Play Something Else

[Arilyn]

I would bet money that most indie games are barely playtested at all. This is especially true of the vaguely PbtA dross that fills itch. Many have very cool ideas, and some have striking visual design, but many of them are not good games.

And, really, claims like this one just show bias and don't reflect any reality . I'm no 5E proponent but it is probably the most extensively playtested TTRPG in the history of the form.

I think soviet meant more established indie games, not the ones individuals are just throwing up on the net.

5e has a ton of public playtesting but it's not tightly focussed. Surveys can't get really deep play experience feedback. . Good playtesting has a large but manageable pool of testers who'll put a game through the ringer, and provide thoughtful, thorough feedback. We get 5e playtest materials in pieces, which makes actual playtesting hard. A UA gets published and there is a flood of opinions on a mechanic before anyone could have actually tested it in play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

More playtesting is always better. Letting the general public guide your design? Not so much. Just make the game.

I don't agree that more is always better. And I think often more leads to the problem you're talking about of the public guiding the design.

Let's say two games have had the exact same amount of playtesting. Would you say that meant the quality of their playtesting was exactly the same?

I think playtesting, like just about anything else, can be poorly done or well done. I think less playtesting that is well done is preferrable to more playtesting that is poorly done.

 

[soviet]

I think soviet meant more established indie games, not the ones individuals are just throwing up on the net.

5e has a ton of public playtesting but it's not tightly focussed. Surveys can't get really deep play experience feedback. . Good playtesting has a large but manageable pool of testers who'll put a game through the ringer, and provide thoughtful, thorough feedback. We get 5e playtest materials in pieces, which makes actual playtesting hard. A UA gets published and there is a flood of opinions on a mechanic before anyone could have actually tested it in play.

Yes, stuff like Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World, a bunch of the other Forge stuff. There was a real culture of playtesting and analysis of what works and what doesn't. I went through a similar process with my own game.

Good playtesting isn't just about quantity, it also needs a certain level of rigour and analysis to find out what works and what doesn't. More importantly to figure out why those things work or don't work and what kind of game this is trying to be underneath. There needs to be a willingness to re-evaluate your assumptions, murder your darlings, find the next level of artistry.

The 5e playtests had numbers but I think they were based much more on 'feel' and popularity than critical analysis of what D&D 'is'. They were marketing not game design. To a large extent 5e is anti-game design, being a hybrid of the previous two editions combined with a deliberate ethos of ambiguity and deference to GM fiat.

 

[Reynard]

I think folks are assuming that the public playtest is the extent or majority of the 5E playtest and it most certainly is not. It's probably not even a significant minority. It's mostly marketing.

But we are getting off topic. I concede that many of the premier "indie" games are great and certainly as good as anything the "big" companies put out. But in the TTRPG industry, the "indie" line is very fuzzy and constantly moving -- especially with companies like Free League and Modiphius that are big companies with big lines that also publish much more indie fare.

All the more reason to get out of one's comfort zone and play different kinds of games. If you only ever play D&D, try Scum and Villainy. If you only ever play Monster of the Week, try Champions. Whether folks should try different things isn't dependent on whether their one thing is mainstream or indie.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Wish this was posted last week cause you all missed an opportunity to try new TTRPGs via Games On Demand Online.

There's always Roll20 Con in the Fall.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Monopoly is easily on par with Diplomacy for destroying all faith in your fellow human beings.

No. No no no no no. Monopoly might bore someone to death. But if you want to destroy long lasting friendships and all trust in people, it's Diplomacy all the way.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I will be a dissenting voice in a pleasant thread.

I have seen a few recent threads suggesting it is imperative that a player needs to play multiple rpgs for their “development” and in one case mental well being! I think the person suggesting that has more to worry about than the single game gamer

I just think it doesn’t matter unless you are unsatisfied. I dabbled in perhaps 7-8 games as a teen and maybe double or triple that counting one off cons. I am not sure how formative any of that really was.

That said I am a poly gamer of sorts. I play online shooters and enjoyed plenty of games with plastic soldiers of all sorts. I have several nice tactical level infantry games. Hell I have a room full of boardgames.

I have miniature games and have spent time painting minis and making terrain. Battletech was fun…would not mind giving it a go again.

In the end though, I play D&D. I like the fiction and archetypes. My friends and I have had games together 35 years ago or more and still enjoy it. It’s an established language but also a world we like to explore.

We veered off briefly into others but the juice has never been worth the squeeze. I have zero interest in story games, just none at all. I cannot fathom spending the precious few hours we can muster as a group to delve into a system to see if we like it while we could be rolling d20s and yelling and high fiving.

I don’t think trying new and varied RPGs is bad in any way if you have the time. If I go to Gen con again I might try some new ones out.

But I don’t think a gamer is deficient or stunted if they only a particular game, whatever it is. My venturing out has been “fine” but not exactly formative. A lot of fine one offs.

And the crux for me is really time. Of all the expensive board and war games I own, I have been lucky to set all of them up and play them solo and to play again means relearning the rules. I have a few like war of the ring or battlelore 1e I would play again. But many collect dust. Was my time learning them (not to mention money spent) worth it?

I am not so sure.

 

[Reynard]

I will be a dissenting voice in a pleasant thread.

I have seen a few recent threads suggesting it is imperative that a player needs to play multiple rpgs for their “development” and in one case mental well being! I think the person suggesting that has more to worry about than the single game gamer

I just think it doesn’t matter unless you are unsatisfied. I dabbled in perhaps 7-8 games as a teen and maybe double or triple that counting one off cons. I am not sure how formative any of that really was.

That said I am a poly gamer of sorts. I play online shooters and enjoyed plenty of games with plastic soldiers of all sorts. I have several nice tactical level infantry games. Hell I have a room full of boardgames.

I have miniature games and have spent time painting minis and making terrain. Battletech was fun…would not mind giving it a go again.

In the end though, I play D&D. I like the fiction and archetypes. My friends and I have had games together 35 years ago or more and still enjoy it. It’s an established language but also a world we like to explore.

We veered off briefly into others but the juice has never been worth the squeeze. I have zero interest in story games, just none at all. I cannot fathom spending the precious few hours we can muster as a group to delve into a system to see if we like it while we could be rolling d20s and yelling and high fiving.

I don’t think trying new and varied RPGs is bad in any way if you have the time. If I go to Gen con again I might try some new ones out.

But I don’t think a gamer is deficient or stunted if they only a particular game, whatever it is. My venturing out has been “fine” but not exactly formative. A lot of fine one offs.

And the crux for me is really time. Of all the expensive board and war games I own, I have been lucky to set all of them up and play them solo and to play again means relearning the rules. I have a few like war of the ring or battlelore 1e I would play again. But many collect dust. Was my time learning them (not to mention money spent) worth it?

I am not so sure.

Playing other games and realizing you love one in particular IS formative.

 

[Campbell]

I don't think people should be pressured to play other games. I do think people who lack experience or who play games without attempting to fully embrace the model of play they present do not give very incisive feedback about how a given game plays. I also believe that comparative claims about how broad or specialized a game is in extended play are not well formed from folks who lack the experience of playing and really embracing a game's core model. I also believe that if you are not willing to approach a game as intended you likely should avoid playing / running it.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Playing other games and realizing you love one in particular IS formative.

Haha you win!

We do have funny stories from our brief foray into gamma world too I suppose.

We bought and played BECMI a few years back. I think we might have learned a few things from that.

I feel I have maybe learned more from other groups playing the same game though. There are some big differences in playstyle…