Magic the Gathering: somebody please explain its appeal

[greenslime1951]

I an an avid game player and yet, I cannot see what is appealing about this game. The card sets you need constantly change; so do the rules. The worst aspect is that there's a constant "arms race" to acquire the most powerful cards. There's really nothing to stop anyone from bringing in a deck full of Hydrogen Bomb Monsters and winning every game, until, of course, Wizards brings out the Anti-Hydrogen Bomb Monster Death Ray, at which point there will be cards printed for the Death Ray Immunity Spell, and on and on and on... And yes, I know there are rules limiting the strength of decks, and tournament formats that restrict how you can construct a deck, but my point is still valid. You apparently couldn't win a single game with a deck from, say, five years ago even if you were allowed to riffle through your deck and select the card you wanted to draw every single turn.

The most ludicrous rule in Magic is that there are no rules. If a card says it can do something, then that takes precedence over the existing rules. So if the card says, "Player using this card wins instantly," there is nothing his opponent can do about it, and no rules he can cite as none of them apply any more. This strikes me as stupid, chaotic, and a major impediment to anyone but sex-starved male nerds playing the game (I do not exaggerate; I went to a big regional tournament recently and there were TWO females in the tournament crowd of about 400).

[AClockworkMelon]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

I an an avid game player and yet, I cannot see what is appealing about this game. The card sets you need constantly change; so do the rules. The worst aspect is that there's a constant "arms race" to acquire the most powerful cards.

The set cycles exist so that people will continue buying cards: Without sales the game would cease to exist. Depending on which format you're playing in, the cards you're using might become illegal in anywhere from six months to four years. A happy little side effect of the set cycle is that it's actually the only thing that prevents the arms race. The cards that exist today aren't particularly stronger than cards that existed a year ago. They're just different.

There's really nothing to stop anyone from bringing in a deck full of Hydrogen Bomb Monsters and winning every game, until, of course, Wizards brings out the Anti-Hydrogen Bomb Monster Death Ray, at which point there will be cards printed for the Death Ray Immunity Spell, and on and on and on...

The thing is, there really aren't many Hydrogen Bombs. If you go to an event you'll see a huge variety of decks. The most powerful cards are either difficult to get into play or they're powerful in a more subtle way. And yeah, even if there is a super card, like you said, there are rules limiting how many copies of a card you can use in a deck.

You apparently couldn't win a single game with a deck from, say, five years ago even if you were allowed to riffle through your deck and select the card you wanted to draw every single turn.

Wrong to the point of absurdity.

The most ludicrous rule in Magic is that there are no rules. If a card says it can do something, then that takes precedence over the existing rules. So if the card says, "Player using this card wins instantly," there is nothing his opponent can do about it, and no rules he can cite as none of them apply any more.

That's how every collectible card game that exists works. Yes, the functions of cards are determined by the cards themselves. Just like D&D, where each class provides characters with abilities they normally couldn't use and, every few months, some new book with new classes is released. Otherwise we might as well all be playing pinochle.

[Critical1]

you are playing a game of poker/chess, with thousands of possible combinations. for one who claims to be an avid gamer I have to wonder how you think this is a negative? Great games are like fine art, if you don't have the necessarily knowledge you cannot possibly make a judgment.

Mtg is beyond a doubt the best game I have ever played, the elegance of a perfectly designed deck is astonishing to see in action. I played it for a few years way the hell back in the early days. and the reason I quit? the time sink. the money wasn't an issue because I could trade or sell cards and basically play for free but the time sink was pretty intense.

that said it was a worth while time spent in the game. like any good game it changes the way you see things outside the game, allows you to make abstract connections between seemingly unrelated ideas. Mtg could be used to teach children all sorts of handy things beyond the basic math involved in the game.

no I dont work for wotc.
however one of my deck designs from way the hell back when Ice Age came out is still in play today. ( I was shocked to find that out) and if you want a bag of Zuran Orb corners I am your go to guy.

[Jragon]

The thing I never liked about Magic is the sheer commitment it takes to really be any good at it. For instance, to be anywhere near a decent player you need an encyclopaedic memory better than that of any Starcraft player -- high level (and we're talking regional top 5 players, not even national) typically have the effects, synergies, and general strategies of THOUSANDS of cards memorized. Yeah, you may win one or two games without it, but it won't be pleasant in any respect.

I realize this is true of, say, Starcraft as well. But Magic with its thousands of commonly used cards takes it way past 11 into laughable territory. I simply can't imagine being invested enough in a game to go and memorize THAT many cards, rules, and strategies for something as simple as building a competent deck. Yet some people I know ARE that into magic. Nothing against them, I just can't fathom that much dedication to a game, especially not when said dedication often involves regular 50 dollar investments in cards.

I played for a bit, it was okay, but I really couldn't bring myself to invest the time it takes to move beyond "hilariously outclassed" by any semi-serious opponent. I probably could have if I WANTED TO, I mean, I knew the state champ and another top 5 in the region player who could have tutored me, helped me build decks, etc, but... so much time investment.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by Critical1

you are playing a game of poker/chess, with thousands of possible combinations. for one who claims to be an avid gamer I have to wonder how you think this is a negative? Great games are like fine art, if you don't have the necessarily knowledge you cannot possibly make a judgment.

I have played the game enough--I made a serious attempt to get involved with it--that I do, in fact, have the necessary knowledge.

If chess was like Magic, there would be thousands of different pieces, with abilities like death gazes and teleportation. The board would be not 8x8, but 127x605. Or 200x3. Or banana-shaped. Depending on what day of the week it was.

I think that Magic is the Calvinball of games. This is not to say that it can't be fun, especially for those who don't like rules (like Calvin).

[Jragon]

Magic has tons of rules, just ask my friend who jumped through the hoops to be a judge.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Originally Posted by Jragon

The thing I never liked about Magic is the sheer commitment it takes to really be any good at it. For instance, to be anywhere near a decent player you need an encyclopaedic memory better than that of any Starcraft player -- high level (and we're talking regional top 5 players, not even national) typically have the effects, synergies, and general strategies of THOUSANDS of cards memorized. Yeah, you may win one or two games without it, but it won't be pleasant in any respect.

I realize this is true of, say, Starcraft as well. But Magic with its thousands of commonly used cards takes it way past 11 into laughable territory. I simply can't imagine being invested enough in a game to go and memorize THAT many cards, rules, and strategies for something as simple as building a competent deck. Yet some people I know ARE that into magic. Nothing against them, I just can't fathom that much dedication to a game, especially not when said dedication often involves regular 50 dollar investments in cards.

I played for a bit, it was okay, but I really couldn't bring myself to invest the time it takes to move beyond "hilariously outclassed" by any semi-serious opponent. I probably could have if I WANTED TO, I mean, I knew the state champ and another top 5 in the region player who could have tutored me, helped me build decks, etc, but... so much time investment.

I quit playing when I realized just how much money I had tied up in cards, most of which I didn't play. And you really DO have to keep upgrading your deck, unless the group you play with will agree to some house rules.

[Harborwolf]

Originally Posted by Jragon

The thing I never liked about Magic is the sheer commitment it takes to really be any good at it. For instance, to be anywhere near a decent player you need an encyclopaedic memory better than that of any Starcraft player -- high level (and we're talking regional top 5 players, not even national) typically have the effects, synergies, and general strategies of THOUSANDS of cards memorized. Yeah, you may win one or two games without it, but it won't be pleasant in any respect.

I realize this is true of, say, Starcraft as well. But Magic with its thousands of commonly used cards takes it way past 11 into laughable territory. I simply can't imagine being invested enough in a game to go and memorize THAT many cards, rules, and strategies for something as simple as building a competent deck. Yet some people I know ARE that into magic. Nothing against them, I just can't fathom that much dedication to a game, especially not when said dedication often involves regular 50 dollar investments in cards.

I played for a bit, it was okay, but I really couldn't bring myself to invest the time it takes to move beyond "hilariously outclassed" by any semi-serious opponent. I probably could have if I WANTED TO, I mean, I knew the state champ and another top 5 in the region player who could have tutored me, helped me build decks, etc, but... so much time investment.

I don't know about all that. Way back when I played, I didn't need to know everything about every card to build a solid deck. Just needed enough knowledge about what you wanted to do, what you were weak against, and what decks were popular at the time. Other than that, just try to keep your deck down to the minimum size.

It wasn't perfect. Anyone who was using the latest tournament fad deck and had the money to spend on the cards needed could usually take me down. I was a moderate player who got his good cards from packs. I could hold my own though, and occasionally get enough deck luck to pull a win out.

Magic is like anything else. You can certainly spend a lot of time learning every card and rule and dedicate yourself to winning everything, or you can just play it and have a good time.

[Chipacabra]

The point of new sets has nothing to do with the new cards being better. In fact, the balance of Magic has been pretty steady for years now, longer than some of its players have been alive. The super strong cards, the ones that get banned even when you're allowed to use all the sets, are from the old sets.

The point of the new sets is first, obviously, to sell more cards. But the big reason that the old sets cycle out of standard play is to make things easier on the players. The more cards that are "live", the more possible interactions there are, which means the more time and research you have to put in to discover the good combinations. Keeping it limited to the main set and a couple arcs of side sets keeps the pool of stuff you have to know at a fairly sane level.

In any case, you only have to keep on top of the current sets and everything if you want to play competitively. There's a big difference between playing competitively and playing casually. Magic is a game with a large tournament and structured play aspect, and because of that it has to devote a lot of time and effort into making things fair and uniform. That's why judges have to learn so many rules: 99% of them won't come up, but when they DO come up they should be resolved the same whether you're playing a tournament in Seattle or in Tokyo.

[hogarth]

To me, looking through a big list of cards for neat combinations was the fun part; it's like poking around a junk store or a flea market looking for hidden treasures.

The less fun parts to me were (a) the cost and the ability to pay money for power (in general, the more powerful the card, the more it would cost to buy) and (b) the fact that, after a while, I could just look for 2 seconds on the internet and find a deck that was almost certainly better than whatever I came up with.

[Jragon]

Originally Posted by Harborwolf

I don't know about all that. Way back when I played, I didn't need to know everything about every card to build a solid deck. Just needed enough knowledge about what you wanted to do, what you were weak against, and what decks were popular at the time. Other than that, just try to keep your deck down to the minimum size.

It wasn't perfect. Anyone who was using the latest tournament fad deck and had the money to spend on the cards needed could usually take me down. I was a moderate player who got his good cards from packs. I could hold my own though, and occasionally get enough deck luck to pull a win out.

Magic is like anything else. You can certainly spend a lot of time learning every card and rule and dedicate yourself to winning everything, or you can just play it and have a good time.

I mean, if you're playing in the local university basement with a bunch of laypeople sure, but pretty much my only outlet for play was against said state champ and at tournaments. I admit my situation was a bit unusual, but I basically had no chance unless I ubergamed. It was more fun back for the two months I played in middle school when I just played with my friend where we both had barely modified started decks.

[MaxTheVool]

Magic is the best game I've ever played, and it's been my primary hobby for about 17 years now. Needless to say, I strongly disagree with several of your points:

(1) There are rules. Tons of rules. And while they have changed over the years, almost all the changes have proven, in the long run, to be for the better. And having the rules is part of what makes the game so amazing, in that even with the tens of thousands of cards leading to millions of possible interactions, it's almost always fairly easy to decisively and concretely determine what should happen, even though you might be seeing three cards interact in a way that no human has ever seen before. The rules are still VERY complicated overall, but the vast majority of situations do in fact have a clear and precise answer, meaning you don't have to have every game devolve into an argument about what order things happen in, or what have you. And having cards break the rules is a GOOD thing. For instance, there's a card called Doran the Siege Tower which is a creature that says that creatures deal damage equal to their toughness instead of their power. That's something that just takes a basic facet of the game and utterly flips it on its head... and it's awesome! It's something which is simple and clear and easy to understand, yet which potentially makes every creature on the battlefield do something somewhat different than what it did before. Rule-breaking and rule-changing cards like that are part of what make magic great.

(2) There aren't hydrogen bombs any more, and there certainly aren't anti-hydrogen-bombs. There are close to zero examples in magic history of cards that were printed solely to interfere with other specific cards. There are some cards that are printed that are good against groups of cards, or general strategies, but that's usually a good thing, as it keeps things from being too dominated by everyone doing the same thing. There are certainly still cards printed that are better than other cards, but the difference between the first-best and twentieth-best card in a given card set is much smaller than it used to be. (There's also been a change recently towards having more of the really powerful cards be creatures, on the theory that creatures are fun and interactive and should be what magic is all about, as opposed to instances and sorceries and artifacts.)

(3) Most importantly, most of your (and others') criticisms seem to assume that everyone is playing competitive constructed magic. Yes, in tournament-level competitive constructed magic, you need 4 each of lots of powerful cards. And they usually cost money. And they rotate in and out of legality with some rapidity. And no matter how creative you are, someone else can almost certainly look on the internet and find a very well tuned deck that is better than yours. BUT, and this is a huge but, there are plenty of types of magic other than competitive constructed. Arguably he most important is limited, in which everyone shows up effectively owning zero cards, then everyone gets a random collection of cards (sometimes just randomly opened out of packs -- "sealed deck" -- and sometimes chosen one at a time so there's skill involved -- "draft"), and then you build your decks and go from there. So everyone's on an even footing (barring luck of the open), you don't have to own a single card at all, and you only have to know about the several hundred cards in whatever expansion you're playing with, and really only about half or so of those are likely to be played with. The big drawback of limited, of course, is that you have to keep buying new cards... it probably costs somewhere from $10 to $30 each time you play, depending on various things, but of course you will then get cards that you can hopefully sell some of back to the store, you might win prizes, etc. (99% of the magic I play is competitive limited.)

The other major form of magic is casual constructed, ie, playing for fun. For instance, there's a format called "Commander" which is very popular in which there are basically never tournaments. In Commander you play with a larger-than-normal deck with particular deck construction rules which encourage maximum variety, and it is usually played multiplayer. You can certainly build a single commander deck which you play basically untouched for years and years and years, and you for the most part won't run into the some of the more "grief-y" types of constructed decks.

[Jragon]

I'll admit, as far as alternative rulesets go EDH is pretty fun, though I can't really afford it and has a propensity to drag on sometimes.

ETA: Max, while tournaments that are sealed deck or draft even the playing field a bit, an ubergamer who's been intently following the new release is going to have bounds better luck than a casual player. Especially drafts, drafts are horridly newbie unfriendly.

[Jragon]

Also, I always found breaking Magic way more fun than playing it. I've seen a few gimmick decks that revolve around infinitely recursive subgames and whatnot, 98% of them aren't tournament legal and your friends will hate you if you play them more than once, but they make such great stories.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

You apparently couldn't win a single game with a deck from, say, five years ago even if you were allowed to riffle through your deck and select the card you wanted to draw every single turn.

This is the most wrong part of your post. The strongest cards ever to exist came from the first set ever made. Now that the game designers know a bit more about how to test and balance the game, it's not nearly as common to come across a completely overpowered card.

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

The most ludicrous rule in Magic is that there are no rules. If a card says it can do something, then that takes precedence over the existing rules. So if the card says, "Player using this card wins instantly," there is nothing his opponent can do about it, and no rules he can cite as none of them apply any more.

Games with cards almost always include some cards that supersede the basic rules of the game. Ever played Monopoly? The rules are that you go around the board by rolling dice. But what if you draw a card that says to go directly to Jail? Oh noes! The cards are breaking the rules. There ARE NO RULES! Dogs and cats sleeping together. Mass hysteria. If there were a Monopoly card that said "You win the game", that would make Monopoly a pretty stupid game. But there isn't one.

Nor is there a Magic card that says that.

If you have to make up parts of a game that don't exist in order to criticize them, it's probably not a very strong criticism.

[kenobi 65]

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3=

Games with cards almost always include some cards that supersede the basic rules of the game.

Richard Garfield (the creator of M:tG) has noted that this aspect of the game was inspired, at least in part, by a board game called Cosmic Encounter. CE had very straightforward rules...but then had lots of ways (alien races powers, flare cards, etc.) which allowed players to break those rules. This was (is) seen as part of the allure of both games.

[That Don Guy]

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3=

If there were a Monopoly card that said "You win the game", that would make Monopoly a pretty stupid game. But there isn't one.

Nor is there a Magic card that says that.

This reminds me of a story told about a playtester who complained that there was such a card; it turns out that he misunderstood what it meant on the card where it said, "Opponent loses next turn."

Actually, while there has never been a "you win the game" card, look up the words "channel" and "fireball" to see something very close to a two-card instant win. (I think "channel" - where you can convert your life points to mana - is now on the banned cards list pretty much because of this.)
There was also a one-card win against the "Rukh Egg deck" strategy, popular when the original interpretation was that ie became a Rukh even if you discarded it instead of playing any cards that turn; playing City in a Bottle would get rid of the opponent's entire deck, ending the game.

[Tom Scud]

There is in fact a card that says "target opponent loses the game" - however, it requires considerable resources to put it into play and activate it.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Mosier

This is the most wrong part of your post. The strongest cards ever to exist came from the first set ever made. Now that the game designers know a bit more about how to test and balance the game, it's not nearly as common to come across a completely overpowered card.

Notably, it was possible to win before the opponent ever had a turn via the infamous mountain/black lotus/channelling/fireball combo .

Of course these days that combo wouldn't be an auto-win button any more even if the cards in it were still legal (which they not just aren't, but fucking aren't), thanks to counterspells that can be cast via discarding rather than tapping lands.

Originally Posted by Tom Scud

There is in fact a card that says "target opponent loses the game" - however, it requires considerable resources to put it into play and activate it.

There is also at least one "as long as this card is in play, you cannot lose" card, but it's also ridiculously hard to put into play.

Originally Posted by That Don Guy

This reminds me of a story told about a playtester who complained that there was such a card; it turns out that he misunderstood what it meant on the card where it said, "Opponent loses next turn."

Reminds me of a fairly well known Magic anecdote: during a tournament, one player played this particular card, only it doesn't say "opponent" on the card, it says "target player". He pointed at another game table and said "That guy."
It was apparently ruled legal, though presumably going more by the Rule of Funny than the rules of Magic .

[Yllaria]

Originally Posted by Jragon

Also, I always found breaking Magic way more fun than playing it. I've seen a few gimmick decks that revolve around infinitely recursive subgames and whatnot, 98% of them aren't tournament legal and your friends will hate you if you play them more than once, but they make such great stories.

It wouldn't be appropriate here, but I'd enjoy reading a thread that explained a few gimmick decks, especially if it included great game stories.

[Carmady]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Notably, it was possible to win before the opponent ever had a turn via the infamous mountain/black lotus/channelling/fireball combo .

I barely played Magic (only ever got like 3 packs), but even I randomly picked up a first turn kill combo. Dark Ritual x3, Nether Shadow, Hatred.

Of course, since I got these cards randomly, I only had 1 each of NS and Hatred, so it was extremely unlikely I would be able to win on the first turn. (come to think of it, even if I had 4 each it would still be vanishingly unlikely)

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by Jragon

Also, I always found breaking Magic way more fun than playing it. I've seen a few gimmick decks that revolve around infinitely recursive subgames and whatnot, 98% of them aren't tournament legal and your friends will hate you if you play them more than once, but they make such great stories.

Hell yeah. I've been playing for many years now (but not seriously bought any cards since about Ice Age). My brother-in-law has always been the guy that plays that deck. The one where most of his turns take 20 minutes;

"So, I play this, which allows me to untap this, which means I can tap it to activate this, which allows me to draw a card, which I play to untap this, which regenerates this card from my graveyard, whose ability means I can gain this much life, which means I can sacrifice life to activate that card's ability.......",

and so on and so on until we all wander off or take his word for it that he's just gained infinite life or caused all of us infinite damage or whatever.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Tom Scud

There is in fact a card that says "target opponent loses the game" - however, it requires considerable resources to put it into play and activate it.

At least two that I can think of: Phage the Untouchable and Door to Nothingness.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3=

Games with cards almost always include some cards that supersede the basic rules of the game. Ever played Monopoly? The rules are that you go around the board by rolling dice. But what if you draw a card that says to go directly to Jail? Oh noes! The cards are breaking the rules. There ARE NO RULES! Dogs and cats sleeping together. Mass hysteria. If there were a Monopoly card that said "You win the game", that would make Monopoly a pretty stupid game. But there isn't one.

Nor is there a Magic card that says that.

If you have to make up parts of a game that don't exist in order to criticize them, it's probably not a very strong criticism.

Surely you realize--OK, maybe you don't--that a player can examine all the Chance and Community Chest cards, and all the property deed cards, before the start of the game. Surely you realize--OK, maybe you don't--that in subsequent games, no card will appear that wasn't a part of previous games. So surely you realize--OK, maybe you don't--that the cards of Monopoly do NOT supersede the "basic rules of the game," since the rules of the game say that if you draw a Chance or Community Chest card, you must do what the card says.

In any case, I apologize for criticizing your favowite game.

[Bosstone]

Surely you realize that this is not an open source game. If an opponent tries to play a card written with a Sharpie on normal paper, that is outside the basic rules of the game. Surely you realize that the basic rules of the game include the rule that the text on a card is legit. Surely you realize that the text written on the cards is part of the rules of the game.

Would you rather the cards had no text, and instead you had to refer to a rulebook several volumes large to see what the rules say the card you want to play does?

If you want to play chess or Monopoly, you can play chess or Monopoly. If you don't like the fact that a card you've never seen, but which has its rules printed on it for ease of gaming, can be played, you don't have to play Magic. Nobody's making you.

[Jragon]

Also, you do realize that there HAVE been times in the past where rules have been made specifically to supersede a card, right? For instance, the fiasco mentioned above with the "target player loses the game" card was amended in the rulebook. In addition, any ban on a card is also a rule that supersedes a card, if you tried to play said card you wouldn't be able to.

[AClockworkMelon]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

In any case, I apologize for criticizing your favowite game.

I predicted this as the result/point of the thread.

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by Jragon

Also, you do realize that there HAVE been times in the past where rules have been made specifically to supersede a card, right? For instance, the fiasco mentioned above with the "target player loses the game" card was amended in the rulebook.

Nothing of that sort ever happened with the released game. The story, possibly apocryphal, involves an early playtest card.

The closest I can think of to a case where the rules have been made to specifically supersede a card involved the card Abeyance, which was printed way back in approximately 1996.

[BlackKnight]

Yeah, it was pretty obvious from the start that the OP isn't interested in actually understanding the game nor having anyone explain its appeal. Perhaps it would have been more honest of the OP to have started this in the BBQ Pit?

My favorite thing about Magic: The Gathering is that it's possible to create a situation where four Indestructibilitys are enchanting each other, forming a Tranquility-proof, indestructible ring of enchantments. (Simic Guildmage is the key.) With Fountain Watch in play, you don't even have to worry about Erase. Your little ourorboros of indestructible enchantments will last until the Apocalypse.

You'll note that this accomplishes nothing whatsoever. I just love that the rules are robust enough (and the card effects creative enough) that this is possible to achieve.

[gonzoron]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

Surely you realize--OK, maybe you don't--that a player can examine all the Chance and Community Chest cards, and all the property deed cards, before the start of the game.

http://gatherer.wizards.com you too can examine all the Magic cards before the start of the game.

Surely you realize--OK, maybe you don't--that in subsequent games, no card will appear that wasn't a part of previous games.

Have you ever heard of a game expansion? Magic is hardly the only game that changes when new expansions are added.

So surely you realize--OK, maybe you don't--that the cards of Monopoly do NOT supersede the "basic rules of the game," since the rules of the game say that if you draw a Chance or Community Chest card, you must do what the card says.

and the rules of Magic say when you play a Magic card, you must do what the card says.


Look, if it's not your bag, don't play it. But you're describing 1000 Blank White cards (which yes, is a game, and yes is fun), not Magic.

Are there 1st turn kills in Magic? Yes, but as far as I know, not in any format other than the "eternal" formats that allow all cards ever made, where people expect that. And where they do exist, there are also cards that foil the 1st turn kills, to the point that the 1st turn kills are rarely worth playing.

Do new cards keep being printed? yes, that's part of the fun.

Do cards exist that say "you win" or "your opponent loses," yes, but they require set up and can be easily disrupted by other cards.

Do the cards "break the rules"? Yes, but not really. The text on the cards, taken as a whole, ARE the rules. So what?

To answer your initial question: what's the appeal? It's an ever-changing, exciting, well-balanced, varied game. It can be cutthroat or casual, serious or silly. I can flex my creative muscles while not playing by thinking up combos and decks. It rewards strategy and tactics, but has enough luck that it's never a foregone conclusion. That's the appeal.

[Tom Scud]

Originally Posted by BlackKnight

Yeah, it was pretty obvious from the start that the OP isn't interested in actually understanding the game nor having anyone explain its appeal. Perhaps it would have been more honest of the OP to have started this in the BBQ Pit?

My favorite thing about Magic: The Gathering is that it's possible to create a situation where four Indestructibilitys are enchanting each other, forming a Tranquility-proof, indestructible ring of enchantments. (Simic Guildmage is the key.) With Fountain Watch in play, you don't even have to worry about Erase. Your little ourorboros of indestructible enchantments will last until the Apocalypse.

You'll note that this accomplishes nothing whatsoever. I just love that the rules are robust enough (and the card effects creative enough) that this is possible to achieve.

Your Aura Gnarlids will be pleased.

[Harborwolf]

Originally Posted by Jragon

I mean, if you're playing in the local university basement with a bunch of laypeople sure, but pretty much my only outlet for play was against said state champ and at tournaments. I admit my situation was a bit unusual, but I basically had no chance unless I ubergamed. It was more fun back for the two months I played in middle school when I just played with my friend where we both had barely modified started decks.

So you go to the tournaments where each person gets a starter deck and a couple of packs and has to build a deck from those and play with that for the whole tourney. These were usually held at the local shops when expansions were released.

The best way my little bunch of laypeople had of shutting down the hard core players was playing group battles. Tournament decks are fine for one on one play, but tend to fall apart when you've got a pile of six players going. And boy were those fun. Complete chaos. Decks you'd never imagine taking to a tournament. I had a deck based around walls and the spell Pyroclasm. I'd take out weenie creatures left and right and hide behind my defensive line. It was a complete dick deck. I had an old Ice Age deck based around the Arctic Fox card. Unblockable if opposing players had snow covered lands. Spend the whole game dinking people to death. A green deck based around the Lhurgoyf. Power and toughness based around creatures in all graveyards. Get four or more graveyards going and that beastie was just awesome.

I don't care if I'm showing my nerd age here. Those games were fun.

[gonzoron]

By the way, the rules and the card texts are living documents. There are updates once a season or so. Most of them are small tweaks to make the new cards work, or to make old cards work under new rules. Saying that the "cards break the rules" or "the rules override the cards" is kind of simplistic. It's a complex system, where all the pieces work together. There's not really a distinction in my mind.

[Quimby]

It's fun?

[asterion]

I only play from time to time (I picked it up in the late 90s, say 1997, and dropped in around 2000 due to lack of playtime and money) and these days its mostly either the old Microprose game or one of the games available on the PS3. I just can't get myself to pay money for virtual cards (it'd help a bit if they'd launch a Mac client.) It didn't help that my favorite expansions (the Mirage block) went out of Type 2 and it seemed like everyone was playing the exact same burn deck through the Urza block. What I've found is that I'm still stuck in the old rules to some degree, where they've given names to abilities that used to be described on the card (examples include vigilance, shroud, defender, deathtouch, and reach.) Also, I still think in terms of the old turn structure and stack timing rules, which gets me into trouble at times. Hell, I apparently missed the changes in formats, since I don't think they use the Type II name anymore.

I know there's a number of Dopers who play online, but I don't think there's even been an actual list generated.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

Surely you realize--OK, maybe you don't--that a player can examine all the Chance and Community Chest cards, and all the property deed cards, before the start of the game. Surely you realize--OK, maybe you don't--that in subsequent games, no card will appear that wasn't a part of previous games. So surely you realize--OK, maybe you don't--that the cards of Monopoly do NOT supersede the "basic rules of the game," since the rules of the game say that if you draw a Chance or Community Chest card, you must do what the card says.

In any case, I apologize for criticizing your favowite game.

How about making an honest OP next time?

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by BlackKnight

Yeah, it was pretty obvious from the start that the OP isn't interested in actually understanding the game nor having anyone explain its appeal. Perhaps it would have been more honest of the OP to have started this in the BBQ Pit?

I felt sure that my question and my motivations would be misconstrued, and that some loyal fanboys would leap to the "defense" of their favorite game, as if I was attacking it.

It is interesting to note that no one has actually answered the question--what is the appeal of this game? Is it its chaotic nature? The constant need to upgrade and improve one's deck(s)? The open-ended nature of the game? The fact that the rules are in a constant state of flux?

I doubt, for example, that it has all that much appeal as a strategy game, because it's impossible to form a strategy that'll be any use say, two months from now. But possibly the constant need to adapt makes it stimulating for some people rather than frustrating.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by Mosier

How about making an honest OP next time?

No need to question my motives just because I questioned the appeal of your favorite game. That wasn't by any kind of extension an attack on you or others who play it; therefore there is no need for you to "retaliate."

It's obvious that the game has great appeal for some people, because Wizards continues to sell cards. If at least some people didn't find the game compelling, they wouldn't expend the large sums necessary to play it.

[AClockworkMelon]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

No need to question my motives just because I questioned the appeal of your favorite game.

This guy's good.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by Bosstone

Would you rather the cards had no text, and instead you had to refer to a rulebook several volumes large to see what the rules say the card you want to play does?

No, I'd rather there were certain things you couldn't do, regardless of some card surfacing that says you can. This is for the same reason that I play chess, and I don't want the Wizard Chess Company to proclaim that there are now new pieces that can levitate or teleport or give other pieces the plague. Or that I play baseball, and the ball is round and there are four bases, and that will still be true if I play baseball next week. I don't need the constant stimulation of everything being in flux; within the confines of the rules of those games, there's still infinite variety. You don't need to introduce new elements into a game every month to keep it interesting--not if it's a good game.

Of course, Wizards' motivation for doing that is something other than simply trying to make the game better.

[Chimi]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

You don't need to introduce new elements into a game every month to keep it interesting--not if it's a good game.

And in my opinion, Wizards doesn't need to introduce new elements to make it an interesting game. If they went outta business today, quite a big chunk of the players would stop playing...but quite a few of use would be sad, but continue to play and update our decks!

Part of the appeal of the game, for me, was prereleases. Back when you would have hints, and reveals of this whole new world, with new cards, new abilities, which all need new ways of thinking, and then you get up in the morning, hang out with a bunch of people who share your interests, then break open your packs, have a whole mess of cards in front of you, 45 minutes to build whatever you can out of them, surrounded by people doing the same thing, and knowing that you have to beat them. Reading cards, trying to figure out what fits together, trying to work out the economy of your resources, trying to decide which of several different decks you can build with what you got. Then sitting down in front of a stranger, or a friend, or a bitter Friday Night Magic rival, knowing that the only thing between you and loss is the choices you've made, and your ability to read your opponent, bluff him, and push home the damage.

The appeal is the same as any competitive game. Sitting down across from your foe, and matching wits until one of you goes down. Learning, taking what you've learned, and making yourself better equipped for the next fight.

Now, I was never the best, so I got my joy other ways too. I loved to put together decks for my local games, Friday Night Magic and the like, that really shouldn't have worked, and making them work. Being the oddball. The dark horse. Seeing the look in the eye of a player who knew he was better than me when I pull off silly trick with a card he would never use. Someone linked to Door to Nothingness earlier. It's a bad card. It's awful. And there's nothing better than standing up and announcing to the room that you just kicked someone through it.

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by Jragon

ETA: Max, while tournaments that are sealed deck or draft even the playing field a bit, an ubergamer who's been intently following the new release is going to have bounds better luck than a casual player. Especially drafts, drafts are horridly newbie unfriendly.

Sure, but at that point, you're just in the same place that you are with any game... someone who is better is better. In constructed magic, someone who is trying to get into the game faces two hurdles: other players are better, and other players own way more cards. Limited removes one of those two barriers, and sealed deck has enough luck and variance that worse players have as good a shot as they possibly can of beating better players without removing all skill from the game entirely.

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

No, I'd rather there were certain things you couldn't do, regardless of some card surfacing that says you can. This is for the same reason that I play chess, and I don't want the Wizard Chess Company to proclaim that there are now new pieces that can levitate or teleport or give other pieces the plague.

Then clearly magic isn't the game for you, as that's exactly the opposite of the way I feel. I don't play chess, but I feel that if I did, after a while I would start getting bored and look for new things to be happening... new types of pieces, new moves, new starting configurations, etc. That's the whole appeal of Fairy Chess. Magic just takes that and makes it the actual game.

So the primary appeal is that it's fun, because it's an interesting and well balanced game in which every time you sit down and play you think "I might see something I've never seen before... in fact, I might see something that NO ONE has ever seen before". If that doesn't appeal to you, well, I don't know any other way to explain it.

[Critical1]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

Nothing of that sort ever happened with the released game. The story, possibly apocryphal, involves an early playtest card.

The closest I can think of to a case where the rules have been made to specifically supersede a card involved the card Abeyance, which was printed way back in approximately 1996.

actually Abeyance was crystal clear in its effects and the rules handled this in an also crystal clear manner, it was some dumbass down at wotc who grossly overpowered that card by giving it abilities that were not written anywhere on it.

long live turbo peace talks!

[Lynn Bodoni]

It is interesting to note that no one has actually answered the question--what is the appeal of this game? Is it its chaotic nature? The constant need to upgrade and improve one's deck(s)? The open-ended nature of the game? The fact that the rules are in a constant state of flux?

For me, I enjoyed buying decks or packs, and seeing what cards I got. It was like a lottery, except that I ALWAYS got at least a couple of really good cards in a booster pack, and of course got more great cards in a deck. Then there was deck building, which I really and truly sucked at, but I enjoyed anyway. And there was the fun in seeing how other people would build and play decks.

[MHaye]

The main attraction of the game is that it changes, but it stays the same.

The core methods of gameplay don't change, or at least very rarely; there was one major shakeup in 1999 (necessary to dispose of some overly-complex early elements and poor decisions built up over the years), and a lesser one in 2009. But through all that, the core game - a game of resource management and responding to other player's moves) remains intact.

What changes is what you play with. Limited has been discussed. Constructed formats continually change as cards are added to and leave the environment. This means the best strategy and mix of cards changes over time.

The relatively rapid change of the Standard environment also offers some hope for the new player getting into the game. The fact that veterans have the main cards and they don't will become less of a factor when new cards are added, and especially at the beginning of October when about half the Standard environment ceases to be Standard-legal. The veterans are forced to explore new areas, and this keeps the game interesting to them and the card-gap manageable for new players.

There are other formats to play as well, that allow more cards. But, as a rule of thumb, the more cards there are in a constructed environment, the more powerful the decks are and the less turns people take (although this doesn't necessarily mean less decision-making). Also, these wider environments can offer significant cost barriers to entry (although again, once you have assembled the cards for the decks you want, the cost of updating the decks is minimal).

Then there are people like me, who don't play the game but enjoy the bizarre interactions you can come up with sometimes.

Finally, the OP's claim that there are no rules is nonsense. You can only know what a particular card does because of the framework provided by the rules. Some cards generate effects that change the rules, but there are still rules even when the game's components can change them.

[asterion]

As an aside, I bet the OP would absolutely hate Fluxx.

[gonzoron]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

It is interesting to note that no one has actually answered the question--what is the appeal of this game? Is it its chaotic nature? The constant need to upgrade and improve one's deck(s)? The open-ended nature of the game? The fact that the rules are in a constant state of flux?

I think I did answer it in my first post in the thread, but yes, all of those things are appealing to fans of magic. (Or more specifically, each of those appeal to some but not all Magic players.

Since Wizards has a vested interest in selling cards, they've done a lot of thinking and research about how Magic appeals to different types of players. One thing they've done is consider 5 different stereotypes of player, and design different cards with those hypothetical players in mind. ("Spike" plays to win above all else, "Timmy" plays to experience exciting moments, "Johnny" plays to flex his creative skill at combining cards together, "Vorthos" enjoys the flavor, story, and art and how those are reflected in the rules, "Melvin" enjoys the intricacies of the rules and their interactions) Myself, I'm a Johnny/Melvin with streaks of Spike. I play for completely different reasons that a Timmy/Vorthos, but we both enjoy the game.

I doubt, for example, that it has all that much appeal as a strategy game, because it's impossible to form a strategy that'll be any use say, two months from now.

On that, you're dead wrong. In some ways, "the more things change, the more they stay the same". Regardless of the new cards, there are still archetypes of decks that surface again and again. The identities of the color factions drift a bit over time, but remain overall predictable at what they can do, if not exactly how they do it.

I can sit down to draft a set I've never seen before and still have a decent idea of what's good to pick and what's not. It's likely that certain strategies are more or less powerful in this set, and the only way to know is to explore it (or read articles about other people's explorations), but the path to beating your opponent is 99% the same, and the bulk of the strategy stays the same.

Can I be surprised by a card I didn't account for? Sure.. so? If I didn't want surprises, I'd play Tic-Tac-Toe.

[Anamorphic]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

Then clearly magic isn't the game for you, as that's exactly the opposite of the way I feel. I don't play chess, but I feel that if I did, after a while I would start getting bored and look for new things to be happening... new types of pieces, new moves, new starting configurations, etc. That's the whole appeal of Fairy Chess. Magic just takes that and makes it the actual game.

I was going to say, then you should check out Nightmare Chess, which does exactly that. It's a deck of cards that you add to a traditional chess game that grants different pieces different rules and abilities as you play them. It obviously turns chess into a whole different game, but it's fun.

It looks like it's gone out of print though, and copies of the game are not cheap. Too bad!