Subject: Re : People who play for fun... Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 07:00:39 PDT From: "Michael Olsen" To: fkusumot@ix.netcom.com Okay before I answer anything I'd like to point out that this is only my point of view, I am not speaking for a larger group. Or perhaps I am, I don't know.. I'm sorry this turns out to be so long.. . From: Crnicoloff@aol.com To: fkusumot@ix.netcom.com >I went down to my local shop to play today for the first time in ages. Good, it's always nice to play against different people. :-) >I thought I was pretty prepared for what I was going to find. I >thought I would walk in, and a few people would be milling around, >testing their multiplayer decks. We'd play. Eventually, they'd get >bored getting crushed and I'd offer them the mono red playtest deck >I brought with me specifically for this situation. Then we'd have a lot >of close games and it would actually be fun. >What happened was much more puzzling. Almost nobody wanted >to play the red deck against me. >I couldn't figure out why. It was such an easy deck to play. I was >playing a W/U/g control deck that could easily slaughter or get >slaughtered. Most games would come down to a test of >resourcefulness and bluff. Most players can't resist the evil appeal >of a Ball Lightning. This is where I think you (and some other people as well) have got it all wrong. I consider myself to be a person who plays magic mostly for fun. To me one of the great things about magic is building *my own* deck. I'ts not half as fun to play somebody elses deck, which is also why I hardly ever copies a deck from the dojo. If I read about an interesting deck idea, I might copy the idea, but not deck itself. This is also because reading deck postings are so boring, that I usually don't bother. This also means that I mostly get crushed (more or less) like Austin Bragg writing about his all sliver deck (by the way, why was his letter placed in the humor section?). So what if I lose a game. As long as i have had a good time it has been worthwhile. Winning doesn't mean that much to me. >What's so cheesy about my deck? I scratched my head, thinking >about it. I thought the word "cheese" applied to a brainless deck of obvious make-up. I didn't think it applied to a t2 almost creatureless control deck with recursion. >Another spectator made the same comment about the red deck. >Granted, I can understand that a little more. The contents were >obvious. Small fast creatures and stifling amounts of burn. Still, as >basic and obvious as it was, why the disparaging glances and the >muttered commentary? To me a "Cheesy" deck is a deck that do the same over and over again. They play the same in each match and if they win, they win in the same way every match. They are one hundred percent predictable. Granted by this definition I also sometimes play cheesy decks (mostly blue/white control) but I do not keep them for long, because of the fact that they are boring and because otherwise my opponents would quickly know how to beat the deck. >The fact still remained that nobody wanted to take 50/50 chances >and play the red deck against my control deck. It's a classic and >thrilling matchup, I think. Nobody wanted to try. >What gives? Well 50/50 that doesn't sound like fun. Why not just flip a coin?? >Until I turned into a tournament Magic player, all my fun in the game >came from the simple joy of putting cards together and watching >them work. Even if I died before the deck came together, it just >meant I needed to be faster next time. Then we set up the decks >again and played endlessly. Yes exactly. That's how I still feel. And I've been playing since 1994. >That's what this guy's U/W deck did to me over and over. Killed all >my creatures. Countered all my spells. Ground my cards away >endlessly until I finally died, impotent, with nothing in play. All his >later decks seemed to be based around the same theories - disrupt, >grind game to a halt, make opponent helplessly watch their doom. >Plus, I just plain hated losing. Losing was like failure. (a length of text has been snipped) >It is NOT "fun" to lose. Actually losing can be fun, if you're playing against an interesting deck. I wouldn't like to play against the above guy if all he would ever play was the millstone deck. Not because I would always lose, but because it would be boring matches against the same boring deck. And oh yeah, a quick aside : The ideas Rob Hahn has posted about the Duelist and Magic in general are bad (I mean "Black 12" - get a grip!). The would contribute to make the magazine and the game very boring. I'm afraid it would make the people playing for fun stop buying the Duelist and the cards. Ok, I'm finally through. If you've made it this far I'm glad. If you've learned something about players playing for fun I'm even happier. Michael Olsen Boys don't cry The cure Please visit Team Orcish Librarians' website at : http://www.db.dk/student/k94/x/jhw/orclib.htm ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com