So I recently went to a play testing group night at Game Night Games in Salt Lake City and it was really fun. Playtested 2 games, one was already being looked at by publishers so I thought that useless to playtest but it was fun. The other was a cool trading game with some fun twists on dynamics.
The designers didn't playtest like I have been so here is my question when it comes to playtesting. Is it better to give a rule book and see how the players interpret your rules or is it better to explain your rules to your playtesters. At the meeting the designers just presented their rules via word and I thought it was fine but did it bias my game play and reaction? I mean whenever we ran into something we didn't know how to do we just asked the designer.
Second comment, not a question just something cool. I met the designer and artist for Bridge Troll and it was refreshing to see that they weren't these mysterious super heros whose skills surpassed mine by leaps and bound. They only surpassed me by leaps.
There were a few games there that were already under contract being playtested in order to fix something the publisher wanted fixed. So that made 100% sense to me. I was just complaining in a sort because only a few people were allowed to bring prototypes (Again I understand this, just selffish :) ) thus some people who have never had a game playtested weren't able to playtest theirs. Instead some of us resorted to playtesting a game that was already pretty polished.
So your right Rick, just complaining a wee little bit that's all.