Community

This thread is for discussion of this week's Feature Article, which goes live Monday morning on magicthegathering.com.

I think have to disagree with the articles suggestion of "not showing them all the doors".

After teaching people this way i find that what happens is they'll be playing a game and their opponant will do something that within their understanding of the rules is impossible. This is obviously quite frustrating as they feel like they had a grasp on the game but something has just come out of no where which they didn't even think was possible and they'll probably lose because of it(damage on the stack was a good example but there are still other things that people don't see in a "basic" rules explanation). If this happens multiple times it can be enough for people to give up learning.

  Another problem with not teaching people the full game is that if two of the incompletely taught people end up playing together they will often come across a point in the game where they need to make a decision on how something works , often with an incomplete ruleset they will interprate things inccorectly. When two people form an incorrect decision on how something works and carry on playing like this they assume it's correct ,when they then play someone who actually does know how it works the new players often will assume the correct player is wrong and will argue the case until someone who is seen as a rules expert corrects them.(often me as the local tournament organiser and judge or a few other players who kept in high regard)

I agree if a new player is expected to learn everything in magic within the first tiem they learn the game it's an unfair exspectation. Which is why what i tend to do is start by saying something like

" Ok something that is great abotu magic is it's vast, problem is there's alot to learn. What i'll do is go through as much as i can now and then we'll play some games and again i will at every oppertunity explain as much as i can. You do not need to take even 50% of this in. I want tomake sure at least i have mentioned most things so that when they come up in a game you're not learning them from scracth only being reminded about them. Seriously do not worry if you forget anything i say just take in as much as you can handle and all is good "

Then i'll go through casting costs,card types, creature combat and damage, players turns ect ect then some more advanced stuff and then i'll play a few games with them withboth our hands revealed and go through the options they have explaining the hoices to them.

Now obviosuly this is a little more time consuming than here's magic you have lands that tap for mana they pay for the spells cost. attack with creatures and now go and play him and learn the game but it' s worth it in the long run. People who have been taught in the basic manner are still asking rules questions after playing for many years, just because they have made many years of false assumptions and have got so confused between them and the rules they actually do know.
People have been taught more completely seem to never have a problem with any basic or intermieidate aspects of the game and only have to ask for clarification on complex aspects at which point they usually have made the correct decision on the interaction because of their solid foundation of understanding.

Anyways thats just a little insight and personal expeiriance from my times as a tournament organiser,i've taught people of all ages with my style and it seems to work well for them . People who have been taught by others using the basic explanation as i say, end up down the line alot more confused than they should be.

Dan

I phrased this much nicer the first time, but then my browser crashed, and now I don't have the patience to repeat my polite lead-in.  The crux of what I wanted to say is this:  The 40-card intro packs are ludicrous.  Tournament Sealed players aside, MOST magic decks use the 60 card minimum.  I agree that with new players, simplicity is very important, but what's even more important with a game is playability.  If I'm trying to teach someone TO PLAY Magic, it just makes more sense if I have a deck they can actually PLAY.  Yes, I'll go over the basics of what the cards are, what a creature is as opposed to an instant, a land vs an artifact and so on, but then I would play a game and teach them as we go.  It just makes so much more sense to me.

Imagine if you wanted to teach someone how to play chess, and you go buy a chess intro game, and it gives you a 6x6 checkered board and only two-thirds of the pieces.  Could you teach that person the basics?  Yeah, probably.  Would that intro game game be of any real use?  Not really, unless you go out and buy the rest of the pieces somewhere else.  And that's precisely what the intro packs want you do do.  Buy something that has no real value and then go buy more to make it work, when as recently as a two years ago that sold you everything you would need in one nice, little box.

Nov 29, 2009 -- 11:47PM, RavenoftheBlack wrote:

Imagine if you wanted to teach someone how to play chess, and you go buy a chess intro game, and it gives you a 6x6 checkered board and only two-thirds of the pieces.  Could you teach that person the basics?  Yeah, probably.  Would that intro game game be of any real use?  Not really, unless you go out and buy the rest of the pieces somewhere else.  And that's precisely what the intro packs want you do do.  Buy something that has no real value and then go buy more to make it work, when as recently as a two years ago that sold you everything you would need in one nice, little box.

I think this is an inapropriate analagy, this example basically says th game of magic you play with 40 cards in your deck is different form the one you play when there is 60, which is obviously not correct. I think the intro packs are great for people who want to grab a deck and learn. They are pre-built which means they have the right land/spell ratio , they generally stick to a theme so are easy to understand and also feature many aspects of the game (foil rares, boosters, and a fair share of each card type)

Another aspect of the intro pack is that if you know how to play they are actually still worth buying. Often they showcase the themes of the set and many players buy them to play with the new stuff going on( e.g allys). This was true for theme decks but with intro packs you get 3 rares instead of two so they are better value for money and many of these players bought/buy two copies to merge into one deck anyway, having an extra 20 junk cards in each one doesn't help.

Personally when i was learning i never saw the interest of theme decks, they were always made from bad cards and i was much better off buying 3 packs. Now i'm at the stage where i'm not the kind of player who would buy them, but there is a big section of our player base who do and generally seem quite happy about them.   

One of my roommates has been learning to play Magic (playing more with another roommate and friends from his karate class than with me).  He likes the Asian flavor of Kamigawa, so he ordered himself a couple of Spirit/Arcane theme decks online, and asked me to help him build a single deck from the card pool.  I did, and built an intricate GW deck running on Spirit/Arcane triggers, Splice, and Soulshift.

I now think that was a mistake.  Although I could play the deck and enjoy the range of choices available (there's probably always something you can do to get out of whatever problem you're in - hey, a tie-in to Spike week!), my roommate would look at the same hand of cards and be paralyzed by indecision.  When is it right to cast your two Arcane spells separately, for two triggers of your Spirit creatures, and when is it best to Splice one spell onto the other, saving a card but only getting one trigger?  And which spell should be Spliced?

I should probably have built his deck eschewing Splice almost entirely, just giving him a bunch of fat creatures and maybe some Soulshift.  Sure, it would be "weaker", but he'd be happier playing it.