Do you think 6 months are enough for playtesting?

[Vigilance]

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?

That's the time being allotted for EXTERNAL playtesting.

D&D staffers have been playing the game for a year or so already, it seems.

 

[JDJblatherings]

It can't possibly be six months worth of "playtesting". More likely six months of "did we explain this clearly?"

 

[Tharen the Damned]

We also don't know how large the playtest is (or how large the 3E version was).

We know exactely how large the playtest for 3rd ed was. Just have a look at the PHB. All playtesters are in the credits somewhere in the back of the Book.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

6 Months is enough playtesting if you have any combo of:

1) enough people doing the playtesting

2) quality people doing the playtesting

3) a good number of rules lawyers doing the playtesting

4) a good number amateur thespians doing the playtesting

 

[Greatwyrm]

It can't possibly be six months worth of "playtesting". More likely six months of "did we explain this clearly?"

I'm pretty much thinking the same thing. When I got into a 3e "playtest" session at GenCon several years ago, it was pretty much in its final form, about a year before it came out. Assuming WotC really does have people working to continuously improve the game, I'd have to think everything we'll see has already had quite a bit of testing in their home/office games.

 

[Klaus]

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

And Unearthed Arcana (UA bloodlines are eerily similar to how races have been described), and Iron Heroes...

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

When Ryan Dancey launched the OGL, one of his main points was that Wizards would take what they considered the 'best of' back in-house and update D&D using it. So far, a lot of what we're seeing, with what appear to be nods to Saga, Iron Heroes, Spycraft and others, seems to be doing exactly that, although Wizards did produce quite a bit more in-house than in Dancey's original plan.

In general, I think playtesting is highly overrated in the RPG industry. A rulesset with strong mechanical underpinnings and a clear grasp of the theory it's been designed on should not require more than a few months of playtesting to work the bugs out - certainly any 'game breaking' elements will be vetted by the WotC Character Optimization board regulars within a month of playtest beginning, and as for the general 'feel' of the game, that should be set already.

 

[KarinsDad]

With several of the new game mechanics coming out of Star Wars, the question one should ask is:

"Did WotC do a good job with Star Wars, or does it need a ton of errata?"

I suspect that DND will get a lot more playtesting than Star Wars, but I've been known to be wrong before.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

My concern is that, from the tidbits posted in blogs, many things still don't seem to be nailed down yet. If that is close to the mark, I am concerned about only having eight months until release.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

"Did WotC do a good job with Star Wars, or does it need a ton of errata?"

They did a good job.

But to answer the original question, I really don't think 6 months is enough time. But they've been refining it for the past 2 years; I'm hoping that will factor in as well. We'll see.