Hi All,

Sorry for the blank first post. My PC threw a benny.

So I've been reading a few of the other threads, and been noting the comments about playtesting of Indie games prior to release (i.e. prior to selling - people handing over cash for your work). I have posted this as a separate thread so as not to derail others - please merge it Ron if you think it ties in with an existing thread. Also I might have posted it in the wrong place - apologies!

So with playtesting I think there is a fundamental problem that we, as indie game designers, have (not meaning that to sound pretentious in any way). It's all to do with Investment and Payback. Let me explain. Investment - every time someone playtests your fledgeling creation, they are investing time and effort. Payback - as a result of your playtesting, they get something in return, either something physical or perhaps something more ephemeral. Let's look at some examples in the creative industries.

Film making - OK, I've made my film. I've paid for the script, hired the actors, filmed the scenes and done the scoring, and I have edited the film into near completeness. Is it any good though? Time for a test screening. I get some viewers in, and they watch my film. Investment for the viewers - a few hours of their lives, and no doubt a detailed questionaire to fill in. Payback - a free film, the chance to see something cool before anyone else does, the chance to suggest what would make the film better. Investment - small, Payback - large. Result - no problem getting viewers.

Writing the core book to WHFRP2 - Ok, I'm Black Industries and I'm going to redo WHFRP for the current gaming generation. I've thrashed out the rules, got the game written, got some art and tested in house - in short I can afford to splash some cash. I'm now after outside gaming groups to playtest for me. Investment - they have to read the book, no doubt play several game sessions, and give me detailed reports of how the game went. The major investment is in gaming time, many folks only get one game a week, and I'm asking them to throw their current favorite game out the window and try my unpolished piece. Payback - they know that the book will be made no matter what (I'm a company and I've invested money) and that their names will be in the front, so they know they'll get to be a part of a great new game based on one which in this case they have probably played and loved in it's first incarnation, and most importantly they get to have a say in the recreation of their beloved game. Investment - large, Payback (to gaming geeks like us) - large. Result - several hundred (I think) playtesters listed at the front of the book.

Now for the real issue…

I'm writing my game, 'Killer monkeymen from Lost Atlantis'. It's gonna be great! I've written the rules and the background, maybe got some friends to take a look. There's no art (unless I can draw/have a friend willing to), and it's all in a word-style pdf. In short, I've invested the minimum to create my game, and probably no cash at all. Now I need playtesters outside of my group of friends. Investment - they have to read the book, hopefully play several game sessions, and give me some kind of report on how the game went. Again the major investment is in gaming time. Payback - well, if it's good, and I have the time, and I have the money, and I can be arsed, it might get published as a book and I'll stick their names in the front. I might even be able to pay for some art and layout so it looks good. Or it might languish for a few years as I fiddle with it, eventually to come out as a freebie on my website with their name in it. Or I might get a new job or get married or get posted somewhere, and it'll rot on my PC. Investment - large. Payback - very, very variable, potentially large, more likely small to zero.

And that's the big problem. Why should anyone consider playtesting my game? What, really is in it for them? The Investment/Payback balance is shifted massively toward Investment, and I'm basically asking them to do a load of work for me for potentially no benefit. I think this is why most games that do get playtested do so either because the designer took it to loads of Cons (and are Con games really good playtests?), the designer is well-known and thought of as cool, or the designed gave it to one of his designer buddies  in exchange for playtesting their latest creation. Well-known designers can run their indie operation like a company - they can pay for some art or get some done on the back of their  prior success. Not so the newbie.

At the end of the day, we, as designers, are trying to sell something when we ask for playtests. The something? A game, and idea, that might, just might, be really cool. The cost? Money (if we eventually publish the game), but most importantly in playtesting, that rarest commodity of all, playing time. If we want to change the balance and get more games thoroughly playtested, then we need to increase the payback. So now I've ranted, how about some ideas. Well here's one.

A playtest community - using a medium like the forge (I'm not suggesting that you should do this Ron), designers set up a bit of a collective. Designers submit their new games and the community give it an internal review, privately, to see whether the group thinks the game has something in it. If they don't, it goes back for a rehash or gets rejected. If they do, it gets the community seal of approval and gets offered up as a Playtest game for anyone external to the community who wants to look at it. The Investment is still their, but with an organised upper tier to the playtest, external groups at least recognise that the game has somehting about it and a chance or going somewhere, so the Payback is higher than is the norm at the moment. Of course that's just an idea, and there's a lot wrong with private peer reviews by a select (selected how?) elite few. Ok bad idea - anyone got a better one?

Cheers,

EvilD

This is a very powerful point. Thanks.

One of the first tests of a game's viability is the response to your post to request a playtest. If your game concept and blurb isn't grabby enough, you aren't going to get any playtesters. You need to use exactly same online techniques to get playtesters that you do to get non-playtesters interested in your game. There are twenty or so sites you can pick up playtesters. If you can't get any playtesters from your trawling, something is wrong.

Yeah, I'm not sure I buy the premise of the thread.

If you can't get people excited enough to playtest a game...what makes it likely that they'd get excited enough to buy and play it when its finished.

Or put in reverse...if one is confident that the game is exciting enough to attract players, than one should also be confident that it will attract play testers.

Those willing to do playtesting are only a subset of those willing to play.  And those actually good at it (and worth working with) are only a subset of that; but the hard part is in locating those folks...not in convincing them that the payoff is worth it.

I think the takeaway from this — because I think the OP has some significant rightness — is that even a playtest needs a certain level of polish and presentability.

There are several assets a playtestable game can have to get people to test it. It can have a juicy pitch, an plainly interesting premise, an author who's made something you like in the past, or deliberate publicity.

Getting as many firing as you can is the way to get your game played.

(What do I know, though. I've had a rough time getting playtesters. But the above is based on the successes and failures of my 0.x versions.)

Interesting comments all.

I guess my point is that grabbing people's attention is easier when you are established - you have a name, you can afford to licence, you can afford a known author or some art or whatever to make your pitch a sure-sell. One of the the feelings that seems to be floating around at the moment is that there are lots of games by first-time authors that don't get the playtesting they need, and I think it's because making your pitch is tricky the first time around. As Joshua says, you need to have something fairly polished before people will invest in looking at it for you. Generally, you won't have the art or the whatever that the established guys do to help them along.

I think what we could do to help is offer some kind of more formalised method of putting authors in touch with playtesters. Exactly how, I'm not so sure.

Anyway, just a though.

EvilD

gds wrote:
Interesting comments all.

I guess my point is that grabbing people's attention is easier when you are established - you have a name, you can afford to licence, you can afford a known author or some art or whatever to make your pitch a sure-sell. One of the the feelings that seems to be floating around at the moment is that there are lots of games by first-time authors that don't get the playtesting they need, and I think it's because making your pitch is tricky the first time around. As Joshua says, you need to have something fairly polished before people will invest in looking at it for you. Generally, you won't have the art or the whatever that the established guys do to help them along.

I think what we could do to help is offer some kind of more formalised method of putting authors in touch with playtesters. Exactly how, I'm not so sure.

Anyway, just a though.

EvilD

That sounds like a great idea Pelgrane. Would you other folks out there be willing to share you playtest groups in this way?

Cheers,

EvilD

A minor adjustment - I'll do it if there is participation from a couple of other publishers, and some interest shown by potential publishers.

Fair enough. Some come on everyone else out there, willing to share?

EvilD

Well, i've got a game that's definitely had the in-house (and convention) playtesting, but could use a couple blind playtests. We've been running the current version of Four Colors al Fresco for--well, we finished it up the Sunday of the first Indy GenCon, so...nearly 4 years? And running it in some form for 7 years. But, AFAIK, no one has played it who didn't first play it with one of the creators. So it's more about making sure we've written the game down sufficiently, than about whether the game itself works.

Anyway, it won't be at that stage for a few more months--i'm in the beginning stages of a complete ground-up rewrite--but i'll be happy to contribute that part of supporting a playtesters list. Likewise for new games, as they happen. However, i've got no playtest groups of my own to bring to the list, if that's the sort of publisher support you're looking for. I've always adhocked blind playtests, and couldn't necessarily count on any of those folks on a regular basis.

Witch Girls Adventures (My game)

had two Play testing sets
1. The Friends: I offered free food and drinks to come a few weekends sit make characters play and then I handed out feedback sheets.

The Friends group was easy it was a matter of them having the time and  the quick start guide printed up. We sat talked during and after the games.  I went back and did some tweaking. The idea here is don't be afraid to ask and always have at least one non-gamer in your group or at least a few who are not avid gamers.  These are the people if you can entertain you have a chance.

2. CON!
Take it out to the Con. I took mine to Owl con.
It was written up as a play test  Being a new game it was hard to find players. I knew it would be so I made little business card size flyers handed them out and Not only were my games filed but I had people ask to play afterwards .
Here you divide your play test up.
1. Character generation. This was my selling point everyone could make a character in under 10 minutes and they did (thanks to Quick start booklets that every player had).
2. Play was second, a quick 4 hour adventure to cover all your rules see how they play.
3. talk. After I was done I talked to the players and had them fill out a questionnaire of likes, dislikes and changes.

Also keep in mind that your project should look good. Cool art attracts.
Cool layout attracts. Confidence in your product attracts.

From reading the archives I think I grok the importance The Forge ethic places on Playtesting, and the utility of Ashcanning. Please suffer my “noob-i-ness” to ask a couple of questions that may well be answered out there somewhere, but I’m just not finding:

Do any Indie/Small Press designers compensate Playtesters, and if so how?

While I understand the stated purpose of charging for an Ashcan version of a pre-production game, I wonder if anyone has encountered reluctance to pay, or buyer remorse on the part of those that have been presented with the prosepct, or have purchased Ashcans?

Brad