What does "Casual" play mean to you?

[Spiderman]

Not really... there are some out there (and maybe here) that suppose that their view or definition is absolute...

I also disagree about the rules. They may be "absolute" but it depends how you apply them. I don't play MTGO, but does it let you back up or take plays back? I know IRL, in friendly or casual games, we allow a little leeway in playing - take back a creature spell or if an upkeep is optional and a player misses it, let him go back and do the upkeep thing. Only a certain number of times, mind you, but the flexibility is there.

 

[Mikeymike]

Isn't this whole "to me" bit sort of redundant? Is anyone seriously going to interpret "the rest of what you said was true psycho-babble" as "the rest of what you said was true psycho-babble--to that guy over there"? It's so obvious that what you say can only originate from your own perspective.

Yes and no. For whatever reason, this topic always seems to generate a lot of animosity, along with a lot of opinion being pushed forward as fact.

And when taken in the context of the thread title, the "to me" in the response seems to fit well.

 

[Mooseman]

Thanks Spidey and Mikey........
Remember, if you can't laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at........

Well, there are gamers...... er..... I mean........ hey are you laughing at me......

 

[DÛke]

Spiderman, in MTGO there is no way you can take back a move you've made. Once you've chosen a course of action, or forgot to take one, for that matter, it is a done deal. And yet, the MTGO community still whines about some clear distinction between casual players and other players. It actually only proves Gizmo's, and my, point...

 

[Spiderman]

I'm not sure how it proves your point. It just tells me that MTGO strictly applies the rules. But like I said, you can't get much more casual than allowing take-backs or applying the rules judiciously in a game IRL.

 

[DÛke]

This is how it proves our point...

You say:

Spiderman:

But like I said, you can't get much more casual than allowing take-backs or applying the rules judiciously in a game IRL.

Given the fact that take backs are not allowed in MTGO, and since there are hordes of MTGO players who claim to be "casual," it goes to prove that "casual" play cannot involve take-backs or loose game play simply because "casual players" still exist in an environment where only the strictest rules apply.

This in return leads us to this: "what is casual, then, if it does not involve loose game play?" The only thing left to say is that it involves the deck itself. This is where Gizmo's argument comes in.

Gizmo:

if you're trying to win, even if you dont have a great deck (if youre making that deck as well as you can with the cards available and with the intention of winning as many games as you can, and you're playing it as well as you can with the intention of winning) then that's not casual, that's competitive.

Again, that's competitive.

So what is casual? When you don't want to win, when you deliberately give your opponent the chance to win, and, to make it short, when you're not playing the game.

Casual play = disregarding the game.

It's that simple.

 

[Spiderman]

Given the fact that take backs are not allowed in MTGO, and since there are hordes of MTGO players who claim to be "casual," it goes to prove that "casual" play cannot involve take-backs or loose game play simply because "casual players" still exist in an environment where only the strictest rules apply.

This is an example of faulty logic. It would work IF casual play solely meant take-backs. But it does not. Take-backs is just one facet of casual play (and I am hoping, one of the non-gray areas). But just because MTGO enforces the rules strictly, and there are players claiming to be "casual" in that framework, does not mean that the players are lying. They are simply working within a specific constraint (generally).

There is no set definition of "casual". It's as simple as that.

 

[orgg]

I was thinking about it last night, and I do think Gizmo has a good point, though I'd like to soften the definitions this way:

Tournament Style Magic is about winning at any (fair, rules-based) cost.

Casual Style Magic is about the game play itself, and not winning at any cost-- winning on your terms.


Also, Donate can be 'casual.' That is, if its not built just to push Grandeur off ASAP, and has other gameplans.

 

[Mooseman]

Question about MTGO:
If a player has a Braids in play, can either, or bith players "forget" to resolve it's triggered ability?

Does the software prevent players from making certain mistakes like this?

 

[DÛke]

Mooseman: No, they cannot "forget." The software will force the trigger unless something else counters it. Other than that, both players will have to abide by the trigger.

Spiderman:

It would work IF casual play solely meant take-backs.

The only other definition which can fit into casual is...how the deck is build. Which is what I also emphasized, and which is where Gizmo's point comes in.

 

[Mooseman]

Mooseman: No, they cannot "forget." The software will force the trigger unless something else counters it. Other than that, both players will have to abide by the trigger.

So then, MTGO and playing with "the cardboad crack" are not the same.......
So how does one define the other?
By the constraints of the software, MTGO "casual" play must follow the rules strictly and players are prevented from making certain types of procedural errors.
This doesn't hold true for non-MTGO play.

 

[Spiderman]

Sorry, I still disagree. I can see many deckbuilds where you are not giving your opponent a "deliberate chance to win", yet can still be casual. Not using Affinity to its cutthroat edge, but just using some of the Frogmites and Artifact lands (who knows, maybe it's an amphibion deck), for example.

It's not the optimum build, but neither is it "deliberately giving your opponent a chance to win".

And as I said, take-backs are just one facet of casual play. There is "one or the other", "if it's not this then it's this" definition.

 

[Gizmo]

Sorry, I still disagree. I can see many deckbuilds where you are not giving your opponent a "deliberate chance to win", yet can still be casual. Not using Affinity to its cutthroat edge, but just using some of the Frogmites and Artifact lands (who knows, maybe it's an amphibion deck), for example.

It's not the optimum build, but neither is it "deliberately giving your opponent a chance to win".

If you made a decision making your deck that you didnt want to make the deck as strong as you could then you were deliberately and knowingly improving your opponent's chance of winning. You believe your deck would have a better chance of winning if you used them but chose not to. That's casual. That's using a mechanic but deciding not to follow it through to it's inevitable and unpleasant conclusion because you dont want to play the game that way.

If you simply didnt own the rare cards and would use them if you could, then that's not casual that's being competitive, just badly competitive.

 

[Mooseman]

Gizmo - So using good or rare cards is being competative, but not using them is casual?
I have seen tournamnet players create rouge decks that didn't necessarily use the good or rare cards, but they felt the deck was competative.........

 

[DÛke]

Um, Gizmo didn't say using good or rare cards is being competitive. Read it again.

What he said is this: if you build the deck to the best of your abilities, using the best cards you have - no matter what the quality of your cards are - you are then being competitive.

"Casual" is when you intentionally don't use all your avaliable resources and knowledge, which in return improve your opponent's chance of winning. Suppose you could Cranial Extraction (which is a hot rare) your opponent for the last kill method they have in their deck but instead you choose not to play it because you realize it is a very powerful card which will completely shut off your opponent's deck once and for all. In this case, you are being "casual" in that you are intentionally not using the avaliable cards to you. At the same time, you are not playing the game simply because you could have made a very critical move, but instead chose not to. That's not playing the game.

Now, suppose you are using a cheap card: Distress. It's all you could afford. You play them in your brand new MBC deck because you realize you will need them in order to control your opponent and thereby eventually win. Sure, if you had the funds you'd pay for more expensive cards like Cranial Extraction, but all you could afford is Distress. Now, this is being competitive in that you are using the cards you think you will need, with the knowledge avaliable to you, in order to build a deck that can win. That is being competitive.

As you can see from these examples, it's not about the rarity of the cards, it's about the attitude. Casual attitude = intentionally not playing the game. Competitive attitude = simply playing the game.

 

[Killer Joe]

Is it possible to be Casually Competitive?

I mean, I expect to win every single time I sit down and play. However, I rarely play in sanctioned tournaments anymore.

I suppose many folks might draw a correlation between tounament play and competitive play, I would think that's only natural. But how about a correlation between casual play and competitive play? I like to win. In fact, that's an understatement, I like to DOMINATE my opponent. But because of that I am not allowed to assume the self-title of Casual Player?

Of course I can, silly rabbit! I'll can I.D. myself anything I want to, but I also have to accept that others might disagree with me about calling myself casual and that's their right (note: not that THEY ARE right, just a right to have THAT opinion).

Gizmo once said I should belong to the STPA (Struggling Tournament Players Alliance), is that a place for the Casually Competitive? If so, I'm in!

 

[Gizmo]

I dont think thats very casual at all, really.

What's confusing the issue is emotional and qualitative baggage that people are bringing to the discussion that means casual = good and competitive = bad. Remove all that baggage and look at it objectively. In the end you can class yourself any way you want, it's all just artificial definitions anyway. But to me competitive is not synonymous with either tournaments, or success, it's about your mental attitude to the game - be it in PTQs or 8-player moshes with your regular play group.

 

[Killer Joe]

I dont think thats very casual at all, really.

What's confusing the issue is emotional and qualitative baggage that people are bringing to the discussion that means casual = good and competitive = bad. Remove all that baggage and look at it objectively. In the end you can class yourself any way you want, it's all just artificial definitions anyway. But to me competitive is not synonymous with either tournaments, or success, it's about your mental attitude to the game - be it in PTQs or 8-player moshes with your regular play group.

<The RED ZONE is for unloading only.>

Alright, with THAT said I can shift my paradigm to admit I'm competitive. Now what? It won't change how I play in my play groups (yes, I have several I play with), some players in them I might now consider "competitive" so whoop-tee-do!

Here's the next question then: Is it ethical for "Competitive" players to prey on the casual?

I word it like that just to ruffle someone's feathers

 

[orgg]

In a tournament, I paid an entry fee. I am there for one of two reasons-- Either to be the 8th player so the tournament can run and seven others arn't dissappointed, or to win every bit I can and get the top prize or trade the prize for something more valuble to myself. Here, I build to the best of my ability, do research, and try and build the best deck I can that my budget can afford. In a tournament, I play to WIN.

However, I always have some silly deck or possibly two for inbetween rounds. Inbetween rounds, I chat if not a conflict of intrest ('Judge, what card is a better 23rd card...' is conflict of intrest, 'how does this card work' or 'can you help me fix this deck I'm about to enter into a constructed tournament I've only played a few months' arn't). I pull out a hundred card Conflip/Randomness deck. I pull out my Four Color Poison featuring both Magic: The Gathering and Havic: The Bothering cards in sleeves. I pull out non-Magic games. I'm playing for fun. I havn't paid a penny for the privledge, and nothing is on the line. I'm flying casual.

With that said, define 'taking advantage of,' Yellowjacket. The only thing I can think of is 'I'll give you these twenty five rares that I'll never be able to use for your $10 tournament staple'

 

[Oversoul]

The only thing I can think of is 'I'll give you these twenty five rares that I'll never be able to use for your $10 tournament staple'

Oh man, that's how got most of my rares!