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



## TerraDave (Dec 18, 2007)

WotC_PeterS talks here about some playtesting, but reveals little on mechanics:

http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=29262&pagemode=2&blogid=2126



> OK, I promised I would discuss my so-called Aggressive Playtests. They were born from the idea that by gosh we have a lot of monsters in the Monster Manual, and goodness if some of them might not work out as well in play as they looked on paper. I want to see more monsters in play! It also won't hurt to see more variations of PC at more levels.
> 
> This was a couple months ago. At the time, I was participating in about three ongoing playtests, "about three" because two were regular, and two more were off and on and worth a half mark. All of them involved some degree of story. You may recall the Prophecy of the Priestess, with a much more involved plotline than I anticipated. We ran into an average of 1-2 encounters per session, which wasn't enough for my data-gathering hungers. More, the characters were advancing at standard rate, which gave me all the information about level 1 I needed but not much more (that has since changed, as Greg adopted a more rapid advancement rate to expose the group to a greater range of levels).
> 
> ...


----------



## Voss (Dec 18, 2007)

Hmm.  They should do more of these.  

In fact, this should have been the default playtesting method from the start.  Playing through campaigns is nice and all, but proper playtesting involves bashing the rules hard, over and over again to see if they break.  



> It also won't hurt to see more variations of PC at more levels.



Again, this should be standard and systematic.  Even if they couldn't have done *all* possible variations of PCs, the most likely ability suites should have been rigourously tested at every single level.  Against other PCs and monsters within about 10 levels on either side.


----------



## Lackhand (Dec 18, 2007)

You say "should have" like you're assuming that they don't.

They did for 3rd ed, and internal playtests probably do this, too. I think the difference here is that he's doing them continually, at a grueling pace.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 18, 2007)

Good. More playtests should be like this.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 18, 2007)

I'm glad they're putting the monsters and classes through the wringer. That's what I think of when I think of playtest. 

But more importantly, I'm glad they're doing different combos like 'Elite controller + soldiers' or mixing and matching.


----------



## Voss (Dec 18, 2007)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> You say "should have" like you're assuming that they don't.




No, he's telling us they don't.  He had this 'idea' a couple months ago.  It took time to implement, and got sandwiched into one hour sessions when people weren't busy. He tells us this.  Instead they were doing prophecy of the priestess type stuff, which is spends a lot of time in fluff, not rules (I'm sure its fun, but its not the type of hardcore playtesting they should be doing to make sure the rules actually work and are well-balanced.)



> They did for 3rd ed, and internal playtests probably do this, too. I think the difference here is that he's doing them continually, at a grueling pace.




Third edition was *not* well tested at higher levels.  This is very obvious from the way the game breaks down in the upper levels and folks in and out of wotc have admitted they didn't put a lot of effort testing the upper levels.

And one hour a day, not even every day, isn't a grueling pace.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Dec 18, 2007)

This is exactly how I would playtest a new set of rules. Ideally enough volunteers would exist to give each a unique race/class mix and then stat out the characters for every level. Go through the Monster Manual in CR, or whatever they're using, order. Most combats won't take any time at all I should imagine, and those that take a while might obviously turn out one way or another. Hell, you could write a simulation for low levels (since there are fewer choices to make, following very simple role-based AI) and just concentrate on high-level play.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 19, 2007)

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> This is exactly how I would playtest a new set of rules. Ideally enough volunteers would exist to give each a unique race/class mix and then stat out the characters for every level. Go through the Monster Manual in CR, or whatever they're using, order. Most combats won't take any time at all I should imagine, and those that take a while might obviously turn out one way or another. Hell, you could write a simulation for low levels (since there are fewer choices to make, following very simple role-based AI) and just concentrate on high-level play.




Absolutely.  I really can't believe he thought this was some kind of new idea.  Running campaigns to test how the game plays out is all very well, but if you want anything resembling balance, you have to really push the system to the limits--you have to have people actively trying to break it, and you have to see what happens in a whole variety of scenarios.


----------



## smetzger (Dec 19, 2007)

Voss said:
			
		

> No, he's telling us they don't.  He had this 'idea' a couple months ago.  It took time to implement, and got sandwiched into one hour sessions when people weren't busy. He tells us this.  Instead they were doing prophecy of the priestess type stuff, which is spends a lot of time in fluff, not rules (I'm sure its fun, but its not the type of hardcore playtesting they should be doing to make sure the rules actually work and are well-balanced.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yeah, thats how I read it.  

I haven't been following 4e news that closely.  But it seems to have been tested less than 3e.


----------



## Gundark (Dec 19, 2007)

WotC_PeterS said:
			
		

> 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 makes me feel glad that they are thinking about this stuff


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 19, 2007)

smetzger said:
			
		

> Yeah, thats how I read it.
> 
> I haven't been following 4e news that closely.  But it seems to have been tested less than 3e.



What do you base this on?


----------



## Voss (Dec 19, 2007)

smetzger said:
			
		

> Yeah, thats how I read it.
> 
> I haven't been following 4e news that closely.  But it seems to have been tested less than 3e.




Nah.  3.5 got years of playtesting by the poor saps who bought 3.0.    

But really, 3.0 didn't get much effective playtesting, so I don't think that 4e is getting less. And I'm glad someone is doing what this guy is doing.  It just should have been hardcoded into the design process.


----------



## A'koss (Dec 19, 2007)

Voss said:
			
		

> Nah.  3.5 got years of playtesting by the poor saps who bought 3.0.
> 
> But really, 3.0 didn't get much effective playtesting, so I don't think that 4e is getting less. And I'm glad someone is doing what this guy is doing.  It just should have been hardcoded into the design process.



Actually 3e had considerably more playtesting than 4th edition (my group PT'd for about 8 months IIRC) and was still nowhere near as much time I would have liked. In 3e though the game underwent significant changes over the playtest period and was a much more radical departure from the previous edition in general. 

While I love nearly all the things they doing in 4e (conceptually), getting in enough playtesting is _by far_ my biggest concern. Even though it is less a change than going from 3e to 4e, it is still clearly a big departure from the previous edition. Regrettably I will be very surprised if 4e isn't full of errata 90 days out of the gate.


----------



## Voss (Dec 19, 2007)

I expect errata no matter how much playtesting they do.  

But I am curious as to how you know there was more of something that isn't done yet.


----------



## Shroomy (Dec 19, 2007)

I don't know, _Star Wars SAGA_ edition is pretty much the 4e beta for the underlying system.  That's been out for a while, so I think the fundamentals have already been well playtested.  Also, does anyone know the scope of the playtest?


----------



## A'koss (Dec 19, 2007)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> I don't know, _Star Wars SAGA_ edition is pretty much the 4e beta for the underlying system.  That's been out for a while, so I think the fundamentals have already been well playtested.  Also, does anyone know the scope of the playtest?



And we had Alternity as the 3e beta of the underlying system.

As far as the scope of the PT, IIRC there something like 300 players doing external PTing right now.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Dec 19, 2007)

It shouldn't _all_ be like this, due to the nature of the game, combat isn't actually the only thing that can be broken (3e diplomacy,among others) and they do have a new social encounter system to test, but the fact that this is considered a "new" and "grueling" idea to just have players make characters and fight monsters doesn't sound that great, also that most of the characters are starting at first and leveling up as per the normal rules is also not particularly heartening, I realize that some are starting at higher level, but the simple fact is that (as far as I can tell) the majority of this "playtesting" is just a bunch of guys starting normal campaigns at level 1, and leveling up normally, something which while it should be certainly be part of the playtesting, shouldn't be the "default".


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 19, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Good. More playtests should be like this.



All playtests should be like this.  They're not supposed to be regular games.  They're supposed to be tests.  If they waste time in character chatting up barmaids, that's two or three rules they didn't put through the paces that day.  Over time, I bet that adds up.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 19, 2007)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Actually 3e had considerably more playtesting than 4th edition (my group PT'd for about 8 months IIRC) and was still nowhere near as much time I would have liked. In 3e though the game underwent significant changes over the playtest period and was a much more radical departure from the previous edition in general.
> 
> While I love nearly all the things they doing in 4e (conceptually), getting in enough playtesting is _by far_ my biggest concern. Even though it is less a change than going from 3e to 4e, it is still clearly a big departure from the previous edition. Regrettably I will be very surprised if 4e isn't full of errata 90 days out of the gate.



90 minutes, you mean.  As soon as that puppy gets sent to the printers, they'll be assembling a list of issues they would have caught if they had been given one extra day, or two extra days, etc.


----------



## coyote6 (Dec 19, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> If they waste time in character chatting up barmaids,




That would be where you playtest the social encounter/combat/whatever-they-will-call-them rules, no?


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Dec 19, 2007)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Actually 3e had considerably more playtesting than 4th edition (my group PT'd for about 8 months IIRC) and was still nowhere near as much time I would have liked. In 3e though the game underwent significant changes over the playtest period and was a much more radical departure from the previous edition in general.
> 
> While I love nearly all the things they doing in 4e (conceptually), getting in enough playtesting is _by far_ my biggest concern. Even though it is less a change than going from 3e to 4e, it is still clearly a big departure from the previous edition. Regrettably I will be very surprised if 4e isn't full of errata 90 days out of the gate.




This has been play tested in parts for years (Bo9S, SWSE, DMG II, etc) and in whole since early 2007 so I am sure your statement is inaccurate. I played my first 4e game in May 2007 but saw an early build in February 2006.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 19, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> This has been play tested in parts for years (Bo9S, SWSE, DMG II, etc) and in whole since early 2007 so I am sure your statement is inaccurate. I played my first 4e game in May 2007 but saw an early build in February 2006.



Thanks Scott.


----------



## Lackhand (Dec 19, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> 90 minutes, you mean.  As soon as that puppy gets sent to the printers, they'll be assembling a list of issues they would have caught if they had been given one extra day, or two extra days, etc.




Ultimate implication: They should never release 4th edition  That'd make some people happy, but it'd eat up enough developer cycles that they'd never eat up anything else, either.

My personal conspiracy theory is that I think they're exaggerating how "crunch-time" they are in, because otherwise, we'd clamor for more updates.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Dec 19, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> All playtests should be like this.  They're not supposed to be regular games.  They're supposed to be tests.  If they waste time in character chatting up barmaids, that's two or three rules they didn't put through the paces that day.  Over time, I bet that adds up.




There are enough playtests happening that various groups can focus on certain aspects of the game. Motsly it is about tuning and balancing and not about big sweeping changes.

My group is playing through Keep on the Shadowfell. We have been roleplaying, building our charcters by writing back stories out of the game but also looking at crunch, running characters through their paces in the game, sometime facing huge bands of monsters.

We have a large group with up to 8 players at times. Today we had 5. Sometimes we fight large groups of monsters and while today we only fought 5 (kobolds and goblins).  A few weeks ago I was chatting up the barmaid trying to get the quest and weeks prior to that managed to do something that lead to Coup de Grace rules changing somewhat. 

All in all I get the sense that things are going well.


----------



## Orius (Dec 19, 2007)

Voss said:
			
		

> In fact, this should have been the default playtesting method from the start.  Playing through campaigns is nice and all, but proper playtesting involves bashing the rules hard, over and over again to see if they break.




I agree.  Playtesting should involve a lot of testing of dice rolls; RPing an extensive campaign won't help find the flaws or weaknesses, since RPing doesn't need to depend on the rules.  So lots of combat testing to see how all the dice rolls work is important.  You probably want to play test other heavy crunch stuff that isn't combat related either.


----------



## A'koss (Dec 19, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> This has been play tested in parts for years (Bo9S, SWSE, DMG II, etc) and in whole since early 2007 so I am sure your statement is inaccurate. I played my first 4e game in May 2007 but saw an early build in February 2006.



I'm not so sure because I assume you mean just internal playtesting. External playtesting for 4e didn't begin until just recently AFAIK. 

3e was being externally tested before I ever joined in and as I mentioned earlier, had Alternity as a 3e "proving ground".


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Dec 19, 2007)

A'koss said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure because I assume you mean just internal playtesting. External playtesting for 4e didn't begin until just recently AFAIK.
> 
> 3e was being externally tested before I ever joined in.




OK yes when you say External playtesting 3e likely got more external testing. The jump from 2nd to 3e was massive. This jump is big but not that big.


----------



## Voss (Dec 19, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> This has been play tested in parts for years (Bo9S, SWSE, DMG II, etc)




I hope you realize that this isn't very useful for playtesting.  It will give you a general idea of how things work, and may clue you in on what to expect, but ultimately tells you nothing about what the actual versions of class abilities you have in your current documents do against Monster X in Situation Y.

You have to beat the actual, current rules against the walls hard, to see where the current system breaks down.  Otherwise you're going to be doing the 4e version of the Polymorph Dance in a year and a half, with a mob of people claiming that class X sucks and class Y is broken.  And being able to pick up such and such Wizard ability will allow a Warlock to win every fight at level Z.

Its a grueling process, but it needs to be done well to create a good product.  And if the playtesting indicates that big sweeping changes need to be made, you've got to break down and make them.

And just playing the game like normal *isn't* playtesting.  I've been down that road before personally. I'd suggest you ask Troika Games where that type of 'playtesting' leads, but they're out of business.  And that came out rather harsh, but I actually meant it in a friendly, useful warning sort of way. Casual play just doesn't catch the problems that systematic playtesting does.


----------



## A'koss (Dec 19, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> OK yes when you say External playtesting 3e likely got more external testing. The jump from 2nd to 3e was massive. This jump is big but not that big.




Oh, I agree that it's not as big a leap as last time. However you slice it though that's still ~9 classes, 300 monsters and 30 levels of play for external testers to cover in what appears to be a rather short amount of time to my eye. Even breaking groups down to specific segments, that's a lot of ground to cover.


----------



## Gundark (Dec 19, 2007)

Well I would think (and hope) that Scott knows what he's talking about. I have to say I've been surprised at the "yes buts" directed at Scott from people who have no insider info into how WotC is putting together 4e (and possibly no professional xp with putting a game out).


----------



## Voss (Dec 19, 2007)

Thinking and hoping led to 3.0, 3.5 and the Great Polymorph Dance, Chain Binding Efreets, Balor Mining and CoDzilla, among other sad and terrible things.   (And ultimately, outside of core, to Pun Pun)

I would rather 4e had systematic, professional playtesting.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Dec 19, 2007)

Voss said:
			
		

> I hope you realize that this isn't very useful for playtesting.  It will give you a general idea of how things work, and may clue you in on what to expect, but ultimately tells you nothing about what the actual versions of class abilities you have in your current documents do against Monster X in Situation Y.
> 
> You have to beat the actual, current rules against the walls hard, to see where the current system breaks down.  Otherwise you're going to be doing the 4e version of the Polymorph Dance in a year and a half, with a mob of people claiming that class X sucks and class Y is broken.  And being able to pick up such and such Wizard ability will allow a Warlock to win every fight at level Z.
> 
> ...






It's covered, we hired these guys to run our playtest.









and this guy to run D&D Insider


----------



## Reaper Steve (Dec 19, 2007)

^ I love Scott Rouse!


----------



## Voss (Dec 19, 2007)

I can totally see that happening.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Dec 19, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> ^ I love Scott Rouse!


----------



## The Grackle (Dec 19, 2007)

I always assumed that this _was _the standard model for playtesting...

I could see it's flaws though.  Player's need time to figure out how to use their character's abilities, -- not to mention group synergy,-- and one hour might not cut it.  Also, they'd take more risks w/temporary characters; where a real group would play more conservatively.


----------



## spunky_mutters (Dec 19, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> It's covered, we hired these guys to run our playtest.
> 
> 
> and this guy to run D&D Insider




See, that's your problem. The guy with the 'got root?' shirt should be running the DI.


----------



## Li Shenron (Dec 19, 2007)

I think this is a very good way to playtest. I only hope he's not the only one doing this sort of playtest, because you need more than 1 encounter with each specific monster to really "test" it!



			
				A'koss said:
			
		

> In 3e though the game underwent significant changes over the playtest period




Don't want to derail the OT, but it would be nice to know what changes has you group seen happened.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Dec 19, 2007)

Gundark said:
			
		

> Well I would think (and hope) that Scott knows what he's talking about. I have to say I've been surprised at the "yes buts" directed at Scott from people who have no insider info into how WotC is putting together 4e (and possibly no professional xp with putting a game out).




The the way you test "things" is similar enough that any engineer can tell you that you need to do large amounts of testing by end users as they would normally use it to figure out what problems come up in normal usage, as well as getting people who know what they're doing to _systematically_ push whatever it is your testing to the edges of its functionality. While they certainly seem to be doing a lot of the first, this is the first I've heard of the second , and it's being treated as "strange" and "uncommon" by the insiders who are talking about it.

While I don't really expect WotC to listen to me, as an "Engineer of some kind", I find this "unsettling", and wish to express my doubts.


----------



## Sitara (Dec 19, 2007)

Hye Scott;

Since you've been paytesting the game and all and are up2date with the crunch, could you answer two small q's I've had for a long time?

1) Will Paladins get a domain equivalent? That is, depending on their deity, do they get different powers/abilities? It would suck if a Paladin of bahamut and  Paladin of tiamat had no difference due to the deity they choose.

2) Will ranger and paladin spell casting (finally) be removed or at least, optional?


Regards.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 19, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> All playtests should be like this.  They're not supposed to be regular games.  They're supposed to be tests.  If they waste time in character chatting up barmaids, that's two or three rules they didn't put through the paces that day.  Over time, I bet that adds up.



Playtesting for balance is important.

But if you don't use the rules in a regular campaign, you might not figure out that the abilities don't work well within an adventure (encounter based abilities are cool, but how does teleport at will or remote viewing within 100 ft work inside an adventure), and you certainly don't learn whether its fun to use th game system as a whole.


----------



## OakwoodDM (Dec 19, 2007)

A'koss said:
			
		

> 3e was being externally tested before I ever joined in and as I mentioned earlier, had Alternity as a 3e "proving ground".




Alternity a 3e proving ground?

Is this the same alternity that I played, with low being good on die rolls, target numbers being set by your skill levels, stats being the most important part of the character and difficulty of tasks determined by what die you rolled to add to or subtract from your d20 roll?
Cos that doesn't sound much like 3e at all.

As for the level of playtesting, I have to admit, it is one of the very few concerns I have about 4e. It doesn't appear to have been given much time for external playtesting, but so long as the errata are forthcoming when they are uncovered and the basic game is playable and fun, I'll be happy.


----------



## Mr Jack (Dec 19, 2007)

Most of the mechanical balancing that needs doing does not require a playtesting group. You can do it on your own. Set up some characters, see what they have to face, play it out. It's a lot quicker so you can run through more permutations.


----------



## Voss (Dec 19, 2007)

You should do some testing for that sort of thing, but thats comparatively easy, and can be done by simply linking some adventures into a series.  (Or playtesting, for example, H1 and H2).  But its vital to break the subsystems, and find out where the far reaching flaws are.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 19, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> There are enough playtests happening that various groups can focus on certain aspects of the game. Motsly it is about tuning and balancing and not about big sweeping changes.
> 
> My group is playing through Keep on the Shadowfell. We have been roleplaying, building our charcters by writing back stories out of the game but also looking at crunch, running characters through their paces in the game, sometime facing huge bands of monsters.
> 
> ...




Hey Scott,

One of the things I enjoyed on the wizards site in the run up to the launch of 3e was the 'playtester reports'  e.g. http://www.wizards.com/dnd/3E_Group_0800.asp

The insight they gave to certain elements of the game was both fun and interesting (in the same way as your snippet above).

Do you think there is any chance that something similar might happen in the runup to the 4e launch?

Cheers


----------



## infax (Dec 19, 2007)

That kind of playtest certainly has its merits and I find it very important, however you often _need_ Prophecy of the Pristess-style tests. Most complaints I've read on 3E high level games regarded plot-problematic (often referred as game-breaking) abilities like many divinations and instant transportation effects. Also, if you have arena style games it covers many situations but then you would never find out problems like the infamous scry-and-fry tactic of high level 3E.

All in all, I find more unexpected situations arise when you have a more fleshed out game than when you simply throw PCs against monsters. That is the aspect the math can mostly adequately handle. Its when you start your encounter with the Cleric muted from a vow of silence he took in a "fluff" scene a half hour of game ago that you have to see how the game holds its own.


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 19, 2007)

Mr Rouse: thanks for sharing!



			
				infax said:
			
		

> That kind of playtest certainly has its merits and I find it very important, however you often _need_ Prophecy of the Pristess-style tests. Most complaints I've read on 3E high level games regarded plot-problematic (often referred as game-breaking) abilities like many divinations and instant transportation effects. Also, if you have arena style games it covers many situations but then you would never find out problems like the infamous scry-and-fry tactic of high level 3E.
> 
> All in all, I find more unexpected situations arise when you have a more fleshed out game than when you simply throw PCs against monsters. That is the aspect the math can mostly adequately handle. Its when you start your encounter with the Cleric muted from a vow of silence he took in a "fluff" scene a half hour of game ago that you have to see how the game holds its own.




This is such a good point.

I have read a lot of this...and I get the impression that there has been a wide range of playtests, with a lot of wizards employees and some of their freindsrs. But I have also been surprised at how "compressed" the external playtest schedule has been.


----------



## Bagpuss (Dec 19, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> If they waste time in character chatting up barmaids, that's two or three rules they didn't put through the paces that day.




Of course they could be testing the social challenges aspect I've heard spoken of.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 19, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Of course they could be testing the social challenges aspect I've heard spoken of.



Considering that these are governed by rules, I don't see why they couldn't be part of the testing grind.

DM: "Okay, for the next hour we're going to:
1. Convince the king that he needs to invade the Duchy of Dunland
2. Seduce an NPC of your choice from the cast of characters present in this bar
3. Convince the guard that 50 GP is worth his while to let you past
4. Do the same without 50 GP.

You can use any skill or ability at your disposal that doesn't involve attacking any NPCs.  Try to undermine the system as best you can without violating the rules.  Please record all rolls and outcomes, so that we can analyze the data to make sure you're as convincing as you should be given your skills and abilities."

I don't see why characters couldn't just be dropped into these sorts of encounters without fanfare, and play out a dozen of them each session.  Make each character use only Diplomacy.  Then make each character use only Intimidate.  Brainstorm spells and powers that could influence these rolls, and use them.  See if the Cha 6 fighter with no social skills is actually bad at social encounters, and if the Cha 16 Cleric with good skills is good at them.  Figure out what sort of outcomes can be squeezed out of the stock encounters and determine whether any of them are too big or too small.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Dec 19, 2007)

*Regarding testing as a campaign*

I do agree that there should be a significant amount of combat testing, especially at the higher levels.

However, there are a few things that testing as a campaign will catch that spot testing in combat will not catch, however.

 - Is the power progression over time reasonably smooth for all classes?
 - Which items or abilities are the most abusable outside of combat?
 - Are the guidelines for creating treasure reasonable?
 - How well do the non interactive rules work out (overland travel, equipment cost)
 - How are players likely to choose to advance their characters over time?

There is also what I would call an X factor for non combat stuff.  When I do get to play as a player, I am probably one of the worst offenders for finding ways to 'break' the game.  The best example would be the time I played a Changeling Rogue, and maxed the disguise, bluff, and forgery skills.  To this day, I think I am probably the only player in D&D history to have had a character thrown in jail for attempted mail fraud.  I had the bright idea of following an NPC of interest, and watched him use the Eberron equivalent of the postal system to send a letter.  I then disguised myself as the NPC, and tried to obtain the letter he had sent, with plans to rewrite and resend a different letter.  However, I ended up getting caught.

Good gaming?  Sure.  But if that sort of thing happened in play tests, someone might have realized that an at will +10 bonus to disguise might be a bit overwhelming.  Or maybe it did come up, and someone knocked it down from an even higher bonus.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## WampusCat43 (Dec 19, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> It's covered, we hired these guys to run our playtest.



My dad got parole!  Who knew?


----------



## Kraydak (Dec 19, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> It's covered, we hired these guys to run our playtest.
> 
> ....




As one of the people who consider this to be a giant red flag (so giant in fact, I am amazed that permission was granted to post the blog), do you mind cluing me in as to how you are able to be so flippant about something so important?  Have you hired the super-stars from the Char Op board?

I am quite curious.  To me, the blog reads at the "oops, I forgot to get dressed before heading into work" level.


----------



## MadTinkerer (Dec 19, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> As one of the people who consider this to be a giant red flag (so giant in fact, I am amazed that permission was granted to post the blog), do you mind cluing me in as to how you are able to be so flippant about something so important?  Have you hired the super-stars from the Char Op board?
> 
> I am quite curious.  To me, the blog reads at the "oops, I forgot to get dressed before heading into work" level.




Well heaven forbid that someone make a flippant comment on an online forum.


----------



## The_Baldman (Dec 19, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> As one of the people who consider this to be a giant red flag (so giant in fact, I am amazed that permission was granted to post the blog), do you mind cluing me in as to how you are able to be so flippant about something so important?  Have you hired the super-stars from the Char Op board?
> 
> I am quite curious.  To me, the blog reads at the "oops, I forgot to get dressed before heading into work" level.





Man that's funnier then the post he's refering to.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 19, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> As one of the people who consider this to be a giant red flag (so giant in fact, I am amazed that permission was granted to post the blog), do you mind cluing me in as to how you are able to be so flippant about something so important?




It's a feature.  Not a bug.


----------



## Guild Goodknife (Dec 19, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> As one of the people who consider this to be a giant red flag (so giant in fact, I am amazed that permission was granted to post the blog), do you mind cluing me in as to how you are able to be so flippant about something so important?  Have you hired the super-stars from the Char Op board?
> 
> I am quite curious.  To me, the blog reads at the "oops, I forgot to get dressed before heading into work" level.




I agree! How dare you to be funny Scott, when we are trying to tell you how to do your job!! Dammit, listen to my ideas on how developers should develop and how designers should design!
Playtest periods should generally last years and should *always* involve me. 'cause i know stuff. for real.


----------



## Badkarmaboy (Dec 19, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> The Rouse




"The Rouse"!  From now on, that's his name!
_
[Edit - apologies.  Looks like I hit "edit" instead of "quote".  The above was me.  -Morrus]_


----------



## Tewligan (Dec 19, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> As one of the people who consider this to be a giant red flag (so giant in fact, I am amazed that permission was granted to post the blog), do you mind cluing me in as to how you are able to be so flippant about something so important?  Have you hired the super-stars from the Char Op board?.


----------



## Dragonblade (Dec 19, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> As one of the people who consider this to be a giant red flag (so giant in fact, I am amazed that permission was granted to post the blog), do you mind cluing me in as to how you are able to be so flippant about something so important?  Have you hired the super-stars from the Char Op board?
> 
> I am quite curious.  To me, the blog reads at the "oops, I forgot to get dressed before heading into work" level.




Let me guess. Do you by any chance wear one of the fabled "Scott Rouse must be stopped!" t-shirts? 

I thought his post was hilarious. Personally, I like it when WotC staffers come in and hang out with us and joke with us. I much prefer that to corporate press releases being our only contact with WotC.


----------



## Gundark (Dec 19, 2007)

Guild Goodknife said:
			
		

> I agree! How dare you to be funny Scott, when we are trying to tell you how to do your job!! Dammit, listen to my ideas on how developers should develop and how designers should design!
> Playtest periods should generally last years and should *always* involve me. 'cause i know stuff. for real.




I tried saying this the page before...it didn't work.


----------



## Kraydak (Dec 19, 2007)

Badkarmaboy said:
			
		

> "The Rouse"!  From now on, that's his name!




I'm trying to figure out where that quote comes from. I can't see it on my screen and certainly didn't *intend* to write it...


----------



## mhensley (Dec 19, 2007)

I wonder if wotc does any blindtesting as Steve Jackson writes about here.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 19, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> It's covered, we hired these guys to run our playtest.




Sir, you have just risen in my esteem.    

RC


----------



## Kraydak (Dec 19, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Let me guess. Do you by any chance wear one of the fabled "Scott Rouse must be stopped!" t-shirts?




*blink*  *blink*

Not that I am aware of...



> I thought his post was hilarious. Personally, I like it when WotC staffers come in and hang out with us and joke with us. I much prefer that to corporate press releases being our only contact with WotC.




His post would have been funny if he had responded constructively to the worries laid out earlier in the thread.  As it is, it comes across as him not even understanding *why* people would be worried.  If so, I am even more worried.  If he has reason not to be worried, I (and I imagine others) would like to know about it.

Right now, he is (I'm hoping not deliberately) flat out insulting people who think that the blog post raises issues with WotC's play-testing.


----------



## Stormtalon (Dec 19, 2007)

Except, he DID post constructive answers -- reread the first page of the thread.  He gave quite a bit of nice, helpful info well before that post.


----------



## Kraydak (Dec 19, 2007)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> Except, he DID post constructive answers -- reread the first page of the thread.  He gave quite a bit of nice, helpful info well before that post.




No he didn't.  He didn't say *anything* about serious (WotC char-ops style) stress testing.  The blog post suggests that there barely is any.  This is a problem.  Remember the 3e (not 3.5) druid companion?  it slipped through because there wasn't heavy stress testing.


----------



## The_Baldman (Dec 19, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> *blink*  *blink*
> 
> Not that I am aware of...
> 
> ...





I know there is such a thing as a double negative. What about a double or triple worry though?  Does that come out in the end as the glass is half full or empty cuz I confused ?

His post was funny. If you don't get it then nothing anybody here says will fix that. I recommend heavy doses of Blazing Saddles and Raizing Arizona until its funny.

Dave


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Dec 19, 2007)

My only comment to the original post and playtest report is that I like that they are doing some intense work to run the combat encounters and the players report gives blow-by-blow statistics, but how many times is this being done?  Different groups with different tactics may end up with very different results in the exact same encounter.  I would think this style of playtest would be best suited for external groups where maybe 25 different groups play the exact same encounter and see how they measure up to each other.  

And I would like to thank The Rouse for the pictures of some of the crew at WotC.  I always wondered what Mike Mearls, Rich Baker and Chris Perkins looked like.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Dec 19, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> *blink*  *blink*
> 
> Not that I am aware of...
> 
> ...




OK...did you read my other posts? I thought this summarized the extent of the play test:



> T*here are enough playtests happening that various groups can focus on certain aspects of the game*. Motsly it is about tuning and balancing and not about big sweeping changes.
> 
> My group is playing through Keep on the Shadowfell. We have been roleplaying, building our charcters by writing back stories out of the game but also looking at crunch, running characters through their paces in the game, sometime facing huge bands of monsters.
> 
> ...




We are playtesting the heck out of this game and have been doing so in earnest for the better part of two years. I find it funny, bordering on the ridiculous, that from one playtest report that people assume we have our heads in our butts and don't know how to develop and playtest a game. We have hundreds of years of combined game development experience on the 4e team with some people like Bill Slavicsek and Kim Mohan having experience going back over multiple editions.  So instead of being a jerk in responding to criticism I decided to inject some humor (albeit sarcastic) into the thread.

Two years ago playtesting started in earnest  we we began looking at various designs of a game for 4e. I wont divulge those details but these included system and format changes. Two of these designs were code named Tiamat and Orcus (Races and Classes covers this more).

Before and during that time we were secretly injecting test ideas as products (DMG II, PHB II, Shatterd Gates of Slaughterguard) and test ideas into products like powers for fighters, the tactical encounter format, revised monster stat blocks, etc. The products and ideas that ultimately tested well (based on sales and consumer response) went into our plans for 4e on top of stuff that is totally new.

But this has all been said before in multiple articles, blogs, and message boards posts. 

We are very serious about playtests and making the edition the best it can be. 







Very seriously yours,


----------



## Midknightsun (Dec 19, 2007)

> As one of the people who consider this to be a giant red flag (so giant in fact, I am amazed that permission was granted to post the blog), do you mind cluing me in as to how you are able to be so flippant about something so important? Have you hired the super-stars from the Char Op board?
> 
> I am quite curious. To me, the blog reads at the "oops, I forgot to get dressed before heading into work" level.




Well, everybody else is doing it, so I feel compelled to add my 2c:

1) Step away from your PHB!

2) Go outside and play a bit

3) Live, laugh, love

4) Come back and reread your post


----------



## Kraydak (Dec 19, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> OK...did you read my other posts? I thought this summarized the extent of the play test:




Yes.  Did you, mine?



> We are playtesting the heck out of this game and have been doing so in earnest for the better part of two years. I find it funny, bordering on the ridiculous, that from one playtest report that people assume we have our heads in our butts and don't know how to develop and playtest a game. We have hundreds of years of combined game development experience on the 4e team with some people like Bill Slavicsek and Kim Mohan having experience going back over multiple editions.  So instead of being a jerk in responding to criticism I decided to inject some humor (albeit sarcastic) into the thread.




You know, a simple: "the blog was poorly written, we have done an order of magnitude more stress testing than the blog suggests" would have sufficed.  It would not have been being a jerk.

I note further that you have explicitly not made, and appear to be deliberately not making, such a statement.

In fact, the blog post is the *only* hint that any form of stress testing has been done.  It fairly explicitly suggests that the "aggressive playtest" is the only such playtest occurring.  Such playtesting is so basic that I would not have worried had the blog not been posted.  I wouldn't be as worried as I am had you not proceeded to respond to concerns with irrelevant (albeit amusing) humor.

So, what *is* the answer to: "how much more stress testing has occurred than is implied in WotC_PeterS's blog post"?


----------



## The_Baldman (Dec 19, 2007)

Stop it Stop it Stop it Stop it Stop it

<hey it works on my 4-year old>


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 19, 2007)

I had no idea this thread would be so lively....

Kraydak: that was just one staffers blog, but there have been many other refs. to playtesting since the gencon anouncement, including "non-campaing" play testing.

Le Rouse: encore merci!


----------



## WampusCat43 (Dec 19, 2007)

Lighten up, Francis.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Dec 19, 2007)

Scott:

Thank you for the greater detail and for the fact that you are still willing to hang around here.  It's very nice to know a WotC staffer is actually reading what is here.

P.S.  I also enjoyed The Funny.  Please bring more of it.


----------



## Slander (Dec 19, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> how much more stress testing has occurred than is implied in WotC_PeterS's blog post





			
				Scott said:
			
		

> There are enough playtests happening




I thought the answer was pretty clear. Seriously, I'm not being flippant. If you don't trust WotC to do their job, there is no acceptable, quantifiable reply that won't get someone in a tizzy. If you do trust them to do there job, then in their professional estimation there are enough playtests happening.


----------



## tenkar (Dec 19, 2007)

Scott... thanks for the funny... but...

Game making is serious business damn it!


----------



## mhensley (Dec 19, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> So, what *is* the answer to: "how much more stress testing has occurred than is implied in WotC_PeterS's blog post"?




Why on earth do you think he owes you an answer?  You do realize this is a game we're talking about?  You stress test bridges, computer programs, buildings - you know important stuff.  This is a game.  Nobody dies if it breaks.  Calm down.


----------



## crazy_cat (Dec 19, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Why.... *snip*
> .....This is a game.  Nobody dies if it breaks.  Calm down.



You try telling that to Black Leaf !!


----------



## architect.zero (Dec 19, 2007)

Another thanks to Scott Rouse for his willingness to drop by and just hang out in a thread.  Very cool.

I couldn't imagine having the time OR the inclination to hang out in a forum about my company's products.

Also: the negative nellys and the doomcriers really need to lighten up and put things into perspective.  It's only a game.  This is not Medical equipment.  This is not an aerospace product.  Lives ARE NOT at stake here.  There's no need for ISO9000 levels of detail.  Yes, you deserve the best possible product, but you're only paying, what... $40 per book?  Compare that to the half-mil (or whatever) for a piece of moderate  medical equipment?  Give you head a shake.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 19, 2007)

First, many thanks to Scott for his willingness to discuss these things and allay people's fears.

Second...



			
				mhensley said:
			
		

> Why on earth do you think he owes you an answer?  You do realize this is a game we're talking about?  You stress test bridges, computer programs, buildings - you know important stuff.  This is a game.  Nobody dies if it breaks.  Calm down.




Since he's bothered to post on this thread, presumably his goal was to answer the concerns of the other posters.  If those posters don't feel that he has answered their concerns, there's nothing wrong with them trying to express more clearly what they're worried about.

Also, chill with the hyperbole.  Sure, nobody dies if 4E breaks.  That doesn't mean we want it broken.

While I was initially worried about this, I've reconsidered that position, mostly on the basis of stuff like the Tome of Battle, which is intimately tied in with 4E and came out quite well-balanced (setting aside the occasional glitch like White Raven Tactics, but there will always be those).  Presumably the same method was used to playtest the ToB, which was a fairly substantial change to the existing system for melee warriors.  If it worked there, it ought to work now.

Moreover, the design of 4E appears to be much easier to balance overall.  Less "stacking" (of classes, templates, et cetera) means a much more predictable and controllable system.

Still, I don't think the initial worry was unwarranted.  I've seen teams with stellar resumes screw things up on very basic levels--see for instance Master of Orion III, which was a horrible mess made by a bunch of very smart people who let groupthink blind them to the fundamental problems with their plan.  Watching that game implode taught me that when someone outside the team sees what appears to be a serious problem, and people inside the team dismiss that concern out of hand, it isn't necessarily the case that the people inside are right and the person outside is wrong.


----------



## seankreynolds (Dec 19, 2007)

There are approximately 500 playtesters listed in the 3e PH.

How many are going to be listed in the 4e PH?


----------



## Transit (Dec 19, 2007)

seankreynolds said:
			
		

> There are approximately 500 playtesters listed in the 3e PH.
> 
> How many are going to be listed in the 4e PH?




Two.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 19, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> No he didn't.  He didn't say *anything* about serious (WotC char-ops style) stress testing.  The blog post suggests that there barely is any.  This is a problem.  Remember the 3e (not 3.5) druid companion?  it slipped through because there wasn't heavy stress testing.




Kraydak, for some reason your sense of humour is malfunctioning at the moment. As a result, with regret, I must ask you to not post any more in this thread.

If you have any question about that, please feel free to email me.

Thanks


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Dec 19, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Yes.  Did you, mine?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## nerfherder (Dec 19, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> 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



I'm dying to know what you called him!


----------



## Wanderer20 (Dec 19, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> This has been play tested in parts for years (Bo9S, SWSE, DMG II, etc) and in whole since early 2007 so I am sure your statement is inaccurate. I played my first 4e game in May 2007 but saw an early build in February 2006.




  Funny. After they told us for years "There is no 4E" and similar crap, now we learn they *would* have been playtesting it from 2006?

  Your company would do well to quit spreading bs and other undemonstrable statements; one reason why people have serious doubts about new products while you are repeating "it is all perfect!" over and over again is that you lied too much, too many times.

  No need for a genius when you say "We have no plans for 4E" and "We was playtesting 4E from 2006" to see you are not trustworthy.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Dec 19, 2007)

But without Kraydak, how are we going to inject more funnies into this thread?  

I appreciate Scott popping by as a designer, developer, sales manager...whatever...but more importantly for dropping by as a player and 'person' with an interest and a sense of humour.

What number of play testers would satisfy people? Do they have to give a number? How hard would that be given stuff has been playtested for years and involved several 3.5 products? Try reading MANY other blogs and threads...you will get some idea how much is going on internally. We don't know external, but we know it is happening...Sheesh! I am pretty happy knowing MANY people that can write, GM, edit, design and heck, PLAY are involved in this process. This is not a small bunch of people - this is a major operation (but one based upon the research and testing of many before it)...man I am just stating what has been said many times elsewhere. Read around.

Only being serious, Connors


----------



## JohnSnow (Dec 19, 2007)

Wanderer20 said:
			
		

> Funny. After they told us for years "There is no 4E" and similar crap, now we learn they *would* have been playtesting it from 2006?
> 
> Your company would do well to quit spreading bs and other undemonstrable statements; one reason why people have serious doubts about new products while you are repeating "it is all perfect!" over and over again is that you lied too much, too many times.
> 
> No need for a genius when you say "We have no plans for 4E" and "We was playtesting 4E from 2006" to see you are not trustworthy.




I'm inclined to report this, but I'll try to be polite first.

WotC never said "We have no plans for 4e." What they said (in early 2006!) was: "We have no plans to _release_ 4e anytime _soon._" That was misrepresented by many people outside of the company as "no plans for 4e," but if you go back to the source, that's far different from what was _actually_ said. Since then, when cornered, the designers have said things like "I'm not working on 4e, and even if I was, I couldn't tell you."

Now, you can claim that two and a half years off meets your definition of "soon," but that's your issue. Personally, I think it's unfair to accuse WotC of lying because you think of "within 3 years" as "soon." Two and a half years from that statement meets my criteria of the game not being released "soon."

I'm frankly getting sick of people levelling these kinds of nasty accusations at WotC and I don't even work there. I guess those who do are just thicker-skinned than I am. And I respect their ability to be civil in light of comments like these.


----------



## Delta (Dec 19, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> The jump from 2nd to 3e was massive. This jump is big but not that big.




<spit-take>


----------



## Tharen the Damned (Dec 19, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> OK yes when you say External playtesting 3e likely got more external testing. The jump from 2nd to 3e was massive. This jump is big but not that big.




Come on Mr. Rouse, this statement does not match well with some of the other statements.

We were able, with some work, to transfer our beloved PCs from 2nd to 3rd edition.
But, and I am sorry that I cannot quote here, it was said more than once, that it is too difficult to transfer your 3rd PC to 4th?


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Dec 19, 2007)

Delta said:
			
		

> <spit-take>




It is all relative. The 4e jump is still significant enough to warrant a new edition but what I was trying to convey is that there are core elements (like core d20 system rules) that make it different than the jump from 2nd to 3e.

SWSE is still D20 in certain ways but it is also not 3.0 or 3.5 in many others.

Does this make sense?


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Dec 19, 2007)

Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> Come on Mr. Rouse, this statement does not match well with some of the other statements.
> 
> We were able, with some work, to transfer our beloved PCs from 2nd to 3rd edition.
> But, and I am sorry that I cannot quote here, it was said more than once, that it is too difficult to transfer your 3rd PC to 4th?




and the the transfer was  a total disaster from what I understand.


----------



## Voss (Dec 19, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> I hope this answers your questions.




Thank you for responding to the concerns.  I do realize there are limits to what you can say.

On another note, from the looks of them, I would guess your 'playtest team' would be quite comfortable with repeating a 'prison break' scenario over and over again.


----------



## The_Furious_Puffin (Dec 19, 2007)

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.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Dec 19, 2007)

Wanderer20 said:
			
		

> Funny. After they told us for years "There is no 4E" and similar crap, now we learn they *would* have been playtesting it from 2006?
> 
> Your company would do well to quit spreading bs and other undemonstrable statements; one reason why people have serious doubts about new products while you are repeating "it is all perfect!" over and over again is that you lied too much, too many times.








I know, I know.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Dec 19, 2007)

Voss said:
			
		

> Thank you for responding to the concerns.  I do realize there are limits to what you can say.
> 
> On another note, from the looks of them, I would guess your 'playtest team' would be quite comfortable with repeating a 'prison break' scenario over and over again.




LOL.

They are writing a new module called "Expedition to the Pawn Shop of Horrors".


----------



## Wanderer20 (Dec 19, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I'm inclined to report this, but I'll try to be polite first.
> 
> WotC never said "We have no plans for 4e." What they said (in early 2006!) was: "We have no plans to _release_ 4e anytime _soon._" That was misrepresented by many people outside of the company as "no plans for 4e," but if you go back to the source, that's far different from what was _actually_ said. Since then, when cornered, the designers have said things like "I'm not working on 4e, and even if I was, I couldn't tell you."
> 
> ...




  First of all, report everything you want.

  Second, the "No plans for 4E" statements are not a joke or a forgery, at the point that a large number of people had the specific quotes in their signature in the WotC board; it is hard to believe you never saw any of them unless you did not read the abovementioned boards.

  There are no issues of mine. I'll repeat one significant quote: "We are not working on 4E"; if anyone reads that and thinks that playtesting it could be considered as not-working on it I think he must have big grammar issues.

  If you get sick when you see a quote and written conclusions different from your point of view, prepare to be sick many times (at least in this board when the subject is WotC and 4E).

  And by the way, as long as there are no insults or flames, you should respect the other guys' opinions and their right to write theirs.


----------



## Elrith (Dec 19, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> the designers have said things like "I'm not working on 4e, and even if I was, I couldn't tell you."




And if they hadn't said that, they might have lost their jobs. People who haven't been told to be careful with new products, or worked under NDAs should be very kind to those who do. Professional etiquette should prevent people from asking questions like "when is 5e coming" because there are probably a hundred questions we would all have to be evasive about. It is not an easy way to work. Especially when it's your passion.


----------



## Tharen the Damned (Dec 19, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> and the the transfer was  a total disaster from what I understand.




Ok, there you have me. It was....akward somtimes.


----------



## Brentos (Dec 19, 2007)

*Thank the Rouse!*

Thanks Rouse!

(pictures scene from Babe II)

Seriously, thanks Scott, your attention and humor are always appreciated by this fan, and it makes a difference.  I apologize for those that feel that they have been personally lied to and slighted that feel they need to attack you and the "faceless corporation!"  <duh-duh-duh!>

Please remember, people, this is not the appropriate place to accuse others of lying, etc., but a good place to have concerns addressed and questions answered (or ignored if they can't be answered yet).

Thanks again Rouse!


----------



## nerfherder (Dec 19, 2007)

Wanderer20 said:
			
		

> First of all, report everything you want.



Good advice - mods have often advised to report posts you think contravene the rules, but not to then discuss that any further in the thread.



			
				Wanderer20 said:
			
		

> Second, the "No plans for 4E" statements are not a joke or a forgery, at the point that a large number of people had the specific quotes in their signature in the WotC board; it is hard to believe you never saw any of them unless you did not read the abovementioned boards.



I'm curious to see a link to a statement made by a WotC employee that contradicts what Scott has written, because whenever one has been called for in the past it either never appears, or the quote, when taken in context, does nothing of the sort.


----------



## Wanderer20 (Dec 19, 2007)

Elrith said:
			
		

> And if they hadn't said that, they might have lost their jobs. People who haven't been told to be careful with new products, or worked under NDAs should be very kind to those who do. Professional etiquette should prevent people from asking questions like "when is 5e coming" because there are probably a hundred questions we would all have to be evasive about. It is not an easy way to work. Especially when it's your passion.




  A false statement is a false statement; no matter if done with easiness, with passion, or else.

  If truth couldn't be told, question shouldn't have been answered.

  At least, imo, if you don't want to build a bad reputation.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 19, 2007)

Wanderer20 said:
			
		

> And by the way, as long as there are no insults or flames, you should respect the other guys' opinions and their right to write theirs.



But there _were_ insults in your post. Opinions are welcome; insults and rudeness are not.


----------



## scrubkai (Dec 19, 2007)

Wanderer20 said:
			
		

> First of all, report everything you want.
> 
> Second, the "No plans for 4E" statements are not a joke or a forgery, at the point that a large number of people had the specific quotes in their signature in the WotC board; it is hard to believe you never saw any of them unless you did not read the abovementioned boards.
> 
> ...




I hate to ask you this, but have you never worked at a company that has a "Secret" project?

I work in software (as a consultant), and I've been on more then one project that all other people in my own company can know is "I work on a project called Harpoon for company <XXY>"   
So I don't find it unreasonable that some people in WotC would be in the dark about 4th edition until very close to the release.

That is one problem with message boards, they get you some good information, but they also can give you some bad information due to people not knowing the full story of what's going on at a company.

If you are going to hold all of WotC accountable for somethign they said, then you need to use an offical press/marking release, otherwise you just have to assume people are speaking for themselves.

Just my 2cp


----------



## Wanderer20 (Dec 19, 2007)

nerfherder said:
			
		

> Good advice - mods have often advised to report posts you think contravene the rules, but not to then discuss that any further in the thread.
> 
> 
> I'm curious to see a link to a statement made by a WotC employee that contradicts what Scott has written, because whenever one has been called for in the past it either never appears, or the quote, when taken in context, does nothing of the sort.




  You're welcome, I repeat, to report everything you consider a violation of the rules. I invite you to do it, so that by seeing I do not get blamed of anything, everyone can be sure my discussion is a civil one. (I saw 10 or so Moderators active in the forum 1 minute ago if I'm not wrong so hardly this discussion will be skipped).

  I cannot provide a link to the specific quotes as I'm not a bookeeper (sp?) of 2005/2006 boards, but I can assure you the statements exist -if you want proof, read this board at the time 4E was announced and I'm sure you'll find the specific links, together with hundreds of guys debating upon them-.

  Furthermore I'm curious too, to ask you if you ever read any of these statements -or their debating-, to come to question their very existance.


----------



## JohnSnow (Dec 19, 2007)

nerfherder said:
			
		

> I'm curious to see a link to a statement made by a WotC employee that contradicts what Scott has written, because whenever one has been called for in the past it either never appears, or the quote, when taken in context, does nothing of the sort.




Exactly what I was saying.

People bring this quote up as gospel without a citation. When a citation is found, it's invariably been proven that the statement has been taken out of context.

So Wanderer20, if I'm wrong: show me. Give me a citation from a WotC employee that says precisely what you're saying they said, and I'll apologize for calling you out.

And I'll also refer you to Elrith's post on the things people HAVE to say to keep their jobs.

Moreover, I'd ask this. At what point does internal playtesting move from "playtesting revisions to 3e" to "playtesting 4e." I'd say: at the point at which the decision is made to release 4e - _even if the system in question has been in the works for 3 years._ Based on comments in _Races & Classes_, they were playtesting at least two different 3e revisions. And that's part of their job as game designers:  to constantly make D&D _better._

Basically, I guess I just don't get people being cheesed off at WotC for not divulging their product strategy years in advance.


----------



## Wanderer20 (Dec 19, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> People bring this quote up as gospel without a citation. When a citation is found, it's invariably been proven that the statement has been taken out of context.
> 
> So Wanderer20, if I'm wrong: show me. Give me a citation from a WotC employee that says precisely what you're saying they said, and I'll apologize for calling you out.
> 
> Basically, I guess I just don't get people being cheesed off at WotC for not divulging their product strategy years in advance.




  I repeat, I'm not a librarian nor I have the "search" function in this forum, but I'm going to try to make a little search now in some boards. (though other more competent users could find more)

  No need to apologize, not even if I can produce a link, since I cannot just believe you've never read what I was talking about; it was overdebated, everyone had a blink on it if he read this board with your frequence.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 19, 2007)

Wanderer20 said:
			
		

> You're welcome, I repeat, to report everything you consider a violation of the rules. I invite you to do it, so that by seeing I do not get blamed of anything, everyone can be sure my discussion is a civil one. (I saw 10 or so Moderators active in the forum 1 minute ago if I'm not wrong so hardly this discussion will be skipped).




You're right, it isn't being skipped.

After you said 



			
				Wanderer20 said:
			
		

> Funny. After they told us for years "There is no 4E" and similar crap, now we learn they *would* have been playtesting it from 2006?
> 
> Your company would do well to quit spreading bs and other undemonstrable statements; one reason why people have serious doubts about new products while you are repeating "it is all perfect!" over and over again is that you lied too much, too many times.
> 
> No need for a genius when you say "We have no plans for 4E" and "We was playtesting 4E from 2006" to see you are not trustworthy.




I was ready to give you the boot for clearly insulting behaviour, just after I'd already warned someone else, but John Snow made some good points to you and I was prepared to wait and see whether you were maybe having an off-moment, and you'd join in the civil discussion which other people are having here.

Unfortunately this has not been the case, and as a result I'm suspending you for 3 days.

Please feel free to email me if you don't understand why.

Regards,


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 19, 2007)

Here's a thread I started back in August about some claims made about quotes from WotC.

http://www.enworld.org/archive/index.php/t-204662.html

Here is the context someone found for that "not working on D&D" quote (check the link above for more detail):

_"They were not working on 4th Edition .. that would force players to use miniatures."_


Edit: Sorry mods, didn't see suspension post before replying. But the above is useful by itself, not only as a reply to a specific poster.


----------



## JohnSnow (Dec 19, 2007)

Wanderer20 said:
			
		

> No need to apologize, not even if I can produce a link, since I cannot just believe you've never read what I was talking about; it was overdebated, everyone had a blink on it if he read this board with your frequence.




Oh I saw the debate. And I thought it was absurd then.

And every comment that anyone was able to dig up could be read multiple ways. There were no outright lies, except in the context of people interpretation of phrases like "soon" and "now."

I fully expect them to be "working on 5e" (in the sense of playtesting changes to the game) from the minute 4e is released. But IMO, it only becomes "5e" when that product gets put on the schedule.

And that has no bearing on how far back they've been working on it and playtesting elements of it. My opinion.


----------



## nerfherder (Dec 19, 2007)

Wanderer20 said:
			
		

> I cannot provide a link to the specific quotes as I'm not a bookeeper (sp?) of 2005/2006 boards, but I can assure you the statements exist -if you want proof, read this board at the time 4E was announced and I'm sure you'll find the specific links, together with hundreds of guys debating upon them-.



You're the one accusing someone of lying, so I suggest the burden of proof is on you to back up your claim, not on me to prove that someone _didn't_ lie.



			
				Wanderer20 said:
			
		

> Furthermore I'm curious too, to ask you if you ever read any of these statements -or their debating-, to come to question their very existance.



I remember claims being made, but whenever the actual quotes were tracked down and read in context, they never said what was claimed.

[edit] I see I was typing too slow, and missed the mod comment.  Back to the original topic, I guess!


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 19, 2007)

I have been wondering about this all day. . . does anybody know who "PeterS". I have reason to believe that it may very well be one Peter Seckler, though I can't confirm (my reasoning is that the Peter in question is a long-time chum of a design team member and a very avid supporter of D&D). If I'm right, they have some kick-ass (read "relentlessly thorough") playtesters on the job, which further piques my interest in 4e.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 19, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> I have been wondering about this all day. . . does anybody know who "PeterS". I have reason to believe that it may very well be one Peter Seckler, though I can't confirm (my reasoning is that the Peter in question is a long-time chum of a design team member and a very avid supporter of D&D). If I'm right, they have some kick-ass (read "relentlessly thorough") playtesters on the job, which further piques my interest in 4e.



I believe The Rouse mentioned that he called "Mr. Schaefer" to discuss his playtest.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 20, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I believe The Rouse mentioned that he called "Mr. Schaefer" to discuss his playtest.




Ah, missed that bit. Slightly less enthused because I have no Idea who Peter Schaefer is. I know that Peter _Seckler_, on the other hand, is a former indie-ish game designer (Pumpkintown!) with ties to Mike Mearls and other GO (Gaming Outpost) regulars whose unbridaled enthusiasm for D&D is rivalled only by his unusual talent of hacking the old Nintendo GameBoy into a full-blown midi processor with which to make recordable music. And dammit, people like that should surely be involved in D&D 4e playtesting.


----------



## inkmonkeys (Dec 20, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I believe The Rouse mentioned that he called "Mr. Schaefer" to discuss his playtest.




Indeed. Though, technically, I called him.

OMG! WotC liez!


----------



## smetzger (Dec 20, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> What do you base this on?




1) The fact that 3e got a lot of play testing

2) There was a much longer time from when 3e was anounced to when it was published.

3) When 3e was anounced there was already a considerable amount of testing done.

4) They are saying they are not done with the system yet.


----------



## mhensley (Dec 20, 2007)

smetzger said:
			
		

> 1) The fact that 3e got a lot of play testing
> 
> 2) There was a much longer time from when 3e was anounced to when it was published.
> 
> ...




WOTC bought TSR in 1997 and released 3e in 2000 - three years with an entirely new management and a huge change in personnel to boot.  

WOTC has been working on 4e since 2005 and will release in 2008 - three years with a stable  team of developers.  

I would say the advantage is with 4e.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Dec 20, 2007)

Sitara said:
			
		

> Hye Scott;
> 
> Since you've been paytesting the game and all and are up2date with the crunch, could you answer two small q's I've had for a long time?
> 
> ...




So I went to talk to R&D for answers but they had just finished their latest playtest:








I was told they were going to get barbecue for lunch (and the go to the comic book shop). I thought I could catch them in the parking lot.

I thought this was Andy Collins car but when I jumped inside it was full of Magic R&D.






So I went back to the building to look for the answers but I had trouble with the door.






Finally some one let me in the building and I headed to the second floor to see if someone in digital games might know the answer. 

The place was empty.







I think they were off playing Rock Band or Guitar Hero or something.







I thought Events/Organized Play might know but they were at some team building off-site






So I headed to the fourth floor (home of Brand)






Legal was empty except for some guys caught downloading bootleg PDFs.






So I went to the executive offices:






But they were empty too (sort of)

Everyone in Brand was busy







So I just could not get an answers to your questions.

Seriously though more will be revealed soon.

Check out D&D Insider on Friday for some scoopy goodness

Happy Holidays


----------



## Azegoroth (Dec 20, 2007)

Hullo, been lurking on the boards since shortly after they started posting 4th ed news, and decided to join so I could personally thank The Rouse and Mr. Schaefer for taking the time to fill us in on *parts* of the design process.

That said, *Get back to work, you slackers!* *cracks whip*


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Dec 20, 2007)

Azegoroth said:
			
		

> That said, *Get back to work, you slackers!* *cracks whip*




I am on vacation hahahaha


----------



## Delta (Dec 20, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> It is all relative. The 4e jump is still significant enough to warrant a new edition but what I was trying to convey is that there are core elements (like core d20 system rules) that make it different than the jump from 2nd to 3e.
> 
> SWSE is still D20 in certain ways but it is also not 3.0 or 3.5 in many others.
> 
> Does this make sense?




Well, since you asked me, I have to say: Frankly, no.

The "core d20 system" mechanics to me always looked mathematically equivalent to 1E AD&D. Feats were new and I liked those. But 4E's totally-new races, classes, BABs and saves, alignment and planes, and complete demolition of the spell/magic system is unlike anything I've seen in D&D since its inception.

I'm not the target audience anymore, but on this point we'll be very much disagreeing.


----------



## Azegoroth (Dec 20, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> I am on vacation hahahaha




Drats, foiled again! :\


----------



## Henry (Dec 20, 2007)

Delta said:
			
		

> The "core d20 system" mechanics to me always looked mathematically equivalent to 1E AD&D. Feats were new and I liked those. But 4E's totally-new races, classes, BABs and saves, alignment and planes, and complete demolition of the spell/magic system is unlike anything I've seen in D&D since its inception.




I have to say I disagree with you. 1E and 3E math were quite different after about 3rd level or so; a 1E and 3E character side by side comparison would have the 3E character outdistancing the stats of a 1E character "by a country mile," as the saying goes. Between the feats, higher ability bonuses, class bonuses, hit points, spell capacities, etc. There was no contest.

And Scott is right about the 2E to 3E conversion: In no case was I or any of my regular gaming group able to capture the feel of our 2E characters by converting them with the conversion rules provided. Heck, the multiclass characters alone were several levels higher than their companions!! The stats were skewed; a 15 in AD&D meant nothing often times, but meant a +2 bonus in 3E. Those 15 scores then got shoved up to 16's often when you added the ability bonuses from every 4th level, so that's a +3. In the end, any 2E character I had, I ended up starting from scratch and *converting by eyeballing it*, the same method that James Wyatt recommends for 3E to 4E. It was an _illusion of conversion_ that they realized wasn't necessary this time around. It's all in taking the concept, looking at the new rules, and then just figuring out what abilities give you the same feel as the character you had.

In fact, this part will likely be easier than from 2E to 3E previously, because then you were going from "narrow" to "wide" with the range of options, and often felt like in our experience the characters were being stiffed out some of the new stuff if you converted them strictly. In this case, IF they do their job right, then hopefully the first basic rules in 2008 will allow us to convert 90% of our existing characters right out of the gate. The only part that gets me concerned is when we hear playtesters saying stuff like "I took my warmage, and made him a Warlord, but with some wizard abilities", which sounds crazy as heck on the surface. 

In summary, I really don't put much stock in the whole, "THEY WON'T HAVE CONVERSION RULES" argument, and that's the reason why. The math is very different from 2E to 3E, and different from 3 to 4, but likely not as different.


----------



## azigen (Dec 20, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> So I went to talk to R&D for answers but they had just finished their latest playtest:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Ok, now your just being plain silly? Vacation Egg Nog any good ?


----------



## Dragonblade (Dec 20, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> So I went to talk to R&D for answers but they had just finished their latest playtest..........<snipped for brevity>.......Happy Holidays




That was AWESOME!!    Seriously man, I had to wipe the tears away.


----------



## GSHamster (Dec 20, 2007)

Does D&D use the same Design/Development split-team model that Magic uses?  

It's always struck me as a good model for developing games, and it seems fairly successful for Magic, and I was wondering if the D&D team uses the same model.


----------



## JohnSnow (Dec 20, 2007)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> Does D&D use the same Design/Development split-team model that Magic uses?
> 
> It's always struck me as a good model for developing games, and it seems fairly successful for Magic, and I was wondering if the D&D team uses the same model.




Yup. It works a bit differently with D&D since it's a different game than Magic, but they have both designers and developers. Designers come up with cool new stuff, and developers make it fit the system mechanically (sometimes by tweaking the design of something, and sometimes by adjusting the level of it.)

There's also a story team, which seems to be separate from the above. I understand that there's a bit of crossover among all three groups, though.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 20, 2007)

A thought occurs to me as to why running a regular campaign, or a regular adventure, is a good idea. 

1) Player satisfaction with the character. "Does this character do what you want, what you would have liked, given this character's concept? Do you feel limited or disappointed with it? Does your dwarf feel like a dwarf should?"

2) Rest. 4e is supposed to "fix" the "Fifteen Minute Work Day". Well, they can't quite do that if it's just a "four guys in a room with a monster, rinse repeat." If you're just taking 4 PCs against some monsters, with no continuity, then they'll just use their Per-Day abilities every encounter.   Measuring the entire "work day" is good. 

3) As Noonan mentions in the other thread, characters will act more aggressively with pre-gen characters, rather than characters they have grown attached to. Is it a good measurement of PC ability when they're all acting like kamikaze pilots?

4) A campaign-style play best simulates how the game will be played. Yeah, doing the "aggressive" manner above is great to work out the big, glaring mistakes. But after sending that sports car into crash tests, off-road tests, and high speed tests, you also need to take it for a casual sunday drive to see how it behaves under every-day experience. 

Finally 

5) I think it's a little unreasonable to expect the WotC guys to just hammer in "Fight after fight after fight" without getting to, actually, _play and enjoy their product_. It is, after all, *a game*.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Dec 20, 2007)

I know this is many hours old and a Moderator got frisky over the poster, but I something said just made me blink many times in confusion.


			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> His post would have been funny if he had responded constructively to the worries laid out earlier in the thread.



Can anyone tell me how responding constructively results in making a post funny where not being constructive then removes the humor potential?


----------



## Xanaqui (Dec 20, 2007)

*Less playtest may be good.*

I guess I've not done much game playtest (and even less was RPG playtest), but coming over from my professional field (real-time medical instrument engineering), large amounts of testing are the last resort of a company that doesn't know what it's doing.

A company that understands what it's doing should be able to catch the vast majority of defects before testing even starts - for example, from design inspections, implementation inspections, proofs, or from modeling.

Frankly, in any edition of (A)D&D, if I wanted to add a substantial novel new element or set of elements, I'd create a mathematical model, use that model to verify what the element did, and at most playtest to verify that there weren't large holes in my model (in other words, it wasn't the game element itself that I was testing; it was the model).

So I guess what I'm saying is that testing is only one means of verification, and it likely isn't a particuarly efficient one (it isn't in any engineering or mathematical field I've studied formally), so I'm not particuarly disappointed if there is less playtest in 4E than there was in 3E.

In fact, it's quite possible that that is a good sign.

Just to demonstrate that I'm not making this out of thin air; examples from General Principles of Software Validation:



			
				FDA said:
			
		

> Typically, testing alone cannot fully verify that software is complete and correct. In addition to testing, other verification techniques and a structured and documented development process should be combined to ensure a comprehensive validation approach.






			
				FDA said:
			
		

> Software quality assurance needs to focus on preventing the introduction of defects into the software development process and not on trying to "test quality into" the software code after it is written. Software testing is very limited in its ability to surface all latent defects in software code. For example, the complexity of most software prevents it from being exhaustively tested. *Software testing is a necessary activity. However, in most cases software testing by itself is not sufficient to establish confidence that the software is fit for its intended use.*



 (Emphasis in original)

Replace the word "Software" with any other large piece of math (like, say, a complex game), and I think you'll understand my point.


----------



## Mark (Dec 20, 2007)

Wanderer20 said:
			
		

> There are no issues of mine. I'll repeat one significant quote: "We are not working on 4E"







			
				nerfherder said:
			
		

> I'm curious to see a link to a statement made by a WotC employee that contradicts what Scott has written, because whenever one has been called for in the past it either never appears, or the quote, when taken in context, does nothing of the sort.





http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="We+are+not+working+on+4E"


----------



## outsider (Dec 20, 2007)

Xanaqui said:
			
		

> Frankly, in any edition of (A)D&D, if I wanted to add a substantial novel new element or set of elements, I'd create a mathematical model, use that model to verify what the element did, and at most playtest to verify that there weren't large holes in my model (in other words, it wasn't the game element itself that I was testing; it was the model).




I'd be curious to see the mathematical model you would use to model "fun".


----------



## Delta (Dec 20, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> The stats were skewed; a 15 in AD&D meant nothing often times, but meant a +2 bonus in 3E. Those 15 scores then got shoved up to 16's often when you added the ability bonuses from every 4th level, so that's a +3. In the end, any 2E character I had, I ended up starting from scratch and *converting by eyeballing it*, the same method that James Wyatt recommends for 3E to 4E. It was an _illusion of conversion_ that they realized wasn't necessary this time around. It's all in taking the concept, looking at the new rules, and then just figuring out what abilities give you the same feel as the character you had.




Well, I wasn't talking about conversions in my post. Nontheless, I used the written 2E->3E conversion for lots and lots of NPCs in adventures now in the ENWorld Conversion Library, with what I thought was very successful (and I got really good feedback on). Apparently that's a project that just has to get scrubbed re: 3E->4E. 

But other than that, way back when I first saw the 3E ability scores, I said "Aha, clearly this is the most faithful linear interpolation of 1E ability scores". Scores of 15 in 1E gave a +1 bonus in most everything (Wis, Dex, Con, Cha), is +2 really so different? Doesn't the system resolve to the same +4 bonus for a score of 18 as in almost all 1E abilities? Is the +1/2 points not an exact conversion of late 1E/2E skill modifiers (for which each 1 skill point modified +2 to an ability check)? Have fighter attack bonuses not gone up +1/level identically all through 1E, 2E, 3E? Were combat details like charge bonuses and cover modifiers not exactly the same through 1E, 2E, 3E?

But far, far more important than that are the mass volume of text for spells and magic items (most of the PHB and DMG text respectively). Pick any 3 spells or magic items and I bet 2 of the 3 will be nearly duplicated text all the way through 1E, 2E, and 3E. It was with 3.5 that suddenly wholesale rewrites were being done to hundreds of the pieces of magic IP in the game. Now with 4E the entire system is itself being urban-renovated from scratch. So having those hundreds of pages of magic system wiped out makes my eyes go all Muppet-googly-eyed when someone claims that only minor systemic changes are being made.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 20, 2007)

outsider said:
			
		

> I'd be curious to see the mathematical model you would use to model "fun".



All I know is that it wasn't taught in my HS algebra class.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Dec 20, 2007)

Well, Scott Rouse´ little picture story made this thread archive-worthy. I wouldn´t have saved it for the rude questions and such, but that is just too cool to lose it.


----------



## Xanaqui (Dec 20, 2007)

outsider said:
			
		

> I'd be curious to see the mathematical model you would use to model "fun".



To me, the model itself would be "fun"  However, note that I'm not a professional game designer.

I'd guess that a number of inter-compatible, easily learnable options that give different but comparable results under a specific set of preconditions would be a good place to start. Another way to put it would be to eliminate what isn't "fun" - forced algorithmic defects which mean that there is only one useful option would be an obvious example; forcing players into situations where they have no impact is another one. Obviously, that wouldn't take into account any "fluff"; that would require inspection and/or review.

I'm not suggesting that all testing should be eliminated; merely that optimally, testing the end product shouldn't be the primary means of verification or of removing defects.

Think of it this way: let's say you're playtesting 3.0, and you find a defect in Polymorph. It's a pretty big defect, affecting dozens of creatures, a bunch of spells, some class abilities, and some special ability descriptions. Well, you don't just loose the time that it takes to correct whatever issues you have with polymorph in the dozens of places it was spread throughout the game, you already have lost the development time, writing time, and some of the testing time on those items up to this point. If you had, instead, found the defect in early design, you would have lost, say, a few hours instead of hundreds. The closer you catch a defect to its point of injection, the more efficient your overall process is, and the fewer defects reach the product that you test - therefore, the less you need to rely on testing.


----------



## Sitara (Dec 20, 2007)

:|

I think Scott shoulod change his JT from Brand Manager to Snark Manager. 



(Look forward to Friday)


----------



## portermj (Dec 20, 2007)

Mark said:
			
		

> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="We+are+not+working+on+4E"




The sites I get from that link just have 3rd parties saying that someone from WOTC said they weren't working on 4E.


----------



## Henrix (Dec 20, 2007)

Scott, I'm seriously worried about the guy you hired to manage DI, I think he might need a bigger gun! 



(It's possible that he could get away with it if he were The Rouse, but there can only be one!)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 20, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> So I went to talk to R&D for answers but they had just finished their latest playtest:
> 
> <snip awesome picture>
> 
> ...



And happy holidays too you, Mr. Rock Rouse.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 20, 2007)

Delta said:
			
		

> Well, since you asked me, I have to say: Frankly, no.
> 
> The "core d20 system" mechanics to me always looked mathematically equivalent to 1E AD&D. Feats were new and I liked those. But 4E's totally-new races, classes, BABs and saves, alignment and planes, and complete demolition of the spell/magic system is unlike anything I've seen in D&D since its inception.
> 
> I'm not the target audience anymore, but on this point we'll be very much disagreeing.



New Races? That's done all the time - the FR books contained a few new Elf types, the Eberron books three new races (Shifter, Warforged, Changling). 

Alignment and Planes are mostly fluff and don't really affect the balance of the game. (Usually, you balance alignment based abilities only against the alignments they affect, so they are not much different then abilities that are alignment-indifferent)

BAB and Saves is the first larger bit, because their goal was to create a different "curve" on advancement of these. But it's not like changing from THAC0 to BAB or from percentile to d20 + modifier vs DC.

Spells and Magic: 
Stretching spell levels to ~30 levels isn't such a strong thing. Going from Vancian to per-encounter based spells is again a larger step - but it was already done in 3.5, with classes like the Warlock or the Binder, The Book of Nine Swords and in d20 with Starwars Saga edition - but it was more a "tack-on" and it changed the core assumptions of 3.5 enough to throw some people off - it worked against the common expectations. 

D&D 4 is still a d20 system at its core. And that just can't be said for editions before 3rd. The core concept of the d20 system have been used for many games, and it is well tested and understood. D&D 3 didn't have this luxury - the d20 system was developed with it.


----------



## Magus Coeruleus (Dec 20, 2007)

I'm hoping that a bit less playtesting is necessary on account of the much-touted new math.  If it is, in fact, a system designed to work the same at all levels of play, then many issues resolved for level X should be resolved at all levels.


----------



## Wulfram (Dec 20, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> I know this is many hours old and a Moderator got frisky over the poster, but I something said just made me blink many times in confusion.
> 
> Can anyone tell me how responding constructively results in making a post funny where not being constructive then removes the humor potential?




Because without any constructive response, it can appear as nothing more than mockery of those asking the question, and thus more insulting than funny - particularly on the internet, where tone is hard to judge.

Such was clearly not the intent, but it didn't come across very well for me, initially

With a constructive reply as well, it is more clearly good natured, and thus funny.


----------



## evileeyore (Dec 20, 2007)

portermj said:
			
		

> The sites I get from that link just have 3rd parties saying that someone from WOTC said they weren't working on 4E.



Even funnier is the first sites directly quotes EN World...  the second is Kaytastrophe's**, the third is EN World...












** So that's where Lisa ended up.  I need to frequent Kay's more often...


----------



## The_Baldman (Dec 20, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> I am on vacation hahahaha




ya I wish I had vacation left to take but you guys make me use it all on running your silly shows.

Silly me

Dave


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Dec 20, 2007)

Wulfram said:
			
		

> With a constructive reply as well, it is more clearly good natured, and thus funny.



I guess I totally disagree. To me being constructive is not at all a *required* ingredient for humor.


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 20, 2007)

Its in another Enworld thread, but in case you missed it, David Noonan responded to this thread (got that?) on his blog:



> Playtesting: Scott called me about this thread on ENWorld. Interesting stuff throughout. I can shed at least a little light on what’s going on with playtesting right now.
> 
> 
> We’ve playtested a lot of different ways. When I plan a playtest wave, I think of it in terms of altitude—how far up the observer is when looking down at the game. High-altitude playtesting is an ongoing campaign, where you’ll see characters (and players, for that matter) evolve over time. You have mid-altitude playtesting, which might be a single adventure or an attenuated campaign. And you have low-altitude playtesting, which is a single encounter repeated ad nauseum, or a sequence of escalating/deescala ting variations (“let’s try it at 3rd level…now 4th…now 5th…”).
> ...


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 20, 2007)

seankreynolds said:
			
		

> There are approximately 500 playtesters listed in the 3e PH.
> 
> How many are going to be listed in the 4e PH?




Opionated Bald Man, thanks for posting!!

And good question.


----------



## Wulfram (Dec 20, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> I guess I totally disagree. To me being constructive is not at all a *required* ingredient for humor.




It doesn't need to be constructive.  It needs to be good natured or deserved - otherwise it's just being a jerk.

In this case, accompanying it with something constructive would more clearly have signalled that there wasn't any intent to cause offence.

Oh, and since I haven't said it yet, thanks to The Rouse for the information.


----------



## A'koss (Dec 20, 2007)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> Opionated Bald Man, thanks for posting!!
> 
> And good question.



I believe they said they have ~300 external testers right now in a recent interview.


----------



## Delta (Dec 20, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> BAB and Saves is the first larger bit, because their goal was to create a different "curve" on advancement of these. But it's not like changing from THAC0 to BAB or from percentile to d20 + modifier vs DC.




See, THACO vs. BAB is _precisely_ what I mean by mechanics that are "mathematically equivalent". Whether you do BAB counting up or THACO counting down, the probabilities are identical, and in a mathematical information-theory sense, they're exactly and perfectly the same information. I actually had "Attack Bonuses" scribbled into the margin of my 1E DMG, for use in my AD&D games, years before 3E was released. Mathematically there's no mechanical difference.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Dec 20, 2007)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> Its in another Enworld thread, but in case you missed it, David Noonan responded to this thread (got that?) on his blog:




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.


----------



## FunkBGR (Dec 20, 2007)

Hey Scott Rouse - 

I appreciate the humor. Keep up the good work!

 - Bryan


----------



## Evilhalfling (Dec 20, 2007)

crazy_cat said:
			
		

> You try telling that to Black Leaf !!



*Snort**chuckle* 
Im glad my boss isn't in yet.
I am not so worried about the Pun-Puns of the new edition - there will be holes, playtesters can't possibly find all the problems, that the creative roleplaying public can. I am willing to HR obvious problems.
 The more insidious stuff like wildshaped druids wearing cloaks, rings, belts and necklaces. The jump(2 ed) or diplomacy skills not working, or the 5 minute workday. These are things that need system fixes.

Im also glad that the WoTC playtesters and designers post here, and that they have thick skins.


----------



## hexgrid (Dec 20, 2007)

Delta said:
			
		

> See, THACO vs. BAB is _precisely_ what I mean by mechanics that are "mathematically equivalent". Whether you do BAB counting up or THACO counting down, the probabilities are identical, and in a mathematical information-theory sense, they're exactly and perfectly the same information. I actually had "Attack Bonuses" scribbled into the margin of my 1E DMG, for use in my AD&D games, years before 3E was released. Mathematically there's no mechanical difference.




Almost all concepts on this basic of a level carry over from 3e to SWSE (and presumable 4e) with even less of a mechanical difference.

It'd take much less work use a SWSE statblock in 3e that it would be to use a 1e statblock in 3e, and the same is true of the one 4e statblock we've seen.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Dec 20, 2007)

Magus Coeruleus said:
			
		

> I'm hoping that a bit less playtesting is necessary on account of the much-touted new math.  If it is, in fact, a system designed to work the same at all levels of play, then many issues resolved for level X should be resolved at all levels.




I was talking with Chris Thommason about this yesterday. He was explaining how they ran the math through it's paces in late 2006 early 2007. There were some iterations that worked and some that didn't. They largely got it worked out even before the GenCon announcement and it has remained stable since with only minor tweaks being made with external playtests going on.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Dec 20, 2007)

Sitara said:
			
		

> :|
> 
> I think Scott shoulod change his JT from Brand Manager to Snark Manager.
> 
> ...





Friday will blow minds. 

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


----------



## helium3 (Dec 20, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> I was talking with Chris Thommason about this yesterday. He was explaining how they ran the math through it's paces in late 2006 early 2007. There were some iterations that worked and some that didn't. They largely got it worked out even before the GenCon announcement and it has remained stable since with only minor tweaks being made with external playtests going on.




Hey Scott, would it totally be blowing company secrets to divulge whether the math was tested via hand calculations or a full blown computer model? I've totally been wondering about that for a while.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Dec 20, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Hey Scott, would it totally be blowing company secrets to divulge whether the math was tested via hand calculations or a full blown computer model? I've totally been wondering about that for a while.




I am not sure how they do it or if it is a big secret.


----------



## Stormtalon (Dec 20, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 20, 2007)

WotC PeterS said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 20, 2007)

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 (Dec 20, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 20, 2007)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 20, 2007)

The_Furious_Puffin said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 20, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 20, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 21, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> 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".
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 21, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Delta (Dec 21, 2007)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> Almost all concepts on this basic of a level carry over from 3e to SWSE (and presumable 4e) with even less of a mechanical difference.




I agree that the basic "how to succeed" mechanics were equivalent from 1E, 2E, 3E; no big changes. It's all the other stuff in 4E that finally do constitute big changes. Starting with, for example, fighters not improving "to hit" by +5% every level, for the first time ever. There you have a distinct systemic change in probabilities.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 21, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> 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.




True, but that's a choice one seldom has to make.  It's usually possible to tweak a rule so that it's both fun and abuse-resistant.  The problem is knowing which rules to tweak.

The value of the CharOp boards for playtesting purposes is that they identify both the ridiculous exploits (Pun-Pun) and the genuine problems that affect play at all levels of skill (caster superiority at high levels).  One can just roll one's eyes at the Pun-Puns of the game, but caster superiority is a problem not limited to obsessive optimizers.

And even Pun-Pun serves a purpose, albeit a small one; the essential ingredient in the Pun-Pun exploit is a monster mechanic so ill-defined and badly worded that it's hard to imagine an interpretation of it that _doesn't_ lead to trouble.  The CharOp boards correctly identified this as a problem mechanic.  Should WotC ever decide to issue errata to the obscure Forgotten Realms sourcebook the exploit is from, I expect they know they ought to do something about the Sarrukh (though they might leave it as is just for amusement value).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 21, 2007)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Absolutely, thank you for taking the time to talk to us Obsessive Internet Fans.
> 
> I have a another question, does this
> 
> ...



I think it just has to do with company policy at Hasbro. No bladed items in the bureau rooms, since that incident with the Secretary, the letter opener and the "forgotten" pay rise in 1987.


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 21, 2007)

David Noonan responds for a second time in his blog, this time to the question by SKR: OBM on number of playtesters. Will 4th edition approach the 500 of 3rd. Noonan says maybe, but its hard to compare:



> Playtesting: As I was driving home last night, I thought of a couple other playtest-related things. First, back in that ENWorld thread, Sean Reynolds asks how big a list of external playtesters for 4e would be.
> 
> First, you'd think I'd have that list. But I don't. I've got some of it, Chris Tulach down in RPGAtopia has more, and Andy Collins has some names, too. We've had lots of different playtests with lots of different groups, and especially early on, keeping track of it all was catch-as-catch-can. Playtesting is something we got better at as we went along.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Dec 21, 2007)

I need to thank Mr. Noonan for that write up.  As an engineer (software engineer - but still...) I find the background workings of stuff like this to be very interesting.  I am also pleased that they are thinking of asking stuff like 'where did you look for it first'.  That alone might speed up play by a very large amount.


----------



## Epic Meepo (Dec 21, 2007)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> The value of the CharOp boards for playtesting purposes is that they identify both the ridiculous exploits (Pun-Pun) and the genuine problems that affect play at all levels of skill (caster superiority at high levels).  One can just roll one's eyes at the Pun-Puns of the game, but caster superiority is a problem not limited to obsessive optimizers.
> 
> And even Pun-Pun serves a purpose, albeit a small one; the essential ingredient in the Pun-Pun exploit is a monster mechanic so ill-defined and badly worded that it's hard to imagine an interpretation of it that _doesn't_ lead to trouble.  The CharOp boards correctly identified this as a problem mechanic.



No, I have to agree with Fifth Element on this one. The happenings on the CharOp boards are  largely irrelevant to actual play. As you point out, problems like caster superiority are not limited to CharOp boards. So you don't need CharOp boards to find them.

And the ability to "exploit" mechanics by combining multiple obscure optional rules under the assumption of infinite GM leniency has no bearing on actual play. Unless, of course, you actually do have an infinitely lenient GM, in which case you have correctly identified a problem GM, not a problem mechanic.


----------



## Ourph (Dec 22, 2007)

Epic Meepo said:
			
		

> And the ability to "exploit" mechanics by combining multiple obscure optional rules under the assumption of infinite GM leniency has no bearing on actual play. Unless, of course, you actually do have an infinitely lenient GM, in which case you have correctly identified a problem GM, not a problem mechanic.



Most of the games I've played in or seen run by others allow any official material from WotC (barring setting-specific material from other settings in some cases) to be used by players.  Not only is this SOP as far as my experience with the hobby goes, it should also be the SOP that WotC wants to encourage with its customers (the more games allowing all official material, the more demand there will be for that material).  I'm actually a little flabbergasted that someone would suggest this is a problem with the DM's judgement.  This is official material we're talking about, stuff published by the makers of D&D to be used specifically for the game of D&D.  WotC intends for people to buy and use those products in their games and (unless I'm very much mistaken about their motives) they don't intend for said products to cause campaign-meltdown.  Given that, the fact that there are game-breaking combos to be found within that officially published material would seems to indicate that someone at WotC should take the blame, not the individual DM who failed to personally review and playtest every official rulebook before allowing his players to use it.

Holding the DM accountable for not catching mistakes in a product that has (ostensibly) been playtested by the company who makes it seems downright unfair to me.   :\


----------



## Shroomy (Dec 22, 2007)

But you can't possibly hope for WoTC to test every possible combination of class, prestige class, feat, magic item, and spell.  There are limits to what they can possibly do with the time they are allotted.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Dec 22, 2007)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> But you can't possibly hope for WoTC to test every possible combination of class, prestige class, feat, magic item, and spell.



But a single DM will?  







			
				Shroomy said:
			
		

> There are limits to what they can possibly do with the time they are allotted.



That's exactly the same rationale given by DM's who decide to let all WotC material in, *they* (DM's with a shortage of time) don't have the time to test the limits of everything in the game so they decide to run a game as close to WotC-baseline as possible. Doing so means far lest stress-testing of the rules to make them fit something non-(WotC)standard because you *are* playing WotC standard.


----------



## Shroomy (Dec 22, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> But a single DM will?  That's exactly the same rationale given by DM's who decide to let all WotC material in, *they* (DM's with a shortage of time) don't have the time to test the limits of everything in the game so they decide to run a game as close to WotC-baseline as possible. Doing so means far lest stress-testing of the rules to make them fit something non-(WotC)standard because you *are* playing WotC standard.




Oh, I'm not blaming DMs at all, nor do I expect them to catch every abusable combination.  I was just pointing out that the expectation to catch every abusable combination was simply not attainable.


----------



## GnomeIllusionist (Dec 22, 2007)

I agree with Shroomy in this case.



			
				Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> But a single DM will?



They don't have to though. Wizards of the Coast released at least one new sourcebook per month for 3.5E AFAIK - between about 150 and 300 pages. They need to test these products for fun, balance, clarity, etc.

An individual DM only needs to 'check' the options being used by characters in his campaign. He doesn't need to foresee Pun-Pun or the ReCharger - he just needs to notice they are ruining the fun or challenge of his campaign and say 'no'.

They need to spend time making the rules work when used like an average group would. What persistent min-maxers can do isn't as important. Besides - would the CharOp board be pretty sad if such exploits didn't exist? They seem to get more fun out of rules that aren't water-tight.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Dec 22, 2007)

GnomeIllusionist said:
			
		

> An individual DM only needs to 'check' the options being used by characters in his campaign.



You make it sound like it's handwave simple. "The options being used" indeed.


----------



## Baron Opal (Dec 22, 2007)

It is handwave simple.

"Holy crap Steve, I didn't realize that a Goliath Piledriver with the Kirk Axehandle Strike can do over 300 hp with a single hit. I'll need you to choose a different feat."

There you go.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 22, 2007)

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> It is handwave simple.
> 
> "Holy crap Steve, I didn't realize that a Goliath Piledriver with the Kirk Axehandle Strike can do over 300 hp with a single hit. I'll need you to choose a different feat."
> 
> There you go.



 What he said. 

And that's if you don't catch the problem by taking a look at the feat/ability and thinking about it for 5 minutes, which frankly does the job (at least for me) most of the time.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Dec 22, 2007)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Oh, I'm not blaming DMs at all, nor do I expect them to catch every abusable combination.  I was just pointing out that the expectation to catch every abusable combination was simply not attainable.



And I suspect some abusable combos are going to be left in to see who's paying attention.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 22, 2007)

GnomeIllusionist said:
			
		

> An individual DM only needs to 'check' the options being used by characters in his campaign. He doesn't need to foresee Pun-Pun or the ReCharger - he just needs to notice they are ruining the fun or challenge of his campaign and say 'no'.



Precisely.

Also don't forget that many of the abuses the CharOp people come up with are based on very specific interpretations of how some rules are written. The interpretation chosen, regardless of how reasonable it isn't, is always the one that leads to the ridiculous outcome.


----------



## Ourph (Dec 22, 2007)

GnomeIllusionist said:
			
		

> An individual DM only needs to 'check' the options being used by characters in his campaign. He doesn't need to foresee Pun-Pun or the ReCharger - he just needs to notice they are ruining the fun or challenge of his campaign and say 'no'.



By the time the problem is pinpointed a group may already have experienced weeks of unfun play and the DM's hard work on the campaign may already have been seriously compromised.  As someone who doesn't like the idea of retconning several play sessions worth of events to rewind the campaign to an acceptable point, that doesn't seem like the best available option.

I'm not suggesting WotC could catch every last problem, but Fifth Element suggested that "stress testing" for powergaming options was a complete waste of time.  I don't think the fact that no test can ever catch 100% of the problems is a good argument for not testing at all or doing minimal testing just to say "we did it".


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 22, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I'm not suggesting WotC could catch every last problem, but Fifth Element suggested that "stress testing" for powergaming options was a complete waste of time.



Ew, what's that taste? Oh, it's the words you put in my mouth. 

I never suggested it was a complete waste of time. Obviously some playtesting of that kind is worthwhile, but it's not as important in D&D as it might be in other fields. You work out bugs in software, for instance, because that's run by a computer. D&D has the advantage of having a human arbiter who can interpret and make decisions.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Dec 23, 2007)

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> It is handwave simple.
> 
> "Holy crap Steve, I didn't realize that a Goliath Piledriver with the Kirk Axehandle Strike can do over 300 hp with a single hit. I'll need you to choose a different feat."
> 
> There you go.



You are an optimist on a level I never am. Were all calls this obviously exaggerated there would be no issue. There would be no discussion. The calls are rarely (never?) this clear. *shrug*


----------



## Baron Opal (Dec 23, 2007)

You have a point, my example is absurd.

However, I haven't found too many examples of problems in 3e that caused my groups (or me, as the DM) any real problems. _Polymorph_, _et.al._, was an issue, for example, but I sat down figured out what the problem I had with it was and hammered out a solution in an afternoon. Now, in my game, if you _polymorph_ you keep the same attributes unless your size changes. Then you get +/- 4 STR and -/+ 2 DEX for each size class you shift. With _change self_ you get the form plus one advantage from a list of 10, such as water breathing or gliding. Works great.

I don't believe that there will be a *fundamental* mechanical problem with the 4e rules. I'm fairly sure there will be some minor problems along the lines of the Power Attack debate (is it really worth using?). There may be one or two issues or situations along the _polymorph_ problem (a power's definition is so loose that it opens up significant abuse). Spotting these problems, and coming up with solutions is well within our capabilities as referees of the game. And, it is the perfect thing for new referees to learn the trade on, so to speak.


----------



## Gort (Dec 23, 2007)

Agreed. They never really worked out what they wanted polymorph to do, or how massively it can impact the game. What was the point in being an ogre and taking the associated level penalty, when a human fighter can get polymorphed into a fire giant and be far better off, with no level adjustment at all?

I'm just amazed that it never got properly fixed.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 23, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> By the time the problem is pinpointed a group may already have experienced weeks of unfun play and the DM's hard work on the campaign may already have been seriously compromised.  As someone who doesn't like the idea of retconning several play sessions worth of events to rewind the campaign to an acceptable point, that doesn't seem like the best available option.




This is something which intrigued me. Say your group has played a dozen sessions with it increasingly obvious that the wizard's combo of spells X and Y and feat Z is broken. The DM talks to the player about the problem and they change or drop some out of X, Y and Z and the game continues. Why would there need to be any retconning or rewinding? It's not like the campaign is a novel or a show on television where you'll have irate viewers complaining about the change and internal continuity.



			
				Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> You are an optimist on a level I never am. Were all calls this obviously exaggerated there would be no issue. There would be no discussion. The calls are rarely (never?) this clear. *shrug*




I'm not Baron Opal, but in my experience, such calls are always this clear for me as a DM, and they're nearly always so clear that they never even show up in my game, since I can make the call as soon as a player runs it by me.


----------



## allenw (Dec 24, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Friday will blow minds.
> 
> I wish I could be online to watch but I will be duck hunting in Montana




  So, Scott:  Would I be correct to assume that the huge outcry over "Elven Perception Auras" wasn't *quite* the reaction you were hoping for?


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Dec 25, 2007)

allenw said:
			
		

> So, Scott:  Would I be correct to assume that the huge outcry over "Elven Perception Auras" wasn't *quite* the reaction you were hoping for?




It only proves that some people are impossible to please. 

The "Perception Aura" is a tiny bit of the the whole thing. And its a lot better than "detect secret doors" 

The majority of us are quite happy with the elf writeup.


----------



## Wolfspider (Dec 25, 2007)

Amphimir Míriel said:
			
		

> It only proves that some people are impossible to please.
> 
> The "Perception Aura" is a tiny bit of the the whole thing. And its a lot better than "detect secret doors"
> 
> The majority of us are quite happy with the elf writeup.




Yeah!  Down with dissent!  Majority rules!

Who do these people think they are, having an opinion that differs from the norm?

The nerve!


----------



## Rechan (Dec 25, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Yeah!  Down with dissent!  Majority rules!
> 
> Who do these people think they are, having an opinion that differs from the norm?
> 
> The nerve!



Because saying "Pleasing some people is impossible, most of us don't mind it" = "People who have opinions that differ from the norm are out of line."

Methinks you're being a bit too defensive.


----------



## Wolfspider (Dec 25, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Because saying "Pleasing some people is impossible, most of us don't mind it" = "People who have opinions that differ from the norm are out of line."
> 
> Methinks you're being a bit too defensive.




"It proves that some people are impossible to please." is the exact quote.

I dunno.  That seems pretty snobbish to me.  If I say I don't like something--say, a movie, or a pizza, or whatever--and someone says to me, "You are impossible to please," well, I would be a bit miffed if I thought my complaints were reasonable.  That comment seems much too much like a total dismissal of my opinion.

I think the complaints I've read about the elven perception aura (at least as we understand it now) seem pretty reasonable.  How exactly does this bonus manifest?  The only way that I can envision it is the "ear twitching" mentioned earlier, and that seems ludicrous.  Also, what if the elf fails his perception check to notice an ambush or whatever but someone else in his party makes it, in part because of the bonus that the elf has given him?  How does that work exactly?  

It may be that all of these things are explained in perfectly clear detail in the 4e books.  I sure hope they are.

As of now, though, some people have questions.  I am one of those people.

But what do I know?  I'm impossible to please.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 25, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> "It proves that some people are impossible to please." is the exact quote.
> 
> I dunno.  That seems pretty snobbish to me.  If I say I don't like something--say, a movie, or a pizza, or whatever--and someone says to me, "You are impossible to please," well, I would be a bit miffed if I thought my complaints were reasonable.  That comment seems much too much like a total dismissal of my opinion.



It doesn't sound snobby to me. 

Not to put words in Amphimir Míriel's mouth, but I believe his point is that with a _huge_ chunk of material, a big fat slab of Fluff Text and Crunch text, the majority of the discussion zeroed in and revolved around a single line of text! That's _nitpicking_. 

There's an old adage, "You can't please everyone." I'm a firm believer that people, by nature, are pessimistic and _will_ find something to complain about. Because, quite frankly, complaining is fun. It doesn't matter if it's a legitimate complaint, or "That guy was perfect - but I still didn't like his tie". But then, I'm a veteran of political discussions, and so I'm _used_ to seeing complaints for complaint's sake, arguments for argument's sake, and having nothing positive to say whatsoever. 

Negative thoughts or comments stick out in our mind a lot better than positive ones - that's why if you receive 10 complements and 1 negative comment, it's the latter that will stick out in your mind.

And you can't tell me that you have never met someone who always has _something_ negative to say. The perverbial stereotypical Mother In Law whose only complements are back-handed.

The "Aura of perception" is no less silly, or ludicrous, than a free Detect Secret Doors. Or Dwarves inherent stonecunning checks, even if your dwarf was born on a boat in the middle of the ocean and has never sat foot below sea level. And yet it's the biggest thing talked about out of _all that fluff and crunch_.


----------



## Wolfspider (Dec 25, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> And you can't tell me that you have never met someone who always has _something_ negative to say.




Well, I could, but I'd be lying just to make you cry.


----------



## McBard (Dec 26, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> ...with a huge chunk of material, a big fat slab of Fluff Text and Crunch text, the majority of the discussion zeroed in and revolved around a single line of text! That's *nitpicking*.



...or playtesting, of a sort. In any event, I bet WoTC _will_ take another look (even if just a glance) at the Elven Perception Aura ability because of the reaction.


----------



## Wolfspider (Dec 26, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Not to put words in Amphimir Míriel's mouth, but I believe his point is that with a _huge_ chunk of material, a big fat slab of Fluff Text and Crunch text, the majority of the discussion zeroed in and revolved around a single line of text! That's _nitpicking_.




I like to look at this reaction in a bit more positive light.   Instead of nitpicking, I like to think that is shows that people care enough about the game to criticize it constructively so that the final product is as good as it can be.

After all, if people zeroed in on only a tiny portion of the article, that implies that the rest of it was pretty good.

Or would you rather that people have a lot of complaints about the elf preview?


----------



## Rechan (Dec 26, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I like to look at this reaction in a bit more positive light.   Instead of nitpicking, I like to think that is shows that people care enough about the game to criticize it constructively so that the final product is as good as it can be.



Assuming the designers listen to the forums. I mean, if the designers KEEP bringing things to the forums, and they complain regardless, then they'll stop editing because the forums complain.

What happens if, for instance, _every_ race provides an Aura power? In one of the playtests, we saw the Eladrin wizard borrow the half-elf's diplomacy bonus to try diplomacy on a copper dragon. So it's possible that the Half-elf's presence provides a Diplomacy bonus like the Elf provides an Aura.

So, complaining here might be futile, since it's fairly ingrained. 



> After all, if people zeroed in on only a tiny portion of the article, that implies that the rest of it was pretty good.



Which is pretty bad, that the only thing worth commenting about is the single flaw, as opposed to the whole big chunk.

Reminds me of a joke. The opptomist, wanting to find something his pessimist friend couldn't complain about, finally found something: a dog that could walk on water. He bought the dog, trained it to hunt with him.

Finally, he took the dog out hunting with his pessimist friend. The opptomist spotted a duck, BLAM. Duck falls into the water. The opptomist ushers the dog off, the dog walks across the water, picks up the duck, and brings it back. The opptomist turns to the pessimist and says, "Well, what do you think of that?"

The pessimist says, "That was pretty dumb, buying a dog that can't swim."


----------



## Wolfspider (Dec 26, 2007)

Ok.


----------



## JohnSnow (Dec 26, 2007)

Gort said:
			
		

> Agreed. They never really worked out what they wanted polymorph to do, or how massively it can impact the game. What was the point in being an ogre and taking the associated level penalty, when a human fighter can get polymorphed into a fire giant and be far better off, with no level adjustment at all?
> 
> I'm just amazed that it never got properly fixed.




Actually, it did. The fix in PHB II was perfect, even if it made some people extraordinarily unhappy.

I imagine that PHB II got its polymorph "fix" by converting a system that was developed for 4e. The problem is that in Third Edition, each transform is a separate spell that has to be memorized.

The proper fix for polymorph is to decide what forms are appropriate at what level and write a power that allows a caster to assume any of forms A thru G. That's the proper fix for summoning spells too. And you can allow the caster to assume any form that's on the list for lower level powers too. 

I imagine that's one of the fungible qualities of 4e's magical powers. You can probably always choose the "lesser" effect if you want to. For example, if it was balanced for you to turn into a bear at level 5, it should still be balanced at level 8 (or 12, or whatever). Similarly, if you have an at-will fire blast, I'm sure you can use it to light your pipe.

With the magic system properly fixed, polymorph can probably be fixed as well.


----------

