I’ve realized that I have some concerns about one of the more popular fan-made playbooks out there. But I don’t know if sharing them is considered useful or tacky. I don’t want to discourage anybody from doing their fan-made stuff, and certainly other people might think this playbook is fine as is.
I guess I’m asking whether people think that constructively intended but still critical feedback on fan-made stuff is useful to this community.
I think most people appreciate the constructive feedback and are happy to talk about design choices.
Speaking personally, I’m always open to discussion and criticism on anything I’ve made or released. It can lead to a clearer, more refined, and better result, or simply answer questions you have.
At least for me, if I put something up to the community, I’d love feedback of any kind. It helps make my stuff the best it can be.
Is it that you have ideas that will make the playset better or that you don’t like it and won’t use it? Or that it’s offensive and shouldn’t exist?
I’d say the first is useful, the second is not. The last is a bigger issue and is probably only worth getting into if its important.
I think it’s absolutely CRUCIAL to post all criticism, as long as it’s respectful and constructive (and if it’s not, it is by nature not really criticism, it’s just bitching, which the internet could certainly use LESS of ).
There is SO much fan-made stuff out there, and it kinda concerns me that a lot of it may not actually have been ever playtested, and may just be some guy bored at work or at home deciding to throw something out there. For that reason, the community needs to see criticism to know what the issues are, and work the kinks out. That’s the difference between quality work and random spitballing: playtesting. LOTS of it.
I’d like to echo prior sentiments. I love, love, love how easy it is to hack *W games. My concern stems from the idea that a single unplaytested playbook can dominate a design space.
“Why would you make a Nerfherder playbook? Luke Skywalker already made a Nerfherder playbook. You should call your playbook The Scruffy Looker.” And it would appear some rally around a given playbook, despite whether or not it is balanced or playtested.
, he says, having not played the game.
It also worries me, which is why I try to playtest the classes before I put them out there, and even more afterwards if possible.
Sounds like me Ed Gibbs ^^
I think criticism is fine. In fact, I make it a habit to offer community-made playbooks to my players and try and get feedback to the designer as to how it’s working.
I have players playing The Convict and The Psion in my Dungeon Planet game right now and it couldn’t be more awesome! That being said, I believe that poorly designed / balanced playbooks are pretty easy to spot once you’ve seen some really tight ones, so I don’t know that I’d fret too much about it.
/sub