DirkGently wrote: ↑9 months ago
I honestly do not think that's true - at least, not for the vast vast majority. Emphasis on "some". If someone literally didn't need ANY competition to enjoy playing, then why not goldfish their decks at the same table as their friends? I know that might come off as hyperbolic but it's a genuine question.
About 97% of my games since 2018 are this. I build a deck on MTGO and play solitaire EDH games (launch a 1 player table) - "testing" the deck. Once a month or so, I try a table to see if I can actually have a fun casual game. I have succeeded exactly once in five years. Deck goldfishing loses the camaraderie, which more-and-more is the only reason to play a pod. Honestly, once I finish culling my paper collection, I doubt I'll play more than once a year going forward.
I fully recognize that much of this experience is the lack of a playgroup - which is why I had been trying to get a clan of like-minded player with whom to play on MTGO. Now, I fear that is an unattainable goal.
DirkGently wrote: ↑9 months ago
would you enjoy a playgroup where everyone agrees never to run any interaction nor attack until after turn 12?
More mocking hyperbole? I thought we were passed that.
DirkGently wrote: ↑9 months ago
do want some degree of competition.
Again, please re-read my list. Did I ever say "
zero competition?" Did I ever say "
do my thing unopposed?" Please don't presume to speak on my behalf.
DirkGently wrote: ↑9 months ago
I'm sure you care at least a little bit about how optimal your turn was.
You would have to define what you mean by "optimal." If you
only mean applying basic threat assessment, playing cards that progress the deck's plan, and applying interaction that progresses the deck's plan - then yes. However, when I hear "optimal," it usually is the context of nitpicking the best interaction for the most correct play, ensuring you only use the most appropriate mana sources, leaving the correct sources untapped for future turns. Too much stress. I do not want to optimize my deck building or my play. I want to
play. Playing involves casting things and interacting with the table. I would not say that I am unskilled in MtG - I have been playing since The Dark - but I also am not interested in "optimizing play." Does that clarify?
DirkGently wrote: ↑9 months ago
not deliberately making suboptimal plays they are still "playing to win"
That's why I asked both of you to define what you consider "playing to win." Because the most common context I have seen on these forums is "playing to win" is a synonym for "optimizing play patterns." That is the context I defy.
I can
just play, without "playing to win" (in the above context).
DirkGently wrote: ↑9 months ago
I don't really think that has anything to do with playing to win.
Concur - I was just trying to be thorough in defining what games I do want.
DirkGently wrote: ↑9 months ago
I'm assuming you fit into the first camp? But I wouldn't mind clarification.
I'm not sure how to be clearer. I play the game - that includes threat assessment, politically motived play (e.g.
Phyrexian Splicer, removing flying from an attacker going somewhere other than me so that player can block - and will hopefully feel a reason to reciprocate assistance later, if asked), interaction, etc. However, the difference (to me) is that I am basing my decisions in what helps me "do the thing" and doing the thing may or may not result in me winning. I don't care if I win - I care if I had fun. Does that clarify?
To me, it's the difference between "I have a
Disenchant, what should I remove to ensure I have a greater chance of winning" vs "What can I remove to ensure I have a better chance of accomplishing my goal (that may or may not result in winning)."
DirkGently wrote: ↑9 months ago
Maybe your batch of pubstompers has gone off?
Maybe we are using the term "pubstomper" in different ways or with a different meaning. What I mean is "I make or join a table marked as "casual" (or some other indication that the game is for non-optimized decks playing a normal (non-cutthroat) game)." The Pubstomper is the person who joins that game with a netdeck (or netdeck-adjacent) that is obviously orders of magnitude more powerful than the rest of the table. Those players, in my experience, need "the win" - they do this because their skill does not match the level of the deck so the only way to pilot their netdeck to victory is to play a table of significantly weaker decks. They then continuously state that thier deck is casual, because it is not Tier1 (as if anything less than T1 was casual). They tend to prefer play patterns that make sure nobody else can play the game (land denial, creature denial, stax, etc.) and oppose "their dominance."
Your example is, to me, the Whiner - somebody who thinks complaining of interaction is "political" - and this may or may not also be a pubstomper.
Summary: To me, "playing to win" has the connotation of expending specific effort to optimize your play patterns with the goal of winning. That is the context I do not feel applies to me. I play - playing involves all of the normal elements of playing a game, which
does include advancing your deck's strategy and interacting with other tables. I'm just not interested in "optimizing" how I do those things.