This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, The Fourth Psychographic. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.
I'm still reading the article, but thank you for delineating this:
Quote from VestDan »
Timmy wants to experience something. Timmy plays for the experience, for the visceral thrills of the game.
Johnny wants to express something. Johnny crafts a deck as a poet would a verse, or an article writer an overlong and increasingly overwrought metaphor.
Spike wants to prove something. Spike wants to win, and improve. Magic is more than a game, it is a test of his mettle and a challenge to his gamerhood.
No longer will there be people proclaiming that "Timmy only plays big creatures! Johnny only plays combo decks!"
On behalf of all of the daves in the world, we thank you for finally exposing our awesomeness to the MtG community. Here is to another 10 core sets worth of crushing dreams and breaking wills
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-THIS IS JUST A LIST- Stax, Sapphire Tri, Set Abominae, {mikeyG}, nan, glurman, JollyTheOctopuss, Sakura, Mad Mat, Johnation, Cell, Goatchunx, VerzenChaos, DarkPhoenix, EvilDuck, echelon_house
At least it beats the crap out of that Melvin talk, which I don't think is real at all, everyone who plays magic is a tiny bit Vorthos (such a sucky name...).
while it's true there are *******s in magic, there's also the inverse problem of players not wanting to accept the legitimacy/fairness of winning by less-than-fun means.
at some level, the game becomes a sport: while you're required to be sportsmanlike, you don't have to be nice.
while it's true there are *******s in magic, there's also the inverse problem of players not wanting to accept the legitimacy/fairness of winning by less-than-fun means.
at some level, the game becomes a sport: while you're required to be sportsmanlike, you don't have to be nice.
See, you're mistaking Dave for Spike I think. Dave isn't about winning MAGIC, he's about turning the game of magic into a sadistic psychological torture. It's not necessarily that Dave isn't trying to win, it's that he gets more joy out of causing you to suffer. There can often be an overlap--old style Draw-Go or Stasis style decks, for example--and these are perfectly legitimate strategies. But they can also be cruel, and the Dave/Spikes of the world love these sorts of deck for the pain they inflict while winning the game.
Yeah, when I wipped out the rediculous millstone or stasis decks, it wasn't out of a burning desire to annoy others, even if they do have that effect. I just prefer playing reactive control, placing blue/white tools with careful decisions to nullify an opposing deck, over throwing aggro at someone and hoping for the best. Possibly just because I don't find it fun losing to blue when I'm the aggro guy.
The Dave outlined in the article has malice. But, its also fair discussion that stasis isn't a good thing to bring to multiplayer regardless of the intent. Such bets are mostly off in a tourney environment though.
Article has comic value, but I disagree with the thesis. The types-of-Dave section read like "here is a list of things I personally don't like, I've decided to call them Dave."
Example alternate article which I believe deconstructs your argument: "Dave is the name I give to the fourth player psychograghic, which exists just to annoy you. A Dave will annoy you by building decks with dumb fat creatures that everyone knows are bad, like Iname as One or Krosan Colossus. He does this just because he hates you."
Or: "A Dave will annoy you by writing articles on the internet. He knows you hate this. He does it just to imagine the look on your face as you read his articles, while he laughs maniacally."
People who annoy you 'for the sake of annoying you,' are actually looking for something else. But ask yourself this: why are you annoyed? Why does someone drumming their fingers loudly annoy people? Are they so easily distracted?
I know one "Dave" in particular ("Ray" actually), he's my ex-girlfriend's probably-by-now-ex-boyfriend. His name is Ray, also "Mr. Suitcase" according to this article.
He's a true Spike/Dave. He's a level 2 judge and has spent Yevon knows how much money on Magic (rather than on said neglected HOT girlfriend to whom he pays neither effort nor attention.) He's got a binder worth literally 5-figures of obscenely expensive cards.
But yep, that's pretty much all his decks are, a showcase of the most expensive stuff he can throw together. If he doesn't complete dominate and win a game, it's obviously because something went wrong. Since our group played a lot of multiplayer games, he was always kind enough to introduce us to the "fun" of playing around active Tanglewires and Smokestacks while the rest of us were trying to have a fun time with Samurai, Moonfolk, Rats, Soldiers, Snakes, etc.
All the while, the frequent verbal jabs and condesending remarks really helped to show off his obvious talent and charisma. I suppose the Dave psychograph works in reverse, because there is no player anyone else loved more to win against than him. At the very least, all of us took great pleasure in any time where we wrecked a strategy or game of his.
I suppose it's ironic that the Dave players are the ones who bring out that side of every other player.
Very funny and QFT. You made a good point that even if MaRo acknowledged this, he wouldn't talk about it.
And for the way you put it, this easily fits as a new psychographic according to MaRo's criteria (unique play style and unique goal).
And this article even reminded me of the time when I use to play a Rising Waters deck. I think the deck is a very good example for a Despots deck. The deck didn't have anything other than Rising Waters, Daze, Thwart, Gush, Foil, Counterspell, Rewind, Boomerang and Unsummon.
And guess what the win condition was, 4 copies of Fledgling Ospreys enchanted with Sigil of Sleeps to fly over and bounce your opponent's creatures over and over again and finally deal 1 damage 20 times. Isn't that a slow torture?
Yesterday, I actually laughed at the sudden thought of Psychic Possession+Donate+Obstinate Familiar - it doesn't work, unfortunatedly, because of the "enchant opponent" bit.
I have the knack for not finishing off my opponents too. . . but. . . that's because I'm a bad player and I forget to attack. . . .and because sometimes I feel like giving the opponent a chance or I'm testing something.
I also make control decks with a lot of destruction but that's just a style I developed - I don't do any of this with the objective of annoying anyone, in fact, if I notice that an opponent doesn't stand a chance I offer to change decks and 70% of the time I end up playing against "superior" decks in order to learn how to beat them. I'm not into insulting or harassing people either. . .
Finally I don't play hard locks (just not interested).
________________________________________
So. . . while the trait exists in terms of deck building and most of us have also run into what has been described as Spike/Daves, it is to be asked whether we should assume that the motivations are always the same.
The article is entertaining. To what extent does it aim to be true as well?
So. . . while the trait exists in terms of deck building and I've run into what has been described as Dave-Spikes, it is to be asked whetherwe should assume that the motivations are always the same.
Not at all. Timmy will play Akroma because she's awesome, Spike will play her because she's a gamewrecker -- different motivations for the same card. The same might be said of the entire Goblins strategy -- Timmy and Spike have never been closer than Onslaught block.
Let's take another example, say the Donate+Illusions of Grandeur combo.
Timmy might play that, because, wow, 20 life!? And then my opponent loses 20!?
Johnny would of course adore this, and probably came up with it to begin with.
Spike, of course, played the heck out of it, adding Necropotence to finally get the Skull banned.
My point is, it's hard to judge motivation from an action or decision. It's more the sum total of their personality and style -- like the other three psychographics, Daves probably act Daveish outside of Magic, too.
Thanks for the kind words, everyone! Well, except Good Dr, you seem a little annoyed (that article-writing jab seems a trifle uncalled for). The Dave concept I think is sound, while I'll admit the sub-groups are skewed a bit more toward my pet peeves (though I tried to make them as universally recognizable and annoying as possible). However, in keeping with MaRo's article, which this was half-augmenting/half-parodying, I was obligated toward four sub-groups.
But yes, I agree Daves (or simply annoying players, if you must) want something more than to annoy; usually they just relish the feeling of power of bringing someone down. In a lot of ways, Dave is just a bully, using something he thinks he's good at to make up for shortcomings in other parts of his life.
I really want to stress here though, that a lot of the bad rap Spike gets is because of Dave characters. You can be competitive without sucking all the fun from the game--it's actually quite common. But non-Dave Spike will empathize with you as he annihilates you utterly. Dave is prone to gloat.
@Shinyman: you think that's bad? The cruelest win conditions out there are cards like Island Sanctuary, or even just playing two extra cards. Just lock down the game... and wait for the other player to deck himself. Eew.
Liked the article in general, but the sub-categories need a lot of work. For example: is Mr Suitcase a guy who's got a collection you're jealous of, or is he someone who plays his powerful, non-vintage legal deck in multiplayer? You can't tell from the article; they both fit your description. Is he a guy who crows about his collection (not that he'd ever trade any of it) while denigrating yours, or is he a guy who's teched out his deck with the best he can in the current environment? Again, no differentiation. For Spazoids:
Their preferred strategy is to have no strategy - and not let yours take root, either.
And if you don't understand the strategy--are they spazoids, or did they find a way to win you never thought of? By that definition, every mage to sling a counterspell or removal spell is a spazoid, for not letting your strategy take hold while taking their own, slower road to victory. I played a legitimate deck with Shared Fate during mirrodin season--I was sick of playing affinity, and wanted something fun. No win elements beyond shared fate in the main (ons/mirrodin saw a single Phage main). The rest? all control/delay elements--you look differently at hinder when noone can deck, and the hindered card will be drawn next turn, whether it goes on top or bottom. Is this a spazoid play--chaos with no point? No--simply a strategy hardly anyone thought of. I'd even swung with Phage for the win once (he had a sceptre with disenchant on it).
Similarly, the other cards you pick on can make fun, legitimate decks..or can be included by nascent Johnnies "just to see what happens".
To me, what makes a Dave is the malice--the active attempt to ruin the fun.
Some good points, smiley. I'd gladly take them into consideration and tweak my answers, but I don't think they'll let me significantly alter an article that's alreayd up, haha.
Mr. Suitcase is basically either of the two choices you bring up--he's got the ridiculous collection, and he uses it all regardless of legality or 'fun', for the other players at least.
As for Spazoids, sorry if it wasn't clear, but their point is they HAVE no coherent strategy. Yes, someone with a lot of counters or removal gets in their opponent's way, but that is toward protecting themselves/their strategy. A full-on spazoid just destroys everything without having much strategy of his own other than to mess with the board. The experiences the description was based on were derived mostly from multiplayer, where it's possible to be a true agent of chaos. For a prime example, a spazoid was being taken out of the game, but before taking the lethal damage cast every instant at his hand at the strongest availible target--regardless of what the targets' controllers had done to him during the game or the current game state. They really just want to have an impact on the game--but not a predictable or understandable one.
Eh, I'm sure there's a coherent point somewhere in that rambling, haha. It's late, it's been humid all day and i've been writing for six hours. sleepytime now. Thanks for the critique, ALWAYS appreciated.
This player profile is, in full, called Dave, The Jerk Opponent. You might've had the idea because I've been discussing it on various Magic forums, and in another MTGSal article, for well over a year now.
Some corrections:
1) Strictly speaking, Dave is not #4; there is no #4. Dave is the evolution of Spike as an understanding. Spike doesn't actually exist; Spike is a boogeyman, a myth concocted by jealous casual players about those who've scraped together enough skill and game theory to win a tournament once in a while. Magic is not a career game; no one makes enough money playing Magic to justify the obscene investments required. It's a game of love, played for love; yes, even by people that are otherwise total jerks. If you were a cut-throat shark, you'd go play Poker where the real money is.
2) They make plenty of Dave cards. Stone Rain, Counterspell, Pox, Wildfire, Counterbalance, etc., etc... Dave loves breaking other kids' toys. Most spells that say "destroy", "counter", or "remove blah blah blah from game" are Dave cards. Dave does want to kill you, and is capable of coherent strategy, he just wants you to suffer first.
3) Daves are generally evolutions of the casual player that once built an all-Samite Healer deck. Originally he was a weak and timid Magic player who only wanted to avoid getting beaten up by unfair over-powered cards like Spined Wurm, but as Timmy and Johnny tormented him relentlessly, he eventually delved into the dark arts and emerged as a Damnation-flinging lord of despair, bent on revenge.
Steven Menendian at Columbus was a total a$$, I was there. At GenCon, favorite Menendian moment: "What table is this?" "The 2-1s" "Oh, I don't need to be here."
Very nice article I must say, describing the countless opponents I've had both in real life and MWS, though I would say that "Dick" would be a more appropriate name for this particular psychograpic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from jonnyjonski (on Legends" names in Ravnica) »
I'm jazzed!! No more "Wankushookam, the Fist that Opens Only This Much"!
Quote from Shindig_Ascension (on Religion in Magic) »
Wrath of God couldn't be more religious if the picture was Jesus smacking demons with a jug of Holy Water.
Ha, you just gave the name to all the magic players online who bring thier tourney decks into the casual play room. A room in magic online, where I like to go have fun playing stupid decks, pauper decks, casual combo decks, (one's that take 8 turns to go off). I would have to say, whenever I block a player online, they tend to have the "Dave" characteristics, and I do like "Dick" better for the name of this player. I would also have to say , malice being the intent of play style is really not what is behind a "Dick". A bad attitude is. I think you can build a really annoying deck, have an annoying playstyle, yet not be a "Dick". The attitude of the person sitting across from you and the comments made as they play that Warchief in the casual play room makes them a "Dick". Some people can play this game with class and those are the people I don't mind having my face smashed in by. It ends up a pleasant experience. Because , based on thier personality, it was fun to just play a good player with a nasty deck. Some people are just jerks, and "Dick" seems to be a personality type you find everywhere, not just in magic.
... malice being the intent of play style is really not what is behind a "Dick". A bad attitude is. I think you can build a really annoying deck, have an annoying playstyle, yet not be a "Dick". The attitude of the person sitting across from you and the comments made as they play that Warchief in the casual play room makes them a "Dick". Some people can play this game with class and those are the people I don't mind having my face smashed in by. It ends up a pleasant experience. Because , based on thier personality, it was fun to just play a good player with a nasty deck. Some people are just jerks, and "Dick" seems to be a personality type you find everywhere, not just in magic.
I've got a lot of "Dave" characteristics... for example: i'm a Mr. Suitcase in that i've got a very extensive collection of pricy cards, but where i stray from what you said about Dave in the Mr. Suitcase sense is that i build all my decks utilizing up-to-date banned/restricted lists, i do not rant or make excuses if i lose, i don't put anyone else down for not having the cards that i do... basically, i'm not an a**.
Sure, i'll play a deck with 7 armageddon's (4x armageddon + 3x ravages of war)... which may make the game take 45 minutes with me being in total control until i can pull off the win condition (iron maiden or sacred mesa)... but the next game may take twice that long because i decide to play a fun new whacky deck & someone else beats me out of the game, and the rest of the group just sits there going turn after turn adding another creature to their army, not attacking... waiting for the "right moment" to attack... but that freakin' moment never comes!
I don't think there is anything wrong with building a deck that can gain control of a multi-player game, and make everyone else helpless until i pull off the win. If nothing else, i'm hoping it teaches the kids i'm playing with how to build better decks. Many games, they don't get to do much... but that's part of learning. I don't gloat when i win, i never play the same deck twice in a row...
So i've got a lot of the stylistic quallities of your "Dave"... but not the attitude. Should there be a name for this, or should we just say "Dave" is really just the new code-word for a******??
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Set the demons free and watch 'em fly!" - Gene Simmons / KISS
Why 'Dave'? Why not just call him 'Dick'? That's a much more descriptive name.
Oh, and Confusion in the Ranks is not an unpredictable Dickish card -- it's a Johnny card. CitR is perfectly predictable if you design your deck around it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
New Webcomic -- Genocide Man Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass slaughter can be hilarious.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Trades
Articles
Winner of SSC 1 & ">3 & 6
VXF
No longer will there be people proclaiming that "Timmy only plays big creatures! Johnny only plays combo decks!"
And you have an intimidating amount of trophies.
I liked the article. Dave... good name for him. D
Radha, Heir to Keld, Vorel of the Hull Clade, Kemba, Kha Regent, Vela the Night-Clad, Kozilek, Butcher of Truth, Barrin, Master Wizard, Slobad, Goblin Tinkerer, Patron of the Orochi, Oloro, Ageless Ascetic, Thraximundar, Roon of the Hidden Realm, Prossh, Skyraider of Kher, Marath, Will of the Wild, Teneb, the Harvester
If you did this, tell me and I'll credit you!
at some level, the game becomes a sport: while you're required to be sportsmanlike, you don't have to be nice.
See, you're mistaking Dave for Spike I think. Dave isn't about winning MAGIC, he's about turning the game of magic into a sadistic psychological torture. It's not necessarily that Dave isn't trying to win, it's that he gets more joy out of causing you to suffer. There can often be an overlap--old style Draw-Go or Stasis style decks, for example--and these are perfectly legitimate strategies. But they can also be cruel, and the Dave/Spikes of the world love these sorts of deck for the pain they inflict while winning the game.
Trades
Articles
Winner of SSC 1 & ">3 & 6
The Dave outlined in the article has malice. But, its also fair discussion that stasis isn't a good thing to bring to multiplayer regardless of the intent. Such bets are mostly off in a tourney environment though.
Example alternate article which I believe deconstructs your argument: "Dave is the name I give to the fourth player psychograghic, which exists just to annoy you. A Dave will annoy you by building decks with dumb fat creatures that everyone knows are bad, like Iname as One or Krosan Colossus. He does this just because he hates you."
Or: "A Dave will annoy you by writing articles on the internet. He knows you hate this. He does it just to imagine the look on your face as you read his articles, while he laughs maniacally."
People who annoy you 'for the sake of annoying you,' are actually looking for something else. But ask yourself this: why are you annoyed? Why does someone drumming their fingers loudly annoy people? Are they so easily distracted?
He's a true Spike/Dave. He's a level 2 judge and has spent Yevon knows how much money on Magic (rather than on said neglected HOT girlfriend to whom he pays neither effort nor attention.) He's got a binder worth literally 5-figures of obscenely expensive cards.
But yep, that's pretty much all his decks are, a showcase of the most expensive stuff he can throw together. If he doesn't complete dominate and win a game, it's obviously because something went wrong. Since our group played a lot of multiplayer games, he was always kind enough to introduce us to the "fun" of playing around active Tanglewires and Smokestacks while the rest of us were trying to have a fun time with Samurai, Moonfolk, Rats, Soldiers, Snakes, etc.
All the while, the frequent verbal jabs and condesending remarks really helped to show off his obvious talent and charisma. I suppose the Dave psychograph works in reverse, because there is no player anyone else loved more to win against than him. At the very least, all of us took great pleasure in any time where we wrecked a strategy or game of his.
I suppose it's ironic that the Dave players are the ones who bring out that side of every other player.
thank you for making my night, i laughed i cried, i felt... inspired
And for the way you put it, this easily fits as a new psychographic according to MaRo's criteria (unique play style and unique goal).
And this article even reminded me of the time when I use to play a Rising Waters deck. I think the deck is a very good example for a Despots deck. The deck didn't have anything other than Rising Waters, Daze, Thwart, Gush, Foil, Counterspell, Rewind, Boomerang and Unsummon.
And guess what the win condition was, 4 copies of Fledgling Ospreys enchanted with Sigil of Sleeps to fly over and bounce your opponent's creatures over and over again and finally deal 1 damage 20 times. Isn't that a slow torture?
I have the knack for not finishing off my opponents too. . . but. . . that's because I'm a bad player and I forget to attack. . . .and because sometimes I feel like giving the opponent a chance or I'm testing something.
I also make control decks with a lot of destruction but that's just a style I developed - I don't do any of this with the objective of annoying anyone, in fact, if I notice that an opponent doesn't stand a chance I offer to change decks and 70% of the time I end up playing against "superior" decks in order to learn how to beat them. I'm not into insulting or harassing people either. . .
Finally I don't play hard locks (just not interested).
________________________________________
So. . . while the trait exists in terms of deck building and most of us have also run into what has been described as Spike/Daves, it is to be asked whether we should assume that the motivations are always the same.
The article is entertaining. To what extent does it aim to be true as well?
Not at all. Timmy will play Akroma because she's awesome, Spike will play her because she's a gamewrecker -- different motivations for the same card. The same might be said of the entire Goblins strategy -- Timmy and Spike have never been closer than Onslaught block.
Let's take another example, say the Donate+Illusions of Grandeur combo.
Timmy might play that, because, wow, 20 life!? And then my opponent loses 20!?
Johnny would of course adore this, and probably came up with it to begin with.
Spike, of course, played the heck out of it, adding Necropotence to finally get the Skull banned.
My point is, it's hard to judge motivation from an action or decision. It's more the sum total of their personality and style -- like the other three psychographics, Daves probably act Daveish outside of Magic, too.
Thanks for the kind words, everyone! Well, except Good Dr, you seem a little annoyed (that article-writing jab seems a trifle uncalled for). The Dave concept I think is sound, while I'll admit the sub-groups are skewed a bit more toward my pet peeves (though I tried to make them as universally recognizable and annoying as possible). However, in keeping with MaRo's article, which this was half-augmenting/half-parodying, I was obligated toward four sub-groups.
But yes, I agree Daves (or simply annoying players, if you must) want something more than to annoy; usually they just relish the feeling of power of bringing someone down. In a lot of ways, Dave is just a bully, using something he thinks he's good at to make up for shortcomings in other parts of his life.
I really want to stress here though, that a lot of the bad rap Spike gets is because of Dave characters. You can be competitive without sucking all the fun from the game--it's actually quite common. But non-Dave Spike will empathize with you as he annihilates you utterly. Dave is prone to gloat.
@Shinyman: you think that's bad? The cruelest win conditions out there are cards like Island Sanctuary, or even just playing two extra cards. Just lock down the game... and wait for the other player to deck himself. Eew.
Trades
Articles
Winner of SSC 1 & ">3 & 6
Similarly, the other cards you pick on can make fun, legitimate decks..or can be included by nascent Johnnies "just to see what happens".
To me, what makes a Dave is the malice--the active attempt to ruin the fun.
Mr. Suitcase is basically either of the two choices you bring up--he's got the ridiculous collection, and he uses it all regardless of legality or 'fun', for the other players at least.
As for Spazoids, sorry if it wasn't clear, but their point is they HAVE no coherent strategy. Yes, someone with a lot of counters or removal gets in their opponent's way, but that is toward protecting themselves/their strategy. A full-on spazoid just destroys everything without having much strategy of his own other than to mess with the board. The experiences the description was based on were derived mostly from multiplayer, where it's possible to be a true agent of chaos. For a prime example, a spazoid was being taken out of the game, but before taking the lethal damage cast every instant at his hand at the strongest availible target--regardless of what the targets' controllers had done to him during the game or the current game state. They really just want to have an impact on the game--but not a predictable or understandable one.
Eh, I'm sure there's a coherent point somewhere in that rambling, haha. It's late, it's been humid all day and i've been writing for six hours. sleepytime now. Thanks for the critique, ALWAYS appreciated.
Trades
Articles
Winner of SSC 1 & ">3 & 6
Some corrections:
1) Strictly speaking, Dave is not #4; there is no #4. Dave is the evolution of Spike as an understanding. Spike doesn't actually exist; Spike is a boogeyman, a myth concocted by jealous casual players about those who've scraped together enough skill and game theory to win a tournament once in a while. Magic is not a career game; no one makes enough money playing Magic to justify the obscene investments required. It's a game of love, played for love; yes, even by people that are otherwise total jerks. If you were a cut-throat shark, you'd go play Poker where the real money is.
2) They make plenty of Dave cards. Stone Rain, Counterspell, Pox, Wildfire, Counterbalance, etc., etc... Dave loves breaking other kids' toys. Most spells that say "destroy", "counter", or "remove blah blah blah from game" are Dave cards. Dave does want to kill you, and is capable of coherent strategy, he just wants you to suffer first.
3) Daves are generally evolutions of the casual player that once built an all-Samite Healer deck. Originally he was a weak and timid Magic player who only wanted to avoid getting beaten up by unfair over-powered cards like Spined Wurm, but as Timmy and Johnny tormented him relentlessly, he eventually delved into the dark arts and emerged as a Damnation-flinging lord of despair, bent on revenge.
4) Dave is named in honor of this jerk.
Wow, thats a Dave for sure.
Also, VestDan, well done once again.
I've got a lot of "Dave" characteristics... for example: i'm a Mr. Suitcase in that i've got a very extensive collection of pricy cards, but where i stray from what you said about Dave in the Mr. Suitcase sense is that i build all my decks utilizing up-to-date banned/restricted lists, i do not rant or make excuses if i lose, i don't put anyone else down for not having the cards that i do... basically, i'm not an a**.
Sure, i'll play a deck with 7 armageddon's (4x armageddon + 3x ravages of war)... which may make the game take 45 minutes with me being in total control until i can pull off the win condition (iron maiden or sacred mesa)... but the next game may take twice that long because i decide to play a fun new whacky deck & someone else beats me out of the game, and the rest of the group just sits there going turn after turn adding another creature to their army, not attacking... waiting for the "right moment" to attack... but that freakin' moment never comes!
I don't think there is anything wrong with building a deck that can gain control of a multi-player game, and make everyone else helpless until i pull off the win. If nothing else, i'm hoping it teaches the kids i'm playing with how to build better decks. Many games, they don't get to do much... but that's part of learning. I don't gloat when i win, i never play the same deck twice in a row...
So i've got a lot of the stylistic quallities of your "Dave"... but not the attitude. Should there be a name for this, or should we just say "Dave" is really just the new code-word for a******??
Oh, and Confusion in the Ranks is not an unpredictable Dickish card -- it's a Johnny card. CitR is perfectly predictable if you design your deck around it.
Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass slaughter can be hilarious.