What print-on-demand COULD mean

Well, even though I'd day, it's a great community here, it's still unrepresentative mob rule. People could come to a conclusion that a particular card would not work as intended, playtests would show otherwise. I'd smell a potential for a rift. Since applying for testing is essentially free, I believe I'd rather have people freely join the playtest, than go wild on unfinished work in forums

kombainas wrote:

Well, even though I'd day, it's a great community here, it's still unrepresentative mob rule. People could come to a conclusion that a particular card would not work as intended, playtests would show otherwise. I'd smell a potential for a rift. Since applying for testing is essentially free, I believe I'd rather have people freely join the playtest, than go wild on unfinished work in forums

The final round of play-testing is not "unfinished work." I would call it mostly finished work. At that point there should be a 99.8% chance that it IS finished work.

And people "go wild" on the forums about cards already in print!

You say "people could come to a conclusion that a particular card would not work as intended." That is something that can be verified, both by logic and by play-testing. There will be substantial evidence to support or denounce such "conclusions."

Being able to discuss such things openly is not the "unrepresentative mob rule" that you fear.

One of the top selling points of CCGs is that they enable people to look smarter than others by discovering something before others in the playerbase do. If everyone under the Sun is playtesting, there's going to be little discovery after the card/set is in print.

Again, referencing Magic's design column, WotC doesn't want to know everything about cards and sets before publishing. If they do, then the environment isn't going to be nearly as interesting as it will be when the playerbase discovers things that the designers and developers didn't.

As someone who playtested every set for three CCGs for a company for years, not just playtesting but just knowing what cards are going to be printed has drawbacks. When you've been arguing how broken or useless Balefire is for weeks, you just don't have the ooh, ahh moments that people seeing the finished product have when they crack a pack for the first time or get a spoiler.

For additional reasons, while I understand that folks who haven't done it often think playtesting is awesome, it's not all that it's cracked up to be. Nowadays, I actually prefer not knowing what's going to be published (and not going through many tedious arguments on how stupid a card is).

ICL wrote:

One of the top selling points of CCGs is that they enable people to look smarter than others by discovering something before others in the playerbase do. If everyone under the Sun is playtesting, there's going to be little discovery after the card/set is in print.

Again, referencing Magic's design column, WotC doesn't want to know everything about cards and sets before publishing. If they do, then the environment isn't going to be nearly as interesting as it will be when the playerbase discovers things that the designers and developers didn't.

As someone who playtested every set for three CCGs for a company for years, not just playtesting but just knowing what cards are going to be printed has drawbacks. When you've been arguing how broken or useless Balefire is for weeks, you just don't have the ooh, ahh moments that people seeing the finished product have when they crack a pack for the first time or get a spoiler.

For additional reasons, while I understand that folks who haven't done it often think playtesting is awesome, it's not all that it's cracked up to be. Nowadays, I actually prefer not knowing what's going to be published (and not going through many tedious arguments on how stupid a card is).

V:tES should not model itself after another CCG. Magic: the Gathering is always changing what cards are legal for regular tournaments, and changes the "keywords" or special abilities of cards each cycle of cards based on the theme.

Magic also has a larger player base, and can afford to have a larger pool of closed play-testers and still have a huge percentage of non-play-testers.

The idea of "discovery" is a weak argument. Players who enjoy that will involve themselves in the play-test experience. Discovering something the play-testors and developers did not anticipate is not always positive: the negative side results in errata and card text changes.

Thank you Johannes.

It was my sentiment, and I agree with you entirely that the testing of Lilith's Blessing will be a good test of open play-testing.

That said, I understand that it won't be easy. Just because it's difficult does not mean it is not worth it. I hope the results of Lilith's Blessing show that.