Community

In my group, the rule is four or more players. Nobody wants to play with less.

What I enjoy most about multiplayer is the (typically) slow, high-power environment. I can create decks whose strategy is to build up some complicated engine or deep box of tricks. When that kind of challenge is replaced with 'play Emrakul , win', it loses a whole lot of its charm. Not that I begrudge other players using those cards (although Emrakul is perhaps a shade too strong), but they fall flat for me. I'm also not a fan of 'just make it hit everyone'. Putting four copies of Exsanguinate into every deck with Swamps isn't creative or interesting, but is almost always correct. I appreciate the effort being put into multiplayer design, and a lot of it is an improvement, but I feel like some of these solve-everything-in-one-card cards stifle deckbuilding.

Of course I'm sure Timmy enjoys getting to eight mana and playing Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger , but it seems like R&D are under the impression that multiplayer is for Timmy and nobody else. Multiplayer is the format that allows creative decks the chance to perform complex tricks; it's a haven for Johnnies. I can only speak for my group, but not one of us plays these multiplayer bombs. Everyone already knows Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur will win the game, so what's the point in actually playing it? Again, I can only speak for myself and my group, but we favour high-powered but open-ended effects like Deadeye Navigator (see, it's not all criticism of modern design) over dreary monsters like Eldrazi. Recent sets have provided both, and that's good, but the proportions seem to be pretty lopsided.

I guess one issue may be that R&D are primarily Spikes. Multiplayer doesn't attract a large proportion of Spikes; if you're in a four-player game, you can't afford to care too much about winning. In multiplayer, everyone wants their deck to do interesting things, and then hopefully win at the end of it. A lot of the multiplayer-focused cards that are being printed are just expensive bombs, which really isn't that exciting. There seems to be a trend of printing powerful, interesting combo enablers, then sticking them to creatures powerful enough to count as win conditions by themselves. All of the Praetors (bar maybe Urabrask the Hidden ) are less interesting by virtue of being large creatures rather than enchantments. I find a game produces a more interesting narrative when the decks' dominance play isn't also their big finisher.

May 24, 2012 -- 10:29PM, fractal wrote:

Hey! I feel like you stole my icon! :P

On the actual topic of the article, 60-card multiplayer is my preferred constructed format, so I feel that I am definitely in the target audience Zac is talking about . . .

In multiplayer, some people play decks that are better than others.  That's normal and expected; however, it's not good if those people reliably triumph.  Fortunately, there's a built-in balancing factor: the weaker players can gang up on the strong.  The additional cards, land drops, and life points available to a temporary alliance can overcome many disparities in deck quality, and ensure that everyone has a chance to win.

I feel like the target audience, too, though more because Zac said something about, "Or do you just play whatever?" I'll play anything I can, and my only concern with Planechase is not being able to find other people who think it's interesting just because it's different. I wasn't around for the first one, so I don't know how easy it is to talk EDH groups into trying it for a day.

May 25, 2012 -- 11:15PM, metalevolence wrote:

I like the part when he implied Edric isn't a borderline-broken commander

In multiplayer?