TheCasualOblivion said:
Try this one. Its a simplification of my first point:
You let your opponent play the game.
And now, DUke...
Lets sum up your points:
1. There is no casual. Certain people(including DUke) call themselves casual, but play to dominate, even when a lot of people say that isn't "casual." Casual includes everything and therefore doesn't exist.
2. People who say they play "for fun" are bozos and liars.
3. The game is about winning. Anyone who can't admit that is deluding themselves, and moreover, is using the statement "winning isn't everything, having fun is the point" as an excuse for them sucking.
4. Casual players(or at least certain players) are an elitist cult, hiding behind their arcane rules determining what is appropriate and what isn't. They are no better than the tournament players they whine about, and probably worse.
Excuse me if I missed anything, but here's a retort:
1. If casual doesn't exist, we might as well go back to our lives and abandon this site. If trying to discuss exactly what it is, again, what is the point of these boards? I'm just trying to put a small point out for others to discuss: Playing "casual" is letting your opponent play the game. Its not difficult to build decks to prevent your opponent from playing the game. Doing so is a winning strategy, and the best strategy for winning in the game. Note that this statement can apply to everything, even tournaments. It just requires that you let your opponent play the game. If you are both playing top-tier tournament decks, your opponent has every opportunity to play the game. Its just that tournament decks are exclusive. You play a game against a deck like that with a bad newbie deck, or a multiplayer deck and there isn't going to be a game. Not everybody is good at this game.
2. So "Fun" is a metaphor for bad decks. People throw that word around so they don't have to play "good" decks and can just lie in the mud with their crappy decks? I assert that "fun" means both players having fun. For example: You're not that good at the game, and you play against a top-tier net-deck and somebody who can handle it and the game isn't fun. I can assure you of that. I play with one rule, I let my opponent play the game. Aside from that one caveat, I play the most focused, powerful and lethal deck I can come up with. Against that same bad newbie deck, I guarantee I'll win 19 out of 20 games. But I also guarantee that newbie will have a much better time playing me, because my deck(s) will let him actually play.
3. I've never said otherwise. What I do say is that you can play to win without playing to drive your opponent out of the game, and that is what I call "casual." One of the nice side effects of that is that no matter how bad the deck you're against playing is, they can still play their deck and make a game of it. Important point here--
**In regard to the statement about using "for fun" as a crutch to cover the fact that you suck, I put this out. I don't build decks to dominate the game from turn 1. Tournament decks are like that, I play against them occasionally. I usually decline to play against those decks, because there isn't really any point. They will establish control first, and that will be the game. My decks aren't designed to contest that. I build decks to let my opponents into the game, and then destroy them. It is a different game. I don't really look down on people who go the tournament-style road. I don't appreciate that they consider themselves superior since their decks beat mine. I'm not trying to play their game, and play by a different set of standards.
4. I'm assuming you've been hassled by people other than me, DUke. I've seen some elitism in you. You are biased against bad decks. You really look down on people who play them. I have no problem with people like that. We all start somewhere, and we were all bad once. Its a matter of playing them, showing them how the game works and teaching them the game. The line between tournament and casual is more than a little blurry but it does exist. The casual side does include bad decks and newbies, since they can't really compete on the other side. Knowing people like that are included in the style of magic I play, I don't try to exclude them, or call them names.
1. I am going to agree with Duke on this one. What is "casual" has been transformed through the progressive years of MTG, and the players associated with it. I thought I used to be "casual" until I qualified, twice, for a Pro Tour, and I was doing regular PTQ's, States, and Regionals. I was succeeding and progressing, compared to where I was in the past. I felt the stigma was being stagnant in the game, without progression or not one to reach a higher standard, and not succeed in tournaments. I don't count FNM. But, if you start making Top 8's, I don't think you are a "casual" player anymore. Although I considered this idea when I was in the grey line, in-between state, in playing this game. Either I could put more time and energy into and proceed into a "Pro" status, or stay mediocre.
The flip side to this argument is state of mind. What you consider yourself to merely be a 'decent' player, and you enjoy playing games with your friends than entering a PTQ. However, even those who randomly flip cards around on the weekend find themselves to be competitive, in nature, and will do what it takes, in the game's rules/limits, to win. This competitive drive, or nature, is what pushes you beyond being "casual". However, if you don't want to win, then you aren't playing a game; because essentially a game, by definition, is having the ability to win or lose, otherwise it won't fit the criteria. So I think this competition in the game is what makes "casual" seem like an unreasonable concept by definition of what a game is. Even most "casual" players enter FNM tournaments (and I presume the majority have), in which pushes you beyond the "casual" card flipping games around your kitchen table. Now, you are striving to win, and you've built a deck, and know the rules. There seems to be nothing "casual" about this behavior.
I disagree that without this definition this website doesn't have any real purpose. At one time, being a "casual" player meant those days of card flipping around the kitchen table with your buddies, without any real understanding of the rules, and whoever won wasn't of great importance than having that social interaction under one construction: MTG. This being the tying connection/bond.
Classifying 'tiers' of decks doesn't apply toward competitive or "casual" players. The reason is being from perspective, and the overall goal you are seeking in playing each deck against each other. Let's deal with perspective. If player A perceives his deck (random pile of green cards) to be not as good as player's B deck (Affinity deck) is a form of perspective. Does elite tournament play dictate 'tier's of decks over each other? Yes, but only in that tournament structure. Those playing Affinity decks pit against Mono-black will get a sense of how powerful Affinity is over the lesser Mono-black deck. However, if you take Affinity out of that scene, and put it into a FNM, with lesser decks in comparison to the elite structure, you'll see Affinity has taken on a different role. It won't win games as easily, and might lose to random pile of green cards. Trying to level the playing ground is fine, but don't try to define it by 'tiers' of decks.
Once upon a time long, long ago there was this individual Jamie Wakefield. He liked playing cards that were green. In fact, Jamie played what he liked, and at that time (during DOJO days) he could have been branded as a "casual" player. So, Jamie started playing bigger tournaments...and guesses what? He won! His deck was considered to be lesser than those in the tournament. After it won a few tournaments, they realized his approach had created another area of play, as you would say a "tech" deck. Jamie being a "bad player" won with his deck, where it would be considered "not a game". However, that turned out not to be true.
2. & 3 "Fun" is not a metaphor for bad decks. Using the Jamie example, fun is from whomever's perspective you are viewing it from-it is subjective. Allowing someone to play...doesn't make sense to me. I could have fun losing to an Affinity deck with a weak combo deck I'd constructed the night before. If you aren't having fun, it isn't because of the deck. The deck contributes to winning, in which is related to having "fun". Allowing your opponent to draw out the game, or as you call "playing out the game" is your way of not having anyone really win or lose. This being game is about winning, and limiting (key word here) your opponent's (I'll use a Texas Hold 'Em analogy here) "outs". You want to limit your opponent's option to win, and limit his time in playing out his deck. If you feel you want to merely throw cards back and forth, then your view of this game is dramatically different from everyone else's; everyone wants to win in all games regardless of competition, doing otherwise contradicts the definition of what a game is. Your conception of winning, or playing is as you state, "I build decks to let my opponents into the game, and then destroy them. " So, you still want to win, but you do it from a control aspect. But, you still want to limit your opponent in winning the game, regardless of how fast you do it. But I will confess that your viewpoint, and definition, is mildly confusing.
4. "Casual players(or at least certain players) are an elitist cult, hiding behind their arcane rules determining what is appropriate and what isn't. They are no better than the tournament players they whine about, and probably worse."
I have to agree with this sentiment, and especially in applied to this site. And this is coming from a 5 year veteran (enter laughter) who has contributed to this site. It is the attitude displayed here that is deemed elitist. It's true there are 'arcane rules' going on behind the scenes. Just take a peek behind the curtain and you'll see the forums with strict rules/game ethic questions that most "Pro's" don't contribute to on the same level as us. I don't think tournament players whine as much as they do on here. Seems rude for me to say this? Absolutely not. As a person who has come from "casual" to "competitive" (and near Pro) I've noticed the demeanor of individuals that don't want to enter bigger tournaments, play better decks, or strive to improve their game. It is this: They aren't good players, realize it, and settle for mediocrity. After all, not everyone can be good at this game. It is skill based, even with its luck factor (and if you disagree-look at Poker, in which has MORE luck factor but there are still dominating people).
I enjoy helping out my play group, or local players, build better decks or improve their game. But, I can honestly say there is a division of players. Some don't want to improve their deck. They enjoy losing, playing whatever deck they've constructed, and no reason to enter a competitive tournament other than a FNM. They've settled for mediocrity in their game-play. Their "Fun" is losing. Is losing bad? No, absolutely not, but it has a negative stigma around it. Losing in MTG is like running a 5k race. While you might be the last person across the line, you did what most won't: you did something, for your own good, regardless of who wins or loses. Don't get me wrong. Winning is essential in defining what a game is and it will separate those who are "casual" and those who aren't.
"The line between tournament and casual is more than a little blurry but it does exist."
You're correct, the line does exist. To me, it isn't blurry. Those who enter a PTQ, GP, States, or Regionals are deemed as tournament players. [ I would use FNM as an example but it is more of a social gathering ground for MTG'ers in local areas. ] The reason I say this is based on competitive behavior. Even if you go with a random green deck, expect to lose, and play with a "casual" nature, the very act that you wanted to play on a higher ground, with better players, means that you want competition.
"The casual side does include bad decks and newbies, since they can't really compete on the other side. Knowing people like that are included in the style of magic I play, I don't try to exclude them, or call them names."
As I said, defining what is a bad deck, or who is a "newbie" is all subjective. But, I will agree that acceptance in not playing tournament decks does separate you from playing on the 'elite' level. However, your 'bad deck' can win over the 'elite deck'. Style of play? I don't understand what you mean. And no one is trying to exclude "casual" players or calling names that have to create a division. After all, John Rizzo played with the Potato Nation team, a "Pro" team. Rizzo would clearly be defined, under your definition, as "casual", but he still entered tournaments, played with better players, and played horrifying bad decks. "Casual" has been transformed, and in my opinion no longer exists.
HOUTS
C) people do not come to the CPA often for tourney advice, they'll go somewhere else.