Re: [NetEpic ML] Implications of "epic" proportions

From: <deaconblue3_at_...>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 15:56:11 -0400

On another note, unlike other companies GW doesn't playtest their
games.I laugh at how they always want to push the point on how
"exhaustive" their testing is, but yet they are the only company I
know that doesn't employ outside playtesters to test their games. IMO
if a pair of eyes other than those of the designer doesn't see the
game it is flawed, this is NOT sure testing of the rules. Of course
you can throw that in with GW's usual patronizing attitude of "well
you just don't have the right attitude to play GW games", as an excuse
to cover their shoddy rules. It seems if a particular problem did not
come up during their "testing" its either unimportant or your
"cheating".
 
Peter


-->This is why I laugh at the reports they make after visiting the US,
and seeing how people play at the tournaments. A few years ago, after
the Chicago tourney, they were shocked at the way people built and played
their armies, "bending the rules" to create these massive armies. In
other words, players were following the letter of the rules, and not the
"spirit." IMO, the lack of outside play testing by GW is a major flaw in
their design process. With all their play testing done in house, with
the same core of people, they don't get enough variety of opinions to
properly find the flaws, and the weak points in the wording of their
rules. The problem of familiarity is paramount here. They get so used
to the styles of people's play, their army constructions, and tactics,
that it is no longer a real play test. They can get away with leaving
some things "unsaid" because it is already understood by the "play
testers," and thus never makes it into the rules. The AC/Cyclone for
Wolf Guard termies in 40K2ed is a prime example. The other problem is a
certain degree of "British arrogance" about it all (no offense intended
to our UK list members, it's not universal). They go about their
designing with certain cultural and social attitudes that do not apply to
the rest of the world, and they can't see that it is an issue. They
simply can't accept that someone will do anything to win, especially if
there is no rule against it. They have a problem accepting the concept
of a power gamer. That's why I always laugh when they complain about the
way Americans or Australians play their games. For many of us, in the
States and elsewhere, it's a matter of "well yeah, of course there are
those that will do that," but they never seem to get the idea. But test
playing properly isn't enough. You have to listen to what the testers
say about the game. I test played ADnD2ed back in the day. We played in
extensively for a few months, and submitted our reports. T$R ignored
almost all of the play test results (I found this out later), and
published the original play test edition almost verbatim. I'm hearing
similar things about 3E, but not nearly on the scale as happened with 2E.
 AS I see things, GW is constantly "test playing" their games, withe each
new edition. They do react to fan input, if only too late to really be
effective in making changes. Look at the amounts of updates and errata
that come out for each edition, in response to player questions, and
flaws discovered at tourneys or conventions. It's a bad design process
and philosophy.

Josh R

Minister for General Mayhem
"Don't let the bastards grind you down." Gen. Joseph Stilwell
Received on Thu Apr 05 2001 - 19:56:11 UTC