Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 8457176" data-attributes="member: 20564">Just to jump in, exposure to real world is usually several orders of magnitude larger than testing.&nbsp; This is just as true as when IBM releases a new version of software as it is for small RPG companies.&nbsp; A team literally, meant in the actual definition of that word, cannot test as much as the variations that will be seen once something hits general availability.Continually saying that playtesting is only happening now undermines any other point you are trying to say, because it shows ignorance of just about anything new coming out, in any field.&nbsp; Cars come out that have recalls because they have issues that could kill people, and you know they were tested.You have conveyed your point that you have judged the playtesting insufficient.&nbsp; What is your next goal?&nbsp; If it's to convince people that you have&nbsp; a valid point about PtA/FB, the barrier is that one one side we have an armchair quarterback with a short exposure to the system, and on the other side we have a team with long exposure, and some playtesting regardless if you are unaware of the details.&nbsp; That doesn't give you any credibility.&nbsp; And you aren't going to gain it by trying to pick apart their playtesting methodology - it still leaves you just a theory-crafter who has never tried the rules.If your job is just to get your message out there - you can rest on your laurels, you have already succeeded.&nbsp; However, if you goal is to convince people, then your next step is provide actual data.&nbsp; Play with it in a variety of situations and levels.&nbsp; Show combat breakdowns where it doesn't work.&nbsp; The burden of proof the PtA/FA is broken is on the accusers and you need to step up with real play data.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue, post: 8457176, member: 20564"] Just to jump in, exposure to real world is usually several orders of magnitude larger than testing. This is just as true as when IBM releases a new version of software as it is for small RPG companies. A team [I]literally[/I], meant in the actual definition of that word, cannot test as much as the variations that will be seen once something hits general availability. Continually saying that playtesting is only happening now undermines any other point you are trying to say, because it shows ignorance of just about anything new coming out, in any field. Cars come out that have recalls because they have issues that could kill people, and you know they were tested. You have conveyed your point that you have judged the playtesting insufficient. What is your next goal? If it's to [I]convince[/I] people that you have a valid point about PtA/FB, the barrier is that one one side we have an armchair quarterback with a short exposure to the system, and on the other side we have a team with long exposure, and some playtesting regardless if you are unaware of the details. That doesn't give you any credibility. [I]And you aren't going to gain it by trying to pick apart their playtesting methodology - [/I]it still leaves you just a theory-crafter who has never tried the rules. If your job is just to get your message out there - you can rest on your laurels, you have already succeeded. However, if you goal is to convince people, then your next step is provide actual data. Play with it in a variety of situations and levels. Show combat breakdowns where it doesn't work. The burden of proof the PtA/FA is broken is on the accusers and you need to step up with real play data. [/QUOTE]

Verification