I recently created a tool that can be used to help make feedback more efficient and effective following a playtest session for a game. Here is a link to a PDF of that tool:
When giving a score from 1 to 7 on the points listed, it is not enough to just give a number. The idea is that the playtester will give the game a score and then briefly explain why they felt the game should be given that score.
After every playtester has had their say using this tool, then a more organic discussion can ensue. Having gone through the points on this tool before starting that discussion helps make that discussion more effective as all of the important talking points can be brought up first. Thus, the conversation will have a more focused direction.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Review: Caylus vs. Puerto Rico
Vs 
After all of the hype and the anticipation for the first printing of Caylus, we now find ourselves on the other side of the second major printing for the game, it's on BSW now, and it currently resides at the number 4 spot in the overall BGG rankings.
This review is not designed to be a thorough explanation of all of the game mechanics. Instead, it is intended purely to provide a comparison between it and the current #1 game on BGG: Puerto Rico.
In addressing this comparison, I do so mainly from the standpoint of "balance" in the game play/design for both games. I love Puerto Rico (and this is by no means and anti-Puerto Rico review), but I find Caylus to be a more balanced game and I do so for the following reasons:
The Effects of Seating Order
In Puerto Rico, the determined seating order remains a static influence on the game's strategy throughout the course of the game. Though this is true for any game where turn order remains consistent throughout, with Puerto Rico the choices of the players to your immediate right and immediate left have a profound impact on your capacity to compete. The person to your immediate right, if they decide to produce the same cash crop as you, can severely hurt you throughout the course of the game. The seating order then becomes an advantage in their favor that does not change (i.e. there are no situations where you would find yourself able to sit "to the right" of that player later on in the game). With Caylus, because seating order is something that can be directly competed for, the potential for a static advantage built in to the game's mechanic is removed.
Alliances
With Puerto Rico, as often happens, there can be some consistent pseudo "alliances" that occur during the course of the game (i.e. you find yourself as a builder competing against an unspoken "alliance" of two shippers). The overall "alliances" created in such scenarios are not necessarily going to change as the role choices of shippers will tend to help each other. With Caylus, because what is important to you as a resource on one turn may not be important to you on the next and because of the continuing movement of the Baliff, player A may find himself working with player B on one turn to move the Provost such that both secure crucial resources and, on the very next round, that same player A may be working with player C to completely hose player B. Though Puerto Rico can present opportunities where you are hurting one player one turn and hurting another player the next, it isn't as dynamic as it can be in Caylus. This, in my opinion, offers more flavor and variety in the game play.
Randomness
Barring seemingly random moves made by newbie players, there are four random aspects in Puerto Rico:
1. Seating order at the beginning
2. Who the Governor is on the first turn
3. The plantations that come up in the plantation draws
4. Potential plantations acquired through use of blind draws via an active Hacienda
The randomness of the plantation draws can result in some pretty drastic consequences for certain players (i.e. being denied a cash crop plantation for a signficant length of time). Also, because plantation draws continue to factor into the game for a significant length of time (potentially determining which crops specific players go for in their production), there is the potential for randomness to present a greater obstacle for one player as opposed to another for a longer period of time. This also holds true if the randomness of the blind draws made by an active Hacienda owner turn out to not be very helpful at all.
Again, barring random newbie moves, there are only two random aspects of Caylus:
1. Seating order in the first round
2. The order of the pink buildings at the beginning.
After that, it's purely what the players choose. There are no other elements that serve to continually introduce randomness into the game after the initial setup.
Kingmaking potential
Because of the role taking mechanic of Puerto Rico, one wrong role choice taken by a newer player can completely "give" the game to another player due to a sequential advantage (i.e. Crafting at the wrong time). In Caylus, though newbies can make mistakes that help other players, the potential for such drastic, inadvertant kingmaking isn't there to the same degree. Also, because the turn order sequence can change, a newbie isn't necessarily going to help the person who happens to be sitting at the table to their right or left consistently throughout the game. Don't get me wrong, there are opportunities for kingmaking in Caylus but they aren't as drastic or consistently available like they are in Puerto Rico.
Other Minor Observations:
Both games offer lots of options. With Caylus, you have a progressively larger number of buildings to choose from regarding where you can place your workers. With Puerto Rico, you can obtain more and more buildings for your city, thus giving you more options/priviliges within the different role phases of the game.
Both games also include a "multiple paths to victory" element. In Puerto Rico, there is shipping and building. With Caylus, there is working on the road or on the castle. With Puerto Rico, you usually have to pick one area (i.e. shipping or building) and focus on it above the other. With Caylus, you can either focus exclusively on the castle, exclusively on the road, or you can do reasonably well in both aspects of the game via favors.
One area in which Puerto Rico has a slight advantage over Caylus is in the overall length of the game as Puerto Rico, from my experience, tends to be shorter. However, the flip side is that, if you are playing a face-to-face game, Puerto Rico can take a longer time to set up.
Caylus seems to present a better atmosphere for learning when compared to Puerto Rico as the sequential role taking choices can have much more drastic consequences when compared to the turn by turn individual placing of workers that takes place in Caylus. In other words, it's much more likely that a mixture of experienced and newbie players in Caylus will not result in the more experienced players getting frustrated with the choices of the newbies as can happen with the choices made in the role selections of Puerto Rico.
Finally, I've found that, because of the shifting alliances aspect of Caylus, it's actually possible for a player to rally back from an early "mistake" whereas, with Puerto Rico, one early mistake seems to carry much more drastic consequences.
Conclusion:
The points I've made here in this review are mainly intended to illustrate how, in my opinion, Caylus is a more balanced game than Puerto Rico. However, both Puerto Rico and Caylus are great games and both are fun to play.
General Gaming: Gamers and Non-Gamers
From my perspective, there are four general categories people tend to fall into:
1. "Gamers"
2. "Uninitiated gamers" These are the people who have an appetite for strategy and who gravitate to gamer's games right off the bat when introduced to them. They are simply gamers who have not yet encountered euro-games. (I was an "uninitiated gamer" who tried to make the best I could out of the games I knew about until I encountered euros and realized what I was missing.) You can introduce games like Puerto Rico, Tigris and Euphrates, and The Princes of Florence to people in this category with no problems.
3. "Potential gamers" These are the people who, given enough of the right kinds of early positive experiences with gaming can warm up to the heavier sorts of games over time to greater or lesser extents. In many cases, it's probably important that these people not be hit over the head with early gamer's games lest they potentially become resistent to the idea of learning future games. It's also probably true that each person in this category (as opposed to "uninitiated gamers") has a personal "weight limit" in that there is a certain level of complexity that they are unwilling to go beyond with their game choices. If a game exceeds that weight limit then they consider it too complex and pass on it.
4. "Non-gamers" These are people who, for the rest of their lives, will probably be averse to heavy strategy games - regardless of what games they are exposed to and in what order. There's nothing "wrong" per se with non-gamers. It's just useless to try to get them to like heavier games because what non-gamers look for in a game is typically social interaction without the "bother" of heavy strategy.
Something that most gamers experience is the frustration of trying to play the games that they enjoy with their non-gamer friends and, unfortunately, a bad experience is what they get. After enough of these types of bad experiences, it can be easy to just "give up" on playing games at all with certain friends.
Concerning this subject, I've tried adopting the philosophy that it is better to accept what is than to try and make something what I want it to be even when it's not. In other words, I don't try to turn non-gamers into gamers. I will, however, give someone the benefit of the doubt if they express a genuine interest in learning a gamer's game (if someone I consider to be a non-gamer really wants to learn Puerto Rico then I'll teach it to them).
I also believe that some people simply haven't realized that they might actually like some of the harder games. They just need to build up to them with enough positive experiences beforehand. Throwing a non-gamer directly into a gamer's game without positive prior gaming experiences will leave them in a position where they will be less inclined to like the game and more inclined to resist the game. However, helping someone "work up" to the heavier games requires knowledge of enough different titles that will appeal to gamer and non-gamer alike such that you have a variety to choose from along the way. Otherwise, if there are only one or two games you're aware of that you know you and your non-gamer friend can enjoy, then those games might not be enough to provide the variety and quantity of positive experiences necessary for a non-gamer to be open to learning heavier games. At that point, not only will upward progression towards harder games stop, you will also probably get stuck playing those same few games over and over again such that you and your friend(s) will get sick of them and eventually won't want to play them anymore.
I also believe that "needing" someone else to like something or trying to "get" them to like it potentially sets one up for disappointment because such a mentality does not leave one emotionally free enough to accept an unsuccessful gaming attempt as okay. I'm willing to try giving a non-gamer the opportunity of liking a gamer's game but I'm also willing to be okay with whatever results. In other words, if my non-gamer friend is hating the game I'm trying to show them, then I'm not above proposing that we just quit and do something else (perhaps even having a mutual laugh in the process about just how lousy the idea of playing that particular game was in that situation).
I believe, for a person to have enough emotional freedom to be okay with such an unsuccessful outcome, they need to have two things:
1. Knowlege that, if they were they one who brought up the idea of playing the game in the first place, they gave the non-gamer enough positive gaming experiences beforehand such that that person's dislike of the game was due more to that person's personality rather than because of a lack of experience.
2. A reliable venue for playing gamer's games (like a local game store, or BSW) that is not dependent on the non-gamer friend or friends in question. Without such a venue, if one wants to play heavier games, then one is going to have to "get" one's non-gamer friends to play them. This can lead to one of those afore mentioned "bad experiences" because, even if the gamer succeeds in coercing his or her friends into a game they don't want to play, it's still a game they don't want to play - thus creating some potential resentment and/or more resistence to the idea of playing that same game or same type of game in the future.
1. "Gamers"
2. "Uninitiated gamers" These are the people who have an appetite for strategy and who gravitate to gamer's games right off the bat when introduced to them. They are simply gamers who have not yet encountered euro-games. (I was an "uninitiated gamer" who tried to make the best I could out of the games I knew about until I encountered euros and realized what I was missing.) You can introduce games like Puerto Rico, Tigris and Euphrates, and The Princes of Florence to people in this category with no problems.
3. "Potential gamers" These are the people who, given enough of the right kinds of early positive experiences with gaming can warm up to the heavier sorts of games over time to greater or lesser extents. In many cases, it's probably important that these people not be hit over the head with early gamer's games lest they potentially become resistent to the idea of learning future games. It's also probably true that each person in this category (as opposed to "uninitiated gamers") has a personal "weight limit" in that there is a certain level of complexity that they are unwilling to go beyond with their game choices. If a game exceeds that weight limit then they consider it too complex and pass on it.
4. "Non-gamers" These are people who, for the rest of their lives, will probably be averse to heavy strategy games - regardless of what games they are exposed to and in what order. There's nothing "wrong" per se with non-gamers. It's just useless to try to get them to like heavier games because what non-gamers look for in a game is typically social interaction without the "bother" of heavy strategy.
Something that most gamers experience is the frustration of trying to play the games that they enjoy with their non-gamer friends and, unfortunately, a bad experience is what they get. After enough of these types of bad experiences, it can be easy to just "give up" on playing games at all with certain friends.
Concerning this subject, I've tried adopting the philosophy that it is better to accept what is than to try and make something what I want it to be even when it's not. In other words, I don't try to turn non-gamers into gamers. I will, however, give someone the benefit of the doubt if they express a genuine interest in learning a gamer's game (if someone I consider to be a non-gamer really wants to learn Puerto Rico then I'll teach it to them).
I also believe that some people simply haven't realized that they might actually like some of the harder games. They just need to build up to them with enough positive experiences beforehand. Throwing a non-gamer directly into a gamer's game without positive prior gaming experiences will leave them in a position where they will be less inclined to like the game and more inclined to resist the game. However, helping someone "work up" to the heavier games requires knowledge of enough different titles that will appeal to gamer and non-gamer alike such that you have a variety to choose from along the way. Otherwise, if there are only one or two games you're aware of that you know you and your non-gamer friend can enjoy, then those games might not be enough to provide the variety and quantity of positive experiences necessary for a non-gamer to be open to learning heavier games. At that point, not only will upward progression towards harder games stop, you will also probably get stuck playing those same few games over and over again such that you and your friend(s) will get sick of them and eventually won't want to play them anymore.
I also believe that "needing" someone else to like something or trying to "get" them to like it potentially sets one up for disappointment because such a mentality does not leave one emotionally free enough to accept an unsuccessful gaming attempt as okay. I'm willing to try giving a non-gamer the opportunity of liking a gamer's game but I'm also willing to be okay with whatever results. In other words, if my non-gamer friend is hating the game I'm trying to show them, then I'm not above proposing that we just quit and do something else (perhaps even having a mutual laugh in the process about just how lousy the idea of playing that particular game was in that situation).
I believe, for a person to have enough emotional freedom to be okay with such an unsuccessful outcome, they need to have two things:
1. Knowlege that, if they were they one who brought up the idea of playing the game in the first place, they gave the non-gamer enough positive gaming experiences beforehand such that that person's dislike of the game was due more to that person's personality rather than because of a lack of experience.
2. A reliable venue for playing gamer's games (like a local game store, or BSW) that is not dependent on the non-gamer friend or friends in question. Without such a venue, if one wants to play heavier games, then one is going to have to "get" one's non-gamer friends to play them. This can lead to one of those afore mentioned "bad experiences" because, even if the gamer succeeds in coercing his or her friends into a game they don't want to play, it's still a game they don't want to play - thus creating some potential resentment and/or more resistence to the idea of playing that same game or same type of game in the future.
Game Design: Two Very Helpful Podcasts
It's extremely helpful for aspiring designers to be able to hear from someone who is a respected and accomplished designer about the process of designing games. In this respect, there is no one better than Reiner Knizia. The following is a link to a podcast that was done by Dirk and Aldie (the co-creators of BoardGameGeek). In spite of the fact that Dirk is trying too hard to be funny in this podcast, Dr. Knizia offers a lot of interesting tid bits about designing games. Here's the link:
http://www.bggfiles.com/boardgamespeak/BGS-2005-03-12.mp3
On the other side of the issue, it's important for aspiring designers to know how publishers select games and how the publishing business works. In this respect, there's no one better to hear from than Jay Tummelson - owner of Rio Grande Games. The following is an hour long interview with Jay that was posted by Boardgame Babylon and it's just chock-full of relevant content. Here's the link:
http://cache.libsyn.com/boardgamebabylon/bgb_v36.mp3
Update: It appears that these links are no longer active.
http://www.bggfiles.com/boardgamespeak/BGS-2005-03-12.mp3
On the other side of the issue, it's important for aspiring designers to know how publishers select games and how the publishing business works. In this respect, there's no one better to hear from than Jay Tummelson - owner of Rio Grande Games. The following is an hour long interview with Jay that was posted by Boardgame Babylon and it's just chock-full of relevant content. Here's the link:
http://cache.libsyn.com/boardgamebabylon/bgb_v36.mp3
Update: It appears that these links are no longer active.
Game Design: Effective Playtesting Feedback
I've been struck over and over again with the reality that many people simply don't know how to properly give effective feedback. So, let's dive into the principles of giving effective feedback during the playtesting process.
Purpose
The purpose of playtesting and giving feedback is to answer certain fundamental questions about a game so that future improvements can occur. These questions include:
"How clear, consistent, and streamlined are the rules?"
"How interesting is the theme and how applicable is it to the rules?"
"How balanced are the mechanics (i.e. how fair is the game for each player)?"
"How clear and streamlined are the layout and procedures of the game?"
"How satisfying or unsatisfying is the overall length of the game?"
"How interesting are the decisions the game requires the players to make?"
"How fun is the game to play?"
"How can the game be improved?"
Attitude
Be kind but honest.
-You are not doing anyone a favor by telling them their game is better than it really is -but honest feedback doesn't have to be conveyed disrespectfully.
-Designers should welcome honest, intelligent, and respectful criticism as it will provide opportunities for discovering new ways to improve their game.
-Give compliments to designers on good aspects of their game.
Extent
Keep feedback appropriate to the game's phase of design
-For example, don't be overly critical of the quality of components used in a game that is still in an early phase of design. The game will not have had much of a chance to take a solid shape yet. However, if a game is in a late stage of design, the components can and should be given more scrutiny.
Give other playtesters time to provide feedback
-Don't monopolize the discussion. Different minds have different perspectives and hearing a wider variety of perspectives tends to result in better overall feedback. Keep in mind that someone else might bring up something that you were going to bring up and might do so in a better or more insightful way than you would have done. Trust that the other playtesters have equally important feedback to offer, allow them the time to offer it, and refrain from interrupting others while they are giving their feedback.
Focus
Address the roots first, then the branches (if necessary)
-Prioritize feedback by discussion the most important issues first. Remember that a "Saturation Point" can occur where too much feedback "saturates" the group and/or the designer - resulting in fatigue with the process. Thus, it's important to discuss the more important issues before that point sets in.
-Actively look beneath the surface for more fundamental problems and direct attention there (don't un-inquisitively fixate on the surface symptoms of a potentially greater problem).
Example of prioritizing feedback:
Discussing how the game has a potential runaway leader problem before getting into a discussion about how the wording on one of the cards needs to be changed a bit.
Example of actively looking beneath the surface and not fixating on surface symptoms:
"Hmm. I find Rule X to be a bit cumbersome. But, rather than tinker with Rule X, let's ask ourselves why Rule X is there in the first place...Well, it seems to me that it's an attempt at fixing a balance problem. So, rather than focus on Rule X, let's look at the places where a balance problem might be originating from in the game and see if we can't correct those first." In the discussion that follows, Rule X may eventually become completely unnecessary if other areas of the game are corrected. Thus, a lengthy discussion about tinkering with Rule X may appear productive but, by looking beneath the surface a bit, one may find that Rule X is merely a symptom of a deeper problem in the game that should be addressed first.
Skills and Methods
Making Claims
-Making a claim about a game is not stating an opinion. It is making a statement and portraying that statement as a fact.
-Claims are made with the intent of proving some important fact about the game to the group and/or to the designer. Claims are usually followed by a debate with people taking a "side" on the issue. Ex "I claim that this rule is unfair".
-Claims are naturally confrontational and, as such, should not be made about arbitrary issues or about smaller aspects when a greater issue is involved. (Ex. "This scoring track is unclear" is a claim about a significant issue while "you should use a diamond instead of a circle on your scoring track" is a claim about an arbitrary issue and/or a smaller aspect of a greater issue.)
-Don't make a claim unless you are willing and able to support it with evidence (don't be rash and don't jump to conclusions). Ex "The wording on that card is unclear and my evidence is that I can justly construe a meaning from those words that the designer did not intend."
Making Observations / Proposing Hypothesis
-Making an observation or proposing a hypothesis is making a statement about the game but from an admitted standpoint of uncertainty. Ex. "I think this rule might be unfair."
-Observations are made - not with the intent to prove anything - but for the purpose of instigating a discussion about an issue.
-Usually, people make the mistake of making claims when they really should be making observations.
Posing Questions
-Posing questions is a covert way of offering suggestions that is non-threatening and allows for a variety of responses. It also helps people remain open to newly presented ideas whereas making claims requires a more immediate response of acceptance or rejection (again, it requires people to take a "side" on the issue). Ex. "I'm wondering how the game might incorporate more player interaction and what that would do for the game's intrigue?" - is a more effective means of instigating change and keeping people open to considering potential changes than trying to introduce the same idea with a claim like "The game needs more player interaction".
Making Suggestions
-Suggestions are usually made in the discussions that follow from claims, observations, or questions that are posed.
-Suggestions should be phrased as "possibilities" rather than as imperatives. This is because phrasing something as if it were a command makes people naturally defensive while phrasing something as a possibility takes away that unwelcome pressure of having to accept or reject it immediately. It also prevents the designer from feeling like you are trying to "take over" the design of their game. Ex. "One possibility you might consider is using a coloring scheme to make your cards clearer."
-It should be remembered that, often, there are several viable ways of accomplishing a task and, because of this, suggestions should not be phrased like claims. Bad example: "You need to use a coloring scheme."
-Remember that, often, playtesters will be making suggestions but will inadvertently phrase them imperatively as claims. Be patient with people if they do this because it's a common error.
Asking Questions
-Asking questions involves actively asking the designer about the intent or the methodology behind some particular aspect of their game. Obviously this would not be a possibility if the situation were a blind playtest but, in non-blind playtesting situations where the designer is present, it's a very good idea for the following reasons:
1. Asking questions prevents the "Saturation Point" from occuring as quickly for the designer (an active, two-way dialogue is more interesting and involving than a passive, one-way monologue where someone is going on and on with their feedback).
2. Asking questions makes it much more likely that the designer will actually listen to your criticism because they will be listening to someone who has actively sought out and comprehended their position on the issue first. Otherwise, a designer might dismiss good feedback by telling themselves "this person just doesn't get it".
3. Asking questions can save time. Ex. "This information track is unclear. What solutions have you tried in the past to make this more clear?....Hmmm. Ok, well, you might try this as one possibility..." - versus - "This information track is unclear. Perhaps you could try (blah blah blah blah)....Oh, you've tried that already."
Expressing Opinions
-Opinions are not claims nor are they observations. They are statements concerning personal preference and, as such, are completely arbitrary. Ex. "I personally don't like how you've named these options".
-Because opinions are arbitrary, they should be qualified so that they aren't portrayed like claims. Ex "For me personally, I don't find your theme very interesting" instead of "Your theme isn't very interesting".
-Keep in mind that some people will not like your game regardless of how good it may actually be. This could be due to a number of reasons:
*Different preferences for theme
*Different preferences for the level of strategy involved / Different levels of comprehension (if you present a heavy strategy game to a person who prefers light party games, then you're probably going to get a bad reaction)
*Different preferences for the amount of luck involved in a game (if you present a very luck driven card game to a person who strongly prefers perfect information games, then you're probably going to get a bad reaction)
*Many other factors
-Because of the wide variety of preferences and personalities there are in the world, it is best to playtest your game with a diversity of people to see how different types of people respond to it.
-Because opinions are arbitrary, they should be taken with a "grain of salt". But, if you recognize patterns in the opinions you get from people - especially people who tend to fit the gaming demographic your game is intended for - then you might consider giving those opinions a little more weight in planning out future designs or versions of your game.
Purpose
The purpose of playtesting and giving feedback is to answer certain fundamental questions about a game so that future improvements can occur. These questions include:
"How clear, consistent, and streamlined are the rules?"
"How interesting is the theme and how applicable is it to the rules?"
"How balanced are the mechanics (i.e. how fair is the game for each player)?"
"How clear and streamlined are the layout and procedures of the game?"
"How satisfying or unsatisfying is the overall length of the game?"
"How interesting are the decisions the game requires the players to make?"
"How fun is the game to play?"
"How can the game be improved?"
Attitude
Be kind but honest.
-You are not doing anyone a favor by telling them their game is better than it really is -but honest feedback doesn't have to be conveyed disrespectfully.
-Designers should welcome honest, intelligent, and respectful criticism as it will provide opportunities for discovering new ways to improve their game.
-Give compliments to designers on good aspects of their game.
Extent
Keep feedback appropriate to the game's phase of design
-For example, don't be overly critical of the quality of components used in a game that is still in an early phase of design. The game will not have had much of a chance to take a solid shape yet. However, if a game is in a late stage of design, the components can and should be given more scrutiny.
Give other playtesters time to provide feedback
-Don't monopolize the discussion. Different minds have different perspectives and hearing a wider variety of perspectives tends to result in better overall feedback. Keep in mind that someone else might bring up something that you were going to bring up and might do so in a better or more insightful way than you would have done. Trust that the other playtesters have equally important feedback to offer, allow them the time to offer it, and refrain from interrupting others while they are giving their feedback.
Focus
Address the roots first, then the branches (if necessary)
-Prioritize feedback by discussion the most important issues first. Remember that a "Saturation Point" can occur where too much feedback "saturates" the group and/or the designer - resulting in fatigue with the process. Thus, it's important to discuss the more important issues before that point sets in.
-Actively look beneath the surface for more fundamental problems and direct attention there (don't un-inquisitively fixate on the surface symptoms of a potentially greater problem).
Example of prioritizing feedback:
Discussing how the game has a potential runaway leader problem before getting into a discussion about how the wording on one of the cards needs to be changed a bit.
Example of actively looking beneath the surface and not fixating on surface symptoms:
"Hmm. I find Rule X to be a bit cumbersome. But, rather than tinker with Rule X, let's ask ourselves why Rule X is there in the first place...Well, it seems to me that it's an attempt at fixing a balance problem. So, rather than focus on Rule X, let's look at the places where a balance problem might be originating from in the game and see if we can't correct those first." In the discussion that follows, Rule X may eventually become completely unnecessary if other areas of the game are corrected. Thus, a lengthy discussion about tinkering with Rule X may appear productive but, by looking beneath the surface a bit, one may find that Rule X is merely a symptom of a deeper problem in the game that should be addressed first.
Skills and Methods
Making Claims
-Making a claim about a game is not stating an opinion. It is making a statement and portraying that statement as a fact.
-Claims are made with the intent of proving some important fact about the game to the group and/or to the designer. Claims are usually followed by a debate with people taking a "side" on the issue. Ex "I claim that this rule is unfair".
-Claims are naturally confrontational and, as such, should not be made about arbitrary issues or about smaller aspects when a greater issue is involved. (Ex. "This scoring track is unclear" is a claim about a significant issue while "you should use a diamond instead of a circle on your scoring track" is a claim about an arbitrary issue and/or a smaller aspect of a greater issue.)
-Don't make a claim unless you are willing and able to support it with evidence (don't be rash and don't jump to conclusions). Ex "The wording on that card is unclear and my evidence is that I can justly construe a meaning from those words that the designer did not intend."
Making Observations / Proposing Hypothesis
-Making an observation or proposing a hypothesis is making a statement about the game but from an admitted standpoint of uncertainty. Ex. "I think this rule might be unfair."
-Observations are made - not with the intent to prove anything - but for the purpose of instigating a discussion about an issue.
-Usually, people make the mistake of making claims when they really should be making observations.
Posing Questions
-Posing questions is a covert way of offering suggestions that is non-threatening and allows for a variety of responses. It also helps people remain open to newly presented ideas whereas making claims requires a more immediate response of acceptance or rejection (again, it requires people to take a "side" on the issue). Ex. "I'm wondering how the game might incorporate more player interaction and what that would do for the game's intrigue?" - is a more effective means of instigating change and keeping people open to considering potential changes than trying to introduce the same idea with a claim like "The game needs more player interaction".
Making Suggestions
-Suggestions are usually made in the discussions that follow from claims, observations, or questions that are posed.
-Suggestions should be phrased as "possibilities" rather than as imperatives. This is because phrasing something as if it were a command makes people naturally defensive while phrasing something as a possibility takes away that unwelcome pressure of having to accept or reject it immediately. It also prevents the designer from feeling like you are trying to "take over" the design of their game. Ex. "One possibility you might consider is using a coloring scheme to make your cards clearer."
-It should be remembered that, often, there are several viable ways of accomplishing a task and, because of this, suggestions should not be phrased like claims. Bad example: "You need to use a coloring scheme."
-Remember that, often, playtesters will be making suggestions but will inadvertently phrase them imperatively as claims. Be patient with people if they do this because it's a common error.
Asking Questions
-Asking questions involves actively asking the designer about the intent or the methodology behind some particular aspect of their game. Obviously this would not be a possibility if the situation were a blind playtest but, in non-blind playtesting situations where the designer is present, it's a very good idea for the following reasons:
1. Asking questions prevents the "Saturation Point" from occuring as quickly for the designer (an active, two-way dialogue is more interesting and involving than a passive, one-way monologue where someone is going on and on with their feedback).
2. Asking questions makes it much more likely that the designer will actually listen to your criticism because they will be listening to someone who has actively sought out and comprehended their position on the issue first. Otherwise, a designer might dismiss good feedback by telling themselves "this person just doesn't get it".
3. Asking questions can save time. Ex. "This information track is unclear. What solutions have you tried in the past to make this more clear?....Hmmm. Ok, well, you might try this as one possibility..." - versus - "This information track is unclear. Perhaps you could try (blah blah blah blah)....Oh, you've tried that already."
Expressing Opinions
-Opinions are not claims nor are they observations. They are statements concerning personal preference and, as such, are completely arbitrary. Ex. "I personally don't like how you've named these options".
-Because opinions are arbitrary, they should be qualified so that they aren't portrayed like claims. Ex "For me personally, I don't find your theme very interesting" instead of "Your theme isn't very interesting".
-Keep in mind that some people will not like your game regardless of how good it may actually be. This could be due to a number of reasons:
*Different preferences for theme
*Different preferences for the level of strategy involved / Different levels of comprehension (if you present a heavy strategy game to a person who prefers light party games, then you're probably going to get a bad reaction)
*Different preferences for the amount of luck involved in a game (if you present a very luck driven card game to a person who strongly prefers perfect information games, then you're probably going to get a bad reaction)
*Many other factors
-Because of the wide variety of preferences and personalities there are in the world, it is best to playtest your game with a diversity of people to see how different types of people respond to it.
-Because opinions are arbitrary, they should be taken with a "grain of salt". But, if you recognize patterns in the opinions you get from people - especially people who tend to fit the gaming demographic your game is intended for - then you might consider giving those opinions a little more weight in planning out future designs or versions of your game.
Game Instruction: How to Make a Learning Game a Positive Experience
I work at a FLGS and, as a result, I find myself teaching lots of games. I've already posted on how to teach games effectively. Now let's look at the things a person should do if they are learning a game.
1. Show up on time
If the learning game is a prescheduled event, please be on time. A "learning game" will already take a longer than average amount of time anyway. There's no need to make it any longer than it has to be.
2. Make sure you have enough time to finish the game before you begin
Don't sit down to a table to learn a game without figuring out if you have enough time to finish it. Having to a leave any game (what's more - a "learning game") in the middle pretty much wrecks the experience for everyone else.
3. Please turn off your cell phone..or at least don't answer it.
For some reason, some people just don't understand the idea that their phone conversation puts the entire game on hold as it halts the game explanation for everybody. If you're in the initial stages of a game explanation and you receive a very important call that:
-Can't be ignored and
-Will take some time ..
..then do the noble thing and withdraw from the game so you aren't holding it up for everyone else.
4. Be willing to fail
My motto with learning games is this:"The purpose of a learning game is to learn the rules, not to win."If I happen to win then that's great. However, it's important to just try things out and not to worry so much about trying to play a perfect game the first time. Otherwise, what happens is a person takes way too much time on each turn and it makes the already long learning game even longer.
5. Choose your game instructor carefully
A bad teaching experience can taint one's experience with a game - thus causing a game one might otherwise enjoy to leave a negative first impression. There are some people that I honestly would not want to learn a game from as I know their inability to explain things clearly will result in a frustrating experience for me. There are times when I may still press forward because I want to learn a particular game and I'm willing to deal with a sub-par explaination - but I try to avoid it when I can.
6. When possible, be selective about who will be learning the game with you
If I'm debating about whether to sit down and learn a game, often it is the group of people involved that can make the decision for me. I try to make sure I avoid learning a game with "rules lawyers", "chronic APers", people who "have to win at all costs", or people for whom the game would not be appropriate (ex. if I want to learn a heavy game and I see that the table is made up of people who are primarily party gamers who don't usually like "thinking games", then I'm probably not going to join so I don't have to put up with their inevitable attempts at getting attention, making jokes, and trying to "lighten" the situation up once they realize that the game requires more thought than they anticipated).
This point is not about being mean. It's about knowing your limits and being realistic about other people. If a person is known for being a "rules lawyer" then they are probably going to do that during the game. Am I willing to deal with that or am I not? If I join a game where a rules lawyer is learning as well, I do so with the understanding and acceptance that there will be some accompanying baggage. If I'm not willing to deal with that, then I shouldn't sit down at the table and then proceed to get upset at the other person when they start doing what they are inevitably going to do. In other words, don't try to "force" the learning game into being a better experience. Rather, accept the situation for what it is and make an informed decision about whether or not to join.
7. Be respectful of the instructor
If someone is going to go to the trouble of explaining a game to me, the least I can do is make sure I'm not overburdening them in the process with excessive distractions. I occasionally like to joke around when learning a game but I try to be mindful of the situation and of whether or not it is reaching the point of annoying the instructor. Too much distraction can make an instructor really feel like they are "working" to explain a game - and that's just rude to do that to them.
8. Ask questions (but be willing to wait for the answers)
If you have a question, it's okay to ask it but remember that some questions, to be properly answered (or for the answer to make sense), you will have to wait until several further aspects of a game are explained first before you get your answer. Remember that patience is a strong virtue when learning a game.
9. If you find that you are not liking the game, try to maintain a positive attitude
This is the one I struggle with the most. If I'm not liking a game, it's usually obvious to everyone around me. However, the proper thing to do is to maintain a positive attitude because, after all, someone else was willing to spend their time to teach you a game. You don't have to lie and say you love the game but having a bad attitude makes it much less likely that the person who taught you the game will be willing to teach you other games in the future - which leads into my last point.
10. Be sure to thank the instructor for taking the time to teach you the game
Even if you hated the game, always be sure to express some gratitude to the person who was willing to teach you the game. Teaching games can be hard work. We should be grateful learners.
1. Show up on time
If the learning game is a prescheduled event, please be on time. A "learning game" will already take a longer than average amount of time anyway. There's no need to make it any longer than it has to be.
2. Make sure you have enough time to finish the game before you begin
Don't sit down to a table to learn a game without figuring out if you have enough time to finish it. Having to a leave any game (what's more - a "learning game") in the middle pretty much wrecks the experience for everyone else.
3. Please turn off your cell phone..or at least don't answer it.
For some reason, some people just don't understand the idea that their phone conversation puts the entire game on hold as it halts the game explanation for everybody. If you're in the initial stages of a game explanation and you receive a very important call that:
-Can't be ignored and
-Will take some time ..
..then do the noble thing and withdraw from the game so you aren't holding it up for everyone else.
4. Be willing to fail
My motto with learning games is this:"The purpose of a learning game is to learn the rules, not to win."If I happen to win then that's great. However, it's important to just try things out and not to worry so much about trying to play a perfect game the first time. Otherwise, what happens is a person takes way too much time on each turn and it makes the already long learning game even longer.
5. Choose your game instructor carefully
A bad teaching experience can taint one's experience with a game - thus causing a game one might otherwise enjoy to leave a negative first impression. There are some people that I honestly would not want to learn a game from as I know their inability to explain things clearly will result in a frustrating experience for me. There are times when I may still press forward because I want to learn a particular game and I'm willing to deal with a sub-par explaination - but I try to avoid it when I can.
6. When possible, be selective about who will be learning the game with you
If I'm debating about whether to sit down and learn a game, often it is the group of people involved that can make the decision for me. I try to make sure I avoid learning a game with "rules lawyers", "chronic APers", people who "have to win at all costs", or people for whom the game would not be appropriate (ex. if I want to learn a heavy game and I see that the table is made up of people who are primarily party gamers who don't usually like "thinking games", then I'm probably not going to join so I don't have to put up with their inevitable attempts at getting attention, making jokes, and trying to "lighten" the situation up once they realize that the game requires more thought than they anticipated).
This point is not about being mean. It's about knowing your limits and being realistic about other people. If a person is known for being a "rules lawyer" then they are probably going to do that during the game. Am I willing to deal with that or am I not? If I join a game where a rules lawyer is learning as well, I do so with the understanding and acceptance that there will be some accompanying baggage. If I'm not willing to deal with that, then I shouldn't sit down at the table and then proceed to get upset at the other person when they start doing what they are inevitably going to do. In other words, don't try to "force" the learning game into being a better experience. Rather, accept the situation for what it is and make an informed decision about whether or not to join.
7. Be respectful of the instructor
If someone is going to go to the trouble of explaining a game to me, the least I can do is make sure I'm not overburdening them in the process with excessive distractions. I occasionally like to joke around when learning a game but I try to be mindful of the situation and of whether or not it is reaching the point of annoying the instructor. Too much distraction can make an instructor really feel like they are "working" to explain a game - and that's just rude to do that to them.
8. Ask questions (but be willing to wait for the answers)
If you have a question, it's okay to ask it but remember that some questions, to be properly answered (or for the answer to make sense), you will have to wait until several further aspects of a game are explained first before you get your answer. Remember that patience is a strong virtue when learning a game.
9. If you find that you are not liking the game, try to maintain a positive attitude
This is the one I struggle with the most. If I'm not liking a game, it's usually obvious to everyone around me. However, the proper thing to do is to maintain a positive attitude because, after all, someone else was willing to spend their time to teach you a game. You don't have to lie and say you love the game but having a bad attitude makes it much less likely that the person who taught you the game will be willing to teach you other games in the future - which leads into my last point.
10. Be sure to thank the instructor for taking the time to teach you the game
Even if you hated the game, always be sure to express some gratitude to the person who was willing to teach you the game. Teaching games can be hard work. We should be grateful learners.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Game Instruction: The Ten Essential Characteristics of a Quality Game Instructor
I used to have a job where I was essentially teaching other people how to teach - which was a great experience. I have noticed that the problems I found in people's teaching methods while I had that job are all too commonplace in the arena of boardgamers who try to teach a new game to someone. It's pretty amazing at first that someone who knows the rules of a game in, out, backwards, and forwards can so astoundingly botch the explanation of those same rules. However, awareness of the principles in this list can help a person see a little more clearly why so many people are so bad at explaining rules. Also, even if someone is a skilled explainer, their attributes/characteristics can be problematic if they are lacking in some particular areas. So, what follows are the Ten Essential Characteristics of a Quality Game Instructor.
1. A quality game instructor is familiar with a wide variety of games (different types, different levels of depth, different group sizes, etc.)
This is important because it's not all about teaching the game well. In many cases, it's about selecting the right game to teach in the first place. If one is familiar with a wide enough variety of games then one can recommend or select a game that will work for the particular situation at hand. No matter how good of a teacher you are, if you have the wrong game for the wrong crowd, you probably won't have a great experience.
2. A quality game instructor is familiar with the rules of the particular game he or she is trying to teach.
3. A quality game instructor takes an “active learning” approach to teaching.
What this means is that the instructor explains things while encouraging people to participate in the process. Instead of reading half the rule book out loud or spending a large amount of time explaining the rules verbally before beginning the game, a quality instructor tries to get the players into the game quickly so the rules are explained within some kind of context. Without context, too much information flow leads to an early saturation level at which point the learner will simply shut down and any further explanation only has the illusion of effectiveness. A classic example of someone making this kind of mistake is the person who tries to explain what every single building does in Puerto Rico before any of the players have even selected a role or started the game.
4. A quality game instructor is aware of the responses of his or her learners and can recognize body language. (Ex. spaced out look = not understanding what’s going on).
5. A quality game instructor is flexible - particularly in two main areas:
a. The instructor can vary the speed or depth of the explanation to fit the needs of the learners
b. The instructor knows how to explain concepts, rules, and mechanics in several different ways (not just one way)
6. A quality game instructor clarifies the meanings of specific game terms and other jargon before using those terms as part of explaining the rules.
This is the principle I see violated perhaps more than any other on this list. It's probably the most easy failing to suffer from for a person who knows a game really well because they have used the game's terms for so long that they have simply forgotten that new players don't automatically know what those terms mean.
7. A quality game instructor clarifies potential misconceptions while explaining rules (ex. “this rule means that you can do A, B, or C but you can’t do X, Y, or Z”).
8. A quality game instructor is patient in that he or she is willing to explain a rule again, willing to re-explain a rule a different way, and willing to answer questions as the game progresses.
This is a big one. I've seen people who know the rules of a game really well become quickly irritated just because someone asked a simple clarification question. Another context in which this principle is violated is when a gamer who is experienced with the game at hand is playing with new learners but where someone else is the designated instructor. Too often, the experienced gamer will impatiently chime in and try to answer questions from the new player instead of letting the designated instructor do their job. What results when this happens is that the new player becomes hesitant to ask any more questions because it results in getting scattered answers from several people all at the same time.
9. A quality game instructor let’s the players play the game (i.e. doesn’t get in the way by offering too much unsolicited or unwarranted advice).
This is perhaps the second most violated principle on this list because gamers tend to have this really bad habit of insisting on trying to discuss lots of strategy with someone who is simply trying to learn the rules of the game. This hearkens back to principle 3 of this list in that trying to discuss lots of strategy without a firm context in the learner's mind yet results in a saturation point where all of the extra talk becomes just that - extra talk.
10. A quality game instructor has an attitude conducive to a learning atmosphere - meaning they:
-like to teach
-consistently reinforce the idea of “this is just a learning game” to take the pressure off of newer gamers when teaching a new game
-genuinely enjoy gaming
1. A quality game instructor is familiar with a wide variety of games (different types, different levels of depth, different group sizes, etc.)
This is important because it's not all about teaching the game well. In many cases, it's about selecting the right game to teach in the first place. If one is familiar with a wide enough variety of games then one can recommend or select a game that will work for the particular situation at hand. No matter how good of a teacher you are, if you have the wrong game for the wrong crowd, you probably won't have a great experience.
2. A quality game instructor is familiar with the rules of the particular game he or she is trying to teach.
3. A quality game instructor takes an “active learning” approach to teaching.
What this means is that the instructor explains things while encouraging people to participate in the process. Instead of reading half the rule book out loud or spending a large amount of time explaining the rules verbally before beginning the game, a quality instructor tries to get the players into the game quickly so the rules are explained within some kind of context. Without context, too much information flow leads to an early saturation level at which point the learner will simply shut down and any further explanation only has the illusion of effectiveness. A classic example of someone making this kind of mistake is the person who tries to explain what every single building does in Puerto Rico before any of the players have even selected a role or started the game.
4. A quality game instructor is aware of the responses of his or her learners and can recognize body language. (Ex. spaced out look = not understanding what’s going on).
5. A quality game instructor is flexible - particularly in two main areas:
a. The instructor can vary the speed or depth of the explanation to fit the needs of the learners
b. The instructor knows how to explain concepts, rules, and mechanics in several different ways (not just one way)
6. A quality game instructor clarifies the meanings of specific game terms and other jargon before using those terms as part of explaining the rules.
This is the principle I see violated perhaps more than any other on this list. It's probably the most easy failing to suffer from for a person who knows a game really well because they have used the game's terms for so long that they have simply forgotten that new players don't automatically know what those terms mean.
7. A quality game instructor clarifies potential misconceptions while explaining rules (ex. “this rule means that you can do A, B, or C but you can’t do X, Y, or Z”).
8. A quality game instructor is patient in that he or she is willing to explain a rule again, willing to re-explain a rule a different way, and willing to answer questions as the game progresses.
This is a big one. I've seen people who know the rules of a game really well become quickly irritated just because someone asked a simple clarification question. Another context in which this principle is violated is when a gamer who is experienced with the game at hand is playing with new learners but where someone else is the designated instructor. Too often, the experienced gamer will impatiently chime in and try to answer questions from the new player instead of letting the designated instructor do their job. What results when this happens is that the new player becomes hesitant to ask any more questions because it results in getting scattered answers from several people all at the same time.
9. A quality game instructor let’s the players play the game (i.e. doesn’t get in the way by offering too much unsolicited or unwarranted advice).
This is perhaps the second most violated principle on this list because gamers tend to have this really bad habit of insisting on trying to discuss lots of strategy with someone who is simply trying to learn the rules of the game. This hearkens back to principle 3 of this list in that trying to discuss lots of strategy without a firm context in the learner's mind yet results in a saturation point where all of the extra talk becomes just that - extra talk.
10. A quality game instructor has an attitude conducive to a learning atmosphere - meaning they:
-like to teach
-consistently reinforce the idea of “this is just a learning game” to take the pressure off of newer gamers when teaching a new game
-genuinely enjoy gaming
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
