4 ms·

Playtesting Tabletop Games

59 points by cpeterso 8y ago

Djvacto 8y ago
This is solid advice, also for playtesting video games as well. I definitely think the point about not being the one to teach the game to players, but rather letting the rulebook do so, is important. You won't be there at every play session of your game, for every group that ever buys it. Additionally, having sessions where you can observe (either because they were recorded or you were there) are great, especially when you aren't interacting with the game, as this will prevent your biases or experience from steering the game onto already discovered paths.
snarf21 8y ago
This is all generally very good advice. However, I think the "Ignore Playtesters" section is wrong. You do have to not just take their idea carte blanche and add it. But you should listen to their ideas because it is always in one of three categories. 1) Their idea is to fix a problem in your game but they may have trouble articulating it. 2) Their idea is for an additional element that will add to the strategy or fun of your game. 3) Their idea is to change the game to the type of game they like. You shouldn't usually heed this advice but it is very important to ask why players of games X don't like this game.
- richardwhiuk 8y ago
  I think the headline is wrong, but I think the text in the section actually does a better job of presenting a more balanced view.
- smoe 8y ago
  I think the quote they used in the article puts it pretty well. “When someone tells you there is problem with your game, they are almost always right. When someone tells you how to fix that problem, they are almost always wrong.” I don't have experience with games but I had the same conclusion with feedback about music productions and concerts. Some of the most valuable input we got was from people completely ignorant of what goes into making music or the theory thereof. They just tell you that they don't feel it, that a part is odd, etc., but can't put their finger on what is wrong. On the other hand, some of the most useless input came from people that know a little bit about music, but don't have actual experience doing it. They jump to the solution directly, telling you what to change without being aware of the consequences, what impact for example making one instrument louder has on others, whether it fits into the theme, how much is just their personal taste, etc. Often while being very insistent that they are right. You should certainly always listen what people say. But honestly for me it was only ever really useful if it came from either (semi-)professionals, or from people that don't know anything.
tialaramex 8y ago
This misses an element that's really worth mentioning to designers. Simplicity is good. Few games suck because they didn't have enough rules, so probably if your game sucks you shouldn't try to fix that by adding more rules. In playtesting this means noticing - the players never seem to cause X to happen. Is that because X seemed cool to you but actually the rules for it are confusing and add nothing to the game? Rip them out. Cry about it if you like, hold a mini-funeral for feature X, but rip it out. The temptation to have too many rules is exaggerated for video games, because whereas a human player won't put up with six binders of rules for a 20 minute board game, millions of lines of custom code isn't a blocker for a AAA video game title even if, again, the complexity actually makes the game worse. Which doesn't mean your game needs to be Snap, or Pong, but it means that making the core shooting mechanic of your shooter feel a bit better is a superior use of your time to integrating a half-arsed RPG element everybody will ignore anyway; a few more weeks on fine-tuning the card text for your hybrid card plus dice game will go a lot further than adding two other sizes of card, a cloth playing area, paper money, plastic tokens, and a life-size plastic rat. Unless the whole point is to get the maximum possible money for your Kickstarter, in that case go for it. Stretch goal of hand painted miniatures for each of the 640 possible playable characters? Why not.
- adamredwoods 8y ago
  I've commented a few times (on BGG) on games where too many rules can cause frustration or confusion. Are the rules limiting or are they allowing a new ability? Do the rules follow a path that makes sense to the game (heuristics)? The work behind (tabletop) game design is to create a meaningful product in the most elegant and interesting way. Streamlining gameplay is essential. Keep what is meaningful, throw out the rest, and iterate again. The most recent game I played that I feel violated this was Feudum. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/163839/feudum https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/163839/feudum
  - milesvp 8y ago
    This was my biggest problem with the game Brass. It had too many rules to deal with game breaking moves. Time and time again, I'd see something that looked like a strong move only to realize I couldn't do it in what seemed like an arbitrary 'can't do X in round one'. It was clear to me in retrospec that the rule was because it prevented these strong moves, but it felt tacked on and contrived. Worse, is you have to keep a list of all the things you can't do in your head, and they're the type of rules that are likely to be missed, only to have someone salty over losing look at the rulebook, and say 'wait, you can't do that'.

59 points by cpeterso 8y ago

This is solid advice, also for playtesting video games as well. I definitely think the point about not being the one to teach the game to players, but rather letting the rulebook do so, is important. You won't be there at every play session of your game, for every group that ever buys it. Additionally, having sessions where you can observe (either because they were recorded or you were there) are great, especially when you aren't interacting with the game, as this will prevent your biases or experience from steering the game onto already discovered paths.

snarf21 8y ago

This is all generally very good advice. However, I think the "Ignore Playtesters" section is wrong. You do have to not just take their idea carte blanche and add it. But you should listen to their ideas because it is always in one of three categories. 1) Their idea is to fix a problem in your game but they may have trouble articulating it. 2) Their idea is for an additional element that will add to the strategy or fun of your game. 3) Their idea is to change the game to the type of game they like. You shouldn't usually heed this advice but it is very important to ask why players of games X don't like this game.

richardwhiuk 8y ago
I think the headline is wrong, but I think the text in the section actually does a better job of presenting a more balanced view.
smoe 8y ago
I think the quote they used in the article puts it pretty well. “When someone tells you there is problem with your game, they are almost always right. When someone tells you how to fix that problem, they are almost always wrong.” I don't have experience with games but I had the same conclusion with feedback about music productions and concerts. Some of the most valuable input we got was from people completely ignorant of what goes into making music or the theory thereof. They just tell you that they don't feel it, that a part is odd, etc., but can't put their finger on what is wrong. On the other hand, some of the most useless input came from people that know a little bit about music, but don't have actual experience doing it. They jump to the solution directly, telling you what to change without being aware of the consequences, what impact for example making one instrument louder has on others, whether it fits into the theme, how much is just their personal taste, etc. Often while being very insistent that they are right. You should certainly always listen what people say. But honestly for me it was only ever really useful if it came from either (semi-)professionals, or from people that don't know anything.

tialaramex 8y ago

This misses an element that's really worth mentioning to designers. Simplicity is good. Few games suck because they didn't have enough rules, so probably if your game sucks you shouldn't try to fix that by adding more rules. In playtesting this means noticing - the players never seem to cause X to happen. Is that because X seemed cool to you but actually the rules for it are confusing and add nothing to the game? Rip them out. Cry about it if you like, hold a mini-funeral for feature X, but rip it out. The temptation to have too many rules is exaggerated for video games, because whereas a human player won't put up with six binders of rules for a 20 minute board game, millions of lines of custom code isn't a blocker for a AAA video game title even if, again, the complexity actually makes the game worse. Which doesn't mean your game needs to be Snap, or Pong, but it means that making the core shooting mechanic of your shooter feel a bit better is a superior use of your time to integrating a half-arsed RPG element everybody will ignore anyway; a few more weeks on fine-tuning the card text for your hybrid card plus dice game will go a lot further than adding two other sizes of card, a cloth playing area, paper money, plastic tokens, and a life-size plastic rat. Unless the whole point is to get the maximum possible money for your Kickstarter, in that case go for it. Stretch goal of hand painted miniatures for each of the 640 possible playable characters? Why not.

adamredwoods 8y ago
I've commented a few times (on BGG) on games where too many rules can cause frustration or confusion. Are the rules limiting or are they allowing a new ability? Do the rules follow a path that makes sense to the game (heuristics)? The work behind (tabletop) game design is to create a meaningful product in the most elegant and interesting way. Streamlining gameplay is essential. Keep what is meaningful, throw out the rest, and iterate again. The most recent game I played that I feel violated this was Feudum. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/163839/feudum https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/163839/feudum
- milesvp 8y ago
  This was my biggest problem with the game Brass. It had too many rules to deal with game breaking moves. Time and time again, I'd see something that looked like a strong move only to realize I couldn't do it in what seemed like an arbitrary 'can't do X in round one'. It was clear to me in retrospec that the rule was because it prevented these strong moves, but it felt tacked on and contrived. Worse, is you have to keep a list of all the things you can't do in your head, and they're the type of rules that are likely to be missed, only to have someone salty over losing look at the rulebook, and say 'wait, you can't do that'.