The question of questions: What is casual?

[DÛke]

CasualOblivion. Chillout.

 

[HOUTS]

1. HOUTS, DUke, and possibly Gizmo. You two(three) have made it quite clear that you play the game of magic far more competitively and intensely than what I have come to know as casual play. You(HOUTS and DUKE) also seem to have little regard for those who play less seriously than you guys do. You call me opinionated and elitist. I just try to advocate less serious play as a legitimate form of this game. Its you guys who turn up your nose and start calling people names.

2. Multiplayer games. I find with my friends they all basically prefer it. I'm the odd one out in not really liking to play that way. Less serious decks tend to do better in multiplayer than in one-on-one, and those are the sort of decks the people I know prefer to play.

3. The article. I'm kind of curious to see it. I'm not sure I trust HOUTS to speak for me as a casual player. He has his own opinions, and doesn't seem to have respect for others.

These are the kind of responses that make me sigh....

1. I have to reply to your remarks not because I think you're opionionated, but I feel you're wrong.

"You two(three) have made it quite clear that you play the game of magic far more competitively and intensely than what I have come to know as casual play."

I am puzzled at this remark. I have a question for you! Do I play this game competitively? Or am I a casual player who plays competitively? Or, am I just the typical "casual" player? When you state, "have come to know", are you prescribing it as the typical "casual" definition? Or, are you in the minority? You see, as I have argued, there isn't the A-typical definition that used to reside. It has transformed, the game has transformed, and so have the players. So, while you say I am different from you (Competitive vs. Casual), I say we are really in the same category. If you don't believe this, then please go back and reread my remarks in the forum.

Also, I've played this game since Alpha. I've played Multi-player games, played all-night games with random decks, and still play old school decks with my friends. You act as if I don't understand, or I have transgressed beyond your level of thinking. But I DO understand. While I might play competitive games, I still play all the games you and your friends do. We aren't unalike. You are trying to separate yourself from Duke, Gizmo, and I, while we are trying to unite.

The other problem I have is with your ignorance, and I don't mean to offend you with this comment, but when someone doesn't have the information and then spouts out a falsehood...well, I have a problem. Have you ever read any of my articles? Which part (at least the ones written here) demonstrates I don't have the same kindred spirit as you? I've written articles on 5-Colored, and actually was with FiveColorFatMan when he started it all up. I've written articles on casual play, and cheating, etc. So, I have to say you are SO far off the handle on this.

"You call me opinionated and elitist"

Actually I never said you were “opinionated nor elite". I didn't specifically target you with the "elitism". I said this on a whole. The difference is....I didn't name YOU! However, I have said there is an elitist attitude. Do you know what we meant by that? Can you at least address that issue?

"I just try to advocate less serious play as a legitimate form of this game. It's you guys who turn up your nose and start calling people names."

What names did I call you? Um....maybe I forgot.

What do you think we are advocating with our replies? LESS serious game play. I mean, seriously, this has to be a very ignorant statement.

Have you read ANYTHING I have said (if not Duke)?

Seriously!

This is just plain wrong. Don't write again before you reread my remarks! I've attacked the whole 'politics' concept that people were ranting about. I felt there was no need to make it more complex (multi-player game) than it has to be. I've attacked the idea of a specific definition of what a "casual" player is. BUT, I don't know if I am right. I've put out the question (even in an article on this site) to hear some feedback. The response? Weak....
Where is this enthusiasm for this site?

Do you want to help promote this site and show, that you don't have to be a Pro player in order to catch player's attention and there is a flip side to the competitive games? Wakefield and Rizzo were great contributors. Don't we want more like this? I am asking you these questions and not talking to you. I want an answer. Put forth something; less ad hominine.


2.

"Multiplayer games. I find with my friends they all basically prefer it. I'm the odd one out in not really liking to play that way. Less serious decks tend to do better in multiplayer than in one-on-one, and those are the sort of decks the people I know prefer to play."

Yes, YOUR friends play multi-player games. And so do mine. But you don't see us making a generalization. Not everyone is the same. CPA doesn't equate Multi-player games.

I've said this before, and I'll repeat it. It isn't the quality of decks but the people that make the games. Serious or less serious decks, no one cares. You might prefer to less serious decks, but don't presume that is how it should be across the board. Don't get me wrong, you are welcome to your opinion, but saying we are wrong is hypocritical.

3.

"The article. I'm kind of curious to see it. I'm not sure I trust HOUTS to speak for me as a casual player. He has his own opinions, and doesn't seem to have respect for others"

I don't care if you trust me or not. I am going to do it. Even Ferret (who has more of a reason NOT to want to support me) has given me the thumbs up.
Why? Because I've written quality articles in the past, and I am (even if you disagree) still putting out these questions.

I'll gladly reside that I am the "bad guy" of this site. I don't care. However, who else has stepped up to do anything? Sefro, Notepad, is the only other individual who tries to help out this site and promote.

I don't have respect for SOME people because they've earned it. I am willing to put that aside to write something of quality. You want it to be good? Then contribute! And, oh, having opinions is not problematic. It is if you have an opinion and can't open up to both sides.
I am willing to do that, what about you? I'll be posting anyone's ideas/concepts/thoughts/opinions IN my article. I won't exclude anything. So, offer something up! I'll put it IN the article and then LET people decide.
Lastly, why is that someone who is so opinionated, hated, etc putting so much time and energy into this article?


HOUTS

 

[Mooseman]

"Yes it does, most casual players prefer multi-player games"

Wow, this is so wrong, and your trying to make a generalization.

HOUTS

No, it isn't wrong. It's my opinion and my experience.
Please don't quote your earlier statements and a way to substantiate your line of reasoning.

Of course I am making a generalization, what do you think the original question was? A generalization.

 

[HOUTS]

No, it isn't wrong. It's my opinion and my experience.
Please don't quote your earlier statements and a way to substantiate your line of reasoning.

Of course I am making a generalization, what do you think the original question was? A generalization.

Wow, the hypocrisy.

Do you ever read what you write? Please reread.

You attacked me for making a generalization and then lead off defending your course of actions with a....generalization.

Good job.

And yes, I will use my own statements to substantiate what I've said because you KEEP forgetting.

And yet again, you've yet to answer any questions or offer up anything.

I am waiting.

HOUTS

 

[Mooseman]

Wow, the hypocrisy.

Do you ever read what you write? Please reread.
You attacked me for making a generalization and then lead off defending your course of actions with a....generalization.
Good job.
And yes, I will use my own statements to substantiate what I've said because you KEEP forgetting.

And yet again, you've yet to answer any questions or offer up anything.

I am waiting.

HOUTS

Actually I didn't "attack" you at all, I was responding to duke.
Originally Posted by DÛke
I rarely play multiplayer games, and more than a part of me actually doesn't like such games. Does that reflect on my playing attitude?

My response to you was saying that I was wrong in my opinion, that is not a generalization, you specifically said I was wrong.

Nice try though.

I don't forget what you say, I just don't agree.
Your statements are not taken as axioms to this discussion.

 

[HOUTS]

Actually I didn't "attack" you at all, I was responding to duke.
Originally Posted by DÛke
I rarely play multiplayer games, and more than a part of me actually doesn't like such games. Does that reflect on my playing attitude?

My response to you was saying that I was wrong in my opinion, that is not a generalization, you specifically said I was wrong.

Nice try though.

I don't forget what you say, I just don't agree.
Your statements are not taken as axioms to this discussion.

I'd continue on with this bickering, but you are utterly wrong. Anyone who can read (english required here) will see your nonsensical retorts and falsehoods.

I'd suggest anyone else who replies to future forum discussion to read everything through before replying.

Mooseman is a good example of what goes wrong in the line of communication if you don't keep up.

HOUTS

 

[Mooseman]

I'd continue on with this bickering, but you are utterly wrong. Anyone who can read (english required here) will see your nonsensical retorts and falsehoods.

I'd suggest anyone else who replies to future forum discussion to read everything through before replying.

Mooseman is a good example of what goes wrong in the line of communication if you don't keep up.

HOUTS

Maybe I was wrong about you.
Resorting to ranting and raving and accusations.
BTW - plaese leave out anything I have said or e-mailed you about the article you are writing. I'm sure you wouldn't use it anyway, since I am utterly wrong.

 

[TheCasualOblivion]

HOUTS: You say you have a point and just don't deconstruct/tear apart linguistically the posts of other people. What do you call your last few?

P.S. Most of the people who read what I write here, and almost everyone who knows me back in real life knows perfectly well I'm one of the most opinionated people alive. That being said, I look back on what I've written and on the whole, I have not come anywhere near the acidic tone you take in your postings. I make no apologies for being opinionated, or stating these opinions agressively, but I do try to do so in a civil tone. Ask yourself, am I doing the same?


P.P.S. On calling what I wrote above "deconstruction". My opinion above is not about your language or content, which is what I mean by "deconstruction". It is about your tone. You try to tear apart what people say word for word, and call it "meaningless" and "ill-conceived". I don't buy that. What me and others have said is clear enough, and I think you understand perfectly well. You just don't have or don't care to make an argument(you have made some at times, I'm strictly speaking of the times you did not), and simply trash the words of others in a harsh tone instead.

 

[HOUTS]

Maybe I was wrong about you.
Resorting to ranting and raving and accusations.
BTW - plaese leave out anything I have said or e-mailed you about the article you are writing. I'm sure you wouldn't use it anyway, since I am utterly wrong.

Immature. Please grow up.

If you are wrong...I'll call you on it. This is just your attempt to make myself look like the bad guy in which I am fine with. However, you are utterly wrong. Sorry, but it is tiring when you don't keep up with the conversation and then just write things that aren't true.

HOUTS

HOUTS: You say you have a point and just don't deconstruct/tear apart linguistically the posts of other people. What do you call your last few?

P.S. Most of the people who read what I write here, and almost everyone who knows me back in real life knows perfectly well I'm one of the most opinionated people alive. That being said, I look back on what I've written and on the whole, I have not come anywhere near the acidic tone you take in your postings. I make no apologies for being opinionated, or stating these opinions agressively, but I do try to do so in a civil tone. Ask yourself, am I doing the same?


P.P.S. On calling what I wrote above "deconstruction". My opinion above is not about your language or content, which is what I mean by "deconstruction". It is about your tone. You try to tear apart what people say word for word, and call it "meaningless" and "ill-conceived". I don't buy that. What me and others have said is clear enough, and I think you understand perfectly well. You just don't have or don't care to make an argument(you have made some at times, I'm strictly speaking of the times you did not), and simply trash the words of others in a harsh tone instead.

I have to tear apart what people say because of the bitterness the resides beneath any opinion. I am tired of reading things that are poorly written, without any thought, and then criticize others.

Take your time out to read and THEN write.

I do not need a civil tone. I've admitted to my harsh attitude only because of the attitudes put out here. As I've said before, I offer up something constructive, and all I receive is negative remarks. You even admitted your very opionionated. Good for you. What you call trashing, I call interpreting the liberal garbly-gook.

Sorry all, but I have little patience for immaturity and ignorance.

Sound harsh? Well, you should be on this side of the computer. But, keep em coming in. Whatever makes you feel better.

But I don't want to hear anything from people who will say "What have you done for this site" in the future.

Grow up, and learn to seperate your differences.

HOUTS

 

[DÛke]

Guys, as big of a smile this is putting on my face, I don't think there is any progress being made. Frankly, whether they mean to or not, TheCasualOblivion as well as Mooseman seem to be "set in stone," so to speak.

I like opinionated people. It shows character and preference. What I don't like is a closed-minded discussion, all too ill-informed and careless when paying closer and respectable attention to the words of others, all disguised as being "opinionated." No, sorry. There's a fine line between being a dogmatic idiot and on the other hand an opinionated mastermind who simply knows he is right, or at least not wrong, when all points are considered.

This is not the first time something like this happens. I actually admire HOUTS’ nitpick style of reading the posts. It shows he's paying attention, and a lot of it. That more than many people around here can claim. I myself faced the problem when we talked politics: people didn't read very well and just decided to "get the gist" as opposed to actually think through about what it is being said. It's an uphill battle, for the intelligent person actually, because he's faced with an audience that's ignorant, wants and likes to be ignorant, that can easily disintegrate any point given by nonsensical and misinformed "conclusions" vaguely and abstractedly "drawn" from the arguments he presents.

The bottom line is, HOUTS, Gizmo, and I try to see more into the term "casual," and actually give it its respectable and profound meaning that engulfs a variety of people and styles. Other individuals try to restrict this meaning, however subtly and indirectly. Which is why there is also an "elitism" notion felt by more than one of us. It's also the reason why I strongly have come to believe that the term "casual" in common cases doesn't mean anything more than a person who plays one or so styles and demands, for no logical, or even illogical reason, that everyone else plays as such, or else they're not playing "right," or else they're not fit enough to be considered so and so or this and that. The term "casual" is not as much of breezy and lighthearted term as it may have once used to be: it has acquired many ugly faces and undertones, like everything that ages, it too aged, and has now grown old and unfit, in the very least, unable to point back at what it is "exactly" that it defined, if anything.

 

[Mooseman]

Mooseman seem to be "set in stone," so to speak.

Really? Because I don't take to being insulted and ranted at?
Clearly you have insight that others do not..... hahahahahaha

This is a discussion board, not a referendum on what a few people think.
Discuss, don't rant and point fingers.

BTW - check the posts again to the one where I have conceded a point to another...........

So who is set in stone? Me or HOUTS, who makes a long-winded initial post and then proceeds to use that post as the reason why he is right and everyone else is wrong.

Are you people old enough to be on this site? If, so I belive it is time to grow up.

It was a fairly decent discussion until the ranting started.

 

[TheCasualOblivion]

I have to tear apart what people say because of the bitterness the resides beneath any opinion. I am tired of reading things that are poorly written, without any thought, and then criticize others.

Take your time out to read and THEN write.

I do not need a civil tone. I've admitted to my harsh attitude only because of the attitudes put out here. As I've said before, I offer up something constructive, and all I receive is negative remarks. You even admitted your very opionionated. Good for you. What you call trashing, I call interpreting the liberal garbly-gook.

Sorry all, but I have little patience for immaturity and ignorance.

Sound harsh? Well, you should be on this side of the computer. But, keep em coming in. Whatever makes you feel better.



HOUTS

So, disagreeing with you is considered bitterness or negativity? Immaturity and ignorance? Thats what it sounds like. I have strongly held opinions. Does the fact that I'm not really inclined to be persuaded by you make me an idiot or not paying any attention to what you say?

Interpreting the liberal garbly-gook? I'm not trying to overanalize that, I'm just curious what you meant by that.

Last of all this is a message board, and in the end, nothing we do here matters. That is probably why me, and a lot of other people here don't put in the effort to rise above poorly-written, without any thought, or failing to deeply read other posts. I'm not doing this for a grade, and I'm not being paid for it. This is a diversion. I mostly come here while I'm doing other things, like work for school, or downloading music, or making Ebay transactions. Checking my mail, keeping up with the news, that sort of stuff. Then there is the fact that the computer is on in the room where I spend most of my down time. I will take a break from socializing, watching TV, cleaning, or doing other more constructive things to check this board. I frankly have a lot of things in my life more important than this board, and I'm sorry if I don't take my postings, or yours for that matter, all that seriously.

 

[TheCasualOblivion]

The bottom line is, HOUTS, Gizmo, and I try to see more into the term "casual," and actually give it its respectable and profound meaning that engulfs a variety of people and styles. Other individuals try to restrict this meaning, however subtly and indirectly. Which is why there is also an "elitism" notion felt by more than one of us. It's also the reason why I strongly have come to believe that the term "casual" in common cases doesn't mean anything more than a person who plays one or so styles and demands, for no logical, or even illogical reason, that everyone else plays as such, or else they're not playing "right," or else they're not fit enough to be considered so and so or this and that. The term "casual" is not as much of breezy and lighthearted term as it may have once used to be: it has acquired many ugly faces and undertones, like everything that ages, it too aged, and has now grown old and unfit, in the very least, unable to point back at what it is "exactly" that it defined, if anything.

You kind of make both my point and yours here DUke. Picking out the most important line:

The bottom line is, HOUTS, Gizmo, and I try to see more into the term "casual," and actually give it its respectable and profound meaning that engulfs a variety of people and styles.

So what your saying is that casual should include people like you guys playing a more competitve and advanced style than the average idiots playing multiplayer with "piles of random cards" I have no argument with that. Playing casual magic can be anything and everything.


The point I think you guys miss is that casual is defined not by you, but by a common agreement between you and the person you are playing against. The fact is that the sort of play you guys describe wouldn't really be welcomed by my friends who basically are bad players playing multiplayer with "piles of random cards". As long as you guys are playing people who welcome your decks and your playing style you guys are indeed playing casual magic. One person cannot define a "friendly game" alone.

The only way you can definitively define yourself, your deck, or your style of play as "casual" is to play in a way that anyone, no matter how bad or uncompetitive they are, would consider a game with you as a "friendly game." Anything else requires a spoken or unspoken agreement between you and the person you are playing against.

 

[DÛke]

CasualOblivion:

The fact is that the sort of play you guys describe wouldn't really be welcomed by my friends who basically are bad players playing multiplayer with "piles of random cards".

That's not "casual" Magic, dear CasualOblivion. That's more like playing casually. There is a great difference between playing "casual" Magic, which is what we are discussing here, versus playing Magic "casually." Subtle difference, but there nonetheless.

CasualOblivion:

The only way you can definitively define yourself, your deck, or your style of play as "casual" is to play in a way that anyone, no matter how bad or uncompetitive they are, would consider a game with you as a "friendly game."

Although you're more right in here than a lot of the things you have said before, this is still not quite it. Just because someone can have a friendly game doesn't make them "casual" players. It only makes them good human beings.

 

[orgg]

A casual game, to me, is one that both participants enjoy in one aspect or another, and each player has the intent to make the game fun for both players.

Thus, some kind of lockdown deck might not be serious, but it's not very casual. It is possible to appriciate the deck and still be a casual player, however.

 

[TheCasualOblivion]

That's not "casual" Magic, dear CasualOblivion. That's more like playing casually. There is a great difference between playing "casual" Magic, which is what we are discussing here, versus playing Magic "casually." Subtle difference, but there nonetheless.Although you're more right in here than a lot of the things you have said before, this is still not quite it. Just because someone can have a friendly game doesn't make them "casual" players. It only makes them good human beings.

Let me ask a question then. Are you saying that playing "casually" is NOT playing "casual"? Therein lies the question I think we all have been arguing about. It really sounds like you and HOUTS are arguing that, for example, either "playing multiplayer with piles of random cards" or "playing a lesser deck in order to provide a more enjoyable game for both you and your opponent" is not casual magic. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm just asking if that is what you mean? The two of you do at least seem to have at least some contempt for that sort of magic. Or are you guys arguing that us idiots(those who play less intensely than you) shouldn't have the say of what is casual and what is not? You guys do have a sort of superior attitude, simliar to the superior attitude of tournament players, and both your and their superiority seems at least somewhat based in the fact that "us idiots" generally will lose to you when we play against each other.

I still stand by my statement-Casual magic is defined by an agreement, either spoken or unspoken, about what constitutes a friendly game between the players involved.

A point to be made is that a person playing a fast, tight deck with deep strategy playing against "some idiot who plays multiplayer using random piles of cards" isn't really much of a friendly game, especially not to "some idiot."

One question to ponder is-Is "some idiot who plays multiplayer using random piles of cards" a casual player? If he isn't, what is he? Is he really capable of being anything else?

Another question is-Lets say you're a pretty good and experienced player. Is playing idiots who can't stand up to you a "casual" game to you? Is this something you try to avoid? I'm trying to understand the other side of that equation.

 

[Gizmo]

I dont know what you're reading before you reply TCO, but it's certainly not what anybody else has written on this thread.

You are OUT THERE man.

In my opinion HOUTS article should be really short...
"Casual is as casual does"

The.End.

Another question is-Lets say you're a pretty good and experienced player. Is playing idiots who can't stand up to you a "casual" game to you? Is this something you try to avoid? I'm trying to understand the other side of that equation.

If you step down the power level of your deck either by playing a different deck, or deliberately playing your deck badly, then yes. You dont learn anything from playing bad players or bad decks, so theres no point treating them as practice for a tournament. If you play at all, its for the enjoyment of the game, and that requires interaction between players.

 

[TheCasualOblivion]

I dont know what you're reading before you reply TCO, but it's certainly not what anybody else has written on this thread.

You are OUT THERE man.

In my opinion HOUTS article should be really short...
"Casual is as casual does"

The.End.

I'm just asking a simple question. DUke stated that there is a difference between playing "casual" and playing "casually." I'm just asking if they are mutually exclusive, and if that is the point of all the arguing that has gone on here.

I think a point here that is becoming apparent is that there is some friction between different levels of what for the sake of argument I will call how good a player you are. For example: the differences between someone playing a tightly tuned deck with advanced strategy, to my favorite example "some idiot who plays multiplayer with random piles of cards." I think the better players don't like the attitude they get from lesser players who give them an attitude after losing to them.

If you step down the power level of your deck either by playing a different deck, or deliberately playing your deck badly, then yes. You dont learn anything from playing bad players or bad decks, so theres no point treating them as practice for a tournament. If you play at all, its for the enjoyment of the game, and that requires interaction between players.

I brought up this thought before, and believe it or not I had some people argue against it...

You state this right there "...its for the enjoyment of the game, and that requires interaction between players." This is the point I've been arguing since the beginning: interaction between players. Tournament quality decks almost universally have the ability to eliminate interaction between players, especially against bad decks. Its what they are designed to do, and its the most effective way to win at this game. This is what I think separates the casual game from the tournament game more than anything. Certain decks that are less competitive still retain this ability to eliminate interaction between players, even though they may not be a tournament deck. Take for example, the simple mono-blue control deck that pretty much anyone can put together, is a nightmare for any casual deck to deal with, and gets endless complaints by those who can't deal with them. Is playing a deck like that to win considered casual never, always or sometimes?

I think the problem DUke and HOUTS have with all of this is that people who play more "casually" than they do can say that they are not casual players. Stepping down your power by either playing your deck badly, or reaching for a lesser deck for example. Both DUke and HOUTS call that sort of play nasty names. HOUTS has stated that playing outside the rules, be it take-backs, or enforcing rules that may not yet be fully understood by new/lesser players, and allowing them to replay and fix their mistakes is outside of the game of magic and should not be done in any situation.

They make the argument that this interaction between players is irrelevant, and that playing to win is the only thing in this game. Going easy on your opponent, just playing for the interaction is a non-item. DUke and HOUTS believe that they are casual players no matter what, no matter how or what they play. Or at the very least, "casual" does not exist and we are arguing over nothing. They say this friction between what I will call playing badly-more specifically playing a slower deck built to do well in multiplayer or just not knowing how to build an effective deck, and playing well and doing everything you can to win is not an issue. The weaker players will lose, and lose badly and learn from it.

They either play to at least try to eliminate the interaction between players, or at least believe that doing so is just another way to play this game. People who play less competitively, and do not play that way and do not like playing against decks like that can go jump off a cliff.

Its not an equal situation I must admit. "Idiots" can say that players like HOUTS and DUke aren't "casual" because they don't play as hard. HOUTS and DUke think that they have every justification for playing the way they do and don't apologize for it. Meanwhile, the better players do have some justification for what they do in the fact that, when things come down to it, they win. They don't feel they should dumb down their decks or their play just because they win.

I guess this discussion is just talking about which is right and which is wrong. For myself, using some of Gizmo's words, I play for the enjoyment of the game, and to me that requires interaction between players, both me giving the courtesy of letting my opponent play out his/her deck and expecting the same in return.

 

[DÛke]

Magic the Gathering. It's a game. Therefore it has rules. Because it has rules, and only because it has rules, it's a game. The object of any game is winning. Enjoyment is a consequence of playing the game, not the objective of the game. Therefore, Magic the Gathering is a game in which the objective is to win. Consequently, and only thereafter, one may find ways to enjoy the game and the path to victory. If a deck is built so that there is no means of winning or "doesn't care" for such means, it has lost sight of the objective of the game, it's not playing the game, therefore it's not fun.

We are all here assuming that "challenge" = "fun." If yo don't agree to that, then we don't even have common ground on which we may argue.

I certainly think "challenge" = "fun." I know I have tons of fun playing my decks, the fun only intensified by the possibility of victory, no less. As for my opponent? There is one way, and only one way, for him to enjoy himself: if he, too, had built a creative and interesting deck, which is able to stand a challenge, pave a path to victory, while being immensely interesting to play.

To place the responsibility on me, that I should play a certain type of deck and certain types of cards to allow my opponent to "play out his deck," to entertain the muse of some other players, that automatically shoots a bullet at the very essence of the concept of "game," which is "challenge," which in return damages the very concept of "fun." Take away the challenge and you've taken away all the fun. And you've killed the game, too.

If I had a deck I'm happy with, and my opponent had a deck he's happy with, does it matter what we think of each other's decks? Not really. Because we are content with our own creations that we don't have to stick our noses where it certainly doesn't belong. We play. We might lose. At the end, we enjoy ourselves. But we might win. And then, we would not only have enjoyed ourselves, but we would have met the actual objective of the game.

To play with disregard to these very basic principles, the principles of gaming (any gaming), of challenge (any challenge)...well...by now, you're not even really playing at all, and the term "casual player" doesn't apply not because you're not casual, but because you're not even a player to begin with.

So the real greatest of great questions turns out to be: are you really playing the game at all?

 

[Limited]

Take away the challenge and you've taken away all the fun

I think this is exactly the point. You indicate that in order to feel the presence of "challenge", there must not just be the ability to win. There must also be the ability to lose.

Playing all out against someone who has a "random pile" is no fun at all; you could declare a win before even drawing your hand. At this point two possibilities arise: The other is forced to play a better deck (which is a very valid drive for becoming a better player) or you should downgrade your deck.

The first possibility has some implications; the other player has to invest time and money to improve the deck and playing skills, which is not something all players have. These people will not enjoy playing with you and might stop playing all together, just because you forced them to spend their money.

The second possibility means you have to change in order to find your challenge. Putting together a "bad deck" can be loads of fun, but playing it can really test your skills as a player. Is this no longer "playing the game", as you put it?

I think this is THE way to play the game. For me, playing these downgraded decks have become the main reason to play the game. And most games I have fun, even if I lose.

As for casual players with an equal cardpool; go for the win! Build your killer deck.