L&L playtesters around a table at Metatopia 2026As I have mentioned, I went to the Metatopia game designers convention last weekend, ran three sessions of my game, and got some great feedback. Here's what I learned and how I fixed my game to make it better.
First, some notes on the con itself. I attended four panels and played in three RPG sessions, in addition to my own three. Panels were an hour, and game sessions were two. It made for shorter sessions than you see at most gaming cons, but it worked well for the purpose: to try a game in development and offer some feedback. At the "How to run a good playtest" panel, I learned that I should be looking for feedback on something specific. In the three games I playtested, one wanted general feedback, one wanted feedback on the combat system, and one wanted feedback on two possible damage systems within the combat system.
The panels had some good advice on playtesting:
Know your goals for the event.
If game master, tell the players what you want out of the session. If player, ask.
Bring good energy and enthusiasm.
Watch how the players play the game.
At the end of the session, verbal feedback is more effective than a feedback form.
As a player, mention facets of the system that are confusing.
And at my own Labyrinths & Liontaurs sessions, I got some great feedback. I set out wanting to test particular aspects of the game: character creation, lionheart points, respect points, and nonlethal options for play, especially.
As Chu-bu and Sheemish have shown us, honey, maize, and fat are treasured by the smallest of miracle workers, so forgive me as I enjoy some kindly words. I was very happy to hear playtesters comment that my game looks like a lot of time and thought went into it, that it has great depth of play; offers lots of options for mixing and matching; and that the spell lists, layout, and progression were all well done. People liked the LitRPG elements. That's heady incense to fill the small temple of my heart.
I got the comment that the game was daunting to newbies. That's 100 percent true. The rules are long, intricate, and detailed. It takes a lot of reading and playing and asking questions to master them. On the other hand, the playtesters who were familiar with Third Edition D&D found it easy to pick up. I'm not sure what to do with this comment. I think the criticism is accurate. Do I throw up my hands and declare that the game is best for veterans and grognards? Or do I look for ways to help new players ease in? Food for thought.
I originally added the traits of Queer and Disabled to the game to be inclusive and offer a mechanical way for players to identify their characters. I've had good feedback on that. At Metatopia, I got comments that tying the Queer trait to a combat mechanic sends the wrong message. So I revised the Queer trait and added a new one, Outsider Community. Check those out at the Traits page.
My site features a "pink" background. It's not really pink; it is hex value #ffddff, a color that Google tells me is "commonly known by the color names Selago or Sugarpills in digital color catalogs. It represents a very pale, light shade of magenta or pastel violet." See, not pink — but whatever color it is, it sends a message. Add in my plushie art, starting on the home page and spreading through the game rules; that sends a message too. Plus my marketing messages boasting that you don't have to be a murderhobo ... bottom line is, some players found a disconnect in tone. The problem is that I want both. I want humor and for players to have the option to use nonviolent / nonlethal modes of play. But I also want to offer the option of traditional hack-n-slash play. I want PCs who are heroes ... and I want dark themes, including slavery and tyranny, so that heroes have enemies to fight! My solution is to add a section on tone to the rules. Check that out on the rules home page.
Similarly, there was concern that using skills or magic to change a helpless foe's alignment is mind control. I suppose that's a good point. And, arguably, mind control is bad. So I rewrote my alignment rules. For example:
A Note On Evil: In Labyrinths & Liontaurs, evil is an outside corruption of a creature's natural state. No sane or uncorrupted creature actually enjoys causing others to suffer. Effects in the game, magical or otherwise, that change a creature's alignment away from evil should be thought of as driving out supernatural contamination. When a creature is turned from the path of evil, it is restored to its natural state and inclination, and it is grateful for the change.
That means there is no mind control, just expelling a hostile supernatural influence and restoring a creature to its natural state. Is that better?
During play, one tester suggested that the game needs more nonlethal options. That sounds good to me. I've added more nonlethal weapons: check out the Weapons and Armor page for new weapons (cosh and billy club) as well as nonlethal versions of ammunition. I also made some nonlethal weapons either easier to use or converted lethal weapons to nonlethal (such as shield bashes). Also, I modified my new Lifewood option so that weapons made with it are always nonlethal (except to undead).
With playtesters running wildlings, I explained that to humans, the ancestral origin of wildlings is a mystery. Why then, I was asked, are spoilers for the mystery included in the write-up? That's a great question! I've revised the wildling page in response.
Playtesting has convinced me that my sorcerer and bard are too underpowered. Fair point. I've upgraded them both to ignoring the arcane armor failure chance to a degree.
Finally, I got some feedback suggesting that my morale rules need to come into play more often. I have to think about this, but at the least, I have edited the rules to allow game masters to roll for surrender / flight even if the players do not call for it.
Labyrinths & Liontaurs is essentially done. I do need to run through a real top-to-bottom copy edit, linking everything correctly, standardizing style for game terms, etc. I need to replace my AI art with my plushie photos (so far the only one online is on the home page). And I need to continue to tweak where my playtesters find errors or make good suggestions.
Maybe the most important lesson from my playtesting is that playtesters are as precious as gold. Heck, as precious as artifacts, but much less dangerous! I'm so grateful to all the people who have jumped in to make comments and suggestions, making my game better!
