Do you think 6 months are enough for playtesting?

[Li Shenron]

With the books coming out in May, that's about the time left for playtesting (maybe 1 month more).

Is it enough in your opinion? I don't remember how long for 3e playtested for example, and of course internal playtesting has been going on in WotC already for a long time. Still, I hear pretty major changes to the game as a whole.

What about editing errors? Will we see the same (high) amount of errata as in 3rd edition? Less? Worse?

 

[Horacio]

I guess internal playtesting in already being done.
If they do an effort with enough external playtesters and a good playtesting report processing, I think it can be enough.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

They should have been including the potential buyers from the very beginning. I think no its not enough time.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Given that they've been working on it for over two years now (?) I reckon they would have been playtesting (with some help) and nutting out issues constantly, and will continue to do so until it's time to release the thing.

 

[Aloïsius]

It looks short, very short. And then they will need to edit the whole thing...
It reminds me of early 3.0, when some supplement used rules that had been scrapped at last minute (monsters of faerun rules for lycantropy were older than in the MM by example).

I think I will wait for a reprint of the PHB1

 

[Ashardalon]

Given that they've been working on it for over two years now (?) I reckon they would have been playtesting (with some help) and nutting out issues constantly, and will continue to do so until it's time to release the thing.

Yeah, it's "just" external playtesting now. Most of the framework already exists, and most big stuff should be ironed out. It is still a pretty tight timeframe, though, should something big be discovered that the developers overlooked.

 

[Tharen the Damned]

I must admit that I am very exited about what I hear of the 4th edition.
But I do not think that 6 month playtests with external playtesters will be enough.
Playtesting is not about playing new cool classes and running the game smothly.
For me playtesting is about trying to wreck the system. Powergaming for the PCs at its best or worst. Trying to find the ueber spell combinations or attack modes.
Only if you try to break the system you see how good and solid it really is.
Have a look at the playtester list for 3rd Ed. than have a look at the spells that got changed in 3.5 and you see what I mean (polymorph, haste, harm and the likes).
It is like testdriving a car. They do not drive on the motorway at sunday evening but under harsh conditions -very high and low temperatures, rain, snow hail etc..
But you have to have some kind of familarity and mastery over the system to see where the weak points are and to be able to offer suggestions how to fix it.
So I think 6 months are not enough.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I guess internal playtesting in already being done.
If they do an effort with enough external playtesters and a good playtesting report processing, I think it can be enough.

Yep. Internal playtesting, if I understand correctly, has been going on almost since they first began designing 4E.

It's also possible there's been some small amount of external playtesting. (The designers playing with friends who don't work for WotC, that sort of thing.)

Plus, a lot of what's happening in 4E has been previewed in 3E and SAGA, so those concepts have already seen playtesting.

I think, as long as they're efficient, the time remaining is sufficient for more widespread external playtest.

 

[Mouseferatu]

They should have been including the potential buyers from the very beginning. I think no its not enough time.

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.

 

[Horacio]

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.

Very very true, I think.

Simply reading any 4e thread here shows that there are as many divergent opinions as players. If they tried to please ALL their potential clients, at the end they will get no one pleased.