Playtest Rules

These rules are "required reading" for all playtesters. A lot of them are strict and set forth in fairly tough terms, but note that we're not meanies – we publish fun games! This means that we'll forgive the occasional obvious error. We know that we aren't perfect, so we can't very well go around expecting perfection from everybody else.

Remember, though, that being trusted to give input on unpublished games is a privilege – not a right – no matter how good a customer you are (well, unless you buy the company). It's also a vital part of product development for authors and SJ Games . . . creating fun games is hard work! If you consistently ignore the rules, then you're not exercising a right but interfering with the writers' livelihood. You might receive a warning from a moderator, but you might also stop getting e-mail from the mailing list all of a sudden – and neither bodes well for receiving playtest credit or being invited to future playtests.

If you dislike or disagree with these rules, we can respect that, but then we ask you to respect us and not apply for playtests. There are limited slots available in most cases. We wish to reserve these for people who are willing to volunteer on our terms. Thank you!

And now for the specifics:

1. Respect the moderators. A playtest's moderators consist of some or all of the lead playtester, the editor, and the author(s). The editor represents SJ Games, while the entire playtest is for the authors' benefit – and the lead playtester represents all of these parties, and speaks with the authority that implies. Moderators enjoy great latitude to do what it takes to ensure that the playtest runs smoothly and stays focused. If nothing else, think of yourself: These people decide who receives playtest credit, so ticking them off ensures ignominy!

2. Obey subject-line protocol. Unless you're writing a [QUERY] post or a global [WHOLE] post (see below), the first thing on your subject line should be a chapter tag:

   • [CH0] for the Introduction
   • [CHn] for Chapter n ([CH1] for Chapter 1, [CH2] for Chapter 2, etc.)
   • [Aa] for Appendix a ([AA] for Appendix A, [AB] for Appendix B, etc.)
   • [BIB] for the Bibliography
   • [GL] for the Glossary

   Next should come one (and only one) of the following content tags, which are listed in descending order by how often we wish to see them:

   • [FACTS] is for errors in background material (not rules). This includes trivia (release date of a film, cultural origin of a specific myth, middle name of a historical figure, etc.), specifications (caliber of a real-world gun, top speed of a real-world car, etc.), and physical data (speed of sound, boiling point of gadolinium, etc.). To qualify, your assertion has to be something that others can verify. Provide a reference, where possible. Comments like "everyone knows vampires dislike WD-40" aren't facts but opinions, and should use the [SUGGS] tag.

   • [RULES] is for game-mechanical problems (not background material): questionable point costs, incompatible rules, incorrect stats, etc. These must be pertinent to the work at hand; this isn't an opportunity to post a diatribe on rules you dislike from elsewhere in GURPS. You may dislike a rule in the Basic Set or feel that a judgment call in Powers was unwise, and we might even agree – but it's off-topic unless you're playtesting the Basic Set or Powers. Note that a moderator may request that you use a separate [STATS] tag when stats-checking specific examples (NPCs, vehicles, etc.), but otherwise, such things are [RULES].

   • [SUGGS] is for suggestions regarding omitted material. If you can't find something that you feel is vital, then suggest it! But please realize that the writer has a deadline and a word-count limit, and so is only likely to care about suggestions if they're either really good or really simple. All suggestions should be clear, cover one specific point, and run on for at most a paragraph. Rambling "shotgun suggestions" will be summarily staked and burned.

   • [STYLE] is for problems with emphasis, pacing, chapter order, etc. In other words, the structure of the supplement you're playtesting. Please don't use this as an excuse to attack the author's writing style (unless you're playtesting GURPS My Fair Lady). The author is entitled to use the words he prefers, and only the editor has the authority to challenge that. If the wording has left you confused on a vital point, though, then that is a valid [STYLE] issue.

   • [OOPS] is for stupid mistakes: incorrect page references, mentions of vaporware GURPS books, etc. Spelling and grammar errors also get this tag, but please confine yourself to really subtle ones, as we're confident that the editor will catch the not-so-subtle ones! The editor is paid to catch typos. You aren't. (And as with [STYLE], please respect creative license.)

   • [WHOLE] is for issues salient to complete chapters – or even to the entire manuscript. For instance, if you felt that the work emphasized one point at the expense of all others, you would prefix your comments with the [WHOLE] tag. A [WHOLE] comment need not have a chapter tag if it focuses on the entire work. This makes [WHOLE] exceptionally vague and hard to act on at times; therefore, moderators may forbid this tag or limit each playtester to one or two uses per playtest.

   • [QUERY] is intended for playtester Q&A on the playtest, and for responses to [ADMIN] posts. It doesn't require a chapter tag. This tag is low on the totem pole because if all goes well, you won't ever need it.

   • [ADMIN] is for playtest or mailing-list administration posts by moderators. This includes notes such as these rules (or exemptions or changes for a particular playtest), start and end dates, and requests for specific tasks (like stats-checking). Such posts often lack chapter tags. Read all [ADMIN] messages! If you ignore one and miss important instructions, you could get the boot! Also note that non-moderators should not use [ADMIN] unless they want the boot. To follow up an [ADMIN] post, replace the tag with [QUERY] or simply contact the moderator by private e-mail.

   Last comes your actual subject title. Follow these guidelines:

   • If creating a new subject, this should be as specific as possible. "My comments on Chapter 3" is hopelessly vague; "Point cost of the Doesn't Blink advantage" is fine.
   • If quoting another playtester without changing the thrust of the thread, leave his subject line intact so as not to break threading.
   • If quoting someone and you are changing the topic, change the subject line to match.

3. Write one post per subject. This should be obvious from our subject-line rules, but if it isn't: Please confine each post to one specific subject. For instance, a 1,000-word essay on all of Chapter 5 wouldn't be at all useful, while six incisive, 40-word posts on six specific flaws you spotted in Chapter 5 would be incredibly useful.

4. Be concise. As should now be apparent, we want playtest posts to be brief and to the point. Try not to editorialize unless you're the editor. Remember that the manuscript is already written, and we're mostly seeking comments, not contributions. The wordier your comments, the more likely those in a place to change the manuscript will simply click the "Next" button. We give exactly the same playtest credit for a profound, one-line comment as we do for a screed – often more, because we tend to skip screeds.

5. Quote responsibly. Don't quote the manuscript or other posts needlessly. If you must quote, intersperse your input under the quoted passages. In particular, do not top post! That's both lazy and unclear, whatever your computer-science professor told you. All of this is just part of "be concise," but it gets ignored often enough to rate its own entry.

6. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem. If something is "broken," then take a stab at fixing it! Even if none of your words end up in the final draft, you have much better odds of receiving credit (or just having your post read) if you do this.

7. Let the dead rest. Moderators may close a thread once a problem has been solved (in the playtest or behind the scenes), when there's an out-of-control debate, or simply when a suggestion has been rejected. Further comments to a dead thread ("thread necromancy") are counterproductive to the playtest, may hurt your odds of getting playtest credit, and will eventually get you booted. This includes resurrecting a dead topic under a new subject line.

Happy testing!

Authors' Rules

Dr. Kromm: The Golden Ideal is to make this a cooperative process of improvement, not a contest or a fight.
Archangel Beth: Can I quote you on that?

If you're a writer going into a playtest, remember that your playtesters are volunteers who are subject to a whole bunch of rules . . . all for your benefit! Count to five and review the following before you hit "Send" on that reply to a loaded question or a touchy comment:

1. Take criticism constructively, whether or not it's delivered that way. Your work is being critiqued, not you . . . unless you respond badly to posts, which will inevitably muddy the waters and make the playtest less effective.

2. Never harass, belittle, or attack the playtesters, or otherwise make it unsafe for them to comment. Your most stinging response should be polite silence.

3. If a playtester doesn't like something, don't respond except to ask questions that will help you fix it, and then to post the fix. If you simply disagree, silence is fine; defensiveness isn't.

4. If a playtester doesn't understand something, fix it in the manuscript and post the fix, asking if it makes sense now. Don't explain something in the playtest but leave it "as is" in the manuscript!

5. Keep your disagreements with SJ Games, your editor, and your fellow authors off the mailing list.