Subject: The Pros & Cons of Magic's Demise Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 14:17:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Fred Scott To: thetick@sover.net, fkusumot@ix.netcom.com RE: Is Magic completely Dead right now? First off, let me say that I haven't picked up my cards in weeks and the reasons don't have much to do with how the game is going, at least in a superficial sense. My job's suddenly become demanding, a theatrical performance a friend and I are giving goes on in a few days, out-of-town friends have been showing up unexpectedly for the weekend,...just "stuff". Life is like that. The real question is, how imperative is it for me to pick Magic up again when things quiet down? Rock/Paper/Scissors - the old Dennis Heffernan refrain (first heard when Blood Moon was printed in The Dark), huh? I always did agree with Dennis that Magic as a complicated, expensive version of Rock/Paper/Scissors probably wasn't a worthwhile proposition - at least, not if that's all there is to it. On the other hand, a _little_ R/P/S is absolutely necessary. Rock/ Paper/Scissors, in the end, is just another way of saying that Magic has no pure strategy as seen through the eyes of a game theorist. If we don't print some cards that are handy to use against other cards that are otherwise excellent cards, everybody would (theoretically, at least, assuming they were motivated purely by having the greatest chance of winning the most games) use the same deck. So, while there needs to be a reward for players to be able to integrate the different kinds of cards into well-functioning decks and for skill in playing the cards they've been dealt against the opponents they've drawn, there also needs to be a reward for guessing correctly and playing the metagame right. In short, for winning the big game of "Rock/Paper/Scissors". And yes, that is a luck factor which is unfortunate. But it's one of necessary ones. If the popularity of Magic has decreased significantly in the past year - and I can't claim to know one way or the other if it has or hasn't - I can only speculate that it's for all the long-range reasons I've harped on in the Magic newsgroups all along: too many cards, too fast, and no decent constructed-deck formats which balances the influence of the more recent releases against the older ones. The first complaint is very straightforward: three expansions a year is too many. The well-known designer's quote about WotC being satisfied with 8-10% of an expansion being tournament-worthy to me is a sign that WotC is churning out cards too fast and not spending enough time making certain that the cards they print are worth putting in someone's collection. I believe that even WotC, in the end, will only be able to ride the novelty of CC gaming so far before they run out of starry-eyed newbies who will rush out and buy every expansion just because the dynamic nature of continual expansions is fun. Eventually, they'll run out of potential new players to tap and have to survive selling cards mainly to players who've been well-exposed to Magic. And people who have are not going to buy new stuff just because they've reprinted Grizzly Bear with another name or come up with a new and slightly different mechanic like Shadow. It'll take new cards that have been thought out and well play-tested with the base set and other expansions to see that they're neither hopelessly useless themselves nor overpowered/undercosted, thus sending previously sold cards to the junk heap. It's been well- established that WotC is never going to be able to do that while putting out three expansions plus other projects like Unglued and Portal revisions in a given year. (And I haven't even touched on the subject of rules glitches and errata caused by trying to rush out new expansions.) The second complaint is a little more subtle and perhaps not as important in the end but I still believe it's there. Based on the same point - that WotC will need to shift to marketing much more to experienced players and less to new recruits - the need for a tournament format that doesn't just allow the last two years worth of cards is self-apparent. I've argued endlessly with people on the newsgroups about whether things like Type I, Type I.5, and Extended fill the bill and I feel that one of the things which has hampered my arguments have been peoples' inability to look into the future and project where such formats go. Allowing a few multilands into such formats seems fairly innocuous in 1996 when you can get them for 5 or 10 bucks a shot. But over time, this kind of thing takes its toll. If I've played the game a couple of years and my cards are "timing out" of Type II, I start looking for another use for them. But why should I make any effort to play Extended, either, if I _still_ don't have the right cards for it? And why I should I buy any new product for eventual use in Extended - which is a point that's very critical to WotC - if the cards I buy don't measure up to the sort of cards still allowed in Extended...cards the designers long ago concluded were too overpowered to allow in Type 2? The point is not to systematically ban an older card just because it's tournament-worthy. But cards that wouldn't be printed in Urza's Saga due to how powerful they are shouldn't be allowed in Extended, either. Because eventually, people will only be allowed to use cards from Urza's Saga in tournament formats like Extended. And if Urza's Saga cards won't cut it in Extended, experienced players are going to start to question whether it's worth buying them just for a couple of years of use in Type II. I think if WotC addresses these two points, Magic will have years of life left in it. It may never again sell out an expansion before the day it comes on sale. But at least it will be a significant and profitable product, which is the point it's life depends on. Fred -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frederick Scott: H (408) 293-5021, E-mail: fred_s@netcom.com, W (408) 526-5898, E-mail: fred_s@cisco.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "You know my banker? Her name is Helen Back. You want a loan from me, you go to Helen Back." --Todd Doom, during one of our infamous games of 'A Mighty Fortress' during my college days.