Topic: Any interest in a true pauper format?

I find Pauper too arbitrary in what it allows and doesn't.  There are powerful, Pauper-legal commons that are quite pricey and lots of janky uncommons and rares that are not Pauper-legal, which defies the apparent concept behind the format.  For gameplay, I think it's more interesting to contemplate a boxing-style format, which uses weight-based competitive divisions.  An MtG analog would be a format where decks are designated by total deck price, and matched against other decks on that basis.  For example, there might be brackets as follows:

<$5
$5-$6
$6-$8
$8-$10
$10-$12
$12-$15
$15-$19
$19-$24
$24-$30

And so on.  The intent is that no deck plays against another deck that's more than ~25% more expensive than itself, thus creating some parity in power level.  The point is to develop a format that's both casual and competitive, and that rewards efficiency in deck-building over shelling out $500 to build a competitive deck.  The question this format addresses is, "How good a deck can you build for ten (or X) bucks?"

Concerns:

1)  Prices fluctuate.  Yes, but really not that much, especially in legacy-era cards.  If it took off, the format might start to impact card values at the low end, but that would be ok, as it would just be adjusting to more accurately price cards on in-game value.  Also, with the access to digital decklists and market pricing, it should be relatively easy to track.  Sideboards could be built with low-cost substitutions in mind, if a deck price is on the cusp.  You could also build a safety margin into your deck, say 5% below the top of the weight class, to allow for minor daily fluctuations.  You could also just accept it if your deck gets floated into a higher priced bracket.  You could also bring a few decks to an event and see which one prices into a bracket that you feel is competitive for it.  So you price-check, say, three decklists at the front door, and decide which one you want to play today based on that.

2)  Rarity (both by printing [C/U/R/MR] and # of reprintings) still influences price.  Yes, we don't control the decisions of the publishers, so these sorts of factors are hard to avoid.  Still, I think this is an improvement on existing formats that intend to allow players to include non-chase/premium cards in their decks.  Pauper is hardly less arbitrary.  Consider that Pauper allows a playset of Lotus Petal at $15+ each, but bars Wooden Sphere, which isn't worth a quarter.  Don't let the name fool you - your budget remains a powerful influence over your success in Pauper. For better or worse, a format explicitly based on market price negates that factor.

3)  Depth of competition.  Brackets only function if there's a good balance between narrowness (i.e., the brackets don't force a deck that's been pressed down to $20 in price to play against a deck that's twice its price) and depth, where there are sufficient players/decks in your bracket to foment competition and a sense of victory.  The brackets I listed above are for illustration purposes; in a FNM or tournament setting, a method might have to be developed to ensure that brackets fairly balanced these two competing forces.  Decks that win their brackets could be allowed to play upwards, just to see how they do.  There might also be ways to adopt point systems, where decks are rewarded for beating more expensive decks.  Or instead of brackets, perhaps using a ranking system where you start where you price in at, but can work your way up or down based on performance against adjacent decks.

4)  Condition/Edition.  For purposes of pricing, the format would use the lowest priced edition, in a standardized condition (say Near Mint).  So you won't be penalized if your copy of Shivan Dragon happens to be a collectible and you won't be rewarded just because your copy of Black Lotus spent 3 months in someone's bike spokes.

Anyway, just wanted to float this idea and solicit feedback, ideas, and interest level.  Do you find my answers to potential objections compelling?

Last edited by tigerface501 (2022-02-24 06:19:08)

Re: Any interest in a true pauper format?

Similar formats already exist for example Two Dollar Highlander and Penny Dreadful but they never took off because of problems you already listed and a few more.

The major issue you have not listed is the one that for me makes this kinds of formats fail on the spot and cannot be worked around because you literally are basing the format around it. It  is the legality verification. Cards legality basing on their price is abysmally unwieldly metric. For example how do you exactly determine the price of the card - do you use tcg price, cm price, deckbox price etc?
Adjacent to this is the issue you mentioned that is the price fluctuations. This makes your deck fluctuate between brackets (or even become completely illegal) which makes metagame based deckbuilding impossible and since this is the basis of any competitive format in mtg it creates environment where matches results are very unpredictable and makes sideboards almost useless. Basing legality on price also requires you to log all price changes since price can change at any time and card legal at the beginning of a tournament can become illegal later during that very tournament. You probably could implement some kind of hysteresis loop to make those changes less abrupt but that's is only a band-aid and will be almost impossible to implement and manage.
Also whatever you do you are still basing card legality on market value which is derived from card scarcity and not actual power level and this means some cards reprinted into oblivion will be absurdly overpowered compared to other cards printed only in early sets. Due to that and power creep you will end up with format consisting mostly from latest cards plus a few powerful or unique effects from early days of mtg (and those will be probably pushed out of the format anyway due to price increase resulting from higher demand and natural price increase that happens with time). This would make such a format incredibly uninteresting to me since despite being eternal it old cards would be hardly present.
There are more issues related to using price as legality like legality in other formats influencing the price (e.g. Splinter Twin is not legal in modern now but if it would become unbanned its price would significantly increase heavily influencing format you are suggesting).

Re: Any interest in a true pauper format?

Thanks for the thoughtful reply! I was unaware that there were other formats being played with similar goals.  At the outset, it confirms my suspicion that there is some enduring interest among the players in trying to develop a format that seeks to equalize and/or moderate price and power.

So, on that point, 2DH I'm sure is an improvement over what EDH tends to become, but that's still basically capping deck value at $200.  That's not my idea of a casual or budget hobby.  Penny Dreadful sounds more like it, but is that played in paper or only on MTGO?  Note that both of these formats appear to judge card legality within the format based on the individual card's market price, which may force you to potentially radically reconstruct your deck in response to price fluctuations.  I can see your point on how that can be a very brittle standard.  I think that what I'm proposing addresses that brittleness by largely dispensing with that card legality model, in favor of something that's more akin to deck legality.  This means that, broadly, individual cards aren't going to flit in and out of format legality. This frees up your options quite a bit as the player/deck-builder; you can cut price from anywhere in your deck that you like in response to market fluctuations, so long as you make weight at the final weigh-in.  You make a very interesting point re the banning of overpowered cards in other formats depressing market price, making them prime targets for abusing a format like what I'm proposing. Channel comes to mind.  I think importing wholesale a banned/restricted list from the appropriate set-based format would be the easiest approach to interacting with that issue.  If cards slip through the cracks there, they could be specifically restricted in response to format-warping usage, the same way this process works in other formats.

Of course, switching from card pricing to deck pricing doesn't automatically solve the larger problem I think you're presenting, which is tracking and applying pricing in a format defined by checking variable metagame factors like price.  I think sourcing the prices is a fairly solvable problem.  I googled both 2DH & Penny Dreadful, and it appears that players of both formats have come up with their own ways to do/track it.  The first hurdle is having a digital decklist, which I understand some players may resist, but is ultimately a minor inconvenience.  Once established, a shared decklist format could cite a shared price guide.  The point being, it's less important which source we're citing than that we're all using the same one.

Your concern about a deck starting a tournament legal and becoming illegal midway can be addressed by fixing a cutoff time for pricing for a tournament.  Basically, if your deck makes weight at time T, based on prices checked at time S, your deck is tournament legal and the matter is behind us.  In my mind, the sideboard ought not count against the deck's value unless and until a card swap is made.  However, those sideboard card values could be noted so that players would be aware of and be required to maintain deck legality in swaps.  Not as easy as formats that don't involve such considerations, of course, but the idea is that it's all in service of a loftier purpose.

Your concern about the immutable reality (as players) of card scarcity and its impact on the game is basically true of any MtG format.  As I noted earlier, we are inherently subject to the design decisions of the game publishers.  This problem is not unique to the format I'm proposing, so perfection can't be the standard.  And actually, this reality is a big part of what's inspiring me to pursue this issue.  I perceive an abiding player interest (at least among some players) in trying to insulate the game from the metagame reality that money can buy victories, which isn't something I feel enhances the experience of playing the game.  The bottom line is that if it is the case that some players feel that this is a concern for them, and have made several efforts in a variety of venues to create formats to address this concern, and that this is another effort at such, is it an improvement over those existing efforts?  I think it may be, but I'm definitely interested in hearing if others agree.

Again, I really appreciate your feedback.  Thanks!

Last edited by tigerface501 (2022-05-05 21:15:03)