Comments on: From Con to Con: Playtesting http://www.gnomestew.com/gming-advice/from-con-to-con-playtesting The Game Mastering Blog Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:00:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Walt Ciechanowski http://www.gnomestew.com/gming-advice/from-con-to-con-playtesting/comment-page-1#comment-1261 Walt Ciechanowski Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:58:18 +0000 http://www.gnomestew.com/?p=226#comment-1261 Swordgleam - If you're customizing for a particular group of characters, it isn't much of an issue. However, given the lethality of D&D, I've often found it easier to rely on party balance to prep future adventures, since the party I have today may not be the exact party I have next session. Scott - Most of my playtest group play in other games, so it isn't much of an issue. When I do insert a module (to use the old school term) into a customized campaign, I usually customize it for them.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('1261','Walt Ciechanowski'); return false;">Reply</a> </div> Swordgleam – If you’re customizing for a particular group of characters, it isn’t much of an issue. However, given the lethality of D&D, I’ve often found it easier to rely on party balance to prep future adventures, since the party I have today may not be the exact party I have next session.

Scott – Most of my playtest group play in other games, so it isn’t much of an issue. When I do insert a module (to use the old school term) into a customized campaign, I usually customize it for them.

Reply
]]> By: Scott Martin http://www.gnomestew.com/gming-advice/from-con-to-con-playtesting/comment-page-1#comment-1260 Scott Martin Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:16:51 +0000 http://www.gnomestew.com/?p=226#comment-1260 After playing playtest games for a while, do your players want the freedom of a customized campaign, or have they adapted to playtest style games? Did you play custom games in between the playtest modules, or did the players only experience the game as playtesters? I know that I consciously decide to give modules a chance-- I know the transition from ongoing campaign to module's usually a bit bumpy and give the GM extra leeway. Is the playtest style something your can "opt into" for a game?<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('1260','Scott Martin'); return false;">Reply</a> </div> After playing playtest games for a while, do your players want the freedom of a customized campaign, or have they adapted to playtest style games? Did you play custom games in between the playtest modules, or did the players only experience the game as playtesters?

I know that I consciously decide to give modules a chance– I know the transition from ongoing campaign to module’s usually a bit bumpy and give the GM extra leeway. Is the playtest style something your can “opt into” for a game?

Reply
]]> By: Swordgleam http://www.gnomestew.com/gming-advice/from-con-to-con-playtesting/comment-page-1#comment-1245 Swordgleam Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:18:57 +0000 http://www.gnomestew.com/?p=226#comment-1245 I really like the idea of being able to answer, "I don't see why my character would care about this sidequest/NPC/plot thread" with, "Duly noted. I'll try to think of a way to fix that, but for now, just go with it." It would require a certain amount of trust from the playes, and temporary cognitive dissonance from the characters, but I think it would be very much worthwhile. It'd be a lot better to spend some time thinking between sessions and then say, "Okay, this sidequest should be of interest to your character because, as I 'forgot to mention' last time, element X of the adventure ties into element Y of your backstory," than to just trash the whole sidequest because it didn't work at the time. I'm not sure about covering all the archetypes. I can see where it would be essential to playtesting, and make the GM's job easier in any case. But it seems like it would remove a lot of freedom of choice. And a party of a barbarian, two rogues, and a bard probably has a much more interesting combat strategy than a cleric, rogue, fighter, and wizard.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('1245','Swordgleam'); return false;">Reply</a> </div> I really like the idea of being able to answer, “I don’t see why my character would care about this sidequest/NPC/plot thread” with, “Duly noted. I’ll try to think of a way to fix that, but for now, just go with it.”

It would require a certain amount of trust from the playes, and temporary cognitive dissonance from the characters, but I think it would be very much worthwhile. It’d be a lot better to spend some time thinking between sessions and then say, “Okay, this sidequest should be of interest to your character because, as I ‘forgot to mention’ last time, element X of the adventure ties into element Y of your backstory,” than to just trash the whole sidequest because it didn’t work at the time.

I’m not sure about covering all the archetypes. I can see where it would be essential to playtesting, and make the GM’s job easier in any case. But it seems like it would remove a lot of freedom of choice. And a party of a barbarian, two rogues, and a bard probably has a much more interesting combat strategy than a cleric, rogue, fighter, and wizard.

Reply
]]>