Architects and Tinkerers II - The Architect
Tameshi, Reality Architect by Chris Rahn
The Architect
I'm sure I'm not alone in fantasizing about constructing a beautiful building. Not even necessarily a skyscraper, train station, airport, or stadium, there is a simple beauty that accompanies a house that is perfectly designed for its occupants, or an apartment that naturally remains cool in the summer. A barn with a garden on the roof. A lighthouse with a windmill. I was a keen watcher of Grand Designs as a child, for those of you familiar with Kevin McLeod's TV specials focused on grandiose and inspiring architecture, and I have always had a deep interest and respect for the mere mortals who conceive of entire buildings. In my final years of high school, when it came time to choose which university courses I would apply for, I was even seriously considering architecture, before the creative arts grabbed my collar (they haven't let go yet). In some way, perhaps architecture captures our desire to alter the earth before we leave it. As with many things, we consider the tangible versions of this to be of the most value: buildings and books and monuments.
In my last article, I wrote about the two camps I divide Commander players into: Architects and Tinkerers. This week, we're taking a closer look at the Architects, those of us whose primary focus is the building of the deck itself. Players who goldfish, consolidate win conditions, share decklists online, and continually refine a deck before any version of the deck has seen the battlefield in a four-player match. Notably, for the Architect, once a deck is 'finished' - typically when the first draft is judged to be worthy - the deck is rarely, if ever, edited. The Architect would rather tear the deck down and start anew than iterate upon their existing idea. This is in strong contrast to the Tinkerer, who dwells with the deck long after its first iteration, and who continually substitutes, experiments, refines and-
Ahem
... Excuse me?
You are excused.
Sorry, I'm a bit confused, this is my article. Just me, my words. What are you doing here?
Well, you seemed to be speaking an awful lot about Architects, despite admitting yourself that you are not one. I thought perhaps it might be reasonable for the esteemed readers of Commander's Herald to look the gift horse in the mouth.
Look the gift horse... that's not what that phrase means.
Irrelevant!
Alright, moving past that... so am I speaking with the Architect?
Correct.
Just singular? Are you an Architect, or The Architect, the concept?
I speak for Us.
Right. That doesn't really answer-
Enough of this babbling, I am tired of your continual flip-flopping between schools of thought, as if you know both the mind of myself and the mind of the Tinkerer equally. Nonsense! You are a Tinkerer, as you have stated, and though you may know me and know some of my brethren, you do not speak for us, and I will not allow you to misrepresent us any longer! Let me tell you what you have misunderstood about me.
Alright. It doesn't seem like I really have a choice in the matter.
The crux of it is this: I am not lazy! After you first spoke of me, there was a great deal of conjecture about my failings, namely that I am somehow allowing my Commander decks to languish and fade over time because I am not Tinkering with my decks. This manufactured image of me as a lazy Commander player is exactly that: manufactured! The whole argument is based on three main assumptions, all of which are false.
Well, I apologize for upsetting you. What are these assumptions that I've made about you?
The first is that decks lose relevancy over time, to a meaningful extent. The second is that my decks exist in their exact form without ever changing. The third is that all decks are eternal.
Interesting. And you want to prove these assumptions are false, I'm guessing?
Precisely.
Well, we might as well start at the beginning. You want to challenge the idea that decks lose relevancy over time. Can you explain how you feel this is wrong?
Easily. I will first clarify that I am not suggesting that decks do not lose relevancy over time. It is an undisputed fact today that Wizards of the Coast is printing increasingly powerful cards over time, and with Commander being the most popular way to play Magic: The Gathering, and by a fair margin, these powerful cards are very likely to appear in our format.
Sure, this is what most of us would refer to as 'power creep'.
That describes it adequately. I am not disputing power creep. What I dispute is that this process operates at a speed that is at all relevant to most Commander players; those of us who are engaging in the format at a casual level.
Right, and you're distancing this from cEDH as well, where obviously power creep is a larger factor?
Yes. In casual Commander, I acknowledge the presence of power creep, but I deny that this process is fast or relevant. I have known players who took extended hiatuses from Magic: The Gathering, and whose decks were therefore unchanged for six months, twelve even. I can say with authority that these decks, which had received no substitute cards for this extended timeframe were still powerful, synergistic, and capable of winning a Commander game. I have lost to these players and decks before.
That makes sense to me. I once went three months without editing any of my Commander decks, an experiment I called The Great Freeze. I shared my findings on my podcast Get Commanded! in an episode called-
I am familiar with the episode.
Oh. Great. Anyway, for three months I sort of forced myself to live as an Architect, I suppose; no Tinkering, no cuts, no adds. But in most of my decks, I didn't notice any slowness or lack of synergy. And in the decks that did have issues, it forced me to really evaluate why they weren't working, and plan ahead, so that when I did eventually let myself Tinker, I would know where to start.
What you have just described, these substitutions that are the result of lengthy planning, that is what We would refer to as a 'restructure' or an 'overhaul'. It superficially resembles the Tinkerer's method, but requires more forethought, happens more rarely, and typically involves a greater volume of cards. This quite neatly brings me to that second assumption: the notion that the Architect's decks never change. This is the manner in which I improve a deck. I plan rigorously, and improve rarely, but improve substantially, and with far fewer missteps than the Tinkerer.
Sort of sounds like the 'measure twice, cut once' philosophy. This is tricky, though; it seems like you're weaseling out of the pitfalls of being an Architect here. I could make the same argument as a Tinkerer and say that I plan my Tinkers and do them rarely, and make myself sound really clever in the process, but I'm sort of meeting you halfway to your way of doing things.
We run into the issue of language here. A Tinkerer is, by definition, one who improves in a haphazard, erratic way. Perhaps you are not such a Tinkerer after all if you plan so vigorously to improve.
Maybe, but do you see that your way of describing a 'restructure' resembles the Tinkerer's method?
I live within the confines of my own ideas, as do we all. Perhaps you are too rigid in enforcing yours.
Wow, bit rude. I have to admit, as a Tinkerer it can be hard to come to terms with the way that you choose to relate to your Commander decks. The only way that I can imagine being an Architect is if I had much less free time on my hands, as if you Architects would willingly Tinker if you had more time to do it, but somehow that doesn't seem like it would be true.
No, you are correct. Remember that more than almost anything else, I am drawn to deckbuilding itself. The deckbuilding process is almost as rewarding as the game of Commander, itself, to me, and if I had more time, I would simply build more Commander decks. Importantly, and this is another way in which I am not like you Tinkerers, I would also choose to play more Commander. Tinkerers have a tendency to become obsessed with their decks, swapping cards in and out, chasing a fleeting feeling of success and missing the truth that is standing right in front of them.
And what's standing right in front of them?
The simple fact that the deck needs to die. The third assumption I came to challenge is that decks are eternal, and this is my rebuttal to that idea: Tinkerers are far too averse to the idea of disassembling their decks. Almost all decks that are ever built will eventually cease to exist, but the Tinkerer tends to procrastinate the death of their deck, forcing themselves to endure game after game in which the deck is simply not working, but assuring themselves that somehow the deck can be fixed. The truth is that when we reach this point of dissatisfaction with a deck, we will eventually disassemble it, so you may as well get it over with as quickly as possible, devoting your energy to a new deck that captures your interest.
I've been guilty of keeping a deck longer than I should, I'll admit that. The cohost of my podcast, James, who you would definitely get along with by the way-
He is one of Us, it is true.
James is always warning me when I'm not having fun with a deck and that I should get rid of it. It takes me another five or even ten Commander games before I eventually capitulate.
You are delaying the inevitable. Remember, the disassembling of a deck is not a purely unhappy process: all those cards you are so attached to are much better off bolstering the decks you truly enjoy or, better yet, being devoted to new ones.
I've really come around on disassembling decks. It used to be agony for me, but there's definitely a cathartic feeling when you tear down a deck that just wasn't right for you. It's interesting to me that you're so open to the idea of disassembling, though, because I've known a fair few Architects who built decks compulsively and ended up with these massively bloated collections. I'm not talking about the 15-20 decks that someone like me will end up with, which is already probably far too many, I mean like 30-40 decks. Surely that is excessive.
It can happen. The temptation to build new decks is strong in Us. It is Our greatest joy and triumph, but all things can be unhealthy in excess.
Do you worry about this massive devotion you have to new decks? It seems like you place them on this huge pedestal ideologically, and there must be times when you're enormously disappointed by the way your ideas have played out.
Disappointment is always possible when one commits themselves to a singular purpose. Even a Tinkerer like yourself is familiar with this feeling. But We will never be ashamed of a deck that fails or fades away. There will always be more decks. They are fickle and inconstant things. But an idea, and the one who manifests it, those are eternal.
Yeah. Yeah, you're right! Not about everything obviously, but ideas, the way they endure, there's something in that. I think I know what I need to do...
Tune in next time for the Tinkerer's Manifesto...
