|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 8:15AM
#11
|
|
|
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 Sculptor  s 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?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 8:30AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2007
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 8:36AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2007
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 9:05AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Feb 10, 2007
|
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!
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 9:08AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Feb 22, 2005
|
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?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 9:48AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2007
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 9:55AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2007
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 10:18AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Feb 10, 2007
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 10:40AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Sep 10, 2006
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 10:51AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2006
|
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.
|
|
|
