how do you "learn" to multiplayer?

[toctheyounger]

I think I get it. Maybe. Some months ago I played a game. White Border Alesha, Gerrard, Weatherlight Hero, and two other decks I don't recall. So player C threw down a Blind Obedience, and I disenchant|MIRed it, because I wanted to play Alesha with haste (thanks, Fervor!) and instead the Gerrard player just did the eggs thing and won. The other players were pissed at me, and I never understood why. I had no idea (then, sure) what was going to happen but they seemed to know. Then they refused to let me in on the next game, accusing me of being the reason they lost.

I think I remain[ed] bittre at this spiteful ostracization and is only one reason why I play such STAXy decks. It's best to not allow unknown decks to play, because you don't know what said unknown decks are going to play. I think I'm pretty certain this is the wrong take to have (now, at least). So I'd suppose that makes the question become "how do I let this go and just play for the fun of it and not to dream crush players?" How do I just enjoy Toggo and his Cat chucking rocks at your face, rather than finding some way to lock a table down with grave pact|8ED?

Also @3drinks not sure if my last response came off a little snippy, it certainly wasn't meant to. Apologies in advance if that's the case.

You didn't. It's very-much a learning experience to me, and I find your response well-thought-out.

I think you've gotta give people the benefit of the doubt - it'll do you a world of good too - when you're jumping at shadows there's no way your threat assessment is 100%. You're really wanting people to commit as much as they can to the board before you shaft them anyway, for a couple of reasons - firstly, they had a chance to shoot their shot so there's no hard feelings. Secondly, if they've put all of their eggs in one basket, they're much more likely to stay down when you shank them.

The idea is they get an opportunity to play, and in doing so they give you enough information to make an informed guess as to what their main plays are so that you can stop them in their tracks. So yeah, it benefits you in mutliple ways. Happy play partners, and you get to learn to hone your timing and drop people effectively. There's nothing more satisfying as a control player than knowing you've timed your headshot perfectly.

It very much sounds like this game was one the other players knew the end stage of, so if they weren't sharing any info with you that's on them, not you btw. Don't sweat that one, it seems like it was a foregone conclusion and you were just an unfortunate victim.

[materpillar]

I think I get it. Maybe. Some months ago I played a game. White Border Alesha, Gerrard, Weatherlight Hero, and two other decks I don't recall. So player C threw down a Blind Obedience, and I disenchant|MIRed it, because I wanted to play Alesha with haste (thanks, Fervor!) and instead the Gerrard player just did the eggs thing and won. The other players were pissed at me, and I never understood why. I had no idea (then, sure) what was going to happen but they seemed to know. Then they refused to let me in on the next game, accusing me of being the reason they lost.

They refused to let you play a second game because you Disenchanted Blind Obedience? Are you kidding me?

Either you're misrepresenting that series of events or those guys were pretty massive douchebags.

I think I remain[ed] bitter at this spiteful ostracization and is only one reason why I play such STAXy decks. It's best to not allow unknown decks to play, because you don't know what said unknown decks are going to play. I think I'm pretty certain this is the wrong take to have (now, at least). So I'd suppose that makes the question become "how do I let this go and just play for the fun of it and not to dream crush players?" How do I just enjoy Toggo and his Cat chucking rocks at your face, rather than finding some way to lock a table down with grave pact|8ED?

Not knowing what weird things are going to pop out of an opponents deck is a lot of the fun of EDH for me. It's part of the reason that wizards printing cards for commander is so lame because it reduces the wackiness that people cast when there's just such obvious, pushed cards that you should be running.

Also, the more powerful of an environment you find yourself in the less flexibility you have to let unknown decks do unknown things. Some metagames you can't tap out without expecting to get housed by a random infinite combo. I personally tend to search out groups of people that I can play with and that let me tap out for Sheoldred, Whispering One without worrying about immediately losing the game because of it.

[Treamayne]

Rather than quoting and responding to a bunch of great dialog, I'll just say this (couched in the original point carried over from the Random Card Thread):

There's a difference between countering a T3 Cultivate by the player that already ramped on turn 1 and/or 2 (probably in a mono or two color deck) and countering a T3 Cultivate in a 3+ color deck where it's the first ramp and just trying to color fix because that's probably the only spell in hand that *can* be cast yet.

I think one of the primary keys to Casual Multiplayer (EDH, Star, Emperor, FFA, etc.) is identifying the "win more/win faster" decks/plays vs. the "set a baseline" decks/plays. Early answers to the former shouldn't generate (much) hostility; where early answers to the latter will feel very much like pubstomping. Example: Countering a cultivate in my Mono-G Kamahl Druid deck "feels" meh (it's mono and they are druids - lots of mana dorks and untapping lands), but countering cultivate in my WUBRG Karona Avatar deck "feels" like I should just find a different table and never sit down with that player again.

On a different note - Márton Stromgald rocks! He's the hidden General in my Mono R Homura deck (only because having him in the command zone made me too much a target).

[3drinks]

I think I get it. Maybe. Some months ago I played a game. White Border Alesha, Gerrard, Weatherlight Hero, and two other decks I don't recall. So player C threw down a Blind Obedience, and I disenchant|MIRed it, because I wanted to play Alesha with haste (thanks, Fervor!) and instead the Gerrard player just did the eggs thing and won. The other players were pissed at me, and I never understood why. I had no idea (then, sure) what was going to happen but they seemed to know. Then they refused to let me in on the next game, accusing me of being the reason they lost.

They refused to let you play a second game because you Disenchanted Blind Obedience? Are you kidding me?
image.png
Either you're misrepresenting that series of events or those guys were pretty massive douchebags.

It was as I was told, because the Blind Obedience was played to stop the Gerrard deck from going off and I Disenchant|6EDed it. Thus I cost them the game, without even knowing what was going to happen. Had never played these folk ever, they just happened to walk into the LGS and I joined them. Even made a joke about playing a white border deck as I always do.

[toctheyounger]

I think I get it. Maybe. Some months ago I played a game. White Border Alesha, Gerrard, Weatherlight Hero, and two other decks I don't recall. So player C threw down a Blind Obedience, and I disenchant|MIRed it, because I wanted to play Alesha with haste (thanks, Fervor!) and instead the Gerrard player just did the eggs thing and won. The other players were pissed at me, and I never understood why. I had no idea (then, sure) what was going to happen but they seemed to know. Then they refused to let me in on the next game, accusing me of being the reason they lost.

They refused to let you play a second game because you Disenchanted Blind Obedience? Are you kidding me?
image.png
Either you're misrepresenting that series of events or those guys were pretty massive douchebags.

It was as I was told, because the Blind Obedience was played to stop the Gerrard deck from going off and I Disenchant|6EDed it. Thus I cost them the game, without even knowing what was going to happen. Had never played these folk ever, they just happened to walk into the LGS and I joined them. Even made a joke about playing a white border deck as I always do.

Yeah this one is on them, not you. Screw those guys.

[Rumpy5897]

Treamayne hit on an important point. Given the sanctity of lands, it's not uncommon to find Gx decks packed to the brim with ramp to abuse that aspect of the system. So on one hand you've got the perfectly understandable anti-MLD sentiment, and then on the other you have people consciously abusing this to set themselves up with a mountain of resources that's proven to increase win rate. Ramp hate is a touchy subject, as on one hand you hear people calling for it, but once some feasible pieces like Confounding Conundrum or Opposition Agent arrive the reaction is hissy. It's entirely possible it's two different groups calling and hissing respectively, but it nevertheless shows that it's a bit of a murky area. As further evidenced by the discussion in the thread.

I can understand the frustration of playing against that sort of deck. One of the guys in my group likes to run goodstuffy decks packed with ramp and draw, but he self-polices quite heavily so as to not overpower the others with his build style of choice. Nevertheless, once he gets going he is sublimely hard to interact out. Some good wiping him did when he has a full seven in hand and 10+ lands on the field. If playing against a similar style of deck created by someone with less restraint, attacking the attempts to set up ramp or draw is likely correct. As such, apply discretion, and consider saving that Spell Pierce for the Cultivate that came after a Nature's Lore or something

As for insta-wins, an insta-win is an insta-win. While the tried and true ones are boring because we've all seen them a million times before, even the janky ones can get grating on similar grounds if they occur too regularly. I'm currently messing around with a Keskit + Toggo trash mountain list, and in a recent test game I turned my stockpile of garbage into a lethal Exsanguinate via KCI out of nowhere. Technically janky, yet hard to answer when jumped out of nowhere, and sure to become tedious with time. So I replaced the Exsanguinate with Marionette Master, which offers a window of opportunity to get shot out before making advances on life totals in a similar scenario.

[Treamayne]

I've definitely never done Thassa's Oracle lines, but I don't get this. A combo is a combo. Why should one thing result in salt but not another? If I won outta nowhere with [x], then you should be insulted at me winning outta nowhere period, not just because it involved [x].

Combo wins are a spectrum. On one end of the spectrum, you have efficient one or two-card combos, like Flash + Protean Hulk or Tooth and Nail for Zealous Conscripts + Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker. Going towards the middle of the spectrum, you get less efficient three or four card combos, and combos that don't actually win the game immediately like gaining infinite life with Spike Feeder + Archangel of Thune. And on the far end of the spectrum, you have jank that struggles to win at all.

<snip>

A final note I'll make is people tend to be more okay with combos if they're something obscure or unique. As a comparison, losing to Craterhoof Behemoth for the twentieth time will draw groans, while I'll rarely complain to losing to Márton Stromgald or Decimator of the Provinces. People tend to be more accepting of things if they can at least be amused or learn something from the experience.

As for insta-wins, an insta-win is an insta-win. While the tried and true ones are boring because we've all seen them a million times before, even the janky ones can get grating on similar grounds if they occur too regularly. I'm currently messing around with a Keskit + Toggo trash mountain list, and in a recent test game I turned my stockpile of garbage into a lethal Exsanguinate via KCI out of nowhere. Technically janky, yet hard to answer when jumped out of nowhere, and sure to become tedious with time. So I replaced the Exsanguinate with Marionette Master, which offers a window of opportunity to get shot out before making advances on life totals in a similar scenario.

Great points. I'll just add something I haven't seen discussed. Many people (or maybe just me) aren't disgusted at the twentieth Craterhoof win just because it's a two card with T&N or because it's "answer now or lose." A lot of the disgust is the "ubiquity/uniqueness factor."

When you sit across from a table and see Golos, Kiki-jiki, Craterhoof, etc. for the 1001st time, there's an element of "even if this isn't a net deck, it's an obvious "jingo me-too-ism" thoughtless build. Losing to yet-another-Kiki/Craterhoof combo feels like the opponent doesn't respect the game enough to even give some thought to deck building ("ohh, that's strong. I wanna win moar, so I'll build that").

Sure, some people don't care about what the combo was (equally ambivalent or equally disdainful), Some only care about speed, resiliency, complexity, etc. But I think many people, at least subconsciously, care about uniqueness. Not just to learn something, but simply the "been there, done that" boringness of the most common combos is really grating to the soul.

Example: This week on MTGO (sounds like a cheesy sitcom), it was me (C Karn Golems) vs Yisan, Yisan, and Maelstrom Wanderer. Turn 5ish, Yisan 1 tutored Craterhoof. Yisan 2 and Wanderer scooped. Not because they were about to lose (Yisan 1 only had 5 attackers, Craterhoof made 6, all of his other creatures were summoning sick, and no way to get haste). He didn't have lethal damage up against three opponents (48-40-40). They scooped because "why waste precious game-minutes on yet another Craterhoof."

[FenrirRex]

I am going to briefly play devils advocate here RE: Disenchant social ostracizing as it further highlights one of the baselines of learning how to play a good multiplayer game. While it's true that it sounds like these players got up in arms over, essentially, a misunderstanding of the game state, there exists a very easy solution: communication.

In this case, 3drinks did exactly what he wanted to do to further his own game plan, while the rest of the table had information that he was missing. "I will do X because I want Y." While, if the rest of the table is capable of politics, a more appropriate approach with removal like that is to speak to the table and ask "I have an answer for Y since I want to do X, how does everyone else feel about Y?" to which a politically minded table might respond "Oh no, save that for Z, X is no big deal in comparison." Suddenly, your Disenchant, while a known quantity, threatens to keep the other player in check while you've earned everyone's good graces by sucking it up and playing tapped creatures- burning no resources in the process (well, virtual card disadvantages with a wasted Fervor, but eh).

Now, not every table is down for communicating, much less politicking (in which case... why are they playing multiplayer? But I digress-) but removal in particular can be a powerful tool when people are willing and able to talk things through. I always advocate asking before doing, as what forwards your game plan may not grok with how other players understand the game state.

[Wallycaine]

I am going to briefly play devils advocate here RE: Disenchant social ostracizing as it further highlights one of the baselines of learning how to play a good multiplayer game. While it's true that it sounds like these players got up in arms over, essentially, a misunderstanding of the game state, there exists a very easy solution: communication.

In this case, 3drinks did exactly what he wanted to do to further his own game plan, while the rest of the table had information that he was missing. "I will do X because I want Y." While, if the rest of the table is capable of politics, a more appropriate approach with removal like that is to speak to the table and ask "I have an answer for Y since I want to do X, how does everyone else feel about Y?" to which a politically minded table might respond "Oh no, save that for Z, X is no big deal in comparison." Suddenly, your Disenchant, while a known quantity, threatens to keep the other player in check while you've earned everyone's good graces by sucking it up and playing tapped creatures- burning no resources in the process (well, virtual card disadvantages with a wasted Fervor, but eh).

Now, not every table is down for communicating, much less politicking (in which case... why are they playing multiplayer? But I digress-) but removal in particular can be a powerful tool when people are willing and able to talk things through. I always advocate asking before doing, as what forwards your game plan may not grok with how other players understand the game state.

Yeah, this is an interesting thing to add. Personally I prefer formulating the question differently, usually as "I'm going to blow up Y, does anyone have a good reason not to?" to make it clear that the onus is on them to convince me, not that it's going up for general debate. Sometimes the answer is "nope, it's a fair cop", sometimes it's "if you do, Y can/might do Z", and I can make a better decision on the basis of that info. And one nice bit is that when you let yourself be convinced not to, your opponents now have to respect the answers you could have in hand. That gives them a bit more info, but also encourages them to target other players, since you might blow up their stuff.

[Antis]

It was as I was told, because the Blind Obedience was played to stop the Gerrard deck from going off and I Disenchanted it.

Agree with the others here, this is on them. If they knew the Gerrard deck and you didn't, they should've stopped you at that time and explained the situation.

[3drinks]

This thread teaches me the value of selective obligatory hate. What I mean is, less Ruination, more From the Ashes.

That's a positive takeaway, yes?

[narglfrob]

This thread teaches me the value of selective obligatory hate. What I mean is, less Ruination, more From the Ashes.

That's a positive takeaway, yes?

From the Ashes doesn't prevent most decks from playing magic, so it will typically attract less hate than Ruination, but I wouldn't call it political because its not "selective" or reactive (i.e. its sorcery speed). You can't use it against the table leader to curry favor, you can't use it as a bargaining chip in negotiations, you can't threaten people with it.

Better Political Cards that serve a similar function (imo):
Dwarven Miner, Army Ants, Fulminator Mage because you can use it against the table leader to curry favor, you can use the use of (or lack of use) of their activated abilities as a bargaining chip, and you can threaten people with their activated abilities.
Cleansing Wildfire is also a better political tool because you can use it against the table leader to curry favor. However, since its a sorcery hidden in your hand, you can't use it to negotiate or threaten as effectively. Still I think its a decent political card.