The Players-in-the-Spotlight Test
Build the tool that makes people entertaining to each other, never the thing that entertains them.
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 96%
This is Lee's stated mantra and the filter he applies to every pitch that reaches him. The input is any finished or half-finished social product; the mechanism is observing a real session and asking whether the product or the participants are carrying the entertainment. The output is a binary verdict that Lee says is the biggest fault he finds in almost everything presented to him.
Origin
Lee traces it to childhood: playing games with his brothers and sisters, he remembers none of the games and says he does not think he should. What he remembers is the fun, the laughter and the secret alliances — the games were tools that allowed those interactions, which convinced him the tool, not the toy, is the product.
Core principles
- 01A game is not the point; it is a tool set that lets the people holding it be entertaining to one another.
- 02You can tell which kind of product you built by asking who is in the spotlight — the product or the people using it.
- 03Products that entertain their users are competing with every other entertainment; products that make users entertaining to each other compete with nothing.
- 04The memory people keep is never the product — it is the laughter, the secret alliances and the interactions the product made possible.
- 05A creator who wants the spotlight will unconsciously build products that want the spotlight too.
- 06This test doubles as an acquisition filter: it is the fastest way to reject beautiful, hard-working products that will never travel.
- 07Success looks like the experience happening perfectly in a room the designer is not even in.
How to run it
- 1
Put the product in front of people and leave
Observe or hear about a session you did not facilitate. Lee's reaction to Tim describing three friends laughing over Poetry for Neanderthals was that he did not even have to be in the room, which he calls an absolute win.
Pro tip Ask a third party to report the funniest moment. If it was something a person said, you passed.
- 2
Ask who is in the spotlight
Name explicitly whether the product or the participants generated the entertainment in that session. Lee's phrasing is that he does not want the game in the spotlight, he wants the players in it.
Watch out Beauty and polish will bias you toward believing the product performed well; separate the aesthetic judgment from the interaction judgment.
- 3
Locate the rule that transfers agency
If the product is carrying the load, find the constraint that forces participants to work through each other — secret information, a communication restriction, a dependency on another player's help.
Pro tip In Poetry for Neanderthals the transfer rule is that you need your friends' help to get from caveman talk back to regular English.
- 4
Reject on this criterion, out loud
Make the test a stated rejection reason so the people sourcing products for you can internalise it. Lee's scouting team now sees maybe ten submissions a month because they know exactly what he says no to.
Pro tip Say no with the reason attached. That is what trains a filter into other people.
Watch out Silently rejecting on a criterion you have never articulated leaves your team guessing forever.
- 5
Re-emphasise the interaction in every surrounding component
Once the interaction is the engine, tune words, timers, punishments and art specifically to provoke more of it rather than to display craftsmanship.
Watch out A component that gets admired but changes no behaviour is decoration.
In the wild
Tim described playing Poetry for Neanderthals with two friends, including a moment where his sister-in-law tried to clue the word mouth and blurted teeth house. Lee interrupted to say Tim had just given the perfect commercial — not because he described an entertaining game, but because he described a game that allowed those three people to entertain each other. Lee's verdict was that this meant success, the goal was hit, and he did not even need to be in the room.
→ Confirmation that the design intent survived contact with strangers, which for Lee is the whole scoreboard.
Lee's proudest moment was a delayed late-night flight where a whole terminal of grumpy adults sat radiating negative energy — except one group of kids sitting on the floor in a circle, laughing hysterically. He went over, looked over their shoulders, and saw they were playing Exploding Kittens. Asked whether he told them who he was, he says of course not, that is the opposite of what he wants; he was delighted simply to have given them a tool set to laugh with each other.
→ A horrible experience transformed into a positive one by the tool, with the creator deliberately invisible.
When submissions come in, Lee says the core thing he is always looking for is whether the players are entertaining each other, and the biggest fault he finds in almost everything presented to him is a creator saying I made this thing, it is really beautiful — while the game is working desperately hard to entertain the players. His stock response is that he does not care about those kinds of games and they should stop showing him games that work this hard.
→ A filter so consistent that his scouting team now pre-screens down to roughly ten pitches a month.
Common mistakes
Confusing craftsmanship with connection
Submissions arrive gorgeous and mechanically sound and still fail, because effort poured into the artefact is not effort that creates interaction between people. Lee treats beauty as necessary for delight but never sufficient for the loop.
The creator wanting the credit
Lee says he really hates it when a spotlight is on him and gets shy and uncomfortable. A designer who needs recognition will keep building products that demand attention, which is structurally the opposite of a tool set.
Is it for you?
Best for
Anyone designing social products — games, events, community formats, group software — where the value is created between people.
Not ideal for
Solo-consumption products such as single-player narrative experiences, where the work legitimately must carry the entertainment itself.
From the transcript
“the ones that i'm most attracted to when i hear them is core gameplay loops that are not actually entertaining core gameplay loops that make…”
“those games are tools for me to have fun with my siblings and i remember that fun i remember the the laughter i remember the…”
“i don't want a game to be in the spotlight i want the players to be in the spotlight stop showing me games that are…”
From the episode
#653: Elan Lee, Co-Creator of Exploding Kittens — How to Raise Millions on Kickstarter, Deconstructing Mega-Successes, Secrets of Game Design, The Power of Positive Constraints, The Delights of Craftsmanship, and The Art of Turning Fans into Superfans