If You Love Something, Break It

We were doing a playtest of George's Project Delta BYOB fantasy minis game, and we decided to do a stress test of the rules. The term 'stress test' in Software QA means to purposefully put the system under load, and try to get the system to break. We designed a party of characters with the sole intent to exploit, min-max, and break rules.

The system held up well, except for the high-strength druid shape-shifter, combo'ed with a mana regen build backing it up. This pair output damage four times higher than an average high-DPS character, and it was a hoot to watch. Not so good for game balance, but the combo was cool, and also quite broken. This will be addressed in our latest round of bug-fixes.

The larger issue here is in play-testing pen-and-paper RPGs. You get more value from players trying to break the system, than you do the designers of the game. There is a certain love and reverence the game designer's have for the game, and they tend to shy away from obviously overpowered combos and builds. This hidden respect and love actually hinders testing; and there is a time when you need to cut things loose, invite in the min-maxers and power-gamers, and let them have at it.

A lot of games aren't put through strict play-testing, or they grow so big it becomes impossible to test every combination. Both D&D3.5 and D&D4 hit these issues, and the current build-de-jour on forums and discussion boards became the next target for balance and nerfs, and the process repeated to no end. Granted, once you limit the source content, to say the basic three books, the number of exploits drops substantially; but even then, the basic books still exhibit a couple 'favored builds' and 'maximum damage' combos.

With a few paths to max-damage, the problem becomes this limiting player choice. As veteran MMO players know, if you don't min-max for the best damage, you are looked down upon. The best path becomes the only path. I am putting aside the obvious 'player freedom do what you want' argument here, of course, in a tabletop game, you can always make less-optimal choices and still play. For a miniatures game, balance and supporting many paths to victory is very important. This can be seen in other tabletop mini games like Warhammer, with generations of  'favored combos' being the only way to win, and the rules change, a new combo rises, and the cycle repeats.

If a minis game has a couple 'killer combos' and those become the only way to win, the tactical options are limited, and the game is weaker. Making the game strong is supporting many builds and play styles, making sure the combos work and are fun, and making sure everything works together in a scissors-paper-rock style of tactical experience. If rock always won, the game wouldn't be as much fun.

If you love something, break it, make it better, and then break it some more.