Thank you sir, may I have another?

[Evilgaz]

I'm not sure how I feel about it, but it seems like we're contributing more and more to helping out in providing our own service. On the one hand, using the self-checkout tills at <insert supermarket of choice> is often quicker and easier that using regular tills, on the other hand this could be paving the way for the elimination of checkout staff altogether, and other concerns... but that's Big Business and we don't care about them. The bastards.

Bringing it back to gaming, there seems to be a drive towards releasing an early PDF and getting folk to (a) buy it and then (b) read it and give feedback on what's wrong, typos, missing items etc. This does lead to a better printed product eventually, but also means that we as gamers are doing free proof reading and in some cases playtesting and editing etc. If people are happy to do this, why should be say no to it? But could it mean that some games get guided by those who jump in early and shout loudest? Maybe the game was okay as it was, but some loud mouths with cash got in first and messed with it?

What do you think? Is the early pre-release of a game a great way of ensuring a better product, or are we being conned into doing a job that the RPG industry should be paying people to do, and also paying for the privilege of taking their work off them?

[dpmcalister]

If I'm paying for something, even a PDF, I want it to be finished. I don't want to put money down for something that I need to proof-read, edit or playtest [1] If someone else is willing to spend their money to do it they can fill their boots but it's not for me.

[1] I will happily proof-read, edit or playtest documents for people (provided I've got the time of course), I just refuse to pay for the privilege (likewise, I'm not expecting to get paid to do it - although that would be nicer: hypocrite? Of course )

[Neil Gow]

This is that you assume that these 'open betas' actually do involve any real alterations to the product at hand above and beyond typos, grammar and 'page xx' references?

They are rife in the MMO side of the PC games world - you pre-order the game and get early access to the product. A lot of the time this is to do stress testing and real world issues testing and whilst some bugs will be picked up, its not actually about that - its about marketing! Its a thing called product diffusion - you have already got your claws into the innovators in the market and they will create (hopefully) the positive word of mouth that will launch your new product well. Or not, in the infamous case of Real Time Worlds and A.P.B. which had such a disasterous beta that the product and the company bombed well enough to make it an instant case study!

So when someone releases a 'beta' set of rules, especially where you have to pay for them it could be beyond a bit of freelance sub-editing. You also have a case of 'quiet bairns get nowt' too. If you can get some fool to pay you for the pleasure of sifting through their product and showing you the error of your ways for the fleeting pleasure and e-peen extension of seeing their name in the game credits, then why wouldn't you. In a world where some people will pay $1 to have their name as a 'thanks' in a kickstarted game, this isn't as silly as it sounds.

I think, however, this also speaks to the difficulty of finding good solid playtesters for games, especially for small press outfits. A lot of games are 'cuddle tested' - given a thorough once over by the creators group who have social ties which make the 'full and frank feedback' that is needed on a game difficult. (Luckily, I have Dave and Andrew who will call everything I do **** until it passes their daemonic regime...). Good, dependable external playtesters are rare and I think getting a little rarer as some of the small press support networks begin to mature and/or disappear. So companies will have to resort to launching unfinished product on the masses with the proviso that there is another version coming along afterwards, all polished like.

Personally I view playtesting as a 'I scratch your back...' exercise in the small press community. I've just had a really cool time playtesting Age of Arthur for Graham and Dr Mitch and I see that as giving stuff back to the community for the testing that people did on my stuff.

I'd be more concerned about firebrand playtesters in earlier stages with agendas and sturdy soapboxes. I chuckle when I remember the announcement of one such tester that 'The Dr Who RPG is the last line in the sand in the battle against the swine!'

Neil

ps. I am also reminded of the Great Ashcan Controversy of 2007, there may be monuments in some smokey corners of the internet to that particular flame war.

[DigitalMage]

I think its a good idea for a games company to release the PDF of a game a bit earlier, enough so that readers who spot typos, blatant contradictions, or see page XX references can highlight them and the company can correct them before sending the book to print. Its a simple fact that some typos may slip through that many fresh eyes catch.

I wouldn't want the game to be released in a playtest state though, the only things I would hope would need changing are concrete trivial errors that are not subject to player opinion (so it doesn't matter who the person it is who shouts loudest if the only thing they are saying is "on page 36 it says see XYZ on page 56, but XYZ is actually on page 65" - because no one can complain about that being changed).

[Neil Gow]

I think its a good idea for a games company to release the PDF of a game a bit earlier, enough so that readers who spot typos, blatant contradictions, or see page XX references can highlight them and the company can correct them before sending the book to print. Its a simple fact that some typos may slip through that many fresh eyes catch.

I wouldn't want the game to be released in a playtest state though, the only things I would hope would need changing are concrete trivial errors that are not subject to player opinion (so it doesn't matter who the person it is who shouts loudest if the only thing they are saying is "on page 36 it says see XYZ on page 56, but XYZ is actually on page 65" - because no one can complain about that being changed).

And those things are the matters that people scream loudest about when a game is released. Despite my editor for D&H being all professional like, there were a number of things slipped through. They were caught well before the fact that I had forgot to mention that little nugget about jokers and the GMs deck...

[Baz King]

What is this RPG 'industry' you speak of?

WotCs gallant attempt at crowd sourcing dnd next shows the power of the vocal minority. Paizo did an open play test for Pathfinder that was little more than an advert.

When you get down to the smaller fry, like Pelgrane with 13th age, then it's all a little more homespun. I think it's part of the charm to be honest. I quite like that there's an interaction with the fans outside of a letters page in a monthly print mag.

I've turned down loads of opportunities to play test, mostly because I don't always want to see behind the scenes. Often I'd rather just be delivered the final pristine work. Not unlike child birth really.

[andrewmorton1968]

Don't even get me started on self checkout tills! You don't even get a discount for doing the work yourself! Not to mention putting someone out of a job. I'd rather wait in the queue for a real till with a real person.

Sorry, I'll put the soapbox away.

Okay, I don't actually mind proofreading a first draft pdf as long as I get a corrected one when it's done. Tpyos piss me off.

I would prefer it if the game had already been play-tested though.

[Neil Smith]

I don't have any problems with people selling early-draft versions of games, so long as everyone involved in the transaction knows that it's an early-draft game. Upgrading it to the final draft later is a good thing, too.

This goes double for the small-press and hobbyist publishers. These are people doing their thing primarily for love. I'm prepared to cut them a lot of slack in what they do, so long as they act with honesty and integrity.

[Epistolary Richard]

I realise I'm porting over from video games, but I thought the way Mount & Blade was good. You could buy the evolving beta at any time - starting pretty cheaply with the price tag rising the closer it got to completion. Once you'd bought in, at whatever price, you then got all future updates and the final product free. It was part seed money, part playtesting and part promotional. Long before I ever considered backing a Kickstarter, I had no qualms about paying for an incomplete product because
- a) I felt I was paying an appropriate (lower) price - so if nothing more ever came of it I had my money's worth - and,
- b) I was getting an free upside option for my willingness to invest early.

While I'm sure the seed money and playtesting came in useful to the developer, I think it was the promotional aspect that did them the most good. Even if they had all the money they needed from the start, I can't believe an indy game with no name recognition, no established IP, no promotional money, in a generic medieval fantasy setting, would have done much business on release. As it was, they had a legion of alpha consumers eagerly awaiting the game that they'd help develop and were now getting for free.

[dr_mitch]

Don't get me started on self-checkouts at supermarkets.

As for paying for such things as beta releases...I wouldn't personally. Which is a little odd, as I'll happily go for kickstarters of projects that interest me- though there, I'll pay no more than I would for the actual product, viewing it as a form of pre-ordering. But that's going wildly off-topic.

The last point is playtesting. Solid and appropriately critical external playtesting is the most important step of all in the development of an RPG. I wouldn't buy something that hadn't been externally playtested- a fully playtested system that I know works is a key advantage in buying an RPG rather than writing something myself.

Internal playtesting, with the GM being the one who wrote the game, can only go so far (though it's also necessary before going external). Someone has to check that the text explains things properly, and all of the systems in the game do what they should. We've been very fortunate with the feedback received from the playtest of Age of Arthur (nods gratefully to Neil Gow).

Proof-reading and editing are something that needs to be done as well as playtesting, of course, but that's a different step.

I'm unconvinced by the merits of public playtesting, for the reasons others have said. It might provide useful feedback if done alongside something more rigorous. But then a game will have to deal with those who participated in a public playtest, and feel their suggestions have been ignored.

[rabalias]

Meh - as long as you make it clear what the product is then it's fine. You don't want to pay to playtest, then you don't have to.

If someone sold me a product as finished and it turned to be full of typos and design errors, now then I'd be annoyed. Obviously I'm speaking completely hypothetically, never actually happened.