[QUINCUNX] Where I think I went wrong...

[Vulpinoid]

I know my biggest mistake when playtesting a game.

I basically break the cardinal rule of playtesting.

I typically don't play the rules exactly as they've been written.

I toy with variants, I modify those variants before I've had the chance to really explore how a game mechanism is interacting with the other driving forces in a game structure.

Don't crucify me on this. I know it's an issue.

...but on the other hand, it gives me a holistic view of how the game seems to be working, or how it could be working if different groups interpreted the rules in different ways. Or how groups might end up playing the game if they misread (or skipped over) a certain piece of the text.

Despite this, I've really found something that bugs me about my Quincunx project.

The basic concept is this...

Players are able to do a range of things on their own, but they are struggling against creatures far more powerful than themselves (on a reality TV show). They need to gather a range of resources in order to have a chance of overcoming the menace.

The game is played out on a map, the resources required by the characters are scattered across the map.

As the characters are gathering their resources, the enemies are also gathering resources to prevent the characters from gaining access to them.

The game snowballs to a conclusion as the resources dwindle from the map, and two forces come head to head in a showdown.

The aim was to create a structure that would mimic many action movies and TV shows where characters have to confront a series of lesser obstacles until they are ready to face the true menace for the episode. Each of these lesser obstacles would form a discreet scene that informs the larger narrative while revealing something specific about the current protagonist.

Perhaps my explanations were off, perhaps I just didn't stick closely enough to the rules as I'd written them...most likely my rules were too complicated, too muddied and trying to do too much at once.

In virtually every playtest I've run so far, Quincunx hasn't had the intended results.

Instead of driving a narrative that pushes to a dramatic showdown, it turns into a competitive struggle between the players to grab the resources before they even look at the enemies.

I had hoped for the first scenes of the game to provide a level of dramatic tension and to foster the atmospheric tone for the episode...are we dealing with a horrific zombie infestation or an eldritch insanity gnawing away at our operatives minds?...are the vampires and werewolves going to war against one another?...what about that school counsellor who's spending most of his time dealing with troubled teenage girls who believe their boyfriends are 400 years old? 

I'm trying to inject the colour, but it just looks like a coat of paint that doesn't quite belong.

I'm seeing a lot of game result informing the story outcomes, but I'm not seeing the story elements inform the game.

The cycle's not complete, and I'm thinking that there's simply something I'm missing.

If anyone's got any ideas, I'd love to hear them. If you'd like me to expand further, I'm more than willing to detail some of the specifics.

V

[HeTeleports]

Hi V,
Having only read Quincunx, I felt it did have some good potential.
From what I'm inferring, it sounds like there's plenty of Step on Up ... is this bad? After all, the color for the game is a reality TV show: little is more Player against Player than that.

"I had hoped for the first scenes of the game to provide a level of dramatic tension and to foster the atmospheric tone for the episode...are we dealing with a horrific zombie infestation or an eldritch insanity gnawing away at our operatives minds?...are the vampires and werewolves going to war against one another?...what about that school counsellor who's spending most of his time dealing with troubled teenage girls who believe their boyfriends are 400 years old?"

These examples are widely varied. I would like to hear more about these playtests:
describe how the player-characters entered the world,
give a quick run-down of resource-gathering,
and explain of how the resulting climax was disappointing.

Thanks,
-Youssef

PS: I'm assuming you discounted the solution of rebalancing the climax difficulty vs. player+resource advantage.

[Teataine]

As Yussef said, reality TV is PvP. There are few things more mercyless on television than reality shows. The envy, the competition, the bickering, the catfights between the protagonists is what makes the genre popular.

That said, reading your post (resources, map, gradually coming face to face with a threat, creatures larger than the heroes...) I couldn't help but think of Lost (food, water, guns, island, Others, Polar Bear, Smoke Monster...). In fact, when Lost was fresh, a fairly popular theory about what the hell was going on was that the characters are involuntary participants of some sort of a reality show.
One of the first things the characters do after the plane crashes?
They fight amongst themselves.
(Also worth mentioning Lord of Flies here.)

Is that a bad thing, a good thing? I dunno. If you keep seeing that in your games, maybe it's something that should be riffed on. Maybe the game doesn't do exactly what you intended it to do, maybe it does something better.

So maybe, just maybe, break your gameplay into several "chapters". It starts out with 'Reality Hits', there is some catastrophe, the protagonists are lacking resources for basic survival. They fight amongst themselves, trying to acquire these resources. Then the polar bears start showing up, new chapter 'Bear With Me' - the protagonists realize it's too dangerous to go for resources alone, they must learn to form groups. As they gain confidence and start going deeper and deeper into the map, they finally hit on the big threat. 'Live Together or Die Alone'. The threat is far too big, organized, powerful, weird, stealthy...for any of the protagonists to handle, even when banded into smaller groups, they must unite all their strength to fight the big bad. There could be extra chapters after that, but probably not required.
Put in some structure/rules for those chapters that helps frame those types of behaviour at various levels and then pushes the characters into reorganisation.

(I just remembered how in Vincent's Storming the Wizard's Tower, you fight small-time monsters that are at the same time really serious threats - sure, maybe it's just a group of bandits, but that group of bandits it blocking the south road which means your village can't trade, which means your village will eventually fall - no to the monsters, but to the problems the monsters create. At the same time you're supposed to drop hints about a Wizard along the way that eventually turns out responsible for all the threats and you go fight him once you reach level 2 (the part that hasn't been written yet)).

[Vulpinoid]

Maybe I just wasn't ready for a step on up game.

I've been trying to create a game where players share the creation of the world, and the GM basically plays the role of a 'behind the scenes Administrator who allocates resources where needed and helps describe the scene through advanced intel'.

The characters compete against one another to become the most famous and to secure the most lucrative sponsorship deals, the players...hmmm...the players...that's probably where a lot of my issues lie.

The players will be advocating their characters and competing against one another. But they'll also be working with one another to overcome threats that are too powerful for one person alone, in the typical reality TV vibe they'll be working together to backstab the operative who's currently most ahead.  

But the issues I've encountered are more than that.

I've put together a few systems over the years, and one of the things I've started to do when playtesting is formulate some hard and fast rules about player enjoyment, player understanding, the anomalies I'll accept and the ones which are deal breakers. Note that these playtest concepts apply to convention play...my regular gaming group is used to the way I set up games, and they've often formed a feedback group when I've devised new game mechanisms and new systems incorporating these...these rules form the framework for judging an alpha product.

A convention gives three or four hours to play a game. People typically pay money for that session, to experience a decent story or a new way of looking at things. If I can't describe what I'm trying to achieve with a new game in under half an hour, then that's a fail. This is probably one of the reasons why I rarely play with the entire rules set when I playtest under these conditions. I just describe the core basics, then describe one or two of the more detailed aspects of play (one if the group's having trouble with the basics...two if they seem to really get the gist of the game from the outset).

So the core of the game is simple...

Players take turns with focal scenes based around their character. Turn order begins based on each characters rank within the company, during later cycles of turn order the players with the highest fame go first (with ties broken by rank within the company).

A scene is set, with the player declaring basic intentions, rolling a die to determine the base difficulty for the scene (a static number of successes that need to be overcome), then rolling another die to see which of their flaws will be triggered during the scene. The flaw might be chosen by the current player or it could be chosen by a neighbouring player, either way, the neighbouring player describes how the flaw manifests in the scene based on the descriptions so far.

Players get 3 dice to roll during every scene, aiming for results of 4 or higher. Natural sixes accumulate bonus dice during the course of the game, natural ones accumulate extra issues to overcome. Players are aiming to beat the static difficulty with a combination of these dice and a range of automatic successes based on their inherent abilities (ranging from 0 to 4), otherwise they are trying to beat each other (with each character involved in the scene rolling three dice and adding their automatic successes), or trying to beat the monsters of the episode (which typically have an automatic success range of 2 to 6 for minor paranormal beings, 4 to 8 for supernatural monsters, 6 to 10 for creatures closer to demigods).

Players move their characters across a map trying to claim resources such as helpful allies, mystic items, surveillance tapes, search warrants, or anything else that might be useful in their quest to overcome supernatural criminals. Gaining these resources is reflected out of game by having more dice to roll in scenes, thus allowing operatives to have a better chance of taking down the bigger enemies (those with the highest number of automatic successes).

As a scene unfolds, the character must face the weakness for the path being tested. This may result in a moral decision, a issue of time management or something else that forces the character to consider their priorities. Depending on the choice made in the situation, the character may follow the path and lose a success from the scene, or may forsake their path and lose a permanent level in it.  

During a scene, players may also activate paths that they follow. They accumulate new points by suffering the weaknesses associated with these paths, they spend points from these paths to gain benefits (or permanently increase the path rating).
At level one, they only get the weakness from the path.
Level two allows them to activate a basic power by sending points.
Level three makes the basic power free to use.
Level four allows an advanced power to be accessed by spending points (the basic power is still free).
Level five makes the advanced power free to use.
Players may use any of their characters path powers in ascene as long as they can justify it through the narrative and they have the available points to spend.

At the end of a scene, we see if the action was viewed on TV. Being on TV grants fame, and operatives may use fame to improve their die rolls

Finally, once everyone has had their scene, the players have two options, either the cycle begins anew (with any players still holding unused dice taking a second scene), or everyone can rest up (which has the side effect of allowing the enemies to gather their strength as well).

Seems simple, seems relatively like a "Risk"-style board game with narrative elements. I knew this from the outset, so I shouldn't have been surprised that it would run in a competitive manner. I've now run about 8 playtest sessions, each with different people. Some with as few as two players (plus a GM), others with as many as 7 (plus a GM). Most averaged 5 to 6 players. A few patterns seemed to become predominant.

Here's where some specific problems arose...

1. The player who just didn't get the idea of assigning weaknesses to their neighbours...

In almost every session there was someone who just didn't get the idea of helping the narration. In almost every session there was someone else who really liked the idea of learning about their neighbour's characters by throwing them into awkward situations, and by the end of the game most players understood that the weaknesses were necessary to round out the story as well as to fuel the character powers. But there always seemed to be one player who kept asking "So who gets to describe the complications?" or "Why am I describing something about her character?" until the very end of the game. I'm hoping that players like these will get the hang of it after a game or two, but if I haven't hooked them by the end of the first session, then this game obviously isn't for that type of player.

The one thing I've learnt from this is that I need to be more clear and concise in my rule descriptions.

2. The players who's flowery prose caused the table to come to a standstill...

Almost every session had someone who was used to being in the limelight and while the structure of the game is designed to prevent a single player from taking over everything, those players are now forced to make the most of the spotlight while they've got access to it. They describe their characters actions in incredible detail, the describe the complication events and weaknesses imposing on their neighbour with great depth and enthusiasm. I had a few occasions in game where I had to tell a player to cut their descriptions down to a single sentence of no more than 30 words to keep the game flowing because other players on the table were getting bored and frustrated waiting for their turn.

It's odd, because this is exactly the kind of depth that I'd love to get into in a game. I'd really like the narration to delve into the psyche of the characters and explore the world through their eyes as they are forced to confront the horrors of occult criminals while balancing this off against mundane interactions with fans and corporate sponsors. But if everyone on the table isn't after the same sort of thing then it make sense to simply allow the consensus to rule to maximise the enjoyment for the majority of players. I guess it's the whole GNS debate all over again.

I haven't really learnt anything new from this, but it's something I need to consider as I write revisions to the rules.

3. The player who just couldn't understand the workings of path powers.

At the start of every session, there were a couple of players who fell into this category..."Why isn't he spending point to activate this ability?"..."I've got access to an advanced power, do I have to spend points to activate the basic power?"..."Why can't I activate this power?"..."What's the point of having a path that doesn't have a special power?"

Usually after around of scenes has passed, most of the table got the idea and fell into the rhythm. But almost invariably, there was a single player who still just didn't get it. They tended to go through the game without activating any of their paths, or they kept asking questions of their neighbours and kept interrupting the game when everyone else has mastered the mechanisms long ago.

While most people understood what was happening, my instant reaction to improve game play here is to scrap the advanced powers altogether. It streamlines play and makes the character generation process easier (which is something I was also doing at the table...so a 3 hour session turned into 10 minutes of preamble, 20 minutes of character generation with the players who understood the systems on the first run through, and another half hour with those players who were struggling...followed by 2 hours of play). I'm definitely going to make the paths more consistent within their different types.

The first basic paths a character gains access to make minor modifications to game play (bonuses to dice, extra dice, etc.).

The intermediate paths will now make more complex changes but can only be accessed after a player has shown a level of mastery in the minor paths (forcing opponents to use different node values, changing the way dice are replenished, benefiting allies, etc.).

The advanced paths will make truly dramatic changes to the rules, thought these sorts of powers will typically be found among the supernatural beings to reflect how they exist outside the rules of the regular world.  

Each path will be simplified, but their impact of the game will be more dramatic.

4. The player who ended up on a roll and had five scenes in a row while everyone else sat and waited.

One particular instant brought the game into crisis...incredibly lucky die rolls.

A play had been successful during his first scene and had managed to acquire an extra die before anyone else.

At the start of his next turn, he had his three basic dice and a spare. He chose to roll two of them (one basic and the spare), a success and a six. This gave him an extra die to play with. Once everyone else had their turns, he had two dice and his new spare die. He rolled two again (one basic and the spare), a success and a six. This gave him another extra die. After the second turn, everyone else had exhausted all of their dice and this one player continued moving across the board with incredibly lucky die rolls, snowballing his power. We all watched him roll the dice, the dice were mine so I know they weren't loaded. But he kept going for five scenes (with single sixes and double sixes) before his luck finally ran dry. It was dramatic to watch, but even the player was getting sick of it toward the end (but he wanted to see how he could push his luck because he just didn't want the enemies to get a chance at refreshing themselves).

Conversely other players made it to the end of a session without gaining any extra dice.

What I learnt from this is that I really need to address the way these extra dice are acquired. That's an ongoing concern for the game and something I haven't yet resolved.

5. The player who instantly understood everything and managed to min-max the system during their first hour of exposure.

The player who had the run of good luck almost fell into this category, but there were two others who instantly understood the rules, and the loopholes I hadn't addressed. I'd love to have these players regularly to test the game to it's extremes, but in a con situation you've just got to make the most of your rotating player resources while you've got them. These players instantly got the rules for the paths and used them to devastating advantage while they player at the other extreme was simply confused further as to why these players were getting so far ahead.

Again, I'm not really sure how to address these issues except to ensure the rules are simplified, streamlined and any loose ends are carefully tied up. I know I'll never find them all, but theses efforts should minimise the potential problems.

6. Generic Monsters

My own fault entirely, I had a lot of other things to take care of before the convention and I forgot to write up proper antagonists for the game. So I let players choose any number on a d6, to represent the difficulty of the monster they were facing. The monsters ran around the board trying to claim dice to keep their edge over the players and the players tried to stop the monsters getting the extra dice.

The issue here is that the game basically turned into a dice gathering fest rather than telling a story about how resources are acquired to face a menace. Most of the players ignored the monsters until the game was winding up, when they suddenly realised what they were actually gathering the dice for.

When the monsters were eventually faced, the battles felt a bit anticlimactic because the creatures were no different to anything else that the characters had faced during the course of the game. Hopefully the new paths, and a bit of better preparation on my part, will help fix that issue.

6. The convention deadline.

Perhaps the biggest issue was the three hours I'd given myself to run the game. Especially given that I was testing the character generation system during many of the sessions.

At the end of the convention I had written up a couple of sample power path templates to speed up the process and while this did make things easier for players to get into the spirit of things I still needed to shepherd a few of the slower players through the basics that led to template creation..."Why does my character have this?"..."What does this do?"..."This doesn't make sense!" Three hours is a tough ask to introduce someone to a brand new game, expect them to understand the rules, and hopefully provide them with a fun play experience.

Invariably, the majority of the table was just getting into the swing of things between 2.5 to 3 hours into the session, at which time we had to start winding things up. A lot of sessions could have done much better if they had gone for an hour longer, or if I had been better prepared in advance.

That's my general issues in a nutshell.

I hope it's been informative for those who are following my game, and I hope it's been educational for those who might be conducting some of their own playtesting in the near future.

V

[HeTeleports]

I admit I'm not too familiar with a typical role-player's learning curve.
(Usually, I *am* that guy who just groks everything from the get-go.)
These issues don't spell certain doom. In fact, if you're hesitating on the edge of jumping into "step on up," this is me pushing you over the edge.

A single session in a convention setting might not be the best "control setting" to test your game. You've got a good feel for what the issues are on a beginner's learning curve -- but the lesson's you've learned should hardly be an indicator of "deep issues."
Basically, I'd blame 1-3 on the Convention deadline, which is No. 6.

For No. 4, I'd agree with your own resolution to it. Perhaps, if you introduced a revamping of dice acquisition: First In, First Out. (Like a strong tax strategy for investments.) Essentially, any dice you gain on a given round go toward doubling your turn next round. Other players know you'll get two turns on the next go, but the chain ends. Instead, the bonus is having a massive next turn.

For No. 5, you'll not figure this out until you do some long-term playing. You mentioned that the game had just started to get hot when things were over. Yes, it means the game takes a while to understand; once you've seen it in action over a longer period than 3 hours, you'll know how to close the loopholes players use.
Step On Up means players will be riding the system hard to beat the others. I think you'll find a fascinating playtest if you get two or three folks who know how to min-max against each other. Thence, you may find it to be awesome strategy play rather than strong, coherent story-making.

I've been reading the rules to get myself ready to try and GM a game. We'll see if I can find any players in this hole of a town.
-Youssef

[JoyWriter]

...but on the other hand, it gives me a holistic view of how the game seems to be working, or how it could be working if different groups interpreted the rules in different ways. Or how groups might end up playing the game if they misread (or skipped over) a certain piece of the text.

I can completely understand this; it reminds me of certain kinds of stability analysis; if the current rules have a "neighbour" that is vastly superior, then this more quantum-mechanical path may actually help you find it. I can't turn these intuitions into proper maths, but the central problem is just that your trading possibility for rigour, so you probably know nothing conclusive about a wide range of game variants! Hmm, turning that back into english diluted it's meaning, maybe I'll come back 3 years from now with a mathematical theory of "game design as convergent dynamic system" though!

The issue here is that the game basically turned into a dice gathering fest rather than telling a story about how resources are acquired to face a menace. Most of the players ignored the monsters until the game was winding up, when they suddenly realised what they were actually gathering the dice for.

So you have "win points" spread on a board and people have to go round picking them up? The natural question is then what dynamics this is supposed to represent. Why are players going for resources? Why are enemies going for the same resources? It looks like a goldrush, in that once you have picked up the resources from an area, they are gone, and like money their value is fully transferable. The fact that your foes go for the same resources as you to some extent lowers their menace, it puts them on the same level of the pcs. That's fine, providing they are the lower power enemies, and their is danger/fear is in their plans.

From a purely tactical level, why is it good for you to let other players have the dice? Why might it be good not to have the dice yourself? In one version of the game the number of open dice left on the table set the general mood or danger of the setting, what if hitting zero dice in a specific area causes you extra problems? I suggested something similar but different with raja; a location has a number of dice that are secretly claimed, and when the number of dice on the location goes below that, the plot of that location is revealed. In that sense gaining dice represents the amount of fuss that the characters are kicking up, and being the one to piss off the local nest of ogdru hem-spawn may not be best idea!

Fame points already provide an incentive to compete, so there's probably scope to reduce that mechanic's competitive elements.

Shifting the bonus mechanic into something approaching a countdown, at least for the first part (ie until the first location gets to 0), allows you to shift people's focus in the first section towards investigation, depending on how you want to reward investigation in the mechanics (something about "filters"?).

Finally, you're probably going to want some mechanism to encourage players to listen to each other if they get all detailed, perhaps you can have some kind of aftershow bitching? Where saying appropriate stuff about the other characters, or perhaps selling rumours about them, may allow you to attack their fame points, but with a chance of increasing them if people actually like the rumours! Or is that one subsystem to many?

[Vulpinoid]

...maybe I'll come back 3 years from now with a mathematical theory of "game design as convergent dynamic system" though!

I think thee may be a doctoral thesis in that one (unless it's already been done)...I've needed an excuse to go back to study.

The fact that your foes go for the same resources as you to some extent lowers their menace, it puts them on the same level of the pcs. That's fine, providing they are the lower power enemies, and their is danger/fear is in their plans.

You know, that's a good and valid concern. I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but I can see how a new player to the game would consider the enemies in a different light to the one intended when filtered through that mechanism.

The enemies should have grander concerns and plans (that's the fictional colour anyway). Initially they exist above the mortal world while the operatives exist somewhere between the two, the mortals are claiming the extra resources scattered around the city in the hope that they can level the playing field when they confront these monsters. I think that mechanically, I just need to make sure that the supernatural menaces are far more alien than they currently stand.

This was also hindered in my initial playtests by the fact that I was just using "placeholder" threats. Players were simply choosing a threat level to represent th danger of the menace they'd have to confront. This threat level was added as a number of success to the standard difficulty for the scene.

For example...a difficulty 2 monster, was simply adding 2 to the total successes required...while a difficulty 6 monster was adding 6. There was no real flavour to the monsters in the fiction, so the players justifiably treated them as mere numbers to overcome.

In one way this might be suitable if the game was purely focusing on the dynamics between player characters, but I envision the game having more depth than that. It's about moral choices and consequences, operatives need to realise that they exist as heroes to some, while existing as symbols of everything that is wrong in the capitalist world to others. Eventually they need to understand that the very monsters they face are remnants of a legendary and mythical age, and these enemies once held the very same status in society...heroes, monsters, great leaders, revolutionaries who drove the world to it's current state.

But that level of metaphysics is for long term play, and I haven't really tested that.

From a purely tactical level, why is it good for you to let other players have the dice? Why might it be good not to have the dice yourself? In one version of the game the number of open dice left on the table set the general mood or danger of the setting, what if hitting zero dice in a specific area causes you extra problems? I suggested something similar but different with raja; a location has a number of dice that are secretly claimed, and when the number of dice on the location goes below that, the plot of that location is revealed. In that sense gaining dice represents the amount of fuss that the characters are kicking up, and being the one to piss off the local nest of ogdru hem-spawn may not be best idea!

Actually, there's a whole heap of depth to this...and I think it's worth investigating...but to answer it, I need to take some photos of the board I'm using and create some links to them. There is something far more visual about the game that I can't really express in words without a lot of the impact being lost. Images of the board might help ensure that the responses remain coherent to the testing ideas as they currently stand...

I admit I'm not too familiar with a typical role-player's learning curve.
(Usually, I *am* that guy who just groks everything from the get-go.)
These issues don't spell certain doom. In fact, if you're hesitating on the edge of jumping into "step on up," this is me pushing you over the edge.
...
then
....
...I'd blame 1-3 on the Convention deadline, which is No. 6.

Thanks Youssef, this is definitely something in the back of my mind from the first round of playtests.

I think I'll make a few more specific sessions with my regular players in an ongoing format before I start making too many radical changes to the rules. I'd hate to destroy something that could be good, just because a few people at a convention didn't recognise a visionary at work or couldn't understand something that didn't really mesh with their regular D&D gaming.

More to come shortly...

V

[Callan S.]

Maybe I just wasn't ready for a step on up game.

I've got this model that comes to mind, that this is somewhat like someone who practices religion X and thinks a bunch of guys are just practicing religion X in a bit of a different way, and he wasn't ready for how they do it. But it wasn't that he wasn't ready, it was that they don't practices the same religion as him at all.

Actually I don't need to use religion, the example works on a band analogy as well - a guy who plays in music style X thinks a bunch of guys also play in X style but in a bit of a different way and he just wasn't ready for how they do it. But it wasn't that he wasn't ready, it was that they don't practices the same music style as him at all.

I'm just wondering (particularly in light of a recent thread for me) what you do when people just don't get it? Or whether you don't recognise that they don't get it and instead think they do get it but they just do the same thing as you just a bit differently. Like as if they are roleplaying just as you do, but they are just doing something a bit differently and that's this step on up thing?

[Vulpinoid]

If we use the religion analogy...

Are you saying that the rituals seem superficially very similar, but the underlying spirituality is vastly different...and that's where the friction originates?

Similarly, using the music analogy...

The timing seems similar and the chord changes are compatible, but one side is playing from a jazz background while the other is playing the blues?

In both cases, the situation can work, and both sides can enjoy the endeavour, but there will be something nagging at the back of their minds. A disconnect with one another's quality perceptions.

It's a tough question and I really think that most people will beat themselves up and run around in futile circles before they manage to solve the issue. And such a quixotic quest will often end up with people unable to accept what they have tolerated previously, instead choosing to undertake a mission for "gaming perfection".

There are time when I realise that people don't get it, but I'm sure there are other occasions when I'm simply oblivious to this.

One of the things I enjoy about playtesting is trying to get feedback from players after a session whether they seemed to enjoy things or not.

As GM, it's my job to ensure that the majority of the players are happy the majority of the time.

As Designer, it's my job to maximise the potential for my product to provide a satisfactory experience for everyone involved.

I believe I learn more from players who've enjoyed a game (and who are looking for a couple of minor tweaks that might further elevate the experience). I learn less from players who just decide that everything's too hard, or the game just isn't what they're after.

When people just don't get it, they tend to fall evenly into two camps...those who don't get it initially but who end up understanding, and those who don't get it and completely close themselves off. I really try to get as much information out of those who enjoy a moment of satori (to use a zen buddhist term), those who come to an awakening about the system. If I can tap into the event that made things crystal clear, then incorporate this aspect into the rules, then hopefully the rules will be more approachable for a larger range of people. Of course, one person's moment of enlightenment is another person's moment of confusion.

No set of complex rules is going to be perfect for all people, especially when something qualitative such as "enjoyment", "realism" or "dramatic tension" is the measure of your success.

So the short answer to your question is..."I try to understand why they don't get it when time allows (typically at the conclusion of a session)".