Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Garnfellow" data-source="post: 4215361" data-attributes="member: 1223">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.</blockquote>

Verification