Well said. Additionally, as much as I champion the ability for large sites such as this one to give the RC access to a multitude of voices, when it comes to actual testing of a card I take solace in knowing that they are using trusted sources rather than nameless faces for these tests. No offence towards anyone on here, but speaking for myself were I in Sheldon's shoes, I would always take into account the possibility of ulterior motives or biases with any data given to me by someone whom I did not get a warm and fuzzy from.
Closed playgroups may result in tiny sample sizes, but you can at least trust the results you gather from them.
Correct The RC's budget is $0 (feel free to increase this if you're so inclined). I think people sometimes neglect the expense (both in time and money) of data collection and analysis. Even then, it has to be for a viable purpose. This data would still not tell us anything we need to know in order to craft our vision of the format. People telling us about how they enjoyed (or didn't) their experiences and why--that might be something we can use.
If it's such a burden I'm sure you could always put it in the hands of WotC.
If it's such a burden I'm sure you could always put it in the hands of WotC.
What makes you assume Wizards would want to take it over? The only reason this format has been as successful as it has been is because of the Rules Committee. Wizards went to them because they were the ones who got a casual format which worked on a global level.
If it's such a burden I'm sure you could always put it in the hands of WotC.
What makes you assume Wizards would want to take it over? The only reason this format has been as successful as it has been is because of the Rules Committee. Wizards went to them because they were the ones who got a casual format which worked on a global level.
First of all, we don't know that it couldn't have been a better format if the RC put more work into it. Second, since WotC is now monetizing the product, they'd have an obligation to support it if the RC decided that they no longer did.
Additionally, while the RC did create a great format, it's not due to some mythical level of understanding what constitutes fun. It's a lot like the Blu-ray/HD-DVD or VHS/Betamax relationship; neither one of the competing products was significantly better than the other, but due to the inertia of additional choices and compatibility, one overtook the other in an ever-increasing manner. For example: about the time Prophecy was released, before anyone in my group of friends had even heard of EDH, we each played 60-card decks based around one of the legendary spellshapers. Obviously, this type of format did not get the exposure of EDH. I slowly watched EDH overtake 60-card casual simply because there were people that had EDH decks but not 60-card decks. Then, people would build EDH decks so they could play with their friends that did not have 60-card decks. Thus EDH killed other casual magic.
I'd just like to say, I run 2 D&D groups and I don't complain to my players that I don't get payed to make their adventures or that they have to do things my way or they can leave. Just like EDH is (presumably) a hobby of the RC, I see managing and creating the best D&D game I can as part of my hobby, not a chore with which I have been saddled that I can half-ass with the excuse of "my vision" and "I don't get compensated."
First of all, we don't know that it couldn't have been a better format if the RC put more work into it. Second, since WotC is now monetizing the product, they'd have an obligation to support it if the RC decided that they no longer did.
Additionally, while the RC did create a great format, it's not due to some mythical level of understanding what constitutes fun. It's a lot like the Blu-ray/HD-DVD or VHS/Betamax relationship; neither one of the competing products was significantly better than the other, but due to the inertia of additional choices and compatibility, one overtook the other in an ever-increasing manner. For example: about the time Prophecy was released, before anyone in my group of friends had even heard of EDH, we each played 60-card decks based around one of the legendary spellshapers. Obviously, this type of format did not get the exposure of EDH. I slowly watched EDH overtake 60-card casual simply because there were people that had EDH decks but not 60-card decks. Then, people would build EDH decks so they could play with their friends that did not have 60-card decks. Thus EDH killed other casual magic.
I'd just like to say, I run 2 D&D groups and I don't complain to my players that I don't get payed to make their adventures or that they have to do things my way or they can leave. Just like EDH is (presumably) a hobby of the RC, I see managing and creating the best D&D game I can as part of my hobby, not a chore with which I have been saddled that I can half-ass with the excuse of "my vision" and "I don't get compensated."
Where do you see Sheldon ever calling this a burden? All I've ever seen from him is
The masses: " you guys should do comprehensive testing and data mining"
Sheldon: "well that stuff costs a bit of money and we don't get paid to do this"
Going back to your d&d group, if your group complained to you that you were running your game wrong and you should be consulting other DMs all over and why don't you just quit and get Hasbro to take over the group, how would you respond?
Edit: you and other users keep saying that he is half-assing things and talk about their vision as if it's a bad thing. First off, that is extremely disrespectful to him and the rest of the Rules Committee. If they give the appearance of resting on their laurels, it is only because they have dedicated countless hours to take this format from a few people in some armpit of Alaska into a Global format which because so popular that Wizards included it in the CR despite not having any control over it. And for what thanks? So anonymous trolls on the internet can swear at them, call them names, and criticize them despite putting little, if any effort into backing up the claims they make? Secondly, that vision they have resonates with a far greater number of people than would rather get rid of it.
Thinking that they would not like to be in full control of it at this point I think would be naive.
What would they have to gain? Wizards would need to dedicate time and money to a format that, by its very construction, is not tournament viable. They are literally getting the rules and structure of Commander regulated for free by people that are passionate about the format. I'm sure they're not willing to look that particular gift horse in the mouth.
Do not flame members of the RC, either as individuals or as a whole.
---
Regardless of how you feel about the direction of the banlist, the RC does a great deal for the format, and there is absolutely no need to insult them, even if you disagree with them.
Where do you see Sheldon ever calling this a burden? All I've ever seen from him is
The masses: " you guys should do comprehensive testing and data mining"
Sheldon: "well that stuff costs a bit of money and we don't get paid to do this"
While he never used the exact word, his complete reluctance to do any research beyond the scope of his group heavily implies this. Even something as simple as creating a free survey and distributing the url across a few sites (reddit would be a great place to start and have it spread) would yield some data.
Going back to your d&d group, if your group complained to you that you were running your game wrong and you should be consulting other DMs all over and why don't you just quit and get Hasbro to take over the group, how would you respond?
I take feedback all the time. I go on forums and do consult other DMs. That's the beauty of the internet, communication is not hard. I try to fit my game to the players because I can look beyond my own, personal bubble. I have one game that is RP-heavy and very poorly optimized, and I have another that plays like a table-top strategy game with extreme focus on combat and puzzles. That is because I listen to my groups.
Edit: you and other users keep saying that he is half-assing things and talk about their vision as if it's a bad thing. First off, that is extremely disrespectful to him and the rest of the Rules Committee. If they give the appearance of resting on their laurels, it is only because they have dedicated countless hours to take this format from a few people in some armpit of Alaska into a Global format which because so popular that Wizards included it in the CR despite not having any control over it. And for what thanks? So anonymous trolls on the internet can swear at them, call them names, and criticize them despite putting little, if any effort into backing up the claims they make? Secondly, that vision they have resonates with a far greater number of people than would rather get rid of it.
At this point, respect is very far down on my list of concerns regarding Sheldon based on pretty much every comment he makes. Every time he responds to one of his detractors it is with smug superiority. The more I read what he really thinks, the less I respect him. And while I don't agree with the RCs principles in general, he's the only one that comes off as obnoxious and defensive every time you dare question him. I can pinpoint the exact moment that I realized this beyond just a minor dissatisfaction with the banned list: it was about the time when he responded directly to my request for a concrete set of criteria with something along the lines of "I'd rather see the format fail than compromise my vision." So after that I care very little for his feelings and just wish to cut through the bull***** and be completely frank.
And, as I constantly bring up, I'm less concerned with the vision than I am with consistency and the atmosphere that vision engenders. By their own admission, the banned list is meant to be a guideline and thus incomplete. That is a problem. So you end up having people whinging about anything that they dislike and accusing you of being a vile "competitive player" that does not respect the "spirit of EDH" because the vision is so unclear in its expression via the banned list.
At this point, respect is very far down on my list of concerns regarding Sheldon based on pretty much every comment he makes. Every time he responds to one of his detractors it is with smug superiority. The more I read what he really thinks, the less I respect him. And while I don't agree with the RCs principles in general, he's the only one that comes off as obnoxious and defensive every time you dare question him. I can pinpoint the exact moment that I realized this beyond just a minor dissatisfaction with the banned list: it was about the time when he responded directly to my request for a concrete set of criteria with something along the lines of "I'd rather see the format fail than compromise my vision." So after that I care very little for his feelings and just wish to cut through the bull***** and be completely frank.
And, as I constantly bring up, I'm less concerned with the vision than I am with consistency and the atmosphere that vision engenders. By their own admission, the banned list is meant to be a guideline and thus incomplete. That is a problem. So you end up having people whinging about anything that they dislike and accusing you of being a vile "competitive player" that does not respect the "spirit of EDH" because the vision is so unclear in its expression via the banned list.
That's a fair point and I won't dispute your opinions on this matter. Perhaps I was unclear. We (the moderators) aren't saying you have to respect Sheldon and the other members of the Rules Committee who post here. What we are saying is that you must be respectful towards them. We have rules on this site because we strive to make this a welcoming place. MTGSalvation is one of the heavier-moderated forums because of this, and our staff is constantly trying to ensure that the respect given to each other is mutual, even when there are disagreements. If you feel that they are not giving the other users here that mutual respect we desire, please report their posts so that we can bring it to their attention, just as they do the same for posts which they feel are going beyond dissent and into personal attacks. The Rules Committee have nothing to gain from being obnoxious towards other users here. All it accomplishes is to cause a breakdown in communication and make people mad at them and treat them with hostility, resulting in making this a place where they have no desire to visit. And if that is their goal then they can simply just not visit in the first place without burning their bridges with the public.
The RC's budget is $0 (feel free to increase this if you're so inclined).
You don't drink wine at the RC meetings? I'm sure plenty of people would be up for contributing to a "get the RC wine at the committee meetings" fund. Actually... Can I join the RC if I provide wine for the meetings?
People telling us about how they enjoyed (or didn't) their experiences and why--that might be something we can use.
I'm intrigued as to the sort of discussion that would go on around a card that is particularly contentious, especially in much of the worldwide EDH community. If you're willing to share, assuming that it hasn't been said already in an article of yours, how would a meeting go? In particular, how does discussion around a card formulate in one of these meetings? It's very easy to imagine "I heard a player complaining about Kavu Climber. What do people think? Should we or shouldn't we ban Kavu Climber, and why?"
After reading the threads on the individual cards people want to discuss banning, only one solution seems to apply to all of them, and is the only solution that works within the RC's vision of the format:
The complete and total removal of the banlist. Any bannings are to take place between individual groups.
Casual players can use every card to their heart's content and aren't going to know about the interactions that make the cards banworthy. Competitive players will create their own lists for their own competitive groups. No one has to worry about an updated list and changing decks. Everyone wins.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
RC meetings are online and usually early in the afternoon to accommodate the West-Coasters, so I'm not drinking too often during them. So I suppose the answer to your question is "depends what wine"
I covered our process in an article a few years back. The short version is that you pretty much have it. "Okay, who has cards they want to talk about?" starts it off. Then there's a discussion and a decision if we need to put a card to a vote (either to bring off or put on), with each member voting on a +/- scale of how strongly they believe the card needs to be (un)banned. If it exceeds a certain threshold, the card gets (un)banned. We individually bring cards based on what we read online, see and hear in person at events, and experience in our local groups. We're relatively conservative about movement on a card in either direction. We want there to be a pretty good reason to put a card on or take it off, partially because we want to make sure we do the right thing and partially because messaging of any change is always difficult. The idea of test banning/unbanning cards is something we believe would create far more problems than it would solve.
After reading the threads on the individual cards people want to discuss banning, only one solution seems to apply to all of them, and is the only solution that works within the RC's vision of the format:
The complete and total removal of the banlist. Any bannings are to take place between individual groups.
Casual players can use every card to their heart's content and aren't going to know about the interactions that make the cards banworthy. Competitive players will create their own lists for their own competitive groups. No one has to worry about an updated list and changing decks. Everyone wins.
The only way that could work is if no one plays outside of their own group. The ban list, for all its imperfections, gives people a baseline for being able to play other people outside their individual groups.
Correct The RC's budget is $0 (feel free to increase this if you're so inclined). I think people sometimes neglect the expense (both in time and money) of data collection and analysis. Even then, it has to be for a viable purpose. This data would still not tell us anything we need to know in order to craft our vision of the format. People telling us about how they enjoyed (or didn't) their experiences and why--that might be something we can use.
If it's such a burden I'm sure you could always put it in the hands of WotC.
No one claimed that it's a burden. I can't do anything about your lack of respect for me, but I can certainly point out where it leads you to make the least charitable reading of anything I happen so say, which is what you've done here. Weirdly enough, you claim you want me to be frank, but my (admittedly sometimes brusque) frankness it what lead you to lose that respect in the first place. Even if there's nothing I can do to win you back, we can nonetheless engage with civility, which I'll endeavor toward.
If I can use your D&D analogy, we're doing the same thing you are--making it the best we can within our own vision of what makes it best simply out of love for it. There are many different styles of D&D game; some like hack-and-slash, some like character- or plot-driven games. You'd resist someone telling you that you should run yours differently than your own idea of what makes the best kind of game. Imagine people screaming at you to run the hack-and-slash game (and insulting you personally for not changing your mind) when all you want to do is tell the great story. We put in the same kind of time and energy to the format that you do your game, and similarly for no reason other than our love of the hobby and what we're doing. You wouldn't spend a bunch of time and energy researching what makes the best hack-and-slash game, since it's not relevant to your story-driven one.
After reading the threads on the individual cards people want to discuss banning, only one solution seems to apply to all of them, and is the only solution that works within the RC's vision of the format:
The complete and total removal of the banlist. Any bannings are to take place between individual groups.
Casual players can use every card to their heart's content and aren't going to know about the interactions that make the cards banworthy. Competitive players will create their own lists for their own competitive groups. No one has to worry about an updated list and changing decks. Everyone wins.
The only way that could work is if no one plays outside of their own group. The ban list, for all its imperfections, gives people a baseline for being able to play other people outside their individual groups.
Well, according to the poll on here, 76% of players never play outside their group, and only 7% almost never play with a set group. I imagine that case would just use the last list by default. They would lose the changes as time goes on, but changes aren't terribly common anyway.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Correct The RC's budget is $0 (feel free to increase this if you're so inclined). I think people sometimes neglect the expense (both in time and money) of data collection and analysis. Even then, it has to be for a viable purpose. This data would still not tell us anything we need to know in order to craft our vision of the format. People telling us about how they enjoyed (or didn't) their experiences and why--that might be something we can use.
If it's such a burden I'm sure you could always put it in the hands of WotC.
No one claimed that it's a burden. I can't do anything about your lack of respect for me, but I can certainly point out where it leads you to make the least charitable reading of anything I happen so say, which is what you've done here. Weirdly enough, you claim you want me to be frank, but my (admittedly sometimes brusque) frankness it what lead you to lose that respect in the first place. Even if there's nothing I can do to win you back, we can nonetheless engage with civility, which I'll endeavor toward.
Here's the thing, there are plenty of people that spend hours on perfecting their hobby. Look at people that design mods for games like Skyrim. People revamp the entire game for no end other than making it a better experience for themselves and others. Now, just to stem the impending argument, I know not everyone agrees with every revamp/overhaul, but the point I'm making is time spent. I feel like it is unfair to players is you are not willing to put in effort. I am not convinced WotC will necessarily do a better job, but they will most certainly endeavor to be as inclusive as possible since they are a business and their goal is sales. As it turns out, money is a big motivator.
It is not your brusqueness that puts me off, it's the fact that you feel perfectly justified in dismissing me and those like me as considerations in a format that is now supported by WotC. I'm not even a particularly competitive player. While others may have specific bans/unbans that they want, I'd prefer a less emotionally-dictated approach to banning cards.
If I can use your D&D analogy, we're doing the same thing you are--making it the best we can within our own vision of what makes it best simply out of love for it. There are many different styles of D&D game; some like hack-and-slash, some like character- or plot-driven games. You'd resist someone telling you that you should run yours differently than your own idea of what makes the best kind of game. Imagine people screaming at you to run the hack-and-slash game (and insulting you personally for not changing your mind) when all you want to do is tell the great story. We put in the same kind of time and energy to the format that you do your game, and similarly for no reason other than our love of the hobby and what we're doing. You wouldn't spend a bunch of time and energy researching what makes the best hack-and-slash game, since it's not relevant to your story-driven one.
But I run both types of games and tailor them to my players the best I can. I encourage feedback and endeavor to never let my games reach that boiling point. It is not the idea of your vision with which I have a major problem, although I do think it is a bit antiquated given the current, global state of Magic as a game. My issue is that your vision is largely exclusionary coupled with your unwillingness to adapt it. I think one of the best points of the Commander vision is limiting accidental "feel-bad" cards (like Sundering Titan). I think it is possible to create a banned list that regulates public play, but the best way to do that is to regulate people's expectations via concrete rules as to what is banned/bannable. I know this would almost certainly make the banned list bigger, but there is far less fun lost from not being able to play a card compared to a game wrecked by a card that is allowed but "frowned upon."
I know this would almost certainly make the banned list bigger, but there is far less fun lost from not being able to play a card compared to a game wrecked by a card that is allowed but "frowned upon."
I disagree. I would much rather lose to cards that are "frowned upon" then tell people they cannot play with them, or have them say the same to me. In a 1v1, competitive environment the conversation might be different. But, for traditional EDH I believe that the ability to have more options, even those deemed oppressive by some, creates a better format. I know that I may very well be the minority with my opinion, but I find the current state of EDH to be fantastic and would rather see more unbans then bans personally (If only to see what would happen). I know the RC doesn't want to watch the format explode if they prematurely unban the wrong card though so for now I'm content.
It is not your brusqueness that puts me off, it's the fact that you feel perfectly justified in dismissing me and those like me as considerations in a format that is now supported by WotC. I'm not even a particularly competitive player. While others may have specific bans/unbans that they want, I'd prefer a less emotionally-dictated approach to banning cards.
Just to make sure I understand, you feel that because WotC makes product for the format and since you're a potential buyer for that product, we should consider you and everyone else in how we approach the format, since you're all potential consumers. If there were no WotC involvement, would you feel the same way? I suppose that's it's not unreasonable for you to say to a producer "hey, if you want me to buy your product, you should think about what I like and how I'm going to use your product." We're sort of in a weird situation here, in which we the RC don't sell the product (although we have great relationships with WotC). It's unfortunate that you feel dismissed, because I don't think we're actively dismissing you. If I can use the D&D analogy again, it's not dismissive of the hack-and-slash players to say that you're going to actively pursue the story-driven game. It's not dismissive of dancers for the show-runners of Game of Thrones to say "No way will we have dance numbers in our episodes." The format's popularity is a result of understanding that it can't be all-inclusive; trying to be all things to all people is not only impossible, but a path to homogenization. We'd rather stay special. If we sometimes get aggressive in defense of that ideal, it's because of the aggressive insistence that we change.
I'm getting more of a George Lucas modifying star wars vibe.
The ideals of the format are nebulous, and I have yet to see a proper definition that shouldn't result in numerous additional bans/unbans. But those bans/unbans never happen.
It is not your brusqueness that puts me off, it's the fact that you feel perfectly justified in dismissing me and those like me as considerations in a format that is now supported by WotC. I'm not even a particularly competitive player. While others may have specific bans/unbans that they want, I'd prefer a less emotionally-dictated approach to banning cards.
Just to make sure I understand, you feel that because WotC makes product for the format and since you're a potential buyer for that product, we should consider you and everyone else in how we approach the format, since you're all potential consumers. If there were no WotC involvement, would you feel the same way? I suppose that's it's not unreasonable for you to say to a producer "hey, if you want me to buy your product, you should think about what I like and how I'm going to use your product." We're sort of in a weird situation here, in which we the RC don't sell the product (although we have great relationships with WotC). It's unfortunate that you feel dismissed, because I don't think we're actively dismissing you. If I can use the D&D analogy again, it's not dismissive of the hack-and-slash players to say that you're going to actively pursue the story-driven game. It's not dismissive of dancers for the show-runners of Game of Thrones to say "No way will we have dance numbers in our episodes." The format's popularity is a result of understanding that it can't be all-inclusive; trying to be all things to all people is not only impossible, but a path to homogenization. We'd rather stay special. If we sometimes get aggressive in defense of that ideal, it's because of the aggressive insistence that we change.
I also feel that when WOTC "officialized" Commander by selling the products, that created an obligation of a different character than the one that existed before. When I need to have the rules of the format explained to me by someone from the RC, or someone who knows the RC, it's a much more legitimate statement to say "It's our format, sorry if you feel dismissed." When I have a precon deck, a rules insert, and a Commander night at the local shop, I expect the ban list and other supporting rules to be designed chiefly for the venues where it's being monetized.
To use the D&D example, it is like including all of the classes in the base game, but then saying that updates to content, feats, storylines, are only going to involve the Fighter and Rogue classes. Then blah, blah about how having too many classes in the past was the death of previous D&D versions, that if people only had the same "vision" of D&D as the people who maintain it, everything would be fine, and so on. Meanwhile, the Wizard class is overpowered relative to the others, but nothing is done about it because people who play Wizard are the ones who don't "get it".
Point is, how people are actually playing Commander should be looked at. After years of having the same card pool, along with mutually understood taboo's, a certain kind of gameplay has emerged (or maybe a few styles of gameplay). That gameplay is not at all what is being regulated by the current ban list. The card pool itself lends to a certain style of play, and that's what should be looked at.
It is not your brusqueness that puts me off, it's the fact that you feel perfectly justified in dismissing me and those like me as considerations in a format that is now supported by WotC. I'm not even a particularly competitive player. While others may have specific bans/unbans that they want, I'd prefer a less emotionally-dictated approach to banning cards.
Just to make sure I understand, you feel that because WotC makes product for the format and since you're a potential buyer for that product, we should consider you and everyone else in how we approach the format, since you're all potential consumers. If there were no WotC involvement, would you feel the same way? I suppose that's it's not unreasonable for you to say to a producer "hey, if you want me to buy your product, you should think about what I like and how I'm going to use your product." We're sort of in a weird situation here, in which we the RC don't sell the product (although we have great relationships with WotC). It's unfortunate that you feel dismissed, because I don't think we're actively dismissing you. If I can use the D&D analogy again, it's not dismissive of the hack-and-slash players to say that you're going to actively pursue the story-driven game. It's not dismissive of dancers for the show-runners of Game of Thrones to say "No way will we have dance numbers in our episodes." The format's popularity is a result of understanding that it can't be all-inclusive; trying to be all things to all people is not only impossible, but a path to homogenization. We'd rather stay special. If we sometimes get aggressive in defense of that ideal, it's because of the aggressive insistence that we change.
That is correct. Due to WotC's official sanction of EDH via product support, it has become the go-to casual format. I like to play in tournaments occasionally, but I despise the overly competitive ones that turn magic into a grind for prizes/points. Additionally, I love building decks and creating new/interesting synergies. I recently shared my boros infinite turns combo (Sunforger/Mistveil Plains/Deserted Temple/Angel's Grace/Final Fortune) with my playgroup and they thought it was hilarious, but it uses 15 mana and 5 cards, so it doesn't really work in "real" formats. Now that Commander is the de facto casual format, that is the only venue in which I can enjoy such things. I think EDH is a great idea and I do like it, but I prefer 60-card casual as I feel I can perfect my deck in a more aesthetic manner with 4-ofs. If there were a realistic alternative (such as those dancers getting a different job) I would not be here complaining. The problem is that "special" and "consumable" tend to be mutually exclusive. As much as it is nice to feel unique, the reality is that Magic's success as a whole is due to its broad appeal. I have seen countless TCGs fail hard (even those designed by Magic pros).
While he never used the exact word, his complete reluctance to do any research beyond the scope of his group heavily implies this. Even something as simple as creating a free survey and distributing the url across a few sites (reddit would be a great place to start and have it spread) would yield some data.
This is a terrible idea and I hope the RC doesn't do it. A survey (especially one on Reddit) would be disproportionately filled out by people who think there's something severely wrong with the format. The people who feel the format is good would probably not view responding to the survey as a high priority. Furthermore, the RC is not a democracy and it shouldn't be. Their vision does not need to be diluted by people who see EDH as some kind of singleton Vintage tournament format instead of a social game. It's supposed to be casual and trying to rewrite it to be a competitive 1v1 game will only end in disaster.
That is a problem. So you end up having people whinging about anything that they dislike and accusing you of being a vile "competitive player" that does not respect the "spirit of EDH" because the vision is so unclear in its expression via the banned list.
The vision is not unclear at all. There is a certain type of player who has trouble understanding things that aren't rigidly defined lists of explicit rules. This person will try to win within the framework of rules, and if they are not explicit, frustration can result. However, trying to win is not what the format is about. EDH is not a play-to-win David Sirlin-type game where everyone calculates the line of play with the highest expected value and the losing player(s) should be frustrated at the outcome of the game. It is a social game where many of the rules are implicit, and part of the fun is trying to break them in such a way that raises the entertainment level of the group. It is similar to Mornington Crescent in this regard. How do you even conduct quantitative research on something like that?
These days, some wizards are finding they have a little too much deck left at the end of their $$$.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Closed playgroups may result in tiny sample sizes, but you can at least trust the results you gather from them.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
If it's such a burden I'm sure you could always put it in the hands of WotC.
What makes you assume Wizards would want to take it over? The only reason this format has been as successful as it has been is because of the Rules Committee. Wizards went to them because they were the ones who got a casual format which worked on a global level.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
First of all, we don't know that it couldn't have been a better format if the RC put more work into it. Second, since WotC is now monetizing the product, they'd have an obligation to support it if the RC decided that they no longer did.
Additionally, while the RC did create a great format, it's not due to some mythical level of understanding what constitutes fun. It's a lot like the Blu-ray/HD-DVD or VHS/Betamax relationship; neither one of the competing products was significantly better than the other, but due to the inertia of additional choices and compatibility, one overtook the other in an ever-increasing manner. For example: about the time Prophecy was released, before anyone in my group of friends had even heard of EDH, we each played 60-card decks based around one of the legendary spellshapers. Obviously, this type of format did not get the exposure of EDH. I slowly watched EDH overtake 60-card casual simply because there were people that had EDH decks but not 60-card decks. Then, people would build EDH decks so they could play with their friends that did not have 60-card decks. Thus EDH killed other casual magic.
I'd just like to say, I run 2 D&D groups and I don't complain to my players that I don't get payed to make their adventures or that they have to do things my way or they can leave. Just like EDH is (presumably) a hobby of the RC, I see managing and creating the best D&D game I can as part of my hobby, not a chore with which I have been saddled that I can half-ass with the excuse of "my vision" and "I don't get compensated."
Where do you see Sheldon ever calling this a burden? All I've ever seen from him is
The masses: " you guys should do comprehensive testing and data mining"
Sheldon: "well that stuff costs a bit of money and we don't get paid to do this"
Going back to your d&d group, if your group complained to you that you were running your game wrong and you should be consulting other DMs all over and why don't you just quit and get Hasbro to take over the group, how would you respond?
Edit: you and other users keep saying that he is half-assing things and talk about their vision as if it's a bad thing. First off, that is extremely disrespectful to him and the rest of the Rules Committee. If they give the appearance of resting on their laurels, it is only because they have dedicated countless hours to take this format from a few people in some armpit of Alaska into a Global format which because so popular that Wizards included it in the CR despite not having any control over it. And for what thanks? So anonymous trolls on the internet can swear at them, call them names, and criticize them despite putting little, if any effort into backing up the claims they make? Secondly, that vision they have resonates with a far greater number of people than would rather get rid of it.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
What would they have to gain? Wizards would need to dedicate time and money to a format that, by its very construction, is not tournament viable. They are literally getting the rules and structure of Commander regulated for free by people that are passionate about the format. I'm sure they're not willing to look that particular gift horse in the mouth.
---
Regardless of how you feel about the direction of the banlist, the RC does a great deal for the format, and there is absolutely no need to insult them, even if you disagree with them.
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
While he never used the exact word, his complete reluctance to do any research beyond the scope of his group heavily implies this. Even something as simple as creating a free survey and distributing the url across a few sites (reddit would be a great place to start and have it spread) would yield some data.
I take feedback all the time. I go on forums and do consult other DMs. That's the beauty of the internet, communication is not hard. I try to fit my game to the players because I can look beyond my own, personal bubble. I have one game that is RP-heavy and very poorly optimized, and I have another that plays like a table-top strategy game with extreme focus on combat and puzzles. That is because I listen to my groups.
At this point, respect is very far down on my list of concerns regarding Sheldon based on pretty much every comment he makes. Every time he responds to one of his detractors it is with smug superiority. The more I read what he really thinks, the less I respect him. And while I don't agree with the RCs principles in general, he's the only one that comes off as obnoxious and defensive every time you dare question him. I can pinpoint the exact moment that I realized this beyond just a minor dissatisfaction with the banned list: it was about the time when he responded directly to my request for a concrete set of criteria with something along the lines of "I'd rather see the format fail than compromise my vision." So after that I care very little for his feelings and just wish to cut through the bull***** and be completely frank.
And, as I constantly bring up, I'm less concerned with the vision than I am with consistency and the atmosphere that vision engenders. By their own admission, the banned list is meant to be a guideline and thus incomplete. That is a problem. So you end up having people whinging about anything that they dislike and accusing you of being a vile "competitive player" that does not respect the "spirit of EDH" because the vision is so unclear in its expression via the banned list.
That's a fair point and I won't dispute your opinions on this matter. Perhaps I was unclear. We (the moderators) aren't saying you have to respect Sheldon and the other members of the Rules Committee who post here. What we are saying is that you must be respectful towards them. We have rules on this site because we strive to make this a welcoming place. MTGSalvation is one of the heavier-moderated forums because of this, and our staff is constantly trying to ensure that the respect given to each other is mutual, even when there are disagreements. If you feel that they are not giving the other users here that mutual respect we desire, please report their posts so that we can bring it to their attention, just as they do the same for posts which they feel are going beyond dissent and into personal attacks. The Rules Committee have nothing to gain from being obnoxious towards other users here. All it accomplishes is to cause a breakdown in communication and make people mad at them and treat them with hostility, resulting in making this a place where they have no desire to visit. And if that is their goal then they can simply just not visit in the first place without burning their bridges with the public.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
You don't drink wine at the RC meetings? I'm sure plenty of people would be up for contributing to a "get the RC wine at the committee meetings" fund. Actually... Can I join the RC if I provide wine for the meetings?
In all seriousness, though...
I'm intrigued as to the sort of discussion that would go on around a card that is particularly contentious, especially in much of the worldwide EDH community. If you're willing to share, assuming that it hasn't been said already in an article of yours, how would a meeting go? In particular, how does discussion around a card formulate in one of these meetings? It's very easy to imagine "I heard a player complaining about Kavu Climber. What do people think? Should we or shouldn't we ban Kavu Climber, and why?"
The complete and total removal of the banlist. Any bannings are to take place between individual groups.
Casual players can use every card to their heart's content and aren't going to know about the interactions that make the cards banworthy. Competitive players will create their own lists for their own competitive groups. No one has to worry about an updated list and changing decks. Everyone wins.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
I covered our process in an article a few years back. The short version is that you pretty much have it. "Okay, who has cards they want to talk about?" starts it off. Then there's a discussion and a decision if we need to put a card to a vote (either to bring off or put on), with each member voting on a +/- scale of how strongly they believe the card needs to be (un)banned. If it exceeds a certain threshold, the card gets (un)banned. We individually bring cards based on what we read online, see and hear in person at events, and experience in our local groups. We're relatively conservative about movement on a card in either direction. We want there to be a pretty good reason to put a card on or take it off, partially because we want to make sure we do the right thing and partially because messaging of any change is always difficult. The idea of test banning/unbanning cards is something we believe would create far more problems than it would solve.
The only way that could work is if no one plays outside of their own group. The ban list, for all its imperfections, gives people a baseline for being able to play other people outside their individual groups.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
No one claimed that it's a burden. I can't do anything about your lack of respect for me, but I can certainly point out where it leads you to make the least charitable reading of anything I happen so say, which is what you've done here. Weirdly enough, you claim you want me to be frank, but my (admittedly sometimes brusque) frankness it what lead you to lose that respect in the first place. Even if there's nothing I can do to win you back, we can nonetheless engage with civility, which I'll endeavor toward.
If I can use your D&D analogy, we're doing the same thing you are--making it the best we can within our own vision of what makes it best simply out of love for it. There are many different styles of D&D game; some like hack-and-slash, some like character- or plot-driven games. You'd resist someone telling you that you should run yours differently than your own idea of what makes the best kind of game. Imagine people screaming at you to run the hack-and-slash game (and insulting you personally for not changing your mind) when all you want to do is tell the great story. We put in the same kind of time and energy to the format that you do your game, and similarly for no reason other than our love of the hobby and what we're doing. You wouldn't spend a bunch of time and energy researching what makes the best hack-and-slash game, since it's not relevant to your story-driven one.
Well, according to the poll on here, 76% of players never play outside their group, and only 7% almost never play with a set group. I imagine that case would just use the last list by default. They would lose the changes as time goes on, but changes aren't terribly common anyway.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
Here's the thing, there are plenty of people that spend hours on perfecting their hobby. Look at people that design mods for games like Skyrim. People revamp the entire game for no end other than making it a better experience for themselves and others. Now, just to stem the impending argument, I know not everyone agrees with every revamp/overhaul, but the point I'm making is time spent. I feel like it is unfair to players is you are not willing to put in effort. I am not convinced WotC will necessarily do a better job, but they will most certainly endeavor to be as inclusive as possible since they are a business and their goal is sales. As it turns out, money is a big motivator.
It is not your brusqueness that puts me off, it's the fact that you feel perfectly justified in dismissing me and those like me as considerations in a format that is now supported by WotC. I'm not even a particularly competitive player. While others may have specific bans/unbans that they want, I'd prefer a less emotionally-dictated approach to banning cards.
But I run both types of games and tailor them to my players the best I can. I encourage feedback and endeavor to never let my games reach that boiling point. It is not the idea of your vision with which I have a major problem, although I do think it is a bit antiquated given the current, global state of Magic as a game. My issue is that your vision is largely exclusionary coupled with your unwillingness to adapt it. I think one of the best points of the Commander vision is limiting accidental "feel-bad" cards (like Sundering Titan). I think it is possible to create a banned list that regulates public play, but the best way to do that is to regulate people's expectations via concrete rules as to what is banned/bannable. I know this would almost certainly make the banned list bigger, but there is far less fun lost from not being able to play a card compared to a game wrecked by a card that is allowed but "frowned upon."
I disagree. I would much rather lose to cards that are "frowned upon" then tell people they cannot play with them, or have them say the same to me. In a 1v1, competitive environment the conversation might be different. But, for traditional EDH I believe that the ability to have more options, even those deemed oppressive by some, creates a better format. I know that I may very well be the minority with my opinion, but I find the current state of EDH to be fantastic and would rather see more unbans then bans personally (If only to see what would happen). I know the RC doesn't want to watch the format explode if they prematurely unban the wrong card though so for now I'm content.
U Azami, Lady of Scrolls - Knowledge is Power U [Primer]
R Heartless Hidetsugu - The Art of Ending Games R
GB Ishkanah, Grafwidow - The Cluster HungersBG
Just to make sure I understand, you feel that because WotC makes product for the format and since you're a potential buyer for that product, we should consider you and everyone else in how we approach the format, since you're all potential consumers. If there were no WotC involvement, would you feel the same way? I suppose that's it's not unreasonable for you to say to a producer "hey, if you want me to buy your product, you should think about what I like and how I'm going to use your product." We're sort of in a weird situation here, in which we the RC don't sell the product (although we have great relationships with WotC). It's unfortunate that you feel dismissed, because I don't think we're actively dismissing you. If I can use the D&D analogy again, it's not dismissive of the hack-and-slash players to say that you're going to actively pursue the story-driven game. It's not dismissive of dancers for the show-runners of Game of Thrones to say "No way will we have dance numbers in our episodes." The format's popularity is a result of understanding that it can't be all-inclusive; trying to be all things to all people is not only impossible, but a path to homogenization. We'd rather stay special. If we sometimes get aggressive in defense of that ideal, it's because of the aggressive insistence that we change.
The ideals of the format are nebulous, and I have yet to see a proper definition that shouldn't result in numerous additional bans/unbans. But those bans/unbans never happen.
Which is why I'm sure they're fine with the arrangement as it is now, since they don't need to pay the RC for their work.
I also feel that when WOTC "officialized" Commander by selling the products, that created an obligation of a different character than the one that existed before. When I need to have the rules of the format explained to me by someone from the RC, or someone who knows the RC, it's a much more legitimate statement to say "It's our format, sorry if you feel dismissed." When I have a precon deck, a rules insert, and a Commander night at the local shop, I expect the ban list and other supporting rules to be designed chiefly for the venues where it's being monetized.
To use the D&D example, it is like including all of the classes in the base game, but then saying that updates to content, feats, storylines, are only going to involve the Fighter and Rogue classes. Then blah, blah about how having too many classes in the past was the death of previous D&D versions, that if people only had the same "vision" of D&D as the people who maintain it, everything would be fine, and so on. Meanwhile, the Wizard class is overpowered relative to the others, but nothing is done about it because people who play Wizard are the ones who don't "get it".
Point is, how people are actually playing Commander should be looked at. After years of having the same card pool, along with mutually understood taboo's, a certain kind of gameplay has emerged (or maybe a few styles of gameplay). That gameplay is not at all what is being regulated by the current ban list. The card pool itself lends to a certain style of play, and that's what should be looked at.
That is correct. Due to WotC's official sanction of EDH via product support, it has become the go-to casual format. I like to play in tournaments occasionally, but I despise the overly competitive ones that turn magic into a grind for prizes/points. Additionally, I love building decks and creating new/interesting synergies. I recently shared my boros infinite turns combo (Sunforger/Mistveil Plains/Deserted Temple/Angel's Grace/Final Fortune) with my playgroup and they thought it was hilarious, but it uses 15 mana and 5 cards, so it doesn't really work in "real" formats. Now that Commander is the de facto casual format, that is the only venue in which I can enjoy such things. I think EDH is a great idea and I do like it, but I prefer 60-card casual as I feel I can perfect my deck in a more aesthetic manner with 4-ofs. If there were a realistic alternative (such as those dancers getting a different job) I would not be here complaining. The problem is that "special" and "consumable" tend to be mutually exclusive. As much as it is nice to feel unique, the reality is that Magic's success as a whole is due to its broad appeal. I have seen countless TCGs fail hard (even those designed by Magic pros).
This is a terrible idea and I hope the RC doesn't do it. A survey (especially one on Reddit) would be disproportionately filled out by people who think there's something severely wrong with the format. The people who feel the format is good would probably not view responding to the survey as a high priority. Furthermore, the RC is not a democracy and it shouldn't be. Their vision does not need to be diluted by people who see EDH as some kind of singleton Vintage tournament format instead of a social game. It's supposed to be casual and trying to rewrite it to be a competitive 1v1 game will only end in disaster.
The vision is not unclear at all. There is a certain type of player who has trouble understanding things that aren't rigidly defined lists of explicit rules. This person will try to win within the framework of rules, and if they are not explicit, frustration can result. However, trying to win is not what the format is about. EDH is not a play-to-win David Sirlin-type game where everyone calculates the line of play with the highest expected value and the losing player(s) should be frustrated at the outcome of the game. It is a social game where many of the rules are implicit, and part of the fun is trying to break them in such a way that raises the entertainment level of the group. It is similar to Mornington Crescent in this regard. How do you even conduct quantitative research on something like that?
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit