[Reviews] Playtest Reviews vs. Capsule Reviews

C.W.Richeson · #1 10-09-2006, 03:44 PM

Playtest Reviews are based on experiences from having played a game while Capsule Reviews are based on having read a product.

What are your thoughts on the merits of each? Is one better than the other? How many sessions are necessary for a person to be able to post a Playtest Review? If house rules are used is a Playtest Review still worthwhile?

magustrate · #2 10-09-2006, 03:55 PM

I personally like play test reviews as I get a better sense of the actual mechanics and the layout and scope of the book. This may of course be due to different review writing styles. If the review is going to be a playtest review it should be tempered with a capsule type summary.

deckard · #3 10-09-2006, 04:03 PM

The advantage of Playtest reviews is mainly a better impression of how the system works: if there are any aspects of the game not covered by the rules, if the rules themselves slow down the session and the narrative, etc.

But a Capsule review is more than enough for me. All I want from a review is a thorough account of what the book contains, how it is laid out, how it is explained, how rich is the description of the setting and so on.

Moreover, the actual session is most of all influenced by the "table chemistry": how players and GM interact, how's their mood, what's their style, how they like the idea of playtesting that game in the first place, etc.

All in all, capsule is more reliable, as far as I'm concerned, because it doesnt step on subjective ground (or, at least, not as much as a playtest).

mcrow · #4 10-09-2006, 04:12 PM

For me "playtest" reviews are nearly useless.

I couldn't care less how the reviews game went. Tell me what the setting is like, how the rules work, is the writing good, and does it look good.

I can read an RPG and have a complete grasp of how the game will play, so I don't need an actual play review. I have read and played many RPGs and have found that playing the game after reading the book very rarely changes my opinion on a game.

johnnype · #5 10-09-2006, 04:12 PM

Even a playtest review is rarely enough to thoroughly evaluate a product. It often takes many groups of people to correctly gage the "robustness", if you will, of an RPG. That's my way of saying that I don't really place any additional value on playtest reviews. Hell, my review of GODLIKE on this website is a playtest review and I was barely familiar with the rules. That didn't stop me from enjoying the game (I think the fact that Greg Stolze was GM might have a lot to do with the final review score).

Lastly, I barely get to play any RPG's mostly for lack of time. Yet I spend more on the hobby than most people I know. This does not, IMO, prevent me from accurately measuring the value of my purchases. I know what I like and I think I’m pretty good at separating the good from the bad. It has little to do with playtesting.

mcrow · #6 10-09-2006, 04:20 PM

here are some examples of how I write reviews:

Hard Nova

Hollow Earth Expedition

100 Kingdoms

Nebuleon

Let me know if you can tell which ones I have played/used and which ones I didn't.

Sensei · #7 10-09-2006, 04:26 PM

I don't place much more interest on a playtest over a capsule. Like mcrow said, I just want to know about the system, PC gen, setting background, etc.

If a reviewer has played, and wants to throw in short examples of problems they encountered or coolness they liked, fine, but that part of the review doesn't sway me one way or the other in my opinion about a game, because everyone's experiences with a game system are so different anyway.

And I suspect it doesn't make a difference to the review, if the reviewer seems to be of reasonable talent. I don't play all of the games I review here or on my own website, but after GMing for more than a quarter century, and having read what must be over fifty systems, I feel pretty qualified to describe a game's basic premise and mechanics for interested parties without actually running some friends through a session.

Cossack · #8 10-09-2006, 04:29 PM

Oh dear God, is it time to have this flamewar again?

You will find that there is a faction that adamantly insists that any review that is not based on a playtest is absolutely worthless and does not deserve to be called a review of the game.

Those who have, in fact, found their purchasing decisions positively informed by capsule reviews will attempt to respond, using various examples and analogies, but members of the first faction will not budge.

As for me, I have certainly come across games that played differently than they felt when I read them, so I can see an argument that playtest reviews will likely be more valuable, but I've seen enough good capsule reviews that I am not about to discount them.

Old Scratch · #9 10-09-2006, 05:16 PM

Playtest for many games.

If you've played D&D for twenty years, than a playtest review of a module isn't very useful, but nowadays, things are far less predictable than that.

For example, any capsule review of Inspectres is worthless in my opinion, as there are some games that require play since they are so far out of the norm for the average game. Another example: reading and playing Pantheon are two entirely different things. Assumptions are destroyed and elements you hadn't considered suddenly surface. Same would be true of My Life with Master, game play is quite different from anything you can conventionally play and my experiences playing and GMing have dramatically altered my take on the game through Actual Play.

If an envelope is being pushed, you've got to play the game. I am mystified by those who claim otherwise. And I've written capsule reviews... there is a profound difference in some circumstances.

cjh · #10 10-09-2006, 05:22 PM

There's a place for both capsule and playtest reviews. I think that each points out different things, and the person that does one will notice something that someone doing the other will not. Not all of these things are of value though.

I don't think that there is really one true way to review and I'm leary of any reviewer who says that there is. Both have their strengths, weakness, and the information that they reveal. Personally I think that a better review will feature both and not just one or the other.

However, to address a point of the OP: House rules should never be used in a playtest review. That really defeats the purpose of a playtest review, which is to see if the rules work. If you are able to run a playtest for the purposes of a review the game should be run as is from the book, without alterations or additions. Otherwise you're not actually reviewing the game you're just reviewing your version of the game.