Do You Think Open Playtests Improve a Game's Development?

[TiQuinn]

It is possible, but there is no way to know for sure. After all, I think it is pretty broadly accepted that 5E's success is NOT a function of its system, but of a convergence of many factors -- not least being media presence (Stranger Things) and streaming (Critical Role). I am sure it helped that 5E is both easy to learn and easy to stream, but I don't know that any of the elements considered in the playtest and abandoned would have resulted in a less playable or less streamable game.

In other words, you can't just say "5E was successful ergo 5E's final design is best."

No, but I can say that it went through as extensive a playtest as any edition had been at that time, and the designer of the game stated the team drew a lot of feedback that did impact how they moved forward with the product. I mean, it’s one thing that we DO know from someone in a place to speak with some authority.

Would the rise of Actual Plays, YouTube influencers and Stranger Things made 4e a success, for instance.

 

[Reynard]

Would the rise of Actual Plays, YouTube influencers and Stranger Things made 4e a success, for instance.

There is literally no way of knowing, which is why it is wrong to attribute 5E's success to its system choices.

 

[mamba]

There is literally no way of knowing, which is why it is wrong to attribute 5E's success to its system choices.

then it is also wrong to attribute them to 'the environment' however. I suspect both contributed and if one of the two were missing it would not have had the success it ended up having

 

[TheSword]

I think they’re a form of marketing. You can’t design a game by committee, but having thousands of playtesters is useful to iron out kinks. Folks don’t know what they want until they see it, so less about designing good rules and more about our vetoing bad ones.

Either way, the discussion itself is useful because it creates hype, gets more people interested and a successful game at inception is likely to go on to be better.

 

[Reynard]

then it is also wrong to attribute them to 'the environment' however. I suspect both contributed and if one of the two were missing it would not have had the success it ended up having

We know both Stranger Things and Critical Role increased interest in D&D. What we can't know is if it "stuck" because of 5E system choices.

 

[TiQuinn]

There is literally no way of knowing, which is why it is wrong to attribute 5E's success to its system choices.

There is literally no way of knowing anything based on the question you posted. But I am saying that when the designer of the game says that he derived value from it, that does carry some greater weight. MCDM and Darrington Press both underwent or in the middle of extensive play tests. I have an extremely hard time believing that’s for nothing - they wouldn’t be doing it. Other companies have seen the value in doing this and they are reporting back that they make adjustments based on player feedback. Dismissing that out of hand based on personal opinion seems very silly.

To the point: show me a counter example where a designer who published a game system after undergoing open playtests said that there was little value in doing so.

 

[Reynard]

There is literally no way of knowing anything based on the question you posted. But I am saying that when the designer of the game says that he derived value from it, that does carry some greater weight. MCDM and Darrington Press both underwent or in the middle of extensive play tests. I have an extremely hard time believing that’s for nothing - they wouldn’t be doing it. Other companies have seen the value in doing this and they are reporting back that they make adjustments based on player feedback. Dismissing that out of hand based on personal opinion seems very silly.

From my perspective, 2024 D&D was certainly worse for the public playtest.

 

[TiQuinn]

From my perspective, 2024 D&D was certainly worse for the public playtest.

Yes, that’s your perspective. What is different there from just saying you don’t like the system?

 

[Reynard]

Yes, that’s your perspective. What is different there from just saying you don’t like the system?

That's not what I said. Let's not speak in extremes.

 

[TiQuinn]

That's not what I said. Let's not speak in extremes.

Okay, but then explain what you mean by “I am not convinced that open playtests are actually beneficial to design and development” if the actual designers are seeing value in it?

Ultimately, are you really criticizing the value of playtests or are you criticizing the choices the designers make based on the information they receive and act upon based on those playtests?