Michael Dorosh
der Spieß des Forums
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2004
- Messages
- 15,733
- Reaction score
- 2,765
- Location
- Calgary, AB
- First name
- Michael
- Country
Some recent posts here got me thinking about the best way to attract playtesters. I mentioned to Jeff and Dave the difficulties of 'nobodies' attracting people to test, meaning those who haven't been published or aren't well-known in the community. For what it is worth, some observations based on my experiences on both sides of the equation (prospective designer and interested playtester). Let me know what I got wrong or what you would add/change:
a) Provide as much info as possible in your query - including at least some (and not restricted to) the following:
b) be clear in what you want done, and when you want it done by. If you're not interested in feedback on balance or composition, maybe you're really just looking for a proofreader, not a playtester. If you're worried about some specific aspect of the design, tell your testers. Perhaps you wait until after they've played because you don't want to influence them. That's fair. But see below. Also, provide a deadline. Even if your project isn't time sensitive, it will provide a sense of urgency. Without a deadline, it's too easy for testers to let little projects slide. A deadline, even a generous one, implies that completing your project matters to you. By extension, it will matter more to the testers as well.
c) Remember feedback works both ways. In concert with the above, now that we've tested for you, we feel a connection and sense of participation in the project. You may wish to share your data on how others have done - egomaniacal playtesters like myself love to know how they've done relative to other players. If we 'got' your scenario it makes us feel the investment of that most precious wargame commodity - time - in your project mattered. If we managed to break your scenario completely, that's cool too. Don't dismiss our concerns as unimportant, or call into question our play style or knowledge of the rules - but do feel free to question us specifically on certain points of play to ensure we didn't create a false report. ("Did you remember that the ROF of the mortar is restricted to one shot per fire phase by my SSR 3?")
d) Be patient. Realize that people have lives. Realize that people take a break from ASL. They occasionally go on holidays and don't tell everyone in their social media networks. This is normal. Don't badger them by email, and particularly in public.
e) Accept rejection. Some of your testers will plain old not like your work. I still recall sending a draft of one of my designs to a well-known name in the ASL community, then suffered through an excruciating exchange where he quizzed me on my knowledge of the rulebook, concluded I wasn't worthy of creating a scenario, and told me so in no uncertain words - without pushing a single counter on a mapboard. Write these experiences off and resist the urge to go call names or lash out, privately or publicly. If people think that working with you might lead to an embarrassing public exchange, why would they volunteer to help you? And while they may have the common sense and courtesy not to return fire in public, your name may well circulate in private, among the same people you're trying to canvas for help.
f) Simple rewards will keep playtesters coming back. Give credit in print, where possible. Some will even consider a free copy of the published scenario if it's in print. At a minimum, though, a simple thanks should do for most playtesters, privately and, if appropriate, publicly. It may be worth your while to state the nature of the compensation up front, apologetically if necessary. ("I wish I could afford to send you all hard copies, but I'm pleased to provide a pdf of the finished product...")
a) Provide as much info as possible in your query - including at least some (and not restricted to) the following:
- nationalities
- theatre
- date
- relative scale and nature of engagement (a meeting engagement of reinforced platoons is not the same as a reinforced battalion assaulting fortified positions)
- game length
- special rules in play (night, desert/PTO/ OBA, amphibious, weather, etc.)
- maps in play (i.e. size of battle)
- components needed (if you need the Swedish Volunteers counters, few people will be able to help)
b) be clear in what you want done, and when you want it done by. If you're not interested in feedback on balance or composition, maybe you're really just looking for a proofreader, not a playtester. If you're worried about some specific aspect of the design, tell your testers. Perhaps you wait until after they've played because you don't want to influence them. That's fair. But see below. Also, provide a deadline. Even if your project isn't time sensitive, it will provide a sense of urgency. Without a deadline, it's too easy for testers to let little projects slide. A deadline, even a generous one, implies that completing your project matters to you. By extension, it will matter more to the testers as well.
c) Remember feedback works both ways. In concert with the above, now that we've tested for you, we feel a connection and sense of participation in the project. You may wish to share your data on how others have done - egomaniacal playtesters like myself love to know how they've done relative to other players. If we 'got' your scenario it makes us feel the investment of that most precious wargame commodity - time - in your project mattered. If we managed to break your scenario completely, that's cool too. Don't dismiss our concerns as unimportant, or call into question our play style or knowledge of the rules - but do feel free to question us specifically on certain points of play to ensure we didn't create a false report. ("Did you remember that the ROF of the mortar is restricted to one shot per fire phase by my SSR 3?")
d) Be patient. Realize that people have lives. Realize that people take a break from ASL. They occasionally go on holidays and don't tell everyone in their social media networks. This is normal. Don't badger them by email, and particularly in public.
e) Accept rejection. Some of your testers will plain old not like your work. I still recall sending a draft of one of my designs to a well-known name in the ASL community, then suffered through an excruciating exchange where he quizzed me on my knowledge of the rulebook, concluded I wasn't worthy of creating a scenario, and told me so in no uncertain words - without pushing a single counter on a mapboard. Write these experiences off and resist the urge to go call names or lash out, privately or publicly. If people think that working with you might lead to an embarrassing public exchange, why would they volunteer to help you? And while they may have the common sense and courtesy not to return fire in public, your name may well circulate in private, among the same people you're trying to canvas for help.
f) Simple rewards will keep playtesters coming back. Give credit in print, where possible. Some will even consider a free copy of the published scenario if it's in print. At a minimum, though, a simple thanks should do for most playtesters, privately and, if appropriate, publicly. It may be worth your while to state the nature of the compensation up front, apologetically if necessary. ("I wish I could afford to send you all hard copies, but I'm pleased to provide a pdf of the finished product...")
Last edited: