I have read numerous articles on how to ask for, receive and action good feedback, but I have never actually seen anyone comment on how to give feedback; and in a typical designer playtest where there are four committed individuals sitting at the table, three of them are in a better position to influence the local feedback meta, and create a culture which helps all of us raise our game(s).
More as a reminder to myself, I thought it might be helpful to write a few notes of how to approach the feedback process, and how I might endeavour to give good feedback in future. Ultimately, we are all likely involved in playtesting in order to improve our own games, so creating a certain order in the process and a culture of constructive and useful feedback within the playtesters’ community of which we are a part, benefits all of us.
Feedback is not (Re)Design
We’ve all done it! We’ve playtested a game and been inspired!
Inspired by the potential we see in paper chits and card sleeves, by a cool new mechanic or just a theme. We do what we always do with a new game, we start thinking about what we would have done with it.
And we are sitting here with the designer – and they want us to tell them. How can we not…?
Even when we know what playtesting etiquette demands its hard (really hard!) not to get caught up in the moment and start the redesign process. Especially while sitting at a table with other designers who are all joining in. If I am going to show off my design chops, I need to offer the best ideas, after all.
There is a place for all types of feedback. And it might be the case that your great ideas are just what the designer needs to help them lift their game from great to awesome, but I have often seen the post-game discussion stall around a debate on something that isn’t actually being playtested, and in fact isn’t even in the game.
Before the Game
Before playing I think it is probably helpful to ask the designer if there is anything particular that they are looking for feedback about. If they answer in the affirmative, then you can ask if they would like to share that, or do they want to keep what they are exploring a secret. Either approach could be valid. Sometimes the designer just wants to chalk up another play, but whether they have something specific in mind I think the prompt can be useful, in encouraging the designer to think about what they are looking for and whether they should have a particular goal for this playthrough.
During the Game
While playing the game, take notes. Nothing quashes the impulse to redesign on the fly, better, than writing down every thought, idea or mechanic as it comes to me. I know then, that if I decide my idea is worth it, at the end of the game, I won’t forget to mention it, but I don’t feel the need to interrupt game play with a cool idea for turbo boosts.
The most easily actioned feedback of any demo, playtest or teach is information on how well the rules of the game came across. It’s never nice to have to admit that you didn’t understand something, especially if other players seem to be getting it. If you aren’t afraid of looking stupid then commenting out loud when the light comes on, or when something that you missed in the rules’ explanation can be helpful. Whether it was stated and missed, or not well explained at all, the designer can easily make a note to make it clearer in future.
(One playtesting trick, if you don’t think you understand how everything works, is to just focus on one thing and do it to death. After the fact you can explain that you were exploring how that one aspect of the game functioned in isolation. It is actually really useful to have playtests which do this, and has the added bonus of you not having to admit that there was something that you hadn’t understood!)
Additional feedback during the game can be appropriate. I tend to comment on things I really like.
“I like the way combat works out”.
Or about the way the game is making me feel.
“I am feeling frustrated because I want to do…. …but I can’t, because…”
Or when I discover a new consequence of the design that the designer likely knows is there, but I have only just discovered.
“I’m finding it hard to choose which action I should take first because…”
In some instances I might simply make a statement, which points towards the way I might be feeling. “So, I now need to take action A, then B, then C and that’s going to take me three more turns.” I will also be making a note of this, but the intention is that I have primed the designer with the fact that I might have found gameplay too prescriptive or too slow so that when we discuss it later there will be a point of reference.
Outside References
The third type of feedback I may introduce in this higher- level overview is to mention games that may be similar in some way.
“Have you played…. because it has a similar auction mechanic…?”
“This feels quite like…. because of the limited choice of actions”.
All these sorts of comments reflect my overall feel for the game, and avoid analysis of why the game mechanics create those feelings; I especially try and avoid, at this point, what could be done to fix them.
Post-match analysis
In the immediate aftermath I’ll tend to wait for the designer to initiate the discussion, giving them the opportunity to guide the discussion towards the feedback they are looking for (see this article by Chris Backe for ideas on how to do this). It also helps if the designer recognises that something needs work, if other playtesters haven’t already piled in with their critique.
I try not to take cheap shots at obvious weaknesses.
I also tend to listen to other playtesters first. If I think my list of input might be longer than others (and it often is!), I prefer to keep my powder dry, rather than come across as someone who has just unleashed a torrent of critique like a scatter-gun at each and every target. It will help me pick and choose which of my thoughts are the most relevant.
Starting with how the rules were explained, gives the designer something they can use no matter how complete they feel their game is. My preferred learning style for any game (and pretty much anything else) is ‘show don’t tell’. I want a demoer rather than a personification of the rule book. Even if the game is reset after the first turn, I find the person teaching can run through the rules more quickly by playing a round or two, as opposed to pointing at different card, chits, tracks and tokens and telling me what they all do.
After the game, if there was anything I missed during their explanation (and there is often a lot!) I will point it out. If none of my other feedback proves useful, I think this at least can be immediately actioned – especially if playtesting at an event where the designer may be playtesting with multiple groups of people.
Refer to Notes
If I can relate the critiques of others to notes I have written down then I will do that. I might have specific examples, or be able to point to specific moments in the game when something came up.
If they are not brought up by other players then at some point, I will work through the rest of the notes that I still consider relevant. Once it has been written down, it is surprising how often I decide my great idea should probably be kept to myself.
If I do decide to raise something, I will try and phrase my thoughts as either questions or points that might bear further exploration, and I try not to offer immediate solutions. Questions respect the designer, by assuming that the balance of the game is something they may have already considered.
“Have you tried the game with less restrictive movement?”
“Is there a reason why you limit the action points to 3?”
“How often do the cards come out in this particular way?”
“What happens if players have more money at the start of the game?”
If something is conspicuous by its absence then I will assume that there is likely a good reason why it was taken out. I have lost count of the number of suggestions I have heard from playtesters of something to add, where the designer responds with the fact that they tried it and there was a reason why it didn’t work.
Avoiding a Defence
I will also comment about points that might be worth further testing, without expectation of a response from the designer. It is too easy to create a situation where the designer feels they need to defend their game – it might even be worth reminding a designer that they should not feel the need to respond straight away and that they may prefer to wait until everyone has given feedback. If the same issue is raised by multiple playtesters then it might be worth addressing. If it was only an issue for one player then it might just be a case of “different strokes…”
This might be another opportunity to point out other games I have played, with similar mechanics or which have solved problems that have been identified during the playtest. Suggesting the designer play a particular game or at least find an online playthrough is an efficient way of describing an entire mechanic, and has the advantage of enabling the designer to go away and find their own solution rather than telling them exactly what to do and trying to fix the game at the table there and then.
Making the object of the discussion another published game can also make it a little easier for feedback to both be given and received. If the designer hasn’t looked at enough other games then it is clearly useful research, but it can also give some authority or credibility to an idea – especially if the game mentioned is a classic. No-one (not even me!) wants to be ‘that guy’ and when the object of comparison is another published game it can be easier for a designer to take something on board rather than feel the need to defend their creation.
The Calm before the Brainstorm
At some point in this process it is almost inevitable that the discussion will move on to solutions for problems that have been identified or the more esoteric, “Have you thought of adding…?”
This might depend on how the feedback has been taken thus far. If I am hitting a brick wall then there really is no need to waste either my or the designers time; or more importantly perhaps, the time of the other playtesters.
It is quite hard not to end up here sooner rather than later – especially with multiple playtesters, as we spar for the opportunity to show how helpful (and clever) we are. It might be beneficial to ask the designer if they are open to hearing a few more ideas, but it also depends on where they are in the design process. If the game is a raw prototype then reworking the action point mechanism might be an option, but if they are hitting Kickstarter next week then the most useful feedback might be how they can communicate the rules better.
Questions can really help as a lead in here.
First giving the designer a prompt to ask their own questions “Do you have anything else you’d like to ask about?” and then asking my own.
Rather than; “You need to allow 2 workers on every space”, I might ask, “Is there any way that you can make the worker placement less restrictive?” And if drawing a blank “Maybe you could try…”
In fact, it is rarely the case that other playtesters do not offer suggestions at this point.
In this way I would hope to maybe guide the designer towards a possible solution – not necessarily my solution – but one that they feel is appropriate for the game they are trying to create.
Accountability
Even harder than the self-discipline required to keep my own impulses in control, is together creating a culture where all designer/playtesters do so. And this will likely require occasionally calling each other out. This can be a gentle prompt such as “Shall we save the ideas til the end?” or simply reminding others that you have an idea but will share it later.
In any playtesting group, a regular routine or checklist might be helpful in keeping feedback on track.
I understand that things are not black and white. I still struggle with how much feedback to give to someone who has done no research, has no real clue of the board game industry, and shows no desire to learn. It’s not my job to burst their bubble even if I think it might be the humane thing to do.
But, having put this out there, I am now committed to trying to get better at the process of giving feedback. And if you ever find me sat across the table (virtual or otherwise) from you playing one of your games, just mention that you read this article and I will likely shut up!
TL;DR
Remember;
Playtesters are there to test the designer’s game, not redesign the game that they would like to make.
Different feedback at different points in the game – 3 levels.
- During the game;
- When rules become clear
- High level overview
- When strategy is revealed
- Feelings, Fun, Frustration
- Compare with other games which feel the same After the Game
- After the Game
- How could rules be explained better
- Other games that have solved similar problems
- Questions not solutions
- Avoid a defence (don’t attack!)
- Brainstorming
- More questions
- It’s not about you… (or your game)
Accountability
- Better playtesting feedback benefits us all
- Create a culture
- Call each other on it
This is the first in a series of blog posts about virtual playtesting. Here;
Playtesting in Pyjamas
Giving Playtest Feedback
Getting the Most from Virtual Playtesting