Who Playtested This Anyway?

The first playtests of Dungeons & Dragons were by Gary Gygax, his kids, and his friends. The industry has evolved considerably since then and playtesting along with it. A new playtesting methodology was borrowed from software development, and it's likely to influence how game companies produce products in the future. Photo by Ian Gonzalez on Unsplash The Early PlaytestsGary Gygax, co-creator...
The first playtests of Dungeons & Dragons were by Gary Gygax, his kids, and his friends. The industry has evolved considerably since then and playtesting along with it. A new playtesting methodology was borrowed from software development, and it's likely to influence how game companies produce products in the future.

ian-gonzalez-1256899-unsplash.jpg

Photo by Ian Gonzalez on Unsplash
[h=3]The Early Playtests[/h]Gary Gygax, co-creator of Dungeons & Dragons, originally playtested early drafts of D&D with his kids according to David Ewalt:
The first people to play it were Gygax’s eleven-year-old son, Ernie, and nine-year-old daughter, Elise. Gygax had created a counterpart to Arneson’s Blackmoor, which he called Castle Greyhawk, and designed a single level of its dungeons; one night after dinner, he invited the kids to roll up characters and start exploring. Ernie created a wizard and named him Tenser— an anagram for his full name, Ernest. 3 Elise played a cleric called Ahlissa. They wrote down the details of their characters on index cards and entered the dungeon. In the very first room, they discovered and defeated a nest of scorpions; in the second, they fought a gang of kobolds— short subterranean lizard-men. They also found their first treasure, a chest full of copper coins, but it was too heavy to carry. The two adventurers pressed on until nine o’clock, when the Dungeon Master put them to bed. Fatherly duties completed, Gygax returned to his office and designed another level of the dungeons.
The RPG industry didn't exist back then as we know it today, so the limited scope of his early playtests were understandable. He expanded that scope over time to include his friends and colleagues. Things changed once the RPG industry matured. Gygax would often publish early rules in Dragon Magazine as a form of playtest release. In later editions of D&D, this relationship between magazine and game became more formal:
During its second Wizards of the Coast run, the Dragon magazine staff was aligned with the D&D R&D staff. This allowed the magazine to integrate more closely with the actual D&D game than ever before. This began in Dragon 360 with a new “Design & Development” column—which didn’t just preview D&D 4e, but also explained the reasoning behind many of the design decisions, offering a level of interaction with the D&D creators that had never been seen before. Starting with Dragon 365 (July 2008), readers could also playtest upcoming D&D rules—the first of which were drawn from the Eberron Player’s Guide (2009).
That alignment happened around Fourth Edition, which was when D&D started borrowing elements of video game development for its roll-out, including playtesting.
[h=3]The Industry Grows Up[/h]Role-playing games are bound by a basic premise that "anything can be attempted," and thus while there are rules that can be playtested, there are a limitless number of potential unforeseen consequences in a game where players have full agency over their character. Video games are more constrained, although Massive Multi-player Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) have become increasingly complex because of the interactions between masses of players. To that end, video games use open alpha- and beta-stage testing. These playtests release the unfinished game to a limited audience so that the developers can observe and record feedback. Minecraft was an important example of how this works:
An example of a video game that made extensive use of open playtesting is Minecraft, which was made available for purchase in its pre-alpha stages. This both helped to financially support the game and provide feedback and bug testing during its early stages. Playtesting began even before the game features included multiplayer or the ability to save games. Mojang continues to make use of playtesting with Minecraft through weekly development releases, allowing players to experiment with unfinished additions to the game and provide feedback on them.
It's worth noting that playtesting is used as both a form of mass feedback on the game and a marketing opportunity to generate revenue, essentially asking players to pay for the privilege of making the game better in exchange for early access. In fact, the practice has become so commonplace that Game Informer changed its policy to review video games as soon as they begin charging customers instead of waiting until the game is considered "finished." For a particularly egregious example, see Fortnite Battle Royale, which has been in "Early Access" since 2017!

This same approach to playtesting was evident when Wizards of the Coast sold copies of the "Wizards Presents" series for Fourth Edition, which included early previews of the game before it saw the light of day. The playtest for the Fifth Edition, perhaps in reaction to the struggles of Fourth Edition, took on a whole new dimension with an open call that included over 120,000 playtesters. Mike Mearls, senior manager of research and design for D&D at the time, explained the strategy to Fortune:
In some ways we're just catching up to the resources you have in digital games, where you can look at server logs and see what characters are people making, what abilities are they using. It’s kind of us embracing a more modern approach to game design. Especially with something like Dungeons & Dragons, that has such a clear identity and such a huge fan base, it lets us really stay in touch with what people are experiencing. Honestly, without this data and without the feedback we would be designing a much different game.
Just as they did with Fourth Edition, Wizards released a playtest version for sale in Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle. Since then, playtesting has become increasingly a public, data-driven affair that has been used by other large RPG publishers, including Paizo:
In 2008, Paizo launched an unprecedented public playtest aimed at updating the third edition rules to make them more fun, easier to learn, and better able to support thrilling fantasy adventures. More than 40,000 gamers just like you joined in the fun by playtesting the new Pathfinder RPG rules and providing feedback, and the rest is gaming history. Now, 10 years later, it's time to put the lessons of the last decade to use and evolve the game once again. It's time for Pathfinder Second Edition!
Like Wizards, Paizo published print versions of the playtest for purchase:
PDF editions of the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook, the softcover Pathfinder Playtest Adventure, and the Pathfinder Playtest Flip-Mat Multi-Pack will be available for FREE right here on paizo.com starting August 2. The print edition of the Playtest Rulebook is available in softcover ($29.99), hardcover ($44.99), and deluxe hardcover ($59.99) editions. The print edition of the Playtest Adventure has a suggested retail price of $24.99, and the Flip-Mat Multi-Pack is priced at $24.99.
There are downsides to this transparent approach to game development as White Wolf discovered in a 2017 playtest for the Fifth edition of Vampire. A character named Amelina was described as preying on children -- and the fallout from that playtest (among other issues) led to some serious changes to the company as a result.

The engagement with the audience in shaping role-playing games doesn't end with playtesting though.
[h=3]Night of the Living Games[/h]Mearls explained how feedback would be ongoing as a "living game":
The biggest change affects how we make updates to the game going forward. In the past, we relied on forums, summaries of issues from customer service, and our own experiences with the game to guide the changes we made. Though this approach uncovers parts of the game that people are having issues with, it does a poor job of assessing the magnitude of those issues. The public playtest showed us that we need to cast a much wider net to create a clear picture of what’s going on. To that end, you can expect to see annual surveys that work much like the ones we used to guide the development of fifth edition D&D. These surveys will not only allow us to identify trouble spots in the game, but we can use them to look at how attitudes change over time. By comparing one year’s results to the next, we can gain a sense of how the game is changing.
Plenty of smaller publishers playtest too, of course. Chaosium is notable for including playtest notes in some of its products, so game masters can see how a scenario evolved. Fantasy Flight Games has its own playtesting program, to name a few.

Increasingly, playtesting is no longer limited to groups within a company, but rather open to all who are willing to put in the work of playing the game and sharing their feedback. It's not uncommon to hear the refrain, "who playtested this?" at the table.

These days, it's most likely one of us.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
The OGL was the big problem for 4E - WOTC wanted to, but couldn't, kill it, and wasn't allowed to continue to use it (either by internal or external to the WOTC work unit of Hasbro executive decisions)...

Pathfinder was announced almost the moment that it was announced 4E wasn't going to be open sourced.

The license certain turned into a major problem, but I think your implication is wrong with the other claim. If there's a similar time frame, it's largely coincidental or a case of the last straw breaking their back. The decision to work on PF had a lot to do with the rules for 4e being unavailable to Paizo in a timely fashion to allow for them to have compatible materials at 4e's launch. And since Erik Mona was fretting about the 4e SRD back in October 2007 on the Paizo boards, six months before the GSL press release from WotC (when it still wasn't in a viewable form), I think it's clear that they weren't simply gunning to take advantage of the OGL to publish their own game.

If licensing became a problem for 4e (as it doesn't seem to be for 5e), it's because Wizards botched it with the GSL that needed two versions to try to woo over 3PP - and even then, their biggest 3PP cheerleader, Clark Peterson of Necromancer Games, still rejected it.

Just one (of many) example of how a corporate process can damage the environment in which a product is going to be released - totally external to the quality of that product, how well it is (or isn't) playtested, and suitability to its market.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top