SBRPG2

We have merged the SBRPG2 and Project Delta games, and we are working on some sort of beta. There is a lot of work to do, so stay tuned. There is a new goal, merge the any-play and sandbox of the original SBRPG, while integrating the rules-light and simple pick-up-and-play of Delta. From our testing, it is a very unique and interesting game. Stay tuned.

Delta Breaks Down, and the Rebuild

More play-testing reports today from Project Delta, and we hit the game pretty hard last night. We nicknamed our play-test exploiter group 'The Gank Squad' and they really dug into breaking rules. We had an exploit with a reaction-charge power that allowed one player to activate, and zig-zag zip around the map attacking enemy after enemy. It was perfectly legal, and supremely horrible to watch. We ended up putting triggering conditions on the reaction powers to limit when they could activate, and that helped a lot. Now the power allows a charge on enemy move, and this brought the power back to its intended use, and also eliminated the exploit.

We also had a situation come up with figures subject to fear that gave us a heated argument, and made me have to time-out and walk around the room to thiunk about it. We had a mechanic where feared figures were controlled by the referee during a special phase, and by design, when a figure 'activates' (by the GM) special activation-only resources for the figure reset. I said they should, since the referee is 'activating' the figure during the GM phase to move it under the fear effect, George said it was an exploit since this would essentially reset resources for the figure after fear broke.

We came to a compromise moving the figure activation out of the GM phase, and a side must check for fear break and move their feared figures first, without formally activating them. I got what I wanted was to not break the resource reset on activation rule, the last thing I wanted to have happen is have special cases for activation: where some resources don't reset, and in other cases they do. The
'sanctity of activation' resource resets were kept, and George got his 'feared figures do not gain a benefit' ruling, so it all worked out.

We had another situation where a side could basically shut down the other side's turn with the use of sleep or stun powers, given careful resource management by your team. We are modifying the activation rules to account for this, and there is still some heavy thinking going on here. General challenge is being addressed too, if you are skilled enough, it is easy to blow-out the other side. While masterful and a hoot to watch; it is not fun in the long-term, and we need to have more balanced fights to keep the game exciting and interesting.

Play-testing is hard, and having professional experience as a QA person under your belt helps too. Play-testing should not be fun or pleasant; you are exploiting, breaking, twisting the intent, finding cheats, arguing hard for obvious loopholes, and generally trying your best to be an ass in regards to the rules. You then have to be able to remove your feelings from the process, and then step back, take notes, and be objective despite having just fought tooth-and-mail with each other. The process is hard and sometimes exhausting, but it really produces superior, battle-tested, and well-thought-out rules.

Relative Balance vs. Absolute Balance

Game balance comes in two forms: relative and absolute. Now, we are talking about balance between the player characters and their opponents, the raw combat power vs. combat power with everyone going all out. Games are notoriously hard to balance, but the method of rating opponents matters a whole lot here.

Relative balance assumes the PCs and the 'monsters' are rated on different systems, such as D&D4, Aftermath NPCs (not PCs), basic D&D monsters, and D&D3.5 (monsters only, note this qualifier). The game system rates opponents on a different set of scores than player characters, often because the complexity of rating a monster as a PC would be so high as to be prohibitively complicated. These games tend to never be balanced correctly, since there will always be a difference between what characters can get away with and the limited set of powers monsters have. Balance is achieved through play-testing different combinations of player builds and monster ratings. This usually takes a long time and many patches to close loopholes, fix monsters, and adjust power levels. These games also have a better 'play feel' - since the experience is engineered to be fun and play perfectly.

Absolute balance assumes the PCs and monsters are rated on the same system, if a player finds an exploit or power combo, it is perfectly legal for the monsters to use it too. D&D3.5 PCs, SBRPG, Traveller, most of the TSR boxed games, and any other game that lets the referee spin up monsters using the character generation rules. Balance in these games is easier, since what you are balancing is one system - characters vs. characters. A lot of sandbox style games have this balance, with everyone playing on an even keel, all designed with the same system. These games are typically more difficult to play than relative balanced games, since the monsters are playing with a full set of powers and abilities. Victory goes to the smartest and best planned parties, rather than players being assured a balanced experience.

We recently had an issue with this in George's Project Delta BYOB miniatures system, where the monsters were rated on a relative scale for simplicity, and the characters started to blow them out scenario after scenario. We are moving towards a more absolute system for monsters, and the game is playing better. We play-tested a higher-level scenario, and the problems started to show themselves. We still want some of the relative ease-of-play and balanced feel, but the relative balance bug bit us, and we've had to re-tool the whole monster system to adjust.

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.

Where Do I Go Next?

George and I were having fun playing adventure modules for other games with the Delta rules set, sort of as a playtest and study in adventure design. We ran into a couple that dropped you off a cliff in certain parts when the characters were wondering, "Where do we go next?"

It hurts when the referee can't figure it out in a short amount of time, and I ended up just fudging it and making-a-long-story-short. I short-circuited the player experience, and directed the group to the next encounter. Ouch. That hurts two-fold:

1. It robs the players of figuring things out
2. The players are playing for the next encounter, instead of being immersed in the world

These short-circuits where the referee has a NPC wander in and say, "Hey guys! I found the secret goblin camp, c'mon!" really rob the immersion of the game. They are equivalent of an actor in the movie breaking the fourth wall, and addressing the audience. The players now know they are being led, and play shifts to 'find the next encounter.' The feeling of freedom and the whole sandbox experience is taken away, and players feel railroaded.

An odd situation happens when the players figure out what encounters are in the module, versus what ones are made up by the referee. Ideally, these should be both treated as equals, but we have played with some groups that did not like extra encounters to be added to the module. I admit, it is a rare occurrence, but disconcerting when the referee's additions are treated as less-than-equal. Again, this is a tangent case, but an interesting one that deserves mention.

The ideal adventure feels natural, and gives the referee scripted situations, along with more open areas where players can explore, find off-the-beaten-path areas, and do a couple optional quests on the side. The module should encourage creativity, and give the referee ideas for areas to further flesh out and other things for players to do. We found ourselves in one case searching through the module's area descriptions looking for fun 'adventure areas' and could not find any. Of course, I could use GM Fiat and just create one, but for a written adventure, I award bonus points for the writer's suggestions and hooks that fit in with the overall adventure.

Good adventures are like good stories, they have a natural flow, and always keep you wondering, 'what's next?' ...and letting you know when the time is right.

Open-Ended Condition Lists

We did a little more design on Project Delta, George's tabletop BYOB minis game. We simplified the condition list, and it made me think of the huge condition list in DnD3 and 4. In both games, the condition lists are huge, exhaustive, and have tons of special rules. These are incredibly simulationist rules, with one-offs and special cases. Delta had a similar long list, and remembering and applying all the conditions on the board was a huge chore, with frequent references to the rules during play.

DnD4 adds special conditions to powers, like a power that gives a -2 to hit to a figure until the next turn/removal roll/etc. This complicates play exponentially, with applied conditions and power-based conditions all applied and timing out on different times. When we played DnD4 with our public group, condition tracking drug the game to a crawl, and it was easier to combine and simplify all the modifiers to keep play moving.

In Delta, we chose to simplify the condition list down, and the game played better. Stun, daze, and disorient are really the same stun-type condition, so you only need one to cover them all. SBRPG has a huge hazard list, with conditions mixed in there, but there is a lot of reuse among the hazards. SBRPG followed an object-oriented design, where you started with a small set of conditions-as-hazards, and those built on each other. It could have been cleaned up, and most likely will be in version 2.0.

Dungeons and Rules Skinnerism

George and I were playtesting another round of his Project Delta fantasy miniatures game last night, and we ran across an interesting observation. For the uninitated, Project Delta is intended to be the ultimate BYOB fantasy miniatures game, and is cool in its own right, replacing the need for many tabletop miniature games, including DnD, Warhammer, and their cousins and extended relatives. More on that rules set later.

Up until now, Delta had been played on city maps, wilderness maps, open tabletops, and all sorts of outdoor locations. Last night's playtests focused on a group of adventurers captured by pirates, and forced to escape a dungeon. Everyone was locked in a central room, and the heroic escape began.

All of a sudden, strange rules arguments started appearing, and even minor actions became huge sticking points. The tight quarters of the dungeon intensified the need for rules covering even minor actions, like listening at doors, disarming guards, and what certain skills could be used for. The close-quarters fight increased the pressure on us to handle everything, write more rules, and make sure every ruling was fair and every situation covered by a rule. A giant pressure cooker had been put around the game, the one-turn-and-you're-dead environment placed a lot of stress on the rules, and the players involved.

Interesting.

I am reminded of B.F. Skinner and his studies of an environment on the role it has in modifying people's behavior. Up until last night, the rules were open and loose, the fights were on large open maps, and the rules could be fast and loose without too many problems. Take that same set of rules, and use it for close quarters battle in a tight dungeon, and all of a sudden you are writing rules for mundane actions, the success of which could be a life-or-death outcome. The intense environment changed the players (and monsters) behavior, and changed the rules we needed to handle those behaviors.

Shift focus to DnD and Pathfinder, and the huge volumes of rules with both games. Seeing what we went through last night, it is understandable these two games are filled with special case rules for all sorts of actions, condition lists covering dozens of maladies and environmental factors, feats covering hundreds of specific combat maneuvers, and all sorts of other minutia. The games seem like collections of years of specific events and special cases, rather than an overall vision and design.

DnD4 tried the 'new design' and rethink route, with pretty good success, but quickly mired down into minutia with dozens of expansion books. The original beautiful design was lost in a sea of expansion product, because the designers could not say no. I will go back to Apple and their design team, and Steve Jobs was once quoted as he was proud of all the things his team said no to, because it would shift the focus of the company, clutter the designs, and make the company a mess of services, ideas, and products.

Back to the dungeon playtest, and what did we do? Well, our rules held up quite well, and it highlighted the need to be clear on a couple sections, such as combat and skill checks. We decided to alter the scenario setup rules to make dungeon scenarios play more like the overland scenarios, and stick to the theme of the game better, instead of dragging down into a detailed man-to-man simulation. We are sticking to our core fun concept, and saying no to turning the game into a simulator.

We will see how things turn out.

Meaningful Levels and Freedom

George and I had another one of out game design discussions around leveling again, and we talked about what it means to level - and have meaningful levels. We talked about systems that parse out powers every couple levels, and have 'dead' levels stuck in them, where you are just increasing in skill and damage soaking ability. I am not a fan of new powers every X levels, to me, you need something more to keep players interested. Leveling up a chart is cool for some games, but there needs to be that something more, that ability to customize and choose your own path.

SBRPG was admittedly, a game that put you on a strict track. You designed your idea class to start, and you were off and running. You did not multiclass - since you could design the class you wanted at the start, why should you need to buffet your character up the level chart? In one way, you were designing your perfect "TV Action Star" right from level one, and then increasing the star's power up to insane levels. We mostly banned multiclassing, since it did not fit in our game, and the game was better for it.

SBRPG also gave you ever-increasing points as you level to spend on whatever you wanted. Want a freely-improvable skill? Go ahead, buy levels of it. Want a new power? It's gonna cost you, but it's there. Want to raise ability scores? There you go, cost is equal to the next level. You are going to get even more points next level, so go to town and don't worry about conserving them.

We did not care too much about balance, since the game balanced itself - NPCs of the level were designed with the same rules. At high levels, super-ninja agility 40 characters were blasting out 10 or more attacks a turn with guns, melee weapons, rocket launchers, or any other implements of destruction. Offensive ability was high, but weapons were deadly, and defenses could get tricky given a good build.

We did not punish character designers, it was up to the group to call a cheese-ball build for what it was, and hey, people liked the freedom to go wild. You bought the book - it's your right. It was old-school in that mentality where the designers knew they were giving players a toolbox full of power tools, sharp instruments, and chemicals - but great things are created when you cut people free. You can't build a beautiful piece of furniture without dangerous tools, and we let trusted people and let them create.

It was a game written to be a computer programming language, like C++ - you could do something totally lame with it, something destructive, or something incredibly awesome. You can see some object-oriented principles in the design to this day, and the theory of 'simple to play, but build whatever your imagination can dream' is a powerful design theory that holds true, even today.

Project Delta, Coffee Shops, and George

Over our Saturday morning ritual of donuts and coffee, George talked about his 'Project Delta' (name TBD, we have nothing to call it) miniatures game with me. I say 'his' even though we are both working on it, because George is really the driving force behind the Project Delta project. Let me tell you where PD comes from, and where we want to take it, and how it differs from SBRPG 2.0. Let's look at the two projects:

Delta was born out of disappointment with how the a certain post 3rd edition miniatures-based fantasy RPG ended, and a lack of faith of the direction in the game's future. We enjoy nothing more than playing tabletop strategy fantasy RPGs, and love the whole hobby of creating terrain, collecting figures, building characters, and using teamwork to take down a big baddie. It is a miniatures game at its heart, focusing on 'the path of a hero' - taking an average nobody and watching how they change as they have adventures, learn the mystic arts, and grow to incredible heights of power. You will be able to mix classes and powers as you level up. When a high-level warrior slams his boot on the ground, it should literally shake the tabletop.

SBRPG 1.0 was developed before the 3rd edition of the world's most popular fantasy RPG was released, and continued in development until it was released in 2005. It's focus was off the tabletop, with story-based roleplaying dealing with factions, NPCs, and group-created game worlds. Characters here started out at a low level of power, but fundamentally had the powers they needed to begin. It was, and will be a different focus than Delta. Characters in SBRPG start out a fighter or wizard, and continue on gathering fighter or wizard powers (of the players own design) until they reach maximum level. It is not about a 'find yourself' character build system, it is about being a 'level 1 rogue' and progressing with a custom rogue build all the way up. SBRPG 2.0 will follow this design philosophy, and also strengthen the story and faction elements. It will be tailored to verbal roleplaying where groups share the world and create new things together.

I wish you guys and gals could be part of our morning planning discussions, since they are fascinating game design brainstorming sessions. We hashed out the direction Delta was going to take, along with where we wanted SBRPG 2.0 to go. They are both going to be great games, and Saturday morning's session clarified a lot of the differences between them. Now I just gotta get George to start the PD blog....

This also follows our philosophy as 'games as books' - we don't really believe in one 'master system' to rule them all. To us, you write the game to enhance the experience of play. Games should be simple enough to pick up, so learning them doesn't get in the way of having fun with them. Monopoly (tm) has different rules than Risk (tm), but both are simple enough you can pick up and play them with ease. Saying that in order to play board games you need one 'master board game system' for all family board games is kinda silly; and for RPGs, gets in the way of crafting a custom experience for your readers and players.