I've played CCGs fairly casually on and off since about 1994 when I discovered M:tG. In that time, I don't think I've spent more than $300 on CCGs. However, I generally play with friends only and never play in the tournament circuits. Remove yourself from official play and I say you can play CCGs without putting yourself in the poor house.

Chris

To a degree, I agree with you Chris. However, you need practically an IRON CLAD agreement between your friends and yourself that $X is the limit for a game and that's *IT*.

The limit you're proposing is artificial. If you care about winning or losing at all, there is no denying that more cards can directly affect your odds of winning or losing. And that's the (sad) nature of the CCG beast.

With Magic, I haven't, nor will I buy any boosters. I love the pre-constructed decks.

Also in CCG's basically he who spends the most money wins

See my above post where I give two examples where I found this not to be true.

However, while there is definitely an element of this in CCGs, spending the most money and not understanding strategy in play or deck building still likely means you'll lose a lot of games. Getting a good grasp on strategic elements and spending the most money could very well give you an edge, though.

Chris

Man quits one past time and finds that he has money for a different past time! Film at 11!

Seriously, there isn't any big revelation here. The worth of one hobby over another is purely subjective.

I know many people who would consider the board games that we all collect to be a waste of money. They could easly name hundreds of things that would be "better" to spend $1400 on.

If board games, CCG, or stamp collecting makes you happy then spending money on your hobby of choice is not a bad thing.

Mike Z

I see where you are coming from, Mike. I used board games as an example because it is the equivalent currency that most here are familiar with.

But the point is--spend $1400 to play one game? Or $1400 to play several? Heck, 29 is a conservative number. Change out those 14 expansions for stand-alone games and you're over 40.


The same money to play one game? Or 43?

I realize it's about "what makes you happy". But even the best of games can be replaced by 43 'less than perfect' ones.

And yes, I suppose you can play in limited environments. But then you aren't truly playing CCGs in their purest form at all...you are limiting the "Collectible" part. I could argue that strategy X in a board game is the best, but you shouldn't use it because it isn't as 'fun'. Suddenly we are talking about a different game altogether.

Assuming equal levels of player competency, more cards = more options = higher likelihood of winning. When I played regularly in SWCCG tournaments, my Hunt Down deck with six Vaders and three Maul w/sabers automatically had a giant leg up on the kid who had a couple of starters and some white border rares donated to him by the store owner. No matter what his skill, the rares were so powerful and efficient that his chances at victory were pretty slim.

Is that right? Should money be a factor at all? Because it is.

Even the "Gentlemen's Commons" thing for Magic Online, the format IS the 'iron clad agreement' I was referring to above.

Don't get me wrong. As games, there are several CCGs that I think of rather highly, Magic and Star Wars CCG chief among them. There used to be nothing better than grabbing a starter for a new game and begin thinking of all the possibilities that game was going to offer...after just a few more packs. But the $$$ factor...that's the ugly side, I think.

And yes, I suppose you can play in limited environments. But then you aren't truly playing CCGs in their purest form at all...you are limiting the "Collectible" part. I could argue that strategy X in a board game is the best, but you shouldn't use it because it isn't as 'fun'. Suddenly we are talking about a different game altogether.

The same is true of someone who has devoted hundreds of hours to mastering Puerto Rico or any other reasonably strategic game: they'll wipe the floor with the noob who hasn't spent the time to learn the game inside out. The investment is different -- time instead of money -- but to some of us time is the more valuable currency.

And yes, I suppose you can play in limited environments. But then you aren't truly playing CCGs in their purest form at all...you are limiting the "Collectible" part. I could argue that strategy X in a board game is the best, but you shouldn't use it because it isn't as 'fun'. Suddenly we are talking about a different game altogether.

But it sounds like if the collectable part was limited, you wouldn't be saving this theoretical $1400 and you could still play the game. Eliminating that aspect isn't really changing the game, per se; instead, it's changing some of the emphasis on "bigger, better, stronger ... time to pony up the cash."

It gets back to the age-old argument..."Are we here to win, or to have fun?" Because if even ONE player in that group decides that winning is the more important thing, it can totally destroy the entire thing. That's why I dub such agreements as 'artificial' and not truly representative of a CCG at all.

The analogy here is flawed, and I'll tell you why--your experience at a CCG is nothing if not married to a cash investment in obtaining cards.

In Puerto Rico, experience is experience, undiluted by any priviledge granted by cash expenditure or ownership.

I'm assuming to learn a CCG, you're still going to be spending that valuable currency time, am I right? Only now you're spending gobs of cash, too. Which is the worse?

The same money to play one game? Or 43?

I realize it's about "what makes you happy". But even the best of games can be replaced by 43 'less than perfect' ones.