[Ends and Means] How to Cultivate Playtests?

[Adam Cerling]

Hello all,

I'd like to learn about successful strategies you've used to get good playtesting results from people you can't meet face-to-face.

I've fielded several offers of interest into my LARP system, Ends and Means. I exchange a few e-mails with the interested parties, get an idea for the kind of game they'd like to run, send them a draft of my rules... and I never hear from them again. I have wondered if I'm just SOL getting playtests from strangers who have no personal conection to me and my success.

Recently I've received a new expression of interest (thanks to IndigoDreamer pimping my stuff!) from a fellow in New Hampshire, but I don't want to repeat the same pattern. I want to manage this intelligently, so he can learn my system with a minimum of dfficulty and run a fun game, and so I can get useful feedback.

Has anyone here managed a similar situation -- helping cultivate a playtester or playtest group you've never met? What did you do to make it work?

Adam

[iain]

In the process of playtesting Mob Justice I had a group in America who had very little playtesting experience. For me it is just a matter of telling them what is useful feedback and what is not, as well as a occasionally asking them to focus on a certain aspect of the game. Any group that just says 'this is rubbish' without giving feedback is probably not worth having. Their reports to you need to explain why they had trouble with certain aspects as well as highlighting the things they enjoyed.

Hope that helps
Cheers
Iain

[Adam Cerling]

Thanks, Iain. How did you recruit that group? How did you keep their interest high? Were you lucky enough to find a helpful group right away, or did you have to weed through a number of less-helpful offers?

[IndigoDreamer]

There's some irony in that Sanctum is the first "Offical playtest" That I've run, but it's not the only playtest that I've been involved in.

A few years ago, I created a game called "Berries and Medicine"   I didn't think anything of it, and used it on my pre-school classes and a volunteer program or two.   I also didn't think anything about teaching it to other teachers or parents.  Recently, after publishing a small blurb of my very first 'play-test', I had a request to 'teach the game' to a volunteer who ran a children's group out of state.   I obliged and although the only 'playtest result' I got back was a phone call giving me a thanks and telling me how it went for them, it was a revealing experience.

I've had plenty of people who have asked to learn the game/system that never use it.   It happens when there is curiousity or even motivation but there isn't a player-base or means to actually follow-through.  There are an incrediable amount of games that 'try to start up' and simply dont', whether from numbers, or from lack of motivation.  It doesn't mean your system is flawed, uninteresting or that it's even your fault if a playtest doesnt' happen.

Sometimes it -is- that the system or game isn't what someone thought it to be, and even if they like it, it may be that it wasn't what they were looking for.   Or it could be that some people have a hard time doing things that isn't taught to them by someone else through actual play.
Unless you are willing to video-tape some of your playtest sessions,  people who want to playtest from afar come visit for a few games, or someone learns the game and teaches it to them, this isn't going to change for the last batch of people.

From my experiences, and having seen many LARPS and games in general fail to launch, It doesn't even always have to do with the game or the system, but by the person intending to run the game.

My hypothisis is that if someone is serious enough about wanting to try the game and actually have the base to do so, they will follow through.  There are just some people who pursue wishful thinking and then if it fails, go quiet so that they don't have to admit that they couldn't actually get a play-test going.  There are also times in which someone just doesn't want to take the time to do something new or teach people how to play.  If someone really wants to play something, and they are determined enough to get it done, then they will.

Unless someone specifically tells you the system isn't right for them, I wouldn't blame the system.
If someone does tell you the system isn't right for them, then it should be taken into consideration 'why' it isn't right for them so that you can consider if it is a conflict with your system or if it just really isn't a system meant for what they are trying to do.  (but you already know that!)

Ends and Means is pretty easy to understand through the flow-chart, and your book explains alot.   I really wouldn't worry. 

As a note, I realize that on our current playtest, I am being perhaps overly detailed, but there is a factor that I am taking into account when I'm doing that and because of that, I might just get 'more' detailed.

It is my intention not to just get feedback from the playtest and figure out the mechanics and fixes, but to promote Sanctum and encourage others to playtest or try it through the blog

Make sense?

[iain]

I put out calls on the Forge and RPGnet as well as through the CGS site itself. As for vetting, I just asked the sort of games they had played before and then went through the process. If they show interest that is half the battle.
Cheers
Iain

[joepub]

Adam Cerling,

I have looked at the Ends and Means site twice, and been curious. I thought that the entire system was going to be on the website, but it turned out that only character creation and an overview were. (insert sad face here)

Here's what's preventing me from asking for the playtest rules:

If you and your friends are interested in starting a game or in just trying a one-shot, e-mail me. I will want to know what kind of setting you're interested in using, how many people are in your group, and when and where you'd be running your games. After each session, I'd like to hear your feedback on what's working well and what's not.

I can't commit, without reading a game, to playing it. I feel like there's a heavy amount of obligation, at least in your wording, associated with asking for the playtest rules.

Here's a thought: Why not put the whole system up online somewhere? And in the PDF or HTML or however you show us the system... right in the document, include a blurb about how we can help improve Ends and Means and participate in discussion and drop mad AP help.

If that were the case, I'd be extremely interested in picking it up and maybe pulling together a group for it.

[Adam Cerling]

Joe,

You have a very good point about my wording on the site. It doesn't need to be that strong. I will revise it.

Meanwhile, I would be glad to e-mail you a copy of the draft!

I'm intimidated by the thought of just posting the whole draft up on the web, though I'll consider it. The thought summons up a host of fears regarding the loss of control of my work. I'm sure it's a topic that's been debated around here before; I'll search around.

[Graham W]

Adam,

I'm probably a useful data point, since I volunteered to playtest Ends and Means, then pulled out.

The background, for everyone else, was this: I'd registered to run a one-shot Terry Pratchett LARP at a con. I asked for the Ends and Means rules, intending to use them, and liked them.

Closer to the time, I started thinking about exactly how my game would work. By now, I'd abandoned Pratchett, and the game was a Meat Loaf LARP. At first, it seemed easy: all the Ends and Means were Meat Loaf quotes (Ends: I'm gonna love her for both of us; Like a bat out of hell, I'll be gone before the morning comes. Means: I was a Varsity tackle and a hell of a block; I'd lie for you and that's the truth). And I really liked that.

The rules themselves, though, were causing me problems. Firstly, there was the job of working out how Ends And Means would work in a one-shot. The Weight Reserve doesn't really play a part, for example, so you can get rid of that. In fact, with pregenerated characters, you need hardly explain about weight at all. And everything becomes simpler.

But the conflict resolution was difficult. Con players wouldn't want a complex ruleset: I had to simplify the rules down to either a few paragraphs on a character sheet or a short introductory GM speech. But the rules were complicated: you add together the weights of your End and Mean and whoever's highest wins, OK; and then you can steal the scene with a certain number of tokens, sure; but then you can command the scene too; and then there's major and minor stakes.

It was too complex, I felt, for a one-shot. At first, I tried simplifying the rules: getting rid of Commanding the Scene; changing the cost of Stealing The Scene to one Plot Token; coping with Major Stakes by saying "If you want to kill someone or control them or anything strange, call a GM".

But I felt, with the rules changed, it wouldn't be a useful playtest. I cobbled together some homemade rules, instead, and they worked fine.

So, to summarise, the problem wasn't the way I was handled as a potential playtester: it was that the rules didn't fit for my one-shot. I really liked Ends And Means, but it seemed geared for campaign play.

As a practical suggestion, have you considered sharing a simplified version of the rules, for one-shots, on your site? That would give website visitors something to read; and might get you some one-shot playtests; and might alleviate your fears about sharing the full text.

You might also consider a grabby, one-shot scenario for Ends And Means: something a GM could pick up and play. Something with a strong theme: murder mystery or Mafia or even, for the World of Darkness market, a Days Of Judgement-ish theme. I'd still like to run Ends And Means and, if there was an easy way of running a one-shot, I'd probably do it.

Hope that's of some use.

Graham

[Andrew Morris]

I'll second Joe suggestion about putting the playtest document on your website. I've been wanted to take a look at the current rules for some time now, but there's no downlad. "Huh," I think. "Well, there's this thing about sending an email to get the rules. I should do that." Then I close the page and do something else, and forget about emailing for the rules.

[IndigoDreamer]

If you can get play-tests without giving away publically what you are planning to sell, then you should go for it.

As for one-shots, I'm with Graham that it would be nice to have a modified version of ends and means that was meant specifically for one shots.   Ends and Means loses a great deal of punch when you're using the full version.  As another thought, have you considered adding a section in Ends and Means that specifically addresses how to handle one-shots and the best way to do it?

Sara McAtee
(Currently Play-Testing Ends and Means while Play-Testing Sanctum: The Fallout)

[Adam Cerling]

I'll second Joe suggestion about putting the playtest document on your website. I've been wanted to take a look at the current rules for some time now, but there's no downlad. "Huh," I think. "Well, there's this thing about sending an email to get the rules. I should do that." Then I close the page and do something else, and forget about emailing for the rules.

Of course, how likely am I to get a playtest out of a guy whose attention span is that short?

(Just kidding, Andrew. I'll gladly e-mail you the current draft!)

I've revised the text on the webpage to be less strict. I do prefer to engage with people who at least have the time and interest to run LARPs in general. I'm not asking for a commitment to run a LARP before someone reads the rules -- though I am asking at least for a readiness to comment on them.

I also added a new link to the Conflict Resolution Quick Reference pamphlet I created for local playtests, which gives some more insight into the way the system handles conflicts between players. It's a bit cryptic without the rest of the rules, perhaps, but hopefully that counts toward "intruiging" rather than "offputting."

Graham, your comments led me to Sara's conclusion: I definitely need to include a chapter on running one-shots. One-shots are a very different beast from the multi-session play I designed for, but they are a very important tool for selling the system. Fortunately, I think the current draft of the rules will handle one-shots much better than the version you read -- I've got a Situation-creation mechanic now, called Cues, which I can adapt to drive one-shots like an engine.

...all of that said, this thread has drifted off-topic.

My problem isn't in getting offers: I've fielded about a dozen inquiries, one or two of which have shown promise. What I want to do is nurture those promising ones. So what I'd like to hear about is how other designers (LARP and Tabletop alike) have done the "care and feeding" of their remote playtest groups.

If the Forge is all about "Actual Play," then I'd like to read about its underpinnings: "Actual Support." What did you do, with your game, to help people run a successful playtest, when you could not be there in person to help?

[Malcolm Craig]

If the Forge is all about "Actual Play," then I'd like to read about its underpinnings: "Actual Support." What did you do, with your game, to help people run a successful playtest, when you could not be there in person to help?

Being available online to answer key questions in a reasonable timeframe was one of my main goals when playtesting Cold City with groups scattered around the world (one in New Zealand, two in the USA, one in England, with me up in Scotland).I set up a mailing list that all of the playtest GMs could feed into, leading to cross-fertilization of thoughts and ideas. A forum or some other means of communication would work equally well.

Providing a strong framework for what you want to get out of the playtest as a whole (and for individual segments, if you so divide it) can be valuable in giving direction and guidance to individual groups. Encouragement and signs that feedback is genuinely appreciated and taken on board are also key for me. People need to feel that, while they are far away somewhere, they still have a connection and that the work they are doing is meaningful in terms of producing a better game.

Substantive updates to the game text are good as well, rather than giving playtest groups a new version with each, tiny incremental change you make ("Here's version 2.1.3.4, you'll notice line 4, paragraph 2, page 56 has changed..."). Logging these changes and making the group aware of what has/hasn't been changed works as well.

Hope this helps in some small way.

Cheers
Malcolm

[Adam Cerling]

Thank you, Malcolm! This is exactly the kind of thing I'd like to read about.

Could you expand a little more on how you provided "a strong framework for what you want[ed] to get out of the playtest as a whole" when you were playtesting Cold City? Even if your examples are game-specific, I'm interested in the form your framework took.

[Malcolm Craig]

Hi Adam,

I've pasted excerpts from my very first posts to the playtest mailing list back in late 2005. They do refer to a very early version of the game, which changed a lot as playtesting progressed. Playtesting for Cold City taught me an awful lot about gaining feedback and refining a game, a valuable experience all round.

The best kind of feedback, I think, is in the form of actual play notes. So, I'll be setting up a section of the 'files' area here where GMs can post their AP notes. This is probably the most valuable part of the entire playtesting effort.

More immediate thoughts should be posted direct to the list: questions, musings and critique. For this kind of thing, reasoning behind your thoughts would be great: why did you not like something, why did you like something, why do you feel that particular elements are cumbersome and so on.

As for what is required from playtesting, here's a few initial thoughts:

Basic questions can be asked on this list or brief feedback notes given. However, the ideal format would be uploading a word doc or RTF file with detailed actual play notes contained in it.

The areas for an AP note to cover should involve at least the following:

An outline of the game itself, what it involved, what the adventure was like and so on.

Player and GM opinions of the game and setting.

How did character creation work out? Was it found to be easy, challenging, too detailed, too lightweight, etc.

How did the system work in play? Do the rules facilitiate the kind of play that the game tries to adopt? How does Trust function in the game, do Consequences work, how does the system as a whole work (combat, ability use, etc)?

What were the outcomes of the session? Was there player and GM satisfaction at the results, how did people feel about the reward mechanic in the form of Consequences?

How have characters advanced in terms of abilities, trust, hatreds, stereotypes and so forth? What has the character evolution been like? Have players been satisfied with this?

These are broad outlines and the more detail that can be packed into AP notes the better. I'm not looking for 'War & Peace' length, being concise and to the point would be great.

Looking forward to hearing how it goes and if you have any points at all to raise, that's what this list is for!


Cheers
Malcolm

[Lance D. Allen]

Hey Adam,

Hope you don't mind if I use your topic to ask for a little additional advice in the same vein; You've fielded playtest offers that didn't pan out. I'm not even getting that far with my own efforts. If you or anyone else would be willing to share a little bit on how to get those offers in the first place, I'd be incredibly interested. If you feel that this is detracting from your thread, say so and I'll just follow along with answers to your original question, as that's something I'm interested in as well.