| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm wondering about playtesting. Do you guys have basic builds of all the Paizo classes and base your classes or options off of those?
Can I get any insight into the playtesting?
|
I'm wondering about playtesting. Do you guys have basic builds of all the Paizo classes and base your classes or options off of those?
Can I get any insight into the playtesting?
I have levels of playtesting I use for Super Genius Games products.
First I often run fights on my own, using new rules in a nearly-finished product vs. a fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard party, playing both sides. I first ran into this method when I worked for WotC, where it was called "The Hatfields vs. the McCoys." It's a great place to start.
Second, I have a few game groups who get access to drafts of everything I write. They run playtests, generally with a GM using new material against the PCs, but sometimes with PCs taking new options and seeing how they work. That later is especially useful for checking the long-term viability of PC options in a campaign. About half these groups use only Pathfinder core products, and the rest have some set of additional books and 3pp (SGG included, obviously) that they use.
Finally, I run two playtest campaigns. These are games where the players know I'm often making chocies for playtest reasons rather than story, and where every published Paizo and SGG game product is available for NPCs and PCs alike. This is also often where I get ideas, and some things are playtested here before I actually decide to put them in a manuscript.
I also take feedback from my proofreader, editor, partners, awesome gamer-chick wife, and our interns. Sometimes I run an idea by some other friends and fellow designers, though that's much less common.
I'm wondering about playtesting. Do you guys have basic builds of all the Paizo classes and base your classes or options off of those?
Can I get any insight into the playtesting?
I have levels of playtesting I use for Super Genius Games products.
First I often run fights on my own, using new rules in a nearly-finished product vs. a fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard party, playing both sides. I first ran into this method when I worked for WotC, where it was called "The Hatfields vs. the McCoys." It's a great place to start.
Second, I have a few game groups who get access to drafts of everything I write. They run playtests, generally with a GM using new material against the PCs, but sometimes with PCs taking new options and seeing how they work. That later is especially useful for checking the long-term viability of PC options in a campaign. About half these groups use only Pathfinder core products, and the rest have some set of additional books and 3pp (SGG included, obviously) that they use.
Finally, I run two playtest campaigns. These are games where the players know I'm often making chocies for playtest reasons rather than story, and where every published Paizo and SGG game product is available for NPCs and PCs alike. This is also often where I get ideas, and some things are playtested here before I actually decide to put them in a manuscript.
I also take feedback from my proofreader, editor, partners, awesome gamer-chick wife, and our interns. Sometimes I run an idea by some other friends and fellow designers, though that's much less common.
That's basically what we're doing. Subtle differences but the ideas the same
...stuff about playtesting...That's basically what we're doing. Subtle differences but the ideas the same
Ditto for 4 Winds Fantasy Gaming.
Depends. Often we do it in house. For instance, worried about the deadliness of the final encounter in the mini-adventure Jason and I wrote, he ran several parties of our pregens through the encounters. The battles were epic and great, and worked as intended.
One other way is the Con. Say, for instance, PaizoCon. Perhaps Jason or I might be convinced to run an impromptu game late night at the con, maybe even using some of the pregens from our pregen product. Hmm, you never know...
Jason, what do you think?
For Streets of Zobeck, we posted material for patrons to review and comment, then ran multiple playtest groups (In fact, I just realized I forgot to credit my own! >:/ *facepalm* ) and then review the material again post-playtest. I've also done a "Hatfield vs. McCoy" method, or an initial "Strawman" method, where you presume everything hits with average damage, and consider likely responses, but that's the least preferred method. If something was particularly troublesome, we playtest it again-- that's pretty much been the standard process at Open Design since Empire of the Ghouls. For Halls of the Mountain King, I ran about six, maybe seven playtest sessions of different portions at Gencon 2009. The fact that the material is provided to patrons along the way means there are effectively dozens of eyes on the material before it leaves the gate.
For material I've worked on for Atlas games and Ars Magica, we have an initial review by the line editor (and any other project members, if there are such) followed by a first round of playtest, a second review, possibly a second round of playtest. I've never seen something have less than five different playtest reports and it shows.
-Ben.
Interesting! Thanks for the insight, all.
Owen is too awesome not to say Ditto, though we also ad patrons because we have patronage projects.
Besides designing from play experiences with my home game, I also use everything I design in my home game against my players at some point and I always learn something as they are are a bunch of min-maxing munchkins. You can quickly tell what is broken when they want it badly :)
Good playtests groups that play often, and give workable feedback are gold, Solid gold!
At PaizoCon this past weekend, we ran our first playtest of an adventure we'll be releasing next year.
Any other musings on the subject?
Any other musings on the subject?
Our first playtest is running through tactical scenarios and setting up random encounters to see how they fit. We do a lot of dueling between classes and parties.
Then I hand things over to the optimizer twins. They break everything in RAW form. Some abilities we leave in because it's situational, some we tweak, others we remove completely.
The rest of playtest is being done by the several hundreds of you that enjoy tinkering with works in progress.
We want to know what works, what doesn't. At the rate we're going, we might be testing and tinkering for another 6 months. But it gives us time to work out all the kinks.
I just hope we can strike that sweet spot between fun and balance and still adhere to the Pathfinder vision.
Raging Swan Press
|
Any other musings on the subject?
At Raging Swan, the amount of playtesting a product goes through depends on the kind of product it is. For example, Retribution and Road of the Dead each had two playtest groups and went through two drafts. Other projects, like the GM's Resource line, don't get playtesting unless it really and obviously needs it.
Playtesting has been a great help to me. The first draft of Retribution was a bloodbath - I am eternally grateful to my long-suffering playtest groups who helped me tone it down allowing the PCs to concentrate on the story more.