My Playtesting Journey: A Seat at the Table
by Cathlena Martin, PhD
At this year’s NASAGA conference, I had the honor of presenting A Seat at the Table, my (and Sara Perry’s) five to ten player card game that utilizes trading and role restrictions to teach players about the barriers to entry marginalized designers face in the tabletop industry. I wanted to share the playtesting journey of that game as a way to encourage other designers to be brave and bold in their playtesting. This description is taken from a previous piece I published in OneShot; I encourage you to go read that piece if you’re interested in the literature review, next steps, and materials download for A Seat at the Table. Come join me on my playtesting journey!
Initial Playtesting
The initial playtesting session included undergraduate students in our university’s Game Studies and Design program. We had at least one of the following of each of these groups represented in the playtesting session: female, male, non-binary (they), Caucasian, African-American, and a person with a physical disability. We played multiple rounds with players embodying a variety of roles and then had a roundtable discussion afterwards.
One playtester appreciated how a game provided a safe space for discussion. They said, “it went well discussing darker topics but kept it light” because of the nature of it being a game. All playtesters strongly agreed or agreed that “the workshop environment felt safe.” Another playtester was interested in a version with more detailed role cards that reflected “specific ways marginalized identities are impacted in the game community.”
Overall, all playtesters strongly agreed or agreed that the gameplay and discussion was engaging, and seven of the eight playtesters strongly agreed or agreed that it was useful. One playtester summed it up nicely by saying, “I enjoyed the subject matter and how engaging it was. The deck being stacked against minorities reflected the reality of the industry well.”
Alpha Playtesting
Alpha playtesting was also conducted with undergraduate students in game design courses but at a different university. After alpha playtesting, we received the most actionable feedback on rules, roles, aesthetics, and narrative. This drove substantial revisions to the rules, roles, and cards, and we created ancillary materials for a workshop to be used in conjunction with the game.
With regards to the rules, playtesters were most confused by whether or not the roles should be private or public and how secret roles were to be carried out. To address this, we added a variant section to the rules. In the Regular Version, players are dealt Industry Roles that are public knowledge. Playing this version familiarizes players with the role restrictions where everything is open information. We then added a Difficult Variant (for advanced players who understand the Regular Version) where the roles are hidden.
We also acted on playtester feedback to implement different limitations for each of the Marginalized roles. Previously, in both the initial and the alpha version, the role restriction was uniform for all Marginalized roles: they could only trade a maximum of two cards at a time. To show how different groups experience marginalization in unique ways, each Marginalized role now has their own restriction. For example, the Marginalized Disabled role cannot speak during the game, representing the silencing many marginalized people face.
The playtesters also felt there was a missing story once you got past the roles. While the roles introduced a clear message, they thought the overarching narrative was not as established. We created a preface to the game to establish a brief narrative: you are playing as a tabletop publisher/designer trying to get a game published first. To do that, you must be the first player to collect all of one game piece or component. This gave the game greater authenticity in the context of the tabletop publishing industry.
This narrative change necessitated changing our cards from genres to components. In our alpha version, the suits were mechanics or genres of games: deck-building, press your luck, set collection, roll and write, auction, worker placement, area control, drafting, role-playing game, and social deduction. We selected these to represent different genres within the game industry and types of games that are published. With the narrative’s imperative to gather components for game publication, the suits changed to represent game pieces: dice, cards, tokens, tiles, boards, meeples, miniatures, draw bags, resources, and hexes.
Our playtesting also revealed that some aspects of the game were solid, including theme, mechanics, and impact with a clear takeaway. The playtesters comprehended the interrelationship between theme and mechanics. They also gleaned our intended message, and felt it was educating, but requested an outlet for reflection. To provide more structured reflection and educational opportunity, we added a workshop guide to help support facilitators leading group discussions. The players seemed to enjoy the fast-paced nature of trades and trying to accumulate cards. Students even started shouting different roles at each other: in one game the Privileged Harasser used their special power and multiple other players shouted ‘HARASSER!’ in response. This vocalization against repression is a wonderful instance for a facilitator to unpack afterwards in discussion and is exactly the kind of teaching moment we hoped our game would create.
Beta Playtesting and the Final Version
With all of the changes we implemented after the alpha playtesting, beta playtesting reports came back favorable. There were some final aspects to revise, primarily visual changes. We used the opportunity of changing the cards types to create a more aesthetically pleasing game: Sara Perry created original graphic design for the final version using a majority of the cards present in the beta game. While adding original art and polishing the graphic design of the card layout, a few component names were changed for ease of identification in the final version. For example, we changed tiles to coins. We already had hex tiles in the component list under hexes and did not want any confusion by having both tiles and hexes. Other name changes were for simplification. For example, we changed miniatures to minis and draw bags to bags.
The last card addition was the creation of card backs. If playtesters used normal printer paper for our print-and-play version, a player might be able to see through the card, leading to intentional or unintentional cheating. To fix that, we added card backs for roles and components. The visual detailing on the backs obscures any see-thru aspects of plain printer paper, and the front and the back can be inserted into a card sleeve for an easy make-at-home deck. Defense cards are meant to be public and are thus double-sided with the same information front and back.
Looking Forward
While we can still see some potential changes in the future, we believe we have a solid game with strong mechanics that aptly illustrates the marginalization commonly experienced in the tabletop industry and provides a playful platform for discussion. We are grateful to all of our playtesters who joined us on our journey. And as I expressed to the participants who played during NASAGA, feel free to take this idea and adapt it to your industry or area. The more seats at the table, the better!
Dr. Cathlena Martin is Professor and Coordinator of Game Studies and Design at the University of Montevallo. She researches game-based learning and the history of games and game design, focusing primarily on tabletop games. Her specialization is children’s literature and games.