Alansmithee at [unixtime wrote: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.