Upcoming Article

My next article likely won't come out until the middle of June or perhaps the middle of July. When it gets here, it will be on one of two topics:

Possibility #1: An article about the nature of personhood, the nature of suffering, and what they tell us about how to narrate a good RPG game as a GM (or ST, or whatever), geared particularly for horror RPG settings. This is an article that I have secretly wanted to write for a long time now, but have had a very difficult time struggling with the ethics involved in writing such an article. The problem with it (and the reason why I still might not write it) is that it will basically end up having contained within it a cookbook on how to rip people's souls apart, like down to their core. I'm not sure if I can really stomach publishing something like that to a bunch of people I don't know. While my intent will be for it to be used for good fun roleplaying... it's kind of like teaching some one how to make a nuclear bomb so they can make better fireworks...

Possibility #2: I've also been strongly considering writing a series of articles (which might turn into a book one of these days) about various theories and high-academic materials as they relate to RPGs and Magic: The Gathering. Since my two great loves right now are the big theoretical works in the academy and these sorts of games, and since the two communities have so little contact between them, I'm thinking of trying to bridge that gap. So the articles would try to aim at both communities, as a "Games explained to Academics" and "Academics explained to Gamers" at the same time (rather than writing separate articles for each which used totally different approaches). Alternately, I'm considering doing a more concrete look at demonstrating different religious worldviews and how they get integrated into Whitewolf's oWoD material. I might save these ones though, just because if I do it, I want to do this one RIGHT, which means like... a big book, not a big article.

Card Potence-- The Real Issue

I frequently hear Magic players complaining that cards are getting too powerful these days (which really means the people I play Magic with). Dixman2000 has posted an article about this, inwhich his basic point is that some cards are more powerful, some are less powerful, and others are more versital. In otherwords, he's arguing that the game is taking on a new flavor, but that the overall power level has remained relatively constant, give or take.

I will agree with him in part, however, there's more to this question. So let's get some observations out of the way, and then I'll get to my actual opinion on the matter.

FIRST: The people saying that the cards aren't getting too powerful are usually new players.

SECOND: The people saying that the cards are getting too powerful are usually the older players, who haven't bought any new cards in large numbers since about 10 years ago. Notice the "new cards in large numbers" portion of that sentence, it'll be the key later.

THIRD: The people saying the cards aren't too powerful these days generally never bought large numbers of the older edition cards.

FOURTH: The people saying the cards are getting too powerful usually don't play in Tournaments, and have never owned the POWER NINE cards, the cards from the initial editions which are so powerful that they quickly made the restricted list, and are now worth Six Hundred Dollars or more individually.

FIFTH: Generally speaking, those on BOTH SIDES who actually argue the point (either way) were not collecting during the period of 6th edition to 8th edition.

So here we go.

Comparing individual cards will not, ever, solve this question. The reason is because too many conscious and unconscious decisions will go into choosing the specific cards to use. What would happen if I compared every card in the Lorwyn block to a Black Lotus, or a Mox, or an Ancestral Recall? On the other hand, what if I compared every card in Lorwyn to the Sea Serpent? Really

Really look at that card. It's a 5/5, but it costs 6 mana. So already it's a loser of a card, because it costs more than it's worth. But the horror doesn't stop there. It also has that horrible ISLANDHOME deficiency. That deficiency should decrease its mana cost, but it doesn't. So you're left with a useless creature that costs too much for its power level anyway. This thing was a staple in my home-group back in the day when we didn't know any better.

Actually, that's the entire point. The makers of Magic didn't know any better either. Listen to this comment by Mark Rosewater, one of the big Magic big-wig people, discussing early Magic fads. "Rock Hydra was just mind-blowingly awesome. And in the early days I traded a Fungusaur for a Mox Emerald and I believed I was the nice guy to be willing to make the trade (I didn't have a Mox Emerald, or any Mox, at the time, and I had two Fungusaurs)." That's from his article "+1/+1 Size Fits All" from the Wizards main site. Here's the link: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mr318

So let's start by allowing for the fact that the game developers have been learning how to make the game balanced from the beginning, initially putting out some cards (like the Moxes) that were insanely powerful (they didn't realize it at the time), while also putting out cards that were unbelievably useless, like the Ironroot Treefolk. I mean look at that thing, a 3/5 should cost 4 mana, and there it is, sitting with a casting cost of 5 for no reason at all. No one will ever be justified in playing one of these ever again. And yet right alongside this card we have the DUAL LANDS, those amazing inventions which were so powerful that many expansions have included other lands that are just like them... with penalties or weaknesses. Compare a Tropical Island to a Breeding Pool. Nearly every expansion block for the last five years has included its own kinds of Dual Lands, none of which are penalty-free.

The Actual Result:

Ok, so I'll just say it. The most powerful cards have gotten significantly less powerful. The days of the God card that costs as much as a home computer are gone. The new super-cards will never cost you more than 30 dollars (ish) if purchased singly. However, the mid-level cards have improved and have become GOOD mid-level cards. What's happened is that the "Curve" or Magic potence has evened out, whereas it used to be spiked in a way that's difficult to grasp. Do yourself a favor: Go to the Gatherer, and look at every card in the Legends expansion. Legends has a reputation as being full of very powerful, very rare cards. Go look. The VAST majority of the cards in that expansion are worthless in terms of play-value.

Like this one: Barktooth Warbeard. At the time they published this guy, they thought that having a DUEL COLORED card was such an advantage that they made you pay EXTRA mana for it. A casting cost of 7, but it's only a 6/5. And to make it worse, it requires at least two colors of mana, which puts a greater strain on the deck. Get this... This card was UNCOMMON. They thought it was that awesome.Most of the cards in Legends will be remarkably similar to this one, inwhich you look at it and think to youself, "is that all?"

However, that same set holds the card Mirror Universe (also shown above), an artifact which allows you to exchange life totals with your opponent.

So to make sure we're clear, there has indeed been a change in the way that magic cards are made these days. They aren't getting MORE POWERFUL, they're getting MORE MIDDLE. There are fewer worthless cards, and the middle level cards are better, while the super-level cards are less powerful. This only LOOKS like the cards are getting insanely powerful to those who only owned the middle-level cards in the early sets. But to some one who actually went and bought the cards in large numbers (such that one booster box would be gauranteed to give you at least 3 of the super powerful cards, as well as several other very good ones), the newer sets have lost some of the omnipotence that used to be so prevalent.

And Along Came Seventh Edition:

There is one other factor here that I mentioned at the beginning. Seventh Edition was the time when they made a MAJOR rules overhaul. The game changed forever... into what it always had been. What they did was begin what's called "Templating." This just means that they started wording the cards in a consistent way, in a way that corresponded to the rules of the game as a whole. This had miraculous effects. Gone were the days of having each card need its own references in the big rule book to explain what that card was supposed to do in the first place. Gone are the days of card-wordings that are impossible to interpret. Gone are the days of distinctions that do not have any impact. Like Interrupts vs Instants: Seventh edition did away with Interrupts entirely, because they realized that the difference was entirely meaningless.

Let's look at some examples on how cards used to be worded. Look at this Life Chisel here. What the heck does it mean? Is it a mandatory effect? Are you required to sacrifice a creature? Can you sacrifice more than one? The new official wording for this artifact is much clearer, and solves both of these ambiguities. "Sacrifice a creature: you gain life equal to the sacrificed creature's toughness. Play this ability only during your upkeep." OH, turns out the ability wasn't supposed to be required, and can be done to as many creatures as you control. Who knew?

And since we brought the topic up, have you ever read the actual wording of a Black Lotus? Read this and ask yourself if its actually even possible to obey the rules on the text as printed. What it should say, and what the oracle text says, is "Tap, Sacrifice Black Lotus: Add three mana of any one color to your mana pool." But looking at the original card, it sounds like it has to be played from your hand, since you have to "Discard" it. And since it's an "interrupt," couldn't you activate the ability, to get 3 mana, and then as a fast effect to it being "discarded" activate the ability another time, perhaps an infinite number of times? The fact that it includes "THEN is discarded" means that there are two steps, so you can interrupt the process with other instants and interrupts... like it's own ability, since the card itself makes not direct connection between tapping it and gaining the mana, or between tapping and sacrificing. Now, I know what your thinking: 1) we'll never own one, so it doesn't matter, and 2) I'm just splitting hairs when I knew perfectly well what the card MEANT, even if it didn't say it properly. I mean, do we really care about having cards that are worded by lawyers? Why is this necessary?

It's not about lawyering the cards. It's about having the cards designed by a group that understands the game well enough to know how that card connects to the rest of the Magic universe. It's really the same reason why they used to publish cards like that Barktooth wimp mentioned earlier. They know HOW to make good cards, and they know HOW to make bad cards, which means that when they publish an expansion, they do so with an ability to see the way the whole expansion is going to fit together, so the cards are properly balanced.

Early cards were about nothing but flavor. Like that Sea Serpent I showed earlier. They gave it Island Home specifically because of the flavor of a Sea Serpent, whether or not this made for a horrible card. Now, cards are designed with an entire block in mind. Interestingly enough... this has led to an explosion of flavor, as it means the blocks now have certain FLAVOR-based interactions built right into them, such as the Rakdos propensity for sacrificing its own creatures as a weapon, which can be combined with the Golgari propensity for bringing things back from the graveyard. Observe the interaction between Lyzolda, the Blood Witch, when combined with Gleancrawler and Savra, Queen of the Golgari.

Now, I will grant you that these three cards are more powerful than a Sea Serpent. Together, they are not as powerful as a Mox, and I would say that individually they are not as powerful as an original Dual Land, though when combined they might be. Note of course that two of those are Legendary, which again limits their effectiveness. But the result is a deck that has PERSONALITY. And heck, all you have to do is add three creatures that have "Comes into Play" effects or "When this creature is put into the graveyard" effects, and you've got yourself one FUN and POWERFUL little 6-pt Strategy article. Say... an Ashen-skin Zubera, a Centaur Safegaurd, and an Infectious Host? Suddenly your deck is ready to be the plague that boils over with its own sickness, but never dies. Oddly enough, the fact that the makers focused so much on getting the rules-wordings just right is precisely what allowed for such an intense flavor for the whole set, or for this deck specifically.

Conclusion:
Ok, so I've rambled on, and gone off-topic.
So the very basic, one sentence point is that the cards have averaged out, instead of being so one-sided as either WORTHLESS or GOD-AWESOME like they used to be.

Six Point Strategy-- Recycling

RECYCLING: 6pt Combo Deck
A Magic: The Gathering Deck

Fastbond




http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=148


The biggest risk with this card is that you must never have more than one of them in play, or both of them will damage you every time you play a land after the first in a turn. However, the shear tempo-acceleration this card produces will be WELL worth the loss of life, especially as this combo continues.


Lifegift


http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?name=Lifegift
Keep in mind that this card will give you life EVERY time a land comes out, not just the times when Fastbond will damage you. More importantly, you'll gain life every time your opponent plays a land. Quite Devastating in multiplayer games. Put more than one of these in play, and you'll actually start gaining 2 (or however many) life every time a land comes into play. You'll start getting quite fat.

Horn of Greed


http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?name=Horn%20of%20Greed

Ok, so now we've got a complete "Mana Well," in that our deck can safely play every single land it draws, instantly replace it, and lose no life. So you win the mana game. Period. Now, these three cards would actually be devastating in ANY deck, even if these were the only green cards in the deck. Keep in mind that this card doesn't actually give you card-advantage on its own, since your opponent will gain the benefits as well. HOWEVER, when combined with the Fastbond, which only you benefit from, the result is that you can cycle through all your lands, while they can only cycle through one per turn. Put out two of these... and the card advantage gets quite insane. If that happens, you don't actually have to worry about decking yourself. The reason is because you can always choose to NOT play those lands, and because playing non-land cards doesn't make you draw. The real devastation and protection from decking yourself comes later though...

Seismic Assault


http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?name=Seismic%20Assault

So now when you draw up to a hand size of 20, you can discard all those extra lands, and kill an opponent. Now, in a two player game, you win once you have this combo out, perhaps. In multiplayer, you just make everyone suddenly hate you. This is the reason you don't need to worry about decking yourself, since if you've drawn 30 cards that turn, one of them is gauranteed to be this card, which you can play with all that excess mana, and then discard 15 land for a large quantity of damage.


Zuran Orb
[[Blogspot refused to upload this image for some reason, so you'll have to see it on the wizards site.]]
http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?name=Zuran%20Orb

At this point all those excess lands you played that you don't really need anymore can be sacrificed to gain additional life. Hurray. Now you're even more hideously life-swollen. Your opponents have no chance.



Crucible of worlds


http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?name=Crucible%20of%20Worlds

NOW YOU WIN. It seriously doesn't matter whether you discard those lands or play them and sacrifice them. You can instantly play them AGAIN, from your graveyard, to gain life all over again. HOWEVER, you have to be smart, in that once a land is out of your hand, you can never get it back in your hand to do damage, so your damage ability is a limited resource, unlike your life ability, which is truly infinite. Seriously, if you have this card with the Fastbond, Horn of Greed, and EITHER the Lifegift or the Zuran Orb, you truly have an infinite life combo right there, even if you have only one land in play. However, with the Seismic Assault, you get a large amount of damage as well. With that in mind, I would recommend Sacrificing them first, since that will be the only opportunity to do so, and then keep playing and sacrificing them for life.


So in this deck, nothing is ever lost, it's all recycled...





The Rest of the Deck...
This combo should win you the game. So the rest of the cards don't REALLY matter.
However, here are a few suggestions about what to do with the rest of the deck.


Library of Leng
This artifact allows you to skip your discard step, and gives you no maximum hand size, so you can have all 30 of those cards in your hand and not lose them.
However, the most important aspect of this card comes from the fact that it allows you to put cards on top of your library instead of discarding into your graveyard. So with Seismic Assault, Horn of Greed, Fastbond, Zuran Orb, and Crucible of Worlds, you can keep discarding lands to damage an opponent, and then sacrificing a different land (requires two), and then playing from your graveyard the land you just sacked, which makes you draw the one you just discarded to seismic assault. Repeat. You'll get infinite life, infinite damage, and you WILL NOT deck yourself, as long as you keep the order in your head properly.


Crumble or Shatter
These two spells destroy target artifact.
The reason you might want this is if you have two Horn of Greeds out and decide you want to get rid of all but one of them, so you don't draw two cards for each land you play.


Meloku the Clouded Mirror
This Legendary Blue creature allows you to pay one mana to return a land you control to your hand, which puts a 1/1 flying creature in play. Now... the awesomeness of this is that with the above combo, one land can give you and infinite force of 1/1 flying creatures, because it'll go to your hand, and come back into play untapped, so it can pay for its own returning again, which starts the cycle. The OTHER very important reason this is useful is because it allows you return lands to your hand so you can DISCARD them to Seismic Assault. Perfect. Be CAREFUL though... if you have a Horn of Greed out, every time you cycle that land like that you'll be drawing another card in addition to the land you just put in your hand. You'll have to kill ALL the Horns in order to do an infinite creature combo. Otherwise you'll deck yourself very quickly. The reason I chose this Moonfolk as opposed to the others is specifically because it's land-returning ability costs only 1 mana, which means that with the Fastbond + Lifegift combo it can cycle infinitely. The others all cost more mana than that, and thus have a limited run.

Feldon's Cane
This artifact allows you to shuffle your entire graveyard back into your library. It removes Feldon's Cane from the game, so there are a limited number of times you can do this, but seriously... Now even things in your graveyard can be recycled, and the possibility of decking yourself is almost NILL. This increases the amount of damage the deck can do through Seismic Assault considerably, since you can put all your lands in the graveyard, then shuffle them into your library, so you can draw them all and discard them again if you still have your Horns out... Now EVERYTHING is recycled.

The Big Weakness:
This deck has no way to defend itself against a control deck.
It's also helpless against mass Enchantment or Artifact removal cards like Shatterstorm or Tranquility or Aurashards. And, as always, the fact that my good friend Orphanned God has a green deck with lots of creatures that kill enchantments means that you can never play this deck against him.
Against creature-aggro decks, I think this deck would do very nicely, as you're acceleration rate should be far beyond their swarming ability. If you go the Meloku Clouded Mirror route, you'll actually end up out-creaturing them anyway, unless they've got a viscious Trample deck or a deck with cards like Pestilence that do damage to all creatures.

Vampire: The Eternal Struggle

6 pt Strategy

Nosferatu Antitribu Politics
The basic idea behind this deck is that it deploys resources faster, and then takes measues to ensure that it gains more resources faster than the opponents, hopefully while draining the enemy as well.

Nosferatu Kingdom
Type: Master. Unique Location
Text:
"During your influence phase, tap to move 1 blood from the blood bank to one of your uncontrolled Nosferatu antitribu.

Information Highway
Type: Master. Unique Location.
Text:
"Gain two additional transfers during your influence phase."

[[Writer's Comments]]: So if, by chance, you had both of these out early in the game, you'd effectively be able to move 7 blood to vampires in your uncontrolled region each turn. Six of them would still have to come from your pool, so you'd be depleting your own resources very quickly. However, I find that little problem, since one of those points is FREE, and will continue to be free for the rest of the game. To be blunt-- The Information Highway makes you ready to do a FAST game, able to pump out high powered minions from the word GO. At the same time, the Nosferatu Kingdom makes it so that every turn that passes gives you a free blood on a minion, so the LONGER the game goes, the more that card works to your advantage. You've got the speed and the stamina.

Honor the Elders
Type: Political Action
Text:
Political Card - Worth 1 Vote
Called by any vampire at +1 stealth
Successful referendum means that each ready vampire with a capacity above 7 gains 1 blood from the blood bank, and each vampire with a capacity above 7 in any uncontrolled region gains 1 blood from the blood bank.

[[Writer's Comment]]: Ok, This card means two things, one of which is obvious. The first thing it means is that the player who is using the most Elders gets a huge, enormous bonus of free blood for the elder vampires, both controlled and uncontrolled. The second thing to notice comes in the magic number there, SEVEN. That's right, it's exactly the number of transfers you'll be getting if you get both of the Master cards listed above into play. So theoretically, we're seriously looking at a deck that is just BEGGING you to fill your entire crypt with 7-cap vampires, with maybe a few higher than that.

Political Stranglehold
Type: Political Action
Text:
"Political Card - Worth 1 Vote.Called by any vampire at +1 stealth.
Successful referendum means each Methuselah gains 3 pool for each vampire he or she controls with a capacity above 7. Only one Political Stranglehold can be played during a game."

[[Writer's Comment]]: This particular card actually requires that you have vampires above 7-capacity. So if you really go with this, you'll need a few biggies. But chances are... if you can actually pull one of these off, you're GOLDEN.

Cheval de Bataille
Type: Action Modifier
Text:
"Requires a ready titled Sabbat vampire. Only usable during a referendum.
Any vampire voting against this referendum burns 1 blood when the results are tallied. "

[Writer's Comment]: The beauty of this card comes from playing it while you play either Honor the Elders or Political Stranglehold. If they vote against it, every single vampire voting against it loses blood. If they vote for it, you gain more pool than they do, or your vampires gain more pool than theirs.

Cryptic Rider
Type: Action Modifier
Text:
"Requires a ready vampire. Only usable on a successful referendum.
The next referendum a vampire you control calls this turn passes automatically."

[[Writer's Comment]]: While this is mostly self-explanatory, the point here is that earlier this same turn you got them to vote in your Honor the Elders by dropping the Cheval de Bataille, right? I mean, they couldn't afford to lose that many blood, so they let it pass. Boom. Now because they let the one go through, they are forced to have either ANOTHER Honor the Elders succeed or the Political Stranglehold. Fun Times.

So Why is this a Nosferatu Antitribu combo?
Why not ditch the Nosferatu Kingdom and make it a deck based on one of the Clans that actually has the Political disciplines? We certainly could do that.
The reason I'm putting this with the Nosferatu is specifically because of Cheval de Baitalle. The Nosferatu deck is going to have plenty of Obfuscate based cards to give it stealth, which is what is needed to get the Referendum on the table to begin with. So you can be mostly assured that you'll succeed in getting your Political cards to the Voting booths. And there will be enough Potence based combat cards to make your opponent consider seriously before trying to actually stop you and have to fight...
See... this deck doesn't actually NEED very many Titled vampires. It doesn't actually NEED to be able to vote in its own political referendums. Once you've got the item on the voting table, you can just load the table full of Cheval's and then it will not matter whether or not it passes. If they vote it in, you win. If they vote it down, you win. Granted, having some titles helps, and makes it easier to ensure that everyone plays along, but that's entirely optional.

The Rest of the Deck:
I'll just include a few minions and a few more political cards that go on the same theme. The Minions aren't required for this set up to work, but they do amplify it. Likewise, the political cards listed are "more of the same." I'm NOT including a big list of Potence and Obfuscate cards, because... I mean seriously, that would be a waste of combo space and a waste of your time. It would be like including "Mountain" in a 6 pt Strategy for Magic: The Gathering...
Bribes:
Type: Action Modifier
Text:
"Only usable during a referendum before votes are cast.
Gain 1 pool. Any other Methuselah who votes in your favor and does not vote against you gains 1 pool when the results of the referendum are tallied."
[[Writer's Comment]]: This is the other side of the Cheval. Can be used together if you want to make SURE something goes through, or on separate items. A good idea would be to combine this one with the cheval on one vote, so it passes with certainty, and then drop a Cryptic Rider on the following referendum to gaurantee it as well.
Consanguineous Boon:
Type: Political Action
Text:
"Political card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth.
Choose a clan. Successful referendum means each Methuselah gains 1 pool for each member of that clan he or she controls."
[[Writer's Comment]]: While you would usually want to choose your own clan so you can gain all the cash, you may find it necessary to choose the clan of one of your opponents, to gaurantee that they vote for it. Again, the purpose in doing this is to gaurantee that your next referendum passes...
Rabble Razing:
Type: Political Action
Text:
"Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth.
Successful referendum means all vampires with capacity less than 4 burn one blood."
[[Writer's Comment]]: The reason this card rocks in this deck is because you won't have very many of these small vampires, preferably NONE of them. Really imagine calling one of these, and having the Cheval added to it... If you vote for it, all your weenies disintegrate. If you vote against it, all your biggies get weaker. Perfect.
Sabbat Priest:
Type: Political Action
Text:
"Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth.
Choose a ready Sabbat vampire. Successful referendum means that for the remainder of the game, any vampire attempting to block the chosen vampire burns 1 blood."
[[Writer's Comment]]: If you get this on one of your 7-Cap vampires in the first two or three turns, the board is yours.

Tarbaby Jack: is a 8-cap Nosferatu Antitribu with [dom, ser, ANI, OBF, POT] and the ability "Black Hand. If Tarbaby is ready, you get one extra transfer during your influence phase."
[[Writer's Comment]]: With this dude in play, you're now dropping 8 transfers a turn.
Smallpox Griet: is a 9-cap Nosferatu Antitribu with [than, ANI, CEL, OBF, POT] and the ability "If Smallpox successfully inflicts hand damage in consecutive rounds of a combat, the opponent gets a pox counter. A minion with any pox counters takes 1 damage during his or her untap phase. Burn all pox counters when Smallpox leaves the ready region."
[[Writer's Comment]]: The most important thing to remember is that vampires in torpor with a pox counter on them still take the damage, so they'll continue losing all their blood even while in Torpor, until they have none. Once they burn their last, and then have to burn another, they'll get burned and move the ash-heap, gone forever. Granted, she'll probably just kill them, which means they'll disappear right away.
Joseph Cambridge: is a 6-cap Nosferatu Antitribu with [ani, dom, obf, POT] and the ability "Joseph gets an additional +1 stealth on political actions."
[[Writer's Comment]]: Use this dude to get your referendums on the table early. There are two bummers here. 1-- He's only a 6-cap, and won't benefit from your 7-cap referendums. 2-- he only possesses basic level Obfuscate, so he's going to NEED the +1 stealth...

And if you want even MORE free transfers, try this third location.
Powerbase: Montreal
Type: Master. Unique Location.
Text:
"During your influence phase, you may move one blood from the blood bank to a vampire in your uncontrolled region. Any vampire may steal this location for his or her controller as a (D) action."
[[Writer's Comment]]: This will get you one more free transfer. The weakness is that you'll have to defend it, which means you'll need to include plenty of Animalism cards for their Intercept value. This will, of course, make the Obfuscate, Political Action, Potence, and Master cards less common, but... well, it'll make you more balanced anyway, so take your pick.

This Deck has the Biggest Weakness of All Time:
That's right, there's a significant problem here. A lot of the coolness of this combo revolves around getting your 7-cap vampires out very quickly, and then continuing to profit from that for the rest of the game. Well, that can only happen if you get out the Information Highway and the Nosferatu Kingdom, or at the very least ONE of them... Oh, fine, so just put a bunch of them in the deck, right? Well, that's a problem. See, they're both Unique locations, which means that if one is out, another can't come out. So... if you've got one out, and you draw the other one, it sits there in your hand... and doesn't move. It takes up a slot permanently, effectively reducing your hand size by one. So you play the other 6 cards that are left, and eventually draw another one, and now you're down to 5 cards. This continues until you are powerless. NOW-- As it turns out, we can work around this difficulty rather easily.

Solution 1:
You can discard and replace one card at the end of every turn. So as long as you dedicate your discards to getting rid of the extras of these cards, you shouldn't have a problem. This does limit your ability to discard anything else though.

Solution 2:
You can go ahead and play the new repeat cards. What happens is that the old one gets destroyed and the new one comes into play normally. So you basically are just discarding the cad and drawing another one... The problem with this is that they are both Master cards, and you can only play one Master card per turn. So if you use that option, you're effectively using up your ability to play master level cards that turn. To make it worse, you can only do that DURING your Master phase, which means that when you play a non-Master card and draw one of these Master Locations... you have to wait an entire turn to use up your Master phase to "discard" it.

Solution 3:
BE PROACTIVE!! Get more Discard ability!
Cicatriz is a 5-cap Nosferatu Antitribu with [ani, obf, pot] and the ability " If Cicatriz is ready during your discard phase, you may discard one additional card."
[[Writer's Comment]]: So now you should be ok, as long as you don't completely overdo it with the Master Locations. You'll potentially be able to get rid of Master cards in one turn, if you dedicate your Master Phase, and your Two Discards to it, so at that point you should likely be fine, I think. And besides, if you have extras of the locations, it allows you to replace them if your opponent starts going around and burning them down.

Vampire: the Eternal Struggle-- 6 pt Strategy

Hopefully, for the next few months I’ll be able to do one of these every month. This months 6 pt Strategy will focus on an all-Tzimisce strategy. Future months will hopefully also display a strategy for a single clan, 6 cards that work together to form a masterpiece.

GIVING CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE:
This deck was originally constructed by Joe Churchhill on "March 2001." After trying it out I added the modifacations to it that I have written about in this article. To check out the original deck or comment to the original creator, go here: http://www.warghoul.com/storage/decks/bloodcontrol.shtml

Weather Control
Type: Combat
Discipline: Thaumaturgy
Text:
“Only usable before range is determined on the first round.
Basic Level: Both combatants and each of their retainers take 1 damage before range is determined each round. This damage cannot be prevented. A vampire can play only 1 Weather Control each combat.
Superior Level: As above, but the amount of damage inflicted increases by 1 each round.”

Blood Form
Type: Combat
Discipline: Vicissitude
Text:
“Basic Level: Strike: combat ends, only usable when in combat with an ally.
Superior Level: Play before range is chosen. This vampire is immune to non-aggravated damage for the current round. This vampire cannot strike this round. This vampire gets an optional press, usable only to end combat.”

[[Writer’s Comment]]: Ok, so at this point, as long as you’ve got a minion with but Superior Vicissitude and Superior Thaumaturgy, you can basically win any combat with that minion, PERIOD. There are two weaknesses so far. First, if your opponent has a card that will END the combat, or if some how they can do aggravated damage at rates faster than your cumulative Weather damage, then this combo will not win the combat for you. Additionally, you’ll need a LOT of Bloodforms in your deck, since you’ll need a different one each round of combat. I’m thinking like 25-50% of the Library should be Bloodform. Keep in mind, the Weather Control text only limits the number of them you can play per combat in the BASIC level. At superior level, you can drop as many of those as you like, and the damage is cumulative. To make it even better, the damage you deal with this is unpreventable, so Fortitude based cards will not save your opponent's minions-- in fact, your own minion IS taking the damage from Weather Control, but is then immune to the damage...

Drawing Out the Beast:
Type: Combat
Discipline: Animalism
Text:
”Only usable before range is determined on the first round. Basic Level: During this combat, opposing vampire gets +1 strength, but he or she cannot use maneuvers to maneuver to long range, cannot use presses to end combat, and cannot use equipment. A vampire may play only one Drawing Out the Beast each combat. Superior Level: As above, and the opposing vampire takes 1 damage during the press step each round. This damage cannot be prevented.”

[[Writer’s Comment]]: Now our combat portion of the combo is complete, as this card can be played at the very beginning to force the enemy minion to stay in combat for the duration, which means until they die.

Bums Rush
Type: Action
Text:
“Do not replace until the end of this action.
(D) Enter combat with a minion controlled by another Methuselah. Acting minion gets an optional maneuver only usable during this combat.”

[[Writer’s Comment]]: Now it’s all crystallized. This card actually is necessary, as without it your opponent can simply keep choosing not to intercept your minions, making the combat combo useless. Now that you’ve added this to the mix, you can just pick one minion of theirs per turn to selectively kill. Worst case scenario, they get another of their minions to intercept this directed action… Which just means that you’re killing a different minion, but that minion is still dying, so who cares?

Recruitment:
Type: Master
Pool Cost: 2
Text:
“Search your crypt for a vampire. Show it to all players and place it face down in your uncontrolled region. Reshuffle your crypt afterwards.”

[[Writer’s Comment]]: This card is there only so that you can ensure that you get the right Minion, the one that has both Vicissitude and Thaumaturgy at superior levels. Which brings us to…

Sascha Vykos, The Angel of Caine:
Type: Minion
Clan: Tzimisce
Capacity: 8
Title: Priscus
Disciplines: ani, dom, AUS, THA, VIC
[[for those not familiar with this format, lowercase means basic level, and capitalized means superior levels]].
Ability:“When a vampire opposing Sascha in combat goes to torpor, you may choose to increase your hand size by 2 for the remainder of the turn. This ability can be used only once per turn.”

[[Writers’ Comment]]: Boom! This is the card that brings it all together. It’s a powerful minion with both Vicissitude and Thaumaturgy at Superior levels, able to drop the combo at any time, as well as Basic Dominate (which I'll discuss further down.)


ONE ALTERNATIVE CARD:
Sorry, I know this is supposed to be 6 cards, but there’s one more card that either needs to be included as a 7th card, or which can Replace either the Bum’s Rush or Recruitment or Drawing Out the Beast. I would personally recommend using it as a 7th card… Of course, it’s perfectly fine to just leave it out entirely. The above 6 cards will do fine on their own, but this one is nice to have around too.

Theft of Vitae:
Type: Combat
Discipline: Thaumaturgy
Text:
“Basic Level: Strike: Ranged: steal 1 blood.
Superior Level: Strike: Ranged: steal 2 blood.

[[Writer’s Comment]]: Add this to the mix, and not only does Sascha kill any vampire in existence, but also gains blood for it. Nice… You could also use this next one, though I recommend the Theft for the sake of dependability.

Taste of Vitae:
Type: Combat
Text:“Only usable at the end of a round of combat. Not usable by a vampire going into torpor. This vampire gains an amount of blood equal to the amount lost by the opposing vampire to damage during this round of combat. A vampire can play only 1 Taste of Vitae each round.”

[[Writer’s Comment]]: This is basically the same thing, but doesn’t require Thaumaturgy. Unfortunately, it doesn’t steal the blood like Theft does. And it requires that you do some damage, so it is only usable when you’ve got the Weather Control booming out, otherwise you’ll only gain 1 blood per round, and will likely be taking much more than that, since their deck will probably have actual damage booster cards like the Potence cards.

THE REST OF THE DECK:
This deck has one very SERIOUS flaw… It relies entirely on Sascha Vykos. Seriously, if you don’t get that one out… you’re TOAST. It really doesn’t matter what minions you get out, if they’re not THAT one, it’s all for nothing. The Recruitment helps with that. However, it is still a good idea to have between 2 and 4 of this minion in your Crypt. So what about the rest of the Crypt? I have some suggestions, but they aren’t that stellar.
Violet Tremain is a 6-cap Tzimisce with basic Vicissitude, Thaumaturgy, and Dominate. Her special ability can lower the capacity of minions she fights, but only if she does hand damage (so not usable with the combo until after the second combat round…)
Virstania, The Great Mother is a 7-cap Tremere Antitribu with basic Vicissitude and superior Thaumaturgy, and basic dominate.
Lolita Houston is a 4-cap Tzimisce with superior Vicissitude but no Thaumaturgy. [[so this minion could block and then take no damage as a way of stalling until you get Vykos out]].
Ana Rita Montana is a 5-cap Tzimisce with superior Vicissitude and basic dominate.

In other words, you need enough Recruitments in your Library to be able to make SURE that you get Sascha out soon.

Now, additionally, two other Master cards can help this situation out, but it requires significant investment.
Vicissitude is a Master phase action which increases the capacity of a vampire by 1 and gives them a level of Vicissitude (so it turns 0 to basic, and basic to superior). Having some of these in your deck would allow you to turn your basic vic minions into greater powerhouses. OR if you had some Tremere Antitribu in there and started giving them vicissitude, then…
Thaumaturgy works the same as Vicissitude, but for the discipline Thaumaturgy, allowing you to turn your Tzimisce minions into whompers or to make your Tremere Antitribu small-minions into whomper-minions.

However, it is important to note that the more of these cards you have in the deck, the less often you’ll be drawing the Weather Control + Bloodform combo…

The other MAJOR FLAW in this deck is that it can block NOTHING unless you start putting in lots and lots of Auspex and Animalism intercept cards. But if you do that you’ll draw the needed combat combo even LESS often. So it needs a better way to stop your opponent, one that can be done with much fewer cards from your library.
Deflection is a reaction card that requires the discipline Dominate at basic level or superior. That’s why I mentioned the dominates up there, and why Sascha is so darn perfect! Deflection is played by one of your minions when you are being bled, and changes the target of the Bleed action. So put 8 of these in a deck and you’ll never actually have to block, you’ll just ensure that your Predator always hits your Prey for you. This DOES require an untapped vampire, with basic dominate… So that makes it all the more important that you’ve got some smaller minions around with that ability.

Along with that weakness, this deck can do nothing against political decks. It has very few titles, no political cards, and no intercept cards you can use to block their political attempts. BUT—remember that Bums Rush allows you to target which minions you take out… So all you have to do is be selective and kill all their titled vampires first if they’re going political.

The final comment I’d like to leave for doing this is that it costs a lot of Pool to get things going. Sascha is an 8-cap vampire. Vicissitude and Thaumaturgy both cost you 1 Pool every time you play them… Therefore, it may be good to put in some cards like—
Blood Doll is a Master Phase card, which lets you steal one blood from the minion you put it on per turn. Put this on Sascha, and you’ll be able to take blood, and then have Sascha steal MORE blood from your opponent’s minions when it drops the Theft of Vitae.

Essentially then, this deck will simply Diablerize your opponent’s entire deck VERY quickly, but only after it’s got its set-up established. I love the fact that this deck will basically make it so that every time your opponent spends any resources, they’ll lose them the next turn and give them to you. Beware of Political decks, however.

NEXT TIME::
Nosferatu Antitribu POLITICAL deck…

Violence in Video Games: The Core Argument

For years now, a debate has continued over the relationship between violent media and violent human behavior. The current form this takes is an argument over the role that violent video games may or may not play in well-published school shootings. Before this, our society contended over whether or not violent movies resulted in a violent culture. This was seen in the considerable backlash against the slasher flicks of the 1980’s. The video game argument is only the most recent form of the same debate. In truth, however, this argument goes back much further. The point of this article is specifically to identify what this argument is actually about and to point out the history of the argument, of which most people seem rather unaware.

For many of my readers, this article will appear to be “off topic,” and have nothing to do with violent video games. In truth, my point here is to cut through the fog surrounding this debate, to reveal that both sides have missed the point. The final section of this article will deal with discoveries in psychology that impact this argument but which never seem to enter the debate. I will try to use references that are easily found on the internet, to provide easy access due to this article’s publication there. For the sake of making everything cross-referenced, most of the references will be to wikipedia entries.

It all started in Ancient Greece. It did not start with the Virginia Tech shooting, it did not start with Columbine, it did not start with Postal workers, and it did not start with the UT sniper in 1966. This debate is not actually even about guns. It’s really not even about violence. As it turns out, this debate, which has been going on for over two thousand years now, is about the nature of human emotions.

The two culprits were Plato and Aristotle. For those unfamiliar with the two, I’ll give a very brief, very watered down and imprecise summary of the two philosophers. Plato came second, but is much easier to describe because much of Western civilization draws on his ideas more directly.

Plato draws a strict distinction between body and soul, physical and mental, carnal and spiritual. He declares things that are more abstract to be “more real,” than physical things. Thus he talks about moving beyond the material so that we can grasp the forms of Justice or Beauty or what-have-you. He is a champion of reason above all else. The impact on later Western and Christian ideas is obvious. For those of you wanting a more complete description of Plato, wikipedia has a decent summary: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republic_%28Plato%29).

Aristotle, in contrast, focused on the natural world, and spent much of his time observing the way that the world is. Thus he makes statements regarding a natural order (one of his famous quotes is “babies have a tendency to grow into humans”). He talks about cultivating virtues in ourselves, in working our entire lives to become a Just person, or a Wise person This means that he was more interested in the quality of the person over time, rather than the quality of the action this instant. Just as becoming a skilled flute player can only come through years of effort, failure, and success, so too becoming a Just person requires a lifetime of effort, failure, and success. He also spent a great deal of time cataloguing things in the natural world, which in current times would be considered Biology (specifically Taxonomy and Anatomy). Anyone wanting a more detailed summary on Aristotle should check out this site: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle ). But back to this particular debate.

Aristotle claimed that as living beings, we have passions that build up inside us, like a steam engine (he didn’t talk about steam engines for an obvious reason). These passions had to be released, lest they build up and explode out of us. He called this release Catharsis. This idea is where we get the idea of “blowing off some steam.” The basic idea is that if you don’t have a proper “outlet” for anger, lust, hunger, or whatever, then eventually it will become unmanageable. Again, wikipedia does a nice job summarizing this for us: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharsis ). Plato, in contrast, noted that human behavior runs almost entirely on Mimesis. This is the word from which we get the English word “mimic,” as in “copy.” There are two components to this idea. The first is the easy one, that we will dupilicate behavior that is modeled before us. As we say in current times, “monkey see, monkey do.” Essentially, this observation states that our culture teaches us how to act, think, and feel. There is another component to this, that our behavior, thoughts, and passions recreate themselves. We mimic ourselves. This basically argues that if we get in a fight everyday for awhile, we’ll have a difficult time not getting in a fight later on. Wikipedia to the rescue: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimesis ).

This argument has never been settled, at least not in popular opinion. Plato and Aristotle argued this point more directly in the point of censorship. That’s right, even back then the issue was one of whether or not the government (in their case, the city-state) should ban certain forms of art because of the way in which art affected the populace. Plato argued that the city-state must ban plays and some painted art. His reason, while not one that is very useful to us directly, was that plays involve real people playing as fake people, and that the audience temporarily accepts these fake representations as real. Thus it was bad for the soul, because it is focused on an illusion (the material world)

creating another illusion (the events in the play). Therefore, plays draw the audience farther away from what is real. Even when they play is about one of the forms, like Justice, it is still a lie telling a lie to make a point about the truth, and therefore does not teach us about the form. Much painted art he said was unacceptable for a similar reason, that because many paintings are made of things which are not even there (painting a landscape out of your head), that they are an imperfect reflection of a thing which is false, and therefore leads us very far from the truth. A painting of a real object was acceptable, but only insofar as it represents the object as it really is. Still, he argued, the painting was an illusion of the real object, and was thus not a great idea.

Plato went further than this, though. Remember that he equates emotion with the material world and logic with the spiritual world. Plays make us feel things (and, as stated earlier, false things). Remember Mimesis? We see the things portrayed in the play, we see the actors expressing emotion, and we mimic those feelings in ourselves. Since logic is so much better than feeling, then obviously going to a play that makes you feel very strong emotions is a bad idea, particularly since you’ll be feeling these things about a lie. For Plato, it’s just bad news all around.Aritstotle took the opposite approach regarding plays. He argued that seeing a play was good, specifically because it causes us to feel so strongly about false events. Remember that he believed Catharsis to be a good and healthy way of preventing bad behavior. If we go to a play, and see everyone being sad and angry on stage, we can release the sadness and anger from ourselves by feeling it as if we were the actors, and thus avoid collapsing in depression or blowing up at our neighbors. Plays are especially good due to their “controlled environment” type of an atmosphere, both in that no danger actually comes upon the audience, and also in the fact that the playwrite and director create a specific resolution to the play. In other words, plays are good for Catharsis specifically because we always get the right ending, and therefore they reinforce proper virtues within us, while also allowing us to release our daily quota of our emotions.Since those two philosophers wrote their arguments down, no one has come up with an original argument on the subject. Not one. Everything said since then on the matter has either boiled down to Catharsis or Mimesis. Let’s try a few examples. Here are some brief summaries of various arguments that are commonly made, along with some commentary on my part. My point here is not so much to critique the various arguments as it is to point out that none of them have anything new to offer. Do we learn by mimicking, or are we pressure cookers that must have a safety valve in order to avoid blowing up?“The shooter at UT in 1966 didn’t have any violent video games to play, but he still killed people. I do play violent video games, and I haven’t killed anyone ever.” This argument is essentially saying, “Mimesis is not true, because we can point to cases of individuals either being violent without these video games, and to people being peaceful despite their presence.” It seems simple enough—the person making an argument like this one is attacking Mimesis on the grounds of specific examples of it not working as one might expect. Some would argue that this statement supports Catharsis, since one playing the violent games (or watching the slasher flicks) is the one who doesn’t kill people. This logic is a bit fragile, however, as too little information is given: the person could indeed be learning violence from the games, and yet learning more non-violence elsewhere. While that would appear to make the games ok at first, it solidly labels the videogames (or flicks, or plays, or whatever) as something that does, in fact, promote and support the behaviors and emotions within. “All the people involved in school shootings played violent video games like Counter-Strike or Grand Theft Auto.” This would be an example of some one attempting to argue that Mimesis appears to be working. The shooters mimicked the emotions and behaviors of their games. There is a secondary implication here, however, one which proponents of video game freedom usually miss. The above argument also contains a rather potent argument against Catharsis. If these kids were constantly playing video games in which they take out their aggression on imaginary people, and yet they still went out and blew up a school, then obviously playing these games did not, in fact, release their pent up aggression. Either no release occurred, or there was just so much doom in these kids that no amount of release could help, or playing these games actually increased their aggression levels.Let’s try another: “Our military uses simulators to train fighter pilots. This wouldn’t work as a teaching tool if people’s brains weren’t capable of accepting the simulated reality as real for awhile. Therefore, when people play games of killing people face to face, their brain on some level knows that it is killing people and will, by definition, learn how to be a person that kills people.” If the connection isn’t obvious, go read Plato’s attack on plays. This is a Mimesis argument that might as well have come out of the mouth of Plato himself.“I play Counter-Strike as a way of cooling down after a stressful day of work, it helps me wind down.” This, again, is a perfect illustration of Catharsis in action. It would appear, based on this argument alone, that indulging in fake, safe violence can result in a decrease in violent behavior and aggression. Here’s one that gets voiced way too often: “For 99% of the population, violent gaming isn’t a problem, it’s just those weird sickos who can’t handle a freaking game, and have to go be evil and bad by continuing on a downward spiral of nasty stuff. Don’t penalize the rest of us just because those freaks can’t handle the real world.” Ironically enough, this argument supports a Mimesis model of emotion, as it is essentially saying that these bad people are unable to perpetuate anything but deviant behavior. As convenient as it is to label these people as “just totally bad on their own,” thus distancing ourselves from them, the end result is a validation of the very argument that leads to censorship. Everyone perpetuates the behavior and emotion they see and do, and these deficient people can’t stop themselves from mimicking what the rest of us can. The rest of us have the spiritual fortitude to avoid going down the same slippery slope. Do you really want to argue that you are indeed placing yourself on a slippery slope, even if you also claim to be able to “handle it?”
I have a problem with this argument for another reason. I reject these attempts to label some people as just naturally bad or inferior. I do this for ethical reasons. Aside from the manner in which it further alienates them from the rest of the populace, it also avoids having to deal with the reality that there are people in our society who do the same things we do, and yet turn out differently. By labeling them as broken people who aren’t acting like normal people, we’re taking them out of the equation to make for a neat, seemless system. That’s just sloppy. A real argument, a valid argument, is one that takes all the information into account.Now, current society increasingly values emotion over logic. This makes it easier to hold a Cathartic view of emotion. Feeling things is good. Thinking too much, and being a cold, heartless brain is bad. The reason for this is actually hidden in the argument. Current American society values the individual over the community. The only way to solidify the value of the individual is to value subjectivity over objectivity, which inherently means devaluing logic and holding up passion as the most real, the most important, the most ME. Logic is objective, Feeling is subjective. Our valuing of emotion is completely tangled up in our valuing of the individual. Our culture tells us to make a choice of feeling over thought so that we can be individuals. It is for this reason that so many proponents of gaming and media freedom feel as though they are being robbed of their right to be an individual when others tell them that violent media should be censored. My point here is simply to say that the reason Americans (generally) believe in a Cathartic model of emotion is because they believe in themselves as individuals. I would argue that BOTH sides of the argument need to learn how to separate the two issues. Gaming freedom supporters need to learn to separate emotion from individuality and civil liberties, and gaming censorship supporters need to learn to separate them as well.
So then, now that I’ve belabored this point, the next step is obvious: If the debate is really about whether our emotions release themselves or perpetuate themselves, then what does psychology have to say about emotions? That is, after all, the question. Most of the arguments from both sides center around trying to prove or disprove either Catharsis or Mimesis, as discussed earlier. Rather than trying to argue this philosophically, or with anecdotes about this shooting, that shooting, or the fact that I haven’t killed anyone, it would be more productive to see whether or not science can add some real evidence to the matter. So let’s turn to the science of emotions.
We’ll start with Sigmund Freud, who is often misunderstood as being all about sex. His research was actually quite different than modern day pop culture portrays. I will only deal with the areas of his thought which pertain to the subject at hand, so you won’t find anything about the Id, Ego, or Super Ego here, and you won’t here about infant sexuality either. The majority of Freud’s research has since been disproven, but remains very important because it got psychology moving in a direction that allowed it to uncover this, that and the other, and then later turned out to be “more correct” than we had thought, just in a backwards sort of way. As an example, his discovery of childhood sexuality, while disproven in its specific form (the famous Oedipus Complex), has allowed researchers to better investigate the nature of infant-parent relationships and the workings of pleasure principles in people of all ages. Here’s a nice tall glass of wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud). One of Freud’s brilliant ideas was specifically that we all consisted of various instincts which usually worked together. Problems occurred only when those instincts came into conflict with each other. When this happens, the result is imbalanced people (can you see the Catharsis coming?). As an example, humans contain both the pleasure principle (eat, mate, etc.) and the death principle (kill, destroy, etc.). When we eat, we destroy something by pulverizing it with our teeth, while gaining pleasure from tasting and digesting the food. Thus the two instincts work together very well. Get these things out of balance, and suddenly you’re raping rather than making love, and you’re eating a baby instead of a steak.Freud argued that the best way to keep these instincts in balance was to constantly release them, an act which he called Catharsis. Yes, he took it straight out of Greek Philosophy. By expressing these instincts in a healthy way, a person could become balanced, healthy, and whole. One may notice the connection between this idea and modern American culture. Our society tells us that it is good to take time off for yourself, but also good to work hard, that it is better to express anger than hold it in, that not having enough sex will make you unhappy, that having too much will also make you unhappy, that we should not be controlling of others, but that we should be self-motivated and driven, that it is good to have enough pain in life to appreciate the good times… Following all this advice is often called “Living a full life.” Whether or not our culture agrees with Freud’s stages of development, it would appear that we have bought his brand of Catharsis. This summary of Freudian theory includes a little one-liner definition of Catharsis towards the end: (http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/freud.html). Another brief mention of it can be found with wikipedia, again a little one-liner: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathexis). That particular blurb is about Cathexes, which are basically dream symbols which satisfy a desire without directly addressing it, so that you don’t wake up. An example would be a baby dreaming of two giant mountains because it is hungry and wants to feed, so a symbol for breasts shows up which satisfies the need partially, while not being so exciting as to make the baby more hungry. That part isn’t necessary for the subject at hand, but it’s one of the only pages on Freud and Catharsis I could find.Unfortunately, psychological experiments since then have ended up debunking Catharsis for the most part. None of these studies are conclusive, but they all have some strong implications.
In the Bobo-doll experiment (1961), children were put in a room with an adult and a doll. In half of the instances, the children observed the adult behaving aggressively toward the doll, while in the other half, the children observed the adult behaving non-aggressively toward the doll. The children were then left alone with the doll and videotaped. As it turns out, the children mimicked the behavior they observed for the most part, though male children were far more likely to imitate aggressive behavior than female children. This Mimesis took place within minutes, not years of exposure. You can read about it here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobo_doll_experiment). The validity of this study has been questioned, as it was using Bobo-dolls. They are designed to bounce back up after hitting them, leading detractors to point out that if the toy’s function is that of taking a beating, it makes sense for children to beat on them… However, I would also like to call attention to the fact that the research team conducted so many different variations on the experiment, each with interesting results. In otherwords, I wouldn’t recommend discounting the experiment entirely, nor would I recommend buying it hook, line, and sinker. It’s a complex study, and we should allow it to be complex in its findings.
In 1974, Stanley Milgram did a study in an attempt to investigate the relationship between authority and conscience. You know the question, “will normal people do horrible things when ordered to by authority figures?” Here’s a brief summary of the experiment. Participants were told they were part of a study on human learning, and were told to give the other participant electric shocks every time they answered a question incorrectly. Each successive shock got bigger and bigger. This other participant wasn’t really being shocked, and would simply scream and beg behind a wall. Eventually, the shocks reached levels marked as very dangerous, and finally potentially fatal. So the experimenters were really measuring whether or not the participants would go all the way, or if they would eventually refuse to participate anymore. If they protested, the chief experimenter would say things like, “the study must continue,” or whatever, but would never actually force the participant to do anything. You can read all about it here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment).Everyone assumed that less than 1% of the participants would “go all the way.” As it turned out, a whopping 65% of them went all the way to the maximum shock levels (450 volts, by which time the “victim” had become completely and terrifyingly silent). Now, what does this have to do with the nature of emotion? I mean, this study is about obedience, not EMOTION. Well, here’s the deal. If these participants were going all the way, then they were clearly not evacuating all of their aggression through Catharsis. Acts of aggression allowed for greater aggression, rather than diminishing their capacity for aggression. If Catharsis had been operating here, we would expect to see a sharp drop off in compliance once they had hurt the victim “enough.” The “foot-in-the-door” effect was clearly operating, in which people judge their next action based on their previous action, rather than on an objective note. So the participants were able to give fatal shocks because they had just given a shock that was 10 volts less. Looked at in this light, there is a clear Mimetic system at work here, in which the participants actions recreate themselves. The only way to support a Cathartic model here is to claim that participants were indeed Catharting, but that there was so much aggression stored up that 65% of them had to murder in order to be fully purged. I wouldn’t recommend going there, as it will naturally end up arguing that violent video games are Cathartic, and that such Cathartsis has a high risk of leading to murder. That would be one step forward, nine steps back.
Another study, called the Stanford Prison Experiment (1971), involved taking a group of university students, all of whom were selected for their stability and solid character, were given the jobs of prison guards and inmates. The official site for the experiment is located here: (http://www.prisonexp.org/). The experiment was designed to go on for 2 weeks, but was canceled after only 6 days because the guards began heaping more abuse on the prisoners than anyone had anticipated. To summarize briefly, it got bad… really, really bad. Within six days, the guards had begun treating the prisoners horribly and sadistically, and the prisoners had completely given in to their role as prisoner. Keep in mind that all of the participants were selected for their “not-evil-ness.” In this study as in the one previously mentioned, acts of violence and aggression did not decrease the likelihood of later acts. Instead, each sadistic feat only amplified itself and paved the way for more hostility. In other words, these normal, good, intelligent students were clearly demonstrating a Mimetic pattern of emotion and behavior.I won’t be so presumptuous as to claim that the debate is over, or that this article concludes the matter, or solidly proves anything. I will however, reiterate that the argument must be about emotion in order to be an honest argument. The question is not civil liberties or an individual’s right to play certain games and watch certain movies. It is simply a question of whether we are capable of “blowing off steam,” or whether such endeavors end up recreating themselves. Popular opinion has yet to conclude one way or the other. Philosophy also has yet to decide. Experimental Psychology, however, has collected a wealth of evidence on the matter. One can’t really say that Catharsis has been “disproven,” but it is certainly true that there is evidence which supports Mimesis, and that there is not evidence that supports Catharsis.