Here is a proposal

[far-trader]

There's more to it than just quality of writing. Name recognition goes a long way...

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.)

Ah, that's clearer. Sensible enough to a point too. I can understand name recognition as a selling point and the value of it to a publisher. I still think I'd pay and hire based more on product though. Name might influence my objectivity a bit but I'd hope not. If (not saying such) Marc Miller turned in marginal or low quality work I don't think I want it anymore than marginal work from some nobody just for having his name on it, but I'm sure there'd be people would would buy it just for the name on it. At least if it was Traveller material. I'm not sure the name would carry much value if it was for say D&D or CofC even if it was excellent stuff. He'd be a bit of an unknown is such genres and probably treated skeptically until established.

Again, I'm not telling you how to run your business, just offering an opinion. And I thank you for the clarifications.

 

[far-trader]

I'm gonna have to upgrade ty to my good list if he keeps speaking my mind here more calmly, rationally, and clearer than I'd probably do, and saving me a timeout in the bargain.

 

[tbeard1999]

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.

But see, in a world of limited resources (i.e., time), an activity like playtesting must compete with alternative uses of that time. Speaking for myself, I have plenty on my plate and see no reason to allow myself to be badgered into a playtest...

 

[tbeard1999]

I'm gonna have to upgrade ty to my good list if he keeps speaking my mind here more calmly, rationally, and clearer than I'd probably do, and saving me a timeout in the bargain.

Well, stranger things have happened. Just not very often

The irony is that I don't give a tinker's damn about the Aslan.

I just object to the idea that a game critic is somehow obligated to either fix the game or participate in playtesting. And in particular, I object to the notion that an unwillingness to do this somehow renders a criticism invalid.

It's ridiculous...ridiculous, I say.

I also know how hard it is to get a few contiguous hours for gaming and I strongly object to badgering someone who refuses to spend his time in a playtest.

 

[drh]

But see, in a world of limited resources (i.e., time), an activity like playtesting must compete with alternative uses of that time. Speaking for myself, I have plenty on my plate and see no reason to allow myself to be badgered into a playtest...

If time was the issue then why not say that, instead of coming up with nonsensical excuses about how "it's not a customer's job to help fix flawed products"?

 

[tbeard1999]

If time was the issue then why not say that, instead of coming up with nonsensical excuses about how "it's not a customer's job to help fix flawed products"?

Uh, because it is NOT a customer's job to help fix flawed products.

I really can't see how this is such a problematic concept for you.

 

[dmccoy1693]

I still think I'd pay and hire based more on product though.

Oh that is definitely the preference. If I had two writers infront of me that both worked for me before: one did a shoddy job of writing but had alot of name recognition and the other did an excellent job of writing but had no name recognition, that first writer's product would have had to really sell well for me to hire him over the unknown. I can help build the writer's name right along with teasing the product. But if I'm to busy editting a poorly written draft to properly teas something, I'm going to have less time to let people know the goodness within.

But until I see their work, I can't make that baseline comparison. I haven't been around long enough to do that yet.

EDIT: I do however do that currently with art. For as short as my products are, they have ALOT of art (on a page by page basis). There are artists I already gave a break to that I will be paying them again (at a higher rate) and there are artists I will not be hiring again.

And glad I can help you see this side of the publishing world.

 

[drh]

I just object to the idea that a game critic is somehow obligated to either fix the game or participate in playtesting. And in particular, I object to the notion that an unwillingness to do this somehow renders a criticism invalid.

Here's another analogy you'll undoubtedly fail to comprehend. It's like being a revolutionary who's offered a place in a legitimate government, where he can be part of a legal process to address the issues he's spent his time fighting about. If he becomes part of that process, then he's part of the solution. If he rejects it and stays outside and continues to fight and possibly kill people, then he's part of the problem and frankly deserves to be crushed.

Or maybe it's like being hungry and batting away food that's offered to you. Well, if that's how you're going to be then shut up and starve, and stop complaining about it given that you had an opportunity to make your hunger go away.

If all that a person is doing is endlessly criticizing even after they've been given a chance to be part of the solution, then they're nothing more than a thorn in the publisher's side and they instantly lose any sympathy for their stance. All they have become is a loud, noisy, persistent problem that is not interested in offering any real, constructive assistance. But if they apply for the playtests and work on the issues that they believe in from the inside, then they can make a real, useful difference to the final product. They can have the satisfaction of knowing that their knowledge was put to good, constructive use, and that they have helped make a product that more people can be happy with.

It's that simple.

 

[drh]

Uh, because it is NOT a customer's job to help fix flawed products.

I really can't see how this is such a problematic concept for you.

You can't really be that dense, can you? o: o:

IT'S NOT A FLAWED PRODUCT THAT YOU'RE FIXING! It's a draft! A work in progress! It's not even finalized!

You seem to be spending a lot of time "fixing a flawed product" here by criticizing books after they have been published. Being published is what makes it a "product". If you spent your time "fixing" it before it was published, during the playtest stage, then you're helping them to get things straight during the draft/editing phase, before it's a final product.

Honestly, why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

 

[tbeard1999]

You can't really be that dense, can you? o: o:

IT'S NOT A FLAWED PRODUCT THAT YOU'RE FIXING! It's a draft! A work in progress! It's not even finalized!

<yawn>

I was answering your question.

But neither is it a customer's job to work on the draft of a product.

Get it now?

 

[tbeard1999]

Here's another analogy you'll undoubtedly fail to comprehend...

The problem isn't comprehension. The problem is that this is a ridiculous and deeply flawed analogy (as well as almost childishly simplistic and overwrought).

Declining to be a playtester = revolutionary holdout?

You've GOT to be kidding me...

 

[aramis]

DrH:

A lot of potential playtesters have been exposed to MongooseFordy's and MongooseMatt's wit, both here and on mongoose. My potential players, seeing their tone in the past, got a strong sense that playtesting would be a waste of time, as it would be ignored anyway; I'd rather actually playtest, rather than simply canon-check.

I know Gar read my playtest reports for main book, because he asked for additional feedback on a couple items in each of them, and even for contributions. But the overall result? It's not bad, but it fell flat for my group. Some parts are great (T&C is different that what I sent, but I can see the influence of what he asked me to send on what came out, and it's excellent); others are not so good.

Case in point: Deleting Power Points rather than simply fixing the cost for drives is one of those "ignore the playtesters" kind of moments... the apparent general reaction was "great idea, poor details in the implementation." But the official reaction seems to have been "They hate it, pull it" rather than actually reading for content. That decision has had several unrealistic repercussions, as well; a snowball effect. For example, a 100 Ton hull with PP C can mount up to a double fusion turret... but a 600 ton hull with the same PP C can't mount any fusion weapons. IIRC, I pointed that out when the "fix" was announced.

 

[drh]

You've GOT to be kidding me...

No, I'm not. You seem more intent on focussing on the details of the analogy rather than the analogy itself, which is why you continue to miss the point. You're not interested in understanding a word I'm saying, all you're trying to do is make yourself look good given the circumstances and trying to convince people that I'm the one who needs to be criticized here.

Whatever. Your actions speak for themselves.

 

[tbeard1999]

No, I'm not. You seem more intent on focussing on the details of the analogy rather than the analogy itself, which is why you continue to miss the point.

Whatever. Your actions speak for themselves.

Out of curiousity (he said with a sense of dread and exhaustion), just how have YOU stepped up and helped Mongoose out?

 

[drh]

Get it now?

There's nothing to get. You're sticking to your guns on a fallacy, and you're flatly refusing to comprehend what I'm saying. Given that you can't understand plain english, we're done here.

 

[tbeard1999]

There's nothing to get. You're sticking to your guns on a fallacy, and you're flatly refusing to comprehend what I'm saying. Given that you can't understand plain english, we're done here.

Well...bye.

 

[CosmicGamer]

I volunteered to play test a while back but with Mongooses' super fast pace, I couldn't even get all the information fully read let alone get a play test group together in time to give them any feedback.

I would suggest if you are serious about play testing, you have lots of free time and friends with free time too so that you can have schedules that alow getting together for a game in short notice.

 

[Ishmael]

my opinion...

Unless you're working for a publisher, noone is OBLIGATED to do anything...in rpg's, noone is obligated to even use the rules as printed.

Volunteer Playtesters....
One may choose to 'playtest' if they desire, but they are not obligated to 'fix' the game.
As I understand it, playtesters test... not play.
Feedback such as "This part sux" is worthless and wastes the designer's time.
Feedback such as "this part doesn't work, because "blah blah blah" is better.
Feedback might include suggested fixes, but the designer is not obligated to use them.
Useful feedback is less likely than non-useful feedback.
Playtesters do not fix anything even though they may help find problems that might otherwise be missed.
Game designers fix problems in games they design.
Game designers are not obligated to use any feedback even though it might be better if they did. Playtesters must realize that their feedback may or may not be used.
Game designers take full responsibility for their own creations.

To be honest, I think a central place where 'bug reports' can be filed with a system along the lines of bugzilla, for example, but tuned to written games instead of software may prove useful. In the end, I think the number of 'useful' contributors would be small.

Variants or "mods" fall outside this

my $0.02
take it or leave it

 

[Supplement Four]

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.

This is going to sound mean, but I don't intend it that way at all.

If I liked what Mongoose was doing with Traveller, I'd buy up everything they put out. Money and free materials aren't the question.

I don't like, at all, how they're treating Traveller. And, so, I am completely ignoring the edition.

I really don't want to put my free time into something I dislike this much.

 

[rust]

Besides, houseruling around the problems of the published version takes much
less time and effort than playtesting the draft ...