Do you think 6 months are enough for playtesting?

[Blastin]

I'm pretty sure, for the reasons mentioned above, that this isn't really a playtest in the true sense. Yes, If someone finds a truly horrific error, that'll get changed, but not much else.
I think that this "Playtest" is really just a way to generate more buzz and excitement in the gaming world. Even if someone is NDA'ed out the wazoo, they are still gonna talk to their friends and go on boards and say general, vague stuff like "Wow, I can't believe how good this is." or similar. That will make people more anxious to get the books, and that will boost initial sales...

So...that being said....
What do I have to do to get in the playtest?

 

[RigaMortus2]

Playtesting is a made up word that really doesn't mean anything. 3E was 'playtesting' for 3.5. And 3.5 was 'playtesting' for 4E. Just as 4E will be 'playtesting' for 5E. You are always going to be in a perpetual cycle of 'playtesting'...

 

[Piratecat]

Playtesting is a made up word that really doesn't mean anything.

Definitively false. While I agree that the balance and design issues uncovered with each edition help ramp designers up the learning curve, proper playtesting isn't about identifying problems in the current rules; it's about putting new rules through the wringer to identify exciting new flaws and weaknesses.

That's why the "we had all of 3.5" argument doesn't particularly hold much water for me. It's not about identifying existing problems, as I have no doubt they've done that beautifully. It's about testing how the new changes work as a whole.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

After reading this disucssion and thinking about it a bit, I'd like to see them push the release backa few months to allow more public playtesting and allow the results to be iterated into the rules.

I look at gaming systems like software: because a change in one place usually creates a bug somewhere else, you can't stress the system enough internally, and it takes a very large-scale beta test to really work the kinks out. WOTC may have been playtesting internally for a while, but I look at that as an alpha test -- no system survives contact with the gaming masses. Given the production lead times some have printed here, there's probably 6 weeks to 3 months of true playtest time, which really doesn't allow time for stressful iterative testing.

You could look at 3.0 as a beta test for 3.5, but with the number of changes they are predicting for 4E, I don't think the same relationship holds.

And the "we can give you errata digitally!" argument is bogus to me ... it's like that common (and totally BS) software approach of avoiding a lengthy beta test by simply releasing the software and sending out a mound of patches later. That approach has killed a lot of good software, and people are turned off by the first experience.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

And the "we can give you errata digitally!" argument is bogus to me ... it's like that common (and totally BS) software approach of avoiding a lengthy beta test by simply releasing the software and sending out a mound of patches later. That approach has killed a lot of good software, and people are turned off by the first experience.

Yeah, except that we were pretty much TOLD this at GenCon. They said that errata had been slow coming out for 3.5 edition partially because thy couldn't be sure that a large number of people would even get it.

Now that they had the ability to put errata out, not only as a compiled list that they put on their web site for everyone, but also to highlight it on the D&DI AND to auto update a large number of people's books that they could be sure that the majority of people playing D&D would receive the changes and that everyone else would be informed through the grapevine. Plus, since the D&DI would give a large number of players reasons to check the website for updates on a regular basis, they'd get it in a more timely fashion.

This allowed them to make small changes that were needed to make the game better without having to resort to a 4.5.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Yeah, except that we were pretty much TOLD this at GenCon. They said that errata had been slow coming out for 3.5 edition partially because thy couldn't be sure that a large number of people would even get it.

Not buying it, sorry. If people won't go to the website to get errata when it's free, why would they go to the website to pay for errata (since you have to pay a "nominal fee" to unlock the digital version of the book you bought)?

 

[Monkey Boy]

The designers made the point that they were not interested in changing the game to one where you need a laptop to play. I am prepared to believe them and do not think they were misquoted. If a significant amount of erata come through the DI (like a patch in a MMORPG) then it's sounding more and more that laptops are a needed at the table.

I plan on getting a laptop next year so this may not be a big deal for me, but I am confident that the majority would prefer to keep laptops out of 4E.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Wow, I just looked at the archived Unofficial 3rd Edition News pages, and it sure seems like we knew much more about 3E a year out -- and a lot still changed in playtest even then -- than we know about 4E today 9 months from release.

Reinforces further my opinion that the schedule may still be too aggressive for 4E.

Edit: and further reinforces Logan's message about being "fixed in 3E thinking." There was a lot of "fixed in 2E thinking" back then. But then, it's easiest to couch concepts in relation to what you know than what you don't.

 

[MadMaxim]

That's what, 6 weeks of playtesting, at most, if you keep to schedule and if you want the book out on time.

I was wondering about this as well. If Wizards haven't started playtesting 4th edition outside their offices yet, then there's no way they'll be able to get it out to enough playtesters or give them enough time to try to "wreck" the system before the book gets printed. That does not bode well in my opinion...

 

[Khairn]

Personally, with the right play testers and a receptive design team willing to make changes, it might be enough time, but I'm not really confident.

Having said that, I don't believe it matters what we think, the date is set and either they'll do it right, or they won't.