Huib: RE previous discussion

[Mike Abberton]

Regarding playtesting, I would think that an important step in the process would be matching the playtester's interests with the type of scenario being tested.

What I mean is that if a playtester does not appreciate the type of scenario being tested, he is not likely to give it a good an thorough test. If he wants a fluid, roving tank battle and there are few tanks in the scenario, he is likely to rate it poorly, and for all the wrong reasons.

Also regarding the balancing of scenario via the victory conditions. I agree that you can probably tweak the conditions so that both sides have a decent shot at a win or a draw, but the nature of the fight will once again determine the playtesters attitude and thus his feedback. For instance, a battle could be a last stand or a desperate defense where the defender is almost certain to sustain heavy casualties and/or lose many or even all of the objectives, i.e. he is not likely to "win" in the military sense, but he can achieve a game Win based on the victory conditions. Some people are going to revel in the sense of "hanging on by my fingertips" and others are going to be turned off that they won by "only" losing 75% of their forces instead of 90%.

Matching the playtester and the scenario are the responsibility of both the designer and the tester. The designer should try to provide a scenario description that gives the players a hint of what type of battle to expect (without giving up any secrets, of course). And the testers should put some consideration into what type of scenario he tests and pick the ones that interest him and will allow him to provide good feedback .