Did the internet change your mind?

[Agamon]

The Id DM has an interview with Monte Cook up. Interesting read.

One thing he mentioned in particular raised an eyebrow:

It’s why you don’t really want playtesters to talk to each other while they’re playtesting. Groups A and B might have come up with one result, but then they talk to a guy from Group C who got a different result, and because the guy from C is persuasive (or a bully), you end up getting the Group C’s feedback from all three groups. (I’ve watched this happen.)

This makes some sense. Is the openness of the playtest a bad thing? Does the good of getting many more voices, and having those voices speak openly about the upcoming product outweigh the potential bad?

Also, I wonder if anyone has played the playtest, thought one thing or another about it from experience, and then come here or gone elsewhere and had their mind changed due to something they read.

 

[El Mahdi]

I don't know...if one fails their Will save, do they know they failed it...?

 

[delericho]

The internet has occasionally changed my mind, but only rarely, and not (yet) about the 5e playtest.

Bluntly, if they're going to have an open playtest, then people are going to talk about it, NDA be damned. Sure, some will keep quiet, but many will not, and there was no way for WotC to prevent that (short of not having the open playtest).

So rather than trying to ban conversation, they really need to just accept that it's going to happen, and instead look to glean the benefits that come from that - such as the many alternatives that have come out of the 'healing' discussions, for example.

 

[Stormonu]

It's had some influence, but as far as I can tell only in pointing out something I might have missed (whether positive or negative). It hasn't affected my overall opinion (which is "meh, this is playable, but nothing to rave about").

 

[CleverNickName]

Also, I wonder if anyone has played the playtest, thought one thing or another about it from experience, and then come here or gone elsewhere and had their mind changed due to something they read.

I haven't seen any minds changed, but I've witnessed plenty of people trying very hard to change others' minds.

I think the prevailing attitude is that if someone does/doesn't like something, they can "force" Wizards of the Coast to change it if they get enough people to agree with them on the matter. Now, most of us know that it doesn't work this way...WotC is a game design company, not a governing agency...but a few of us seem confused about it.

Remember kids: when you fill out the online surveys, you are not "voting" for your favorite game mechanics. I doubt very seriously if Wizards of the Coast is keeping track of the number of people who do/do not like Vancian magic, for example. They are most interested in whether or not we had fun playing the game. So campaigning for (or against) a particular element isn't going to get you the results you want.

 

[Incenjucar]

My criticisms are wholly my own, unless otherwise noted, but I fortunately am good at identifying the influence of others on my own perspective, particularly since I test games on a professional level. It is certainly an issue when group think comes into play, but at the same time, people will often never even notice an issue without someone pointing it out, and will then be unable to offer their perspective on it. Ideally, you want to START with zero communication, but then connect everyone for broader discussion.

 

[grimslade]

Wait. There should really be a poll to see if the internet changed their minds. ;p
Monte again reinforcing why I don't like his game design philosophy. System mastery and a fear of the peasants being swayed by some cunning creature to undermine the pure design from the game creators. Open play testing gives a huge number of eyeballs and view points to the game's design. It is a more organic approach but a more fulfilling one.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Has my opinion changeds from time to time due to outside influences? Sure.

I think the instances that Monte is talking about are few and far between. Certainly not the majority. For that to occur, the internet would have to be at one in agreeance (a real word according to Fred Durst) and that will just not happen.

 

[hafrogman]

I think whatever downside there is to cross contamination is far outweighed by the benefits. Playtester input is a portion of game design, it can be influenced by powerful personalities, to be sure. But it is far from the only element of game design. You have the designers themselves, plus a period of closed playtest before this input even started. I would hope that WotC would also be aware of this dangers discussed, and pay more attention to WHAT is being said, rather than who and and how many are saying it.

The benefits of the open playtest are less about game design, and far more about marketing. The open playtest is about making the customers feel emotionally invested in the design process. It's about good publicity.

 

[Yora]

Knowing a bit about both statistics and group communication, I think the statement from the interview is perfectly valid and regarded as a fundamental fact by experts in those fields.

People do change their mind according to what they know other are thinking, and not only because other people point out where one missed or confused important details. But the brain is wired that way to make you think that this is what you've been thinking all along.
To get a honest reply what people think about something, you have to get that reply before they can compare their views with those of others. Even, and especially, the people asking them. It's great to get people to get along, but really bad to get any information on a plan or proposal being any good or flawed.

The internet only magnifies the effect, as people can get the views of lots of other people very quickly, but it does not create them. Sitting down with other people and talking about it does the same thing, probably even a lot more significant, because you have a much greater interest in getting along and not getting into an argument.