Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8211821" data-attributes="member: 71699">There are several ways playtests benefit game design, and not all of those are to do with surviving first contact with players. One way, which I think that framing speaks to, is playtesting for clarity and balance: proving that the game system is both accessible and reasonable.On another axis - unrelated to surviving contact with players - there is the opportunity to investigate (develop a feel for or understanding of) variations. Say for example one has a game entity (like a character class) possessing a half-dozen traits, with ideas for a few score options for those. One assays instantiations - i.e. plays each so far as necessary to understand them - and then carries forward what is proving good.Because of combinatorial effects (in this example, permutations of sets of 6 members with 40 options for each member, no repeats) a game designer uses their judgement to choose interesting sets, and then benefits from each playtest cycle that tests a permutation. They are limited to testing only part of the space - so each test is like a light cast into a black box: it illuminates some of the volume.I think many game designers end up publishing a game with still further options that they would have liked to have tried out, but did not have time to do so. In the end, one has to go live with a robust version - last minute inclusions are often a mistake. I guess what I am saying is that - yes - there is a way in which it is right not to expect playtesting to solve balance prior to putting your game in the ingenious hands of players* - and there is a degree to which that incompletely describes the purpose of playtesting.*You can possibly see how this speaks further to playtesting, for instance how contemporary game designers are taking advantage of findings from community testing.</blockquote>

Verification