Hello folks,

The subject of people's playtesting methods came up in the "Bitter Non-Designers" threads, and reminded me of an idea I've been talking about IRL with friends of mine: namely, that there might be more to gain as a designer from playtesting as a player as opposed to as a GM.

Three reasons for this:

- It's a lot easier for GMs to gloss over, skip, or otherwise change rules they don't like in a game. It's more difficult for players to do that: they can't up and change the house rules off their own bat, if they have a problem with an aspect of the rules. As such, rough and unpolished rules tend to have a bigger impact on players than they do GMs, so as a player it's easier to spot them.

- You probably have a damn good idea of how to GM your own game. That doesn't necessarily mean you've communicated that in the rules you've devised; letting someone else take the GMing chair can give you insight into GMing your game from the point of view of someone who doesn't know the system and setting like the back of their hand (because they didn't invent the system), and that's all to the good.

- The big one: playtesting from a player's POV helps you optimise the game from the player's perspective. If you only playtest as a GM, you run the risk of designing a "GM's game" - by which I mean something like the original Vampire, which is obviously designed by someone who doesn't especially like or trust players not to wreck the beautiful coherent storyline they've planned as a GM.

In the near future I'm going to GM a game a friend of mine designed for the modus-operandi.co.uk 24 hour RPG competition ("The Sun Never Sets") so that he can play it, and I'm hoping to convince him to GM my own Dictatus Papae. We'll see how this works.

Thoughts?

Agreed, and for most of the same reasons.

It can be a little hard to corral friends to GM a playtest in the early stages though ... nobody wants to preside over an inevitable crash-and-burn as the not-yet-meshing rules implode

But yeah, I'm definitely getting people in my group accustomed to the fact that when things settle down in my new ruleset, I'm going to ask some of them to take the GM chair and let me see things from the player's perspective.

This is a great piece of advice, I agree.

If I was - like - a normal player instead of the Tyrant of the Universe, I'd agree. I turn normal GMs to jelly, :O

-clash

Absolutely agree. In fact, I've actually seen games come out that were written kind of crappy (like the original version of Dread: the First Book of Pandemonium, one of my favorite games in the world BTW) because the GM had this awesome game in their head that flowed like water... but that Was Not The Game Written in the Book. I've seen the same thing in a few other cases as well, like games that quickly came out with a revised edition and the like.

Being a player in a session of their own game would be awesome.  Further awesomeness is if you can recruit complete strangers to play the game, and tell you what happened (maybe swap: You play a stranger's game, they play yours, and trade notes). That way you're not even there to potentially influence the game. You're not there to offer advice, make a correction, explain a rule, etc.

I had a surprising thing last year at MACE happen. There's this game that I'm translating into English, and recently I've been running a bunch of playtests of it in the area: The rules are all written, but I want to have that "deeper understanding" of them so that I can explain them well in the translated version: To clarify points, explain the meanings of rules, etc.

So, at MACE (a local con), my friend Mark ran a session of this game, and another game I was scheduled for was cancelled so I joined in as a player. I literally sat there as a player and let Mark take the whole show from beginning to end. There were a few points where he looked at me pleadingly, like, "Am I explaining this right? Jump in here and tell us how this works if I'm getting it wrong." and the like, but I basically waved my hand in that "It's your show dude, I'm the player, you're the GM, do what you will with it" way.

It was Awesome.  Mark threw together a better session of the game than I did. Being a player, and refusing to correct him, to explain how the rules or setting "really work", etc, not only gave me insight into the cool areas and fun juicy bits of the game, but totally shown a spotlight on those issues that needed explanation, clarification, or just downright fixing.  

It was a real educational experience.  I highly recommend it.

-Andy

Just wanted to say I agree with all this agreement.  Excellent advice.  I wonder how many small-press/independent (or larger companies, for that matter) creators/writers/publishers take it into account when playtesting?

The problem with testing is you (sometimes) get what I call "The Nielsen Family Effect".

The Nielsen families were a way to rate television. Like they had a deal on their televisions that would monitor what they watched so that ratings would go in and be counted.

Well, it worked up until a point where the Nielsen families became so self-conscious about what they were watching, that they would intentionally have two or three television going at all times and recording programs they (didn't actually watch) but felt they wanted to have on record so as to  "represent themselves". People weren't actually watching the shows, they just made sure to have VCR's going recording NOVA and public TV and whatnot.  

So just by awareness that your'e performing a test, a test sometimes ends up altering itself.

Thats the difficulty of playtesting.

Problem is, it's still not going to be as good as multiple, external (meaning: author not involved at all) playtests.  Andy K touches on an important point:  there's a temptation to correct or elaborate even from the player's chair, and even if that effort is submerged your perspective is still not one wholly of a player but still that of an author.  And the mood at the table is likely to be impacted by the author's presence anyhow.

I'm not saying it's worthless.  I do agree that it's worlds better than author-GM'd playtesting.  But again, it's just not a substitute for having actual third parties play and report.  The more, the better.

Third party is best because the group will approach the stuff blindly exactly the way a customer would.

Quote from: RedFoxProblem is, it's still not going to be as good as multiple, external (meaning: author not involved at all) playtests.  Andy K touches on an important point:  there's a temptation to correct or elaborate even from the player's chair, and even if that effort is submerged your perspective is still not one wholly of a player but still that of an author.  And the mood at the table is likely to be impacted by the author's presence anyhow.

I'm not saying it's worthless.  I do agree that it's worlds better than author-GM'd playtesting.  But again, it's just not a substitute for having actual third parties play and report.  The more, the better.

Agreed, Red! I think it would be cool, and useful to get a different perspective on the game, but not as a replacement for blind beta testing.

-clash

I have to say that I take three approaches to play testing. First is me running/playing. I get two things from this. Running I am able to work kinks out of GM/play oriented rules. When I play I am able to better experience the player's perspective.

Second, I have what I call experienced or guided playtesting. This is when I give playtest copies to groups I am not running or playing in but are aware of the system and or setting that HinterWelt puts out. This is so I can see if the rules work from people who know how to break the system and whether it might appeal to existing customers.

Third, and most difficult to track down, are neonate (to HWE at least) playtesters. Of course, this helps to show what is not explained well or needs refining.

So, yes, playing the game gives you a perspective that you will not have when running the game.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI have to say that I take three approaches to play testing. First is me running/playing. I get two things from this. Running I am able to work kinks out of GM/play oriented rules. When I play I am able to better experience the player's perspective.

Second, I have what I call experienced or guided playtesting. This is when I give playtest copies to groups I am not running or playing in but are aware of the system and or setting that HinterWelt puts out. This is so I can see if the rules work from people who know how to break the system and whether it might appeal to existing customers.

Third, and most difficult to track down, are neonate (to HWE at least) playtesters. Of course, this helps to show what is not explained well or needs refining.

So, yes, playing the game gives you a perspective that you will not have when running the game.

Bill

Hi Bill,

For point 2 in your comments, do you have a regular pool of playtesters that you call upon to try out different products that you're working on? How does their experience with your products compare to the responses you get from new, totally blind playtesters?

I've only ever really utilised the methods you talk about in points 1 and 3, so I'd be very interested to hear how things go with groups that fit into point 2.

Cheers
Malcolm

Quote from: Malcolm CraigHi Bill,

For point 2 in your comments, do you have a regular pool of playtesters that you call upon to try out different products that you're working on? How does their experience with your products compare to the responses you get from new, totally blind playtesters?

I've only ever really utilised the methods you talk about in points 1 and 3, so I'd be very interested to hear how things go with groups that fit into point 2.

Cheers
Malcolm

Hey Malcolm,
Let's call the experienced play testers "Group 2". I usually put out a general call to a mailing group of proven play testers. Every now and then I will make an open call, get a squad, then see who is serious. The rest get dropped from the list of proven groups. By proven I simply mean, "they actually give me feedback on the game". So, yes, I have a pool of about 30 groups who do play testing for me who range in experience with my systems.

Now, their responses are interesting. They usually fall into what you would expect in that they point out ways to game the new mechanics, over sites and imbalances. The thing that gets me though, is that they will (after playing a few of my games) start to overlook some of my writing gaffes. I find Group 2 most useful in terms of testing the deep concepts of the system and setting;i.e. am I speaking to my core audience still. Usually I am on but in the good way that says you are stretching what the players will accept without ripping them up.

Does that answer it?

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltHey Malcolm,
Let's call the experienced play testers "Group 2". I usually put out a general call to a mailing group of proven play testers. Every now and then I will make an open call, get a squad, then see who is serious. The rest get dropped from the list of proven groups. By proven I simply mean, "they actually give me feedback on the game". So, yes, I have a pool of about 30 groups who do play testing for me who range in experience with my systems.

Now, their responses are interesting. They usually fall into what you would expect in that they point out ways to game the new mechanics, over sites and imbalances. The thing that gets me though, is that they will (after playing a few of my games) start to overlook some of my writing gaffes. I find Group 2 most useful in terms of testing the deep concepts of the system and setting;i.e. am I speaking to my core audience still. Usually I am on but in the good way that says you are stretching what the players will accept without ripping them up.

Does that answer it?

Bill

Yes, it does. Thanks for taking the time to talk about your method.

Cheers
Malcolm

A splendid idea. My only problem is finding someone else in my gaming group who is willing to GM.