
Playtesting Tabletop Games - cpeterso
https://gaslands.com/playtesting-tabletop-games-advice/
======
tialaramex
This misses an element that's really worth mentioning to designers. Simplicity
is good. Few games suck because they didn't have enough rules, so probably if
your game sucks you shouldn't try to fix that by adding more rules.

In playtesting this means noticing - the players never seem to cause X to
happen. Is that because X seemed cool to you but actually the rules for it are
confusing and add nothing to the game? Rip them out. Cry about it if you like,
hold a mini-funeral for feature X, but rip it out.

The temptation to have too many rules is exaggerated for video games, because
whereas a human player won't put up with six binders of rules for a 20 minute
board game, millions of lines of custom code isn't a blocker for a AAA video
game title even if, again, the complexity actually makes the game worse.

Which doesn't mean your game needs to be Snap, or Pong, but it means that
making the core shooting mechanic of your shooter feel a bit better is a
superior use of your time to integrating a half-arsed RPG element everybody
will ignore anyway; a few more weeks on fine-tuning the card text for your
hybrid card plus dice game will go a lot further than adding two other sizes
of card, a cloth playing area, paper money, plastic tokens, and a life-size
plastic rat.

Unless the whole point is to get the maximum possible money for your
Kickstarter, in that case go for it. Stretch goal of hand painted miniatures
for each of the 640 possible playable characters? Why not.

~~~
adamredwoods
I've commented a few times (on BGG) on games where too many rules can cause
frustration or confusion. Are the rules limiting or are they allowing a new
ability? Do the rules follow a path that makes sense to the game (heuristics)?

The work behind (tabletop) game design is to create a meaningful product in
the most elegant and interesting way. Streamlining gameplay is essential. Keep
what is meaningful, throw out the rest, and iterate again. The most recent
game I played that I feel violated this was Feudum.
[https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/163839/feudum](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/163839/feudum)

~~~
milesvp
This was my biggest problem with the game Brass. It had too many rules to deal
with game breaking moves. Time and time again, I'd see something that looked
like a strong move only to realize I couldn't do it in what seemed like an
arbitrary 'can't do X in round one'. It was clear to me in retrospec that the
rule was because it prevented these strong moves, but it felt tacked on and
contrived. Worse, is you have to keep a list of all the things you can't do in
your head, and they're the type of rules that are likely to be missed, only to
have someone salty over losing look at the rulebook, and say 'wait, you can't
do that'.

------
Djvacto
This is solid advice, also for playtesting video games as well.

I definitely think the point about not being the one to teach the game to
players, but rather letting the rulebook do so, is important. You won't be
there at every play session of your game, for every group that ever buys it.

Additionally, having sessions where you can observe (either because they were
recorded or you were there) are great, especially when you aren't interacting
with the game, as this will prevent your biases or experience from steering
the game onto already discovered paths.

------
snarf21
This is all generally very good advice. However, I think the "Ignore
Playtesters" section is wrong. You do have to not just take their idea carte
blanche and add it. But you should listen to their ideas because it is always
in one of three categories.

1) Their idea is to fix a problem in your game but they may have trouble
articulating it. 2) Their idea is for an additional element that will add to
the strategy or fun of your game. 3) Their idea is to change the game to the
type of game _they_ like. You shouldn't usually heed this advice but it is
very important to ask why players of games X don't like this game.

~~~
smoe
I think the quote they used in the article puts it pretty well.

“When someone tells you there is problem with your game, they are almost
always right. When someone tells you how to fix that problem, they are almost
always wrong.”

I don't have experience with games but I had the same conclusion with feedback
about music productions and concerts. Some of the most valuable input we got
was from people completely ignorant of what goes into making music or the
theory thereof. They just tell you that they don't feel it, that a part is
odd, etc., but can't put their finger on what is wrong. On the other hand,
some of the most useless input came from people that know a little bit about
music, but don't have actual experience doing it. They jump to the solution
directly, telling you what to change without being aware of the consequences,
what impact for example making one instrument louder has on others, whether it
fits into the theme, how much is just their personal taste, etc. Often while
being very insistent that they are right.

You should certainly always listen what people say. But honestly for me it was
only ever really useful if it came from either (semi-)professionals, or from
people that don't know anything.

