- May 25, 2005
- Reaction score
- Teutoburger Wald
No, I do not know that. I do not track the players who playtest for various groups. And you are sure that's all there were, and they all left?You know their playtesting crew was Dave Lamb, PJ Norton and their crew, right? This is not exactly top secret information.
Don't worry. Likely that all the CH playtesters will see this and announce themselves in support. You'd expect a few of them to be on GS right?No, I do not know that. I do not track the players who playtest for various groups. And you are sure that's all there were, and they all left?
If you were a CH playtester, would you admit it? -- jim
BFP and LFT are the two TPP that I prefer, with a nod going to LC. The first two rarely in memory have released more than two products in a given year. LC is always working on something but their releases do take time.So I am curious. Imagine an "average" Third Party Publisher in terms of size and, perhaps more importantly, number of associates of that TPP who are willing to playtest for it.
What rate of publication for that publisher would make you start to wonder if its goals were beginning to outstrip its realistic ability to fully playtest and develop its products?
Would more than one product per year start having you a bit concerned? (that is when I personally tend to start having doubts)
More than two products a year?
Do you think a TPP can actually release three fully developed and playtested products per year?
Do you trust that a TPP that released any number of products per year was fully playtesting and developing them beforehand?
Have you ever thought of any past TPP, "Man, they are releasing too many products too fast for them to really have fully playtested them"?
For clarity and for purposes of this discussion, let's describe a "product" as basically equivalent a scenario pack or scenario map/pack with at least 6 scenarios, a HASL-like product, or a number of newsletters during the course of a year that have a total of at least 8 scenarios in them. Let's not worry about very small products, like equivalents to MMP's "bonus packs."
I'll have what he's on.some of us have been found lying on their backs beneath a sheet of thick white and blue cardboard having lost their marbles until they thought they'd seen a pair of dice clattering by showing a 1,2 upon which the cardboard vanished all of a sudden and they stood upright scratching themselves what the heck had just hit them.
Where did I say that?
I would just add in other threads Mark has stated a scenario needs to be playtested at least 30 times to work out all the bugs. That seems pretty high to me unless you keep having major revisions. So by Mark’s math, you can see how much time it takes just to put six scenarios together and thus his inference on a group putting out more than one pack a year.
I think you were closer here than you realize, Xenovin. Mark's actual words from his book are:Mark - my apology as I was not able to find any such quote by you. I did find in your DM blog your discussion on playtesting in "Making Sausages" (2010) where you says there is no magic number but you reference 10-12 playtestings as typical (maybe less and maybe some more).
So in effect, he's saying it might take 36 playtests to work out 100% of the bugs. This is from page 50 of Scenario Designers Guide. So, yes, he did say what you suggested he said - but it was in his book, not his blog.So playtest you must. How much? That's difficult to answer...Scenarios should be playtested until they seem ready. But keep in mind that there is a law of diminishing returns. One can never know everything there is to know about a scenario. Playtesting a scenario eight times may reveal 95% of the problems in the scenario. Playtesting it eight more times may reveal 4% more. It may take twenty more playtests to get that last 1% and most designers don't have that luxury.
Thanks for the apology. I knew I had never said any such thing, because I don't believe that. I've never had one of my own scenarios playtested 30 times, much less had that expectation for others.Mark - my apology as I was not able to find any such quote by you. I did find in your DM blog your discussion on playtesting in "Making Sausages" (2010) where you says there is no magic number but you reference 10-12 playtestings as typical (maybe less and maybe some more).
Going to the last turn is effectively as good a balance as a scenario can achieve.The first is... "Is the scenario FUN?"
the second is ... "Did it go to the last turn?"
I don't agree at all. Balance is "does each side have a reasonable chance of winning assuming all other things are equal". I know that can involve a lot of judgement calls -- and a bunch of experienced players might all make different calls. 99% of the time it boils down to an informed guess on the part of the designer. More importantly perhaps, "balance" in no way implies "fun".Going to the last turn is effectively as good a balance as a scenario can achieve.