A few weeks ago I attended FallCon in Calgary. My primary purpose was to run TTRPGs and work with Logomancy Media, but the event also gave me the opportunity to show off Soku Meshi in Prototype Alley, which I did for several hours over the weekend.

At this point I believe that Soku Meshi is pretty much done, at least as far as play testing is concerned. There are some minor graphic design things to adjust, but the gameplay loop is where I need it to be and it is always a hit with players who get to try it. Because of this I have moved from tracking my convention hours as “Play Test” to “Demo”, but sometimes I get feedback even after I think it’s done.
Prototype Alley has other developers and we tend to take an interest in other people’s projects. I got to try a few of them, but Soku Meshi happened to be setup on a corner table, where it is very hard to ignore. This meant that a lot of developers walked by and tried the game in addition to normal players. The feedback I got was interesting and it lines up with a trend that I have noticed while play testing, which shows how different types of players perceive a game.

Because Soku Meshi is a dexterity game it is inherently skill based. It also uses a public knowledge point system, which means everyone can see who is winning. Obviously skilled players are going to pull ahead and it does get to a point where the person in last place has no way of catching up. While most normal players didn’t really notice it (likely because the game only takes 5 minutes), it seemed to really bother other developers, who kept trying to suggest ways to “fix” the score imbalance.

The scoring issue is something I have been aware of for quite some time and initially it annoyed me, but I have actually chosen not to fix it for a number of reasons.
First of all, the game is only 5 minutes. Most people will just dig in their heels and try to do better next time, because everyone wants to play this game several times back to back.
Secondly, fixing it requires adding more rules, which adds more complexity and I need this game to stay as simple as possible because I believe it has a chance to win Spiel des Jahres, so that factors into the design.
Finally there is the issue of rubber banding. This can go one of two ways. Either the person who is winning gets handicapped so everyone else can catch up or the person in last place gets an advantage.
I really do not like rubber banding. Mario Kart is by far the worst offender for this, using both ends of it, but to me rubber banding always feels like the winner is being punished for being good at the game.

The other thing that has been brought up by fellow developers is dropping a piece on the table. This causes you to lose the whole order card and sit out for the round (which is only a few seconds), but some developers find it frustrating and think that you should be able to dump your dish back into the tray and start the card over. I have also avoided this for one simple reason.
When someone drops a piece they usually groan or throw their hands up and generally have some sort of visible reaction. If they get to restart the card they just quietly keep going.
Allowing them to restart robs the game of some of the spectacle. Instead of loud and active it goes slightly more focused, which is great for a strategy game, but this is a game about spectacle.

When dealing with play testers there is a wide range of opinions, but I think I can narrow them down to 3 categories.
First of all you have the casual player. This is someone who plays Catan, Ticket to Ride and the many other games that are easier to get into. These players make up the majority and if they find a problem, it’s time to start tinkering. These are the easiest players to work with, but play test value is limited.
Next we have the strategic players. These are the ones who like crunchier games and will commit to a massive game like Twilight Imperium or maybe they are the Magic the Gathering or Warhammer 40k players. These people are going to break your game, in a good way. Balance requires some of these people, because they will see exploits that most people would just miss.
Finally you have the developers. By that I mean literally other developers. They will see your game mechanics as something to be fixed. They can be very helpful if they are on the same page as you, or they can be frustrating when they want to fix a “problem” that is there by design and doesn’t line up with how they design things.

Going back to why this post was written, how do we figure out when we are done play testing and just coming out to demo the game? This is a question that pops up on Reddit almost daily, and the answer is still …it depends.
For me the point where design ends and marketing begins is when I run out of things to fix. Mechanically, Soku Meshi is done, but there is other work to be done. Things still on the docket are finalize the graphic design, localize to German and Japanese and find a manufacturer.
I need to make a trip to the Tokyo Game Market, Essenspiel and Lucca Comics & Games before crowdfunding, but unfortunately my finances are not stable enough for that trip and it requires the assistance of another person who has to get their affairs in order before committing as well.