Well, our older EotE game has come to an unexpected halt - however, we're actually kind of pumped to try out the new system. While the setting isn't going to be the standard setting (We're doing the Sith/Republic Cold War instead of the classic Empire vs Rebellion), that's pretty irrelevant. Setting is just color - it's the mechanics and stats and stuff that I imagine that FFG'd like us to break.

So, you folks who have done the EotE and AoR betas - what did you give them? Weekly reports? Details about how X was too powerful and Y was too weenie? General overall thoughts? Was there some kind of report form template?

Basically I'd actually like to use our time productively instead of just considering the beta as a year long sneak preview. . . .

The Beta section talks about specifically how to be helpful and all of that. I don't know how long they're going to have the beta run. How much ground you want to cover in the rules is really up to you. If you really just want to stress the rules you can kind of skip the role-playing and just craft encounters and roll dice and see how things work without all of the role-playing. That's not necessarily the most fun but it's the way to get through as much material as fast as possible.

While I have no affiliation with FFG, and can't say for sure what they're looking for, I've done a fair bit of games playtesting and generally I've found the following information to be useful for a RPG:

• One report per session. Be clear on the version of the rules a.k.a.: which (if any) of the updates you applied. Also, it's worthwhile giving an idea of the length and timing of the session - if it's a really long (or late night) session, rules tend to be harder to stay on top of and things can become less clear.
• A breakdown of the PCs - XP level, species/careers/specialisations. You don't need to provide full character sheets, but a good idea of the party breakdown is useful. Some idea of your players and the type/style of game they enjoy could also be useful.
• What (if any) prep you did as GM, especially if you created custom encounters or opponents. Call out any issues or things where the rules were unclear during your prep (and also the bits you really liked or that worked really well).
• A summary of the session. Again, call out specific issues you encountered and or areas in the rules which were unclear (and the bits that worked well). Normally if there is discussion at the table about something, that's a good indicator it was unclear (to at least 1 or 2 people). Document any solutions or assumptions you tried out to resolve and what effect they had on the game. Also cover whether you all enjoyed the session or not - a completely mechanically sound session that everyone hated is good feedback to the designers.
• Canvas players and see if they felt they all contributed (reasonably) equally to the session. If there was one or two characters which always felt like they dominated certain aspects of encounters, call that out. Some might be intentional (a slicer PC rightly should dominate computer intrusion encounters), some might be down to encounter design, but some could just be system flaws (e.g.: a sequence of talents which allowed a sage to dominate all combat encounters).
• Try to limit the impact of randomness on the game. If you all felt that you only failed/succeeded in an encounter due to particularly bad/good rolls, don't be afraid to "do over" the encounter (or even just a sequence of rolls) and see if those feelings are actually justified. Call out where you did this and what the results were.
• Don't just concentrate on mechanical issues, but also consider how well the rules fit the setting. In the case of SW, you have the movies and TV series as a good baseline - think whether what you saw at the table would fit in as scenes in one of the movies. If not, even if the underlying mechanics are sound, there is probably an issue there.
• Also look for areas where there are similar rules that aren't consistent with each other. There may be a good reason for the difference, but it's worth calling out for the designers to consider. If in one scene you're trying to convince a bystander to sell you information, and another you're trying to convince someone to hide you from the Empire, and mechanically they are completely different, then there could be an issue there (ok, that's not a good example with the FFG system, but hopefully you get the idea).
• Summarise the top (no more than 5) issues that you encountered during session prep or play - this helps them get a gauge on what you consider to be the priorities or the things that impacted you the most during the session.
• Above all, ensure that you also highlight things that you liked or that worked really well during the session. When FFG read feedback it'll be really easy for them to get lost in all the issues and things that weren't clear - calling out the stuff you like and that worked well is equally important, so they know to try and keep those bits of the rules intact while changing the bits that aren't so clear or don't work so well.

It's not necessarily exhaustive, but it's a template I normally try to use - hope it's helpful.

Be concise. Lots of reports to read. Save the extra words for creative writing.

Be concise. Lots of reports to read. Save the extra words for creative writing.

This is very much true.

From my own playtesting experiences, both with this system and others, it's better to get to the main point early rather than wax philosophical for several sentences.

Also, if you can provide a solid rationale as to why you think something should be changed/updated/revised, all the better as it demonstrates you've put some thought into this. Case in point, my suggestion in a separate thread down in Game Mechanics to tweak Parry and Reflect, and how that tweak might impact the specializations that offer those talents.

Do not bother to correct grammar in the text. They have copy editors for that, and you shouldn't waste the space in your reports.

Play as often as you can. Try for a minimum of four pages per report, with approximately one page from each player.

Designate one "lead" who will take charge in organizing and writing feedback to FFG; typically this should be the GM. This will make it a lot easier.

Avoid suggesting including/removing material or changing the focus of any part of the book. Be as detailed as possible; even if you have to stop game to write down the exact procedure that led to something screwy, do it.

Do not repeat points you made in earlier feedback.