Quote from: Baron Opal;851524Leaks worsen the Signal : Noise ratio. When you receive feedback for your new system, game, whatever, you want input only from those you selected, not a horde of people with potentially partial information.

You are correct, this isn't about theft of ideas. It is about taking the time to communicate the materials to be tested along with the unwritten assumptions. This takes time, effort, and direct communication which is difficult to explain to the masses.

Are people so sensitive that they can't continue with their vision of their game if some people on some forum decide to misconstrue what they get, then maybe they should get out of dealing with the rest of humans.

Secondly, the real issue I personally have with that attitude, this fear of leaks, is that it implies that they don't trust their game.  And if the designers can't trust their own game, why should I?

When a book's finished writing-wise, a leak is just an extremely ugly way to experience the book, without any aids to cross-referencing that might exist in the final product. Like running it through an e-reader.

A *playtest* leak can mean the first impression of your game (in this mercurial industry) is of rules that have already changed because they were found to not work in the playtest. Assuming that you're actually running a playtest for a purpose beyond PR.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;851544Are people so sensitive that they can't continue with their vision of their game if some people on some forum decide to misconstrue what they get, then maybe they should get out of dealing with the rest of humans.

Secondly, the real issue I personally have with that attitude, this fear of leaks, is that it implies that they don't trust their game.  And if the designers can't trust their own game, why should I?

I think your assumptions are faulty.

It's not message board sensitivity or fear of bruised feelings, it's the frustration of wading through hundreds of useless, if not frankly antagonistic*, emails to find the handful that are giving you useful feedback. The feedback that has been structured in a particular manner so that you can find aspects of it quickly and actually use it.

And, of course they don't trust their game. That's why you have it playtested. You don't show off a product when it's crap, you show it off when it's refined and polished. That's basic marketing.

It's a lot like pre-release movie screenings. You sign a NDA, and watch a movie for free. It's almost always crap, because what you see is partially edited and sometimes without all the SFX or scores. But, you're there to help polish the movie into a finished product. You sign the NDA so that when it is released there isn't any buzz out that the movie sucks. Of course it sucks, it wasn't finished yet.

This is the same kind of thing.

* Internet culture being what it is.

Quote from: Baron Opal;851589I think your assumptions are faulty.

You may be right, but I'm going to refute yours as best I can.  No offense, just trying to parse out what I'm trying to say.

Quote from: Baron Opal;851589It's not message board sensitivity or fear of bruised feelings, it's the frustration of wading through hundreds of useless, if not frankly antagonistic*, emails to find the handful that are giving you useful feedback. The feedback that has been structured in a particular manner so that you can find aspects of it quickly and actually use it.

This issue I have is that those E-mails, hell, any E-mails/posts -good or bad but especially the negative ones-, are ascribed any value whatsoever bothers me.  If they do bother, then I believe that the individual in question is being overly sensitive.

Quote from: Baron Opal;851589And, of course they don't trust their game. That's why you have it playtested. You don't show off a product when it's crap, you show it off when it's refined and polished. That's basic marketing.

No, this is an incorrect assumption.  If you don't believe in your product, marketing 101 says don't make it.  Playtesting is to make sure all the parts are working right.  It has nothing to do with the product's base assumptions, the playtesters should have no say in how the game is going to go, just that all the parts make it go in the way that the designers want it to.

Quote from: Baron Opal;851589It's a lot like pre-release movie screenings.

And this is another misconception.  Movies have NDAs simply because they have a story to tell, and don't want it spoiled before people come out.  RPGs don't, or rather, shouldn't have a story, because it's up to the players/owners of the book/game in question to make their own.  The only 'spoilers' are the mechanics, and frankly, that's laughable.  Mechanics are going to be picked apart no matter what, and nothing is perfect.

Be open when you make a game, and ignore the idiots that constantly come and whine about such and such isn't working, and never give reasons why.  Tell your potential customer about your game, give them things to play with, small chunks and 'demos', and explain EXACTLY where and what this part does.  And if they STILL misconstrue your intent, well fuck them, that's they mental problem and are not going to be important in the long run.  Cuz if you love your game idea, and put that love into it, you WILL find a market (no matter how small or large) that will appreciate you.  Look at Palladium, Pathfinder, D&D, BRP, FATE and all.

NDAs for RPGs is stupid, nonsensical and frankly, I've seen them damage more reputations than actually help.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;851596You may be right, but I'm going to refute yours as best I can.  No offense, just trying to parse out what I'm trying to say.

None taken, argue away.

QuoteThis issue I have is that those E-mails, hell, any E-mails/posts -good or bad but especially the negative ones-, are ascribed any value whatsoever bothers me.  If they do bother, then I believe that the individual in question is being overly sensitive.

It isn't an emotional issue at the replies, it's trying to find what you're looking for. In my experience, a similar issue in a different industry, it's a bit like this:

YesNoMaybeFindingYesNoMaybeYesNoTheMaybeYesContentNoMaybeYesMayNoMaybeYesNoMaybeBeYesNoMaybeYesNoEasyMaybeYesNoMaybeYesNoEnoughMaybeYesNoMaybeYesButNoMaybeYesNoITMaybeYesNoMaybeYesIsNoMaybeYesNoMaybeYesStiillNoMaybeYesNoMaybeYesANoMaybeYesNoMaybeYesNoMaybeYesNoPainMaybeYesNoMaybeYesNoInMaybeYesNoMaybeYesNoTheMaybeYesNoMaybeYesNoNeckMaybeYesNoMaybeYesNoMaybe

Frustrating, because there's a lot of noise. Especially if finding my spelling mistake is important.

QuotePlaytesting is to make sure all the parts are working right.  It has nothing to do with the product's base assumptions, the playtesters should have no say in how the game is going to go, just that all the parts make it go in the way that the designers want it to.

I agree with this, and is what I was trying to say above. I quibble a bit in that I think playtesters should say "you seem to want to go with this theme / mechanic, but you are really driving this other theme / mechanic. Rethink your assumptions." But, I think we're on the same page here.

QuoteMovies have NDAs simply because they have a story to tell...  Mechanics are going to be picked apart no matter what, and nothing is perfect.

Eh, it's an analogy, and thus imperfect.

QuoteBe open when you make a game, and ignore the idiots that constantly come and whine about such and such isn't working, and never give reasons why. ...

NDAs for RPGs is stupid, nonsensical and frankly, I've seen them damage more reputations than actually help.

I see having a closed playtest as an efficient means of increasing the signal to noise, because you are specifically selecting the people to give you useful feedback. For games, RPGs in particular, a NDA is just a means to say "guys, really, don't talk about it. I don't want to be distracted by the crap other people are going to send my way."

I certainly do not see it as some legal stick to threaten people with, the industry is too small for that.

I said the same thing earlier in the thread, and I'm going to say it again. Secrecy is a mug's game. It's what idiots who've disappeared up their own arses, thinking their "vision" is so incredible that it just can't be shared until it's "ready", do.

I'm working on a game project right now, and one thing I'm incredibly proud of is forcing the doors of the vault open and making our development open and transparent. I'm hosting a rolling playtest with regular updates, where everyone involved (but also anyone who just want to grab it and play for themselves) has access to almost everything we're doing. The only reason it isn't the literal development build they're testing, is that it would be a major ball-ache to get it out to them. But in most of the important aspects, it's functionally similar.

Each time I tweak something with a new release, I'm running the risk of getting something wrong, but I'd rather have thirty people playing and feeding back, than a handful of us developers trying to fit some playtesting in around tinkering.

And you know what the response of the community has been? Welcoming. Yes, they can see the bugs and problems up close, but they can also see the progress and improvement. Furthermore, they're involved in the process, which engages them instead of treating them like an inconvenience outside the thing.

So I'm afraid I have no sympathy for the Exalted development team whatsoever. They're in a shithole entirely of their own invention, largely because not a one of them has a single fucking clue about basic marketing or managing customer expectations.

Quote from: Kiero;851613Secrecy is a mug's game. It's what idiots who've disappeared up their own arses, thinking their "vision" is so incredible that it just can't be shared until it's "ready", do.

I completely agree that secrecy creates a situation where fear and mistrust can develop.

Quote from: Kiero;851613I said the same thing earlier in the thread, and I'm going to say it again. Secrecy is a mug's game. It's what idiots who've disappeared up their own arses, thinking their "vision" is so incredible that it just can't be shared until it's "ready", do.

In the terms of RPGs, secrecy does have one merit: the ability to change a concept/mechanic without players already being invested. I almost passed on 5e - a game I do enjoy now - because I played the playtest documents and was not impressed. Showing off key mechanics which you know is set in stone should happen sooner than later, though.

The problem with Exalted 3e, most people assumed the core concepts were already fleshed out during the Kickstarter launch. In retrospect, people should have known without some sort of preview, the game was still very early in development.

Re: Secrecy about playtest etc

Counterpoint: Pathfinder

Quote from: Spike;851624Re: Secrecy about playtest etc

Counterpoint: Pathfinder

Second counterpoint: FFG Star Wars line.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;851640Second counterpoint: FFG Star Wars line.

Third: D&D 5E. I may wish it had gone a different direction, but I can't deny its success, which is probably in part because of the playtest. Crabbyapples does raise a good point about the risks involved, but on balance, openness (even if you don't have the resources for a full playtest) seems to work better.

Pelgrane Press also is fairly open--they ask " don't talk about it online until the playtest is over," but that's because they want to avoid skewing the feedback from the playtesters themselves.

Quote from: Spike;851624Re: Secrecy about playtest etc

Counterpoint: Pathfinder

Quote from: Warboss Squee;851640Second counterpoint: FFG Star Wars line.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;851641Third: D&D 5E. I may wish it had gone a different direction, but I can't deny its success, which is probably in part because of the playtest. Crabbyapples does raise a good point about the risks involved, but on balance, openness (even if you don't have the resources for a full playtest) seems to work better.

Pelgrane Press also is fairly open--they ask " don't talk about it online until the playtest is over," but that's because they want to avoid skewing the feedback from the playtesters themselves.

And those three success runs are prime examples for why NDAs on RPGs are freakin' STUPID!  Perfect examples!

Quote from: Crabbyapples;851620In the terms of RPGs, secrecy does have one merit: the ability to change a concept/mechanic without players already being invested. I almost passed on 5e - a game I do enjoy now - because I played the playtest documents and was not impressed. Showing off key mechanics which you know is set in stone should happen sooner than later, though.

So, if I follow...

1. You played a playtest version of 5E.
2. You had a negative reaction.
3. The designers made changes to the game that made it more to your liking.
4. You bought it.

You are going to need to walk through the part where the open playtesting was bad. I seem to be missing it.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;851641Third: D&D 5E.

Likely Fourth: Delta Green. They are running their Kickstarter next month and they already released freely released a playtest version almost a year ago. From what I have seen, it has only whipped up more enthusiasm for the game.

I was concerned when the game was first announced that their goal of 100% backwards compatibility would mean the system would just be Call of Cthulhu with the serial numbers scratched out. Nothing wrong with CoC, but I have already bought it plenty of times. Running a playtest showed me that while it is a clearly a descendant on CoC, it brings a lot of great mechanics to the table.

QuotePelgrane Press also is fairly open--they ask " don't talk about it online until the playtest is over," but that's because they want to avoid skewing the feedback from the playtesters themselves.

I've done a few playtests for them, and I really like their document explaining what they want (and don't want) from you.

Quote from: Baulderstone;851644So, if I follow...

1. You played a playtest version of 5E.
2. You had a negative reaction.
3. The designers made changes to the game that made it more to your liking.
4. You bought it.

You are going to need to walk through the part where the open playtesting was bad. I seem to be missing it.

If I never returned to the game, because of the first impression, they would have lost my purchase. One guy in my group who was part of the same playtest session will not revisit D&D 5e, as he considers his opinions already set. He said something like, "there are so many other great games out there, why go back and reconsider?".

For me the secrecy wasn't an issue. If the Exalted developers wanted to keep their work a secret that's their right. It was the way the "secrecy" was handled. The incessant "I know a secret and its awesome but I won't tell!" posting, the constant "redacted" BS and taunting over the non reveals.

If want to be secret, be secret. Others games have had quiet development without all the teasing and fanfare over the "secret awesomeness". It was annoying to begin with and started to down right childish.