MTGNexus

The Philosophy of Commander

Commander is for fun. It’s a socially interactive, multiplayer Magic: the Gathering format full of wild interactions and epic plays, specifically designed as an alternative to tournament Magic. As is fitting for a format in which you choose an avatar to lead your forces into battle, Commander focuses on a resonant experience. Each game is a journey the players share, relying on a social contract in which each player is considerate of the experiences of everyone involved--this promotes player interaction, inter-game variance, a variety of play styles, and a positive communal atmosphere. At the end of an ideal Commander game, someone will have won, but all participants will have had the opportunity to express themselves through their deck building and game play.

The rules of Commander are designed to maximize these experiences within a game of Magic. The addition of a commander, larger life total, and deck building restrictions emphasize the format’s flavor; they increase deck variance and add more opportunities for participation and expression.

The goal of the ban list is similar; it does not seek to regulate competitive play or power level, which are decisions best left to individual play groups. The ban list seeks to demonstrate which cards threaten the positive player experience at the core of the format or prevent players from reasonable self-expression. The primary focus of the list is on cards which are problematic because of their extreme consistency, ubiquity, and/or ability to restrict others’ opportunities.

No single rule can establish criteria for a ban; there are many mitigating or exacerbating factors. Some cards will represent an extreme on a single axis; others are a confluence of multiple smaller issues. The following list isn’t exhaustive, nor is it a checklist, but it represents ways in which cards challenge the positive experiences players look for in commander games. It includes cards which easily or excessively

• Cause severe resource imbalances
• Allow players to win out of nowhere
• Prevent players from contributing to the game in a meaningful way.
• Cause other players to feel they must play certain cards, even though they are also problematic.
• Are very difficult for other players to interact with, especially if doing so requires dedicated, narrow responses when deck-building.
• Interact poorly with the multiplayer nature of the format or the specific rules of Commander.
• Lead to repetitive game play.

Cards which are banned likely meet a few of these criteria in a significant way; not all cards which meet some of the criteria need to banned.

We prefer to be conservative with what goes on or comes off the ban list. Commander players often become emotionally attached to their decks through play and personalization, and we value that experience highly. We only want to disrupt that bond when necessary.

Commander is designed to be a malleable format. We encourage groups to use the rules and the ban list as a baseline to optimize their own experience. This is not license for an individual to force their vision onto a play group, but encouragement for players to discuss their goals and how the rules might be adjusted to suit those goals. The format can be broken; we believe games are more fun if you don’t.

At the end of an ideal Commander game, someone will have won, but all participants will have had the opportunity to express themselves through their deck building and game play.

JqlGirl wrote: ↑

5 years ago

I think you're focusing too much on a single word with the avatar thing, Cryo. I doubt anyone credible will be looking to the philosophy document as a foundation for an argument that all planeswalkers should be allowed as commanders because of a single word.

As for potential barrier to entry, it's no longer called out specifically, but the document makes it clear that the bullet points aren't the only criteria for banning, just the most common ones. Other than cards on the reserve list, it's pretty impossible for me to imagine a situation that would lead another card to meet that criteria. Also, no card is going to be banned just for having a high price. If that were the case, then Tabernacle and Cradle would have been banned for years. At this point, it's a consideration when thinking about unbanning any card on the RL but not one to consider for new cards. Also, Library is gross and should stay banned.

cryogen wrote: ↑

5 years ago

1. "As is fitting for a format in which you choose an avatar to lead your forces into battle..." - One thing I had noticed about the official rules was that it had a dated feel by specifically stating that your commander must be a legendary creature.

cryogen wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Potential Barrier to Entry is noticeably absent. Again, I (jokingly) asked Sheldon if I should renew my quest to free Library of Alexandria, and he directed me to the fourth bullet, "Cause other players to feel they must play certain cards, even though they are also problematic." My issue here is that what exactly does "problematic" mean to the Rules Committee? because earlier in the document, it means "cards which are problematic because of their extreme consistency, ubiquity, and/or ability to restrict others’ opportunities.", none of which mention price or availability. And since the revised document no longer seems to be concerned with the perception of being priced out of the format before you even begin building your first deck, an Underground Sea is just as ubiquitous as a Library, arguably more.

MRHblue wrote: ↑

4 years ago

cryogen wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Potential Barrier to Entry is noticeably absent. Again, I (jokingly) asked Sheldon if I should renew my quest to free Library of Alexandria, and he directed me to the fourth bullet, "Cause other players to feel they must play certain cards, even though they are also problematic." My issue here is that what exactly does "problematic" mean to the Rules Committee? because earlier in the document, it means "cards which are problematic because of their extreme consistency, ubiquity, and/or ability to restrict others’ opportunities.", none of which mention price or availability. And since the revised document no longer seems to be concerned with the perception of being priced out of the format before you even begin building your first deck, an Underground Sea is just as ubiquitous as a Library, arguably more.

I think that lands on Moxen a lot harder than Library. Very few people think those are a good idea, but what keeps them banned?

MRHblue wrote: ↑

4 years ago

I think that lands on Moxen a lot harder than Library. Very few people think those are a good idea, but what keeps them banned?

papa_funk wrote: ↑

4 years ago

MRHblue wrote: ↑

4 years ago

I think that lands on Moxen a lot harder than Library. Very few people think those are a good idea, but what keeps them banned?

The fact that this is not a checklist or comprehensive.