Read on Twitter
Very interesting episode of @HonestWargamer today with @Sixdiceskills and @PositiveVictim.
To what extent should unpaid playtesters of a game be able to play in events? I have loads of thoughts on this, so let's strap in for a good old fashioned opinion thread...
1/x
To what extent should unpaid playtesters of a game be able to play in events? I have loads of thoughts on this, so let's strap in for a good old fashioned opinion thread...
1/x
The example on @HonestWargamer relates to Warhammer Age of Sigmar, where it's the case that playtesters can rock up to tournaments with armies that they have tested, right after they are released. A lot to think about that applies to a lot of games.
2/x
2/x
My gut feel is that there is clearly an advantage for playtesters, the question is how big? Is it an acceptably low level? I'm not casting shade on playtesters here, more concerned for the knock-on impact on the games themselves.
3/x
3/x
Any playtesting advantage clearly shrinks over time. No matter how well Alexey Pajitnov knew Tetris in 1984, the world's had forever to catch up/overtake him. In week 1 of release though? Weeks 2-4? Playtesters get past the steepest bits of learning curve before anyone else. 4/x
An option to eliminate this advantage is to stop people playing new releases for a grace period, while everyone learns how they work. For games like AoS, this also potentially means later FAQs, as problem lists are potentially slower to come out. 5/x
Alternatively, you could just limit playtesters from playing events with new stuff for a spell. This is fine until playtesting ceases to be attractive - having great players working to break your game before rules are locked is helpful to everyone. 6/x
Another control point is the levels of tournaments involved. Maybe you could just impose restrictions on playtesters playing in events of a high enough level? This may still scare off playtesters. 7/x
Having rewards to playtesters beyond being in a secret club and getting to shape the games they love might help fix this. If playtesters are employed and rewarded materially, then it may be worthwhile even if occasionally these testers can't play unfettered in all events. 8/x
Let's get past the playtesters themselves though. Does having external playtesters make the best games, or the best player reactions to your game? 9/x
External playtesters who play in tournaments a lot are likely about as high a skill level player as you can get to try to break your game. But is there a conflict of interests where those players want to leave in powerful things to then exploit? 10/x
Even if playtesters *don't* allow things to slip through that they can then use, is there still an issue if there's any sort of perception to that effect? 11/x
Given appropriate resources, I am a big fan of internal testing only before release, but almost any amount of budget spent on that will still see things needing FAQs/patches/errata - where does it end? 12/x
Is it good or bad for playtesters to show off cool things you can do in a game, or are they damaging the voyage of discovery for players? 13/x
If a playtester rocks up to an event and 'breaks' a game in a way that later needs FAQ/patch/errata, then surely they should have caught that during testing? 14/x
Right now, being a playtester seems all upside for tournament players, barring the opportunity cost of their time, and not being paid. Not small downsides, but I can see how the advantages could feel too big for that cost in tournaments. 15/x
In a world without perfect solutions, I like having all new content not tournament legal until post FAQ, and playtesters further embargoed for 2-3 weeks, but materially compensated for their hard work.
Fin.
16/x
Fin.
16/x
