Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
4E Playtesting
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jasonbostwick" data-source="post: 3897320" data-attributes="member: 34924"><p>We're assuming that all playtesting groups are playing under identical versions of the rules - but we've seen from varying developer blogs that many things, such as certain talents and the role and importance of magic items, are still being toyed with in several different iterations by the designers. What if not all outside groups were given the same versions of these rule segments, such that certain groups were playtesting paragon level play with minimal reliance on magic items, and other groups were playtesting mainly heroic play with a more standard level of magic? What if the rules effects of several talents varied somewhat from group to group? Even easier still, as we know the playtesting groups have pre-written characters, what if each group was given specific, different builds of the same classes? </p><p></p><p>This would be fairly difficult from a logistical standpoint, but with the details of the rules apparently still in somewhat of a flux from week to week, it isn't really that unlikely. </p><p></p><p>So, if a group were to decide to break their NDA by anonymously leaking information, they would have no way of knowing that they weren't the only group with access to that specific iteration of the rules. It would then be a fairly trivial manner for Wizards to examine the leaked data and determine which group that iteration was sent to, leaving them able to press charges for contract infringement. </p><p></p><p>This all might seem a bit too elaborate, but if you were a playtester considering the likelihood of having to duke it out with Hasbro's lawyers over leaking some of 4e's Warlock powers, you probably wouldn't completely dismiss the idea.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jasonbostwick, post: 3897320, member: 34924"] We're assuming that all playtesting groups are playing under identical versions of the rules - but we've seen from varying developer blogs that many things, such as certain talents and the role and importance of magic items, are still being toyed with in several different iterations by the designers. What if not all outside groups were given the same versions of these rule segments, such that certain groups were playtesting paragon level play with minimal reliance on magic items, and other groups were playtesting mainly heroic play with a more standard level of magic? What if the rules effects of several talents varied somewhat from group to group? Even easier still, as we know the playtesting groups have pre-written characters, what if each group was given specific, different builds of the same classes? This would be fairly difficult from a logistical standpoint, but with the details of the rules apparently still in somewhat of a flux from week to week, it isn't really that unlikely. So, if a group were to decide to break their NDA by anonymously leaking information, they would have no way of knowing that they weren't the only group with access to that specific iteration of the rules. It would then be a fairly trivial manner for Wizards to examine the leaked data and determine which group that iteration was sent to, leaving them able to press charges for contract infringement. This all might seem a bit too elaborate, but if you were a playtester considering the likelihood of having to duke it out with Hasbro's lawyers over leaking some of 4e's Warlock powers, you probably wouldn't completely dismiss the idea. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
4E Playtesting
Top