|
Post by Stu Venable on Jul 16, 2013 17:44:19 GMT -8
The game is tentatively called Drama Tension Conflict, though this may change.
The initial playtest will happen this weekend, probably on the 21st. After that, I'll incorporate any lessons learned into the playtest document and publish it on angryfolk.com/publishing.
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Jul 16, 2013 17:55:08 GMT -8
I do hope you consider doing a compare/contrast playtest via G+ to compare with your face to face session...I find that experiment very intriguing. "What do you lose with online games vs gain?"
|
|
|
Post by bloodsparrow on Jul 16, 2013 20:10:13 GMT -8
Super interested.
|
|
|
Post by Forresst on Jul 16, 2013 20:15:11 GMT -8
I wanna play!! Pick me! Pick meee!
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Jul 16, 2013 20:36:00 GMT -8
I am happy to read and play.
I am sure you would also like others to attempt running it too - I am up for that as well.
|
|
|
Post by guitarspider on Jul 16, 2013 20:41:51 GMT -8
I am happy to read and play. I am sure you would also like others to attempt running it too - I am up for that as well. +1
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Jul 16, 2013 21:39:43 GMT -8
The playtest pack will come with the adventure I'm running on Sunday and a preview of some setting information that will get published much later. I've been working on the playtest adventure (which is really just the first session of a campaign) pretty much non-stop in my spare time.
I will try to do an on-line playtest of it as well, though I'm a bit torn. I'm going to have the players go through the character generation process (cause that needs testing too). If I do an on-line comparison, should those players use the face-to-fact test's characters? Or make their own?
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Jul 16, 2013 21:54:38 GMT -8
Char gen would be a bad thing to miss if I wanted to get a feel for a new game. I'd make it part of the online game.
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Jul 16, 2013 21:57:03 GMT -8
The playtest pack will come with the adventure I'm running on Sunday and a preview of some setting information that will get published much later. I've been working on the playtest adventure (which is really just the first session of a campaign) pretty much non-stop in my spare time. I will try to do an on-line playtest of it as well, though I'm a bit torn. I'm going to have the players go through the character generation process (cause that needs testing too). If I do an on-line comparison, should those players use the face-to-fact test's characters? Or make their own? for an onlne vs face-to-face comparison, you will want to restrict the number of variables, so same characters, same adventure. A big variable will be the players/personalities themselves, you can't do the same players through the same adventure twice, so I see no harm in a 're-skin' of the characters as long as they were mechanically the same.
|
|
|
Post by guitarspider on Jul 16, 2013 22:47:12 GMT -8
Don't think the characters matter, what you want to look at are the mechanical interactions in general. It doesn't matter much which skills/stats/whatever are used, you'll still see if they work as you want them to.
Chargen online might actually be very informative, because you can't just share a book as easily as around a table, so you generally just tell them the process as GM. If players have problems there, maybe because the process could be more clearly structured, it might need reworking.
|
|
|
Post by Houndin on Jul 17, 2013 6:04:48 GMT -8
Chargen online might actually be very informative, because you can't just share a book as easily as around a table, so you generally just tell them the process as GM. If players have problems there, maybe because the process could be more clearly structured, it might need reworking. This is the biggest problem I've encountered both with Meetup Games and Online Games. Meetup Game: When introducing people to a new system either we have one book to pass around and cgen takes 2 hours or illegal copies are made/downloaded to streamline the process. Now the guys and gals I play with are generally honorable people and if we decide to continue with the system, everyone buys a legit copy, but not many groups are like that. Online Game: Same issue. Either the GM has to read bits out to the players and it takes a hugely long time to build characters because (s)he can only really, properly work with one player at a time. Or illegal copies are acquired for char gen, sometimes the cgen part of the game is scanned/copied and distributed and sometimes the entire game book is downloaded. Finding out how well your game can do character generation with a single copy or via chat is valuable information for your eventual marketing plan. Do you want to split the cgen out and sell it cheaper or go pwyw? What does that do to the production costs? Do you want to change your license model entirely or partially?
|
|
|
Post by henryhankovitch on Jul 21, 2013 20:42:05 GMT -8
Don't think the characters matter, what you want to look at are the mechanical interactions in general. It doesn't matter much which skills/stats/whatever are used, you'll still see if they work as you want them to. Chargen online might actually be very informative, because you can't just share a book as easily as around a table, so you generally just tell them the process as GM. If players have problems there, maybe because the process could be more clearly structured, it might need reworking. You're basically looking at two different and mutually exclusive playtest elements. If you want to see how well the game responds to different players' playing styles and expectations, then it can help to have people using the same pregens. Just like how running the same con game with the same pregens will give you different insights into the scenario. If playtesters are generating characters AND testing the rules, then you have two different experimental variables going on. If they have a bad time, was the character made poorly, or did the rules work poorly? And was either due to actual problems with the game, or bad instructions in the materials? Playtesting chargen is absolutely something you want to do; but you may frustrate yourself if you're testing the chargen system at the same time as you're testing the game rules.
|
|
merryprankster
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 243
Favorite Species of Monkey: Howler
|
Post by merryprankster on Jul 21, 2013 20:59:10 GMT -8
I agree. I would test play and chargen separately, at least while it's all early days. If no other reason than to not make your life miserable trying to do too much at once with a particular group.
I'm happy to help out if you are looking for online players for testing. Not sure I would be much help testing GM'ing though, given that my GM experience is exactly zero.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Jul 21, 2013 21:05:51 GMT -8
We finished the first playtest, and I had to make revisions to the char gen system while we were making characters, as some of the players were trying to stress the system.
There are definitely some revisions that need to be made to the combat system. I may throw out something that I thought was cool, but seems to slow combat.
|
|
|
Post by muntjack on Jul 22, 2013 5:22:23 GMT -8
Ahhh...the beauty of play testing.
|
|