D&D 4E 4e Playtesters revealed!

[Psion]

I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. I feel they should have a pretty solid design foundation before opening the doors for a closed beta. It's really not for the playtesters to say what the design tenants should be. Sure betatesters can influence design with feedback, but the framework should be there already.

I think you are mischaracterizing my position a bit. I think you need a solid design before outside playtest. That said, designers should always be receptive to the possibility that something they think is gold amongst an internal playtest group doesn't quite make the transition to a more general audience with less exposure to the design process and the game industry in general.

One could quibble about what makes a fundamental change, but in 3e, there were significant changes to multiclassing, human benefits, and turning. Major changes for the better.

While game design isn't programming, there are some parallels. I mean WoW went into closed beta 9 months before release, roughly the same timeline for 4E.

But still much shorter than 3e.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

But still much shorter than 3e.

How long was 3E's playtest period? (I'll assume 3.5E's was "zero".)

How long was 4E's playtest period?

How many people playtested 3E?

How many people playtested 4E?

 

[OchreJelly]

I think you are mischaracterizing my position a bit. I think you need a solid design before outside playtest. That said, designers should always be receptive to the possibility that something they think is gold amongst an internal playtest group doesn't quite make the transition to a more general audience with less exposure to the design process and the game industry in general.

One could quibble about what makes a fundamental change, but in 3e, there were significant changes to multiclassing, human benefits, and turning. Major changes for the better.

Fair enough. What you are describing is that sort of design "tunnel-vision" that can often lead to a bad design. I agree they should take criticism to heart, which is a key benefit to bringing outsiders in. However, even the early notes from the preview books (and podcasts) shows how much they scrapped and started again because something was unfun, or "not DND". I guess I'm optimistic that the designers kept this well in mind, not just from their own perspectives but with the view of a full range of playstyles.

Lastly, to better stay on topic I want to thank all the playtesters for their hard work. I'm actually pretty amazed how little has been leaked this close to release! That NDA must be one scary level 30 solo encounter.

 

[Plane Sailing]

What worried me wasn't the number of playtesters (which I suspected would be sizeable), but how late in the process they solicited outside playtesters and how committed to their design they seemed to be when they brought in playtesters.

This was my worry too, alongside concerns that

a) perhaps some playtesters were getting only subsets of the rules (since confirmed). What happens if 'heroic tier' got lots more testing than 'epic tier'? The equivalent seemed to have happened with low vs high level play in 3e...

b) the suspicion (hinted at?) that often playtesters were asked to test specific things in specific configurations

- the danger of this, of course, is that all kinds of things that would get turned up when allowing more generalised playtesting might not surface (like the paladins challenge problem at DDXP, for instance).

Cheers

 

[DaveMage]

I wonder what that list would look like without WotC staffers and their family members listed...

But, yeah, the playtesting only a subset of the rules for many means that the *real* playtesting starts June 6.

We'll know by GenCon basically what works and what doesn't, and by Gen Con 2009 if the game has sustainability.

 

[The_Baldman]

Man some of you guys can turn anything into a negative.

A> none of you know when outside playtesting actually started
B> none of you know exactly who tested what parts
C> none of you know how many tested those parts compared to other parts
D> no I'm not going to tell you

So relax. If you want to get all riled up then heck power to you but release is less then a month away so lets talk facts not baseless guesses and then rants upon those guesses.

Like Mike said - one of hardest parts is watching all the misinformation going around and not saying anything. You just feel this urge to correct people but you can't and just get to watch flame wars erupt over nothing.

Playtesting is not easy. Some of the things you have to do arn't fun (it's not just a home game with new rules). You can't comment on really any rumor or question because it's really easy to let something slip. You keep asking yourself 'Did Wotc release that info on the website or am I about to say something I shouldn't?' so instead you just clam up. The surprise from seeing new rules leak out from DDXP and web articles is non-existant because you already know them all. Ya I know boo-hoo me I've seen the rules but we've also seen many different versions of them and I'm still screwing things up because something changed. All right baby is waking up so time to cut this one short.

Dave C
One of those coordinator guys (ya who was surprised by that one)

 

[mearls]

The 4e playtest process was specifically designed with the successes and failures of the 3e process in mind.

Having run a number of playtests, I can with 100% certainty say that just giving people the entire set of rules and hoping they manage to use everything and provide good feedback is the stupidest way to do things.

 

[Garnfellow]

One of the frustrating (perhaps the only frustrating) parts of the 4e process was watching people blatantly lie about the process behind creating the game, and knowing that piping in to correct them was a waste of time.

The "4e isn't being playtested" meme was perhaps the most common one that tempted me to say something. I think for some people, that meme was more wishful thinking than anything else.

Respectfully, Mike -- why would correcting the record have been a waste of time, particularly if someone were actually lying about playtesting? If the real scoop was that 4e playtesting was an obviously awesome process superior to anything done before, couldn't that have been conveyed simply and definitively by, say, someone from Wizards familiar with the process? Was it really better to keep quiet and let people churn on misinformation?

It's pretty ironic that I am addressing this post to you, since in the last year you have been just about the only person on WotC's staff who seems to understand how message boards work and has been willing to post there. I've found your posts to be some of the most enlightening and encouraging bits of 4e news throughout this process.

I realize that you were lead developer for a completely new edition and must have been hella busy in the last year, so I don't expect you personally to patrol messageboards 24-7 for untruths, but it seems more Wizards staffers could have been doing just that.

It seems like 4e playtesting is a good example of a place where Wizards failed to get "its" story out. And if it is an awesome story, I would like to hear it. As it is, my perception -- inaccurate though it may be -- is this: external playtesting was largely limited to a relatively small group of people, pulled out of a Gleemax hat, and done at a late stage of the process after all the mechanics were already nailed down. The playtesters were only acting as fact-checkers and QC'ers. If the real scoop is different from this perception, I'd love to know that -- it would go a long way to allaying some of my concerns about 4e.

 

[hong]

Respectfully, Mike -- why would correcting the record have been a waste of time, particularly if someone were actually lying about playtesting? If the real scoop was that 4e playtesting was an obviously awesome process superior to anything done before, couldn't that have been conveyed simply and definitively by, say, someone from Wizards familiar with the process? Was it really better to keep quiet and let people churn on misinformation?

"4E wasn't playtested" -> "4E wasn't playtested enough" -> "4E wasn't playtested in the right way" -> "4E wasn't playtested by the right people" -> "Are you implying 3E wasn't playtested?"

 

[mearls]

"4E wasn't playtested" -> "4E wasn't playtested enough" -> "4E wasn't playtested in the right way" -> "4E wasn't playtested by the right people" -> "Are you implying 3E wasn't playtested?"

Garnfellow, this is pretty much why. Playtesting and a few other topics just turn into mindless, recursive arguments that have no resolution. I can't refer to the rules text and say, "Look, this is what the game does."

In some cases, people *want* to believe the worst for a variety of reasons, and arguing with them on anything is a complete waste of time.

The most eye opening thing about the entire 4e process was how many people are what I call ideologues when it comes to D&D. The end result - whether the game is fun, interesting, and enjoyable - plays a distant second in their minds to the structure of the rules. The process, be it multiclassing, monster hit dice, or whatever, is more important than the end result of that process.

In other words, they'd rather use THAC0 than base attack bonus, because THAC0 is the right way to do things, even if it is slower, less extensible, and one of several idiosyncratic task resolution systems in the game. THAC0 has inherent value, by virtue of being THAC0, over other ways of doing things.