This is an expansion of a twitter post thread I started at https://twitter.com/mechalink/status/1200445054898323457
Before I get into this, a note: there are other ways people walk their life through Magic. This, however, reflects my experience and frustrations, and I think it is an accurate way of describing what Magic, in particular, can do to your mindset, and how it doesn't match the model of entitlement.
So, the core thesis statement, stated in the second tweet: The core distinction: 'entitlement' as generally used is when a system tells you you deserve something, and then something outside the system doesn't satisfy that. In Magic, the system tells you you deserve something and then the system denies it to you for some opaque reason.
For example: when we say someone is 'entitled' by going to a store and asking for special treatment, or complains because they get two ponies instead of one, or doesn't see why poor people don't need help, because they did it all themselves, they didn't need it.. those all involve the system they live in telling them the world is like their model, and then the rest of the world pushing back and saying 'hey, no, that's not how it works', because that isn't how it works. Notably, this is a static model: it isn't someone learning and growing, or changing. They have a fixed model of the world, as given by their experiences, and the conflict is not because they're changing, it's because they're wrong.
In Magic, we are dealing with something different, and it's importantly different in several ways. The most classic entitlement people claim players have is 'people feel entitled to success'. As if there was one system telling them 'you will succeed!', a reality that says 'you aren't necessarily going to succeed', and these stubborn people saying 'I deserve success!'
That's not how this goes down. It's not even close. Let's lay out all the pieces.
1) The system telling them they will succeed is the toxic positivity and hype put out by other players, the community, and WotC. Here are a non-comprehensive set of sample statements that are all given out, unconditionally and unironically, in the magic community and on coverage:
- If you work hard, you will just get good results.
- If you keep trying, you will improve.
- If you play with better players, you will learn.
- Pros are proof that anyone can do well at magic if they try hard.
- Random people 8-0ing at the PT is proof that the game is approachable and learnable at a high level by anyone.
- This person just never loses.
2) This system is compounded by the gambling-based reward mechanics in place in Magic, giving out small successes and lots of failures in just enough of a cadence to keep one hooked. Striving. This is the closest Magic gets to telling you 'you aren't necessarily going to succeed' directly, but it's a derived message, not a direct one.
3) At some point, maybe after some moderate success, hard work, practicing, a person may see all of these messages, look at themselves, and go 'wait a minute. i'm not succeeding in the way I am being told that people succeed. something is wrong'.
This is the crux point. What could be wrong?
1) The system messages are wrong
2) You aren't satisfying the system messages
3) You are satisfying the system messages, but are unlucky
All three of these are logical conclusions, but lead down different paths.
'The system messages are wrong': trying to go down this route in public, when you are not established, is met with serious social censure. Whether it be rejecting toxic positivity, trying to bring up the role of variance in Magic, or criticizing system design choices, the pushback is high. If you want to hold this (accurate) position, you have to be prepared to suffer. There is a very narrow route you can walk to state how much variance is in Magic, and it typically depends on being recognized as being 'ingroup' not 'criticizing' (and 'ingroup' usually means 'high level pro'.)
'You aren't satisfying the system messages': this is the socially approved route. You aren't trying hard enough. You aren't practicing well enough. And to some degree it may or may not be correct, depending on each person's circumstance. But the fact is that once you reach a certain threshold of capability, each person's year in Magic is dominated by variance in the results they get (although skill plays a significant factor, it is not sufficient to explain the differences in results). If you're well known enough, you can even state that out loud without being yelled at. (See above.)
'You are satisfying the system messages, but are unlucky': If you realize that the first message isn't socially approved, but the second one isn't actually correct (because you are, in fact, trying as hard as other people in your group, but not succeeding), this is the tar pit. The Levine Trench. And it is a trap, and it can cause people to stagnate. To not try as hard. To stop trying at all.
But look at how we got here: we didn't get here because we thought we 'deserved' to win. We got here because 1) the system told us this is how it works: hard work is rewarded 2) I am working hard 3) I am not being rewarded 4) it must be luck 5) I am angry at unspecified sources. This is a completely valid logic chain from 1 to 4, and it only exists because the system _itself_ feeds back onto you if you try to make another conclusion than 4. We even see this from high level players when they have bad years. They have to ask themselves 'am I working hard enough? is my process correct? or was this just variance?' They are smart enough to not be very angry in public, though. But the anguish is real.
Note how different this is from entitlement. Entitlement, and things like it, say 1) the system told us how it works: hard work is rewarded. 2) I am being rewarded 3) therefore I must be working hard 4) people who are not rewarded must not be working hard 5) how dare you not reward me in this situation. The logical flaw here is way back at the jump between 2 and 3: a person who gets rewards, and is told 'yes, you deserve rewards', then assumes that rewards will come to them in the future.
While there are similarities, there is a major difference in how it comes about. This is why I say that peoples' obsession with 'entitlement' as the way of framing things in Magic is not a good/accurate model. But things get more complex yet.
I talk about the 'unlucky' message, and the simplest case, but there is an immediate more complex case that looks more like entitlement, and I think that is where the confusion really comes into play. This is specifically when one has some success, and then can't get any more success. Now you have the chance to believe that you must be working hard enough because you are rewarded, and then suddenly you aren't rewarded and are given the chance to say 'hey, world, how dare you not reward me'.
The important difference here is that this transition happens while you aren't changing the amount of time you're working, so the logical problem isn't that you wrongly assumed you were entitled to success: it's that you believed the system proposition that your success was directly related to your hard work! Once the hard work then is shown to not be paying off like you thought, you're in the trap.
Oh, sure, it's relevant, but hard work only puts you in the position for luck to carry you over the finish line. (And it's also all you can control, so, you know... you gotta put in the work.) But the system says it's really all the hard work, so when you get one success, but can't get any more, in this case, it's Levine Trench time: frustration, anger, confusion. Because, dammit, this is frustrating, angering, confusing.
So if this is somewhat persuasive, what does this mean we should do? Strangely, it means we should do what we should always do: when you find someone who's struggling like that, but clearly still trying, treating them like they're innate garbage is the opposite of a learning mindset: it's a static mindset. Even if your message is 'they need to change', they need warmth. They need comfort. They need support. They are suffering. It's not necessarily about entitlement, structurally and logically, and peoples' insistence on that framework does a good job of saying 'this is bad', but it does a horrible job at helping people understand and climb out.
Discussion: GerryT's article on growth - http://old.starcitygames.com/articles/36074_Social-Currency.html
Here, Gerry self-identifies as entitled. But note his framework for what entitled means: "A sense of entitlement came from thinking the world "owed" me something because of how bad my childhood was." He identifies entitlement as coming from a different place than 'being frustrated by lack of success'. He came to Magic entitled, in his view. This is not a case I can inherently talk to: if someone comes to something entitled, the way they're going to act is different. But you can diagnose that across their action set, in theory.
This article, though, also talks to how Gerry dug himself out. He found friends, he found understanding, he found warmth. Even in a case that is arguably worse than the one I'm describing where Magic makes you frustrated and miserable, he dug himself out with the same rough toolset I recommend.
He talks about how one of his flaws was how you can't see why people are doing what they're doing, and that's exactly what's going on when you respond to someone struggling by saying 'you're just so entitled'. You're telling them their story.
He identifies three things, not one, as reasons why he was doing what he was. That is not going to be addressed by just saying 'you're entitled'. It's not a complete or accurate analysis, and to reduce it to entitlement is not just to tell them their story, it's to tell them their story is just one thing.
If you want to learn the lessons of Gerry's article, then I think framing things as 'if you struggle with losing you're just entitled' is simply not how you're gonna get there. It doesn't match the model, it doesn't provide you the tools to get out, and it doesn't follow the pattern of action he identifies as healthy.
Sunday, December 15, 2019
Monday, December 2, 2019
A Fractional Life
The last year has been one where I lacked focus in Magic. Why? Numerous reasons: I've never slept this badly for this long in my life, work has been quite involved, I'm recovering from significant burnout after years of going hard at Magic for minimal reward, but I think one thing has to be at the top of the list.
The way that WotC incentivized people to play this year, competitively, was a complete departure from the last... roughly 13 years since the original creation of the Pro Club. Even Planeswalker Points Season 0 wasn't as much of a departure as this, although it was a departure. And I spent the previous 7 years of my life learning and training to work in that system.
First, a quick history lesson (I can do a longer form of this if people care, but I spent 7 years talking about Magic Organized Play and almost nobody cared). SO. The changes around Planeswalker Point Season 0 and 1 were focused around dealing with Magic's growing popularity. Why? In the 2011-2012 time frame, GPs were getting too big for WotC's tournament software to handle. PTQs started to grow to the point where stores didn't, or couldn't, reasonably schedule proper spaces for them, and had to figure out how to deal with the world where maybe 100 people showed up, or maybe 355 people. Also, the world is large and how do you deal with countries that aren't the US?
The response to this by WotC was to cut invites from GPs from top 16 no matter the size, to top 4, top 8 if the GP had than 1200 players, and put those into more PTQs around the world, as well as to simplify the pro point system to its platinum/gold/silver structure and remove rating-based invites. At the time, Helene B. (rest in retirement) stated that the rough idea was to get 30 plat, 50 gold, 70 silver, with 400 person PTs (the PTs at the time were creeping on 600, 'too much'.) The bye system at PTs was moved from rating to Planeswalker points based: after a short season 1 that had pros freaking out about the ease of getting byes, a 1500 per quarter line was set for 3 byes that was suitably insane to try to reach (I did, but... yeah.)
Over time, Silver gained an invite, RPTQs (32 per season) came into place to further allow for growth dealing with PTQs, a cap on GP attendance came into place to deal with burnout in the 2012-2013 era, and when we started seeing GPs above 2000 people, eventually WotC added the '13-2' qualifier line. This era also had special invites that were 'near-miss' invites, explicitly stated to be so that people who got close didn't get discouraged. This was obviously arbitrarily applied: people who were known getting the invites, people with the same level of near-miss ignored. Also, the number of byes available got cut down to 2 and made yearly, so as to be less punishing (Helene responded to me at the time saying 'see, we listened to your criticism!' so... monkey's paw.) After 2013 or so this system as described was more or less stable.
Going to GPs in this era was always pretty rough when you didn't have pro status. I got a couple GP top 8s, but never got status. Finally, after much pleading and arguing, we finally got Bronze (see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WqCYww-TJhnzhIz7j-iMVeufAzfc9L7Tg-0yg6_k0kc/edit for the detailed argument) the year after it really would have helped me. It was finally possible (although not ideal) to claw your way into benefits from either the RPTQ or GP path for a year or two.
And then, kablooey. Back to a single-layer PTQ system, with GPs as bigger PTQs, and the MPL.
The losses caused by this change were significant to me in multiple ways, and not just because of the structural rewards that were no longer available: there were second order effects. I first went to GPs because it was the only way I could interact with higher level players for certain. It was, and still is, one of the biggest pieces of advice people give on how to improve at Magic: play with better players. In the era right before GPs grew, it was even possible to get money drafts going and really get some dedicated time with people who would soundly beat you, and give you the chance to learn the whole way.
In the new system.... the best players are not incentivized to play against you, at least in paper, at GPs. They certainly won't travel to them. If you can catch them on Arena, maybe you get a small chance of it. But... Arena. The latest Table for 2 Podcast episode (https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/anchor-podcasts/table-for-2-an-mtg-arena-podcast/e/65360394?autoplay=true) has Hayne talking about how he doesn't get to see his friends anymore because of the new PT structure. That's been the case for a year (and he knows that well): I only see him when going to a GP in Canada, or a GP alongside a PT. The high level pro and mid level pro community has been fractured by this change, simply because they no longer attend the same tournaments most of the year.
And then there's Arena. Arena competitive play is a huge structural change. No longer can you engage in focused practice, no longer can you practice limited in a way close to how it will be at GPs and PTs. It's all about a massive grind which has never been my bag, except in limited. For some people this works, and I've seen some people brought back to the game with it. But for me, this is... not what I know how to do well. Playing online for me is a necessary evil, a draining exercise in not being able to connect with any humans. Whether this is good for Magic or bad is a discussion for another time, but it wasn't good for me.
Okay, well. After a year of chaos and lack of communication, we've got something 'new' for our esport. A very complicated upper tier, and a middle-lower tier which is... PTQs that qualify you for 3 regional Players Tour qualifiers, and fractional invites available at GPs which carry between seasons.
That's right: they spent a year to figure out a very rudimentary version of the same system they wanted to try 7 years ago. To say this is a bit insulting is to say that Oko was a bit playable: peoples' entire lives were changed this year, with regards to Magic, with regards to their ability to be semi-professional players, and not only was it never acknowledged, now we're back on a skinnier version of the old system? Yeah. Yeah.
So now we're looking at a brand new year, where what I've trained myself to do is back in play. Somewhat. So here's to a year where maybe being practiced at tournament play is worth just enough to get some Players Tour action.
PS: WotC, you want someone who cares about organized play to give you another angle of insight? *mimes 'call me' motion*
PPS: Call people who are from other countries too, I'm not an expert in the other countries' situations.
The way that WotC incentivized people to play this year, competitively, was a complete departure from the last... roughly 13 years since the original creation of the Pro Club. Even Planeswalker Points Season 0 wasn't as much of a departure as this, although it was a departure. And I spent the previous 7 years of my life learning and training to work in that system.
First, a quick history lesson (I can do a longer form of this if people care, but I spent 7 years talking about Magic Organized Play and almost nobody cared). SO. The changes around Planeswalker Point Season 0 and 1 were focused around dealing with Magic's growing popularity. Why? In the 2011-2012 time frame, GPs were getting too big for WotC's tournament software to handle. PTQs started to grow to the point where stores didn't, or couldn't, reasonably schedule proper spaces for them, and had to figure out how to deal with the world where maybe 100 people showed up, or maybe 355 people. Also, the world is large and how do you deal with countries that aren't the US?
The response to this by WotC was to cut invites from GPs from top 16 no matter the size, to top 4, top 8 if the GP had than 1200 players, and put those into more PTQs around the world, as well as to simplify the pro point system to its platinum/gold/silver structure and remove rating-based invites. At the time, Helene B. (rest in retirement) stated that the rough idea was to get 30 plat, 50 gold, 70 silver, with 400 person PTs (the PTs at the time were creeping on 600, 'too much'.) The bye system at PTs was moved from rating to Planeswalker points based: after a short season 1 that had pros freaking out about the ease of getting byes, a 1500 per quarter line was set for 3 byes that was suitably insane to try to reach (I did, but... yeah.)
Over time, Silver gained an invite, RPTQs (32 per season) came into place to further allow for growth dealing with PTQs, a cap on GP attendance came into place to deal with burnout in the 2012-2013 era, and when we started seeing GPs above 2000 people, eventually WotC added the '13-2' qualifier line. This era also had special invites that were 'near-miss' invites, explicitly stated to be so that people who got close didn't get discouraged. This was obviously arbitrarily applied: people who were known getting the invites, people with the same level of near-miss ignored. Also, the number of byes available got cut down to 2 and made yearly, so as to be less punishing (Helene responded to me at the time saying 'see, we listened to your criticism!' so... monkey's paw.) After 2013 or so this system as described was more or less stable.
Going to GPs in this era was always pretty rough when you didn't have pro status. I got a couple GP top 8s, but never got status. Finally, after much pleading and arguing, we finally got Bronze (see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WqCYww-TJhnzhIz7j-iMVeufAzfc9L7Tg-0yg6_k0kc/edit for the detailed argument) the year after it really would have helped me. It was finally possible (although not ideal) to claw your way into benefits from either the RPTQ or GP path for a year or two.
And then, kablooey. Back to a single-layer PTQ system, with GPs as bigger PTQs, and the MPL.
The losses caused by this change were significant to me in multiple ways, and not just because of the structural rewards that were no longer available: there were second order effects. I first went to GPs because it was the only way I could interact with higher level players for certain. It was, and still is, one of the biggest pieces of advice people give on how to improve at Magic: play with better players. In the era right before GPs grew, it was even possible to get money drafts going and really get some dedicated time with people who would soundly beat you, and give you the chance to learn the whole way.
In the new system.... the best players are not incentivized to play against you, at least in paper, at GPs. They certainly won't travel to them. If you can catch them on Arena, maybe you get a small chance of it. But... Arena. The latest Table for 2 Podcast episode (https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/anchor-podcasts/table-for-2-an-mtg-arena-podcast/e/65360394?autoplay=true) has Hayne talking about how he doesn't get to see his friends anymore because of the new PT structure. That's been the case for a year (and he knows that well): I only see him when going to a GP in Canada, or a GP alongside a PT. The high level pro and mid level pro community has been fractured by this change, simply because they no longer attend the same tournaments most of the year.
And then there's Arena. Arena competitive play is a huge structural change. No longer can you engage in focused practice, no longer can you practice limited in a way close to how it will be at GPs and PTs. It's all about a massive grind which has never been my bag, except in limited. For some people this works, and I've seen some people brought back to the game with it. But for me, this is... not what I know how to do well. Playing online for me is a necessary evil, a draining exercise in not being able to connect with any humans. Whether this is good for Magic or bad is a discussion for another time, but it wasn't good for me.
Okay, well. After a year of chaos and lack of communication, we've got something 'new' for our esport. A very complicated upper tier, and a middle-lower tier which is... PTQs that qualify you for 3 regional Players Tour qualifiers, and fractional invites available at GPs which carry between seasons.
That's right: they spent a year to figure out a very rudimentary version of the same system they wanted to try 7 years ago. To say this is a bit insulting is to say that Oko was a bit playable: peoples' entire lives were changed this year, with regards to Magic, with regards to their ability to be semi-professional players, and not only was it never acknowledged, now we're back on a skinnier version of the old system? Yeah. Yeah.
So now we're looking at a brand new year, where what I've trained myself to do is back in play. Somewhat. So here's to a year where maybe being practiced at tournament play is worth just enough to get some Players Tour action.
PS: WotC, you want someone who cares about organized play to give you another angle of insight? *mimes 'call me' motion*
PPS: Call people who are from other countries too, I'm not an expert in the other countries' situations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)