It's only 9:20 here on the WEST coast....WotC is over here so maybe???
Taunt my not with your optimism! You're right of course, so now I go to bed hoping to have a nice new e-mail in my inbox instead of going to bed knowing I'm not a playtester. Keep hope alive my west coast friends, keep it alive with resurrection spells if necessary!
Taunt my not with your optimism! You're right of course, so now I go to bed hoping to have a nice new e-mail in my inbox instead of going to bed knowing I'm not a playtester. Keep hope alive my west coast friends, keep it alive with resurrection spel
I had heard on the EN World boards that the play testing may only be available for people in the US/Canada. It would be a disappointment if the legal eagles deemed that those outside of the USA could not be included in the play testing. I have played D&D in the UK and Australia. A recent trip to France, I saw a strong (English speaking) D&D fraternity in this region as well. [...]
Well, I can deal with not being chosen, but being excluded from the beginning? Now I feel cheated....
That said, I'm sure that they tried to include other realms, but that the legal stuff just wasn't working out. Hmm, is it too much to hope to be included in a second (or third or forth.....) playtest wave?
*Clings to fragile hopes*
Well, I can deal with not being chosen, but being excluded from the beginning? Now I feel cheated....:weep: That said, I'm sure that they tried to include other realms, but that the legal stuff just wasn't working out. Hmm, is it too much to hope to
Well, keep in mind if some of the people they ask don't meet the requirements (don't have a group, can't sign the NDA, etc.), I think they're going to ask more people until they get the two dozen or however many they want for this run.
Sorry . . . I'm living in denial . . .
Well, keep in mind if some of the people they ask don't meet the requirements (don't have a group, can't sign the NDA, etc.), I think they're going to ask more people until they get the two dozen or however many they want for this run.Sorry . . . I'm
Well, keep in mind if some of the people they ask don't meet the requirements (don't have a group, can't sign the NDA, etc.), I think they're going to ask more people until they get the two dozen or however many they want for this run.
Sorry . . . I'm living in denial . . .
Even if people don't meet the requirement for testing, most are going to lie to get the packets. Then WOTC gets nothing from them out of the playtest, wasting a slot.
Random selection was perhaps the poorest way of going about this.
Oh well, back to GURPS.
Even if people don't meet the requirement for testing, most are going to lie to get the packets. Then WOTC gets nothing from them out of the playtest, wasting a slot.Random selection was perhaps the poorest way of going about this.Oh well, back to GU
Well, keep in mind if some of the people they ask don't meet the requirements (don't have a group, can't sign the NDA, etc.), I think they're going to ask more people until they get the two dozen or however many they want for this run.
Sorry . . . I'm living in denial . . .
Whereabouts in denial are you? I have a smallish flat over by the gas station. Want to come over for soem gaming? :D
Whereabouts in denial are you? I have a smallish flat over by the gas station. Want to come over for soem gaming? :D
I hope those people who do get asked, don't lie about their groups, what a waste that would be. I have a group I have been playing with for 5 years now which consist of ages 20-40, men and women, a guy we play with who lives on the opposite side of the country that we involve though a virtual table top and voice software and a newly added girl who has never RP'd before. We would all love the chance to playtest! Even though the random choice doesn't seem the best of ideas, it seems the fairest since I am sure many of those who want to playtest are in a similiar boat as I and my group are. Just to anyone who gets the offer and really isn't ready to dedicate the sheer amount of effort and paperwork it takes to do, please, JUST SAY NO!
I hope those people who do get asked, don't lie about their groups, what a waste that would be. I have a group I have been playing with for 5 years now which consist of ages 20-40, men and women, a guy we play with who lives on the opposite side of
I just read David Noonan's blog. Looks like they're going to continue inviting participants over time perhaps. Excellent news!
Either way, I've got my group of five together - we play every week on Sundays anyhow, so it's no huge step to do testing. We already did an ac hoc conversion of Star Wars Saga to a version of what 4th edition may be with our current 10th to 11th average level campaign settting when SW Saga came out. Here's what we came up with:
With a few minor modifications on the Feats list and adding a handful of curren skills (Craft, Profession, Disable Device) we've been plodding around with the "significant preview" of 4th edition for a month or so now. We're definitely familiar with the fundamentals of the SW Saga system, which I believe will give us a huge leg up for 4th edition (regardless if we're chosen to playtest or not).
Here's to hoping we get selected!
Cheers~
I just read David Noonan's blog. Looks like they're going to continue inviting participants over time perhaps. Excellent news!Either way, I've got my group of five together - we play every week on Sundays anyhow, so it's no huge step to do testing. W
But, I represent 2 groups both men and women aged 24 to 42. The group is very computer literate.
I'm currently running a campaign at 18th level. I've talked to the players and they are enthusiastic about helping with the playtest. I'm also playing in a game that's currently 24th level. We have extensive epic play experience.
I was not emailed for playtesting. But, I represent 2 groups both men and women aged 24 to 42. The group is very computer literate.I'm currently running a campaign at 18th level. I've talked to the players and they are enthusiastic about helpin
Scott Rouse (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3 … stcount=24) -- "We are not excluding Canadians (or other non-USA residents for that matter) as we discuss the plans. The only hitch I can foresee is because testers will be asked to sign a confidentiality agreement I am not sure how it would work with people outside the USA."
From this post on enworld, it seems like non US residents might have a chance of being selected.
Add the new post on David Noonan's Blog about how they will probably be others chances to be selected, and I can now hope again !
Hope is such a wonderful thing :D
Back on topic, I take the question of playtesting seriously. I DM for several groups (currently with a psionics underdark campaign in FR started in 3.0 and ported into 3.5 (yes, i started a whole campaign based on the 3.0 pionics handbook ) and a recently started Eberron campaign) and would have no problem making a group of dedicated players to test 4th edition.
I have both experienced and newbie players, some with years of gaming (one of my first RPGs was the original D&D, so I have myself some experience), with ages 20~35, and I'm ready to work seriously in order to help the game be the best possible when the final PHB is released.
And for the "lucky" guys already selected, don't forget that playtesting might be a pleasure, but it is first supposed to be like a true job !
From this post on enworld, it seems like non US residents might have a chance of being selected.Add the new post on David Noonan's Blog about how they will probably be others chances to be selected, and I can now hope again !Hope is such a wonderful
Good luck everyone. Just a reminder in case it's not quite that random, I have a group that's more then willing and able to playtest 4e for you. All of us have experience playtesting games before, including three of us playtesting 3e.
Aha! So we now know who is to blame for that sucky game that is currently being thrashed :D
Aha! So we now know who is to blame for that sucky game that is currently being thrashed :D
Of course there will be another wave of playtests. After all this is the company that is so confident that you will buy all of it's shiny-glossy goodness that they give away the rules to their games for free (SRD). So relax and be of good cheer.
Of course there will be another wave of playtests. After all this is the company that is so confident that you will buy all of it's shiny-glossy goodness that they give away the rules to their games for free (SRD). So relax and be of good cheer.
hehe, i dunno how useful this thread is, though it might be the most positive thread i've read on the 4e-forums. there are two reasons this thread is more or less useless: one is that they are 'supposed' to select randomly from the forum user-accounts, which makes it highly unlikely that posting "i am a good beta tester, nudge nudge wink wink" will get you anywhere. second is that as mentioned above, the nda probably is initialized the second you get the e-mail. if people got a invite, they probably won't spill it in the drain through posting "woot i'm in the test for 4e!!"... at least not on their own user-accounts, on their own pc's, with their own ip's or without a proxy ghosting them to Desertistan.*nudgenudgewinkwink to those lucky bastards*
but there might be hope though. if they weren't that clever that they reduced the amount of forum-accounts to something like "must have posted the last month" and or "must have posted in the 4e forums", there are quite big chances that they will hit some inactive or disinterested players. And some of the initial invites might come leaking back onto the ones left behind... we must have hope :p
hehe, i dunno how useful this thread is, though it might be the most positive thread i've read on the 4e-forums. there are two reasons this thread is more or less useless: one is that they are 'supposed' to select randomly from the forum user-account
I wonder how random the playtesting selection process is. Do they consider how many posts a particular user has, or how recently they have posted?
In any case, I'd love to help playtest 4E, as would my gaming group. Here's hoping. {knocking on wood with crossed fingers over a lucky clover while wearing a lucky horseshoe} lol
I wonder how random the playtesting selection process is. Do they consider how many posts a particular user has, or how recently they have posted? In any case, I'd love to help playtest 4E, as would my gaming group. Here's hoping. {knocking on wo
My group is 5 persons - 2 girls, 3 boys 15-22 years old, all newbies (all veterans who I know are playing AD&D now and don't want to play anithing else). I'm playing D&D since 1997 (yeah, I was only 10 years old =))) ), DM-ing - since 2003 year. Played DnD from the very first edition tthrough the ADnD to the DnD3.5 and loved all of these. Although I have some problems with getting rulebooks I managed to buy all three of PHB, DMG and MM - and only Gods (Olidammara personally!) know how difficult it was here, in Siberia... But now I live in Novosibirsk and don't have such problems =). For last couple of years I tryed to spread my hobby in our city's roleplayers strata, and was not unsuccesful.
I really want to test the 4th edition... And my group, too.
My group is 5 persons - 2 girls, 3 boys 15-22 years old, all newbies (all veterans who I know are playing AD&D now and don't want to play anithing else).I'm playing D&D since 1997 (yeah, I was only 10 years old =))) ), DM-ing - since 2003 year. Playe
Does anyone know of any other system that has been tested in 'waves'? Moreover, one where the frequency of such waves must be tremendously short to have any meaningful effect (what with the actual release just around the corner as far as publishing goes)?
Does anyone know of any other system that has been tested in 'waves'? Moreover, one where the frequency of such waves must be tremendously short to have any meaningful effect (what with the actual release just around the corner as far as publishing g
Does anyone know of any other system that has been tested in 'waves'? Moreover, one where the frequency of such waves must be tremendously short to have any meaningful effect (what with the actual release just around the corner as far as publishing goes)?
Does anyone know of any other system that has been tested in 'waves'? Moreover, one where the frequency of such waves must be tremendously short to have any meaningful effect (what with the actual release just around the corner as far as publishing goes)?
Dave Noonan]"I wish we did more playtesting. And with the launch of 4e and the rise of Gleemax/D&D Insider/all that stuff, we have a prime opportunity to ramp up our efforts. I can see us in a perpetual "rolling" playtest mode from here until the heat death of the universe. That's one of the things I advocate for here inside the walls of Wizards. And I think we're getting somewhere."
The waves thing as stated on this thread is inferred from this. It looks like he is actually talking about playtesting "in perpetuity". So, while there may or may not be further opportunities to playtest the 4e rules as they exist now, pre-release. There may well be others called on in the future to test other rules. Remember the plan at this point is for a PH2, DMG2 and MM2 to be released in 09. Someone is going to have to playtest tho wrote:
"I wish we did more playtesting. And with the launch of 4e and the rise of Gleemax/D&D Insider/all that stuff, we have a prime opportunity to ramp up our efforts. I can see us in a perpetual "rolling" playtest mode from here until the heat death of the universe. That's one of the things I advocate for here inside the walls of Wizards. And I think we're getting somewhere."[/quote] The waves thing as stated on this thread is inferred from this. It looks like he is actually talking about playtesting "in perpetuity". So, while there may or may not be further opportunities to playtest the 4e rules as they exist now, pre-release. There may well be others called on in the future to test other rules. Remember the plan at this point is for a PH2, DMG2 and MM2 to be released in 09. Someone is going to have to playtest those too.
The waves thing as stated on this thread is inferred from this. It looks like he is actually talking about playtesting "in perpetuity". So, while there may or may not be further opportunities to playtest the 4e rules as they exist now, pre-release.
Eleran: That makes sense. I guess I had assumed that he was responding more directly to the chatter I've been hearing on these boards which is more immediate in nature. Especially when he says "One thing that bears repeating: We're not saying you can't playtest. We're just saying "not yet.""
Perhaps what worries me about the way this is going down is that I'm hoping for 4th edition to be a stable base of core rules that can be built upon in things like PHB2 and other supplements. With 3/3.5 I saw a core set of rules being continually augmented and expanded (For example, swift and immediate actions being added to the existing action types). Will these 'waves' of playtests contribute to 4th edition becoming the staging ground for tests of rules they plan to eventually form into 5th edition? I'm still forming my ideas and I'm mostly ignorant of the playtesting process, but I guess what I'm trying to figure out is what do they objectively hope to accomplish? I think we all agree that playtesting makes products better, but what kind of product are they developing?
They've talked a lot about 'behind the scenes' content being included in 4e. Do you think that will include a look at what kind of data they recieved through playtesting and how they implemented it?
My thoughts are beginning to ramble. I'll cut off here for now. Thanks for your insights.
Reezel: Hehe, yeah, I suppose so. Eleran: That makes sense. I guess I had assumed that he was responding more directly to the chatter I've been hearing on these boards which is more immediate in nature. Especially when he says "One thing that bears r
Pre-Created Playtest Packets? (with pre-gen encounters and characters.)
Makes me wonder how solid the play-tests will be.
The only way to can find issues in the rules is when players get a chance to break the game, and that is in character creation.
Players have the amazingly annoying ability to read through the rules and find the most powerful and game braking combinations and build character concepts which bring them to light in the most powerful ways.
Sending pre-gen characters with a pre-gen encounter may test out some aspects of the game… but it won’t give the game the “stress test” that a full playtest gives.
Seeing that the PHB is still being completed, I understand why they are doing a pre-packaged playtest.
Pre-Created Playtest Packets? (with pre-gen encounters and characters.)Makes me wonder how solid the play-tests will be.The only way to can find issues in the rules is when players get a chance to break the game, and that is in character creation. Pl
I don't really understand where I'm suppossed to sign up for future playtesting - I missed the last round because I didn't understand. What is DDI? Where do I get to it? Where do I submit my request to join in playtesting?
I don't really understand where I'm suppossed to sign up for future playtesting - I missed the last round because I didn't understand. What is DDI? Where do I get to it? Where do I submit my request to join in playtesting?
If you are posting on this forum, you already are on DDI. They have stated that they will pick playtesters randomly from accounts on these forums. If they pick your name, you will receive an e-mail from them. If you haven't heard from them by now, you are out of luck.
If you are posting on this forum, you already are on DDI. They have stated that they will pick playtesters randomly from accounts on these forums. If they pick your name, you will receive an e-mail from them. If you haven't heard from them by now,
If you are posting on this forum, you already are on DDI. They have stated that they will pick playtesters randomly from accounts on these forums. If they pick your name, you will receive an e-mail from them. If you haven't heard from them by now, you are out of luck.
Maybe not out of luck yet.
There is a small chance that there will be a second call for testers. Keep an eye on your email. Be prepared to go through an NDA and make sure you have your players. If you get the nod, you'll need to start very quickly.
Maybe not out of luck yet. There is a small chance that there will be a second call for testers. Keep an eye on your email. Be prepared to go through an NDA and make sure you have your players. If you get the nod, you'll need to start very quickly.
I dont think starting quickly would be a problem for most. Heck I think most groups would start once they got the packets, at least my group would. Considering the numbers involved however I would not get my hope up to get to test it. Hopefully they went to the CO boards and invited at least a couple of the better posters there, they are the people who will find ways that break the game.
I dont think starting quickly would be a problem for most. Heck I think most groups would start once they got the packets, at least my group would. Considering the numbers involved however I would not get my hope up to get to test it. Hopefully t
There are tons of people who would love to playtest 4E, but thats the problem. Because there are so meny that want to, whatever selection method they choose will leave the bulk of us out. I just look forward to the PHB release and leave it at that.
There are tons of people who would love to playtest 4E, but thats the problem. Because there are so meny that want to, whatever selection method they choose will leave the bulk of us out. I just look forward to the PHB release and leave it at that.
While I would enjoy play testing the new rules and even breaking them before they get released so they can be fixed. I don't plan on it myself. I do though have at least a list of other posters that would make me very happy if they were allowed to play test the rules before they were released. For the time being I hope that the rules are balanced when released and the game still remains fun to play.
While I would enjoy play testing the new rules and even breaking them before they get released so they can be fixed. I don't plan on it myself. I do though have at least a list of other posters that would make me very happy if they were allowed to
Wait, they put up the open-playtesting thing, took it down, and I missed it?
:raincloud
No, they just sent emails to [b]random[/b] people who had forum accounts asking if they wanted to playtest. It wasn't even just people who have actually used their forum accounts, just anyone who had it was in the random batch.
No, they just sent emails to [b]random[/b] people who had forum accounts asking if they wanted to playtest. It wasn't even just people who have actually used their forum accounts, just anyone who had it was in the random batch.
If that's a joke, it's way to hard to tell in a text medium.
Is it?
If it is, I'm laughing at it. Good one, Galphanore.
If it's not, then I'm laughing, just for a different, and much less positive, reason.
If that's a joke, it's way to hard to tell in a text medium.Is it?If it is, I'm laughing at it. Good one, Galphanore.If it's not, then I'm laughing, just for a different, and much less positive, reason.
I assume that the process of actual selection has some criteria. But the initial drawing was, essentially, a lottery. As far as we know.
There's been some indication that they'll keep going until they get the number of playtest groups they want/need. And there may be multiple "waves" of playtesting.
So we wait. And hope.
What criteria they used was not divulged.I assume that the process of actual selection has some criteria. But the initial drawing was, essentially, a lottery. As far as we know.There's been some indication that they'll keep going until they get the n
If that's a joke, it's way to hard to tell in a text medium.
Is it?
If it is, I'm laughing at it. Good one, Galphanore.
If it's not, then I'm laughing, just for a different, and much less positive, reason.
Unfortunately it's not a joke, but WotC seems to think it is :
David Noonan wrote:
Playtesting: Chris Tulach (Grand High Mogul of the Steppes and RPGA honcho) and I were sharing a chuckle over barbecue yesterday. Some DDI folks say they wish the playtest selection process wasn't so random. And some RPGA members say they wish the playtest selection process was more random so everyone would get a chance. Turns out we can't win.
Unfortunately it's not a joke, but WotC seems to think it is :
So, basically, some dude out there -- or hundreds of these dudes -- that hasn't ever played D&D, but has a forum account for M:tG or some other non-D&D game that the forums represents is getting the invite.
F.U.B.A.R.So, basically, some dude out there -- or hundreds of these dudes -- that hasn't ever played D&D, but has a forum account for M:tG or some other non-D&D game that the forums represents is getting the invite.:uh-huh:
So, basically, some dude out there -- or hundreds of these dudes -- that hasn't ever played D&D, but has a forum account for M:tG or some other non-D&D game that the forums represents is getting the invite.
I hope that Wizard's doesn't just think picking random people is a good idea. Because their choice on the rules will determine whether they get my money during the run of 4th ed. If the system turns out to be junk I will buy my stuff from another gaming company.
I hope that Wizard's doesn't just think picking random people is a good idea. Because their choice on the rules will determine whether they get my money during the run of 4th ed. If the system turns out to be junk I will buy my stuff from another g
The way that WotC has handled 4E since it's announcement reeks of incompetence. Why should we expect their handling of playtesting to be any different?
The way that WotC has handled 4E since it's announcement reeks of incompetence. Why should we expect their handling of playtesting to be any different?
WotC's PR goal: Get people excited about 4th edition. Attract new players, and keep as many current players as possible.
What actually happened: Many current players are upset or ambivalent about 4th edition. We don't know how many new players it will attract, but do we really think they will leave their MMORPG's for D&D?
Do you think they succeeded?
Playtesting was a real opportuinity for them to make us feel like we had a part in 4th edition's development. Don't you feel that there should have been a way for people that actually want to playtest have a better chance to get invited than some kid posting on the Magic: the Gathering boards? Isn't this a slap in the face to people who earnestly want to playtest 4th edition and make it the best game possible? We were told that there would be a way to sign up. Some sort of application process. Then, they say it will be a random lottery of forum account owners. Doesn't this rub you the wrong way?
WotC's PR goal: Get people excited about 4th edition. Attract new players, and keep as many current players as possible.What actually happened: Many current players are upset or ambivalent about 4th edition. We don't know how many new players it w
WotC's PR goal: Get people excited about 4th edition. Attract new players, and keep as many current players as possible.
What actually happened: Many current players are upset or ambivalent about 4th edition. We don't know how many new players it will attract, but do we really think they will leave their MMORPG's for D&D?
Do you think they succeeded?
Playtesting was a real opportuinity for them to make us feel like we had a part in 4th edition's development. Don't you feel that there should have been a way for people that actually want to playtest have a better chance to get invited than some kid posting on the Magic: the Gathering boards? Isn't this a slap in the face to people who earnestly want to playtest 4th edition and make it the best game possible? We were told that there would be a way to sign up. Some sort of application process. Then, they say it will be a random lottery of forum account owners. Doesn't this rub you the wrong way?
Speaking for myself, which is all your doing remember. I think they have succeeded. I am excited about 4e. Would I have liked to be in the first wave of playtesting? Of course. Do I get my panties in a wad because it didn't happen? Nope. Instead my group is going to port over some of the SW saga edition rules and try our own shot at a 4e preview so we can hit the ground running when the new edition does come out.
Not sure why you are so miffed at not being able to playtest anyway. All you have done is bash them at every opportunity. You must have a secret desire to actually play 4e. Good of you to finally admit that you are looking forward to 4e.
Speaking for myself, which is all your doing remember. I think they have succeeded. I am excited about 4e. Would I have liked to be in the first wave of playtesting? Of course. Do I get my panties in a wad because it didn't happen? Nope. Inste
Reminder : when you subscribe to the forums, you got the option of checking what products you use, so we can expect that only those that have specified D&D among their hobbies are eligibles for the playtest selection.
Or they might just select among all subscribing that have posted at least once on D&D forums (or maybe only those having posted on the 4th edition forums)
They said that the selection itself was random, but not that there wasn't any element impacting it.
Some DDI folks say they wish the playtest selection process wasn't so random. And some RPGA members say they wish the playtest selection process was more random so everyone would get a chance. Turns out we can't win.
Note that they said "wasn't so random", not "wasn't random", so we can expect that they didn't just select randomly among all accounts.
I suppose that a MtG only account and that hadn't been use for 2 years wouldn't have any chance of being selected.
I agree that an application form would have been better, but I don't think that a random (or pseudo-random) selection deserve a bashing.
Just keep calm and civil, and don't forget that there will probably be more wave of playtesting until release (and maybe some after).
Reminder : when you subscribe to the forums, you got the option of checking what products you use, so we can expect that only those that have specified D&D among their hobbies are eligibles for the playtest selection.Or they might just select among a
Note that they said "wasn't so random", not "wasn't random", so we can expect that they didn't just select randomly among all accounts.
Wouldn't "wasn't so random" more imply that people still wanted a random selection, but only among those who signed up, not that the process wasn't random? He was referencing how people feel about the process, not a misunderstanding about its randomness. I would like it if they told us that they limited it to people who had D&D listed as a hobby, but they said that the playtest was a selection among people who signed up for D&D Insider, which is everyone who has a forum account. Or, more specifically :
The FAQ wrote:
I've heard mumblings about playtester applications, but I'm not sure where to find out more. This being the communication forum, thought I'd ask where to find more info.
Gamer_Zer0 wrote:
Hiya. I am just jumping in to try and answer a few questions before I head to the conference center for day 2 of GenCon.
RPGA members and anyone who signs up for D&D Insider (which is free for the next 9 months) will be eligible to sign up for a chance to become a playtester.
When I go to sign up for D&D Insider, I see the following message: If you already have a forums account, then you already have an account and don't need to go through this registration process! Does that mean that anyone who can post here is automatically signed up for D&D Insider? (There's no button that says "Skip through registration and sign me up!")
Gamer_Zer0 wrote:
Yes, anyone who is signed up on the forums will be able to use that same sign on with D&DI.
So, everyone who has a forum account is signed up for D&D Insider, and is therefore signed up for the random playtester selection. He could, of course, have been wrong though, he did also say there would be a sign-up option for the playtest it's self after all.
Wouldn't "wasn't so random" more imply that people still wanted a random selection, but only among those who signed up, not that the process wasn't random? He was referencing how people feel about the process, not a misunderstanding about its randomn
I was interested in playtesting 4th edition before I saw too many things about it that I don't like. I was mainly ranting on behalf of others who would like to have playtested, and were told to wait for a place on D&D Insider to "sign up" for playtesting. Then we were told it was a random selection, so you never really had much of a shot at playtesting. This is the type of nonsense that has been going on since they announced the impending cancellation of Dungeon and Dragon. Is anyone else but me tired of being jerked around?
I was interested in playtesting 4th edition before I saw too many things about it that I don't like. I was mainly ranting on behalf of others who would like to have playtested, and were told to wait for a place on D&D Insider to "sign up" for playte
I was interested in playtesting 4th edition before I saw too many things about it that I don't like. I was mainly ranting on behalf of others who would like to have playtested, and were told to wait for a place on D&D Insider to "sign up" for playtesting. Then we were told it was a random selection, so you never really had much of a shot at playtesting. This is the type of nonsense that has been going on since they announced the impeding cancellation of Dungeon and Dragon. Is anyone else but me tired of being jerked around?
Ummm, no, you were ranting to hear yourself rant. I am one of those who would have liked to have playtested. I checked the site every few minutes during the week David Noonan said playtesting would be "announced". You don't get to rant on my behalf, or otherwise speak for me. I do not cede that right, nor do I think anyone else did either. Speak for yourself, DO NOT pretend to speak for me. Especially if speaking for you means to be a callous jerk.
Ummm, no, you were ranting to hear yourself rant. I am one of those who would have liked to have playtested. I checked the site every few minutes during the week David Noonan said playtesting would be "announced". You don't get to rant on my behal
My home group wanted to be involved (we did 3.0 and Forgotten Realms and a couple of monster manuals), but we weren't selected as an RPGA group or in the random DDI playtest. I figure there is a slight chance that something will work out.
Ed
My home group wanted to be involved (we did 3.0 and Forgotten Realms and a couple of monster manuals), but we weren't selected as an RPGA group or in the random DDI playtest. I figure there is a slight chance that something will work out.Ed
So, basically, some dude out there -- or hundreds of these dudes -- that hasn't ever played D&D, but has a forum account for M:tG or some other non-D&D game that the forums represents is getting the invite.
That would be the best form of playtesting available IMO.
who better to see how "easy" and "fun" the new system will be than those who don't have a pre-disposed love\hate relationship due to their prefered style of play. Also the fact that they are not familiar with things would help iron out issues in the rules that arise due to an "assumed" knowledge.
also one of the best ways to get new people into the hobby - give them a little taste of things to come for free and once you wet their appetite, welcome to the club
That would be the best form of playtesting available IMO.who better to see how "easy" and "fun" the new system will be than those who don't have a pre-disposed love\hate relationship due to their prefered style of play. Also the fact that they are no
That's fair to say, and sounds quite reasonable. But the problem is that's not what they (mainly Dave Noonan) communicated. We were told to get our group and stay tuned. Well that's what we're doing. Some of us have spent quite a bit of time watching for an announcement and waiting to sign up. Someone should let us know if the plan has changed.
Maybe they don't have to say when things start, but if selection is random (as opposed to a sign up), then at least let us know that we can stop watching DDI like a hawk.
I also got the distinct impression from the two podcasts that discussed playtesting (one D&D and one Gamer Radio Zer0) that there would be sign ups held on dndinsider.com. It makes sense to me that if D&D Insider is only for subscribers, you would need to register to see the playtesting sign ups announcement. Since WoTC specifically said to keep an eye on dndinsider.com about playtesting and, to date, nothing has appeared there, we can just add this to the list of 4e deceptions.
I assumed that there would be a nice form where people could give accurate information about their gaming group, play times and things like that. Had I known selection would have been done from the ivory tower of the developers, I would have jumped on the "me too" playtesting thread and posted 2000 words of "qualifications" for my group. Silly me for forgetting that the squeaky wheel gets the oil.
I also got the distinct impression from the two podcasts that discussed playtesting (one D&D and one Gamer Radio Zer0) that there would be sign ups held on dndinsider.com. It makes sense to me that if D&D Insider is only for subscribers, you would ne
That would be the best form of playtesting available IMO.
who better to see how "easy" and "fun" the new system will be than those who don't have a pre-disposed love\hate relationship due to their prefered style of play. Also the fact that they are not familiar with things would help iron out issues in the rules that arise due to an "assumed" knowledge.
also one of the best ways to get new people into the hobby - give them a little taste of things to come for free and once you wet their appetite, welcome to the club
No. That's perhaps a good way to entice those that have never played before to play now, but that in no way resembles the best form of playtesting.
In fact, over the last 7 years, WotC has never shown us where they've used the best form of playtesting. Every blurb they've given us about a particular "playtesting" event has merely been playing the game.
While that's a portion of playtesting, that brings us Iron Heart Surge, the Thought Bottle, and Steadfast Boots. The best form of playtesting involves many different levels of people playing the game, from complete newbies, to experienced game designers. From the everyday man gamer, to the Theoretical Optimizers looking for loopholes and problem areas. The entire intent behind playtesting is more than just playing the game. It also involves twisting, bending, stretching, pulling, abusing, and otherwise trying to break the rules.
I put this in my entry to Gamer_Zero's wishlist thread:
Now, from what I’ve read, WotC thinks they’re doing good playtesting right now. This really seems, so far, like complete bull’s balls. They’re playing the game with the new rules. That’s not playtesting. There is a chasm of difference. Playing the game with your friends is not the same as twisting, bending, stretching, pulling, abusing, and otherwise trying to break the rules. Get some people that can and will do that. I’m sure we’ve all heard and/or seen how long it takes for some stupid loophole in a new supplement to be revealed (days). That’s likely because they’re just playing a game of D&D, instead of really trying to punish the rules. Some people will likely say, “Don’t you think they’re doing that already?” No. I don’t think that. The last 7+ years have shown that every time they reveal something about a playtesting session, it’s just a game with the new rules. It’s with their friends who may or may not be good at breakage. And even if they are, it’s most likely that those friends aren’t going to be as detached and brutally honest about problem rules, and are even less likely to argue about them. Grab testers that will abuse and expose loopholes. It’s better to get it out of the way now than it is to wait until later. WotC has always had the opportunity to use the talents of people that look at the rules in an effort to break them as a hobby, yet it’s abundantly clear they’ve never done so. I've just read that they actually tapped some C.O. regulars for the Rules Compendium. Good. Do that for every damn book!
In this vein, I find it a little disturbing that every playtest report, or every reported conversation from GenCon, it seems that the playing they’re doing is mostly low level. Here’s a free hint guys: High level needs better playtesting exponentially more than low level.
No. That's perhaps a good way to entice those that have never played before to play now, but that in no way resembles the best form of playtesting.In fact, over the last 7 years, WotC has never shown us where they've used the best form of playtesting
Both of the above posts are dead on. A lot of stuff doesn't even need playtesting to expose its faults. It just needs to be looked at with a critical eye. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the rules can take one look at Iron Heart Surge and see that it can be abused. Likewise, even someone very new to the game can glance at the Frenzied Berserker and come to the conclusion that it's broken.
Both of the above posts are dead on. A lot of stuff doesn't even need playtesting to expose its faults. It just needs to be looked at with a critical eye. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the rules can take one look at Iron Heart Surge and see th
So, I am guessing from the 2 previous posters that you guys think you're the only ones that can playtest this bad boy correctly? There are a lot of us out here that can look at things critically and stretch rules to the point of breakage. Why assume that none of the playtesters are capable of the same thing? I am not assuming that they are all capable of course, neither should you assume that none of them are.
Playtesting needs to be an attempt to test the game on many fronts, playability, rules viability, fun factor, ease of play or understanding, friendliness for new and old players alike, etc. Different playtest groups, chosen fairly randomly should be able to hit all these different aspects of the game. A random sample will not likely completely leave out the groups that are going to test the viability and brokenness of the rules & mechanics.
However, where I do agree is that you cant properly playtest at just low levels. But, we have no evidence that that is happening, only supposition at this point. Which seems to be enough, in these boards, to cause the sky to fall countless times.
So, I am guessing from the 2 previous posters that you guys think you're the only ones that can playtest this bad boy correctly? There are a lot of us out here that can look at things critically and stretch rules to the point of breakage. Why assum
So, I am guessing from the 2 previous posters that you guys think you're the only ones that can playtest this bad boy correctly? There are a lot of us out here that can look at things critically and stretch rules to the point of breakage. Why assume that none of the playtesters are capable of the same thing? I am not assuming that they are all capable of course, neither should you assume that none of them are.
Playtesting needs to be an attempt to test the game on many fronts, playability, rules viability, fun factor, ease of play or understanding, friendliness for new and old players alike, etc. Different playtest groups, chosen fairly randomly should be able to hit all these different aspects of the game. A random sample will not likely completely leave out the groups that are going to test the viability and brokenness of the rules & mechanics.
However, where I do agree is that you cant properly playtest at just low levels. But, we have no evidence that that is happening, only supposition at this point. Which seems to be enough, in these boards, to cause the sky to fall countless times.
They're not assuming that only they can playtest correctly, they're assuming that someone over on the MT:G forums who's never tried D&D before can't playtest correctly.
They're not assuming that only they can playtest correctly, they're assuming that someone over on the MT:G forums who's never tried D&D before can't playtest correctly.
I understood that part of it, but that attitude seems to lead to the sweeping assumption that the only ones playtesting are the M:tG guys and gals. We have 0 (zero) evidence that that is the case. Thats all I am saying. They are assuming too much.
And just because someone at M;tG forum gets chosen to playtest, and accepts the invitation to playtest, and actively playtests, does not mean they won't provide valuable feedback that actually helps in some small or large way. The playtesting is very likely to get an entire gamut of responses some valuable some not so. I don't expect every single bug in the rules to be found, regardless of the system used to choose playtesters.
I guess the crux of my problem with those 2 posts is that the posters would like a different criteria used for picking playtesters, but it begs the age old question, who would get to pick the criteria used? Statistically speaking a random sampling of players from all backgrounds will get a more well rounded sampling of feedback.
But, I am sure I am about to get told why that is wrong by all the usual resident geniuses with PhDs in statistics.
quote not working again.I understood that part of it, but that attitude seems to lead to the sweeping assumption that the only ones playtesting are the M:tG guys and gals. We have 0 (zero) evidence that that is the case. Thats all I am saying. The
For statistical reasons it is best to do the selction randomly, that way you could get a wide range people playtesting it. I am sure they will do for focused playtesting after the initial random one.
For statistical reasons it is best to do the selction randomly, that way you could get a wide range people playtesting it. I am sure they will do for focused playtesting after the initial random one.
We're not saying that people new to the game can't playtest correctly. We are saying that at some point and time there needs to be playtesting that tries to "break" the new rules. How do you stress test something? You try to break it. Casually playing the game can give some valuable insight. New people playing the game gives you a good idea how easy the rules are to learn and put to use. That's important. We are saying that serious stress tests, especially at high levels, are needed to make the game better. If 3.5 had been tested to this extreme, we might have a better game with smoother play at high levels and more balance between the classes. We might not even be having this discussion right now.
We're not saying that people new to the game can't playtest correctly. We are saying that at some point and time there needs to be playtesting that tries to "break" the new rules. How do you stress test something? You try to break it. Casually pla
We're not saying that people new to the game can't playtest correctly. We are saying that at some point and time there needs to be playtesting that tries to "break" the new rules. How do you stress test something? You try to break it. Casually playing the game can give some valuable insight. New people playing the game gives you a good idea how easy the rules are to learn and put to use. That's important. We are saying that serious stress tests, especially at high levels, are needed to make the game better. If 3.5 had been tested to this extreme, we might have a better game with smoother play at high levels and more balance between the classes. We might not even be having this discussion right now.
And I am saying that the whole core of your posts is riddled with the assumption that the "stress testing" is not going on. I merely think this is a brash assumption based on zero evidence.
And I am saying that the whole core of your posts is riddled with the assumption that the "stress testing" is not going on. I merely think this is a brash assumption based on zero evidence.
Maybe they are trying to stress test it. They haven't shown any evidence of it. The random selection process they are using would make it difficult or impossible to do this kind of testing. Taking a look at 3.5, it seems they didn't do much playtesting at high levels. I believe that they have even admitted as much. Hopefully, they have learned their leason. I sure hope they can do better than using a non-core setting with non-core classes and races where 8th level characters are so stupid powerful that they breeze through a room of mummies and vampire spawn without breaking a sweat. Only time will tell.
Maybe they are trying to stress test it. They haven't shown any evidence of it. The random selection process they are using would make it difficult or impossible to do this kind of testing. Taking a look at 3.5, it seems they didn't do much playte
Maybe they are trying to stress test it. They haven't shown any evidence of it.
They probably didn't realize they were supposed to report that to you.
talok55 wrote:
The random selection process they are using would make it difficult or impossible to do this kind of testing.
Care to elaborate? Your obviously keenly aware of something the rest of us aren't.
talok55 wrote:
Taking a look at 3.5, it seems they didn't do much playtesting at high levels. I believe that they have even admitted as much. Hopefully, they have learned their leason.
On this we agree.
talok55 wrote:
I sure hope they can do better than using a non-core setting with non-core classes and races where 8th level characters are so stupid powerful that they breeze through a room of mummies and vampire spawn without breaking a sweat.
Not sure we have the whole story on that one, but I sort fo agree with you there.
talok55 wrote:
Only time will tell.
agree 110%
They probably didn't realize they were supposed to report that to you. Care to elaborate? Your obviously keenly aware of something the rest of us aren't. On this we agree. Not sure we have the whole story on that one, but I sort fo agree with you
For statistical reasons it is best to do the selction randomly, that way you could get a wide range people playtesting it. I am sure they will do for focused playtesting after the initial random one.
Really? Because I think statistically if you take the whole of the D&D forums community and randomly select 1%, you're much more likely to end up with the stereotypical D&D geek: white males ages 13-34. I don't have any proof to back this up, so I'll freely admit that I'm assuming, but there is a reason that companies that do paid surveys ask you age, sex, race, zip code, etc. before you take the survey. They want to have a good sampling of all demographics.
If WoTC truely wanted a wide range of people play testing 4e in this play testing run, they would have needed an application that included more questions then I provided when I signed up for these forums. With the new initiative to get more women involved in D&D, I'd be curious to know how many women got one of these random invites.
eleran]So, I am guessing from the 2 previous posters that you guys think you're the only ones that can play test this bad boy correctly?
No, honestly. I've never play tested a role playing game before, and while I do run a game that my players enjoy, I wouldn't assume to be good at testing it. My gripe is that I wasn't offered the chance to "apply" to test and be judged on my merits. Random or "developer pets" as a selection method isn't going to get the same results as picking qualified applicants. This is why most employers interview potential employees based on their resume, as opposed to walking up to random people on the street and going "Would you like to be a computer programmer?"
That being said, I think its a shame that Otto isn't play testing 4e. He's a member of this community that I respect and would trust to break the rules enough before release. This whole selection process seems to indicate, to me, that play testing feedback won't have a large impact on the final p wrote:
So, I am guessing from the 2 previous posters that you guys think you're the only ones that can play test this bad boy correctly?[/quote] No, honestly. I've never play tested a role playing game before, and while I do run a game that my players enjoy, I wouldn't assume to be good at testing it. My gripe is that I wasn't offered the chance to "apply" to test and be judged on my merits. Random or "developer pets" as a selection method isn't going to get the same results as picking qualified applicants. This is why most employers interview potential employees based on their resume, as opposed to walking up to random people on the street and going "Would you like to be a computer programmer?"
That being said, I think its a shame that Otto isn't play testing 4e. He's a member of this community that I respect and would trust to break the rules enough before release. This whole selection process seems to indicate, to me, that play testing feedback won't have a large impact on the final product.
Really? Because I think statistically if you take the whole of the D&D forums community and randomly select 1%, you're much more likely to end up with the stereotypical D&D geek: white males ages 13-34. I don't have any proof to back this up, so I'll
Yeah, I get the impression that it is basically just going through the motions. Maybe, if outside playtesting uncovers some huge gaping loophole or problem area, they might do something about it proivided they have the time and page space to do it. Everything about 4th edition seems way too rushed to get things right. We are maybe 5 months away from the books getting sent to the printers, and they are just now starting outside playtesting. Do they really have time to make changes based on playtesting info? Last week (or was it the week before) David Noonan said that "This iteration of the rules is fiendishly complex." They have been working on it for over two years, and with months left to the release of the super edition that will simplify and speed-up gameplay by leaps and bounds, it is still "fiendishly complex." That doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.
Yeah, I get the impression that it is basically just going through the motions. Maybe, if outside playtesting uncovers some huge gaping loophole or problem area, they might do something about it proivided they have the time and page space to do it.
Really? Because I think statistically if you take the whole of the D&D forums community and randomly select 1%, you're much more likely to end up with the stereotypical D&D geek: white males ages 13-34. I don't have any proof to back this up, so I'll freely admit that I'm assuming, but there is a reason that companies that do paid surveys ask you age, sex, race, zip code, etc. before you take the survey. They want to have a good sampling of all demographics.
If WoTC truely wanted a wide range of people play testing 4e in this play testing run, they would have needed an application that included more questions then I provided when I signed up for these forums. With the new initiative to get more women involved in D&D, I'd be curious to know how many women got one of these random invites.
No, honestly. I've never play tested a role playing game before, and while I do run a game that my players enjoy, I wouldn't assume to be good at testing it. My gripe is that I wasn't offered the chance to "apply" to test and be judged on my merits. Random or "developer pets" as a selection method isn't going to get the same results as picking qualified applicants. This is why most employers interview potential employees based on their resume, as opposed to walking up to random people on the street and going "Would you like to be a computer programmer?"
That being said, I think its a shame that Otto isn't play testing 4e. He's a member of this community that I respect and would trust to break the rules enough before release. This whole selection process seems to indicate, to me, that play testing feedback won't have a large impact on the final product.
While I agree that Otto is probably an extremely qualified candidate to playtest 4e, how do they go about picking "qualified applicants" without getting, mostly or partly, big ego folks who only think they are qualified and would be good at it?
I was also disappointed to not be able to apply to playtest and be judged on my merits, but I am not sure a fair system could really be implemented for that. Maybe I am short-sighted, but I fail to see how to weed out the wheat from the chaff as far as playtesters go.
I think my groups is as qualified as any other to playtest very well, but how would WotC have known that from an application process?
All I am saying is, i am not sure there was a "best" way to do it that didnt seem unfair or unbalanced to someone.
While I agree that Otto is probably an extremely qualified candidate to playtest 4e, how do they go about picking "qualified applicants" without getting, mostly or partly, big ego folks who only think they are qualified and would be good at it? I wa
Do you think that if they just sent off random invites to RPGA/DDI members they'd get a reasonable number of candidates who meet the criteria? They'd still be hunting for people. Think of how many people sign up and never come back, or don't check back often, or don't meet the criteria? They've admitted they cherry-picked RPGA members. Hell, in the RPGA info section it states that play testing is a benefit of a certain DM level rank. They picked people they knew. People they could count on to perform the duties of play testing.
Do you believe for a minute they didn't do the same for DDI members? Do you honestly think they just blindly selected people? They cherry-picked repeat posters. Knowing WOTC it was probably those that showed an interest, met the criteria, and never spoke bad about the company.
The problem is that this testing isn't in any way blind. The people who designed it are picking the people to say whether it's broken. It's human nature to pick people that will make you look good. It's common sense to pick people who can actually play test to save time in the hunt for testers.
The only way they would have met there quota of testers in any reasonable amount of time from random invites is if everyone invited lied about meeting criteria and WOTC didn't have a rigorous system of checking said criteria. Of course, this wouldn't help WOTC at all.
I totally understand hand-picking people to invite. I think its the only common sense way of doing it. I just wish WOTC was more upfront about it.
So if you haven't received an invite, don't expect one...
Do you really think any of this was random? :confused: Do you think that if they just sent off random invites to RPGA/DDI members they'd get a reasonable number of candidates who meet the criteria? They'd still be hunting for people. Think of how ma
Maybe I am short-sighted, but I fail to see how to weed out the wheat from the chaff as far as playtesters go.
I'll make a sample questionnaire off the top of my head that I think is better then random selection. I believe these questions could be used to give WoTC a better, more diverse group of testers. Ofcourse someone could lie, but the same holds true for a job application.
Profiling
1. How many players are in your group? 2. What are the ages of the players in your group? (not required) 3. What are the sexes of the players in your group? (not required) 4. What are the races of the players in your group? (not required) 5. What are the education levels of the players in your group? (not required) 6. What are the income levels of the players in your group? (not required) 7. Is any member of your group a member of the media, or an employee of an advertising company, role playing game company, or gaming-related periodical?
DM Experience
1. For how many years has the group's DM been playing D&D? 2. Out of those years, how many were spent DMing? 3. Including all versions of D&D, what pen and paper roleplaying games has your DM played? 4. Including all versions of D&D, what pen and paper roleplaying games has your DM run? 5. In D&D 3.5, what is your DM's favorite houserule? 6. Has your DM ever run any of the prebuilt adventures provided by WoTC, either via dndinsider.com, Dungeon magazine or books such as The Return to Castle Ravenloft?
Group Background
1. How long has this current group been playing together? 2. Including all versions of D&D, what pen and paper roleplaying games has this group experienced together? 3. Do members of your group regularly get together outside of the roleplaying game session? 4. How often does your gaming group meet? 5. What is the average length of a gaming session? 6. Are your games played face to face, on the internet, via mail, etc? 7. Does your group play in private or in a place open to the public (such as a gaming store)? 8. Do you have players who regularly miss gaming sessions (for reasons other than emergencies)?
Legalities
1. Would any member of your group having a problem signing an NDA? 2. Are any members of your group under the age of 18? 3. Do all of the members of your group live in the United States or Canada?
I'll make a sample questionnaire off the top of my head that I think is better then random selection. I believe these questions could be used to give WoTC a better, more diverse group of testers. Ofcourse someone could lie, but the same holds true fo
While I agree that Otto is probably an extremely qualified candidate to playtest 4e, how do they go about picking "qualified applicants" without getting, mostly or partly, big ego folks who only think they are qualified and would be good at it?
While I certainly appreciate the confidence, perhaps I can offer a little insight on how to avoid the exact hole in the sidewalk you describe with the big ego folks.
[This is directed at WotC, not you eleran. ]
Pay attention to your own boards. Look at what people have brought to the game and/or community. And this extends beyond just stress testing the mechanics or offering balanced alternatives.
One thing I noticed from the youtube segments that gamer_zero posted was a lot of "we've been paying attention to the ENWorld message boards ... oh, and our message boards too" type of comments. Just reading that doesn't show it, but the impression I got every time Mike or one of the other designers/developers mentioned it that way was that they're more enamored with the ENWorld site, and just have to mention their own message boards to placate those that sign their paychecks. I know ENWorld has a lot of the same posters, and there are a lot of good people over there that contribute a lot. I'm not trying to slam them, but it's hard to imagine that attitude being so prevalent within the WotC offices that they ignore the incredible work done by Tleilaxu_Ghola, LordofProcrastination, Tempest Stormwind, Radical Taoist or DisposableHero_.
Stress Testing: Look at who does what on the Theoretical Optimization boards. I'd consider myself a 2nd tier optimizer in that regard. I can name about a half-dozen off the top of my head without even opening a tab to the T.O. board.
Custom Designing: Again, a lot of good work done right here, and a lot of work done redesigning some of the crap, some of the just plain meh, and closing some of the loopholes.
Flavor and Fluff: Another area where they may as well just plumb the boards for users that both provide great content, and are willing to do the NDA stuff and help out in that regard.
I was also disappointed to not be able to apply to playtest and be judged on my merits, but I am not sure a fair system could really be implemented for that. Maybe I am short-sighted, but I fail to see how to weed out the wheat from the chaff as far as playtesters go.
In the cases I stated above, they hand-pick the people they're most impressed with. There are other factors that need to be considered, such as maturity level (not age, that's different) and general pleasantness in conversation (point out flaws, be assertive, but not condescending or verbally abusive).
I think my groups is as qualified as any other to playtest very well, but how would WotC have known that from an application process?
All I am saying is, i am not sure there was a "best" way to do it that didnt seem unfair or unbalanced to someone.
The playtest group IS the hardest one to weed out the chaff from the grain. That's more trial and error than anything else.
It's also one of the biggest disappointments I saw when they first started talking about taking playtesters. They want 6 person groups (1 DM; 5 players), and everyone must sign the NDA and be on board with using the new and ever changing rules.
Now, that's great for a portion of the playtesters. Perhaps even quite a large portion. After all, it takes relatively few of the best at bending and twisting the rules to make an impact compared to playing the game.
But I can guarantee anybody that's so awesome at breaking the system it makes your jaw drop doesn't use those tricks when playing. And I'll eat my hat if those people do stuff like that in games. Optimize to a high degree? Sure. But Endless Font of Spells or entrants from the 100^10 Elite Optimization Challenge, no, not really.
Even if the criteria was narrowed down to 'D&D boards only, more than 1.0 post per day for at least 6 months' would be a world of improvement compared to 'as long as they have a forum account, give 'em the invite'.
While I certainly appreciate the confidence, perhaps I can offer a little insight on how to avoid the exact hole in the sidewalk you describe with the big ego folks.[This is directed at WotC, not you eleran. :) ]Pay attention to your own boards. Look
Well it could be worse they could have gone the whole "pay to test" that is the craze in the computer testing world as of late. You know "pre-sign up" for DDI super gold member for a year at 120.00 dollars and get to playtest D&D 4th edition! Only the first 100 people in get a key! So while random is not the best way at least they are doing some public playtesting at all.
Well it could be worse they could have gone the whole "pay to test" that is the craze in the computer testing world as of late. You know "pre-sign up" for DDI super gold member for a year at 120.00 dollars and get to playtest D&D 4th edition! Only
The only way they would have met there quota of testers in any reasonable amount of time from random invites is if everyone invited lied about meeting criteria and WOTC didn't have a rigorous system of checking said criteria. Of course, this wouldn't help WOTC at all.
I think you are ovelooking one major factor. Saying you have a qualified playtest group is one thing. Getting the NDA's signed and mailed in is another. They're going to give people at least a week (and possibly two) to return the NDA's. So they're going to think they have enough groups until they don't receive all the NDA's they expected.
Ed
I think you are ovelooking one major factor. Saying you have a qualified playtest group is one thing. Getting the NDA's signed and mailed in is another. They're going to give people at least a week (and possibly two) to return the NDA's. So they'
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that randomly selecting would only yield very few people who met the criteria. The fact that it will take them a few weeks to confirm that the initial invites are eligible or not will only add to the problem. So if everyone is honest it would take them months just to get a decent size group of testers. It wouldn't work. And that gets back to my point: Either it isn't random, or people aren't being honest. All they have to do is fill in some fake signatures and info after all.
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that randomly selecting would only yield very few people who met the criteria. The fact that it will take them a few weeks to confirm that the initial invites are eligible or not will only add to the problem. So
True but then all they will get is the first packet and non of the follow-up ones. Unless they are going to fill out 6 peoples worth of feedback and ideas.
True but then all they will get is the first packet and non of the follow-up ones. Unless they are going to fill out 6 peoples worth of feedback and ideas.
Most likely the first selection will be random but that doesn't mean the that all of those will get to play test. They will more then likely give apps to those randomly selected and then chose from those. The post before about the RPGA probably meant that they wanted every to get the apps and then pick from the people that qualify and they would get a better selection.
Most likely the first selection will be random but that doesn't mean the that all of those will get to play test. They will more then likely give apps to those randomly selected and then chose from those. The post before about the RPGA probably mea
True but then all they will get is the first packet and non of the follow-up ones. Unless they are going to fill out 6 peoples worth of feedback and ideas.
I wouldn't doubt someone out there is crazy enough to do it, but what's the point? They've already got the play pack. By the time WOTC realizes the test group is fictional or just not responding and go looking for a new group it'll be weeks. Again, random selection puts a lot of needless risk into the process. So if it really is random, WOTC has no need for play-testing. So why do it? What little feedback the get may or may not be useful. How do they know these groups can fully test or break the new rules if they are picked at random? The only way that makes sense if it won't make a difference. Believable since the books need to be at the printers next month to meet the spring 2008 release date. But then way play test at all? The NDA's kill any hype releasing the rules to a select few would earn them. Simple deduction means that the selection could not have been entirely random.
I wouldn't doubt someone out there is crazy enough to do it, but what's the point? They've already got the play pack. By the time WOTC realizes the test group is fictional or just not responding and go looking for a new group it'll be weeks. Again, r
Simple deduction means that the selection could not have been entirely random.
The other obvious possibility is that they are not really looking for feedback. But they feel like they need to go through the motions for publicity reasons.
My guess however would line up with what you have said. The play testing group probably contains only a small set of really randomly selected people. Most are probably part of the various well known large groups, the ones that can be trusted to both test the rules and keep quiet about it.
Jay
The other obvious possibility is that they are not really looking for feedback. But they feel like they need to go through the motions for publicity reasons.My guess however would line up with what you have said. The play testing group probably conta
Well it could be worse they could have gone the whole "pay to test" that is the craze in the computer testing world as of late. You know "pre-sign up" for DDI super gold member for a year at 120.00 dollars and get to playtest D&D 4th edition! Only the first 100 people in get a key! So while random is not the best way at least they are doing some public playtesting at all.
The other obvious possibility is that they are not really looking for feedback. But they feel like they need to go through the motions for publicity reasons.
My guess however would line up with what you have said. The play testing group probably contains only a small set of really randomly selected people. Most are probably part of the various well known large groups, the ones that can be trusted to both test the rules and keep quiet about it.
Jay
I believe this is the most likely scenario. There just isn't enough time to process and use any outside playtesting data before the books are sent to the printer. Lots of changes they are making for 4E show little regard for players' opinions. Why should playtesting be any different?
I believe this is the most likely scenario. There just isn't enough time to process and use any outside playtesting data before the books are sent to the printer. Lots of changes they are making for 4E show little regard for players' opinions. Why
There just isn't enough time to process and use any outside playtesting data before the books are sent to the printer. Lots of changes they are making for 4E show little regard for MY opinion. Why should playtesting be any different?
There, fixed for ya.
Honestly folks, if they did a random selection method, isnt it more likely that once they had a list together of who to randomly contact, they would then send out invites as sort of an application process and then make selections from there? I really doubt they just willy-nilly sent out 100 playtest packets and hoped those folks would sign the NDA and send it back. Use your heads.
There, fixed for ya.Honestly folks, if they did a random selection method, isnt it more likely that once they had a list together of who to randomly contact, they would then send out invites as sort of an application process and then make selections
Honestly folks, if they did a random selection method, isnt it more likely that once they had a list together of who to randomly contact, they would then send out invites as sort of an application process and then make selections from there? I really doubt they just willy-nilly sent out 100 playtest packets and hoped those folks would sign the NDA and send it back. Use your heads.
You've completely missed the point of the last twenty posts. Go back and read them, realize that it is logical to deduce that any type of random selection whether invites or NDAs (EVEN THOUGH INVITES HAVE TO BE SENT BEFORE PACKETS) would be time consuming, costly, ineffective and worthless to the designers. There is no debate over whether invites are sent first or not.
eleran wrote:
I didn't bother to read the thread before posting.
There, fixed for ya.
You've completely missed the point of the last twenty posts. Go back and read them, realize that it is logical to deduce that any type of random selection whether invites or NDAs (EVEN THOUGH INVITES HAVE TO BE SENT BEFORE PACKETS) would be time cons
Look we would all like to playtest 4E but I dont think we need all of the "hi I have a group and would like to test messages" The selection is random and the invites already went out.
Look we would all like to playtest 4E but I dont think we need all of the "hi I have a group and would like to test messages" The selection is random and the invites already went out.
Looks like Dave Noonan posted something in his blog about more invites for playtesting - I wonder if this includes more DDI "random" invites. Throw us a bone, Dave, throw us a bone . . .
Looks like Dave Noonan posted something in his blog about more invites for playtesting - I wonder if this includes more DDI "random" invites. Throw us a bone, Dave, throw us a bone . . .
I don't want more DDI random invites. I want DDI nonrandom invites. Yes, he's crazy folks, he's talking about picking playtesters based on their merits! Give us an application! Let us show what we can do!
I don't want more DDI random invites. I want DDI nonrandom invites. Yes, he's crazy folks, he's talking about picking playtesters based on their merits! Give us an application! Let us show what we can do!
I've been a DND player for eight years now, and me and a small group of players and DM's have even made our own campaign world and bought all the DND books, from the original Advanced DND to 2.0 to 3rd edition and now 3.5, we were looking foward to the chance of being selected for playtests, in hope of giving our feedback on the system and what we'd like to see improved. I am a current RPGA member and DND insider member as well, and hopefully me and my small group(6 ppl. players and DM's, we alternate and have several ongoing games)will be selected for playtests.
I've been a DND player for eight years now, and me and a small group of players and DM's have even made our own campaign world and bought all the DND books, from the original Advanced DND to 2.0 to 3rd edition and now 3.5, we were looking foward to t
