One of my games, Leaving Earth, is coming along quite nicely. I solved some of the problems that I was worried about in the summer/fall. My last half-dozen playtests have been met with the general responses like:
"That was a solid game."
"I'd play that again." (and several random strangers have now played 3, 4, 5 times...)
"I like how there's a variety of strategies that all have winning potential."
...and such
After most recent playtests I usually think of something I COULD tinker with, but usually nothing I feel like NEEDS to be changed. So, at the point where I'm at, where the game tends to run smoothly, how much more playtesting should I do? Any advice? (I know I need some blind-playtesting of the rules and such soon, so, you could answer how much of that as a subset...)
Thanks all...
-gabe
Thanks for the thoughts folks. I've played in most of my recent playtest games, and keep trying for the strategy I see as the most likely to win. I've won a fair amount, but usually it's been pretty tight (and I'm playing against people with little to no experience with the game...)
But...here's the problem with this idea of testing the extremes--the game is so highly interactive that it's hard for one person to really throw the game off that much. To explain briefly: players take turns selecting actions. When player X selects an action, everyone places a (secret) bid on how much they want to do said action. The highest bidder gets the best version of the action, followed by the others, often with some players excluded. So, if I take a crazy "I'm going to blow all my money on mining" strategy or something, while I'll dominate in resources, I'll have nothing left to bid on other actions.
But, I will keep working on ideas of strategies to "break" the game and see what I can do to curb them...
Thanks!
-g