Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Do you think the quickness of the games contributes to this?

Not really. The game itself is fast, but there's still the investment of building your deck. I think the biggest factor is just that MTG is a better game and there are fewer people who feel the need to wall off their personal variant of it and declare everything else to be Having Fun The Wrong Way.

Peregrine wrote:Not really. The game itself is fast, but there's still the investment of building your deck. I think the biggest factor is just that MTG is a better game and there are fewer people who feel the need to wall off their personal variant of it and declare everything else to be Having Fun The Wrong Way.

Plus, and I really think this is true, the fact that MTG forces deck variety. You can only have 4 of the same card (apart from lands) in your deck. They pretty much force players to customize and play different kinds of things. If a player says that he's playing red, even if I know all of the cards in the current edition, I still have no clue what cards are in his deck. If a "competitive" player tells me that he's playing Tau, I already know that I'm going to be facing riptide and broadside spam.

Traditio wrote:
I have a friend who will play a video game rpg, and at the end of every level, he'll spend 10 minutes "optimizing" his gear. Er...I thought we were playing a video game?

And yet again you don't understand the concept of other people having fun doing things that you don't enjoy. For your friend that optimization is leisure/relaxation.

I can't think of any situation in which I'd have to lie in Magic the Gathering.

Then you aren't thinking very hard.

As a professor I know often says regarding the matter:

You always must tell the truth. However, you don't always have to tell the truth."

And that's a really stupid concept that fails utterly in real life. I really hope this isn't a philosophy professor telling you this in class.

Any attempt to deceive is a lie, Traditio. Leading someone to believe something which is not true (whether by word, action, implication, or omission) is lying.

Most games of competition (including 40k and Magic: the Gathering) involve deceit or obfuscation as to one's true motive or capabilities. This is a form of lying.

Traditio wrote:
They pretty much force players to customize and play different kinds of things.

No it doesn't. Netdecking exists in MTG just like netlisting does in 40k.

If a player says that he's playing red, even if I know all of the cards in the current edition, I still have no clue what cards are in his deck.

Only if they're a "casual" player who deliberately avoids playing the best stuff and/or you don't pay enough attention to MTG strategy to learn the popular decks. If they're a competitive player you can guess the entire contents of their deck from little more than "red aggro", with maybe a few slight customizations (usually less than five cards) for the local metagame.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Do you think the quickness of the games contributes to this?

Not really. The game itself is fast, but there's still the investment of building your deck. I think the biggest factor is just that MTG is a better game and there are fewer people who feel the need to wall off their personal variant of it and declare everything else to be Having Fun The Wrong Way.

But what makes it a better game, specifically, I guess is what I'm driving at?

Peregrine wrote:And yet again you don't understand the concept of other people having fun doing things that you don't enjoy. For your friend that optimization is leisure/relaxation.

Oh, I'm quite sure that he's having fun. It simply doesn't make sense to me. The game (let us suppose) is about cutting goblins in half. Can't you fiddle with your equipment later?

Then you aren't thinking very hard.

Give me a concrete instance. What do you have in mind?

And that's a really stupid concept that fails utterly in real life. I really hope this isn't a philosophy professor telling you this in class.

He's a Thomist (someone who subscribes to the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas).

 Jimsolo wrote:
But what makes it a better game, specifically, I guess is what I'm driving at?

Much better balance so that there are fewer situations where a fan of a particular deck/card feels like the only way they can have a decent chance of winning with that deck/card is to exclude the more powerful alternatives, and much better rule clarity so that the entire RAW/RAI argument is removed. Also, it's not really a case of better vs. worse, but the release cycle gets people used to the idea of changing their decks constantly instead of becoming attached to one specific decklist and having to protect their ability to play it successfully.

Peregrine wrote:No it doesn't. Netdecking exists in MTG just like netlisting does in 40k.

In practice, though, it's really not as common, is it? I mean, even the "competitive" players I know don't use net decks. Even the one player I'm friends with who actually does have this bizarre competitive mindset...he thinks up his own combinations.

Only if they're a "casual" player who deliberately avoids playing the best stuff and/or you don't pay enough attention to MTG strategy to learn the popular decks. If they're a competitive player you can guess the entire contents of their deck from little more than "red aggro", with maybe a few slight customizations (usually less than five cards) for the local metagame.

Really? I was under the impression that there was much more customization in Magic. Especially given the fact that, unless you're purchasing everything off the net, your cardpool is coming either from 1. premade decks or 2. random packs of cards.

Traditio wrote:
Oh, I'm quite sure that he's having fun. It simply doesn't make sense to me. The game (let us suppose) is about cutting goblins in half. Can't you fiddle with your equipment later?

Why does it matter?

Give me a concrete instance. What do you have in mind?

*I draw a card*
"Well, that sucks, go ahead and kill me. Your turn."
*you attack with everything*
*I cast "destroy all attacking creatures"*
"Oops, I guess you lose now."

He's a Thomist (someone who subscribes to the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas).

Well that's disappointing. I'm really surprised that someone would hire a professor with such obviously absurd beliefs in their professional field. That's like hiring a young-earth creationist to teach biology, or a geocentrist to teach physics.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Any attempt to deceive is a lie, Traditio. Leading someone to believe something which is not true (whether by word, action, implication, or omission) is lying.

Most games of competition (including 40k and Magic: the Gathering) involve deceit or obfuscation as to one's true motive or capabilities. This is a form of lying.

All lying is deception, but not all deception is lying. To lie is to try to deceive someone by telling him something that you know isn't true. That is what I mean by "lie." I think "x," but I say not "x."

Dissimulation covers other forms of deception. For example, I can say something true but ambiguous, in hopes that my interlocutor will misunderstand me. An example of this is one of the early Christian saints. The authorities, who were persecuting Christians, are chasing him down, and he's on a boat. They don't recognize him, and they ask him if he knows where so and so is. His answer? "He's not far!" Note, what he said is perfectly true...but he wanted the Romans to keep on walking, right?

That's not a lie.

Problems with dissimulation arise, however, when, for example, you have an obligation to tell the truth. If you dissimulate to your confessor, you're committing sacrilege.

Lying is intrinsically evil. Dissimulation can be justified at least in some circumstances.

Yeah, I'm no good at the bluffing game, but I don't see bluffing as
a negative thing to have in a game. I just prefer open information
type stuff. (Using tokens to hide characters, for example, drives
me nuts. Fanatics? Ugh).

Traditio wrote:
In practice, though, it's really not as common, is it?

It's incredibly common, and the default in tournaments. The internet enabled such fast and effective playtesting that the best decks for the metagame are quickly discovered and optimized, and once that's done why play anything else? Occasionally someone will come up with a new idea, hide it carefully until the right tournament, and win, but their ideas will be copied and incorporated into the metagame by the next major event. Outside of that modifying decks for your own use is limited to making minor changes for a local metagame.

Really? I was under the impression that there was much more customization in Magic.

There is. It just happens in the first few days after a new set is released. Sure, once people have figured everything out you can still customize your decks, but you're almost always making it weaker.

Especially given the fact that, unless you're purchasing everything off the net, your cardpool is coming either from 1. premade decks or 2. random packs of cards.

It's 2015 and internet shopping exists. There might be occasional people who don't buy cards online (other than newbies just starting the game), but they're a tiny minority. Really the only reason to buy random packs is to play sealed/draft, and premade decks are almost always a waste of money.

Peregrine wrote:Why does it matter?

It's cutting into the ork-killing fun time...which, again, let us suppose, is what the game is about.

*I draw a card*
"Well, that sucks, go ahead and kill me. Your turn."
*you attack with everything*
*I cast "destroy all attacking creatures"*
"Oops, I guess you lose now."

Whether or not what you said is a lie, it's not necessary for you to have said it. It's possible to play Magic the Gathering predominately in silence.

Well that's disappointing. I'm really surprised that someone would hire a professor with such obviously absurd beliefs in their professional field. That's like hiring a young-earth creationist to teach biology, or a geocentrist to teach physics.

1. It's a Catholic university.

2. Are you an expert in philosophy, that you are so quick to dismiss St. Thomas, especially in light of:

3. Aeterni Patris, in which Pope Leo XIII pretty much officially endorsed St. Thomas Aquinas' philosophy?

Traditio wrote:
That's not a lie.

It's also a really bad example because it implies an obligation to tell the truth to people who are trying to persecute you. That's an absolutely insane belief to hold, and one that has absolutely no relevance in real-world scenarios. And it's an example of the kind of thing that makes people think philosophy contributes nothing to the world.

Lying, however, is intrinsically evil.

And I see we're back to discussing your absurd philosophical beliefs. Remember the example of lying to a child to surprise them with a birthday party?

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:Why does it matter?

It's cutting into the ork-killing fun time. :p

Some people prefer to build up characters/armies/etc. You probably
spend more time actually killing orks than you do watching him
crunch numbers. Leave him be.

Peregrine wrote:It's also a really bad example because it implies an obligation to tell the truth to people who are trying to persecute you.

As I said: there's no such obligation. As I quoted earlier: you always must tell the truth. In other words, if you open your mouth to talk, what you say had better be true. But you don't have to open your mouth in the first place. You can remain silent.

And I see we're back to discussing your absurd philosophical beliefs. Remember the example of lying to a child to surprise them with a birthday party?

Yes, I recall that in the other thread. He wasn't telling the child that he and his wife were showing up, right? Again, that's not a lie. There's no such obligation to tell the child. However, if the child were to ask, "No, we aren't coming to your party" is not an acceptable answer. "We have plans," however, would be perfectly acceptable. Dissimulation is fine.

Traditio wrote:
It's cutting into the ork-killing fun time...which, again, let us suppose, is what the game is about.

What it is about for you. Apparently for your friend the game is about gear optimization.

Whether or not what you said is a lie, it's not necessary for you to have said it. It's possible to play Magic the Gathering predominately in silence.

It's also possible to play MTG without ever playing any lands or casting any spells. Why you would want to remove huge parts of the game like that, I have no idea.

1. It's a Catholic university.

That explains a lot.

3. Aeterni Patris, in which Pope Leo XIII pretty much officially endorsed St. Thomas Aquinas' philosophy?

Why should I care what some random guy in a fancy hat has to say? His opinion on morality is no more relevant than mine, and his endorsement of something has absolutely no value to me.

So...what does the lying have to do with the original topic?

Traditio wrote:
In other words, if you open your mouth to talk, what you say had better be true.

And, again, in the real world this is clearly wrong. If someone says "I'm going to murder your friend, tell me where they are or I'll kill you" then you have no obligation to tell the truth or to sacrifice your own life to avoid lying. You can tell them a lie with a clear conscience.

 malfred wrote:
So...what does the lying have to do with the original topic?

Peregrine brought it up in the second to last post of the first page. He insinuated that I can't play Magic the Gathering because it is necessary to bluff, and by this, he insinuated that it is necessary to tell lies in order to play magic the gathering. I was simply pointing out that this isn't true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:And, again, in the real world this is clearly wrong. If someone says "I'm going to murder your friend, tell me where they are or I'll kill you" then you have no obligation to tell the truth or to sacrifice your own life to avoid lying. You can tell them a lie with a clear conscience.

In concreto, it's not necessary. You are perfectly free to dissimulate. "You might find him at such and such a place. [In point of fact, you certainly won't find him there. But it's possible that you might have, if only he had been there! ] And where the only alternatives are 1. committing a moral wrong or 2. dying, it is always better to suffer evil than to do it.

 malfred wrote:
So...what does the lying have to do with the original topic?

Traditio's belief is that lying and and "exploiting" bad rules are moral crimes regardless of the circumstances, so things like playing with overpowered units (at least without voluntarily increasing their point costs to a level that he considers appropriate) are automatically TFG behavior even if both players are having fun doing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
In concreto, it's not necessary. You are perfectly free to dissimulate. "You might find him at such and such a place. [In point of fact, you certainly won't find him there. But it's possible that you might have, if only he had been there! ] And where the only alternatives are 1. committing a moral wrong or 2. dying, it is always better to suffer evil than to do it.

Ok, so instead of saying "it's ok to lie to a murderer to prevent them from murdering someone" you have to resort to a RAW argument where you didn't technically lie according to the most literal interpretation of your words? This is why Kant's moral philosophy is a joke.

(And really, it's better to die than to lie to a murderer to save your friend? Lol.)

Peregrine wrote:Ok, so instead of saying "it's ok to lie to a murderer to prevent them from murdering someone" you have to resort to a RAW argument where you didn't technically lie according to the most literal interpretation of your words? This is why Kant's moral philosophy is a joke.

There's a huge difference. In the one case, you committed an intrinsic moral evil. You told a lie. In the other case, you told the truth. Not a truth, perhaps, that the murderer is particularly interested in (I mean, you could tell him a billion places in which he may find your friend; for every contingent proposition, "possibly A" is a true statement). Still. You told the truth.

In fact, if you have a scrupulous conscience, you need not even speak in propositions. Ask him questions:

"Have you checked at x place [where I know that you won't find my friend]?" "How about y place [where I know for a fact that you'll never find my friend]?"

Questions don't even have a truth value!

Anyway, it's not just Kant. As much as even some Thomists will disagree about this, St. Thomas is pretty black and white on the subject. So is St. Augustine and a large number of Church Fathers and doctors.

(And really, it's better to die than to lie to a murderer to save your friend? Lol.)

In one case, something bad happens to you. In the other case, you do something bad and make yourself worse thereby.

As early as Plato, this truth found clear expression: it is better to suffer evil than to commit evil.

Traditio wrote:
There's a huge difference. In the one case, you committed an intrinsic moral evil. You told a lie. In the other case, you told the truth. Not a truth, perhaps, that the murderer is particularly interested in (I mean, you could tell him a billion places in which he may find your friend; for every contingent proposition, "possibly A" is a true statement). Still. You told the truth.

This is all just RAW nitpicking. You told the truth RAW, but RAI you lied. You know perfectly well that when a person says "{person} may be in {place}" that it means "that's my best guess, but I'm not sure". And in fact you're counting on that understanding to mislead the murderer. So you communicated incorrect information that you knew was incorrect, regardless of the precise words you used to do it.

(Of course this isn't a problem at all for any sensible system of morality because it's obvious that the consequences of lying are good, while the consequences of telling the truth are bad. You just tell a lie without having to do all of this rules lawyering to justify it.)

Anyway, it's not just Kant. As much as even some Thomists will disagree about this, St. Thomas is pretty black and white on the subject. So is St. Augustine and a large number of Church Fathers and doctors.

And this is one of many reasons why I'm glad I'm an atheist. I can throw nonsense philosophy in the trash can where it belongs, and I don't have to pretend to respect the people who wrote it.

In the other case, you do something bad and make yourself worse thereby.

Only if you are obsessed with the purity of actions instead of the consequences of those actions. I'd feel pretty good about myself and be confident that I did good and made myself better by telling a lie to the murderer.

Peregrine, if you wish to pursue the matter at greater length, I can certainly do this. Feel free either to create a thread on the topic in the relevent forum, or else, PM me. However, I really don't want to drag this particular thread further off topic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:Much better balance so that there are fewer situations where a fan of a particular deck/card feels like the only way they can have a decent chance of winning with that deck/card is to exclude the more powerful alternatives, and much better rule clarity so that the entire RAW/RAI argument is removed. Also, it's not really a case of better vs. worse, but the release cycle gets people used to the idea of changing their decks constantly instead of becoming attached to one specific decklist and having to protect their ability to play it successfully.

Another, on topic, observation: A magic deck doesn't require an investment in the vicinity of hundreds of dollars. And once you understand the rules, you don't have to keep buying new rule books.

So, yeah. When someone tells you that your deck sucks, your response is: "Oh, boo. I paid like 20 bucks for this."

If someone tells you that your warhammer army sucks...

Traditio wrote:
Another, on topic, observation: A magic deck doesn't require an investment in the vicinity of hundreds of dollars.

You must not play MTG if you think this is true.

Peregrine wrote:You must not play MTG if you think this is true.

I have like 5-7 old decks (I'm not really into the game any more). My favorite is an old pestilence deck. Basically, pestilence + urza's armor + cemetary gates is the primary win condition. I'm pretty sure that it's not a hundred dollar deck.

Traditio wrote:
I'm pretty sure that it's not a hundred dollar deck.

Nor is it a very good deck (and it wasn't when you made it). Realistically if you want to play competitive MTG you're going to spend at least $1-200 per deck, though if you're good at anticipating the metagame and market trends you can recover some of that investment by selling a deck while it's popular and moving on to the next winning strategy. If you want to play vintage or legacy you're going to be spending thousands of dollars up front, though your ongoing expenses to maintain a deck will be fairly small. And even "casual" decks can get pretty expensive unless everyone in the group agrees to have a limited budget.

Actually, now that I think of it, I think that's basically what's wrong with "competitive" players. A "competitive" player is going to try to shut his opponent down. He's going to try to prevent his opponent from playing.

The street fighter player who spams throws, or the fighter-game player who keeps bouncing his opponent against the wall ad infinitum...he's the only one playing that game. There's nothing fun about watching your opponent play the game while you sit there basically twiddling your thumbs.

There's nothing fun about a game in which your opponent counters all of your spells, makes you sacrifice all of your lands, etc.

There's nothing fun about a game of warhammer in which your opponent only uses fliers, and I have no effective anti air.

You don't want me to cry OP or cheese? Then let me play the game. Don't turn it into a game in which I am basically just sitting in my chair twiddling my thumbs. I'm not saying "let me win." I'm simply saying: "Don't set out to play the game in such a way that you're the only one playing." That's all. Otherwise, I'm just engaging in an extravagent waste of my time. And...for what? For you to have the great and amazing honor of saying: "I win"? Really? Is my time worth so little?

Traditio wrote:
Actually, now that I think of it, I think that's basically what's wrong with "competitive" players. A "competitive" player is going to try to shut his opponent down. He's going to try to prevent his opponent from playing.

Unless the other player is equally competitive, in which case neither of them is shut down.

The street fighter player who spams throws, or the fighter-game player who keeps bouncing his opponent against the wall ad infinitum...he's the only one playing that game. There's nothing fun about watching your opponent play the game while you sit there basically twiddling your thumbs.

Then get better at the game and fight back. And read http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/ for why this "cheese" is only "cheese" if you're a newbie who never tries to improve your fighting game skills.

There's nothing fun about a game in which your opponent counters all of your spells, makes you sacrifice all of your lands, etc.

Then get better at the game and fight back. Neither counterspell nor land destruction decks are unbeatable. If you're losing constantly to them you're probably either playing a weak deck or haven't learned things like how to bluff a spell through an opponent's counterspells.

There's nothing fun about a game of warhammer in which your opponent only uses fliers, and I have no effective anti air.

Then bring AA.

You don't want me to cry OP or cheese? Then let me play the game.

Alternatively, get better at the game and force me to let you play instead of crying about cheese.