I am curious to hear how MTG Salvation thinks of casual players? Discuss the following questions:
1. In the context of the commander format, how would you define what a “casual player” is?
2. Is what determines if a player is a casual player based on any of the following traits: budget for deck, skill level of the player, type of strategies and cards played, amount of passion for the game.
3. Can a casual player be a spike?
4. Do you self-identify as a casual player? Explain your answer.
1. In the context of the commander format, how would you define what a “casual player” is?
2. Is what determines if a player is a casual player based on any of the following traits: budget for deck, skill level of the player, type of strategies and cards played, amount of passion for the game.
3. Can a casual player be a spike?
4. Do you self-identify as a casual player? Explain your answer.
1. To me, it's how the player identifies their goals. Is the goal to have fun, or to win at all costs? I know there's a spectrum, but this is the determining factor. Or, to put it simpler: Does the player enjoy the destination, or the journey?
2. I don't think its determined by any of those traits.
3. In terms of 'playing to win', IMO, no, a casual player can't be a spike. That being said, a casual player can still game hard. I guess this is meta dependent.
4. I have elements of casual to my personality - primarily, I enjoy the brewing and creativity of deckbuilding, and I'm less focused on winning - it's not my primary assessment of success. Although I do still enjoy winning, should it happen. I enjoy being able to play a deck that I can say is my own, and some of my decks sacrifice power for a theme. Not all of them, and I do have a couple built more competitively, but most are more personalized.
I see casual play as the antithesis of competitive play. When I think of competitive play, I think of infinite combos, a bunch of tutors (i.e. Demonic Tutor, Eye of Ugin, Mystical Tutor), incredibly consistent decks, winning on turn 4, harsh resource denial (i.e. Winter Orb, Armageddon, Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir + Knowledge Pool) and winning by any means necessary. I really dislike playing what I just described (competitive play) so I self identify as the opposite, a casual player.
I enjoy deck building as much as I enjoy playing. I sometimes spend a lot of money on my decks (up to $1000). I enjoy winning and build my decks to be efficient but I don't like all the games to play the same. I also enjoy playing and beating my opponents with cards they don't know about. I don't play with bad cards like Highland Lake, Lay Bare or Terror but I also won't play with Sanguine Bond and Exsquisite Blood in the same Oloro, Ageless Ascetic everyone else is playing because they set up an easy win.
I am curious to hear how MTG Salvation thinks of casual players? Discuss the following questions:
1. In the context of the commander format, how would you define what a “casual player” is?
2. Is what determines if a player is a casual player based on any of the following traits: budget for deck, skill level of the player, type of strategies and cards played, amount of passion for the game.
3. Can a casual player be a spike?
4. Do you self-identify as a casual player? Explain your answer.
1. A casual player is someone who plays magic for the experience of playing magic. They are not trying to win big tournaments and not trying to become a professional. Thus, a casual player doesn't necessarily play in sanctioned events, and when they do, they are not in it to grind out wins. A casual player is more interested in playing a game with friends and having fun than winning.
2. No to all. It is about the attitude towards the game and the reason the person plays.
3. No. Spikes want to show their skill at playing a game, and the best way to show off your skill is to play in sanctioned tournaments. Spikes can play casual magic but they kinda miss the point of playing casual magic.
4. Yes. I like playing games with friends. I find most games get repetitive after a while, so Magic is my favourite game - because every game is completely different. To emphasize this point, I mostly enjoy singleton and limited formats. I used to play in more sanctioned tournaments, but it was not because I wanted to win and perform - it was still because I wanted to enjoy the game and at the time it was easier to find a game at a LGS than with friends. I played to have a good time. Now, I do not have as much time to play, and I realize that I do not miss the competitiveness at all, just the friends and the joy of playing a game.
1. To me, it's how the player identifies their goals. Is the goal to have fun, or to win at all costs? I know there's a spectrum, but this is the determining factor.
Quote from Honor Basquiat »
winning by any means necessary
This, absolutely.
1. In the context of the commander format, how would you define what a “casual player” is?
To me, a casual player places more emphasis on actually playing the game and allowing others to do the same. A casual player knows that winning isn't the only goal sometimes and that actually having fun and watching others have fun can be just as or more rewarding than the W, and so actively builds decks and plays this way. The competitive player actively uses certain cards and strategies to win at all costs without much attention to how much (read: lack thereof) fun would actually result for the table. This leads to strategies below.
2. Is what determines if a player is a casual player based on any of the following traits: budget for deck, skill level of the player, type of strategies and cards played, amount of passion for the game.
Certainly all of the above. Sticking to a budget is a way for casual players to be creative and stick to the non-competitive nature of their play style. The easiest, but not only, way to tell a more competitive player (the player trying to win at any cost, form, or function) from a casual player is the cards he or she is using and the strategy with them, particularly if those cards and strategies prevent other players from playing the game or are meant to tilt games in an overtly unfair way. Strategies like resource denial, stax, mass land destruction, plethora of extra turns (I don't play to watch someone play solitaire for half an hour), infect, etc. As mentioned, none of this is actually fun to play against because it's preventing others from playing the game in part or in whole. Every time someone plays to these strategies, I never feel good about how the game went in the end.
I don't think tutors are inherently competitive, but can be in the way they're used and if they're abused/packed by the handful in decks. I understand some players like decks to be consistent and I don't mind if I'm playing against someone who might have a tutor or two in his or her deck. Personally, I never play with them (not including land tutors a la Evolving Wilds, Cultivate, etc.). I too like the variety of play my decks provide without them, it's just so much more fun to discover a new way my deck can gain the upper hand or even pull off a win. I initially tried using tutors and every time I used one, it just felt like I was cheating the spirit of the game. I muuuuuch prefer more card draw as it gives me way more options of things to play with instead of the one specific card that I hand-plucked.
3. Can a casual player be a spike?
I always thought a spike was the definition of the most competitive type of players, so no? I imagine a competitive player can have both casual and competitive decks and get very spiky with the more competitive deck, but then, to me, that's ultimately a competitive player who sometimes like to kick back and relax once in a while.
I always associated EDH with a more casual, fun, easy-going atmosphere, which is why I was drawn tot he format.
4. Do you self-identify as a casual player? Explain your answer.
I identify as a casual player. I don't actively engage in strategies and use cards that prevent others at the table from playing the game. Yes, you may untap all your lands that I won't suddenly destroy half-way in, no you won't suddenly die to an unblockable creature with infect, no I won't assemble an infinite combo before T6, no I won't stack 5-8 extra turns for you to just sit there, and no I won't Mindslaver you three times in a row (true story a Muzzio, Visionary Architect player did to me). I also often restrict myself to a budget because the deck building is way more fun and I can find hidden gems or not-so-often played cards that make things unique.
I like to have fun and I like to have fun with other people having fun. I've seen and been on the other end of competitive players, and I don't want to portray myself like that onto other people.
How early can you win? The faster the more competitive.
How consistently can you win quickly? This has to due with your tutors and card draw.
How many different ways do you have to end the game? Are you using the same combo every time you win?
For example in my group we had a player who won more than the rest of us. Now on the surface this isnt a problem. The problem was that the game always played out more or less the same. Ramp hard for a few turns, draw a bunch of cards, use Alchemist's Refuge to facilitate winning via Avenger of Zendikar and Champion of Lambholdt. We had to talk to him about reducing the consistency of his deck because it had become unfun.
This is something that I really wish had a clearer taxonomy.
1) For other formats this is pretty easy to define, but for commander it's tougher. Imo there are 2 different definitions that are sometimes related but essentially separate, and I think it's easiest to define them by their opposite, the competitive player. In terms of play, the competitive player is someone who will not willingly make a auboptimal play under any circumstance, at the most extreme. In terms of deck construction, the competitive builder will play the absolute most powerful deck they possibly can. So that means in terms of play, the casual player will often make suboptimal plays, usually through either a lack of interest in finding the correct play or because their plays are not dictated by increasing their win%. In terms of deckbuilding, the casual builder will build based on what they think is fun/interesting/etc and not based on what is most likely to win.
I don't think you have to be good to be a competitive player or deckbuilder. I think mostly you just have to be trying to win above all other goals. And conversely, I don't think you have to be bad to be casual, although that's a bit more obvious.
from now on I'm going to divide into player and builder as separate categories of casual/competitive.
2) budget: player no, builder no. The competitive builder on a budget will find the best deck they can build on their budget and build that. On the other hand, I've built casual decks that cost 10K+ and I know plenty of other people who have done the same. So having a high budget doesn't make you competitive and having a low budget doesn't make you casual. But budget is more likely to be important to a competitive builder than a casual one.
skill level: player no, builder no. Both things take skill. As I said before you don't have to be good to be competitive, but one would assume that, if you're trying to win all the time, eventually you will get some sort of skill. I think even great players can relax and not stress out trying to find the perfect play, though. In which case they are playing casually, but they aren't any less skilled. Pretty much same stuff applies to building, except that with building you can just find a list on the internet and pretty much skip having to have any skill whatsoever besides white-belt google-fu.
types of strategies/cards played: player N/A, builder kind of. The most competitive builder will play whatever cards win, regardless of strategy. Which also means he'll play a totally nice "fair" deck if that's the best deck. He's not playing mean cards to be mean - if he's playing mean cards it's because they give him the best chance to win. The casual builder cares about strategy and which cards he will and won't include, because he's trying to build around a strategy or within certain constraints. So the casual builder cares about strategy and cards, while the competitive builder doesn't, but idk that any particular card or strategy is necessarily casual or competitive.
passion for the game: player no, builder no. Probably a competitive player plays more, but I spend a ton of time on commander and I still build cheeseball decks that suck. I try to play pretty optimally but I don't think I have to. Ofc I do also draft pretty competitively.
3) In separate contexts (i.e. in different formats, or playing commander against different people or with different decks)? Sure. In the same context? Well, spike builder/casual player or vice versa, sure. But in the same way in the same game, no, that would be an oxymoron.
4) Casual builder, all day. I like to think I'm still mining for some sort of competitive gold, and occasionally I do stumble across something interesting and powerful, but for the most part I'm just digging holes and playing in the dirt.
Competitive player, all day. Within some limits - I try not to take the game TOO seriously - but my natural state is to find the optimal play at all costs. My brain is constantly replaying scenarios in my head until I find my way out - "if I'd offered him X, and then asked him to do Y, then Z wouldn't have been able to attack me without risking..." etc. To me the intricacies of multiplayer are extremely interesting, with how players actions play off each other, and finding a way to find the right play in that maze of action and reaction is what keeps me coming back for more. That and making stupid buyback tribals decks and whatever.
1. In the context of the commander format, how would you define what a “casual player” is?
In short: Anyone who's in it for fun and flavor over winning.
Competitive players will not care about flavor or style at all. If a card gets them closer to winning it will go in a deck. Same with how they play their deck(s), fast and efficient plays over (big and) splashy plays.
2. Is what determines if a player is a casual player based on any of the following traits: budget for deck, skill level of the player, type of strategies and cards played, amount of passion for the game.
Budget?
Not necessarily. There are competitive decks that can be build quite cheap-ish and there are casual decks costing several k. There are budget aware competitive players and foil-addicted 5C casual timmies.
Skill level?
Theoretically players who aim to be competitive will care a lot more about optimal plays and will in return become strong players, given enough time, games and knowledge of the format. Yet, there are tons of great, casual players that aren't held back by their skill, but by the card and play choices they make. So, the quote "competitive players are usually good players" is propably a lot closer to the truth than "casual players are usually bad players".
Strategies & cards?
This is propably the most distinctive trait of either group. Mostly with casual players refraining from going down certain routes. Most casuals i know shy away from MLD, silver bullets, infinites, tutor heavy builds, locks and would certainly pick flexible over low on the curve restrictive disruption (e.g. Cryptic Command and Dismiss over Mental Misstep and Swan Song).
Passion for the game?
Again: Not necessarily. I've seen netdecking competitive players who played to kill time as well as passionate, competitive brewers that went all in as far as money time and commitment goes. Same goes for casuals that just bought a precon to play every now and then without swapping cards, in contrast to casual Rube Goldberg machine crafters that are passionate about their 10 card combo-convolut.
Oh yes, they can be. Even playing in a casual setting - say no infinites, MLD, extra turns - they will try to push boundaries as far as they can within these limits to win as many games as they possibly can. While i'd say most casuals are content if they got to see their deck play out as intended without winning, there is a percentage of players that needs to win (or at least get very close to winning) to get any form of enjoyment out of it.
4. Do you self-identify as a casual player? Explain your answer.
Casual - by choice.
Starting to play EDH it was just me and 3 of my friends with very durdly decks. Over the years we evolved into a lot better players and deckbuilders, stumbled upon other players and went through a phase during which we had to define where to go with our meta. We played our share of tutor heavy decks, infinites and the likes, but decided to impliment certain houserules (no MLD, infinites, extra turns, Sol Ring & Mana Crypt) to have the right balance of entertainment and power level.
I'm a happy Johnny/Melvin type player, but certainly aim to win. But key for me to enjoy the format is building and playing decks that allow me to enjoy myself even if i fall short of said goal.
1. In the context of the commander format, how would you define what a “casual player” is?
As others have said, it's more about whether a person is looking primarily to win, or whether they are looking for a mutually fun, social gaming experience. A lot of players would like both, in that most players would prefer to win over losing, but casuals don't rank winning as the highest priority.
2. Is what determines if a player is a casual player based on any of the following traits: budget for deck, skill level of the player, type of strategies and cards played, amount of passion for the game.
Budget - no. A lot of casual players play expensive cards because they own the cards and want to play with them. Like, my Allies tribal deck has a ridiculously expensive mana base which includes 7 Unlimited/Revised Duals, and my Kurkesh deck includes Mishra's Workshop. It's a matter of what you do with the cards. I play Mishra's Workshop because it's a strong card in an artifact-based deck, not to set up crazy combos.
Skill Level - no. Some casual players are very skilled, and some wannabe competitives are not actually good at the game.
type of strategies - it depends. Certain strategies are much more likely to be played by competitive players because those strategies make one more likely to win. If all of a person's decks include strong control, resource denial and/or stax strategies, they are probably pretty far along the competitive end of the competitive/casual axis, even if they aren't playing super-optimized turn-four-combo-win snore machine decks.
Passion for the game: Has nothing to do with one's approach. A person can love the game no matter where they fall on the casual/competitive axis.
3. Can a casual player be a spike?
Not really. They're kind of by definition pretty different things. Some spikes do like playing in casual games, though, largely because it's an easy win. They usually produce a miserable time for the casuals in doing so.
4. Do you self-identify as a casual player? Explain your answer.
I am a lot more casual than I am competitive. I see the two as something like different ends of an axis more than mutually exclusive, though. Most casuals would rather win than lose, after all.
I have the card pool and the resources that I could build killer combo decks that compete with the competitive EDH crowd, but I have zero interest in doing so. I like games that play out differently from game to game in more ways than how many turns it takes to assemble a set of interchangeable combo-win cards. I use tutors to fetch something to address a board threat or, if there isn't an imminent threat, I will tutor up something that moves my own board state toward the win, but I don't build to tutor for winning combos, and none of my decks are designed to win by tutoring up a specific combo. I rarely play some powerful cards, such as Craterhoof Behemoth, because they make for too easy a win, and I intentionally avoid easy, familiar winning combos, never putting (for example) Mike and Trike or Kiki-Jiki and Zealous Conscripts in the same deck. I do play one stax deck, and a couple of my decks have fairly prominent control elements, but this is because I have 60 decks, and if you're going to do that and have them play differently, you are probably going to have decks reflecting a wide range of styles. Most of the time when I run counterspells, they are intended to protect my own board state more than they are intended to control the table, though I will certainly use a counterspell to stop an obvious win by an opponent. None of my decks include Armageddon or Jokauhaups or cards like that, though I do include Worldslayer as a possible win condition in one deck.
I am curious to hear how MTG Salvation thinks of casual players? Discuss the following questions:
1. In the context of the commander format, how would you define what a “casual player” is?
2. Is what determines if a player is a casual player based on any of the following traits: budget for deck, skill level of the player, type of strategies and cards played, amount of passion for the game.
3. Can a casual player be a spike?
4. Do you self-identify as a casual player? Explain your answer.
1. It's a nebulous term, but I'd say a few things define a casual player:
- The intentional play of "bad", "lesser", or "mediocre" cards, whether this is due to budget constraints or sentimental attachment. For example, running Ascendant Evincar and Skeletal Vampire in vampire tribal decks and keeping Patron of the Vein in the binder because those old vamps did something cool 50 games ago.
- Following lines of play that are Fun at the expense of Good. I.E. not killing an opposing creature to let someone else have fun, tutoring for Blood Tribute instead of Sorin Markov to make the game go a little longer, not scooping to an opponent's lethal Giant Adaphage attack so as to let them have tokens, and so on.
- The general loathing of running or running into strategies such as STAX, mana denial, pure permission, or "locks" (Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir + Knowledge Pool.
- Related to all of this, a desire for slow, grindy games and general frustration when games end suddenly and without interaction.
2. Generally, of these factors, types of decks played would define a casual player. I think casual and compettive players alike will play themed decks (Superfriends, enchantress, spellslinger, artifacts, "steal yo stuff", Rebecca Guay, commons only, etc.), but casual players are more likely to gravitate towards beatdown decks, battlecruiser decks, voltron decks, or tribal decks. They are more likely to shun STAX, control, and pure combo decks; they may use light control elements (boardwipes in a superfriends deck) and defensive STAX effects (Ghostly Prison, No Mercy, Price of Glory) but will not go all out and these will be a few supporting cards and not the purpose of the deck. They may have a combo present in the deck, but this is more accidental than intentional and as noted in step 1, they will often choose NOT to fire off the combo if assembled in the interest of "Fun".
3. Generally speaking...no. A Spike wants to "prove something" and in the context of sitting down and shuffling that is almost always to prove that they are better, smarter, and cleverer than everyone else. That means every time Spike sits at a table, their goal is to either win the game or to do everything possible to prevent, block, and oppress others from being able to win. Either tactic is antithetical to casual play. This is not to say that a Spike player cannot play with a casual playgroup, but they will have to do so knowing that it will require them to throttle back, change archetypes, and impose restrictions on themselves.
4. Yes, for the most part. I generally enjoy a game of Magic in which I get to draw a ton of cards, often at the expense of winning a game, and I have no problem sand-bagging removal to let someone else do something cool or making bad attacks in the interest of making the game more interesting. I do, however, have some spiky tendencies that I have to control - I cannot run tutors, because often I cannot justify to myself not tutoring for the same card over and over. I also tend to build decks that are oppressive on accident - Mairsil, the Pretender has had a few too many games with Avatar of Woe and untap effects even without Buried Alive in the list, meaning that I will likely be revamping or scrapping him soon because even when I lose with him he creates "feel bad" moments for the table.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sufferer of EDHD
Commander - Currently Playing: RCRDaretti: Superfriends Forever RCR WGBDoran: Ent-mootWBG GGGMultani: Group Bear HugGGG GB(B/G)The Gitrog Monster: Dredgefall DurdleGB(B/G) RGWGahiji, the Honored Group Hug MonsterRGW UB(U/B)Yuriko, Ninja Trinket AggroUB(U/B) WUBRGAtogatog: Assembling a OHKOWUBRG
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1. In the context of the commander format, how would you define what a “casual player” is?
2. Is what determines if a player is a casual player based on any of the following traits: budget for deck, skill level of the player, type of strategies and cards played, amount of passion for the game.
3. Can a casual player be a spike?
4. Do you self-identify as a casual player? Explain your answer.
UBRKess, Dissident MageUBR - Controlling Dissidents
GRhonas the IndomitableG - Indomitable Four Drops
WUBOloro, Ageless AsceticWUB - Loot & Renanimate
1. To me, it's how the player identifies their goals. Is the goal to have fun, or to win at all costs? I know there's a spectrum, but this is the determining factor. Or, to put it simpler: Does the player enjoy the destination, or the journey?
2. I don't think its determined by any of those traits.
3. In terms of 'playing to win', IMO, no, a casual player can't be a spike. That being said, a casual player can still game hard. I guess this is meta dependent.
4. I have elements of casual to my personality - primarily, I enjoy the brewing and creativity of deckbuilding, and I'm less focused on winning - it's not my primary assessment of success. Although I do still enjoy winning, should it happen. I enjoy being able to play a deck that I can say is my own, and some of my decks sacrifice power for a theme. Not all of them, and I do have a couple built more competitively, but most are more personalized.
I enjoy deck building as much as I enjoy playing. I sometimes spend a lot of money on my decks (up to $1000). I enjoy winning and build my decks to be efficient but I don't like all the games to play the same. I also enjoy playing and beating my opponents with cards they don't know about. I don't play with bad cards like Highland Lake, Lay Bare or Terror but I also won't play with Sanguine Bond and Exsquisite Blood in the same Oloro, Ageless Ascetic everyone else is playing because they set up an easy win.
UBRKess, Dissident MageUBR - Controlling Dissidents
GRhonas the IndomitableG - Indomitable Four Drops
WUBOloro, Ageless AsceticWUB - Loot & Renanimate
1. A casual player is someone who plays magic for the experience of playing magic. They are not trying to win big tournaments and not trying to become a professional. Thus, a casual player doesn't necessarily play in sanctioned events, and when they do, they are not in it to grind out wins. A casual player is more interested in playing a game with friends and having fun than winning.
2. No to all. It is about the attitude towards the game and the reason the person plays.
3. No. Spikes want to show their skill at playing a game, and the best way to show off your skill is to play in sanctioned tournaments. Spikes can play casual magic but they kinda miss the point of playing casual magic.
4. Yes. I like playing games with friends. I find most games get repetitive after a while, so Magic is my favourite game - because every game is completely different. To emphasize this point, I mostly enjoy singleton and limited formats. I used to play in more sanctioned tournaments, but it was not because I wanted to win and perform - it was still because I wanted to enjoy the game and at the time it was easier to find a game at a LGS than with friends. I played to have a good time. Now, I do not have as much time to play, and I realize that I do not miss the competitiveness at all, just the friends and the joy of playing a game.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
This, absolutely.
1. In the context of the commander format, how would you define what a “casual player” is?
To me, a casual player places more emphasis on actually playing the game and allowing others to do the same. A casual player knows that winning isn't the only goal sometimes and that actually having fun and watching others have fun can be just as or more rewarding than the W, and so actively builds decks and plays this way. The competitive player actively uses certain cards and strategies to win at all costs without much attention to how much (read: lack thereof) fun would actually result for the table. This leads to strategies below.
2. Is what determines if a player is a casual player based on any of the following traits: budget for deck, skill level of the player, type of strategies and cards played, amount of passion for the game.
Certainly all of the above. Sticking to a budget is a way for casual players to be creative and stick to the non-competitive nature of their play style. The easiest, but not only, way to tell a more competitive player (the player trying to win at any cost, form, or function) from a casual player is the cards he or she is using and the strategy with them, particularly if those cards and strategies prevent other players from playing the game or are meant to tilt games in an overtly unfair way. Strategies like resource denial, stax, mass land destruction, plethora of extra turns (I don't play to watch someone play solitaire for half an hour), infect, etc. As mentioned, none of this is actually fun to play against because it's preventing others from playing the game in part or in whole. Every time someone plays to these strategies, I never feel good about how the game went in the end.
I don't think tutors are inherently competitive, but can be in the way they're used and if they're abused/packed by the handful in decks. I understand some players like decks to be consistent and I don't mind if I'm playing against someone who might have a tutor or two in his or her deck. Personally, I never play with them (not including land tutors a la Evolving Wilds, Cultivate, etc.). I too like the variety of play my decks provide without them, it's just so much more fun to discover a new way my deck can gain the upper hand or even pull off a win. I initially tried using tutors and every time I used one, it just felt like I was cheating the spirit of the game. I muuuuuch prefer more card draw as it gives me way more options of things to play with instead of the one specific card that I hand-plucked.
3. Can a casual player be a spike?
I always thought a spike was the definition of the most competitive type of players, so no? I imagine a competitive player can have both casual and competitive decks and get very spiky with the more competitive deck, but then, to me, that's ultimately a competitive player who sometimes like to kick back and relax once in a while.
I always associated EDH with a more casual, fun, easy-going atmosphere, which is why I was drawn tot he format.
4. Do you self-identify as a casual player? Explain your answer.
I identify as a casual player. I don't actively engage in strategies and use cards that prevent others at the table from playing the game. Yes, you may untap all your lands that I won't suddenly destroy half-way in, no you won't suddenly die to an unblockable creature with infect, no I won't assemble an infinite combo before T6, no I won't stack 5-8 extra turns for you to just sit there, and no I won't Mindslaver you three times in a row (true story a Muzzio, Visionary Architect player did to me). I also often restrict myself to a budget because the deck building is way more fun and I can find hidden gems or not-so-often played cards that make things unique.
I like to have fun and I like to have fun with other people having fun. I've seen and been on the other end of competitive players, and I don't want to portray myself like that onto other people.
Current EDH
UThassa, God of the Sea devotion control
WRGTana, the Bloodsower & Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa partners weenie tokens
UUnesh, Criosphinx Sovereign Sphinx tribal
WUTaigam, Ojutai Master tokens on the rebound spellslinger
GRhonas the Indomitable green creature beats
UGRashmi, Eternities Crafter ETB tribal
Retired EDH
WURGKynaios and Tiro of Meletis group hug
URThe Locust God draw swarm
UTalrand, Sky Summoner funsies blue spells
WBObzedat, Ghost Council life gain/drain
How early can you win? The faster the more competitive.
How consistently can you win quickly? This has to due with your tutors and card draw.
How many different ways do you have to end the game? Are you using the same combo every time you win?
For example in my group we had a player who won more than the rest of us. Now on the surface this isnt a problem. The problem was that the game always played out more or less the same. Ramp hard for a few turns, draw a bunch of cards, use Alchemist's Refuge to facilitate winning via Avenger of Zendikar and Champion of Lambholdt. We had to talk to him about reducing the consistency of his deck because it had become unfun.
1) For other formats this is pretty easy to define, but for commander it's tougher. Imo there are 2 different definitions that are sometimes related but essentially separate, and I think it's easiest to define them by their opposite, the competitive player. In terms of play, the competitive player is someone who will not willingly make a auboptimal play under any circumstance, at the most extreme. In terms of deck construction, the competitive builder will play the absolute most powerful deck they possibly can. So that means in terms of play, the casual player will often make suboptimal plays, usually through either a lack of interest in finding the correct play or because their plays are not dictated by increasing their win%. In terms of deckbuilding, the casual builder will build based on what they think is fun/interesting/etc and not based on what is most likely to win.
I don't think you have to be good to be a competitive player or deckbuilder. I think mostly you just have to be trying to win above all other goals. And conversely, I don't think you have to be bad to be casual, although that's a bit more obvious.
from now on I'm going to divide into player and builder as separate categories of casual/competitive.
2) budget: player no, builder no. The competitive builder on a budget will find the best deck they can build on their budget and build that. On the other hand, I've built casual decks that cost 10K+ and I know plenty of other people who have done the same. So having a high budget doesn't make you competitive and having a low budget doesn't make you casual. But budget is more likely to be important to a competitive builder than a casual one.
skill level: player no, builder no. Both things take skill. As I said before you don't have to be good to be competitive, but one would assume that, if you're trying to win all the time, eventually you will get some sort of skill. I think even great players can relax and not stress out trying to find the perfect play, though. In which case they are playing casually, but they aren't any less skilled. Pretty much same stuff applies to building, except that with building you can just find a list on the internet and pretty much skip having to have any skill whatsoever besides white-belt google-fu.
types of strategies/cards played: player N/A, builder kind of. The most competitive builder will play whatever cards win, regardless of strategy. Which also means he'll play a totally nice "fair" deck if that's the best deck. He's not playing mean cards to be mean - if he's playing mean cards it's because they give him the best chance to win. The casual builder cares about strategy and which cards he will and won't include, because he's trying to build around a strategy or within certain constraints. So the casual builder cares about strategy and cards, while the competitive builder doesn't, but idk that any particular card or strategy is necessarily casual or competitive.
passion for the game: player no, builder no. Probably a competitive player plays more, but I spend a ton of time on commander and I still build cheeseball decks that suck. I try to play pretty optimally but I don't think I have to. Ofc I do also draft pretty competitively.
3) In separate contexts (i.e. in different formats, or playing commander against different people or with different decks)? Sure. In the same context? Well, spike builder/casual player or vice versa, sure. But in the same way in the same game, no, that would be an oxymoron.
4) Casual builder, all day. I like to think I'm still mining for some sort of competitive gold, and occasionally I do stumble across something interesting and powerful, but for the most part I'm just digging holes and playing in the dirt.
Competitive player, all day. Within some limits - I try not to take the game TOO seriously - but my natural state is to find the optimal play at all costs. My brain is constantly replaying scenarios in my head until I find my way out - "if I'd offered him X, and then asked him to do Y, then Z wouldn't have been able to attack me without risking..." etc. To me the intricacies of multiplayer are extremely interesting, with how players actions play off each other, and finding a way to find the right play in that maze of action and reaction is what keeps me coming back for more. That and making stupid buyback tribals decks and whatever.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Competitive players will not care about flavor or style at all. If a card gets them closer to winning it will go in a deck. Same with how they play their deck(s), fast and efficient plays over (big and) splashy plays. Budget?
Not necessarily. There are competitive decks that can be build quite cheap-ish and there are casual decks costing several k. There are budget aware competitive players and foil-addicted 5C casual timmies.
Skill level?
Theoretically players who aim to be competitive will care a lot more about optimal plays and will in return become strong players, given enough time, games and knowledge of the format. Yet, there are tons of great, casual players that aren't held back by their skill, but by the card and play choices they make. So, the quote "competitive players are usually good players" is propably a lot closer to the truth than "casual players are usually bad players".
Strategies & cards?
This is propably the most distinctive trait of either group. Mostly with casual players refraining from going down certain routes. Most casuals i know shy away from MLD, silver bullets, infinites, tutor heavy builds, locks and would certainly pick flexible over low on the curve restrictive disruption (e.g. Cryptic Command and Dismiss over Mental Misstep and Swan Song).
Passion for the game?
Again: Not necessarily. I've seen netdecking competitive players who played to kill time as well as passionate, competitive brewers that went all in as far as money time and commitment goes. Same goes for casuals that just bought a precon to play every now and then without swapping cards, in contrast to casual Rube Goldberg machine crafters that are passionate about their 10 card combo-convolut. Oh yes, they can be. Even playing in a casual setting - say no infinites, MLD, extra turns - they will try to push boundaries as far as they can within these limits to win as many games as they possibly can. While i'd say most casuals are content if they got to see their deck play out as intended without winning, there is a percentage of players that needs to win (or at least get very close to winning) to get any form of enjoyment out of it. Casual - by choice.
Starting to play EDH it was just me and 3 of my friends with very durdly decks. Over the years we evolved into a lot better players and deckbuilders, stumbled upon other players and went through a phase during which we had to define where to go with our meta. We played our share of tutor heavy decks, infinites and the likes, but decided to impliment certain houserules (no MLD, infinites, extra turns, Sol Ring & Mana Crypt) to have the right balance of entertainment and power level.
I'm a happy Johnny/Melvin type player, but certainly aim to win. But key for me to enjoy the format is building and playing decks that allow me to enjoy myself even if i fall short of said goal.
As others have said, it's more about whether a person is looking primarily to win, or whether they are looking for a mutually fun, social gaming experience. A lot of players would like both, in that most players would prefer to win over losing, but casuals don't rank winning as the highest priority.
2. Is what determines if a player is a casual player based on any of the following traits: budget for deck, skill level of the player, type of strategies and cards played, amount of passion for the game.
Budget - no. A lot of casual players play expensive cards because they own the cards and want to play with them. Like, my Allies tribal deck has a ridiculously expensive mana base which includes 7 Unlimited/Revised Duals, and my Kurkesh deck includes Mishra's Workshop. It's a matter of what you do with the cards. I play Mishra's Workshop because it's a strong card in an artifact-based deck, not to set up crazy combos.
Skill Level - no. Some casual players are very skilled, and some wannabe competitives are not actually good at the game.
type of strategies - it depends. Certain strategies are much more likely to be played by competitive players because those strategies make one more likely to win. If all of a person's decks include strong control, resource denial and/or stax strategies, they are probably pretty far along the competitive end of the competitive/casual axis, even if they aren't playing super-optimized turn-four-combo-win snore machine decks.
Passion for the game: Has nothing to do with one's approach. A person can love the game no matter where they fall on the casual/competitive axis.
3. Can a casual player be a spike?
Not really. They're kind of by definition pretty different things. Some spikes do like playing in casual games, though, largely because it's an easy win. They usually produce a miserable time for the casuals in doing so.
4. Do you self-identify as a casual player? Explain your answer.
I am a lot more casual than I am competitive. I see the two as something like different ends of an axis more than mutually exclusive, though. Most casuals would rather win than lose, after all.
I have the card pool and the resources that I could build killer combo decks that compete with the competitive EDH crowd, but I have zero interest in doing so. I like games that play out differently from game to game in more ways than how many turns it takes to assemble a set of interchangeable combo-win cards. I use tutors to fetch something to address a board threat or, if there isn't an imminent threat, I will tutor up something that moves my own board state toward the win, but I don't build to tutor for winning combos, and none of my decks are designed to win by tutoring up a specific combo. I rarely play some powerful cards, such as Craterhoof Behemoth, because they make for too easy a win, and I intentionally avoid easy, familiar winning combos, never putting (for example) Mike and Trike or Kiki-Jiki and Zealous Conscripts in the same deck. I do play one stax deck, and a couple of my decks have fairly prominent control elements, but this is because I have 60 decks, and if you're going to do that and have them play differently, you are probably going to have decks reflecting a wide range of styles. Most of the time when I run counterspells, they are intended to protect my own board state more than they are intended to control the table, though I will certainly use a counterspell to stop an obvious win by an opponent. None of my decks include Armageddon or Jokauhaups or cards like that, though I do include Worldslayer as a possible win condition in one deck.
1. It's a nebulous term, but I'd say a few things define a casual player:
- The intentional play of "bad", "lesser", or "mediocre" cards, whether this is due to budget constraints or sentimental attachment. For example, running Ascendant Evincar and Skeletal Vampire in vampire tribal decks and keeping Patron of the Vein in the binder because those old vamps did something cool 50 games ago.
- Following lines of play that are Fun at the expense of Good. I.E. not killing an opposing creature to let someone else have fun, tutoring for Blood Tribute instead of Sorin Markov to make the game go a little longer, not scooping to an opponent's lethal Giant Adaphage attack so as to let them have tokens, and so on.
- The general loathing of running or running into strategies such as STAX, mana denial, pure permission, or "locks" (Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir + Knowledge Pool.
- Related to all of this, a desire for slow, grindy games and general frustration when games end suddenly and without interaction.
2. Generally, of these factors, types of decks played would define a casual player. I think casual and compettive players alike will play themed decks (Superfriends, enchantress, spellslinger, artifacts, "steal yo stuff", Rebecca Guay, commons only, etc.), but casual players are more likely to gravitate towards beatdown decks, battlecruiser decks, voltron decks, or tribal decks. They are more likely to shun STAX, control, and pure combo decks; they may use light control elements (boardwipes in a superfriends deck) and defensive STAX effects (Ghostly Prison, No Mercy, Price of Glory) but will not go all out and these will be a few supporting cards and not the purpose of the deck. They may have a combo present in the deck, but this is more accidental than intentional and as noted in step 1, they will often choose NOT to fire off the combo if assembled in the interest of "Fun".
3. Generally speaking...no. A Spike wants to "prove something" and in the context of sitting down and shuffling that is almost always to prove that they are better, smarter, and cleverer than everyone else. That means every time Spike sits at a table, their goal is to either win the game or to do everything possible to prevent, block, and oppress others from being able to win. Either tactic is antithetical to casual play. This is not to say that a Spike player cannot play with a casual playgroup, but they will have to do so knowing that it will require them to throttle back, change archetypes, and impose restrictions on themselves.
4. Yes, for the most part. I generally enjoy a game of Magic in which I get to draw a ton of cards, often at the expense of winning a game, and I have no problem sand-bagging removal to let someone else do something cool or making bad attacks in the interest of making the game more interesting. I do, however, have some spiky tendencies that I have to control - I cannot run tutors, because often I cannot justify to myself not tutoring for the same card over and over. I also tend to build decks that are oppressive on accident - Mairsil, the Pretender has had a few too many games with Avatar of Woe and untap effects even without Buried Alive in the list, meaning that I will likely be revamping or scrapping him soon because even when I lose with him he creates "feel bad" moments for the table.
RCRDaretti: Superfriends Forever RCR
WGBDoran: Ent-mootWBG
GGGMultani: Group Bear HugGGG
GB(B/G)The Gitrog Monster: Dredgefall DurdleGB(B/G)
RGWGahiji, the Honored Group Hug MonsterRGW
UB(U/B)Yuriko, Ninja Trinket AggroUB(U/B)
WUBRGAtogatog: Assembling a OHKOWUBRG