IS MTG being Dumbed down too much?
General forum
Posted on June 9, 2015, 2:22 p.m. by VampireArmy
A debate thread so we can have our spoiler thread back
canterlotguardian says... #3
That's kind of sad that a thread like this has to be made, especially because the initial point was about something that came as a result of MTG Origins spoilers. You know, the actual point of the original fucking thread. Smdh.
June 9, 2015 2:26 p.m.
It is my belief that what Wizards is doing to Magic isn't "dumbing it down" but "moving the complexity." Instead of having cards like Ice Cauldron which have inherent up-front complexity, Wizards is moving it to the actual gameplay instead of "What does this card even do?" Removing Intimidate, Landwalk, and downgrading Protection allows for more interactive games of Magic without additional rules knowledge that enfranchised players (such as ourselves) know like the backs of our hands.
June 9, 2015 2:27 p.m.
canterlotguardian From what I could tell, the conversation shifted completely in a different direction.
It doesn't matter if it started because of it, it has nothing to do with it now.
Thanks Vamp, that was seriously getting on my nerves.
June 9, 2015 2:28 p.m.
I agree with JWiley129. They're trying to reduce the learning curve and make cards more intuitive on how they SHOULD work.
June 9, 2015 2:30 p.m.
canterlotguardian says... #9
But meecht how they "should" work means nothing. How they do work is all that matters. Trample shouldn't be able to get around protection because trample never deals lethal damage to a creature with pro [insert color here] but you know what? It still does, because trample only is concerned when lethal damage is assigned, not when it is dealt.
June 9, 2015 2:37 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #10
I'd argue that your 1/1 Homunculus with magical protection from green shouldn't be able to stop a 9/9 Elephant from charging over it and slapping you with its trunk.
June 9, 2015 2:43 p.m.
There are examples of good design and examples of bad design. There are cards that are easy to follow and cards that are hard to follow.
Protection, apart from being very un-fun for some people, in my opinion is NOT a badly designed mechanic.
My case is that it is somewhat difficult to understand and it does have some weird contradictions with things like board clear and 'damage can't be prevented' clauses BUT I don't think it's overly complicated.
As a preface to this entire argument it's worth noting that complicated-ness is subjective. What I find hard to understand you might get easily. What you might find hard I might get easily. But implicit in this point is kind of one of the reasons I disagree with its removal. There will always be people who don't understand some things because magic is complicated. To what extent should we be catering to these people? I know the slippery slope argument is a fallacy because we don't know what wizards will do in the future BUT I will say that I am worried.
I am worried, specifically, because more complicated rules on cards produce more wonderful interactions. Vigilance, flying, and various others, whilst fantastic, do not produce depth. Protection produces depth. It raises questions. What happens if this happens? What happens if someone does that? Those kinds of questions you get with protection: I love. You don't get that with other mechanics.
The problem I have is that a healthy amount of people adore magic FOR its complication. It's a mental workout and that's not a bad thing. By removing this aspect of the game (slowly) we're losing one of the main reasons people play.
Furthermore, it's in wizards best interests to cater to EVERYONE. A wide approach is pretty sound. By cutting protection down you are reducing a mechanic that appeared just a handful of times in a set to a mechanic that appears almost never. In numerical terms I see this as a representation of cards with protection going from perhaps 2% to well under 1%. If this happens an entire playerbase feels somewhat disenfranchised. On the other hand the inclusion of a very, very small number of these cards doesn't disenfranchise other players because a) it doesn't appear often anyway, b) you dont have to play with those cards, c) they rarely even turn up in play the vast majority of the time, and d) you have the other 245 cards in the set. The remomval of protection feels to me like I am going from some small to nothing. Whereas to the guys that hate it you are going from 99% of the card pool, to 100%.
In the same way that someone said to me, 'you shouldn't be primarily catered to', I'd turn that comment around and reply, 'I already am not; it's you that are, so look in the mirror'.
June 9, 2015 2:48 p.m.
Have you ever had to explain why Gods Willing can't protect a creature from End Hostilities? The board wipe is trying to affect the creature, so giving it pro-white should save the creature!
How about why putting Arashin Foremost into play off Preeminent Captain's attack trigger doesn't cause the Foremost's ability to trigger? The creature is put into play ATTACKING, therefore the ability should trigger!
These kinds of things are confusing to newer players, and are unintuitive when you consider how the same words are used to describe real-world situations.
June 9, 2015 2:49 p.m.
UpsetYoMama says... #14
At the end of the day, it's a game. There are some things that logically just won't make sense.
The fact that Wizards is stopping core sets could be an argument against this very thing, as it mostly catered to newer players.
Any thoughts on that? Or do you think it's more of a finance thing?
June 9, 2015 2:49 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #16
@meecht: By the same argument, is it not sometimes confusing that tokens cannot be blinked, or that copy effects don't copy buffs and counters?
There are inevitabilities when you deal with a technically complex system and technically specific rules, terms, and interactions. It's impossible to design a complex game that is at all times immediately intuitive to all people of all experiences. And many of the complex interactions are still simple enough to be explained once and not more.
June 9, 2015 2:53 p.m. Edited.
canterlotguardian says... #17
Assuming you're playing with someone who doesn't take multiple times explaining something to grasp a concept, yeah.
June 9, 2015 2:56 p.m.
people have whined with every new rules update and format change that wizards is dumbing down magic. it's nothing new. somehow magic survives.
magic will never be a simple game, because new rules/interactions are added every three months. vintage and legacy will continue to exist (until they die due to card availability) and modern is still full of interesting interactions (even if it isn't a perfect format and not all "interesting" decks are tier 1). new mechanics and cards will continue to make standard interesting and have periodic implications on older formats.
as someone mentioned in this or the other thread, this type of "pruning" seems necessary to keep the more fun and interactive parts of the game at the forefront.
June 9, 2015 2:57 p.m.
ChiefBell - You raise some fine points, but at the end of the day you are NOT Wizards primary consumer. The vast majority of people who play Magic almost never go to FNM, don't have DCI numbers, and play on their kitchen tables. That is who Wizards has as their primary market. Not the people who have websites like TappedOut or MTGSalvaiton. Not the people who write ad nauseum about the game and its social interactions. It's the people who decide to build decks with whatever cards they have available and duke it out with their friends.
We are not the majority, we are in the minority, and should realize that. Sure, we can be a very vocal minority, but the enfranchised player is not the average Magic player.
Modern Masters was made for players like us. Who like weird interactions and complicated board states. But every set isn't going to be a Modern Masters, and it can't for the game to continue growing. The lifeblood of any game is new players, and if the new players get turned off the moment they see a card has 20 lines of text, that doesn't help the game. Similarly, games of Magic are better when there is interaction. Saying "My creature has Intimidate and so you can't block it" or "My creature has protection from white, so you can't kill it." turns off newer players far more than you might realize. Removing/downgrading Intimidate, Landwalk, and Protection has nothing to do with dumbing down the game, but EVERYTHING to do with making Magic more interactive.
If you want non-interactive decks, play Modern or Legacy. That's how Magic used to be. Magic Origins is how Magic will be.
June 9, 2015 3:02 p.m.
RoarMaster says... #21
Maybe I should say "NWO will be the death of the MTG we all know and love." to be more precise.
June 9, 2015 3:03 p.m.
RoarMaster says... #22
JWiley129 Oh the Irony that the set called 'Origins' is such a step away from MtGs actual origins :P
June 9, 2015 3:05 p.m.
RoarMaster - You consider it a step away. I consider it a step forward.
June 9, 2015 3:06 p.m.
@ Epochalyptik - It's easier to say "the token ceases to exist" or "it becomes a copy of the card" than it is to explain DEBT or how combat works.
You also have to keep in mind that people learn the rules from their friends who may also be new to the game. You need rules that are easy for a newbie to explain as well as understand.
June 9, 2015 3:11 p.m.
Vision99UM says... #25
I agree with you ChiefBell. I feel that if people want more straight-forwardness and simplicity then the new game formats (modern, standard etc...) are great. I personally prefer playing the game for its' FULL depth and complexity and enjoy 'Vintage' format the best. But "to each is their own" eh?
June 9, 2015 3:14 p.m.
JWiley129 - I concede the point about interaction. I think that is SUPER important. Losing to someone just because you happen to play a certain colour is total balls.
I think the lack of intricacy is a knock on effect though. A secondary thing.
June 9, 2015 3:15 p.m.
Serendipitous_Hummingbird says... #27
ChiefBell I'm one of those players who just dukes it out with friends. I've got a DCI number because I'll occasionally draft, but kitchen table is where I'm most at home. Most of my decks are unsleeved and held together with a rubber band. All but two are >$5.
I've also been playing on and off (and VERY casually) since 7th edition so I've seen some shit. I've seen Skullclamp affinity. I've seen Umezawa's Jitte and Sensei's Divining Top. Unfortunately I was off during TSP so I never picked up some goyfs at $5 each, but I was around to the popularity of Jund in alara, and I came back just in time for caw blade and batterskulls. Needless to say I haven't ventured back until Theros. But I've been paying a lot of attention to the game since then, and though I still play extremely casually, my understanding of the game is much greater than that of my playgroup. I'm the resident rules 'expert' as well as go-to for deck help. Apparently understanding the stack, the benefits of remanding your own spells, and the importance of card advantage and tempo makes you an 'expert'.
Anyway, my point in all of this is that I've seen extremely powerful and complex cards and they tend to fall into two different categories. The first are complex cards that are convoluted but repetitive. These require a lot of understanding to play but very little skill. Once you know how to work a Skullclamp you don't lose the game. You just don't. The other kind are cards that are apparently simple but actually require a significant amount of planning. Sure, a beginner will know how to use Briarhorn but it takes a good understanding of the game to know how to use it properly.
We have actually seen an increase in the number of "easy to use, hard to use properly" cards. Lingering Souls may LOOK like 4 1/1 fliers in small payments, but knowing when to flash it back is often a test of skill.
June 9, 2015 3:27 p.m.
I guess I can see the 'easy to use, hard to use properly' in things like Monastery Mentor and Myth Realized
June 9, 2015 3:53 p.m.
Good game design splits up knowledge required to play. MtG has a huge burden of knowledge attached to it. You want to play MtG at anything beyond duel decks? Be prepared to sit down and ingest some info. Wizards should make picking up the game as easy as possible. As for the game itself, it is already at a pleasant state. Wizards hasn't released dumb mechanics for a while now. Stuff like banding is just plain silly.
June 9, 2015 5:15 p.m.
I really just hope, that damage on the stack would be added. It would add a lot more combat thinking to the game. And, it won't make the game complicated.
June 9, 2015 5:22 p.m.
RoarMaster says... #32
NorthernRaven although dmg on the stack does make for more combat tricks, it also adds a whole new level of complexity to combat. They removed dmg on the stack for that reaso, and the fact that it doesnt 'make sense' that a guy can do dmg and still be sac'd for an effect.
June 9, 2015 5:36 p.m.
When you are a new player, you learn, that almost everything goes on the stack. Why wouldn't damage go on the stack too? Sometimes, when Wizards tries to simple things, they often just make things more complicated....
June 9, 2015 5:52 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #34
I don't understand why it would be hard to explain why spells and abilities (and nothing else) use the stack.
June 9, 2015 6:01 p.m.
I don't understand why it would be so hard to explain that protection extends to DEBT. But there you go.
June 9, 2015 6:11 p.m.
vampirelazarus says... #36
DEBT is fairly easy to explain....
Creature cant be damaged, enchanted (or equipped, and to a lesser extent, ortified), targeted, or blocked by whatever it has protection from.
End of story.
June 9, 2015 6:22 p.m.
trollslayer says... #37
Seeing what Femme_Fatale FAMOUSWATERMELON and xzzane, have to say on this. There usually informed in this sort of this thing.
June 9, 2015 6:45 p.m.
trollslayer says... #38
And I'm kind of sad now, I liked protection, and land walk. Intimidate, I'm on neither side of.
I do however feel like wizards is dumbing it down. Me as a magic player likes the intricacies of the cards the most, and I like theme/gimmick decks the most. So them removing protection, makes me only be able to do that in modern, same with say a landwalk deck. That makes me sad, especially as a person that dosent really have the money for modern.
June 9, 2015 6:53 p.m.
Is this about the removing of things like shroud and using things like protection less often? I honestly don't really care to be entirely honest. I can see why protection is confusing to new players, hell I found it confusing when I was a new player. I was fortunate to have very good players that taught me how to play once I started playing seriously, but not everyone has that benefit. I believe that Wizards makes most of their money off of their casual crowd, or more specifically, the ones that buy packs for their new cards. I can see why Wizards might try to "dumb down" certain keywords like protection for these people. Do I necessarily like it? No. But I can understand their logic, from a business perspective.
June 9, 2015 7:05 p.m.
And I don't necessarily think I should be counted among the "informed" crowd on subjects like this haha. I know what's going on, and I have my own opinions, but that's about it.
June 9, 2015 7:05 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #44
Don't want a part of this conversation. People are going to have their opinions and what's done is done. Deal with it and move on.
June 9, 2015 8:45 p.m.
Ok, response time. A few years ago, I made the statement 'Wizards is dumbing down MtG." to one of my friends and we were in agreement. Then a bunch of cool cards were printed and I was happy. There were also a bunch of effects that didn't interest me (at least at the time) but they were there.
Then a bunch of new big vanilla guys were printed and I watch the abilities all wash away for powercreep. And again, I made the statement "Wizards is dumbing down MtG". A little while after that, we saw a bunch of new mechanics printed and I was happy again. Similar to last time, most of the cards didn't interest me but there were a few that did, and it kept me chugging along.
Now I hear the statement "Wizards is dumbing down MtG". I'm not saying thats this isn't the case, but what I have found is that its more of a streamlining process. Usually there is a set that is just fairly vanilla mechanics, big stompy creatures, basically a timmy heaven. Normally they were the core sets and now origins.
But my recommendation would be, wait and see what is printed after this set. That'll give you a better indication of whether Wizards is actually dumbing the game down.
As for getting rid of landwalk, well unblockable is no longer a keyword. So to be honest I wouldn't be suprised if its just going to get engulfed by that. Same goes with intimidate. It's just an unblockable state.
June 9, 2015 9:49 p.m.
DEBT isn't really that hard to grasp, and combat rules aren't too hard. There's a learning curve involved with literally anything in life, and I think it's fine that a 5-year veteran of the game should have a slight advantage for knowing that their 9/9 green Trampler can make it through a 1/1 dork. That's part of the game - experience = slight advantage, and that's how any competitive game should be.
June 9, 2015 10:12 p.m.
enpc - A small nitpick, Unblockable was never a keyword. It was an ability word. They tried keywording it but they can't because they use it in many different venues than a keyword would fit. See Daxos of Meletis.
June 9, 2015 10:30 p.m.
@enpc I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're being awfully vague. Just naming what those mechanics and creatures are would help people understand where you're coming from.
June 9, 2015 10:37 p.m.
JWiley129: I always get those two mixed up. But yeah, Older cards say "X is unbloackble" which was later changed to "X can't be blocked" which allows to to keep a uniform layout when adding "except by Y" to the end.
TheDevicer: I was vague because I was trying to pinpoint dates. I think the first time I felt the set to be a bit vanilla was the Alara block. The multicolour was really nice, but there wasn't much going on. Combine that with the Core set. Then Zendikar came out and it was a shake up.
EDIT: And I should say quickly, I really do like the alara block. Its a lot of fun. But I do feel it to be a bit big thing slams into big thing.
June 9, 2015 10:48 p.m. Edited.
SimicPower says... #50
vishnarg: Experienced already have a huge advantage in Magic. It's just not about knowing more rules than the newer players. It's strategy, knowing when to attack, when to block, what to target with your Lightning Bolt, etc.. Also, deck building is one of the biggest advantages experienced players have over newer players. That's all good. What we don't want is newer players losing games because they don't understand certain rules.
VampireArmy says... #2
tagging
ChiefBell canterlotguardian UrbanAnathema kyuuri117
Not sure if anyone else is currently participating
June 9, 2015 2:26 p.m.