More Solo mode.

In Episode 112 Mike has been playtesting Pacific Command, and he's been doing it solo mode, as much playtesting is, and has developed a set of rules for doing that. So he's been wondering, is a solo mode that you use for playtesting the same as one you should present to your players? And if not, why not? So the guys chat about that.
Check out Man O' Kent Games here: www.manokentgames.com
Check out Planet Smasher Games here: planetsmasher.games
The Rule of Carnage discord server: / discord
If you want to support the channel financially you can join Mike's Patreon here: / planetsmashergames
If you want the number on Glenn's Patreon to go up one, you can join his Patreon here: / manokentgames

[@HomeDrone]

Something I find interesting when I play both sides of a wargame is that the stakes for either side are very low. It's more about just learning or testing the system (does the system work mechanically). It can be meditative or a novelty of seeing "what happens". But the lack of investment in either side makes it not work to test a players mood very well. Like playing Blood Bowl for example, a turn over has sooo much more emotion and feeling if you are only invested in one team. I think games should have such feels, but you might miss designing them if you are only testing that way? No one was suggesting we only test that way, just that this thought reinforces it for me.

[@RuleofCarnage]

I find that when I'm testing a particular faction I very much get invested in that particular faction. I also find that with a set of playtesters I can often identify one or two who commit to one faction.

[@ktizoid]

An interesting aspect of creating an automa is discovering that your game has a strategy formula. The risk of offering an automa is revealing a designer-endorsed optimum strategy.

[@RuleofCarnage]

With a full AI, I think that's a very real possibility. Hopefully with a well designed automata simply filling out the space of another player it can be more or less avoided.