Randy Buehler wrote:
While we’re talking about the magazines, I can’t resist the urge to tease some October content as well. One of the coolest things R&D is doing with Dragon is to use it for playtesting. They already did this once with the artificer -- it’s a class that won’t actually be published until the Eberron campaign setting books are released next year, but R&D showed off the current draft of the rules that is being actively developed in house in order to solicit feedback. The idea is to let you guys participate in playtesting. Well, next month we’re planning to do this again, and this time it’ll be the barbarian class from the upcoming Player’s Handbook 2 that gets the full treatment. R&D is actively working on this book right now, and the version of the barbarian that ultimately gets published probably won’t be the same one as we show off in Dragon, but that’s a good thing. With feedback coming from a horde of external playtesters, we’re hoping to make it even better.
October will also see the Domains of Dread return to D&D, with the long-time Ravenloft concept being folded into the core now. Meanwhile we’ll also be trying out a new rules concept that allows you to multiclass into classes that don’t really exist, like gladiator. I should probably stop now before R&D gets forbidden from feeding me previews.
As always, please do hop onto the forums if you have a question you want me to answer or a comment you want me to see.
Randy Buehler
Vice President of Digital Gaming
Wizards of the Coast
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'm a bit more cynical,
There seems to be a steep learning curve on the APs, and I fear them touching Ravenloft. (Good thing I've the Whitewolf stuff and the Kargetane stuff)
If it is actually learning from their mistakes, and their compeditors, then more power to them. The 4.x fans win.
If it is more of a 'look, we do the things the cool kids do to!' Then they're going to shoot themselves in the foot.
Why is it I see this as an Altel comerical in reverse, with Paizo, Mongoose, et. al. as Brad, and WOTC as the otehr carriers' guys.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Why is it I see this as an Altel comerical in reverse, with Paizo, Mongoose, et. al. as Brad, and WOTC as the otehr carriers' guys.
It's Chad, mate. How am I sure? Because I have seen those commercials so very often that they're now burnt into my head. Shudder.
|
Ummm . . .
First, you will at some point in time have to pay WotC to playtest their material.
Let me repeat that:
When WotC finally gets their act together with the DDI, their plan is to charge for the e-zines. That means you will have to pay them for the privilege of editing, reviewing, and playtesting their material.
Let me sum up:
Second, unless they seriously get their act together, putting out material for review five months before its publication date is a waste of effort. At best they might get some editing feedback. For actual playtest purposes though, expecting people to use the material for the barbarian through multiple levels of play during the time between an October preview posting date and a March release date is a pipe dream. With a minimal three month lead time for the printer, that means all of two months for the paytesters to read, use, and comment on the material, and for the designers to read the feedback, make adjustments, and test the adjustments.
That is one impossible thing I am not inclined to believe before breakfast.
So to compare and contrast:
1. Pay for the material vs. free PDF.
2. 5 months before release vs. 16 months before release.
3. Painfully distended schadenfreude gizzard vs. empty wallet.
|
|
Adventure paths aren't really that original an idea. A lot of people's personal campaigns have run that way since the first RPGs were published. I know I was doing something similar in 1985, and I don't think it was particularly original with me. As for published ones, the earliest I can think of would be the Grand Tour series from DGPs Traveller Digest.
T1-4, A1-4, GDQ1-7 compilations in 1986 and 1987.
What years were the others?|
|
If that was all that you were paying for then I would agree with you but the fact is you get a whole lot more for your money than just the playtest content.
If you buy just the web content package, the "whole lot more" is a couple of "bonus" tools and the compendium.
The bonus tools are, by their name, a "bonus", and not really worth considering as something paid for.The compendium is nice - if you are constantly online.
So the whole playtest concept still relies on the fact that you are actively paying WotC to playtest and copyedit their material for them.
|
If that was all that you were paying for then I would agree with you but the fact is you get a whole lot more for your money than just the playtest content.If you buy just the web content package, the "whole lot more" is a couple of "bonus" tools and the compendium.
The bonus tools are, by their name, a "bonus", and not really worth considering as something paid for.
The compendium is nice - if you are constantly online.So the whole playtest concept still relies on the fact that you are actively paying WotC to playtest and copyedit their material for them.
No.
Their online content is 95% stuff that isn't playtest material.
|
|
"Wotc sucks. You know it, I know it, and the American people know it.
-Bob Dole-
"What they 'autta do 'bout the DDI 'thang, is just look under the hood 'n fix it. Its also the giant sucking sound. Get 'er done or git outta the bizness."
-Ross Perot-
"Ask not what wotc will do... look at what PAIZO is already doing!"
-John F. Kennedy-
"Read my lips... A thousand points of lights campaign seems incoherent to me."
-George H. W. Bush-
"I feel your pain. Good thing I have 400 hit points."
-Bill Clinton-
"There is no comparison between PAIZO and wotc, between PAIZO's open playtest and this new wotc playtest, except, perhaps, day vs. night, light versus darkness, openness versus cost, transparency vs. ivory-tower-design. Wotc has lost their way, and does not compare to the genuine open playtest PAIZO is engaged in for the betterment of our game, for the benefit of our community."
-Pax Veritas-
|
|
No.
Their online content is 95% stuff that isn't playtest material.
That depends on how many "playtest" articles they post.
That online content also includes the adventure path without a summary.And no matter what, it still means that if you want to playtest material, you must be paying them to do so. If you want to start parsing that to irrelevance, I will just point out that some of the online content you are paying for is not of suitable quality to be published, and when it is you will have to pay for the final version anyway.
|
|
The Dragonlance series (started in 1984) would be one of the earliest paths I can identify.
Feh.
I invoke Grognard Memory and refuse to believe the Greyhawk super-adventures were not first. The individual adventures, except for most of T1-4, were. Therefore the entire concept can be seized by Greyhawk.:D
|
That announcement has me excited. I really dig the idea of multi-class feats for classes that don't exist.
I didn't grok that the first read through and thought it was delicious sarcasm. "Feats for classes that don't exist?" :)
But actually, it does sound pretty neat. Ideally, concepts like the Gladiator or Swashbuckler or Myrmidon or Samurai, would be nothing more than subtle tweaks to a much more open and flexible Fighter class, not classes (or, heaven forfend, Prestige Classes) of their own.
|
|
No.
Their online content is 95% stuff that isn't playtest material.
That depends on how many "playtest" articles they post.
That online content also includes the adventure path without a summary.And no matter what, it still means that if you want to playtest material, you must be paying them to do so. If you want to start parsing that to irrelevance, I will just point out that some of the online content you are paying for is not of suitable quality to be published, and when it is you will have to pay for the final version anyway.
Well, not having the summary does not bother me. How many LG mod series had summaries? Zero. I can live with it.
If one of the perks I get from paying for content is access to playtest material then I would say I am getting something cool for my money. Again, it simply does not bother me.
Oh, and as to your "depends" point above - there is currently one playtest article and dozens and dozens that are not.
Of all the things to get your knickers in a twist over, this is not one of them.
Let me sum up:
THEY WANT YOU TO PAY TO PLAYTEST FOR THEM!
This is different then what we have always seen from Dragon Magazine how?
I mean besides telling us point blank that this is part of the purpose and eliciting feed back on the process.
|
|
Well, not having the summary does not bother me. How many LG mod series had summaries? Zero. I can live with it.
This is not LG.
Oh, and as to your "depends" point above - there is currently one playtest article and dozens and dozens that are not.
There are currently two playtest articles, warforged and artificers, out of 23 Dragon articles. (Not columns.)
There are an additional 11 adventures and 3 setting conversions in Dungeon.Those are from the "full" e-zines in the compiled e-zines in the format they intend to charge for.
Of all the things to get your knickers in a twist over, this is not one of them.
Ah, a lack of civility.
I will take that as your acknowledgment that I have identified a significant issue that other people will feel reduces the value of the product.|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
.
I invoke Grognard Memory and refuse to believe the Greyhawk super-adventures were not first. The individual adventures, except for most of T1-4, were. Therefore the entire concept can be seized by Greyhawk.
:D
Heh. I do think the original GDQs (and damn are those old!) are at the heart of the campaign arc idea, which is really all an adventure path is :) GO TEAM GREYHAWK!
Why is it I see this as an Altel comerical in reverse, with Paizo, Mongoose, et. al. as Brad, and WOTC as the otehr carriers' guys.It's Chad, mate. How am I sure? Because I have seen those commercials so very often that they're now burnt into my head. Shudder.
You're still a ding dong.
|
|
This is different then what we have always seen from Dragon Magazine how?
I mean besides telling us point blank that this is part of the purpose and eliciting feed back on the process.
The magazine content of the past never pretended to function as a playtest because it never presented an entire product.
Right, that is another concept being overlooked.The barbarian is one of what, six new classes appearing in the PHB II? That is the only one being sent out for "open" playtesting.
One class in six.
And how much material from the other books?
If people want to be excited about this they are free to.
Do not expect me to look at this for anything more than it is.
It is not a playtest.
It is material that must be paid for.
Comparing and contrasting (you know, the title of the thread), one is an open playtest and the other is something completely different.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I remembered when I paid to join the RPGA to get to playtest 3e Realms.
It was worth it back then too, and I wasn't at all bothered by the fact that I didn't make any use out of any of the other 'benefits' that came from being an RPGA member. I wanted to playtest 3e, and I was willing to pay to have early access to materials and have my voice heard.
I still am.
Molehill, mountain. Mountain, molehill.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Crosswired,
I think the proof of the pudding will be in the tasting on the playtest front.
One of the things that has be excited about the Pathfinder RPG playtest is the ability to particpate, true.
But another perk is that I get to see it evolve. That is my biggest 'draw' to PFRPG.
My curiosity about the WotC playtest is it's a component, not the whole pie. And we'll see how both companies react to feedback. If D&D is going to let their DDI subscribers playtest goodies as a perk of subscribing, and if their input is taken seriously. If Jason has something in the beta, and everyone says "you're smoking something Jason" He can remove tweak it and get input on how it affects the game as a whole. He may not agree with the vocal consensus *cough*concentration*cough* but he can at least draw on a bigger pool of testers who see the whole picture.
Giving (for example) the Barbarian a controller power may not be unbalancing or disaterous in isolation. But then when the PHB II comes out and someone says 'Barbarian X with talent Y makes class Z obsolete' that could well be an unintended consequence of the barbarian power change.
I do hope it means WotC is lightening up on its restrictions.
The magazine content of the past never pretended to function as a playtest because it never presented an entire product.
Right, that is another concept being overlooked.
The barbarian is one of what, six new classes appearing in the PHB II? That is the only one being sent out for "open" playtesting.
One class in six.
And how much material from the other books?
Well I agree that this is a problem. Hopefully as time goes on a much larger chunk of the content of new books will be stuff we pay for to play test.
If it improves the final product I'm all for it.
|
|
Well, not having the summary does not bother me. How many LG mod series had summaries? Zero. I can live with it.This is not LG.
True - it is running a series of episodic adventures with an over arching plot ... oh wait, that is LG.
There are currently two playtest articles, warforged and artificers, out of 23 Dragon articles. (Not columns.)
There are an additional 11 adventures and 3 setting conversions in Dungeon.
Those are from the "full" e-zines in the compiled e-zines in the format they intend to charge for.
The warforged article is not characterized as a playtest - the artificer article is.
Of all the things to get your knickers in a twist over, this is not one of them.Ah, a lack of civility.
I will take that as your acknowledgment that I have identified a significant issue that other people will feel reduces the value of the product.
Huh? How is saying that this playtest thing is such a small issue compared to some of the real problems with 4e a "lack of civility"?
|
|
Playtest articles, thus far, are once every two to three month. That is one article out of... what, twelve or thirteen in each issue of Dragon? So yeah, that 95% seems about right.
More like 90%.
What was wrong was saying WotC has put out "dozens and dozens" of articles.Seriously - you find it a bad deal, you don't need to buy it. As simple as that! If others feels it is worth the price, it is their money to spend.
Oh, I very much do not intend to buy it.
I also very much intend to express my opinion of it.Yep, people will be paying them to playtest that material. Guess what? People are more than eager to do so. From what I've seen, the playtest articles (the Artificer previously, and the upcoming Barbarian) are among the most anticipated articles they are releasing.
People have also expressed their distaste for it.
And people are also interested in playtesting Pathfinder.And they aren't releasing them because they *need* the playtest reports from their customer base. Oh, it will certainly come in handy - but they are able to produce plenty of material without it. They are putting it out there because the fans want it. Because they want to get a look at classes that are still half a year or more away - and have the chance to interact with it and test it out. And, I imagine, they will be more than willing to pay for it when that option is there.
So they are engaging in deception as well.
And you still consider this a good thing?No way to tell for sure how many people will be getting the digital subscription until it is released - but thus far, many people seem to be on-board with it.
And many others are not.
They aren't simply throwing out broken and useless material as fodder for the masses - they are producing quality content that customers are extremely excited for. If you don't like it, you don't need to buy it.
Actually, given a number of the comments appearing in the WotC forums, they are throwing out poorly edited material that contradicts their own basic rules structure. Whether they are doing that as fodder for the masses I leave to you to classify it as such.
And again, I will not be buying it.And again, this thread was not about buying it, but about comparing it to the Pathfinder RPG open playtest.
It is like comparing apples to oranges. Pathfinder is Open Beta and Wizards is more like a Closed Beta as it only applies to a limited number of people (in the future atleast) and it only applies to a limited amount of content.
|
|
This is not LG.
True - it is running a series of episodic adventures with an over arching plot ... oh wait, that is LG.
No, actually that's more like Living Arcanis, what you describe is what was EXPECTED of LG.
It did not quite turn out like this, especially for the over arching plot. Unless I missed something, and someone wants to elaborate as i'd be curious to know.
|
|
Huh? How is saying that this playtest thing is such a small issue compared to some of the real problems with 4e a "lack of civility"?Then why are you getting your panties in a bunch over my comments?
Non-sequitur. You made a completely over-the-top claim followed by precision hair splitting and nit picking. I am simply point out the gratuitous use of hyperbole on your part. I assure you that my knickers are not in a twist but I do wonder why you feel the need to take the smallest perceived misstep from WotC and blow it up into a case of corporate malfeasance.
|
|
It did not quite turn out like this, especially for the over arching plot. Unless I missed something, and someone wants to elaborate as i'd be curious to know.
LG itself did not have one over arching plot but it had quite a few mod-series that did. The largest AP in LG was the plot involving Rary and the Bright Sands.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It did not quite turn out like this, especially for the over arching plot. Unless I missed something, and someone wants to elaborate as i'd be curious to know.LG itself did not have one over arching plot but it had quite a few mod-series that did. The largest AP in LG was the plot involving Rary and the Bright Sands.
[threadjack] how did that turn out? One of my friends/fellow DMs is our Greyhawk fanatic.[/threadjack]
|
|
Really? You think 1 article out of 24 is 10%? Much less the 1 article out of around 40 that is actually what we've seen thus far?
Articles are not columns.
If you want to count things like the editorial you can, but it gives a severely distored view.Um, okay. You can by all means feel free to do so. But seriously - the people who actually plan on buying this very much want these articles! Raving at them about how they are mysteriously being ripped off by giving money for products they desire... well, I'm not sure what your goal is.
My goal is comparing and contrasting the two playtest options.
You know, the thread title.I'm... not really sure how that point is relevant. Ok, yes, the thread is about comparing and contrasting - but in what way does the presence of people interested in playtesting Pathfinder somehow disprove the fact that people are also interested in the playtest articles in Dragon magazine?
It does not.
Putting up the number of people interested in the playtest articles in Dragon is a straw man. You should stop doing it.What deception? Putting the article in place is motivated by the desire to reward their customers as well as get useful feedback. Is there something wrong with satisfying customers being part of their plan?? You may well disagree with how successful they've been, but stating that this is "deception" is just absurd.
They are deceiving people about just how much of a "playtest" will be occuring with the material.
Who, precisely?
Check the WotC forums.
Anyway, the entire reason people have responded to you so forcefully is that your comparison with the Pathfinder playtest was a small part of your post.
Nonsense.
My entire post was a comparison.It just set off the "kobolds".
Compare away as you wish, but if you are going to make a claim like this, prepare to have people call you on it.
OK, you have called me on a straw man.
Very good.|
|
Non-sequitur. You made a completely over-the-top claim followed by precision hair splitting and nit picking. I am simply point out the gratuitous use of hyperbole on your part. I assure you that my knickers are not in a twist but I do wonder why you feel the need to take the smallest perceived misstep from WotC and blow it up into a case of corporate malfeasance.
I made an on-topic post and you pulled out a strawman to justify being rude.
Right.Remember that the next time you complain about people not being civil. If you cannot control yourself you should not expect others to. You are part of the problem.
Fix your panties and accept that not everyone is a "kobold" like you.
|
|
I think this playtesting is a step in the right direction.
But as already pointed out, this is only one out of 6 (?) Classes in the PHB II. Who is doing playtesting fro those apart from WoC staff?
Look at the 3.5 splatbooks and how much stuff was overpowered, underpowered or useless (e.g. the frenzied Berserker)?
I certainly hope that WoC has some groups who do playtesting besides the designers.
|
|
It did not quite turn out like this, especially for the over arching plot. Unless I missed something, and someone wants to elaborate as i'd be curious to know.LG itself did not have one over arching plot but it had quite a few mod-series that did. The largest AP in LG was the plot involving Rary and the Bright Sands.
Ah yes. I agree on this, there were some pretty good mini-series. I can remember the Tenh one for instance, some things going over the great kingdom also. Don't remember all names. There were good adventures in the lot.
But I could not feel a real continuity between adventures outside of the mini-series. You rarely see the same NPC twice. If you do by accident, what you did in the previous module does not matter ...
That's where I feel Living Arcanis did (does) better. There IS really an overarching story thread, and you can feel it pretty heavily hanging above you. kind of like an AP...
|
|
[threadjack] how did that turn out? One of my friends/fellow DMs is our Greyhawk fanatic.[/threadjack]It did not quite turn out like this, especially for the over arching plot. Unless I missed something, and someone wants to elaborate as i'd be curious to know.LG itself did not have one over arching plot but it had quite a few mod-series that did. The largest AP in LG was the plot involving Rary and the Bright Sands.
My entirely subjective answer, is that while there were some good adventures, there were a lot of fight-only modules that ultimately got very boring. Add some issues with the gaming group ...
And LA offered a more story-driven campaign, so I switched over, and lack of time did the rest.
Though I'm curious about the Rary part. After all, I have a cert listing him as my buddy (even though I did nothing for this, it was the rest of the group), and I am WANTED in Onnwal triply... only because I once lost a duel (sorry), and because my teammates did the wrong choices in another module, even though I voted against their choice.
Also lost a hand because of this guy ...
UK modules ... harsh !
|
Well, I for one have no intention of signing up for the DDI, but then the only thing I have purchased for 4e was the core books set…
Concerning this whole “who is and who is not” going to buy the DDI, I have to put my two coppers in concerning this:
Based on what I've seen on the WotC boards and ENWorld, that article is probably the most anticipated one for the digital content yet. I have seen several posts indicating that the presence of playtest content is a major part in their decision to subscribe.
Looking at those two boards for people who are not interested in what WotC has to offer is almost like looking for a Ford in the employee parking lot at GM…
My take on this whole issue, is that if people like, and want to play 4e, more power to them…
We’re all gamers first :-)
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
Oh, and as a point of clarification:
An adventure path is a published product meant to be used by individual groups, and thus customized by individual DMs. Those DMs are not expected to play the individual campaign pieces first.
An organized play product is a limited access product meant to be used by multiple groups in the same format, and thus much less customized, if at all, by individual DMs. Those DMs are expected to have a high degree of entitlement to be able to play the individual campaign pieces first.
A "living" organized play product is expected to be modified during development based on feedback results of particular adventures during the course of its play. This is in very direct contrast to an adventure path, even one stretching out over 18 adventures, which has each part written without any consideration for variation based on feedback results of previous sections.
The two are only very vaguely comparable for determining whether or not a complete campaign overview is possible.
Ummm . . .
First, you will at some point in time have to pay WotC to playtest their material.
Let me repeat that:
When WotC finally gets their act together with the DDI, their plan is to charge for the e-zines. That means you will have to pay them for the privilege of editing, reviewing, and playtesting their material.
Let me sum up:
Second, unless they seriously get their act together, putting out material for review five months before its publication date is a waste of effort. At best they might get some editing feedback. For actual playtest purposes though, expecting people to use the material for the barbarian through multiple levels of play during the time between an October preview posting date and a March release date is a pipe dream. With a minimal three month lead time for the printer, that means all of two months for the paytesters to read, use, and comment on the material, and for the designers to read the feedback, make adjustments, and test the adjustments.
That is one impossible thing I am not inclined to believe before breakfast.So to compare and contrast:
1. Pay for the material vs. free PDF.
2. 5 months before release vs. 16 months before release.
3. Painfully distended schadenfreude gizzard vs. empty wallet.
Hmmm so in reality there is no way that it can actually be a playtest then it is just a preview the kind of thing that is offered for free everywhere else but they are putting it in their magazine that people will eventually have to pay for access to. A marketing trick getting people to pay for advertising.
Charles
|
|
Hmmm so in reality there is no way that it can actually be a playtest then it is just a preview the kind of thing that is offered for free everywhere else but they are putting it in their magazine that people will eventually have to pay for access to. A marketing trick getting people to pay for advertising.
Charles
Huh? When WotC does this it is a marketing trick but when every other magazine publisher mixes content with advertising then somehow it's all ok?
|
|
Hmmm so in reality there is no way that it can actually be a playtest then it is just a preview the kind of thing that is offered for free everywhere else but they are putting it in their magazine that people will eventually have to pay for access to. A marketing trick getting people to pay for advertising.
Charles
Huh? When WotC does this it is a marketing trick but when every other magazine publisher mixes content with advertising then somehow it's all ok?
[Overblown]Surely you have realised by now that WotC are always wrong? If they're not clubbing baby seals with copies of the Players Handbook, they're burning old editions to accelerate global warming. They are more dangerous than terrorism and must be stopped.[/overblown]
I find it very sad that I have to put in fake BBCode to make it clear I as being sarcastic as what I said could have been believed to be a real viewpoint. Will both sides please knock it off? It's embarrassing!
|
|
[Overblown]Surely you have realised by now that WotC are always wrong? If they're not clubbing baby seals with copies of the Players Handbook, they're burning old editions to accelerate global warming. They are more dangerous than terrorism and must be stopped.[/overblown]
Let's not forget WotC's attempt at smurf ethnic clensing.
|
|
[Overblown]Surely you have realised by now that WotC are always wrong? If they're not clubbing baby seals with copies of the Players Handbook, they're burning old editions to accelerate global warming. They are more dangerous than terrorism and must be stopped.[/overblown]Let's not forget WotC's attempt at smurf ethnic clensing.
No. That's perfectly acceptable. Smurfs are vermin.