tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post3530187312184434241..comments2024-02-13T23:14:23.536-08:00Comments on JAGS Blog: On PlaytestUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-64784591490323143832011-03-02T10:00:57.010-08:002011-03-02T10:00:57.010-08:00Kind of an addendum to the last; at some point I t...Kind of an addendum to the last; at some point I think it might be interesting and useful to do a post about what you'd suggest to someone newly getting into JAGS that they modify now, in the light of some of the things you've learned since JAGS Revised came out. I know you've mentioned in email conversations and the like a few things about the cost of higher roll skills (and I'd presume the attributes that could default to them). That might be useful in a "what should I houserule now" kind of way if you feel up to it.Thomas5251212https://www.blogger.com/profile/03782253877619118041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-64251662319738096102011-03-02T09:55:57.391-08:002011-03-02T09:55:57.391-08:00My apologies directed at Vincent if he reads this;...My apologies directed at Vincent if he reads this; that's what I get for looking too quick.<br /><br />As to the rest--while that might be a problem in the indie community (the eternal playtest and the rest) his commentary is still nonsensical, and if followed as he states it would go from games that are never done to games that are done--badly. While I sometimes think you and the other JAGS people are perhaps a little excessively focused on Getting It Right, for example, you seem to have found a reasonable compromise on that--you make material available, then go back and hack at it some more. <br /><br />Basically, I think if you're serious about a game, you hack at it until its playable (including playtesting) and send the game out; then you refine it more, and if you think you've done enough, you do a new edition.<br /><br />(This does relate to one thing I've thought about saying; you guys really should think about making some version of the Archetypes document more generally available, even if (as is obvious) you want to make another run at it. Currently someone who is trying to use JAGS and didn't happen to be around when all the older ad-hoc Archetype material was accessible is left without much support for paranormal abilities at all, and that's not doing them a favor. I realize you aren't as happy with some elements of the Archetypes 1.7 version as you could be (and its obviously missing some things like how to use it with spells and the like) but it really is better than nothing, and that's kind of what someone trying to get into JAGS right now is stuck with. Even something like my possible Morrow campaign really needed some support for psionics; if I didn't have the 1.7 document or the old psionics rules, I'd be having to try and make them up myself, and that's always an intimidating process with a game system you're just getting into).Thomas5251212https://www.blogger.com/profile/03782253877619118041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-68545596166431011192011-03-01T11:52:18.141-08:002011-03-01T11:52:18.141-08:00Firstly, it's Ben Lehman guest-blogging and no...Firstly, it's Ben Lehman guest-blogging and not Vincent--but yeah, I think that he veers into the "full of crap" zone with his tone a few times (he makes a point that doesn't care about his tone--but I think it's the strident point making which takes his piece from some cautionary advice into the realm where it is no longer asking for a charitable read and therefore can be analyzed as actual, hysterical advice ... and, of course, found wanting.<br /><br />But more than anything else, be aware that he's speaking to a select group of people (the indie community and some specific behaviors he doesn't like (eternal playtesting to keep a game from being criticized)--while I think /he/ might believe he has something to tell Wizards of the Coast or White Wolf about playtesting I'm not sure they'd agree and ultimately they're better judges of what they ought to be doing than, well, anyone else is likely to be.<br /><br />-MarcoMarcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01280274659630509724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-21765612289199939802011-02-28T13:19:05.183-08:002011-02-28T13:19:05.183-08:00While there's some validity to his other parts...While there's some validity to his other parts I think, I have to say that I bluntly think Vince is full of crap about his second and fifth points.<br /><br />You might not catch all rules problems with playtest, but that doesn't mean you won't catch any. And frankly, the designer is often too close to the problem to be able to see if the rules are actually serving the ends he's trying to serve; in addition, his own groups and design perspective is going to be as biased as anything playtesters bring to the table, but at least with several groups of playtesters there will be a degree of regression-to-the-mean on this (though the degree to which that's true depends on how playtesters are selected).<br /><br />That doesn't mean all playtesting is equally useful, but from what I've seen over the years, not playtesting an RPG is a good damn way to ensure it won't come out right.Thomas5251212https://www.blogger.com/profile/03782253877619118041noreply@blogger.com