The purpose of this post is to provide a framework for playtest feedback based on the stated intentions for the new rules.
Normally, it would be better to do this kind of work before writing and testing new rules. Also, it would be better to have started with performance objectives. But I think even at this point in the process, applying some principles from Human Performance Technology (HPT) might be helpful to focus conversations and feedback on what matters most to the Alliance.
So based on Polare’s post, I have come up with a few preliminary questions that could be used for collecting playtest feedback. Owners and ARC (and other stakeholders) should come up with the desired answer to each item below. Then when comparing actual answers to desired answers, we may find room for improvement in the new rules.
For example, we might ask: What are an acceptable number of mistakes for new players? If we decide that 1 mistake per combat encounter is acceptable but that new players make 2 mistakes each, then the rules may be more complicated than we want them.
This involves a good bit of work so the following is a very rough draft that ARC and owners and playtesters can work with if they choose. The advantage to using this kind of system is that feedback will be focused on performance that we care about.
In addition, because this is a rough draft prepared by me alone, my biases might shine. A few biases that I am aware of include:
Bloat and confusion
List the mistakes observed during the playtest.
How can the rule be easier for a new plyer to use correctly during combat?
Which rules needed to be clarified during combat?
Teamwork and high level “do everything at once characters”
Which classes were present during the playtest?
How much staying power did each player have? How many times was each player removed from the fight?
Which players were able to do everything at once?
RE: Body point bloat and feeling cool
How much damage did each player do? How many monsters did each player finish off? Which monsters did each player finish off?
Which monsters got grinded down?
Which monsters got burst down?
How useful did each player feel during the combat encounter?
RE: Racial perk for humans
Which race / class combinations were at the playtest?
Which racial abilities did each player use?
Which racial abilities could be made more interesting and how?
Which racial abilities could better represent their race and how?
RE: Magic items
Which magic items did each player use? Which magic item effects did each player forget to use? Which magic item effects did each player choose not to use?
Which magic items had the biggest impact on the encounter? Which magic items felt useless?
Normally, it would be better to do this kind of work before writing and testing new rules. Also, it would be better to have started with performance objectives. But I think even at this point in the process, applying some principles from Human Performance Technology (HPT) might be helpful to focus conversations and feedback on what matters most to the Alliance.
So based on Polare’s post, I have come up with a few preliminary questions that could be used for collecting playtest feedback. Owners and ARC (and other stakeholders) should come up with the desired answer to each item below. Then when comparing actual answers to desired answers, we may find room for improvement in the new rules.
For example, we might ask: What are an acceptable number of mistakes for new players? If we decide that 1 mistake per combat encounter is acceptable but that new players make 2 mistakes each, then the rules may be more complicated than we want them.
This involves a good bit of work so the following is a very rough draft that ARC and owners and playtesters can work with if they choose. The advantage to using this kind of system is that feedback will be focused on performance that we care about.
In addition, because this is a rough draft prepared by me alone, my biases might shine. A few biases that I am aware of include:
- I think that earth templars with alchemy are “do it all” characters.
- I think that celestial scholars will have a bigger impact on combat than other classes.
- I think that low level scholars will feel as useless as (or more useless than) ever with the new rules.
- I think the feedback form I filled out failed to focus on performance objectives and relied too heavily on Likert-type questions
- I think descriptive statistics will not be very helpful for improving the new rules.
Bloat and confusion
List the mistakes observed during the playtest.
How can the rule be easier for a new plyer to use correctly during combat?
Which rules needed to be clarified during combat?
Teamwork and high level “do everything at once characters”
Which classes were present during the playtest?
How much staying power did each player have? How many times was each player removed from the fight?
Which players were able to do everything at once?
RE: Body point bloat and feeling cool
How much damage did each player do? How many monsters did each player finish off? Which monsters did each player finish off?
Which monsters got grinded down?
Which monsters got burst down?
How useful did each player feel during the combat encounter?
RE: Racial perk for humans
Which race / class combinations were at the playtest?
Which racial abilities did each player use?
Which racial abilities could be made more interesting and how?
Which racial abilities could better represent their race and how?
RE: Magic items
Which magic items did each player use? Which magic item effects did each player forget to use? Which magic item effects did each player choose not to use?
Which magic items had the biggest impact on the encounter? Which magic items felt useless?