Was 3.5e ever playtested?

[shadow]

I suppose that this seems like a silly question, but I'm wondering if the changes in 3.5e were ever playtested? I remember when 3e came out, Wizards would regularly post excerpts from playtesting groups from around the world to assure us that the game had undergone intensive playtesting. However with 3.5e I haven't seen any mention of playtesting The only thing that I've heard was a comment to the effect of "all the feedback from consumers equals playtesting." I'm not usre that I agree with the comment. Sure consumers should know best, but merely complaining about something being "broken" or "underpowered" doesn't equal playtesting. I always though of playtesting as a process of examining specific aspects of the game, reporting needs for improvement in specific areas, then going back and examining the revised rules, and so on. Although I'm sure that there was some "in house" playtesting (I hope), I'm not sure if that should count. Playtesting should be done by the consumers, people likely to buy the game, not by corporate employees who could be biased by decisions of higher-ups.
So has 3.5e really been playtested? Have I just missed all the news from playtesters? I certainly hope it has been.

 

[Crothian]

Yes, it was.

 

[Henry]

In addition to the actual playtesting that we've been told has been going on for some time, we should also not forget the constructive criticism that WotC gets on a daily basis - the kind given by the minority of well-conceived, thoughtful customers who send them valuable suggestions.

For instance, telling someone that "such-and-such feat is broken" tells the WotC R&D team very little. However, there are also correspondence they receive that says things such as, "such-and-such a feat is not balanced well, and here are the numbers to prove it." They have said in the past that they take their customer responses seriously - and if there are customers who can explain their reasoning in well-written formats, with factual or numerical evidence to back it up, then it is far more likely that they will listen to such criticism.

Just look at our very own rules forum - where WotC R & D personnel have been known to frequent. We have many thoughtful and expressive posters there who go into reams of numerical proof when debating a potential rules problem. Most of the changes we see have appeared there at one time or another! (Cases in point that I can directly recall from the past three years include reduction of crit ranges, the problems of haste and harm, excessively high spell DC's for spellcasters, damage resistance issues, intimidation skill for fighters, and the need for empowering of bards and rangers.)

There have been many more I'm sure I'm forgetting, but the number of vocal posters I hear who say, "this is nothing more than Andy Collins' house rules" seem to forget or ignore that these issues have been discussed all over rpg.net, ENWorld, the Wizards Forums, 3rdedition.org, and numerous others.

 

[fba827]

The recent personalities spotlight article on WotC's site also mentions playtesting (albeit it is just a minor reference and not the focus of the article).

 

[rounser]

There have been many more I'm sure I'm forgetting, but the number of vocal posters I hear who say, "this is nothing more than Andy Collins' house rules" seem to forget or ignore that these issues have been discussed all over rpg.net, ENWorld, the Wizards Forums, 3rdedition.org, and numerous others.

If it's as you say, the rules forums have mechanics issues more in mind than flavour issues (surprise surprise), and it shows, IMO.

 

[s/LaSH]

It's been playtested, and internationally too - I know of people (not myself) here in Wellington, New Zealand who have had some experience in testing parts of the revision. (But only parts, not the whole thing; an... interesting choice, all things considered.)

 

[Buttercup]

Actually s/lash, that makes sense to me. When you change multiple variables, it isn't easy to say which one has the greatest effect. Now, I realize D&D isn't a scientific experiment, but if WotC wanted to make sure that 3.5 is truly backward compatible, throwing components of it into the 3e rules set is a good way to go about it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

2Buttercap:
But there are also some risks only using a few of the rule changes.
The rules work together as a whole, and sometimes different rules (spells, feat, class combination) cause an undesired and unbalanced effect.
But if they now severely weaken all three of the aspects, it might substantially change the three, possibly making them useless in comparison to similar abilites (spells of the same level, feats or classes with similar difficult prerequisites). But if the test only with one of the changes, this problem might never occur...

 

[Trickstergod]

I'm certain that some, if not most, playtest group included all the changes that are making it into the new books; problems that don't crop up during a wholecloth playtest might crop up during a part and parcel one. Or, conversely, when you combine, say, third edition spells with revised edition feats, it might generate a few better ideas for how to alter any specific spell or feat that are superior to the way they were originally going to be revised. Just like with a scientific experiment, it's good to have a bit of variety in what you're giving to the guinea pigs. I highly doubt Wizards didn't have any playtesters use the complete new rules set before it was decided that's what they were going with.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I believe Andy said new changes were introduced to the players a large chunk at a time.

Could you imagine a playtesting DM having to learn all the new changes in a week, then being playtesting?

By the end the playtesters should be familiar with all of the changes.