Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
L&L 8/19/13: The Final Countdown
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6171628" data-attributes="member: 37579"><p>It feels like this is a justification. They don't want to give away almost finished rules out of a paranoid fear people won't buy if they can get it for free, so they're cancelling the playtest before we actually start playtesting.</p><p></p><p>Mearls says:</p><p><em>Our playtest emphasis is now changing to the repetitive grind of balancing out the math and finding and dispelling abusive combinations. We'll continue to work with a big list of testers, but our needs are such that we require focused, directed play to drive our results. Frankly, that kind of testing can be fairly boring. It also mandates a level of feedback that is more detailed and demands more work than the testing done so far. </em></p><p></p><p>It can be boring, but you can get a lot of feedback from people testing things and seeing abusive combos in regular play. Plus sometimes the obvious gets missed as well and outside eyes are needed. And there's SO much content, it's going to be hard to get everything tested in time. </p><p>And the Character Op boards demonstrate people are really willing to devote a large period of free time evaluating mechanics and doing the math. </p><p></p><p><em>On top of that, it requires that we know a good deal about each group. Is a group more story-based? Are they optimizers? That kind of knowledge on our end is key, and it's something that we can learn best by getting to know a group through their prior, detailed feedback.</em></p><p></p><p>I don't see that as particularly relevant. A broken mechanic is a broken mechanic, regarless of the play style of the group.</p><p></p><p><em>In terms of scope, this upcoming phase of the playtest is at least as large as the playtest for 3rd Edition, if not larger. </em></p><p></p><p>This doesn't fill me with confidence. 3e has some pretty terrible mistakes and was heavily revised two years after launch. </p><p></p><p></p><p>What should WotC do? I think they should switch from Surveys to Forms. </p><p>They don't need to rate happiness or satisfaction from 1-5 anymore. They just need to know what's broken. The simplest way is take a design page from playtesting video games and set-up bug reports.</p><p>You enter the name of the class, the name of the feature or spells, the page number, and then the reason it doesn't work. With a word limit to prevent long rants. And likely the type of error from a drop down list (mechanics, spelling, etc).</p><p></p><p>That way they can easily just pull up summaries of what powers and spells are attracting the most feedback. ("Hey, we have 500 people all complaining about X, let's take a closer look.")</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6171628, member: 37579"] It feels like this is a justification. They don't want to give away almost finished rules out of a paranoid fear people won't buy if they can get it for free, so they're cancelling the playtest before we actually start playtesting. Mearls says: [I]Our playtest emphasis is now changing to the repetitive grind of balancing out the math and finding and dispelling abusive combinations. We'll continue to work with a big list of testers, but our needs are such that we require focused, directed play to drive our results. Frankly, that kind of testing can be fairly boring. It also mandates a level of feedback that is more detailed and demands more work than the testing done so far. [/I] It can be boring, but you can get a lot of feedback from people testing things and seeing abusive combos in regular play. Plus sometimes the obvious gets missed as well and outside eyes are needed. And there's SO much content, it's going to be hard to get everything tested in time. And the Character Op boards demonstrate people are really willing to devote a large period of free time evaluating mechanics and doing the math. [I]On top of that, it requires that we know a good deal about each group. Is a group more story-based? Are they optimizers? That kind of knowledge on our end is key, and it's something that we can learn best by getting to know a group through their prior, detailed feedback.[/I] I don't see that as particularly relevant. A broken mechanic is a broken mechanic, regarless of the play style of the group. [I]In terms of scope, this upcoming phase of the playtest is at least as large as the playtest for 3rd Edition, if not larger. [/I] This doesn't fill me with confidence. 3e has some pretty terrible mistakes and was heavily revised two years after launch. What should WotC do? I think they should switch from Surveys to Forms. They don't need to rate happiness or satisfaction from 1-5 anymore. They just need to know what's broken. The simplest way is take a design page from playtesting video games and set-up bug reports. You enter the name of the class, the name of the feature or spells, the page number, and then the reason it doesn't work. With a word limit to prevent long rants. And likely the type of error from a drop down list (mechanics, spelling, etc). That way they can easily just pull up summaries of what powers and spells are attracting the most feedback. ("Hey, we have 500 people all complaining about X, let's take a closer look.") [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
L&L 8/19/13: The Final Countdown
Top