Some secret societies of fans have been running some playtests using the basic rules, so I believe it is possible that when these get hammered out into shape, it would only make sense to release them to the wider audience too.

I would think they would wait until after the book releases. Reward the people that paid for the product first then give it away. But I don't see it as a long wait.

The inital post on KS indicated that backers would get a sneak peak, so I doubt we will need to wait until October to get a look at a draft. I would not be shocked if they used Backers as a kind of beta-test group to work the kinks out before GenCon. Still, I wouldn't even start looking for the basic rules until July. I think the scale of the project blew up on them way faster than they thought it would and now they are in a scramble to catch up: the great part about being an overnight sensation is that you're a sensation; the part few people remember is that it happens overnight.

I would be blown away if they released the basic rules online that far in advance of the core release. I just don't see it happening. A preview document to some backers? Sure. But I'm not expecting to see the basic rules go online until this fall.

That was what I meant by sneak peak: I don't think we will see anything "complete" until the fall either.

With the team he has and the people I know who applied to freelance, I am not worried about bending to the mob in terms of "beta testing". They have seen the fall out from the dueling rules, somebody will be giving things a second look. Likely several individuals with experience in the field. People that will be aware of how and why things are being written certain ways to establish thematic style or fit conceptually. I trust that far more than I trust our opinions on the matter.

Popular and good are not the same thing. I expect them to get it right. And I feel John is more capable of that if he does not cater to every half baked theory posted by a self declared expert gamer.

As a playtester I can say that they are looking at the feedback we're providing and seeing how they can incorporate what we're giving them while still staying true to the overall intent and design philosophy. Some things, it's clear, they're not going to budge on.

Overall, the more I've played it the more I want it to work, but I'd be lying if I claimed to have gotten through all of my reservations. In general, I like the way the system flows - Action Scenes are great although there are a few things around resolution I'm hoping get ironed out. When the system works, it works fantastically, but when it doesn't...

A lot of it has to do with the quality of the GM. Good GMs who think quick on their feet will make the system feel great (and the flexibility is really condusive for that,)* but otherwise your GM is going to be reaching a bit. This became really evident in our last session when I had a moment and my brain just kind of blanked on me. Ultimately, the problem was a mistake on my end, but in general I've felt much more exposed with this system when I botch or fumble over something than in other games I've run.

As an aside, I really hate the rules around money, but I can't say any more than that.

As for a timeline on a sneak preview or basic rules, I can't tell you anything on that, but I do know the team is looking to nail things down and wrap up the playtesting cycle soon.

*Note: I by no means consider myself a "Good GM;" I'd say mediocre or decent at best, and then only when running a relatively small group - large groups make my head spin.

Psht.  Around six players IS my prefered group size.  My Witch Hunter group has seven active players, though at least one of them is habitually absent.  I regularly ran 1st edtion 7th Sea with 7, even 8 players.  I can't imagine why the new edition wouldn't be able to manage that.

Tom

7 or 8... Well, you all did say you like small groups. But I am biased after handling 100 player larps essentially as a solo GM. 8 is a cakewalk.

My groups max out at about 7 (I prefer 4 or 5.) I can't imagine running a 15 or 20 person game like some people I've run into, let alone 100... 

I mean, I wouldn't turn someone away from the table if they showed up and I ended up with more than 7, but just thinking about making sure everyone gets their fair shake of the limelight and stays engaged makes my brain hurt.

No Vampire...ever. And it will stay that way. White Wolf staff and I do not see eye to eye on a lot of things and I will never back their stuff. But I did all the 7th sea larp and 3 more that followed. As well as live action Paranoia which we are running for the 21st year in a row. As for tabletop, my largest session was 24 players. You don't worry about giving spotlight moments at that scale, let the players find their spots and spend your energy in curbing the attention hogs. I had a group for three years that averaged between 14-20, you get used to it but you do far less writing for the characters and far more improvising off player decisions.