Wizards of the Coast, D&D and Magic: The Gathering - are they failing?

[Mustawd]

I did my M.P.Adm. thesis in statistics and regression analysis.

Gross. Sample size..ANOVA...two factor ANOVA...p value..t tables...coefficients..two tailed tests..reject the null..heteroskedasticity; Fuck regression analysis in the asshole. Seriously. Right in the hole. *shakes uncontrollably as he is consumed by flashbacks*

I'm genuinely curious at this point: can you provide a single, descriptive fact about Magic and relate it to your argument? It doesn't even have to support your overall conclusion. Just make one qualitative statement about Magic and explain how it's related to your case. Just one.

Trying too hard Grunker. The guy is obviously making conclusions based on intuition. I mean it doesn't mean he's wrong or right, but asking him to provide data on stuff that is private and confidential information is a bit absurd. I mean there is no information that is publicly available. So all he has is his opinion based on a mosiac of information. Which is basically the same opinion on anything on the codex TBH.

The problem is that it seems some of his opinions seem to be based on other's opinions and he has basically said, "hmm, yes that sounds right" and adopted the thesis without the support to back it up. I like Telengard and he has a lot of insight on old D&D and tabletop knowledge. However, I think he's just talking out of his ass this time. It's ok, it happens to the best of us.

 

[Grunker]

Who said it had to be data? (Besides my jab at his laughable claim that he would give a lesson in statistics, of course.)

A descriptive fact is just anything derived from the actual game. Like "Delirium is a shit mechanic, here's why, and here's how that shows a game in decline." Delirium is a part of Magic, it's something derived from the actual game.

So no, I'm not being unreasonable. I'm asking that his arguments about why Magic is in decline be based on arguments about, you know, fucking Magic: the Gathering. And, well, also lolling at how many words you can spend on something without ever actually talking about it.

 

[Mustawd]

He's talking about decline of the game due to generational etc etc etc. You do need data for that. How else can you even make an argument without just anecdotal evidence?

 

[Coma White]

asking him to provide data on stuff that is private and confidential information is a bit absurd.

It would be if his original argument had been confined to just "Magic feels to me like it's dying". But that wasn't his argument. At all. It went WAY fucking beyond this.

And, well, also lolling how many words you can spend on something without ever actually talking about it.

It really is rather disturbing someone who opens his tl;dr by railing against "millennials" seems so utterly incapable of formulating a single specifically applicable thought with which to rationally support his claims.

 

[Mustawd]

You guys are misunderstanding me. I am saying his argument are based on nothing, so asking him to provide facts is silly.

 

[Grunker]

He's talking about decline of the game due to generational etc etc etc. You do need data for that. How else can you even make an argument without just anecdotal evidence?

Yeah to make a scientific proof, not to argue on the fucking internet. Look, check this out:

"Magic has gotten less complex as it has been forced to cater to a bigger audience. This can be seen in the deterioration of Tier 1 decks in Standard with very high skill ceilings. For all the criticism of the year with only Caw-Blade mirrors, that match-up was intensely skills dependent because you alsmot always got to cast most of your cards. The winner would be the one sequencing them right. Since we've moved on to more simple sets and a ceiling on the number of mechanics in a set, we've lost depth. And it goes back to the days of Urza's Saga. Internally in R&D that block is seen as Magic's low point due to the cards being wildly unbalanced (for reference, listen to Mark Rosewaters podcasts on the subject). But the actual games had very low variance and to play the best combo decks and win against other combo decks, you had to be a Magic master. In essence, due to the need to cater to wider audiences and non-hardcore players, Magic has lost depth."

There. Easy. I made an argument about how Magic is in decline despite high sales numbers, and I did it by providing several qualitative statements about current Magic that back up my claim.

It's a flawed argument, and one I don't agree with, but it's a good example of what I'm talking about. Mirror this to Telengard's post which barely even mentions the game it's purporting to comment on.

You guys are misunderstanding me. I am saying his argument are based on nothing, so asking him to provide facts is silly.

Obviously I agree, I am precisely asking him to base his argument on something.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Why do people act like Telegnard knows anything about old DnD? You can hop on 4chan and download every single fuckin' module in existence. I remember his rant about DnD was about how you're supposed to be dying pathetic deaths and then occasionally have a crowning moment of awesome when the dice are just right. So basically he never read any of the rulebooks or modules in his entire life, because Gygax, Moldvay, Arneson, Cook and all of the others constantly encourage handholding baby dming. Every module just goes "wow if this encounter is too hard give the enemies less hp K? " and killing characters is generally discouraged, and you're not expected to just brutally murder your characters. The Tomb of Horrors was written because Gary was such a complete and utter pussy with his DMing(literally every dungeon was a monty haul dungeon and you'd usually level up 1-4 times on each dungeon level) that his players asked him for an actually hard module, so the tomb of horrors was specifically written to provide that assrape adventuring. Fast forward 30+ years and we have old men on porches yelling at clouds, shouting about how DnD was supposed to be a game where you'd roll and lose 30+ characters a run, how you're supposed to be completely impartial as a DM and just let the dice rape everyone if they roll poorly etc. That's just nostalgia talking and every single oldskul DnD person in charge of producing the products wanted the game to be fun, not shit. It's one of the two reasons Gary never liked the DnD video games: because without a DM to interpret the rules and make the game fun doing so, the game is utter shit and entirely frustrating(though to be fair, Gary also said that videogames were also worse because the imagination was better than games, like how radio was better than TV).

But unga bunga I read on a blog once that new DnD is doing it wrong because you can't get killed in a single hit at level one...even though you can in 5e considering a fucking goblin can kill you in two hits and one with a crit....

That so? I might have to actually read these modules, I hear a lot about high fatality in early DnD.

 

[Grunker]

Why do people act like Telegnard knows anything about old DnD? You can hop on 4chan and download every single fuckin' module in existence. I remember his rant about DnD was about how you're supposed to be dying pathetic deaths and then occasionally have a crowning moment of awesome when the dice are just right. So basically he never read any of the rulebooks or modules in his entire life, because Gygax, Moldvay, Arneson, Cook and all of the others constantly encourage handholding baby dming. Every module just goes "wow if this encounter is too hard give the enemies less hp K? " and killing characters is generally discouraged, and you're not expected to just brutally murder your characters. The Tomb of Horrors was written because Gary was such a complete and utter pussy with his DMing(literally every dungeon was a monty haul dungeon and you'd usually level up 1-4 times on each dungeon level) that his players asked him for an actually hard module, so the tomb of horrors was specifically written to provide that assrape adventuring. Fast forward 30+ years and we have old men on porches yelling at clouds, shouting about how DnD was supposed to be a game where you'd roll and lose 30+ characters a run, how you're supposed to be completely impartial as a DM and just let the dice rape everyone if they roll poorly etc. That's just nostalgia talking and every single oldskul DnD person in charge of producing the products wanted the game to be fun, not shit. It's one of the two reasons Gary never liked the DnD video games: because without a DM to interpret the rules and make the game fun doing so, the game is utter shit and entirely frustrating(though to be fair, Gary also said that videogames were also worse because the imagination was better than games, like how radio was better than TV).

But unga bunga I read on a blog once that new DnD is doing it wrong because you can't get killed in a single hit at level one...even though you can in 5e considering a fucking goblin can kill you in two hits and one with a crit....

That so? I might have to actually read these modules, I hear a lot about high fatality in early DnD.

Tomb of Horrors is pretty much as infamous as it is because it does the opposite of most games from the back then: encourages player murder.

That said, I died alot as a young AD&D player because my game masters believed in not letting players off the hook for their mistakes and I was an idiot (as indeed most kids are).

If you want confirmation that hand-holding in Pen & Paper is a grognard/oldfag thing, see the discussion about fudging dice. It's pretty much me and Roxor against the world, with us advocating letting rules be harsh and rolls be written in stone.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Will look that up, thanks bros.

 

[Coma White]

That said, I died alot as a young AD&D player because my game masters believed in not letting players off the hook for their mistakes

I still don't let my players off the hook. I find that once a player understands you can and will kill his characters -- and he experiences it himself for the first time -- he'll start to take your game a whole lot more seriously.

 

[Grunker]

That said, I died alot as a young AD&D player because my game masters believed in not letting players off the hook for their mistakes

I still don't let my players off the hook. I find that once a player understands you can and will kill his characters -- and he experiences it himself for the first time -- he'll start to take your game a whole lot more seriously.

Me too, except I'ved mostly moved away from permanent death as a fail state. See my Way of the Wicked campaign for an example.

 

[Coma White]

Me too, except I'ved mostly moved away from permanent death as a fail state. See my Way of the Wicked campaign for an example.

Unf, well now I have some solid reading material for today. I most recently ran a Dark Heresy campaign in which I actually ENCOURAGED glorious deaths -- the player's future characters would be rewarded for the deeds of their predecessors.

 

[nikolokolus]

I suppose it's worth pointing out that many of the more notorious "murder-death" modules famous for TPKs were frequently designed for tournament play at Cons. That said, D&D/AD&D back in the day was pretty brutal and it wasn't rare to have multiple low-level characters die an unfortunate death (as god intended) before one would stick. Once they did stick you got access to Raise Dead and Reincarnation, etc. so you had a get-out-of-jail-free card much of the time.

 

[Old One]

A few months ago, after I finished reading Ready Player One by Ernest Cline, I was going through my old Tomb of Horrors module and I came to the conclusion that the most effective way for a high-level character to navigate the Tomb without being killed would be to roll up a couple dozen first-level characters and send them in in small groups. The high-level character could then simply follow the trail of corpses to Acererak the demilich.

 

[Grunker]

the player's future characters would be rewarded for the deeds of their predecessors.

Cool concept!

 

[Grunker]

A few months ago, after I finished reading Ready Player One by Ernest Cline, I was going through my old Tomb of Horrors module and I came to the conclusion that the most effective way for a high-level character to navigate the Tomb without being killed would be to roll up a couple dozen first-level characters and send them in in small groups. The high-level character could then simply follow the trail of corpses to Acererak the demilich.

The old way to play the module was either in tournaments or in making new parties until one got through in the trails of the dead parties, so you're not far off

 

[Neanderthal]

As I remember there were a fair few of the old modules that were fairly brutal, not because Arneson an Gygax were killer GMs but because they knew how smart players can be. One set in Blackmoor, just south o Sea of Black Ice that were equal to ToH as I remember, an Lost Temple of Tharizdun were fairly much a hopeless (supposed to be) adventure as I recall. I will say though that introducing a CRPG player to pen and paper gaming is an interesting experience, they do need a bit o leeway an other players to keep an eye on em.

 

[Grunker]

Well, we're talking brutality relative to modern modules. There are plenty of modern modules that are very brutal. In contrast, many older modules specifically advices the GM to go easy on players in many instances.

 

[Neanderthal]

Gotta admit i've not run owt bar me own adventures for last fifteen or so years, last professional one were Rary the Traitor I think, one o post Greyhawk Wars modules anyway. Nice to hear that theres still some oomph in modern gaming.

 

[Grunker]

I am entirely impartial and most players do not regard dying as a thing I do to them.

[Jack from Bloodlines' voice]Ah yeah, hell yeah, you're feelin' it. That's what it's all about right there.[/Jack form Bloodlines' voice]

 

[Neanderthal]

Dont know what a "West Marches style campaign" is, probably weren't around when I got outta D&D, but i've gotta say I never liked that random wandering monsters schtick. I had monsters lurking at the edges of civilisations, in hidden places and set free from portals and that kinda thing, so that trade, farming and civiliation could be pursued by dominant intelligent species. When adventurers wandered roads the worst they'd probably encounter would be bandits, soldiery or tollbooths for the upkeep of the highway. Off road on the high moors or elsewhere i'd use atmospheric techniques that hinted at danger, or an ocassional skirmish but not throw monsters at the party in a succession of combats. Sounds a bit predictable.

I like to hide my XP and loot opportunities, make the players work, research and utilise them other skills and investigation. Can even do this in some o bigger labyrinthine cities.

 

[Jaedar]

I'll bite.

A descriptive fact is just anything derived from the actual game. Like "Delirium is a shit mechanic, here's why, and here's how that shows a game in decline." Delirium is a part of Magic, it's something derived from the actual game.

Meld is a shit mechanic. It turns two cards into one, which is in itself a huge 2 for 1 risk, but it also always turns into a creature, which is begging to get blown away (I'll trade your 8+ mana and 2 cards for 3 mana and one card, thank you!). So, it's a limited mechanic, nothing wrong with that. Except it basically doesn't exist in limited: There's a single meld pair below rare.

So it's a limited mechanic, that basically can't happen in limited. Reading maros comments, the team was slightly worried how well it would play and be received. In other words, cowardice. When a design team starts putting out bad stuff because they're afraid to experiment... well, it's probably going downhill.

In addition, have you seen how bad removal is getting? Once upon a time there was bolts, then there were strikes, and now all we have is

.
I guess 3 damage at instant speed is just TOO good for standard.

You can of course, make the same argument for counterspells and ramp, and likely other things too.

In essence, the design and development teams are getting ever more cautious about power levels and card designs. This will hurt magic long term, as it threatens to make sets more samey, boring and in limited bomb dependant.

Spoiler

I don't really think magic is dying mind you, and even if it was it is so huge its death would take a decade. But the reverse power creep in standard has been bothering me lately, and I'm really sad meld isn't more than a footnote.

 

[Neanderthal]

That doesn't sound like my kinda thing at all, prefer a bit more realism than this murderhobo stuff, but then again whatever floats your boat.

Now a setting I did like were city of Irilian from White Dwarf magazine, issues #42 - #46 I think, unusual culture, massively detailed, really fit into its environment and even had its own language, a variation on Old English that you could quickly learn. Campaign that went wi it were a bit shit but as a setting it were dogs bollocks.

Mind you White Dwarfs from that long ago are rare as rocking horse shit now, which is a fucking pity.

 

[Grunker]

Meld is a shit mechanic.

I agree.

In addition, have you seen how bad removal is getting?

Yep, and if you actually played limited you'd be thankful for it. The trade-off in investments vs. counterplays is much more nuanced now than before where investing risky 7 or 8 mana into a spell would lead it to being Doom Bladed.

Now, you have to work for your creatures and you have to work to get rid of your opponent's.

(A bonus side-benefit from this is that hour-long games and stalemates aren't nearly as present as before, since setting up a secondary, very good threat is a much more sure path to victory. Play some 9th Edition limited to learn what true pain in quote-unquote "vanilla" Magic is. Another is that control decks are much more interesting and that building decks around 8-drops is more viable.)

EDIT: Oh, and you're citing the wrong removal-spell. The premium red low-cost removal spell for this set is Galvanic Bombardement, and it's actually fairly good.

In essence, the design and development teams are getting ever more cautious about power levels and card designs. This will hurt magic long term, as it threatens to make sets more samey, boring and in limited bomb dependant.

This is a really lulzy statement in a historical perspective. The decline crowd used to raaaaave about power creep. It was THE thing. Hell, I was on that train back when I was young and stupid. When Baneslayer Angel was released, people went totally bonkers. Which was hilarious since power was so toned down since the Saga-days, those cards just didn't advertise their power as directly.

Now, trade-offs and interaction is prioritized, and you get people whining that there isn't enough power creep. Pretty funny.

That said

But the reverse power creep in standard has been bothering me lately

I sort of agree with you here. My favourite constructed format is Legacy and I like a limited selection of older sets for limited as well, due to complexity. But honestly it's hard to complain too much when they make supercomplicated expert level sets on MTGO all the time.

 

[Grunker]

Removal nerfs are a blessing though. By far the worst thing with old and even Ravnica-era limited was opening a pack and going "well, guess I'm taking Premium Removal first once again, how intereeeeeeeeeesting"