Around this time last year, Shadoe and I found ourselves at the Brühaven Craft Company in Minneapolis, engaging in one of our favorite pastimes: playing a game we’ve never played, drinking beers we’ve never tried, and in a city we’ve never been to. This time the game was Cat in the Box, which bills itself as a “quantum trick-taking game.” Put simply, you play cards that have no suits until the moment they are played, thus affecting the pool of possible suits for future cards. And if you’re wondering “how in the Schrödinger is that possible,” we suggest you pick up a copy for yourself. This is not a game review, but if it were, it would be a positive one.
Of course, despite how well we enjoyed the game right out the gate, we couldn’t stop ourselves from analyzing the mechanics, making suggestions (to no one), and trying our own versions. We tweaked and tweaked until we came full circle and settled on the original rules again (well played, designer Muneyuki Yokouchi). I honestly wish I could remember all of the things that we tried, but this article isn’t about that either. It’s about the strategy behind and journey of playtesting with a nod toward a game that outsmarted us.
So let’s dive into playtest strategies, including tips on who to include in each and what to focus on. For the playtest veterans out there, no this isn’t a comprehensive list. For the quantum physicists, I apologize in advance. And for those of you who are already marveling at the length of this introduction, disembark or strap in, because we’re going for a ride.
Iterative Playtesting
Superposition in Stages
Iterative playtesting is where your playtest journey should begin and the type of playtesting you’ll use the most. It’s the “try, try again” of game design. You build a working prototype, play it, make observations and get feedback, tweak it, play again, repeat. It also covers the most ground, helping you test everything from core mechanics to fun factor, and is the foundation for many of the types we list below.
But here’s the thing, many people don’t engage in this process soon enough. Shadoe and I have had the pleasure of working with other designers in the Denver area, including a few who were recently inspired to try out their first ever game ideas. We noticed that a handful of them were reticent to get their game on the table until they had a solid prototype and the game felt reasonable “finished” to them.
To these people, I say “remember the principal of superposition.” A quantum particle exists in all possible states until it’s measured. A cat in a box is both alive and dead until it’s observed. When your game finally hits the table, that’s not the moment it’s done; that’s the moment it finally starts becoming. Every playtest, every tweak, and every bit of feedback taken or ignored further pins down your game until all the possibilities give way to one reality.
Who to Test With: A mix of new and returning players. New players are great for a gut check when it comes to confusing mechanics. Returning playtesters can see past “learning the rules” and help you really nail down balance and other nuances.
What to Test For: Early on, you’ll want to nail down core mechanics, balancing issues, rule complications, and other logistical issues. Later on, you’ll be getting down to the player experience. What does a turn feel like? Is the game fun or frustrating?
Holistic Playtesting
The Ecosystem of Quantum Entanglement
Albert Einstein called the phenomenon of quantum entanglement “spooky action across distances.” Basically, quantum particles can sometimes become “entangled” with one another, influencing each other no matter how physically far apart they might be (or otherwise seemingly disconnected).
Now imagine a thread connecting all of the mechanics, components, visuals, etc. of your game. Whenever you change one part of the game, no matter how small, the effect ripples out and touches every other part of the game, and not necessarily in a good way.
The lesson here is simple: you can’t make changes in a vacuum. Every change must be considered against the whole and the game tested in its entirety with that in mind. For this reason, it’s also good to not make too many changes at once. If something breaks, you want to know what variables are at fault.
Who to Test With: Choose players who have played your game before. Let them know what changes have been made, so they can make informed observations.
What to Test For: As we mentioned, don’t change too much between playtests. Note what you’ve changed and view the next test through that lens. Does the game feel different in unexpected ways?
Focused Playtesting
Closed Quantum Systems that Test Your Patience
Focused playtesting is more or less the opposite of holistic playtesting. And yes, I just got finished telling you how important it is to consider the whole when making changes to your game. But there is a time for focused testing as long as you eventually return to the whole.
I suppose it’s appropriate then that closed quantum systems are purely theoretical. They are ideal environments that are completely isolated from the rest of reality, exchanging nothing and as such, completely unobservable. However, that hasn’t stopped scientists from trying to isolate systems as much as possible for research.
Consider this “research” on your game. You’re not really playing it. You’re stress testing specific portions, testing out different solutions to discrete problems, and generally working to nail down what you want to take to your next full playthrough.
For example, let’s say your playtests have been going well, but players consistently note there’s too much time between turns. No matter how many times you’ve tried to adjust the turn experience to reduce downtime, it’s still an issue. So you gather some playtesters together to go through a few turns. You make a change and do a few more. Another change. More turns. You’re bringing iterative playtesting to just one isolated part of your game.
Who to Test With: Some committed playtesters who are familiar with the game and OK with the idea of false starts, retcons, and generally just forgoing competition in the name of science.
What to Test For: Have a specific problem you’re trying to solve for and maybe one or two ideas to get you started.
Silent and Blind Playtesting
The Emotional Turmoil of Quantum Observation
Technically, this is two strategies, but they have something in common: you stepping back and letting go. Quantum observation is predicated on the fact that nothing can be observed without being influenced. As such, you’re testing journey is not complete until you’ve allowed your playtesters to experience your game without your input.
Silent playtesting demands that you observe only. Once they have the tools they need, let the players take the wheel while you simply listen. And yes, that includes if they make a mistake with the rules. All of this information tells you something about how players can or will engage with your game in a real-world environment (you know, the kind that doesn’t have the game designer readily available).
Blind playtesting takes silent playtesting a step further. Not only are you letting the players go, but you’re also letting them go with no preamble – just the rulebook and the game. Blind playtesting requires nothing of you but your self-control as you anxiously avoid steering the experience.
The real challenge is if you can do the latter without being around at all. True, there’s something to be learned through silent observation, but even the mere presence of a looming game designer can influence the moment. Just ask Schrödinger’s cat.
Who to Test With: Ideally, these will be brand new players, especially in the case of the blind playtest. Familiarity with the game will also influence the experience.
What to Test For: When observing silently, focus on fun and confusion. Listen to conversation. In the case of the blind playtest you’re mostly testing the rulebook and game design. Will this game stand on its own when purchased in a store?
Collecting Feedback
Don’t Wigner Your Friends
Once upon a time there was a quantum physicist named Wigner. The mother of all delegators, Wigner sent his friend into a room to observe a photon in a quantum state of superposition (i.e. neither here nor there, neither this nor that, neither cat nor dead cat). Had the experiment ended there, then you’d effectively have another iteration of the famous cat in a box. However, Wigner was also present (sort of). Outside of the lab he could observe that his friend went into the lab and guess at what might be happening. However, to him the entire experiment, photon and friend, were in superposition. So even as his friend’s reality came into focus, his was muddied by quantum possibilities.
Ok, so this didn’t really happen. Although it is a real thought experiment posited by Eugene Wigner. The thought experiment raises a lot of questions about the nature of reality, its supposed objectivity, and whether Wigner actually had friends. But for you, it means simply this: does it matter what your playtesters think if you never ask them?
Be prepared to collect feedback however that makes sense for you. Offer sheets of paper with pre-loaded questions. Take notes during conversations. Record the experience. Do whatever you can, but don’t squander the opportunity. These playtesters aren’t doing this for their health. They are doing it for you. Use it.
Who to Test With: People you trust to be honest and fair.
What to Test For: Everything.
Conclusion: The Cat Lives
So when Shadoe and I tested out Cat in the Box, we identified what we thought were challenges, tested solutions in a focused way using iterative steps, and noted the holistic issues that resulted. We left out the feedback part, but it’s clear that Muneyuki Yokouchi didn’t need our help. Still, our official conclusion is that the game is fun, creative, and suitably stress-tested. I guess we call that peer review.