Playtesting forum and Actual Play forum
David C:
I know Ron spends a lot of time on this site, and I am eternally grateful. But since I've arrived, there are a couple things that have bothered me about the Forge. It seems we've been evolving the concept of the RPG, but the Forge is stuck in its original form (as evidence by its "web 1.0 design.")
Recently, one of my threads was moved from "Actual Play" to "Playtesting." Well, the overarching "concept" of the Forge is "RPG design." However, a lot of times, it feels like there is a hidden agenda (the real agenda) which is to promote Indy RPGs. The difference between "Actual Play" and "Playtesting" seems to be that "Actual Play" is for playing Indy RPGs, whereas "Playtesting" is for playing... unfinished Indy games?? A quick look at a couple statistics show us a coupe things about these forums.
Oldest post on page 1 "Actual Play". July 09, 2009
Oldest post on page 1 "Playtesting" May 28, 2009
Posts in "Actual Play" R. 36353 T. 3554
Posts in "Playtesting" R. 4986 T. 651
From these two forums, it is evidence that Actual Play has a rate of 35 topics per month, whereas Playtesting has a rate of 10 topics per month. It has 1/7th (or 14%) of the traffic of "Actual Play." This translates into less help, less interest and a general stagnation of threads.
In addition, Ron says that "After you playtest a game even once, all other posting about it goes into Playtesting." Well, guess what, I've been breaking this rule since I got here. I play-tested my game after spending an afternoon brainstorming about it. I didn't even know the Forge existed until 8 months after that. The game I have now is completely different than that initial spark. Every day, I have ideas which are completely new thoughts. Those individual ideas are first thoughts. Even if you make a huge change to a basic mechanic, in my opinion, that is a first thought.
The Playtesting forum gets the 3rd least traffic. A full 5 forums get more traffic than it, including "Site Discussion" and "Conventions." Face it, Playtesting is where threads go to die.
In general, the Forge is a very slow forum board. What's the point of having this 8th board that nobody posts in if they can avoid it? What's the point in enforcing all of these bizarre, archaic rules on this forum board if we're all here to design games and evolve our hobby? Haven't we discovered that clear, simple mechanics are the best in RPGs? Why wouldn't we treat our forum board the same way? Couldn't "First Thoughts," "Actual Play" and "Playtesting" be better replaced with just "Design" and "Play"? Would it be so "Destructive" to the environment to split those 10 topics a month into 2 other forum topics? (5 additional posts per MONTH) These aren't the World of Warcraft forums where there are 100 topics an hour per forum board.
Lance D. Allen:
Your post was moved because you were talking about modifying a game based on experiences of play. That's basically a text-book definition of playtesting, David. I was participating in that thread, and I glanced up and noticed that it was in Actual Play. I briefly thought "huh. Seems more like it belongs in Playtesting. Oh well, Ron will probably move it."
It's not about volume of posts, man. It's about what your purpose is. When people post about AP of a finished game, it goes in AP. This is true even when the game isn't an indie game, as has happened on various occasions. D&D play has found its way into the AP forum fairly frequently, especially since 4E came out. So long as there's something of interest, I'm going to read and participate in threads, regardless of where they are, and I'm fairly certain that's true of most people.
So it's like this: When you're designing a game that isn't done, it's First Thoughts. Once you start playing that game, and considering what might need to change due to what happens in play, it goes into Playtesting. If you're *looking* for playtesters, or if the game is "done" and you need editors, artists, layout dudes, etc. you go into Connections. When you need advice about publishing, whether it be laying out your document, how to integrate art, information about printing or your sales model, go to Publishing. When you're playing a published game and you're not talking about how the mechanics may need to be rewritten, or when you're addressing play theory through the lens of play, you use Actual Play. Then you've got other, special purpose forums, like Endeavor, Conventions, and of course Site Discussion.
At the moment, I'm mulling a response to your "tokens" post.
Adam Dray:
Quote from: David C on August 11, 2009, 12:34:48 AM
Recently, one of my threads was moved from "Actual Play" to "Playtesting." Well, the overarching "concept" of the Forge is "RPG design." However, a lot of times, it feels like there is a hidden agenda (the real agenda) which is to promote Indy RPGs. The difference between "Actual Play" and "Playtesting" seems to be that "Actual Play" is for playing Indy RPGs, whereas "Playtesting" is for playing... unfinished Indy games?? A quick look at a couple statistics show us a coupe things about these forums.
Maybe I don't understand what you mean, but the Forge is definitely aimed at independent RPGs. It's right in the About the Forge link at the top:
Quote
This site is dedicated to the promotion, creation, and review of independent role-playing games.
Pretty clearly about indie games.
That doesn't mean there isn't value in reading and posting actual play reports about non-indie games. Understanding how D&D 4E works via actual play and analysis thereof helps game design, which aids in the site's charter dedicated to the creation of indie games. That's how I read it, anyway.
I don't really care what forum posts are in when I'm reading. I use the "Show unread posts since last visit" link at the top almost exclusively and click anything that interests me. Getting your post moved isn't that big a deal, is it? Really?
David C:
Quote
Getting your post moved isn't that big a deal, is it? Really?
To quote myself, "This translates into less help, less interest and a general stagnation of threads."
There are no less than FIVE topics in playtesting that have 0 replies. That's 1/7th of the posts on the front page. In actual play, only 1 has no replies, and it is at the top of the page and will probably be responded to. If you do a quick scan of the topics, most have single digit replies. In Actual Play, more than half have double digit replies.
Quote
I don't really care what forum posts are in when I'm reading. I use the "Show unread posts since last visit" link at the top almost exclusively and click anything that interests me.
Then you're a power user (a skilled user.) That's maybe 10% of everyone? The other 90% just visit whatever boards they visit. Like I never visit playtesting (I always forget it's there... as evidence by the mistake I made where I posted my playtesting into actual play.) I don't use the feature you mentioned, and even if I did, other people don't.
I understand the intent of the forum design. But that doesn't mean it isn't dysfunctional. Just because that's the "way it has always been" doesn't mean that it is good or that it works well. I mean, imagine if we had applied that to D&D 30 years ago? Lets say that I scrapped all the mechanics I'm currently using for narration in my game. Then I wanted to try something completely different. Why would that go into playtesting? The game has been playtested, but these mechanics have never been touched before. How idiotic is it to post about theoretical NEW mechanics in playtesting (a forum where a game has been playtested.)
Sorry to be such a pill, but I couldn't hold my silence any longer.
lumpley:
Just so everyone knows, the people to talk to about changes to the forum are Ron Edwards (who decides) and me (who implements).
David, the thing to do is probably to contact Ron in private. There's no sense arguing about it here.
-Vincent
(the Forge's technical admin)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page