Aug: #4 ~ Have a strong template for providing feedback

Welcome back, Developers!

I can’t believe we’re nearing the end of August…I remember like it was yesterday hanging out at the local FLGS, playing games at the Irish Pub with friends, and socializing in my own home for my monthly Game Nights. Recently, I’ve been spending more time focused on the Professor’s Lab, reaching out to new clients and establishing a website. In preparing my on-line presence, I’m thinking of the value that I bring to another designer’s work and much of that manifests itself in the feedback I’m able to provide in a clear, concise, and comprehensive manner.

Feedback ~ the good, the bad, and the ugly

This month, I’m going to focus on feedback, especially in regards to how you present the information to the designer. In essence, I’ll share with you the template I’ve used these past few years in the industry and hope it’s of use for you either as a designer evaluating your own work or as a fellow- developer when working with a client. The most important ingredient for providing feedback is a solid template which covers a wide area of issues from components and rules to gameplay and downtime.

Having now written formal feedback reports on more than two dozen different titles, the conversations I’ve had with designers has also informed the manner in which I provide feedback on games. Originally, the feedback focused on the gameplay experience. In time, the services I provided broadened and the services increased in depth. The Professor’s Lab now provides formal feedback reports in two services: Design Analysis and Playtesting.

Design Analysis

Conducting Design Analysis at the Professor’s Lab involves examining a game’s theme and mechanics, especially if they are loosely or tightly aligned; reviewing and critiquing the rules (this does not include editing or proofreading); and assessing the board, cards, and components for aesthetics and function. Included as part of the service is a 1-hour video call (SkypeFB Messenger, etc.), usually after I’ve submitted my report to the designer and we discuss elements of the feedback.

Specific to the title’s myriad elements, its theme and mechanics take center stage. For me, these are the first two areas which will draw me into the game or keep it at arm’s length. Much of the feedback focuses on how to tighten the correlation between the two if it’s not particularly evident, or worse, completely absent, unless the game is abstract. Next, the feedback includes recommendations on overarching issues with the rules, including but not limited to formatting, grammar and punctuation, and clarity. It is here that I would certainly identify the other Professor’s Lab service, Editing and Proofreading. Finally, the Design Analysis service assesses the tangible parts of the game, including the board, card, and components. Here, I’ll make recommendations as to the illustrations, graphic art, and the choice for materials.

Often, the designer will take (or possibly not take) the advice and make any recommended edits or changes to the game. On several occasions, I’ve worked with the designer as a long-term developer, incorporating a number of the services.

Playtesting

Playtesting allows the game to shine (or not) as a multiplayer experience in which I actively participate or experienced by other playtesters who record their play through (also known as blind playtesting) and share the results of the game(s). As with Design Analysis, the feedback report contains a significant amount of information for the designer. On average, the report includes 6-8 pages of material covering a variety of areas, including Playtester Experience; an Executive Summary, Methodology, Rules, Player Aids, Cards/Tiles, Board(s), and Final Thoughts.

Playtester Experience: It’s important for the designer to know the team of individuals playtesting the game in terms of what titles they’ve experienced and for long they have performed the service.

Executive Summary: This section provides a high-level overview of the number of games played, duration for each of the games played, strengths and areas for improvement, and the playtesters’ overall ratings for the game.

Methodology: This section focuses on how the Lead Playtester addressed the rules; defines iconography, cards, and tiles; and the manner in which they guided the first round/turn of the game. Additionally, this section provides significant details for each of the playtests, including duration; specific actions, by each player (if applicable); and defines the future addressed sections.

Rules: Every game will have rules, so this is a standard area for feedback in which we discuss the accessibility and cogency of the writing. While we don’t edit/proofread the document, we certainly point out glaring issues. Internal to the rules, we ensure that the appropriate elements appear, including the game’s Objective, Set-up, Component Overview, and the “How to Play” section.

Player Aids: While not necessarily standard in every game, these are called out if done exceptionally well or if there’s a need for such an item in the game. There may be a significant cognitive load which can be mitigated simply by having a Player’s Aid handy for everyone around the table.

Cards/Tiles: In this section, we’ll focus on the iconography more than illustrations, as the game typically arrives as a prototype. However, we’ll make recommendations based on the number of cards or decks, along with feedback as to the mechanic in place, such as hand management or drafting.

Board(s): This section could include a singular board or multiple player boards as found in many Eurogames. If the game requires the management of many components/pieces, we may recommend recessed boards or more precise iconography to distinguish appropriate locations for those components.

Final Thoughts: This area focuses in much greater detail than anywhere else in the document, the game’s strengths and areas for improvement. It also ends with an invitation to both use the Professor’s Lab’s other services and maintain contact.

For the developer’s out there, what have you used to convey your feedback? Is there anything here that you may consider incorporating into your reports? Is there anything you feel that I should consider adding to my feedback. As always I look forward to the continued dialogue with all of you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *