Public Playtests Should Be Fully Playable

[doctorbadwolf]

So I agree with you, completely. What I'm getting at is that it seems more common than I'd like that the designers don't actually like to adress what might actually be systemic issues with the mechanics.

Oh absolutely. 100%

 

[Fenris-77]

I think the issue with D&D is that its such a dense accretion of historical faffing about that it's almost impossible to actually untangle the base mechanics in a really useful way. I mean yes, the d20 with rising DCs things is base, but there are sooooo many goofy exceptions and edge cases that it makes my head hurt.

 

[Blue]

A bit from the most recent Druid/Paladin playtest:

POWER LEVEL
The character options you read here might be more or less powerful than options in the 2014 Player’s Handbook. If a design survives playtesting, we adjust its power to the desirable level before publication. This means an option could be more or less powerful in its final form

Basically, they want everythign to match the math and power level of the existing game. So that means that in this case, it's not only possible to playtest part with other parts of the original, it's required to playtest parts against the originals to make sure the numbers aren't drifting.

A full test would be counterproductive in this particular case.

 

[Campbell]

My stance is that play tests should be play tests, not full games. There's not enough time for people to reasonably run a full run of a home game. Even if there were the test data would be very hard to actually evaluate. So, I think tests should be more targeted - specific scenarios, specific sets of options, etc. That way you can get targeted feedback that you can use to iterate on.

Even when dealing with a brand new game you still want to strip down to the essential elements that required to actively test it. General feedback of the kind you get with open play tests that provide you with a whole rulebook are not likely to tell you anything other than if people like the idea of something.

 

[Anon Adderlan]

Software design repeatedly shows this is incorrect. Like, all the freaking time. It's one of the reason we write unit tests, so we can quickly prove that the new parts haven't messed up the old parts.

Unit tests can only test for how we expect things to fail, are often redundant, and in my experience lead to actual problems being missed. Fact is all our current tools are horrifically lacking when it comes to modern software development, mostly because they all fundamentally rely on reducing complexity where it can't be. And even unit tests will increase exponentially as more features are added.

We test in isolation not because it works, but because we have no other choice. And the further we get along the more we have to scrap and revert to avoid problems.

Are you sure software design and RPG game design are equivalent?

I know of few disciplines which are as analogous.

Anyway, I would just say this much, if Wolfgang Bauer (Kobold Press) decided to do a playtest a certain way, that's the best way. I was a contributor on some of his stuff way back when. The guy is 1000x smarter about collaborative work than all of EnWorld put together. Anyway, I'm highly confident that any PT he's come up with is valuable.

#BlackFlag's marketing is entirely based on being in opposition to the actions of #WotC. Yet in the end the first 'playtest' required 5e to even run. Sorry but this is embarrassing if not insulting, and we shouldn't be putting on rose tinted glasses just because one of the producers has street cred.

 

[babi_gog]

I do wonder if there is a question around the purpose of a public play test. Is it to test the whole system, or is it to further test an issue that the in-house and restricted play test with a wider body.

If it is the later then I'd not expect a full rule set, but more the - this is what needs testing, rather than everything else.