Why do we like to win casual games?

53 posts / 0 new
Last post
In forcing myself to do a blog post every day, I find that I'm delving deeper into my gamer psyche. I posed this question to myself tonight, and I'd really like to get a range of opinions for a future blog post.

So in terms of casual gaming, why do we like to win?

Or

Why is winning preferred even if we get nothing from it?

You can define casual however you like.

Thanks all!

Here's my shameless plug for my blog. Check it out, you can win stuff on days I don't post! http://rayofpaintstudios.blogspot.com/2013/01/setting-goals-and-giving-swag.html
In casual games, all I care about is my crazy decks working. Usually, that involves winning. So, I suppose I like to win casual games because it means my deck did the cool thing I wanted it to do.

However, if my deck does its thing and STILL loses, I'm not really that bothered, since winning isn't my real goal. For example, my necroskitter deck doesn't win that often, but I can still have fun with it as long as I get to yoink creatures and go crazy with blowfly infestation. Or getting my vengevine deck to absolutely explode in 'vines and rootwallas.

So winning is more like a secondary thing attached to my real goal for having fun. 
Heya everyone, here are my homebrew threads: (yes there is only one right now, but there are more to come!) And Let There Be Fish-Men: KUO-TOA


So winning is more like a secondary thing attached to my real goal for having fun. 



That's a good point. Maybe I should broaden it and ask why you play casually if winning isn't the goal. I'm really curious to see how others treat their casual play.
See my post about the 18/18 Drudge Beetle. I knew I'd lose, but I still got to feed my inner Timmy.
You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what I create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
See my post about the 18/18 Drudge Beetle. I knew I'd lose, but I still got to feed my inner Timmy.


If this was Facebook, I'd "Like" the hell out of this. As quasi-Spike as I get with EDH, it's still a Timmy format, and I love winning... Or even screwing the board six ways from Sunday before I die.

Scope my YouTube channel!

Here's a shout out for Scholars' Books & Games in Bridgewater, MA, and for Paladin's Place in Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany where I was stationed for two years. Support your FLGS!

Attacking the darkness since 1987, turning creatures sideways since 1994.

The goal is ultimately to win. A game is not fun if players are not trying to win. Casual frequently cares more about "how" you win which is something that competitive games don't usually care about.
Don't be too smart to have fun
I play casually for the social aspect of hanging out with the same circle of friends, making dumb jokes.

Getting my sillier decks to work is another reason I play casually; having a variety of personal goals along those lines helps: for me this is often tied to how many tokens/how much mana/how many counters/how much life/how much damage I can generate without using infinite tricks.  Other times, the goal is more along the lines of piloting a (mostly) tutorless deck until that new single I picked up sees play or trying to defeat a specific deck (every group has a top deck or two they just want to take down).   

Mostly, though, I play because it is a fun, stress-free environment.  Lots of laughter, decent food, occasionally beer, some mental challenges (I seem to be one of few people in my regular circle who can mentally track the mana from a deck that chain-casts Mana Geysers and Geosurges for some truly mammoth X-spells), unexpected card interactions, and the occasional alternate format (Emperor, Star, 2HG/3HG where EVERYTHING is shared) keep games fresh, fun, and explosive. 

Besides, there are no MP tourmanents in the area, only duels - and Standard legal, at that.  I have 19 years worth of cards, and I want to use all of them.

Cheers!
A shout out to Gaming Grounds in Kent, Ohio and Gamers N Geeks in Mobile, Alabama. www.zombiehunters.org for all your preparation needs. http://shtfschool.com/ - why prepping is useful, from one who has been there.
Becauase winning in any game releases substances in your brain that gives you a pleasant feeling? It is hardly a mystery that the feeling of winning is not related to what you get from winning, but to winning itself.


Also, to move beyond the scientific explanation, casual formats allow you to focus more on playing what you find to be fun or silly rather than relying on netdecking what is optimal, or relying on how many mandatory cards you can afford to buy, as is the case in standard, modern, and legacy (even if less so in modern and legacy due to more cards to chose from, still, it is quite telling when you got to a legacy tournament and EVERY SINGLE DECK runs 4 force of will ;) ).


So, you not only get the same satisfaction from winning, but you likely have more fun getting to the win than you would in other formats, and more likely to meet weird, silly, or quirky situations than other formats and on top of it all, losing is less negative if you are not actually losing something, so the overall experience would obviously be positive. 

  
Why would you ever play under any circumstances and not on some level try to win? What would be the point? It would be like if your chess strategy was just to make a smiley face on the board with your pieces, it's a waste of both players' time and there are certainly more fruitful ways to draw smiley faces.

it is quite telling when you got to a legacy tournament and EVERY SINGLE DECK runs 4 force of will ;) ).

I've played a lot of legacy and that really hasn't been my experience at all. There are a lot of really weird decks in Legacy that hold up pretty well and a lot of the weirdest don't even run Blue.

Force of Will is certainly GOOD and its existance is essential to the format but I honestly wouldn't even say its particularly powerful when it all comes down to it. The majority of the time when I play it I find I'm actually upset about having to lose the extra card and I have to balance that out in my head against losing the game to come to terms with it. The thing you counter has to be something that will ABSOLUTELY KILL YOU for it to be anything but a waste of cards. Legacy just happens to have a lot of those things coming out in the early game.

For me, casual games are normally more about fun that anything  - I'd rather lose specatcularly than win through grinding out a lock over ten or twenty games - my current favourite deck is a janky five colour deck with Door to Nothingness and Rod of Spanking, with Bludgeon Brawl, runekeys and Etherium Sculptors for added hilarity. (Nothing like swinging for fatal with a 22/2 sculptor). Indeed, I think it's the main mark of a playgroup - if there's nothing in terms of prizes, and no one's testing anything, are they using fun decks or finessed decks? 
The goal is ultimately to win. A game is not fun if players are not trying to win. Casual frequently cares more about "how" you win which is something that competitive games don't usually care about.



Not entirely true.  I play for the experience of playing - hanging out with frinds, building silly decks, trying to get stupid combos to work, seeing how many counters you can pile on a hydra, etc.

I frequently win, but that's not why I play.  In fact, some of my favorite games were ones where I lost.


In a 2HG game, we had out a Dark Depths and were dominating the board.  We were still at 40, they were at 3 or something.  This was back before Dark Depths was a combo, and when you still STARTED an 2GH game at 40 life.

We animate Dark Depths and swing for total victory and great justice.
Quicken + Phthisis targeting the DD token.  We loose 40, they win.

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut.  lol.  Had us laughing for a good 5 minutes.

Casual Magic player since 2003 (Onslaught Block). 60% Johnny, 40% Timmy. Want a free, graphics-based, collection database to inventory your cards? I made one! Feedback welcome. Program runs offline, includes powerful search options, art, Oracle text, data import/export, and a rigorously updated list of every card ever printed. Version 5.13 (Theros) now available!

So. Green needs an iconic creature type, eh? How about wurms!

One Billion Words - 1001 Fantasy Landscapes: Share DnD-ish landscapes for use in homebrew campaigns!

Why would you ever play under any circumstances and not on some level try to win? What would be the point? It would be like if your chess strategy was just to make a smiley face on the board with your pieces, it's a waste of both players' time and there are certainly more fruitful ways to draw smiley faces.



Also not entirely true.

If your OBJECTIVE is to win, then yes, you are right.  But that's not my objective.  My objective is to have fun and relax a bit.



I play DnD with some of my old high school buddies.  We are trying to "win" and the DM is trying to "let" us.  So what's the point of even playing, if the game is stacked in our favor?

Fun.  Hanging out.  Eating junk food.  Telling stupid jokes.  Watching the latest troll video on YouTube.

FUN is the objective, and DnD is the MEDIUM.



Same deal with casual magic (for me, anyway).  FUN is the objective, Magic is the MEDIUM.

 

Casual Magic player since 2003 (Onslaught Block). 60% Johnny, 40% Timmy. Want a free, graphics-based, collection database to inventory your cards? I made one! Feedback welcome. Program runs offline, includes powerful search options, art, Oracle text, data import/export, and a rigorously updated list of every card ever printed. Version 5.13 (Theros) now available!

So. Green needs an iconic creature type, eh? How about wurms!

One Billion Words - 1001 Fantasy Landscapes: Share DnD-ish landscapes for use in homebrew campaigns!

I've posed this question across several forums (mostly wargaming websites dedicated to warhammer 40k), but I find the answer as it relates to MTG to be the most interesting. 

Magic games take... what, 10-20 minutes for people who know their decks and rules well enough? You can fit more wins and losses into a night of magic than a tabletop wargaming night, or most board game nights.

Also, with magic, there's not much other stimulation during the game. Despite the stunning artwork, cards don't get much more than a casual glance. So a game really boils down to two people using rules and stats to defeat one another. No story, no eye candy.

I haven't quite figured out where I'm going with that one, but it's what's rolling around in my head right now. It really makes me question why I make decks that I know are bad, but have the potential to be fun if the stars align properly.

I'm pleased to say that this topic has gotten such fantastic responses that it almost requires several posts dedicated to it. And with 360 blog posts to make this year, I'm so glad for that! 
Also not entirely true.

If your OBJECTIVE is to win, then yes, you are right.  But that's not my objective.  My objective is to have fun and relax a bit.


I think it would be more accurate to say that winning is not your primary objective. You have to be trying to win. Most games are built on the need for all players to at least be trying to accomplish the designated goal.

Of course in Magic it's possible to set a designated goal besides outright winning. As others in this thread have mentioned, sometimes you're playing in order to get a ridiculously huge creature in. Sometimes you're playing to get a weird combo off.

Regardless, usually the end result of whatever you're doing comes in the form of winning the game, so it you are still trying to win, you're just doing it in a roundabout way.

Ultimately it comes down to a very simple pair of ideas: Casual (True casual, not decktesting) games are played with the intention of having fun. Games tend to be unfun when one or more of the players stop trying to achieve victory.
Therefore, if a player isn't trying to win (Or at least accomplish something) they are likely to ruin the game for all players.

Have you ever played an intense 4+ player multiplayer game that has just totally collapsed when one player just gives up and concedes (Which is what most Magic players do rather than just stop trying) and sort of ruins the atmosphere for everybody involved?
Immature College Student (Also a Rules Advisor)
I think it would be more accurate to say that winning is not your primary objective. You have to be trying to win. Most games are built on the need for all players to at least be trying to accomplish the designated goal. 

..

Therefore, if a player isn't trying to win (Or at least accomplish something) they are likely to ruin the game for all players.



Hm..  A good clarification.

Even silly decks need some kind of win condition, even if it's unlikley to happen.

Casual Magic player since 2003 (Onslaught Block). 60% Johnny, 40% Timmy. Want a free, graphics-based, collection database to inventory your cards? I made one! Feedback welcome. Program runs offline, includes powerful search options, art, Oracle text, data import/export, and a rigorously updated list of every card ever printed. Version 5.13 (Theros) now available!

So. Green needs an iconic creature type, eh? How about wurms!

One Billion Words - 1001 Fantasy Landscapes: Share DnD-ish landscapes for use in homebrew campaigns!

Magic games take... what, 10-20 minutes for people who know their decks and rules well enough? You can fit more wins and losses into a night of magic than a tabletop wargaming night, or most board game nights.



That's one reason I enjoy the game so much.  

More games = more chance for sillyness, epic comebacks, halarious mistakes, etc.
In fact, that's why I stopped playing EDH and more than 3-4 player multiplayer games.  They just gets mired in fussy details, complex decisions, etc.  3-4 players is good for politicking though.  


Plus, I tend to switch decks frequently to try different match-ups against my opponent.
That transition phase (and the shuffling, resetting the life total, etc) make for great conversation and pit stops (bathroom/food) without throwing off the tempo of the game.

I've played board games (and DnD, to an extent) that are majorly interrupted by pit stops.
That's not directly related to enjoyment of the game, but it causes less frustration and unenjoyment if that makes any sense. 




Can't say I entirely agree about the "no flavor" thing, since 75% of my decks are themed in some way.  Guilds, tribes, Alara Shards, etc all count as "flavorful" to me.  

It's the weird mish-mash combo decks (and some beatdown decks) that lack flavor to me.

Casual Magic player since 2003 (Onslaught Block). 60% Johnny, 40% Timmy. Want a free, graphics-based, collection database to inventory your cards? I made one! Feedback welcome. Program runs offline, includes powerful search options, art, Oracle text, data import/export, and a rigorously updated list of every card ever printed. Version 5.13 (Theros) now available!

So. Green needs an iconic creature type, eh? How about wurms!

One Billion Words - 1001 Fantasy Landscapes: Share DnD-ish landscapes for use in homebrew campaigns!


Can't say I entirely agree about the "no flavor" thing, since 75% of my decks are themed in some way.  Guilds, tribes, Alara Shards, etc all count as "flavorful" to me.  

It's the weird mish-mash combo decks (and some beatdown decks) that lack flavor to me.



Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of themed decks. I actually did a lengthy post last night about how I can't play decks without a strict theme, no matter how detrimental it may be. No lie, I'm sitting here now hoping my rat discard deck will arrive before I leave for game night tonight. I want to throw Deathrite Shaman in it SO bad, but I can't justify him not being a rat (even though an easy argument can be made about why he'd be around rats). 

But when I'm facing my friend's vampire deck, I don't see vampires. I see an annoying thing with deathtouch, an annoying thing that can sacrifice things to grow bigger, etc. Without three-dimensional representations of cards (a la YuGiOh cartoon), you don't have as much of a narrative for your games.

I'm not saying that's wrong, because that's not MTG. MTG is strategy using flavorful cards, but the cards eventually lose have their personality replaced by stats because that's what the opponent sees. That's just where I'm coming from. 
I don't understand casual durdle do nothing decks. I have casual decks but they are usually pretty competitive and trying to accomplish a strategy pretty quickly. I don't see the point of playing Magic when you are trying to sandbox with your library. Doesn't make much sense at all to me. 
I solely play casual because anything better than casual decks cost 100$+ each standard season.

I do not look at other people's decks, I want to build my own decks.
But whenever I do, I randomly find good cards I "NEED" in my deck.

Falkenrath Aristocrat.
Better than Olivia Voldaren.
*Pricechecks*
Oooooookaaaaay.

No red and black deck for me then.

Start building a white and black deck.
Hey.
Liliana of the Veil is EXACTLY like that "target opponent sacrifices a creature" spell except she's better!
*Pricechecks*
OOOOOOkay.
I'd better just play without her.

==============

THEN my first game is up against a black and red deck created by someone who PAID TO WIN running Aristocrat on top of Liliana...

Winning against those who paid to win is extremely satisfying.
But that is also the death of the game for me.

There's no point in going to tournaments unless you pay 100$++ for a potent deck.
The absurd price is the only reason I only play casual.
 
Have you considered playing pauper?

I promise it's not pay to win... *hides lotus petals behind back* 

Why does everyone think I'm phantom lancer? QFT:

Show
139359831 wrote:
I hope all this helps you to see things in a greater light—and understand that Magic: the Gathering was really created by extraterrestials using Richard Garfield as a medium. The game itself reflects the socio-psycho realtivity between living beings, and the science that takes precedence over them—to define reality for them all (like telekinesis, weather, scientific reaction, phenomenon, ingenuity, how the brain works, etc.). I'd also bet there is an entity floating thousands of miles above us, looking down on the current state of game, shaking its fist like... "Wtf are you doing?! You're getting it all screwed up!". Awkward—to be evolved, and yet still subject to the ladder that is the concepts of the game. In this case, misconception, corruption, and deception. With the realities of each color becoming distorted (through oblivious designers), leading the game to reflect a false state of reality that warps the understanding that other people have about those things. For example, people thinking that white could be anything except pure good. This shouldn't be too far off though, I mean...Magic is designed based on reality after all, so that entity (those entities) should be subject to those things. Anyways, I guess when you're busy doing space stuff you can't always be around to ensure quality control. It's no wonder they choose Garfield, they're so much alike; that's exactly what happened to him and Magic.
166199665 wrote:
omg snortng so much febbdelicious /intocixated in rl
I like Dragon_Nut's phrasing about how winning is not the primary objective.  I like to say I don't play to win, but honestly, I just have shifting definitions of victory, mostly covered in my earlier post.  That said, being the last player standing is always a nice plus.

For a giggle, ask your group what they consider a "win" before your next big game (MP, not a duel).  My group did this, and out of 7 players at the time, 2 wanted to win outright, 3 simply wanted to make sure someone else DIDN'T win, and the last two just wanted to see their decks work as planned.  Several of those people met their goals that game.

As for the time involved in typical Magic games, specificially MP games, large games can be short, but often at the cost of the rest of the table not getting to do much beyond play some lands before the game ending.  While this is meta-dependent and fun on occasion, the more often it happens (and it is becoming a regular occurence in my usual circle), the more dissatisfied I become with it.  Which is funny, as it is mostly my fault - I have the resources to build consistent, powerful MP decks, so I have done so.  Even when I leave those decks at home, the knowledge is out there and my "students" run similar decks that are a touch slower, perhaps, but just as ridiculous.  The record is a 15-minute 9 player game (multiple Mana Flares, a Prosperity, and Last Laugh were involved).   

I have learned that game length is dictated both by decks and who is playing them.   Being "that guy" who plays cards that affect everyone is worth the speed it brings to a game's closure, if only to play more games.  Cards like Mana Flare, Furnace of Rath, Last Laugh, Oath of Lieges, Rites of Flourishing, and Crescendo of War can backfire spectacularly - and they often do.  Regardless of the end state, cards such as these speed games up.  So does being an active player and turning guys sideways when you have them.  Armies of creatures staring one another down not only drives me bats**t crazy, but also slows game play to a crawl: do something, even if it costs you the game!

Regarding the narrative aspect and lack thereof, maybe steal an idea or two from Atlas Games' Once Upon a Time and simply start telling a story using the cards in hand?  This would require everyone involved to be both creative and quick-witted enough to do it justice, but it is an option.  As an aside, Once Upon a Time is also a fun game AND a great method to seed your own creative writing.

Cheers! 

A shout out to Gaming Grounds in Kent, Ohio and Gamers N Geeks in Mobile, Alabama. www.zombiehunters.org for all your preparation needs. http://shtfschool.com/ - why prepping is useful, from one who has been there.
I solely play casual because anything better than casual decks cost 100$+ each standard season.

...

Winning against those who paid to win is extremely satisfying.
But that is also the death of the game for me.

There's no point in going to tournaments unless you pay 100$++ for a potent deck.
The absurd price is the only reason I only play casual. 



In my blog post yesterday, I explored that very subject. To sum it up: I started Magic wanting to do well with $30 decks. That was fine when the decks did well against other casual decks, or my friend's competitive decks that were in their infancy. As some have said, my deck performed like I wanted it to and I was happy.

But then I went to a tournament, and I was mad at Magic because my budget deck couldn't compete against the top T2 decks of the meta. After all these years, I finally realize that I was trying to make competitive MTG play how I wanted it to, rather than "paying the price of admission" to really get the most out of the game. 

Fun decks are fun, but we just can't expect our love for them to do well. I would love nothing more than the ability to play competitively, but I'm too stubborn to buy dual lands that I know, without a doubt, I wouldn't regret purchasing. I want Planeswalkers and chase rares, but I don't want to give up other things in my life to do it.

So now, rather than be mad at the game for being what it is, I understand that I'm going to fail until I'm willing to commit to it as I ought to.

I'm not saying casual is bad, but we don't get to experience the thrill of competitive play without spending the money.
In casual games, all I care about is my crazy decks working. Usually, that involves winning. So, I suppose I like to win casual games because it means my deck did the cool thing I wanted it to do.

However, if my deck does its thing and STILL loses, I'm not really that bothered, since winning isn't my real goal. For example, my necroskitter deck doesn't win that often, but I can still have fun with it as long as I get to yoink creatures and go crazy with blowfly infestation. Or getting my vengevine deck to absolutely explode in 'vines and rootwallas.

So winning is more like a secondary thing attached to my real goal for having fun. 


This sums it up for me.
STEP 1: Find your cousin STEP 2: Get your cousin in the cannon STEP: 3 Find another cousin
Reasons I like to win in Casual?  I'm competative and hate to lose.  As I only really play Casual (minus the rare Sealed tourny) that competativeness and need to win is very prodominant in my games.  
I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct

You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct

Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner. 
IIRC, winning releases endorphins and a few other various chemicals. Of course, you can get inured to it, which is why the old "Winning every time must be heaven. Or is it hell?" episode of one of those Twilight Zone knockoffs summarizes Spike so well.
139359831 wrote:
Clever deduction Watson! Maybe you can explain why Supergirl is trying to kill me.
---- Autocard is your friend. Lightning Bolt = Lightning Bolt
So in terms of casual gaming, why do we like to win?

Or

Why is winning preferred even if we get nothing from it?

If the game was Chess or Monopoly, no one would ask that question. After all, the whole of playing a game is making an attempt to win; so if you are exerting effort to achieve something, however pointless it may ultimately be, it is more pleasing to succeed than to fail.

And play among children is training for adult survival skills, so it's natural for play to engage reward mechanisms.

But because the game is Magic, that people like to win messes up casual, because players start putting better cards in their decks, messing up the main advantage of "Casual Constructed" as a format. Which is why I think that having a framework, like Pauper or Peasant, is a good idea to make casual work.

Coming up with weird ideas to make everyone happy since 2008!

 

I have now started a blog as an appropriate place to put my crazy ideas.

But because the game is Magic, that people like to win messes up casual, because players start putting better cards in their decks, messing up the main advantage of "Casual Constructed" as a format. Which is why I think that having a framework, like Pauper or Peasant, is a good idea to make casual work.



What "messes up" casual is that the only universal definition for it is "non-sanctioned".

The idea that I shouldn't put better cards in my casual decks is like saying that the point of casual is to make a deck that no matter how skillfully you play, simply playing the deck in the first place is trying to lose the game. Which is straight up bizarre. (I have heard of people trying to make bad decks and then randomly ressigning them to see who could make the "worst" deck based upon the construction rules.)

I have plenty of casual decks that rofl-stomp people hard, but if I were to bring them into any tournament where those decks are legal I'd get laughed out the door for the lack of competitiveness.

As Magic is a social activity, the nastiest of my casual decks do not see much play, because if I played them too frequently people would stop playing against me. The key is to find what level of competitiveness is right for your playgroup.

Scope my YouTube channel!

Here's a shout out for Scholars' Books & Games in Bridgewater, MA, and for Paladin's Place in Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany where I was stationed for two years. Support your FLGS!

Attacking the darkness since 1987, turning creatures sideways since 1994.

As Magic is a social activity, the nastiest of my casual decks do not see much play, because if I played them too frequently people would stop playing against me.

exactly that is the reason for "bad" cards in casual decks
If I'm building a ramp deck of course Emrakul would be a great finisher, but she is just so frustrating to play against, so I rather use Avenger of Zendikar or Terastodon to mix it up

proud member of the 2011 community team
As Magic is a social activity, the nastiest of my casual decks do not see much play, because if I played them too frequently people would stop playing against me. The key is to find what level of competitiveness is right for your playgroup.

That was what I was talking about; I wasn't saying that the object is to play to lose. Instead, my point was that this social interaction stuff can be too complicated for some people, even if they try to be reasonable, and so arguments start about whether people's decks are casual enough.

So an agreed-upon "format", even if it has no sanction for tournament play, is a way to make life simple.

Coming up with weird ideas to make everyone happy since 2008!

 

I have now started a blog as an appropriate place to put my crazy ideas.

For me and my 2 playgroups, casual is better defined as the environment, rather than the format. We are all still playing to win. You are still gonna go up against good decks, good cards, and good strategy. Yes, people will get way more creative than Standard or other formats allow you to be, and you will have to face the fact once in a while that you've lost to a deck that would be called "jank" at a tourny table. It's not the decks that make the evening fun, it's the atmosphere. You'll lose a game or 2, and win a game or 2. And that's the point of "Casual" MTG...

At a tourney, 9 times out of 10, you're playing against a total stranger. You're there to win, and it doesn't matter if your opponent is having fun or not. In a casual game with friends, I have no problem watching a best friend of 15 years win once in a while. So while we all play to win every game that is dealt, it's still awesome when we see a friend win too.   

As far as "why we like to win", I'm sure it varies from player to player. Most guys like to win to prove they're better than their opponent. It's programmed into human DNA. I feel that for myself, it's more a case of seeing my break-all-the-rules deck designs win. My satisfaction comes from seeing my creations win rather than just proving I'm better than the next guy. 

People really need to stop looking at casual as a format. It's not. Coming up with a specific set of guidelines to create the format would in-and-of-itself undermine the term "casual". Nor is casual a place to leave your good cards behind. Respect to not play a certain deck or combo when asked, yes, but dumbing your deck down to be "casual" isn't casual MTG. It's just gimped MTG.
I agree with Sacrifice above; "Casual" is an atmosphere/environment, not a format, in my opinion. Every casual group plays a little differently. Maybe they have houserules, certain banned cards, maybe certain deck styles are banned outright or just frowned upon(Milling, excessive land destruction, etc). We have a few "unsavory" decks in our group, but they are not discouraged due to being broken or OP, they're disliked because they are just unfun to play against.

Actually, each of us has "that one deck;" the one that everybody else hates. The deck that causes sighs, good griefs, and death stares from everyone at the table, the moment it becomes known that it's in play. We tend to reserve these decks for "special occasions," such as when one of us is just having a rough night and wants a win, or when someone else needs a good thrashing. My deck like this has almost started fistfights. In multi-headed giant games(we typically have 3 and 4 person teams), if I dare use this deck, I get the entire other team zero'd in on me.

Show

liquimetal coating + splinter = Hand me your deck while I remove every basic land or whatever other card of yours I deem worthy for exile. Viashino Heretic and Hoard-smelter Dragon, and a hefty helping of Smelt's added for extra fun. Lots of green graveyard play(Regrowth, Elven Cache) to pull Splinter's back to my hand and repeat the process. This deck has almost got me exiled from the group.

It's not even that this deck is all that strong; it gets beaten pretty often. Especially in multiplayer games(more than 2 people) it's damn near impossible to put up defense against mutliple sides. It's just apparently really unfun for others to watch me pick up their decks and manhandle them, removing anything I deem a threat, after I've already stripped out every land and destroyed the ones in play.

For fun, casual play, this deck is a big no-no.



But even in casual, we're still playing to win. The end goal of the game is to have fun, but we certainly have more fun if we win more often, than lose. Personally, I don't mind losing. The only time I get  frustrated is when my deck flounders and fails; mana-screw, mana-flood, drawing none of my key-cards, etc.

I find signatures incredibly distracting. If you read this, then you too have found them distracting. 

I agree with Sacrifice above; "Casual" is an atmosphere/environment, not a format, in my opinion.

Don't misunderstand me.

Of course casual is not a format.

What I'm saying is that defined formats in which to play casually are a tool that can help maintain the casual environment.

Sometimes one gets a thread where people debate on whether one should object to the use of proxies in casual play. That might seem to be a different issue, but really it is part of the same thing. When is it reasonable, and when is it excessive, to ask someone to play with a more casual deck?

Even with all the goodwill in the world, you can't expect everyone who shows up for casual constructed play to bring with him decks in 50 shades of casualness. So you're occasionally going to have the frustrating situation where Player A has two decks with him, one much stronger, and one much weaker, than the deck Player B has. It's still frustrating even with goodwill and politeness on the part of both players - and goes downhill fast without it.

If, instead, people who are coming together for play in the casual environment one evening are also agreed ahead of time on a format, then they can play to win without getting into this mess.

Because then they can play for fun without first having fully purged themselves of the non-Casual attributes of ego and competitiveness.

Coming up with weird ideas to make everyone happy since 2008!

 

I have now started a blog as an appropriate place to put my crazy ideas.

Show
Out of curiosity, why Elven Cache. Eternal Witness is kinda a lot better.
139359831 wrote:
Clever deduction Watson! Maybe you can explain why Supergirl is trying to kill me.
---- Autocard is your friend. Lightning Bolt = Lightning Bolt
Show
Out of curiosity, why Elven Cache. Eternal Witness is kinda a lot better.



The easy answer is that I had Elven Cache's(Visions) on hand, and I've never heard of Eternal Witness. I just came back to the game last Spring from a 15 year break.

I find signatures incredibly distracting. If you read this, then you too have found them distracting. 

I agree with Sacrifice above; "Casual" is an atmosphere/environment, not a format, in my opinion.

Don't misunderstand me.

Of course casual is not a format.

What I'm saying is that defined formats in which to play casually are a tool that can help maintain the casual environment.

Sometimes one gets a thread where people debate on whether one should object to the use of proxies in casual play. That might seem to be a different issue, but really it is part of the same thing. When is it reasonable, and when is it excessive, to ask someone to play with a more casual deck?

Even with all the goodwill in the world, you can't expect everyone who shows up for casual constructed play to bring with him decks in 50 shades of casualness. So you're occasionally going to have the frustrating situation where Player A has two decks with him, one much stronger, and one much weaker, than the deck Player B has. It's still frustrating even with goodwill and politeness on the part of both players - and goes downhill fast without it.

If, instead, people who are coming together for play in the casual environment one evening are also agreed ahead of time on a format, then they can play to win without getting into this mess.

Because then they can play for fun without first having fully purged themselves of the non-Casual attributes of ego and competitiveness.



That probably works fine for players who are well familiarized with what the formats are. But my group is casual with a capital "C"; we have players from several different eras of play and doing anything but Legacy means arbitrary codified rules as to what's allowed, what isn't, pretty much mucks up the "casual" part. SOme of us don't even have internet access, let alone any viable way to keep tab on what accounts for which format.

If another group is very up to date with the restrictions of formats, they would likely have not nearly the issues my group would have. I'm in no way saying "our way is the best way." Faaaar from it. I'm just stating what we do and how we have fun.

I find signatures incredibly distracting. If you read this, then you too have found them distracting. 

Pleasure supplied by endorphins for reaching a conclusion that we are conditioned to believe is correct.

Also, how do you destroy an indestructible token?
Also, how do you destroy an indestructible token?

very strong scissors
proud member of the 2011 community team
Show
Out of curiosity, why Elven Cache. Eternal Witness is kinda a lot better.



The easy answer is that I had Elven Cache's(Visions) on hand, and I've never heard of Eternal Witness. I just came back to the game last Spring from a 15 year break.



Thankfully, it's been in a few precons, so a playset shouldn't cost you that much.
139359831 wrote:
Clever deduction Watson! Maybe you can explain why Supergirl is trying to kill me.
---- Autocard is your friend. Lightning Bolt = Lightning Bolt
Pleasure supplied by endorphins for reaching a conclusion that we are conditioned to believe is correct.

Also, how do you destroy an indestructible token?



The general answer is to Exile it. If you're referring to my liquimetal/splinter deck, I'll admit that Indestructible items are its weakness. I just hope to smash enough things and do enough indirect damage by that point to make up for it.

I find signatures incredibly distracting. If you read this, then you too have found them distracting.