Timing/Effect and Initiative Finalized

[tbeard1999]

From Mongoose regarding what items have been finalized:

...The basic time/effect mechanic isn't going to be changing any more (although it's been slightly tweaked from 3.2 to have open-ended results instead of capped; we're currently adjusting the other figures, such as weapon damage, to reflect this). Mechanics based on this, such as the skills and combat sections, are also pretty much finalised with a few exceptions - movement in combat being one of those. If you still want to look at these sections, concentrate on amendments to the basic systems and picking up missing stuff rather than sweeping changes.

So two of the worst RPG mechanics that I've seen are gonna be combined in the new Mongoose Traveller. Great.

And the numerous valiant attempts to beat the timing/effect system into something resembling a workable system were in vain. I am unsurprised; clearly, the designer is in love with his mechanics and will brook no significant change to them. Personally, I think he should have been honest about this with the playtesters.

Just what we've been waiting for...another crappy version of Traveller with defective mechanics...<sigh>

I also note that Mongoose has declined to release the final draft of the timing/effect system to playtesters. I don't blame them; if previous versions are any indication, they will be defective and will attract some negativity. Can't have that, you know.

 

[Able Baker]

That´s a bummer.

Have you ever seen a positive playtest report online?
Like an actual play example?

I´ve only seen negative ones, but there are people who still like it. They haven´t posted public replays though.

 

[robject]

It's a shame, because it seems like such a clever mechanic. I should try it out and see what happens.

It probably is a preferred mechanic for the designer.

'Course, I've been indirectly on the receiving end of criticism for Traveller, and what seems to happen is that a core group dislike one or two key things, voice their concerns, but then get angry when nothing changes. Meanwhile, others who don't mind it so much don't speak up. So the net result is negative on the boards.

I'm not saying tbeard is fuming -- I'd be surprised if he was, he seems pretty calm -- but I think others may be. Apparently the mechanic seems to break up the flow of play, in a way that other mechanics don't (perhaps because of the turn phases created). The phases themselves seem reminiscent of CT starship combat.

 

[tbeard1999]

It's a shame, because it seems like such a clever mechanic. I should try it out and see what happens.

Yeah, that's the problem. It is a clever mechanic. It simply yields lousy results. Worse, there are a number of alternative approaches that can produce the same information without the lousy results.

And at the end of the day, cleverness is no substitute for reasonable results. IMHO of course.

It probably is a preferred mechanic for the designer.

Seems safe to assume that, given his reluctance to make any significant changes to it.

I'm not saying tbeard is fuming -- I'd be surprised if he was, he seems pretty calm -- but I think others may be.

Thanks for the compliment, but I have probably fumed at times. I see a priceless opportunity being wasted here and that bums me out.

Apparently the mechanic seems to break up the flow of play, in a way that other mechanics don't (perhaps because of the turn phases created). The phases themselves seem reminiscent of CT starship combat.

The description that I think sums up both the timing/effect and initiative systems is "needlessly fussy".

 

[Supplement Four]

I see a priceless opportunity being wasted here and that bums me out.

I'm fuming. On the inside. I'm just not that vocal about it aside from a post here and there. I learned with the ACT playtest (if you change the names of ACT and Mongoose, you're talking about the same type of playtest) that nothing will change.

I'm not sure what the playtest is all about? Maybe, it's marketing and typos.

Anyway, I'm completely disappointed in Mongoose. I was excited they were going to take on Traveller. Heck, I would have voted for them to do so, predicting the results would be G-R-E-A-T.

Sadly, they're not.

Whelp, I'll just stick with my first love, Classic Traveller.

(And, another old grognard doesn't buy MGT...)

 

[robject]

OK. Well, I'll tell you then, the mechanic was an early preference, and it was known to be a calculated risk to put in the rules. In other words, the authors are out to make something they like, and some of us aren't going to be happy about that, and they knew it.

Perhaps everyone fortunate enough to see a game develop sees this happen, again and again.

I've seen Marc called names on this forum, mainly for his immobility regarding what he wants. I'm starting to suspect that that's just the way game development goes, and no matter how badly your game is going awry, if you're not catching crap from someone, then you've got no chance at all, and noone ever cared about stuff you do.

 

[robject]

I'm fuming. On the inside. I'm just not that vocal about it aside from a post here and there. I learned with the ACT playtest (if you change the names of ACT and Mongoose, you're talking about the same type of playtest) that nothing will change.

I don't think I've seen you be rude on this forum, ever, either. So you must keep it all bottled up, or take it out on NPC corsairs in the outsystem. "This one's name is TBeard! Blamblamblamblam!!!"

So, I want to hear mooore about nothing changing in re: ACT playtest. I've heard naught but kudos about ACT, nary a snivel indeed. So what gives?

 

[tbeard1999]

OK. Well, I'll tell you then, the mechanic was an early preference, and it was known to be a calculated risk to put in the rules. In other words, the authors are out to make something they like, and some of us aren't going to be happy about that, and they knew it.

You mean they actually knew about the flaws and absurdities in that system and then went ahead anyway? Huh. I don't know whether I find their arrogance or their idiocy to be most offensive, if what you say is true.

"Hey Bob, got a great idea. Let's talk our boss into paying serious money for a Traveller license, then produce a version with mechanics that we know are defective and that will probably annoy most fans. That'll score us promotions for sure!"

I don't whether to despise them or pity them...

 

[Gallowglacht]

Yeah, they were singing its praises long before the playtest files came out. In the SST section they said watch this space, something awesome coming. Yay I thought the Fleet and Skinnies books. No even better they said. We're killing off SST and remaking Traveller, it'll be awesome and we never liked SST anyway.

MGT just leaves me cold. A playtest left me bored and disapointed and I see the logic of all the flaws your analysis pointed out.

 

[tbeard1999]

Yeah, they were singing its praises long before the playtest files came out.

Well, it appears I had them all wrong. I thought that they were just negligent and sloppy. I had no idea that someone could actually *play* that system for an extended amount of time without recognizing its defects...

The good news is that any residual guilt I might have had for criticizing this kludge has evaporated. Whilt I do feel loyalty to MWM and Traveller, I feel no obligation to spend money supporting an incompetent game design team's ego trip.

 

[Supplement Four]

So, I want to hear mooore about nothing changing in re: ACT playtest. I've heard naught but kudos about ACT, nary a snivel indeed. So what gives?

I don't want to derail the thread nor necessarily speak of ACT since its dead anyway. But, that playtest was much like the one Mongoose is throwing. Big flaws were ignored. Many fanboys of the system liked it, not unlike the MGT fanboys. The task system's got huge stat bloat. A character gets a whopping +3 DM just for having a Stat-13, and a +4 DM if you've got a Stat-15. Sheesh!

So, an average task is an 8+ throw on 2D, just like MGT and just like the UGM. But, with that stat bloat, if you've got Skill-1 and Stat-13, you're freakin' +4 on the dice: Meaning you're throwing Easy and Routine throws automatically, and throw an Average task on a 4+.

...That's right. You can do that with ACT with only a Skill-1. God forbid you have a Skill-2 or higher.

I pointed this out to MJD. The fanboys hissed me. And MJD said that there's nothing wrong with the task system--it's something he's used for years.

Well, I've got news for him. There's mucho problems with it.

Like MGT, ACT seemed like a set of GM's tweaks that weren't thoroughly thought out or tested vs. something a professional game designer should be publishing.

I've got a big thumb's down to ACT and MGT (for similar reasons). As for the stat-bloat issue, MGT is actually a better choice than ACT.

 

[jrmapes]

I've mentioned before that I have had my hand in the game development side of the business off and on for too many years now.

What I have learned over the years about why someone does playtests is not as cut and dried obvious as it was not too very long ago.

back in the day game writers and adventure writers, as we know, ran playtests in and out of house to do the obvious - catch problems and possibly pick up some good "free" ideas they could incorporate. There are still a handful of publishers and writers that do this but no as many.

Too many these days look at the playtest as a selling point or a scape goat. If someone comes up with something really good they can snag and incorporate then that is just bonus. But for the most part they have come to the realization that many gamers look and see IF a game was playtested before they buy it. In the 90's many companies began cranking out game material with little to no (usually no) playtesting. It showed - glaringly! So people stopped buying product.

All of a sudden companies all over the interweb started offering playtesting to the fan base. The company didn't have to pay anyone (paid playtesters) or find people (unpaid playtesters that are in the writers/designers home games) to do the deed within their time limits and get back to them in suitable time to make revisions and go to the printer. The publisher could say we are going to test now and let it run until they hit their schedule point and called a halt. Now you have all these people that have "play tested" your product and you can "honestly" market your game as being playtested by 10's, 100's, 1000's of people - so it has to be good!

But what many publishers started doing was just using this as a marketing tool and for the most part ignoring anything done in the playtests. The designers know where they want to go, the publisher knows where they want to go and so they usually go - playtesting notwithstanding. Yet they have that valuable marketing item - "playtested by real gamers for gamers".

It's just B.S. - yet people buy it and the game thinking they have a product that has been put thru the wringer when it hasn't. So when it hits the shelves and it stinks like a wet dog all a company has to do is say, " well we were just listening to what the fans (read playtesters) wanted in a game and we did our best to provide it." So the play test people become the scapegoat.

Thankfully not all companies do this but a good chunk of them do it and has done it for a number of years and will continue to do it.

This is why I refuse to get involved anymore with playtests unless I am a paid playtester or darn good friends with the writer/designer. More often than not it is a complete waste of time. Not to mention that you don't get and free swag (usually*), you don't get advanced copies (usually*), you don't get named credit in the book ( at best a general "thank you to the playtesters at our forums"), you don't even get a stupid T-shirt* -- no, all you get out of it is silly bragging rights ( "well I playtested ....") if the game does well. I mean who admits to being involved with a waste of tree pulp?

So yeah, open playtests are not worth it. If you are lucky enough to be in a private playtest or a paid playtest then you do have an opportunity to do something worthwhile - otherwise why waste your time?

Jerry

* - I have received all of this and more doing paid and private playtests. It wasn't necessary but really good publishers that really want an excellent product will go the extra mile for people dedicated to their game and dedicated to helping create an excellent game. It should go without saying - but with todays gaming company business model it is something almost forgotten. -- JR

 

[casquilho]

I have put myself through quite a few play tests where I took the time to really play the games, gather info, send in feedback and ideas organized for their easy use, and spend a lot of time working on testing not only the normal situations, but some odd ones to make sure the rules stood up. I stopped doing these kinds of efforts because it became obvious just what you guys are saying. They really do not care.

I am going to date myself here. I was on the play test team for Dangerous Dimensions (later called dangerous journeys to stop a law suit). Talk about not only ego, but pain too. Every one of my reports were sent back to me with GG’s comments on why I had to be wrong because the system was wonderful and perfect etc. On one he even said I “just did not understand the system”.

Only once did I feel my effort seem to matter and pay off. The last edition of Epic. Some of the suggestions we offered were put into place. A couple of rules were taken out or changed because of our feedback. And in the end he named us in the book, and sent us copies for free. I felt we made a difference even though not all my suggestions or opinions were taken. In fact one of my main pet peeves made it to the book. But I felt he was listening to us. He would send back further questions to understand our suggestions.

But for the most part, I agree that play tests today are as much about marketing as anything else.

Daniel

 

[aramis]

I've been involved in several playtests.

Bab 5 Wars
EABA
EABA Stuff
T20 THB
2320
CORPS Bestiary
WFRP 2E
several scenarios for Arrowflight
T20 Player's Guide
Mongoose Traveller

Of these Only two were of the poor type: WFRP 2e and MoTrav

I came to a realization about Timing/Effect. The only way to make it work is to have the individual dice value in the opposite direction from the pair reading, and not to add skill to them as individual dice. Uncapping effect is a partial solution, and not a bad one, either, but it won't solve all the issues.

The problem is that they ARE listening to feedback, just not weighing it well, and weighing themselves far too highly.

Now, you want bad? WFRP 2, the BI Rep said flat out that the designer had no business reading the playtest boards, and further was deleting posts pointing out failures of the rules.

 

[Foxroe]

Not to hijack this thread, but I never understood why there was a decision to make a 2nd edition WHFRP. The first edition was fine. Must have just been about the $.

They could have just re-released WHFRP with a new cover and with the errata implemented and I would have bought it. This is exactly what I did when FFE re-released Books 0-8 a few years back (even without the errata).

I was really looking forward to MongoTr being CT/MT+errata, and not another "reimagining". Oh well, guess I'll save my money for the JTAS or T5 CD.

-Fox

 

[hunter]

Heh, interesting discussion on playtesting, particularly since I'm on the other side of the equation usually

Carry on...

 

[aramis]

Not to hijack this thread, but I never understood why there was a decision to make a 2nd edition WHFRP. The first edition was fine. Must have just been about the $.

It was about making it match 6th ed WFB settingwise. A requirement of the project.

Or so said Chris of Green Ronin.

See, 1st ed WFRP was tied to 2nd Ed WFB. 3rd Ed was the last with the original setting; each after that altered the setting notably from the prior editions.


Many of the mechanical changes were good, only a few were problematic. In increasing the damage die from 1d6 to 1d10, they actually (and unintentionally) nerfed the system. The new magic system was pretty bad, too.

The problem with the WFRP2E playtest wasn't Chris. Chris really was listening to playtest material. The problem was putting a Novels Editor oversing a playtest.

Simon, the BI rep, was deleting posts (mine and others), and claiming Chris "has no business reading the playtest boards." Simon was looking for readers, not playtesters. Simon was only happy with either praise or with grammatical errors being caught; comments on rules design (which Chris was happy to have) drew ever increasing heat from Simon until, finally, they just started disappearing.

I don't think anyone at Mongoose is anywhere near as bad as Simon of BI.

 

[hunter]

Simon was only happy with either praise or with grammatical errors being caught; comments on rules design (which Chris was happy to have) drew ever increasing heat from Simon until, finally, they just started disappearing.

This is the problem with most 'playtests' I have seen. They aren't looking for the material to be tested, they just want help editing it

 

[aramis]

This is the problem with most 'playtests' I have seen. They aren't looking for the material to be tested, they just want help editing it

I guess I've been lucky, then. All the others were looking for feedback, and acting upon it.

Greg Porter, of BTRC, is one of those who is always lookign for and acting upon feedback from playtesters.

The guys at Agents of Gaming acted upon the B5W playtest feedback quite well; draft 3 was really moving forward... but drafts 4 and 5 were in house only. The resultant game was quite evolved from draft 1, but it played well, and I'm proud my name was in it.

The Downing boys (Deep 7 games) are also really good about feedback. The Arrowflight scenarios had a questionnaire... including rules issues! For scenarios!

And then there is the Hunter Gordon guy... real head case... bends over backwards to get playtesters, then actually listens to them. Heck, uses them for additional development, and calls that being a "Lead Playtester"...

Oh, wait, I did forget one other bad playtest: T5... Marc just plain didn't participate at all. Talk about playtesting to build hype.

 

[tbeard1999]

I've mentioned before that I have had my hand in the game development side of the business off and on for too many years now.
...
But what many publishers started doing was just using this as a marketing tool and for the most part ignoring anything done in the playtests. The designers know where they want to go, the publisher knows where they want to go and so they usually go - playtesting notwithstanding. Yet they have that valuable marketing item - "playtested by real gamers for gamers".

That appears to be what's happened with MGT -- they really haven't changed anything significant, other than damage (and their replacement damage system yields almost exactly the same result with more trouble).

I've found that playtesting (when done right) is most helpful in determining which mechanics are giving players trouble, and which fixes are most acceptible. (In my experience, there are often several ways to solve a problem and I prefer the solutions that the players are most fond of).

I have generally found that most game mechanic suggestions from playtesters are not workable. But I consider them all because (a) it helps you understand your own mechanic better if you closely evaluate an alternative; and (b) occasionally, you do find a useful alternative mechanic.

It's just B.S. - yet people buy it and the game thinking they have a product that has been put thru the wringer when it hasn't. So when it hits the shelves and it stinks like a wet dog all a company has to do is say, " well we were just listening to what the fans (read playtesters) wanted in a game and we did our best to provide it." So the play test people become the scapegoat.

Your explanation does seem to fit my observations.

This is why I refuse to get involved anymore with playtests unless I am a paid playtester or darn good friends with the writer/designer. More often than not it is a complete waste of time.

Agreed. And I am *so* losing patience with the retort "well, if you can't fix the broken mechanic, then you're not being helpful" or somesuch. More than once I've had to remind such folks that it isn't my job to fix defective mechanics. That little passive-aggressive tactic has been employed more often lately by fans of MGT. Hopefully, no one else will take the bait either.

At the end of the day, it's the designer's job to fix the game. And my ability to fix a problem has nothing to do with whether that problem exists. I can't repair a car engine, but I can tell if it won't start.

So yeah, open playtests are not worth it. If you are lucky enough to be in a private playtest or a paid playtest then you do have an opportunity to do something worthwhile - otherwise why waste your time?

Well said.