General CBS

[Grillo_Parlante]

He's not adressing my point though. If you have a playgroup of anti-competitive players, neither of whom is interested at "breaking" the format, nor prioritizing winning the game, what happens is you can have fun games where wacky stuff happens. For players like that (players like me I would say), it's not about winning or breaking the meta, it's about having fun, and yes, that is subjective. I get that he doesn't like EDH, but he gives no reason for why it is inherently a bad format. The whole essence of his stance is summed up casually in a single paragraph:

In other words: winning, from his point of view, is the only legitimate intent of Magic the Gathering. Sorry, but that's just not how every player ticks.

Its more that winning is a major intent of magic, and that edh players choose some really inelegant methods to police it. The end result being you need a group of like minded people for it to be fun for everyone, and the whole thing collapses when you add a new player that dosen't understand that particular groups social contract, and starts intentionally (or unintentionally) metagaming

I thought his case was well supported; though he is very dismissive of the people who play the format, which is distracting from the overall substance of his argument.

 

[Rasmus Källqvist]

This is something I find lacking in casual play in general, and something I don't know if there's a particularly good solution to. Tournament Play is sort of self adjusting because people have to conform to the meta in order to able to participate and people have a drive to be part of the meta, which in itself is shaped by people spending a lot of passion in creating competitive and focused decks from the card pool associated with that format.

Casual is not really restricted in such a rigid manner. I completely agree with KGF about how loose and non-lasting a gentlemans agreement must be, because you get the previously mentioned power creep within the play group. Nothing keeps your vampire tribal from getting stomped by someones affinity deck one day.

Maybe a solution is to impose some kind of card pool restriction like budget (with the problems of course of cards having dynamic and shifting prices) or a certain number of sets? Rarity? As long as everyone in the play group feel like they can both be creative with their deck building and know what power level to expect from decks their friends friend brings next play date.

 

[whydirt]

I don't want people to get too caught up in phrasing, as there is some nuance here that should be acknowledged: very few people are 100% spike and 100% Johnny: but as far as format construction goes, larger sandboxs tend to be fun, but harder to balance, and if you're a competitive player you are going to crave balance. This is what I am trying to say.

Sure I can agree with that. The inclusion of false choices or trap options doesn't increase actual variety in gameplay.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Maybe a solution is ...

Why are you looking for a solution? This so called problem with casual Magic lives mainly in the heads (and blogs) of those who dislike casual. People who like casual are fine with the way things are. In other words: there is no problem.

 

[Rasmus Källqvist]

I'm looking for a solution to the phenomenon of there not being any systematic restriction to what is brought to the table, it to me becomes a completely arbitrary boundary. What is a "low powered fun" casual deck? When our ideas of fun low power differ, do we blame each others choice of deck? Are the other persons idea of fun wrong? I don't want there to be any guess work, I want there to be some very clear lines.

For instance, I would love to put together a little burning vengeance control deck, but to do that I need to know that this is the sort of decks other people are willing to play against. People who like casual aren't just this one unified group, it's just a mind set of people when they sit down to play that particular night. I can play casually on night with some common cards or with a cube, the next day I could play a competitive tournament.

Obviously I as a casual player don't like how arbitrary the format can feel sometimes, so that's why I as a casual player have a problem with it.

 

[safra]

I've tried to solve the casual playgroup knife/gun fight issue before and all I've had success with are systems where one person handles choosing a format. So I went and got the cards for some Pauper CompCon decks and we had a blast, and then I built a Cube and that was good. I gave people a choice of proxy Legacy decks and it was also good.

The alternative, before I got into doing all that extra set-up, was losing on turn four to my ex-roomie's Food Chain Griffin combo, or miserable turns against an Elf LD deck, or maybe rolling my other friends' decks with my CompCon Pauper lists (mostly Goblins). My "casual" decks were awful, and that's fine but as soon as the field loses its even keel and somebody brings a good deck they either need to stop or everyone else needs to buy cards to 'keep up'.

I thought that was a pretty abysmal state of things and looked into, then built, a Cube. Maybe we don't need to agonize over possible solutions, i think we have one already.

 

[Rasmus Källqvist]

Oh absolutely! I just miss the ability to participate in a constructed meta sometimes, so just making the card pool of that particular constructed format accessible to all participants of the play group I think would be awesome. Another idea I suppose if you're like an association or a club is to just buy in a bunch of copies of "staple" cards and lend it to people during game nights.

 

[FlowerSunRain]

I'll respectfully disagree. Being able to tell when a game is over is certainly a cornerstone of many games, but the major intent of games (usually) is engaging its players in a fun pastime.

That's not the intent of the game. You can do that without the game. Games are often used as an excuse to get that social engagement, but the game doesn't actually do that. You could watch a movie together, eat out at a restaurant, go to a baseball game or even just sit around talking about the good old days. The game itself only cares about who wins it: that is literally all it does. If you like using Magic as a proxy activity for your social engagement that's fine, but many people who join a game like to do so on the merits of the game itself and its frustrating when you are invited to "play Magic," but you are only playing a fascade of Magic.

In short, I have lots of fun playing Magic. I have lots of fun not playing Magic. I'm happy doing either, but if you invite me to play Magic and then play not Magic instead I'm going to be disappointed.

 

[Dom Harvey]

There's a key distinction between 'regulating' fun in the wider metagame and doing it inside a game. Maybe I don't want to play Legacy because I think the decks are too powerful or oppressive or whatever, so I don't find it fun; but if I do play Legacy, I'm not going to complain when my opponent Wastelands me or decline to use my Force of Will because it stops my opponent doing what they want.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Obviously I as a casual player don't like how arbitrary the format can feel sometimes, so that's why I as a casual player have a problem with it.

Fair enough. I never had that problem, despite playing with a lot of different players, but then again, deck building was my greatest passion in Magic, and I had over a hundred casual decks sleeved at the height of my casual Magic days (before I got kids), so I always had an appropriate deck on hand.

That's not the intent of the game. You can do that without the game. Games are often used as an excuse to get that social engagement, but the game doesn't actually do that. You could watch a movie together, eat out at a restaurant, go to a baseball game or even just sit around talking about the good old days. The game itself only cares about who wins it: that is literally all it does. If you like using Magic as a proxy activity for your social engagement that's fine, but many people who join a game like to do so on the merits of the game itself and its frustrating when you are invited to "play Magic," but you are only playing a fascade of Magic.

In short, I have lots of fun playing Magic. I have lots of fun not playing Magic. I'm happy doing either, but if you invite me to play Magic and then play not Magic instead I'm going to be disappointed.

I have the feeling your being very semantic here. If we're going to be really anal about it we can even say that a game in and of itself doesn't have any intent because it isn't sentient. I'm pretty sure KGF isn't talking about the intent of EDH as an entity either. The intent of a game, imo, can be derived from its creators, and those most certainly didn't create the game with the main purpose of providing a way to win in mind, and from its players, and those, usually, play a game to have a good time, not to win. I mean, you can play to win, but if the game isn't fun, you'll stop playing the game sooner or later.

 

[FlowerSunRain]

A game is a set of rules that determines a winner. If following said rules to determine that winner is leads to a positive experience (fun, enlightening, enthralling, engaging, deliciously agonizing, whatever it is that makes an experience positive for you), then its a good game. If it isn't, its a bad game. The intent of the creator is entirely irrelevant. If you aren't trying to win the game, even if you are using the game components and procedures, that isn't really playing the game so whether or not that is fun has little to do with whether or not the game is fun.

For example, I once tried to teach this kid how to play bridge. He didn't get it. Or maybe he did and didn't care. Anyway, when it was his turn to bid he would just scream FIVE HEARTS!!! or SIX CLUBS!!! His team would invariably lose every hand, but he was smiling and giggling the whole time. I'm sure if you asked him his opinion of bridge he would say he loves it, but I'm pretty sure he just loved screaming, listening to everyone else groan and throwing cards on the table. The fact that their was a game called bridge being played at the time was tangential at best. If I wrote a new activity called "Smiggoblin" that involved dealing cards and yelling out funny nonsense words while throwing cards at the other players, he probably would have liked that even better.

 

[Chris Taylor]

A game is a set of rules that determines a winner. If following said rules to determine that winner is leads to a positive experience (fun, enlightening, enthralling, engaging, deliciously agonizing, whatever it is that makes an experience positive for you), then its a good game. If it isn't, its a bad game. The intent of the creator is entirely irrelevant. If you aren't trying to win the game, even if you are using the game components and procedures, that isn't really playing the game so whether or not that is fun has little to do with whether or not the game is fun.

For example, I once tried to teach this kid how to play bridge. He didn't get it. Or maybe he did and didn't care. Anyway, when it was his turn to bid he would just scream FIVE HEARTS!!! or SIX CLUBS!!! His team would invariably lose every hand, but he was smiling and giggling the whole time. I'm sure if you asked him his opinion of bridge he would say he loves it, but I'm pretty sure he just loved screaming, listening to everyone else groan and throwing cards on the table. The fact that their was a game called bridge being played at the time was tangential at best. If I wrote a new activity called "Smiggoblin" that involved dealing cards and yelling out funny nonsense words while throwing cards at the other players, he probably would have liked that even better.

Somewhere, a Balduvian Trading Post user just creamed their jeans over their new cube idea

 

[Jason Waddell]

There's no 'i' in Temurcil, at least not where you'd think.

 

[Diakonov]

I don't have any issue with other people enjoying EDH, so it seems totally unnecessary to bash it as a format.

But then I have friends who want me to play. I don't want to play, but we're stuck at five players, and I'm already at their house, and that's what the other four want to do. So I borrow someone's deck. Then I get mana screwed and do virtually nothing for an hour, and afterward have to listen to my friend complain about my other friend's choice of deck because it was too uninteractive.

IT'S FINE THOUGH

 

[Jason Waddell]

Why are you looking for a solution? This so called problem with casual Magic lives mainly in the heads (and blogs) of those who dislike casual. People who like casual are fine with the way things are. In other words: there is no problem.

Uh, well, not exactly. I have witnessed many an EDH game end with people grumbling and complaining and bitching and moaning. All by casual players. If you don't like EDH (e.g. me), that dislike is accentuated by having to overhear EDH players constantly bitch and moan about things in your local store.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Uh, well, not exactly. I have witnessed many an EDH game end with people grumbling and complaining and bitching and moaning. All by casual players. If you don't like EDH (e.g. me), that dislike is accentuated by having to overhear EDH players constantly bitch and moan about things in your local store.

Yeah. That does happen. I was in a game once where a player with an expensive fetches and shocks (and even duals I think?) manabase was whining and bitching because the player to his right dropped a Primal Order out of one of the least cutthroat decks I've ever seen. Eventually the player with the expensive manabase threw up his hand in disgust over that ridiculous unfair card. In his hand was a Global Ruin, and we had two mono-colored decks at the table. Primal Order is unfair... Right...

So, point taken. I still like EDH though

 

[Onderzeeboot]

A game is a set of rules that determines a winner. If following said rules to determine that winner is leads to a positive experience (fun, enlightening, enthralling, engaging, deliciously agonizing, whatever it is that makes an experience positive for you), then its a good game. If it isn't, its a bad game. The intent of the creator is entirely irrelevant. If you aren't trying to win the game, even if you are using the game components and procedures, that isn't really playing the game so whether or not that is fun has little to do with whether or not the game is fun.

And then there is D&D, a coop game that isn't about winning but about storytelling. And various sports games, like marathon running, where players aren't trying to win even though they really are playing the game. And sure, you could twist around the interpretations of those games to say that they really are about winning, but we're just looking at this from very different perspectives. The game technically may be a set of rules that determines a winner, but without players the game is nothing, and players don't always play games to win. When I get together with friends for a evening of gaming, I'm not getting together for an evening of trying to win games, I'm getting together to have a good time. So, let's just agree that we try to answer the question of what the purpose of a game is differently.

 

[Eric Chan]

pretty sure i need to set the forum software to auto-ban the word 'EDH', in addition to 'tempo'

that, or force all of you guys to define what tempo is in the context of an EDH game

 

[safra]

pretty sure i need to set the forum software to auto-ban the word 'EDH', in addition to 'tempo'

that, or force all of you guys to define what tempo is in the context of an EDH game

Sol Ring on turn one.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Sol Ring on turn one.

So you can play a turn 2 Separatist Voidmage.

Edit: D'oh! Wrong Voidmage.

 

[FlowerSunRain]

And sure, you could twist around the interpretations of those games to say that they really are about winning, but we're just looking at this from very different perspectives.

No, I would say those aren't "games" any more then "watch TV with friends" is a game. The reason the distinction is important to me is because if it is a game, we can analyze it and apply principles and theories of game design to critique or improve it. When the thing you are looking to improve isn't a game, you look somewhere else.

Just look at 4e D&D, for example, and the sundering of that community that it brought. The designers attempted to take the encounter unit and apply game principles to it to make it an interesting game. They succeeded, and yet people left in droves. Why? Personally I think generally D&D players don't a quality game, they want a game-shaped vessel, adorned with stats and probabilities, to hold their narrative and the existence of actual gameplay codified things too much and distorted what made the made interesting (magical?) to them. Trying to improve D&D by improving the game was pointless: that isn't why people play.

Personally for my roleplaying, I just let it all go. Free-form all the way, current storyline 7 years in. Freeform roleplaying gives me the same enjoyment that roleplaying games do without the game, because the game (following the procedures in an attempt to find a winner) isn't where the enjoyment in that activity comes from.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Broadly speaking, people play games because they find decisions the game asks them to make interesting, and that dosen't have to have anything to do with winning.

 

[vennythekid]

Another idea I suppose if you're like an association or a club is to just buy in a bunch of copies of "staple" cards and lend it to people during game nights.

Sounds like you just invented Cube again...

 

[Onderzeeboot]

No, I would say those aren't "games" any more then "watch TV with friends" is a game. The reason the distinction is important to me is because if it is a game, we can analyze it and apply principles and theories of game design to critique or improve it. When the thing you are looking to improve isn't a game, you look somewhere else.

Dungeons & Dragons (abbreviated as D&D[2] or DnD) is a fantasy tabletop role-playing game (RPG)

Let's just stop with this maddening discourse FSR. If we can't even agree D&D is a game this discussion becomes even more pointless than it already was. What about children's games like rope jumping? Those aren't about winning either. But you probably don't think of those as a game either.

We are not going to agree because we refuse to answer the question on the same level. You are, imho, looking at it from a super analytical and technical pov, trying to define the purpose of a game (where game is a very rigid set of things) from its rules, its code so to speak. I am looking at this from a more holistic pov, saying that you can't just look at the cold rules, because a game can only come through life because of its players. If it just sits on the shelf it has no purpose. In fact, strict, codified rules aren't even needed to be called a game.

Our povs can never get to the same answer because they interpret the question in a fundamentally different way.

 

[Rasmus Källqvist]

Ah

Sounds like you just invented Cube again...

Again, I'm looking for constructed not limited!