Murtak at [unixtime wrote:1125827493[/unixtime]]
As long as the basic game structure still works and as long as there are people who have fun playing like that I am not going to claim the game is broken.
This is a loaded question. Sure, as long as the structure works and people are having fun, the game can work. However, I don't think people especially have much fun in really fast one shot kills combat. It's pretty much agaisnt the idea of heroic combat in general, because it means you have to start doing similar stuff to kill the heroes.
Obviously, I'm a bit biased here because I hate preparation time, so I just don't have fun shifting more emphasis on preparation. I never have and I never will. Many of my players feel the same way as well though, so I know I'm not alone.
So you reduce the challenge rating. Guess what i supposed to happen in DnD when going up against a monster equal to the party (CR of party level +4)? They are supposed to get wiped out half of the time.
RIght, but then the game turns into a total cake walk. That's the thing. Against power characters, they usually have enough healing to be at full power every combat, and they tend to wipe stuff out in 1-2 rounds. The only way to challenge them is to pit them against stuff that can do what they can do, namely 1-2 round kills.
So you either consign yourself to having zero challenge encounters that the PCs simply walk all over, or you have to really challenge them. If you do choose to really challenge them... well that's where the margin between "challenging" and "TPK" becomes really important. The thinner that margin, the greater your chances of wiping out the party. Not surprising the faster combats go, the less bad luck it takes to get a TPK.
While having longer combats doesn't necessarily mean that TPKs can't happen, it does shift the advantage to the group with the numerical edge (whcih most certainly is the PCs). It's much like playing a game of roulette. If you take 10 spins, your chances of walking out a winner are a lot better than if you take 100 spins. The longer your playing session, the more numerical edges become important.
Actually that is your entire argument. You previously claimed that reducing combat to a single turn is a bad thing. Now you say it is not. Make up your mind.
Sometimes people can get lucky. I don't think that removing criticals or save or die is all that big a deal. It's not as though every unit on every battlefield has to last 3+ rounds. It's ok to take out the goblin king's bodyguard in one round with a finger of death or a crit with your greataxe. Nobody cares.
Now you shouldn't be able to take out the entire enemy group in one round or the big red dragon boss monster in one round, at least not without getting ridiculously lucky. Just because a one round kill happens sometimes with some burst of luck isn't a bad thing, it just shouldn't be happening all the time.
If deckbuilders really want to make decisions prior to the game they want rush games. Extreme rush games, with every move predetermined.
Not quite. Deck builders generally like to build themselves up in a vacuum. In Starcraft playing "rush" (which is the default way of playing) generally means that people are countering you all the time. You don't have any time to sit back and prepare your fleet of carriers because a bunch of zerglings showed up at your door and are now kicking the crap out of your worker line.
The fact with starcraft is that because it's such a balanced game, you never run into a period in a normal game where every move is predetermined. No one awesome rush build is oging to win the day every time. It's all about move and countermove. It's pretty much entirely a pure wargamer game.
Those you call "wargamers" would want to skip the whole buildup phase and just play the actual wargame part of the game.
In general games yes, but not in Starcraft. Build up in Starcraft is akin to opening moves in chess. They are all important and set the tone for the game to come. Each and every move you make has some strategic depth to it. Just like in chess, the wargame part begins the moment you start playing.
"Preparing for a game"? What the heck? When playing shadowrun, do you plan your runs at home, away from your playgroup? Planning is part of the game.
Ok, maybe I misunderstood you. "Preparation time" as you said it, I took to mean working on character builds. Spending hours and hours pawing through the complete divine, the complete arcane and any number of other books to find the perfect spells/feats, etc. for your cleric archer or your frenzied berserkerer or whatever.
Planning an attack plan once in game tends to actually be more wargamer than deck builder.
And if you do not like building characters, preparing strategies and the like then I guess you would not like it. Of course if you were the kind of person your players are - that is, if you liked to be what you call a "deck builder" then you probably would not mind preparing challenges.
Well, there's a difference between preparation and excessive preparation. If you need to spend 10 hours preparing one combat only to have it end in a few minutes of real time, DM burnout happens really really fast.
It's one of the reasons I don't think DM creatures should abide by the same character creation rules as PCs. PCs can have some hugely complex mathematical system for creating characters. They only do it once or twice a campaign. The DM is always using something whcih means he needs pure speed with less emphasis on direct numerical balance.
The key words here are "personally" and "IMO". Why is it so hard to accept that some people consider this fun? You already acknowledged that players like those exist (the "deck builders"), why is it so hard to imagine that there might be DMs like that too?
I don't find it hard to acknowledge it as fun for some. But I also don't find it hard to acknowledge it as not fun for others. And while some people are creaming their pants reading the latest uber feats and spells in the complete adventurer, other people are dreading the time required memorizing these books to keep their characters competetive.
I'm not saying eliminate deck building entirely, I'm just saying that the emphasis on deck building should be reduced to better allow other styles to enjoy the game.
Let me make this simple then:
In your games, when you already have someone playing a monk, do you tell your party "sorry guys, no clerics, druids, wizards or sorcerers"? Do you tell them "oh, and be careful you don't pick a good PrC either"?
I allow clerics, I just don't allow most of the craziness from other books. no persistent spell, no divine metamagic, no spikes BS. The core cleric isn't all that broken. The core druid I pretty much don't allow. Wizards and sorcerers are just a matter of nerfing a bunch of spells that are overpowered. No polymorph for instance.
As for PrCs, I just don't allow uber PrCs. No hulking hurler, no frenzied berserker, etc.
And in those conditions monks aren't all that bad. They're certainly by no means good or awesome, but the guy playing a monk still feels like he brings some limited aid to the table.
