First playtest: "I don't get it, it's not a game"
I built a rigorous simulation of why projects fail, sat down as my own first player, and the verdict was correct.
First human playtest of the PM simulator, v0.1: chart panel, deadline slider, pressure gauge, run controls, win/loss verdict. The player was me — which also makes me the target-audience prototype: knows PM concepts, wants a game.
Verbatim reaction, preserved for the record: "im playing it, I dont get it, its not a game"
Two distinct failures
- Comprehension failure — "I don't get it." The screen does not explain itself. Nothing tells the player who they are, what the goal is, what the red gap means, or what the slider commitment implies. The instrument panel assumes the viewer already knows the model. First-run experience must teach without a manual.
- Engagement failure — "it's not a game." No stakes (nothing is won or lost that the player owns), one choice (deadline) made once, nothing to do during the run but watch, no reason to run again. The verdict tag is a label, not a consequence.
Why keep the note
This was expected — v0.1 is the engine milestone, not the game; the design stance was engine first, fun as the product surface. But it is the project's first real playtest datum, and it ratified pulling the gameplay-loop design work forward before writing more game code.
The moment worth writing down: I built a rigorous simulation of why projects fail, showed it to my first player, and the verdict was "it's not a game." The verdict was correct. A model and a game are different artifacts, and the difference is exactly stakes, choices, and consequences — none of which live in the math.