Blatant Rules Errors in Published Modules

[Elephant]

My group is playtesting a module that will be published in the near future, and I'll be DMing for the playtest session.

As I've read through the module, I've noticed multiple very obvious rules errors. I've emailed the publisher about this, but I haven't received a response

When you run published modules and find horrible rules errors, what do you do? Go with the Module As Written (MAW)? Fix them during prep time and run the altered version? Send the publisher a list of errors and hope they're added to a list of errata on the website?

Or something else?

 

[Caliban]

If it's and obvious error, I fix it as simply as possible and continue with the game. If I don't think it's going to have a signficant effect on play, I won't bother.

 

[Crothian]

I fix everything and rewrite the module during prep time, but there are rarely rules things that I do this with. What type of rules errors are you seeing? Bad stat blocks?

 

[Digital Archon]

My group is playtesting a module that will be published in the near future, and I'll be DMing for the playtest session.

As I've read through the module, I've noticed multiple very obvious rules errors. I've emailed the publisher about this, but I haven't received a response

When you run published modules and find horrible rules errors, what do you do? Go with the Module As Written (MAW)? Fix them during prep time and run the altered version? Send the publisher a list of errors and hope they're added to a list of errata on the website?

Or something else?

Ok, let me see if i got this straight:

I'm kind of talking tangential to the topic, but i'll get back to it in a moment.

There is Publisher X. They have selected your group to play test one of their products. During playtest (though i guess it's technically before playtest even began), you have discovered errors and contacted them about it, thereby doing what they've "contracted" you for (i don't konw if it's a real contract, or something else). Publisher X has not gotten back to you, not even with a "thanks for noticing". How long ago did you send this mail?

This seems kind of odd that they'd send stuff out for playtest, and not acknowledge the playtest teams in any way. It's kind of a mixed message "We care about playtesting our product, but we don't care about hearing about it".

Anyway, back to the topic. I operate under the following procedure:

If it's obviously stupidly broken and important to the product, i either fix it if it won't take much time and there's only a couple of screwy things, or dump the module onto the "steal ideas from, but won't run" pile, if there's a lot.
If it's obviously stupidly broken and not important to the product, i get rid of it entirely. I don't have the time to screw around with stuff that should have been caught during playtest, and since it's not important, i won't bother trying to fix it.
If it's just something minor and important to the product, then i'll fix it enough that it won't cause a problem.
If it's just something minor and not important to the product, then i'll consider fixing it enough that it won't cause a problem. I might just ignore the problem as well. This one is a judgement call, more than anything.

 

[Firebird]

I had the same... problem with a publisher. My group and I signed up to playtest an upcoming product only to find the prouct was far below the standards for what we would consider purchasing. One of my players even thought it might have been a test for playtesters to cull the good from the bad.
Our list of errata and suggested corrections was almost as long as the module itself.
Emails to the publisher have been met with....we will be reviewing all of the playtest results in month X and get back to you. Then when that month passes without response.....we will be reviewing all the playtest results in month X+1.
It is now month X+2.

 

[Glyfair]

This seems kind of odd that they'd send stuff out for playtest, and not acknowledge the playtest teams in any way. It's kind of a mixed message "We care about playtesting our product, but we don't care about hearing about it".

I'm not sure that this isn't common. I've spoken with some people I know who were in charge of aCCG playtest (they got the info from the company, sent it out to other playtest groups, gathered the info, and sent it back to the company). Apparently, they would send the info to the company, wait for them to look it over and send them the info back for more playtesting. They got nothing back. One playtest through, no comments, product released.

Now, this is a CCG that is still in print. Indeed, it's a company that has published RPG products, so I wouldn't be suprised to see their RPG products have similiar playtesting procedures (depending on how pervasive this pattern is within the company).

Is this necessarily bad? Hard to tell. I know the company does get good reviews for its products.

Still, it's not what I'm used to. I have playtested for another game company. I don't think that I've had a playtest for a game that hasn't gone through at least 3 interations, and usually 5-6. That's what I consider appropriate.

As for this particular case, it depends. First, why are you playing? Playtesting? Skip over the offending bit, unless it's central to the game. In that case, find a fix that's closest to the offending rule and run with it. Make sure you cover that in your playtest notes.

Are you playing for fun, now that playtesting is over (a bit questionable)? In that case, do what you feel is best. Find a fix for the rule that fits the group's style and run it that way. Alternatively, avoid the product if it's that broken.

 

[frankthedm]

I assume the NDA prevents the OP from saying the problem?

Does the rule problem come from the written rules or Wotc's Faq'ed up errata?

Find the simplest fix, use that, report it. If the publisher ignores the problem, make posts on that as soon as you can after product release.

 

[billd91]

I'm not sure that this isn't common. I've spoken with some people I know who were in charge of aCCG playtest (they got the info from the company, sent it out to other playtest groups, gathered the info, and sent it back to the company). Apparently, they would send the info to the company, wait for them to look it over and send them the info back for more playtesting. They got nothing back. One playtest through, no comments, product released.

Now, this is a CCG that is still in print. Indeed, it's a company that has published RPG products, so I wouldn't be suprised to see their RPG products have similiar playtesting procedures (depending on how pervasive this pattern is within the company).

Is this necessarily bad? Hard to tell. I know the company does get good reviews for its products.

Still, it's not what I'm used to. I have playtested for another game company. I don't think that I've had a playtest for a game that hasn't gone through at least 3 interations, and usually 5-6. That's what I consider appropriate.

I'd agree that iterative playtesting is best, but we don't have enough information to guess if they're doing it or not. For an RPG adventure, I think it would make sense to do iterative play testing with different groups rather than multiple rounds with the same group. Playtesting board and card games, and source material for RPGs would be more suitable for multiple rounds with the same participants.

That said, not getting a response from the publisher may or may not be bad depending on how long it has taken to get a response, whether the product is a high-priority release vs low priority, how available the author is to the person receiving the playtester response, and so on. Whether this is all bad or not as far as the quality of the product goes, it is at least impolite to leave a play tester hanging without even a "Thanks for bringing it to our attention. We're looking into this." response even if a complete response is longer in coming.

 

[davidschwartznz]

If it's and obvious error, I fix it as simply as possible and continue with the game. If I don't think it's going to have a signficant effect on play, I won't bother.

Ditto (for published modules)

If I see an error in a pre-production book, I tell the editor. In fact, that's how I got my break in this industry. I was playtester for the Etherscope game and, as I do, I sent them a list of technical errors I saw. In there was a comment about the allegience system as it was then. Their response to that was along the lines of "If you're so smart, you write it!", only more polite than that. So I did, and that's why Etherscope has the Value system (well, that and S&S were nice enough to let us use some of their terminology). That led to them asking me to write for other books in the series, which led to another job, and hopefully so on.

The way I see it, it works like this:
If I point out a mistake (or make a suggestion) and they change it, then I've done my job and helped the end consumer.
If they show me that I'm mistaken (it happens), then I've learned something and am better for it.
If they ignore me, well it's their problem (and their right to do so).

 

[Glyfair]

I'd agree that iterative playtesting is best, but we don't have enough information to guess if they're doing it or not. For an RPG adventure, I think it would make sense to do iterative play testing with different groups rather than multiple rounds with the same group. P

I imagine it depends on what you are fixing. If you are fixing the "play experience," then I'd say you want new groups, but send it to the old ones to get their comments about whether it would have improved their play value.

However, if you are just balancing combats and the like, you can certainly send it back to the same playtesters.