Primers. For which decks you build and how long do you spend?
General forum
Posted on April 17, 2022, 9:29 p.m. by Kazierts
I know this is something most players don't bother doing. I myself didn't know them for quite some time. After I learned what they are, I liked the idea. It not only informs people of what you thought process was when building the deck, but also makes you reflect on what you're building. Another thing is I'm an English teacher, so writing them is constant practice for me and gives me something to show my students about how they can practice.
If you look at my profile right now, you'll see I haven't tagged my more recent decks as primers. That's is because I realized they can they ungodly amounts of time to write.
With these things in mind, I've been thinking about what players in general think about them.
-
Which of your decks deserve primers?
-
How long do you often spend writing one? Do you do them in one sitting or across multiple days?
-
Do you try to be as serious as possible or a bit funny?
-
For those who don't write primers, do you read other people's primers? If so, does it depend on the size? If you don't, do you like knowing there's one in case you might ever want to read?
These are a few questions I have. However, if anyone has any questions regarding this topic, feel free to add more to this.
wallisface says... #3
My thoughts from a modern-perspective (or any non-singleton format, really):
-
I would expect that in almost all scenarios that the deck title, and the cards in the deck, should speak for themselves. If the decks plan is not already obvious from a glance, then i’d hazard to say it needs more work than just a good PR-spiel.
-
As far as descriptions, i’ll generally read them only if they’re both short, and to-the-point. I’m mainly interested in explanations for any dubious card-choices, as well as hard-to-spot combo/synergy.
April 17, 2022 11:26 p.m.
Grubbernaut, thanks for the input. The way I've tried to do with my EDH decks (even though I haven't gotten back to them yet) was dividing each card in it's own section that you can click to open. Let me use one of my decks as example. I'll use my "Pauper" Korvold [Budget/Casual/Primer] as an example.
Each of the cards there has it's own section, so you don't need to keep scrolling and searching. I tried to organise them in alfabetical order in order to make it easier to find the cards, though I don't remember exactly if it's like that because I haven't touched it in a while. I also put the wincons, but did so at the end. Do you think it would be a better ideia to move them to the beginning?
April 18, 2022 9:39 p.m.
wallisface, that's what I normally aim with my titles. I personally dislike memey titles as cannot see what the goal of the deck is from them. Even in a recent deck I've been working on, Sins of the Brilliant Five, I've tried to use names of the cards I play, namely Sins of the Past, Meeting of the Five and Brilliant Ultimatum.
Similar to what I said in my other comment, what do you think of having a primer divided in small categories, such as in my Monoblack Infect [Competitive/Primer]? This way you can just go exactly where you want an there's no need to read things you don't want. However, I try to be as detailed as possible, so it might not appeal to you.
April 19, 2022 11:15 a.m.
wallisface says... #6
Kazierts categories can be helpful, but personally i think the example has faar too much text. If it’s quicker for me to just read the decklist, i’m always opting for that.
I briefly looked into the commentary to see why you’d picked Funeral Charm, but even the wall of text for that segment had me quickly opt-out of finding-out. Maybe it’s just me, but I think there’s value in delivering a point concisely. Also, if you need 6 paragraphs to justify running a card, then the first impression I get is that it’s probably not actually worth running.
April 19, 2022 3:29 p.m.
wallisface, fair point. I honestly just wrote that not to justify it, but to try to cover as many details as possible. I understand it can a bit too much for some people. I'll take that into account when writing another primer.
Maybe a good ideia would be to have a shorter version that just talks about overall gameplan and good/bad matchups?
April 19, 2022 4:51 p.m.
wallisface says... #8
Yeah i think a tldr; segment would be ideal - something that gives people a good overview of what’s going on without the extraneous detail.
It’s possibly worth considering who you expect your target audience to be reading your lengthier descriptions:
-
If you’re expecting your readers to be capable magic players, then you probably want to avoid spoon-feeding obvious information. Everyone knows Liliana of the Veil is good, so a segment on her might be superfluous.
-
If you’re expecting your readers to be beginners, then you need to be careful about overwhelming them with interactions. These players are probably more interested in building a deck for $50, and having fun, than anything else.
-
Are you expecting your reader to be buying the deck as-is, or providing you feedback on ways to improve your brew? Using it as a basis for their own brews, or just providing you an upvote? Your example reads a lot like a sales-pitch, but then its lacking any details on how it actually performs in the meta. It feels like the description is saying “here’s this great deck i’ve made” when maybe the story needs to be “here’s a homebrew how can we improve it?”. Getting the “story” right for a description feels important for your reading audience.
April 19, 2022 5:09 p.m.
I really like reading primers, but the only thing is that I have to be into the concept of the deck. If it's a primer for something I've seen a bunch of times, or a deck that just does what it does, I don't get excited enough to go through the primer. But if it's a new twist or a fun interaction or just a really unique list, then for sure, I'll dive in. That's most of the fun : )
And, maybe I'd eventually like to write primers, but I feel like when you put primer on there it makes it feel more like an official list, and I don't know if I'd ever be there : ) I'd like to think that my deck could give someone an idea or get a ball running or something, but I'll never be the authority on a deck, even if I made it or came up with the idea. But that's why I like other people's primers : ) There are far better and more organized magic minds out there, and I appreciate reading them.
April 19, 2022 7:48 p.m.
wallisface says... #10
I feel like part of the reason i’ve kept using the word “description” over “primer” in this thread, is because it’s too easy for anybody on this site to just write “any piece of educational writing” and call it a primer.
I feel the purpose of a deck “Primer” is to offer information around the archetype, its matchups, play-patterns etc. This generally relies on a community of people contributing to said primer, frequent updates, and a lot of high-level playtesting to accurately understand and convey the decks ability to compete. I don’t believe a “Primer” can exist for a deck without a community backing and at least some small percentage of meta presence.
It’s hard for me to believe one person writing an article for some homebrew can be considered a “primer” - as there simply isn’t the community backing to ensure the information is accurate/useful, and it’s unlikely to have gone through adequate meta-testing. It’s more of an opinion piece than anything.
Not to try and take-away from anyone’s work on these articles, as i’m sure others will find them useful. I think we just need to be careful around assuming that a lot of text/thought on a page translates to the deck itself being any good, or the information presented being final.
April 19, 2022 8:27 p.m.
wallisface, you have put out a very good amount of arguments. It's almost time for me to sleep, so I can't fully answer everything you said. For now, I just want you to know I truly value all of your constructive criticism. I believe I know understand what I like to write is more akin to a description rather than a primer.
I write those mainly for fun and to practice my English. I want people to read so they can help me improve but I also want to teach something, even if very small, to anyone reading. However, I understand primers are much more complicated.
I'll update my decks take away the primer tags. I believe it'll make me comfortable knowing I don't have to reach such a high bar as a primer when I write.
Also, I'll answer you Niko9 tomorrow too. Just wanted to quickly thank you for the input. Every comment people leave in anything I do means a lot.
April 19, 2022 9:24 p.m.
Kazierts : ) No rush. It's a fun conversation, and thanks for starting it up. Have a good one!
April 19, 2022 9:27 p.m.
wallisface, you have given me quite a lot to think. I never knew exactly what a primer was. In my mind, it was both a very detailed description about the deck and a guide for that archetype, at the same time. The only place I saw a "definition" of what a primer is was in the cEDH subreddit. Here on TappedOut, I've mostly seen descriptions tagged as primers, so that's what I used to guide my notion. The definition this site has is itself quite vague.
Talking more about more specific points you mentioned, my objectives with those descriptions are most of what you said. My main objective is actually just for my own leisure. I discovered I really enjoy writing and it helps me to see how the strategy works. Next in priority, I'd say is allowing people to understand every nook and cranny about my deck. The way I see it, this makes it easier for people point out problems or suggestions for the list. Lastly, I'd say is for my decks to be able to serve as educational material for anyone reading. I understand that more casual/beginner players won't care about that specific deck I used as example. However, basically all of my other decks are around $50, with a very small number being exceptions.
Now, nothing what I said means I disagree with you. In fact, a lot of what you said makes sense. For both the deck I used as example and my meme deck (Zombie Hunt Companions [Budget/Casual/Jank]), I'm problably keeping this stlye more as a "love" letter to list. However, I'll think about writing a TL;DR to be more concise and I'll try to not drag on my writing for my other decks. I'll also try to read more primers to learn how to be more concise.
I don't believe anything you said takes away any merit from people, such as myself, who either write articles/long descriptions about a deck. Things have proper definitions and it's important to understand what they are. I don't to look like someone who tries to gather attention to my decks using false information. If primers require more work/dedication and more people working on them, I completely understant and it's up to me to decide if I want to put that effort in or not.
I have say this was one of the most fruitful discussions I've had about MTG. I truly thank you for that.
April 20, 2022 12:27 p.m.
Niko9, given that you upvoted the atrocity that is my Zombie Hunt list, you sure like new "twists" (and I think you for that because I'm someone who hates piloting people everyone does).
I think the only deck I'd like to be seen as an "authority" is the Monoblack Infect archetype, but I don't believe that's ever going to be a very important deck in any format. That's the deck I'm most emotionaly attached to. However, that's a very hard archetype to find other people who play.
Maybe one day we'll both be responsible for the best primers out there.
Grubbernaut says... #2
cEDH here; when I read a primer, I'm looking for the main win lines, tricky interactions (such as tapping your own Winter Orb with Urza so you can untap as normal), which stax pieces hurt the most (and which don't matter), and general info on good/bad matchups.
I personally don't want any extraneous information, but that's just me; I don't like slogging through exposition to try to find the actual data I want to know about a deck.
Most primers, for my taste, are either over- or under-done by a decent bit.
April 17, 2022 9:54 p.m.