Anyone (and everyone) involved in game design can tell you that if you want your game to be the best it can be, you must playtest it. A lot. There are, of course, a few exceptions to this rule. Most games that wind up being good without playtesting are good because they are A) a statistical fluke, or B) extremely simple.
It turns out that (B) is pretty interesting. This is because, at least at the current stage of game design theory, the vast majority of design is based on trial and error. We only have “laws” of interaction for the simplest of mechanics. This means that we can only reliably design extremely simple games based purely on our understanding of how games work.
But the ability to design without testing, without going through a process of trial and error, erodes incredibly rapidly as complexity increases. Most of the games I am personally interested in are rather compex. Video games and board/card games are already pretty complex, and they have extremely clear boundaries. Roleplaying games not only tend to be mechanically complex, but also tend to have extremely fuzzy boundaries, which adds a level of complexity which is generally unpredictable.
All that is preamble to my main point. In order to make your game fun to play, you need to playtest it. Further, and this will come as a surprise to no one, you need to playtest it as you intend it to be played. This means that if you have a bunch of different systems that are supposed to interact, make sure you playtest their interaction rather than playtesting them separately. And if your game is designed to be played across fifty sessions, you better be playtesting it across fifty sessions, and ideally, you do it more than once.
Now, none of this is news. At least I do not expect it to be. The “playtest, playtest, playtest” mantra has been kicking around game design for a while, and is especially prevelant around the Forge. Which brings me to the point of all this: there are not many (any?) games to come out of the Forge designed for serious long-term play (of 50+ sessions). In fact, the vast majority are extremely short-form: 10 sessions is usually at the upper end.
So, with all this talk of playtesting, you can see where I am going with this: there are no long-form Forge games, at least in part (and probably a major part), because it takes so much time to playtest them. People have many, many great game design ideas, and for each one they want to seriously pursue they have to do a lot of playtesting.
In the time it takes you to playtest your 50 session game once you could playtest your five session game ten times. In that series of playtesting you will end up significantly improving your five session game. While you would definitely improve your 50 session game, it would not be to the same degree. Your 50 sessions of playtesting your 50 session game would teach you a lot about the simpler, more closed mechanics, just as much as if it were a shorter form game. The problem is that there are some mechanics, and some mechanical interactions, that you will only see go off once time during that entire 50 session playtest.
In other words, there are not any long-form games from the Forge because of the incredible time-investment required to develop them properly. In the time it takes to develop and playtest a single long-form game, you could develop three or four short-form games easily. I estimate development cycles near three or four years of constant work for a good long-form game.
That is why there do not seem to be any. It takes a lot of work and dedication to make them happen. And on top of that you could develop three or four or five short form games in the same amount of time it would take you to develop that long form game. And those three or four or five games? Every one of them will be awesome, fun games. Well worth your time to design and play.
There are probably some economic reasons behind this as well. You can sell each of your three or four or five games to your target market, or even various target markets, at a higher profit margin than your single long-form game.
All that said, it should be pointed out that there is a long-form game that, while not originated at the Forge, has drawn a number of elements from Forge-style thinking: Luke Crane’s amazing Burning Wheel. Look around the web and check out any time Luke talks about playtesting. He is totally willing to tell people about the incredible amount of time, effort, and thought he put into that game. Years and years of development. And looking at the game? You can see where it paid off. The game, especially in its most recent Revised form, is shined to near-perfection. And Luke’s upcoming project Burning Empires has me incredibly excited.
Tags: Publishing, Theory
Absolutely spot on. I think you’re onto something there.
The more I hear about it, the more I think I need to pick up BW… Burning Empires sounds nifty.
For now, though, I have enough on my plate.
In addition to things you said, I think it is also a truth that people are often in too much a rush to get their products into print so that they can have published a game, have done with a game, or move onto something else.
There is a reason that games like Burning Wheel, Dogs, and the other top 10% shine — and it isn’t because the designers are geniuses of a calibur beyond that of normal men. It’s because they’re willing to take the time to do it right and make sure everything works, and works exactly, before going to print.
Plus, I think there is something to be taken from Jared’s recent words (and Green Ronin’s recent models) about using electronic publication, as well as or combined with the way many Forge games have completly open playtests (Breaking the Ice, for example, was avaliable for free for ages before the final version went to print) as ways of both extending playtest, proofing quality and concept, and getting the community to be part of your production rather than just a consumer of it.
Interesting analysis, Thomas!
I hadn’t yet seen that angle (I’ve only seriously playtested on game, which is aimed towards the three-hour session.)
I didn’t see it mentionned anywhere, but I think it’s so obvious it deserves to be said and then forgotten again.
There are lots of short-form Forge games because that’s what people get to organize and play most.
For example, with my group, I couldn’t dream of playing regularly enough to play a 50 session game. We even have big difficulties playing 5 sessions in a sensible time span.
So “one-shots” are the games I’m drawn to most.
I gather that lots of people following the Forge are in a similar situation.
I don’t know about anyone else, Christoph, but I’m not in your situation. I definitely want to play long-form games.
Brand,
Right on to all points. Even around the Forge where there’s a lot of talk, theres this huge pressure to get your game done in time for GenCon so you can get in on the booth there.
But, as you say, the games that really shine are the ones that are worked over and over, and the ones that aren’t on any time-schedule. Tony put Capes out in January of last year, Josh BR is talking about releasing Full Light, Full Steam at the end of this year.
That “it’s done when it’s done” attitude is one of the things that has put companies on top of the pile in other fields, like Blizzard Entertainment in computer gaming. I’d love to see more of that in our own field.
Thomas
Christoph,
There’s definitely some truth to that. It’s easier and more convenient to play games with low comittment. This is true of most activities in our busy world.
But… There are people who (say) play poker once a month, or play sports regularly every couple of weeks. People can and do do things on regular schedules.
Combine that with the fact that long-term games allow for much richer narratives based on accumulating context and play-history, and there’s a strong incentive, at least amoung some people, to make roleplaying one of those recurring activities.
You’re right, it’s not for everyone. Not all groups can feasibly meet that often, and not all groups are composed of players who want that long-form play. But for those of us (like me and Fred) who do want that, well, this is one of the big reasons I think it’s not there: they’re hard to make.
Thomas
[...] Musings and Mental Meanderings Game Design, Theoretical and Applied « Playtesting cycles: why there are no long-form Forge games [...]
Here’s me, agreeing. I still wish I was able to do longer playtests of Full Light, Full Steam. The longest was six sessions and about thirty hours of total play, and the game is ostensibly designed to support longer play.
On the other hand, I’m not doing that kind of play (as evidenced by my inability to playtest it that way), so the very good question is why I’m designing games for it. Agora, by contrast, is a zippy little thing that can go in one session, or extend across as many as you like.
Josh,
Actually, I think this is an interesting issue. Consider: most people only do any light hobby for mabye 4 to 6 hours during any give week. If you’re playing a long-term game, then generally you’re going to have to spend all of your hobby-time on it.
One of the reasons I’m looking hard at both Agora and Art, Grace and Guts is that I think they’re both extremely short play-cycles, but with a potentially very large number of said cycles. So instead of getting together once a week to game, and then spending all that time playing (say) Full Light, Full Steam and doing this for a year, maybe we’ll get together to game, play Agora for an hour or two, then maybe some Settlers of Catan, and maybe watch a movie or something.
The problem seems to be one of oppurtunity cost. If you can provide a way to play a long-form game without giving up playing other things, well I think that would be sweet.
Thomas