Respect and gratitude to playtesters

Nice list.

If there's confusion from your rules, then you can clarify, and make notes to yourself on how to clarify the written rules.

Excellent list!

I mostly do remote blind testing, never any formal ftf tests. Thing that makes me avoid a game (and there are always games seeking testers) is a designer/developer that insists on all feedback being handed in with some amount of red tape, like I must use their huge google docs form. No thanks, not unless they pay me. Allow testers to send in feedback in as many ways as possible. Set up mail list and facebook group etc.

Also do not insist that I buy some software. PDF or a VASSAL module, please. If you want to also use some other software I do not care, but if you only do that I will spend my time on some other game.

Great list!

I always say to designers, they should treat their playtesters like gold!

12 years ago, I started am open playtesting night at a local gaming cafe here in Berlin, and I have seen just about every one of these mistakes.

Additionally, we must often reiterate that it is a give-and-take thing. Everyone needs to take turns playtesting other designers' games, and not only their own. We love it when people who are not designers want to playtest our games! No fighting over table time :-)

I don't have a problem with changing rules during a game when it's clearly better, and neither do my playtesters, but again, most of them are also designers. It might be different with a more casual gaming crowd.

I recently had someone bring a game to the table who declared that his game was "finished." When we asked him what he wanted from the playtesting session, he said, "I already know the game is good." So why do we need to playtest it, then? Needless to say, we found plenty of things to critique, but he wasn't very open to that. I don't think he had any idea that many of us have published games before, and know what we are talking about:-)

Blind playtesting is great, but also a luxury, and I rarely get the chance to do it, until the publisher tests it. We also don't care to take the time to read the rules, as it goes much faster when the designer explains the game. There are always exceptions, of course, and I did recently test a simpler game by reading the rules and teaching it to the others.

Great tips!

I agree with everything on the list mostly (though I do change rules between playtest sessions if one is just not working. I think about it of course, but usually the change is made because a round of testers suggested it and there's no time like the present tot est it out, if it makes sense.

I know that I really appreciate when people take the time to test my game, so I try to do the same if I see a designer not getting any traffic and trying to do the same. A thing that'll immediately set off alarms is if I ask questions or make an observation, and they brush it off as if it's the player's fault for misreading their design.

That or they respond in a way which lets me know they have zero intention of addressing it. As someone mentioned, they'll say the game is done or 80% done and the playtest is just the small tweaks stage. Once they say that, I already feel like I've wasted my time.

Personally, I had a problem being defensive. If someone pointed out a problem I knew was there, I always had to say " Yeaaah I know.I'm changing blah blah blah", but I'm changing that habit. I always write notes down when playtesting, so hopefully everyone felt their opinions were valued, but perception is important. So now, if I playtest at a con, and group 4 points out stuff someone in group 1 and 2 also pointed out, I change my answer into more of a question.

For example if Group A suggests that I add in a card that introduces backstabbing other players, and Group C gives me feed back like " I wish there was something I could do even when it's not my turn, to feel more villainous." Then I would go " well, an earlier group suggested I added a backstab card, what do you think about that?" I get a really good response when I turn it around like that, and it stops me from being insufferable and saying " yeah I know" all the time.

I think that it's fair to not redesign your game at one playtester's suggestion, but if multiple players give ideas about some element of your game, then there's a reason. I have also been given the useful advice to not take every playtester suggestion literally. Instead, try to figure out what they're trying to fix.

If someone is making suggestions to add cards to your game or change a mechanic, instead of being annoyed, try to understand the problem they are trying to fix. They might not even realize they're attempting to "fix" something and just want to suggest something cool. If you identify the problem, and it's not something others have mentioned or that you find aligns with your game, then disregard it.

Playtesters are not obligated to think about how many times your game has been tested, or to censor themselves to be more useful to the designer. They are giving their free time to help you. In my opinion, it is the designer's job to sift through what they say in order to find the useful bits. Their reactions are valid. Once your game is released, more gamers who think like that will multiply, and that critical feedback could turn into critical reviews.

If you want feedback, then accept all feedback. If your game has been tested hundreds of times to the point that you are unwilling to make major changes, then I think it'd be more useful for you to have more targeted or hand-picked playtesters play through your game, rather than randoms.

Designer (or developer) does not have to do anything based on reports, but it is THEIR job to filter playtest reports based on what they think the game needs and what time/resources allow. Testers should report what they find and can and should not try to filter based on what might be too much work to change or what was tested before or not. Filter is on the designer's side of communication.

If some ideas are good but just too much to work into the game then save it for an expansion or a completely new game (but please give some credit if you do...).

When reporting issues I find or suggest possible improvements I expect most of it to be ignored. But one thing I think designers can almost never ignore without VERY good reason are any reports mentioning that some part of the game was not easy to understand. If one playtester noticed then many players will as well.

Yes I understood. But if you rate the game a 3/10 and say it's because you would like the game to "play differently"... Then that kind of feedback is way too "critical".

Again I understand. But before you make a "suggestion"... Think really hard about "Is this going to be hard to implement???" or "Will this completely mess-up the existing game??" You just can't shoot off at the top of your head WHATEVER you like. Like I said there needs to be CONTEXT. It could be a moot point like in "Extra comments"...

Of course there is... Seeing what strategy players use to face their opponents is for example one reason. Another would be to see how the winner "wins" the game (how did he play, what was his play-style, etc.) I think you forget how beneficial 3rd parties are to just PLAYTEST a design. It gives you inner working to HOW your game may be played.

And believe me, I have played my own WIP with many players and through that experience, I have learned a lot about play-styles... How some players take their time while other are way more aggressive and interested in destroying their opponents.

There is a WHOLE array of gamers each with his own "play-style". And my WIP accommodates many (perhaps the majority) of styles. BUT if you never sit down and SEE what players figure out... And how that affects their play-style, you'll never know how interesting the depth of strategy is in your own game.

For example: in a four (4) person game including myself, one player said: "We need to get rid of him... He's banking way too many credits and is going to WIN the game!" (Talking about me). He needed to convince one (1) player to ATTACK and destroy my defending starship! He managed to convince another player of this fact and that player destroyed my only starship protecting my Homeworld. Like he said, on his turn he played three (3) Tactic cards doing +6 Damage combined with his starship of +4 Damage, so 10 Damage in one single turn... Destroying my Homeworld... Because I was down to 8 HP.

That's very aggressive play. You don't see that in MOST games. Most games are much more even in terms of "aggression".

But had he not played on that game night... I would not have seen such an aggressive play-style ... which changed the way I saw the game being played. Also another opponent who WON the game, took a different strategy and was successful in the end as a victor.

The bottom line is "IF" your game is very open-ended and allows for various types of "play-styles" (Timmy, Johnny, and Spike) of the world... You'd never know of deeper ways that you can play my WIP... Unless you playtest with more people and different groups!

Often I get that "the game has a lot of METAGAMING". And that's something HARD to playtest for... You need different groups and different players from all walks of life ... to see how different people approach the game from different angles.

And like I've said, I've managed various playgroups and METAGAMING is something that often "creeps up". So more experienced gamers who have played games like "Magic: the Gathering" (Magic) or a slew of board games with all kinds of mechanics, result in different approaches in to HOW they approach the game.

It's not always you get a very competitive Magic player that understands METAGAMING and how your deck and cards go hand-and-hand to allow you to deal the maximum damage in ideal situations... Let alone finding the ways to set up those ideal conditions (usually by convincing other players to go with the strategy...)

Like I said, I understood: "Listen and maybe you'll hear something of value from what each playtester is saying..." "Be open to the comments of each playtester." "Take everything with a grain of salt." "Don't be offended if people tell you your baby is ugly."

It's just feedback... Feel free to ignore what you think is useless and other aspects which you might want to revise and review... It's just hard to "go back" once you've already given "bad feedback" to something more reasonable (because honestly the game is pretty darn good!)