LotFP: RPG playtesting is going slowly. None of the people who have contacted me about playtesting seem to have actually tried playing the game as of yet, and I feel like I've been at a standstill for months in progress as far as finally getting the game out.

So how is this idea?

Announce that it's going to the printer at a set date... July 1 2005 is what I'm thinking at the moment.

Put up pdf copies of ALL playtest versions on my site for free download. Version 0.0, 0.1, etc.

Within those pdfs mention the print date that will include up-to-the-minute rules updates and corrections, and offer the chance to pre-order the print version at a 30% discount up to the print date.

The purpose of this will be to generate exposure and hopefully real play by people I don't know (my own playtesting becomes worthless after a point I think, like proofreading your own writing).

It's not really for raising print money and I'm not expecting anybody to actually take advantage of that, just figure I should put it out there, couldn't hurt.

Is this a good idea or is it ruining any small commercial viability the printed version could have had?

JimLotFP wrote: LotFP: RPG playtesting is going slowly. None of the people who have contacted me about playtesting seem to have actually tried playing the game as of yet, and I feel like I've been at a standstill for months in progress as far as finally getting the game out.

Michael S. Miller wrote: What do you mean they don't "seem" to have played it? Haven't you been in contact with them? Or are you just waiting for them to contact you? You sent these guys your game for them to play it. Follow up! You've agreed to an exchange of information and they've dropped the ball.

Or they could just be ignoring you, forgot, or never really cared about it in the first place.
Can't really use that as a meter stick as to how good the game is. Granted, if it were the best ever you'd have 100% return, but you still have people who got busy, forgot, or didn't care in the first place. Doesn't mean the game isn't worth pursuing yet or is horrid. Just get some new folks you know can dedicate a little time.

Hi Jim,

How's your own playtesting going?

It may help to have a mailing list or yahoo group in order to share info. Put up info about your own playtesting, some issues or ideas you have going on, have the players in your group also post up. The same thing that is going to sell your game in the future is what you need right now: a sense of community.

Odds are, few folks are really going to playtest your game, even folks who contact you for info. Doing demos helps, keeping in contact, encourage folks to "do their own thing" and see what they're doing.

Worst come to worst, your group may be the only one to playtest it. In that case, it would be a good idea to give a couple other players the chance to GM, in order to see if any rules issues come up. Grab friends and ask them to read it, and see if there are any glaring issues as far as presentation.

Chris

Bankuei wrote: How's your own playtesting going?

Bankuei wrote: It may help to have a mailing list or yahoo group in order to share info. Put up info about your own playtesting, some issues or ideas you have going on, have the players in your group also post up. The same thing that is going to sell your game in the future is what you need right now: a sense of community.

Bankuei wrote: In that case, it would be a good idea to give a couple other players the chance to GM, in order to see if any rules issues come up.

Just to chime in my experience, with few exceptions damned near every remote playtester I had flaked. The only real way I could get valuable feedback was to force everyone I could to sit down with me and play. I hit local game stores, my friends (geeks and non-geeks a like), and even suckered a few people into just doing quick rules crunch sessions with me.

At the end of the day I got about 1/4 of the testing I wanted...but it was enough to make sure that the system/product is sound.

GregS wrote: At the end of the day I got about 1/4 of the testing I wanted...but it was enough to make sure that the system/product is sound.

The DnD 3.0 rules had MASSIVE playtesting. Open up a copy of the 3.0 PHB and look at the list.

The 3.5 edition came out in July 2003.

The 3.0 edition came out in July 2000.

That's three years.

The reason they made these changes from 3.0 to 3.5 probably has to do with the method they used for choosing playtesters on 3.0... they were mostly 2e players, whereas 3.0 brought a lot of people back into the game who hadn't been in. The audience changed, the game changed.

Off, but not by too much.
Personally, I don't think WotC spends enough time actually playing the games. They may strenuiously test D&D, but my statement still holds- TSR went umpteen years with AD&D, bringing in new fans, dealing with an OD&D audiance and drawing on different genres. WotC gets it and, within the first couple years, rewrites the core books to their 3rd edition and invalidates anyones work prior with the d20 lisence (I do believe in the fine print for the lisence it does mention that any change to the core means the d20 publisher has to re-issue their material as well to reflect the new changes).
Magic sets are heavily playtested as well, spend around three plus years in development with folks who play it for a living, and yet every set that comes out ends up with a restricted/banned list.
So yea, I'd say indie games see better "playtesting" because the games are actually being played, not tested.

I know a few people who were involved in playtesting for D&D 3, and I know for a fact that it was more tested than any indie game (perhaps even all indie games lumped together).

Of course, the quantity of testing doesn't always equate to quality. For example, my friend participated in the 3.0 playtesting and was told by WotC that his group was the first one to start characters at 15th level so as to playtest how things worked up there. Some groups had made it that high simply by playing through msot of the levels, but the result was that D&D is much better tested from levels 1-10 than above... and I think anyone who plays it can tell. (It's long been my belief that D&D characters should start at level 3 and end at level 7 but that's beside the point).

Still, I think you also have to admit that D&D 3.5 was economically motivated - both to sell a new edition and to increase the use of miniatures. Given the reactions of most players, it added as many problems as it fixed, so if it's purpose was to cover up bad playtesting, it did an equally poor job.

Also, is there anyone here who has created a perfect game that could not possibly ever be improved? Seriously, a lot of indie designers are using PDF and HTML formats specifically because they make revisions easier and cheaper. The fact that D&D 3 was upgraded and that Magic cards are blocked from tournaments doesn't point to a lack of playtesting, just a lack of perfection that happens to be built into this universe (either as a fundamental condition or a result of the Fall of man, depending on your views).

Anyway, I'm not just ranting on D&D here... I think it illustrates two important principles in playtesting:
1) your playtesters will not always do what's needed by themselves. A little prompting may fix the problem, or you may have to just spearhead most of it yourself.
2) no matter how much playtesting you do, there will be problems. Just admit that up front and don't worry too much. This advice is easier to give than to follow (just ask my wife how I feel when I find problems that playtesting missed).

I have to vehemently agree with both of Justin's points. People are inherently lazy, especially when they have no vested interest in something, and there will be errors. The only thing you can hope for is that none of them end up being "game breaking."

One of the things I found, though, is that my playtest efforts benefitted from focus group procedures. At one point through our testing, when I realized that not only was no-one playing any kind of Valherjar campaigns, but that even play with me at the helm was grinding to a hault, I spent a couple of sessions drilling specific concepts before a group. I'd grab a collection of current, past, and non-gamers, introduce them to the game basics and the specific concept in question, play it out in brief fashion, and then poll for "what was wrong" and "what was right". It turned out to be exceedingly beneficial and all it cost me was a u-bake pizza for the group to split.

Finally, on a point of inspiration, every time I'm worried about how broken my game might or might not be, I'm reminded of Kevin Simbeida (sp) and Rifts/Palladium System. This game/system have consistantly been within the top 10 on the market for better than a decade and, as far as I know, has been the single most high profile system to go the longest without a major revision or overhaul.

That said, at one point he issued a statement within one of his books that essentially said, "Though I know within the rules of the system most characters will be able to survive any manner of wounds, please try and roleplay some realism. Though a character may have the hit points to lay down on a grenade, take the full damage, get up and dust themselves off, and go merrily along their way, please try and interject some logical reality into the situation." Now, to me, that would seem heinous...but no one seemed much to care. Which simply tells me that gamers, in general, may be more forgiving and easy going than we are inclined to give them credit for.

Jim, you're about to throw away money on a print run of a game that is 10% finished. A few quick questions to show you what a potential buyer might ask:

Who is the Flame Princess?
What is she Lamenting?
Where is she lamenting it?
How does her culture lament things?
Why are you trying to rip off the initials of Lord of the Rings? LOTR

I downloaded your game and looked over it. It was not even close to complete. All you had were a character generation and a combat system without even a context to play a game in. You didn't leave me an open world, you showed me a lazy game designer who hasn't even got around to providing a referee with anything to work with. I can cannibalize many working systems out there and paste on my own world. But why should I? I pay to buy a complete game, not a half finished one, not one where the designer quit when things got a little hard.

Small wonder you're getting no feedback, there's nothing to play. You have a lot of work ahead of you and publishing early won't alleviate you of that work, it will just squander your money.

Right now you don't need playtesters, it is too early in the design process. Create your background, your world, its history...create a place buyers/players want to visit repeatedly. Create the tools the referee needs to present a living world to his players. Do the work a referee and the players can't do on their own, that 's what game design is.

This is game design, you've done a hundred yard dash but you're in a marathon. Take another six months to two years and design the hell out of your game and make it a good one. After all your name is going to be printed upon it.

I've written my own heartbreaker so I know where you are at right now. It's rough to climb a hill to realize there is a mountain range behind it. But that mountain range, that amount of work, is what every professional game designer goes through to pay his dues.

I know this isn't much of a pep talk but it is honest and I always have considered honesty a mark of respect.

Good Luck,
Keith B. Vaughn

KeithBVaughn wrote: Jim, you're about to throw away money on a print run of a game that is 10% finished. A few quick questions to show you what a potential buyer might ask:

KeithBVaughn wrote: Who is the Flame Princess?

KeithBVaughn wrote: What is she Lamenting?

KeithBVaughn wrote: Where is she lamenting it?

KeithBVaughn wrote: How does her culture lament things?

KeithBVaughn wrote: Why are you trying to rip off the initials of Lord of the Rings? LOTR

KeithBVaughn wrote: I downloaded your game and looked over it. It was not even close to complete. All you had were a character generation and a combat system without even a context to play a game in.

KeithBVaughn wrote: You didn't leave me an open world, you showed me a lazy game designer who hasn't even got around to providing a referee with anything to work with.

KeithBVaughn wrote: I can cannibalize many working systems out there and paste on my own world. But why should I? I pay to buy a complete game, not a half finished one, not one where the designer quit when things got a little hard.

KeithBVaughn wrote: Small wonder you're getting no feedback, there's nothing to play. You have a lot of work ahead of you and publishing early won't alleviate you of that work, it will just squander your money.

KeithBVaughn wrote: Create the tools the referee needs to present a living world to his players. Do the work a referee and the players can't do on their own, that 's what game design is.

KeithBVaughn wrote: This is game design, you've done a hundred yard dash but you're in a marathon. Take another six months to two years and design the hell out of your game and make it a good one. After all your name is going to be printed upon it.

KeithBVaughn wrote: I know this isn't much of a pep talk but it is honest and I always have considered honesty a mark of respect.

Hi Jim,

Initially I was going to make some suggestions for getting your game out into the world and getting it playtested. But then I read Kevin's post and your own response.

Then I downloaded your pdf to check it out for myself.

Kevin's critique is spot on. Every word of it.

A long time ago, Burning Wheel was much like your game. Just a simple text file with a couple of mechanics in it. Not so much a game as an idea of one. I forced all my friends to play it -- much to their chagrin -- and constantly retooled it as we went. It drove them crazy. That was 7 years of development. Then I published it.

Over that time period I had to take a lot of hard looks at the game. In fact, none of the original mechanics, aside from Instincts and IMS, are in the game. Everything else is gone. Yanked out by the roots. But the spirit of it is still in there. What I have now is much closer to my original concept than those original mechanics.

Given what you said in your response about not wanting to design the game that's in your title... well, I think you need to re-evaluate your position.

Either toss out what you have and start over on the Flaming Princess concept -- why not tap that emotion? Or toss the flaming pretensions and really dig into the game that you have in front of you.

I'm not trying to bust your chops, but you're at an inbetween stage in your game development, and honest feedback is what you need.

I only scanned the combat mechanics you provided, but they didn't grab me. Nothing original, and nothing to do with a theme or core concept. If you're going to have simple task resolution in your game, you better back it up with some other cool shit. Take Conspiracy of Shadows, for example -- simple system, but lots of cool tweaks and great atmosphere.

If I were you, and I'm not, i'd take the lack of playtest feedback as a sign and go back to the drawing board.

Hell, drop on over into the Design forum with your concepts and ideas. You never know what could happen.

best of luck -- i feel your pain.
-Luke

abzu wrote: Either toss out what you have and start over on the Flaming Princess concept -- why not tap that emotion? Or toss the flaming pretensions and really dig into the game that you have in front of you.

abzu wrote: I only scanned the combat mechanics you provided, but they didn't grab me. Nothing original, and nothing to do with a theme or core concept.

abzu wrote: If I were you, and I'm not, i'd take the lack of playtest feedback as a sign and go back to the drawing board.

Hi, Jim.

I read over your LotFP FAQ. Your core concepts seem to be "inexpensive" and "ease-of-use." Since you seem committed to putting money behind this game and publishing it in print, I gotta tell you that these are core concepts that you cannot succeed with. Why? Because in order to convince a customer to make a purchase, you have to convince them that this is the best option for their gaming dollars (including the option not to buy anything).

Using low cost as a selling point won't help because you can't beat FUDGE and Risus and dozens of other games for cost: They're free. You also cannot beat every other game already on the customer's shelf. They're effectively free because the customer has already bought them.

As for ease-of-use, Risus is pretty darn simple. So is Pocket Universe, FUDGE, and dozens and dozens of other "generic" games. Plus, you're still competing with the games they've got on their shelves because they already know how to play them. Your learning curve may be low, but the game they've played for years has no learning curve at all, because they've already mastered it.

You brag that LotFP "Doesn't sing and doesn't dance." Why not? I mean, games are entertainment products. If your game isn't entertaining, why should I play it? You say "I've stripped the game down to just the engine" and I hear "I've consciously tried to make my game dull. You'll have to provide the fun yourself, that's what a referee and players do." I appreciate your desire to empower gamers to do their own thing, we're already doing our own thing without LotFP.

Since you're obviously selling to established gamers, you have to take into consideration what they already have. Read Robin Laws' Pitches and Misses for tips on "unique reasons for being."

FWIW, you obviously have passion for RPGs. I want to *see* that passion in your game. I think your "Rescue the princess on infinite worlds" idea is tremendously cool. I want to feel the desperate striving to save her this time, only to experience the tragedy of losing her again. That game is a game I don't already have on my shelves and that I can't download for free online. That's a game I'd buy.

On the other hand, you also say that the LotFP core rules work just perfectly for the way you game. Then write out *how* you game. I don't mean "I game like everybody else, except I consult these special charts." What I mean is stuff like: How do you handle character creation? Does the GM say "we'll be playing in this setting, and all your characters need to be member os the noble court" or is it "bring anything you think is cool to the table"? Does that affect the upcoming Situation? How does that get established? Do playes create their characters alone, or as a group? Are you allowed to comment on others' characters? Are secrets allowed? Are there any kind of handouts? What's on them? Is there "required reading" before the game? What requirements for playing do you make and why?

In play, the system tells you what happens, but who describes how it happens? Do yu require folks to speak in character? Is note passing encouraged or forbidden? I'll bet you have great techniques honed over years of play that you take for granted as the stuff that "everybody does" that people would love to hear about. They'd make great game mechanics.

I guess we're coming at this from two opposed schools of thought. You think that RPGs should be creatively neutral. I don't think they can creatively neutral, so we waste our effort trying. Instead of trying for neutrality, we should be flaunting our individuality. Otherwise, what are we really selling?

Hi Jim,

Let me rephrase a bit of what I was saying:

Regarding your mechanics; I'll bet they work fine. I'll bet they are rolled, added and subtracted and produce very near the results you want them to.

But they are only combat mechanics. Ok, I want to convince the Fire Princess not to immolate herself. How do I do it? What benefit to I gain from it? How does that change the next scene?

And then there's your introduction:

There are also no equipment lists, weapon lists, or a system
standard for money. Again, that’s an individual setting and
campaign issue, not something to be hard-written into the rules.
To do so would make the toys, gadgets, and wealth a function and
goal of the game, as well as make assumptions as to what sort of
flavor an LotFP:RPG game should have. If that’s important for
you in a game, nothing is stopping a GM from generating
equipment details to their taste, or even using one from another
game. If such things are not important in your game, then it’s not
in your way and not taking up space in your rulebook. Once
again, it’s your game, these are just rules.
This book does not contain a magic system. Because magic does
not exist in the real world, there is no way to make a
comprehensive, intuitive system out of it. It is a false assumption
that magic is necessary for an adventure RPG. An optional
supplement detailing a magic system will be released as a separate
product.
There are no descriptions of ‘races’ in this book. Elves, dwarves,
whatever, are functions of setting and plot, not game mechanics.
The GM and players should together determine what races will be
allowed in their particular game, and come up with ways to define
that character within the system. This game will not pigeonhole
itself as a Tolkien homage/ripoff, nor try and be an avant-garde
game by denying Tolkienisms. You make that decision. It’s your
game to play.
It is important to note that the GM is responsible for the details
game world, and all that is in it. If the GM does not want certain
technology available (such as firearms), even if there are rules for
that technology, then it is not available. Period. Certain skills
assume certain levels of cultural sophistication, and the GM is
free to wipe all of that out as well if certain institutions are not
present in his game world. Period. Such rules are included to
provide as many possible avenues of challenge and adventure as
possible, but are not meant to force a GM to accept cannons in
ancient Rome or financial markets in the Dark Ages, for example.
The GM is free to modify, replace, or remove any and all rules in
this book if he finds them lacking. If there’s a situation not
covered in the rules, the GM is free to just make something up.
Just be sure to inform players of changes… and let us here at
LotFP: RPG headquarters know about the deficiency so we can
take a look at it as well.

it’s your game, these are just rules

Hi Jim,

It sounds like you have got a series of internested novelettes in mind to make up a book, not a game. You may do well to read Jack Vance's: "The Dying Earth" to see a master doing this type of bookand go on to write your's.

Right now, you are getting feedback, you don't like it and you're blowing it off. Are you looking for feedback--or affirmation?

In about two weeks I'll be putting up an article called: Science Fiction Heartbreakers. At the end of it I'll have my own story of "Embers of Empire: SFRPG." What you're trying to do echos my own failed attempt for my first game.

Keith

Jim,

I tend to agree with Michael on this. But want to add a few things. You have a passion of this, so make the feedback you're getting work for you. The thing that I'm missing is distinct and its incomplete. What is the point of difference in your game that will make me pick it up? Playtesters will play the game if its all there and says something to them. You won't get a lot of people just testing a system. Lack of people playtesting (or excited about playtesting) is the first indicator something is not clicking for them.

I've gotten some great (and harsh) feedback over the years on my own creations. But I'm most grateful for the tough feedback... it is what helps a concept grow. There are so many rpg products out in the market place. More of the same ends up becoming white noise. Don't let the excitement or rush of getting your own game out there keep the game from being developed to the full extent you need it to be.

I hope you continue to develop your game.

Gary

KeithBVaughn wrote: Right now, you are getting feedback, you don't like it and you're blowing it off. Are you looking for feedback--or affirmation?

abzu wrote: Regarding your mechanics; I'll bet they work fine. I'll bet they are rolled, added and subtracted and produce very near the results you want them to.

Michael S. Miller wrote: I mean, games are entertainment products.

Michael S. Miller wrote: You'll have to provide the fun yourself, that's what a referee and players do.

JimLotFP wrote:

Michael S. Miller wrote: I mean, games are entertainment products.

I think of them more as hammers, wrenches, and screwdrivers. Movies are entertainment products. CDs are entertainment products. Novels are entertainment products. They are what they are and you accept them or not. RPGs are tools. They don't do anything on their own.