I've released my new gaming system "Era of the Fallen" in beta mode since the beginning of the year.  I've posted announcements here, at rpg.net, and pen and paper games.  So far (9 months in) I've gotten precious few responses and no one who seems really serious.  Is it typical for a new RPG to have this much difficulty getting playtesters?  I've just reposted the annoucement in the Connections forum, so if anyone has feedback on the wording of the annoucement I'd be glad to hear it.

I've spent close to $100 between printing and mailing costs for the 3 copies of the testers manual I sent out to seemingly enthusiastic groups of playtesters.  None of them have yet produced any meaningful data in 6+ months.  I don't think any of them has actually played through a campaign.  Most of them don't even bother to respond to my emails.  I tried to be very clear up front that I was looking for detailed and frequent feedback, which I'm not getting.  Does anyone who has been through this process have advice on how 1 to get playtesters and 2 how to get them to deliver quality feedback I can use to improve the game?  As a small timer I can't afford to keep sending out manuals and not getting any return.

Era,
  Well, this is a common problem (getting playtesters).
  The best experience I have seen are people who do playtest exchange. In otherwords, two designers agree to playtest each others games.

  As far as getting meaningful feedback, well, you are at their mercy. I would say your only recourse is to blog about it and see if a little public exposure doesn't a) produce results, b) protect others from sending playtest copies to people who do not playtest.

  Good luck with your game!

Don't spend any more money! My strong recommendation is to switch to PDFs for playtesters.

It's rough, but their unresponsiveness is itself valuable playtesting results. If they loved your game, they'd tell you about it.

You've playtested it yourself, I hope - how did your internal playtests go?

-Vincent

dindenver wrote:
Era,
  Well, this is a common problem (getting playtesters).
  The best experience I have seen are people who do playtest exchange. In otherwords, two designers agree to playtest each others games.

  As far as getting meaningful feedback, well, you are at their mercy. I would say your only recourse is to blog about it and see if a little public exposure doesn't a) produce results, b) protect others from sending playtest copies to people who do not playtest.

  Good luck with your game!

lumpley wrote:
Don't spend any more money! My strong recommendation is to switch to PDFs for playtesters.

It's rough, but their unresponsiveness is itself valuable playtesting results. If they loved your game, they'd tell you about it.

lumpley wrote:
You've playtested it yourself, I hope - how did your internal playtests go?

-Vincent

Well, nobody will playtest a game because they like playtesting. 9 times out of 10, playtesting is plain misery. If somebody playtests a game, it's because they like the game, see its potential, and are excited about the game's realization. It's because they really want to buy the game when it finally comes out, it's because they want to show the game to their friends and say "I helped make this real!"

I think that the search for outside playtesters is a game's first solid marketing test. If a game can get people excited to test it, that's a good sign that it'll have legs in the marketplace when it's done. If a game can't get playtesters, though, it's demonstrated that it's already not selling - there's something about its position in the market, its presentation, or its design that's failing to connect with its audience. If you were to release it in a final version today, you could safely expect more of the same.

Like I say, it's rough, but it's super valuable to know this early, when you can still change the game's position, its presentation, and (most importantly) its design. You'll know you've hit it when you start to get excited playtesters.

-Vincent

lumpley wrote:
Well, nobody will playtest a game because they like playtesting. 9 times out of 10, playtesting is plain misery. If somebody playtests a game, it's because they like the game, see its potential, and are excited about the game's realization. It's because they really want to buy the game when it finally comes out, it's because they want to show the game to their friends and say "I helped make this real!"

Maybe so. It's a fact that a lot of the playtesting I've done has been early, internal playtesting for games that haven't gone on to see daylight. Maybe half.

Any thoughts about the rest of my post, about the search for playtesters being a game's first marketing test?

-Vincent

lumpley wrote:
Maybe so. It's a fact that a lot of the playtesting I've done has been early, internal playtesting for games that haven't gone on to see daylight. Maybe half.

Any thoughts about the rest of my post, about the search for playtesters being a game's first marketing test?

-Vincent

EOTF,
  I think the take away has to be that either your pitch to the playtester is weak or your text is not compelling. I mean, imagine someone who has never seen or heard of your game, how do you grab their attention, get them excited enough to play your game? That's what you need to get firing for playtests to happen.
  I am saying it plainly like this, because I have had people decline to playtest my materials, and in every case, one of those two were my issue.

  Also, Vincent, thanks for sharing, I had no idea that the number of rejected projects that you worked on was close to half. That tells me a lot about my design process and where I am succeeding/failing (mostly failing because I am not letting go of projects that aren't firing on all cylinders).

dindenver wrote:
EOTF,
  I think the take away has to be that either your pitch to the playtester is weak or your text is not compelling. I mean, imagine someone who has never seen or heard of your game, how do you grab their attention, get them excited enough to play your game? That's what you need to get firing for playtests to happen.
  I am saying it plainly like this, because I have had people decline to playtest my materials, and in every case, one of those two were my issue.

Well, seriously. If my first glance at someone's playtest material has me going "nope, not interested," of course I don't give the designer feedback. Feedback requires time and attention, it requires some critical thought and the effort to articulate it. You get that stuff from people who look at your material and invest in it, not from people who look and aren't interested. And thank goodness! The feedback of people who aren't interested isn't helpful, it's like "why I didn't give your game a chance," with usually an insult or two thrown in. Who needs it.

If nobody who looks at your playtest material gets interested in it, you get no feedback. You really have to figure out, as a designer-publisher-marketer, how to learn from this silence, make changes to your game or your pitch or both, and try again.

Now, me - my entering into this thread in the first place means that I'm investing in your success. I wouldn't be here talking to you if I weren't interested. However, I'm investing in your success as an independent designer, not in the success of this particular game you're pitching. That's why I've been giving you advice about how to approach this situation, not feedback about your game. As far as your game goes, me personally, I fall into the first-glance-not-interested group.

Since you're asking explicitly for feedback, though, okay, here's mine, but it just amounts to "why I didn't give your game a chance," and who needs it. Will it help?

If a game expects me to do a handling-intensive procedure like rolling 5d20, summing them, and subtracting 20 or whatever, the game had better be truly spectacular in other ways. If a game tells me that I can GM it diceless instead, using my judgment, it had better also show me a clear and brilliant vision of the GM's social and creative role in the group. Your pitch and your playtest material don't give me any confidence, at all, that the game IS spectacular in other ways, or that it DOES contain a clear and brilliant vision of the GM's social and creative role in the group. Instead, it looks like just another rehash of, like, AD&D 2nd Edition. Maybe incrementally better (like every game since 1990), but not any more interesting.

But please, let me just remind you - I'm not here to crap on your game, I'm here because I'm invested in your success as an independent designer. This game isn't going to give you success as an independent designer, and the fact that you can't get enthusiastic playtesters already shows it.

-Vincent

lumpley wrote:
Well, seriously. If my first glance at someone's playtest material has me going "nope, not interested," of course I don't give the designer feedback. Feedback requires time and attention, it requires some critical thought and the effort to articulate it. You get that stuff from people who look at your material and invest in it, not from people who look and aren't interested. And thank goodness! The feedback of people who aren't interested isn't helpful, it's like "why I didn't give your game a chance," with usually an insult or two thrown in. Who needs it.

lumpley wrote:
Now, me - my entering into this thread in the first place means that I'm investing in your success. I wouldn't be here talking to you if I weren't interested. However, I'm investing in your success as an independent designer, not in the success of this particular game you're pitching. That's why I've been giving you advice about how to approach this situation, not feedback about your game.

lumpley wrote:
Since you're asking explicitly for feedback, though, okay, here's mine, but it just amounts to "why I didn't give your game a chance," and who needs it. Will it help?

lumpley wrote:
If a game expects me to do a handling-intensive procedure like rolling 5d20, summing them, and subtracting 20 or whatever, the game had better be truly spectacular in other ways. If a game tells me that I can GM it diceless instead, using my judgment, it had better also show me a clear and brilliant vision of the GM's social and creative role in the group. Your pitch and your playtest material don't give me any confidence, at all, that the game IS spectacular in other ways, or that it DOES contain a clear and brilliant vision of the GM's social and creative role in the group. Instead, it looks like just another rehash of, like, AD&D 2nd Edition. Maybe incrementally better (like every game since 1990), but not any more interesting.

Just my two cents, worth what it is worth. We did do a lot of internal play-testing, no external yet, but we're going to do it and soon (then again, depends how you understand soon, months is soon for me). And here's what we're going to do. That might not fit your product, its maturity, nor your business model. And note that this is on the verge of publishing.

Unlike Vincent (who gives great advices), we don't all have the chance to have play-testers "knocking" at our door to offer themselves ; and this at the very start of a project.

So, we'll facing the same difficulties as you : how to get people interested, the right ones that is, and how to get feedback from them. And, as I understand you, your project is more or less "advanced" in the realization (come on, 44 pages of a quick start guide). So, what's our approach ?

We intend to see the beta release (and its related play-testing counterpart) as a product in itself. And sell it (in pdf) !!
Not only do we make sure somehow that people who buys it will give it a try, but we would also be in our own beta version of promotion (defining a strategy, setting objectives, see if we can position ourselves on the market). And this is important, because after beta this is what is coming. Also, it changes the approach : we are not "asking" for play-testers, we are positioning our product.

Now, of course, you need to keep track of those beta testers, because :
- you will want to give them a free copy of the final version of the game
- maybe give them a paper copy "at the cost"
- offer credit in the final release if they participate
- offer them access of a forum where they can exchange with the author and contribute (a forum, of course, limited to those who buy the beta)

Also, this will mean a source of income for you, to complete the final product (buy illustrations, layout, whatever you miss). And you won't need to deal with stuff like (taken from your website) "To become an official playtester and recieve a full copy of the game manual, write me at: ..." and chat with me about how serious I might be. I'll give you money instead, no need to talk, to try to protect your IP, or see if I will play (which might disappoint you).

Note that this is almost the bounty business model. But, to do that, you need to think of this project as a product and begin to work on this !!!

Well, would this work ? I don't know yet. But I do think it is worth a try in your situation. If you can sell copies of the beta, you will be able to sell copies of the final product.

pells wrote:
Just my two cents, worth what it is worth. We did do a lot of internal play-testing, no external yet, but we're going to do it and soon (then again, depends how you understand soon, months is soon for me). And here's what we're going to do. That might not fit your product, its maturity, nor your business model. And note that this is on the verge of publishing.

Hi there,

Two things :
- I'm talking about a printed copy at the cost of the final product ; not the beta version.

I'm not sure if any will be interested, but I'll make the offer and see.

I've done playtests for several games with my group, and I certainly can see where you have frustration because it's a lot of work.

1. I agree that PDF is the way to go. The playtest version need not have spiffy graphics and you can individualize each one to have the name of the playtester on it. It's more work, but I suspect fewer folks would want to post it online if their name is on the file.

2. I find with my group that I do almost all of the work in a playtest. Most of my group will play and offer some suggestions occasionally, but I'm the one who has to type up feedback and get it back to the game's creator. Certainly the offer of a free copy at the end makes my work more worthwhile. Personally, I take my commitment to playtest seriously, but most of my group doesn't feel the same way and I can see where lots of folks volunteer to do it just to look at your rules for free. I wish I could give more advice on how to find folks willing to work hard, but I think there aren't enough of us out there.

3. As others have said, you need to "sell" the idea of your game to the playtesters. Most of the games I've done are ones where I felt I had some vested interest in getting it done right. It may be a topic I like, or working with a designer I respect. Whatever the motivation, you need to be sure that folks know what you have and try to make it sound neat. If you can't "sell" a playtest group, it's going to be a lot harder to sell product to anyone else at $20 per book.

Just some thoughts off the top of my head. Good luck with this.

Thanks for resurrecting this topic.  You make some good points and its nice to hear from the playtesters themselves.  I hadn't considered individualizing each pdf, but can see how that would be a deterrent to "sharing".  I agree it is my job to get potential playtesters fired up about playing.  I've put together some good materials about what sets the game apart from others and what are the "selling points", also put together a mini set of rules people can look over for free to encourage those who might be interested at a deeper peek but not willing to wade through a 200+ page manual just yet.  The next step is to just run campaigns in gaming shops and cons and let people see why it is such a good system.

The game description is posted here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=29092.0
I'd love to hear from a playtester like yourself if it sounds fun from the description or if it needs some extra polish.

Sometimes people take something that is a problem for them, then act like it's a problem for everyone in the whole world and so it must be a bug. Granted that can be argued against.

But past that, if someone tells you 5D20 is intensive handling, then atleast for that one person it is. If someone tells you it looks like a D&D rip off and not anything to do with story or extra realism, then that's what it looks like for that person. You seem to be making excuses instead of listening to your feedback?

Yes, it's only a sample size of one. But that doesn't mean arguing with the person - it means expanding your sample size. And if in the end a whole bunch of people say the same about 5D20 and it looking like a D&D rip off, well the point of playtesting is to see if the product is something you'd really rather wish it wasn't.