Skip to Content
 

Playtesting: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

19 replies [Last post]
Hedge-o-Matic
Hedge-o-Matic's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008

Well, since I'm starting into a heavy playtest season, it looks like, I'd like to hear some of the stories from the trenches people may have.

Since playtesting is very much a "toss the baby in the river" kind of scenario, I can't be the only one with stories. What are some of the best playtests you've had? What made them memorable? And, of course, the nightmare stories. The sessions where absolutly nobody can grasp rules that every other playtest group understood without problem. The game-breakers. The strange strategies and loophole-finders.

For me, my best playtests where I'm involved are almost always where someone comes along and beats the snot out of me at my own game. Now, I usually lose anyway. I'm really no good at playing my own games. But I mean those games where someone gets such a grasp of the rules that they annihilate you completely, all without breaking the game. Now that's a good time.

Then there are the more iffy scenarios. Games that don't end. Games that end after a single turn. Games that implode, and traumatize all the playtesters. Games where the gameplay is entirely unlike what you envisioned, and so unlike your solo testing that it's nearly unrecognizable. I've designed a lot of games, and feel I've got a good grasp on red flags, but has anyone ever had a zinger slip through, to wreck an otherwise sound design? I have!

Let's hear about it, all you war-weary play-testing vets!

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Playtesting: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Fun topic!

In an early iteration of my civ-building game "Sands of Time", I had a rule that only allowed 2 players per territory, so that I wouldn't have to define how 3-army battles would proceed. A couple of my friends found a clever way to exploit this: they formed a 'wall' of territories in which both of them coexisted, meaning that no one else could move through those territories, or into the territories behind this "wall". They effectively locked up almost half the board in this way. Not surprisingly, they went on to finish 1-2. I spent most of the game with my jaw hanging open. "I didn't see that coming!"

In another (now stagnant) design, a pirate-themed game, I had two players pursue completely different strategic paths and finish with exactly the same scores -- 97 points (so it was a "hard to hit coincidentally" score). I patted myself on the back for designing such a well balanced game on the first try! My next session of the game was with several other designers, and we didn't make it through the first turn -- they just complained the whole time about how awful it was, how they had no idea what they were supposed to be doing, and it took about 1 hour to get through the first turn. While there were probably mitigating factors that explained the negative reaction of the second test (we didn't start the game until 11 pm, after playtesting 2 other games, e.g.), and while I've since realized that these guys are not, shall we say, the kind of target audience I'm aiming for, it sufficiently took the wind out of my sails that I haven't ever finished that game. (boo hoo!)

-Jeff

Johan
Johan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2008
Playtesting: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Interesting topic

The god
I have a lot of god experience during game sessions (games that works right away, games that finally works and when the game feels ready), but there are nothing that beets the feeling when the players request that you bring one of your own games to a session and want to play it again (and again...).

The bad
I have one rely bad experience:
Around a little more then 10 years ago I was testing a new tabletop that I was working on. It was a skirmish + game (a game with small units and where the leaders where important to make orders).
The test took place at a gaming club and there were several interested players that wanted to see something new. When I handed out the units, one of the players started to complain that he did not get any units that he could work with. He continued to say that this game stink and I should stop trying to design games and play real games (the only real game that existed for him was Warhammer Fantasy battle 3rd ed (one of the real Hero hammer variant)). During that session he manage to destroy the game completely. It took me over a year until I continued to do any design on tabletop games.

The ugly
I have two friends that I play games with. One of them are a gamer that wants to play tactical games and try to play the game as it suppose to work. The other player tries to find loopholes in the rules and use them (always to his advantage). I use this behavior to test the games (so I can change them the way I want the games to work).

// Johan

Anonymous
Playtesting: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

The first time I tested my dungeon crawl game game I had players literally falling asleep an hour or so into it, not exactly encouraging.

The second time I tested it with a different group and when we finished we were all amazed that six hours had passed by so quick.

Point being: don't judge a game on one group or an early playtest since most games are fixable, but no game is going to be for everyone.

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Playtesting: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Crossman wrote:
The first time I tested my dungeon crawl game ....

Quote:
were all amazed that six hours had passed by so quick.

Wow! Now that's what I call a bona fide dungeon crawl! Six hours!

-Darke

FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Playtesting: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Perhaps due to managing my initial expectations (i.e. low), I haven't had a situation where the first playtest surprised me much. However, I've had many playtests where I thought I understood the core "engine" well and made a small tweak or two for the next playtest, yet the game played completely differently, and was sometimes completely broken. I fool myself with spreadsheets and such ("Hmm, adding 2 to each of these means the new total is x, so that should cut playing time by about 10 minute. What, the game took six times as long?"), which make me feel good, anyway. :)

I had a similar designer playtest, Jeff. A game which, though a bit long, played quite well the week before (the very first game where people actually asked me to bring it to game sessions because it was so much fun) was totally hammered by a group of designers, who got through maybe 3 turns (out of 12) in 45 minutes.

Not that they were wrong, necessarily, but I am trying to keep in mind where different playtesters are coming from. I suspect (though it wasn't the case in my example) that things that "shouldn't" work may receive unnecessary criticism in a designer group, regardless of whether they're working or not.

-- Matthew

Kreitler
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Playtesting: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

FastLearner wrote:
However, I've had many playtests where I thought I understood the core "engine" well and made a small tweak or two for the next playtest, yet the game played completely differently, and was sometimes completely broken.

Ditto. I haven't been at this very long, but I've already experienced this. I was working on a trucking game and fiddling with the distribution of movement cards vs non-movement cards. Early tests indicated that it was a bit too hard to move where you wanted, so I changed the distribution and suddenly the game became "simultaneous solitaire", with players racing to their destinations and not bothering to interact.

I've also experienced the "some love it, same hate it" phenomenon -- a couple of times, actually. Those experiences in particular have made me a believer in getting as many different testers as possible. I've also started asking local game shops if I can bring prototypes to Open Game Nights so I can cash in on blind testing...

Oh, and one "ugly" experience: I was testing a co-op card game where players try to survive a "Night of the Living Dead" type scenario. Some players are able to use certain types of cards better than others, and the mechanic is so transparent I thought it would be obvious -- but one guy in the playtest group just had to be the hero. He'd burn through the deck (and the timer) relentlessly, trying to find a card that would deliver the most damage. Meanwhile, everyone else at the table was exchanging nervous glances, obviously worried that he was going to get them all killed.

And he did. Every time.
Ouch.

K.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Playtesting: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

The first time I played All For One with actual people (as opposed to solo), I had promised Scurra I'd play it exactly the way he sent it- rather than making any of the changes I thought would improve the game. So true to my word, I brought the game out at a test session in Phoenix, where a friend and I had driven up to meet FastLearner and some other friends. Oddly, I did not have the same experience as Scurra had with his group. As FL can attest, the game was hideously long, fairly boring, and nobody much liked it. I heard comments like "this game is like work, only I'm not getting paid."

The worst part of this has been that the people who played it the first time are very reluctant to play newer, much improved versions. Though when I finally get them to, they admit that it's much better than before, but I tihnk that first play left a bad taste in their mouths that will haunt the game forever.

- Seth

Zzzzz
Zzzzz's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/20/2008
Playtesting: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

The Really Good
Watching from a distance multiple groups at GenCON give various games a try. And seeing them smiling and having fun. They did have one person that new the game helping, but they picked up the rules quickly. It was just great to see people I did not know enjoy the game. Enjoy it enough that they bought copies :)

The bad
Watching groups at GenCON playing various games of mine and realizing as they play that various things ar broken. Or at least, not what I wanted. I am always amazed at how different people think and I always seem to find someone that tries something I never thought about...

The ugly
Sitting in Albany with a game one of my company mates developed and watching the 6 of us just sit their bored. There was just not much to the game and testing the 6 player max, which I never previously tested, proved to break the game. It proved to show many holes that I then had to debate with the other guy who did a majority of the design. Matter of fact the game is undergoing some chances to enhance the fun factor.

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Playtesting: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

sedjtroll wrote:
Oddly, I did not have the same experience as Scurra had with his group. As FL can attest, the game was hideously long, fairly boring, and nobody much liked it. I heard comments like "this game is like work, only I'm not getting paid."

I dunno - IME that's what usually happens when you pass a clearly unfinished game off to another group who know nothing about it. (I'm not defending "All for One" specifically here; it's happened to me lots of times and it appears that it happens to everyone else!)
The surprise is when you think the game is finished and it crashes and burns with another group. *Then* you get disheartened ;-)

FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Playtesting: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

I'm with David, here. I expect that kind of thing in early playtests. I've had that kind of thing happen to my games in early playtests, much less passing it off. The only real difference was that if it's a game of mine that's crashing and I think I've seen all that I need to at that point, I bail. With another designer's game, I'm more likely to press on, in case there's any other insight I can provide from things that happen in the mid-to-late game.

I haven't had that latter experience yet, but only because I haven't passed any of my "completed" games off. That's all about to change. :)

-- Matthew

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Playtesting: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

FastLearner wrote:
I haven't had that latter experience yet, but only because I haven't passed any of my "completed" games off. That's all about to change.

I don't kno which category Everest fell into, but when I borrowed it and played it with my friends it went very well.

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Playtesting: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Oh yeah, Seth, make me feel good, why don't you? ;-))

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Playtesting: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Scurra wrote:
Oh yeah, Seth, make me feel good, why don't you? ;-))

That's what I'm saying... your group had obviously been able to play A41 and even liked it, wheras mine didn't want to finish the game that first time. Nothing was different. Just goes to show the differences in peoples' preferences I guess.

Hedge-o-Matic
Hedge-o-Matic's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
Playtesting: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

And that's another big consideration. I design a lot of abstracts, lately, but I've been going back to board games. It's important to remember the different breeds of gamer when deciding which game to present to a given group. Role players won't do board. Board won't do wargame. wargame don't like abstracts. It's not hard and fast, of course, but nost people gravitate to one genre of game and stick with it. So designers like myself are stuck managing which games to give to which people. That's a big part of any Ugly scenario, I think.

Someone also brought up the good point of having a group of other game designers playtest your games. This has its pros and cons, in my opinion. On the good side, they can more readily percieve mechanical problems. On the downside, they may develop a blase "seen this before" attitude since they can sometimes be awash in games and systems. Non-designers are sometime better, though, since they come to playtesting as an experience, rather than a process. Except fo heavy-duty abstract players, who knock your socks of in the theory department.

Another animal is the game-breaker, someone who plays a game with the sole intention of exploiting the rules to either find the unbeatable strategy, or to drag the game out forever or stalemate every time. A valuable person to identify in any group, though gamers tend to dislike them. But having someone draw out one of your games forever, intentionally wearing out the patience of opponants who cannot force any game-ending situation is a great thing to find during playtesting.

These are the tough-love playtesters I recommend people keep track of, should they find them. They may be miserable bastards, and make everyone hate your new game, but they highlight important flaws in designs, that's for sure.

dete
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Playtesting: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Johan wrote:

The bad
I have one rely bad experience:
Around a little more then 10 years ago I was testing a new tabletop that I was working on. It was a skirmish + game (a game with small units and where the leaders where important to make orders).
The test took place at a gaming club and there were several interested players that wanted to see something new. When I handed out the units, one of the players started to complain that he did not get any units that he could work with. He continued to say that this game stink and I should stop trying to design games and play real games (the only real game that existed for him was Warhammer Fantasy battle 3rd ed (one of the real Hero hammer variant)). During that session he manage to destroy the game completely. It took me over a year until I continued to do any design on tabletop games.
// Johan

This story was really touching, I felt bad for you man,
what an @sshole!!!
anyways so touching I went to your website.
I don't understand or speak the language.
I am a chess fan, so clicked on the Knight. And ended up with
the PDF page, very interesting, I think I understand, however
I would really like to read it in English.
can you just tell me about it? I'm fascinated by this game you
made.

Johan
Johan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2008
Playtesting: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Hi

dete wrote:

This story was really touching, I felt bad for you man,
what an @sshole!!!

Yes, but what's not killing you ...

Quote:
anyways so touching I went to your website.
I don't understand or speak the language.

So you don't know Swedish ;).
I have not updated my homepage in years (maybe I should).

Quote:
I am a chess fan, so clicked on the Knight. And ended up with
the PDF page, very interesting, I think I understand, however
I would really like to read it in English.
can you just tell me about it? I'm fascinated by this game you
made.

What you found was the game "The King" (Kungen in Swedish). That is only written in Swedish and I had no plan to translate it. We have tested the final version around 20 times. An ordinary game will take 20-60 minutes.

The king is about two small villages that grow into country and then start to fight each other. What you need is:
- A set of chess.
- Pieces from checkers
- A deck of cards.

In short, you will create villages, cities and castles with the checker pieces. Those can be turned into troupes (Pawns, knights and so on). You will now try to destroy the other player.
The deck is separated into the four suits. Each player takes two. This is the player's resources and is used to show whose turn it is. If one player looses one of his more important pieces (Knight, Queen ...) he will also lose resources.
The real hard piece is the king. When you have created a king you will have an edge that can swing the game, but the king can never be removed or demoted. If the king is taken you will loose (when both players has created a king then the edge is lost).

The unique things whit this game are the turn order mechanism that are connected to resources, the start (you only start with a village and build your army/country from that), you can promote and demote your units and that you have to decides what pieces you need at the moment.

// Johan

Pt314
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Playtesting: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

One of my games had to do with gem trading (practically the same game as my entree to the April Showdown). And I tried to design the game in such a way that there is both stratagy in trading more common gems for less common gems, and trying to get a monopoly (or a least you have more than 2/3 of that type).

Problem with it is that in one of my playtest sessions half of the players didn't want to think so hard on whether or not it actually benefits you by throwing gems away. So one of the mechanics was ignored (The one player who didn't won the game, thats the plus side.). It ended up with lots of people complaining it was too mathy.

I also had an experience with one of my games that would never end. That is until we through out regenerating shields. The game that was designed to be a quick game, even with out the regenerating shields, lasted over 2 hours on our next run. It has never been played since.

dete
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Playtesting: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Johan,

Thanx very much for the reply!!
no I can't speak Swedish but I hope to visit there someday!

your game, the King is NOT what I expected! Hahaha
It is much deeper than what I thought.

It sounds really cool, and I am very interested.
I will study it.

I have thought about mixing Checkers with Chess,
using their ability to stack and also there was some
board game that I bought a long time ago that was about
Feudal Japan, had ninjas, ashigarumen (those with rifles)
Daimyos, Koku (money) and Castles.
The castles had 2 or 3 parts to it. So I thought about
making a Fort that can become a Castle which can then
become a Fortress.

Anyway sounds a little similar...

is the game fun?

Johan
Johan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2008
Playtesting: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

dete wrote:

It sounds really cool, and I am very interested.
I will study it. ?

If you really are interested I can translate the game to English, but you have to wait to August (I don’t have time to do it before that) and I expect that you do some proofreading of the game. If you are interested send me a private PM.

dete wrote:

I have thought about mixing Checkers with Chess, using their ability to stack and also there was some board game that I bought a long time ago that was about Feudal Japan, had ninjas, ashigarumen (those with rifles) Daimyos, Koku (money) and Castles.
The castles had 2 or 3 parts to it. So I thought about making a Fort that can become a Castle which can then become a Fortress. ?

The King is using the same basic idea.

Quote:
is the game fun?

Let me put it this way, I have not played a game of chess in 3 years. We play this game (or knightmare chess) instead of chess. I have just bought Castle Danger from Brykovian so I suppose that I will not play chess for another year or so.

The sad part about this is that my oldest daughter, nearly always win when we play this game ;).

// Johan

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut