What print-on-demand COULD mean

1) A game like V:tES is designed by a person or team.

2) The designs are play-tested.

3) Artwork is commissioned.

4) Cards are graphically designed and readied for printing.

5) Finished cards are printed and sold to distributors, in turn sold to game stores.


Print-on-demand changes the game. Step 5 is changed to: Product is printed and sent directly to the consumer.

Steps 2-4 can't be changed really. The publisher should be responsible for steps 2-4 to ensure quality and game balance.

But I think there is room for change on step 1. We are already heading in that direction. With these forums here, players can discuss card ideas, and talk about the balance of cards in existence. That alone is a huge change over the vacuum of previous game design.

One possibility is a more open play-test process. Why not? V:tES is a small community. Designing the cards doesn't have to be open, but why is there a closed playtest? Massive Multiplayer Online games will openly test their next game patch before it's released.

If cards were openly available for playtest more players could use them in casual play. If even 1 out of 10 of those players report their findings, that is more information than you have now. And for every one who does, there will be others who discuss it on the forums.

Lets say you have a couple dozen play-testers for the first two rounds of play-testing. With the controlled feedback in those rounds, the designers can refine the cards for the third round of play-testing. By this point the card should be done or close.

If you release the same cards to the same people who have already seen the previous two versions... well what the fuck good does that do? Make the card available to everyone for a month for play-testing, you broaden your input, as well as generate interest for the next set of cards.

Already we have discussions about the balance of cards previously printed. There are rulings, and errata, card text migrations and banned cards. All from cards designed behind closed doors and tested in a closed environment.

It's time for a change. A change that will limit card changes after print. Right now, few people complain about the changes made to existing cards. The fewer changes we see to print-on-demand cards after they are released, the better.

Direwolf,
From being inside the 'closed environment' that environment does contain players from across the world and may contain as many as 100 people. It's not an insignificant sampling of the player-base.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

Direwolf,
From being inside the 'closed environment' that environment does contain players from across the world and may contain as many as 100 people. It's not an insignificant sampling of the player-base.

Yes it is.

direwolf wrote:

1)If cards were openly available for playtest more players could use them in casual play. If even 1 out of 10 of those players report their findings, that is more information than you have now. And for every one who does, there will be others who discuss it on the forums.

It would be very difficult to get meaningful data that way. In most of the 10+ page balance threads on this forum the discussion devolves into two polar opposites lead by a few vocal posters. The rest of the scale that might not feel as strongly one way or the other gets drowned in the noise. Even worse, some elements of the playtest would get no attention at all. In short, the results would be all kinds of skewed and unrepresentative and generally awful.

With a structured playtest, every tester out of 10 (and in this case, closer to a hundred or two) will report their findings on every card in the playtest. Instead of composing a counter argument to someone they know are being just plain wrong and stupid on the internet, they are writing a concise paragraph explaining their play test results to someone whose job it is to listen. Instead of a "yes vs. no" poll you get actual information about how a card works in practice.

Suoli wrote:

direwolf wrote:

1)If cards were openly available for playtest more players could use them in casual play. If even 1 out of 10 of those players report their findings, that is more information than you have now. And for every one who does, there will be others who discuss it on the forums.

It would be very difficult to get meaningful data that way. In most of the 10+ page balance threads on this forum the discussion devolves into two polar opposites lead by a few vocal posters. The rest of the scale that might not feel as strongly one way or the other gets drowned in the noise. Even worse, some elements of the playtest would get no attention at all. In short, the results would be all kinds of skewed and unrepresentative and generally awful.

With a structured playtest, every tester out of 10 (and in this case, closer to a hundred or two) will report their findings on every card in the playtest. Instead of composing a counter argument to someone they know are being just plain wrong and stupid on the internet, they are writing a concise paragraph explaining their play test results to someone whose job it is to listen. Instead of a "yes vs. no" poll you get actual information about how a card works in practice.

I agree that this is the main challenge, but I think you might be able to get around by asking for numerical input first and foremost: ask each player to rate a card from 1 to 7 with 1 being wallpaper, 4 being balanced, and 7 being overpowered. Use other scales to rate other things you might be interested in, like whether the card fills a hole in the game. The designers might solicit written feedback as well, but they wouldn't have to wade through all of it. They might also appoint special members from the community to sift through sections of comments looking for any red flags and summarizing common themes.

Edit to add:

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

From being inside the 'closed environment' that environment does contain players from across the world and may contain as many as 100 people. It's not an insignificant sampling of the player-base.

The playtest process isn't necessarily a problem now, but an open playtest would generate more feedback. If it were handled properly, that increased volume could be very useful.