Dale Yu: Playtesting Thoughts

Well, the cat’s out of the bag now… I’ll have to admit here that I’m a closet playtester.  It’s not something that I normally talk about openly, but there has been enough discussion about playtesting in the last few weeks to cause me to share my thoughts on playtesting / game development. 

First, I’m sure you’re asking yourself – Why wouldn’t Dale want to admit that he likes to playtest games?  The primary reason is that I don’t have as much time to play games as I’d like, and I want to have enough time to play the finished published games that look all bright and sparkly on my game shelves.  It can become quite easy to fill up an entire night of gaming with prototypes and the like – trust me on that one!

Additionally, I have another reason for remaining quiet about my playtesting habits.  Frankly, I’m tired of playing a bunch of crap.  Just like any other field, for every game that gets published, there are at least one hundred games which don’t make the cut.  I had a period in my life where I was basically inundated with games to playtest that took up the majority of my gameplaying time.  Furthermore, many of the games were just not that good.  I used to stay quiet about my playtesting habit so that I wouldn’t get any more unsolicited prototypes in the mail to play.

Finally, for better or for worse, I’m a brutally honest playtester.  If a game works, I’ll happily report back about the bits that I liked.  However, if something doesn’t work or doesn’t make sense, I’ll also not hold back in the report.  In one of my early playtesting experiences, I almost broke a strong friendship over my playtesting report when I told him that his baby (which he had been working on for two years) was broken.  Let’s just say that he wasn’t particularly ready to be told this after spending two years on the project! 

That all being said, I have resumed my playtesting career in the last two years.  I have started to enjoy it again.  I have actually very much enjoyed helping people with the design process, and I feel that I have been able to really contribute to the process.  I, like most Eurogamers, have tried my hand in the past at designing games, and I must admit that each and every attempt at game design has turned into the pieces of crap that I was referring to above.  However, I have found that I am able to do a fairly good job at playtesting and tweaking designs created by other people. 

Playtesting fits a good niche for me as far as game tinkering goes.  I’m sure that most of you know of at least one gamer who will play a game and then instantly suggest a rule to make it “betterâ€?.  In general, I’m not a proponent of such tinkering.  I (perhaps foolishly) assume that the game has been adequately playtested and that most of the problems have been ironed out of the game.  Even if this hasn’t been the case, I’d like to think that the final game as presented represents the game that the designer wanted you to play.  That being said, I still like the idea of tinkering with games… and playtesting gives me that outlet.  Furthermore, it’s a bit more gratifying to see one of your proposed changes make it into a final ruleset as opposed to being one of many house rules for a particular game.

My re-entry into the world of playtesting came about two years ago.  A good friend, Alan Newman, asked me if I’d be interested in looking at one of his new designs, Winds of Plunder.  He had recently submitted it to GMT, and they were looking for some external playtesters.  I was still a bit reticent to accept the “dutyâ€? of playtesting, but my friendship with Alan trumped my misgivings of playing bad games over and over again.  It also helped that I was infatuated with Tin Soldiers at the time, so I was fairly confident that Alan wasn’t going to saddle me with a stinker!  Furthermore, I felt that Alan and I were good enough friends that I would be able to say anything that I thought about the game without risking our friendship.  I’m happy to say that I managed to get in at least 12 games of Winds of Plunder in the time since I received it.  It helps that I was also asked to help show the game at a few conventions along the way.

So what do I do when I playtest a game?  First, I’d like to make sure that the game is fun and enjoyable.  Second, I like to see if the rules are clear and understandable as they are written.  Third, I look for any possible rules inconsistencies or “brokenâ€? elements in the game – basically, I try to break the game to see how it handles “extremeâ€? conditions.  Fourth, and finally, only after I’ve done the first three points, do I look at the different portions of the game and see if there is anything that I think could be improved.  What do I not do when I playtest a game?  I generally ignore the bits and the graphics because I’m generally getting an unfinished product.  While these components are clearly important to the overall perception of the game, these issues are generally not at the forefront with most prototypes.

How do I playtest a game? First and foremost, I try to get the game played a few times with other experienced gamers just to see how the game works.  If possible, I try to get the game played with both the minimum number of recommended players as well as the maximum number of players.  As we all know, though the words on the side of the box may tell us that a game is suitable for 3 to 6 players, oftentimes the game plays quite differently based upon the number of players in the game!

For the initial game, I usually try to read the rules for the very first time as we setup the game.  Why?  Because I want to replicate, as best as possible, conditions that any new gamer would have with the game.  I keep a notepad beside me as we play and jot down questions/ideas/concerns as they come up.  The easiest test of the ruleset is to see whether four gamers are able to figure out how to setup the game and play by having someone read them the rules.  Admittedly, this is sometimes made difficult because the rules are not yet in finished format (with appropriate graphics/illustrations for examples), but I still think it’s fair to expect that any gamer could pick up the game from the rules alone.

Once we get started, I take very few notes.  I might note the starting order of players and initial placements/strategies, but after that, I like to concentrate on the gameplay itself.  I find that with most games, I’m able to reconstruct most of the game if I write down notes afterwards.  The exception to this rule is that I do make a point to write down any questions that the players have during the game as well as recording if we were able to come to an acceptable solution by re-reading the rules.  This activity helps finetune the rules to make sure that the right things are emphasized.

During the first few times playing a prototype, I generally try to take the strategy that seems most obvious to me.  I generally try not to influence the play of any of the other playtesters so that they can freely choose their own strategy or approach to the game.  I have found it very useful at the end of the game to then ask each playtester to write down or at least verbalize their attempted strategy and the varying successes seen with each path.

Once the game is done, I’ll make a note of the final scores as well as methods of scoring (if applicable).  I’ll also make careful notes of the length of time that it took to play the game.  As I noted above, this is also the time where I write down my comments about the game as well as the strategy that I took.  I’ll also ask the playtesters to rate the game both numerically as well as verbally.  This is also a good time to record what parts of the game were liked and which were not.  If there is enough time and inclination, I actually prefer the playtesters to write these things down in their own hand so that I don’t color their comments with my own.  Finally, I ask if there is anything that the playtesters would change in the game, and why they feel the change is needed.

Then, I’ll try to repeat the experience somewhere between two and ten more times before I give results back to the designer.  This may mean that my feedback may be weeks or months in coming, but I feel that it helps to have a bit of experience with the game before you try to give meaningful feedback.  Multiple plays of a game help make sure that you get a chance to see the game from a few different angles.  It also helps prevent one uncommon experience from skewing your overall view of the game.  (Whenever I write an article on how I review games, this is basically the central point of that as well!)

When the time comes to give a report back to the designer, I’ll generally try to catch the designer on the phone.  I just think that this is, at least initially, a better way to transmit the data.  It’s easier to have a two-way discourse of information between playtester and designer.  As I give my report on the phone, the designer can ask me immediately as questions come to his/her mind.  I’ve found that this interchange can be stunted by email.  Once that is done, then I’ll also email the data to the designer to provide a more permanent copy of the details.

I’ve been lucky enough to have been invited to help playtest almost 10 published (or soon-to-be published) games in the last two years, and I’ll admit that I’m very much enjoying the process again.  It is exciting to see a great idea months to years before the gaming public gets a chance to play it.  It’s also very gratifying to see some of your own ideas be incorporated into the final product.  If you’ve done a good job, you might even get your name in the credits in the rules and even possibly a free copy of the game!  For many playtesters, especially myself, this is about the only way that I’m going to be involved in a published game.  For some of the games (Axis and Allies: D-Day, Axis and Allies: Europe), I’ve not done much more than play the final prototype to make sure there weren’t any glaring issues.  For other games (Winds of Plunder, Desert Bazaar, Age Of Steam:London, Age Of Steam: Sun), I think that I’ve played a somewhat larger role in giving more valuable feedback to help improve the game.  I don’t have any delusions about my role… It’s clearly minor in the grand scheme of things—but it’s still the closest I’ll come to designing my own game for the time being.

CRAZY DALE’S GAME BAZAAR

This week, I have a special for you readers… A chance to get a game convention limited edition!

I have in my grubby little hands: a limited edition Heroscape figure!  I just realized that while I was at GenCon 2006, I picked up the promotional Heroscape figure… As I don’t really play Heroscape anymore, I had just put this figure in a drawer.  It has come to my attention, however, that there are some gamers that would really like to have this in their collection – as I’ve had a few people offer to buy it from me once they saw it in my game closet.  I was frankly amazed to see what this figure was going for on eBay (anywhere from $57 to $75)!

What I offer is:

1 Sir Hawthorne figure in the original shrink packaging
1 Sir Hawthorne hex with all of his info on it
1 promotional Heroscape comic book that they handed out at GenCon as well
Shipping is included for free with the winning bid.

I’ll take offers all day Wednesday for the first 72 hours that this article is posted, starting at $60 (because that’s what I’ve already been offered). 
(NB: Timing has changed due to the server overload that we’ve been experiencing!)

BUT WAIT… THERE’S MORE!

Hameln (Fragor)
While we’re on the topic of convention exclusives, I also have access to a brand-spanking new copy of Hameln, the new Essen release from Fragor.  Admittedly, the game was not intended to be an exclusive, but since the entire print run had been pre-ordered before Essen started, it’s not the easiest game to find!  This copy is in shrink… just waiting to be torn open so that the new owner can take in a huge breath of that new-game-box smell.  It can be yours for $60.00 + $8.10 for USPS Priority Mail. 

Comment below or contact me via email at BGNAdvisor at gmail.com for either game. 

Until your next appointment,
The Gaming Doctor

© 2007 Dale Yu

---

Comments:

You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free, but if you appreciate the news, previews, reviews and other material posted on Boardgame News, please consider becoming a member to keep the info flowing to your screen!

Insightful article, Dale!  I love to read everything I can about game design. Speaking of prototypes, Hameln is a great prototype that’s like 80% there, but needs that extra time to make it a great game.  There’s alot of great ideas in there, the core mechanic of the game is very clever - but the fluff surrounding the game is tired and unnecessary.  A shame it was produced so early because after another year of sending it around to testers like you, it could have been a great game. Posted by Phil Schwarzmann on Jan 31, 2007 at 07:37 AM | #

Phil, I agree with you on Hameln.  I must admit though that I had nothing to do with the development of Hameln (or any other Fragor game) for that matter.  I also liked the basic concepts/mechanics around the game, but I found myself very frustrated by the dependence on others to determine what actions you had left on your own turn.  I know others that really like the game, but it just turned out to be “not for me”. Dale Posted by Dale Yu on Jan 31, 2007 at 11:34 AM | #

You convinced me--a package of about two dozen prototypes is on it’s way to your place (they’re not crap, I promise) Posted by Jeff Allers on Jan 31, 2007 at 05:45 PM | #

Hi Dale as usual your articles are always nice to read. I’ll point a link to this to Italian web site for game designers! I’m also deep involved in playtesting games (most for Italian companies) and I agree with you, Dale, that is not an easy task. Sometimes is also not a funny task, especially when you have to tell designers that the game, on your personal view, is not working at all! also for tha I prefer to be involved in the final phase of the project, when most of the game rules are OK and there is a need of final fixings and small changes before the final stage and publishing. I’m also not very skilled in the creative part of designing but I’m quite good in finding bugs (or broken rules) and suggesting small changes/fixes. I’m usually involved in playtesting the games at the same table with the designers so it easy to start a discussion just after the game. But I also like to write comments and send the report by email because I think that is a good way to fix the “problem” on a paper, both for me and the designer. What I usually ask for my playtesting activitiy is just a copy of the game signed by the author and, if my contribution was significant, also my name in the play-tester list! Anyway sometimes is a bit frustrating use time to play-test games when my shelves are still full of games played once or twice at most. good play(testing) Liga Posted by Andrea Liga Ligabue on Feb 1, 2007 at 01:56 AM | #

I’ve been designing games for the past couple years, one day I hope to get published, but never sent any of my protos out yet.  Why?  Cause I know they’re not ready yet. If you send out a game, and it’s broken or “doesn’t work” or has problems...shame on you!!  Shame you on for wasting Liga’s and Dale’s time.  All this stuff should be worked out during playtesting, there’s no excuse.  What do you guys think?  Do you often get angry at the designers after the first playtest cause they sent it to you prematurely? Posted by Phil Schwarzmann on Feb 1, 2007 at 02:11 AM | #

Hi Phil > What do you guys think?  Do you often get angry at > the designers after the first play-test cause they > sent it to you prematurely? usually I ask designers to send me prototypes when they think are almost OK. Of course, if they contact me and need play-testing, it means that the game is not yet ready but I usually ask that at least the “core rules” are OK and the game was already tested enough by the designer himself to be sure that at least you can play a game from the beginning to the end without a major evident broke. But that juts is my opinion. I know play-testers that prefer (like) to be involved in the game designing process right from the beginning. good play Liga Posted by Andrea Liga Ligabue on Feb 1, 2007 at 02:32 AM | #

Are you talking about semi-professional play-testers like you and Dale?  Or play-testers as in, my gaming group and my friends and family? I couldn’t imagine being a play-tester from the very start, unless I was doing it to help a friend...or the designer was very well known.  Liga - you work for DaVinci, is that right?  How much play-teasting work do you all do once you receive a proto and say, “yes, we’ll publish this”? Posted by Phil Schwarzmann on Feb 1, 2007 at 02:37 AM | #

> Liga - you work for DaVinci, is that right?  How > much play-testing work do you all do once you > receive a proto and say, “yes, we’ll publish > thisâ€?? I don’t work for daVinci. I’m not payed by anyone for anything I’m doing for the game scene. Everything I have done until now (play-testing, writing articles, reviews and organizing conventions/events) was always just for fun! Usually when I got a game for play-testing is close to be published so I have time to play it 4-5 times with almost the same rules and give little hints how to fix something here and there, how to change something in the score to be more balanced and so on. I happens sometimes (like for the game M. Papini is working now ... but I cant’ say nothing about it) that I’m involved just from the beginning and so I have to play it more times with rules that are sometimes really different. Of course I’m talking about external play-testers, that are not part of the designer usual gaming group, and that are contacted in the final stage of the game development. Anyway if you really need to know more details of my play-testing activity drop me an email at . good play Liga Posted by Andrea Liga Ligabue on Feb 1, 2007 at 03:03 AM | #

Phil, The best thing to do, from my experience, is to get together with other designers and just play each other’s prototypes.  It’s only fair, then--you test their’s they test yours.  Plus, designers have great ideas to help other people’s designs.  Sometimes you might even combine some mechanisms to co-author a game! I do also appreciate people like Andrea and Dale who are very good in the fine-tuning phase.  It takes lots of playtesting with lots of different types of people to refine the final design. Posted by Jeff Allers on Feb 1, 2007 at 05:21 AM | #

Dale, Really nice article.  I have the utmost respect for you for doing this.  I get to do it every once in a while, and I am in awe when I see other people who can immediately pinpoint problems with a game and who can make incisive constructive suggestions.  Playtesting is not an easy task and I don’t think everyone realizes the importance of thorough playtesting. Posted by Scott Tepper on Feb 1, 2007 at 01:24 PM | #

< Back Home