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
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
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="Jer" data-source="post: 3764945" data-attributes="member: 19857"><p>These bad things aren't exactly convincing to me overall.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Eh. They're going to be releasing the system as OGL - competitors are going to have access to it in a few months anyway. The worst case scenario is that someone quickly publishes a ruleset and claims that Wizards "stole" it from them, but that would be hard to prove - especially if they're now using version control inside Wizards (as they say in the podcasts) since that will time/date stamp everything they do and at least provide evidence for an argument that it was leaked from Wizards own material.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, eh - there are very, very few people in the roleplaying industry who would like to see D&D sabotaged. Most folks realize that as D&D goes, so goes the industry. When D&D was seeing bad times in the 90s, the RPG market was tanking. When Wizards revitalized D&D, the RPG market rode high. D&D helps keep game stores in business, which keeps smaller game companies afloat.</p><p></p><p>Also, if bribing a few loudmouthed playtesters to lie on their playtest reports can seriously impact the quality of your finished game, you've got bigger problems with your playtests.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This one is believable, but only inasmuch as it gives a good reason for requiring playtesters to keep their traps shut about the rules that they're playtesting - not the fact that they're playtesters at all. Of course any NDA you sign will tell you to keep quiet about the specifics of what you're working on, but few of them require that you not admit to working on the thing at all.</p><p></p><p>I suspect that the major reason for a "don't even tell people you're a playtester" clause would actually be to protect the playtesters from harassment. By telling people you're a playtester, you open yourself up to lots of people begging to see the document, denouncing you as a liar and demanding that you "prove it", asking you to confirm/deny rumors, trying to get you to play "Twenty Questions" (like "Just say yes or no - are there gnomes in the playtest document?"), etc. The more harassment that your playtesters have to go through, the more likely they are to just snap and blurt out something to make the harrassers go away. You minimize that threat by just instructing the playtesters that part of their duties as playtesters is to not tell people that they're a playtester. That way you don't have to "punish" them for making boneheaded mistakes in judgement on the Internet. (And Lord knows, making boneheaded mistakes in judgement on the Internet can often be a punishment unto itself).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jer, post: 3764945, member: 19857"] These bad things aren't exactly convincing to me overall. Eh. They're going to be releasing the system as OGL - competitors are going to have access to it in a few months anyway. The worst case scenario is that someone quickly publishes a ruleset and claims that Wizards "stole" it from them, but that would be hard to prove - especially if they're now using version control inside Wizards (as they say in the podcasts) since that will time/date stamp everything they do and at least provide evidence for an argument that it was leaked from Wizards own material. Again, eh - there are very, very few people in the roleplaying industry who would like to see D&D sabotaged. Most folks realize that as D&D goes, so goes the industry. When D&D was seeing bad times in the 90s, the RPG market was tanking. When Wizards revitalized D&D, the RPG market rode high. D&D helps keep game stores in business, which keeps smaller game companies afloat. Also, if bribing a few loudmouthed playtesters to lie on their playtest reports can seriously impact the quality of your finished game, you've got bigger problems with your playtests. This one is believable, but only inasmuch as it gives a good reason for requiring playtesters to keep their traps shut about the rules that they're playtesting - not the fact that they're playtesters at all. Of course any NDA you sign will tell you to keep quiet about the specifics of what you're working on, but few of them require that you not admit to working on the thing at all. I suspect that the major reason for a "don't even tell people you're a playtester" clause would actually be to protect the playtesters from harassment. By telling people you're a playtester, you open yourself up to lots of people begging to see the document, denouncing you as a liar and demanding that you "prove it", asking you to confirm/deny rumors, trying to get you to play "Twenty Questions" (like "Just say yes or no - are there gnomes in the playtest document?"), etc. The more harassment that your playtesters have to go through, the more likely they are to just snap and blurt out something to make the harrassers go away. You minimize that threat by just instructing the playtesters that part of their duties as playtesters is to not tell people that they're a playtester. That way you don't have to "punish" them for making boneheaded mistakes in judgement on the Internet. (And Lord knows, making boneheaded mistakes in judgement on the Internet can often be a punishment unto itself). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Playtesting?
Top