test playing

You should be constantly testing the game as you make tweaks and changes. There was an interesting post here not too long ago about testing your game as soon as possible.

Just play through your game. Play by yourself! Play with some close friends. Keep tweaking things as you see fit and keep testing. Take notes of what works, and what doesn't.

you might have to be more specific with what you are asking for.

are you asking about how to get people to test your game? methods of recording data from tests? interpreting data from tests? how to create a prototype?

at the very least, can you tell us the status of your preparation for testing? like if you have a rudimentary paper prototype to play

as for your question:

This wholely depends on the experience you want for your game. if you want a game that is best experienced solo, by all means. But do keep in mind that gaming remains predominantly a social activity, so i would suggest finding friends to test out play with multiple players.

When testing, do you test the current state and iterate off that, or is a it worthwhile idea to prepare multiple versions of a questionable rule in advance and then compare them in testing?

Ie, my initial brainstorming is generating a number sort of forking design possibilities. When I start drawing up an early prototype and testing, should I be taking an initial set of assumptions and trying to run with them, or preparing different versions and comparing them from an early stage?

1) Playtesting sounds fun in the abstract, but the majority of people cannot playtest well, for one reason or another. Just be prepared, and don't take it personally if even your close friends won't/don't/can't assist you here. There are exceptions, but I would expect no more than 30% of people who respond to a general call for playtesters to actually invest their time and produce meaningful data. Many established companies do no external testing, because the effort:results is just too high. (I do not recommend this to a first-time designer.)

2) The easier you make it for playtesters to play, the more likely they will be to actually follow through. This means that sending them the physical materials is a lot more likely to get results than emailing PDFs for them to print. Physically preparing the materials (e.g. cutting things out yourself) is even more likely to get results. But still–– don't get your hopes up.

3) Game development (including playtesting) is like being a rock musician or a film star–– lots of people like the idea of doing it, because they love the end product. But most people are just totally unprepared for the tedium and grit that it involves. Much of the time (particularly in very early testing), playtesting a game isn't remotely fun. It can involve a lot of stops and starts, or rule changes made on the spot. There is basically an inverse relationship between the amount of fun had in a test, and the volume of tangible information produced which informs changes–– the smoother a test goes, the less useful it tends to be for the designer. Make sure each group knows what it's getting into.

4) Make your prototype materials as nice as you can, because this will affect how much fun people have. That sounds silly, but it's true. Nice icons, good cardstock–– this can be the difference between a successful test and a cancelled test. There are a whole bunch of gamers who are theme-oriented and will be totally unable to get into your game unless it's thematically fleshed out. Here's a very realistic scenario: You approach Timmy for playtesting, he plays your homemade prototype, and says he totally hates it. Add some art, some nice graphic-design, a story, and a pretty box with a dragon on it, and suddenly he'll say it's his favorite game and he'll glady drop $100 on it. Generally speaking, most people do not understand why they like something, and are very poor at articulating their impressions. That's not to say that you should dismiss anything they say, but take everything with a grain of salt.

5) Generally speaking, I find myself returning to the following realization: There are two major types of playtesting.
• The first type tries to answer questions like Is this game fun? Should I continue to invest time into developing it? What major changes could improve it?
• The second type answers the questions of Does this game work? Is it balanced? Are there ways to play which trivialize the experience?
The first involves playing very much in 'spirit' of the game, and it's ok to paint a picture for your testers of how you imagine the game should be played. Casual gamers are generally well suited to this, because they are trying to pursue an enjoyable experience. The second type is as difficult as it is critical, because it requires people who already understand the game to go out of their way to not have fun.
Ironically, I have found that many of my colleagues in the industry are actually the worst playtesters I have ever used, because they try to do the second type when you're still trying to do the first.

That's all I have time for, now. Hope that helps.

The first stage of play testing is always solitary. You need to make sure the mechanics make sense. Start there, then get anyone and everyone to play the game.

I recommend you make a list of things you want to achieve with the game. This will help results.

jonu,

One of the easiest and least expensive way to have it "blind-playtested" (which is what you're asking, as you will not physically be present to answer questions), is to have the rules and components made into a .pdf format and sent out to a number of playtesters.

I conduct playtesting for Strategy & Tactics and Modern War magazines, so they're 'hex and counter' wargames. Additionally, I've been asked by Compass Games to develop several other games for them. If you have a semi-polished game, I would be more then happy to run it through its paces.

Cheers,
Joe

Great question...

Since 2010, I've returned to board games after many years as an RPGer, and more specifically, "hex & counter" wargames. I've play-tested, as part of a team close to three dozen games released in the magazines. As a play-tester, you report your findings to the Developer who is charged with finding the play-testers...sometimes you accompany the rules at a convention, and at other times you conduct "blind" playtesting where the rules must stand on their own.

Recently, I assisted Ernie Copley with a number of scenarios and rewrote an entire section on Diplomacy for an upcoming expansion to his critically-acclaimed "Monster" war-game, "The War: Europe, 1939-1940."

In addition, Compass Games has reached out to me, asking that I serve as the Developer for a WWI Zeppelin game, pitting German airships against the nascent British RAF. I've reviewed the rules, offered significant editing recommendations, and will begin the "play-test" phase in the months ahead.

Hope that helped and provided you a better understanding of at least two of the myriad roles engaged in board-game design.

Cheers,
Joe