of the game, a minimal playtest process, a tight turnaround, and Unearthed Arcana being a requirement for anything mechanically significant, it's unlikely WotC will ever produce truly 10/10 RPG books.

 

[MarkB]

If players and GMs wanted to pay full price for the product to play test it, I'm sure WOTC would have more play testers for their adventures

The trick is to call it Early Access.

 

[Shardstone]

For people talking about playtesters, it's just not a difficult thing for WotC to achieve. They could easily arrange for a few hundred playtesters per adventure with NDA's, or at the minimum a hundred (that's 20 tables if it's 4 ppl per table average) playtesters. This would be a fantastic way of getting real, actionable feedback. But they don't, because that'd be a little too much budget, and D&D is made for the cheapest amount possible. I'm glad some things like Fortune's Wheel due get the right amount of playtesting, though.

However, playtesting doesn't mean diddly squat if the vision for the entire project isn't unified. Radiant Citadel was unique because they bragged about how all the authors worked together to create the book. That means most books involve the freelancers not communicating with each other, or with WotC. Thus, you get books that risk incoherence. A strong editorial vision would help with this, and additional playtesting, but neither seem possible for WotC given their current goals.

 

[Burnside]

I'm glad some things like Fortune's Wheel due get the right amount of playtesting, though.

Have you read it? Because man....

Hundreds of people might have tested that thing, but I don't think anybody listened to them about their experience.

 

[Shardstone]

Have you read it? Because man....

Hundreds of people might have tested that thing, but I don't think anybody listened to them about their experience.

That's the point I'm getting at! The editing of adventures in response to playtesting is not what I think creates the best products.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Ooooh - can you link to that?

Here you go: https://www.dmsguild.com/product/372375/WBWPR-Lost-Things

It's not a long adventure (although it takes more space in the PDF than it would formatted like the rest of Witchlight), which makes it look like an oversight that this wasn't included.

I've run the prologue before and it's worthwhile to help set up the return to the carnival years later, at first level.

 

[Burnside]

Here you go: https://www.dmsguild.com/product/372375/WBWPR-Lost-Things

It's not a long adventure (although it takes more space in the PDF than it would formatted like the rest of Witchlight), which makes it look like an oversight that this wasn't included.

I've run the prologue before and it's worthwhile to help set up the return to the carnival years later, at first level.

Thank you!