Re: [Epic] Playtesting was Multiple Mailing Lists

From: Richard Dewsbery <dewsbery_at_...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 20:45:25 +0100

> I definitely had to laugh when Andy Chambers admitted that they were
> preparing the rerelease (EPIC98?)...
>
> I wasn't around when 2nd edition became available (was there an internet
> then? :-) but I imagine the messages were similiar.
>
> If it turns out that you don't need LOS to give fire support with direct
> fire weapons (in EPIC97 of course!) I won't be at all surprised...
>
> Does anyone who has read the rules actually like the game?

I've read the ules, played the game, and love it. I didn't like the old
game beyond SM 1st ed, when there were just a few vehicles and therefore
only a limited amount of special rules.

One of the reasons the new game works so well is because it's been
heavily playtested - I've designed and playtested games myself in the
past, and the playtesting of E40k shows, very clearly.

Where the game at present is lacking is that theb rulebooks are vague,
contradictory and silent on far too many points - hence the number of
questions flying back and forth on this list. Why should this be, when
I've just praised the amount of playtesting that went on? It can't all
be down to poor proof-reading and editing of the books (although some of
the problems are).

The answer is obvious to anyone who has designed and playtested games -
The problem lies in the very small number of playtesters, and that those
testers were people who knew GWs previous products well, and who had the
designers on hand to answer any queries. In addition, the small pool of
playtesters means that certain problems will never arise as the
questions simply don't occur to those particular players, and as the
game is played amongst that small pool they build up amongst themselves
a set of "folklore" about the game, including rules which are simply
taken as self evident by that play group, but which will not be obvious
to outsiders - this occurs particularly when the rules are explained to
the playtesters only by the designers themselves and their "inner
circle."

MtG had similar problems at first, until testing circles grew wider (and
certain problems weren't picked up for the above reasons until the game
had been published and sold by the crate).

The solution is relatively simple - once the game system has been worked
on to the satisfaction of the designers and the core development team,
it needs to be distributed as widely as possible to a bigger playtest
audience with the rules set out in what is hoped to be their final
published format.

Now it might be that I'v got this all wrong. But a games designer /
reviewer / gameshop owner friend of mine agreed with the above, so I'm
not alone. It might be that E40k _was_ widely playtested, by a lot of
people. If so, it simply beggars belief that the outside playtesters
failed to come up with _any_ of the problems a few dozen lively internet
correspondents raised in less than 4 weeks following publication. And
if it really was like this, can I suggest in future that _we_ are
involved in the final playtests.
Received on Wed Apr 30 1997 - 19:45:25 UTC