G
Gryphonclaw
Guest
This may be a rehash of a topic that has already been done, but I'm too lazy to search all the message boards to check, so.. (in fact, I now remember a few posts very similar to this)
I just read the article by Zadok and was surprised by how close to home it was. (see casual articles, other, to read it.)
What is a casual player? Naturally we all have definitions that include ourselves, and I don't think that anyone has the right (though maybe the priviledge) to tell anyone else that they are not a casual player.
That said, I have encountered a few individuals who struck me as having some serious and/or tourney player leanings, and I'm wondering if I'm being too harsh on them.
IMHO a casual player is someone who isn't too worried about winning or losing as long as the game was thought provoking or spectacular. Another facet is the maverick, often a casual player will engineer their decks around an obscure or often ignored mechanic or concept. The only exclusionary point that defines a serious and/or tourney player is someone who plays a deck that consistently kills or locks down the game very early on, usually with little or no imagination involved.
This does not exclude tourney players, but it does kind of work contrary to more serious players with whom the game is an exercise in winning as fast as possible.
Is there something I'm missing? Or have I misjudged these people? I can identify cheese munchkins easily, casual players are a bit more challenging.
I just read the article by Zadok and was surprised by how close to home it was. (see casual articles, other, to read it.)
What is a casual player? Naturally we all have definitions that include ourselves, and I don't think that anyone has the right (though maybe the priviledge) to tell anyone else that they are not a casual player.
That said, I have encountered a few individuals who struck me as having some serious and/or tourney player leanings, and I'm wondering if I'm being too harsh on them.
IMHO a casual player is someone who isn't too worried about winning or losing as long as the game was thought provoking or spectacular. Another facet is the maverick, often a casual player will engineer their decks around an obscure or often ignored mechanic or concept. The only exclusionary point that defines a serious and/or tourney player is someone who plays a deck that consistently kills or locks down the game very early on, usually with little or no imagination involved.
This does not exclude tourney players, but it does kind of work contrary to more serious players with whom the game is an exercise in winning as fast as possible.
Is there something I'm missing? Or have I misjudged these people? I can identify cheese munchkins easily, casual players are a bit more challenging.
