I'm blind playtesting my game of Roman Emperors (http://www.bgdf.com/node/3157) and find that writing a review of the game may not be simple for some playtesters. Some are not English native speakers, and some (as I) have a hard time writing a decent review. Still, one objective of blind playtesting is getting reviews you can show to potential publishers. So I've engineered a rating sheet that includes some common cathegories used in design contests. Numerical rating should be much more accessible for everyone and it's results easier to read and clearer to interpret. Hope you find it usefull for your own PT processes. You are welcome to comment and advice on it.
Roman Emperors review sheet
Please rate from 1 (worst) to 4 (best)
Luck Factor
Unpredictability
Downtime
Complexity
Depth
Consistency
Originality
Broad Appeal
Simple to learn
Balance
Replayability
Fun
Rules
Components
Mechanics
• Luck Factor: How much are actions determined by luck (as opposed to player decisions)?
• Unpredictability: How often is the outcome of a turn/round/game known before it ends?
• Downtime: How much time do you spend without interacting with the game/other players?
• Complexity: How much calculating and weighting of different elements is required?
• Depth: How much is the background/challenge depicted in detail?
• Consistency: How much do the mechanics make sense theme-wise and among each other?
• Originality: Does the game include new twists or unique combinations?
• Broad Appeal: Would you teach this to someone who is not a serious game player?
• Simple to Learn: Were the rules easy to explain? Is in-game reference to them required?
• Balance: Does every player have an equal chance of winning?
• Replayability: Do you want to play it again soon?
• Fun: Did you / the group enjoy the experience?
• Rules: What is the overall functionality of the rules?
• Components: What is the overall functionality of the components?
• Mechanics: What is the overall functionality of the mechanics?
Personal comments are also welcome.
Thanks for testing Roman Emperors!
So apparently everyone I talked to didn't like the first version of the review sheet (not even my own gaming group). So I tried a new approach: trimmed cathegories from 15 to 11, simplified the questions, and changed 1-4 ratings for YES/NO answers. The result is a new poll-type sheet (see below).
The thing is I don't need these answers just to my own information. I intend to present the results to the publisher to support my candidacy as their next title. I'm thinking it could be usefull for the editor to know the right questions were made and positive answers were retrieved (hopefully) from most (if not all) playtesters involved.
Thanks innuendo, and hulken especially, for your interesting feedback. Hope this time works better. Be my guests.
Roman Emperors Playtesters Poll
(Review sheet version 02 simplified)
Please answer YES or NO
You may take a guess if you “don’t know”; first impressions and intuitions are also very valuable
Luck Factor: Do you think the game was too determined by lucky rolls or card draws?
Unpredictability: Was the winner of the game easily identifiable too early before the end?
Downtime: Did the waiting felt too long when you were not the active player (Emperor)?
Complexity: Did in-game calculations felt too “brain burning”?
Depth: Would you say the game requires more historical flavor / details?
Originality: Did you played (know of) games that are too similar to this one?
Broad Appeal: Would you teach this game to someone who is not a regular gamer?
Simple to Learn: Were the rules easy to grasp at first? Were them easy to explain to others?
Balance: Did you feel a certain player had an advantage because of the turn order?
Replayability: Do you think the game could get too repetitive too fast?
Fun: Did you / the group enjoy the experience?
Aside this, “what you liked the most / least” or other personal comments are also always welcome.
Thanks for testing Roman Emperors!
Pastor_Mora