The Playtest Agreement

[Hussar]

And why would they need to if the GM is the one playtesting? Half the players aren't fluent in English, although they tend to get better thanks to the game. Why does this mean they wouldn't be able to see problems with the game ideas, or can't play the pregens so the GM may see possible issues?

Hey, as an ESL teacher for almost twenty years in a number of countries, I understand the value of using RPG's in a classroom with ESL students.

However, I can think of a number of reasons. 1. Language dependency could skew results - since the DM has to interpret the language itself, rather than simply the mechanics, it's not testing the mechanics as much as the DM's interpretation of those mechanics (which is unavoidable in any group, but, at least in a native group all of whom have the rules (since they downloaded) they can catch the DM's mistakes. 2. They don't only want one person at the table playtesting the rules - they want everyone. 3. They don't only want DM's perspectives on the rules - they want everyone's.

I could easily be wrong here, but, I would think that the surveys will poll whether or not someone is a DM during the playtest and will likely weight responses based on which roles someone takes during the playtest.

This is not a "hey, we got a great game, what do you think?" exercise. This is a playtest. Which means control groups and limited access.

I just wish they had covered this in the actual agreement instead of via the FAQ. I know it is a small detail, but be up front about it in the initial agreement you are getting people to agree to and download.

Totally, TOTALLY agree with this.

 

[dd.stevenson]

Play or don't, participate or don't, but the amount of slightest offense people take to any attempt by wotc to change the corporate culture pisses me off about the whole gamer community in general and makes me ashamed of it sometimes.

I would agree with a qualified form of this statement. The issue is that, most likely, fan reactions to this - fairly restrictive - playtest agreement will be taken into account when WotC gets down to drawing up their licensing agreement to replace the OSL/GSL.

So here's the qualification:

If this playtest agreement bothers you, I would encourage you to go ahead and participate in the playtest--but also go ahead and let WotC know how/why you found the playtest agreement bothersome. Or if you had no problem with it, maybe mention that as well.

 

[Nathal]

The only thing that bothered me personally was the restriction on Google Hangouts or other real-time virtual tabletop options. If I am true to their restriction, then I cannot participate (it's too hard to coordinate in-person schedules right now). I suppose they want a "pure" tabletop experience to form the basis of their first-run playtest. Even so, I know it's good enough for the D&D designers, because they've used G-hangouts for their own testing. A restriction on play-by-email or play-by-forum makes sense, because it's not the same experience. I'd argue playing by Hangout is 99% the same...I just can't steal anybody's cheetos! Well, I could ignore all of that, but I'd feel weird about it. I don't want to be a liar, so I'll just back out of the test and see how things shape up. I like the direction the 5E material is going, and I'm not crying out about a boycott or anything.

PS: it maybe that they're scared Google would turn around and say their service is being used for commercial purposes and try to fine WOTC. Not sure how that would happen...but maybe that's their thought.

If this playtest agreement bothers you, I would encourage you to go ahead and participate in the playtest--but also go ahead and let WotC know how/why you found the playtest agreement bothersome. Or if you had no problem with it, maybe mention that as well.

 

[Rogue Agent]

It's simply not the same company that made the OGL and their need to control is just too great.

While I would agree with this statement (modern WotC has no interest in the OGL), this playtest agreement is fundamentally identical to the one I signed for 3.0. Nor is it radically different from any other playtest agreement I've ever signed.

About the only thing I'd consider even a little weird about it is the prohibition against online playtesting in an era when more and more people are playing online.

 

[Greatwyrm]

About the only thing I'd consider even a little weird about it is the prohibition against online playtesting in an era when more and more people are playing online.

Which, according to Mike Mearls, includes their own people (emphasis mine):

Wolfgang: D&D Next provides a lot of support for “theatre of the mind,” also known as running your game without minis. I’ve found this extremely enjoyable in online games using Google Hangouts. Is that form of online play a design goal?

Mike: I’m not sure if it started as a design goal, but since many of our playtests took place using Hangouts it helped evolve it that way. When you don’t have minis and grids to represent things, it forces you to make sure that your rules don’t require them. So I think a good way to think of it is that if playing via Hangout works, then the game should also work fine if you and your players want to sit on couches in your TV room without a table, or while driving to GenCon, or wherever.

Interview: Mike Mearls Talks About D&D Next / Kobold Quarterly

 

[Hussar]

I'd point something out though about the online playtesting. Online gaming is different from F2F gaming. It just is. There are pros and cons to both, but they are different.

Now, you have 40k people on the DDI VTT Beta signup list. Imagine for a second that they all decide to go for the playtest. How do you weed out that information? After all, playtests have to have controls in place so that the data is not skewed. How would thousands of responses from a different play "area" skew the results.

For example, one recurring problem in 4e is the number of effects in a round. I totally understand why people would have that problem. I don't. I play online with a framework in Maptools that tracks all of those conditions. With a bit more work, you could have a framework that would actually track those conditions and add them in for you automatically - see the DDI VTT for that.

So, if asked if I have a problem with the numbers of conditions in 4e, I have to say, no, I don't. It's not a problem for me.

Which brings me back around to skewed data. With thousands of online players using the playtest, their experiences will be different than those on tabletop. Not that their experience is invalid. Of course not. But, "How does our system work in a VTT environment" is not the point of this playtest.

It's really that big of a stretch to see why these restrictions are being added. And, as Rogue Agent points out, these restrictions are pretty much standard for any playtest of a game.

Not sure if Pathfinder had these issues, but, let's be honest here, there's probably an order of magnitude less people who playtested Pathfinder as are hammering the WOTC servers right now. I'm not really sure WOTC has much of a choice but to "thin the herd" a bit by having a few restrictions in place that will normalize results and allow them to actually track and contact ALL playtesters.

 

[dd.stevenson]

Not sure if Pathfinder had these issues, but, let's be honest here, there's probably an order of magnitude less people who playtested Pathfinder as are hammering the WOTC servers right now. I'm not really sure WOTC has much of a choice but to "thin the herd" a bit by having a few restrictions in place that will normalize results and allow them to actually track and contact ALL playtesters.

I don't think there are any publicly available numbers that support this assertion one way or another. Are there?

Orders of magnitude are a pretty big deal.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Perhaps this is elsewhere in the copious threads on the Playtest, but I have at least 6 players showing for the Playtest.

Does this mean we are out? Can we play with more than 5? How do we do so?

I am getting the feeling we are not allowed to create an Elf Fighter from the Dwarf Fighter and Elven Wizard (possibly with Theme & BG from other sheets). That would be a bummer if that is the case. Does that mean we simply have to double up and have the exact same PC combo at the table?

I am quite stumped that only 5 PCs were made available!

 

[dd.stevenson]

Perhaps this is elsewhere in the copious threads on the Playtest, but I have at least 6 players showing for the Playtest.

Does this mean we are out? Can we play with more than 5? How do we do so?

I am getting the feeling we are not allowed to create an Elf Fighter from the Dwarf Fighter and Elven Wizard (possibly with Theme & BG from other sheets). That would be a bummer if that is the case. Does that mean we simply have to double up and have the exact same PC combo at the table?

I am quite stumped that only 5 PCs were made available!

Just have two dwarf fighters and swap the themes/backgrounds around to make something new, imo.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Yeah, swapping things is what we intended to do. What I want to know is are we allowed to for playtesting and feedback purposes?