Mark -
I think the main reason people are upset about stickers is because they are eternal-legal. I myself am very excited to experience them in the limited environment of Unfinity, but will feel uncomfortable seeing them across the table in commander, as it feels too whacky compared to the “normal” style of gameplay which I have become accustomed to over many years. Even though stickers mechanically work within black-border rules, I can’t help but view them as silver-border territory, which I feel requires a certain “goofy mindset” to enjoy. I think it’s wonderful that Magic continues to push boundaries (it’s the reason the game keeps me invested and excited) however I believe it is equally critical to provide players with the option to “opt-out” should they feel that a new set/product/mechanic does not resonate with them. A good comparison would be the frustration caused by the mechanically unique Universes Beyond cards (The Walking Dead, Stranger Things, etc). From my perspective, the majority of frustration was not caused by the creation of these IP crossovers, but rather the inability of players to opt-out of interacting with (playing against) these cards in eternal formats. Thankfully, WOTC addressed this frustration by agreeing to print “Universes Within” versions, which more-or-less seems to have satisfied the upset community. In the same way that players were afraid of being unable to “opt-out” of interacting with certain cards (non-Magic IP’s), I feel the same anxiety towards being unable to “opt-out” of playing with a certain mechanic (stickers) that has now become “welded” to the game’s structural foundation. Thanks for taking the time to listen and respond to people’s frustrations and concerns, and I hope that you realize there is a powerful, protective love of “Magic” at the core of which all these emotions are orbiting. P.S. have you seen The Professor’s latest video on stickers? He sums up these concerns quite nicely.
Here’s the problem with “opt in”. It can’t work. It presumes that players all want certain things, and are equally hesitant about the same things that they would prefer to opt-in to. But that’s not how the Magic audience actually functions. (I know the echo chamber of social media often creates the illusion that everyone wants the same thing, but it’s just that, an illusion.)
Each player has their own list of what they want in the game and what they don’t. And those lists are all over the place. Let me give you an example. Here are some of things that you would have to opt in to if we removed things that a number of players have asked be removed from the game(and this is just a small version of the list off the top of my head): violent imagery, land destruction, black cards, fairy tale references, anything using counters, double-faced cards, counterspells, hybrid mana, outside play aids, stealing effects, humanoid animals, other IPs, discard, anything creating tokens, skeletons, cards that are humorous in nature, copying effects, anything “modern”, cards accessing cards outside the game/from the sideboard.
Everything you love about the game, that makes Magic Magic for you, someone else despises and wishes it weren’t part of the game. That’s why I like my buffet metaphor. The key to our success is to offer lots of different things and let the audience pick and choose which parts they want to partake in.
But what if my opponent plays thing I don’t like? Well, that’s what playing a customizable game is all about. You get to experience what makes other players happy. Maybe you’ll come to realize it’s not as bad as you imagined, maybe you’ll even come to love it yourself when exposed to it, or maybe you’ll continue hating it, but accept it as a by-product of you getting to play what you love.
That’s the core of the issue. It’s not our job to keep people from being exposed to things they hate, but others love. It’s our job to provide a wide range of gaming options and let the players sort out which pieces they want to interact with. That can be through formats, through play groups, through play spaces, etc.
To return to the buffet metaphor. Our job is to provide a wide variety of different food, so that everyone’s meal can be a combinations of things they enjoy. We’re not going to remove popular dishes from our buffet because some diners don’t like them. If you don’t like it, don’t eat it. If you hate the smell of it, don’t eat at a table where someone else is enjoying it.
“Please force players to have to ask my permission if they can play what they want to play” is a recipe for disaster.
As much as I agree, in edh especially, asking about what sort of game everyone wants is a part of playing. Land destruction, infinite combos, fast mana; it's all up for discussion because edh is supposed to be fun for everyone involved. In constructed formats, if the cards are costed in such a way to not be viable: why make them black border legal at all? This is a set where you, more than ever, got to pick and choose exactly what went into vintage/legacy/edh. I don't even think comparing the sticker cards to draft chaff is a fair comparison because the option for them to be silver border is sitting right there.
Why make them silverborder if they work in blackborder? That's just asking for more issues.
How exactly? People who want to play with silver border and stickers get to, people who don't get to avoid it. And it doesn't pollute games of vintage, legacy, or edh. There are _literally zero_ issues with silver border cards or mechanics being silver border. None.
That's the thing "People who want to play with silver border and stickers" don't get to. That's the issue. Even in casual it stops people from being able to play because it's opt-in. It's not an issue that can be dismissed because not only it happened, but frequently enough that Wizards was aware of it to the point of deciding against using differet colored borders to signilize expansions again. In comparrisson, then being opt-out means people that don't want to play with them can still not play with them.
