thread: 2011-02-17 : Ben Lehman: Playtesting: Stop
On 2011-02-22, Ron Edwards wrote:
But not from stupid playtesting, or playtesting with status priorities.
I remember when I posted about my design and publishing process for It Was a Mutual Decision - a game, John, that you have played and which as I recall, you value. I was a little puzzled at the smug, nasty shit I received in that thread about how little playtesting the design work included. I responded with what seemed obvious to me: each playtest, and there were indeed playtests, solved problems and helped me write. When I judged that no more problems persisted and that I was able to explain the thing, I moved on. In the case of that game, it simply didn't take many playtests, case closed.
Later, I understood what the internet message of those posts was, to a certain kind of audience and certain kind of mind. "Look, look, Mr. playtest-and-bake man, *he* doesn't even playtest his games!" Snide, evil little fuckers.
But more importantly, stupid. The point of playtesting is to help make one's game actually playable and write-able, with these goals subject all the while to the author's own judgment, just as Ben says. If it takes three sessions, or thirty, makes no difference. Sometimes it can be accomplished with only author playtesting, and other times external as well. I find that external playtesting is more about the writing, as typically a group gets off on the wrong foot and suffers three hours of monstrous nonsense, their careful notes about it aren't worth squat, and I learn more about how to write the introductory material. But again, the point is that the utility and extent of whatever sort of playtesting are specific to that particular design project, and always subject to the designer's process, not overwhelming it. Missing that point in favor of God knows *what* interpretation of advice to playtest your game is simply stupid.
My take is that we're really talking about the subcultural betrayal of the Ashcan Front. Paul and Matt were onto something with that. I don't know how many people actually understood that their target audience was not the on-line indie-enthusiast crowd, but instead the masses, unwashed and otherwise, wandering around GenCon and the gaming landscape in general, with more-than-half-finished games riding in their backpacks. The project was an explicit attempt to restore the outreach qualities of the early Forge. And instead, it was hijacked by insiders much like the Game Chef was partly hijacked, as a venue for their ... whatever it is. The best of the first batch by far was The Path of Journeys, by Ram Hull, a complete outsider in the scene and exactly the kind of person the Ashcan Front was for. No one saw it. They were too busy circle-jerking about what big designers and playtesters they were, with each other's games.
It takes a tough mind, a thick hide, and a truly subterranean sense of humor to operate in that crowd and still produce good games. Willow can do it. Some others, but not many. Sensitivity, active listening, receptiveness are all liabilities in that subculture, drawing people who should know better into the orbits around false sources of feedback, all of which turn out to be black holes.
I've had it with the stupidity, and I'm calling it out. This subornment of playtesting is merely one example. It's deeply associated with *economic* stupidity as well, and social stupidity in which the champion victim players become lauded as heroes when they are merely parasites. It's time for whoever can, to own up to this wasteland of bad dialogue, bad design, and bad business, and to get the hell out of it. We're past the point at which there really isn't any more excuse.
Best (to some of you), Ron
