"How much "Playtesting" means a rule set is "Playtested"?" Topic

I play and review many sets of rules for my blog, and I see wildly varying levels of editing, and "balance" in rules

Many rules read like they are house rules (the author assumes common knowledge with the reader). Others are released with major ambiguities – it seems like no one "outside" their gaming club has tried to play them "cold" without a demo game.

Far more have dramatic play discrepancies ("balance") issues that unduly overpower a particular unit, list or tactic.

Most rulesets released commercially would claim to be "playtested" (although one can presume wargame vault pdfs have no particular standard to adhere to)

Many groups of playtesters mentioned by name are quite small (i.e. "thanks to my playtesters – my two brothers and my cousin").

How many games would these people play before they are "tested"? Two games? (sometimes it seems like it!) Fifty? A hundred?

There is a world of difference between play-tesing a set of rules to the satisfaction of a small group of players and play-testing a set of rules so that they are completely unambiguous for an initiated user.

What the major said.

Playtesting between players who know each other well is not the same as sending your written rules to the Burkina Faso wargames group and asking them to playtest and write to you with every part that isn't precisely clear.

I always do that. They are very patient with me.

Recent boardgame example: Memoir '44.
I played a big 2 team (each side had 3 players) game a couple of months back at an out-of-town game store.

Our side achieved enough objectives to win the game.
By from-the-box rules and anywhere I'd played the game was over.

By local house rules, you had to keep those objectives for an entire turn. Said house rules (I was the only out-of-towner) were restated on the last turn since everyone but me was familiar.

We then lost the game because I had committed everything to one last push to win objectives.

Play tested by whom?

By pros and academics? Or by full time gamers? Or by school kids or by some random guy at a con???

You feel directly if something is playtested or not. Scenarios or rules where they forgot to write down the victory conditions are normaly not tested.
;)

I agree with the above statements regarding play test community. In a small group that know each other well they might be very familiar with specific game conventions and thus not fully explain the usage in the rules that tends to lead to open interpretation. I also question if some of the play testers really know the period and thus while the game may play well but doesn't give a very good period feel.

I also question how much "testing" is done with point values and army list.

Chris

I play tested a system for a company and got the later version of the rules that had previously already been play tested. I was shocked at the gaps and ambiguities, even on the initial read and could not understand how even a cursory reading by the first group of testers had not picked it up, let alone them having been able to even play the game.

There is an issue for designers / publishers in terms of recruiting reliable testers, as I know of companies who have suffered with people who say they will play test and then basically fail to do so as they slowly drift off and lose focus.

Reputation is everything and after a while, buyers will start to know those companies that run a tight ship in relation to play testing.

The editor has a big responsibility. When play testers report back, the editor / designer can amend the rules as appropriate but then that person needs to check the ENTIRE rules and game charts to make sure that the amendment does not impact on another area of the game.

Play testing is a serious job (just without the money :-) and those that agree to do it should be under no illusion that they need to give some serious time over to the task and to report back fully and consistently after each session.

I also question how much "testing" is done with point values and army list.

Usually none at all.

It should be playtested until most of the bizarre things that could happen – but that aren't covered in any way, shape or form in the rules – has had a chance to happen. I know you can't cover EVERYTHING, but good heavens, some rules writers don't seem to be able to think much beyond the obvious.

There are practical limits to how much playtesting is/can be done. Commercially-speaking, there are costs (often significant) associated with playtesting, directly and indirectly. Direct costs include paid testers, materials, and time (as relates to employee costs, etc). Indirect costs include opportunity costs in delayed shipping, saturation of your consumer base with playtest copies (a danger in niche boardgames), etc.

There are also limits as to how effective your testing can be, but you can control for that in other ways. WotC, for example, only did marginal testing of Magic: the Gathering cards after a point. Some were over/underpowered, but as an aggregate the system worked. With wild outliers, tournement rules could restrict the use of cards that were just too powerful to allow, while player knowledge would eliminate significantly underpowered cards.

WRG was famous for trumpeting "the most heavily play-tested set of Ancients rules ever". And then 3 weeks after they were published and shipped came the errata sheets. VERY LARGE ERRATA SHEETS.
WRG and DBM both.

I much prefer the introduction where the author says "You are big boys. Fix it yourselves. And, no. You can't have my number or email address."

Heavy playtesting is what separates a great wargame from an unplayable mess.

Frankly, a game that hasn't been playtested shouldn't be on the market in the first place. It's part of producing a usable product. If a game has to brag that it's been playtested (or worse, use alleged playtesting to defend against customer complaints that result from your game being awful), then something's wrong.

Usually, the way I know a game has been thoroughly playtested is by playing it with a friend. It's apparent within about an hour for most games whether it's over my head or just awful.

While darthfozzywig has a point about the costs, if your game is such a niche product that 10-20 playtest copies saturates your market, then you probably shouldn't be writing this game for profit in the first place. Not testing a product-- any product-- prior to release is a terrible decision because the cost of a failed rollout is always higher than the cost of getting it right the first time.

I get 10-20 emails per year, with offers to playtest my games.

It is very, very rare that any of those people will do more than glance at a draft copy of the rules. Most of the time, you'll never hear from them again. People are a lot more enthusiastic about the idea of playtesting, than they are about all the hard muck and grind of actually doing it. I'd say that in any group of potential playtesters, you'll get useful feedback from about 5% of them.

Over the years I've built up a precious collection of real, dedicated play testers in several countries, and I value them immensely.

Playtesting is tough. After having done it for both board and miniature games. You play and keep notes while playing and often stop to ask the other playtesters, does this really make sense and what if we changed this line to read like this. Then you have to type up the results and comments and send it back to rules writer and wait for him to push back the new upgraded rules.

I remember the one time I was also proofreading the rules and also playtesting. By the fifth time of proofreading a new edition, I was wondering what I had got myself into. Plus my group was play testing a certain period of the rules, while other groups were doing other periods and armies, so when the play testers commented on one rule the other groups would wonder what was wrong with it since it didn't effect the armies they tested. But being a good play tester means telling the writer that the way he wrote a rule doesn't make sense or it could be interpeted in another way then what he intended.

It was all worth it though at the end to see a rule set being born and knowing that you helped to get it there.

That's why I'm nice to my QA guys: anyone who plays your broken level 6 twenty times in a row looking for that weird bug deserves a beer and a pat on the back.

For boardgames, getting folks who can grasp the ideas contained in an incomplete playtest copy and provide useful feedback without getting caught up in trying to "win" is a rare and wonderful thing.

Yes, it's difficult to find play testers who will play or test. Over the years I've sent copies of rules to many folks to read, play, and provide comments. In most cases, I never hear from them again. I really enjoy when one of those guys shows up on TMP to criticize something when they couldn't be bothered to provide that feedback BEFORE the rules were published.

I've been using play testers NOT in my group to provide a "cold" review of my rules for about 15 years. They have to play the game based on what I wrote, not what I meant. When these folks actually provide comments, they are incredibly valuable.

If you see a set of rules that went from a glimmer in someone's eye to a shrink-wrapped set of rules in 9 months, run. It takes me AT LEAST three years to write a set of rules -- even if I am basing them on an engine that has already been thoroughly tested.

Buck

I assume that for most rulesets playtesting was only done in a small gaming group, if at all.

As for army lists and point values, I have no doubt that these were practically never 'playtested'. It would require zillions of games, with armies in systematic-changing configurations, to explore all the ranges possible.

I also think people have a far too grandiose view of the 'rules-writing industry'. Ruleswriting (except for the real biggies) usually is one guy writing the rules, with some testing taking place in 2 independent gaming groups at most. It is NOT a writing team of 15 people, with a battery of 100 permanently employed play-testers.

If the rules say "we played 10 games of these rules with our local group, and they worked for us", that's good enough for me. I'll be the judge whether they also work for my gaming group. Rules are a template tom start from, not law.

It's also important to playtest a ruleset not just to demonstrate that it works to provide a fun (and/or historically accurate) game, but to demonstrate that it cannot easily be broken, by ahistoric or silly tactics.

Two players who know a decent amount about the western front in World War 1 would probably not launch frontal attacks against each others armies without a significant advantage in numbers. The rules should punish an attacker who launches a frontal assault at 1:1 odds, but experienced players aren't likely to launch such an attack, unless they're specifically attempting to verify that such an attack fails.

Likewise a Napoleonics player is unlikely to have his cavalry charge infantry who have formed square unless he's looking to verify that the rules do actually favor units in square. Similarly a medievals player is unlikely to allow his Genoese crossbowmen to get into a shooting match with a similar number of English (and Welsh) longbowmen, unless he's verifying that that the crossbowmen lose (at least most of the time).

A good example of this is SJGames OGRE (a simple sci-fi game that I've always had a soft spot for). No one bothered to check what would happen when a player used a force of 100% hovercraft (usually termed GEVs in OGRE) during playtesting. It turns out that such a force is unbeatable in many situations. Years later a workaround had to be developed.

It's important to test that silly things that ruin the fun of the game do not work.

Yeah, I played OGRE and noticed that the GEVs were super-weapons. Move, hit, run.

In WRG 1750-1850 rules (which otherwise worked quite well) light infantry were the thing. No reason to use anything lse except you'd already painted them.

I have play tested rules that have army list. I know my group covered a specific period in the army lists. I went through and built multiple different armies for each list, then play tested them again and again. I also pulled all my reference books out and reread them to make sure it made sense on the quantity and quality of each unit. Discovered that one army could not be built to a standard game of 2000 points even if you bought every unit. So that list got redone. Changed a few percentage points here and there to keep the lists more in line with what was possible historically. Of course I always thought they could always use another elephant or two, (love elephants on the table).

The best part of the whole thing was how my collection grew. When I needed a unit that I didn't have, I would sub another until I could get one ordered and painted. My collection of painted figures for the period I think went up by a factor of x10 to cover every possible unit and to make sure I had enough for both sides. Now I can pretty much field any unit from that time period. Nothing like seeing two massed pike armies facing off against each other.

As to funny play tests, one of the people in my group had no knowledge of ancients. He would mix his elephants in all sorts of interesting places in the battle line. He would intermix with pike, Lead with the elephants in the center. Mass them all on one flank. He did things with elephants I had never seen on a table. He would do all sorts of things with his skirmishers and light infantry too. I never knew what I would see when the screen in the center of the table came down. So make sure you have someone in the group who has no knowledge of the time period covered by the rules. They will really push the rules in new directions. They will be the ones that ask, "Why cant I do this or that".

It should be playtested until most of the bizarre things that could happen – but that aren't covered in any way, shape or form in the rules – has had a chance to happen.

If you did that, most rules woould never see the light of day.

Anything less than 100 games is not statistically significant.

It's no coincidence that many popular rule sets have new editions. Rules get played a LOT more once they are released and that will throw up situations that were inevitably missed by whatever play-testig took place before.

So make sure you have someone in the group who has no knowledge of the time period covered by the rules. They will really push the rules in new directions. They will be the ones that ask, "Why cant I do this or that".

That only works if the rules penalise "bad" tactics. Very few do …

Playtesting is prbably never done.

REAL playtesting would be a group of gamers dedicated to testing the game, not playing it. This means that the "playtesters" have to completely forget about playing the game and trying to win. Real Playtesting would be guys attempting to "break" the rules and "de-rail" the intent of the game. That is, test it like products are tested- to destruction." Playetsing is I suspect most done in the local author's group and if veryone had fun, it is assumed the game is good. But that's not real testing.

It would also involve handing a copy of the rules to a player who knew NOTHING about them and watching him try and muddle his way through them RIGHT THERE without a pre-read to evaluate how the rules have been written and put together.

Real playtesting would NEVER have the phrase "Well we'll play with this for now and change it later." Literally translated that means "I want to keep this accidental major and completely unfair advantage for this game so I can get my win and later we'll argue about it. In a real playtest moves would be taken back all the time, dice rolls re-rolled, and in fact often just made up.

Real playtesting is not playing a game. It's evaluating a game and taking it apart under stress.

Playtesting seems to be this 'thing' that is done with a game until it's 'finished'. Hence the question. The idea is that designer creates his game and then he tests it. If the designer actually cares about testing his design, it won't ever happen that way. For professional game designers, that is design 101. Obviously, most designers in the hobby don't have access to a large number of dedicated playtesters, let alone the time/resources required to playtest a game 'enough.' But what should be in involved?

Playtesting is testing a game system, a procedural system for a number of things and in a number of ways to be effective. A lot of thought has gone into this question over the years in an number of venues, from board games to computer games, family games to training games.

What has become very clear is If 'playtesting isn't planned out, to assure that each process is addressed, not only do you have an incomplete 'test', but you can't tell when you're done. You just stop at some point from exhustion, deadlines or 'good feelings.'

Some of the things a game system should be tested for are:

1. Function: do all the subsystems 'work' as designed?
2. Do all the subsystems work as a whole game?
3. Is the working system smooth and easily played?
4. Are the game decisions engaging AND multifaceted? [e.g. Chess vs Tick-Tac-Toe]
4. Do the players enjoy the experience? This means, is it fun? But of course, if you leave that question to some vague 'I like it' comments from players, you haven't 'tested' the system.
5. How robust is the system vs. player behavior.

Real playtesting is not playing a game. It's evaluating a game and taking it apart under stress.

Here is where OSchmidt's comment fits, and while quite important, playtesting IS also playing the game at some point… how else would you know if it works as a game and is enjoyable.

6. Are the main goals of the game, what the designer wanted to provide players through game play being realized?

7. Is the game 'balanced' for both or all players… both in choices, but opportunities to succeed?

Now, in general, the questions above have to be answered in order [How can you conclude the game is balanced, if you haven't got the subsystems to work smoothly, let alone establishing that the system provides all the entertainment games are supposed to provide?

This also requires a designer to be very specific in the tests he runs and the questions asked of the playtesters and the entire playtest process. Obviously, playtesters will have their own ideas of pertinent imput, but if not focused, the process is left to a 'shotgun' effort that may or may not get you what you want.

In reality, those 'steps' will not happen in sequence. Instead the designer will be testing his design from day one regarding all those questions, and when playtesters are brought into the process the designer established, he will be returning to work on, improve and simply change the game at each point listed above multiple times. When he has all his questions answered in the ways he wanted them answered, he is done… regardless of the fact that the game probably could be improved with further playtesting. If it does what the designer wanted, then it is 'good enough.'

Notice that this does not address whether the system actually portrays some aspects of history and/or battlefield combat. That is another question for the system as a simulation of 'something else' and requires different tests.

What I see happen [and have been a part of…] is playtesting that smears the playtest of the game and the represenative nature of the system all together, where neither the game or the simulation is tested adequately at all.

The old design a simulation, develop a game, was an even worse approach to testing a wargame as either a game or a simulation, and there are a lot of bad games and simulations in the wargame hobby to prove that….

It took Craig and I over 200 games over a period of 6/7 years of testing before we were satisfied with the state of Napoleon's Battles. Except when demoed at conventions every game was played by our Avalon Hill miniatures group and while we entertained suggestions all decisions were made by Craig and I in private meetings. Additionally, as a professional rules designer Craig was adamant that he would write the rules with outlined paragraphs and subparagraphs. This was one of the great decisions as almost any question can be quickly looked up.

The number of playtesters is irrelevant, you only need one or two gamers with an original concept. The rest is sweat. Good luck.

Bob Coggins

ps: It helps if you know your subject backwards and forwards!

The number of playtesters is irrelevant, you only need one or two gamers with an original concept.

Not true. The more playtesters you have, the more games can be played in the available time.

7. Is the game 'balanced' for both or all players… both in choices, but opportunities to succeed?

There is no such thing as a "balanced" game unless you have identical forces playing over a mirror-imaged terrain.

It is an interesting question whether a ruleset should be able to withstand the use of incorrect historical tactics, or whether it can be played by people who know nothing about the period.

I tend to disagree.

A ruleset should work well when using historical tactics, but should not necessarily punish ahistorical, weird, or silly tactics. As a wargamer, you have the responsibility to use a ruleset for the purpose it is desgined for. If a set is designed for napoleonic wargaming, you should use napoleonic-style armies and napoleonic-style tactics, not trying to use WW2-style tactics with the same rules.
E.g. cavalry charging squares:
- should the ruleset forbid it?
- should the ruleset allow it, but make combat resolution so that such a charge is doomed to fail?
- should the ruleset mention nothing about it in the rules, but assume that since we all know that charging squares is foolishness, as gentlemen players we will just not do it and not consider the matter any further?

A hammer is designed to put a nail in an object. It is not designed to be used on a screw or bolt, although you can probably get some results doing that. But you should use a screwdriver instead – not complaining that the hammer didn't prevent you from hammering on the screw.

Much of this stuff depends on the target audience, the games I write are for my own amusement and to play with my pals. Some are played by larger groups of people.

Stuff for public consumption we'd usually playtest a fair amount, both with people in our regular group and people who aren't, however as we are generally running the games, they don't need to be perfect as we can umpire around the holes.

I often make the things I write for my own amusement available for free, and in those cases people get what they paid for it.

"and those that agree to do it should be under no illusion that they need to give some serious time over to the task and to report back fully and consistently after each session."

I have done a spot of playtesting for various different people, and yes it is a large commitment. I also rapidly discovered that in some (a minority) of cases, the designer didn't actually want any feedback but just a big pat on the back that what they'd done was brilliant and didn't need any changes at all.

I've also done playtesting where the author ignores any comment perceived to be negative.
A designer needs to listen to playtesters.

7. Is the game 'balanced' for both or all players… both in choices, but opportunities to succeed?

There is no such thing as a "balanced" game unless you have identical forces playing over a mirror-imaged terrain.

;-7 Each designer will have his own definition of 'balanced', but come on, who's going to play a set of game rules where only one side can ever win--that is, more than one or two time? Obviously, this also depends on the scenarios, but I've seen rules so out of balance, the only nations you want to play is the British against the French, or the French against anyone else.

Major,

You appear to think the more playtesters the more games that can be played. But to what end? – turning out a set of rules quickly? The vast majority of "professional" designers I was acquainted with desired to have absolute control over all playtests. The number to Craig Taylor, Don Greenwood, Kevin Zucker, Randy Reed, etc. was irrelevant. The quality of the test was They knew and I eventually learned that playtest beyond their control were almost if not entirely useless; a waste of time for they had no idea it the game was being played as written. But then what did they know?

Nevertheless, everyone has his/her own methods so I'm sure yours works for you.

Bob Coggins

I think we all agree that play testing is important. It can really show up problems and can also show which mechanisms don't "feel"(subjective) right. Sometimes a mechanism does the job, but is not interesting or full of "flavour".
In our present Viking rules we have changed a rule so that the raider uses the opponent's dice when searching, so as to create a violation of his property (dice). Here at PP we do a huge amount of playtesting. Something in the region of 200+ games, after all the initial changes are made. Square Bashing had playtesters in UK, France, US and Germany among others.
Martin, who is this designer that you mention every time rules development is mentioned? He sounds an awful and arrogant individual. Name and shame. Then we can avoid this person who has really annoyed you. It is very poor for a designer not to want feedback, but just an ego massage. You do mention this a lot and there must be an interesting story there.

All the best

martin at PP

You appear to think the more playtesters the more games that can be played. But to what end? – turning out a set of rules quickly?….The quality of the test was. <\q>

Bob:
I agree that large numbers of playtesters doesn't achieve anything by itself. Nor does 6-7 years and 100 playthroughs. As you say, it is the quality of the testing. It is a question of how it is done, not how much. And of course, controlling the testing, the methods used to do those tests make the difference in quality.

When numbers of years, play tests and playtesters are held up as evidence of *something* in regards to playtesting, it leads directly to the question of 'How much playtesting is enough?' That is a method question. Depending on the goals and the quality of the 'control/methods' used, one run through may be enough [though doubtful] or 100 not nearly enough [quite possible].

Knowing the subject of how to 'playtest' a system, game and/or simulation backwards and forwards helps too.

Bill

The number […] was irrelevant. The quality of the test was

As you say, it is the quality of the testing. It is a question of how it is done, not how much.

How do you measure the quality of a play test?

Major B.:

That has been a question on a lot of game and simulation game designers' minds for a long, long time. ;-7 I listed some considerations, but there are basically three:

1. A coherent, demonstratable set of goals for the playtest… even if it's only 85% of the playtesters think it's a 5 stars out of 5. But there are a number of practical goals. Obviously, this will incorporate or focus on the primary goals for designing the game in the first place!

2. A planned process for testings, including what to test, how and by how many. Limite resources in time, money and testers makes this even more important, to get the most bang for your buck.

3. If it is a simulation too, then goals and process for testing it too.

Game designers and simulation game designers have come up with very similar procedures, methods and goals over the years that work…in the most efficient, practical and flexible manner possible. No point in reinventing the wheel. Remember that this is current technology [i.e. how things are done effectively].

Many of the games we play today were produced twenty or thirty years ago, such as Napoleon's Battles and Fire & Fury. Both were developed over years [5-7 years]. Both are successful, and I am sure that is because of the care taken over that extended period of time… There are a number of more efficient and effective ways to do it now.

I briefly discussed this issue in episode five of the BattleCast – "Where little wargames come from".

I describe playtesting as something that happens from the very, very start of a game's design, even as a designer is running through scenarios in his or her head. This is something that can be effectively done for miniatures games unlike computer games, because the number of operating parameters is so small – rarely ate more than half a dozen rules interacting simultaneously, which a decent designer should be able to creep in his/her head at once.

I don't consider rules clarity to be a genuine aspect of playtesting so much as proof-reading. That said, I have seem some ambiguities get picked up only in actual play, because everyone thought the rule. Was clear but all thought it clearly meant something different.

However, real on-the-table playtesting, for med, answers one question above all others: is the game fun?

My best playtesters – most loyal, honest and critical – ate my children. If they can't grasp how to play the game inside two turns then I have to go back to the drawing board.

The playtesters ate my children?
There's a game in there somewhere.

I'm with Phil Dutre on the issue of whether game rules should permit/forbid ahistorical tactics.
I don't see that, for example, a set of Napoleonic rules has to be 100% intelligible to someone who has zero knowledge of the period – why would such a person be playing the game, if they had no interest in the era? And that person would certainly not be my target audience for any rules I wrote..

Isn't one of the reasons for FoW's success supposed to be that they spoon feed the players with ww2 knowledge?
The player can start with zero ww2 background – it's provided for them.

@AONeill – I think that might be my best typo ever.

The number of playtesters is irrelevant, you only need one or two gamers with an original concept.

Professional research has shown that large numbers of testers are required to iron most design problems i.e. 50 or more for products as complex as wargame rules.

Yet I have seen recently published rules with several international test groups still failing to pick up basic anomalies between different pages of the rulebook. I have seen designers swear back-and-blue that something is not possible in their rules, only to point out that para x on page y says exactly that it does.

Just watch a few episodes of Aircrash Investigations and you will see how hard it is to get designs correct.

That's why it's important to p-l-a-n the playtesting. The more complex the rules, and tabletop games are complex, more than most games, the more important it is to have a solid testing process.

Compared to games outside the hobby, the simpliest miniature rules set is more complex than most all games in the public arena… such as Monopoly or bridge.

This is an interesting question.

I'm sure playtesting by most designers is sketchy at best. Hence we have all had experience of shelling out our limited funds for rule sets/games only to be disappointed.

Proofreading is a separate issue and blind playtesting to see if the rules can be followed by a fresh group of players who had no contact with the designers would also be essential.

But – given the costs of the above in time and materials handed out freely to playtesters it seems unlikely many designers will conduct more than cursory playtesting before rolling out their products.

Really, you'd need to regard rules as an ongoing project that constantly solicits comment and feedback and is updated every few months.

You can't expect players to pay through the nose for a set of rules and then pay again every few months for an updated set. Then again you can't very well expect designers to work for nothing and give away their work.

Some rules publishers have tried to pretend they would provide free updates but it never seemed to work out terribly well.

I don't buy commercial rules anymore. I just write my own and they are never finished and certainly not published.

Skarper:

Yep, that is one experience with game rules. Lots of times it's haphazard because the rules are produced by a smalle group of gamers simply publishing their favor house rules, without any concrete idea of what 'playtesting' entails. However, there are a number of ways to get that wide range of playtesting done well. Here are some of the ways designers have used in the past:

1. Bill Gray had his rules up and supported for years before ever publishing them professionally. Gamers themselves 'honed' the rules with feedback etc. It was just shy of 'beta testing.'

2. Gather together a limited, but dedicated group of playtesters. The trick here is to be sure to have them 'dedicated' and explore the boundaries of the rules system. That takes some method and methodical work. There are hobby designers who claim to have such groups.

3. Have a long 'test' period where a few testers are acquired, used and then later find another small number, etc. until you have what you consider the responses you want from the 'last' small group. This takes a long to be done right. I *believe* this is what was done for a number of rules sets including Napoleon's Battles and the Fire & Fury set of games.

4. A combination of the all of the above to some extent. Though very involved, it is probably the best of all possible playtest scenarios.

If there isn't a set of goals and methods for the playtesting, a lot of effort can go to waste. It isn't enough to say it was 'developed over X number of years.' It is what was done during those years that makes the difference.

I can understand why you write your own though.

Bill