styopa1 at gmail.com
Fri Aug 5 23:38:33 EST 2011
Which is exactly why I didn't volunteer. Testing != playing...they only
LOOK the same.
I did (serious) beta work throughout the 90s for computer wargames, and beta
testing/playtesting (if done correctly) involves
a) trying to break the systems - most game systems work fine in nominal
conditions, but as you push to the boundaries their algorithms start to
break down. Rules-lawyers are good testers, because they tend to discard
the 'sense' of the rules and try to exploit the language, which helps you
find holes, begged assumptions in the text, etc.
b) Repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition. Fluke results wreck
reporting. I just rolled a d8 4 times, and got an average of 7. Is this
representative of the results this die will give me regularly? Think how
much more complicated a game's combat system is, and then understand that
this is merely a subsystem of a greater whole. There's no way you're going
to see (for example) that magic-users can't compete reasonably vs.
"fighter-types" except with many, many combats in a range of conditions.
c) thorough note-taking at all times. If you cannot accurately report the
test conditions, the results are almost valueless.
It's far too much like work. :)
So no, while I have a regular group of teens that play (1-2/month), and as
much as I'd love to have a hand in it, they are neither aggressively
rule-questioning, nor am I interested in dissecting our gaming sessions and
turning them into my job. :)
So good luck! The point of this post is to those on the list who may have
volunteered to playtest without really understanding what that really means.
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Lawrence Whitaker <
lawrence.whitaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> What I constantly find is that the eagerness to volunteer for playtesting
> often doesn't translate into action. Its a lot more work than people
> imagine, and some people think its simply a chance to either introduce their
> own house rules or use it as a platform to negatively criticise without
> doing any, um, actual play testing. Whilst, of course, hoping to get their
> name in the credits, bragging rights and a free book.
> What we're looking for are people with an active track record of taking the
> rules, being objective about them, stress-testing them, and providing
> constructive feedback. This means that the long list we have for RQ6 is
> going to be whittled down to a short list, and the short list will be given
> a very detailed brief on how we need things done.
> On 5 August 2011 09:00, <lev at rpgreview.net> wrote:
>> > One might hope that means there's a market, or that RQ'ers are just such
>> > starving, stingy bastards that they'll leap at the chance to do "work"
>> > it
>> > means getting free game stuff.
>> I sure don't remember getting any free game stuff from MRQ, despite a
>> small mountain of text and many sessions of playtesting...
>> (Did like how most of my criticisms were fixed in MRQII however)
>> Now, Deluxe BRP OTOH...
>> Runequest mailing list
>> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel
> And the next its rolling over me...
> Rush - 'Far Cry'
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Runequest