It might help to know what sort of gaming background they come from, but I don't think you should use this to pick a group, but more to put their response to your game in perspective.

I would want to know how frequently they play. The key point is how much feedback they're going to provide for you, but that's not something you can really determine up front.

Speaking from a personal perspective, I can't afford to be fussy with playtest groups as it's difficult enough to get anyone to help out. Had I the choice, then I'd prefer to ensure that the players I'm working with appreciate the kind of game that I'm testing. There's no point asking for the opinions of people who would be predisposed to dislike the game. I prefer honest feedback, but that's such a difficult thing to judge and, in all honesty, I learn just as much from watching how the game is played as I do from recieved comments.

Ash

This is turning your original question on its head

I've got two games in playtest/peerreview at the moment.

I've also taken part in 5 active playtests for established big companies over the last.

Would a post about how my experiences as a playtester has coloured how I run my playtests? It would kinda verge on being a mini essay, so I ask in advance.

Regards

;O)Newt
D101games -An Imaginary Company

But how do you know that they'll appreciate your game? And surely having a group who doesn't necessarily know the setting or have a predisposition for that type of game playtest can be just as invaluable, spotting things another group might have taken for granted or just plain missed.

One of my most valuable Six Bullets for Vengeance playtests was with my weekly group, who are about as anti-narrative as you can imagine. They tore the game to shreds, and although it was a dismal failure it was a useful, interesting failure. It flagged up areas where I hadn't given specific enough advice or rules, as I made the assumption that all groups would know how to narrate this or do that, because up until that point all the gamers I'd played it with had been story gamers.

I'd be interested in seeing that, Newt, maybe in a different thread?

Put it this way. It would be counterproductive to ask a group that can't take superheroes seriously to play a serious superhero game. The same thing goes for most genres. If the players don't like horror, then they won't like a good horror game. Similarly, should you ask a group that's entirely composed of grognards who only play dungeon bashes to playtest a game that places the emphasis on story and character but with few rules? I'd say no. If they don't like the type of game, they won't like the game itself regardless of how good or bad it is.

I value negative cricisism as much as positive so long as it is offered constructively, but overly subjective criticism from a group that does not represent your target market isn't a lot of use. That's not to say you can't get useful information out of such a playtest as you quite rightly say, it's just that you are more likely to get useful and relevant feedback from a group that knows what to expect.

That said, any playtest is better than no playtest, and having unusual people in the group can occasionally throw up interesting outside-the-box ideas, but it's not common. It'd be like having an episode of Top Gear where the various cars were reviewed by non-drivers. It'd make an interesting diversion and you'd probably get some interesting comments out of it, but you wouldn't want to do it as a matter of course.

Ash

Can't stand it when playtest groups criticise all the time. "Oh, we had problems with this!". Well, we've all got problems. I don't tell you about mine.

Graham

I think that there are three key features of a good playtester

1. The ability to actually play the game and analyse the play. I know this sounds pretty basic but I have done a lot of CCG playtesting where the playtest was 'theoretical' rather than 'practical'. Theory does not always translate into practice. (ie. if you had asked me before Furnace about Mob Justice I would have given a 'meh' answer - after playing it I discovered the highlight game of the con).

2. The ability to translate that analysis into useable report content. Not only should this be relevant useful feedback but it should also probably have some examples of how the issue hampered or enhanced play.

3. The detachment to know that playtesting is offering an opinion - not enforcing a concrete change into the design. This was rife in my CCG days, especially when people complained about a set after print and ex-playtesters would wax lyrical about how THEY had suggested something different 'but they were ignored by the arrogant designers'. The game remains the designers regardless of what the playtesters say and the designer has to be happy with what is published under his name.

Of course there is a flip-side to this - as a playtester I would expect that some credence was given to my suggestions. At least lip service. I remember our WWE Know Your Role playtest group simply downing tools and quitting when we pointed out that:

- under the system as presented a 600lb man could, if spec'd correctly, jump from the entrance ramp into the ring in one leap.
- it was possible with a first level character to create a hard-lock combo that defeated any opponent 95% of the time without any defence.
- that it was FAR easier to beat someone to death than score a pinfall

and the designers simply disregarded our comments as 'over-exaggerations based on extreme examples' (IIRC). This was a d20 product - hardly the hotbed of common sense and moderation when it comes to rules.

I think however that these things are a perfect world scenario. I'm always astounded that anyone will spend their precious time testing a game rather than playing a 'proper' one. Its gamer charity at it's greatest.

Neil