Narrowing of Focus

Mark of Chaos

Mark of Chaos

Artisan
Quote from the armor thread:
"Hey folks. The Owners have no intention of reviewing the Armour Policy again for 2.0 ruleset. It took us a lot of time debating these merits 2 Symposiums ago and we are content with the Policy as written. You can bring it up to your Owner if you wish as we always have stated and they can bring it forward, but it is not something that we are looking to revamp."

So, is there a list or way to tell which of the changes in the packet really aren't up for review/change? Or, if it's shorter, which ones actually are? Feelings about that POV not withstanding, it may produce better feedback from testers if there's an explicit list of areas to (not) dig down on. We're flying a bit blind on this side of the testing and seem to keep bumping into walls.
 
The questions on the Feedback Form outline the primary areas that we're looking for feedback. However, as always, we encourage players to bring up other items with their Chapter Owners if they don't find an appropriate area in the Feedback Form.

-Bryan
 
I would also add that we are looking particularly for feedback on things changed from edition to edition (v 0.7 to v 0.8, currently) or instances where the rules appear to interact in a way that is not intended or unusual, i.e. bugs.
 
Dan Nickname Beshers said:
I would also add that we are looking particularly for feedback on things changed from edition to edition (v 0.7 to v 0.8, currently) or instances where the rules appear to interact in a way that is not intended or unusual, i.e. bugs.
Click to expand...
So does that sum up what is on the feedback form? I am not able to attend any play tests due to distance, so I haven't seen one of these feedback forms since we were asked not to use them if we had not physically attended a test. Those of us who only have access to play test material via this forum would benefit greatly from being able to review that form for each iteration of testing, and it would improve the quality of our feedback on these forums.

Edit: Or perhaps even in the play test doc itself, at the beginning or at the end, so there is no misunderstanding what each doc is looking for in review.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the actual form would be posted as we only want those who have made it to a playtest to answer it (not sure if there is a way to "lock" it without it becoming a headache to code). .

The things needed to be playtested and answered are (in no particular order):
  • Incants
  • Magic Items (power level of them, how they interact, usability in game etc)
  • First Aid bringing the person at 0 BP to 1 BP in 1 minute
  • Single swings on all attacks with Meditate to bring missed ones back
  • Shield sizes
  • Shatter
  • New High Magic
 
If there is a lot of pushback to the 1 minute 0 to 1 timer, there is a middle ground. Active first aid gets someone from -1 to 0 or 0 to 1 in one minute. If there is no active first aid, it still takes 10 minutes.
 
I wanted to add a few notes here on the Playtest process and what's being focused on (partially in response to the OP, partially in response to questions that have come up in other threads). We're trying to keep the playtests moving forward and looking at specific updates in each round. In general, the Feedback Form has been the way that we've looked at these updates. In the next round, I'll try to post up a list of items that the Feedback Form is specifically focused on. It's safe to assume a couple of things in each round just from the packet itself:

1. If a rules item has an A/B test, you can be sure that we're still looking at that item.
2. If a rules item changed in the most recent packet, it's likely that we'll want to collect feedback about it so we can decide if that change is final or not.
3. If a rules item changed in a previous packet, and stayed the same in this packet, it's likely that we consider it at least somewhat settled.

While there's exceptions to the last two items, these are reasonable guidelines to tell what's specifically on our radar for playtests.

Separately, there's can be a fine line between how "bringing up something that we might not have thought of" (which is important!) and "continued disagreement with something that's settled because you just disagree with it" are presented. The Rules Theory forum was removed from these boards for very similar reasons - there was a lot of thrashing without much actual progress. We're trying to prevent that here while still looking for outstanding issues that haven't yet come up in playtesting. Please keep that in mind from all sides.

That means that if something's already been hashed to death and the Owners have settled on a position that you disagree with, it's probably not productive to bring it up again and again. On the other hand if something novel comes up in a playtest that you think your Owner really needs to escalate even if it doesn't appear that the current round of playtesting is focusing on it, you should definitely talk to your Owner about bringing it up to the others. On the third hand (aaaah! I'm an alien!) if someone's talking about items that we're trying to get a good handle on in the current Playtesting round, we ask that you respect each others' opinions and not try to shut each other down. We all have views on how the game can be made better and nobody's going to be 100% 'right' or even in agreement - please keep that in mind during your discussions.

Thanks,
Bryan Gregory
ARC Chair
 
Also, and I really can't stress this enough, these forums are the worst possible venue for doing this work of hashing over play testing results and game design theory. If you have never met someone in person, and disagree with them via text based discussion that does not include tone or body language or facial cues or any other emotional, personal context, you are likely to find them personally offensive. That's science, and I am for sure guilty of it too at times. The only reason we have to use these forums is that there isn't really another option for coordinating discussion between people stretched across 4 times zones with radically different schedules. I reiterate that if anyone wants to I will happily have a skype meeting with them so that they can hear my voice, I can hear theirs, and we can treat each other like human damn beings instead of faceless, anonymous user names. If someone really feels that strongly about something, treat it like it's important and make the effort to bring it to me. I promise I am a reasonable person and so long as you don't shout at me I will listen.
 
Dan Nickname Beshers said:
Also, and I really can't stress this enough, these forums are the worst possible venue for doing this work of hashing over play testing results and game design theory. If you have never met someone in person, and disagree with them via text based discussion that does not include tone or body language or facial cues or any other emotional, personal context, you are likely to find them personally offensive. That's science, and I am for sure guilty of it too at times. The only reason we have to use these forums is that there isn't really another option for coordinating discussion between people stretched across 4 times zones with radically different schedules. I reiterate that if anyone wants to I will happily have a skype meeting with them so that they can hear my voice, I can hear theirs, and we can treat each other like human damn beings instead of faceless, anonymous user names. If someone really feels that strongly about something, treat it like it's important and make the effort to bring it to me. I promise I am a reasonable person and so long as you don't shout at me I will listen.
Click to expand...

Can you tell em how we can contact you besides PM on these boards.
 
I appreciate the thorough response, Polare.

Polare said:
Separately, there's can be a fine line between how "bringing up something that we might not have thought of" (which is important!) and "continued disagreement with something that's settled because you just disagree with it"
Click to expand...

I imagine part of the issue is that there is a very small number of people who actually know what falls into which of those two categories. It's part of what I tried to get at in my original post (and I appreciate you addressing it in part with #3 in your list). Joe Player has no clue what is settled. Especially if they just joined the playtest with the 0.8 packet. My thought on the matter: Just tell us. List out in the playetest document, or on these boards, or wherever, what you feel is settled. If you set certain "immovable" points in the new rules, other rules can then be shaped around them to achieve the desired results (those desired results should be listed somewhere as well). If it turns out we can't meet the goals with those set points in place, then they can get looked at for change.

The feeling prior to now for Joe Player, from my view, was that basically everything was still mutable. Just be simple and explicit with us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top