General Magic Tweaks

[Eric Chan]

Or, if fixing the "problem" of nongames due to screws and flooding isn't worht arguing over with a close friend, accept that you're not going to fix it and move on. That's also an option of course

Try new games! There are plenty of games on the market that have addressed some of the problems that Magic has with variance, doing away with the likes of mana screw, colour screw, and mana flood. The advantage of playing one of these commercial games, rather than trying to 'fix' Magic yourself with a homebrew solution, is that there are cards, decks, archetypes, and environments designed and engineered specifically for those reduced variance rulesets. My favourite go-to example of this is the equivalent of Cancel, in the World of Warcraft TCG. We all know that Cancel is basically unplayable dreck in Magic. Would you believe that, when you can't be mana screwed or colour screwed, the exact same card is one of the best in the entire WoW TCG card pool?

I would encourage people frustrated with Magic to give other TCGs a fair shake. Hearthstone is one that's available on most every platform; chances are, if you can type out a post here, you can play Hearthstone. There's no monetary commitment required, and the most you can lose is a few hours of your time - probably less time than we've all spent going back and forth on this one thread alone. I'd say it's well worth your while to dig into it, and see if it's your cup of tea.

 

[Eric Chan]

I would argue this doesn't undermine any core fundamental.

Actually, I would say it does. I believe everyone on this thread has identified how deckbuilding would fundamentally change. Ideas about mana curve, the lands-to-spells ratio, and the correct amount of fixing go out the window, among other things.

That then snowballs into your draft strategy, which again would be fundamentally altered.

 

[ahadabans]

Actually, it does. I believe everyone on this thread has identified how deckbuilding would fundamentally change. Ideas about mana curve, the lands-to-spells ratio, and the correct amount of fixing go out the window, among other things.

That then snowballs into your draft strategy, which again would be fundamentally altered.

They don't go out the window. You are back to being extremist again.

You still need a mana curve. You still have to have an ideal lands-to-spells ratio. You still need fixing. Do these numbers change? Maybe a tiny bit. But if you think you can suddenly run 12 lands instead of 17, you are going to run into a lot of problems trying to bandaid your deck using exile/draw every turn. I already tried that and ended up decking myself a couple times.

Maybe you drop a land or two. Maybe. I probably wouldn't because extra lands are ideal candidates for being pitched for a card. Things get a lot harder when you have a handful of great cards and have no idea what to pitch. That's where all my mistakes came in during testing. It's especially bad if you have all spells and no lands and what you hope to get is a land. Your odds of getting a land to exile/draw is lower than 50% (just like it is with your regular draw step), so its a big gamble putting yourself in that situation by being greedy with your land count.

You still play one land a turn. So if all you have are 6 drops in your deck, you are screwed. If making 6 consecutive land drops and then dropping a haymaker wins you games, you are either playing incompetent people or your meta is so broken that exile/draw is the least of your worries.

 

[Eric Chan]

Yes, I worded my argument poorly. I am not arguing that those concepts no longer exist. Only that they need to be relearned, and optimized for from the ground up for this new game. The existing shortcuts that we use today and have committed to memory would no longer be applicable. Perhaps they would be a starting point, but just as likely, we might find that it would be better to start our research anew.

Between the impact on card evaluation, drafting, and deckbuilding, the core argument I'm trying to make is that this more closely resembles a new, different game rather than Magic as we play it today. In fact, I would go so far as to say this new game resembles Magic less than some of the commercial TCGs that are available on the market today - games that I've played, where both Magic's core concepts and the corresponding curves & ratios carry over almost directly from Magic.

As an aside, since you brought up Worldknit, this may or may not be related to why no one runs the card in their cube at this point: besides its unbalancing effects on a draft, particularly on signalling, I believe that the consensus opinion is that while it's a fun novelty for a week or two, it's not the kind of thing people want around permanently when they get together to play Magic.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

To me, the game is already being abused by overly efficient decks and leaving more fringe strategies obsolete. I'd also argue that in competitive circles (constructed in particular), more than 50% of the game is playing the meta versus actually playing the actual game of Magic... I think playing the meta is a stupid concept that came into existence because Magic has flaws that forced it down that path. Not saying it isn't highly skill intensive, I just personally think it's unfun and lame.

To bring this back to player psychology, I think this is really important because people that lean more spike, johnny, and timmy often times end up talking past each other. And I say this because I know I've seen you describe yourself as a Johnny in the past, and the player you are having issues with you are describing as a spike.

The first thing to remember is that Spikes will always try to abuse your system to win--whatever that system is. Playing against a meta is a consequence of competitive magic--where Spikes live and breath--and is a way to game a system to gain a competitive advantage. You seem to inherently dislike this approach, but as the groups GM, you still need to be empathetic about how different people in your group think.

Whatever system you come up with, Spike is going to be there to break it. Even if you manage to get rid of the meta (which i.m.o would make the game muchless interesting) and turn it into some sort of johnny playground of insane ideas every draft, Spike will be there to game things. Natural selection will take its course. Certain fringe strategies will become obsolete. Even in Commander, there exists "competitive commander" players. People just enjoy different things about magic.

The second point, is the question, whom does your rule change really benefit? Johnnys and Timmys. Yes, deck consistency is an issue for everyone, but it is infinitely more an issue for hardcore Johnnys and Timmys. Consistency issues ultimately brick-wall their creativity, as they have to be ready for the hyper efficient decks Spike wants to make, that will punish them for any in-built inefficiency often necessary to achieve exciting creative visions.

Are these consistency issues a big problem for a hard-core spike? Well no...he benefits from them. Either from stumbles across the table that he gets to prey upon, or by the fact that building towards consistency does not represent a sacrifice in what he enjoys about magic. He still gets to game the system, out-play/draft the competition, and win more.

And this is a big part of why your Spike player is going to be opposed to these rule changes: they don't address a problem that he cares about. Sure, we can intellectualize the issues of non-games, but ultimately he just won't care unless it’s a problem that matters to him. Your more Johnny, Timmy, Commander ect. players will probably be very open to it.

And this brings us to the big question: is this a change being made so that magic is more fun, or is it a change being made so that magic is more fun for you? Whatever you do, don’t get so focused on pushing the idea that you start alienating players, and risk breaking up the group.

Edit: A really good way maybe to experiment with these ideas, in a more accessable, less invasive way, would be custom conspiracy cards?

 

[FlowerSunRain]

I think people are overstating the effects of ahadaban's proposal. The game would still feel like Magic. The game would still play like Magic. I mean, it is Magic where both players get the same weird Vanguard card.

I don't necessarily think its a good change, but I wouldn't be opposed to messing around with. If the claim "casting your spells is fun" is true, and that's the reason why we put copious manafixing in the cube, then this seems to be a similar approach to that issue from the opposite angle.

 

[Eric Chan]

Great post, Grillo. The interesting part is that I also have both hardcore Timmies and hardcore Johnnies in my playgroup. They tend to be less focused on winning, and more on enabling that "ONE GIANT OVERKILL!" or that "ONE RIDICULOUS COMBO!", and then recalling that event days or weeks down the road. Just as Maro describes in his write-up of the player psychographic profiles, the Johnny over here is perfectly content to lose nine games out of ten, if during that tenth game he gets to win via his obscure five-card combo that required all the stars to align.

To be fair to them, they're certainly interested in improving their own deckbuilding and playing skills, but only when it doesn't come at the expense of putting together their sweet concoction.

 

[Eric Chan]

...don't get me started on the time I attended a Vanguard cube event. "You're a casual player. You'll like it!" No, I am not. And no, I did not.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

And this brings us to the big question: is this a change being made so that magic is more fun, or is it a change being made so that magic is more fun for you? Whatever you do, don’t get so focused on pushing the idea that you start alienating players, and risk breaking up the group.

To be honest, it sounds like this change hasn't happened yet because of one player. as you just perfectly argued, why would a spike even care about this rules change? He'll just find another way to game the system, and the wins will be more rewarding (supposing even a spike will enjoy a close win that he had to work for more rewarding than a free win because his opponent never drew a third land). Meanwhile, he's doing the rest of his group and himself a favor. If this spike is a man of reason, really the best thing that can be done is explain to him why you want to change the rules. Let him think with you, argue why it is or isn't a problem, and find out if this is really the way to "fix" the "problem" or if there is a better way. Ask him to indulge in the final proposal for a night, and have every player weigh in on whether it improved their Magic experience. If he doesn't much like it, but five other players felt it played way better, he might just shrug and say what the hell, I'll survive! Or you find out that it does break the game, which will undoubtedly bring you a step closer to solving the problem in another way.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

THe'll just find another way to game the system, and the wins will be more rewarding (supposing even a spike will enjoy a close win that he had to work for more rewarding than a free win because his opponent never drew a third land).

When I put on my spike hat, usually the metric I find myself drawn to is "how hard was it to break the game." If I feel like I'm dominating because of some simple abuse, I'll get bored with whatever the game system is and move on.

This is a big reason why I cut signets from my cube. Signets help enable "casting spells is fun" as they both solve color and mana screw, but when you can "solve" the format by forcing signets, it gets boring after a few drafts, even if the actual games might be close. In theory, their effect in cube is symmetrical, but if I'm better/more willing to exploit them, they really aren't.

A Johnny player needs creative space to stay interested in the game, a spike needs competitive space. In Spike mode, once I've competitively "solved" a format/game, its time to move on.

I wouldn't suggest aggressively arguing with him or putting things to a vote. As the only Spike, he is likely to be outnumbered in a vote, and start to feel marginalized. An open argument runs the risk of ruining the night. If he dosen't see it as a problem, their isn't much you can really do.

I think including him in the conversation is probably a really good start. Find problems that you view in common, and than try to shape the rule in a way that addresses some of his concerns.

Just from my experience in the discussion, I would refuse to implement some sort of broad looter rule, but the idea of using custom conspiracy cards to introduce rule tweaks seems interesting to me. I think its because it limits the implementation of the tweaks, so I can choose to either opt out, or have my (possibly terrible) gaming experience limited to one opponent. Everyone is going to be different though.

 

[Eric Chan]

Custom conspiracies and/or custom cards - possibly with cycling on them, to mimic the effect you're trying to introduce at a global level - seem like a great way to test out the theory in incremental steps.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Custom conspiracies and/or custom cards - possibly with cycling on them, to mimic the effect you're trying to introduce at a global level - seem like a great way to test out the theory in incremental steps.

Except those require a far bigger change. Conspiracies take up card space in your packs (you could make packs larger, but that has its own issues), custom cards, once again, take up precious card space. Altering the mulligan or draw step rules for everyone makes sure no one is getting an unfair advantage, an no other parts of the cube have to be sacrificed to realize a solution.

 

[Eric Chan]

Yes, but there is a lower barrier to acceptance for custom conspiracies and custom cards than for house rules, speaking generally. If the problem is that there is one holdout who remains resistant, adding new cards while keeping the rules of Magic the same might be a more amenable solution. Not only in ahadabans's circle of friends, but with the Magic community at large.

The custom cards wouldn't have to be brand new cards designed from the ground up. Just staple "Cycling " to Mana Leak, Elite Vanguard, Wickerbough Elder, or basic Mountain, and call it a day.

 

[ahadabans]

Wow. I missed a lot. Sorry guys, work and all that business. This discussion is wonderful. Awesome points made by all. Let me try and address a few that hit home for me (every post was great).

Grillo… you are correct, this rule does probably benefit me more than Spike (I am absolutely a Johnny). And that is certainly one reason why my Spike player is not a fan (I'm the only one who can challenge him, so anything that could conceivable give me an edge he's not super excited about). I still think the idea that it levels the playing field is a fallacy though. Because if you are a bad player, having more cards at your disposal doesn't help you. You still make mistakes that a good player capitalizes on and you lose anyway. The more decisions get added to the game, the more opportunities the bad player presents for the good player to outplay them, so adding this rule (IMO) just makes the situation worse not better.

Spike won't lose more games with more consistent draws. Good players will win more across the board (Spike and whoever else is good at the game), even if they don't build the nut deck. Honestly, this helps Spike too if he makes a misstep during the draft he can dig himself out to some extent during the game. Having tested this (again, to a very small extent), the main effect this has on the game is it essentially gets you what you need more often. So those great games where each player is ripping what they need off the top of their library and it's a great close game with back and forth… that happens more often because card quality goes up.

On the subject of Spike breaking the game… yes, he always seeks to do that. But he can break the game today. What's the difference? No rule set that will ever exist will be unbreakable. I do not believe for a minute that a change to the draw step (or adding exile/draw) would inherently make it easier for Spike to break the game anymore than having different card choices in your cube does. There's a way to break your meta right here and now and if you keep the card pool static long enough great players will figure out how to exploit it. Simple as that.

With respect to my friend… I've kept it very light in conversation. I in no way want to alienate him, and honestly I enjoy a lot of things about Magic, so I'll be just fine whether we push the boundaries of the rule set or leave it alone. Mana flood/screw was always a problem I found in this game even with the best mana bases. It's not a chronic issue honestly, but it happens enough to where I just feel like it could be improved upon. I've not found a solution for it. Mulligan tweaks only go so far. If your next 5 cards are spells with no land, you fall behind in the game and you usually lose no matter what you do. Lower the CC of the cube has helped this a lot, but it's still not a perfect solution. Variance I think is important in this game, but for me it's a little too high. I think my friend is open to that idea (he hates losing to screw/flood), but he is with others here in that no good solution has ever been conceived (including exile/draw). My only beef with that is my friend (and others here) have made that determination without really testing it (at least exile/draw). I come back to my own experience with it. I thought it would play differently than it did and I never could have known that without actually testing it. I don't claim it's a perfect solution by any means, but it's very simple and understandable, it solves two big issues I think (flood/screw) and it has a nice side effect in that less consistent Johnny style decks are suddenly more playable (very meaningful to me obviously). So for me, it's win win win. For Spike, it's win, win, who cares (or lose if you are afraid I might beat you with some ridiculous combo I can suddenly assemble more easily).

Eric…
I get the sense that you like Magic as it is. And that is totally cool. In the immortal words of Eddie Vedder, this is not for you. All the arguments you are making are the same arguments my friend has made against this idea. And while I can appreciate not wanting to change the game, I'm telling you based on my short experience with this, the game is not being turned upside down like you are suggesting. You are not going to need to relearn anything. A great limited deck you build today will still be great with an exile/draw step, the only real change is that it will play better because you will get access to cards you want more often. It plays like you had a great night of Magic and your deck played really smooth. Maybe after playing it for a for months/years, you would come to a realization that land counts need to go down or certain mechanics (library manipulation) are busted beyond belief so need to be banned or whatever, but it's not going to be like you turned Magic into Pokemon and suddenly all your past experience is moot.

Yeah, Worldknit is bogus. I have no idea why anyone would have even wanted to test it. Talk about breaking core mechanics of the game. I have 3 plains in play and I can cast Necropotance this turn and Cryptic Command next turn (after I play this mountain in my hand). Wow, that sounds fair. Color pie? What's that? Goodstuff.dec? Pretty much the best deck at the table now that I can play ever bomb from every single color.

Custom cards is likely to be met with even more resistance honestly than a core rule change (Spike won't be alone of this one). I suppose I can try and sell the idea of some kind of global conspiracy card that is basically exile/draw, but it's just a much easier concept to add it to the rules. As I responded to Grillo, I'm not going to push the idea with my group. Maybe if my spike friend doesn't show one week, I'll toss the idea back out again. But honestly, since one of my other friends moved away (the other Johnny), I've had a hard time getting enough guys together (let alone if I introduce drama around rule changes). Again, I'd rather play Magic than not play Magic. I'm just happy this cubing thing has gone on as long as it has. I really thought it would be a quick fun thing and guys would just lose interest, but it just keeps going.

 

[Eric Chan]

I do enjoy Magic, and very much so, but I'm also open to the idea that another TCG may come along one day that is outright better than Magic. So I keep an open mind, and try to play as many other games as I can, giving each one of them a fair shake. At one point, around Mirrodin Besieged, I actually quit Magic and got heavily into WoW TCG, which is a game with a great rule set in its own right. Ultimately, that love affair didn't last and I came back, but with a richer understanding of how exactly a game with lower variance feels and plays, and what some of the costs are to eliminating Magic's so-called "problems". This knowledge isn't something that is easily imparted via a couple of forum posts, though, which is why I continue to advocate that people try as many competing games as possible.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

I think one way to think of it is Rosewater's idea of restrictions breeding creativity, that we discussed in the schools of thought thread.

Creativity coming up with ways to compensate for Magic's variance during draft/deck building, and being rewarded with success, is fun (at least for some people).

 

[ahadabans]

Fair enough. And the two reasons I haven't really looked into other CCG's is the cost and getting others to play it (mainly the second). All my friends play Magic, so it was very easy getting guys together when I built my cube, and it's lasted awhile now. Most other games we try don't stick, and it would suck to invest a lot of time and money into a new game and then play it once only to find out my group is not into it.

I'm conflicted on the variance in Magic. It might sound like I'm vehemently against the level of variance, but part of me wonders if that is what makes the game so appealing. I think I read an article on this idea actually. As a good player, when you lose you can easily blame the randomness of the game. As a bad player, you can still win because sometime your opponent just gets the wrong cards. And so there is something to be said for that dynamic.

I'm very convinced that adding exile/draw would make bad players lose more. And while I don't have any truly awful players in my group, there is gap between the weakest player and the best. And that gap would only grow if variance were removed. Would that push away the weaker players? Would spike get bored because he would win more easily and feel like he has no challenge at all? I don't know honestly.

Clearly, the game of Magic with all it's flaws has done enough things right to where it has lasted over 20 years and has millions of players. That point is certainly not lost on me, and it is at least part of the reason I've suggested changes with the group but not pushed them very much.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I do enjoy Magic, and very much so, but I'm also open to the idea that another TCG may come along one day that is outright better than Magic. So I keep an open mind, and try to play as many other games as I can, giving each one of them a fair shake. At one point, around Mirrodin Besieged, I actually quit Magic and got heavily into WoW TCG, which is a game with a great rule set in its own right. Ultimately, that love affair didn't last and I came back, but with a richer understanding of how exactly a game with lower variance feels and plays, and what some of the costs are to eliminating Magic's so-called "problems". This knowledge isn't something that is easily imparted via a couple of forum posts, though, which is why I continue to advocate that people try as many competing games as possible.

WoW TCG was a great game, I still have several casual decks sleeved and ready to play. As with other off the beaten path tcg's though, it ultimately proved not popular enough with the local scene. Any tcg where you can't find opponents is a dead tcg, not much fun playing with yourself all the time after all. Another one I can recommend is X610Z. Though it really didn't last long (it's tough to overcome the popularity of Magic, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokémon and carve out your niche in the tcg world), it's a really nice variation on Magic.

 

[Chris Taylor]

I don't think that is accurate either though. Both players are essentially starting the game with an emblem that says "Before your draw step, you may exile one card in your hand to draw a card". It certainly changes the game by improving card quality, but it's still Magic. I would argue this doesn't undermine any core fundamental.

It's basically a conspiracy card. And I'd argue Worldknit makes the game play less like Magic than opt/draw or exile/draw does.

Wait are we idiots?


Edit: Okay fuckit I'm just gonna read this thread and save the posting for later
Another page came up while I typed that