We've been hard at work refining Sylvan Tactics over the past few months. One of our most recent developments has been creating a digital version of the game on Tabletopia for virtual playtesting. This has been an eye-opening experience that has fundamentally changed our development process, and today I want to share some insights about the differences between physical and digital playtesting.
Why We Chose Tabletopia
After exploring several virtual tabletop platforms, we settled on Tabletopia for a few key reasons:
Completely free for our needs
Already includes chess boards and chess pieces as standard components
No need for a paid game setup or custom 3D component designs at this stage
Accessibility for playtesters
Works directly in a browser with a simple URL link
Playtesters don't need to create accounts—they can simply enter a guest username when joining a game room
Functionality that fits our game
The interface is intuitive enough for our playtesters to learn quickly
Custom zones and component snapping features support our unique mechanics like the Sigil system
While platforms like Tabletop Simulator offer more extensive scripting capabilities, we found that Tabletopia's simpler approach was actually better suited for Sylvan Tactics. The game's hybrid nature—combining chess pieces with card mechanics—fits neatly within Tabletopia's component system without requiring complex automation.
The current iteration of Sylvan Tactics in digital form.
Physical vs. Digital: The Unexpected Tradeoffs
What We Gained from Digital Testing
After a couple of weeks of virtual playtesting, we've noticed several significant advantages:
Geographic flexibility
We've run tests with players who are separated by large distances who would never have been able to join a physical session
This has diversified our feedback and helped identify blind spots in our design
Iteration speed
Card updates that previously required printing, cutting, and sleeving can now be implemented in minutes
We can test small changes immediately rather than batching them for the next physical prototype
Scheduling convenience
Virtual sessions are easier to set up and require less commitment from playtesters
We can run more frequent, shorter sessions that focus on specific mechanics
Systematic feedback
Screen recording during sessions helps us revisit exactly what happened during crucial moments
Playtesters can easily take screenshots to highlight issues or interesting situations
What We Miss from Physical Testing
Despite these advantages, digital playtesting doesn't completely replace the physical experience:
Tactile feedback is missing
The satisfying feel of moving a chess piece to capture an opponent's unit
The physical act of rotating cards to invoke them
Social dynamics are different
Table talk is more constrained in a digital environment
Body language and emotional reactions are harder to read
Interface limitations
Some actions that are intuitive in physical play require additional clicks or menus
Players sometimes struggle with the physics system when performing simple actions like stacking cards
Making Digital Playtesting Work: Our Tabletopia Setup
To overcome some of the limitations of digital playtesting, we've developed several techniques specific to Tabletopia:
Magnetic Maps: The Secret Weapon
The component snapping and rotating features with Magnetic Maps have been essential. While technically you could play the entire game without them, relying on physics and mouse controls would make the experience frustratingly fiddly.
This was especially important for our “invoke” mechanic. In the physical game, you turn cards sideways to indicate being invoked. Without a Magnetic Map, players would need to use the right-click menu and select the 90-degree rotate option—a tedious process for an action performed multiple times per turn.
Our solution was to create invoking zones for each card slot, positioned just above the card and marked with a rotated card outline. When players drag a card into these zones, it automatically rotates sideways. We've also set magnetic zones to automatically flip cards face up or down for our Sigil creation mechanic and draft row. All of this is done with image files and requires no coding at all.
Here’s what a Magnetic Map file looks like.
Tabletopia Tips from Our Experience
If you're considering using Tabletopia for your own game, here are some practical tips we've learned:
For free game setups, use multiple smaller game boards
Image resolution limitations make larger boards difficult to read
We initially made this mistake, and while our board is functional, it doesn't look great
We plan to split it into sections for better visual clarity in future iterations
Create custom reference cards for digital-specific controls
We added cards explaining how to perform common actions
This significantly reduced the learning curve for new playtesters
Use color-coding for magnetic zones when possible
Subtle visual cues help players understand where components should go
This reduces the need for lengthy explanations about the interface
Set up your pieces to minimize scrolling
Arrange your game board and player areas to fit comfortably on a standard screen
Excessive scrolling creates friction that doesn't exist in physical play
Tabletopia Limitations We've Encountered
No platform is perfect, and we've hit a few frustrating limitations with Tabletopia:
Updating card backs is tedious
While you can create an entire deck with the same card back initially, updating that back later requires changing each card individually
With our ~100 card deck, this was extremely time-consuming
Limited component placement tools in the editor
There's no grid snapping or alignment tools
Our workaround was to make a temporary magnetic map just to place components in the editor, lock them, and then remove the map
Physics glitches can disrupt play
Occasionally cards or pieces will behave unexpectedly
We've had to design our magnetic maps to minimize these issues
The Hybrid Approach: Getting the Best of Both Worlds
Rather than choosing between physical and digital playtesting, we've found that a hybrid approach offers the greatest benefits:
Start physical, move digital
Initial concept testing works best in person where you can be certain that the core mechanics are viable in a physical setting
Once the core system is stable, move to digital to refine balance and test edge cases
Use digital for quantity, physical for quality
Digital tests can give you more data points across more players
Physical tests provide deeper insights into player engagement and emotional response
Alternate between environments
Digital testing might reveal an issue that's best addressed with hands-on physical testing
Physical observations can inform how you structure your digital implementation
Join Our Playtesting Community
We're continuing to refine Sylvan Tactics through both physical and digital playtesting, and we'd love for you to be part of that process. If you're interested in participating in our Tabletopia sessions, join our Discord server where we announce upcoming playtesting opportunities.
The game has evolved significantly thanks to player feedback, and every test brings us closer to the perfect balance of depth and accessibility we're aiming for.
Have you participated in digital playtesting for other games? What was your experience like? Let us know in the comments, or join the conversation on Bluesky or Instagram!
Follow us for more game development insights:
Bluesky