Is it time to Retire Rule 0? 

My brother and I, along with anyone else willing to face his Balthor deck, have a great Rule Zero. Draw 2 Lay 2 (cards and lands, respectively).

Starting with the story of your deck is not blanket permission to do whatever you want - the playgroup still gets to confirm if they want to 'hear' that story, because it might conflict with their own ideal experience, and the whole point is to create a fun and welcoming environment everyone can agree upon.

It's not so much about lore as much as it is explaining the goal of your deck, and thus, the experience you want to have. Sitting down with Urza, Lord High Artificer and saying "my deck's story is to power out artifacts and make a ton of mana to spend on broken stuff" isn't lore, but it does communicate to the table that they're about to be in for a tough fight. If you're playing a precon and don't know what it's capable of, then that's your story: this is my first time venturing into the multiverse and I don't yet know what I'm capable of. This would also communicate to the table that you are new and they might want to pull some punches (or at least be patient when explaining their own complex interactions) so everyone is on the same page.

It also assumes a lot of knowledge about the card pool, which is hard to aquire. Having a certain story on what the deck is supposed to achieve isn't helpful, since it says nothing about how well it does that. A Rule0/power level discussion focussing around a relatively small part of the card pool and and a handful of undesired game mechanics is much easier to get into and stay updated on. Also, I don't really want to give my game plan away. People can see the Commanders, so it's up to them to figure out what may await them. To me, that is one of the two enjoyable features of casual Commander: figure out people's game plan (as opposed to calculating probabilities, as in competitive Constructed formats). Over the years I have aquired a fair amount of cards that are considered to be overpowered in a casual setting. Knowing that, I can just add/cut them to demand and avoid raising the salt level.

It's not so much about lore as much as it is explaining the goal of your deck, and thus, the experience you want to have. Sitting down with Urza, Lord High Artificer and saying "my deck's story is to power out artifacts and make a ton of mana to spend on broken stuff" isn't lore, but it does communicate to the table that they're about to be in for a tough fight.

Sounds cool!

One way to establish trust is to put everyone at ease and place emphasis on the shared desire to have fun through a communal experience. Opening with a story about your own deck can go a long way to putting the other players into the right frame of mind, but if you need to fall back on a more structured Rule 0 discussion, you still have that option. I'd just prefer to see that be the last resort, rather than the opening framework for the upcoming game.

​@@MagicArcanumSomebody saying that first sentence to me would immediately make me trust them less. It literally sounds like politician speak. And if somebody starts throwing a story at me from out of nowhere, especially when I can tell they're using a story to try to convince me of something, my mind is immediately going "what bullshit are they trying to get me to accept". Again manipulating people through stories is another highly used political tactic for getting people to accept things they normally wouldn't. Actually, I guess in this case that's EXACTLY what the point and goal of it is. That must be why it's coming off so "like politics" to me. This idea is literally a political tactic being repurposed for the gaming table.

Sounds great!

If we consider your deck and its commander to be a character, then the story comes down to "what does this character want, and what are they willing to do to get it?" "Satsuki, the Living Lore wants to tell as many sagas as possible, even ones from the very edges of the Multiverse, but she prefers to discover her stories and let them flow naturally." (A statement like this could include the sagas from Middle Earth and the Lord of the Rings, if I wanted it to, and I'm saying I don't use tutors or much recursion outside of the commander's own abilities.) "Naban, Dean of Iteration is trying to teach his student wizards how to be the best possible versions of themselves. He asks perfection. Then he asks for it again, even if it means removing everything and starting over." (Mono blue wizards with a high number of 'return something to its owner's hand when this enters the battlefield' triggers that get doubled up by Naban.)

Magic was created by a man known to wear colorful bowties and mismatched socks. If you can't handle a bit of whimsy in your fantasy trading card game, that's fine, but the community would still benefit from you not being a judgmental prick to the other players who do choose to express themselves through the flavor of their favorite cards.

@@MagicArcanumAll I have to say to that is... Your go, your go, your go Lol jk jk, you got me. But still no. Yes it's a fun neat little idea that I'm sure some play groups would enjoy, and if they would like to spice up their rule zero that is fine. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Hey guys what if tonight we played using Planechase cards and the blind eternities variant, I'll teac.... Then someone sticks a finger up to hit me with jeopardy rules and tells me I have to state it in the form of a short story. I am literally going to fight them. (No I'm not going to be a prick or fight someone in real life, I've just added little flourishes to make my story more interesting and get a reaction out of you. OH NO~ maybe I'm a fantasy rule 0 fan after all!)

That's the spirit!

Sounds great!

It is important to be clear with what your deck is capable of, but since the goal of this deck is to do wonky stuff, you might as well start off by embracing that from the very start!

“My deck tells the story of a merfolk Oracle of the Goddess Thassa, who consults with a demon - told to you through the tutelage of demons and vampires”

I love it!

We don't know for sure but since the Ajani they showed us goes from white to red/white, I suspect the cycle will be similar, which means Tamiyo will probably go from blue to blue/green.

Thank you!

It's not so much about lore as much as it is explaining the goal of your deck, and thus, the experience you want to have. Sitting down with Urza, Lord High Artificer and saying "my deck's story is to power out artifacts and make a ton of mana to spend on broken stuff" isn't lore, but it does communicate to the table that they're about to be in for a tough fight.

Sounds great!

Awesome!

Commanders are the most visible and most iconic part of the format so I gave a few examples of how you could propose changing yours via your deck's story, but I also showed how you could voluntarily place a restriction on yourself (needing 20 poison to kill someone rather than 10) to help make certain stories more appealing to your playgroup. What you're describing (free lands during the game if needed) sound more like house rules, unless they are explained to the table before the game starts. Rule 0 is more often used when meeting new players so you can quickly all agree on which rules you want to strictly enforce and which ones you personally want to bend (or break) but it's important people know that before the game starts, so they don't count on things like free lands when they're not drawing them naturally. And, in such a case, starting a discussion with "Rule 0" can appear confrontational, or at least competitive (because you're establishing rules for a game) but under "the story of your deck," you get people thinking about the game itself and the experience of playing, rather than rules, which I find has a dramatic impact on player's perception of the whole encounter.

@@MagicArcanumI've never seen any restriction about rule 0 having to be only explained before the game starts. House rules are definitely part of rule 0 to me, even when they are discussed in the middle of a game. And that's the power of the rule 0 to me. And if your group sees rule 0 as something confrontational, I fail to see how disguising it under lore would change the core of the issue. Overall, I like the idea of using lore to justify rule changes, and I already do it quite often. But using that to try to "replace" rule 0 feels counterproductive to me. What if a player in the group doesn't care about lore? They can't use a "non-official" commander anymore? Lore and rules should be seperate entities.

It's not so much about lore as much as it is explaining the goal of your deck, and thus, the experience you want to have. Sitting down with Urza, Lord High Artificer and saying "my deck's story is to power out artifacts and make a ton of mana to spend on broken stuff" isn't lore, but it does communicate to the table that they're about to be in for a tough fight.

@@MagicArcanumThat's basically explaining what your deck does, which is already something a lot of players do. Most players would explain that saying: "this is an urza lord high artificer deck centered on artifacts and big mana combo". This usually happens with power level discussion. And to me, this has nothing to do about rule 0. There is already an established vocabulary around power level discussion and deck descriptions. I think that using a "story" to replace that is just obfuscating the information you want to pass through. If you want to describe your deck with a story like that, it should be done additionally to the "standard" way of describing your deck.

Rule 0 is RAW, because it's a written rule.

My usual rule 0 talk is before I pick a deck, asking what the power level is (precon, updated precon, ect), because that way I can pick the deck that matches the power level to have the most fun group experience

House rules are a thing but they don't work when you're out of the house. There are a huge number of players that gather in game stores or at the Magic Cons, and they need to meet on common ground. Presently, they use Rule 0 to align expectations, which is serviceable but bland. I'm proposing The Story of a Deck to help get people into an agreeable mood and find overlapping principals upon which they can share their experience. Of course this doesn't work great with Magic Online - that's not what it's for. It's for people who want a fun spirited and casual experience while playing in unfamiliar territory, and based on the popularity of shows like Game Knights, we can tell this speaks to a huge audience of players.

The difference is that there is no counterplay to it. Against an aggressive deck, you can at least try to offset their strategy by gaining more life than they take away. Against poison, once you take ten, you're dead, no matter how healthy you are otherwise. That can be really frustrating to play against because it feels like your own choices don't really matter.

Just have to give the commander name, what the deck does, and probably any noticeably strong effects or combos. That's usually enough to judge how strong it is without vague numbers.

@@PhoenicopterusR Yep, exactly

For me I ask power level in this way: - precon, updated precon, higher, ect - low long they have been playing Because you could have a theoretical high power deck, but if this is your first time playing edh, you have no idea of any combos that might be in it, optimal play patterns, ect

I love it when people bring their "stop being a wimp" attitude to the game's premiere casual format.

@@MagicArcanum that's the kind of commander I learned on, and made me a better player. There were No politics, it was play to win, don't go easy, cut throat games.

this is one of the wolves inside me

Sounds great!

Would make for a fun and flavorful deck so I'd allow it at my table!

@@MagicArcanum but how does commander damage work? bruna deals 5 and Gisela deals 7, what damage for Grisela?

I think if I'm facing down Brisela, Commander damage is the least of my worries 🤣 That said, I would probably do it under normal partner rules, and just track damage from either angel (or their melded form) separately.

This is good advice. I personally see Commander as "end game content," but with Wizards releasing so many precons each year and really pushing Commander as the "entry level" format now, I think it's still wise to have a plan for interacting with new tablemates.

I'm not sure it's players who try to make commander into a competitive format. I think that's WotC and store owners, who see money to be made via events and selling new cards. The popularity of Game Knights and other "experience" driven content tells me that many players (most, even) vastly prefer games where people are doing fun things rather than chasing the win.

The story of your deck is meant to be a starting point for the discussion. Other players at the table can help co-author your story, once they understand what you're looking for, and how you plan to achieve it. In my experience, this collaborative dialogue leads to more fun and engaging discussion, and ultimately better games, rather than a stuffy "here are the normal rules, here are the ones I want to bend or break, now let us perform these functions in a shared space" rule zero method.

@@MagicArcanumokay, what does any of that mean? I am struggling to understand the purpose of this. I swear I'm not trying to be a dick here, and if I'm coming of as one you obviously don't owe me a conversation here. But I'm genuinely struggling to understand what you are trying to achieve here. "Other players can help co-author your story" - It seems more and more like you are talking about a creative writing exercise. a) This has nothing to do with actually playing a game of Magic, which is presumably why the deck actually exists. Unlike the current rule 0 you describe, this replacement is not necessary. You can play Magic without writing a story for your deck. You cannot play Magic (with other people, for a long amount of time) if you keep playing decks that break rules or are just not fun to play against. b) This isn't something that works for every deck, as many decks are a group of mechanically related card with little narrative overlap. This also connects to c) c) This isn't something every player wants to do. Most people I've ever played Magic with couldn't tell you what an Omenpath is, because Lore and Story don't interest them one bit. They play Magic purely for the mechanical intricacy and the just vast options of playstyles available to you, which is the thing that sets magic apart from every other TCG/CCG. The thing is, I actually storytell my decks like you describe all the time. I dig that. But not once has it actually ever been the best (or even decent) way to address potential issues of gameplay. So you still need the rule 0. And most of the time, at least half the table has no interest in my narrative, let alone in crafting there own. This is not something that needs establishing as a norm. Which, from the sound of it, is what you are trying to do. You are talking about replacing a rule. That rule has an objective purpose. Why actual direct communication of potential issues that influence the real experience of the game is "stuffy" to you is something I simply don't understand. Why you would further replace it with a vague "starting point of a discussion" that doesn't necessarily tell me anything is also, frankly, confusing, especially since it will necessarily circle back to the actual current rule 0 stuff you mentioned anyways. How do you actually, concretely, picture this? "Resist Atraxa for twice as long to prove yourself worthy of her oily embrace..." "Okay, how about three times as long instead, maybe the poison isn't quite ripe yet and needs a larger dose?" "Sure, let's do that!" Is that what you're imagining? Because I fail to see how this is inherently superior for a majority of people, compared to: "Hey, I'm playing poison, let's say we double the counters you need to lose?" "Still seems super strong, can we do triple?" "Sure." Especially since my actual answer to that descriptive deck introduction would be "Okay, what are you doing? Are you telling me a story, are you asking me a question? What's happening?

If you don't get it, you don't get it, but I would point out you're subscribed to a channel that is devoted to the stories behind the cards. There are 80,000 other subscribers here, too, and I bet most of them know what an Omenpath is. Even if you play with people at a store who don't know though, that's ok, because the point of opening with a story about your deck isn't to connect it to the existing written lore. Let me put it another way: when I go to see my doctor and they start out with "we're going to take your blood pressure first," my results are usually bad (higher than they should be.) When they start with some small talk and ask how I'm feeling and then casually roll up my sleeve and put the monitor cuff on, the results are much better. Why do you think that is? I believe putting people into the right mood for things can have a dramatic impact on their actions. Having a literal discussion about rule zero works. I am not arguing about that. But to me it is also very clinical and detached from the fantasy setting of all the cards that are about to hit the table. So it's ok if your Urza, Lord High Artificer's story is "I'm going to drop as many artifacts as possible and use that mana to do busted stuff" even if that's not a moment of "lore." It does still communicate to the table that they will be in for a tough fight, and might encourage them to pick an appropriately powerful deck for this particular session. Now, they are in the mindset of "I gotta slay this monster!" rather than "oh you want to play Urza, ok, guess I'll play a hard counter with a lot of artifact destruction" which turns it into a math equation waiting to be solved. But yes, the story is not meant to be the final word. You can open with the Atraxa bit, and if someone asks for clarification or adjustment after that, then that's fine. That's the co-authoring part. You can discuss if 2x or 3x is more appropriate, but by starting with the story, you disarm people, and (in my experience) they become much more likely to accept what you are proposing because you wrapped it in fun rather than in rules.

@@MagicArcanumhi, med student here: blood pressures should be taken after you’ve been seated for at least 5 minutes

Agreed! The story of your deck is just a starting point for the discussion, rather than the more stuffy sounding "rule zero" but making sure everyone is on the same page regarding power levels is still an important part of the pre-game conversation.

Well as I said in the story, Dack would be trying to steal YOUR deck's best stuff, so you tell me - does YOUR deck have those things?

@@MagicArcanumRight, so I should assume you only play "Gain/exchange control of" cards beside lands? without black recursion that make about 20 to 40 cards ? What happend with the 20 open slots ? I should assume it's harmless do nothing cards or lands ? One second you play Metal coating "to better steal stuff" and the next second you drop an infinite on us because we assumed your story would have mentioned it if Dack fayden had an army of Saheeli Rai. That's sweet immersion and roleplay, but if you answer by a question when asked one you are just deflecting, I'll just ask again the same question. Politics and double-talks start after mulligan.

I'm sorry that your previous experiences have left you feeling like you can't trust other players. It sounds like you have an unhealthy relationship with this game and possibly the people you regularly play with. How much information do you need about someone's deck before you are happy to play against it? Under classic rule zero, would you expect me to mention your hypothetical infinite combo? 2 cards out of 100? Do I need to prepare you for every possible combination of cards my deck is capable of? If I forget to mention one and pull it off (or hell, discover it for the first time) during a game, will you be mad? Refuse to play further? Feel betrayed? Because it sounds like no amount of discussion beforehand will put your mind at ease, and if that's the case, you might want to consider a game like Chess, where there are no surprises that will upset you.

@@MagicArcanum It's no about every being ready for everything. I got unhealthy planeswalker "as commander" PTSDs and game soft lock, that I cannot lie seeing a rule 0 planeswalker commander would instantly make my throat dry and my hair rise. But tuto and fast mana are quite indicative of how fast the deck is. Infinite are another thing, I was advise and I advise new players to come to a gentleman agreement to explicitly said when you drop a combo piece. Metal coating is a well known infinite enabler, but not all players use it for infinites and they usually say "I have nothing to go infinite with" before someone snipe a junky synergy. But too few people go the other way around, like dropping Storm-kiln Artist on the board and expliciting it can instant win with card X in the deck. And shuffling your cards back into your deck out of nowhere because you don't know all the magic cards isn't welcoming. Maybe that story is just a preface to the pre-game discussion that would happen anyway. But it left so much to interpretation I'm gonna ask so many more questions... when you give your Atraxa example I'm trying to understand if you're trying to bring an very high power deck to a low power table with the handicap of being the archenemy and the infection thing, or if you just play simple Atraxa and nerfed poison. Anyway it's just a funny "what if..." for people to bring some flavor to their deck. It's not like "I play that because I find it funny" wasn't enough.

It doesn't have to be a dramatic story; it just sets expectations for the table in a fun way, which feels appropriate for a format that (allegedly) is designed to maximize fun.

Would the exact same thing not happen under a traditional Rule 0 conversation?

Yes. Just getting across that, though I value pre game talk, in some stores I've played, and some circles, it isn't very welcome. From: store owner talking to everyone and organizing within power level To: completly random and cEDH players and precons play together. When I asked Store owner: you can't prohibit people from playing what they like. Just saying.. Both extreme exist, and for someone who travels a lot, it's difficult to get any sort of pattern

Not sure how you wound up with the impression I hate fun when the whole thesis of this video is that the game becomes more fun when you find ways to do the unusual thing, as Sheldon intended?

What do you mean by "commander card" though? You can still buy singles of pretty much any card from commander pre-cons, and cards being commander-leaning aren't exclusive to the format?

@@PhoenicopterusRCards from the commander precon aren’t playable in Modern or Standard by the rules. Not that this is a good reason to get rid of commander.

"It rarely exists to begin with" flatout wrong