What would be your reaction to this play?

[onering]

In the example provided, if people have played against the Phelddagrif deck at all, they could be pretty confident that it wouldn't play any reanimation (and that sheoldred would be a weak target anyway since the deck plays no creatures). Also I didn't say that P4 was out of answers, but simply didn't feel Sheoldred was worth burning one on - that said, if P3 is at risk to combo, P4 is out of answers, and sheoldred is manageable, then it would be just as important for P4 as for P2 to keep the counterspell up, so P4 shouldn't have made such an offer in the first place since the result wouldn't be in his best interest, even with X=0.

But here's the thing: there's more than one way to hit a worst case scenario. For that to be a "good deal", you have to believe the person offering is a competent person with a plan that won't tap you both out and leave you dead, but also have to believe they don't have a hidden plan that they are taking advantage of you for. You have to have faith in their intentions and their competence, and even then hope there isn't a 3rd player waiting in the wings that you're both running headlong into. The alternative is still holding up the counterspell, and that's definitely the play.

Anyway, bottom line - I think it's super reasonable to be skeptical of deals, and to pay attention to what people are offering and what they're interested in, that's all part of what makes deal-making fun. But thinking critically doesn't mean you always decline. If the deal sounds good, and there's not a good reason the wool is being pulled over your eyes, then you should take that deal. Being careful doesn't mean being completely shut off.

There's always a good reason to think the wool is being pulled over your eyes. Always. The person offering you a deal is trying to win and asking you to commit to their designs, that's reason enough to be more than skeptical, suspicious. And if they're offering you a deal you think is genuinely just beneficial for you, that's just as bad, because it means they probably aren't thinking it through and could be walking you right into you both losing.

Now, that isn't to say I don't consider what people are asking of me, but if it's good for me anyway, I'll do it without condition, and if it's bad for me, I won't do it regardless of condition.

A lot of that will come down to the reputation the player offering the deal has built. I can see Dirk's style of dealmaking working very well in an established playgroup if the deal maker proves reliable. Establishing a track record that your deals will increase your chances of winning, but only (or mostly) based on what you are offering in the open, will make people bite a lot more often, and will make taking the deal often be the correct decision. The key is that the person taking the deal can trust the person offering it because they know that the person offering the deal has proven to be upfront and doesn't mix trickery into it. The other side of the equation is that the deal offerer has also proven to wield the stick as well as the carrot to dissuade betrayal, such as if the kiki player in the OP took the deal then killed everyone.

I generally am much more likely to side with your view, tstorm, in games against people I don't know, because I have no reason to trust those people. I'll still take, and offer, deals, but only when I don't have other options or that person have proven trustworthy in game.

[DirkGently]

"The alternative is still holding up the counterspell, and that's definitely the play."

Even ignoring the deal, holding up the counterspell isn't "definitely the play". It's "very narrowly the play". P2 is really, really close to counterspelling the Sheoldred unprompted because it is quite bad for him.

I think it's absurd that you can't imagine a scenario where something you alllllmost want to do anyway could be pushed into doing given proper incentive. Obviously P4 intends to ultimately beat P2, that's no secret, but it doesn't mean that it's a bad play to take the deal if it's good enough to tip the balance in favor of taking the action. Of course sometimes P4 is clearly a big threat and it's better to ensure he's got lots of problems to deal with even if they're also bad for you, but there are also times when they aren't and it's best to work together. I wouldn't always take P4's deal offered regardless of other circumstance, as P2, but given the right circumstance I certainly would.

"There's always a good reason to think the wool is being pulled over your eyes. Always. The person offering you a deal is trying to win and asking you to commit to their designs, that's reason enough to be more than skeptical, suspicious. And if they're offering you a deal you think is genuinely just beneficial for you, that's just as bad, because it means they probably aren't thinking it through and could be walking you right into you both losing."

I like going back to the original example in the OP, and saying both P1 and P4 are hellbent. They can't be "pulling the wool over your eyes", because you literally know everything going on with them short of their topdeck, which they don't know either. It's simply a matter of odds - winning at 1v1 is more likely than 4 player FFA, for both of you. Especially since, being hellbent, neither is probably in a good position against P2 and P3.

You yourself have acknowledged sometimes you make plays that are beneficial to other players (actually lots of plays are beneficial to other players). If you can believe that an ordinary, strategically-correct play could be beneficial to an enemy, why couldn't a strategically-correct deal be beneficial to an enemy?

"Now, that isn't to say I don't consider what people are asking of me, but if it's good for me anyway, I'll do it without condition, and if it's bad for me, I won't do it regardless of condition."

So if you're being attacked for extra-lethal by some baloths, and someone offers to fog if you remove the notion thief that's not in combat, you're not going to take that deal because it's not "good for you anyway"? Ok.

[tstorm823]

A lot of that will come down to the reputation the player offering the deal has built. I can see Dirk's style of dealmaking working very well in an established playgroup if the deal maker proves reliable. Establishing a track record that your deals will increase your chances of winning, but only (or mostly) based on what you are offering in the open, will make people bite a lot more often, and will make taking the deal often be the correct decision. The key is that the person taking the deal can trust the person offering it because they know that the person offering the deal has proven to be upfront and doesn't mix trickery into it.

Ok, but by DirkGently's own descriptions, the rest of the playgroup accepts the deals and then loses disproportionately to Phelddagrif. Not a good look for the "take the deals that seem trustworthy" argument.

So if you're being attacked for extra-lethal by some baloths, and someone offers to fog if you remove the notion thief that's not in combat, you're not going to take that deal because it's not "good for you anyway"? Ok.

Here's how confident I am in my application of politics: I don't get offered deals in a situation like that, people just play the Fog and save me.

[DirkGently]

"Ok, but by DirkGently's own descriptions, the rest of the playgroup accepts the deals and then loses disproportionately to Phelddagrif. Not a good look for the "take the deals that seem trustworthy" argument."

The individual deals are trustworthy, almost always. Making trustworthy deals is absolutely a path to consistent victory.

Here's a silly example. 4 players are playing commander, and one player is waaaay behind. Stuck on lands, low on cards and life. He's got maybe a 5% chance to win. Suddenly, Satan joins the game, taking a few turns in a bubble. Then he turns to the player who's behind and says "tell you what, I'll give you a deal - I'll remove all the other players from the game, which I can guarantee with your unwavering obedience (maybe he's playing my Athreos deck). Then, I'll flip two coins. If they both come up heads, I'll concede and let you win. Otherwise, I win. Shake on it?"

It's a good, trustworthy deal for that player, his odds to win have jumped considerably by taking it. But nevertheless Satan is the easy favorite to win.

That's essentially the circumstances Phelddagrif aims to create, except across multiple deals instead of just one. Make many deals, each of which DOES benefit some other person, it just also benefits me - maybe it benefits me less than it benefits them, even. But since I'm the one participating in the most deals, in total I end up benefiting the most, because every deal helps both participants.

If everyone said "ok, no deals with Phelddagrif, ever" and stuck to it, that would be bad for me. But once someone starts to fall behind, they can stick to the truce and lose, or they can start making deals and have a fighting chance. So even if the game starts with people wary of Phelddagrif, by the end, someone's always willing to collude.

Phelddagrif is particularly good at deathbed deals because he can make blockers and lifegain very efficiently at no card cost. And never is someone more willing to deal than when they're about to die otherwise. And before you say "but you should save them if it's in your best interests" - saving someone who won't deal is almost never in my best interests. Happy to see 'em go.

"Here's how confident I am in my application of politics: I don't get offered deals in a situation like that, people just play the Fog and save me."

Ah, but that's not going to happen, because he doesn't want you to live. Or at least, he doesn't really care, certainly not enough to use his own protection to help you. He's sitting on a huge draw spell - sphinx's rev for 12 - and if he can squeeze it off, he's very likely to win the game. But that damn notion thief is stopping him. So all he wants from you is to swords the thief. If you aren't doing that for him, he'll happily let you die.

If he pulling the wool over your eyes? A bit, arguably. He won't tip his hand in case you decline the deal, he doesn't want the other players to know what he's sitting on. But from your perspective, you've got the option of a sure loss right now, or a probable loss after he casts his sphinx's rev and becomes the threat. Personally, I'd take slim odds over none.

Now certainly, there are times when it's correct for someone else to save you without any kind of deal, and that's great when that happens. But there are other times where someone might only be willing to save you if you're willing to do the thing they want, something that you wouldn't normally do. And if you can't make a deal to establish what they want, and link giving it to them to them saving you, then you can't survive, and you're throwing away percentage points for nothing.

[tstorm823]

Now certainly, there are times when it's correct for someone else to save you without any kind of deal, and that's great when that happens. But there are other times where someone might only be willing to save you if you're willing to do the thing they want, something that you wouldn't normally do. And if you can't make a deal to establish what they want, and link giving it to them to them saving you, then you can't survive, and you're throwing away percentage points for nothing.

Here's the thing: if I'm the favorite to win if I survive, nobody should save me. If I'm not the favorite to win, there is a very, very high probability that another player who is also trailing would save me given they had the opportunity. Deals have nothing to do with that.

I survive this way all the time. I also save people this way all the time. It's not altruism, it's perfectly sensible strategy to preserve an archenemy situation if you aren't the archenemy. Have you considered the possibility that people let you die without a deal (the same way you let them die without a deal) because you've made your politics overly opposition and transactional and they either don't want to cooperate with you or know they can try and pull something extra out of you?

[DirkGently]

Here's the thing: if I'm the favorite to win if I survive, nobody should save me. If I'm not the favorite to win, there is a very, very high probability that another player who is also trailing would save me given they had the opportunity. Deals have nothing to do with that.

I survive this way all the time. I also save people this way all the time. It's not altruism, it's perfectly sensible strategy to preserve an archenemy situation if you aren't the archenemy. Have you considered the possibility that people let you die without a deal (the same way you let them die without a deal) because you've made your politics overly opposition and transactional and they either don't want to cooperate with you or know they can try and pull something extra out of you?

Very, very high probability? Really? I have a hard time buying that. Usually the person being killed isn't the one in last place, it's either the most powerful player, or whoever represents the biggest threat to the most powerful player. Now sure, if one player is very far ahead, than it's probably to the other players' advantage to keep each other alive, but outside of that situation, well, people gotta die sometime if I'm going to win, and it doesn't really matter if it's me or someone else doing the killing. Do your games frequently end up with one player far, far ahead?

Also, having the ability to save another player is usually pretty rare (outside of Phelddagrif). The ability to kill them yourself is common - and not actively killing someone if they aren't the biggest threat could be called "very very probable" I suppose - but actually saving someone usually requires pretty specific circumstances. Most people aren't playing fog. If they are, it's probably teferi's protection, which does bugger-all to save someone else. Most not-mine decks aren't playing a ton of instant-speed removal. And many decks just aren't helpful to have alive anyway - what's my motivation to keep a combo guy alive - let alone save him - if the only thing he's trying to do is combo off and win? At best he's a very risky distraction. I've seen it done, and it usually ends badly.

In my experience, players saving each other is quite rare, both because the situation semi-rarely arises where opponents would want to save each other, and because very few opportunities arise where they have the ability to.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "making politics over opposition[al?] and transactional" or why that would be a bad thing. Opposition is inherent to the game. Transactions give everyone involved better awareness of what the purpose of their temporary alliances are, for all players involved. Most people enjoy making deals, so long as the deal isn't a trick, which it very rarely is. They deal with me, they deal with each other, every time they make a deal they're smiling because it's helping them win. But by all means, continue to enjoy your fantasy where everyone else hates deal-making as much as you do, and secretly I'M the bad guy.

One of the last games I've played, one player point-blank refused to deal with me or other players, died first because of it, and afterwards when he left the other players - unprompted from me - said he made them uncomfortable, and made the game less fun to play, and couldn't understand why he had such a stick up his ass when other players wanted to help him, so long as he'd give them certain assurances.

If you have a playgroup where people don't deal, then I'm happy for you and your group, sounds like you've found your people (or I hope you have, I hope you're not like the guy in our group). But I've played in a lot of different groups, in a decent number of countries, and deal-making has always been an accepted and usually enjoyed part of the game. I can't claim statistical proof, but I think it's unlikely based on my experience that deal-making is unpopular globally.

[tstorm823]

Very, very high probability? Really? I have a hard time buying that. Usually the person being killed isn't the one in last place, it's either the most powerful player, or whoever represents the biggest threat to the most powerful player. Now sure, if one player is very far ahead, than it's probably to the other players' advantage to keep each other alive, but outside of that situation, well, people gotta die sometime if I'm going to win, and it doesn't really matter if it's me or someone else doing the killing. Do your games frequently end up with one player far, far ahead?

The most powerful player is the one getting killed? That's kind of nonsense, don't you think? It's not very powerful if you can't even survive. It's not that one player is far, far ahead, but if someone is making big moves, either it's because they think they can run away with it or because someone else is pulling ahead.

Also, having the ability to save another player is usually pretty rare (outside of Phelddagrif). The ability to kill them yourself is common - and not actively killing someone if they aren't the biggest threat could be called "very very probable" I suppose - but actually saving someone usually requires pretty specific circumstances. Most people aren't playing fog. If they are, it's probably teferi's protection, which does bugger-all to save someone else. Most not-mine decks aren't playing a ton of instant-speed removal. And many decks just aren't helpful to have alive anyway - what's my motivation to keep a combo guy alive - let alone save him - if the only thing he's trying to do is combo off and win? At best he's a very risky distraction. I've seen it done, and it usually ends badly.

Most decks are playing plenty of instant-speed removal to blank a threat. I'm not sure why you believe otherwise. Nor do I understand why you think that the ability to just kill people yourself is common. Do you not play with anyone who attempts to survive? Your perspective is wild to me.

In my experience, players saving each other is quite rare, both because the situation semi-rarely arises where opponents would want to save each other, and because very few opportunities arise where they have the ability to.

It happens practically every time I play magic. I actually had a stellar game at Commandfest DC where Kozilek player was in command most of the game, but needed me not to die to keep the red player from getting back the things I'd double Detention Sphered, the other players also needed me not to die because I had stolen the Kozilek player's Ulamog, and I needed the other players not to die because I couldn't manage a 1-on-1 at that point, and all 4 players at the table were using removal to keep that status quo from breaking against them. But these people were total strangers to me, and all 3 other players were protecting me because my death would decide the winner depending on whose turn it was when I died. It was great.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "making politics over opposition[al?] and transactional" or why that would be a bad thing. Opposition is inherent to the game. Transactions give everyone involved better awareness of what the purpose of their temporary alliances are, for all players involved.

I mean you can work together toward a common cause without defining terms and drawing boundaries. Like, you're not really making temporary alliances if you're not actually allying with anyone. Contracting someone out to do something for you isn't really making allies.

Most people enjoy making deals, so long as the deal isn't a trick, which it very rarely is. They deal with me, they deal with each other, every time they make a deal they're smiling because it's helping them win. But by all means, continue to enjoy your fantasy where everyone else hates deal-making as much as you do, and secretly I'M the bad guy.

I'm not saying you're the bad guy, I'm not saying everyone hates your deals. I'm saying that your deal-making is going to impact people's perspectives and decisions in negative ways you may not be noticing that can actually put you in worse situations. What I'm trying to say is probably far more offensive to you than suggesting that you're the bad guy: what I'm really suggesting is that my approach to politics is better than yours. Though I'm reasonably sure you'd say the same back at me considering how contrasting our approaches are.

One of the last games I've played, one player point-blank refused to deal with me or other players, died first because of it, and afterwards when he left the other players - unprompted from me - said he made them uncomfortable, and made the game less fun to play, and couldn't understand why he had such a stick up his ass when other players wanted to help him, so long as he'd give them certain assurances.

Than everyone at that table is bad at communication. Both the person who couldn't explain their reasoning well enough that others were uncomfortable, and the others who piled on someone for the audacity of playing slightly different. If the person has clearly indicated they're not going to make deals with you, and the whole table continues to offer them deals and then kills them first, and he leaves the table dejected before the game ends, and then they gossip about him behind his back... it's not a good look.

[WizardMN]

but needed me not to die to keep the red player from getting back the things I'd double Detention Sphered,

I am quite enjoying the back and forth going on here and I agree with most of what you have said (and agree with very little DirkGently has laid out). I am not going to bother commenting on anything specific since you have done a good job of it so far.

But, I thought this was an interesting comment. Not because it isn't a legitimate situation, but because you dying means the things you exiled with Sphere stay exiled. You could have died and those things would not have come back. If it was Deputy of Detention then it would work how they thought it would; but not Detention Sphere.

And, now we continue with our regularly scheduled broadcast....

[DirkGently]

"The most powerful player is the one getting killed? That's kind of nonsense, don't you think? It's not very powerful if you can't even survive. It's not that one player is far, far ahead, but if someone is making big moves, either it's because they think they can run away with it or because someone else is pulling ahead."

If they're the most powerful then they've often got 2-3 other players trying to hurt them. Sometimes that means removing their stuff to reduce their power and put someone else in the lead. Sometimes it means attacking them until they're dead, especially if you don't have removal. It happens frequently when I play Kaervek because the other players will often be targeting their face with kaervek triggers, if their life total is smaller than their board.

Could also be a combo player that people know is threatening to go off but don't have good means to interact, or don't trust that their interaction will be enough. Is the combo player in the lead if they're a turn away from their combo but can't stop lethal damage? Idk, kind of academic really. Point is, people are motivated to kill them because they're scary.

"Most decks are playing plenty of instant-speed removal to blank a threat. I'm not sure why you believe otherwise. Nor do I understand why you think that the ability to just kill people yourself is common. Do you not play with anyone who attempts to survive? Your perspective is wild to me."

Um...obviously because in most groups I've played in, that hasn't been the case. Most decks have SOME instant-speed interaction, but usually not a lot, usually most of their cards are dedicated to increasing their own power. That's not my "perspective," that's just what other people are playing. Personally I usually dedicate quite a few slots to interaction.

If it's archenemy with one of the other 3 players having a better board than the other 2, sure it's pretty common that they could kill one of the other players, but won't because it's a bad play, or because it would leave them open to attack. Maybe that's not an every-game situation, I haven't been recording statistics or anything, but it definitely happens a decent amount of the time. Usually it goes unnoticed because everyone knows that killing the player would be a bad move while someone else is the threat. Anyway tbh it's not really important to the discussion.

No clue what "Do you not play with anyone who attempts to survive?" is supposed to mean. Obviously everyone attempts to survive. I do think most people tend to favor surviving via building the biggest board they can as quickly as they can, rather than lying low and dealing with key problems, as I usually prefer to do, but to each their own.

"It happens practically every time I play magic. I actually had a stellar game at Commandfest DC where Kozilek player was in command most of the game, but needed me not to die to keep the red player from getting back the things I'd double Detention Sphered, the other players also needed me not to die because I had stolen the Kozilek player's Ulamog, and I needed the other players not to die because I couldn't manage a 1-on-1 at that point, and all 4 players at the table were using removal to keep that status quo from breaking against them. But these people were total strangers to me, and all 3 other players were protecting me because my death would decide the winner depending on whose turn it was when I died. It was great."

That sounds like an anomaly to me based on the games I usually play, and I have a very hard time believing people are using removal to protect each other in practically every game, but maybe you just play in very different metas than me. Who can say.

(but at least I know how detention sphere works)

"I mean you can work together toward a common cause without defining terms and drawing boundaries. Like, you're not really making temporary alliances if you're not actually allying with anyone. Contracting someone out to do something for you isn't really making allies."

Not sure why you can't be allies just because you're defining terms. At the end of the day, I (or anyone) am only interested in an "ally" so far as what that ally is going to do for me in the current game. I can just do friendly things and hope they do friendly things back with no assurances, or we can define what our temporary alliance means and both go forward feeling confident that we're getting what we want, rather than just hoping.

The way you describe this is absurd to me. You act like you're trying to make friends based on mutual trust or something. Seems weird to have suddenly switched positions and for me to be the skeptical one - I don't trust anyone unless I have a deal with them, or unless the board state very clearly dictates their targets. Otherwise if the game is fairly even, who knows what a good topdeck might change.

"I'm not saying you're the bad guy, I'm not saying everyone hates your deals. I'm saying that your deal-making is going to impact people's perspectives and decisions in negative ways you may not be noticing that can actually put you in worse situations. What I'm trying to say is probably far more offensive to you than suggesting that you're the bad guy: what I'm really suggesting is that my approach to politics is better than yours. Though I'm reasonably sure you'd say the same back at me considering how contrasting our approaches are."

Correct.

I win often enough that I have a hard time believing I'm hurting myself with my approach, though there's always room to improve. Though I suspect you may say the same, and while I have a guess at my win% I don't have any record of it, and it's impossible to tell how much of that is strategy and how much is just power level discrepancy, opponents being new, etc. So there's probably no point in turning this into a deck-measuring contest.

I haven't asked these question and I probably should have earlier:

-Meta-wise, what is your situation? Steady group since high school, public group you switch every few years, different people online every game?
-Within that meta (or those metas) what percentage of people attempt to make deals? What percentage of people outright refuse to make any deal? How often do deals actually happen?

"Than everyone at that table is bad at communication. Both the person who couldn't explain their reasoning well enough that others were uncomfortable, and the others who piled on someone for the audacity of playing slightly different. If the person has clearly indicated they're not going to make deals with you, and the whole table continues to offer them deals and then kills them first, and he leaves the table dejected before the game ends, and then they gossip about him behind his back... it's not a good look."

The guy that killed the player, killed him because the player had direct damage on the table, and the killer was at low life and the player wouldn't talk deals (as he'd refused all game). The game was pretty balanced at the time, ignoring the life totals, though the killer probably had the biggest board and would have been a reasonable target for the direct damage. Without any way to guarantee a live-and-let-live situation, and with passing the turn risking immediate death, he attacked him for lethal in order to ensure he wouldn't die (from niv mizzet triggers, if you were curious).

It's not because he "had the audacity of being different", it's because without dealing there was no way to trust him and the right move was to kill him.

He didn't leave "dejected", he left in a salty huff and was kind of a prick all game imo. Not that it was cool to talk behind his back either, but I do think it's funny that you're painting him in a positive light without actually knowing any details, just because he agrees with you about deal-making.

But, I thought this was an interesting comment. Not because it isn't a legitimate situation, but because you dying means the things you exiled with Sphere stay exiled. You could have died and those things would not have come back. If it was Deputy of Detention then it would work how they thought it would; but not Detention Sphere.

And, now we continue with our regularly scheduled broadcast....

Haha, I was going to point that out too. Rules knowledge is tech.

[tstorm823]

But, I thought this was an interesting comment. Not because it isn't a legitimate situation, but because you dying means the things you exiled with Sphere stay exiled. You could have died and those things would not have come back. If it was Deputy of Detention then it would work how they thought it would; but not Detention Sphere.

I should be more specific about how that game went: I played detention sphere and copied the trigger with Strionic Resonator to hit two targets (both controlled by the red player hitting everyone, one was Manabarbs, the other was sulfuric vortex, run by Torbran, Thane of Red Fell). The next turn I donated it to the red player to get drawing with Zedruu. If I died, it would leave play from his control, and he's not dead and can put triggers on the stack just fine. Zedruu rules are wacky.

[onering]

Different playgroups have different cultures, film at 11.


In some groups, overt politicking is acceptable and even encouraged, and thus when someone isn't interested in making such deals the playgroup wrongly targets him (yeah Dirk, people get salty when the table targets them, especially when the justification is flimsy and demonstrates poor threat assessment). Within the group this is probably the correct, as dealmaking being the norm makes refusing deals a sign you think you have enough on your own to dominate. When an outsider not accustomed to open politicking refuses to deal, it's really not useful information, certainly not to the extent that it reveals his strength like it would if a regular did it, and hating him out means the playgroup is spending resources on someone who very likely ISNT the threat, just pissing them off all while the real threat is unimpeded.

Other groups expect people to just make the smart plays based on good threat assessment and board state analysis, and are suspicious when someone offers deals, even ones that are open and fair and to the recipients benefit. Within the group this makes sense, as fair deals need not be offered as much goes unsaid and the right plays are made without haggling, but with an outsider assuming this norm would be incorrect. The outsider doesn't know you and has no reason to trust you'll recognize the right play, and so must make it verbal and offer a deal to ensure you will. Evaluate the deal on its merits, because rejecting a fair deal would be foolish if done solely because deals aren't the norm in your group.

Dirk, I wonder if you realize the situation you've created, it's pretty brilliant. From your descriptions and high win rate, you're clearly the most skilled player in your group, and your deal making strategy has made commander games an inherit prisoners dilema. The objectively correct plan for all of them should be to kill you, given that you win so often, as that has the highest likelihood of helping them win as I believe in the past you've claimed to win about 40 percent. Of course, your play style means that you focus on helping weaker players stay in the game in exchange for them taking out threats for you, which means that individual players don't stick to the plan and doom it to failure. Rejecting your deals, as a rule, would benefit the rest of the playgroup individuals more in the long term than accepting your deals, but the slightly higher immediate benefit entices them to act against their interests.

That is, of course, if we stick to the win probability as everything model you've been using. It's also possible that they all know your a lot better than them but it's a fun environment and they'd rather you play the goofy hippo deck than become frustrated and pull out something capable of archenemying the table.

[tstorm823]

If they're the most powerful then they've often got 2-3 other players trying to hurt them. Sometimes that means removing their stuff to reduce their power and put someone else in the lead. Sometimes it means attacking them until they're dead, especially if you don't have removal. It happens frequently when I play Kaervek because the other players will often be targeting their face with kaervek triggers, if their life total is smaller than their board.

Could also be a combo player that people know is threatening to go off but don't have good means to interact, or don't trust that their interaction will be enough. Is the combo player in the lead if they're a turn away from their combo but can't stop lethal damage? Idk, kind of academic really. Point is, people are motivated to kill them because they're scary.

I'm not suggesting there aren't reasons for the most powerful person to be attacked. What I'm questioning is the suggestion that the person who is dying is usually one of the most powerful or threatening players. Not that I disagree with that strategically, necessarily, but it's a very weird culture you're illustrating where those at the top of the food chain are consistently desperate to survive and making deals with people to save them, and being saved.

That's not my "perspective," that's just what other people are playing.

That you've seen people play. That's what a perspective is.

If it's archenemy with one of the other 3 players having a better board than the other 2, sure it's pretty common that they could kill one of the other players, but won't because it's a bad play, or because it would leave them open to attack. Maybe that's not an every-game situation, I haven't been recording statistics or anything, but it definitely happens a decent amount of the time. Usually it goes unnoticed because everyone knows that killing the player would be a bad move while someone else is the threat. Anyway tbh it's not really important to the discussion.

I'd say that's critically important to the discussion. Because that same kind of "best play" logic could be applied to probably a majority of the things you make deals on, and if the people playing with you would assume you'll make right plays without their collusion, they wouldn't have to give you anything.

That sounds like an anomaly to me based on the games I usually play, and I have a very hard time believing people are using removal to protect each other in practically every game, but maybe you just play in very different metas than me. Who can say.

That game was particularly excellent, but I'd call it exceptional rather than an anomaly. Less exaggerated version of games like that are regular occurrences.

(but at least I know how detention sphere works)

Hey, me too! I had donated the Detention Sphere, so the leave the battlefield trigger would be owned and controlled by a different player and would resolve just fine.

I appreciate people checking my rules understanding, I've made at least one embarrassingly wrong post in my life thinking Coalition Victory was an enchantment, but I do believe I was playing this one right. You were missing information, that's not your fault, but this might be a minor lesson on not gloating.

The way you describe this is absurd to me. You act like you're trying to make friends based on mutual trust or something. Seems weird to have suddenly switched positions and for me to be the skeptical one - I don't trust anyone unless I have a deal with them, or unless the board state very clearly dictates their targets. Otherwise if the game is fairly even, who knows what a good topdeck might change.

That's what I'm saying. That's what I mean by oppositional and transactional. I do trust the people I play with, usually whether I know them or not. I trust them to make the good plays when it benefits both of us, and also I trust they'll murder me if the right topdeck lets them. You're insisting to people that you will make the good plays that happen to benefit them if they agree to not make the good plays for them when it hurts you. So just like you don't trust anyone unless you have a deal with them, they can't trust you. Meaning I wouldn't trust you, I wouldn't trust you not to kill me when we should be allies, you could very well make a deal to take me out in return for favors at any given moment,

-Meta-wise, what is your situation? Steady group since high school, public group you switch every few years, different people online every game?
-Within that meta (or those metas) what percentage of people attempt to make deals? What percentage of people outright refuse to make any deal? How often do deals actually happen?

I've had different groups as I've moved around. I've never played anywhere where bargaining the way you do is normal. For the most part, I've witnessed close to zero dealmaking as effort to win games, with just a few people lobbying desperately for someone to save them from death. Usually if people are colluding, it's because someone needs assistance to do something they think will be super fun, and all parties involved are willing to set aside their chances of winning to make something silly happen. Most cooperation I've seen goes along the lines of "can you kill that thing that's killing both of us?" "Yeah, I got it." "Thanks!"

I do think it's funny that you're painting him in a positive light without actually knowing any details, just because he agrees with you about deal-making.

I'm not painting him in a positive light, I explicitly called him bad at communication. And if he was killing someone with no benefit to himself in doing so, he's bad at politics all around. But I was painting you, and particularly people playing with you, in a bad light, because that's what that story said to me. "He wouldn't make deals, so he died, and everyone hated him." That doesn't make you look like the good guy there. In AITA terms, that looks like a good 'ol ESH.

Rejecting your deals, as a rule, would benefit the rest of the playgroup individuals more in the long term than accepting your deals, but the slightly higher immediate benefit entices them to act against their interests.

That is, of course, if we stick to the win probability as everything model you've been using. It's also possible that they all know your a lot better than them but it's a fun environment and they'd rather you play the goofy hippo deck than become frustrated and pull out something capable of archenemying the table.

I suspect the latter explanation is a part of it. I've certainly had playgroups adopt a very Howling Mine mindset just for joy of playing against Zedruu, it's not unreasonable to think people have fun and play along completely aside from what it means as far as win percentage. And I think this thread existing is evidence that the dealmaking relies on people having fun, because the OP is a deal that plays into the "deal-making to improve win %" idea but probably made half the table a little sour about it.

I don't think it's a prisoners dilemma. I think one player with the determination to break the system and a good political mind could crack the system in a game or two, when other players notice they're getting things for free that they used to have to pay for.

[DirkGently]

[mention]tstorm823[/mention]

I hate it when conversations get this long, because by far the most interesting thing I wanted you to respond to you've completely missed. Maybe that was a simple oversight, so I'll repeat it here, because it's a really good real-life example of when dealmaking would have been very useful to both players, but one player refused to participate - to both their detriment.

I'll illustrate the situation in more detail.

The game was fairly even, with P4 having the biggest board but also the lowest life.
I'm (P1) at a decent amount of life, with Kaervek on board. If P4 decides to go all in attacking me, though, I think he'll kill me.
P2 has a niv-mizzet 3.0 on board, and has generally been a thorn in my (P1s) side, which is very beneficial to P4 who really needs me to die.
P3 is somewhere in the middle, board-wise, but if left alone with P4 is likely to lose because he can't get through for the last few damage and P4 has the better board.
P4's clearest path to victory is letting me and P2 bash it out, which we've already been doing and are likely to continue to do, and then hope to swoop in, kill the remainder, and win a 1v1 versus P3.
P2's path to victory is pretty murky, but killing the only person who can attack him for lethal on a whim seems like a reasonable start. You might be able to make the argument that it's not the 100% optimal play, but it's definitely a reasonable one.

It's P4s turn.

If he kills me, guaranteed he's dead to P2. If he kills P2, he's likely dead to me, but I've been willing to make deals where P2 hasn't. Still, he'd rather make deals with P2 because P2 is in a less powerful position.

He asks P2 "Hey, as long as you can promise you won't kill me on your next turn, I won't kill you on this one." But nothing doing, P2 hasn't been bargaining all game and won't bargain now. So P4 decides the safest play is to kill him, putting himself in a bad position against me and obviously putting P2 out of the game. Had P2 been willing to bargain even a little, he likely could have kept P4 under his thumb with niv and ridden the more powerful player to a plausible victory, especially since P4 probably would have killed me instead. Instead P2 died, P4 died shortly after, and me and P3 hashed it out in the 1v1 (which I lost, boo).

I'd say one of the most common, if not THE most common, deals is of the "you don't hurt me, I don't hurt you" varieties, and it's easy to see why. Taking damage is almost always worse for the player taking it, than it is good for the player dealing it. So if 2 players with evasive armies are dealing each other similar amounts of damage, they're probably both losing win%. But since attacking is only done on your turn^{[citation needed]}, if one player offers the olive branch by not attacking on their turn, that's no guarantee the other person will follow suit. So they make a deal to avoid mutually hurting each other. Might happen with big armies in the late-game, might happen for a few points in the early game. They're very rarely done with any subterfuge, just simple math that trading damage works out well for neither player, but there's no way to enforce it on both sides without a deal.

"That you've seen people play. That's what a perspective is."

This is a dumb thing to argue about, but you're basically switching definitions of "perspective" to try to make me look foolish. Perspective could mean "an opinion on a subject" or "a literal view" (or in the wordier words of merriam webster, who managed to create a definition without the equally ambiguous word "view": "the appearance to the eye of objects in respect to their relative distance and positions"). In the context of "your perspective is wild to me" I think it's pretty obvious you mean the FIRST definition - how would the second one be wild, exactly? You could rephrase as "your playgroups are wild" or "the people you're playing with are wild" but my vision of those things can't really be considered "wild", now can it?

And then when I respond assuming the first definition, you switch to the second and act like I'm the idiot. Cut it out.

"Because that same kind of "best play" logic could be applied to probably a majority of the things you make deals on"

Usually if the best play is fine without a deal, I don't bother with a deal. That's why I don't try to make a deal not to kill the fourth-place player when I'm in second, and why I assume it's unlikely (barring a great topdeck) that the reverse will happen to me.

The point of deals isn't to incentivize plays that were already good. It's to add things to what would otherwise be an incorrect play in order to make it beneficial for both parties. As in the previous example - not attacking another player when they're open and the game is fairly even could be a misplay, but if not attacking comes with a guarantee that they won't attack you back, then not attacking likely becomes the best play, and by taking it both players benefit.

I don't think any of my examples have been of demanding additional benefits for making the right play. It does happen, but usually it's a move of desperation when a player is very far behind and needs every advantage they can get. The deal is usually - almost always - to add value to making a play that would otherwise be bad or neutral.

"You're insisting to people that you will make the good plays that happen to benefit them if they agree to not make the good plays for them when it hurts you."

See the previous comment - deals are for making bad plays good, not good plays better. Otherwise it would be super reasonable to call the bluff and say "no deal, because the alternative is for you to hurt yourself on purpose".

"So just like you don't trust anyone unless you have a deal with them, they can't trust you. Meaning I wouldn't trust you, I wouldn't trust you not to kill me when we should be allies, you could very well make a deal to take me out in return for favors at any given moment,"

Whether or not deals are on the table, you can't trust an "ally" not to kill you, whether their motivation is a topdeck, or a deal, or something changing in the game state. So idk why you're acting like these are wholly different situations. Trust was never an option. Although at least if you've got a deal for them not to kill you, you're presumably safe for at least that turn (or whatever the terms of the deal are).

I think you're assuming that the sort of deals in the OP are the sorts of things I do commonly in games. I don't think I've ever done a deal like the OP (well....except Athreos, that was my foray into this kind of devious dealmaking). Usually deals I make are of the "you don't attack me, I don't attack you" variety. Sometimes they're more complex, but that's a once-every-couple-games situation, and they're still usually with the ultimate goal of not hurting each other, not of conspiring to kill someone else. If that someone else is a major threat, trying to stop them is usually assumed, it doesn't need to be part of a deal. Though if we need to combine our resources in some specific way - i.e. you take out the critical blockers, I make the lethal attack - then we might collude in that sense, Idk if that's a deal exactly, but kind of.

I do suspect that such absurd deals are possible in more games than you'd think, but I'm not sure I want to actually go down the rabbit hole of actually making them. The closest I got was with my Athreos deck, and that felt pretty dirty to play. But I think it's interesting to at least hypothesize about what optimal deal-making might look like.

"I'm not painting him in a positive light, I explicitly called him bad at communication."

Specifically "he leaves the table dejected". That makes it sound like he was sad but a good sport about it. He was angry and not a good sport about it. Don't go throwing around adverbs when you don't know what happened.

If you must know, the conversation after he stormed off went something like this:

P2: "Geez, what was his problem?"
P3: "Yeah, that was uncomfortable. Otherwise a great game though."
Me: "I dunno, just an unfortunate situation I think. If I play him again I won't use this deck."
(Quick bit of background: I play Kaervek as my opponents get to choose the targets when they're casting the spells. He refused to pick targets, so I told him that his spells would always target him, or his creatures, unless he chose an alternative (that's also part of my "rules of Kaervek"). He declined right up until the end, took a ton of damage, was grumpy every time. Principles will kill ya sometimes.)

I'll leave it for the jury to make up their own mind on the asshole front, but it wasn't a game I personally enjoyed very much. Usually people have fun playing against my Kaervek, I've gotten quite a few compliments on it.

"the OP is a deal that plays into the "deal-making to improve win %" idea but probably made half the table a little sour about it."

Oh yeah, I don't disagree about that. That's what the poll is for. I'm honestly surprised so many people would be chill with it. Or at least, SAY they'd be chill with it.

Talking about strictly optimal deal-making, and what's actually a good idea with people you want to be on good terms with, are two different topics.

"I don't think it's a prisoners dilemma. I think one player with the determination to break the system and a good political mind could crack the system in a game or two, when other players notice they're getting things for free that they used to have to pay for."

If anything, I'm the one paying people (in hippos) to do things. I'm not likely to give away hippos for free, if that's what you're saying, unless I'm giving them away as emergency blockers to keep someone alive who is beneficial to me against an archenemy or something. If someone refuses to make deals of the "you do X, I give you Y hippos" variety then they probably won't be getting anything for free from me.

I have played against skilled opponents who outsmarted me or made my life very difficult when playing Phelddagrif. Usually they'd be very careful about any deals and really push me to make deals that weren't as optimal for me as I wanted. "I'm never dealing with you ever" has not typically been very successful.

[mention]onering[/mention]

"wrongly targets him (yeah Dirk, people get salty when the table targets them, especially when the justification is flimsy and demonstrates poor threat assessment)".

I hope my more detailed explanation above illustrates why it was quite reasonable for P4 to kill P2.

Prior to that turn, P2 had never been attacked by anyone except me. The damage he'd taken was almost exclusively from Kaervek because he refused to choose targets. As far as I'm concerned, that's a purely automated function of the card and was not my decision. As I was targeting him I told him I'd much rather target someone else. He retaliated by trying to kill me and Kaervek, and I retaliated back by attacking him to try to speed up his demise. If any any point he'd started picking Kaervek targets likely the situation would have totally diffused, but so long as he refused to pick targets I had to target him, and so long as I was targeting him he considered me a major threat to himself, and so long as he was acting on that threat assessment and trying to kill me, he was a major threat to me. I don't think there was any inaccurate threat assessment going on.

It really didn't have anything to do with people disliking his decision not to deal, besides the fact that being unwilling to deal meant P4 had to kill him to ensure he didn't get killed back.

I agree that the way different groups handle deal-making is likely self-perpetuating as you've outlined.

"Dirk, I wonder if you realize the situation you've created, it's pretty brilliant. From your descriptions and high win rate, you're clearly the most skilled player in your group, and your deal making strategy has made commander games an inherit prisoners dilema. The objectively correct plan for all of them should be to kill you, given that you win so often, as that has the highest likelihood of helping them win as I believe in the past you've claimed to win about 40 percent. Of course, your play style means that you focus on helping weaker players stay in the game in exchange for them taking out threats for you, which means that individual players don't stick to the plan and doom it to failure. Rejecting your deals, as a rule, would benefit the rest of the playgroup individuals more in the long term than accepting your deals, but the slightly higher immediate benefit entices them to act against their interests."

This is largely true, except that I think you're assuming I'm in a steady playgroup where everyone knows what my situation is and is thinking about future games. In reality I'm almost always playing at least 1-2 new people every game, since it's a rotating cast of characters. Plus I just moved continents yet again so this group is pretty new, and I've mostly been playing Kaervek, only a couple times with Phelddagrif.

I absolutely realize the situation I've created, because that was the goal of Phelddagrif when I first created it all those years ago. It's my thesis on politics in commander.

40% may be accurate for Kaervek, although I think it's higher. It's definitely waaay too low for Phelddagrif. That's true even for the budget build, though the non-budget build is a lot less likely to get blindsided by early combos.

"That is, of course, if we stick to the win probability as everything model you've been using. It's also possible that they all know your a lot better than them but it's a fun environment and they'd rather you play the goofy hippo deck than become frustrated and pull out something capable of archenemying the table."

I've got a deck right now (Kenrith) which has done a decent job of archenemy-ing the table most games I've played. Not from the start, but once I get into the lead I usually stay in the lead for the rest of the game until I win. There's no combos, MLD, or anything anyone would frown upon, in fact I did deliberately limit its power by not including sac outlets. Nevertheless, it's won 4 of the 5 games I've played it in.

I consider this deck to be a colossal failure and probably won't play it again without heavy modification. Any game that doesn't have some back and forth is a bad game, imo. There's a reason Phelddagrif and Kaervek are my favourite decks, because they're generally incapable of playing full-on archenemy and usually lead to fun back-and-forth games.

Anyway as I've said, this is essentially a fresh group and I've only played Phelddagrif a few times, so for sure no one is worrying about me getting frustrated and pulling out something OP. I try not to have anything outright OP anyway, Kenrith notwithstanding.

In my experience people tend to prefer the Kaervek environment, which is why I've been playing it more. Phelddagrif is a more reliable way to win, but it can be a bit tedious sometimes.

As far as everyone allying against me, there are many reasons why that's unlikely, but as regards win%, most people (usually all but one) are being eliminated by someone besides me and often with minimal interference from me. If one player becomes powerful, kills two others, and then the last player manages to overcome them, I think the other players are a lot less likely to harbor resentment toward the winner than towards the person who killed them.

[onering]

That's really an extreme win rate, so your either one of the best players in existence or you play a lot of really bad players. In any case, if what you say is true (I always bake in some skepticism on the internet), then there is an enormous gulf between your skill and your playgroups.

From your description of the interaction with the salty player, it paints him in a better light honestly. Your using an arbitrary rule that can create fun games, but it also forces your opponents to make the unpopular decisions. I'm willing to bet that rather than deal with the source of the damage, your opponents crack back at whoever chose the targets. He likely, and quite understandably, felt that you throwing the damage from all his spells back at him was unreasonable, because without understanding the purpose of your rule it did not seem like the correct play on your part, but rather you targeting him for not playing the way you wanted him to. Alternatively, he may have been frustrated that nobody else was correctly assessing the situation that you were the threat, and indeed turned on him before you despite him focusing on you. Honestly, I'd probably not want to play with you again after that, but I'd be more annoyed at the group for not figuring out what's going on than at you for playing the fools. I'd feel like it's a toxic environment, and that my choices would be to play your game despite knowing it's rigged or try to take a stand and be doomed by the stupidity of the other players. The thing is, I wouldn't make a scene of it, I would just avoid you. For each guy that reacts like that player, there's another 2 or 3 at least that will feel the same way but not show it.

[WizardMN]

If you must know, the conversation after he stormed off went something like this:

P2: "Geez, what was his problem?"
P3: "Yeah, that was uncomfortable. Otherwise a great game though."
Me: "I dunno, just an unfortunate situation I think. If I play him again I won't use this deck."
(Quick bit of background: I play Kaervek as my opponents get to choose the targets when they're casting the spells. He refused to pick targets, so I told him that his spells would always target him, or his creatures, unless he chose an alternative (that's also part of my "rules of Kaervek"). He declined right up until the end, took a ton of damage, was grumpy every time. Principles will kill ya sometimes.)

I'll leave it for the jury to make up their own mind on the asshole front, but it wasn't a game I personally enjoyed very much. Usually people have fun playing against my Kaervek, I've gotten quite a few compliments on it.

Prior to that turn, P2 had never been attacked by anyone except me. The damage he'd taken was almost exclusively from Kaervek because he refused to choose targets. As far as I'm concerned, that's a purely automated function of the card and was not my decision. As I was targeting him I told him I'd much rather target someone else. He retaliated by trying to kill me and Kaervek, and I retaliated back by attacking him to try to speed up his demise. If any any point he'd started picking Kaervek targets likely the situation would have totally diffused, but so long as he refused to pick targets I had to target him, and so long as I was targeting him he considered me a major threat to himself, and so long as he was acting on that threat assessment and trying to kill me, he was a major threat to me. I don't think there was any inaccurate threat assessment going on.

There is a lot going on in this thread, but I wanted to offer my 2 cents on this situation. I am not sure I entirely fault P2 for not picking targets as, philosophically, I think I would have the same reaction. I would have just been pointing everything at you of course (maybe at Kaervek if I needed to) so I would have been doing as much as possible to get you out of the game so I didn't have to play that dumb (in my mind) sub-game. So I certainly would have played it differently, but I can understand their disdain for the deck.

The bolded comment though kind of rubs me the wrong way. Or, I suppose, the entire premise of your deck does but that comment kind of epitomizes my distaste for it. If you don't want to play your own deck, then don't play it. Hiding beneath a veil of "that is just what the deck does; don't blame me" is cowardly at best. You have complete control over those triggers since P2 chose not to play. Suggesting that it wasn't your decision to point every trigger at him is disingenuous. The result would have been the same of course, but at least be honest that you are punishing that player for not playing into your game.

[DirkGently]

That's really an extreme win rate, so your either one of the best players in existence or you play a lot of really bad players. In any case, if what you say is true (I always bake in some skepticism on the internet), then there is an enormous gulf between your skill and your playgroups.

From your description of the interaction with the salty player, it paints him in a better light honestly. Your using an arbitrary rule that can create fun games, but it also forces your opponents to make the unpopular decisions. I'm willing to bet that rather than deal with the source of the damage, your opponents crack back at whoever chose the targets. He likely, and quite understandably, felt that you throwing the damage from all his spells back at him was unreasonable, because without understanding the purpose of your rule it did not seem like the correct play on your part, but rather you targeting him for not playing the way you wanted him to. Alternatively, he may have been frustrated that nobody else was correctly assessing the situation that you were the threat, and indeed turned on him before you despite him focusing on you. Honestly, I'd probably not want to play with you again after that, but I'd be more annoyed at the group for not figuring out what's going on than at you for playing the fools. I'd feel like it's a toxic environment, and that my choices would be to play your game despite knowing it's rigged or try to take a stand and be doomed by the stupidity of the other players. The thing is, I wouldn't make a scene of it, I would just avoid you. For each guy that reacts like that player, there's another 2 or 3 at least that will feel the same way but not show it.

I don't take too much pride in my winrate because yeah, a lot of players are making really basic errors (last night, when I had big lethal on board with Kenrith, one player countered a spell I played on my first main with cryptic command and didn't even consider using the tapdown mode. And no one corrected him either...) I'm not seeking bad players out, that's just what's available everywhere I've played, with some exceptions of course. Limited is where I go when I want more of a challenge.

That is certainly the intention of the "Kaervek rules", yes. It started as an experiment to see if it would work, and it ended up being a lot of fun so I kept it together. Although it also means sometimes people, seeing I'm the threat, will intentionally deal non-lethal damage to a creature, collude to put damage on whoever can spare the life, etc while trying to kill me. That's part of the fun, and why it's automated and not something I'll just stop doing if it suits me.

I was pretty clear that it was not my desire to target him but that it was simply how the rules worked, and all he needed to do was choose a target to prevent it happening. Nonlethal damage to a creature would have been totally kosher and no one would have been upset about it. It wasn't that he didn't want the blame, it was that he outright refused to choose under any circumstances. I think his reasoning was that "it's not my job to do it". Which is true, but (imo) lame.

I don't think I was particularly the threat that game. I didn't have much happening except Kaervek as I recall. As I proved when I lost the 1v1 to P3, who didn't have a particularly strong board himself. If I do end up with a strong position, people usually do collude to try to kill me - it's not even hard, you just need to kill Kaervek a couple times and I'm usually out of it. And P2 wasn't only focusing me, he had recently dealt some damage to P4 (quite reasonably, P4 had the biggest board) so P4 had no reason to think he wouldn't finish the job on his next turn. And as I said, that was the ONLY time anyone besides me "turned on him" as I recall. Although part of that might have been because he was such a grump that people didn't want to annoy him more, who knows.

As I said - I think it was an unfortunate situation, and I can understand him not wanting to "play Kaervek's game" so to speak, though I think he took it a bit far since we were probably in 3rd and 4th board-state wise, and still hitting each other. Without "the game" Kaervek is pretty boring, though, and most people find it fun (to my knowledge). Some people initially resist choosing targets, but when another player is far out of balance they'll see the wisdom in using Kaervek to keep them in check. Some people don't like him at all, and I usually quietly switch decks when that happens (in this case it was the last game of the night, so no chance for redemption). Anyway he's been the only one to react so negatively, and I've played probably hundreds of people with it by this point, so if 2-3 of them didn't like it I think I can live with that.

There is a lot going on in this thread, but I wanted to offer my 2 cents on this situation. I am not sure I entirely fault P2 for not picking targets as, philosophically, I think I would have the same reaction. I would have just been pointing everything at you of course (maybe at Kaervek if I needed to) so I would have been doing as much as possible to get you out of the game so I didn't have to play that dumb (in my mind) sub-game. So I certainly would have played it differently, but I can understand their disdain for the deck.

The bolded comment though kind of rubs me the wrong way. Or, I suppose, the entire premise of your deck does but that comment kind of epitomizes my distaste for it. If you don't want to play your own deck, then don't play it. Hiding beneath a veil of "that is just what the deck does; don't blame me" is cowardly at best. You have complete control over those triggers since P2 chose not to play. Suggesting that it wasn't your decision to point every trigger at him is disingenuous. The result would have been the same of course, but at least be honest that you are punishing that player for not playing into your game.

People are allowed to not like it. I tell everyone how it's going to work at the start of the game so they know what's up. P3 and P4 were pretty enthusiastic about it, so I was biased towards wanting to play it. P2 seemed somewhat resistant to it, but I thought he'd get it more once we were actually playing. That turned out to be wrong, so that bad's on me.

I've tried a number of extra-rules ideas with my decks, I think it can be interesting how people react to them. In all cases, what I'm doing is legal under the rules, I'm just essentially changing my own decision-making process, but letting everyone know what that process is. Commander isn't a competitive format, there's nothing on the line, and I've played a million games by now in "original flavor". I like adding a bit of spice and seeing where things go. If you prefer, you could imagine I'm playing a custom card (which is basically just Kaervek with limitations). Or you could say I'm asking to create a house rule that only applies to me (I mean, if other people want to do it too then go ahead but no one's volunteered). I have the same amount of control over choosing to target P2 as I do when I let other people choose targets when they cast spells (often not where I'd prefer the damage to go either). It's all in the rules I outlined at the beginning of the game (it's also in the art, because it's got a sweet alter).

(Btw, the rules are: your spell your targets, unless the spell hurts me (specifically), the chosen targets hurt me (or you refuse to choose one), or the game is about to end, and in the first two cases I'll be targeting whatever hurts you the most. So obviously choosing me or Kaervek himself is off the table).

At any rate - love or hate my Kaervek deck, the POV character in terms of dealmaking isn't me, but P2 and his interaction with P4. I'm just a hazard, the specifics of which aren't particularly relevant to their decisions, except that I have a likely but not certain way to kill P4, and a beef with P2 that P4 would prefer continue to its conclusion. I wasn't involved in the deal, or lack thereof, so in terms of deal-making the way I play Kaervek is essentially irrelevant.

[WizardMN]

It wasn't that he didn't want the blame, it was that he outright refused to choose under any circumstances. I think his reasoning was that "it's not my job to do it". Which is true, but (imo) lame.

Your decision to not play your deck is worse than anything P2 had done.

(Btw, the rules are: your spell your targets, unless the spell hurts me (specifically), the chosen targets hurt me (or you refuse to choose one), or the game is about to end, and in the first two cases I'll be targeting whatever hurts you the most. So obviously choosing me or Kaervek himself is off the table).

This makes it even worse. I realize your "point" is the politicking nature you are trying to force into your games, so this is more of a tangent to the overall thread, but this speaks a lot (to me, at least) in how you approach your games. At least, your games with Kaervek.

If we break down your situation, you have effectively devised a deck where your opponents are in "complete" control of what happens as long as it suits you. You give no real decision making powers to people since they have 2 people to go after (and they must go after them) . You rejected the idea onering brought up about this being a prisoner's dilemma but it certainly seems that way to me. It doesn't matter what is best for the game as a whole. I am essentially forced into hurting my fellow prisoner(s) in order to spare myself harm. Whether this is good for the outcome of the game or not.

The way you have devised this setup, I, as a fellow player, have no real way to opt out of this situation. And you can't be trusted to actually further the game using Kaervek with the interests of the table in mind. You are expecting, and demanding, anarchy in the game where threat assessment is basically thrown out the window. At least, where you no longer care about the biggest threat. You don't care what others are doing as you won't send triggers at the biggest threat. Instead you attempt to give up all responsibility for the outcome of the game.

Dont get me wrong. I am not necessarily suggesting you are wrong for doing this. I disagree with the approach and the mindset but if that is what you want to do, and you get enough people to play along, good for you. Not everyone has to like the same thing and you are apparently getting enough people who are either naive about the situation or actively enjoy it to keep playing in these games. But, I agree with onering: if this came up in a game I was part of, I would ask you to find another group or I would walk away. And I would actively avoid any future games with you.

Your Phelddagrif deck might have real politicking in it, but your Kaervek deck doesn't seem to be a politics oriented deck: it is a horrific slasher film where you sit back and watch people destroy each other to save themselves.

[DirkGently]

"Your decision to not play your deck is worse than anything P2 had done."

Though I probably said some things that indicated that I was casting aspersions on P2, the main reason I brought it up was to illustrate how useful him being able to make a deal with P4 would have been. It think throwing a lifeline to P4 would likely have put P2 in the lead, to be honest, as he had a big hand and niv on board. With me out of the picture he'd be in amazing shape, almost a lock for the win.

I'm ok if you don't like my Kaervek style, I wasn't bringing my deck up to say anything about politics, it was just necessary context to understand exactly what was happening. This is why I generally prefer hypotheticals, real games get messy. Especially when I'm making them messy on purpose. Muhaha.

Anyway I still play the rest of the deck, just not Kaervek's triggers (and I do play his triggers in the endgame).

"This makes it even worse. I realize your "point" is the politicking nature you are trying to force into your games, so this is more of a tangent to the overall thread, but this speaks a lot (to me, at least) in how you approach your games. At least, your games with Kaervek."

Kaervek's just a fun gimmick that people seem to like. It doesn't say much of anything about how I play non-Kaervek games.

"If we break down your situation, you have effectively devised a deck where your opponents are in "complete" control of what happens as long as it suits you. You give no real decision making powers to people since they have 2 people to go after (and they must go after them) . You rejected the idea onering brought up about this being a prisoner's dilemma but it certainly seems that way to me. It doesn't matter what is best for the game as a whole. I am essentially forced into hurting my fellow prisoner(s) in order to spare myself harm. Whether this is good for the outcome of the game or not."

Well, they are in complete control, they know the rules and exactly what will happen, whether that's good or bad for them. As I've said they can target creatures nonlethally, target crappy tokens, target whoever has the most life and can take it, etc. Sometimes when I'm the threat or no one is the threat, that's what happens. That's why automation is fun, it's like creating a puzzle for the other players to solve.

I never rejected it being a prisoner's dilemma. It's absolutely a prisoner's dilemma. Prisoner's dilemmas(?) is what I'm all about. Tstorm felt it wasn't.

To be fair there are plenty of prisoner's dilemmas in multiplayer commander even without any dealmaking or kaervek nonsense.

"The way you have devised this setup, I, as a fellow player, have no real way to opt out of this situation. And you can't be trusted to actually further the game using Kaervek with the interests of the table in mind. You are expecting, and demanding, anarchy in the game where threat assessment is basically thrown out the window. At least, where you no longer care about the biggest threat. You don't care what others are doing as you won't send triggers at the biggest threat. Instead you attempt to give up all responsibility for the outcome of the game."

Sometimes some players are stuck on lands and cast basically nothing all game, and then that can mean one player runs away with it because he's also got kaervek triggers on his side, so that can happen and sucks. In a reasonably balanced game, usually the combined choices of the 3 other players do a good job of balancing the threats out - one person pulls ahead, the other two kaervek him back down to earth. Certainly threat assessment isn't thrown out the window, it's just delegated to the other players (sometimes I will chip in with advice if I think they're making a big mistake for both of us, but at the end of the day it's always their decision).

Anyway it's only Kaervek triggers that work in that way. I pack plenty of other removal and other stuff which I happily make all decisions about. So I make exactly as many decisions than someone playing the same deck, except where Kaervek has no abilities.

And yes of course I created the rules to prevent people from opting out. What fun is a SAW film if the door is unlocked?

"Dont get me wrong. I am not necessarily suggesting you are wrong for doing this. I disagree with the approach and the mindset but if that is what you want to do, and you get enough people to play along, good for you. Not everyone has to like the same thing and you are apparently getting enough people who are either naive about the situation or actively enjoy it to keep playing in these games. But, I agree with onering: if this came up in a game I was part of, I would ask you to find another group or I would walk away. And I would actively avoid any future games with you.

Your Phelddagrif deck might have real politicking in it, but your Kaervek deck doesn't seem to be a politics oriented deck: it is a horrific slasher film where you sit back and watch people destroy each other to save themselves."

I like that description :laugh: very apt. Well, except that usually people do turn on me if I get ahead, and try to collaborate to control the triggers. Part of why I usually try not to be ahead until I think I can win, but it doesn't always work that way. Win or lose I think it's a lot of fun, personally.

If people hated Kaervek and didn't want to play it, I definitely wouldn't have kept it together. I like it because people like to play against it. Games like the one I mentioned sometimes make me way to retire it, but they're few and far between, with lots of positive ones in the middle.

[onering]

I have something similar with Ludevic Vial Smasher group hug, and I think your general premise is needed to make group hug work, but that deck avoids creating a sub game and allows things to play out naturally. The idea, of course, is that other players benefit by attacking each other, but I just create the opportunity for that benefit and don't push the issue. Not everyone takes the bait, but enough do that the deck works (and of course I benefit from the hug effects and have answers to anything that gets out of hand). The key difference I see is that when you create an arbitrary rule, even a well thought out one, you open the door to it rubbing people the wrong way. People can easily opt out of the game I set up by simply not getting greedy and playing politics themselves. If they don't keep attacking the dude with the curse of open graves on him to get zombies, then they can make deals with him instead. If they just kill Xantcha instead of let her live so they can draw cards, she won't be bashing them in the face every turn. I don't have a way to punish people for not playing my game other than answer cards, and I save them for actual threats. And while Vial Smasher is random damage, I try to save her for late game, preferably 1v1, because once she's out I'm a target. Its not the politics, or even the jujitsu element that can piss people off, its the feeling that players who wise up to the game get when they realize their trapped, not by their own mistakes but the mistakes of their opponents. If you don't realize the problem, something like your Kaevark or my deck is a ton of fun to play against because you are giving people things or extra power. Everyone likes free %$#% or getting damage tacked onto their spells. But if you realize the game plan and want to act against it, that's where the difference comes in, as doing so against Kaevark requires other players to realize the same thing since your going to throw punishment at whoever wises up, but with my deck there's no extra grief for opting put beyond what plays out naturally.

[WizardMN]

I never rejected it being a prisoner's dilemma. It's absolutely a prisoner's dilemma. Prisoner's dilemmas(?) is what I'm all about. Tstorm felt it wasn't.

To be fair there are plenty of prisoner's dilemmas in multiplayer commander even without any dealmaking or kaervek nonsense.

Ah, that was my mistake. Too many different people with huge responses (not a bad thing, mind you) and I didn't realize who was saying what. I rescind that particular comment towards you

[pokken]

I will say my win rate playing seriously against randoms in shops approaches 60% (3/5 is a typical night for me). Most people don't have expensive cards and don't try very hard to play to win and it really only takes one person not really trying to win to make a game quite easy for a fairly powered deck like I usually play.

I don't say that to brag or anything, just that such a win rate is fairly typical of engaged, enfranchised players against true casual players.

Engaged being the type of folks who think through and analyze their plays and post primers and deck analysis on mtg forums heh.

[tstorm823]

I have played against skilled opponents who outsmarted me or made my life very difficult when playing Phelddagrif. Usually they'd be very careful about any deals and really push me to make deals that weren't as optimal for me as I wanted. "I'm never dealing with you ever" has not typically been very successful.

So if I sat at a table with you and individually rejected every deal with stated reasoning each time, would that be outsmarting you? Just say "no amount of hippos is worth spending my removal and drawing that 3rd players animosity." Just say "I don't think we'll be attacking each other regardless, so don't see a reason to tie myself down." Just say "we're sort of in an archenemy situation, so you should probably save me regardless." Just say "it looks like you're offering a great deal, but I think you're just trying to make me the bigger threat so that other players attack me instead." And in the meantime, help the people who I should be cooperating with, just without asking anything of them. I'm pretty sure the other two players would catch on the very first game.

[cfusionpm]

I think my feelings on it depend highly on how long the game continues after 2 and 3 are taken out. If this heads up slog drags on another 30+ minutes, then I think it's extremely messed up for the other two players to have to sit and watch the rest; not playing.

The good thing about infinite combos is that it ends the game so you can shuffle up and play again. But in this case, it just ruins two players' games, and then rubs salt in the wounds of them by continuing on. It's scummy, but absolutely their right to do so.

If player 4 could immediately capitalize and kill player 1 in the next turn or two, then all is fine and dandy.

IMO.

[DirkGently]

[mention]onering[/mention]

There kind of is a way to opt out of Kaervek if they wise up though - you ask the other players "hey, what's the least damaging target for me to pick?" and then pick that. I don't punish anyone for doing that, it's all part of the game. Presumably choosing the safest thing is a better result for you than if I just picked myself, whether that's an automatic "whatever hurts you most" or an normal decision on my part.

If they keep targeting you where it hurts, then I guess they think I'm not the threat. I can't help it if other people disagree with your threat assessment.

[mention]pokken[/mention]

Part of why I think winrate can be really pernicious to talk about - and why I think it's a bad measuring stick for success - is that, if someone wanted to, they could probably get close to a 100% winrate by playing cEDH decks in a casual group. Personally I try to build decks that - while they are certainly a lot more expensive than most, since I'm always going to be running my duals and whatnot - win games without simply overpowering the table. Phelddagrif and Kaervek usually being good examples of that. Kenrith being a good example of what I usually strive to avoid. Personally I think I earn my winrate the hard way, but there's no denying that it's easy to get the same results with very little effort.

[mention]tstorm823[/mention]

"So if I sat at a table with you and individually rejected every deal with stated reasoning each time, would that be outsmarting you?"

If you have good reasoning for rejecting a deal entirely - not "I think I'll need more incentive" but "no amount of incentive would matter" - then clearly I'm not doing a good job of offering deals.

"no amount of hippos is worth spending my removal and drawing that 3rd players animosity."

500,000 hippos wouldn't be enough? I find it unlikely that rejecting that deal would be correct. If you have reasoning, but your reasoning is wrong, I don't think that would be particularly smart. Also, animosity should have no role in a skilled environment, you just make the best moves you can. Anyway, in the case that I offer such a deal, usually it's because the recipient of the hippos kind of wanted to remove the creature anyway - just not quite enough to actually do it - I'm just sweetening the pot a little. It probably wouldn't be "hey, kill this thing that's not bothering you at all, in exchange for hippos", because that would probably take a lot of hippos to make a good deal (unless they have a skullclamp or something). If something is a problem for me exclusively, I'm happy to use my own removal on it.

And pulling out removal isn't usually something I'm interested in doing with Phelddagrif, since I have essentially nothing worth removing. Removal in enemy hands is good by me, it's almost as good as removal in my own hands. I wouldn't try to get them to aim it at a sub-par target just for giggles.

"I don't think we'll be attacking each other regardless, so don't see a reason to tie myself down."

Let's say it's turn 3, we're both ahead in the sense that we have actual creatures on board and everyone else is just playing lands (everything else is equal in terms of mana/cards in hand). I've got a 3/3 flyer, you've got a 4/4 on the ground. It would be pretty reasonable for each player to attack the other, since we're technically ahead, so we WILL "be attacking each other regardless". Whoever I attack, your best play is still to attack me, since I'm nominally your biggest foe. But if we make a deal to attack other players instead, we can both benefit. If you reject such a deal, then my best play is to attack you, since you're the biggest threat, and you'll presumably attack me back, and it's a lose-lose.

If we aren't attacking each other regardless, I likely won't bother making such a deal, unless it's at a very critical juncture in the game and I'm low on control options, where an unexpected move might be very bad for me, and if you reject the offer I want to plan ahead by, say, killing an eldrazi before you go to combat.

"it looks like you're offering a great deal, but I think you're just trying to make me the bigger threat so that other players attack me instead"

I don't think I've ever tried to do this. When I want to make someone the threat - possibly because my own threat profile is getting too big and I want to shrink back into the shadows - I just let them do their thing unimpeded for a bit. I'm not actually sure how I'd force it to happen anyway. Phelddagrif's tools are purely defensive, minus the card draw which is annoying to use. So I'm giving them life and blockers so other people will attack them and remove their life and blockers? I don't get it, sounds like a waste of time. Even if I was fueling them with card draw (which I almost never do to anyone, let alone the threat) I think the other players would probably think I was an idiot for fueling the most threatening player and go after me too. So, y'know, I don't do that. Because it would be dumb.

"And in the meantime, help the people who I should be cooperating with, just without asking anything of them."

I said this earlier but I guess it bears repeating, if the play I want doesn't require incentivizing, then there's often no need for a deal. You don't (usually) make deals for the plays you were going to do anyway. You make deals to justify plays that otherwise would be (just slightly, usually) wrong - like not attacking each other in the above example. Or defending another player's combo in the OP - but that play would otherwise be very, very, VERY wrong, which is why it feels so weird.

"I'm pretty sure the other two players would catch on the very first game."

I'm pretty sure you have no idea what good dealmaking looks like.

EDIT: how about, instead of you deftly shooting down the ludicrous straw man deals you think I'm making, let's throw a real scenario that happens fairly often when I'm playing Phelddy.

The game is relatively even. One player has an eldrazi - let's sake koz 1.0 - and is about to go to combat.

me: "if you agree to not attack me this combat, I'll give you three hippos".

The kozilek player has, to my thinking, 5 options.
1: agree, get hippos, smack someone else, we both benefit.
2: disagree - whether for good reasoning or not - I kill his kozilek, we both lose out.
3: refuse to answer, same as #2, we both lose out.
4: agree, get hippos, attack me anyway, I hurt him as much as I possibly can and never make a deal with him again. Presumably we both lose out.
5: demand more. That's where things get interesting.

I'm curious which option you'd be choosing. Or if you'd choose something else I haven't thought of. Or if you'll ignore the question, which I suspect is most likely.

At this point I know you read the scenario I outlined, about the player at low life and the player with Niv who couldn't make a deal, and you still haven't responded to it. So am I to assume you're conceding that point? Same for the "player with sphinx's rev offers to fog if you kill the notion thief" hypothetical. You know, it's funny, as soon as I manage to nail down the specifics enough on a situation that there isn't some way to weasel out of it, you suddenly get very quiet about it and try to move on to something else.

[onering]

That's a tad aggressive I think. I know it wasn't directed at me btw.

Personally if I was the kozilek player, your offered deal would be irrelevant to me except possibly for the last option. 3 hippos is nowhere near enough to stop an attack, and I'm going to attack the person I see as the biggest threat if I can get it through. If that's not you I'm taking the deal because it's free hippos for something I was going to do anyway even if you were giving me nothing. If your the biggest threat, I'm rejecting your deal because I need kozilek to hit you, and you'd need to pay steeply to change that (like offer up the secret removal spell against something another player has), and even then you might not be able to offer enough to change my calculus. Telling me you will kill kozilek if I attack you would actually keep me from attacking if I felt I needed him alive enough, and that's the sort of thing I'd consider a deal but others could consider merely sharing your plans to affect your opponents calculus. The sphinxes rev and fog example is a more clear cut deal where it's trading an action for an action. That's certainly a deal id normally take, but if I knew the playgroup generally frowned on such deals or it would be viewed as king making I'd take the L to build good will in future games and let sphinxes rev guy be a target for the next few games. But that's metagaming, and depends on how likely I am to lose anyway if I make the deal.