The Wargamer, The Deck Builder, & The Role Player

[User3]

1125915937[/unixtime]]
Is it any wonder why I've become way more interested in d20 Modern, despite its imbalances? Because making an brute monster there doesn't tear the game asunder the way D&D does. I'd like to have a little challenge and a reason for people who don't tool up their characters to be there.

I actually like the D20M implementation of spellcasting a lot more than the D&D one. It allows/forces characters to be more than just 'mages,' and gives them any of a number of cool backgrounds. I think that the D20M Archmage and Heirophant are awesome, because they give a lot of the abilities which keep multicasters from being worthless, while still having something for 'primary' spellcasters.

Even with all of it's clunkyness, I like the 'incantation' system, because so many stories involving the supernatureal work exactly like that, rather than the D&D system of spells/slots which always work when you have them and never work when you don't.

And with the lower level of reliable magic, it keeps spellcasters close to non-spellcasters all the way up.

[RandomCasualty]

1125943960[/unixtime]]
The more time and effort the player spends figuring out what their character can do, the better the player will know what their character can do. And if a player has great knowledge of what their character can do, they will tell all the other playes and the DM all about it at great length. Without fail.

Well, this isn't about min/maxing, this is about having players who know the system. The kind of bother that comes from constantly explaining the combat system usually comes in with roleplayers as opposed to wargamers and deck builders. Wargamers actually tend to know the system the best out of the three, with deck builders usually being a close second. Roleplayers are usually the clowns trying to make three move actions followed by a standard action in the same round.

As has been previously noted by several people, the DM is able to without strain send in the clowns to have more or less opposition at any level. There can always be more bugbears! The actual difficult as DM is not creating enough opposition, but judging the power of the opposition correctly. The more you know what your players can do, the more accurately you can judge what the bad guys need to be to barely lose.

Well, the fact is that the DM still has to account for a heck of a lot more crap. You really don't see this muhc at low levels, but try to run a level 10+ campaign, and it becomes readily apparent. Unless monsters get min/maxed, you'll likely not be able to even hit the PCs AC. Unless they have magic attacks you won't even hit the incorporeal PC, unless they can see invisibility, you won't even be able to fight the improved invis PC.

Min/maxed characters tend to be about gimmicks, high numbers or both. And both can be a pain for the DM. D&D at higher levels is a system where you can push small fry off the RNG. This means that generally just making more bugbears won't help that much.

Against someone with a gimmick, if you can't beat that gimmick, then even infinite bugbears won't make a diference if none of those can hit incorporeal or beat whatever uber combo the guy has.

And more opposition means more XP for the characters, which mean they become more powerful more quickly, which only serves to compound the problem since D&D gets more insane the higher in level you go, and those problems become more and more apparent the more of a min/maxer you are.

Where as against a non-min max group you can pretty much pull a monster off the shelf and run it, you need to be real careful against a min/max group since they'll turn 80%+ of your monsters into a sheer cakewak unless you put a while planning monster combos and doing DM side deckbuilding. DM side deckbuilding is however a pain in the ass and raises preparation time enormously.

Granted, the power of a non-min max group is a bit less obvious because they don't always take the best actions. But that's something you just learn to eyeball as a DM anyway. And actually putting together the encounter is a lot easier because you can just use monsters more or less out of the book.

And of course, it's rather easy to deal with ineffective actions as well because you can simply have the monsters do stupid stuff to match the PCs. If your PCs aren't great tactically you just scale back your own tactics. There's no requirement that every bugbear should be Sun Tzu.

Thus, tweakers and munchkins are good for the DM. They hop up and down and tell you exactly what kind of huge bonuses they have and that means that you can very accurately gauge the kinds of opposition they will be able to triumph over.

I have had a totally opposite experience. For me, having min/maxers means that the battles become a heck of a lot deadlier, because now I have to min/max the monsters. And min/maxing leads to imbalance because attack and defense aren't evenly balanced. D&D is a divergent system and min/maxing rarely involves trying to create balance, it's more about creating an eggshell wtih a hammer. In D&D it's not really feasable to create defensive based stuff. More often than not you have to counter a good eggshell wtih a hammer with another eggshell with a hammer, and then you start playing rocket launcher tag. Rocket launcher tag is basically just a game of russian roulette where sooner or later the PCs get their brains blown out.

No it dosen't, he can just add more or higher level NPCs.

This is exactly the kind of extra prep time that is needed by the DM. NPC design is the slowest, most time consuming part of D&D. IT doesn't take much time to pull a basilisk out of the book, but if you ever want a 12th level wizard or a 14th level fighter, or whatever, that's a lot of work. It becomes a super chore when your PCs min/max.

Now every NPC you make feels like you're making a PC. The higher level the NPC, the more feats, magic items and spells, etc and crap you've got to worry about.

In terms of DM time consuming chores, NPC design is the absolute worst part of the system, because it forces you to deck build exactly like a PC, and that takes time. A lot of time.

See as a DM I don't really give a fuck about a system for how this NPC came into being. I dont care if it's the same way as a PC does. I just want to put some numbers together that challenge the PCs, give it some intersting abilities and then slap a CR on it and get it out the door and into the quest. I don't really care what the system is for my NPC warlord anymore than I do for the system by which a basilisk was designed. NPC design time is actually the strongest reason not to min/max that exists in the game, because NPC design is an absolute nightmare.

[Lago_AM3P]

Well, this isn't about min/maxing, this is about having players who know the system. The kind of bother that comes from constantly explaining the combat system usually comes in with roleplayers as opposed to wargamers and deck builders. Wargamers actually tend to know the system the best out of the three, with deck builders usually being a close second. Roleplayers are usually the clowns trying to make three move actions followed by a standard action in the same round.

This is just being nitpicky on my part, but I am just tired of hearing about min-maxxers and wargamers as if they were some kind of totally different group.

Take your earlier example on a 'balanced' game--Chess. Actually, this isn't a balanced game. Considering the amount of viable moves compared to moves you can actually make over the course of a game, the game is woefully unbalanced.

However, what people call balanced in Chess is that both sides get nearly the exact same starting advantages. Yet if people cried about being put in a bad position because of choices they make on their first and future moves they'd be laughed out of the game.

Dungeons and Dragons is exactly like that. Aside from dice rolls, everyone STARTS from the exact same position. They have an equal opportunity for advancement--everyone can start as war/elf domain clerics if they wanted to or you can have an all-monk party.

The demands of the game might punish the Karate party and reward the all-cleric party. But then again, Chess rewards the player who takes control of the center and severely punishes people who play the King's Pawn in the opening. And that system has worked fine for hundreds of years.

While you can make an argument that there should be more viable choices in game (either by reducing the power of the best choices or pumping up the weaker choices--people still haven't decided which one is better), the idea that there shouldn't be some cutoff point where yourself and the system is beholden to your choices is impossible to implement and probably makes for a boring game.

There aren't such things as wargamers. There are people who psychologically limit themselves from their optimum level and try to make it up later by seeking advantages elsewhere. That's fine. But these people who don't realize that these things are one and the same probably have Spiderman punching them where the sun doesn't shine because he mistook their genitals for his archenemy Sandman.

[Lago_AM3P]

Furthermore, character optimization isn't just a one-time thing done and then you fire and forget. Character optimization is continually done throughout the course of your career. Taking the first level of druid isn't enough; you have to keep taking levels, you have to take natural spell, etc. And they exist even outside of changes you make to your character sheet. A real powergamer (wargamer as you put it) looks for advantages everywhere he can find it.

There is really no difference between the mentality and goals of a character who builds pit traps to catch cockatrices in so they can safely stone them to death (probably a 'wargamer' style of overcoming challenges) and another character who tools up a character so that the petrification abilities don't do jack and they can lop off their heads with one sword swing.

Well, you might object that pretty much any character, no matter how shittily put together can do the first plan but only a minority can do the second one. Therefore the first style of gaming is superior because you can select a wider variety of choices.

Has anyone noticed that there is a marked similarity between this style of gaming and the bitterly hated stat replacement? You know, the idea where previous choices don't (directly, anyway) effect the end result? I've never seen anyone sing the praises of divine power because it allows a cleric who took a two of monk or bard to melee decently. Actually, I have--that would be people who take levels of PrCs that offer .5 and .75 BAB and polish their new BAB while sitting on a pile of abilities. But that is a tool associated with min-maxxers.

I wonder what's the cognitive dissonance.

[RandomCasualty]

1125960975[/unixtime]]
Dungeons and Dragons is exactly like that. Aside from dice rolls, everyone STARTS from the exact same position. They have an equal opportunity for advancement--everyone can start as war/elf domain clerics if they wanted to or you can have an all-monk party.

This is much like saying that Starcraft is automatically "balanced" even if Zerg is way better because everyone could just pick Zerg. The design goals of the game is that your choices in the beginning are equal. So that regardless of picking Zerg, Terran or Protoss, you can still win.

The same is true in RPGs. The party is expected to be diverse, and the all cleric party is indeed the aberration. If you can't make a diverse party work, the game is a failure. RPGs are created such that people can play Aragorn, Gandalf, Merlin and Legolas all in the same party and they'll all have fun. It's a base assumption that everyone won't be playing the same character, but in fact that they'll be playing vastly different characters.

Saying "If you dont' want to suck, just play a cleric" isn't an acceptable paradigm for an RPG, no more than for people to say in a strategy game "If you dont' want to suck always play Zerg."

The choices of differetn class types are created with the idea that they'll be roughly equal and everyone has a chance of winning. It is however assumed that people will usually be coming to the table with different pregame choices. Some people will be Zerg, others will be Protoss and others will be Terran. But choosing Terran doesn't automatically consign you to a life of pain regardless of how you play them.

There aren't such things as wargamers. There are people who psychologically limit themselves from their optimum level and try to make it up later by seeking advantages elsewhere.

The wargamer doesn't limit himself at all. In fact, because the wargamer wants to win, he probably deck builds too, it's just that he doesn't enjoy that part of the game and would prefer to minimize its importance. The more emphasis deck building has over the actual tactical wargame, the less attractive the game becomes to the wargamer.

Chess is a popular wargamer game because it has no deckbuilding. It is the pure wargamer strategy game, and is the best example of talking about a wargamer style of thinking. In chess there are no important pregame decisions. The chessmaster destroys the casual player because he outwits them. He can win even at a sizeable handicap, like being forced to play black and starting wtih the loss of moves or peices.

The type I super combo MtG deck is the best example of the deckbuilder's style, since it includes very little strategic decision making and most all the important decisions are made pregame. The combo deck wins over casual play decks because it contains better cards from the start. If the decks were swapped between players, the one with the super combo deck will win and the casual deck will lose, regardless of who happens to be playing them.

Now it should be kept in mind that both deck builders and wargamers fall under the generic "powergamer" label. They're both trying to win and generally using all sorts of stuff to do so. It's just what part of the game they tend to enjoy more.

Wargamers like to outthink and outplay people. They win because you didn't see their bishop hiding behind the pawn, so when they moved the pawn forward it puts you in check and so you got screwed over. If anything the wargamer finds a more satisfying victory in being the underdog from the start, because it means he outplayed the person all the more.

Deck builders generally like to have an "unfair" advantage. Namely they're the guys that come to the table with a bucket full of huge numbers and altogether the best starting character. Their emphasis isn't on outplaying, it's on overpowering. A charge build that does 1000 damage with a super combo doesnt' have to do with outthinking people, it's just about having feat/ability combos X,Y,Z and the opponent doesn't.

Both are out to win, but how they win is radically different and thus they prefer completely different styles of games. The wargamer is looking for a system with design goals like Frank's SAME system. The deck builder absolutely loves D&D's basic format how it is now, tons of new supplements, little regard for balance and all kinds of crazy options.

The styles are not so much about what you do, so much as what you enjoy to do. Every wargamer uses some deckbuilding in D&D. Every deckbuilder has to use a few tactics now and then... but basically it's about why you're there at the table.

The differing styles and attitudes of each category form the core viewpoint of people. And it's often difficult for two people who come from differing viewpoints to disuss something effectively. In many cases, the viewpoints are so alien that it's almost like people are speaking a different language. It's really why the categories become important to think about when playing or designing a game.

A lot of games actually fail because they don't manage to satisfy the market they're trying to sell to.

[Lago_AM3P]

RandomCasualty, you are making up a title to justify certain peoples' powergaming.

I know it's really appealing to imagine some certain title or category where tooling up your strategy to 'win' the game is actually some noble cause which involves using intelligence and cunning and whatever rather than the 'bad' image of hunting through books and being a weasel with your sheet, but I'm telling you: THEY ARE THE EXACT SAME THING.

Does the fact that you can kill a terrasque by flying or you can kill an entire army of orcs by poisoning the water seem very balanced to you? The death of these creations are legit goals and while there are many ways to accomplish this, all ways of doing it should be legit as long as they follow the rules and don't piss off other people.

Both are out to win, but how they win is radically different and thus they prefer completely different styles of games. The wargamer is looking for a system with design goals like Frank's SAME system. The deck builder absolutely loves D&D's basic format how it is now, tons of new supplements, little regard for balance and all kinds of crazy options.

RandomCasualty, you just contradicted yourself.

In any game, no matter how balanced it is, there are good choices and there are bad choices. Otherwise:

A) There is no way to lose and there is no goal.
B) The game remains completely static, or
C) Someone makes the choices for you.

There's no difference between a min-maxxer and a wargamer other than the obsessive need to have someone's powermongering seen as 'legit'.


Also:

Saying "If you dont' want to suck, just play a cleric" isn't an acceptable paradigm for an RPG, no more than for people to say in a strategy game "If you dont' want to suck always play Zerg."

The same thing happens in almost any game. If you don't want to suck at Monopoly, you have to buy houses. If you don't want to lose Chess, you take control of the center as soon as the possible.

While the NUMBER of choices a player should have towards achieving victory is always in debate, the fact that there should be some choices that lead to failure has never been contested.

Further, back to your class example, the question should really be what should be our cutoff point for punishing dumb decisions. While I'm pretty sure everyone would root for all of the classes being perfectly balanced to each other, I don't know many people who think that a wizard who goes stabbing machine against a dragon while being completely unprepared for it in feats and equipment should be rewarded for that.

[RandomCasualty]

1125973921[/unixtime]]
Does the fact that you can kill a terrasque by flying or you can kill an entire army of orcs by poisoning the water seem very balanced to you? The death of these creations are legit goals and while there are many ways to accomplish this, all ways of doing it should be legit as long as they follow the rules and don't piss off other people.

Well, yes, so long as they don't piss off other people is what this is all about. I'm not trying to point the finger at any of these types and blame them for all the evils in the world. I'm just pointing out that different things appear cheesy to different people and can piss them off.

A wargamer victory like trapping a basilisk down a pit and pelting it with arrows probably won't seem very enjoyable to the roleplayer since it lacks the cool dramatic elements of a battle to the death.

Poisoning the water supply may seem like a perfectly valid tactic to some and others might find it boring because it lacks any kind of action.

In any game, no matter how balanced it is, there are good choices and there are bad choices. Otherwise:

True. It is however about where the good and bad choices happen, and how relative they are. In an idea wargamer game, a bad choice and a good choice aren't necessarily obvious becaues they don't happen in a vacuum. Moving your queen left two squares is a move you can make, and sometimes it's the right move and sometimes it's the wrong move. Sometimes throwing a lightning bolt may be the best move for your wizard and sometimes it might not.

On the other hand, a typical deckbuilder character makes all his right decisions and wrong decisions at character creation time. To the point where there is little decision making when the game starts. Now choosing 20 levels of monk for your character may be considered akin to sacrificing your queen for a pawn, but in fact there is a subtle but very important distinction.

The distinction is that deck builder choices aren't relative, they're absolute. Choosing 20 levels of monk is always wrong. Up until the system itself changes and there are new options for monks or whatnot, regardless of circumstance monk 20 just isn't a sound choice. On the other hand, sacrificing your queen for a pawn could actually win you the game if done at the right time.

A deckbuilder is all about the power of his character. Anybody can rip off his deck or his build and they'll be just as good at the actual game that he is. So while my character building skills pale in comparison to someone like Frank, I can still rip off his build for "the word" and have a super character.

You just can't do that in chess. I could rip off an opening from a chessmaster like Kasparov, but it's just not going to make me a master. I'll play Kasparov and still get my ass handed to me.

Deck building happens in a vacuum, wargaming doesn't. The major variables of deck building happen to be what the allowable material is. The major variable in a wargame is your opposition.

And that makes a world of difference.

The same thing happens in almost any game. If you don't want to suck at Monopoly, you have to buy houses. If you don't want to lose Chess, you take control of the center as soon as the possible.

Well taking control of the center isn't an action, that's a strategy. That's equivalent to saying "if you don't want to lose chess, put him in checkmate." and that's a lot different from a direct statement of action like "choose a cleric.". Now having cut and dry strategies like "build houses as soon as you can" isn't always necessarily a bad thing, but in an RPG the design goals of the game are to allow for multiple choices as far as class, so by limiting the game to one class to be effective, the design goals have failed.

Further, back to your class example, the question should really be what should be our cutoff point for punishing dumb decisions. While I'm pretty sure everyone would root for all of the classes being perfectly balanced to each other, I don't know many people who think that a wizard who goes stabbing machine against a dragon while being completely unprepared for it in feats and equipment should be rewarded for that.

Stabbing a dragon is a wargamer mistake, not a deck builder mistake. Choosing whether you want to cast an offensive spell or do a charge action is all about wargaming. And picking an inferior choice there has little to do with deck building.

The idea of classes alone does put characters in certain roles. Just like you want your field medics healing and want to keep your artillery out of close combat, you want to do certain things with different classes. And if you use a certain unit in an ineffective way, that's a wargamer mistake. So long as it could have been used right and if so would have been worthwhile.

The main deckbuilding problems in a system arise from when people can get huge bonuses beyond the norm by combining certain things at character creation. So when the druid outfights the fighter for instance, that's one such problem. When you offer someone a choice between tumble or profession(glassblower), you are creating a trap that solely exists on a deckbuilding level.

Realistically, RPGs are never going to be perfect, so long as you get character creation options, there are inevitably going to be some choices that will be on some level better than others. But the idea is to minimize the gap between characters so that everyone gets a playable character and nobody gets shut out in the deckbuilding stage.

Ideally you want it to play like Starcraft. Some people are Terran, some people are zerg and some people are protoss. You can pick any of those and still be in a balanced situation. Protoss, Zerg and Terran all play differently and have different options available to them, but in the end they each have a relatively close win ratio. Nobody should suck just because they chose Protoss instead of Zerg on the opening screen.

Basically the idea is that everyone has the right to walk to the table with a playable character. You may be able to screw it up at some stage during the actual game, but you're never doomed from the beginning.

[Lago_AM3P]

Well, yes, so long as they don't piss off other people is what this is all about. I'm not trying to point the finger at any of these types and blame them for all the evils in the world. I'm just pointing out that different things appear cheesy to different people and can piss them off.

A wargamer victory like trapping a basilisk down a pit and pelting it with arrows probably won't seem very enjoyable to the roleplayer since it lacks the cool dramatic elements of a battle to the death.

Poisoning the water supply may seem like a perfectly valid tactic to some and others might find it boring because it lacks any kind of action.

If this theoretical 'roleplayer' hates advancing the plot with the tools given because it causes them to work too hard/thinks it makes them less versatile and hates advancing the plot by thinking outside the box, then this is totally the wrong game for the little brats.

It seems that they are against achieving goals unless it fits within their narrow framework and work ethic and/or they're force fed it. Maybe they'd be happier with Candyland?

Well taking control of the center isn't an action, that's a strategy. That's equivalent to saying "if you don't want to lose chess, put him in checkmate." and that's a lot different from a direct statement of action like "choose a cleric.". Now having cut and dry strategies like "build houses as soon as you can" isn't always necessarily a bad thing, but in an RPG the design goals of the game are to allow for multiple choices as far as class, so by limiting the game to one class to be effective, the design goals have failed.

Probably. But you're restricting your choices too much.

There are many more ways in D&D than picking a cleric to be effective and even within these choices there are a subset (melee cleric, blaster cleric, archer cleric, turning cleric, etc.).

You are making it sound like there is only one choice and there is not. In Chess, it's proven time and time again that you have to take the center or you LOSE and there's only a handful of moves out of literally millions that will get you control of the center. In D&D, there are a finite number of character choices that will give you a viable character or you lose the game like the loser you are.

I don't want to hear words like 'strategy' and 'tactics' or whatever crap you want to redefine it as. They all fall under the category of choices and to have a game work you have to have some choices be bad.

The distinction is that deck builder choices aren't relative, they're absolute. Choosing 20 levels of monk is always wrong. Up until the system itself changes and there are new options for monks or whatnot, regardless of circumstance monk 20 just isn't a sound choice. On the other hand, sacrificing your queen for a pawn could actually win you the game if done at the right time.

On the other hand, moving a king's pawn and the king's bishop pawn successively at the beginning is never the right move blah de blah.

A deckbuilder is all about the power of his character. Anybody can rip off his deck or his build and they'll be just as good at the actual game that he is. So while my character building skills pale in comparison to someone like Frank, I can still rip off his build for "the word" and have a super character.

You just can't do that in chess. I could rip off an opening from a chessmaster like Kasparov, but it's just not going to make me a master. I'll play Kasparov and still get my ass handed to me.

If Kasparov plays enough of your moves and then lets you take over, you can attain a position where you will win no matter what. Or (more likely) you can have a moron play the first five moves for you and then you take over and no matter how expertly you play you will LOSE.

On the same token, taking your first level as a cleric with the war and elf domain is no guarantee that you will win the game in the long run. Taking your first level as a monk is no guarantee that you will lose the game in the long run.

Deck building happens in a vacuum, wargaming doesn't. The major variables of deck building happen to be what the allowable material is. The major variable in a wargame is your opposition.

Game Theory states that human beings will always make what they perceive to be the best move. What the opposition can do is also an extremely important decision in 'deckbuilding'. Otherwise people would never build up their saves and AC and concentrate solely on attack (or do the reverse rather than finding a happy middle).

A real min-maxxer, rather than some moron who was handed a character sheet by a non-lazy friend, will continually update his strategy based on perceived opposition.

The main deckbuilding problems in a system arise from when people can get huge bonuses beyond the norm by combining certain things at character creation. So when the druid outfights the fighter for instance, that's one such problem. When you offer someone a choice between tumble or profession(glassblower), you are creating a trap that solely exists on a deckbuilding level.

Realistically, RPGs are never going to be perfect, so long as you get character creation options, there are inevitably going to be some choices that will be on some level better than others. But the idea is to minimize the gap between characters so that everyone gets a playable character and nobody gets shut out in the deckbuilding stage.

You're fusing your arguments together. I'm not arguing against game balance, I'm arguing against the idea that there's some difference in playstyle between making decisions at character creation and that while you're already in play. There aren't.

Do I have to break out the damn Mythic Knight thread again?

[RandomCasualty]

1125979243[/unixtime]]
If this theoretical 'roleplayer' hates advancing the plot with the tools given because it causes them to work too hard/thinks it makes them less versatile and hates advancing the plot by thinking outside the box, then this is totally the wrong game for the little brats.

Well, some people like the big showdown. This is again a view of preference. Some people want the showdown at high noon, other people are OK with the BBEG getting killed in his sleep. There's no need to insult people because you don't like their particular game style.

This is a cooperative storytelling game and sometimes people have differerent ideas about what the story should be. Some people may feel good about dropping a basilisk down a pit to kill it, others might feel cheated out of a fight.

You are making it sound like there is only one choice and there is not. In Chess, it's proven time and time again that you have to take the center or you LOSE and there's only a handful of moves out of literally millions that will get you control of the center. In D&D, there are a finite number of character choices that will give you a viable character or you lose the game like the loser you are.

Well, see... wargamers don't feel there should be any "loser" characters from the beginning. The idea of "loser" characters is entirely a deckbuilder concept. And deckbuilders don't have a problem with that, wargamers and roleplayers certainly do. And this gets back to my whole point about how different types think of the game concepts in different ways. To a wargamer, everyone should be valuable for something. To a deckbuilder, he could care less if there are some cards which are just traps that exist solely to make you suck.

Also keep in mind that as far as chess goes, taking the center is a basic strategic concept, not a formula for success like a character build. Anyone can tell you how to make an ubercharger, and anyone can do that. However, not everyone is going to be able to tell you how to take control of the center when you're playing Kasparov. Sure, you may want to take control of the center, and your advisor may keep telling you "TAKE CONTROL OF THE CENTER DUMBASS!" but you won't be any closer to beating him.

This is the fundamental difference of something existing within a competetive system versus existing in a vacuum. You can create the ubercharger everytime because there's nothing to stop you. You can't necessarily control the center everytime becuase there's an opponent there to stop you.

Big Big difference.

You're fusing your arguments together. I'm not arguing against game balance, I'm arguing against the idea that there's some difference in playstyle between making decisions at character creation and that while you're already in play. There aren't.

OK, then why do I enjoy chess and tactical combat but absolutely hate choosing feats and class builds? Why do some people say they love choosing feats and class builds? I really don't think they're lying. Why do some people like Diablo II and others prefer Starcraft?

I continue to be amazed how a simple, almost self-evident concept like "different people have different playstyles and preferences" can be so hard to grasp.

Look, when you make comments like the following, you're being pretty shortsighted...

If this theoretical 'roleplayer' hates advancing the plot with the tools given because it causes them to work too hard/thinks it makes them less versatile and hates advancing the plot by thinking outside the box, then this is totally the wrong game for the little brats.

And

In D&D, there are a finite number of character choices that will give you a viable character or you lose the game like the loser you are.

People play the game lots of different ways. Even if you think they're wrong because your way is the one true way to play D&D, you have to at least accept that people have different opinions and you should spend some time trying to understand why they think the way that they do instead of taking a rather ignorant approach of "all things are the same, some people are just wrong."

The way a wargamer and a deck builder looks at the game are completely different. If you doubt that, then continue to look over this entire debate. You're the deck builder and I'm the wargamer and we have vastly different viewpoints.

Your proof is right here in front of you.

[PhoneLobster]

you should spend some time trying to understand why they think the way that they do instead of taking a rather ignorant approach of "all things are the same, some people are just wrong."

And if you actually did this I would like to think you WOULD come up with an opinion at least similar to "all things are the same, some people are just wrong", which would be more like "all things are irrelevant to this issue, some people are just asses".

See, I think I've said it before, you can look at it as two categories of gamer, if you must draw the line.

The nice guy who plays well and enhances the game for everyone (be it by ameteur drama skills or innovative strategy or god forbid an actual understanding of the functioning of the rules or even underhanded cheating* ).

The idiot who attempts to hijack the game single handedly and pisses everyone off (be it by ameteur drama skills or innovative strategy or god forbid an actual understanding of the functioning of the rules, or even underhanded cheating*)

Its really that damn simple. EVERY so called "category" you listed can fall into either category. Every so called category you listed can produce characters exploiting infinite power and destroying the game. Every category you listed has a motivation to min max (you know, make smart choices) and both sucks if they don't and potentially smashes the universe if they take it too far.

When you want to differentiate between people who break the game and people who don't... well there are your two categories right there and thats all the definition you can ever really have without being really very misleading and incorrect.

*(some asses like to call it rule 0 if a DM does it, I disagree, but as you see point out it isn't always bad)

[Murtak]

And here we go again with some flat out wrong ideas of how combo decks work ....

The type I super combo MtG deck is the best example of the deckbuilder's style, since it includes very little strategic decision making and most all the important decisions are made pregame.

Did you ever play a combo deck in a tournament? Failing that, did you at least playtest with and against a combo deck in preparation for a tournament?

I have done that and I can tell you that you have to make a crapton of choices in-game. You have to choose between countering early threats and saving your best defense card for that one important turn. You have to decide between going for the kill now or one turn later, when you may be dead but when you will also have the mana to counterspell to protect your combo. You may have to calculate how much damage your opponent will be able to do to you through your two defensive cards on his next turn and if it is likely too much damage, how good your chances are of getting the combo off on your turn.

The only actual example of non-interaction you an provide is a tournament format that no longer gets played because there are too many broken cards in there. Yes, type I is broken, but not because of combo decks. It is broken because of lotuses and moxes and time walks and ancestral recalls and all of the utterly broken cards that slipped through playtesting at one time.

Guess what happens when a non-combo type I deck goes first against a combo deck? It plays a land, a mox, a lotus, ball lightnings, time walks, ancestrall recalls, regrowths for a time walk, ball lightnings + berserks, time walks again and then hits you with a lightning bolt. No combo needed, just an interaction of overly powerful cards.

The combo deck wins over casual play decks because it contains better cards from the start.

What kind of comparison is that? "Combo" vs "casual"? That is like stating "chess wins against taco bell". Casual is a measure if intensity - combo is a style of deck. You can have casual combo decks and you can have tournament level beatdown decks.

If the decks were swapped between players, the one with the super combo deck will win and the casual deck will lose, regardless of who happens to be playing them.

You say that like it is unexpected or even a bad thing. Let me give you a "wargamer" analogy:

Given equal decks the better player will usually win. Clearly this is bad and we need to make all in-game choices equally valid so bad players can win too.

Well, some people like the big showdown. This is again a view of preference. Some people want the showdown at high noon, other people are OK with the BBEG getting killed in his sleep. There's no need to insult people because you don't like their particular game style.

You might want to take your own advice then.

We have already several people stating how they like their players "deckbuilding", how they like to stat up monsters, how they enjoy high lethalty games .... and yet you state that all of these are unfun. Clearly that does not universally apply.

[Neeek]

1125993286[/unixtime]]

If the decks were swapped between players, the one with the super combo deck will win and the casual deck will lose, regardless of who happens to be playing them.

You say that like it is unexpected or even a bad thing. Let me give you a "wargamer" analogy:

Given equal decks the better player will usually win. Clearly this is bad and we need to make all in-game choices equally valid so bad players can win too.

RC's point here, btw, isn't even true. What you refer to as "causal" players, I refer to as "bad" players, and I can take a sealed deck and beat their constructed decks with it(no, I probably couldn't beat *my* constructed decks when they played them with a sealed deck, [unless my deck is a combo deck, in which case it's a toss-up, since the cards they are playing are just plain better, but they can't play them right] but the point stands)

[Alansmithee]

This whole concept of three types of gamers is inherently stupid. Repeatedly saying "wargamer" "deckbuilder" and "roleplayer" doesn't make the terms any more valid-all they are is your personal rationalizations for what you do and do not like in a game.

For instance, you say wargamers want everything to be even from the beginning, and have no "loser characters". Well, using the chess example (which is horrible, but whatever) you are trying to make the case that "wargamers" want a move such as a2-a3 to be equal to something like e2-e4. Which is patently stupid, because if all moves are equally valid, there's no way of winning or outwitting your opponent.

The only reason that you can have suboptimal characters is because you allow choice. Everytime there is choice, you have to allow for there to be a good and a bad choice. You want to eliminate "deckbuilders"? Just eliminate classes. Make everyone play pregen characters that are identical. And also give them preselected actions for combat so they can't make bad choices there either. Then you will have no "loser characters" and the dreaded min-maxxing will be gone.

[Kirin_Corrigan]

all they are is your personal rationalizations for what you do and do not like in a game.

Absolutely true. And the same goes for any other catchy pet phrase or boisterous claim way too many guys tossed out a dozen at a time over several boards: munchkin... powergamer... cheesic of faerun... you name it.

Some stuck, some didn't. Why? Well, it all comes down to having a fanbase that supports you before making up catchy pet names for your personal rationalizations of what you do and don't like in the game...

So why is everyone jumping at RC's throat for playing the same game everyone else did (and still does from time to time)? He wants to divide everyone in three main categories (none of which I - nor anyone else, as it seems - feel I belong to, BTW) and he wants to call them Snap, Crackle and Pop? See if I care. Why don't we move on already?

[RandomCasualty]

1125993849[/unixtime]]
RC's point here, btw, isn't even true. What you refer to as "causal" players, I refer to as "bad" players, and I can take a sealed deck and beat their constructed decks with it(no, I probably couldn't beat *my* constructed decks when they played them with a sealed deck, [unless my deck is a combo deck, in which case it's a toss-up, since the cards they are playing are just plain better, but they can't play them right] but the point stands)

THere is really very little to "play right" in a complex combo deck. MOstly you just need the basic formula, then you put those cards together, shuffle and the deck virtually plays itself. I mean I guess if the player is abysmal he could screw it up, but really, it'd be pretty hard.

I mean I've used the apprentice program to construct a bunch of famous combo killer decks, and I can say that it isn't very hard to play them, at all.

For instance, you say wargamers want everything to be even from the beginning, and have no "loser characters". Well, using the chess example (which is horrible, but whatever) you are trying to make the case that "wargamers" want a move such as a2-a3 to be equal to something like e2-e4. Which is patently stupid, because if all moves are equally valid, there's no way of winning or outwitting your opponent.

Wargaming is not about making all choices equal, it's just about making things start equal. Thus everyone begins a chess game with 8 pawns, 2 knights, etc. Wargaming options can be wrong, but they're wrong because they let your opponent outsmart you. YOu can still very much win going a2-a3 if your opponent is a newbie. In wargaming the game actually gets more complex the better your opponents become. This just isn't true with deckbuilding. Actually deckbuilding tends to lessen the complexity of the game because it gets over with faster.

It's hard to make any deckbuilding analysis to chess because quite simply there is no deckbuilding at all. Chess is 100% wargame, thus every option you pick is a wargaming option.

In Starcraft, the only deck building you do is pick your race, and as close as a game can be balanced, all three deck building options are balanced in that game. Beyond that, Starcraft has no other deckbuilding elements.

The only reason that you can have suboptimal characters is because you allow choice. Everytime there is choice, you have to allow for there to be a good and a bad choice.

Why? Why does picking fighter have to make you worse than picking cleric?

Starcraft allows you a wide variety of choices for units, all of which are balanced.

Having choice does not necessarily mean that you have to have big imbalance, not at all. SAME allows you choice as far as where you place your attributes, yet all your choices are balanced. An RPG can do that if it's well designed. We already know this, because Frank had a bunch of threads showing why it's balanced.

Just because Ed Stark can't make the druid balanced doesn't mean nobody can.

[Neeek]

1126013010[/unixtime]]

THere is really very little to "play right" in a complex combo deck. MOstly you just need the basic formula, then you put those cards together, shuffle and the deck virtually plays itself. I mean I guess if the player is abysmal he could screw it up, but really, it'd be pretty hard.

I mean I've used the apprentice program to construct a bunch of famous combo killer decks, and I can say that it isn't very hard to play them, at all.

This is going to sound insulting:

If you think this is true, then you are a bad player.

That's all there is to it. The players who tend to win would be able to point out your mistakes and *you* would have no idea that you were making a mistake in the first place.

There is a fairly well-known story in M:tG circles, in which player A ask player B how he's doing in the tournament. Player B responds "I'm winning but I'm playing horribly". Player A, who is generally regarded as one of the best Magic players ever, tells him "That's because you are a good player. Bad players make mistakes, lose, and think they are playing perfectly. Good players make fewer mistakes, win, and think they are playing badly."

[Murtak]

There is really very little to "play right" in a complex combo deck. MOstly you just need the basic formula, then you put those cards together, shuffle and the deck virtually plays itself.

Ok, I am sure now. You are ignorant and probably a crappy player too. That is on top of knowing absolutely nothing about building decks. I would say I am sorry for saying this except I am not. You are talking about something you quite clearly have not the faintest clue about.

Let me give you an example of how complex playing a combo deck is - I will use L5R as I am most familiar with it. It should be easy to grasp the concepts though.

You are playing Crane Honor Bomb - a deck that has often been labeled as non-interactive. Your goal is to either get Kakita Chiyeko out, slap a Blade of Penance on her, Ambush someone and then Brutal Confrontation them, using Chiyeko to reuse the confrontation and using Asahina Nizomi to make sure the duel is not lethal, all the while gaining honr from the Blade of Penance. Failing that you want to slap a Blade onto Kakita Tamura, use a variety of cards to straighten her and repetedly duel the living daylight out of whatever you can see, again gaining honor all the while.

Simple, huh? Get the combo cards, start your turn at starting honor, end it at 40 honor, done. We will assume the deck has been prebuilt by someone else so all the work should be done according to you.

Turn 1
You reveal your provinces and see a single holding (you need these to produce gold which you need in turn to pay for most of your other cards), a Chiyeko, a random personality and an event, which automatically resolves: A New Wall. The event means you get to grab a holding from your deck and put it where the event was. Now, before you grab that holding you need to analyze what you are going to do. You got a part of your combo lying around - grat, eh? Of course you won't be playing Chiyeko for at least two more turns and all the while she will be hogging a slot that could give you stuff to use right now. You have a holding and iwll be getting another, which is decent but not great. Ideally you want three holdings - on turn 1 your stronghold pays for one of them, on turn two the stronghold buys another and the first holding buys a second holding. Then on turn 3 you can start buying personalities. So you are one holding short of what you want. And then you have another personality - lets say a defensive one.

Now, what to do? That depends on your opponent. He might be playing Waterzerkers. In that case you can assume he will take at least as long as you to buy personalities, but then he may be able to kill you in a single turn. So you want those three holdings or you will be behind in production, but after that you want a defender, or more likely, multiuple ones. Additionally he uses force-based duels, which you will always lose so if you can grab a Nizomi his ability to turn duels non-lethal is great. So against Waterzerkers, discord both personalities and use your stronghold to grab Gifts and Favors from your deck (the only card you can fetch like this), allowing you to play two holdings on your second turn.

Against another Crane you can not immediately tell what he will be playing, so you may have to make a judgement call. If you think he is playing heavy personality kill you want to leave your Chiyeko in the provice - he will kill the first couple of combo parts you see. Against a straight honor runner you want to again go for gold.

Against, say, Lion Swarm you want to use the event to grab the best gold producing holding you can afford and immediately play it. Discard Chiyeko, keep the defender and hope for another to turn up. Next turn buy the defender. The lion will attack for sure and you will need that defender unless you get very lucky with your fateside draw.

And of course you might be playing against a Faceless Kitsuki, who, now that he has seen your Chiyeko will never play a single personality for you to duel. So discard both personalities, grab a honor producing holding and hope you can gain enough honor from your personalities to match what he can gain from holdings.

As a side note - when you notice you will be playing against Ratling Attrition, Yumasu or other slowish decks - all of which play In Times of War, which simply kills your combos - you want to use the event to grab your anti holding so it is there when you need it.


That is a single turn of playing a combo deck. One turn, with a good draw, no hard decisions and it is the first turn, where you have virtually no decisions to make. For the next couple of turns the number of dcisions you make will at least double each turn. And I have not even talked about your fate hand, where most of your decisions come from for this particular deck. And heavens forbid you are going up against a lockdown deck or a dishonor/honor deck - both of these will easily lead to turns where you think about 5 minutes on your turn before taking your first action (yes, 20 minute single turns are not unheard of - those time limits in tournaments exist partially for this reason).

I mean I guess if the player is abysmal he could screw it up, but really, it'd be pretty hard.

Actually it would be pretty easy. I am absolutely certain I will get a 90+% win chance against a bad player, no matter what deck he plays. Heck, just playing an unfamiliar deck will turn a balanced encounter into at least a 70/30 advantage for the other person.

But that is L5R and it has a rather steep learning curve. So let's talk M:TG. I have won my fair share of games against tournament-level combo decks (copied right off the net from the last tourney victories) using preconstructed decks. I have done the same using an all-common slight deck and a nearly all-common (4 uncommons I believe) green swarm deck.

Quite simply, combo decks take skill to play, no matter what you may believe.

I mean I've used the apprentice program to construct a bunch of famous combo killer decks, and I can say that it isn't very hard to play them, at all.

So, won a tournament yet? Heck, played against a serious opponent yet?

The only reason that you can have suboptimal characters is because you allow choice.

Why? Why does picking fighter have to make you worse than picking cleric?

And now you are already claiming those you call "deckbuilders" want fighters to be worse than druids. If there is such a thing as a deckbuilder I am one and I want every single base class to be perfectly balanced.

But I also do not care at all if a wizard who takes power attack, two weapon fighting and iron will is flat out worse than a wizard who took improved initiative, extend spell and great fortitude. And I also don't care about the plight of those who complain about their monk/bard/cleric with a tiny bit of wizard and soulknife mixed in is next to useless.

To put it simply, I want the basic building blocks - classes, feats and so on - to be balanced. Next I want the most obvious of abuses removed. Note that plain overpowered abilities should already be gone now. But stuff like weird caster level stacking might not.

And then, with the basic building blocks being equal everyone can have fun building their characters. And yes, someone sitting down a couple of hours looking for synergy, making sure he has his weaknesses covered and he has useful stuff to do in any situation will have a more useful character than someone who picks overlapping but non-stacking abilities, who can do 500 different things in combat but nothing out of combat and who picks feats and classes that were designed for other character concepts.

Having choice does not necessarily mean that you have to have big imbalance, not at all. SAME allows you choice as far as where you place your attributes, yet all your choices are balanced. An RPG can do that if it's well designed. We already know this, because Frank had a bunch of threads showing why it's balanced.

And yet even SAME features a part of the system where, as Frank puts it, "the DM can put all of the unbalanced stuff into".

[fbmf]

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
While the discussion is interesting, the personal attacks will cease. Now.
[/TGFBS]

[Murtak]

You are right - I should not have done that. RC, while I still maintain that you do not know what you are talking about I should not have insulted you. I apologize.

[RandomCasualty]

1126022550[/unixtime]]
Let me give you an example of how complex playing a combo deck is - I will use L5R as I am most familiar with it. It should be easy to grasp the concepts though.

I don't know anything about L5R, never played it myself and seen it played once. So I can't say one way or another whether what I'm saying applies to it.

If what you're saying about it is true, then it contains more wargamer elements than M:tG. For the most part in Magic, the only card game I have any deal of extensive experience with, the game is fairly simply. Sure, you can misplay certain stuff. You can counter something trivial and should have saved your counterspell for the big thing. You can burn all your mana doing something stupid. But most combo decks just don't take all that much thinking.

Take land destruction for instance. You get a card like stone rain or avalanche riders, you cast it. Basically if you keep the opponent's land down enough, you'll win. But your priority is to always attack his land whenever you can.

I've looked up the killer tournament decks and built them using the apprentice program before. There are a few that require a certain degree of input and judgment, but a lot of them practically play themselves. Now, I will say that when you get into Type 2 tournaments, as opposed to type 1, there is a bit more strategy. In type 1 it honestly doesn't take a rocket scientist to deploy your lotus, channel, fireball combo.

And while you can misplay something from time to time, 99% of the game is pure deckbuilding, with the remaining 1% of magic is what you do in actual play. Hand a "master" player a mediocre deck and he will lose most of the time against a mediocre player using an uber deck. It doesn't matter how good he might be at the game.

It really doesn't take too much effort to figure out the concepts behind a given deck, and while there are principles of strategy you had to adhere to, like the blue player always leaving a couple islands untapped for counterspell, it just isn't all that big a deal.

And now you are already claiming those you call "deckbuilders" want fighters to be worse than druids. If there is such a thing as a deckbuilder I am one and I want every single base class to be perfectly balanced.

But I also do not care at all if a wizard who takes power attack, two weapon fighting and iron will is flat out worse than a wizard who took improved initiative, extend spell and great fortitude. And I also don't care about the plight of those who complain about their monk/bard/cleric with a tiny bit of wizard and soulknife mixed in is next to useless.

Well, you can shift imbalance in the game to different areas, but in any case, deck builders generally don't care much about imbalance, and as you admit yourself, there are many parts of the game you just don't care much about having imbalance exist.

And deckbuilders aren't necessarily uncreative. In fact, like in magic the gathering, a lot of them are perfectly happy to challenge themselves by having old material cycled out. Since it's more of a challenge to try building a character with only 3.5 core and the complete series, as opposed to using every 3.0 and 3.5 book published.

Having choice does not necessarily mean that you have to have big imbalance, not at all. SAME allows you choice as far as where you place your attributes, yet all your choices are balanced. An RPG can do that if it's well designed. We already know this, because Frank had a bunch of threads showing why it's balanced.

And yet even SAME features a part of the system where, as Frank puts it, "the DM can put all of the unbalanced stuff into".

Well, by unbalanced Frank means that it may be more or less advantageous in a given battle. The SAME stat system is perfectly balanced in all conditions. And that can lead to the game being pretty boring because nobody is actually good at anything.

Having "unbalanced" abilities allow you to make a guy who specializes in kiling wizards for example. Though against wizards he's going to have an edge, he won't be powerful against everything. Unbalanced stuff isn't game breaking stuff, it's stuff to hand numerical edges to people in certain situations, because you want them to have them. So the guy who takes anti-gaze abilities is going to rock the basilisk, but probably won't do so great against the dragon.

But for the game as a whole this doesn't create super characters, not if done right.

Having people with specialties is ok, in fact, it's unavoidable. Like in any strategy game, people are going to fit into certain roles. Some people are medics, some are artillery, some are common grunts and so on. This isn't a bad thing. It's only when you make artillery type characters better than anything else that the situation makes problematic.

That's what Frank means when he's talking about imbalance. He's most certainly not talking about allowing one guy to take a +1 attack ability and another guy to take a +2 attack ability for the same price.

[Alansmithee]

1126013010[/unixtime]

For instance, you say wargamers want everything to be even from the beginning, and have no "loser characters". Well, using the chess example (which is horrible, but whatever) you are trying to make the case that "wargamers" want a move such as a2-a3 to be equal to something like e2-e4. Which is patently stupid, because if all moves are equally valid, there's no way of winning or outwitting your opponent.

Wargaming is not about making all choices equal, it's just about making things start equal. Thus everyone begins a chess game with 8 pawns, 2 knights, etc. Wargaming options can be wrong, but they're wrong because they let your opponent outsmart you. YOu can still very much win going a2-a3 if your opponent is a newbie. In wargaming the game actually gets more complex the better your opponents become. This just isn't true with deckbuilding. Actually deckbuilding tends to lessen the complexity of the game because it gets over with faster.

It's hard to make any deckbuilding analysis to chess because quite simply there is no deckbuilding at all. Chess is 100% wargame, thus every option you pick is a wargaming option.

In Starcraft, the only deck building you do is pick your race, and as close as a game can be balanced, all three deck building options are balanced in that game. Beyond that, Starcraft has no other deckbuilding elements.

No, you're just picking an arbitrary point to start where you think "strategic" decisions begin. In Chess, the decisions begin when you set up the board and make your first move. In RPG's, your decisions (and hence strategizing) begin when you secide to make a character. Moving a2-a3 is the equivalent in an RPG as putting an 18 in str for your wizard. They are equivalent. You have just randomly decided that a movement decision is different from a character design decision. In reality, they are the same things for their respective games.

The only reason that you can have suboptimal characters is because you allow choice. Everytime there is choice, you have to allow for there to be a good and a bad choice.

Why? Why does picking fighter have to make you worse than picking cleric?

Starcraft allows you a wide variety of choices for units, all of which are balanced.

Having choice does not necessarily mean that you have to have big imbalance, not at all. SAME allows you choice as far as where you place your attributes, yet all your choices are balanced. An RPG can do that if it's well designed. We already know this, because Frank had a bunch of threads showing why it's balanced.

Just because Ed Stark can't make the druid balanced doesn't mean nobody can.

I have no idea what SAME is so I can't comment about it. But the point is not if fighter is worse than cleric, it's about you arbitrarily assigning silly categories for various groups of people, without any justification. You then use these fictitious designations to try to make some comment about D&D balance, but it falls apart.

[Oberoni]

If we're analyzing analogies here, I do want to point out that, as RC noted earlier, many type 1 combo decks really do involve little interaction with the opponent.

That's bad game design.

In a healthy environment, combo decks involve quite a bit of interaction with the opponent.

So, everyone is actually right about combo decks, because different degrees of combo decks involve different amounts of player interaction.

[Neeek]

1126066709[/unixtime]]If we're analyzing analogies here, I do want to point out that, as RC noted earlier, many type 1 combo decks really do involve little interaction with the opponent.

Not really. Anything remotely considered "pure" combo has been long since banned. Not that there aren't effective combo decks in type 1, but they certainly don't dominate, and making an assumption that it is impossible for your opponent to interfere with what you are doing before your opponent has a turn is a mistake. The most commonly played spell in Type 1 is Force of Will, a mana-less counter.

[Oberoni]

So, would it help if I said "as of a few years ago, what RC said was true?"

Seriously, I'm glad the type 1 tournament scene has improved in recent years, but pretending that combo decks weren't crazy-go-nuts a few years ago is just one of those "my argument is right...AT ALL COSTS!!!" sorts of deals we see on message boards that selectively ignore data.

I'll gladly grant that modern day type 1 is pretty healthy. However, it wasn't always this way. RC might be like me, one of the folks who cut his teeth on the Saga block, and you can't blame a man for having problems with combo after those sets, let me tell you.

[Murtak]

Take land destruction for instance. You get a card like stone rain or avalanche riders, you cast it. Basically if you keep the opponent's land down enough, you'll win. But your priority is to always attack his land whenever you can.

Ok, I will try again. This time please listen to me.

"Land destruction" is not a combo deck, no more than "kill your opponent" is a combo deck. If "land destruction" is a combo then "zergling rush" is a combo too. All of these are strategies.

In type 1 it honestly doesn't take a rocket scientist to deploy your lotus, channel, fireball combo.

And it does not need a rocket scientist to win on your first turn without ever playing a combo either. How hard is it to see that extreme speed is not a property of combo decks but of type I?

And while you can misplay something from time to time, 99% of the game is pure deckbuilding, with the remaining 1% of magic is what you do in actual play. Hand a "master" player a mediocre deck and he will lose most of the time against a mediocre player using an uber deck. It doesn't matter how good he might be at the game.

I and several others have repeatedly stated now that the reverse is actually true. I have a winning record against a mediocre player playing ProsBloom. I used an all-common red deck.

It really doesn't take too much effort to figure out the concepts behind a given deck, and while there are principles of strategy you had to adhere to, like the blue player always leaving a couple islands untapped for counterspell, it just isn't all that big a deal.

And quite often the difficult part is figuring out when to not leave those islands untapped.

in any case, deck builders generally don't care much about imbalance, and as you admit yourself, there are many parts of the game you just don't care much about having imbalance exist.

So, do you care if players who literally take random classes or who do not have the faintest clue what they would like their character to be like get crappy characters? Do you care if a player who takes fireball, enlarged fireball, widened fireball and empowered fireball is just plain worse than a character who actually took different spells?

But for the game as a whole [SAME] doesn't create super characters, not if done right.

And neither does the DnD system, if done right. The problem is, DnD isn't done right. That can and will happen with every game that allows unbalanced choices if you let random crappy designers run around unchecked.

Having people with specialties is ok, in fact, it's unavoidable. Like in any strategy game, people are going to fit into certain roles. Some people are medics, some are artillery, some are common grunts and so on. This isn't a bad thing. It's only when you make artillery type characters better than anything else that the situation makes problematic.

And I have no intention to do so whatsoever. I also do not have a problem with a party of 5 medics being worse than a mixed party though.

That's what Frank means when he's talking about imbalance. He's most certainly not talking about allowing one guy to take a +1 attack ability and another guy to take a +2 attack ability for the same price.

Uh, would you mind refuting arguments I actually made instead of arguments you made up on the spot?