D&D 5E Final playtest packet due in mid September.

[Warbringer]

Concept testing is very different than playtesting.
Concept Testing versus playtesting.

By definition, playtesting involves finding bugs and improving mechanics, not revising and rebuilding the game. Problematic's haven't been resolved by fixing bugs but completely rebuilding the mechanic.

We're not participating in a playtest, we're market research. We're part of a mass focus group.

from the link

"RPG playtests tend to focus more on ensuring that the game's mechanics are balanced and that the game flows smoothly in play. It is also more typical to see feedback from players cause game mechanics to be adjusted or altered."

In what way as the "playtest" not done this?

 

[Warbringer]

So let's say, for the point of speculation, that the multiclassing system in the next packet proves substantially flawed, and feedback reveals that. Back to the drawing board!

I don't think so. I think that they will make alterations to the cause of the flaw, play test internally, then incorporate.

 

[Dannager]

Concept testing is very different than playtesting.
Concept Testing versus playtesting.

I feel like I should probably let you know that D&D Next is actually cited, in the very article you linked to, as an example of playtesting in the tabletop RPG industry.

"An example of a role-playing game that is being heavily playtested is the upcoming 5th edition of Dungeons & Dragons."

Next time you use Wikipedia to prove that something doesn't fall under a certain category, make sure Wikipedia actually agrees with you.

I can't believe I'm actually arguing with someone over whether the D&D playtest counts as a playtest. This is almost surreal.

 

[Warunsun]

We're not participating in a playtest, we're market research. We're part of a mass focus group.

I am a bit puzzled on why your mad or sad. The D&D Next playtest has been this way since the beginning with frequent and massive changes followed up with simple research opinion polling.

 

[Jester David]

I feel like I should probably let you know that D&D Next is actually cited, in the very article you linked to, as an example of playtesting in the tabletop RPG industry.

"An example of a role-playing game that is being heavily playtested is the upcoming 5th edition of Dungeons & Dragons."

Next time you use Wikipedia to prove that something doesn't fall under a certain category, make sure Wikipedia actually agrees with you.

I can't believe I'm actually arguing with someone over whether the D&D playtest counts as a playtest. This is almost surreal.

I am aware of the reference to D&D, which was written prior to the ending of the actual playtest, when there was hope that some testing via play might still occur.
It does not alter my point, and just means someone need to edit the Wikipedia entry.

 

[Dannager]

I am aware of the reference to D&D, which was written prior to the ending of the actual playtest, when there was hope that some testing via play might still occur.

No, I think probably you just don't get to define what is and isn't a playtest.

 

[Jester David]

from the link

"RPG playtests tend to focus more on ensuring that the game's mechanics are balanced and that the game flows smoothly in play. It is also more typical to see feedback from players cause game mechanics to be adjusted or altered."

In what way as the "playtest" not done this?

There's been negligible game play smoothing and virtually no balancing, which is the big thing. The most recent package is just as sketchily balanced as the first package. The fighter is no more smooth or polished than it was at the start and all progress has been largely lateral.

The design has progressed, but with classes continually rebuilt they have yet to start actually balancing and fine tuning.

 

[Jester David]

No, I think probably you just don't get to define what is and isn't a playtest.

And Wizards does?

I'm not trying to define it; I'm using an outside definition.

Are we testing for bugs? No. Are we making improvements? Sometimes. Are we involved in the Quality Control process? No.
Is our work influencing the final product? Yes. We are having an impact and influencing the overall direction. But we're not testing the game, not really.

 

[Warbringer]

There's been negligible game play smoothing and virtually no balancing, which is the big thing. The most recent package is just as sketchily balanced as the first package. The fighter is no more smooth or polished than it was at the start and all progress has been largely lateral.

The design has progressed, but with classes continually rebuilt they have yet to start actually balancing and fine tuning.

I think they've been balancing all along. What you see as lateral moves I probably see as balancing decisions, such as all the changes around superiority dice, changes to barbarian, spell damage on spells, and I can't remember but didn't hit points go through iterations n some classes?

Is it balanced yet? Hell no, there are still changes coming for sure.

But this isn't a software play test, so iterations are going to be longer and with bigger swings, which in truth can look a whole lot like concept testing as well.

Even then, this isn't just a big marketing focus group. To be honest, running 50 or so focus groups of 8-12 people over the last 12 months would have been a far more efficient way of extracting market based sentiment than the current process if that was the objective.

 

[Jester David]

I am a bit puzzled on why your mad or sad. The D&D Next playtest has been this way since the beginning with frequent and massive changes followed up with simple research opinion polling.

I'm more sad.
One of the big problems with 4e was the lack of playtesting. It wasn't hammering into shape as much as it could resulting in math problems with skills, and attack bonuses, long combats, powers were broken, and other hiccups. And the game suffered as a result.
You just need to look at the list of revisions for the PHB1 and MM1 to see the work that could have been done.

I was hoping for better this time. I was hoping they'd open up and let us pre-break the game so it could be fixed for launch and not require errata in the first month.

I'm happy we had the chance to contribute as much as we did. It was lovely and brilliant and mad. But the job is only half done. The bit the requires the most attention is yet to come.