WotC_PeterS talks about his "aggresive playtest" (with Le Rouse, SKR, & Noonan)

[Stormtalon]

Friday will blow minds.

I wish I could be online to watch but I will be duck hunting in Montana

*twitch*
*blink*
*twitch*

No, I don't have a tic, why do you ask?

(accursed teasers!)

 

[TarionzCousin]

Finally, I was examining for myself the claims that D&D 4E is easier to DM than 3E. I have never liked DMing because of the hours of preparation involved, especially when I could run Exalted within five minutes of being asked. I needed to see how well 4E lived up to its promise.

This is what I'm most interested in. Has this been addressed further?

 

[TerraDave]

TC: they have promised simpler, simpler, simpler....and then more simpler. Some of the other internal playtest reports have said: simpler.

Not a bunch of proof. But we might have to wait a while for that.

 

[TerraDave]

Thanks for posting that TerraDave. That takes care of my concern about repeatability of results. I'm sure that some will disagree, but to me it looks like they actually do know what they are doing over on that other coast. I remain cautiously optimistic that 4e will turn out great.

I do think there is quit a bit of evidence that they have done all kinds of internal playtesting. And continue to do so (hence the first blog post).

But there is a difference between testing with 30-40 insiders, and 300-500 outsiders.

Still, I hope for the best. Or I should say the least. Errata.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I do think there is quit a bit of evidence that they have done all kinds of internal playtesting. And continue to do so (hence the first blog post).

But there is a difference between testing with 30-40 insiders, and 300-500 outsiders.

Still, I hope for the best. Or I should say the least. Errata.

My best guess is that there are probably 10-15 internal playtest tables with 4-6 players each. The external playtest would be about 50 tables from inside the RPGA and I think around 20 from the message boards(my best guess from all the hints dropped by WOTC employees). Assuming average of 5 players per playtest table, plus 1 DM and you have around 420 external playtesters and 70 or so internal playtesters.

 

[Ourph]

I think Kaydark draws a very good point though - with M:TG they hire tournament winning players/constructors to assess rules mechanics and individual cards. I would not be a satisfactory replacement for these people, so doing the same testing with me (an 'average gamer') at the helm would not be as valuable. Nor are the designers suitable, as they are 'inside men'.

So the question is, are people of the sort who enjoy breaking rules systems, identified rules issues with 3/3.5 ed etc, as opposed to the people who currently write the rules or what I might call 'conventional gamers', being used to play test for edge cases specifically? This question was asked before and was responded to in a light hearted manner, but I do actually think it's a serious question, the song and dance that is made about it for M:TG illustrates both its importance and effectiveness in the mind of WOTC and others.

It's a reasonable question, and should expect a reasonable answer - especially when the same company pimps its capability in that exact area in a different business line in the same division.

TFP asked this question earlier and I haven't seen "The Rouse" respond to it. I would very much like to know his answer (if he's allowed to give it). Are any of the playtesters (internal or external) tasked specifically with "trying to break the system" and, if so, do they have any special qualifications for doing that job?

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Friday will blow minds.

I wish I could be online to watch but I will be duck hunting in Montana

Don't shoot any old guys in the face! Oh, wait, that's quail hunting

 

[Sara_G]

Friday will blow minds.

I wish I could be online to watch but I will be duck hunting in Montana

It's ok Scott I'll be lurking around the boards in your stead. Happy hunting. Wish I could warn the poor ducks that you're coming.

 

[small pumpkin man]

So to further prove that I actually do take this stuff seriously and to demonstrate that I want to be a valuable contributor to the conversation I called Mr. Schaefer to talk to him about his test.

Peter had a particular mission that he wanted to accomplish with his playtest as he explained in his blog. So he went about setting up a test where he could run a lot of PCs through their paces against a variety of monsters to personally scratch the ' stress test itch".

He is not the only one testing PC vs NPC combat as I eluded to in my post. I spoke with Dave Noonan, who is coordinating all the internal and external playtests, to get a little more granular detail. Many (but not all) of the internal playtests are focusing on combat encounters. The first round of external playtests included a "prison break" scenario where we asked testers to play this over and over and record results each turn (that stops being fun pretty fast). Personally weeks of my early playtests with Chris Thommason were encounter only (this is were Coup de Grace got a tweek). Combat is getting plenty of attention and scrutiny.

Now as people have also pointed out combat does not make D&D and with that in mind other types of tests are happening. Chris Perkins has kicked off one of his legendary campaigns as part of his test and I am playing through H1.

All in all I feel like we are mixing it up and getting it right.

I hope this answers your questions.

Absolutely, thank you for taking the time to talk to us Obsessive Internet Fans.

I have a another question, does this

mean Fighters are getting lazer swords and mind powers? There better not be any of that anime crap in my D&D.

 

[Fifth Element]

TFP asked this question earlier and I haven't seen "The Rouse" respond to it. I would very much like to know his answer (if he's allowed to give it). Are any of the playtesters (internal or external) tasked specifically with "trying to break the system" and, if so, do they have any special qualifications for doing that job?

I personally don't care if the system can be broken by the Char Op types - that's what they do, and they will do it some degree regardless of the system and how much it's been playtested. I care more about how the general playing public plays the game. If they have to decide between a rule that's easy and fun to play and one that resists abuse by dedicated abusers, they should go with easy and fun every time.

Also I'm not sure how you would determine who's qualified. MtG is fairly easy, since it's a competitive with defined circumstances for winning. Who are the best MtG players? The ones who win the most. Who are the best D&D players? There's at least 100 definitions of best there, depending on who you ask. The comparison really doesn't work.