Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8307255" data-attributes="member: 6704184">I think it’s also important to note that, the designers weren’t “multiple iterations ahead of the playtest”. That mischaracterizes what happened pretty egregiously, and relies on folks basically calling everyone at Wizards a bald faced liar, and on them being Mycroft Holmes level geniuses. &nbsp;What happened is that they were testing a ton of ideas, and the stuff that worked for them internally got into the playtest packets, stuff they weren’t sure about but liked got into surveys and L&amp;L articles and the like, and they steered further internal testing by what the response was to the surveys and articles and packets.&nbsp; &nbsp;What they didn’t do was predict what feedback would be and design a playtest packets that would seem to evolve over time in order to trick us all into thinking we’d participated in a playtest where none of us got exactly what we wanted.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 8307255, member: 6704184"] I think it’s also important to note that, the designers weren’t “multiple iterations ahead of the playtest”. That mischaracterizes what happened pretty egregiously, and relies on folks basically calling everyone at Wizards a bald faced liar, [I]and[/I] on them being Mycroft Holmes level geniuses. What happened is that they were testing a ton of ideas, and the stuff that worked for them internally got into the playtest packets, stuff they weren’t sure about but liked got into surveys and L&L articles and the like, and they steered further internal testing by what the response was to the surveys and articles and packets. What they didn’t do was predict what feedback would be and design a playtest packets that would seem to evolve over time in order to trick us all into thinking we’d participated in a playtest where none of us got exactly what we wanted. [/QUOTE]

Verification