"Casual"

Casual is fluid. To try to contain it to set things is against the point of casual. The only restrictions on casual should be ones placed on it by yourself.
 Mio Ritsu is never always best .

You personally seem to hate the archetype of combo. Having many different ways of going infinite in a combo deck is the sign that the deck was built properly. I find that combo is an important archetype and is very key to having a fun and healthy meta especially in multiplayer matches.

In general Aggro > Combo > Control > Aggro.

Combo is just the paper part of rock paper scissors. Rock (aggro) smashes the scissors (Control) if it can generate enough threats that the control deck can't deal with. The scissors (Control) cuts paper's (Combo) combo pieces out of the deck and leaves it without a win condition. Meanwhile paper (Combo) usually takes a beating from the rock (aggro), but in the end just rests on top safely. If you start going into hybrids like combo/control straight up aggro rarely has a chance, and if you go for say aggro/combo combo control has a very hard time.




I can understand your hate of combo due to the fact you seem to practically only run aggro based decks (and pure aggro at that), but I wouldn't say that that's any reason that it should be called any less casual of an archetype than yours. Could you provide reasons as to why you find combos non-casual (yes that's a word now)?



P.S.
Eggs might not be considered casual mostly because it violates that whole extra long turns and little to no interaction bit. It is extremely fun for the player playing it, but once it goes off it takes forever before you know if it wins or loses. If you're going to be playing combo it should go off instantly, and you should know decisively that you're either gonna win or lose (if you're a kind person). Also eggs is a perfect example of combo deck dying to control.

I have been asked by the powers that be (ThePr0digy) to read and respond to this discussion of the casual play-style, as I only ever play casual. So I will be writing what will (hopefully) be the definitive work on the subject.

To start, let's further define what is under discussion here, to preempt any arguments formed on the basis of an unclear subject. The first post starts wanting to discuss the word "casual", then goes on to discuss a play-style and deck themes and core mechanics. This presents a fault in logic as the post is non-sequitor to the premise. Disregarding the logical fault, two discussions are presented, one is lexical, the other is stylistic. While both are fine discussions to have, I feel that they miss the point. The discussion that we need is not lexical or stylistic, but philosophical. A philosophical discussion can contain elements from each argument while simultaneously also combining them to form a full philosophical definition. Since we are after a philosophical definition, I will use the Socratic method (or at least parts of it) as it has given us the definitions of immaterial concepts such as justice, the good, and virtue (read Plato's Republic(Dr. Gilbert does a great job with it in Phil 212), great philosophical work. Also part of it is the basis for The Truman Show, a great movie about a psychological experiment, but I digress.) While we do want a philosophical definition, we need to keep in mind why we want it. Our ultimate purpose is to figure out exactly what is and is not casual, in the frame of Magic: The Gathering.

Now that we have further defined the argument we are making, we can move on to the argument itself. At the most basic level we have the word “casual” itself, so we must agree on a definition that fits our argument's frame. In our case we are using the word as an adjective so that is the definition we will use. Google defines casual as “relaxed and unconcerned”, with synonyms of friendly, informal, etc. There are other definitions but none that fit as well. Using this definition, we can construct a broad, rudimentary definition on which to build our final product. This leads us to our first attempt to find the line that divides casual from non-casual.



1st Definition:

“Casual is a way of playing in which the atmosphere is both relaxed and friendly, and winning is secondary to enjoyment.” While this is a good definition it is a bit broad and ambiguous for our purpose which is finding an ,up until now ,arbitrary line of division. In order to narrow down our definition, let's apply it to Magic as a whole, without considering deck mechanics, themes, or cards (at least for now). When those things are removed, all that is left is format and play-style. Here is where we reach our first stumbling block. If you go into a room of magic players and announce that you are looking for a casual game, you will get two kinds of games. One is 60 card, the other is EDH. This is due to the varying definitions of the word “casual” floating around, which is why we took the time to agree upon a definition to use. Casual 60 can vary in try-hardness but is usually a bit below competitive level, but there is always that one guy who runs a 60 card land destruction infinite damage/nasty things deck. Casual EDH is kinda the same but tends to be a tad sillier, using odd deck mechanics and more embodies our 1st definition than not. Now that we have identified the stumbling block, we can remove it. We will remove it by making our definition independent of deck format, by adding the clause “...regardless of deck format...” in a grammatically appropriate place.



Now that format is taken care of, we will move on to play-style. I alluded to this when I identified the vein that the casual EDH decks generally fall into. The key is when presented with equal (or mostly equal) choices, go with the one that is more fun, interesting, silly, etc. This brings to mind the word informal, which as you will notice is one of the synonyms of casual. (amazing!) Since we have changed our definition to be format independent it means that we need to use this for all formats. The difference is in defining the concept of “equal”. Not to be a smart-ass but we will define it as “the same”. However we now need to apply that to strategic situations where there are rarely equal choices. So, equality will need to be redefined as “achieving the same general goal”. This leads us to the the question of what the “general goal” is meant to be. We will define it as moving the game forward to the end. This makes more sense in a strategic application, as there are always multiple options that will advance the game closer to determining winners and losers. Now that we have defined equal, we can apply it to our definition and continue to narrow it down.



A question that needs to be asked now is, “Why do people build decks that run on obscure and/or silly (we will refer to them as informal) mechanics?” The answer is to have fun and not necessarily win. This is good as our definition already includes this. We will, however, change “way of playing” to “informal play-style” for clarity and to narrow down our definition, even a tiny bit. Combining our edits to definition #1 it leaves us with...



2nd Definition:

“Casual is an informal play-style, regardless of deck format, in which the atmosphere is both relaxed and friendly, and where winning is secondary to enjoyment.” This is a much better definition, but I think we can do better. To get a better definition we will apply this to the three main deck styles; combo, control, and aggro.



Combo decks main goal is to set up and execute an infinite or at least very large combo that wins them the game or sets them up for a win in a small number of turns. These are immensely popular in competitive play since they have a guaranteed win condition when the combo goes off. The problem is that it has turned part of the competitive sector into; how few turns can I get a combo and win the game. This is the polar opposite of casual and as such is often looked down upon by self-professed casual players. I say “self-professed” because that is what they are. They are the kind of people who do or say something kinda cool and proceed to claim that their shit is the hottest in all the land. Their view is not quantified and qualified like ours is becoming, and therefore have an incomplete view on the subject. When we apply our definition to this style, we see that the style itself is not the polar opposite of casual, but it's how the style is used that is the problem. (This is also my position on gun control, but that is another topic for another day.) The difference comes down to the speed at which the combo deck will combo out. To be considered casual a combo deck has to give its opponents time to build their board states and start making plays. This allows all players to enjoy the game as everyone's deck gets a chance to do well and possibly win. Since combo decks tend have long turns let's address that here. Turn length is another aspect hated upon by the self-professed casual players. Again we see that when we apply our definition of casual, we see that long turns can indeed be a part of casual play. The difference here is the content of the turn. One of the best games I have ever had was a game where one guy was running a troll group hug deck, and extremely silly things were happening. At one point there was a 20min turn as various spells and abilities resolved. None of us really cared since the content was humorous and the end result was kinda up in the air. This is in contrast with someones 10 min turn that makes him win, its a lot less fun to watch someone combo out than to be active.



Control decks are what I like to call “butthurt decks”, since the people who use them exclusively tend to seem butthurt about something and proceed to ruin everyone else's game because of it. Their main strategy is to stop you from doing anything you want to do, but sacrifice killing power because of it. This leads to very slow and boring games since nobody can do anything, while the control player gets a massive power trip. This is the reason I try to avoid playing with some people where I play, (who will remain nameless so don't ask, although if I went to school with you, you are not in this group) as they build control decks that are made specifically to make sure others can't win. This is contrary to our definition in two ways, friendliness and other's enjoyment. I am not going to take a definitive stance on whether this is OK as it is completely situational. A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself, “Would I like to play against this deck?” If your answer is no, then you should rework it until you would have fun if the deck was used against you.



Last we have aggro decks. These are made to get large threats out rather quickly and use them against their opponents. This is the most casual friendly deck style as it takes a bit of time to get out the threats and it gives the others time to build board states, so I have very little to say regarding it. The one thing I will say, is that you should not pick on someone who is doing poorly just because you can, as it is not a friendly thing to do.



Now that we have explored the major deck styles, we need to further refine our definition. Since our exploration did find anything wrong with our definition, we will make an addition about how to play in a casual game (etiquette), regardless of deck style, that is in keeping with the first part of the definition. This leads us to...



3rd Definition:

“Casual is an informal play-style, regardless of deck format or style, in which the atmosphere is both relaxed and friendly, and where winning is secondary to enjoyment. Participants will be of the mindset that everyone gets to play, and will not hijack the game or pick on players having a poor game.” This is a great definition that answers most of the questions that come up in the discussion of defining casual play. However some people could make objections, based on a few things that are not present.



The first is amount of players. I feel that if you apply this definition you will find that the number of players has very little bearing on game as a whole. If everyone plays for enjoyment, and nobody hogs the game everyone will have fun. A caveat to this is that you should not pick a 1v1 deck in a multiplayer game as it would force you to focus on one person, nor should you pick a multiplayer deck in a 1v1 game as it would either not work well and you would be sad, or make you use all of your stuff to relentlessly beat down your opponent.



The second has to do with card and mechanic limits. Some would say no limits, others say every group should have their own, and still others would advocate hardline global limits. I personally feel that opinion two and three, together make the best and most fair use of limits. There should be some global limits but your group should choose which ones to adhere to. Card limits are easy to define, there is a banned and restricted list released by DCI. For a casual game you should not use any card on the banned list or any card on the restricted list that you have not gotten explicit permission to run it. A rule of thumb is that if a card has a large and/or negative global effect (Shahrazad, painter's servant, ante cards, for example) are not OK. As for deck mechanics, your group needs to decide among themselves as there are no “banned” mechanics (except ante). I would, however, say that Balance decks are never OK.

Well that about does it  for Yogg's definitive work on MTG casual play. In conclusion I would like to reiterate the definition of casual and a rule of thumb for figuring out what is and is not OK for casual play.

Definition of casual play: "Casual is an informal play-style, regardless of deck format or style, in which the atmosphere is both relaxed and friendly, and where winning is secondary to enjoyment. Participants will be of the mindset that everyone gets to play, and will not hijack the game or pick on players having a poor game.”

Rule of thumb for selecting cards and deck mechanics: "Don't be a dick and be OK with not winning every game."

I apologize for the giant wall of text (over 2300 words, yikes) but I feel that this will help settle this debate once and for all. 

Please feel free to comment, as long as they are constructive comments, as a large part of the Socratic method is responding to other's opinions.

~Yogg

not exactly a casual comment either

I do agree wholeheartedly agree with these two statements, though. The first being it's a good way to tell whether your casual games will be fun for others.

The second being, god damn it James, why?! WHY!

Due to the sheer length of this I'm going to break this into chunks and comment on certain chunks in separate posts. No matter what I do this will take a lot of space but hopefully it'll make it more readable.


Thanks for the mention.



In my main post I probably went about it incorrectly, but what I was going for was essentially:

Casual can be used to describe many different things: formats, play styles, fun, and much more. As I understand it, casual decks don't need to follow any sort of deck building requirements other than the standard no more than 4 of a card and min of 60 cards (unless otherwise stated by card effects).
[This establishes the format part of Magic as I understand it. (In a future post I went into archetypes within the format a bit).]
I moved into the play style chunk with what people don't like due to the fact it removes fun from the other players. Due to many people using the word 'fun' as a synonym to 'casual' this has caused some problems in the past with clarity on this subject. The thread was indeed spawned in order to clarify what is casual and what isn't.



The format is made up of deck construction rules, by changing those rules you can have different formats like Type 1 or type 1.5 or type 1.x (vintage, legacy, extended).

Alright so with this you say that casual is played regardless of format but then later say that we should have additional limits, which is essentially making our own casual format. Also the restricted list only applies to Commander, 100 card Highlander, and Type 1. The ban lists vary from format to format, so we'd need to define these if we had our own special "Casual" format.
Also Elder Dragon Highlander is considered a casual format, but many people still can play it as competitive. This fits under the regardless of format bit and the global limit.


To be continued....

More walls of text dear god!!!!!!!