BOARD GAME PLAY TEST NOTES

        After play testing the board game we created with two other groups within the class, the game that we thought could be praised for its balance turned out to be criticised for its unacceptable issues. Within 50 minutes of play testing, the issues within the game’s design were clear, as where the solutions to those issues. 

   Although finding the negatives was the main goal of the play testing session, highlighting the positives were also important to me. From having both of these we could develop a greater perspective off how to move forward without creating more issues from rectifying others.

  The play testing notes gathered in the sessions are below, both positive and negative;

PLAY TEST SESSION ONE 

----------- NEGATIVE ----------

Taking too long to read instructions
Instantly noticeable was how long it took players to read the instructions. Also noticeable was how many times they frowned in confusion - a clear sign that the instructions were too long and confusing. 

Instructions too complex
The game was complex in its mechanics, therefore when having 10 minutes to get the notes down to paper; the instructions became too complicated to read. The players read the instructions, but when it came to actually playing the game they couldn't remember any of them. They were simply too hard to understand.

Players did not understand how many dice to use
When the players started the game they had no idea how many dice they had to roll to move forward. It was just one, but we forgot to mention such a crucial rule.

Did not understand currency system
Although the currency and how it worked with the reward and punishment system was clearly explained in the rules, players still did not understand what to do without guidance. It made the game awkward and slowed the pace down to a halt.

Board not clear enough (confusion with spaces)
The games presentation suffered through discussing the mechanics for too long, therefore players could not understand where the spaces where and that there were two spaces at the altar point, not one.

Player’s should choose which path to take before rolling
When the player reaches the branching paths, I could see the players deciding where to go after rolling, giving them an advantage of knowing where they would land in either scenario. In a game that’s USP revolves around risk and chance this is unacceptable. Therefore a rule needed to be implemented that forces the player to choose before rolling.

                                                 ----------- POSITIVE ----------

Seriously entertained by lack of fairness
We tried our hardest to balance the game from the get go, however when the game was in play, we soon realised it wasn't balanced enough. Regardless of this, the fact that some players were having a bad game due to this "issue" resulted in the players laughing more than they had been doing. 


   At the end of the first play test, it was clear the issue lied within the instructions provided with the game, so a revision was done and a re-copy was made to make the instruction cleaner and more linear. The board was given an over hall and the balancing issues were left as they were.

COMMENTS BY PLAYERS

“There are too many instructions. You should combine some instructions together for an easier read”

“The game is still fun. It’s the fact it can be so unfair that makes it so fun”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PLAY TEST SESSION TWO

Players confused by instructions 
Even after revising the instructions and rewriting them, the players still found it hard to read them. Therefore I don’t believe the issue lies in what they say, but in how they are presented.

Could not half the cage role
A player hit the cage point on the first role, on his next turn, we soon realised that the slow down rule could not work on an odd number. With that issue along with confusion on the cage rule, we decided to remove the rule altogether. 

Forgotten to add different trap types
We soon realised that the different traps such as fire traps and slow traps discussed when the game was being prototyped were not added in. However regardless of the issue, players were enjoying the game, therefore those trap types were scrapped.

Too many artefacts
Limbo was an important mechanic of the game design; however we started the players off with 4 artefacts. Because of this, none of the players were losing enough artefacts to actually reach limbo; therefore we decided to change the starting artefacts to 2 instead of 4.

COMMENTS BY PLAYERS

“It’s a good concept, but it’s a broken game. But it is really fun though”

“This game is so much more fun than ours”

“The instructions were to wordy”

   Sadly there wasn't enough time to have another play test. I am sure there were more issues to be highlighted, however it turned out that it was the instructions that were confusing, not the mechanics themselves, as they were relatively simple. However as observers we found there could off been improvements within the rules. In all it was quite an eye opener on how hard it is to balance a game. However due to the games focus on chance and risk, it turned out the perfection of balance wasn't really required, as there could only be two outcomes; either you lose poor, or you win rich.

NEXT POST: THE BOARD GAME RULES (REVISED)