The question of questions: What is casual?

[DÛke]

Other observations about "casual players."

• When a game doesn't go their way, they don't think it was a casual game.
• In MTGO, they invented terms like "thief" (people who use cards like Confiscate, Bribery, Acquire...etc), "discard junkie" (people who play more than 8 or so discard spells, or who know how to use discard spells to maximum effect), "counter whore" (anyone who plays Islands, regardless if they have counters in their deck or not).
• More than any other players, they are the ones more bent to conceding to a round when just 1 of their spells was countered, or 1 of their creatures destroyed. They don't try at all and give up easily. Weak mentalities.
• They are the ones who write down a long list of what type of match they're looking for: "Testing deck. please no discard, counter, LD, control, islands, method of winning. thx " What the hell are the smilies supposed to mean here?
• As a matter of fact, they are the one's who think it's funny to "lol" someone when they've just pulled a "smart move." Not that it's rude, but if I wrote "lol" for every trick I've pulled I would have "lolololololololololololololololololol x 10^10000."
• Their idea of a "friendly match" is one in which they will more likely win than lose, but "have fun in the process, of course!"
• So far, they're the only players who disconnect from the server when they're not doing so well.
• 99% will not hesitate to rip you off in a trade. All my MTGO friends are tournament players and they are some of the most honest and friendly people I've ever come across in the Magic community in general. As an experiment, I went to the casual trading room once and said I'm looking to trade my Kokusho for a Keiga (the real value of Kokusho to Keiga is 1 Kokusho = 3 Keigas, and even more, actually), I get so many responses so fast, and not one of them offered to tell me the real value of Kokusho. When I told them it was just an experiment, they called me manipulative. When I tried to argue, the best response I got was this: "if it was true, you can't blame anyone for it because it's up to you to know the value of the cards." Really? Whatever happened to dealing with other with integrity and honesty?

Of course, I can go on. And yes, I know that no one person or group of people can represent "casual players." But one must face up to the facts: I know more deluded, spiteful, dishonest "casual" players than any other type of players.

If anything people must at least admit that there are ugly things under the term "casual" and is being abused by a very different sub-specie of players out there who are far from being what the term "casual" implies.

 

[jorael]

I wonder what the average age is of those online players that you describe.

Casual certainly isn't the word I would choose to label their behavior....

 

[Spiderman]

I actually agree with most of what HOUTS said, which (to me) basically expands on what I said in my very first post in the thread. Except this:

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.

Not sure what you mean by "arcane rules". The game ethic questions that come up is because "casual" IS looser by nature than how "Pros" play: you're not going to see table talk from spectators in a tourney match (and if you do, usually there's a penalty for that sort of thing). I'm not sure if the "official" WOTC MP rules cover table-talk though - that's kind of faded out of the limelight.

Didn't you hear? Casual magic bans islands. I thought everyone knew that.

I must not have gotten the memo

DUKe: I agree with jorael - some of that is just immature behavior, I'm thinking "casual" applies more to the game environment and its settings.

 

[DÛke]

My point is that they call themselves "casual players." It goes to show that certain entities falsly portray themselves for other reasons than the probability that they are "casual players." Hence my warning against those people who call themselves "casual" and use the word a lot to defend what they "believe" in...

 

[Killer Joe]

The line drawn in the sand, that is.

Casual-Hater (R) or Elitist (D)? The term "Casual" can only be answered internally. What is casual to YOU may not be what is casual to me <period!>

However, as for the name calling, it ought to stop.
Signed - Hipocrit

 

[Spiderman]

I agree. Gizmo's last two "paragraphs" are unnecessary.

 

[Mooseman]

Well, I described every physical Magic tournament I've ever been to. I've witness rampant cheating, harassment tactics...people can and will do everything they possibly can in order to win. Nobody smiles. Nobody has fun, unless they win every game they're in...and if they don't, they raise a huge ruckus, belittle their opponents, and generally act like jerks. And at the only large-scale tournament I've ever been to, my opponent resorted to name-calling, bent my cards (quite deliberately, in that he looked at me and grinned as he was doing it), and generally acted like a total jerk. I define casual as "not that".

Being a DCI judge for around 7 years, I have run or helped run 100's of tournaments and yes these thing do happen. I have also seen alot of this happen in non-tournament games too.
Yes tournament players are more focused and determined, because they have a goal and are trying to acheive it. Casual players, as I am one, are playing for the enjoyment of the game, and that includes, but is not defined by, winning.
In "casual" play, I will put togather a deck in 10 minutes and see how it works, or build a deck around one card (and not a really good one) to see what happens. I would never do this in a tournament, where I paid money to play, that would be nuts.

Casual is simply playing for the fun of it and winning is fun.
Non-casual or "tournament" is playing to win, which can be fun.


Sorry about the quote, how do I make it look nice and neat as the others?

Thanks Spidey......

 

[Spiderman]

You have to end it with [/ quote] (without the space). I did it for you

 

[HOUTS]

I actually agree with most of what HOUTS said, which (to me) basically expands on what I said in my very first post in the thread. Except this:


Not sure what you mean by "arcane rules". The game ethic questions that come up is because "casual" IS looser by nature than how "Pros" play: you're not going to see table talk from spectators in a tourney match (and if you do, usually there's a penalty for that sort of thing). I'm not sure if the "official" WOTC MP rules cover table-talk though - that's kind of faded out of the limelight.

Reread what Duke said. Now look up the definition of 'Arcane'. What "Arcane Rules", in application to what I said, meant the secret, or pretigious (elitist) rules and attitudes within the community.

"The game ethic questions that come up is because "casual" IS looser by nature than how "Pros" play"

This is a contridiction in terms. You are saying that ethic questions, which are complex and not simple in nature, arise because"casual" than the "Pros". But, if look, you'll see several forums with discussions over these complex ethics and philosophical issues. The other forum I was writing on this site had to deal with someone playing incorrectly in a multi-player game. He felt the "multi-player politics" were incorrectly used in his game. This doesn't sound like a casual environment. This is just the beginning of it all...
There is nothing loose about this uptight group (CPA). If you truly believe this, then you're disillusioned. I've agreed, and you have also, of this elitism attitude here. And table talk doesn't back up this loose nature on here. I don't see the connection. Because "Pro's" don't talk (which is FAR from the actual truth because I know plenty who do...) it means what? They aren't as "casual"? Sorry, very confusing anology with an unclear connection.


HOUTS

 

[Spiderman]

Reread what Duke said. Now look up the definition of 'Arcane'. What "Arcane Rules", in application to what I said, meant the secret, or pretigious (elitist) rules and attitudes within the community.

I know what it means. What I was asking was exactly what "arcane rules" are you referring to, because I'm not aware of any.

This is a contridiction in terms. You are saying that ethic questions, which are complex and not simple in nature, arise because"casual" than the "Pros". But, if look, you'll see several forums with discussions over these complex ethics and philosophical issues. The other forum I was writing on this site had to deal with someone playing incorrectly in a multi-player game. He felt the "multi-player politics" were incorrectly used in his game. This doesn't sound like a casual environment. This is just the beginning of it all...

It's not a contradiction at all. Because "Pros" play by "tighter" rules, you know whether you can table-talk or not and what the penalties are (concerning single dual, not MP). Therefore, you don't need to ask such ethic questions because you know in that setting whether it should be done or not.

Because "casual" is a loose definition that no one can agree on (as shown by this and previous threads), greater misunderstandings occur because the "rules for play" are not nailed down tight. Thus, questions arise.

There is nothing loose about this uptight group (CPA). If you truly believe this, then you're disillusioned. I've agreed, and you have also, of this elitism attitude here.

I said that there could be a perception of elitism. I personally don't believe it myself.

Because "Pro's" don't talk (which is FAR from the actual truth because I know plenty who do...)

So are you saying that in a tournament, spectators can give advice to players without penalty? As that's the context or definition I was using "table-talk" in my post you just replied to.

 

[Mooseman]

So are you saying that in a tournament, spectators can give advice to players without penalty? As that's the context or definition I was using "table-talk" in my post you just replied to.

There is a specific rule for this in DCI sanctioned events and the players are not the ones who have final say on the resolution of a disputed rule, it's the head judge's realm of authiority.
In "casual" play the players themselves have to resolve these types of disputes.

That is one of the big differences between "casual" and "pro" games.

Truthfully, the elitie or not elite argument about this site is inane.
I come to this site to read about the "casual" game and not listen to ranting about attitudes.

Dang, I got the quote thing right this time.....

 

[HOUTS]

I know what it means. What I was asking was exactly what "arcane rules" are you referring to, because I'm not aware of any.



It's not a contradiction at all. Because "Pros" play by "tighter" rules, you know whether you can table-talk or not and what the penalties are (concerning single dual, not MP). Therefore, you don't need to ask such ethic questions because you know in that setting whether it should be done or not.

Because "casual" is a loose definition that no one can agree on (as shown by this and previous threads), greater misunderstandings occur because the "rules for play" are not nailed down tight. Thus, questions arise.



I said that there could be a perception of elitism. I personally don't believe it myself.



So are you saying that in a tournament, spectators can give advice to players without penalty? As that's the context or definition I was using "table-talk" in my post you just replied to.

1. I just explained what 'arcane rules' is. Reread what I said.

2. It is a contridiction in terms. You can't say one thing is looser while the definition itself derives of 'complex' qualities. Maybe your not sure what you meant to say, but it came out wrong. Table talk in a friendly game doesn't compare to those who play competitively ("Pros") because they are two different states. If you wanted to make a transition, you'd have to make a connection. I don't see it. Ethics/politics/rules does NOT make this site more casual by definition. There are more debates (like this one) over simple logic than those by "Pros". They don't argue, as I have said, over such these small issues. They don't argue over what Player A and Player B might have done in a casual game. Why? Because that would take away the whole point of 'playing casually', and only making more of an issue over it, makes it complex, in which wouldn't make it a casual game for them. However, on this site, too many players want to make rules in their "casual" games, in which makes it opposite of loose, and actually makes it complex.

"greater misunderstandings occur because the "rules for play" are not nailed down tight"

But, can't you see the obvious? This site is supposed to be "casual" but you are saying there are so many 'misunderstandings' over "rules of play" in which are simple in nature. Meaning..."Pros" don't argue over these "rules of play" because they aren't necessary. They play on a different level, and their "casual" games don't need explanation because the rules for MTG are already there. These are very two seperate issues. I think you are confusing both.

"So are you saying that in a tournament, spectators can give advice to players without penalty? "

It doesn't apply, as I said above. Two different environments.

"There is a specific rule for this in DCI sanctioned events and the players are not the ones who have final say on the resolution of a disputed rule, it's the head judge's realm of authiority.
In "casual" play the players themselves have to resolve these types of disputes."

He nailed it on the head.



HOUTS

 

[Mooseman]

"Pros" don't argue over these "rules of play" because they aren't necessary. They play on a different level, and their "casual" games don't need explanation because the rules for MTG are already there.
HOUTS

I would have to disagree. There are many discussions on what constitutes things like unsporting conduct and coaching that the "pros" chime in on. It's an excersize in defining what the rules should or should not cover.
Collusion is a big issue that has been revised by DCI more than once and there was a lot of input from players and judges.

Is there a spellcheck on this thing, I need one....... sorry for any spelling atrocities.

 

[HOUTS]

I would have to disagree. There are many discussions on what constitutes things like unsporting conduct and coaching that the "pros" chime in on. It's an excersize in defining what the rules should or should not cover.
Collusion is a big issue that has been revised by DCI more than once and there was a lot of input from players and judges.

Is there a spellcheck on this thing, I need one....... sorry for any spelling atrocities.

You needed to read my whole arguement. The "Pros" don't argue over the semantics of "casual play". That is what I was stating. I wasn't remarking on the rules within their higher level of play, but that of their "casual" games. Those games don't have the same arguements this site does over such semantics. Just a little clarification.

HOUTS

 

[DÛke]

DÛke:

Truthfully, the elitie or not elite argument about this site is inane.
I come to this site to read about the "casual" game and not listen to ranting about attitudes.

You come only to read about casual games. Ok. Well some of us have been rather a little more active than others. That meaning we know a little more about each other than, say, a casual bystander who is here every now and again and only for the game's sake.

Once you actually get to behold some of the attitudes, it's harder to deny and the argument becomes less "inane."

Of course, few people will be glad to say I'm an elitist. It's hilarious.

 

[Mooseman]

You needed to read my whole arguement. The "Pros" don't argue over the semantics of "casual play". That is what I was stating. I wasn't remarking on the rules within their higher level of play, but that of their "casual" games. Those games don't have the same arguements this site does over such semantics. Just a little clarification.

HOUTS

Ok, I'll concede that point to you.

But the reason "casual" players do have these discussions is to improve the entertainment value of their "casual" games.
We have modified some rules for casual play to level the playing field for all players (mulligans, "take-backs" and such). If some of these modifications help others enjoy their casual games then this site was of some assistance.
(We are going to try the alphabet style deck building restrictions, soon I hope)
Somethings are done at the "pro" level because of the enviroment and what is invested in it, where the "casual" enviroment has less invested.

I for one would hate to win easily everytime, although I do want to win everytime. But, when the game is over, where you finished is meaningless if it wasn't fun.

We have 4 DCI judges who play in our group and it could easily become tournament style, but we prefer a less strict/more casual style of entertainment.

Maybe some people at this site do look down on "Pro" players or style of play, I haven't been around long enough to decide, nor do I care, but then others look down on the "casual" player or style of play.

I hope I'm making some sense in this rambling reply........

You come only to read about casual games. Ok. Well some of us have been rather a little more active than others. That meaning we know a little more about each other than, say, a casual bystander who is here every now and again and only for the game's sake.

Once you actually get to behold some of the attitudes, it's harder to deny and the argument becomes less "inane."

Of course, few people will be glad to say I'm an elitist. It's hilarious.

Is this the "we're like a family defense" . hehe
Sorry I couldn't resist.

But really, the discussion started as a question of what is casual and turned into a fight about being an elitist. Although HOUTS and I have degenerated into a useful and civil discussion.......... disgusting......... hehe

 

[HOUTS]

Ok, I'll concede that point to you.

But the reason "casual" players do have these discussions is to improve the entertainment value of their "casual" games.
We have modified some rules for casual play to level the playing field for all players (mulligans, "take-backs" and such). If some of these modifications help others enjoy their casual games then this site was of some assistance.
(We are going to try the alphabet style deck building restrictions, soon I hope)
Somethings are done at the "pro" level because of the enviroment and what is invested in it, where the "casual" enviroment has less invested.

I for one would hate to win easily everytime, although I do want to win everytime. But, when the game is over, where you finished is meaningless if it wasn't fun.

We have 4 DCI judges who play in our group and it could easily become tournament style, but we prefer a less strict/more casual style of entertainment.

Maybe some people at this site do look down on "Pro" players or style of play, I haven't been around long enough to decide, nor do I care, but then others look down on the "casual" player or style of play.

I hope I'm making some sense in this rambling reply........

Yes, your points are making sense.

Let me remark on this statement: "But the reason "casual" players do have these discussions is to improve the entertainment value of their "casual" games.
We have modified some rules for casual play to level the playing field for all players (mulligans, "take-backs" and such). If some of these modifications help others enjoy their casual games then this site was of some assistance."

I really don't see the reason to discuss games that supposed "casual". Reread my main arguement against the actual definition of "casual" players. The definition, standing alone, exudes no boundaries. If there are "take-backs and such" then the game is going outside of the actual rules of MTG. Meaning-it is not a typical game. So, why would you make rules to govern those games that go outside the games own rules?
See what I mean?
This is an oxymoron.
Why not just play how you like? What justification do you need from others over games that go outside the boundaries? If you are within your own playgroup, since each playgroup has their own rules, what clarification would you need over your own rules?

And isn't leveling the playing field actually making another playing field such as those of competitive level; and isn't this contridactory to how the games should be approached and played? Should "casual" games be on a level field, when each playgroup abides to their own rules/guidelines?


HOUTS

 

[TheCasualOblivion]

It's not a contradiction at all. Because "Pros" play by "tighter" rules, you know whether you can table-talk or not and what the penalties are (concerning single dual, not MP). Therefore, you don't need to ask such ethic questions because you know in that setting whether it should be done or not.

Because "casual" is a loose definition that no one can agree on (as shown by this and previous threads), greater misunderstandings occur because the "rules for play" are not nailed down tight. Thus, questions arise.

Certain things that happen often in casual games I've played in and seen:

Infinite 7 card mulligans until you get 2 land

Showing your opponent your hand for no good reason

Taking back a play, either offering your opponent to correct a mistake, or him asking permission to take it back and you granting it

Going out of turn-drawing before upkeep, playing a land before you draw, ect.(I see this a lot!!)

Asking bystanders what you should do

My personal rule: Unless I'm playing somebody whose decks I know can challenge mine, my opponent always gets to pick play or draw

Looking at your opponents hand and telling him what to play and honestly trying to help him/her(mostly with newbies)


I've seen "pros" look on in horror at some of this behavior

I still stand by my statement:

A casual(friendly) game is basically about letting your opponent play the game.

This statement can be perfectly true about two people playing each other with tournament decks. Both decks are in the same ballpark power wise, and should give each other a decent game. This can also be true of Spiderman's mono-blue control deck, if in fact he's playing against people who have a chance of standing up to that. Two guys I know at the local store like playing Legacy-type combo decks, Sneak attack, Enchantress and the like. They pack these with Chrome Mox, and Mox Diamond and I've seen their decks go off turn 2. They really aren't tournament tuned, they just play these for the combos. What they don't do is beat on people who have no business playing against decks like that. That is friendly play.

I carry 14 decks when I go play. Some are better than others. If I'm playing a newbie, or someone I know who plays less serious decks, I will always grab one of my worse decks, and never reach for my R/B beatdown deck, or my U/W/r control/Lightning Angel deck. Its just the nature of a friendly game. I know those decks are a little too much for a newbie or goofball deck to handle, so I leave them in the box and grab one of my lesser decks.

 

[DÛke]

I guess it depends on the nature of the opponent you're facing, CasualOblivion, but I would be rather offended if you would grab one of your "lesser" decks because you think I’m a "newbie" or a "goofball" who for some reason can't handle it.

The only reason why I play the way I play today is because I lost a good number of times, and not to "fun" decks either.

There is much wisdom in losing than in winning, as a matter of fact, and if you can't offer that little to your opponents, you aren't being fair. In this case, what you might call "friendliness" I easily might call "offensive pity." Additionally, I wouldn’t want you to think one of your decks is “too hot to handle,” whether I’m a newbie or a goofball or an idiot…I would think I deserve a fair trial.

But then again, that depends on the opponent's attitude. If the opponent would think it's friendly of me to play my weaker decks, chances are I don't want to play against him or her not because they are new to the game, not even because they're idiots, but because my principle of a friendly match goes beyond "weaker" and "stronger," "winner" and "loser." You yourself said that "we all start somewhere." Well then! Why not let them face all that you have to offer, albeit, with civil manners and charm? That makes you more of a casual player than anything else...

 

[HOUTS]

I still stand by my statement:

A casual(friendly) game is basically about letting your opponent play the game.

This statement can be perfectly true about two people playing each other with tournament decks. Both decks are in the same ballpark power wise, and should give each other a decent game. This can also be true of Spiderman's mono-blue control deck, if in fact he's playing against people who have a chance of standing up to that. Two guys I know at the local store like playing Legacy-type combo decks, Sneak attack, Enchantress and the like. They pack these with Chrome Mox, and Mox Diamond and I've seen their decks go off turn 2. They really aren't tournament tuned, they just play these for the combos. What they don't do is beat on people who have no business playing against decks like that. That is friendly play.

I carry 14 decks when I go play. Some are better than others. If I'm playing a newbie, or someone I know who plays less serious decks, I will always grab one of my worse decks, and never reach for my R/B beatdown deck, or my U/W/r control/Lightning Angel deck. Its just the nature of a friendly game. I know those decks are a little too much for a newbie or goofball deck to handle, so I leave them in the box and grab one of my lesser decks.

Sorry, I hate to do this...but you're wrong with this statement:

"A casual(friendly) game is basically about letting your opponent play the game."

If you are letting your opponent "Play out the game", with means noone is trying, if not attempting, to win, then it is NOT a game. This is by definition. And you've not provided a definition of your own, so what you're saying is not correct. Nor does it make sense. If you want to merely flips cards, why not just go play "War", or a game that doesn't try to win?


Another confusing sentence:

"This can also be true of Spiderman's mono-blue control deck, if in fact he's playing against people who have a chance of standing up to that."

So, this really doesn't have to do with good decks vs. bad (although, as I've stated, that is based on 'tiers' and environments) and not with actually "playing it out". I'm sorry, but I don't understand it. I've encountered people who will ask what deck you're playing and then saying "Yes" or "No". They aren't playing MTG for the "fun" of it I say. You're merely selecting individuals that allow you to flop your cards on the table, in which serves no real purphose to what a game (by definition is) of MTG (how it is played out).


"They really aren't tournament tuned, they just play these for the combos. What they don't do is beat on people who have no business playing against decks like that. That is friendly play"

What is tournament tuned? You weren't specific here. Competitive or not? I seperate PTQ's, GP's, States, Regionals, and PT's from local and FNM tournaments. They are both seperate environments. I presume you mean a local or FNM, in which these decks are viable. And playing with a combo deck means they are trying to win as fast as they can (if it isn't fast, it isn't a combo deck) and limiting their opponents chance of winning. They COULD beat people if the learned, or wanted, to tune the deck. So, that means they have settled for losing with their decks. Is it friendly play? No. Individuals make friendly, or "fun" play, not a deck.




HOUTS