I Play Magic to Win

[Killer Joe]

Alternate title from another forum: "I play Games to win"

Allow me to state my point: When I sit down and play a game of Magic I expect to win e.g. I play to win. However, I sometimes get the feeling that some gamers will use the term "fun" as in "I play Magic to have fun", instead of 'win' as a way of somehow excusing themselves from playing better or more efficiently. Another feeling I get sometimes from gamers is that it's somehow "dirty" to feel good about playing with a 'winning' attitude.

I say it's okay to play to win. What has come to light in another forum where this was disscussed is the "How" you play to win, which of course, is an entirely different point.

This issue is somewhat reminicent of the whole "Casual vs. Competetive".

 

[orgg]

No arguments, other than occasionally you can build a deck to do something that only you count as 'winning.' Then again, that's all in deck construction.

 

[jorael]

I play to win too. I just approach deck building very casual.

 

[EricBess]

I play to have fun...I play to win and I certainly prefer to win, but I would much rather have a very fun exchange with lots of strategy that I lose than to completely dominate an opponent without even having to think about it.

 

[Killer Joe]

Ah, an interesting thought! Here's another statement:

"I play Magic to win but on my own terms i.e. deck of my making."

 

[orgg]

I play to win, and to have fun doing it.

Sitting there going solo with a combo is not 'fun.' Outside of a tournament enviroment, I would never play a straight combo deck.

 

[HOUTS]

Ugh, I thought we over this mess already.

Coming from a person who has played scrubby, to casual, to pro, here is what I have to say about it: they are all the same. The defintions only apply to the play level on which you play at.

Casual nubs can play competitively (or be competitive) and it won't sound like an oxymoron.
I play with more "casual" players than actual serious ones. The only difference is those "casual players" don't have the same fire AND drive, as well as follow through, to play better. They choose to stay where they are at. You can be Pro gamer and fall back to the ranks of "casual" if you all together play the game and don't put the heart into WINNING.

-HOUTS

Now, let's not go down this path again.

 

[Killer Joe]

Ugh, I thought we over this mess already.

Coming from a person who has played scrubby, to casual, to pro, here is what I have to say about it: they are all the same. The defintions only apply to the play level on which you play at.

Casual nubs can play competitively (or be competitive) and it won't sound like an oxymoron.
I play with more "casual" players than actual serious ones. The only difference is those "casual players" don't have the same fire AND drive, as well as follow through, to play better. They choose to stay where they are at. You can be Pro gamer and fall back to the ranks of "casual" if you all together play the game and don't put the heart into WINNING.

-HOUTS

Now, let's not go down this path again.

Your reply has made me think I didn't get across the point I think I was trying to make.

Okay, maybe this statement will help me get my point across:

A person could say (but not me, of course): "I play Magic but I could care less whether I win or not because I just play for fun".

Would/could someone say this because they are unwilling to get better at playing Magic? Or do they say this to Magic players who are better than they are so that when they lose to them they have an excuse? How about they only say this because, even though they WANT to get better at playing Magic, they are just unable to grasp the concept of 'playing to win' and refuse to resort to "CHEATING" tactics such as net-decking, or reading strategy articles, or even posting on magic forums? Huh, you know, I do those things.

Those statements are NOT how I think, but I get the sense that some folks think this way, especially with statements such as: "Winning with a deck I didn't build can only be a hallow win" or "I only want to win on my own terms" which are both completely 'okay' statements but I really think some people 'HIDE' behind these to justify 'bad playing skills'.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, maybe I know some folks who just may not be interested in playing the game anymore and I'm taking it personal, maybe I 'casually' crushed one of them one-too-many-times

It's true, I'm no "fun" to play against becuase I do play to win

 

[HOUTS]

"I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, maybe I know some folks who just may not be interested in playing the game anymore and I'm taking it personal, maybe I 'casually' crushed one of them one-too-many-times

It's true, I'm no "fun" to play against becuase I do play to win"


I think we have something in common.

I've played only a couple times this year. A drop in the bucket for someone who used to run cardshops, play the game daily, and love to write about this great game.

However, I've lost the 'competitive' nature in this game. Sure, I enjoy shooting a few spells with my old school friends, but those games aren't about winning. Or, at least I tell myself. Meaning, I don't care if I lose to them. I play with them because I know their skill/play level isn't high and they won't care about mistakes. They won't think twice if they lose. Yet, I know I will. I'm competitive at heart.

It's funny. I went to Regionals after attending two FNM tournaments and throwing together my own deck; previous to this, I hadn't played in months. Then, I go on to win Regionals. Just a random show-up-and play-to-win day. While all other days before it were 'casual' at heart, that day I was in the 'competitive' mode. You made make those switches if you want; and of course if you have the skill to. From there, I haven't even picked up the cards.
Someone congratulated me on winning this year, and asked if I went to Nationals.
All I could say is "NO, I don't play at that level"

Weird...

And I don't have the urge to drop any Thorn Elementals lately...nor will I for a while.
I've moved on to other 'addictive' competitive games.
Poker.


-HOUTS

 

[Apollo]

I play to win. It's just that these days I play to win by attacking with 7 hippos.

Because why win if you aren't doing it with hippos?

 

[Nightstalkers]

I play magic to win... sometimes.


I have decks designed to actually play against myself and totally ignore my opponent (mainly oldskool vercursion) and even a few that are just for ridiculous cercumstances (gotta love Mr. Butcher). However, most of the time I'm playing with someone who has had only a year or two of playing against my 13, so I have to be the one who tells them what they did wrong, what they could have done better, and then pull some bogus stunt to make them laugh.


You guys should try roleplaying your games. It just pays back in the laughs.

Mishra's Factory:
Player A assembles the assembly workers and attacks

Devour in Light
Player B responds by pulling out a flashlight and scaring them off

 

[Spiderman]

I play to win. However, unless I've been playing my opponents decks for several occasions and they haven't changed so I know what I'm up against, it's never a certainty. Especially if I'm trying out a new idea for the first time. So when it loses, I look at its weaknesses and try to rebuild.

 

[turgy22]

I think the fundamental argument here lies in the difference between how we play the game and why we play the game.

Why do I play Magic? I play for fun. If I ever stop enjoying the game, I can't see myself playing anymore, even if I'm still winning. There's no point to it. It's a hobby, not a job.

How do I play Magic? I play to win. Not always, but usually. I try to improve my game and become a better player. Being better won't make the game less fun. On the other hand, if I'm playing casually, I won't destroy my opponent's only land or play with a tournament-level deck. Sure, it will help me win the game, but it's at odds with the fun factor. So again, there's a difference between knowing the correct course of action in order to win and actually executing it at the risk of diminishing the fun of the game.

 

[Spiderman]

But I think most people would argue that they DO play for fun. Just one's idea of fun is different from another; i.e. land destruction/permission/combo vs not-one-of-those

 

[Nightstalkers]

I always thought control Vs. control was an interesting match up.

 

[BigBlue]

I actually enjoy permission.... but only of course when I'm the one doing the denying....

We always had that joke when we said we pulled out a "fun" deck... it was fun for us anyways...

I play to win, and if I'm not winning, I'm not having fun... consequently I don't get to play much anymore, though there have been some stirrings in our play group that we might rekindle some sort of once in a blue moon game... One of the things which made things not fun, was simply not having time to change decks up... and I'm not talking about tuning decks, but actually making new ones... people got tired of the same ones every week, and none of us had a whole lot of time to build decks... once you get out of college and actually have to work 40 hours or more, get married, and start having kids.... there is barely enough time to play - let alone build...

 

[Spiderman]

That's the truth. When I had my group, I had about 3-4 decks and I kind of rotated them. The others managed to buy new cards or a box so spent about an hour or so either building or changing some of their decks, but I didn't have that luxury... needless to say, unless I had some trading to do, I didn't get there until about an hour afterwards

 

[Nightstalkers]

Eh... I'm always into matching up the same type of deck to see whose can work better/faster/more efficiently.

Oh, and watching the little tikes buy the cards to netdecks and play those in tourneys are always fun to watch... so long as I'm not in the tourney (most likely I won't be).

 

[Killer Joe]

I hosted a "Night of Magic" at my place last Saturday night and some GASP guys were there: Sam, Youngbeard and Adrian and Mooseman was there, too (not a GASPer ).

Anyway, I wanted to try out a new idea for our MML at GASP by replacing the mutliplayer format every quarter-year and doing a four round Swiss duel tourney instead.

There were seven of us (add Eli & Lien) and everyone agreed to help me try it out. Well, folks were saying waht kind of decks to play and I said, "Play a fun deck", and so everyone grabbed their 'fun' decks.

Round 1 I get paired with Sam (2nd. place this year in the MML) and on turn one I lay down an Island. All of a sudden complaints start running rampant and Sam says, "I thought you said grab a 'fun' deck."

Well, I DID! It was my UG Rude Gifts deck that was tournament worthy last year (tier 3 at best). But I thought it was 'fun' to play. Of course I went 3 - 0 (6 - 1 in games) that night, I HAD "FUN"

Mooseman was the only one that beat me in the tournament and that was game 1 of our match. Mooseman played an evil, evil mono-blue deck, maybe he'll chime in on it's contents.

What is "F-U-N"?
"F" is for "Friends" who do stuff together
"U" is for you & me
"N" is for aNywhere, aNytime
Here in my Home Cel-larrrrr

 

[HOUTS]

Apparently the perceived notion of "Fun" is a deck that isn't competitively played. Meaning, if you are playing a monstrous evil 1293493595 casting cost 99/99 beat-stick, then obviously this is the creature for you.
Fair enough.
But, I consider a double B-B spell that counters that evil stick as "fun" to me.
So, there is no real definitive answer for what one considers "fun" or "casual" deck.
Whatever floats your boat.

-HOUTS
2001-2006 CPA Winner of being right again