中文版本（繁體中文)：按此閱讀
中文版本（简体中文)：按此阅读
One of the reasons I wanted a dedicated Playtest Notes section on this blog is that playtesting rarely unfolds quite the way I expect.
I tend not to treat playtesting as a pass-or-fail exercise. Instead, I see it as an opportunity to discover where players naturally make assumptions, where the game communicates effectively and where it does not.
Although the current A.R.C.H. playtest is still in its early stages, the first character creation session and opening play-by-post mission have already highlighted several small but interesting observations.
Players Respond to the Setting, Not Just the Mechanics
One of the more interesting moments during character creation involved cybernetic augmentation.
Initially, one of the players, whom I’ll call Vasquez, considered downgrading the free cybernetic implant that every Protector receives. From a purely mechanical perspective, this was a perfectly reasonable optimisation.
However, once we discussed the role that augmentation plays within the setting and why Protectors rely upon it, the decision changed completely.
Instead of reducing the character’s augmentation, Vasquez decided to purchase a second implant so that different augmentations could be prepared for different operational roles.
Nothing about the mechanics changed.
Simply understanding more about the setting led the player to make a different decision.
I found that particularly interesting because it suggests that the setting itself is helping to shape the choices players make.
The Gaps Between Design and Play
The first mission also reminded me that it is surprisingly easy to assume players know things that have never actually been communicated.
While preparing the mission, I had intended the deployment sequence to include three stages before the team entered the timeline:
- Cybernetic Customisation
- Period Cover
- Mission Acceptance
I had also assumed that the exact arrival point would naturally become part of the team’s discussion before deployment. Since my whole table is tactical minded (including myself), it simply felt like one of those questions that would come up before anyone agreed to make the jump.
Instead, I became caught up in moving the story forward and skipped straight to the time travel.
Only afterwards did I realise I had skipped that entire part of the mission.
Although the session continued without any real problems, the omission made me realise that both the deployment sequence and the arrival point are part of the mission experience rather than incidental details. They help establish how Protectors prepare for an operation and give players information they naturally use when planning their investigation.
One of the players, whom I’ll call Talia, immediately asked exactly when the team had arrived.
It was a perfectly reasonable question, and in hindsight I realised I had assumed that discussion would happen before deployment rather than after arrival.
That assumption never became reality because I had skipped directly to the mission itself.
Looking Ahead
None of these observations are particularly dramatic.
No mechanics collapsed. No major redesigns suddenly became necessary.
They are, however, exactly the sort of small discoveries I was hoping playtesting would uncover. Several details that seemed obvious to me turned out not to be obvious to the players, while other parts of the setting proved more influential than I had expected.
The current Cortex playtest is still only beginning, so I am looking forward to seeing what other unexpected observations emerge over the coming weeks.
P.S. I will keep tracking the Cortex playtest. If you are keen to follow the updates, please subscribe via the Home page.
Leave a Reply