The Wargamer, The Deck Builder, & The Role Player

[Murtak]

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.

RC is not stating that though. He is stating that the basic concept of combo decks is bad, that deckbuilders lead to less fun being had by everyone in-game and that combo decks require no skill to play. All of these are false.

I don't like combo decks myself, in any game I ever played. They usually amount to you being a one-trick pony and I do not like that. But I don't run around claiming the basic concept is bad for the game. And I certainly don't claim that an arbitrarily labeled group of gamers is ruining the fun for everyone - and if I did I would try to make my arguments based on something else than an outdated tournament format that is widely regarded as broken.

[Fwib]

1126066084[/unixtime]]...In Chess, the decisions begin when you set up the board and make your first move....

Maybe in that random chess thing that Fischer invented, but I think that for good chess players, the work begins before the start of the game - studying the opponent's past games etc etc - I think that chess isnt the best thing to use as an analogy.

Not that I disagree that there is a difference between people who like to spend more time preparing before a game (character building, studying the opponent's past form, 'deckbuilding', etc) and people who like to create their tactics more on-the-fly - but most people have quite a bit of both in them, so the distiction between pure 'deckbuilder' and pure 'wargamer' is a bit artificial.

[power_word_wedgie]

1126105182[/unixtime]]

1126066084[/unixtime]]...In Chess, the decisions begin when you set up the board and make your first move....

Maybe in that random chess thing that Fischer invented, but I think that for good chess players, the work begins before the start of the game - studying the opponent's past games etc etc - I think that chess isnt the best thing to use as an analogy.

It's probably me personally, but I just don't see where this is a good example. I played chess on my high school team and I was good for the teams that I participated. (I was 1st or 2nd board A team ~ however, I've forgotten most of it by now) However, I never studied an opponent's past game and never really did any work prior to the game.

[Fwib]

1126136263[/unixtime]]

1126105182[/unixtime]]

1126066084[/unixtime]]...In Chess, the decisions begin when you set up the board and make your first move....

Maybe in that random chess thing that Fischer invented, but I think that for good chess players, the work begins before the start of the game - studying the opponent's past games etc etc - I think that chess isnt the best thing to use as an analogy.

It's probably me personally, but I just don't see where this is a good example. I played chess on my high school team and I was good for the teams that I participated. (I was 1st or 2nd board A team ~ however, I've forgotten most of it by now) However, I never studied an opponent's past game and never really did any work prior to the game.

Probably comes down to my ignorance of chess, which mostly all comes from seeing programs about world champions and deep blue and stuff, where they do spend lots of time on that sort of stuff, apparently - given your greater experience of chess, I am happy to believe that it is mostly down to lots of practise that makes you good at it.

[Alansmithee]

At high levels of play, there is alot of research of opponent's games to find info about their tendencies. And at that level, someone who has studied their opponent will have a great advantage over someone who just comes in with good strategy.

[RandomCasualty]

1126105182[/unixtime]]Maybe in that random chess thing that Fischer invented, but I think that for good chess players, the work begins before the start of the game - studying the opponent's past games etc etc - I think that chess isnt the best thing to use as an analogy.

Yeah, there's a lot of study in chess at higher levels, but it's still a good analogy. Your preparation in chess is entirely a mental exercise. That is, it doesn't give you any tangible benefit in the game. Regardless of if Kasparov studies someone, he still has the same number and type of peices and the game proceeds the same way. Kasparov's preparation is wargame preparation because it helps him outthink the opponent, rather than overpower his opponent.

Deckbuilding actually creates a tangible benefit for pre game preparation. The super combo deck has certain abilities that a less well built deck does not. This kind of preparation is all about overpowering your opponent, not necessarily outthinking him. You typically don't go about building a deck to counter one specific opponent, you build a deck to take on everyone.

And that's a big difference. One gives real power benefits, the other doesn't. One is opponent specific, the other is not. This is fundamentally right down to the very things that separate wargamer from deckbuilder, which is why I think chess is a perfect example of wargamer style.

[power_word_wedgie]

1126185074[/unixtime]]Probably comes down to my ignorance of chess, which mostly all comes from seeing programs about world champions and deep blue and stuff, where they do spend lots of time on that sort of stuff, apparently - given your greater experience of chess, I am happy to believe that it is mostly down to lots of practise that makes you good at it.

Well, I was just focusing to much on the word "good". Hey, I thought I was a real good chess player. However, at no time was I an expert, and I'm sure experts study their opponents if money is at stake. They might study a player's tendencies, but really it requires studying a chess board during play, assessing what you opponent is trying to do at that time, and try to think like four or five steps ahead on the move in play. (At least that's how I handle it) Of course, if you're really good, you can mix up your playing styles which makes studying less beneficial. In fact, tht's a strategy - play like you usually do and then mix it up in the middle of the game. The opponent that is totally dependant on their studies gets the look in his eyes like he's a deer that sees car headlights coming toward him, and at that time the game is over. I'm thinking that is the reason why it took IBM so many times to beat Kasparov. If it was simple, direct, and totally dependant on the player's last games, then a well written code on a Tandy TRS-80 could have beat him.

[Alansmithee]

1126214048[/unixtime]]

1126105182[/unixtime]]Maybe in that random chess thing that Fischer invented, but I think that for good chess players, the work begins before the start of the game - studying the opponent's past games etc etc - I think that chess isnt the best thing to use as an analogy.

Yeah, there's a lot of study in chess at higher levels, but it's still a good analogy. Your preparation in chess is entirely a mental exercise. That is, it doesn't give you any tangible benefit in the game. Regardless of if Kasparov studies someone, he still has the same number and type of peices and the game proceeds the same way. Kasparov's preparation is wargame preparation because it helps him outthink the opponent, rather than overpower his opponent.

Deckbuilding actually creates a tangible benefit for pre game preparation. The super combo deck has certain abilities that a less well built deck does not. This kind of preparation is all about overpowering your opponent, not necessarily outthinking him. You typically don't go about building a deck to counter one specific opponent, you build a deck to take on everyone.

And that's a big difference. One gives real power benefits, the other doesn't. One is opponent specific, the other is not. This is fundamentally right down to the very things that separate wargamer from deckbuilder, which is why I think chess is a perfect example of wargamer style.

You're still making an arbitrary separation as to when the game starts. The game isn't just when mini's hit the playmat, it's also when you're creating a character. A chess match starts when you start preparing for an individual game/tourney/series-be it by reading strategy, practicing, or studying your opponent.

Also, the difference between "overpower" and "outthink" is ridiculous. What if I "outperform" my opponent? Or "overefficient" my opponent? Again, you're just picking random terms to try to arbitrarily separate two things that are one and the same. You made this silly deckbuilder/wargamer distinction and are making more and more ridiculous claims to try to support it, without any real logic or evidence.

And as for preparation, it can make a big difference. I remember when IBM finally made a deep blue that beat Kasparov, he complained up a storm about the computer being able to study his moves and tendencies without him being able to do the same.

[RandomCasualty]

And as for preparation, it can make a big difference. I remember when IBM finally made a deep blue that beat Kasparov, he complained up a storm about the computer being able to study his moves and tendencies without him being able to do the same.

I'm not saying preparation doesn't make a big difference. It does. But it just isn't the same as deck building, because you both start even.

1126230121[/unixtime]]
You're still making an arbitrary separation as to when the game starts. The game isn't just when mini's hit the playmat, it's also when you're creating a character. A chess match starts when you start preparing for an individual game/tourney/series-be it by reading strategy, practicing, or studying your opponent.

It's by no means arbitrary. I think all of us know "when the game starts". A chess game starts when the chess clocks start, or for a casual game, whenever white makes its first move. For a magic the gathering game, the game begins when everyone draws their seven cards and the player who goes first begins his untap phase.

Trying to try the odd play on words where the game somehow begins before it begins is a real stretch. It's like saying that a football game begins during practice or in the weight room while the players are conditioning. As arguments go, it's ludicrous and nonsensical. Where the game begins is self evident. Trying to redefine the starting point is nothing short of sophistry.

Also, the difference between "overpower" and "outthink" is ridiculous. What if I "outperform" my opponent? Or "overefficient" my opponent? Again, you're just picking random terms to try to arbitrarily separate two things that are one and the same. You made this silly deckbuilder/wargamer distinction and are making more and more ridiculous claims to try to support it, without any real logic or evidence.

The distinction is simple. It's a determination between equipment and skill. To "overpower" simply means that you've got an edge in equipment. You're the guy racing with the Nascar racer against the other guys Honda Civic. You have advantages that largely have nothing to do with your own personal skill, but rather solely with what tools you have at your disposal. In an overpower situation, you're not winning because you're a better driver than the other guy, you're winning because your car has a better engine and overpowers his car, you're willing because he brought a knife to a gun fight and your equipment is better than his.

In magic the gathering or D&D, your deck or character is your equipment. Like a car, your deck could be turbocharged and optimized compared to someone else's crappy generic. But winning with such a deck or character isn't a tribute to your skill per se, it's because you started with more power, and the odds are effectively stacked in your favor. You have no more game skill than a dealer in blackjack following the simple dealer rules and winning money for the house. You aren't outplaying anyone, you're just overpowering them.

To "outthink" or "outplay" refers to anything nontransferrable. It can be knowledge, intuition, intellect, deception or whatever, but it's about how you yourself played the game, not how your equipment performed or how lucky you were. Kasparov can't give someone all his chess knowledge and let them play like Kasparov, but you damn well can hand someone a tournament winning M:tG deck or a D&D power build for instance. You can give them the keys to your high performance car and let them race it.

And that's the difference and I don't think it's particularly hard to draw the line in most cases, certainly not in the case of D&D or M:tG.

[Alansmithee]

1126235457[/unixtime]]

And as for preparation, it can make a big difference. I remember when IBM finally made a deep blue that beat Kasparov, he complained up a storm about the computer being able to study his moves and tendencies without him being able to do the same.

I'm not saying preparation doesn't make a big difference. It does. But it just isn't the same as deck building, because you both start even.

1126230121[/unixtime]]
You're still making an arbitrary separation as to when the game starts. The game isn't just when mini's hit the playmat, it's also when you're creating a character. A chess match starts when you start preparing for an individual game/tourney/series-be it by reading strategy, practicing, or studying your opponent.

It's by no means arbitrary. I think all of us know "when the game starts". A chess game starts when the chess clocks start, or for a casual game, whenever white makes its first move. For a magic the gathering game, the game begins when everyone draws their seven cards and the player who goes first begins his untap phase.

Trying to try the odd play on words where the game somehow begins before it begins is a real stretch. It's like saying that a football game begins during practice or in the weight room while the players are conditioning. As arguments go, it's ludicrous and nonsensical. Where the game begins is self evident. Trying to redefine the starting point is nothing short of sophistry.

I'd disagree here. If you haven't built a deck, you can't play the game. And you can't just grab random cards, you have to build a deck that adheres to the rules.

Also, the difference between "overpower" and "outthink" is ridiculous. What if I "outperform" my opponent? Or "overefficient" my opponent? Again, you're just picking random terms to try to arbitrarily separate two things that are one and the same. You made this silly deckbuilder/wargamer distinction and are making more and more ridiculous claims to try to support it, without any real logic or evidence.

The distinction is simple. It's a determination between equipment and skill. To "overpower" simply means that you've got an edge in equipment. You're the guy racing with the Nascar racer against the other guys Honda Civic. You have advantages that largely have nothing to do with your own personal skill, but rather solely with what tools you have at your disposal. In an overpower situation, you're not winning because you're a better driver than the other guy, you're winning because your car has a better engine and overpowers his car, you're willing because he brought a knife to a gun fight and your equipment is better than his.

If you get to pick your equipment, and pick better equipment, you have essentially "outsmarted" your opponent. That's why the distinction is meaningless. If a Nascar driver races a guy with a Civic, and the Civic driver
A) Had the ability to soup up his car or get a Nascar
and
B)Chose not to
He was outsmarted by his opponent, because he made the choice not to use the best equipment available.

In magic the gathering or D&D, your deck or character is your equipment. Like a car, your deck could be turbocharged and optimized compared to someone else's crappy generic. But winning with such a deck or character isn't a tribute to your skill per se, it's because you started with more power, and the odds are effectively stacked in your favor. You have no more game skill than a dealer in blackjack following the simple dealer rules and winning money for the house. You aren't outplaying anyone, you're just overpowering them.

Again, you're wrong. It's just as essential to playing since you have a choice. For instance, during Combo Winter in Magic when High Tide was really dominant, an odd blue deck based on counterspell and cheap merfolk started performing reasonably well. It was designed to beat High Tide, but lost to many other decks. But because the fields for tourneys was so high-tide dominated, it was viable. The person who designed it first "outsmarted" all the high tide players.

If everyone has equal choice of equipment options, picking better equipment is outsmarting your opponent. And in D&D (and generally in Magic and other CCG's, although cost can be an issue) everyone has equal choice for equipment. So for these instances, your "overpower" and "outsmart" usages are equivalent.

To "outthink" or "outplay" refers to anything nontransferrable. It can be knowledge, intuition, intellect, deception or whatever, but it's about how you yourself played the game, not how your equipment performed or how lucky you were. Kasparov can't give someone all his chess knowledge and let them play like Kasparov, but you damn well can hand someone a tournament winning M:tG deck or a D&D power build for instance. You can give them the keys to your high performance car and let them race it.

And that's the difference and I don't think it's particularly hard to draw the line in most cases, certainly not in the case of D&D or M:tG.

What if I transfer my knowledge to someone? If I tell them exactly what to do in all situations, I have essentially "transfered" my knowledge. Or, what if I discover some new card interaction that nobody seen before? Isn't that "knowledge, intuition, intellect, deception or whatever"? You say Kasparov can't give someone all his chess knowledge and have someone play like him? You CAN program a computer to do this. Chess is actually a very bad example in this situation, simply because there is a set number of moves that can take place, far less than the possible options that take place in the typical playing of a CCG.

Seriously, the more I see you post on this topic, the more it seems like you just have some irrational grudge against CCG players. You make assumptions that are flat-out wrong about CCG's, deck building, and deck playing that are easily seen by even a casual tournament player.

Again, if you don't like "deckbuilding", just don't play games where people have choices. Because in any game where there is a choice, you will have "deckbuilding". I recommend Progquest (if it's still around) or the D02 system.

[RandomCasualty]

1126237866[/unixtime]]
I'd disagree here. If you haven't built a deck, you can't play the game. And you can't just grab random cards, you have to build a deck that adheres to the rules.

But you can grab someone's build off the internet. You can exactly copy your friends deck.

Again, you're wrong. It's just as essential to playing since you have a choice. For instance, during Combo Winter in Magic when High Tide was really dominant, an odd blue deck based on counterspell and cheap merfolk started performing reasonably well. It was designed to beat High Tide, but lost to many other decks. But because the fields for tourneys was so high-tide dominated, it was viable. The person who designed it first "outsmarted" all the high tide players.

Having a choice isn't so much the point, as is the fact that your choice is in a vacuum, and can be made by anyone with half a brain. You can rip off this combo winter deck and have it. You don't need to necessarily have any skill whatsoever to do that. Just like I can go jot down Frank's build for "The Word" and use that. And I don't nearly have to know the game as well as Frank does to do that. I'm not outsmarting anyone in this case. And this is why the deckbuilding as a form of outsmarting people just doesn't work.

Perhaps the first time a given deck or character was created it took skill, but after that, ripping off another cleric archer or another min/max druid is devoid of any skill.

What if I transfer my knowledge to someone? If I tell them exactly what to do in all situations, I have essentially "transfered" my knowledge.

Right, but you can't do that. So it's nontransferable. Kasparov can't tell you what to do in every chess situation because even he has yet to encounter every possible board set up. In many situations, Kasparov has to improvise and come up with a new strategy. Thus, Kasparov's knowledge of chess cannot be transferred. This makes it a matter of out thinking someone.

You can however perfectly share your new deck or character and transfer your power completely. Skill is something that has to be taught as opposed to something that can be given. Power is something that can just be handed out. Wargamers deal in skill, deckbuilders deal in power.

The deckbuilder style is essentially a tangible handicap that occurs when the game starts. You start out faster because you've got a better car, or you start out with better odds because you've got a better deck or character, or whatever.

Now, it's confusing because CCGs pretty much accept this as "part of the game" and it is. This is why I use the title "deck builder", because like in CCG philosophy, overpowering an opponent with a pregame handicap is exactly what deckbuilders do, and they're fine with it. And deckbuilding doesn't have a bad name in CCGs, in fact it's a requirement to win. Overpowering people is part of the game and a valid way to win.

Now, one can easily argue it's part of D&D and all RPGs too. And it is. However, in D&D, it does tend to have a bad name, because it's generally *not* ok to overpower people. RPGs are designed so everyone can have fun in a cooperative storytelling format. It is why we set everyone's level to the same amount for different PCs, to prevent overpowering. Having excessively min/maxed characters can be just like having a level 20 travelling with a group of level 10s. We all know that's undesireable, and really, how you got there doesn't matter. RPGs want a level playing field during the game itself so everyone has fun. It seriously doesn't matter if you're more powerful because you're the DM's girlfriend or because you deck built your way up there, it's just wrong for one PC to be way stronger than another by paradigm. Nobody wants to be penis whipped by anyone else at the table, and if you are doing that, then everyone really has a right to tell you to take your ball and go home. This isn't a CCG, this isn't a competetive game. Hence, deckbuilders have a bad name in RPGs.

You CAN program a computer to do this.

No you can't. You can program a computer to play grandmaster level chess, this is true, but you can't program it to play exactly like another person. You can program it to perform similar to him by loading every game he's ever played and cloning his moves in any situation the computer knows. But at some point it will have to improvise and think like Kasparov can, and it just can't do that.

Again, if you don't like "deckbuilding", just don't play games where people have choices. Because in any game where there is a choice, you will have "deckbuilding".

You accuse me of being elitist with this labeling system but apparently you're the one making snide elitist comments, so go figure.

The point isn't to eliminate deck building. I don't think that's possible in an RPG. The point is to de-emphasize it. You do that by eliminating trap choices and excessive synergies. You don't let people buy tumble or craft (basketweaver). You do what Starcraft did and make all three of its race choices more or less equal.

The goal is to create a game where you can't get unfair numerical edges by deckbuilding, and you can do that. It's not easy, but it's possible. Just look at SAME. It allows for a stat assignment system that is balanced no matter how you do it.

By now you should at least know what my classifications mean and what I'm saying. IF you want to try to argue how a deckbuilder system is inherently better than a balanced one, then go ahead... but please stop with the Bill Clinton style redefining of terms.

You know what I call a deckbuilder and a wargamer. Whether you agree on what "outplay" or "overpower" means... it seriously doesn't matter. You know what I mean by those terms and that's fine enough. We aren't going to get anywhere arguing over petty semantics.

[Murtak]

RC, are you aware that as much as a third of a deck can be "meta cards" (cards used solely to beat whatever decks you expect to be facing or decks you particularly fear). Furthermore another third can be optional cards - as in "you want some cheap creatures in these slots - pick what you like best".

Now, that is an extreme case, but I have seen decks with 2/3 optional and meta cards before (half a year ago in L5R - corrupt Unicorn speed, which has a whopping 12 core cards and maybe 10 more that fit so well you will always be playing them. That is out of 80 cards total)..

Of course you can also just copy the latest tournament winner of the net - and place yourself at a significant disadvantage for doing so.
Not only does next to everyone know of the best decks in a given enviroment (and how to beat them), likely they also have practiced against them. So you are going into the tournament with a deck you do not know well against decks you do not know at all - against opponents that know your deck, may even know how to play it better than you do, who know their own decks and who have practiced this particular matchup. That is a huge disadvantage.

Anecdotal evidence:
I have yet to see a L5R tournament report (by a tournament winner that is) which showed how some bad player had just copied a deck off the net and won with it. Oh, sometimes people copy decks. But they are always decks they already playtested with or against, which they know how to play and nearly all of them make adjustments to suit their playstyle. Ironically the people who can get away with almost-straight-copying are those with the strongest in-game playing skills - and they usually think of copying as of playing with a handicap.

I can not say the same for Magic - it has been quite a while since I read M:TG tournament reports.

[Murtak]

I missed this bit:

You know what I call a deckbuilder and a wargamer. Whether you agree on what "outplay" or "overpower" means... it seriously doesn't matter. You know what I mean by those terms and that's fine enough.

Actually I am not sure of that at all. Take for example the quality of being aware of what your cards can do and what your opponent's cards can do. Is this a deckbuilder quality or a wargamer quality? Both? Neither?

Clearly it is an in-game skill - which means it should be a wargamer quality. On the other hand, knowing what cards which decks play and how likely you are to see them quite clearly stems for pre-game preparation and is thus a deckbuilder quality.

[Alansmithee]

1126260407[/unixtime]
By now you should at least know what my classifications mean and what I'm saying. IF you want to try to argue how a deckbuilder system is inherently better than a balanced one, then go ahead... but please stop with the Bill Clinton style redefining of terms.

You know what I call a deckbuilder and a wargamer. Whether you agree on what "outplay" or "overpower" means... it seriously doesn't matter. You know what I mean by those terms and that's fine enough. We aren't going to get anywhere arguing over petty semantics.

That's the problem, I don't think I know what you call a deckbuilder and a wargamer. The other terms you used were in an attempt to differentiate them. From what I understand you saying, deckbuilder=bad and wargamer=good. You have given no other sensible definition.

[RandomCasualty]

1126276435[/unixtime]]

Actually I am not sure of that at all. Take for example the quality of being aware of what your cards can do and what your opponent's cards can do. Is this a deckbuilder quality or a wargamer quality? Both? Neither?

It's both. Knowing the rules is something that both wargamers and deckbuilders have to do. It applies both to pregame deck construction (deckbuilder) and to in-game strategy (wargamer).

That's the problem, I don't think I know what you call a deckbuilder and a wargamer. The other terms you used were in an attempt to differentiate them. From what I understand you saying, deckbuilder=bad and wargamer=good. You have given no other sensible definition.

Actually, deckbuilder= bad is not what I'm saying, but that's what you appear to be hearing. In magic the gathering, deckbuilder is actually good. It's expected of you to win the game and it's definitely a good trait to have. In RPGs and some other games, it is generally regarded as a bad thing because imbalance isn't a desired part of the game paradigm.

As for what they are, I've explained that several times throughout this. Deckbuilding is about starting the game with better statistics than your opponent (Better cards, better D&D character, a faster engine in your race car, a numerical edge in blackjack), while wargaming is about beating the opponent once the game has begun.

It really is that simple.

Don't get hung up on the fact of what you think I'm calling "good" or "bad" and just worry about what I'm defining these things as. I think you're too worried about defending the good name of the deckbuilder, that you're deliberately not understanding the basic label. If you think deckbuilding isn't inherently "bad" then that's ok, that's an opinion. But it's rather different from not understanding the definitions of the terms.

Once we have the basic definition of things down, then we can argue if they're good or bad for any one game as a whole.

[User3]

As for what they are, I've explained that several times throughout this. Deckbuilding is about starting the game with better statistics than your opponent (Better cards, better D&D character, a faster engine in your race car, a numerical edge in blackjack), while wargaming is about beating the opponent once the game has begun.

As a person who would certainly consider himself more of a deckbuilder than any of those other categories, I have to completely disagree with that characterization.

I certainly would not say that deckbuilding is about starting anything. It's about mastering the game. The difference is that the game I see myself playing doesn't start when I sit down at the table. It's a lot bigger than that. The decisions you make when build your deck can be just as much losing or winning decisions as the moves you make when you sit down to play. And winning one particular 'game' or even match is only a very minor step along the road to success on a larger scale.

In a way though it seems like D&D is a perfect game for deckbuilding of the kind I describe. It's very strange that it would be seen negatively. Deckbuilding in D&D would be about making the best character you can. In D&D the things that would make a character best are not just being superior in combat. Rather it involves having a character that is flexible, interesting, fun for other players to play with, and fitting into the overall strategy of the team of players you are involved with. That involves a lot of prior thought and preparation and is just as important as being good at making creative and effective decisions during the course of the game.

The difference between a so-called-deckbuilder and a so-called-wargamer seems to be solely in where they think the 'game' they are playing begins. That makes the difference a very small one indeed, since at any time we can imagine either group merely changing their perspective and becoming indistinguishable from the other.

[RandomCasualty]

1126317279[/unixtime]]
The difference between a so-called-deckbuilder and a so-called-wargamer seems to be solely in where they think the 'game' they are playing begins. That makes the difference a very small one indeed, since at any time we can imagine either group merely changing their perspective and becoming indistinguishable from the other.

There's no doubt about where the game begins. A game of magic begins when people shuffle their decks and draw 7 cards and the first untap phase begins. A game of chess begins when white makes its first move. When you finish building a deck for magic, you don't say "wow I just started this really awesome game of magic.", you say "I just built this awesome deck that I'll use next time I play a game of magic."

I don't see how there can be any confusion whatsoever as to what is game time and what is pregame time.

It is infact self evident where the game begins, and devolving into Bill Clinton style arguments where you try to play with the definitions of words just isn't going to get anywhere.

[Murtak]

There's no doubt about where the game begins. A game of magic begins when people shuffle their decks and draw 7 cards and the first untap phase begins. A game of chess begins when white makes its first move.

And now let's take a look at the less obvious cases.
- In DnD, when you build your character you say it is deckbuilding. Ok, let's go with that.
- When you take a level of whatever class sometime during your campaign what is that? I am guessing you will call it deckbuilding.
- When you actively try to join the Brotherhood of Goodliness to get into their organisation based PrC - what is that?
- When you steal the Orb of Power (thus improving your statistics for the next game), is that deckbuilding?

Speaking for myself, I can not see this apparently self-evident cutoff between deckbuilding and wargaming.



Also I am curious how defining these terms will help you back up your original claims (some example: "deckbuilding is about exploiting the rules", "combo decks always win", "deck builders don't houserule" and so on).

[User3]

As usual, I think RC is mostly correct. However, I don't think the problem is with the players, but with the game designers.

D&D has been created trying to take into account the 3 things people want: tactics, character creation choices, and roleplaying. The problem is that in trying to merge these three things coherently, they've totally lost sight of all of them.

Chess is a game of tactics, the quintessential wargame. Everyone start with the same resources, and much like Starcraft, there is no "deck building" phase. One of the reasons both chess and Starcraft continue to be played so often is that despite there being a different starting choice (black or white for chess, or zerg, terran, protoss for SC) there is 'balance' in power.

Magic, old-school Type I, was the quintessential creation game. Design a deck, and optimize it through statistics, so taht you build your mana base correctly and fire your combo before your opponent does. There is virtually NO wargame aspect here, the thinking is done before the game even begins. I think recent Type 2 (and even Extended) tournaments are more akin to being a good mix of both game philosophies.

A live action murder mystery is the quintessential role-playing game. There is no tactical thinking or preparation required to 'win', you win simply by taking a role and solving the mystery. Hell, you could even argue that pure acting is the 'truest' form of roleplaying. This 'game' is very distinct from the other two because there is an inherent ambiguity about goals.


So, D&D (and other paper and pen RPGs) try to reconcile these things. And fail. Miserably.

Why? A mixture of stupidity (Andy!), monetary pressure (gotta pump out rules to make a buck, editing be damned), Gigaxian legacy mechanics, and a lack of clear objectives to achieve. Because the games try and be so much at once, it ends up being crap.

Solution: do like TKD and play HERO. I guess. I dunno. I haven't played an RPG in ages. Work on my own system has been... non-existent due to scholastic pressure.

[RandomCasualty]

1126341598[/unixtime]]
And now let's take a look at the less obvious cases.
- In DnD, when you build your character you say it is deckbuilding. Ok, let's go with that.
- When you take a level of whatever class sometime during your campaign what is that? I am guessing you will call it deckbuilding.
- When you actively try to join the Brotherhood of Goodliness to get into their organisation based PrC - what is that?
- When you steal the Orb of Power (thus improving your statistics for the next game), is that deckbuilding?

There is some ambiguity when you talk about playing a character literally from level 1 to 20 or something similar. And whether it's wargaming or deckbuilding isn't clear in that specific case. Upgrading an existing character within a campaign as opposed to building a new one is an edge case, and really it's not all that important to get into.

Mainly because one of the principles of D&D is that you can start at any level.

If you're playing a game where you have to start at level 1, then you can start looking at classes in a non-deckbuilder sense, and you can get into weird Gygaxian mindset where it's ok for the wizard to suck at level 1 because he totally pwns at level 20. However, I think we've moved beyond mechanics like that to the point that we don't really think of character choices in the sense that you always have to get there from level 1. If you want to revert to Gygaxian thinking, where people in 10th level parties have to start level 1 because they're new, then we can start talking about character leveling up and taking PrCs as being much more wargamer. If every character choice has to help you survive now, and you can't be content to level yourself up purely in a vacuum, you're much more worried about wargamer skills.

Also, note that I never said that the cutoff between wargaming and deckbuiling was self evident, only that the start of the game was self evident. There are certainly cases, like this one, where it's not clear if it's a wargamer or deckbuilder situation, and may be a little of both. Overall, these edge cases shouldn't change your design philosophy.

In the general case, creating a character is a deckbuilder situation and should be balanced accordingly. In terms of game design, we should always approach it as a deckbuilding issue.

[RandomCasualty]

1126482039[/unixtime]]
Solution: do like TKD and play HERO. I guess. I dunno. I haven't played an RPG in ages. Work on my own system has been... non-existent due to scholastic pressure.

I'm really curious about the HERO system. I know next to nothing about it besides a brief glance through it. On face value it seems to be a lot similar to GURPS, but a lot of people seem to consider it more balanced and a better system. Why is that?

[Tae_Kwon_Dan]

1126483956[/unixtime]]
I'm really curious about the HERO system. I know next to nothing about it besides a brief glance through it. On face value it seems to be a lot similar to GURPS, but a lot of people seem to consider it more balanced and a better system. Why is that?

Because it's more balanced and a better system. Okay, you had to see that coming. In actuality it's because GURPS is actually just a variation on the HERO system before the guys making Champions realized their system could be generalized. Like most bastardized systems it had to make enough changes that it's just not quite as good as its predecessors. Especially the 4th and 5th edition of its predecessor. HEROphiles love GURPS source books though, because they are so well researched and convert easily into HERO.

As for HERO itself there are still warts like any system so while I love it death I don't think it's perfect at all. I'll list a few problems I have with it as a system.

1. It's effectiveness on a system is really on a bell-curve. Basically it doesn't do god-like powers or everyday humans very well. At the upper levels of point totals, we'll say 2,000 plus, the game just falls apart, because folks pretty much can destroy the universe at that level. Or they can do everything everybody else can do and then destroy the universe. At the lower levels, say 75 or less, folks are so ineffectual that they might all as well be in homes. Being broken at high point totals is really more of a problem than low point totals since you'll run into a much larger contingent of folks that want to be ueber than be everyday.

2. The system is genre-less which means you have to do a lot of work yourself. I personally find Fantasy HERO to be better balanced that D&D, but you have to do a lot of work yourself or find others that have done it for you. This is especially sucky when coming up with a magic system for your world, because that's a lot of work and balancing. It's hard to go pure Vancian, because there aren't character levels to tie spell levels in with and spontaneous systems left unchecked will make the spellcasters quickly outpace non-spellcasters and then you might as well be playing D&D.

This can be a positive for some, because I do admit part of the fun I have with HERO is figuring out how to make something work in the game. But if you're on a time crunch it's something you have to consider.

3. Because of its desire to be able to generally recreate any power or ability the GM must sitdown and figure out several important character creation limitations for his game to get the feel he wants. You will have to let the players in on the man behind the curtain to an extent and I know some folks don't like that.

It's not like D&D where you can look at a first level character and go "no I don't think so" and make them spend another 30 minutes fleshing out a new character. Like all point-buy systems character creation can take a while and it's only fair that the players know what is and isn't allowed, what the active point caps and damage class caps are, and other things so that they don't waste 2 hours of their time making a character that you can't allow, because it doesn't fit the genre you're going for. Thus there is a certain level of implicit trust between the GM and the players that limitations won't be totally abused by either side.

4. My final warning about the system is that it is difficult to break a new player into. The level of choices available right off the bat make it very overwhelming and while the math is easy once you understand it, it's not that straight forward at first blush. It's a scary system for a newbie.

As for some of my positives of the system:

1. Internally consistent - You can arrive in the same place from two different paths and as long as you're not doing something really funky those paths should cost the same if not close to the same amount of points. Everything is based on a core concept of 5 character points earns a d6 of regular effect. They make variations from there, but that root makes adding new things or removing old things a lot easier.

2. It's genre-less - One of its weaknesses is also a strength, because once you know the system and as long as you're willing to put in the work you can make about anything. D20 tried to do this, but some things should not be level-based, Jedi for instance, and it works much better in a general system.

3. Character creation is totally in the player's control - There is no randomization to character creation. Not a single bit and for long term campaigns where you want the party to be on equal footing without negative consequences caused by poor luck this is a good thing. I've actually found that since I can make anything I want I spend much less time on worrying about Min/Max and more time worrying about the character.

*I do like random character creation as well, but for a long term campaign I much prefer having the exact character I envisioned at the start of the campaign.

4. Lately HERO sourcebooks have been bitch slapping WotC products - Hudson City: The Urban Abyss took any product released by WotC in the last year and bent it over a barrel. No lube. They've been doing a great job of mixing fluff and crunch in their sourcebooks and also clearly mark all crunch books, e.g. the Equipment Guide, as nothing, but that. No surprises as to what you get in their products.

Even their weaker products are merely mediocre in my opinion.

Enough rambling for now. Feel free to ask more questions or for clarifications on what I wrote in a new thread if you like.

[User3]

That last guest was me, if you couldn't guess already. I like Dan's breakdown of HERO, and am now convinced I should give it a try.

Since it sounds like a lot of the detailed rules are left to the DM, it shouldn't be too much trouble to fix some the issues you mentioned. Other issues, like the newb-fear and implied mechanics will probably be tougher to handle.

[Josh_Kablack]

1126324660[/unixtime]]
It is infact self evident where the game begins, and devolving into Bill Clinton style arguments where you try to play with the definitions of words just isn't going to get anywhere.

REAL deckbuilding starts with measurements, moves to blueprints and then involves several trips to a lumberyard before the actual "game" begins.

[User3]

You forgot permit applications.