Right, so we've got several actual published people here. Silverlion and Bedrock Brendan, among many others. To them, I ask this question:

Having amassed a large amount of notes about the rules of Destiny (my own little RPG), I feel I'm ready to begin alpha-testing.

How does one go about taking those notes and assembling a bare-bones playtest document from it? Are there common pitfalls I should be aware of?

In a larger sense, how does one organize such a document, or a complete RPG?

I've heard people talk about poorly-organized and well-organized games. What makes a game well- or poorly-organized?

That was more than one question, I realize, but they all bear on the same issue. Any insight you might have would be welcome.

Having not done this myself, I still feel this should be said:

Conduct some part of your playtest with online groups, and you will have a transcript of the entire session, right down to the timing (so you can see how long things took). Obviously still ask questions, but consider your fixes in the light of actual play.

In playtesting documents:
I try and make sure I provide the material in a sensible order.

1) How the (Base) mechanics works.
2) Character generation
3) Subtle Uses of the mechanics.

Is pretty much my default.

However, in 2E of H&S I'm actually inverting that a bit and putting all the rules material upfront. Making sure I'm as clearly explaining things as possible.


Beyond that is setting material and campaign building which the average playtester won't use in testing the actual functioning of play.

I test it in several ways. Try it out myself (Alpha) making sure it works for me and my testing group and is written the way I explain it. (Harder to do than said--H&S1E failed at this, but High Valor does not.)

I go through repeated testings and rewrites, then goto beta, and have both blind beta's (If I can find people to do that) and non blind betas.

I reassemble the material from feedback I get and clean up any rules/explanations I have.


You can test a lot of ways, and I've found some better than others both as a writer and as a playtester myself.


The important thing is to get the rules and how they function together, and chargen and how it functions together. You can set them in any comfortable for you order between the two "documents."

Quote from: Silverlion;539354In playtesting documents:
I try and make sure I provide the material in a sensible order.

This is key. Siverlion basically wins the thread.

Above all else you want the information to be well organized and comprehensible so that this element isn't an obstacle to the playtest itself. In other words, you want to test the rules themselves, not the playtesters' comprehension of those rules, so the rules themselves need to be explained and layed out before them in the clearest of terms. So you need (1) a clear, understandable text, and (2) a general organization of the document that makes sense and is easily usable during the actual playtest.

Quote from: Benoist;539356This is key. Siverlion basically wins the thread.

Above all else you want the information to be well organized and comprehensible so that this element isn't an obstacle to the playtest itself. In other words, you want to test the rules themselves, not the playtesters' comprehension of those rules, so the rules themselves need to be explained and layed out before them in the clearest of terms. So you need (1) a clear, understandable text, and (2) a general organization of the document that makes sense and is easily usable during the actual playtest.

Right. But how do you do that? What is a good way to organize the material?

I did publish something years ago, though it was reasonably shameful.
In terms of organizing a rulebook I've heard it said that you can either layout a game as a reference work for use during play, or lay it out for ease of learning - 2E is sometimes cited as an example of the former, as would perhaps be Tunnels and Trolls which is divided into a beginners and an advanced section - its also interesting in that it uses case numbering (i.e. section 3.1 The Logic of Magic, section 3.1.1 The Spell Book, etc).
 
Examples of poor organization (in terms of learning rules) might include hiding rules in obscure places - John Kirk in his book specifically mentions Nobilis, where the Character Advancement rule is one sentence in the middle of a lengthy fiction piece on Heaven and Hell (the rules apparently being hidden as much as possible to pretty up the layout) or perhaps 4E, where powers start being listed with damage expressions e.g. "3W" before what a wubbleyou is gets explained. Savage Worlds perplexed me initially during a game session (I hadn't read the rulebook beforehand properly) because the target numbers for shooting people were under the Shooting skill, rather than the combat chapter - I guess that's an instance of rules being organized to initially learn the game rather than for cross-referencing.
 
*I guess I normally start with CharGen then core mechanic, though you can argue that knowing the mechanic helps inform how characters are built. Oh, other than that, obviously, examples are good for explaining complex or usual ideas.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;539365*I guess I normally start with CharGen then core mechanic, though you can argue that knowing the mechanic helps inform how characters are built. Oh, other than that, obviously, examples are good for explaining complex or usual ideas.

The thing is and I must stress this, how you set it out now is not necessarily how you must set it out to publish it. I prefer following the publication order myself, at least in part, because that means if someone in playtest says "I can't find advancement.." you know it needs to be moved.

It's always difficult. Writing my little game I found: Put first things first. That is, sort things the way you want people to use them.

One thing I did learn: If you want people to use it, don't do sloppy just because it's a first test. Check orthography, do a table of contents. They check your game, they can expect some form.

With a finished product, there are a few methods to improve organisation.

- Don't put rules into continous text without a header.
- You can highlight important terms or repeat them in a side column.
- Do page references (and get them right).
- Make sure you can find any important term either in the table of contents or in the index.
- Examples help with understanding rules and give readers some time to rest.

Having been part of many playtests for my own stuff, friends' stuff and professional stuff, I highly suggest that you build a good team of alpha testers.

Many gamers are fine players, but shitty testers. It is important to find yourself a "number cruncher", a "rules lawyer" and both a casual gamer and hardcore.

But more important, you need a crew who gets that you are all here to bang the shit out the game, not just play a session. You need people who can give honest, direct and clear feedback. You need people who can debate ideas and have an understanding of what you are trying to achieve.

And most importantly, you have to be able to separate your ego from your work. Because playtesting can be a humbling motherfucker of an experience.

Quote from: Spinachcat;539446And most importantly, you have to be able to separate your ego from your work. Because playtesting can be a humbling motherfucker of an experience.

Indeed. One important thing to remember though. A good playtester will explain how something broke in play. A bad playtester will complain about things without explaining why it didn't work or how it didn't work.

Quote from: Spinachcat;539446Having been part of many playtests for my own stuff, friends' stuff and professional stuff, I highly suggest that you build a good team of alpha testers.

Many gamers are fine players, but shitty testers. It is important to find yourself a "number cruncher", a "rules lawyer" and both a casual gamer and hardcore.

But more important, you need a crew who gets that you are all here to bang the shit out the game, not just play a session. You need people who can give honest, direct and clear feedback. You need people who can debate ideas and have an understanding of what you are trying to achieve.

All perfectly true, but how do you find these people, and, when you do, how do you persuade them to give up their leisure time to playtest your game? Even if they're people who say they like the idea of playing new games, they don't necessarily come good when the time comes to put their dice where their mouth is, so to speak. (Blimey, that sounded a bit odd :confused:).

My writing buddy and I are constantly trying to get folks at our club to sit down and playtest our game, but even though they're happy to play in our normal games, when we approach them as designers they tend to rapidly melt away. Is it because they're worried about having to say the game's crap and thereby potentially ruining our relationship? Like when friends come to you with pyramid schemes they've somehow got involved with? It got to the stage about a month ago when we advertised a playtest and tried to persuade someone we both know from our club, person X, to play; person X said No, and then my co-writer remembered there'd been a similar situation last year when person X had come to him with a scenario he'd written and asked him to play it, which he did. My partner reminded him about this, and so he ended up playtesting our game, enjoyed it, and was in fact responsible, via that game, for us now having fixed numbers of skill checks, a major improvement. Sheesh.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;539365Examples of poor organization (in terms of learning rules) might include hiding rules in obscure places - John Kirk in his book specifically mentions Nobilis, where the Character Advancement rule is one sentence in the middle of a lengthy fiction piece on Heaven and Hell (the rules apparently being hidden as much as possible to pretty up the layout)

That must've been the first edition (which I haven't seen), because the second clearly includes a section called "Experience" on page 168, at the end of the chapter on resolving conflicts.

Quote from: catty_big;539712All perfectly true, but how do you find these people, and, when you do, how do you persuade them to give up their leisure time to playtest your game?

Start a new thread and have it stickied here, looking for playtesters. Designers can cast their net and post up about their game, or directly contact people who sign up as willing. That was tried over on the bendy purple but degenerated into a modwhine. Its probably one of the most important things in new game design.

As to organization, here are a few key thoughts:
1. Find a game you like and look at how it's organized. If you model your structure after theirs it should flow pretty well.
2. Know your audience. Do you need "how to role play" stuff in the book or not? If so, put it at the start of the book.
3. Put player stuff first, GM stuff second, campaign stuff third. (The OD&D rulebooks from 1974 are actually an excellent model for this, in spite of the reputation the game has as being hard to understand.)
4. The player stuff should be first because many people only play. They don't need to hunt around the entire rulebook, but keep stuff they need concentrated at the start.
5. Player information should be organized in order that it's needed. Start with choices like class or race so they can imagine what they can do. Follow up with structure like stats and bonuses so they can see how to build a character. Follow up with equipment and things to finish off the character building process. Follow up with player information that only some characters need, such as spells or whatever. End with rules for advancement, which should be the last thing needed.
6. The bigger the rulebook, the greater the need for a solid table of contents and/or index.

As to "finding" playtesters, I think it's really a hit or miss proposition. I know some folks who will give extensive feedback, others who agree to be playtesters just to get a look at a rules system for free. No way to know for certain which ones are which until you try them out.