As my first post-blogging-break post, I wanted to talk about a lesson learned during playtesting. Before COVID hit, I was part of a playtesting group at Elm City Games in New Haven, CT. I learned a lot from them, which I will probably blog more about later. When I played, I was pretty consistently getting told that Illeria didn't have enough of a link between the worlds (this was a problem, as the real hook of Illeria is that you play on two boards simultaneously, which are linked). I was also sometimes told the game was boring. I know that when I played on my own, it didn't seem this way- I keep doing more and more to make the worlds linked. I was left asking, am I seeing something that isn't there? Is this game only fun for me?
However, it later hit me that a big part of the problem wasn't the game, but was how I was playtesting it.
The playtest group met in the evening of a weeknight. Illeria could easily go 2 to 3 hours for a first time player. I often didn't start early in the night, so often players only got to play 2 or 3 turns before the shop closed. The early turns in Illeria often involved a lot of movement, rather than action. So, of course the game was boring, and there was little linkage between the worlds. I solved this by trying to start Illeria earlier, and practicing how to explain the rules, so that we would have more time to play (and could play until the interesting parts).
I also eventually realized that I had been choosing conditions that didn't really highlight what Illeria was all about. I think one of the clearest examples of this was a pair of playtests I did over two weeks (with the same people). In the first week, the players complained that the two boards felt super disconnected, and suggested a lot of fundamental changes. In the intervening week, I realized that the armies in the playtest game had abilities that didn't directly interact between the two boards, and the game hadn't gone long enough for deeper interactions to occur. So, instead of making fundamental changes, I switched the armies so that they were full of characters whose abilities lead to direct interactions (such as a character who, when they attacked, would hit enemies on both boards). Suddenly, the players really liked it. So, the solution was already part of the game, I just needed to show it off.
The lesson I learned from all this is how important it is to put your best foot forward when showing the game. Illeria will be a game with lots of characters and lots of different abilities, and a random person playing the game for the first time will only see a small subset of those characters. So, it is really important to chose characters that will really show off what is neat about Illeria. I will keep this in mind, both for future playtesting and for demo-ing the game.
As I write this, it almost makes me wonder why I have any abilities that don't highlight everything Illeria has to offer? I mean, in many was its because I want some abilities that are just neat, or tactical. But, I don't know, this is making me think that perhaps the game would be better if instead of the players having many options for a party, they had only the most interesting ones. I need to think further.
It also left me to realize that while it is super critical to take feedback seriously, that I shouldn't always take it literally. I need to try to get into the person's head, and ask, "Is this game really broken, or is there something about the context of this playtest game that made the game feel broken?"
