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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The Playtest Agreement
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="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5921695" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>If that is all it was, I'd agree. However, it is more than that. This skews the playtest to people willing to jump through some specific hoops that don't really have anything to do with giving the rules a good try, and then giving feedback on that. Moreover, it means there probably isn't any provision to collect group feedback through the DM. (I don't know for sure, because I couldn't get the packet yesterday, despite having signed up the week it was first announced, and trying for a couple of hours last night.)</p><p> </p><p>I'd have no trouble getting my group to really pay attention, play the game as it seems to be intended, think about it, and then give some feedback. We <strong>like</strong> dusting off rules systems that way. But I don't think I can get them to navigate the train wreck that is frequently WotC's website. So the universe of playtesters turns into the super set: People willing to playtest the game <strong>and</strong> people willing to jump through some specific and annoying hoops that have nothing whatsoever to do with the game itself.</p><p> </p><p>Now maybe in the early playtest, that is an acceptable trade. Maybe when it comes to dealing with the heart of the system, you want a certain amount of arbitrary hoop jumping as a self-selection method. However, if this continues for the life of the playtest, then it would be like testing, say, the usability of a new remote control layout by limiting to people who can change the oil in their car. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite9" alt=":eek:" title="Eek! :eek:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":eek:" /> Perhaps they will open up, loosen up, as the playtest goes forward. Maybe "group reactions" are more important when you have a wider range of material to test. I don't know about the "when"--only that eventually it becomes important.</p><p> </p><p>Also, the cynical side of my nature can't help but see the clumsy hand of marketing wanting to get email addresses to push stuff. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5921695, member: 54877"] If that is all it was, I'd agree. However, it is more than that. This skews the playtest to people willing to jump through some specific hoops that don't really have anything to do with giving the rules a good try, and then giving feedback on that. Moreover, it means there probably isn't any provision to collect group feedback through the DM. (I don't know for sure, because I couldn't get the packet yesterday, despite having signed up the week it was first announced, and trying for a couple of hours last night.) I'd have no trouble getting my group to really pay attention, play the game as it seems to be intended, think about it, and then give some feedback. We [B]like[/B] dusting off rules systems that way. But I don't think I can get them to navigate the train wreck that is frequently WotC's website. So the universe of playtesters turns into the super set: People willing to playtest the game [B]and[/B] people willing to jump through some specific and annoying hoops that have nothing whatsoever to do with the game itself. Now maybe in the early playtest, that is an acceptable trade. Maybe when it comes to dealing with the heart of the system, you want a certain amount of arbitrary hoop jumping as a self-selection method. However, if this continues for the life of the playtest, then it would be like testing, say, the usability of a new remote control layout by limiting to people who can change the oil in their car. :eek: Perhaps they will open up, loosen up, as the playtest goes forward. Maybe "group reactions" are more important when you have a wider range of material to test. I don't know about the "when"--only that eventually it becomes important. Also, the cynical side of my nature can't help but see the clumsy hand of marketing wanting to get email addresses to push stuff. :p [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The Playtest Agreement
Top