D&D 4E 4e Playtesters revealed!

[Wisdom Penalty]

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.

Not to pick on Dave, who's a big boy, but that type of post is probably very indicative of the unfortunate twists and turns any discussion - positive or negative - turns toward on the 'net. I don't think we're only dealing with the trials and tribulations of 4E and its components; we're dealing with the Way Things Are on internet messageboards.

In case I need to spell it out - if you have a negative outlook toward something, you will find a way to post negatively.

To dissect the quoted post:

1) First, we show some cleverness by implying - without actually implying, mind you - that the list of playtesters is bloated with friendly voices. Ahem. Let me present Exhibit A:

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

2) Now that we've got our gander up, we can push forward to undermine the entire process and suggest, in a roundabout way, no meaningful playtesting was done. Exhibit B:

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

3) Aha! Now we have those evil 4on's and designers on the ropes. Let's go for the kill. Switch from playtesting to the game itself, and suggest its "sustainability" is questionable. Exhibit C.

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

Actually...that third quote is probably fair, and I can see the sense in that.

Um, anyway, this whole process (the intro of a new edition) has really soured me on the gaming public. We are a very, very bitter group of egoists. We have a sense of entitlement that borders on megalomania. Because we are smarter than the non-gaming populace (or so we would believe), we can be very clever and witty (in our own minds) with how we hurl invectives and cast dispersions. Sweetmotherofpearl, can't we ever be positive about something?

The bottom line remains unchanged - despite how fanciful and slick our insults: We tend to target others with our negativity, and at some level - whether those victims will admit it or not - it probably hurts.

And that just stinks.

Wis

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

My observation (and my own experience) is that players are/were extremely receptive to "more fun" rules, and rightly vested a lot of trust in Lead Developer Mearls, but that spines started stiffening when it came to the setting changes.

That's probably true, but I don't understand why. I've been playing since 1978. I modeled my crapper on the City the Brass. I named my first kid Robilar. But I have no issues - none - with them trying something new in terms of flavor - especially if it brings new gamers into the fold.

If I don't like the flavor, I'll change it to what I do like. Flavor can change much more easily than rules mechanics. (Yes, yes - I know - there are no druids, or gnomes, or whatever. But, seriously, can't that be fixed as well?)

I'm not saying it's wrong to go on tirades against the flavor changes, but I do think it's silly to throw the baby out with the bathwater because of them.

Wis

 

[Rex Blunder]

The bottom line remains unchanged - despite how fanciful and slick our insults: We tend to target others with our negativity, and at some level - whether those victims will admit it or not - it probably hurts.

And that just stinks.

Wisdom Penalty for president!

(won't be the first president with wisdom as a dump stat)

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

Wisdom Penalty for president!

My eye is on 2012, but I'm taking donations.

Wis

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Damn. My name is not on the list. I was kind of hoping they'd put us LFR Admins on the list, even if we weren't officially playtesters. The playtesters got the hard part anyways. We just got the benefits. But from the recent previews, it looks like at least our list of questions was used to fix the draft before it went to printers.

Thank you to all the playtesters. I'm almost glad that I didn't get chosen. I doubt I would have been able to convince my players to put up with the stuff you guys normally have to do.

 

[mearls]

My observation (and my own experience) is that players are/were extremely receptive to "more fun" rules, and rightly vested a lot of trust in Lead Developer Mearls, but that spines started stiffening when it came to the setting changes.

It's a silly thing, yes-- but can you explain why it is "more fun, more enjoyable, and more interesting" for the succubus to be a devil, not a demon (just to pick a random example I personally don't give a fart about)?

I think the flavor issues boil down to a simple issue: what does it change at the table? Does it make more sense for a subtle manipulator to work for devils, or for demons?

On that score, I think the change does make the game more fun, because it places a creature in a better context. You aren't stuck building your devil adventure, wishing that the succubus was in the devil column. If you have to go through a series of design contortions for that classification to make sense, it's time for that classification to go.

In a way, it's about applying a sense of balance of sorts to monsters. Orcs are big brutes, so we don't design them as great archers. That's more of a gnoll thing. Goblin archers are better snipers. On one hand, design restrictions like that might seem needlessly limiting, but the payoff is that each monster type does a better job of exerting its unique flavor and feel at the table.

 

[DaveMage]

To dissect the quoted post:

1) First, we show some cleverness by implying - without actually implying, mind you - that the list of playtesters is bloated with friendly voices. Ahem. Let me present Exhibit A:

2) Now that we've got our gander up, we can push forward to undermine the entire process and suggest, in a roundabout way, no meaningful playtesting was done. Exhibit B:

3) Aha! Now we have those evil 4on's and designers on the ropes. Let's go for the kill. Switch from playtesting to the game itself, and suggest its "sustainability" is questionable. Exhibit C.

Actually...that third quote is probably fair, and I can see the sense in that.

Um, anyway, this whole process (the intro of a new edition) has really soured me on the gaming public. We are a very, very bitter group of egoists. We have a sense of entitlement that borders on megalomania. Because we are smarter than the non-gaming populace (or so we would believe), we can be very clever and witty (in our own minds) with how we hurl invectives and cast dispersions. Sweetmotherofpearl, can't we ever be positive about something?

The bottom line remains unchanged - despite how fanciful and slick our insults: We tend to target others with our negativity, and at some level - whether those victims will admit it or not - it probably hurts.

And that just stinks.

Wis

Neat! I had a post deconstructed - you Derrida, you!

Now to answer:

The playtesting process has been questioned since the start. Questioning the process is very relevant with regard to the new edition. Heck, it was only at D&D XP where a few hundred (?) or so playtesters quickly identified the Paladin snafu - and that was just 1st level PCs! I really do wonder what the playtest list would look like without those who had been paid by WotC and their families because the *outside* playtest is (potentially) important. Kind of like editing your own work - you can do it, but it's usually better having someone not as close to the work do it instead. Of course, WotC may not believe the benefits outweigh the cost, so perhaps it's simply a business decision.

Now of course, the WotC staffers and their families will have done a lot of good work, but a critical, outsider point of view (on a large scale) might round things out better.

My second comment ties with the first. Playtesting in the manner the chose may be the most efficient - I'll take Mike's word for that - but it still isn't full rules playtesting. That's a fact - not a criticism. It does not mean that the playtesting wasn't meaningful (and I don't say that), but it does mean that it is not wholly inclusive of the game, which will apparently not be fully tested until it's in the hands of the public.

As to your ascribing motives in the last part of your ramble, I'd caution you on that.

D&D is a hobby - an emotional investment. There's no logic to wanting to play D&D - it's all emotion. How can you expect any other kind of reactions to the game - for better or worse - that aren't emotional? We all *want* it to be our game of choice on some level, and we want the rules & fluff to be our ideal game - which is why we're here. When it fails to do that, we're disappointed. When it succeeds, we're thrilled. Consequently, when someone hates what you like, there's tension. (Think Red Sox/Yankees - fans of each hate the other team, but they all love baseball.)

And finally, I think there's nothing wrong with criticizing a process. WotC has made many decisions - both business-wise and rules/fluff-wise regarding 4E. These decisions have caused a schism in the community. As they are driving the bus, if they choose to go in a direction that's foreign, they shouldn't be surprised if a few people choose to get off at the next stop.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

Good response, Dave. Don't really feel like turning this into the normal back-and-forth.

Let's just agree to disagree, with the facts and with our interpretation of those facts.

Be cool. Don't hurt other peoples' feelings. And if it ain't your game, it doesn't mean it's not the game for others.*

See? I understand there's folk that like C&C, M&M, T20, ad infinitum. I hope those folks come back (or come to) 4E at some point, and I think most will.

Wis


* That's my campaign platform/slogan for 2012, btw.

 

[mearls]

Heck, it was only at D&D XP where a few hundred (?) or so playtesters quickly identified the Paladin snafu - and that was just 1st level PCs!

The problem had already been identified and corrected before D&D XP. The characters were created before that round of changes, and nobody thought to make sure the changes had been implemented to them.

There was full rules playtesting, but not everyone took part in it. We used a mix of the two approaches.

 

[Eytan Bernstein]

We playtested, in as much as our group offered some feedback, and were all under playtester NDA. But I got the rules via different channels, since I got them primarily as a freelancer, not a playtester.

I do feel bad that my group didn't get their names on there, though.

I'm not sure there is any specific reason why some were included. I am in the same boat as Ari in terms of freelancing, and my name was included, but it's quite random who was listed from the rest of my group.