10 of the best questions to ask after a board game or TTRPG playtest, and 3 questions you should avoid. Lessons learned from playtesting at Unpub 2025.
I remember I was once asking playtesters if they find my game too heavy and complex, to which most answered "no, it's fine". I noticed however that it indeed was a bit on the complex side, and players were struggling. But they probably didn't want to look stupid by admitting the game was hard for them. Before making changes I wanted to somehow get the data first, so that I could track it after the changes.
So we've changed the question to "do you think _other players_ might find the game too complex?". Funnily, most now answered "yes, I personally am fine and get the game perfectly, but many other people had/will likely have problems", and we often even got that answer from every player at a table :D
So after we've made some simplifications and streamlined the game, we actually saw those answers going down, which was a more reliable sign that asking the difficulty question directly.
This is such a good anecdote!!! Clearly demonstrates some of the complex psychology at play when asking questions. Small changes in wording have a large impact! Thank you for sharing this.
These questions are great, but I notice there’s nothing about winning. I couldn’t care less about who wins most of the time, but it’s important to many people, and no one likes the Monopoly/Risk feeling where you know who’s won an hour before the game ends.
Depending on whether we’ve played a full game, and the type of game, I’d also be asking a couple of questions like these:
‘Who do you think was winning, and what did they do to get there?’
‘Do you think you had a chance of winning?’
‘When did it become clear that X was going to win?’
‘Did the game feel close?’
If there are multiple ways to win,I’d also be sure to note down how the winning player got their victory - if everyone’s using the same approach you need to consider changes, even if the maths says that other paths are just as good.
While Question 8 sort of touches on this ("Even if they enjoyed the game, lack of different paths to victory could negatively impact replayability.") I agree that asking specific questions around victory (or lack thereof) is important. I particularly like the idea of asking questions around when someone had a lock on the win. It's not fun to play when you know you are going to lose.
Great article. Gonna keep these in my mind, especially as the barriers between TTRPGs and board games continues to blur.
Also, on the nature of design, I just watched a video by Tomb of Lime Gaming that had some really interesting (and intuitive 😉) ideas on dice mechanics:
There's an excellent book from Adam Porter / Adam in Wales that lists 100 playtesting questions with the design rationale behind them.
I'm also mindful of the beta reading guidance I picked up during university ─ when people say what's wrong about $THING, they're almost always correct; when they say how to fix it, they're almost always wrong. Obviously, it's way too simplistic to apply consistently, but I took from it that peoples' stated problems often belie an underlying emotional lack, and THAT is what it's important to design out.
Thank you for this comment! I should have included this. I've found this to be true in other domains as well (e.g. a previous career I had) that have nothing to do with board gaming. People are usually very good at identifying where the issue exists, but not as good at coming up with solutions. The danger is in rejecting the solution and then denying there is an issue. It's very important to be able to separate the identification from the solution.
I’ve heard this used many times in playtesting as ‘testers are great at finding what’s wrong, but really bad at coming up with ways to fix it.’
The tricky bit is that many testers will make (bad) suggestions at some length and you need to be polite, and potentially come up with reasons why you haven’t incorporated it into the next test!
This hit home. The “What would others think?” trick is genius—I’ve run into the same wall where players sugarcoat their feedback because they don’t want to sound dumb or mean. That shift in framing is such a clever workaround. Also loved the idea of tracking that answer over time to validate improvements—feels like a playtester’s version of A/B testing. Definitely stealing that one. Thanks for the insight!
Such a great article! I especially love the 'How long do you think that took?' question. Playtesting feedback and criticism is vitally important to making games and I think you outlined an awesome set of questions to ask players.
I want to toss out the questions I ask players after they play any of our stuff too to see if it helps anyone else:
1] Would you play again?
2] Was there anything confusing about the gameplay and/or the rules?
3] What mechanic did you enjoy, and why?
4] What mechanic did you NOT enjoy, and why?
5] How much would you pay for this?
6] Optional: Please write a haiku [5,7,5] about your playtesting experience.
7] Criticism/Feedback/Comments/Notes/Feelings, dump them here!
I'd say it's about 60/40 on haiku responses haha. Some people really like it and others didn't even want to get close to it. I just loved the idea of challenging the playtesters to be a bit creative as well.
For some reason the 5 syllable, 7 syllable, 5 syllable format was burned into my tiny brain from a young age. I guess I can thank my weird, old English teachers.
I remember I was once asking playtesters if they find my game too heavy and complex, to which most answered "no, it's fine". I noticed however that it indeed was a bit on the complex side, and players were struggling. But they probably didn't want to look stupid by admitting the game was hard for them. Before making changes I wanted to somehow get the data first, so that I could track it after the changes.
So we've changed the question to "do you think _other players_ might find the game too complex?". Funnily, most now answered "yes, I personally am fine and get the game perfectly, but many other people had/will likely have problems", and we often even got that answer from every player at a table :D
So after we've made some simplifications and streamlined the game, we actually saw those answers going down, which was a more reliable sign that asking the difficulty question directly.
This is such a good anecdote!!! Clearly demonstrates some of the complex psychology at play when asking questions. Small changes in wording have a large impact! Thank you for sharing this.
Awesome article. I'll definitely use this in future playtests!
Thank you! Glad you found it helpful!
These questions are great, but I notice there’s nothing about winning. I couldn’t care less about who wins most of the time, but it’s important to many people, and no one likes the Monopoly/Risk feeling where you know who’s won an hour before the game ends.
Depending on whether we’ve played a full game, and the type of game, I’d also be asking a couple of questions like these:
‘Who do you think was winning, and what did they do to get there?’
‘Do you think you had a chance of winning?’
‘When did it become clear that X was going to win?’
‘Did the game feel close?’
If there are multiple ways to win,I’d also be sure to note down how the winning player got their victory - if everyone’s using the same approach you need to consider changes, even if the maths says that other paths are just as good.
While Question 8 sort of touches on this ("Even if they enjoyed the game, lack of different paths to victory could negatively impact replayability.") I agree that asking specific questions around victory (or lack thereof) is important. I particularly like the idea of asking questions around when someone had a lock on the win. It's not fun to play when you know you are going to lose.
Great article. Gonna keep these in my mind, especially as the barriers between TTRPGs and board games continues to blur.
Also, on the nature of design, I just watched a video by Tomb of Lime Gaming that had some really interesting (and intuitive 😉) ideas on dice mechanics:
https://youtu.be/RU8pf2FGz24
Thanks!
There's an excellent book from Adam Porter / Adam in Wales that lists 100 playtesting questions with the design rationale behind them.
I'm also mindful of the beta reading guidance I picked up during university ─ when people say what's wrong about $THING, they're almost always correct; when they say how to fix it, they're almost always wrong. Obviously, it's way too simplistic to apply consistently, but I took from it that peoples' stated problems often belie an underlying emotional lack, and THAT is what it's important to design out.
Thank you for this comment! I should have included this. I've found this to be true in other domains as well (e.g. a previous career I had) that have nothing to do with board gaming. People are usually very good at identifying where the issue exists, but not as good at coming up with solutions. The danger is in rejecting the solution and then denying there is an issue. It's very important to be able to separate the identification from the solution.
I’ve heard this used many times in playtesting as ‘testers are great at finding what’s wrong, but really bad at coming up with ways to fix it.’
The tricky bit is that many testers will make (bad) suggestions at some length and you need to be polite, and potentially come up with reasons why you haven’t incorporated it into the next test!
Indeed. I'm sure this is even harder if there is a fixed time constraint on the playtesting!
This hit home. The “What would others think?” trick is genius—I’ve run into the same wall where players sugarcoat their feedback because they don’t want to sound dumb or mean. That shift in framing is such a clever workaround. Also loved the idea of tracking that answer over time to validate improvements—feels like a playtester’s version of A/B testing. Definitely stealing that one. Thanks for the insight!
Glad you found some helpful tips!
Collecting quantitative data that can be tracked over time and across revisions sounds cool. I like that idea quite a bit!
Do it!
Doing it!
Such a great article! I especially love the 'How long do you think that took?' question. Playtesting feedback and criticism is vitally important to making games and I think you outlined an awesome set of questions to ask players.
I want to toss out the questions I ask players after they play any of our stuff too to see if it helps anyone else:
1] Would you play again?
2] Was there anything confusing about the gameplay and/or the rules?
3] What mechanic did you enjoy, and why?
4] What mechanic did you NOT enjoy, and why?
5] How much would you pay for this?
6] Optional: Please write a haiku [5,7,5] about your playtesting experience.
7] Criticism/Feedback/Comments/Notes/Feelings, dump them here!
Thank you very much!
Those are all good questions to consider. Do you have a good response rate on haiku submissions post-game? :)
I'd say it's about 60/40 on haiku responses haha. Some people really like it and others didn't even want to get close to it. I just loved the idea of challenging the playtesters to be a bit creative as well.
Honestly, I'm surprised that many do it! I'd have to google to even remember what the haiku format is.
For some reason the 5 syllable, 7 syllable, 5 syllable format was burned into my tiny brain from a young age. I guess I can thank my weird, old English teachers.