WotC_PeterS talks about his "aggresive playtest" (with Le Rouse, SKR, & Noonan)

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

All playtests should be like this. They're not supposed to be regular games. They're supposed to be tests. If they waste time in character chatting up barmaids, that's two or three rules they didn't put through the paces that day. Over time, I bet that adds up.

Playtesting for balance is important.

But if you don't use the rules in a regular campaign, you might not figure out that the abilities don't work well within an adventure (encounter based abilities are cool, but how does teleport at will or remote viewing within 100 ft work inside an adventure), and you certainly don't learn whether its fun to use th game system as a whole.

 

[OakwoodDM]

3e was being externally tested before I ever joined in and as I mentioned earlier, had Alternity as a 3e "proving ground".

Alternity a 3e proving ground?

Is this the same alternity that I played, with low being good on die rolls, target numbers being set by your skill levels, stats being the most important part of the character and difficulty of tasks determined by what die you rolled to add to or subtract from your d20 roll?
Cos that doesn't sound much like 3e at all.

As for the level of playtesting, I have to admit, it is one of the very few concerns I have about 4e. It doesn't appear to have been given much time for external playtesting, but so long as the errata are forthcoming when they are uncovered and the basic game is playable and fun, I'll be happy.

 

[Mr Jack]

Most of the mechanical balancing that needs doing does not require a playtesting group. You can do it on your own. Set up some characters, see what they have to face, play it out. It's a lot quicker so you can run through more permutations.

 

[Voss]

You should do some testing for that sort of thing, but thats comparatively easy, and can be done by simply linking some adventures into a series. (Or playtesting, for example, H1 and H2). But its vital to break the subsystems, and find out where the far reaching flaws are.

 

[Plane Sailing]

There are enough playtests happening that various groups can focus on certain aspects of the game. Motsly it is about tuning and balancing and not about big sweeping changes.

My group is playing through Keep on the Shadowfell. We have been roleplaying, building our charcters by writing back stories out of the game but also looking at crunch, running characters through their paces in the game, sometime facing huge bands of monsters.

We have a large group with up to 8 players at times. Today we had 5. Sometimes we fight large groups of monsters and while today we only fought 5 (kobolds and goblins). A few weeks ago I was chatting up the barmaid trying to get the quest and weeks prior to that managed to do something that lead to Coup de Grace rules changing somewhat.

All in all I get the sense that things are going well.

Hey Scott,

One of the things I enjoyed on the wizards site in the run up to the launch of 3e was the 'playtester reports' e.g. http://www.wizards.com/dnd/3E_Group_0800.asp

The insight they gave to certain elements of the game was both fun and interesting (in the same way as your snippet above).

Do you think there is any chance that something similar might happen in the runup to the 4e launch?

Cheers

 

[infax]

That kind of playtest certainly has its merits and I find it very important, however you often need Prophecy of the Pristess-style tests. Most complaints I've read on 3E high level games regarded plot-problematic (often referred as game-breaking) abilities like many divinations and instant transportation effects. Also, if you have arena style games it covers many situations but then you would never find out problems like the infamous scry-and-fry tactic of high level 3E.

All in all, I find more unexpected situations arise when you have a more fleshed out game than when you simply throw PCs against monsters. That is the aspect the math can mostly adequately handle. Its when you start your encounter with the Cleric muted from a vow of silence he took in a "fluff" scene a half hour of game ago that you have to see how the game holds its own.

 

[TerraDave]

Mr Rouse: thanks for sharing!

That kind of playtest certainly has its merits and I find it very important, however you often need Prophecy of the Pristess-style tests. Most complaints I've read on 3E high level games regarded plot-problematic (often referred as game-breaking) abilities like many divinations and instant transportation effects. Also, if you have arena style games it covers many situations but then you would never find out problems like the infamous scry-and-fry tactic of high level 3E.

All in all, I find more unexpected situations arise when you have a more fleshed out game than when you simply throw PCs against monsters. That is the aspect the math can mostly adequately handle. Its when you start your encounter with the Cleric muted from a vow of silence he took in a "fluff" scene a half hour of game ago that you have to see how the game holds its own.

This is such a good point.

I have read a lot of this...and I get the impression that there has been a wide range of playtests, with a lot of wizards employees and some of their freindsrs. But I have also been surprised at how "compressed" the external playtest schedule has been.

 

[Bagpuss]

If they waste time in character chatting up barmaids, that's two or three rules they didn't put through the paces that day.

Of course they could be testing the social challenges aspect I've heard spoken of.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Of course they could be testing the social challenges aspect I've heard spoken of.

Considering that these are governed by rules, I don't see why they couldn't be part of the testing grind.

DM: "Okay, for the next hour we're going to:
1. Convince the king that he needs to invade the Duchy of Dunland
2. Seduce an NPC of your choice from the cast of characters present in this bar
3. Convince the guard that 50 GP is worth his while to let you past
4. Do the same without 50 GP.

You can use any skill or ability at your disposal that doesn't involve attacking any NPCs. Try to undermine the system as best you can without violating the rules. Please record all rolls and outcomes, so that we can analyze the data to make sure you're as convincing as you should be given your skills and abilities."

I don't see why characters couldn't just be dropped into these sorts of encounters without fanfare, and play out a dozen of them each session. Make each character use only Diplomacy. Then make each character use only Intimidate. Brainstorm spells and powers that could influence these rolls, and use them. See if the Cha 6 fighter with no social skills is actually bad at social encounters, and if the Cha 16 Cleric with good skills is good at them. Figure out what sort of outcomes can be squeezed out of the stock encounters and determine whether any of them are too big or too small.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Regarding testing as a campaign

I do agree that there should be a significant amount of combat testing, especially at the higher levels.

However, there are a few things that testing as a campaign will catch that spot testing in combat will not catch, however.

- Is the power progression over time reasonably smooth for all classes?
- Which items or abilities are the most abusable outside of combat?
- Are the guidelines for creating treasure reasonable?
- How well do the non interactive rules work out (overland travel, equipment cost)
- How are players likely to choose to advance their characters over time?

There is also what I would call an X factor for non combat stuff. When I do get to play as a player, I am probably one of the worst offenders for finding ways to 'break' the game. The best example would be the time I played a Changeling Rogue, and maxed the disguise, bluff, and forgery skills. To this day, I think I am probably the only player in D&D history to have had a character thrown in jail for attempted mail fraud. I had the bright idea of following an NPC of interest, and watched him use the Eberron equivalent of the postal system to send a letter. I then disguised myself as the NPC, and tried to obtain the letter he had sent, with plans to rewrite and resend a different letter. However, I ended up getting caught.

Good gaming? Sure. But if that sort of thing happened in play tests, someone might have realized that an at will +10 bonus to disguise might be a bit overwhelming. Or maybe it did come up, and someone knocked it down from an even higher bonus.

END COMMUNICATION