Would you buy more books if they were beta tested first?

[Vaeron]

No. I haven't had a problem with any of the books I have purchased for 4e. In fact, I would say that 4e books are, overall, some of the most consistently well done RPG books I've ever purchased. It is very nice of WotC to release lots of errata for free in an attempt to improve the game for their customers, but the published books create a perfectly fine game as written.

I agree. In fact, just ignore the errata - it'll save a lot of time and paper (and potential frustration!)

 

[Quickleaf]

I'm fine with closed beta projects. However, my inference is that WotC has a narrow segment of playtesters that make the same mistakes or have the same blindspots. I do think they could benefit from changing up their beta playtest groups a little more.

 

[wayne62682]

Only if they actually LISTENED to the feedback and didn't treat it as "Hey guys you get to preview this thing we've already created but aren't releasing yet. Enjoy!" and dismiss criticism or ignore it because the thing is already set in stone.

IMO all powers/feats/classes should be beta tested by the CharOp Boards (I thought they were doing this anyway). If they say something is overpowered, reduce it. If they say it's broken, fix it. If they say it's too weak, make it better. Those guys know their stuff.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The errata in 4E is so staggeringly large and drastic, that's it's hard for me to believe that they do any playtesting. In other words, they should actually do some testing and quality control before releasing their products like all other companies do.

Don't you mean "not bother producing errata whatsoever and let the game live or die on it's own even if it's fixable, like all other companies do."?

It's the RPG Catch 22. Don't produce errata and people complain things are broken. Produce errata and people complain it wasn't playtested enough.

 

[Talok]

That method would be preferable to current "Let's rewrite entire sections of the core rules every few months" that they employ now.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That method would be preferable to current "Let's rewrite entire sections of the core rules every few months" that they employ now.

Then you're in luck. Just shred the pages of errata you printed and your Player's Handbook is pristine and unblemished.

 

[Jhaelen]

If WotC released material through DDI via the various tools within it and tagged it as 'Beta' so that you could access it but it wouldn't be the default, and used the feedback and experience of it being 'live' in the community to fix any issues and incorporate errata before releasing it as a published physical product... would you be more inclined to buy said physical products?

No. I don't mind errata, and they're inevitable anyway.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I'd settle for them acutally playtesting the material thoroughly before sending it to the printer. The errata in 4E is so staggeringly large and drastic, that's it's hard for me to believe that they do any playtesting. In other words, they should actually do some testing and quality control before releasing their products like all other companies do.

I cannot believe you are really serious here. You think the volume of errata is what it is now with NO playtesting.

You cannot be serious

 

[D'karr]

I cannot believe you are really serious here. You think the volume of errata is what it is now with NO playtesting.

You cannot be serious

I think his point is that he would have preferred that all that playtesting would have been done before publishing the books, so that the errata could be included in the printings. With publishing schedules as they are, I don't think that any amount of playtesting would have come with these many changes before publication. I mean we are 3 years out, that is a lot of playtesting.

Personally I don't think that the errata is relevant to a large swath of the player base. I mean online we talk about errata all the time but whenever I ask players IRL about errata, they are surprised there is such a thing.

It would have been nice if subsequent printings of the books incorporated the errata, but I can see that as a negative also. People that bought the original books would have cause to complain if errata was only provided in that fashion.

I think their way of handling errata is not perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than the alternatives.

 

[keterys]

WotC does have playtesters - you can see the little beholder icon on them on their forums.

That said, I'm kinda curious what you'd do if you were a playtester for the PH3, and let's say you had 2 whole months, while not playtesting anything else, to playtest that book. How much do you think you'd get done? And how easily would the, say, two WotC guys who read your findings find it to process your groups' findings and implement important changes.

Now change it so you're also playtesting two other books at the same time, say Martial Power 2 and Monster Manual 3.

And that job of deciphering results is a pretty harsh one - I know a _lot_ of people who say something is "broken" when it's, say, 5% out of expected bounds. So you need to hope you're getting truly constructive criticism from the playtesters.