Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 5927330" data-attributes="member: 5100">I expect we'll see tests of other rules subsystems as the play test goes on. Quite honestly, if all we get by next GenCon is something that resembles the Basic player's book in size and complexity, I won't be buying in. I'm just not bothered by a fairly focused, limited play test, at this point in time. To the contrary, I totally support it and appreciate it. I also think that we're going to have to get used to constraints as the play test progresses. When they finally do add in tests for the skill rules, don't expect to have a broad canvas with which to work. Instead, you'll have the goals preset with an adventure that tries to keep you on track and bounded. Eventually, they'll have to open things up a bit. If nothing else, they will need some feedback on character construction and breadth of options. By that time, though, I would bet that a significant segment of the testers will have dropped out because of some variant of &quot;it's not complete enough for me to run my own game&quot;.The question isn't what you want to test. It's what they want you to test or what is valuable to them, at this point. Again, coming from a software background, people testing random stuff that you aren't ready for them to test isn't helpful. It isn't even neutral. It's actively disruptive to the development effort because it introduces white noise, which makes it more difficult to get the information you need; tells you nothing new, because you are already aware that piece doesn't work; and slows down development by making you split your focus.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 5927330, member: 5100"] I expect we'll see tests of other rules subsystems as the play test goes on. Quite honestly, if all we get by next GenCon is something that resembles the Basic player's book in size and complexity, I won't be buying in. I'm just not bothered by a fairly focused, limited play test, at this point in time. To the contrary, I totally support it and appreciate it. I also think that we're going to have to get used to constraints as the play test progresses. When they finally do add in tests for the skill rules, don't expect to have a broad canvas with which to work. Instead, you'll have the goals preset with an adventure that tries to keep you on track and bounded. Eventually, they'll have to open things up a bit. If nothing else, they will need [u]some[/u] feedback on character construction and breadth of options. By that time, though, I would bet that a significant segment of the testers will have dropped out because of some variant of "it's not complete enough for me to run my own game". The question isn't what [u]you[/u] want to test. It's what [u]they[/u] want you to test or what is valuable to them, at this point. Again, coming from a software background, people testing random stuff that you aren't ready for them to test isn't helpful. It isn't even neutral. It's actively disruptive to the development effort because it introduces white noise, which makes it more difficult to get the information you need; tells you nothing new, because you are already aware that piece doesn't work; and slows down development by making you split your focus. [/QUOTE]

Verification