I've playtested my Ronnies entry, Danse Macabre, three times now, twice with three players and once with four. All three sessions mostly went well.

Here are a few of my thoughts so far:

- There don't seem to be any glaring problems with the game's structure or the flow of play. I was concerned that the music might become distracting, but classical music played at a reasonable volume actually seems to enhance play rather than detracting from it. The Death Scenes have inspired some pretty diverse, unique approaches that extend far beyond my original idea. (We've had Death appear as dead pets and family members, play mute, convince players to meditate, and just generally act like a dick just interested in punching his time card.)

- I was worried that the game didn't offer enough guidance in terms of setting selection, but this hasn't been an issue with my group. In fact, we've had more setting suggestions than we have been able to use. Still, I could see this potentially being an issue for other groups, particularly those used to playing games with a single, clearly established setting.

- I had indicated in the design doc that I expected a single play to take between two and three hours. In reality, sessions have been between 45 minutes and an hour and a half, including character creation. Granted, some groups will stick with individual scenes longer than we did and have more players, but at least with my group the game went faster than expected.

- I think four or five players is definitely preferable to three. I guessed this when I wrote the design doc, and play has supported this assumption. A three player game simply seems to escalate too quickly from mundane to doomed, and doesn't offer as much time for character development and narrative building as I would like. That said, it's not unplayable with three players by any means, just a little limited.

I'd love to see others playtest the game, and hear their opinions. You can still find the game on the 1KM1KT site here: http://www.1km1kt.net/rpg/danse-macabre. I've added a new draft (version 2) that fixes the typos, clarifies some rules and (slightly) improves upon the presentation of the original rushed, ugly draft.

If you do decide to playtest (or even just review the game text), here are a few points that I'd love feedback on:

- I've been considering changing temptations so that they are chosen by the players and allowing multiple characters to have the same temptation. There doesn't seem to be a good thematic reason to prevent players from choosing their own temptation (unlike rank), and it would give players more agency in building their character. On the other hand, it might also slow character creation, and I want it to remain as streamlined as possible, considering that the game is designer for short, intense play. What do you think?

- Do you think setting selection should be more directive? Or, at least, that there should be a more detailed selection of default setting for players who can't/don't want to come up with a setting pre-game?

- Are there any parts of play that you feel need to be clarified? Are there any glaring omissions from the text?

- Does the supporting character role offer enough engagement for players whose characters die early, or do they feel cheated or deprived of the full experience of the game? Are the player roles--Characters, Death, Supporting Characters--fulfilling in general?

- Is there anything else that you think would make playing more fulfilling? (The obligatory catch-all question.)

Thanks for taking the time to read this. I'd definitely appreciate any thoughts or feedback you may have.

Hi!

That is some serious playtesting. I really liked the time-card punching death concept. "But why did I have to die? Why did any of us?!" "Fuck if I know, man, my uncle got me this job. Sign here."

I'm also surprised by the short duration of play. It might be due to the size of the groups, in that I'd been envisioning much larger groups when reading the Ronnies entry. It might also be due to an effect I've noted with strongly-structured "chapter" based games, that people tend to march along to the structure at first, and then open up and let characters breathe and grow more when they return to the game, after they're familiar with the mechanical features.

Regarding setting, I wanted to clarify my earlier remarks. My suggestion was not to provide a canonical setting which would be the single expected, official, play-here setting, but rather an example, whether integrated with the rules or not. As I see it, this grounds a reader in how setting and system interact, even if such interactions are not spelled out. The message is, "Choose your own, but when you do, this is how it's done."

Speaking of which, what were the settings in your playtesting runs? And what roles were chosen? That really interests me.

I agree with you about the temptations; they're so various in application that duplication shouldn't matter. I even kind of like the idea of trying a session in which everybody has the same temptation, for a lark.

Best, Ron

P.S. Ronnies authors, take note! William has demonstrated that you can add additional drafts into your game's 1KM1KT page. That is very useful.

Ron wrote:
It might also be due to an effect I've noted with strongly-structured "chapter" based games, that people tend to march along to the structure at first, and then open up and let characters breathe and grow more when they return to the game, after they're familiar with the mechanical features.

Ron wrote: Regarding setting, I wanted to clarify my earlier remarks. My suggestion was not to provide a canonical setting which would be the single expected, official, play-here setting, but rather an example, whether integrated with the rules or not. As I see it, this grounds a reader in how setting and system interact, even if such interactions are not spelled out. The message is, "Choose your own, but when you do, this is how it's done."

Ron wrote: Speaking of which, what were the settings in your playtesting runs? And what roles were chosen? That really interests me.

Ron wrote: P.S. Ronnies authors, take note! William has demonstrated that you can add additional drafts into your game's 1KM1KT page. That is very useful.

I posted some thoughts about the game on my blog.

Dan wrote:
I posted some thoughts about the game on my blog.