Pandora's Deckbox: Understanding Commander as a Social Format
Pandora's Deckbox
Epochalyptik
14 July 2014
8024 views
14 July 2014
8024 views
Introduction
You've probably heard it before. Every Commander player has.
"EDH is a casual format."
But is it really? There's a lot of debate about whether Commander is a casual format or not. Many people think of it as one, even if they can't articulate why exactly they think it is.
This is intended to be a comprehensive, stand-alone article (although it's still part of the Pandora's Deckbox series).
Table of Contents
1.0: Defining Casual, Competitive, and Social
2.1: "Commander is a casual format."
3.1: The playgroup as the basic unit of the social format
3.2: The centrality of the playgroup in Commander
4.2: What about Commander tournaments?
5.0: Why Is It Important to Think of Commander as a Social Format?
6.0: Venturing Outside the Playgroup
6.1: How to approach a new playgroup
6.2: How to receive a new player
6.3: The setting should inform your expectations
1.0: Defining Casual, Competitive, and Social Before we can get any further into the debate, we need to define some terms. Whenever this article references "casual," "competitive," or "social" as terms or ideas, it will be referencing the definitions in this section. A consistent and established set of definitions will allow us to make sense of the debate as a whole. 1.1: Casual Casual:
1) (in reference to players) Tending to value the experience of a game more than the results
2) (in reference to formats) Not structured or organized so as to prioritize victory or certain results
1.2: Competitive Competitive:1) (in reference to players) Tending to value the results of a game more than the gameplay.
2) (in reference to formats) Structured so as to promote a more organized experience; organized around a ranking system that rewards victory
1.3: Social Social:1) (in reference to players) Tending to value the experience of a game within the context of an inter-player bond
2) (in reference to formats) Structured so as to promote interaction and camaraderie between players
1.4: Bringing them together It's relatively easy to think of casual and competitive as opposites. The Magic community tends to think of them in this way already. For the most part, this assumption is accurate; if we consider casual vs. competitive to be a continuum where "true" casual values only the gameplay experience and "true" competitive values only the results, then most players will fall somewhere between those two extremes. The continuum is perhaps the best representation of the casual vs. competitive debate because almost nobody can be accurately classified by either terminus. For example, competitive players value the results of the game, which means they value victory. This doesn't mean that competitive players cannot value fun or experience; rather, it means that victory is prioritized before other experiences. Definitionally, social players appear to be more like casual players than competitive players because of their priorities, but any player can exhibit social qualities. Granted, social qualities tend to coincide with an emphasis on gameplay experience, but remember that experience and results are not mutually exclusive priorities. Let's make the model more complex: say our casual vs. competitive continuum is represented by an X axis, and "socialness" is represented by the Y axis of the same continuum. In this model, any player at any point on the continuum can demonstrate social qualities. Although casual players are empirically more likely to be social players, socialness must be represented independently because it is still an independent quality.2.0: The Core Debate Most Magic players start out as casual players. They get into the game because their friends play around the kitchen table on weekends, or because they think it might be a fun hobby. Generally, new players don't start out by jumping directly into a competitive environment like Standard or Modern. As players grow more accustomed to the game, they tend to also become more receptive to the idea of participating in events such as FNM. Because FNM, and sanctioned formats in general, are structured according to tournament protocol and organization, they inherently produce a more competitive environment than kitchen table play. For many, the kitchen table game is the epitome of the social experience. It is a game governed only by the players experiencing it and their mutual understanding of what Magic should be. Perhaps because the tendency is to drift from this self-regulated environment into the more structured competitive environment (although this drift isn't forceful and doesn't preclude someone from enjoying games in both environments), players are often of the opinion that social and competitive are opposites. This is untrue, as was described above. 2.1: "Commander is a casual format." Commander began as a social format. Regardless of the debate between casual and competitive, this much is true. The intent of Commander is clearly outlined on MTGCommander.net in the Philosophy section:
Not only does the RC use "social" as the operative word, its explanation makes perfectly clear their intent for Commander to promote camaraderie through the shared experience of a game of Magic. The misconception that Commander is a casual format typically stems (1) from the observation that Commander is an informal, non-sanctioned format most frequently played in a kitchen table setting and (2) from the conflation of casual and social. Commander is, at its core, a social format. It can be experienced in casual or competitive ways, but the social aspect remains engrained in the format.Commander is designed to promote social games of magic.
It is played in a variety of ways, depending on player preference, but a common vision ties together the global community to help them enjoy a different kind of magic. That vision is predicated on a social contract: a gentleman's agreement which goes beyond these rules to includes a degree of interactivity between players. Players should aim to interact both during the game and before it begins, discussing with other players what they expect/want from the game.
House rules or "fair play" exceptions are always encouraged if they result in more fun for the local community.
3.0: More Theory In order to fully understand Commander's identity as a social format, we need to dig deeper into the theory and principles that govern it. 3.1: The playgroup as the basic unit of the social format The basic "unit" of a social game is the playgroup. Whether it consists of two, four, or more players, the playgroup is the collective that chooses to experience the game together. Generally speaking, members of a playgroup have a shared understanding of what Magic means to them as an experience. That is what brings the players together in the first place. Social formats as a whole are defined by these playgroups and their collective philosophies. It is the playgroup that defines the range of experiences that are expected and acceptable within the group. 3.2: The centrality of the playgroup in Commander Because Commander is a social format, and because social formats are defined and governed by the groups that play them, the playgroup is, necessarily, central to Commander. The playgroup defines Commander's form and function according to the players' shared understandings, expectations, and wishes. Part of what makes Commander so appealing as a format is the degree of autonomy afforded to the players themselves. An official ban list exists, but the RC recommends that it be used as a suggestion and not an absolute unless playing outside of your playgroup (we will address that particular situation later). Players are allowed, and even encouraged, to change the ban list and other format rules as they see fit. Why? To provide a more enjoyable experience for those playing the game. These decisions need to be made collectively. Typically, problems between players in a game of Commander stem from differing philosophies within the playgroup itself. While it isn't strictly necessary for everyone in a playgroup to have an identical perspective on the format and the game in general, it is necessary for everyone in a playgroup to agree on the important aspects of the game. For example, a playgroup that differs in stance regarding combos or certain other strategies will experience difficulties when these particular topics become relevant in the course of gameplay. However, minor disagreement over topics such as which deck is best or what cards are good is unlikely to fragment a playgroup. 4.0: The Real Issue The debate about whether Commander is a casual or competitive format is an indication of the real issue that plagues Commander: disharmonious composition of playgroups. When players in a social game have discordant philosophies about how the game should be played and what is or is not acceptable, then the playgroup is bound to encounter severe problems at some point over the course of play. Take, for example, the one nightmare scenario of casual Commander players everywhere: the rogue competitive player who sits down at the table with a combo deck. The problem in this case is not that the competitive player is using a combo deck, or even that he or she is a competitive player at all. The problem is that the competitive player is playing outside of the accepted bounds of the rest of the playgroup. The situation is effectively the same if the preferences are reversed and the casual player is the minority. Players are more than welcome to hold their own philosophies. What they aren't welcome to do is dictate others' experiences according to their own philosophies. Often, Commander's "casual purists" get their start when a competitive player sits down for a game with them and, intentionally or not, disrupts their gameplay experience. This is certainly unfortunate, but the blame must be placed on the individual rather than on the entirety of competitive Commander players. Again, Commander is a social format; it is not necessarily casual or competitive as a whole. The playgroup makes that determination on its own. Blaming the entirety of a demographic of players for the fault of one is one of the greatest disservices any player can do to any other player in any game. 4.1: The solution The solution to this problem is simple enough in theory: play Commander as it was intended to be played. By establishing the terms of the social contract before the game, players can prevent disagreement and soured experiences during the game. The onus is on each player to respect all other players and the situations in which those players are encountered. In essence, the solution is to be a good sport and a decent human. 4.2: What about Commander tournaments? Perhaps the most notable exception to the collectivist rule of the playgroup is the one that arises in Commander tournaments. When Commander's social structure is nested inside the competitive structure of a tournament, it's likely that disagreement will occur. Done right, Commander events can be a great deal of fun for all involved. Too often, however, organizers and players get too caught up in idealism and fail to address reality. Tournament structure breeds competitive spirit. When prizes are on the line, they typically encourage players to become more result-oriented. This is the basic premise of incentivization and reward. Organizers and players should expect that a tournament will promote competitiveness, and they should acknowledge that competitiveness is not a bad thing. Unrealistic expectations are the bane of the tournament experience. When casual players feel entitled to have casual games in a competitive environment, or when organizers pressure players, or are pressured by players, into denying the experience to certain demographics on nonsensical grounds, the experience becomes both degraded and degrading. In organized play, the organization of the many supercedes the desires of the individual. While it should certainly never be the case that a tournament is unfun for all involved, and while tournament organizers should do their best to preserve the fun of the game within logistically feasible bounds, players need to understand that they are neither entitled nor forced to play in these tournaments, and that, should they choose to play, they are consenting to government by the tournament structure. It is a willing contract made by the individual player. Worth special mention is the tendency of Commander tournament organizers to overcomplicate tournament structure in an attempt to please everyone. It's realistically unlikely that stringent modification and regulation of the tournament and format rules will be beneficial to the vast majority of players. Typically, this is demonstrated when organizers attempt to institute policies excluding certain decks, cards, or strategies on the grounds that they are "too competitive" for the event (which is, at the most basic level, a competition). I will not discuss the "best" methods for organizing and governing Commander tournaments. That is easily another article unto itself. I will, however, recommend that tournament organizers seeking to host Commander tournaments be well aware of what their player base wants and what rules would be both realistic and fair. Don't try too hard to please everyone. There are several fables about how that doesn't work. 5.0: Why Is It Important to Think of Commander as a Social Format? 5.1: Non-exclusion Believing that Commander should or shouldn't be casual or competitive is tantamount to arguing that players of the other preference should not be permitted to play Commander as they want to play Commander. This is a flagrantly selfish and narrow perspective for any player because it attempts in the name of self-gratification to deny others the right to enjoy the game. Furthermore, it goes against the principles on which Commander was founded and on which it continues to operate to this day. Players have a right to enjoy the game in the manner they wish, provided it doesn't detract from the quality of others' experiences. This idea is based largely on an archaic concept called "The Golden Rule," whereby people are encouraged to be mutually civil and respectful. If your preferences don't cause others justifiable distress, then you should be permitted to play according to your preferences. Souring the gameplay experience for someone else is justifiable distress. Holding a different philosophy from someone else is not justifiable distress. 5.2: Depth of experience Commander derives its depth from allowing players to collectively regulate the group experience according to mutual expectations and values. If the ability of players to experience and experiment is limited, then the format will also be limited. The greatest depth of experience is had when players are enjoying the game. Sometimes, experience is deepened by venturing outside of the playgroup's typical comfort zone, but the critical difference between acceptable and unacceptable digression is, rather simply, whether the playgroup accepts it or not. If the playgroup does not approve, then stay within the mutual limits. If you want to experiment beyond that, find a playgroup that can accommodate you and that you can accommodate in return. 5.3: Guilt-free experience You should never feel bad about playing a certain card or deck within your playgroup, and you should never feel forced to tune your decks down or up to meet the playgroup's demands. If you find that any of these is the case, you should look for another playgroup or open your current playgroup to discussion about change. Remember, though, that they should not feel compelled to depart from their philosophies just as you should not feel compelled to depart from yours. The ideal playgroup is one that feels like a close group of friends. That's exactly what it should be. Each player should feel welcomed by each other player, and, in turn, should welcome each other player. If something about the dynamic is missing or off, address it and try to fix it. 6.0: Venturing Outside the Playgroup In some cases, it may be necessary to venture outside of your existing playgroup (or to find your first playgroup). Perhaps you want to get into the format, or you moved to a new area, or your old playgroup wasn't a good match. Whatever the reason, remember that respect and camaraderie are the foundations for a strong bond with your prospective new playgroup. In all cases, remember that players should be operating according to the baseline established by the RC unless otherwise specified. That baseline was established precisely so there would be some uniformity and familiarity across expectations. While playgroups are welcome to customize the experience, they need to also make known any differences from the baseline. 6.1: How to approach a new playgroup Whenever you approach a new playgroup, whether you're asking for a 1v1 game with someone else or looking to join a table of players, the onus is on you to explain what kind of game you'd like to play and to ask whether the other party is interested in that kind of game. Don't assume that the other players will be receptive to your philosophy. It would be nice if they were, but they are welcome to have their own philosophy, and they aren't obligated to change it to accommodate you. If the other party is interested, propose a game or ask to join the next one. If they aren't, move on politely. 6.2: How to receive a new player When another player joins your playgroup, make sure you inform him or her of any house rules and other relevant differences between your playgroup and the baseline established by the RC. Remember, you're welcome to customize the format, but the changes need to be made evident to newcomers so they aren't unpleasantly surprised when something happens differently from they might have been expecting it to happen. Also, you aren't obligated to ask the newcomer for a life story, but you shouldn't be standoffish, either. If you welcomed him or her into the playgroup, then everyone should feel comfortable enough with one another to have an enjoyable game together. 6.3: The setting should inform your expectations In cases where expectations aren't clearly defined, let the context inform your expectations. You're reasonably able to expect that a tournament will be competitive, and that the table of players using out-of-the-box preconstructed decks might be more on the casual side. When possible, check before making an assumption. It's best to know for sure. 7.0: Conclusion This article should have, by now, covered the majority of the debate and theory that governs Commander politics. Some things may have slipped through the cracks, so feel free to discuss the article or its premises. I may edit the article accordingly. Ultimately, Commander is meant to be a means for players to embrace the social experience in a refreshing way. It's intended to promote friendship, fun, and camaraderie, but the players themselves need to work together to make that happen. In many senses, Commander is a utilitarian format; players should govern it based on what they agree is in the best interests of everyone in the playgroup. This means that playgroup selection is the most critical decision any Commander player makes. Players should feel comfortable with one another and with the rules the group sets forth. Play as you want to; there shouldn't be any coercion or heartache over a friendly game. Remember also that each playgroup operates in its own way, as it should. You are not entitled to enforce your philosophy on any playgroup. You are, however, welcome and encouraged to discuss expectations with one another and reach a mutual agreement, whether that agreement be the terms of a new game or that you will go your separate ways and find a more suitable group. In some cases, it may not be possible to find or switch to another playgroup. In these situations, you must do the best you can. Play within the existing playgroup if it suits you. There are also online options; some online Magic communities are receptive to like-minded newcomers and might welcome additions to the playgroup. Branch out. In the unfortunate event that you cannot find another playgroup, stay with the format and try again from time to time. Commander is a wonderful experience, and it is wholly worth pursuing if you find that you enjoy it.
Epochalyptik says... #3
@Matsi883: Thanks for the reminder. I botched the pub date. Everything's updated and ready to go, so give it another read.
@Tyrannosary: Now that the full article is up, make sure you reread it. I address the "Commander is a casual format" myth and the pitfalls of EDH tournaments.
July 14, 2014 11:09 p.m.
That was a great informative article and also very well written.
July 14, 2014 11:52 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #5
I would contend that if you want to add the 3rd variable of "social" to the casual/competitive spectrum that it not be added as a separate axis. I think that you would need to do it as a ternary plot of player expectations. Although that is digressing from the central premise of this article.
My only disagreement with what you have put forth is the tone of the "Commander Tournaments" section seems a bit derisive to TOs that run points based EDH tournaments. I would rebut anyone saying that a tournament must cater strictly to competitive players with the conclusions of two of your points in that section.
players need to understand that they are neither entitled nor forced to play in these tournaments
tournament organizers seeking to host Commander tournaments be well aware of what their player base wants and what rules would be both realistic and fair
If the TO wants to hold an event with prizes to the people who were able to accomplish the most of a pool of certain "fun objectives", and not reward prison control or infinite combos; as long as it is made clear at registration that it is a points based tournament; I feel that is as valid an event as "game wins or bust" events.
July 15, 2014 12:16 a.m.
SwiftDeath says... #6
This was a great article. I have used several of your previous articles to help explain to my friends different concepts of magic and this is no different. I think that this will help with some of the problems that I am currently having with a few of the players in my group and I think that this will open up some room for new ideas.
July 15, 2014 2:07 a.m.
Epochalyptik - do you not feel that point number 5.3 somewhat jars with the message of the overall article? You make it very clear that commander revolves around social expectation and contract; which I feel is incompatible with the message that you should not have to tune your decks up or down and make different card choices etc based on your playgroup.
If the playgroup has a contract saying something like 'no infinite combos' (as an example) then that necessitates the players to alter card choices, and perhaps tune decks up or down accordingly. If a player who is aware of the playgroups wishes then does proceed to play an infinite combo deck then maybe they should feel bad - because they've gone against contract and etiquette.
If the answer is to find a new playgroup then we can draw two conclusions. 1) it is sometimes necessary to alter your deck based on a certain playgroups wishes (or leave), and 2) you should feel bad if you spoil the social experience (and should leave or change your deck).
What are your thoughts on the dichotomy between self-regulation and freedom in comparison to meeting the wishes of the group?
July 15, 2014 6:53 a.m.
Epochalyptik, you are a fantastic writer and have proven that you are extremely good at explaining ideas and philosophies about commander.
Thanks for making these articles, they are very interesting and quite helpful.
Keep up the great work :)
July 15, 2014 7:18 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #10
@Gidgetimer: That's neither here nor there; I figured more readers would be able to imagine a traditional X-Y plot.
4.2 is not intended to be derisive, but it is appropriately strong. My primary contentions are that players should anticipate competitive orientation when playing in a competitive structure and environment, and that the prize and point structure must be chosen based on a fair assessment of the players rather than an outright desire to exclude one group or another. Of course, people aren't automatically entitled to tournament play, and they aren't forced to enter, but tournaments should still be designed such that they cater to the audience they're looking to attract.
@ChiefBell: The intent of 5.3 is to illustrate that playing in a friendly game with mutual expectations should never feel like the story of Harrison Bergeron. It's true that decks will need to be tailored to the specific needs and rules of the playgroup. However, it's about perception. If the player perceives that he or she is forced to strengthen or weaken the deck, that's usually a good indication that he or she wants a different experience from the one agreed upon by the playgroup. Players shouldn't feel remorse or compulsion when playing the game because it suggests discordance with the playgroup's social contract. Forcing a player to make changes is as much a sign of disharmony as one player coming to the group and playing a deck way outside of the accepted bounds of that group.
Maybe I'm overcomplicating this part a bit, but modifying your deck to be in line with your friends' expectations shouldn't feel like a restriction of your freedom because you share those expectations. It should feel more like deckbuilding and playtesting. Objectively, you are strengthening, weakening, or at least changing the deck, but that shouldn't be the immediate perception.
July 15, 2014 8:13 a.m.
Great article, although I would emphasize the playgroup over the deck. I think how you play an EDH deck is a mandatory part of your deck's meta. It's not in most other Magic formats.
EDH is a format where high-power and low-power decks can coexist within bounds. Modern and standard play like two-player drag races, but if you get too far ahead of the table in EDH, expect to eat four players' worth of removal. In that sense, EDH is kinda like Mario Kart; high-power decks eat Luigi death-glares, literally and figuratively. That is how the format is intended to work.
If you're a new player, you can just ram the deck at full speed, but experienced players have read the meta of the table. (And that's quite difficult in EDH because something like 90% of magic's cards can fit in some EDH deck somewhere).
That's not a casual format. That's a format with a very open meta and a flat, highly accessible learning curve.
July 15, 2014 11:54 a.m.
JakeHarlow says... #12
Well done, very nice job. A very thorough deconstruction of the social contracts involved not only in Commander but for collective gaming in general.
To be perfectly frank, I know a number of players (some in my own group) who would likely benefit from reading this. Thanks for taking the time to put this together, Epochalyptik.
July 15, 2014 2:03 p.m.
Ohthenoises says... #13
The one rules modification is the "rule of three" that the RC apparently uses when they test. (If an event would go infinite, instead, you may perform that event 3 times this turn and then the loop ends and may not be restarted this turn.) We had to install this due to the amount of combo decks that were taking infinite turns and, TBH, were just slow players. 30 minute turns for 5 turns in a row before they would find a win condition proved to be an issue.
We have had the "commander is a casual format" discussion before and we generally steer clear of the combos that are too intricate just so we don't delay the game since we usually play one big 6-10 man pod. Two card "win on the spot" combos are generally accepted because they are quick and efficient. Our, "casual format" is usually translated into "that fucktard who takes 30 minute turns shouldn't be allowed to take that long". It's usually just our way of saying it.
July 15, 2014 9:28 p.m.
This article is fantastic, and is exactly why I quit playing "regular" commander and started playing French.
I'm much too competitive (or as my wife says, I'm too much of a dick) for "casual" players.
Luckily, I have a very competitive LGS, so I never have a shortage of intense 1-vs-1 games.
July 16, 2014 12:05 a.m.
walks in
Oh my, I thought this was a discussion, not a fellating session.
Anyway...
"Tournament structure" is not some law of nature, like gravity. It is also a social contract and can vary from city to city, from store to store.
You say:
"It's realistically unlikely that stringent modification and regulation of the tournament and format rules will be beneficial to the vast majority of players. Typically, this is demonstrated when organizers attempt to institute policies excluding certain decks, cards, or strategies on the grounds that they are "too competitive" for the event (which is, at the most basic level, a competition)."
My store holds Commander tournaments. It prohibits just two things outright: infinite combos of any kind and use of cards/ generals on the banlist (mtgcommander.net). They have arrived at this decision through experience, by first allowing everything. Turned out infinite combos ruined the fun for everyone except the player playing them. Totally unforseeable XD.
This doesn't mean all the other players are "casuals" who can't stand the heat and should get out of the kitchen. Oh, they brought their super competitive decks alright, but it's kind of hard winning against a 2/ 3 card infinite combo that is tutored for as soon as possible...EVERY SINGLE GAME.
Now, I don't know whether you consider this example of regulation to be "stringent", but it was, in this case, beneficial to the vast majority of players involved. I have attended Commander tournaments where mass land destruction, extra turns (even one) and infect were all prohibited, IN ADDITION to the aforementioned infinite combos. That was their "tournament structure", their contract to which the individual could choose to adhere.
July 16, 2014 10:28 a.m.
Manji187 - it could be contended that any tournament running extra rules over the ban list is not as competitive as one that uses only a ban list. There are levels of competitive and as rules are stripped away decks have to become more competitive to win.
For example whilst some would complain about tutoring infinite combos others would reply with Force of Will and not bat an eyelid.
If you want to play in a somewhat competitive tournament then added rules make sense. If you want to play at the highest level then it doesn't.
July 16, 2014 10:36 a.m.
Commander, or better, EDH didn't began as a social format... it began mostly as a casual format. why? because when Sheldon inveted the format they had only the Elder Dragons as their generals. the Elder Dragons. very crappy cards. why they used them? becuase it was fun and flavorful. even if the dragons were weak, it was fun to a create and Elder Dragong wars, where only one could survive. then the format changed, evolved, other generals arrived and the casual aspect faded, becoming manly social. when the first commander precons came out, lot of spikes started to play it and the format became the combo-fest that is now and that can be saved only by house rules/limits.
the main problem imho is that there isn't a casual format. i play "casual legacy" on my kitchen table? someone can bring a monoblack reanimator that sucks in tournament, but that can win on turn 3. i play "casual modern"? same thing, only that the win come a 2-3 turn after. "casual commander"? same. there should be a casual format. casual defined mostly as "battlecruiser magic": first turns you build your resources, then you start playing fatties and dealing ton of damages. sadly such a format doesn't exist, the best thing someone can do is commander with ton of house rules
July 16, 2014 11:15 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #18
@Manji187: Hence the caveat "unlikely."
The problem I have with limiting the format beyond its baseline rules and regulations is that you start eliminating possibilities and stepping on toes. It's rarely the case that you can implement certain changes without excluding players, and changes therefore become political in nature.
Of course, it's possible to improve the experience through the careful design and application of such changes, but many TOs are too heavy-handed or biased in their choices, and the political nature of their decisions comes to hurt the community.
I'm not against changes that improve the experience for those involved. That's exactly the reason I support Commander's identity as a social format. What I am against is changes that hinder or hurt the experience, which, unfortunately, tends to be most of them once you get to the tournament level.
July 16, 2014 11:16 a.m.
UpsetYoMama says... #19
Awesome article! Your command of rhetoric is certainly impressive.
I totally agree that Commander is essentially a "social" format. Perhaps I'm one of the few that enjoys competitive play just as much as casual play. I have EDH decks to use for casual play and decks to use for competitive or 1v1 play -- needless to say, I don't really use the latter when playing with my playgroup.
I think that one of the most interesting things about Commander is the notion that they really aren't any "official" rules -- just a suggested ban list. In some ways, it's the most varied form of Magic, more adaptable than any other format. It also has the largest card pool available of any popular format. This is one of the reasons that I like it so much, I think. I'm not sure if it would fit into the article, but something about EDH's adaptability would be cool.
There is also a certain pride in your playgroup -- together, you make the rules, and any outsider has to abide by them. While this can certainly deter people from joining or cause "cliques" to form, it also guarantees that your vision of Magic is being played out (pardon the pun).
For example, my group has its own additional banlist, frowns on infinite combos, and has banned infect from our playgroup. All of us have worked together and/or voted on these changes, thereby bringing about a sense of community. You're spot on in the article about this.
July 16, 2014 11:22 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #20
@ascanio: You've made the same mistake that the article describes. You're assuming casual and social are exclusive. They aren't. Commander began as a way to enjoy the game with friends and in new ways. It happens that the games themselves were casual in nature, but the intent, as described by the RC itself, is to promote that camaraderie and spirit.
Also, combo existed WAY before the precons even existed. Commander wasn't something that was suddenly ruined by combo (your response even reflects the debate I'm specifically fighting against here).
And there isn't a casual format because formats inherently restrict options and incentivize changes in the deckbuilding process. Commonly, the perception is that if you're restricted to card pool X, you need to find good options within card pool X. A true casual experience is one that isn't bound by those needless restrictions. Instead, it is bound by the players' mutual love of the gaming experience.
You're also using competitive formats as examples, so that's part of the reason it's easy to criticize the lack of casual formats (which, truth be told, is mostly an imagined problem).
July 16, 2014 11:27 a.m.
An idea that I have considered for my Commander playgroup is making a small announcement board and a bunch of interchangeable cards listing different rule variations that could be used to define the play experience that my group is currently looking for. It would be an easy way to establish expectations beforehand and could help attract other people who are looking for a similar type of game. I think that it may also encourage the possibility of keeping people open to the idea of switching up the rules a little each game so that different people in the group have opportunities to try new deck ideas that they have been working on. The rule cards would list rules like:
Infinite combos welcome
No infinite combos
No KOs until everyone has taken their 5th turn
Planechase Plane cards in use - escape while you still can
@Epochalyptik: While you touched on the topic in this article, I think that the discussion of etiquette amongst players in the Commander format may make for an interesting article sometime down the road. Since the Commander format play experience has yet to fragment itself in the same manner that has lead to all the various 60 card constructed formats, you can never be quite sure what you are in for when you sit down with a new Commander group unless you ask questions first. It isn't just the level of competitive play that can vary, but some groups also feel that Commander should not be a format dominated by cards of high monetary value. An argument could be made that high priced cards are valued at that cost due to their competitive value so just playing cards like Survival of the Fittest or Force of Will is considered too competitive by some groups and worth excluding the player who uses them from the game. More so than in any other format, I think that the slow rise of etiquette amongst Commander players in response to this huge play spectrum is a unique format characteristic and it would be worth exploring the sort of information a player should inquire about when approaching a new group.
July 16, 2014 2:26 p.m.
@Epochalyptik: So, if I get this straight... according to you, limitations beyond the baseline rules and regulations oftentimes "hinder/ hurt the experience" on the tournament level?
Again, in the case of infinite combos, I would have to strongly disagree. Allowing EVERYTHING beyond the baseline rules/ regulations negatively shapes the experience. If allowed to run its course, the tournament setting would likely devolve into a dog eat dog kind of world.
People in such an environment will automatically reach for "the holy grail"; I combo off, you can't do anything about it and you all die at once. So to stand any chance, a player has to play similar combos faster. This ultimately results in a vastly reduced range of actual play; people won't bother with certain cards, strategies and even generals (too slow, can be stopped, doesn't kill everybody at once etc).
Only those who actively seek such an experience are not hurt by this course of development. Are their toes not to be stepped on, Epochalyptik? Why is that?
July 16, 2014 4:05 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #23
@Manji187: Because by virtue of consenting to play in a competitive environment, they consent to the risks and realities of competitive environments. Tournaments are inherently competitive because they incentivize results and victory.
Typically, TOs refuse to accept this and try to reconcile a competitive environment and structure with a crowd that is clearly opposed to competitive environments and structures, at least on some level. The result is an awkward many-limbed, many-pin juggling act where everyone wants to have something specific, but has to fight for it with the other interests. That's why Commander tournaments are typically messy on the large scale.
July 16, 2014 4:12 p.m.
One point that came to mind when thinking of commander as a social format: Human beings are intensely creative and social (at least in my opinion) by nature. The social part is complex and when it is activated, often attempts to take control of the situation. This complexity includes all the dynamic and varied types of social experience we humans enjoy and that enters, unedited or mitigated at times, by the fact that this is a game and there are rules.
In some playgroups I have observed, this dynamic is a slightly weak effect that colors the game in interesting ways. In other playgroups I have observed, it has seemed to me that the associated alliances and "social contracting" can take a life of its own, trumping official rulings and game dynamics even to the point of warping the format.
Yes, commander is intensely social. As such, I have seen long standing alliances, hierarchies within groups based on mentorships and trading power or other factors external to the game at hand, tenacious grudges, and lots of clever social manipulation at work. For some people, this aspect in and of itself is an attractive part of the game. For players new to EDH, the full scope and importance of all this may blindside them at first.
July 17, 2014 7:05 a.m.
so basically you just told us that commander is casual if thats how everyone who you play with plays it or its competitive if you play with competitive people thanks really clears it up
July 18, 2014 12:27 a.m.
cjk191997, He was explaining it in a civilized manner and trying to clear up some misconceptions of how commander is often "categorized" as a casual format. Don't forget the parts about tournament rules and venturing outside your playgroup.
Maybe you should read the article a little closer :)
July 18, 2014 6:24 a.m.
@Epochalyptik Do you, by any chance, believe in some sort of Platonic Ideal Definition of a competitive environment (from which TO's like to deviate)? Because there is no such thing. There is only a collective, majority agreement (often based on experience) as to what is considered fair for this or that particular tournament or iteration of tournaments.
Also, what does "competitive" mean to you? Does good sportsmanship in any way factor in it, or is it all "anything goes and only the victory matters"?
July 18, 2014 6:03 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #28
@Manji187: I go by the definitions in the article, as I outlined. Sportsmanship is a quality any player can exhibit. It isn't tied specifically to competitive or to casual players. And competitiveness, as I said, is almost never an absolute. Based on the spectrum model, the vast majority (and, effectively speaking, the entirety) of the player base falls somewhere between the absolutes.
Collective and majority are two different things. Collective implies absolute agreement with at least one foundational principle. Majority implies a greater amount of agreement with a foundational principle, but also implies some lesser amount of disagreement with that principle.
Trying to translate a social format into a competitive structure will work with collective agreement but will inherently produce problems with majority agreement. The problems typically arise from TOs trying to accommodate dissenting groups, and from people who feel entitled to play in the event and therefore pressure TOs to accommodate them.
July 18, 2014 6:34 p.m.
i never said that casual and social are exclusive, i just said that original commander had a strong casual component that now is lost. playgroups can play it casually, of course, but the format itself is not casual anymore without the right playgroup. that's the problem imho: we need a stricly casual format.
July 19, 2014 5:16 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #30
@ascanio: You stated,
EDH didn't began as a social format... it began mostly as a casual format
This is, first, wrong. EDH was designed to be a social format, and it happened that the format was casual in nature because of the playgroup that started it. The casual component is also definitely still present and strong. The format will always be more competitive than it was when it began because you're comparing a developed player base to the casual influence of the RC.
You also stated,
playgroups can play it casually, of course, but the format itself is not casual anymore without the right playgroup.
This is basically summarizing what a social format is, and it isn't really a problem.
As I said in post #20, though, the idea of a casual format is kind of an oxymoron. Casual players can play any format casually. Additionally, formats serve to define a set of rules and legal cards. It's natural that when you define those things, people will begin to search for and use the best available cards within the limits -- a result of competitiveness. Beyond that, casual and competitive are not mutually exclusive, so there will always be some element of competitiveness in any player.
By proposing that we need a strictly casual format, you're proposing that we need to somehow enforce that a format is only played casually. This is not only impossible, it's unfair.
Maybe I'm missing something about your argument here, but it doesn't seem that you're making much sense.
July 19, 2014 7:01 p.m.
about the beginning of commander, it's a matter of opinion. to you, was still more social. to me, it was casual, because if a sixth friends came in he couldn't play because there were only five elder dragons. that doesn't sound very social to me. but the point isn't if it was more casual or social, is that at the beginning there was a very strong and intrinsic casual aspect in the format that now is lost and left to the players. this is a problem imho.
i think that you argument isn't making much sense... every format can be played casually, yeah, and so every casual format can be ruined in an heartbeat by someone who brings a deck that is too strong compared to the others. if you have never experienced this your lucky, but i experienced it a lot of times. in commander, even the newest player can netdeck a combo deck that consistently tutor his combo and win and learn how to play that in few games, warping the games and removing the casual aspect almost completely. so the solutions are: completely change your deck and your way to play (even if that's remove all the fun for you), hope that the new player is mature enough to understand the problem and tone down the deck (this doesn't happen very often from what i saw) or kick out the problematic player (too rude and drastic, but sometimes the only option). a casual format could solve a lot of things
i'm not understanding why a casual format is such an heresy in your mind. why it's unfair? why it's impossible? if people want to play competitively, it's their right to have competitive formats that encourage them. why it can't be the same for the ones who want to play casually? why casual have to mean play subpar version of competitive formats?
July 20, 2014 9:48 a.m.
One of the reasons that it would be very difficult to have a purely casual format is because it is not the rules that define the format that make it casual or competitive, it is the players. In whatever game you are playing, a competitive player is one that focuses on winning by making the most efficient and powerful plays possible that the rules of the game allow.
MtG is a game with a lot of possible plays that can be made and the strategies that can be used often have a "rock,paper,scissors" nature to how they relate to each other. There is no one dominant strategy and you can always build a deck that dismantles someone else's strategy.
When people suggest making a format "casual", what they seem to want in most cases is to add additional rules that prevent other players from being allowed to make particular powerful plays. They are rules like "You can't play Infect" or "You can't play with infinite combos." Unfortunately, when you start adding more rules you also have to police the game more to make sure all those rules are abided by, which in my mind conflicts with what a casual format should be. And that is another problem, different people have different ideas regarding what being "casual" means. Having multiple groups with different definitions of "casual" trying to police their own definitions just leads to conflicts that strain the social aspect of the format. So while having your own playgroup with its own set of rules can work just fine if everyone is looking for the same sort of game experience that sort of policing becomes too awkward to maintain efficiently in larger gatherings, such as a tournament setting.
Looking at the Commander format, it is true that when the format first began people were more interested in exploring the new plays and cards that could be used that were not viable in other formats. It is fun to be able to play with all those big spells that were too slow to use before Commander came on the scene. But early Commander didn't deny the use of specific plays either. It has always been up to the players to find and choose to use powerful card combinations. So aside from the banned list, Epochalyptik isn't off base when he says that Commander wasn't inherently a "casual" (as opposed to "competitive") format because at its base it was and still is a format focused on social gatherings and card experimentation. People were free to play however they wished and if one person had a deck that the others didn't like to play against, they didn't have to. It is up to groups to regulate their own game experience.
It is certainly not impossible to find a casual environment to play MtG but every format has the potential to become competitive. All it takes is for players in that format to decide that the best way to play is to consistently make the most efficient and powerful plays possible that they can in that for the sake of winning. It is not something you can put rules in place to stop because when you play competitively you are always doing so within the rules of the game. If you add more rules, all it does is force people to find different plays to be competitive.
July 20, 2014 12:56 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #33
@ascanio: Your argument is just fundamentally wrong. The causal aspect has not been lost. It's up to the playgroup to regulate it. You make it sound like a bad thing that the format expanded to the point where multiple playgroups have differing opinions on what kind of experience they want to have. I mean this in an objective way: that's an elitist view.
One playgroup wanting to have a more competitive experience does not ruin the format. Furthermore, arguing that competitiveness ruins the casual feel of the format is misguided because the format itself is NOT defined as casual or competitive. It is social, which means the experience, whether casual or competitive, is in the control of the players themselves.
SaberTech has summed it up nicely.
You also state that removing the problematic player from the playgroup is too rude or drastic. If done improperly, it can be rude, but the playgroup needs to have the ability to regulate itself either by removing players from the playgroup or changing the group philosophy.
Your argument that we need to have a casual format is good-intentioned, no doubt, but senseless. What would be best is to acknowledge that playgroups have a right and a duty to regulate themselves. What would happen if your idyllic casual format suddenly had competitive players playing it? Do you ban them from the format? How do you even regulate the who and how?
July 20, 2014 4:09 p.m.
having a competitive shift in commander isn't a problem... sometimes. it is when one player forces its competitive view to a casual playgroup. and it's easy to this than the opposite, because you can just play tutors and combo and win three turns before the others usually do. having commander becoming way more competitive it's a problem because for a lot of player it was the casual "safe house", where you could play slow battlecruiser deck. now it's not anymore. and this is causing only clashes between players. there will always be people trying to play a very casual and low powered magic, so why not give a format to them? it will just prevent problems between players imho. if someone come to me and say "i play vintage", i won't get mad because he win before the turn 5: it's given due to the nature of the format he plays. so why not the same with a casual format? where someone say "i play format X" and i should expect slow, casual battlecruiser magic?
i get that making a stricly "casual" format seems hard, it's almost an oxymoron... but it's not like someone ever tried. the only thing that could be considered a try is indeed commander, but as i said the format has no more an intrinsic casual nature, the banlist for example is made to keep the format social, not casual, so it's not a casual format anyway (my playgroup can play it casually, of course, but it can be said for every other format), but when commander was casual it had succes. so i don't think that a casual format is so impossible. when someone will try to make it and fail maybe i'll change my mind.
July 20, 2014 7:34 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #35
@ascanio: You're still thinking about the format as a whole, which is the problem.
The problem isn't that Commander has gotten more competitive, or that competitive Commander players exist. It's that some players aren't respecting the function of the playgroup. That's not a problem with the format, it's a problem with the players. And, as such, it is a problem that will persist across format lines.
And yet again, the proposition that there needs to be a casual format is misguided and ultimately impossible to implement in any meaningful way. Your "casual format" will necessarily rely on self-regulation by playgroups, which means it's no different from Commander in terms of function. Further, your "format" will only restrict the possibilities open to the players. Why not just let players play whatever they want without unnecessary restrictions?
July 20, 2014 7:59 p.m.
If you are looking for a slower, less combo oriented format to play have you tried Pauper Commander? You can use any uncommon creature as your general and all the rest of the cards in your deck have to have been printed as a common in at least one set. The format is severely lacking in wrath effects so it is very creature oriented, where evasion and large creatures are of huge value. Group games often develop into clogged board states that everyone has to slog through until someone manages to cobble together some sort of massive creature or card advantage engine and gets the game moving again. You lose out on all the flashy spells of regular Commander but from your comments I think that you might enjoy the sort of play environment that Pauper Commander offers.
Another option is to build your own Cube that you and your friends can draft or build sealed decks from. It takes a lot of time to design and put a Cube together but it gives you a lot of control over the sort of play experience that people who play from the cube will have.
Or you could just build four or more Commander decks that are all of the same power level and have an equal chance against each other, then offer to let your friends use them when they get tired of using their own decks. That way you can at least play a few games that you know will play out in the sort of "Battle Cruiser" experience that you enjoy.
July 20, 2014 8:21 p.m.
my playgroup of course play commander slowly like we like it. of course we self-regulate. the problem is when a new player arrives. he observes our meta and then make a deck full of tutors and combo to prove that he is a good player. what do we do? it's hard to convince him to not play that deck because it's strong. he want to play it because it's strong! this way is also hard to play with people outside of your playgroup, because it's hard to meet people that share your view of the format. at last, competitive players have always other formats. if they don't meet anyone that share their competitive point of view, they can still play other formats. a casual player what can play? pauper isn't a casual format. Spawnwrithe is a very fun card and isn't overpowered at all, but in pauper it's banned, while cards like Brainstorm and Ponder , very strong and sometimes banned, are legal. cube is casual, but is a draft format. having no constructed casual formats is still bad, because deckbuilding is a big part of the fun. i hope that one day someone will try to make a casual format.
July 21, 2014 7:58 a.m.
You have to put your foot down and be prepared to tell players that are bad for your playgroup to go away.
July 21, 2014 8:09 a.m.
I find it helpful to run a wide range of deckstyles when dealing with the variance between playgroups and uncertainty in approaching a new playgroup. I have a few "middle of the road" decks that I can use in a first game - no tutors or combos - but capable of recursion and making plays / moves that affect game results.
If the group is competitive, whining only gets me singled out faster. I have a few decks for that. If it's 1v1, I have a few decks for that. If it's slower paced with less control (maybe someone is trying out a new deck that they haven't polished or tuned yet), I have decks for that. I have lots of decks so if they don't like infect, I don't pick tha tone. If there are already 3 reanimator generals at the table, I pick something else.
With the extremity of the variance between groups and what they expect, I find it easier to adapt my playstyle than to expect to find others who match my own style.
July 21, 2014 8:11 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #40
@ascanio: Just ignore the other player, then. You aren't obligated to play with him or her, and he or she doesn't have a right to play in your game.
You're still missing the point about competitive vs. casual formats. Please reread my last post.
July 21, 2014 9:21 a.m.
are you refering to: "Why not just let players play whatever they want without unnecessary restrictions?" because vintage already exist. then there is legacy. then modern. then standard, and so on. formats are based around restrictions, and they are still popular. a casual format would try reduce the gap between power levels, so instead of having casual decks that win by turn 9 and competitive decks that win by turn 5 like in commander you have "casual" decks that win by turn 10 and "competitive" decks that win by turn 8-9. that was example to explain that casual format could mean "slow plays" and "small difference between power levels".
July 21, 2014 6:14 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #42
@ascanio: Competitive Commander decks win on turn 2-4, but that's not the point, I suppose.
You're still misunderstanding the most fundamental difference between casual and competitive formats. Competitive formats like Legacy and Modern and Standard and Vintage are competitive because their tournament support incentivizes competition.
People who play casually play to have fun. Tournament-style incentivization doesn't appeal to them in the same way. Therefore, it makes little sense to compare the two. A casual "format" would really only limit the options available to casual players, and it would do so for no reason. There's no meta to control. There's no reason to apply broad rules when you could just allow playgroups to regulate it as a social experience.
July 21, 2014 6:59 p.m.
corranhorn01 says... #43
I was wondering if you'd be able to offer a couple of suggestions Epochalyptik?
There's 2 players in my play group that like to basically screw around and play super casual (eg, they deliberately mill themselves out repeatedly, etc) and they moan about any deck that has some form of synergy. A couple of my favourite quotes are "I don't like X players deck because they think about it when they make it" and "EDH decks shouldn't have synergy". They are 2 of the main players that are up for EDH whenever though (so generally make a pod of 4).
The main issue I have with it is we had a 6 person pod a couple of days ago and one of these players asked myself and another player to play our "most OP decks", I told him he wouldn't like it but he said he doesn't care, etc. I ended up playing my Token deck and killed the table on turn 10-12 (kicked Wolfbriar Elemental 11 times with Cathars' Crusade and Hammer of Purphoros out) and according to one of my close friends, after I left those 2 just kept going on about how the 2 decks they wanted us to play are 'too good'. But they will happily sit there and take infinite turns or play Omen Machine when there are 2-3 Rites of Flourishing and get shitty if gets is blown up (to the point of scooping - they aren't mana screwed either).
How should we go about dealing with these players (a fair few others are annoyed at them too)? I rarely bring out my Token deck when these guys are on my table because of this, and play my Phage or Kruphix deck. I don't feel like basically 'kicking them out' and would feel horrible if I did.
July 24, 2014 9:14 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #44
@corranhorn01: I would just tell the players something like this:
"Look, I know you guys don't like certain cards, but I'm looking for this kind of game right now. I'll play with you guys in a bit."
Be diplomatic unless the just don't get the hint.
July 24, 2014 9:57 p.m.
corranhorn01 says... #45
Cheers :). I was leaning towards this, this will basically mean I'm not playing against them ever though as I don't see the point in playing unless it's competitive, and I like their company.
Great article btw!
Tyrannosary says... #1
Well saying that it was made/designed as a casual format I would assume it would be one. I haven't really heard of there being huge Commander/EDH tournaments yet.
May 31, 2014 9:25 p.m.