|
6 years ago ::
Sep 27, 2007 - 6:38AM
#301
|
Date Joined:
Sep 23, 2006
|
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 :
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.
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!")
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.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 27, 2007 - 7:23AM
#302
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
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?
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 27, 2007 - 7:40AM
#303
|
Date Joined:
Jul 26, 2003
|
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.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 27, 2007 - 3:44PM
#304
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2001
|
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
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 27, 2007 - 7:56PM
#305
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2009
|
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.
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 
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 27, 2007 - 9:13PM
#306
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2007 - 5:23AM
#307
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2002
|
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.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2007 - 6:00AM
#308
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
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.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2007 - 6:09AM
#309
|
Date Joined:
Jul 26, 2003
|
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.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2007 - 6:22AM
#310
|
Date Joined:
Sep 23, 2006
|
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.
|
|
|
