how do you "learn" to multiplayer?

[3drinks]

People tell me I have this "beautiful mind evil genius" syndrome in 1v1 play and that I suffer greatly in multiplayer. I try to learn, I try to not do overtly offensive things, but I'm told I just "don't get it". In modo as well as paper, I'm always selected as the first target and I just want to know why, or what I can do to change that. Is it my personality? Is it people just don't like my face (God I'd hope not)? I'm just at a loss what I can really do to change whatever about myself such that I don't just come off that kill-on-sight guy.

[Mookie]

The single concept I would say is most important in multiplayer MTG (when compared to a 1v1 game) is threat assessment. That does branch into a bunch of related topics though:

• Identifying the biggest single threat at the table
• Identifying which player has the strongest position
• Identifying what your opponents are most concerned about (which may not be the same as your concerns)
• Identifying when your own actions are perceived as threatening
• Convincing the rest of the table that their actions are more threatening than they really are, and your actions are less threatening

I will note that this becomes a bit less important when there is a large power disparity - if your decks are strong enough, you can sometimes bulldoze through the rest of the table. But in a more balanced meta, it's generally a good idea to avoid becoming archenemy and getting 3v1'd.

I'll also note that, as a general rule, it's pretty much impossible to have perfect threat assessment. That's not necessarily due to flawed play - there's just a ton of hidden information that you can't account for, even before we get into the entire 'EDH boardstates get really complicated' issue. If you can conceal your threats - or just call less attention to them - then that can go a pretty long way towards not spooking your opponents too soon.

Looking over your decklists, I'll note that Korvold and Kaalia are both pretty threatening commanders, while a Kari Zev / Torbran burn deck would also be fairly threatening if you're slinging around a bunch of damage.

Another note I'll make is that my decks skew pretty heavily towards combo as a result of this logic - it's almost impossible for opponents to be able to detect if you can win the game in a single turn from hand, which tends to throw off threat assessment accuracy.

[Antis]

Yep, threat assessment is the big thing and if your specific problem is being immediately targeted, then I'd recommend focusing on your opponents' threat assessments. It can be that they're ranking your threat level unreasonably high, in which case you have to work on convincing them why that's not so. It can be that your threat level really is that high, in which case your deck is probably the problem.

Another reason might be if your decks are doing something that is generally frowned upon in Commander. I would caution a bit against what Mookie said about his decks skewing towards combo. If we're talking cute value interactions, fine. But if I know someone's game plan is to go infinite, they're target #1, no excuses. I mean, it just makes sense — if I know a player can end the game at any point without any board presence, it's in my best interest to kill that player first.

The other hate-drawing tactics are MLD (Mass Land Destruction), Stax, too many counterspells, Back to Basics, Contamination, basically anything that prevents the other players from actually playing Magic: The Gathering with you. Don't ever try to justify yourself by saying "But the card is legal in the format". It's not gonna go over well.

With that comes the thing that some generals are big head-targets by themselves because any given opponent's experience with playing against that general is that 99% of the time, they're doing degenerate things.

For more tailor-made advice, I'd have to know more about what happens in your average game.

[DirkGently]

I've written a lot about this sort of thing on my phelddagrif primer, but I'll throw down a few things I've learned that spring to mind. FWIW I also think I have a pretty targetable face/personality, and I think I've been able to successfully overcome it.

-Beyond the actual play of the game, it can be really important to match the tone of the table. If you sit down at a casual table and playing very precisely, thinking about all your moves, keeping your #gameface on all the time, and generally playing like you're at day 2 of the pro tour, people are going to evaluate you as a higher threat and might find it stressful to play against you. So play casually as much as you can, and don't take things too seriously - nobody likes the guy who swears eternal vendetta against whoever attacks him first.

-In that vein, I find it can be really useful to talk honestly about the game. Nothing sets my "target that dude" alarm off like a guy that's saying "pssh, my board state isn't threatening, I just play this combo piece for value." Downplaying your threats is useful to a CERTAIN extent, but subtlety is, imo, key. If I've got a scary permanent, I don't try to tell people it's not threatening. I might point to another permanent and say that it's also threatening, and get people to pay attention to enemy boards, but I never push too hard unless they're making a really egregious mistake. If they decide to kill my permanent, attack my planeswalker, or punch me in the face, I take my licks, say "reasonable", and carry on. If I get targeted repeatedly and I genuinely don't think I'm the threat, I might joke around a little or point to other boards, but I try to avoid ever getting too upset about it. It's only if I'm really getting overly targeted to the extent that it's clearly not in the best interests of the targeting player - they're clearly going to kingmake another player - that I'll try to seriously talk sense to them. And if they still disagree, then that's all you can really do - though I'll certainly take the opportunity to point out how they could have saved themselves after they lose, had they targeted me less. Not necessarily in a harsh way (though it can be hard not to, in some circumstances) but ideally in a constructive way. And on the flip side, I'll also point out the junctures where they should have started targeting me more, where I clearly became the threat, though I usually won't point those junctures out during the game of course (unless someone else already has, in which case I'll usually cop to it).

-I agree with Mookie's assessment that your commander choice is generally poor politically. Not to sound too harsh, but I genuinely think that kaalia is among the worst commanders to play because of how badly she handles politics. Most kaalia games I've seen go 1 of 2 ways:

1) kaalia gets ramped out, nobody has an answer, she otk's people or wipes all lands or whatever to stay in the lead, and kills everyone very quickly. Everyone leaves the game feeling like kaalia brought a cEDH deck to a casual table and nobody thinks it was a good game.

2) kaalia gets answered a couple times and the deck falls hard on its face, never to recover.

If you want to try to improve your political capabilities, my recommendation would be to try a less threatening commander, at least for a time, and try to practice managing your threat levels to avoid being the main target until you're ready to go for a win. Which brings me to my next point...

-Combo is easy mode. This is where I disagree with Mookie. Yeah, you can do it. Yeah it'll likely work. It's easy and you'll learn very little. For me, I don't feel like I really won a game if I'm just assembling a combo or dropping a craterhoof or some other ez-bake wincon. Use good threat assessment, manage your own threat level, keep enemy positions in check, and go for the kill when you see the opportunity. That, to me, is what makes for a satisfying victory that shows my skill. The less "bursty" the wincon, the more satisfying the victory - that's why Phelddagrif is my signature deck, because the win has to be so carefully crafted. You don't have to go that far, though, there are lots of commanders that offer a similar satisfaction without being quite so passive. If you are doing aggro (which is great, I love aggro) you do generally need a certain degree of burst to have a decent chance to win, since you're going to have trouble in the late-game otherwise. But if you play a smart political game and avoid overcommitting until other players have surpassed your threat levels, you can win off smaller unexpected tricks and don't need to rely on easy-mode wins like MLD.

Also, if you're playing multiple games against smart opponents and you win via combo, people will remember. Sometimes maybe you'll get away with it, but other times you'll get targeted even when you don't have it. Long-term, I'd rather have skill than gimmicks.

[pokken]

I've played with you more than most of this group of responders probably so I'll give you some tailored feedback

1. Speed up. People who seem like they are monopolizing game time (even if they're just being sociable and thinking) are often targets. It took me a long time to figure out this is why I was always a target and start to play faster.

2. Do less. You sometimes are a bit prone to do things to find out what'll happen and to apply pressure when it isn't necessary. Try holding your removal until the table is begging for it. That's my general attitude is trying to sandbag everything as long as I can..

This one is near and dear to my heart also which is why I recognize it so readily.

Hope some of this helps you and doesn't come across as mean; I'm a firm believer in giving honest critical feedback when it's requested so please take this in the spirit of helpfulness it's offered

[3drinks]

Looking over your decklists, I'll note that Korvold and Kaalia are both pretty threatening commanders, while a Kari Zev / Torbran burn deck would also be fairly threatening if you're slinging around a bunch of damage.

Another note I'll make is that my decks skew pretty heavily towards combo as a result of this logic - it's almost impossible for opponents to be able to detect if you can win the game in a single turn from hand, which tends to throw off threat assessment accuracy.

And here I thought sticking to white border was better since players won't assess the deck to be as dangerous. Surely mono-colour decks in the era of Golos Wins LOL is a detriment. Why would anyone target the mono-r deck when mr 5c ramp is there exploding all over the table.....

Maybe I really do need to go back to Kynaios and Tiro of Meletis for a long time.......

The other hate-drawing tactics are MLD (Mass Land Destruction), Stax, too many counterspells, Back to Basics, Contamination, basically anything that prevents the other players from actually playing Magic: The Gathering with you. Don't ever try to justify yourself by saying "But the card is legal in the format". It's not gonna go over well.

I've definitely used these exact words. Hating on nonbasics is kinda my gimmick, because of the 4c ramp epidemic we have to-date. Though nowadays I've shifted from MLD to Null Rod effects, not that this seems to help any. I don't even know how to build without Ruination......

Beyond the actual play of the game, it can be really important to match the tone of the table. If you sit down at a casual table and playing very precisely, thinking about all your moves, keeping your #gameface on all the time, and generally playing like you're at day 2 of the pro tour, people are going to evaluate you as a higher threat and might find it stressful to play against you. So play casually as much as you can, and don't take things too seriously - nobody likes the guy who swears eternal vendetta against whoever attacks him first.

-I agree with Mookie's assessment that your commander choice is generally poor politically. Not to sound too harsh, but I genuinely think that kaalia is among the worst commanders to play because of how badly she handles politics. Most kaalia games I've seen go 1 of 2 ways:

1) kaalia gets ramped out, nobody has an answer, she otk's people or wipes all lands or whatever to stay in the lead, and kills everyone very quickly. Everyone leaves the game feeling like kaalia brought a cEDH deck to a casual table and nobody thinks it was a good game.

2) kaalia gets answered a couple times and the deck falls hard on its face, never to recover.

If you want to try to improve your political capabilities, my recommendation would be to try a less threatening commander, at least for a time, and try to practice managing your threat levels to avoid being the main target until you're ready to go for a win. Which brings me to my next point...

I'm definitely in "game mode" when I play. Always aiming to make the correct play, sequencing fetches with Tithe for maximum effect, Booming your dual and my Wasteland for that added sting. Pretty hard to imagine myself not playing r, honestly. And hard to not make the optimum play, that makes me feel like I'm giving the game away. Finkel teaches us "there's no such thing as a good play and a bad play. There's only the correct play, and the mistake." .......Aaannndddd now I think I've been taking this quote way to literally.

I've played with you more than most of this group of responders probably so I'll give you some tailored feedback

1. Speed up. People who seem like they are monopolizing game time (even if they're just being sociable and thinking) are often targets. It took me a long time to figure out this is why I was always a target and start to play faster.

2. Do less. You sometimes are a bit prone to do things to find out what'll happen and to apply pressure when it isn't necessary. Try holding your removal until the table is begging for it. That's my general attitude is trying to sandbag everything as long as I can..

This one is near and dear to my heart also which is why I recognize it so readily.

Hope some of this helps you and doesn't come across as mean; I'm a firm believer in giving honest critical feedback when it's requested so please take this in the spirit of helpfulness it's offered

I'm definitely the slowest at the table I know. Urza decks will play island and pass, but leave it to the red deck to draw, mull over the same four cards, gingerly enter combat, get blown out, and eventually pass though I don't want to. And I guess this plays into #2, do things to apply pressure and test the waters and...

It's no offence. I asked because I'm looking for legitimate feedback and I want to improve my game. Not just in encyclopedic knowledge because lord knows I've got that on lock, but I get it that I need some serious help in reading the table. Things are so much simpler in 1v1.......................

[TheAmericanSpirit]

With all due respect, it's a practice thing. Losing a lot of games while being mindful on how I lost is how I figured out how to get my wins. I personally like the "3rd Place" mentality: you hang back initially, let someone else eat the table's ire when they surge ahead, and when the opportunity comes (whatever it may be), you burst them down with Hollywood pyrotechnics in one dramatic swoop. A lot of that is in deck building though, admittedly: innocuous generals paired with effective and lethal 99s is my current building philosophy, and it goes a long way to keeping people's hysteria in check. No one fears the obscure deck at a table with animars, korvolds, Sen triplets, etc.

However... Kaalia is definitely not innocuous, her playstyle is not subtle, and her potential game impact is a known quantity after nearly 10 years of being around. Hate to say it, but what you love may have much more to do with what's killing you than it's pleasant to admit.

[pokken]

And hard to not make the optimum play, that makes me feel like I'm giving the game away. Finkel teaches us "there's no such thing as a good play and a bad play. There's only the correct play, and the mistake." .......Aaannndddd now I think I've been taking this quote way to literally.

The optimal play is always different in multiplayer. It's usually optimal to get other people to do it for you and be the last one with answers (if you can).

For me, I try to just be open to the idea that being too late to spend my removal might cost me the game and being OK with it. The most common instance I can think of is when I see someone playing a big card advantage engine early like Sylvan Library or whatever and I know leaving it unchecked could lose me the game - I'll usually just let it go and see what happens. Maybe someone else will remove it. Maybe it'll turn them into arch-enemy. Maybe they'll take a bunch of damage and my removal will remove whatever they dug for.

My general MO nowadays is to not interact unless failing to do so will actually make me lose this turn. If I can put it off, I do so.

If I do elect to interact early it's usually because other people are campaigning for it and I can do a solid for the table; I almost never just interact, because it gives the impression you're trying too hard I think

[3drinks]

However... Kaalia is definitely not innocuous, her playstyle is not subtle, and her potential game impact is a known quantity after nearly 10 years of being around. Hate to say it, but what you love may have much more to do with what's killing you than it's pleasant to admit.

Bu-bu-but white border Kaalia. That's fine, right.....? Where else will I play my Zodiac Dragon?

And hard to not make the optimum play, that makes me feel like I'm giving the game away. Finkel teaches us "there's no such thing as a good play and a bad play. There's only the correct play, and the mistake." .......Aaannndddd now I think I've been taking this quote way to literally.

The optimal play is always different in multiplayer. It's usually optimal to get other people to do it for you and be the last one with answers (if you can).

For me, I try to just be open to the idea that being too late to spend my removal might cost me the game and being OK with it. The most common instance I can think of is when I see someone playing a big card advantage engine early like Sylvan Library or whatever and I know leaving it unchecked could lose me the game - I'll usually just let it go and see what happens. Maybe someone else will remove it. Maybe it'll turn them into arch-enemy. Maybe they'll take a bunch of damage and my removal will remove whatever they dug for.

My general MO nowadays is to not interact unless failing to do so will actually make me lose this turn. If I can put it off, I do so.

If I do elect to interact early it's usually because other people are campaigning for it and I can do a solid for the table; I almost never just interact, because it gives the impression you're trying too hard I think

I literally just mentioned that in a discord, "the strongest play isn't always the correct play". Admittedly that's...a pretty hard idea to wrap my head around. And that early sylvan? That's Swan Song or Tear bait.

....I can see I have much to learn.

[pokken]

My two simple heuristics to get started are:

1. if it's not a game ending combo, ignore it
2. if it's not specifically targeting me, ignore it.

Obviously not 100% perfect but it gets you closer to playing spells at the right times. I just did that for like a year before I started worrying about killing people's Rhystic Study and stuff again.

That's maybe a bit over-reactive a plan for most people but I had a serious problem with two things, 1) playing removal spells as soon as I had them, and 2) analysis paralysis about what to remove when.

--------------------------------------------------------

The next thing you can do is figure out the proactive side of your gameplans and if those are annoying. Kaalia in multiplayer ya just gotta accept you're not making friends

For me, my biggest problem was playing stuff that required way too much time and playing with myself to resolve, e.g. non-combo Gitrog value. I'd have turns where I just dredged/re-drew dakmor salvage like 10 times and fished for stuff without any real plan and it pissed people off.

I did two things, 1) practiced goldfishing extensively so I could play much faster, and 2) simplified the gameplans in my decks so they were a little less rube goldberg

[JovialJovian]

I've definitely used these exact words. Hating on nonbasics is kinda my gimmick, because of the 4c ramp epidemic we have to-date. Though nowadays I've shifted from MLD to Null Rod effects, not that this seems to help any. I don't even know how to build without Ruination......

Ruination is powerful, and I'm not going to say don't put it in your decks, but understand that you may have to hold it back for an opportune moment, rather than slap it down to roll back the ramping. Ideally, you would make a friend or two by casting it, even if they were hurt by it as well, because it helped the table deal with a big problem, ie. the guy hiding behind his Glacial Chasm or Maze of Ith, or obviously setting up threats like Kessig Wolf Run or Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle.
Generally, I shy away from mass land destruction, even ones that come with restrictions, and pack land spot removal, which people see as much less egregious. If I Pillage someone's Rogue's Passage, the table, even the targetted player, sees it as a fair move.

Generally you want to avoid Armageddon-like cards. You may win the game after casting one, but if you don't win very quickly, it will leave a sour taste for your opponents.

[Wallycaine]

However... Kaalia is definitely not innocuous, her playstyle is not subtle, and her potential game impact is a known quantity after nearly 10 years of being around. Hate to say it, but what you love may have much more to do with what's killing you than it's pleasant to admit.

Bu-bu-but white border Kaalia. That's fine, right.....? Where else will I play my Zodiac Dragon?

So that can work as a political tool, but it requires two main things: First, it typically requires a stable playgroup, because in a random pod, they don't know that your deck is all white border/whatever other restriction, and for that matter they don't know if that restriction is even preventing you from doing terrible things. You could be piloting a white border only infinite combo, after all. Secondly, and this is the tougher one, the list needs to actually be powered down enough by the restriction to lower its power level to the group. It doesn't matter to the playgroup that you're only running white bordered cards if you're still blowing them out with Boil and Blood Moon. That still means you're the main threat.

[3drinks]

I really, really dislike being told I'm "not allowed" to play (card ×). If we're all playing by the same ruleset why is it I'm not allowed to, say, play a Blood Moon, but every Tryhard simic player thinks it's okay to win the game with a Mana Reflection into Expropriate? Why is one not kosher but the other is? Both are not allowing other players to play the game...

[Wallycaine]

I really, really dislike being told I'm "not allowed" to play (card ×). If we're all playing by the same ruleset why is it I'm not allowed to, say, play a Blood Moon, but every Tryhard simic player thinks it's okay to win the game with a Mana Reflection into Expropriate? Why is one not kosher but the other is? Both are not allowing other players to play the game...

I mean, the short version is that they're both not really that kosher. You've seen how much people complain about Expropriate, right? But Expropriate ends the game in short order, Blood Moon drags it out. So while theoretically both prevent the other players from playing the game, "I win" spells like Expropriate tend to suffer less stigma because you don't spend a ton of time staring at the cards you can't play, you just get the chance to shuffle up and play another game. And it's important to note that it's not about being "not allowed" to play with those cards. It's knowing that playing with those cards has a hidden cost of social stigma attached to it, and making the decision based on that.

Furthermore, I'd point out that you're assuming a lack of equivalence that's not true. If you were coming in here talking about how your Simic decks always get targetted first just because you're playing massive mana ramp into Expropriate or similar bombs, that would be what I'd be pointing to as an indication that you're not playing at the same level as the group. But you're playing mostly Mardu, so scolding you for Expropriate wouldn't exactly be appropriate. We're focused on talking about what you can do to better navigate a social format, not hashing out whether mass land destruction is "kosher" or not.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

However... Kaalia is definitely not innocuous, her playstyle is not subtle, and her potential game impact is a known quantity after nearly 10 years of being around. Hate to say it, but what you love may have much more to do with what's killing you than it's pleasant to admit.

Bu-bu-but white border Kaalia. That's fine, right.....? Where else will I play my Zodiac Dragon?

Dude, I get it. I was slamming Korvold prepandemic mostly just to play my otherwise unused black cards and catching flak every game for doing so. Sometimes scary is just scary, regardless of its rationality. You have my sympathy, but it changes nothing sadly.

Btw, the fact that you own a zodiac dragon is a wicked flex though. In addition to my sympathy, you have my envy.

[WizardMN]

I really, really dislike being told I'm "not allowed" to play (card ×). If we're all playing by the same ruleset why is it I'm not allowed to, say, play a Blood Moon, but every Tryhard simic player thinks it's okay to win the game with a Mana Reflection into Expropriate? Why is one not kosher but the other is? Both are not allowing other players to play the game...

Yeah, I agree with Wallycaine here that they sort of aren't kosher. But, I think it is important to recognize their differences too. Blood Moon says "you can't play"; Mana Reflection and Expropriate say "I am going to play more than you". It is a subtle difference (and, to be honest, Expropriate should be a single extra turn every time which isn't as scary; people need to stop worrying about losing a permaent). At least with massive amounts of ramp, I can interact with their board. Blow up their enchantments, destroy their creatures, that kind of thing. Blood Moon makes interaction a lot harder and sometimes impossible.

I guess the point I would look at is that people want to show up and play the decks they've built. Yeah, Blood Moon can help stop the "tryhard simic player" sure. But you aren't playing against that player; you are playin against everyone. If I come in with an something Mardu for example, and I am just trying to play fair, especially with the blue decks and ramp decks at the table, it feels massively unfun when Ruination and Blood Moon hit. Green can get around both since their ramp generally fetches basics anyway, but because I want to have a deck that actually functions, I get blown out from a Blood Moon. And it feels even worse when the simic ramp player gets out from beneath the blood moon because they had a basic forest they already fetched up with Sakura, while I am stuck without access to White and Black for the rest of the game.

Now, I am the ramp player sometimes, and I am the blue player (fairly often) but that is the mindset I think I see. Yeah, those cards affect the ramp player a fair amount, but everyone else that is just trying to play gets caught in the crossfire solely because they are trying to make their mana base work. I think that the same deck but with duals (not necessarily ABUR duals) and one with all basics are going to function much differently and blood moon punishes just deck building. Probably more than it punishes ramp to be honest.

But, for the rest of it, I agree with what I lot of people have said. Just have good threat assessment, and read the table. I have been having a stretch of games online where players would combo on turn 3. One did it, got salty we all left, and then next game asked the players not to concede early, just to combo on turn 3 again with a different deck. Another game, we stopped 2 infinite combos before turn 5 and the player just scooped.

I think that speaks volumes. I am not a fan of infinite combos but I understand others are so they are going to show up. But there is a difference between a turn 3 combo, before anyone can react and a game where the player actually plays Magic to get their combo off rather than getting it out as fast as possible so as not to be interrupted.

So, beyond threat assessment, I guess in my mind it comes down to one major thing: does my deck prevent others from playing Magic? There is a fine line here as I think a lot of counterspells are fine though others don't. But if your deck is full of Stax or MLD or is trying to combo before turn 5, then the answer to the question is "yes, it tries to prevent players from playing". I'll admit players can get a little salty if you win no matter how you do it, but at least if they get to play their deck during the course of the game, it doesn't feel quite as bad. And if I know a player is sitting down and they clearly intend to combo out early, or I know their deck is full of MLD or Stax, I am going to go after them first in an attempt to get ahead of the game before I get locked out. Because I just want to play with my cards rather than sitting back watching someone else play the game.

[3drinks]

This has been very enlightening to read. And, kind of hard if I'm honest. Easy to comprehend, just hard to accept, but I think I'm kind of getting it. My playing more friendly cards doesn't stop others from playing what I'd play though...is the only option really to push that person out? That's ostracization....and tbh, borderline cancel culture esque. That's garbage.

[Antis]

Ultimately, the best solution is to have several decks of varying strength and use the one closest in power level to the other players.

I've had this exact same discussion years back with a friend of mine, so I can understand where you're coming from. The key thing to realize is this:

"Casual" is the default setting of EDH. There is a reason cEDH is a separate thing. You really sound like you'd thrive in a cEDH environment.

As for the casual crowd, many people are just new to the game, but there is another big section of the crowd: veteran players who use EDH specifically to get away from the competitive mindset. Away from constantly worrying about optimal deck construction, from optimal plays, from carefully scouting each new set for upgrades to their decks. I'm one of those. I play Commander because 60-card isn't fun for me anymore. Been there, done that.

[Mookie]

Following up on some thoughts other people have shared...

One of my key ethos for EDH is 'let people play their cards'. If you mess with your opponents' mana or stop them from casting spells, they're going to be way more upset than if you sling removal at those cards after they've played them. As a corollary, people are also going to be way more conscious of your actions if you take long turns, or take a ton of actions.

Loss aversion is also something to keep in mind when evaluating cards. Very simply, people value losing something as being way more impactful than them gaining an equivalent amount. I'll point to Sphere of Resistance vs Helm of Awakening as an example - Helm may be a more powerful card due to enabling storm-y nonsense, but my experience is that opponents are way more likely to attack you for Sphere, because people hate having things taken away or denied to them. Bottomless Pit vs Howling Mine is another example.... or Blood Moon vs Mana Reflection, as mentioned.

I'd argue that this is a contributor to why Simic decks tend to be so strong in EDH. If you spend a bunch of turns drawing cards and ramping, but not actually playing out anything threatening, people will often just ignore you during that time, because you're not impacting their ability to advance their own plans.

(I'll also point to EDHREC's Salt Scores as a useful resource for seeing if people will be upset by your cards)

Combo is easy mode. This is where I disagree with Mookie. Yeah, you can do it. Yeah it'll likely work. It's easy and you'll learn very little.

Oh, no arguments there. Purely from a power level perspective, you can throw an easy combo in your deck (ex: Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker + Zealous Conscripts) and win a bunch of games with it, but I would never recommend doing so - easy wins like that are super boring and unsatisfying to win with, plus you wouldn't learn much. (there's a reason why the combos I run generally require 4+ pieces)

However, I do think the principle of 'conceal how you're going to win until it's too late for your opponents to stop you' is transferable to non-combo decks. Overrun effects, Temur Battle Rage, extra combats from Aurelia, the Warleader or Savage Beating.... even just Lightning Greaves on an Eldrazi. If your opponents see your impending victory, they're way more likely to stop it than if it comes as a surprise.

[toctheyounger]

There's a lot of great stuff here, so not sure I can add a ton, but I'll try.

The biggest thing for me to learn was to leave my trigger finger at home. I run a lot of answers, and I try to have a swiss army knife packed into most of my decks. In terms of going the distance and having enough resilience to sit through to the end game. not everything needs to be answered. If it doesn't impact you, don't answer it. Lament openly, sure, but don't commit to removing it unless you need to. Even stuff that does affect you, don't answer it until you need to. Let the combo player put all of their eggs in one basket so that when you tank them, they tank hard. It's easy to make this look like 'oh man that was a lucky topdeck' instead of biding your time for maximum efficacy, and it's really worth practicing.

That being said, this can be tough, purely because it's not always easy to know what lines people are going to play, and in this day and age decks are very resilient. I played a game against Golos, Tireless Pilgrim the other day where guy landed Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy and Basalt Monolith turn 4 and Tooth and Nailed before I'd even hit my fourth land. I didn't stick around to see what he tutored for, clearly I was never going to keep up. But that's just a massive power disparity, I was struggling for tempo and the other player in the game was running Brion Stoutarm, so it was clearly a pubstomp. Nonetheless, knowing what lines people can follow helps you time these sort of things.

Related, but not directly is the concept of not appearing to be trying too hard. Bolting out the gate early of going full sweaty makes you 100% the target to kill. There's times where you can back it up and just sail home for a win, but if you're not able to back it up it basically makes you a sprinter in a marathon. It's absolutely right to assume that the 2-3 players you're up against have removal for most of what you can do, so unless you have early momentum and can ride it through for a conclusive early victory you really are better to poke the bear instead of slapping it in the face. That doesn't mean not swinging if someone's open, I personally think if there's a plausible target and you have creatures open there's no reason not to (plus if it really does tilt someone it tells you more about the way they're going to play and that's valuable info). It just means playing appropriately to the board state - in my experience the first person to swing heavy threats into play is usually targeted and generally won't win. That does make things tough with your chosen commander in an unknown meta (with a stable group obviously you acclimatise to each other), but it's probably not impossible. In fact learning to manage politics with Kaalia at the helm would be an interesting crash course in social magic. If you can make it work you truly have mastered multiplayer interaction.

Regarding the whole MLD, stax vs Combo thing....they're both sides of the same coin, albeit pretty disparate sides. I dislike Simic combo as much as anyone (let's be honest, even Simic combo player feels dirty once the dust settles), but with at least some resources in play if I use them well I can pull the plug on a combo and return the game to a reasonable state of normality. That option doesn't exist with MLD in most circumstances. Both strategies play with resources - Combo extends how much resource one person has while disregarding the rest of the table, MLD leaves people with absolutely nothing at all. I guess it's the difference between a slow protracted loss vs a short sharp one. I hate a game ending too early, but at least if it does we can shuffle up and play again, whereas blasting the table means we're there for a long ass time afterwards poking at each other until someone pulls away. If it's timed well and symmetrical that can be a little different though; Wave of Vitriol is a favourite card of mine purely because it levels board states and punishes people for running expensive land suites. I find it hilarious, and it generally doesn't get too many gripes - it's a fair cop most of the time.

For the record, in the right circumstance I'd roll with either and I'm not overly likely to get salty; so long as I know that either one is on the table I'll shuffle up with something that can roll with the punches. But how all this pertains to the topic at hand I think is that if you're known for these things it generally will make you a target. That's just how people are, whether it's fair or not (and I do agree that it isn't always fair, especially where combo is concerned - people sneak that %$#% into casual games far more often than is kosher).

[Magiqmaster]

We have a player in our group who also plays like he is in some kind of tournament, always calculating, taking long turns, packing lots of removal, using annoying permanents to control the board, etc. He ends up winning much too often compared to the rest of the players. It is quite frustrating to play against him, but he seems to think like there is nothing wrong with this situation despite our complaining (mostly me, as I am quite vocal). I avoid him as much as possible now, and when do I face him, I focus all of my attention on his board. As you can imagine, the fun factor in these games is rather low for me, but this is the only way I can keep this guy in check.

By reading your comments, 3drinks, it reminded me that player, so I gave this example because I think it relates to you somehow. The big difference though, is that YOU understand that there is some problem and you seem willing to try and change things to improve your EDH play experience. Congrats for making this realization!

Now, the hard part is taking the steps to change the perception others have towards you. This could take some time, but as some others mentioned prior to my post, I would really recommend you to build new decks to demonstrate that you're not always in KILL MODE or taking long turns. For the record, I also had some earlier decks where I spent way too much time during my turns, trying to decide what to do, based on my boardstate and the various options I had in my hands. After some comments from my friends, I understood I had to adapt said decks to make them easier to pilot. You can also try doing this, by substituting some cards with similar cards which don't ask too much thinking before playing them. An easy example would be to use Spell Swindle instead of Mystic Confluence. Less choices = easier life, sometimes!

Anyway, I could go on but I think you get the idea. I wish you the best of luck!

Cheers

[Wallycaine]

This has been very enlightening to read. And, kind of hard if I'm honest. Easy to comprehend, just hard to accept, but I think I'm kind of getting it. My playing more friendly cards doesn't stop others from playing what I'd play though...is the only option really to push that person out? That's ostracization....and tbh, borderline cancel culture esque. That's garbage.

So I want to try and frame this in a different way. Let's say someone's playing Final Death. Now, that's wildly inefficient, right? And it's probably going to lose them some games, because they have 5 mana removal, rather than "good" removal. So if they asked you for advice, you'd suggest they cut that card for something better.

When you come to the table with mass land destruction/disruption, you're doing the social equivalent of playing with Final Death. Sure, they can get the job done (winning the game, in this case), but it's got a significant drawback (drawing hate/targetting). It's certainly possible to just power through it and keep winning games through the targetting, just like the dude with Final Death can win games off good play, even if his deck construction isn't the best. But when you're asking what's "best" from a multiplayer standpoint, being able to say "oh, I'm not playing MLD/Blood Moon" when asked is a significant bonus, and probably worth cutting those types of cards for. And when someone does play those cards, well, you now have the table on your side as far as targetting goes. That's the tradeoff they're making for running them.

[DirkGently]

Combo is easy mode. This is where I disagree with Mookie. Yeah, you can do it. Yeah it'll likely work. It's easy and you'll learn very little.

Oh, no arguments there. Purely from a power level perspective, you can throw an easy combo in your deck (ex: Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker + Zealous Conscripts) and win a bunch of games with it, but I would never recommend doing so - easy wins like that are super boring and unsatisfying to win with, plus you wouldn't learn much. (there's a reason why the combos I run generally require 4+ pieces)

However, I do think the principle of 'conceal how you're going to win until it's too late for your opponents to stop you' is transferable to non-combo decks. Overrun effects, Temur Battle Rage, extra combats from Aurelia, the Warleader or Savage Beating.... even just Lightning Greaves on an Eldrazi. If your opponents see your impending victory, they're way more likely to stop it than if it comes as a surprise.

That's definitely true. One of my favourite concise pieces of advice for playing magic is "have a plan". If you've got some trick you think can catch your opponents unaware - whether that's kikiscripts or just temur battle rage - that's a plan for victory that you can maneuver towards. Unless I have a plan for victory that requires maneuvering, my default holding pattern for commander is generally to try not to be too threatening, peck in for damage when available, and look for openings.

Beyond the actual play of the game, it can be really important to match the tone of the table. If you sit down at a casual table and playing very precisely, thinking about all your moves, keeping your #gameface on all the time, and generally playing like you're at day 2 of the pro tour, people are going to evaluate you as a higher threat and might find it stressful to play against you. So play casually as much as you can, and don't take things too seriously - nobody likes the guy who swears eternal vendetta against whoever attacks him first.

-I agree with Mookie's assessment that your commander choice is generally poor politically. Not to sound too harsh, but I genuinely think that kaalia is among the worst commanders to play because of how badly she handles politics. Most kaalia games I've seen go 1 of 2 ways:

1) kaalia gets ramped out, nobody has an answer, she otk's people or wipes all lands or whatever to stay in the lead, and kills everyone very quickly. Everyone leaves the game feeling like kaalia brought a cEDH deck to a casual table and nobody thinks it was a good game.

2) kaalia gets answered a couple times and the deck falls hard on its face, never to recover.

If you want to try to improve your political capabilities, my recommendation would be to try a less threatening commander, at least for a time, and try to practice managing your threat levels to avoid being the main target until you're ready to go for a win. Which brings me to my next point...

I'm definitely in "game mode" when I play. Always aiming to make the correct play, sequencing fetches with Tithe for maximum effect, Booming your dual and my Wasteland for that added sting. Pretty hard to imagine myself not playing r, honestly. And hard to not make the optimum play, that makes me feel like I'm giving the game away. Finkel teaches us "there's no such thing as a good play and a bad play. There's only the correct play, and the mistake." .......Aaannndddd now I think I've been taking this quote way to literally.

So I see a few problems there.

Of course the one I mentioned is that slow play is going to make you a target. When someone gets serious, I know I (and presumably other players too) will worry that they're trying to find a winning line. Unless you DO think you've got an opening to win, play quick, play casually, joke and converse. For one thing, it'll make you less threatening, which DOES make it a better play is a very real sense. For a second thing, it'll probably make the game more fun. I love 1v1 (draft/sealed), and there are few things I enjoy more than a tense day of limited at a GP. But there's a time and a place for it, and commander ain't that place.

The other thing, which a bunch of people have pointed out (and I think I've brought it up in the past) is that I think you're over-targeting. Playing Boom is almost never going to be a good play in a multiplayer setting, even if you're targeting your wasteland. The easy rule of thumb is that when removing enemy resources, you need to divide the effectiveness by the number of opponents. Hence "target opponent discards a card" is 1/3 as good as "each opponent discards a card" in a 4-player game. Of course, that's an oversimplification - in reality, it's going to depend a lot on where those resources are headed. Removing a blightsteel colossus is a lot more valuable if it's currently attacking you than if it's not, and if it was attacking someone else it might not be worth removing at all. Predicting where resources are going to be used can be very useful when selecting removal targets. Blowing up lands with boom, though, is really unlikely to be worthwhile - assuming you're talking early game, it's too soon to know where those resources will be used with any accuracy, and you're also engaging in some bad economy by sacrificing 2 cards (boom + wasteland) to kill 2 enemy lands in a multiplayer game. If you're paying 2 cards for removal, in general you should either be removing ~6 cards or removing 2 cards that are coming at you specifically. Of course, paying 2 cards to FoW a combo is worth it despite the card disadvantage because you know how big of a problem that combo will be for you - but this is definitely not that situation, it's way too early to tell what the flow of the game will be. You need to change how you think about card economy to adapt to multiplayer.

Beyond the more objective view of how one evaluates trades in multiplayer, I agree with what others have said about being overeager to use removal. Removal should be a last resort in most circumstances. You want to sit on them until it's clear that you have to do something - either because that person is getting way too far ahead or because they're targeting you specifically. I'd recommend avoiding any sorcery-speed answers in general, unless they're board wipes. Being able to be reactive is a source of card advantage because they allow you to wait as long as possible, until it's very clear that (1) Yes, that card is indeed a big problem for you personally, and (2) nobody else is going to do anything about it.

This has been very enlightening to read. And, kind of hard if I'm honest. Easy to comprehend, just hard to accept, but I think I'm kind of getting it. My playing more friendly cards doesn't stop others from playing what I'd play though...is the only option really to push that person out? That's ostracization....and tbh, borderline cancel culture esque. That's garbage.

You can imagine an EDH game is like a little society. Can you legally buy a bunch of guns (in the US), rant about the chipmunk mafia to anyone who wanders past, and paint your face with vegemite? Yes, by god, yes you can. But will that make you friends? Probably not. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean it's a good idea. Societal conventions against vegemite-painting might be somewhat arbitrary, but they're still worth following if you want to get ahead in life - or commander.

[toctheyounger]

When you come to the table with mass land destruction/disruption, you're doing the social equivalent of playing with Final Death. Sure, they can get the job done (winning the game, in this case), but it's got a significant drawback (drawing hate/targetting). It's certainly possible to just power through it and keep winning games through the targetting, just like the dude with Final Death can win games off good play, even if his deck construction isn't the best. But when you're asking what's "best" from a multiplayer standpoint, being able to say "oh, I'm not playing MLD/Blood Moon" when asked is a significant bonus, and probably worth cutting those types of cards for. And when someone does play those cards, well, you now have the table on your side as far as targetting goes. That's the tradeoff they're making for running them.

Yeah this is massively true. Similarly, a combo player is unlikely to have much in the way of social purchase to be gained, purely because, 9 times out 10, they could more or less be goldfishing their deck once it hits top gear. What incentive are they giving the table to leave them alone and target someone else? Absolutely none. In fact, the onus is on the table in both scenarios to remove these players or have the game end unsatisfactorily.

I personally thinks MLD/stax/control can be more of a pleasant experience than (most common) combo lines, purely because it works in degrees. Combo doesn't - it either works and you win or you whiff and go back to square one, scoop, or lose. My Bruna deck runs a fair amount of control elements and it makes people think around corners to achieve what they want to do, and it does the same for me in terms of how much freedom I can grant myself to work towards a win. That being said, the control is not wholesale murder, it's a little light choking. I do get the odd complaint, but it's mostly from folk who haven't seen a lot of control and aren't used to interactive board states. And to me, that's the lesson - there's nothing wrong with land destruction (If you're leaving Gaea's Cradle et al untouched you're playing wrong), resource denial and board control, it's just about coming to a happy medium that a) allows you enough room for you to pilot your deck satisfactorily and b) allows your opponents the opportunity to play the game without being held out of the game entirely.

I actually think pulling these elements back a bit, while losing a bit of relative efficacy on paper, will benefit you significantly. In terms of social play it'll make you less the villain, and often it will help solve problems for other people so they'll leave you to it as long as it benefits them, and if you play your cards right (that's not even a pun here) it'll give you the space you need to play your game relatively unimpeded.

paint your face with vegemite?

This is hilariously antipodean, and I wholly approve.

[toctheyounger]

I'm genuinely pretty stoked this topic came up to be honest. This thread reads like a how to of navigating social MtG vs Power levels an the interaction therein, and honestly, more people in our format could do with engaging in these concepts. Not just for enjoyment, but to improve their own gameplay and brews.