Topic: Playtest Passes
Started by: Shimera9
Started on: 9/17/2010
Board: Playtesting
On 9/17/2010 at 3:03pm, Shimera9 wrote:
Playtest Passes
I recently put Mezzo into playtest (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forge/index.php?topic=30292.0). Some of you may remember it from the Emergent Character's thread in First Thoughts (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forge/index.php?topic=29575.0).
I'd planned on doing my playtesting in rounds. The first pass would be the core rules. Second pass would test out extra options that add some more meat to the system. After I have the rules down nice and sound I figured I'd release the setting based material.
It seemed like a nice logical progression for testing everything. However, given the scant replies I suspect that making the first pass as bare bones as possible my have hurt the game's initial appeal. What do you folks think? Is flavor important in early playtesting or is just testing mechanics a good idea?
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 30292
On 9/17/2010 at 4:46pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
Re: Playtest Passes
Opinions differ.
My current thinking is that in earliest playtesting, people should be participating "for love," with less emphasis on breaking or even evaluating mechanics. I find feedback of this kind to be disruptive and demoralizing, including oh-so-helpful advice about how to write anything. My concern at this stage is best served by addressing Color, i.e. the sort of imagery and flashy-stuff that characterizes the game (which may or may not include a specific setting and/or fixed characters); and Reward, i.e., whatever it is that I as the designer want to be the point and most fun about the system. I've found out the hard way that including people not committed to these things, at this stage, can stop a project in its tracks.
Best, Ron
On 10/1/2010 at 9:09am, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: Playtest Passes
I might be repeating, but rather than colour, what's the sort of fiction your thinking of that makes you go 'oooh yeah!'. The thing is in stating the mechanics, perhaps your thinking of that fiction, but your (potential) playtesters just don't see a connection between the numbers and that fiction that you do, of course? They might think the fiction you attach to those mechanics is oooh yeah, but they don't know about it yet? Although I'm thinking verbal discussion, perhaps also the bare rules need to have more fictional flesh attached to the mechanical bones?