Do you think 6 months are enough for playtesting?

[Rydac]

Hey I think it is good news that there will be an external playtest...and while perhaps tight (more time would always be great, but there has to be a cut off at some point) there should
be plenty of time for an effective playtest.

They've been working on this two years plus as Mouseferatu pointed out some of the concepts have already been playtested. I imagine playtesters will be looking at some key points and changes alongside overall opinions. As to breaking a system a couple of the powergamers in our group could crank out multiple tested characters in a week for a variety of levels...there's plenty of time.

 

[cerberus2112]

No, they shouldn't. The best way to make sure a game never comes together is to offer the entire fanbase input in how to build it.

There are simply far too many varieties of taste, far too many opinions, far too many goals, far too many preferences, and--to be blunt--far too many people who think they know what they're talking about but actually don't, in the marketplace. Once the first draft of a game is more or less complete, that's when you playtest it. Trying to playtest it before then is, essentially, adding thousands of opinions to the design process, and the game either never gets anywhere, or tries to be all things to all people and fails miserably.

I've got to agree with this. My experiences with the open playtest of L5R's Lotus edition, and then my design work for Samurai edition have been largely the same. It is often difficult to get five or six guys to agree on a mechanic; they all have different ideas about where the game should go. Adding hundreds more voices just confuses things, let alone the thousands that would be interested in voicing their opinion about D&D.

 

[Piratecat]

Does anyone know how long the external playtest for 3E was? Is Piratecat hanging around this forum (he'd have an idea)?

We started playtesting 3e in November of (I believe) '98, nine months before it was announced and more than a year and a half before it launched in August of 2000. That's one of the reasons that the relatively short 4e playtest cycle concerns me; sorting and processing playtest comments in that short time, and making iterative adjustments that are themselves tested, seems highly problematic.

I would argue that the single best thing that the 3e team did was use exhaustive playtesting, led at the time by Kim Mohan. Large groups find usability problems that small internal groups don't. Period. If the designers can then interpret and identify the problems emerging from the playtest data, they'll have a significantly better game when it's done.

 

[Tharen the Damned]

What Piratecat said. It takes time to compile a playtest report and it takes time to read through this report and change things that need to be changed and send the new rules out to be playtested again.

Piratecat, question for you: Did many mechanics change during playtesting 3rd ed.?

 

[Thunderfoot]

No way

and testing mostly through RPGA? It has been my experience that the best games are not RPGA.

Who you really want testing are the guy & gals who have been playing the game for 10 -15 years. They are a loyal core group , and have long experience on what is game breaking.

my 2 cps

Ian

Watch it with those kinds of comments...you never know who might be seeing them...
Thunderfoot
Loyal ENWorlder and RPGA member since 1983...

Frankly, the RPGA is the perfect way to get the play test done. Modules sent directly to home game groups (not just conventions). NDAs included with comment sheets and specific scenarios that cover all of the rules options in order to ensure productive rulings. Depending upon dissemination and the availablity of the electronic format, they could cover 3 years of play testing in about 3 months without ever having to physically set people at a table.

However, if the question is "Do I think they are overreaching?"... the answer is yes.

 

[avin]

I'm just concerned about Monsters can't have classes anymore...

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm just concerned about Monsters can't have classes anymore...

That's never been said. I can't say for sure, but I'd guess it'll still be possible.

 

[DaveMage]

I suppose at this point it can be argued that the entirety of 3E *was* the playtest for 4E.

4E will be the playtest for 5E, etc.....


Heck, look at the 3.5 D&D FAQ, they're adding things to it all of the time. It's an ongoing process...

 

[alaric]

This is just the publicly announced semi-open playtest. Piratecat mentioned he was playtest prior to announcement, and presumably under NDA to not even mention the word 3E, so we don't know there aren't other groups just like that now. We also don't know how large the playtest is (or how large the 3E version was). Even if they have less revision cycles they can catch more per cycle with a larger group of playtesters.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I am most concerned with not getting an NDA and a playtest package in the mail yet.

Grrrr. >.<

To some extent I think they are sacrificing the playtest opportunity and some amount of the good it would do for, I feel, limiting the impact to sales. Now, really, that impact to their sales might be somewhat light but they may or may not be saving a few 3Ps. Because playtesting will probably involve leaks, especially if it is a wide playtesting group. With the internet and digital media as it is, rumors and leaks spread like wildfire. Had they begun playtesting outside of their internal groups before GenCon, I figure the cat would have been out of the bag and instead of a 9-month doldrum where producers can't move product and game stores have fire sales to get rid of stuff they won't be able to sell, they might have had a year+.

--fje

--fje