One RULE book is feasible. Unless they truly did have different systems in each of the books. The thing is that they don't. So far AoR has exactly the same rules as EotE . Some people (Myself included) think that there should be Setting specific systems that plug into Main rules to make the over all Star Wars Setting work best. Duty is a start. And they have said that more rules for Capital scale ships is coming in the beta. The only other thing I can think of that we could use would be Mass Combat rules and how PCs can interact with them.

Yep, instead of one core book plus three or more setting books, which has been done before to no greater effect, they chose to go a different route. Too bad for those that wanted that core book. Guess you can either vote with your wallet and not get it and that'll show them. Or you can get the game on the off chance you will enjoy it. Let's be honest here, even if they had done it your way, you would have bought multiple books anyways, because you love the premise of the game. But unless the game doesn't meet FFG's expectations, they're are not changing their course any time soon.

One RULE book is feasible. Unless they truly did have different systems in each of the books. The thing is that they don't. So far AoR has exactly the same rules as EotE . Some people (Myself included) think that there should be Setting specific systems that plug into Main rules to make the over all Star Wars Setting work best. Duty is a start. And they have said that more rules for Capital scale ships is coming in the beta. The only other thing I can think of that we could use would be Mass Combat rules and how PCs can interact with them.

Yep, instead of one core book plus three or more setting books, which has been done before to no greater effect, they chose to go a different route. Too bad for those that wanted that core book. Guess you can either vote with your wallet and not get it and that'll show them. Or you can get the game on the off chance you will enjoy it. Let's be honest here, even if they had done it your way, you would have bought multiple books anyways, because you love the premise of the game. But unless the game doesn't meet FFG's expectations, they're are not changing their course any time soon.

'Or you can get the book on the off chance you will enjoy it'

I already know that I would enjoy the book, cause I got it when it had a white cover and a different name.

'Let's ne honest here, even if they had done it your way, you would have bought multiple books anyway...'

I would buy all the books, but I would not buy multiple copies of the same book. If all they do is rename things and paint the cover red it is the same book.

So it would be alright if they brought out a rule book with 100% identical rules for all settings and then went on to create 3 seperate settings books... Wait wouldn't that be like, I dunno, 4 books?

If all they do is rename things and paint the cover red it is the same book.

Wow, this seems to be the most unfair representation of the system yet.

If all they do is rename things and paint the cover red it is the same book.

Wow, this seems to be the most unfair representation of the system yet.

Considering this isn't the final book, it is an unfair representation. Better informed people will see that, though.

I'm incredibly excited over AoR and the options it will bring.

For me, the major bonus of AoR reprinting many of the EotE rules is that we will finally have more than 2 Core rulebooks to refer to during a session (with 5 people including myself). I will be buying a copy for the group and I know that 2 of the 3 who currently don't have a core rulebook are waiting on AoR and the last member of the group is being a bit of a stick in the mud and only wants to buy F&D books

For me, I love the product that EotE actually is. I don't think I have ever read a more complete Core Rulebook in my life. Sure, the Pathfinder Core book is great, but EotE just oozes Star Wars. With vehicles, setting, character creation, bonus adventure and all sorts of cool stuff it just seems to have everything you could ever want to run a group of fringers.

I have no doubt that AoR will be just as amazing, oozing with Rebel options, planets and creatures to fight against.

I've said this before in other threads, but I'm glad there's very little Jedi stuff so far. I got really bored with Jedi after Episodes 1, 2 and 3, they just ruined how cool I used to think Jedi were. EotE gives players a chance to not only learn the rules, but ages to experience an aspect of Star Wars that is often neglected. Of course, AoR has everyone excited and I'm glad they're basing an entire Core Rulebook on just that aspect in order to do it justice.

EotE engrosses you in the Star Wars Universe.

AoR takes you to the iconic star wars moments.

F&D will let players experiment with Force Users in a system I hope doesn't break the game.

I honestly think that FFG have done an excellent job with how they have spread out the different aspects of the Star Wars Universe.

Don't want to be a Jedi? Don't buy F&D.

Don't want to be a Smuggler? Don't buy EotE.

Only want to fly an X-Wing and blow up a Star Destroyer? AoR is your book.

I'm incredibly excited over AoR and the options it will bring.

For me, the major bonus of AoR reprinting many of the EotE rules is that we will finally have more than 2 Core rulebooks to refer to during a session (with 5 people including myself). I will be buying a copy for the group and I know that 2 of the 3 who currently don't have a core rulebook are waiting on AoR and the last member of the group is being a bit of a stick in the mud and only wants to buy F&D books

For me, I love the product that EotE actually is. I don't think I have ever read a more complete Core Rulebook in my life. Sure, the Pathfinder Core book is great, but EotE just oozes Star Wars. With vehicles, setting, character creation, bonus adventure and all sorts of cool stuff it just seems to have everything you could ever want to run a group of fringers.

I have no doubt that AoR will be just as amazing, oozing with Rebel options, planets and creatures to fight against.

I've said this before in other threads, but I'm glad there's very little Jedi stuff so far. I got really bored with Jedi after Episodes 1, 2 and 3, they just ruined how cool I used to think Jedi were. EotE gives players a chance to not only learn the rules, but ages to experience an aspect of Star Wars that is often neglected. Of course, AoR has everyone excited and I'm glad they're basing an entire Core Rulebook on just that aspect in order to do it justice.

EotE engrosses you in the Star Wars Universe.

AoR takes you to the iconic star wars moments.

F&D will let players experiment with Force Users in a system I hope doesn't break the game.

I honestly think that FFG have done an excellent job with how they have spread out the different aspects of the Star Wars Universe.

Don't want to be a Jedi? Don't buy F&D.

Don't want to be a Smuggler? Don't buy EotE.

Only want to fly an X-Wing and blow up a Star Destroyer? AoR is your book.

Except for the fact that the rules currently given do not support that kind of fight. The Star Destroyer outguns the X-wing 100x. So then let's say you put the PC in a squadron of X-Wings. How do you handle minions on the same side of the PC? How do you handle the defenses of a star destroyer without dozens of rolls? Even minionizing groups of guns together we are talking more than a dozen rolls. We can say the GM hand waves it all but pretty much defeats the purpose of having a rulebook for it, doesn't it?

I don't think the fact that AoR has repeated rules in it is really the problem. It's because it seems like the rules from EotE don't cover the kind of scales that a AoR represents. Andy did say that they are going to cover capital ships in a Beta update. It just seems like that it should have been one of the first things put in the book and not one of the last things. Hopefully they will work out well enough that we could use them for other large scale entities.

And of course I will buy all the books. I'm a star wars fan and want to play star wars. I still feel like I am not getting my money's worth. I'm also willing to bet that my friends will not buy the other books because there just isn't enough they couldn't just use my own library or their EotE books.

Zar, if we're talking allied NPCs? Vehicle minion groups, which are already in the core book, while the EotE core rulebook gives no limit on just how many capital ship weapons can be grouped together, so long as they're all the same type and with the same firing arc on the same capital ship, which if I recall correctly means that a Nebulon-B could fire all six of its turbolasers on one side at Gunnery 5, or all three of its light laser cannons on one side at Gunnery 2; I'm expecting that the claimed "capital ship" rules will be more specific..

Yes there are rules for minion groups that can be used on both sides. But there is nothing about the PC being part of that group. What if Star Destroyer decides to fire on the Pc instead of the minions? Let's see, how many cannons can a star destroyer fire in one arc? According to your rules, they would have like a Gunnery 60. Let's say instead we divide 60 turbolasers into groups of 5. That's 12 rolls. Each of one of those rolls would be 2 or 3 proficiency dice and the rest of the 5 dice being Ability Dice. Somehow I doubt they will miss . I don't see why people have so much issue with the fact that some of us think the rules are lacking.

Yes there are rules for minion groups that can be used on both sides. But there is nothing about the PC being part of that group. What if Star Destroyer decides to fire on the Pc instead of the minions? Let's see, how many cannons can a star destroyer fire in one arc? According to your rules, they would have like a Gunnery 60. Let's say instead we divide 60 turbolasers into groups of 5. That's 12 rolls. Each of one of those rolls would be 2 or 3 proficiency dice and the rest of the 5 dice being Ability Dice. Somehow I doubt they will miss . I don't see why people have so much issue with the fact that some of us think the rules are lacking.

I personally don't find them lacking, but I get that others do. That's why I wrote those rules up earlier. My best suggestion is to hold up and see what they put in for the Beta updates and the final book. If you have any suggestions for FFG, I would forward them up as part of the Beta. That is why they are having a beta.

Heck, you should count yourself blessed for simply having the AoR book now instead having to wait like most of us.

I don't know of any player that would want his fight included in any minion group. Leading a minion group, maybe, but not included. And I fail to see why there would be so many attacks on one little fighter. Tactics have always been to get the fighters in close to limit the amount of weapons that can be brought to bear on a single fighter. And lets be serious, beyond a lucky shot, no fighter is going to take out a Star Destroyer. If you are in a fighter, you should be either battling other fighters, or possibly some freighters, but if a Star Destroyer comes in it is time to leave.

I would play it as a chase scene or a race through obstacles. But I am not interested in a wargame, only a role-playing game. I would probably play fighters in a similar vein to the Old Republic mmorpg where you have certain missions to complete weaving among capitol ships. Maybe having a fighter wing around the player like an additional buffer of hull points and a buff to attacks, but nothing too complicated.

Zar, based on RAW (in the sense of "in the absence of rules to the contrary") the weapons "group" would, like "personal scale" minion enemies, max out at Gunnery 5 even if there were more than six weapons in the group. Mind you, we have yet to see what FFG proposes on top of this , only being aware that those rules are coming (though, if there's a "how to integrate EotE" section, I'll wonder what it says about the capital ships in that book and these rules).

I would add that, if we're going to use the "Imperial" Star Destroyer comparison, literally anything the size of a Nebulon-B or smaller will have it Easy (literally) when attacking a Star Destroyer, while if the players are in starfighters, patrol boats, or Silhouette 4 freighters or space transports, we're talking Formidable difficulty for the Star Destroyer to hit with said turbolasers... and it doesn't look like any of a Star Destroyer's weapons are light enough to qualify for this game's "point defense" rules (the heaviest they allow are heavy laser cannons or quad laser cannons)... even if they had light enough weapons, that would only affect the difficulty against the aforementioned Silhouette 4 starships by one , from Formidable to Daunting.

I would play it as a chase scene or a race through obstacles.

This is actually similar to the Saga core book suggestion -- when players in fighters or space transports get close, TIEs launch to take them on while "along the Star Destroyer hull" instead becomes the battleground, and the tactical fire option was in a similar vein (the capital ship "provides tactical fire to" a specified area within which allied starships are buffed or enemy starships are debuffed) where narratively speaking the capital ship might be firing on the players, but mechanically their fire cannot actually hit the players, only affect the effectiveness of the smaller combatants.

I don't know of any player that would want his fight included in any minion group. Leading a minion group, maybe, but not included. And I fail to see why there would be so many attacks on one little fighter. Tactics have always been to get the fighters in close to limit the amount of weapons that can be brought to bear on a single fighter. And lets be serious, beyond a lucky shot, no fighter is going to take out a Star Destroyer. If you are in a fighter, you should be either battling other fighters, or possibly some freighters, but if a Star Destroyer comes in it is time to leave.

I would play it as a chase scene or a race through obstacles. But I am not interested in a wargame, only a role-playing game. I would probably play fighters in a similar vein to the Old Republic mmorpg where you have certain missions to complete weaving among capitol ships. Maybe having a fighter wing around the player like an additional buffer of hull points and a buff to attacks, but nothing too complicated.

The point of including a PC (or significant NPC) into a minion group would only be to have the minion group as ablative protection to keep the PC vessel from being hit. This is the narrative purpose of wingmen in most movies.

As far as taking out Star Destroyers with fighters, I have to say that the RAW makes it VERY EASY if your fighters have proton torpedoes. As mentioned, the Star Destroyer will have a very hard time hitting the fighters while the fighters will often hit and hit well with a weapon that does Damage 8 and Breach 6 (so it will always do some damage on a hit) with Critical 2. That last part is the killer. Criticals will add up quickly and the Star Destroyer is likely to pop while still having a plenty of HT left, and this is why Star Destroyers have fighters of their own for CAP.

I have decided to purchase and participate after all. I resigned myself to having to unload my Saga books to make it happen.

I have decided to purchase and participate after all. I resigned myself to having to unload my Saga books to make it happen.

There are better ways to scrape together $40.00 (Beta plus S&H). The prices that you'll get for used books are usually so low that I'd try to find another option. Skip a meal, take a few of those annoying surveys at the mall, donate plasma, or just beg at a corner (you'd be surprised how much you can earn in an afternoon).

Free betas simply don't work, FFG is simply the first company to realize it, which is not a surprise to me, they are a leader in the industry.

Anyone who has been involved in the D&D NEXT beta will understand when I say that to call it a complete cluster **** is the understatement of the year. All NEXT has accomplished is to trigger an endless edition war debate between members of the community and tried to somehow structure does endless complaints into a game. The result is a game that has been drastically re-written with every packet and is no closer to being either a good game or a complete one. It is and will remain a complete mess and it would not surprise me in the least if they shut the beta down and started over.

A paid BETA of a product that is already designed and ready to be played and actually tested ensures that fans interested in the product can get their hands on it early, play it and contribute to the minor details that need fixing. Selling a BETA test book is not a money grab because it is not a requirement for you to buy it. You can simply wait until the final book is released and get that.

Their is one aspect of FFG's Star Wars that is undeniable and that is the fact that its a phenomenal success, its not only the best Star Wars RPG we have ever gotten in 4 decades of the hobby, but it may very well be one of the best RPG's ever made. If in order to get this level of quality they have to sell a BETA book.. its fine by me. The only thing that matters is the end result to me and its been decades since I picked up a role-playing book and was truly impressed by the design.

FFG has more clout today as a role-playing game publisher than anyone in the business.

I have decided to purchase and participate after all. I resigned myself to having to unload my Saga books to make it happen.

There are better ways to scrape together $40.00 (Beta plus S&H). The prices that you'll get for used books are usually so low that I'd try to find another option. Skip a meal, take a few of those annoying surveys at the mall, donate plasma, or just beg at a corner (you'd be surprised how much you can earn in an afternoon).

How about just getting a job?

Free betas simply don't work, FFG is simply the first company to realize it, which is not a surprise to me, they are a leader in the industry.

Anyone who has been involved in the D&D NEXT beta will understand when I say that to call it a complete cluster **** is the understatement of the year. All NEXT has accomplished is to trigger an endless edition war debate between members of the community and tried to somehow structure does endless complaints into a game. The result is a game that has been drastically re-written with every packet and is no closer to being either a good game or a complete one. It is and will remain a complete mess and it would not surprise me in the least if they shut the beta down and started over.

A paid BETA of a product that is already designed and ready to be played and actually tested ensures that fans interested in the product can get their hands on it early, play it and contribute to the minor details that need fixing. Selling a BETA test book is not a money grab because it is not a requirement for you to buy it. You can simply wait until the final book is released and get that.

Their is one aspect of FFG's Star Wars that is undeniable and that is the fact that its a phenomenal success, its not only the best Star Wars RPG we have ever gotten in 4 decades of the hobby, but it may very well be one of the best RPG's ever made. If in order to get this level of quality they have to sell a BETA book.. its fine by me. The only thing that matters is the end result to me and its been decades since I picked up a role-playing book and was truly impressed by the design.

FFG has more clout today as a role-playing game publisher than anyone in the business.

What you're describing has nothing to do with whether or not someone charges for a beta, but only whether the design team has cohesive direction for the product. Most video games have extensive alpha and beta programs free of charge, but it's rare that there are extensive, overwhelming changes between versions. D&D is simply letting too many cooks into the kitchen, a problem that would exist even if they charged for their beta. Typically you want a beta to be free in order to bolster the participation numbers, so that issues have a higher chance of rising to the surface.

Sometimes even people with jobs are on a tight enough budget that $40-50 isn't trivial.

This is all discretionary spending in my budget. As such, it is the first to go when other, more important categories in my family's budget, need attention. For instance, just yesterday, my best milk goat tore off a good bit of her skin having presumably gotten too close to my barbed wire fencing. As I am not yet well versed in livestock first aid and medicine, this will be a costly trip to the local livestock veterinarian. Things like this happen on my new farm. As such, the discretionary budget is in constant jeopardy.

The idea behind charging for beta is to get the dedicated audience to play your game, not anyone with an internet connection. The opinion of someone who dislikes your company, your style of game design, or your approach is not someone you want in the Beta test. You want, Star Wars fans, FFG fans, people who are already your consumer to tell you how you product is doing. In essence you want people to BETA test the game who already love it. Nothing weeds out the Riff Raff like a 30 dollar entrance fee.

The reason is simple, your not here to judge the game, you are here to help them correct typo's and point out oversights and issues with the game.

Its worth noting that one of the biggest trends in PC gaming today is paid beta, often referred to as "early access". Most betas you can only get into with a pre-order and the view open public betas that do take place are rarely for triple A games and usually for games set to be free to play anyway that use the beta less as a testing platform and more as a way to get people into the game ASAP which notably includes fully functioning micro transaction stores.

What your describing here is how it used to be, but its not like that anymore. Public open beta tests for triple A guys ... its a thing of the past with perhaps the only exception being free to play or MMOs.

The idea behind charging for beta is to get the dedicated audience to play your game, not anyone with an internet connection. The opinion of someone who dislikes your company, your style of game design, or your approach is not someone you want in the Beta test. You want, Star Wars fans, FFG fans, people who are already your consumer to tell you how you product is doing. In essence you want people to BETA test the game who already love it. Nothing weeds out the Riff Raff like a 30 dollar entrance fee.

The reason is simple, your not here to judge the game, you are here to help them correct typo's and point out oversights and issues with the game.

Its worth noting that one of the biggest trends in PC gaming today is paid beta, often referred to as "early access". Most betas you can only get into with a pre-order and the view open public betas that do take place are rarely for triple A games and usually for games set to be free to play anyway that use the beta less as a testing platform and more as a way to get people into the game ASAP which notably includes fully functioning micro transaction stores.

What your describing here is how it used to be, but its not like that anymore. Public open beta tests for triple A guys ... its a thing of the past with perhaps the only exception being free to play or MMOs.

Nothing you said counteracts the point that how you use information in a beta determines the overall effectiveness of it. You should want opinions and feedback from people who aren't your biggest fans, as long as it's constructive. Also, paid betas are not the rage in PC gaming. The system you're describing is where the developer or publisher offers access to alpha or beta builds after you preorder a game. You are paying for the game, the "early access" is just a bonus. That is not the case here, as you are paying for the beta and will still need to purchase the game again at full price upon release.

Charging for the beta is not about weeding out undesirable people from playtesting the game. It's simply FFG being unwilling to take a loss on printing the material, and being unable to offer it in a digital format. The fact that they get some proofreading and feedback for free, on top of making a tidy profit from their more dedicated fanbase, is icing on the cake.

Nothing you said counteracts the point that how you use information in a beta determines the overall effectiveness of it. You should want opinions and feedback from people who aren't your biggest fans, as long as it's constructive.

Actually you don't. Its the politically correct thing you expect a publisher to say as it sound proper and looks good on paper, but filtering out your anti-fans is priority one of any good community manager and advertisement team. The last thing you want is people who don't like your game to be able to see it, judge it and blog about it before its released. Its the kiss of death.

Early Access IS the rage, in fact, its more then just the rage, its effectively the new business model for making PC games. It was discovered with Kickstarter. Pre-orders into Beta is the triple A response to kickstarter and early access projects like those seen on steams greenlight. You will see less and less open betas and more more and more paid betas under the guise of kickstarter projects, greenlight early access, etc.. etc..

I agree that this is FFG's unwillingness to take a loss on printing, though I would say they are perfectly capable of offering PDF's they wisely choose not to do it. Its the same principle as early access stuff, in fact if you look at some of the new models for early access you will find that some of them actually cost more then the game will cost when its released, that is the latest novelty. The goal is to produce a product and test your consumers without ever spending a dime. Its good business. It keeps FFG in business and they can continue to poop out awesome games, which is what they do. Their support for products that do well is unprecedented and its because they know how to run shop.

Sure paying for a beta book is unpleasant and not everyone likes it. Its a simple matter of not buying it. Vote with your wallet. If enough people think like you, it will resolve itself.

Actually you don't. Its the politically correct thing you expect a publisher to say as it sound proper and looks good on paper, but filtering out your anti-fans is priority one of any good community manager and advertisement team. The last thing you want is people who don't like your game to be able to see it, judge it and blog about it before its released. Its the kiss of death.

Nothing you said counteracts the point that how you use information in a beta determines the overall effectiveness of it. You should want opinions and feedback from people who aren't your biggest fans, as long as it's constructive.

Early Access IS the rage, in fact, its more then just the rage, its effectively the new business model for making PC games. It was discovered with Kickstarter. Pre-orders into Beta is the triple A response to kickstarter and early access projects like those seen on steams greenlight. You will see less and less open betas and more more and more paid betas under the guise of kickstarter projects, greenlight early access, etc.. etc..

I agree that this is FFG's unwillingness to take a loss on printing, though I would say they are perfectly capable of offering PDF's they wisely choose not to do it. Its the same principle as early access stuff, in fact if you look at some of the new models for early access you will find that some of them actually cost more then the game will cost when its released, that is the latest novelty. The goal is to produce a product and test your consumers without ever spending a dime. Its good business. It keeps FFG in business and they can continue to poop out awesome games, which is what they do. Their support for products that do well is unprecedented and its because they know how to run shop.

Sure paying for a beta book is unpleasant and not everyone likes it. Its a simple matter of not buying it. Vote with your wallet. If enough people think like you, it will resolve itself.

If you disagree that constructive criticism isn't the goal of a beta program, then you've never run a successful beta program. Also, NDAs are often involved to prevent the type of pre-release blogging that you mention. Beta programs are not for marketing departments, they are useful tools for developers, publishers, and community managers to perform the type of testing that simply isn't possible internally.

I never claimed that early access wasn't a thing, but please re-read my post - it is not paid beta, it is a perk for pre-ordering a game (which, by the way, you can generally cancel should you not like the beta). I don't recall any PC game actually charging people for access to the beta while also making them purchase the game upon release.

Also, not releasing a PDF is not wise, especially in this day and age. FFG cannot release a PDF because that is a different, much more expensive license from LucasArts (Disney), and one FFG likely could not afford since even WotC chose to not purchase it.

Sure paying for a beta book is unpleasant and not everyone likes it. Its a simple matter of not buying it. Vote with your wallet. If enough people think like you, it will resolve itself.

Actually I've never said that I don't think they should charge for the beta product. My post was only to indicate that your position that free betas "don't work" has no basis in reality, and that them charging for the beta just to weed out undesirable people isn't really a believable justification. Your D&D example didn't show that open betas don't work, it showed that a team with no creative direction will wander aimlessly in design whether you have an open beta or not.

If you disagree that constructive criticism isn't the goal of a beta program, then you've never run a successful beta program. Also, NDAs are often involved to prevent the type of pre-release blogging that you mention. Beta programs are not for marketing departments, they are useful tools for developers, publishers, and community managers to perform the type of testing that simply isn't possible internally.

Closed BETA's yes, open BETA's no. We are talking about free open BETA's. Closed Betas have the same effect as paid Beta's, their is a filter in place to ensure you get a limited sampling in a controlled group that is unable to speak about any aspect of the game. Open BETA's are destructive to most games. The added cost to enter beta's via early access programs is just the latest way to combat costs and ensure that those that get into closed BETA are fans of the company, game, genre or what have you.

I never claimed that early access wasn't a thing, but please re-read my post - it is not paid beta, it is a perk for pre-ordering a game (which, by the way, you can generally cancel should you not like the beta). I don't recall any PC game actually charging people for access to the beta while also making them purchase the game upon release.

You clearly do not use steam. Right now "early Access" is access to BETA's, often even Alpha's that are paid. In many cases the cost to get into these ALPHA's or BETA's costs more then the game will when it's released, in fact some games lower the price to gain access as they hit certain milestone as they approach releases. In fact they actually have so many Alpha and Beta games on steam that they added it as a new category for game types. This IS the new business model in the industry, the fact that your unaware of it only shows how uninformed you are. Don't feel bad however, you really have to be a pretty nose to the grindstone type of gamer to see these subtle changes, I would expect most people would instinctively agree with you because in many ways what your describing was for a time a reality. Its simply no longer the case.

Actually I've never said that I don't think they should charge for the beta product. My post was only to indicate that your position that free betas "don't work" has no basis in reality, and that them charging for the beta just to weed out undesirable people isn't really a believable justification. Your D&D example didn't show that open betas don't work, it showed that a team with no creative direction will wander aimlessly in design whether you have an open beta or not.

There is a difference between "free" BETA's and OPEN "Beta's", a significant one. One has control (NDA's, Group selection etc..) the other has no controls. Whether weeding out the undesirables is or isn't the intention, it has that effect. D&D is a prime example of failed BETA. Discounting it by claiming the people that work their are not creative is just your method of making a claim without proof. Nothing about Wizards of the Coasts suggests their designers are aimless and un-creative. They are simply trapped by the business model they have created and I assure you if they had to do it over again, at best it would be a closed BETA, most likely they wouldn't even have one. The failure has nothing to do with creativity it has to do with designers going to work every morning, coming up with an idea in the afternoon and by the evening having to defend it in insider articles to the varied response of people who would love to see nothing short of a nuking of Wizards of the Coasts as a company. People who are actively participating in the D&D NEXT BETA outright hate Wizards of the Coast, D&D and everything it stands for. They are the most prominent and constant posters. Spend 5 minutes on the NEXT forums and have a look for yourself. Its filled with hate for the company and for the product, the so called BETA testers.

I understand where your point of view comes from, what your talking about are things that used to be accepted as fact, by many they still are. The reality is however that after years in the trenches these companies have come to realize that these old methods simply don't work anymore.