Hi Joshua,

Say I had a mostly finished game that I'm currently playtesting and working into a draft document.  The basic structure of the rules is solid, but there are a few rules that aren't sitting right.  Is it your preference that I post a link to the whole thing, with a discussion of what I think needs work, or is it better to describe the specific rule I'm having difficulty with, and answer questions as needed?

Also, I'm not clear from this what you mean by Actual Play.  Do you mean playtesting by other folk without me present, or do you just mean playtesting by me and my friends?

Cheers,

Simon

Please use your real name as your login if you can. If not, please put it in your signature. If you can't for some reason, please email me (joshua@glyphpress.com) and we'll talk about it.

Thanks Joshua,

That makes sense to me.  I'm looking forward to posting stuff!

Hi Josh,

Looks like an interesting set of rules. 

Just to clarify, at first it seems like a very narrow range of games that are suitable for critique. That is, if typography and cover are already done, for many people (myself included) this would probably mean that the game is either ready for distribution, or very nearly. 

But then you mention to Simon that his game might be suitable for critique, and it seems that it's not quite at that level of production yet. So, if I'm correct, you're not saying that a game must have these things, only that, if they do, then they are also fair game for critique, yes? The real minimum seems to be that the game has been playtested, at least a little?

I think people should definitely include what it is they're looking for in terms of the scope of the critique. For instance, I can do a very rudimentary layout using Word that I think fits the legibility criteria. But then, obviously, since my layout skills are not great, and I'll be sending it on to somebody who has good ones afterwards, I won't be looking for critique on that stage. 

Or do I misunderstand, and the game should have it's layout done already? By another reading of your rules, one could ascertain that it's not about rules critique at all, but just editing critique. You mention clarity of writing, but you don't mention the effects of rules or other mechanical critique. Is this not supposed to be part of what this space is about? Is it, in fact, only for giving critique of the physical design, and the art of the presentation of the prose? 

I could make assumptions, but I'm thinking that it would be better to have specific answers. 

Mike

Hi! I'm new to your design forum, but as posted on your blog, fully approve of it. As a professional portfolio "critiquer of artworks" (i need a cooler title than that, but admissions officer at art school sounds lamer) I totally understand and support the need for critique in helping us all improve our skills. I think this will be a fabulous community!

I'm going to start by critiquing your rules. :) Although I think what you have so far is solid and spot on, I would add two more to your list of "Those critiquing a design"

1. Use the sandwhich technique. Always provide a compliment of the work, followed by a flaw, followed by how that can improve in the future. It might sound cheesy, but people need encouragement as well as having the flaws in their design pointed out.

2. Give examples of how they can improve, providing concise details, and maybe even references to other people that have done the same thing. Vague answers aren't good critique, the person asking for critique needs details on exact points in order to improve their work.

That's all I got for now. Feel free to disagree, but I think the sandwhich one is really good. People always take critique better (myself included) when its honest, to the point, and also points out what you're doing well and what you're not doing well.

When giving critique:

1. Say why an element works
2. Ask about an element to understand how it works.
3. If it doesn't work, suggest something that might work.

Sure, be civil and all. But… if you see a problem with a design of mine… and you have no suggestion at all about how to fix it… please tell me there's a problem. 

Yes, if you have a suggestion, let people know. Why wouldn't you. But if you see that X does not equal 2+2 as I have it, but you don't know what X equals, identify the problem. Maybe I, or some third party can fix it. But, if the problem is there, then I must not have noticed it myself, and you're helping me immensely by identifying it. 

Mike

… that's not to say that suggestions shouldn't be solicited or given when in the process of discussion. But ask specific questions. "How do I make this text flow more smoothly?" not "What's up with my text?" answered by "If you reduce the leading it'll flow back up to the previous page," not "Fix the spacing."

Specific answers to specific questions.

At every opportunity, ask a question instead of giving a solution, even if it's an observation. The process of the submitter thinking about the question, rather than having answers given to her, keeps her thinking about it from the perspective of her own creative vision.

That's cool. That's just a clarifying example. What I don't want it people telling the creator what they should do.