#See, repeating same thing over and over
true wyvern
If you made those points I missed them so I apologise.
I think we are talking past each other at this point. You are defining deck building entirely by the act of adding and removing cards, and if that is the only criterion then I agree that Challengers and Star Realms look similar. My definition includes that, but it also includes how the deck is used during play.
In Star Realms the deck is not just something you build. It is the engine that drives your turn. You make decisions because the deck gives you options, and you choose how to sequence those options, how to spend resources, what to trash, and how to shape the next cycle of your deck. Even if some decisions are simple, they are still decisions you choose to make because the deck presented them to you.
In Challengers the timing and presence of decisions are not driven by you. They happen only when a specific card appears, and the game decides when that happens. You are not piloting the deck in the same way. That is the line for me. One game gives you a turn‑to‑turn decision space shaped by your deck, and the other gives you occasional prompts triggered by the deck.
That is why I see them as different genres. I understand that your definition is narrower and based only on the mechanism, but mine includes how the mechanism functions in play. At this point it is clear we are using different frameworks, and that is fine
obtuse iron
isnt one of the main points of a deck builder deck thining though? (giving the control back to you)
true wyvern
I feel like the genre has shifted away from heavy deck thinning recently
obtuse iron
i mean dominion no matter what you say will be a deck building game where deck thinning is one of the 3 ways to win the game, so i feel like it kind of defines part of deck building (like how meta progression of any kind defines a roguelite)
true wyvern
To put it another way, Challengers feels like tweaking a TCG deck between rounds rather than playing what I think of as a deck building game. In a TCG you adjust your deck, then you go off and play the actual match. With Challengers you adjust your deck, then watch the game resolve. That is very different from the feeling I get in deck building games where the deck is my focus the entire time.
To be clear that isn't a bad thing and it is really nice intentional design. It is just that difference that means I wouldn't call it a deck building game
obtuse iron
To put it another way, Challengers feels like tweaking a TCG deck between rounds...
gonna be honest havent exactly heard/played challengers x3
would you call die masters a deck building game tho (or a bag builder but yk same deal)?
true wyvern
I'm not familiar with Dice Masters but looking at the rules it looks like I'd call it one
obtuse iron
I'm not familiar with Dice Masters but looking at the rules it looks like I'd ca...
ah, i mean if you like dice, deck builders or/and tcg's its def worth a look, but good to know x3
odd mural
TL;DR
Challengers didn't pass the vibe check for some
true wyvern
Sure. If that's what you got out of that then this conversation is pointless.
I don't know if you are trolling or what but I struggle to believe anyone engaging in good faith could think it is just a "vibe check"
odd mural
To put it another way, Challengers feels like tweaking a TCG deck between rounds rather than playing what I think of as a deck building game. In a TCG you adjust your deck, then you go off and play the actual match. With Challengers you adjust your deck, then watch the game resolve. That is very different from the feeling I get in deck building games where the deck is my focus the entire time.
Deckbuilder feels not like deckbuilder, therefore it's not a deckbuilder
Vibe check
true wyvern
That is one message that specifically focuses on feelings. I've sent many others which don't. That message was meant to simplify my stance and try to give us a solid base to work from and maybe make it clearer when I'm starting from