Here are the questions we were supposed to ask the players, which will form the basis of the feedback for the level, and will serve as information to be used in order to improve the level:
Here is a photo of my level, for reference:
I was fortunate in that I had two play test sessions from which to draw information.
The first play test:
The first play test:
The players were presented a back story, and given a choice on how to approach the level. The players went in through one door together, and not finding anything, proceeded through to the next area.I immediately realized that I wasted an opportunity to introduce the players to a game play element, and made a note to change it for the second play through.
The players entered the main area together, and made their presence known immediately, drawing the attention of every enemy in the room at once. This was also a shortcoming on my part as a level designer, forcing the players into a large scale combat on their first go around. The main area had two staircases leading down to the lower level.
This rush of combat forced the players to attempt an escape, in order to funnel the enemies into a narrow passage and take them on one or two at a time, instead of seven at once. I made a GM decision, and brought down the hand of God, destroying the enemies, but not before one of the players was knocked unconscious.
The remaining player moved on to the main area, down the stairs, and were confronted by the primary puzzle challenge of the level. As that was not really being play tested, but was for narrative purposes, I talked the players through the story to finish the test.
The players entered the main area together, and made their presence known immediately, drawing the attention of every enemy in the room at once. This was also a shortcoming on my part as a level designer, forcing the players into a large scale combat on their first go around. The main area had two staircases leading down to the lower level.
This rush of combat forced the players to attempt an escape, in order to funnel the enemies into a narrow passage and take them on one or two at a time, instead of seven at once. I made a GM decision, and brought down the hand of God, destroying the enemies, but not before one of the players was knocked unconscious.
The remaining player moved on to the main area, down the stairs, and were confronted by the primary puzzle challenge of the level. As that was not really being play tested, but was for narrative purposes, I talked the players through the story to finish the test.
The second play test:
The players were again given the back story, and presented with an option on how to enter the area. I had made some changes to the level, and the players chose to split themselves up, one going in the far door, and the other going in the near door. This time, there was a single enemy guarding the door. The players coordinated their attacks and managed to defeat the enemy before they could sound an alarm.
The players then entered the main area, and attempted to take out a single guard but he managed to run off and alerted the remaining enemies. I had collapsed one of the stairways for this test, which forced the players down one path. There were fewer of them this time, but the players were having some trouble defeating them. and I eventually had to deploy the hand of God to move the story along, this time keeping both players alive to move on. They killed the final boss, and moved on to the story line ending for the level, which I sped through due to time constraints.
What went right?
What went right?
In both play test sessions, I was told that the level was well planned, with the separation from one area to the next and the players knowing where they were supposed to go. During the second test, the players liked the fact that they had an opportunity to practice combat at least once before moving on to a larger group. I also gave the players a chance to use the ranged attack feature.
What went wrong?
The level initially did not offer the players a series of increasingly difficult combat challenges. Also, while I gave the players an opportunity to use the jump feature, from the balcony to the floor below, it was not presented to them as an opportunity. In the future, I will add a forced jump into the level. I also did not give the players any opportunities to pick locks or escape from being held.I also overwhelmed the players, not keeping in mind that this was supposed to be an introductory level.
How might you improve your map next time?
I would add a pitfall for the players to jump over. I would also add a treasure box for them to pick their way through. I would further reduce the number of enemies.
Were all rule mechanics covered in this introductory level?
Unfortunately no. I would definitely improve this by giving the players a locked door, or other obstacles which would allow them to explore all of the rules.
I would add a pitfall for the players to jump over. I would also add a treasure box for them to pick their way through. I would further reduce the number of enemies.
Were all rule mechanics covered in this introductory level?
Unfortunately no. I would definitely improve this by giving the players a locked door, or other obstacles which would allow them to explore all of the rules.
Were there appropriate teaching mechanisms?
Yes. I gave them opportunities to try combat, both melee and ranged. I gave them options for paths, but the choices eventually forced the players along the desired path. If I were to add some more of the obstacles which would employ the players abilities, I would do so in such a way as to give the players the best method of learning.
Were the challenges presented appropriate to the introductory/tutorial nature of the level?
Initially no, but after the first play test, I made some changes, and I feel that I am dialing that in. The second play test showed a marked improvement.
Was the critical path obvious? (Did the players know where to go?)
Yes. This was never a problem for the players. Even when offered multiple choices, the choices eventually led the players to the same conclusion.
How was the overall flow?
During the first play through, it was somewhat choppy, considering the fact that combat was not properly balanced. During the second play through, the action progressed smoothly from one sequence to the next.
Were the challenges presented appropriate to the introductory/tutorial nature of the level?
Initially no, but after the first play test, I made some changes, and I feel that I am dialing that in. The second play test showed a marked improvement.
Was the critical path obvious? (Did the players know where to go?)
Yes. This was never a problem for the players. Even when offered multiple choices, the choices eventually led the players to the same conclusion.
How was the overall flow?
During the first play through, it was somewhat choppy, considering the fact that combat was not properly balanced. During the second play through, the action progressed smoothly from one sequence to the next.
Were there circulation elements?
By starting with a hallway with only three doors, one of which was blocked off from the other two, it created a nice directional element. During the first play test, the players had two sets of stairs to go down, both leading to a level below, which was visible from the balcony. These stairs were designed to give access to either side of the room. During the second test, one of the stairways was collapsed, which forced the players to be able to go only one way. With only two rooms in the building, it did not appear to require a back entrance to the main room. Travel throughout the building was limited to one main path.
Was it obvious where players we supposed to go?
Yes. The great big shiny barrier on the lower floor of the building which emitted a loud hum was the central focus of the level. The players could hear it from outside the building. The lack of substantial choices also made it obvious to the players that they should go down a very specific path.
No comments:
Post a Comment