thread: 2008-02-14 : Oh you should too publish
On 2008-02-19, Brand Robins wrote:
Ralph,
I agree with the "didn't wind up better" in so much as the point of the game was (at any time) to be played by folks other than those in the home group (or target group, maybe).
Heartbreakers break hearts for the reasons you point out, and because the designer then took the local, focused thing (which is often full of unexamined assumptions) and put it out in the world, starving and alone.
If the game is never supposed to be played beyond those playing it, then getting others to test it doesn't necessarily help it become better.
I guess the short form is: external playtesting of "home design" helps a game become better for more people, but it does not necessarily make it better for the people at home. Sometimes, it may do the opposite.
...
See, but that's also a me thing, right? Cause we all know I don't really design games much.
Except that's a big lie. I've designed every system that isn't Dogs or PTA that my group has played in the last year. Many of them specifically, focusedly, and very deliberately. But you'll never see them because they aren't for you. They'll never be published because they aren't for that audience.
Playtesting them with my group in a "before we lock this down, lets make sure it works" phase is fully essential to what I do. Playtesting externally is fully counter purpose and would, frankly, waste my time.
But if I were to take one of my games and publish it and expect it to work, I'd be a damn fool.
...
For all that, I agree that people shouldn't cede the title of publisher. I'm rather tired of bullies trying to claim that word for themselves, and I'd just as soon folks in this community not give it up.
There is plenty of room in the world for plenty of different priorities.
