Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 8307258" data-attributes="member: 53980">That's not very convincing IMO.Conducting a play test doesn't mean that they're going to completely redesign the game based on feedback. However, that doesn't mean the playtest had no influence on the design. Likely, it's somewhere in the middle.There were plenty of things that didn't make it through the playtest. Like the original version of the sorcerer, which I actually really liked.That doesn't mean that I believe that they put the original sorcerer in as some sort of red herring, when they already actually had the game completely done. It seems rather unlikely that they sat on a finished product for over a year while running playtests for &quot;marketing&quot; purposes. Plenty of people had a negative reaction to the playtest. There were many D&amp;D players who never participated at all. As a marketing strategy, I'm not convinced it was worth forgoing over a years worth of potential revenue. That doesn't seem like a remotely logical business decision.The playtest may not have produced everyone's favorite edition of D&amp;D, but that doesn't mean that they didn't listen to feedback. It's the most popular edition of D&amp;D ever I believe (pretty sure that happened before Critical Role existed, so that wasn't a factor at the time). Based on that, they presumably did something right, and it seems to me that it would be logical to infer that the playtest played at least some part in that. Not just as a marketing scheme, but influencing the design. Had it merely been a successful marketing scheme coupled with an unfavorable design, we would have likely seen a spike of sales upon release coupled with a sharp downturn thereafter. Which is evidently not what happened.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fanaelialae, post: 8307258, member: 53980"] That's not very convincing IMO. Conducting a play test doesn't mean that they're going to completely redesign the game based on feedback. However, that doesn't mean the playtest had no influence on the design. Likely, it's somewhere in the middle. There were plenty of things that didn't make it through the playtest. Like the original version of the sorcerer, which I actually really liked. That doesn't mean that I believe that they put the original sorcerer in as some sort of red herring, when they already actually had the game completely done. It seems rather unlikely that they sat on a finished product for over a year while running playtests for "marketing" purposes. Plenty of people had a negative reaction to the playtest. There were many D&D players who never participated at all. As a marketing strategy, I'm not convinced it was worth forgoing over a years worth of potential revenue. That doesn't seem like a remotely logical business decision. The playtest may not have produced everyone's favorite edition of D&D, but that doesn't mean that they didn't listen to feedback. It's the most popular edition of D&D ever I believe (pretty sure that happened before Critical Role existed, so that wasn't a factor at the time). Based on that, they presumably did something right, and it seems to me that it would be logical to infer that the playtest played at least some part in that. Not just as a marketing scheme, but influencing the design. Had it merely been a successful marketing scheme coupled with an unfavorable design, we would have likely seen a spike of sales upon release coupled with a sharp downturn thereafter. Which is evidently not what happened. [/QUOTE]

Verification