| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On one hand, we just didn't have alot of time to do actual playtesting.I totally get that. The playtest started later than it was supposed to, for various reasons I can't go into. But it was late, and we know it was late. And then we added round 2, because it needed a round 2. I'm sure this playtest taught Paizo several important things about running a playtest, including "don't have such a big playtest document," "get the playtest document done on time," and "plan for delays."
First of all I'd like to say thank you both to you personally and to Paizo for having "round 2". When the original play test was released I was underwhelmed by several of the new classes and despite a very busy month I tried to follow the ACG forums and participated heavily in the Warpriest debate thread (the only class I had the chance to playtest). Seeing the revised version of the classes and how they were altered in response to the class feedback was incredibly motivational and made me much, much more interested in the final product.
As for the scheduling - having the playtest in the middle of the exam and holiday craze really hurt the amount of playtesting I could actually do - most of my players were desperately cramming or heading home to celebrate Christmas. I suspect I was not alone in this.
Many of those expressing concern about the timing or the length of the playtest may be commenting on this because they didn't know that Paizo were unavoidably delayed and found "the scheduling" troubling. Knowing that Paizo didn't originally plan to have the playtest in early-mid December might have eased those concerns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some thoughts on Sean's behaviour when responding to unsupported criticism.
Some thoughts on criticism-disguised-as-feedback of the design team.
Might not be entirely relevant, but my perception of this thread is that it's getting a lot of these right now.
APG playtest Nov 13 2009 - Jan 31 2010. 3 rounds. 2.5 months for 6 classes.
UM Magus playtest Sept 20 2010 - December 20 2010. 2 Rounds. Comments were open for about 4 weeks of that time. 1 class.
UM Words of Power playtest Nov 22 2010 - Dec 6 2010. 2 weeks over a holiday. 1 sub-system.
UC playtest Jan 24 2011 - April 1 2011. 2 Rounds. About 5 weeks of open comments. 3 classes.
ARG playtest Oct 4 2011 - Oct 17 2011. 1 Round. 2 weeks. 1 sub-system.
MA playtest Nov 14 2012 - ???? (Somewhere between Dec 21 2012 and Mar 25 2013)
Those weren't all gencon releases were they? I suspect that would be relevant.
The playtest schedules of the past would indicate that it is possible to have them at varying times. That may no longer be true, but at some point in the past planning made it possible.Or things are different now, or theres now a much bigger product release schedule, or there were problems back then that have been resolved or...any number of alternatives beyond planning. Maybe some disaster happened behind the scenes with this one and the holidays was the only time it could be run.
The fact is, paizo have said it wasnt possible to avoid the timing issues with this playtest and they also have access to the past schedules.
Maybe they're wrong, or maybe not. Who's in the best position to tell?
One of the gencon releases didn't wrap play testing until April... But I also seem to recall hearing that their printer told them they would no longer be bumping other runs for them.
The point I think most are trying to make here is that, perhaps, given the exact set of circumstances that existed this year (printing company requirements, # of freelancers, # of staffers, illnesses, delays, rewrites...) that it caused the playtest to come out late. I totally believe and accept that.
What I think most of us (particularly those of us with project management experience) are finding difficult to believe is that given a target window of project completion of 50 weeks that 10-25% of that project (the part representing the playtest) can't be manipulated to completion intentionally in 47 week window.
