Here is a proposal

[kafka47]

MongooseMatt after all the fire that the Aslan preview has caused. Would you be willing to expand your playtest circle. I could see that Bill, Hans, S4, Far Trader might be willing to look at manuscripts then you could pass these along to Rob & Don and finally to Marc. Surely, more vetting would be a good thing?

 

[far-trader]

Thanks but no.

 

[MongooseFordy]

I have already extended playtest invites to members of this forum. If anyone is interested they are free to PM me.

 

[drh]

Thanks but no.

Why not? That's what playtests are for. Fordy has even made an offer to invite people here who are so vehement in their insistence that things should be "correct" and who apparently have the encyclopedic knowledge that Mongoose supposedly lacks currently. Given your... passion for this it boggles my mind that any of you would pass up the chance to help "fix" it.

If you want to "improve" their products, then be part of the solution and put your money where your mouth is. The door is wide open. Otherwise, at least have the decency to blame yourself and not Mongoose if they get something "wrong" that you could have "fixed" beforehand if you'd only taken up the place in the playtest that was offered to you.

 

[far-trader]

Why not?

It is best that I answer this by simply saying I won't be answering this.

 

[tbeard1999]

Why not? That's what playtests are for. Fordy has even made an offer to invite people here who are so vehement in their insistence that things should be "correct" and who apparently have the encyclopedic knowledge that Mongoose supposedly lacks currently. Given your... passion for this it boggles my mind that any of you would pass up the chance to help "fix" it.

If you want to "improve" their products, then be part of the solution and put your money where your mouth is. The door is wide open. Otherwise, at least have the decency to blame yourself and not Mongoose if they get something "wrong" that you could have "fixed" beforehand if you'd only taken up the place in the playtest that was offered to you.

Again, it is patently absurd to demand that a customer fix a flawed product. If he wants to do so, fine. But the obligation to create a quality product is on the game publisher, not the consumer.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Again, it is patently absurd to demand that a customer fix a flawed product. If he wants to do so, fine. But the obligation to create a quality product is on the game publisher, not the consumer.

I don't know exactly what Mongoose offers for being a playtester, but I hear some companies give a free PDF of the product or discount to the print. By being compensated in this fashion, you'd be working for Mongoose. Aka, you'd be a contractor in some form. So you would no longer be solely a consumer. You guys keep saying that Mongoose needs to hire someone with an encyclopdiac-level knowledge of Traveller. That's what they're asking for.

 

[drh]

Again, it is patently absurd to demand that a customer fix a flawed product. If he wants to do so, fine. But the obligation to create a quality product is on the game publisher, not the consumer.

o:o:o:

You clearly don't even understand what playtests are, or who contributes to them. Do you honestly think those are all paid employees of the company who playtest things? They're not. They're just ordinary gamers with an interest in helping the company test their products (and maybe they'll get something for their trouble, maybe not) , and ultimately are no different to consumers of the product in the end.

Mongoose have offered you people a way to contribute to helping them "fix the problems" that you perceive while they're writing the book, and yet you'd apparently just rather sit there and cling so hard onto your collective nerdrage that you'd make up ridiculous excuses to worm out of actually doing something constructive. The fact that you would actively rebuff an offer that would allow you, with mininal effort, to contribute to solving the "problems" that you spend so much energy complaining about is frankly pathetic on every level. If it was just down to a lack of time or something like that then I'd be much more sympathetic, but you clearly have enough time to spend hours complaining about it online so I don't think that would be the issue here at all.

As far as I can see you're no different to the people who refuse to vote in elections and who then complain endlessly about the governments they end up with. By actively refusing to take part in the process, any complaints you have about the results are pretty much invalidated. And if that's your decision then as far as I'm concerned you've just become pure noise and no signal.

 

[drh]

I hear some companies give a free PDF of the product or discount to the print. By being compensated in this fashion, you'd be working for Mongoose. Aka, you'd be a contractor in some form. So you would no longer be solely a consumer.

No, they're just consumers. There's no real contracts involved, short of signing an NDA. The point is, they're not really anything special - they're just ordinary gamers who are interested enough to want to help the company out and maybe get something in return.

 

[dmccoy1693]

No, they're just consumers. There's no real contracts involved, short of signing an NDA. The point is, they're not really anything special - they're just ordinary gamers who are interested enough to want to help the company out and maybe get something in return.

That's basickly what I mean by saying that it's a form of contracting. They provide a service and get something in return. Even if it is something as small as getting your name printed in the book as being a playtester, it is still a form of compensation. How is it compensation? I'd pay someone more that had 0 writing credits and their name in 5 mongoose books as being a playtester than someone with 0 writing credits and 0 playtesting credits. They have an established history and I would believe that their submitted draft would be better than the new person's draft. They received a reputation from their work.

 

[far-trader]

I'd pay someone more that had 0 writing credits and their name in 5 mongoose books as being a playtester than someone with 0 writing credits and 0 playtesting credits. They have an established history and I would believe that their submitted draft would be better than the new person's draft. They received a reputation from their work.

Rather than judging them on the quality of the submitted work? It's your business of course but that sounds like a bad way to run it. What I've seen of some playtests they are largely useless in judging anything, especially something on the order of creating actual material, and only marginally useful in judging the persons qualifications as a playtester.

 

[drh]

Rather than judging them on the quality of the submitted work? It's your business of course but that sounds like a bad way to run it. What I've seen of some playtests they are largely useless in judging anything, especially something on the order of creating actual material, and only marginally useful in judging the persons qualifications as a playtester.

Stunning as this may seem, I would agree. Prospective writers should IMO be judged primarily by the quality of previous or sample work that they have produced, or by the quality of their current outline/proposal for the project. Being a good or frequent playtester generally does not give any indication of the quality of one's writing. One could be very good at finding flaws or problems, but very bad at writing prose. Though generally, good playtesters have some writing skills as they do need to clearly express the issues they find.

 

[tbeard1999]

o:o:o:

You clearly don't even understand what playtests are, or who contributes to them.

Well, I've only been a gamer for 30 years. And I'm about to launch the 3rd editiion of my miniature wargame rules. So why expect that I'd understand playtesting...

In any case, you seem to be missing my point, which is that no one has an obligation to participate as a playtester. And it's absurd to insinuate that critics of a game have either an obligation to fix the flaws they think exist or an obligation to playtest the game.

Mongoose have offered you people a way to contribute to helping them "fix the problems"...

No need to lecture me, hoss; I've taken a modest task on for Mongoose myself. But I had no obligation to do so and I think it's ridiculous to criticize someone for declining to participate in a playtest.

As far as I can see you're no different to the people who refuse to vote in elections ...And if that's your decision then as far as I'm concerned you've just become pure noise and no signal.

I doubt I'll stay awake worrying about what you think of me. I am, however, concerned that you don't understand the difference between voting in an election and buying a hobby product...

 

[tbeard1999]

I don't know exactly what Mongoose offers for being a playtester, but I hear some companies give a free PDF of the product or discount to the print. By being compensated in this fashion, you'd be working for Mongoose. Aka, you'd be a contractor in some form. So you would no longer be solely a consumer. You guys keep saying that Mongoose needs to hire someone with an encyclopdiac-level knowledge of Traveller. That's what they're asking for.

I'm all for folks helping out with playtesting if they wish. What I object to is deriding them because they decline to do so. As I keep saying, at the end of the day, it's the publisher's obligation to produce a quality product. The consumer has *no* obligation to give his time to testing the product, nor does he have any obligation to redesign a flawed product.

 

[robject]

MongooseMatt after all the fire that the Aslan preview has caused. Would you be willing to expand your playtest circle. I could see that Bill, Hans, S4, Far Trader might be willing to look at manuscripts then you could pass these along to Rob & Don and finally to Marc. Surely, more vetting would be a good thing?

I think your heart's in the right place, and I think Don was right when he said that these fellows have more knowledge of the OTU on hand than Marc does (for example). But frankly, chaos would probably ensue.

Let me offer a counter-proposal. Matt chooses who he wants to vet products, and Marc chooses who he wants to vet products, and everyone who wants to help figure out the most effective way of helping.

I would like for more grognards to join the process, but it's not my call.

I'm all for folks helping out with playtesting if they wish. What I object to is deriding them because they decline to do so. As I keep saying, at the end of the day, it's the publisher's obligation to produce a quality product. The consumer has *no* obligation to give his time to testing the product, nor does he have any obligation to redesign a flawed product.

Ty is correct, but I think this is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy as well. If we all have enough time to burn hours here on COTI, then surely there's a lot of valuable energy being lost.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Rather than judging them on the quality of the submitted work? It's your business of course but that sounds like a bad way to run it.

There's more to it than just quality of writing. Name recognition goes a long way. Say I managed to hire Miller to write the definitive guide to Foreven Hivers. It would sell much better than if I had written it. So I should pay him more than I would pay me. Regardless of the writing quality.

By that same analogy, if someone that had gotten their name in 5 books published by Mongoose as a playtester, they'd be worth more than someone with no history. I would expect them to behave more professionally, make their deadlines more reliably, and turn in something more polished. While the opposite might be true, there is no real way to measure that beforehand except with some measure of experience.

And I did mistype. I would pay them the same, but I would hire the one with 5 playtest credits before someone with nothing to their name. (But I would pay Miller more.)

 

[drh]

In any case, you seem to be missing my point, which is that no one has an obligation to participate as a playtester. And it's absurd to insinuate that critics of a game have either an obligation to fix the flaws they think exist or an obligation to playtest the game.

Ordinarily, people don't have an obligation to participate as a playtester, and I've never claimed that everyone does have that obligation. But you people who complain (or froth and seethe as the case may be) about every little omission or mistake made in a product should be damn well leaping at any opportunity offered by publishers to help "fix" the "problems" that they spend so much time complaining about. THOSE people have an obligation to put their money where their mouth is and be part of the solution. Otherwise, you're just bluster and hot air and sputtering indignation, and no balls. And as such you should be ignored.

But I had no obligation to do so and I think it's ridiculous to criticize someone for declining to participate in a playtest.

I'll criticize you as much as I please, especially given that you apparently fail to understand that it's a playtester's job to "fix the product" before it's released so that it's not a "flawed product" after it hits the shelves.

I am, however, concerned that you don't understand the difference between voting in an election and buying a hobby product...

I guess you just fail to see the similiarities then. If you have the opportunity to contribute and you deliberately reject it, then you have only yourself to blame.

 

[tbeard1999]

Ty is correct, but I think this is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy as well. If we all have enough time to burn hours here on COTI, then surely there's a lot of valuable energy being lost.

Unfortunately, it's a lot easier and quicker to fire off the occasional forum post. I can take a quick break and make a post or two, then get back to the grind. Playtesting, in my experience, generally requires serious, contiguous blocks of time, which is a rare commodity for me (and that competes with other activities).

There's also the issue of whether the playtest is designed well enough to justify the effort expended. I've seen playtests where the designers did not address basic rules questions, where critics were shouted down by fanboys and where the playtest materials were literally too incomprehensible to use. Hard for me to justify allocating hours of my life in such ventures for free. And hard to discern ahead of time whether a given playtest will be a crappy one.

 

[tbeard1999]

Ordinarily, people don't have an obligation to participate as a playtester, and I've never claimed that everyone does have that obligation. But you people who complain (or froth and seethe as the case may be) about every little omission or mistake made in a product should be damn well leaping at any opportunity offered by publishers to help "fix" the "problems" that they spend so much time complaining about. THOSE people have an obligation to put their money where their mouth is and be part of the solution. Otherwise, you're just bluster and hot air and sputtering indignation, and no balls. And as such you should be ignored.

Sorry, but it just isn't my job to do a game designer's work for him (particularly for free). I may choose to help out -- as I have done already -- but it is my choice.

A criticism of a game stands on its own. The critic's unwillingness to help fix the product or work to improve it is IRRELEVANT to the accuracy of the criticism. I just don't have the words to express how lame it is to try to excuse bad design because the critic didn't participate in a playtest. <shakes head> Embarrassing.

And it's patently ridiculous to insinuate that ANYONE has some moral or intellectual obligation to work on a game -- for FREE, no less. (Of course, it's ridiculous even if pay is offered).

A tangent, but I'd also note that some systems are so flawed that they CANNOT be fixed. Typically in such systems, changes that fix one problem introduce new problems that are at least as bad. So your entire (apparent) premise that games can always be fixed is dubious.

I'll criticize you as much as I please, especially given that you apparently fail to understand that it's a playtester's job to "fix the product" before it's released so that it's not a "flawed product" after it hits the shelves.

Okay...read this carefully so there's no misunderstanding...

NO ONE has an OBLIGATION to volunteer their time to be a playtester.

NO amount of criticism, carping, bitching or whining will create such an obligation.

Get it?

I guess you just fail to see the similiarities then. If you have the opportunity to contribute and you deliberately reject it, then you have only yourself to blame.

As noted previously, your lectures are mistargeted.

 

[drh]

There's also the issue of whether the playtest is designed well enough to justify the effort expended. I've seen playtests where the designers did not address basic rules questions, where critics were shouted down by fanboys and where the playtest materials were literally too incomprehensible to use. Hard for me to justify allocating hours of my life in such ventures for free. And hard to discern ahead of time whether a given playtest will be a crappy one.

There's nothing stopping you or anyone from starting in a playtest and then bowing out gracefully if it's not being done in a way that you're comfortable with. There'd be plenty of other playtesters to fill the gap if you leave.