I love Matt Sperling's articles on CFB. Combined, Rule of Law and Sperling's Sick-of-it are two of my favorite Magic columns. I agree with about 95% of what he says.
I also love (Social) Contract From Below on Commander Cast. By contrast, I agree with approximately 0% of what Nole Clausen says. I respect him. I respect his content. As far as critics of the game though, we couldn't be further apart. It makes some of my disagreements with old Uncle Landdrops look seamless by comparison.
The common thread between these columns is that they are discussions not of the game of Magic, but of the culture of Magic. Important, under-represented work. Today, I am going to take a page out of their playbook and talk a bit about that culture. In my typical shameless fashion, I am also stealing a page out of Youtube's play book. Surely you have seen this video or others like it. Probably even a few about Magic.
I am going to go through a list of the 10 things that I hear all the time from Magic players that I absolutely cannot stand. I will explain why they are offensive/ignorant/meaningless/make no sense/are overused/or just mean something totally different.
If you didn't like my cultural diatribe on scrub players in Magic, turn your eyes away now. This one might hurt a bit. Before we go too far though, I am guilty of 100% of these. Am I a hypocrite? Nope, I'm human. We can work together to improve our communication, our experiences, and our shared game.
"I am a timmy/johnny/spike"
I find it a bit alarming how misunderstood the player psychographs are. If you haven't read the articles by Mark Rosewater, the creator and original authority on what the psychographs are and what they represent then please go resolve that issue. These aren't people. They are ideas. They are sub-human sections of your psychology. You are person. You can't be, in sum, something that is only a part of you. Mathematics says it isn't possible. Now, these people might mean, "I have more fun with Timmy cards than I do with Johnny cards." I am not going to guess at what motivates you, but it is important to remember that everyone enjoys winning, everyone enjoys feeling, everyone enjoys solution. We as humans are evolved to appreciate all of these things intuitively. That is what creates resonance.
"I am a control/aggro/combo player"
A related misconception to what I discussed above, but with higher implications. Magic has many formats, each with a metagame. Your job as a player is to win the game you are in. Sometimes that means doing whatever is necessary. Sometimes that means making do with what you have. This is what gives Commander a bad wrap outside of its own community. Many players are only interested in games where you ignore conventional strategy or archetypes. Disruption and counterspells are frowned upon. Threats are oversized and glacially slow. Infinite combos and instant kills are ostracized. I am not an 'aggro player', but I never miss an opportunity to attack safely and I strive to play my combat phase perfectly. I am not a 'combo player', but all of my decks employ strategic synergy and the cards are selected to work together effectively. I am not a 'control player', but I employ cadres of disruption and removal. Be a player, not a pigeon hole.
"I am a [color] player."
This is almost the exact same as the archetype pigeon hole, but even worse if possible. Lot's of times when people say this, they aren't just implying that they favor particular mechanics or strategies, but that they personally identify with some flavor or story aspect of the game. That is weird to me, but I sort of get it. If you only want to play with your Elf Tribal deck, okay. I don't see why you want to do that in Magic, a game that actively punishes self-imposed restrictions. Games like Warhammer are focused more for this demographic. It mechanically unites your army with that army's flavor. There are very good reasons why Magic DOES NOT do this. You don't have to jam the square peg into the round hole all the time. Just play the format where your favorite deck is good. Like mono Red? Cube it up. Tribal decks? Elves, Goblins, and Merfolk are all Legacy decks that are viable and have been good at some point. Mono Red isn't a thing in Commander. Don't beat your head against the wall. Get outside of your comfort zone people.
That all being said, Star Mono Battle is one of my favorite formats.
"This card is good/bad."
I personally do this all the time. It usually sounds like 'reediculous' or 'bananas'. What gets left out of these commentaries is the context. Jace, the Mind Sculptor is a good card. Turns out it is good in every format, so that is one exception. Black Lotus, also a spicy one. For most cards, though, where it is good is just as important as how good it is. Tarmogoyf is a beatdown in Modern and Legacy, but not really that scary in EDH. I am more scared of Eight-and-a-half-Tails, a card that is irrelevant in basically every other format. The point I am driving at here is that when you say something like this, be a good chap and include where exactly you expect it to do all of its good work or better yet: just say you personally like it instead.
"Why are you targeting me?"
The short answer is: I'm not. I am playing the game with the intention of winning. My strategy is designed such that, to the best of my ability, it maximizes my chances of winning. I don't have personal feelings in the game. I leave my life outside and my game on the table. Be an adult; not everything is personal. It is even worse to me when people will apologize to me for 'targeting' me. It's just plain silly. We played a game. We both did what we could in order to win. That's the point. No ego, no offense, nothing to be sorry about.
"Card X is for multiplayer"
I have talked about this before, but I am not a big fan of multiplayer. I don't mind politics. I don't mind a bigger challenge in reading the board and projecting my opponents cards in hand. I don't mind games that go long (although I would rather play more games than longer games), but I do expect a reasonable pace of play. My disagreement with multiplayer is how the cards are designed. The vast majority of cards are made with the intention of filling specific roles in a 1v1 block Limited environment. Meaning that most of the mechanics don't necessarily translate all that well to multiplayer. I mean game mechanics, not just card mechanics. First Strike isn't much crazier in 1v1 than it is in a team game, but things like targeted vs mass removal, shuffling, disruption. Adding more players fundamentally alters these variables. It skews the core principles within the game: cost/effect ratio, board complexity, time (imagine if every player has a Sensei's Divining Top). Every once in a while R&D will show up with a card or mechanic that is 'specifically designed' for multiplayer, but the generalization of casual formats is a big problem. Not even the professionals at Wizards can make cards that are equally fun/fair/powerful/properly costed/universally understandable in every format.
"X is cheap/unfun/mean"
Removal. Hand disruption. Counterspells. Combos. *gasp* Land Destruction. These are the pieces of the game. The pawns and the rooks and the knights if you will. They are tools. You use them to achieve the goal of victory. How do you beat aggro decks? Kill their creatures. Does that make removal cheap? Poor carpenters blame their tools right? If you are being beaten by a 'cheap' strategy, you are a scrub and you don't understand the game. Every strategy has exploitable weaknesses. Take advantage of those holes in your opponents plans. It is childish and unnecessary to be upset at people for not playing by your self imposed rules.
"Spirit of the format"
There is no such thing. There is no spirit of Standard. There is no spirit of Legacy. There are rules. There is a metagame. That is all. Why do I not believe in the spirit of the format idea? Why don't I want to idealize my format to match the superimposed definition of ultimate fun created by the Rules Committee? Because no one can agree (or concisely explain) what that is. If you put three people in a room, you will have six opinions. Some of them might even be correct, but games need a more objective authority than the whims of the few. Failing that they should have as few subjective criteria as possible.
"If I had known..."
This is usually something like, "If I'd known your guy had Protection from Green I wouldn't have attacked," or "I didn't know I had to do these things in the right order." I am a firm believer in not allowing so-called 'take backs'. If you aren't sure what to do in a given situation...welcome to the game. It is hard. Decisions have consequences, some that may never be fully understood. It is just hard like that. However, announcement is a procedure within the game. It has it's own rules, it is binding. There is no backtracking your main phase to play your Overrun pre-combat. Sequencing is a skill. Master it. It is not anyone else's fault that I don't know how to play the game properly. At the same time, we are all both students and teachers of the game. It is critical for us to be good ambassadors. Offer to help. Your opponents are most likely your friends. If they aren't yet, they very well could be if you demonstrate good will. Also: don''t be afraid to ask for help. Sometimes tipping your hand sucks, but so does making a critical error that costs you the game. The best you can do here is make it into a learning experience and the best way to learn is to help each other. I always correct my opponents when they are wrong and I will always, when asked, do my best to help them pilot their deck in good faith.
"I never lose/This deck never loses"
Everyone loses. Every deck loses. Saying that a loss or win wasn't legitimate because of some exigent circumstances is absurd. This touches on many topics but, internalizing your locus of control and accurately recording your results (relative to the matchup) is an important part of improving your game. Take your losses on the chin and learn from them, but don't get your perspective skewed. A slight advantage in play skill can win or lose a game, but it may not even show up at all. Switching one card might improve your odds of winning in a certain matchup by 5%. This difference will never manifest until you have played hundreds of games. Most tier 1 competitive decklists in sanctioned Magic formats have about a 50% win ratio versus the field. Commander isn't quite that 'solved' as a format, but facts are facts: if you are 50% or better against every other deck in the room, you have the best deck possible in that room. Doesn't mean you aren't going to lose half your games.
-GG
No comments:
Post a Comment