It all started Feb 11, 2005 when Mike Flores and Michael Clair provoked the attention of the Magic community with their articles about the idea of interactivity. This not only provoked the community as a whole about the subject, but three other writers Steve Menendian, JP Meyer and Oscar Tan. Flores, Menendian, and Tan all tried to clarify this subject by debating the topic between various articles and forums, but when all was said and done we were still left with a very broad and vague concept.
I was determined to change that.
For reference I have links to the previous articles here. (Also be sure to check the forums for more interesting insights)
Mike Flores, "The Limit of Interactivity" (Former Premium)
Michael Clair, "Interactivity and the Common Man"
Oscar Tan, "Trinisphere, and Does Fun in Type I Mean Interactivity?"
Mike Flores, "The Limit of Skill and Other Topics" (Premium)
Mike Flores, "Interaction 101" (Premium)
Oscar Tan, "You CAN Play Type I #149 - The Interactivity War (Oscar Forces Interaction With Mike Flores)"
Steve Menendian, "Interactivity in Vintage"
JP Meyer "Papal Bull: Interactivity and You"
After reading all the articles I came to some very basic conclusions about interactivity.
Interactivity in the game is measured by threats and answers. If you don't have to answer my threats to win the game then you win the game, and if I can't answer your threats you win the game. In the first example you do not need to pay attention to my threats and thus do not have to interact with me to win the game. In the second example if I have no way to deal with your threats and thus have no way to interact with you than I lose.
This concept fit into the examples presented in The Limit of Interactivity. Red deck wins can force a combo player to interact by delaying the combo through mana denial. The Combo player then had to take notice of the Jackal Pups instead of just counting storm and casting Brain Freeze. This in the example referring to a mono-Black deck with Sphere of Resistance against a High Tide deck. Using Sphere of Resistance and discard the mono-Black deck is able to make the High Tide player notice his diminishing life total and respond to the mono-Black player's cards.
While the concept of applying threats and answers helped solidify the theory for learning purposes; I was still looking for the answer to the questions presented in one of Steve Menendian's posts in the forums of Interaction 101 .
"You may not have explicitly done so, but you provided a very clear framework from which to draw the conclusion that Sphere of Resistance was an interactive card.
At the beginning of your article on the "Limit of Interactivity" you begin by stating that there are interactive cards and decks. You define what it means for a deck to be interactive and you describe how decks that can force a non-interactive deck to interact have an edge against them. Your definition of interactivity - as cards that affect not just one player, but both players - specifically and directly implicates Sphere of Resistance. While you may not have had that definition in mind while you were writing your example about Sphere and High Tide, your definition brings it into play. However, your use of it to show how it forces a non-interactive deck to interact suggests that you were using it to show that it IS an interactive card.
Regardless, under your definition of Interaction and interactivity, Sphere of Resistance IS an interactive card. Since you like quotes, I'll quote your article directly:
"A player using a non-interactive deck employs cards and decision-making processes that tend to affect only one player (himself), at least in the short term, whereas an interactive deck uses cards that affect both players."
In case there was any doubt whether this definition applies to cards as well, you leave no doubt with your next sentence:
"For frame of reference, the best example of an interactive card that I can think of is Cabal Therapy. Not only does it (usually) affect both players..."
Sphere of Resistance affects both players and not just oneself. Moreover, it forces a non-interactive deck to interact.
Trinisphere ALSO forces non-interactive decks to interact. Moreover, it affects Both players. That makes it, under your definition, interactive. Which in my mind, raises SERIOUS questions about the viability of your whole definition."
The post raised two questions that stood above the rest.
Is the original definition viable?
And
Is Trinisphere interactive?
To answer the first question it seemed that the original definition seemed salvageable, but was definitely not the answer.
Answering the second question was a bit harder though; after all it all fingers seemed to point squarely in the direction of invalidating the entire theory. However, when strip away all the meaningless words Mike left a nice framework to present the idea that maybe there not only interactive cards but non-interactive cards as well. For reference Mike said:
"From this point forward, I am going to use the terms "interactive" and "non-interactive" fairly broadly. In general, "non-interactive" is going to refer to decks only, whereas "interactive" or "interaction" will apply to both decks and cards."
Notice Flores never said that there could be non-interactive cards. This may sound confusing to think of cards as non-interactive, but what would you classify Stasis as if it could not be labeled as non-interactive? You certainly wouldn't call Stasis interactive to begin with, would you? In fact Stasis grinds the game to a halt.
Recognizing some cards is interactive, but the obvious counter argument is "Didn't Mike say that Sphere of Resistance forced interaction, and doesn't that mean Sphere of Resistance is an interactive card?" Yes, Mike did say that Sphere of Resistance forced interaction, but no that doesn't mean that it's an interactive card. What it means is that non-interactive cards can force interaction. That may sound crazy, but if counterspells, a highly interactive type of card, can facilitate non-interaction than why can't a card like Sphere of Resistance, a card that hinders the ability to interact, be used to facilitate interaction? It only makes sense if the theory can work one way then it can work the other way too.
With the previous discoveries it was time to make sense of them through the use of a new definition; because the old one seemed outdated. For reference from Interactivity and the Common Man"
"Anything that lets two Magic decks play on the same field as the other."
The Problem with this definition is that it is vague. Given how threats and answers are such a large part of interactivity I would like to present the following new definition.
Interactivity results from players answering other players' threats.
I am not trying to say that this is the new end all definition for this subject, but merely the beginning of a gradual focusing process to take interactivity from a general concept to an applicable theory.
I am eager to hear different opinions on this subject and encourage your responses; because it seems that there is still much more to be discovered and learned from the theories of interactivity.
Until next time Looking forward to your responses.
Andrew Lubich
ordrion@yahoo.com
I would to like to give a special thanks to all the writers who contributed to such a tough provoking subject, and another thanks to the editors for doing such an excellent job as well.
| 
