This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, At the Gathering: Best of Lucky, Part 2. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.
Some things you say in this article are things I've either heard or read elsewhere in the last 2 years, but that makes them neither any less true nor any less pertinent. I've came to realise how I started off as a noob to then become the guy who wins or top 8ths in tournaments, and it's thanks to people advising me of getting rid of my imaginary set of rules in which I was playing that I got to become better. It was for sure a good read for the spike, though probably somehow shocking for the intended audience.
Good stuff, keep on writing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The interesting thing about us legacy players is that we consider Force of Will, Dark Ritual, Blood Moon, Tarmogoyf and Swords to Plowshare to be fair.
You know I can actually say that I started out as a noob. I would build deck and tried to win because they were clever and new. Now I've improved to a point in which I can do well at what few events I go to. Great article Jeff. Keep up the good work.
wow, i've never heard someone complain this much about complaining in an article. this is by far the worst yet. Its a direct ignorance to bad magic players. If your gonna complain about playing don't play. If they think their treated unfair they don't have to play at all. It called good sportsmanship and if a player doesn't have it or the desire to better his game he wasting his money playing the game in the first place. because he obviously is not having fun to start with.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
chaos lives and laws die ,law is renewed and chaos rules the throne . thus is the way of life.
An interesting topic, but like Sirlin you seem to have a strange hatred for people who do not enjoy playing the game like you do.
Classifying people as n00bs because they do not play an all out, cuthroat way is frankly a bit insulting, just as when I call people that play the way you do all the time boring and unimgainative. I try not to do that to often (unless they call me a n00b), because I know these people gets something else out of the game than I do. To each his/her own.
I know what makes a very good competitive magic deck, and a what makes a very good competitive magic player. I just choose not to do most of it, because that would take away from the stuff I find fun.
If something is recognized as the clearly best deck, then I find it boring to play with. It has already been deeply explored, what is the attraction? I come to tournaments to have fun and meet people, and to see what others have come up with of new stuff (sadly, mostly nothing). I try not to act as if every Magic game is the end all, be all of my gaming life.
Fewer and fewer people seem to think like that, and it is weaking gaming hobbies as a whole.
I blame David Sirlin and his flawed and destructive philosphy myself. But I try to refrain from calling people that read him and agree with him names, even on the internet.
Lastly, I find it a bit sad that anyone would think that it is fine to find plesure in other things than winning when you are a "newb", but once you have played awhile you should understand that Magic is SERIOUS stuff....it's not as if we are playing a game.
Classifying people as n00bs because they do not play an all out, cuthroat way is frankly a bit insulting
Or is it? It seems to me that what the author is highlighting is an innate conflict of interest within some players. On the one hand they want to win and become frustrated at their inability to do so and maybe even angry at their opponents or at certain cards. But on the other hand they hold to ideas about deckbuilding and competitive play which hold them back from achieving the wins they want.
People play Magic for different reasons. Personally I hope I never have the kind of approach to gaming that the author does, but many players do. The advice in this article is valuable to such players. It helps them to avoid pitfalls which will only make them miserable and will do nobody any good.
As for the rest of us, these crazy tournament players do us a lot of good. They'll buy a single copy of some boring card for $10 and then sell us an awesome rare for 50 cents! Crazy people! And they spend loads of money so that Wizards can maintain an entire team making our game for us. Everyone wins!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
Or is it? It seems to me that what the author is highlighting is an innate conflict of interest within some players. On the one hand they want to win and become frustrated at their inability to do so and maybe even angry at their opponents or at certain cards. But on the other hand they hold to ideas about deckbuilding and competitive play which hold them back from achieving the wins they want.
People play Magic for different reasons. Personally I hope I never have the kind of approach to gaming that the author does, but many players do. The advice in this article is valuable to such players. It helps them to avoid pitfalls which will only make them miserable and will do nobody any good.
As for the rest of us, these crazy tournament players do us a lot of good. They'll buy a single copy of some boring card for $10 and then sell us an awesome rare for 50 cents! Crazy people! And they spend loads of money so that Wizards can maintain an entire team making our game for us. Everyone wins!
You know bateleur, I too am not the kind of player the author is... nor hope to be... so the article felt a little like a rant. Kudos for the look into the internal conflict however. I too had that conflict and came to the conclusion that I am playing for fun so I win or lose with a smile(the author is alright with that :D).
I quoted you because you put together my feelings for the article so eloquently and pleasantly
Hmmm...I didnt really get the point. So it is basically a complaint article against bad Magic players? The only advice I get is to A) play good decks, B) adapt to beat players who only play one deck, and C) don't complain when you lose?
Does any magic player really not know these things?
Well, Ill second (or third?) the same thing as the dudes above say: I hope that I never be the kind of player the author is.
I play to win (at least i try to), but I rejoice when I am defeated by new players. Be it because I drew 5 lands in a row, I commited a play error o they simply bested with skill my all-rare deck with they all-common deck (that doesnt happen to be bad at all). I like to see the smile on their faces thinking: "wow, I defeated someone". Maybe that victory isnt actually helping them to become better players, but at least keeps them interested in the game. Someday they will become pro-players? Maybe...
Also the article hits hard on the casual player. When I started t play, I used to play in some gardens in the college. I played a precon "ivory doom" deck adapted with R, G and U splashes and only 18 lands (yeah, what a noob), and my friends played similar decks. We didnt have those "special rules" and it was fun, no mather the bad plays, bad decks, or whatever, it was really fun. Then one day, some dude aproached asking if he could play, we agrred, and he joined our caos multiplayer match and played a full of counters and rude awakening. He started to eliminate one by one of us, until I alone remained. For some unknown reason i had a pair of defense grid that I played when the dude was tapped after eliminating my last friend. Turns later i won via a Doubtless one and starlit sanctum. That dude, enraged, took his things, laughing maniacally and crying at how noob we were, and parted, never to return. Until this day Im convinced that he was the noob.
On the other hand I really hate players that complain when they loose. Sadly, at least in my area, that kind of players arent limited to the "noobs" who play crap decks, but are also self proclaimed "pros" who test daylly, are netdecking fanboys, and so. Some of them are really good players with low (or nule) sportmanship, some others are bad players with money to waste on fancy rares. They do nothing to help the community, they only point fingers, and calls you a "noob" if you loose, if you win, if you get "lucky"... it is almost if you were playing in MWS.
Finally on the article, I think the part one was really good, this one tough, really seems like a rant.
I always play to win, but also play for the fun of the game, as it should ever be.
I play for fun. Winning is fun too, but I like to win while playing a *fun* deck, a deck *I* have built.
Sure, I would probably win FNM quite a bit if I played Faeries every week - the other players know I have skill, but that I don't play the "good" decks. But it's not as fun to win with some netdeck as it is to win with my own creation. It's a Pyrrhic victory - sure I've won, but at what cost to my ideals?
I know some people don't have those ideals. They don't have fun except when they're winning. I'm sure the author is one of those, by his rant against "bad players" (who are bad simply because they don't play the best deck). I don't like playing against those people - they really suck the fun out of the game. And this is a game, remember. At the end of the night, there is only one winner, so if everyone had this attitude, the vast majority of people will be unhappy. Thankfully there are plenty of people who play to have fun, at least for now. They make the game far more enjoyable to everyone.
Agree. The moment I read the line " the n00b has created imaginary rules to the game, and is playing the game according to these rules." I thought about Sirlin's "Playing to Win" article.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 3 Magic Judge
Do you know any judges who always impress you with their work ethic, knowledge, or attitude? Nominate them to be the next Judge of the Week!
First of all... wow, great article. I really enjoy articles on game theory, and how to become a better player. Especially part 1 of this article, but just had to comment on this one.
I myself started out a newb (don´t we all), playing a lot of casual. Then I was a n00b for a long time, playing by the same casual standards in a competitive enviroment, and losing a lot.
Then I 'woke up', got a grip on my ego, and started playing to win, playing with agooddeck instead of a fun one. This was also when I started learning from my mistakes, and playing a tighter, more controlled, game. At one point I was like 20-1-2 in sanctioned matches with thisonedeck, and I really enjoyed it, despite people complaining. People have also started asking me for help building their decks and asking advise on how to play them, as I'm one of the more experienced players in the local environment, and I enjoy helping the younger players improve.
But now I just don't have the time to play competitively anymore (playtesting really do take A LOT of time), and I just started playing the fun decks again at FMN's (Mutavault is great with a Sunrise Sovereign in play), and am generally enjoying myself and the game again.
I really love it, because when I beat the players I helped build competitive decks, they ask me how I can win with a 'bad deck', and I can help them with their play-mistakes and deckbuilding.
My question is: What do you call a gamer like me, who play to have fun, but isn't exactly casual, and isn't a n00b anymore..? I'm actually not the only one in my playgroup like this, but the other just draft a lot, instead of playing constructed
PS: Sorry if the grammar and spelling is off, english isn't my first language
I chose this quote because of it's direct question, but allow me to hopefully address everyone's questions here. People seem to be laboring under a belief that playing for fun and playing to win are exclusive, when in fact they are not. Actually, I'm already working on an article around that as well. Look for it in early November, depending on how midterms shape up.
I understand that a lot of players may feel insulted by this article, and I can see why they would feel that way. Let me be very blunt and honest: This article is written for those who put a premium on winning. There is nothing wrong with playing only for fun. It is a game, after all. This is more directed at players who want to play to win, but cannot figure out why. If you have made a conscious decision to not play extremely competitively, you have acknowledged that you are not playing to win. Many players have not reached that realization. They think they are playing to win, when in fact they are not, (pay attention, because this is the important bit) and they don't know why. If you know why, you have already tackled the first step on this road. Just because you don't choose to walk down it, you have at least discovered it. Many players I encounter don't even know it exists. It's like trying to get to an address, but you can't find the street you need, because you can't find the road that gets to that street. I don't intend this to sound harsh, but this is aimed at the ignorant players. (in this case, ignorant meaning someone who doesn't know, not as a dysphemism)
So, if you felt this article was attacking you, you are likely on of the following
A) A conscientious objector
B) that last type I wrote about, the angry n00b
C) very thin-skinned. You probably also get mad when people call you white instead of "Euro-American" (that's a joke, so please laugh instead of sending hate-mail)
Most people reading this would probably be A. In that case, look for my next article about the dichotomy of fun and winning.
I was not a fan of this article, to me, it seems that the author has some issues with non-competitive people. Not everyone who plays the game of Magic, or any game of strategy for that matter, is going to be die-hard about winning every game they play. In fact, on the official website for Magic, there is an article about the several types of players, the Johnny, Timmy, and Spike, and only the Spike is the kind that is dead set on winning. The Johnny type likes to make creative decks that do neat things, the Timmy like big creatures to beat things with, while the Spike has no personality and simply mimics what is the current winning deck design. It's quite apparent that the author falls into the Spike category, and there is good reason that people become angry and upset when you win using "cheap" combos and cards. If you've not realized this yet, those kinds of cards cost a good deal of money, like Mutavault or Tarmogoyf for example. Now, to the average player who might play at a local store, these kinds of cards are too expensive to afford, so they have to rely on luck to get them in boosters. To someone as the author, and many others here who buy these cards, it's as easy as breathing for you, as you quite apparrently have the disposable income to afford a deck in excess of one hundred dollars. People feel cheated when they are constantly beat by cards they cannot afford as they don't have the advantage of being able to buy "the best" cards for a deck, and I tend to agree.
On the matter of the people who show off their failing decks afterwards, this is not their way of seeking validation, it's their way of showing you that they've gone and actually put some thought into building a unique deck with a different bag of tricks. I have met people like the author in my local game store, and I have heard one fellow, when critiqing the deck of a more casual player, suggest suc expensive cards as Cryptic Command, Mutavault, etc. as a means of making their decks more effective; In fact, I have been the target of such critique, the same fellow aghast that I was running a white deck that didn't have a Wrath of God in it. Such cards should not be staple of every deck to be effective, so it is not the right of someone who puts these kinds of cards in every deck to expect others to be able to live up to the same standards if they cannot even afford it.
Now, as the author stated in his article, and as several other posters have mentioned, they say that people should adapt to the powerful decks in order to have a chance against them. Creating a deck to counter a particular deck design is not fun, as it stifles creativity and it may not be what you even wish to play. If I am not utterly mistaken, the Mirrodin block suffered greatly from this, as it was either play Affinity or play anti-Affinity, and it was because of the lack of diversity in deck design that many people quit Magic during this block. How then, can you justify telling someone to make a deck to adapt to a over-powered deck? Such things stagnate the game and drive away players.
As for other issues the author addressed, he noted that he had played popular deck designs that were proven to win. The Faerie deck for example, is one that was very popular and still for the most part is. People who like to play casually like to create flavorful decks that do things that are interesting, and those who play competitively merely copy and paste decks straight from the internet. The game of Magic, therefore, loses it's luster when creativity is stifled. It's boring to play a game when every one copies each other. There are ways to make good victorious decks and still be creative, without resorting to stealing other people's ideas and tweaking a single card and calling it your own. If such players as the author are so great at the game of magic, why then can they not create a unique deck of their own design and win with it? Skill is not solely based on the ability to play, as many believe, it's also based on the ability to create. So if someone as the author truly wishes to bash people, perhaps he and others like him should make thier own original decks and play them and win, because victory with an original deck is truly something admirable, while victory with a cut and paste deck is just boring and expected most of the time.
Lastly, another issue that I find disturbing in the article and magic in general is how several others have mentioned destroying your opponent in only a few turns. When you play a game, you play for enjoyment, not speed. If you obliterate someone in 4 turns, where is the fun in that? You're bored, your opponent is crushed, and no one truly enjoyed the game. Video games that don't have replay value or last only a few hours are seen as boring and underdeveloped and tossed aside, in lieu of games that provide hours of entertainment. Magic, when it lasts so briefly, is also boring. Everyone knows that the games where you and your opponent trade blows and pull of combos are the most entertaining, as they challenge you to think and strategize. Both players have fun and benefit in this manner, as they each are forced to think about their plays. If someone like the author truly wishes to improve the games of others, they wouldn't keep playing a deck that eradicates in 4 turns. They would play a solid deck with cunning tricks that at least allows the opponent to play their deck long enough to see what strengths and weaknesses it has, instead of simply accepting defeat and waiting for death as is characteristic when playing against a cut and paste deck.
So, before someone goes off bashing people who are irate when they lose to someone who uses a deck that has been proven to win over and over and over again, consider the other forces that factor into why they may not be able to live up to those standards. They may not be financially able, they may have standards and actually enjoy creating decks, and they may truly be bad at the game because they can't experience actual game play that lasts long enough for them to improve. And of course, there is the fact that not everyone is cutthroat and victory driven, there are people that actually enjoy playing the game, rather than winning a prize.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The world may not know peace, but in my presence you will know quiet."
-Augustin IV
Have you ever gone to a tournament, and the player wants to show you his deck, even though he's 0-3? He wants someone to look at his so-called innovation, and call it good.
lulz, so tr00; happens to me almost every fnm. nice article by the way.
I think you have some very good ideas about how to win, for sure, but I think you are quite unfair to those of us who are not. First, Magic is a game, so for those who choose to play competitively, yes, winning is important, but for the rest of us, the reason to play magic is that it is fun. Complaining because a game is not fun is perfectly understandable. I only apply this to casual situations by the way, tournaments of any kind are another situations.
To use an example from my own magic group, one player used to play a burn deck every single game. Now, we generally play three person games. Just as in the case you detailed, the burn deck generally pulled out the stops towards the end of the game and killed the other two players. I generally didn't have a problem with this, the deck was relatively fun to play, but after a while it just wasn't fun any more. He basically won any multi-player game we played. It would have been easy to beat him by simply ganging up on him in game or by building a deck specialized to beat him, but what is fun about that?
I shouldn't be having a boring time playing magic cards. The point of this is simply that the winning deck isn't simply the best deck.
To address another element of your article which I took exception too, I must completely disagree with you about land destruction. There is a reason why Wizards makes it suck, and that is because there is absolutely nothing fun about playing land destruction. There 's nothing "n00b"ish about not enjoying playing a deck that destroys your ability to do anything in the game. Cheap it is not. Fun it certainly isn't either.
Anyway, i didn't want this to be a rant, so I'm going to end here and eat my pizza.
the people who are posting here calling this article flatly-anti-casual are dead wrong. You dont have to be a great player to undertand who he is calling out. He's not calling out you guys that get together and play EDH or play pauper or draft invasion block at the kitchen table or whatever, he's calling out the n00bs who go to major tournaments and make it worse for everyone else there...
I have a great example of this: its lorwyn/shadowmoor block season, and my store is having a block constructed fnm the night before the ptq. Im playing a pretty standard five color elementals, with a few personal card choices and a personal sideboard, and there's this other guy at my store, like a grown man in his 40s, that is mr. johnny and has his elementals deck. This guys deck is UR, but splashing the other three colors for only horde of notions, and basically all it does is flash in 10 power elementals (4 nova chaser, and 4 of the blue one) with soulstroke. thats all it does. Anyway, since obv his deck is "original" and my "deck is a ****** net deck" he is a better player than me. Anyway, i go 3-1 in third, and he goes 0-4 (only ****ing competitive players ever drop, amirite), yet the originality of his deck makes it as good as mine. Not to mention that he "got mana-screwed everygame". but yeah, he chews me out the entire night over this.
Another great example is a particular other store in western washington. This store is so casual that if you show up for an fnm with a constructed deck that so much as shares 3 playsets with an established archetype, you will practically get flamed out of the room. Its ridiculous
anyway, that is what this author is talking about, so if thats not you, calm down and appreciate his work.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly known as steve-o
The internet is like drugs, it can be alot of fun, but most people on it say really stupid stuff
I think the bottom line is very clear; When you play competitively, play to win. If you aren't willing to or don't want to, then don get upset when you lose.
It's pretty clear that people can play for other reasons and that's perfectly fine. The author didn't say that all players that aren't playing to win are noobs, those players who join a competition and whine when they lose to good decks or good cards and don't improve are. If you enjoy the social aspect and the joy of discovery, then you're doing good. And there's nothing for you here, not even insults.
In contrary to Street Fighters (which was the default game for Sirlin), Magic has more things to explore. In SF you should only play to win (because there are no other aspects of the game) In Magic you can play noncompetitively and still enjoy the game.
As for the rest of us, these crazy tournament players do us a lot of good. They'll buy a single copy of some boring card for $10 and then sell us an awesome rare for 50 cents! Crazy people! And they spend loads of money so that Wizards can maintain an entire team making our game for us. Everyone wins!
That's one of the most brilliant paragraphs I've ever read in my whole life.
Again, I'd like to reiterate, I am not attemping to belittle casual players. In fact, if you'll look at most of my posting, I fully understand that casual players are the backbone of Magic, and support WotC initiatives that help them. In this article, I'm specifically talking to players who want to play better at tournaments, or other competitive environments, or who want to play competitively and fail at it. This is not an article for Ferret's casual Groups, or any of those players. They are playing for social aspects, not to win. And that is fine.
If all you play is for fun, and you recognize that, then you are not a n00b. That's even stated in the article (IIRC, need to double check after the editing, but I'm pretty sure)
This feels like an old rehash of something else I read a while ago. Some people in here are naming Sirlin and I can't say for certain if that's what I read before but it probably was. One thing that's worth pointing out though:
One last example, and then we'll move on. Early during the current standard (Time Spiral/Lorwyn/Tenth) I played Teh Faeries, getting a soft lock with Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir and Mistbind Clique. I had opponents who thought that this tactic was cheap. This is because it was outside their realm of imagined rights. In this case, they believed they had a right to use their mana any way they wanted every turn. This, of course, is not true. Many players hate Land Destruction for the same reason. I stopped playing my particular deck, because players stopped wanting to come and play against it. That is practically the very definition of a n00b, my friends.
Well, the so-called "n00bs" sure showed you. Magic is a game, and the point of games is to have fun. And yes, you may have fun with land destruction and permission and "Teh Faeries" but how much fun are you having when your friend says "screw this, I've got better games to play?" In a tournament setting go for it man, bring down your hardest nastiest beast, it's expected. But when it comes to Magic over the kitchen table you know better than to bring your Vintage goblins. In tournaments it's the job of the DCI to determine whether some cards ruin the fun of the game and keep them in check. When the judges aren't around -you- have to make that call. And saying "No I don't. Suck it up and lose like a man you n00b." is only going to leave you playing at an empty table, champion of nothing.
Getting along with other human beings and having fun isn't a science with clearly defined rules. It's an art, one die-hard tourney tards would do well to learn.
This feels like an old rehash of something else I read a while ago. Some people in here are naming Sirlin and I can't say for certain if that's what I read before but it probably was. One thing that's worth pointing out though:
Well, the so-called "n00bs" sure showed you. Magic is a game, and the point of games is to have fun. And yes, you may have fun with land destruction and permission and "Teh Faeries" but how much fun are you having when your friend says "screw this, I've got better games to play?" In a tournament setting go for it man, bring down your hardest nastiest beast, it's expected. But when it comes to Magic over the kitchen table you know better than to bring your Vintage goblins. In tournaments it's the job of the DCI to determine whether some cards ruin the fun of the game and keep them in check. When the judges aren't around -you- have to make that call. And saying "No I don't. Suck it up and lose like a man you n00b." is only going to leave you playing at an empty table, champion of nothing.
Getting along with other human beings and having fun isn't a science with clearly defined rules. It's an art, one die-hard tourney tards would do well to learn.
In a sense i think perhaps something left out (or was not too clear) was the context of the play.
Was it a group of friends, casual kitchen table, random play at the store, or prerelease or standard tourney?
A group of friends may already have some preconceived thoughts on how the games should be played, in that setting someone coming in with a Vintage powered (insert some deck archtype here) will pulverise everyone.
Perhaps an example of how winning is a goal but yet not paramount is where you have a group of friends playing some tribal theme decks dedicated to showing the elfness or kithkinness of the deck. Sure you still want your elf deck to beat up the kithkin deck, but you are ready to play some random 1/1 with cool art and great flavour. Insert someone with the standard G/B elf deck or the block Kithkin, and this spoils the math. Sure one should tune the deck to react to changes, but the original context is lost.
When I play at a prerelease, I generally hope to play something cool with the new cards. (since I tend to only focus on mana and playing the critter, that means I normally die to control oriented builds lol) and its all in good fun.
At a tourney level competition, I guess that where this article is really trying to address (and the author did state that this article is for spikes). And winning here means winning the game/tournament. And I can see where the need for playing the deck of the moment and reacting to the meta is paramount for winning.
Everyone wants to win, but the issue is what does it mean to "win". Some want a good time, others want to win with a homebrew, and others want to win the tournament.
My take is the author did try to address who the article is for, but the context was'nt too clear, hence the backlash, another issue might have been the tone. But different styles will appeal to different people, so the harsh direct style can be good, but do note it would sound different to different people.
To put it in context I am likely a Johnny/Spike, so a dominant deck does not make me sad, to me the necro summer and combo winters were very interesting periods, as you had extreme dominance of an archtype and then someone finds a way to break the grip; that is always a tale worth reading. But I still like to build my pygmy hippo deck and I tried very hard to make make phasing work
This feels like an old rehash of something else I read a while ago. Some people in here are naming Sirlin and I can't say for certain if that's what I read before but it probably was. One thing that's worth pointing out though:
Well, the so-called "n00bs" sure showed you. Magic is a game, and the point of games is to have fun. And yes, you may have fun with land destruction and permission and "Teh Faeries" but how much fun are you having when your friend says "screw this, I've got better games to play?" In a tournament setting go for it man, bring down your hardest nastiest beast, it's expected. But when it comes to Magic over the kitchen table you know better than to bring your Vintage goblins. In tournaments it's the job of the DCI to determine whether some cards ruin the fun of the game and keep them in check. When the judges aren't around -you- have to make that call. And saying "No I don't. Suck it up and lose like a man you n00b." is only going to leave you playing at an empty table, champion of nothing.
Getting along with other human beings and having fun isn't a science with clearly defined rules. It's an art, one die-hard tourney tards would do well to learn.
In this instance, it was tournaments. This wasn't casual play, it was tournaments with prizes. However, you are absolutely correct, and hopefully, you will see that I care about a lot more than winning. I really liked playing that deck. When Mistbind Clique was first shown, I thought of this synergy, and really looked forward to playing it, because it's clever. But in the end, the fun of my fellow players took preference over even my own fun. Think what you will, but in under three years, my work has taken us from no tournaments at all to 2 tournaments every week, with a core community. I like winning, but I'd lose ever match I every played for the rest of my life to make sure that this community kept growing and prospering.
The way I read this article was that the author tried to stimulate the reader. In one way or the other, he hit something with each and every one of you who's complaining, he stirred something up.
Which is exactly what he tried to do I think. He tried to make the reader think about how he plays and what's good and bad about that and I think that he did this in a very good way. For this I applaud you
Thank you, that's pretty much my intent. One thing I've learned in my life is that the only person who can change you is you. I, or anyone else, can show you all the tips, tactics, steps, facts, and statistics on why you should do something, but people only change when they want to. Hopefully, this article is at least making people consider changing themselves.
You should read them.
"Rejoice, for bad things are about to happen"
Good stuff, keep on writing.
Classifying people as n00bs because they do not play an all out, cuthroat way is frankly a bit insulting, just as when I call people that play the way you do all the time boring and unimgainative. I try not to do that to often (unless they call me a n00b), because I know these people gets something else out of the game than I do. To each his/her own.
I know what makes a very good competitive magic deck, and a what makes a very good competitive magic player. I just choose not to do most of it, because that would take away from the stuff I find fun.
If something is recognized as the clearly best deck, then I find it boring to play with. It has already been deeply explored, what is the attraction? I come to tournaments to have fun and meet people, and to see what others have come up with of new stuff (sadly, mostly nothing). I try not to act as if every Magic game is the end all, be all of my gaming life.
Fewer and fewer people seem to think like that, and it is weaking gaming hobbies as a whole.
I blame David Sirlin and his flawed and destructive philosphy myself. But I try to refrain from calling people that read him and agree with him names, even on the internet.
Lastly, I find it a bit sad that anyone would think that it is fine to find plesure in other things than winning when you are a "newb", but once you have played awhile you should understand that Magic is SERIOUS stuff....it's not as if we are playing a game.
Or is it? It seems to me that what the author is highlighting is an innate conflict of interest within some players. On the one hand they want to win and become frustrated at their inability to do so and maybe even angry at their opponents or at certain cards. But on the other hand they hold to ideas about deckbuilding and competitive play which hold them back from achieving the wins they want.
People play Magic for different reasons. Personally I hope I never have the kind of approach to gaming that the author does, but many players do. The advice in this article is valuable to such players. It helps them to avoid pitfalls which will only make them miserable and will do nobody any good.
As for the rest of us, these crazy tournament players do us a lot of good. They'll buy a single copy of some boring card for $10 and then sell us an awesome rare for 50 cents! Crazy people! And they spend loads of money so that Wizards can maintain an entire team making our game for us. Everyone wins!
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
The GJ way path to no lynching:
You know bateleur, I too am not the kind of player the author is... nor hope to be... so the article felt a little like a rant. Kudos for the look into the internal conflict however. I too had that conflict and came to the conclusion that I am playing for fun so I win or lose with a smile(the author is alright with that :D).
I quoted you because you put together my feelings for the article so eloquently and pleasantly
Reality is but a perception of your being --
Visit my blog!!! - http://huffalump-magic.blogspot.com/
"The brain is wider than the sky,
For, put them side by side,
The one the other will include
With ease, and you beside."
—Emily Dickinson
For sales or trade, visit my blog or visit my ebay blog for my listings :http://myworld.ebay.com/arcane7828
881
Oooh Dicey:
[dice=1]100[/dice]
Does any magic player really not know these things?
I play to win (at least i try to), but I rejoice when I am defeated by new players. Be it because I drew 5 lands in a row, I commited a play error o they simply bested with skill my all-rare deck with they all-common deck (that doesnt happen to be bad at all). I like to see the smile on their faces thinking: "wow, I defeated someone". Maybe that victory isnt actually helping them to become better players, but at least keeps them interested in the game. Someday they will become pro-players? Maybe...
Also the article hits hard on the casual player. When I started t play, I used to play in some gardens in the college. I played a precon "ivory doom" deck adapted with R, G and U splashes and only 18 lands (yeah, what a noob), and my friends played similar decks. We didnt have those "special rules" and it was fun, no mather the bad plays, bad decks, or whatever, it was really fun. Then one day, some dude aproached asking if he could play, we agrred, and he joined our caos multiplayer match and played a full of counters and rude awakening. He started to eliminate one by one of us, until I alone remained. For some unknown reason i had a pair of defense grid that I played when the dude was tapped after eliminating my last friend. Turns later i won via a Doubtless one and starlit sanctum. That dude, enraged, took his things, laughing maniacally and crying at how noob we were, and parted, never to return. Until this day Im convinced that he was the noob.
On the other hand I really hate players that complain when they loose. Sadly, at least in my area, that kind of players arent limited to the "noobs" who play crap decks, but are also self proclaimed "pros" who test daylly, are netdecking fanboys, and so. Some of them are really good players with low (or nule) sportmanship, some others are bad players with money to waste on fancy rares. They do nothing to help the community, they only point fingers, and calls you a "noob" if you loose, if you win, if you get "lucky"... it is almost if you were playing in MWS.
Finally on the article, I think the part one was really good, this one tough, really seems like a rant.
I always play to win, but also play for the fun of the game, as it should ever be.
Sure, I would probably win FNM quite a bit if I played Faeries every week - the other players know I have skill, but that I don't play the "good" decks. But it's not as fun to win with some netdeck as it is to win with my own creation. It's a Pyrrhic victory - sure I've won, but at what cost to my ideals?
I know some people don't have those ideals. They don't have fun except when they're winning. I'm sure the author is one of those, by his rant against "bad players" (who are bad simply because they don't play the best deck). I don't like playing against those people - they really suck the fun out of the game. And this is a game, remember. At the end of the night, there is only one winner, so if everyone had this attitude, the vast majority of people will be unhappy. Thankfully there are plenty of people who play to have fun, at least for now. They make the game far more enjoyable to everyone.
Agree. The moment I read the line " the n00b has created imaginary rules to the game, and is playing the game according to these rules." I thought about Sirlin's "Playing to Win" article.
Do you know any judges who always impress you with their work ethic, knowledge, or attitude? Nominate them to be the next Judge of the Week!
I chose this quote because of it's direct question, but allow me to hopefully address everyone's questions here. People seem to be laboring under a belief that playing for fun and playing to win are exclusive, when in fact they are not. Actually, I'm already working on an article around that as well. Look for it in early November, depending on how midterms shape up.
I understand that a lot of players may feel insulted by this article, and I can see why they would feel that way. Let me be very blunt and honest: This article is written for those who put a premium on winning. There is nothing wrong with playing only for fun. It is a game, after all. This is more directed at players who want to play to win, but cannot figure out why. If you have made a conscious decision to not play extremely competitively, you have acknowledged that you are not playing to win. Many players have not reached that realization. They think they are playing to win, when in fact they are not, (pay attention, because this is the important bit) and they don't know why. If you know why, you have already tackled the first step on this road. Just because you don't choose to walk down it, you have at least discovered it. Many players I encounter don't even know it exists. It's like trying to get to an address, but you can't find the street you need, because you can't find the road that gets to that street. I don't intend this to sound harsh, but this is aimed at the ignorant players. (in this case, ignorant meaning someone who doesn't know, not as a dysphemism)
So, if you felt this article was attacking you, you are likely on of the following
A) A conscientious objector
B) that last type I wrote about, the angry n00b
C) very thin-skinned. You probably also get mad when people call you white instead of "Euro-American" (that's a joke, so please laugh instead of sending hate-mail)
Most people reading this would probably be A. In that case, look for my next article about the dichotomy of fun and winning.
You should read them.
"Rejoice, for bad things are about to happen"
You should read them.
"Rejoice, for bad things are about to happen"
On the matter of the people who show off their failing decks afterwards, this is not their way of seeking validation, it's their way of showing you that they've gone and actually put some thought into building a unique deck with a different bag of tricks. I have met people like the author in my local game store, and I have heard one fellow, when critiqing the deck of a more casual player, suggest suc expensive cards as Cryptic Command, Mutavault, etc. as a means of making their decks more effective; In fact, I have been the target of such critique, the same fellow aghast that I was running a white deck that didn't have a Wrath of God in it. Such cards should not be staple of every deck to be effective, so it is not the right of someone who puts these kinds of cards in every deck to expect others to be able to live up to the same standards if they cannot even afford it.
Now, as the author stated in his article, and as several other posters have mentioned, they say that people should adapt to the powerful decks in order to have a chance against them. Creating a deck to counter a particular deck design is not fun, as it stifles creativity and it may not be what you even wish to play. If I am not utterly mistaken, the Mirrodin block suffered greatly from this, as it was either play Affinity or play anti-Affinity, and it was because of the lack of diversity in deck design that many people quit Magic during this block. How then, can you justify telling someone to make a deck to adapt to a over-powered deck? Such things stagnate the game and drive away players.
As for other issues the author addressed, he noted that he had played popular deck designs that were proven to win. The Faerie deck for example, is one that was very popular and still for the most part is. People who like to play casually like to create flavorful decks that do things that are interesting, and those who play competitively merely copy and paste decks straight from the internet. The game of Magic, therefore, loses it's luster when creativity is stifled. It's boring to play a game when every one copies each other. There are ways to make good victorious decks and still be creative, without resorting to stealing other people's ideas and tweaking a single card and calling it your own. If such players as the author are so great at the game of magic, why then can they not create a unique deck of their own design and win with it? Skill is not solely based on the ability to play, as many believe, it's also based on the ability to create. So if someone as the author truly wishes to bash people, perhaps he and others like him should make thier own original decks and play them and win, because victory with an original deck is truly something admirable, while victory with a cut and paste deck is just boring and expected most of the time.
Lastly, another issue that I find disturbing in the article and magic in general is how several others have mentioned destroying your opponent in only a few turns. When you play a game, you play for enjoyment, not speed. If you obliterate someone in 4 turns, where is the fun in that? You're bored, your opponent is crushed, and no one truly enjoyed the game. Video games that don't have replay value or last only a few hours are seen as boring and underdeveloped and tossed aside, in lieu of games that provide hours of entertainment. Magic, when it lasts so briefly, is also boring. Everyone knows that the games where you and your opponent trade blows and pull of combos are the most entertaining, as they challenge you to think and strategize. Both players have fun and benefit in this manner, as they each are forced to think about their plays. If someone like the author truly wishes to improve the games of others, they wouldn't keep playing a deck that eradicates in 4 turns. They would play a solid deck with cunning tricks that at least allows the opponent to play their deck long enough to see what strengths and weaknesses it has, instead of simply accepting defeat and waiting for death as is characteristic when playing against a cut and paste deck.
So, before someone goes off bashing people who are irate when they lose to someone who uses a deck that has been proven to win over and over and over again, consider the other forces that factor into why they may not be able to live up to those standards. They may not be financially able, they may have standards and actually enjoy creating decks, and they may truly be bad at the game because they can't experience actual game play that lasts long enough for them to improve. And of course, there is the fact that not everyone is cutthroat and victory driven, there are people that actually enjoy playing the game, rather than winning a prize.
-Augustin IV
lulz, so tr00; happens to me almost every fnm. nice article by the way.
To use an example from my own magic group, one player used to play a burn deck every single game. Now, we generally play three person games. Just as in the case you detailed, the burn deck generally pulled out the stops towards the end of the game and killed the other two players. I generally didn't have a problem with this, the deck was relatively fun to play, but after a while it just wasn't fun any more. He basically won any multi-player game we played. It would have been easy to beat him by simply ganging up on him in game or by building a deck specialized to beat him, but what is fun about that?
I shouldn't be having a boring time playing magic cards. The point of this is simply that the winning deck isn't simply the best deck.
To address another element of your article which I took exception too, I must completely disagree with you about land destruction. There is a reason why Wizards makes it suck, and that is because there is absolutely nothing fun about playing land destruction. There 's nothing "n00b"ish about not enjoying playing a deck that destroys your ability to do anything in the game. Cheap it is not. Fun it certainly isn't either.
Anyway, i didn't want this to be a rant, so I'm going to end here and eat my pizza.
I have a great example of this: its lorwyn/shadowmoor block season, and my store is having a block constructed fnm the night before the ptq. Im playing a pretty standard five color elementals, with a few personal card choices and a personal sideboard, and there's this other guy at my store, like a grown man in his 40s, that is mr. johnny and has his elementals deck. This guys deck is UR, but splashing the other three colors for only horde of notions, and basically all it does is flash in 10 power elementals (4 nova chaser, and 4 of the blue one) with soulstroke. thats all it does. Anyway, since obv his deck is "original" and my "deck is a ****** net deck" he is a better player than me. Anyway, i go 3-1 in third, and he goes 0-4 (only ****ing competitive players ever drop, amirite), yet the originality of his deck makes it as good as mine. Not to mention that he "got mana-screwed everygame". but yeah, he chews me out the entire night over this.
Another great example is a particular other store in western washington. This store is so casual that if you show up for an fnm with a constructed deck that so much as shares 3 playsets with an established archetype, you will practically get flamed out of the room. Its ridiculous
anyway, that is what this author is talking about, so if thats not you, calm down and appreciate his work.
The internet is like drugs, it can be alot of fun, but most people on it say really stupid stuff
It's pretty clear that people can play for other reasons and that's perfectly fine. The author didn't say that all players that aren't playing to win are noobs, those players who join a competition and whine when they lose to good decks or good cards and don't improve are. If you enjoy the social aspect and the joy of discovery, then you're doing good. And there's nothing for you here, not even insults.
In contrary to Street Fighters (which was the default game for Sirlin), Magic has more things to explore. In SF you should only play to win (because there are no other aspects of the game) In Magic you can play noncompetitively and still enjoy the game.
That's one of the most brilliant paragraphs I've ever read in my whole life.
If all you play is for fun, and you recognize that, then you are not a n00b. That's even stated in the article (IIRC, need to double check after the editing, but I'm pretty sure)
You should read them.
"Rejoice, for bad things are about to happen"
Well, the so-called "n00bs" sure showed you. Magic is a game, and the point of games is to have fun. And yes, you may have fun with land destruction and permission and "Teh Faeries" but how much fun are you having when your friend says "screw this, I've got better games to play?" In a tournament setting go for it man, bring down your hardest nastiest beast, it's expected. But when it comes to Magic over the kitchen table you know better than to bring your Vintage goblins. In tournaments it's the job of the DCI to determine whether some cards ruin the fun of the game and keep them in check. When the judges aren't around -you- have to make that call. And saying "No I don't. Suck it up and lose like a man you n00b." is only going to leave you playing at an empty table, champion of nothing.
Getting along with other human beings and having fun isn't a science with clearly defined rules. It's an art, one die-hard tourney tards would do well to learn.
In a sense i think perhaps something left out (or was not too clear) was the context of the play.
Was it a group of friends, casual kitchen table, random play at the store, or prerelease or standard tourney?
A group of friends may already have some preconceived thoughts on how the games should be played, in that setting someone coming in with a Vintage powered (insert some deck archtype here) will pulverise everyone.
Perhaps an example of how winning is a goal but yet not paramount is where you have a group of friends playing some tribal theme decks dedicated to showing the elfness or kithkinness of the deck. Sure you still want your elf deck to beat up the kithkin deck, but you are ready to play some random 1/1 with cool art and great flavour. Insert someone with the standard G/B elf deck or the block Kithkin, and this spoils the math. Sure one should tune the deck to react to changes, but the original context is lost.
When I play at a prerelease, I generally hope to play something cool with the new cards. (since I tend to only focus on mana and playing the critter, that means I normally die to control oriented builds lol) and its all in good fun.
At a tourney level competition, I guess that where this article is really trying to address (and the author did state that this article is for spikes). And winning here means winning the game/tournament. And I can see where the need for playing the deck of the moment and reacting to the meta is paramount for winning.
Everyone wants to win, but the issue is what does it mean to "win". Some want a good time, others want to win with a homebrew, and others want to win the tournament.
My take is the author did try to address who the article is for, but the context was'nt too clear, hence the backlash, another issue might have been the tone. But different styles will appeal to different people, so the harsh direct style can be good, but do note it would sound different to different people.
To put it in context I am likely a Johnny/Spike, so a dominant deck does not make me sad, to me the necro summer and combo winters were very interesting periods, as you had extreme dominance of an archtype and then someone finds a way to break the grip; that is always a tale worth reading. But I still like to build my pygmy hippo deck and I tried very hard to make make phasing work
Reality is but a perception of your being --
Visit my blog!!! - http://huffalump-magic.blogspot.com/
"The brain is wider than the sky,
For, put them side by side,
The one the other will include
With ease, and you beside."
—Emily Dickinson
For sales or trade, visit my blog or visit my ebay blog for my listings :http://myworld.ebay.com/arcane7828
881
Oooh Dicey:
[dice=1]100[/dice]
In this instance, it was tournaments. This wasn't casual play, it was tournaments with prizes. However, you are absolutely correct, and hopefully, you will see that I care about a lot more than winning. I really liked playing that deck. When Mistbind Clique was first shown, I thought of this synergy, and really looked forward to playing it, because it's clever. But in the end, the fun of my fellow players took preference over even my own fun. Think what you will, but in under three years, my work has taken us from no tournaments at all to 2 tournaments every week, with a core community. I like winning, but I'd lose ever match I every played for the rest of my life to make sure that this community kept growing and prospering.
Thank you, that's pretty much my intent. One thing I've learned in my life is that the only person who can change you is you. I, or anyone else, can show you all the tips, tactics, steps, facts, and statistics on why you should do something, but people only change when they want to. Hopefully, this article is at least making people consider changing themselves.
You should read them.
"Rejoice, for bad things are about to happen"