Re: Call for Playtesters: GURPS Low-Tech
 

It's scheduled to start on the 15th. On the 15th, or possibly the day before, you'll be sent an e-mail with links to the playtest rules and the documents, if you've been accepted. If you don't start getting a pile of mail in your inbox by Monday, you can probably safely assume you haven't been accepted.

Re: Call for Playtesters: GURPS Low-Tech
 

Thank you muchly

Re: Call for Playtesters: GURPS Low-Tech
 

Based on past experience, they will probably be sending out notifications in the next day or two.

Re: Call for Playtesters: GURPS Low-Tech
 

It's now the 15th. Has the playtest started and have the selected playtesters been contacted?

Re: Call for Playtesters: GURPS Low-Tech
 

Yes, and yes.

Re: Call for Playtesters: GURPS Low-Tech
 

Oh well, looks like I washed out again. :(
I wonder why? The slots must be very limited or the competition very fierce.

Re: Call for Playtesters: GURPS Low-Tech
 

Luck of the draw *shrug* Just keep applying for the playtests that interest you to give yourself the best shot at getting in.

Re: Call for Playtesters: GURPS Low-Tech
 

We had about 50% more applicants than we had places for a playtest of manageable size. I suppose you could call that fierce competition. Ultimately, we always end up with some marginal choices: applicants who could almost equally well be included or excluded. There wasn't any overpowering reason for you not to be included, and I encourage you to go on applying.

In fact, this time around, at least, there were no applicants who caused any of the half dozen people whose opinions were considered to say, "Get them off the bus!" Just trying to pick the people whose applications suggested a little something extra.

I suppose you could say, "Well, why not include everyone?" But experience has shown that as playtest size increases, the number of added useful comments does not go up in proportion to the number of commenters, whereas the sheer administrative difficulty goes up more than in proportion . . . difficulty not just for the LP and the author(s) but for the other playtesters, who can be overwhelmed by the sheer mass of discussion. Different authors have different senses of what's a good size; I tend to feel that around 30 general purpose playtesters is right, plus a few extraordinary candidates who don't count against the general quota—for example, published GURPS authors. But wherever we set the numerical threshold, some people are not going to get in, not because of any major sin or flaw, but just because they didn't stand out as "gotta have 'em" candidates. If you can suggest qualities that make you a "gotta have 'em" for a future playtest, that's the best way to sell yourself.

Of course, they need to be qualities you actually have. Exaggerating your own merits is a great way to never get a second playtest, and I am not for a moment suggesting it. Use Diplomacy, not Fast-Talk. . . .

Bill Stoddard

Re: Call for Playtesters: GURPS Low-Tech
 

Thanks for the response guys, It's very enlightening and makes me feel somewhat better. I can't help being disappointed though, this was one I really wanted to be involved in.

Re: Call for Playtesters: GURPS Low-Tech
 

We had 30 slots and 45 applicants, exclusive of supernumeraries (i.e., staff and contributors). As a result, a third of applicants were doomed to be left out. Nobody was punted for a weak application, though – and there was a random element (as random as Excel ever is, anyway). Bill has already explained why we couldn't simply boost playtest size by 50% to avoid all that. Basically, it's a matter of time . . . the hours needed for the writers and editors to read and fairly review all of the input.