What Makes Bad Games?

[Taleran]

All I was saying is that the specific examples you were giving do not necessarily mean what the post was saying, with more context it becomes clearer.

Sure. I think it was pretty clear what I meant when I opened with the sentence "When at least one player willfully misrepresents their decks in any conversation that might happen for 1 or 2." and I'm fairly certain everyone else got it.

Honestly, your original reply comes across as terribly disingenuous wherein you simply decline to accept that this might have been in a context where people did not, in fact, enjoy discarding their hands. It's kind of meta and funny in its own way. I'm talking about people being disingenuous when they say "oh, well I don't consider it degenerate" knowing full well the other person would not have agreed, and you come along and say "oh, hmmm, well actually, it doesn't seem all that degenerate to me" while simultaneously sidestepping the entire point.

Enjoyment or not of a card effect doesn't make things degenerate and I happen to think that cheating the cost on 10 drops is not a degenerate play but the normal one in Commander for those cards.

(Perhaps also when asked if someones deck is a numerical value out of 10 it also changes based on the experiences in the format for each person asked and a 5 is not always a 5).

[Sinis]

<If I repeatedly argue semantics/10, I can avoid the idea that sometimes competitive EDH players misrepresent the power levels of their decks and that playing with those people under those false pretenses results in unenjoyable or 'bad' games>

:thumbsup:

[Taleran]

<If I repeatedly argue semantics/10, I can avoid the idea that sometimes competitive EDH players misrepresent the power levels of their decks and that playing with those people under those false pretenses results in unenjoyable or 'bad' games>

:thumbsup:

I hope you realize that you aren't actually disagreeing with anything I have said in the last few posts, you just want to look at it condescendingly for a reason I can not understand.

edit: also the person avoiding the discussion is typically the one who is editing the posts of the person they are talking with for no real reason.

[Sinis]

I hope you realize that you aren't actually disagreeing with anything I have said in the last few posts, you just want to look at it condescendingly for a reason I can not understand.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've written because it's not actually worth discussing. When I say a player has "misrepresented how fast/powerful their deck is" and used "reanimating a creature early in the game that makes everyone discard their hand and draws me 7 cards a turn" as degenerate and you write "well ackshually, I don't think it's degenerate" your disagreement is entirely immaterial to the actual point of "pubstompers %$#% ruin games"

That you seem to want to avoid that point entirely is suspicious.

But you know what, we're on the topic of it now.

In nearly EVERY game I've played against 'competitive' players, they've misrepresented the power level their netdeck from mtgthesource, mtgsalvation, or reddit. I have consented to play cEDH games exactly twice, the first time was before the Erayo ban-as-general, and the second was three weeks ago. I have played, over the last 11 years, thousands of games of EDH. The cEDH players have, by their attitude and their misrepresentation, comprised nearly *every* lousy game with a lousy aftermath. Even other games where there was miscommunication, people scooped and changed decks to something more agreeable. cEDH players have always said "Well, let's see what happens!"

I would say that disingenuous cEDH players are my *primary* source of discontent. They have ruined far more games than any other factor involving playing this game.

[Jhyrryl]

I know what *I* think makes bad Commander games. I'm curious of the list of things that other folks find make games unpleasant. It might eventually be a useful poll of some kind, but for now it'll be useful to just hear opinions.

• Unconditional Tutors
  • e.g., Demonic Tutor, Vampiric Tutor, Imperial Seal, etc.
• Extra Turns
  • e.g., Expropriate, Nexus of Fate, Time Warp, etc.
• Abusable mana sources.
  • Mana Crypt, Mana Vault, Basalt Monolith, Sol Ring, etc.

[bobthefunny]

My bad experiences have mostly been covered by others, but I'll reiterate them:

1) Uneven playing field. When one deck clearly gets to dominant lead, and is a vastly different powerlevel than the rest. This doesn't mean that every game that ends up in Archenemy is bad - sometimes one deck will naturally pull ahead after a series of plays and boardwipes, and ride that value train to victory. What I'm talking about is when the game is clearly lopsided from the get-go, with one deck clearly constantly a step ahead or above other decks.

My playgroup mostly avoids this as we're a small local group, who have played with each other for years. We know our playstyles and powerlevels, and react accordingly. Sometimes when we reveal our Commanders for a game, someone will realize they've pulled something out that's clearly above the level, and put it back. I've retired several decks that had ended up getting a bit over-tuned for my group.

2) Anti-climactic ending. Specifically those that have no (or stupidly little) interaction. Sure, I get it, someone's got to win. But when we're having a back-and-forth battle for several turns in the late game, with the power dynamic shifting every turn as everyone tries to squeeze the most out of their diminishing resources... I don't want to see a combo or spell that just says "Got a counterspell or I win?" I'm here to play with a variety of cool Commanders that I can try to build spiffy strategies around weird abilities. I don't want that game to say that I need to run blue, or everything might suddenly end. That's boring.

I get that combos are a part of magic. Heck, I even run a few. But I just don't like the combos (or big spells) that simply just win from the hand, with limited interaction for 99% of magic.

3) Spite and Hate. It's a game folks. It's not a personal vendetta or attack against your character. You don't need to storm out in a huff and fury because someone attacked you with a solemn, or because you think they should have disenchanted something else. Maybe they should have, maybe not. You don't have their knowledge of their hand and/or strategy, and your viewpoint and assessment will be different. That doesn't mean they made the wrong play. Have your vengeance in game... but please, leave it at the table. It's not personal.

4) Not being able to play the game. One of my first memories of a truly terrible game was fairly close to the beginning of my Commander career... nearly a decade ago, and I still remember the game, and the feeling. I was playing a Tibor and Lumia deck (which eventially became a fairly tuned storm deck... but this wasn't it yet). The deck was built with a simple idea - "Doing stuff is fun. I'm going to do stuff." It was filled with card draw, cantrips, and cheap instants, so I could do a large quantity of things, even if most of those things was useless.

Then I got hit by an Identity Crisis, immediately after a full board wipe. I had lands, sure, but the loss of my full board, hand, and graveyard was quite destructive. To be fair, it was a fantastic and valid play from the person playing it, but from where I sat, my deck that was supposed to do a lot of stuff, had nothing. I literally just played topdeck mode for 8 more turns, dying to incidental token damage to gain combat triggers. It was mindbogglingly dull and dreary to simply sit there and do nothing for only god knows how long.

While Identity Crisis isn't a broken card by any stretch, that memory of just being bored and having no impact remains one of my worst experiences. Today, I tend to build a lot of resilience across my board, hand, graveyard, and even lands now, to try and mitigate any amount of that kind of blowout, but nothing is perfect. I also advocate strongly against cards that lead to or create those kinds of situations, which is why I have been adamantly against Iona for the longest time.

[Kemev]

I'm going to echo what other folks said about mismatched deck power levels; it's the worst.

It's kinda like having a sparring partner in martial arts. You don't want to just beat someone up, and you don't want to get beaten up either. You want people who are going to push you and test you, so collectively you can all fight your best fight.

I also hate playing against cookie cutter decks... if I see 10 cards from someone's deck and can accurately guess the other 90, I'm probably not going to have a good time in the game. There's so much new and different stuff getting printed for Commander, and there's an abundance of different stuff to try out. I really just don't want to see Curiousity on Niv-Mizzet or Tooth and Nail into Kiki-Jiki.

And one minor pet peeve that dovetails into power level... I hate it when people mis-build the mana base for their deck. I don't enjoy watching someone discard and pass every turn because they thought 35 lands, a Sol Ring, and hopes and prayers were gonna cast those 7-mana sorceries they loaded up on.

...

[mention]Sinis[/mention]: There is some irony in complaining about willful miscommunication, then getting trapped in an argument filled with willful miscommunication.

[Vessiliana]

I feel like I'm repeating what so many have said. The worst games I have had were mismatched power level games, and games wherein someone tried to leverage out-of-game considerations.

I don't mean someone saying, "I'll buy you a beer if you attack him instead" or something. I mean the (grown man) getting tears in his eyes and complaining that he is being "ganged up on" because his combo deck, which we have seen before, is being targeted by the others to prevent it going off. Or when the guy who has the most MTG experience is trying to convince the noob that attacking him is the "wrong play, dude", even though it isn't.

Oh, and Primeval Titan and Sundering Titan and Sylvan Primordial. They made for such unfun games. I don't mind tutors or fast mana or anything, but those titans and that primordial...

[folding_music]

I find it tough to enjoy games at tables where people think their pet hates about the game's various elements are more important than a pleasant shared experience. would love to find players who'd relax in the face of their least favourite cards instead of immediately taking a soapbox about things like counterspells, Tangle Wire, creature stealing and blanking, Wraths and Shatterstorms and Cleanfalls and all that. Of course, everyone develops exceptions as they play the game (cards that destroy your entire graveyard for zero mana, or cards that destroy every enchantment in play bug the hell out of me privately), but please let the player express what their deck is built to express and forgo the urge to tell them how horrible they are.

[Kelzam]

Off the top of my head

1.) Starkly different mentalities. When you have one person who is focused on winning and who does not take into consideration the overall game experience. This is where most bad games I've been in tend to stem from. While the player may make technically "correct" plays or decisions in terms of reaching the goal of winning, they do so at the cost of politics and the enjoyment of the experience for others. They refuse to make deals or talk things out - they have their mind made up. They see a "line of play" and execute it regardless of the atmosphere or other personalities. Nothing is more important to this person than winning the game.

2.) Commanders that stop the table from playing Commander until that person is dead. This is typically Commanders where there are no actual "fair" ways to build them that aren't degenerate. My least favorite Commander to see at the table is Narset, Enlightened Master, because regardless of which of the common varieties that player is using (Turns, Combat, Superfriends, whatever), games very often end as soon as they are able to get even one attack off with her. Because of this, the experience is warped around this player and their Commander. Players are held hostage because they have to hold their removal, and back up removal due to these types of Commanders often having Blue or White in their color identity, making it harder to deal with them. Narset is an especially poignant example of holding the game hostage with her presence because she has Hexproof, she's in good colors for ramp and protection, and in colors that let her win the game as soon as she attacks even once. Because everyone is forced to hold answers for these Commanders, other players can go unimpeded and develop board states or positions in a game unchallenged, as more experienced players are biding time and watching board states develop unimpeded due to needing to stop the Narset player from winning on the spot in one Declare Attackers step. Having Commanders like Narset at the table warp pods to the point of it not being fun to play for the majority of games, and below a certain bar for experience and deck construction, the game has more or less already been determined.

3.) Overly competitive players (play style + deck power) inevitably being in pods in stores and groups that are almost always a mixed bag. There are many a Magic format for competitiveness, and the way the balance tips when a player of a certain competitiveness sits down at a typically mixed bag table detracts from the enjoyment of the game/format. This goes hand in hand with the previous two, actually. But philosophical reasons aside, I want to actually explain the problem here in a way that I feel illustrates the problem of the proliferation/support of this mentality in trying to be fair to said players.

Disparity and bad experiences aren't just about decks, but also about player mentality. On a scale from 0 to 100%, a table can still self-manage and be an enjoyable experience with different power levels and player mentalities up to a certain point on that scale. Let's say 85%. The format is meant to be casual and we all know the definition of such is malleable and personally defined. However, it is also true that the term in the context of Commander has boundaries, which serve as goal posts that more competitive players move when debating the merit of the form of Magic they enjoy in the format. But again, back to that scale.

Players sitting at various levels on that scale can co-exist at a table and produce an enjoyable, typical game of Commander... up to a point. The height of the highest player on this scale proportionally increases the difficulty or chance of difficulty of producing an enjoyable experience. That is, a game where players don't feel soured by feeling either oppressed, like they weren't able to play at their own speed and still enjoy the game, or contribute to the game in a meaningful way. When a player sits down at a table who passes a certain threshold on this scale, everyone below them on that scale has an increasingly difficult time feeling relevant.

When more than one player passes that threshold on the scale, those two sit above the boiling point and float to the top and compete while other players sink to the bottom and into background of the game. Their ability to feel effective or like they contribute is diminished, and the game is not enjoyable. This is why no one wants to play with John the Narset Turns Player or Brad the Urza Stax player, but will do so to be nice because it's not like they're bad people - their mentality and approach to the format is just in direct opposition to a great number of Commander players and they make games less fun for everyone else. If the players don't want to play with John or Brad, or the store or players ask them to build more casual decks, suddenly the more casual players are the assholes because they're not allowing John and Brad to play how they enjoy Commander.

Because of the lack of united front and messaging from the RC and Rule 0 etc., part of the reason they have come to expect to be able to play that way is 1.) "It's legal so why shouldn't I play it?", and 2.) "It's casual", and 3.) like many stores, there aren't enough like-minded players for them to stick to their own play group of players that sit above that threshold, because that's not what the majority of people look for or expect out of this format (which, btw, is why the approach of "we need to find a way for competitive to coexist" from the RC lately is irksome). For stores that sanction events as casual when they want to encourage players to come to the store and play, pods are generated randomly. I'm just saying this to nip in the bud this ideal world some people like to make an argument for where competitive players only want to play with other competitive players or stick to like-minded people. I've played in enough stores, cities and play groups to know this almost never happens, because most areas are mixed bags, and it's those mixed bags and the sustainable area of play that need to be fostered, not the upper echelons that edge the most players out of enjoying a game of Commander.

[schweinefett]

It seems like unlike many players here, I don't really care if my opponent(s) happen to have hosers for my strategy - I see it as my deck being unprepared for hate. Maybe it's me being used to playing in legacy that makes me enjoy crawling out of stax soft-locks, or having to play a graveyard deck through a cage or rip, but my form of fun is a sense of learning how to sequence and playing around hate.

The games I don't like though are the non-games; someone being land-screwed, being hosed without answers, having gone through games without having an idea of what the deck needs to meet the meta, and stuff like that.

In terms of power discrepancy, I don't think it's necessarily too bad, unless the power difference is absolutely humongous. I'm talking wrexial vs highly tuned decks would be fine; the wrexial player just has to realise and play their role in the game.
my zedruu deck is made of the equivalent of draft fodder; but my role in games is to surgically remove hard-to-deal-with-threats with on-board aura 'removal'. My decks still relevant, and my opponents need to respect that my role is very relevant to the game, even if zedruu's voltron-ness and main wincon isn't as relevant to high-power games. It seems to me that there are people who just blame power for their inability to affect higher power games, when it's simply not the case. A well-timed darksteel mutation can swing a game. And it's up to the deck builder+pilot to make those things work for them. I'm not sure if this is a fair assessment, but I'm of the opinion that everyone has a larger ability to affect their relevance in games even with a tight budget/small collection. Especially these days when powerful effects are printed at lower rarities.

In a sense, that's why I've been pushing for the London mulligan for edh at large. If someone's sporting a gun at a toothpick fight, they're going to crush London mull or not. If all the decks are of about equal strength, London mulls means a higher chance of a good game. I personally have infinite 0, 1,2,6,7 land hand mulls in our local playgroup, just cuz we don't wanna waste time with crap games, and we trust each other enough to not abuse it.

[Toshi]

My top 10 in no particular order aside from #1.

1. Fast Mana without significant downsides, namely Sol Ring and Mana Crypt. (common)
One of them early in the game or god forbid turn 1 warps gameplay. Every. Single. F*cking. Time. Either the player with it pulls so far ahead the game is halfway won or everyone else will have to team up until he's kept in check before "regular" gameplay starts to kick in. I know it's in all precons, but i'm heavy in favor of banning them (outside my playgroup as well).

2. Players showing up to play Solitaire instead of EDH. (uncommon)
We're playing a social Multiplayer format. So, if you're showing up just to goldfish infinite turns et al, you're an asocial problem. Not to be mistaken with combo offs. If you end the game on the spot we can shuffle up and start over. But i'm not here to watch you take several 20 minute turns in a row which might not even end in you winning the game.

3. Players not being prepared to close out the game sooner or later. (common)
Decks should always have a plan to close out the game - period. Not even speaking of infinite combos, may it be aggro, drain or x-spells, just have a plan, please. I don't like being dominated without the feeling of my opponent getting any closer to winning the game.

4. Players closing out the game in a way that doesn't reflect pod strength. (uncommon)
This is often tied to deck strength. Be wary of the other decks in your pod. If all but one like to ping and swing for the win but that one is tutoring for Doomsday early, "that guy" brought the wrong deck.

5. Akward pod sizes. (rare)
This may be very personal, but i love 3-4 player pods. Anything else results in bad games regularly. 5 players can be okay as Secret Partners, but once you get past 6 players, split them up in 3 and 4 player pods. Downtimes, swingy games, bloated boardstates and players not paying enough attention are just not worth it.

6. Players mistaking manipulation for politics. (rare)
I don't mind wheeling and dealing to keep the top deck in check(s), but sweet talking every possible chance, possibly breaking deals is nerve wrecking and uncool.

7. Players ignorant of archetypes and/or playstyles. (common)
As long as the deck strengths align all archetypes should be accepted to the table. Being too vocal about your discontent with whatever can seriously temper with someone else's enjoyment of the game. Your cup of tea might not be someone else's, vice versa. Get used to it.

8. Players bringing Commanders to the table that require Archenemy games. (uncommon)
Like the Win Con problem this comes down to the initial setup of the pod. A single deck that's apparently a lot stronger/faster than the others will create a toxic enviroment. It's very unpleasant to already have to team up from the get go.

9. Players lacking basic manners. (mythic rare)
I hate it when things outside the game become a topic inside a pod. Especially with players that never learned to argue correctly. Luckily that rarely happens, but when it does it's a major turn-off.

10. Flavor of the day commanders being omnipresent. (common)
I know Feather, the Redeemed, Atraxa, Praetors' Voice, Muldrotha, the Gravetide and others are "cool" and all, but i don't want to sit down with the same commanders each and every round. The imense card pool makes EDH what it is. There are 829 available commanders, there's no reason at all to face f*cking mirrors!

[xeroxedfool]

I think peoples whining is what makes games bad. If you want to discuss things constructively, please do. Complaining during a game that you aren't winning is just the worst.

[TheTuna]

Fundamentally, what makes for a bad game of EDH is feeling like I didn't get to play a game of Magic with my deck.

This feeling can be attributed to a few main causes:

Decks/players winning way too quickly:
When I sit down for a game of Commander, I (and, I suspect, probably the majority of the playerbase) am looking for an epic game, maybe 1 hour, maybe more. If somebody goes off on Turn 5-6 with a combo or tutors and plays Expropriate for the win, it's a tremendously anticlimatic feeling, and leaves me feeling like my deck barely got to do anything.

Decks/players taking over the game:
Anything that causes one player to monopolize any more than their allotted 25% of the game time (and typically, when this happens, they take 50-75% of the time) leaves a very sour taste in my mouth, as I'm watching someone else fuss around with their cardboard while unable to do anything. Extra turn spells and untap all permanents cards are consistent and very unfun offenders here. Paradox Engine and Prophet of Kruphix have rightly been banned, and Seedborn Muse should follow. A player taking a turn on everyone else's turn in a multiplayer format inevitably leads to them completely monopolizing the game time.

Tutors are also a big offender here, as they encourage somebody to bring the game to a screeching halt and go into the tank for 5+ minutes as they try to puzzle out which of their 60 cards they want at this particular moment. And if a deck runs one tutor, it probably runs more. Sitting and watching as someone sifts through their massive stack of a library only to end up grabbing a Cyclonic Rift or Expropriate feels miserable. Unfortunately, tutors are so powerful in the format right now that people are strongly incentivized to run them, to the point where you're practically crippling your deck if you don't or can't.

Decks packing so many answers that no one gets to do anything:
I love playing big, splashy creatures in Commander and turning them sideways. With that said, it feels as though there's a major push right now, spurred on by a lot of Commander content creators, to run a tremendous amount of interaction, i.e. counterspells/board wipes/spot removal. If everyone's running 10+ pieces of removal, though, the game starts to feel like everything you play gets removed before it can do anything interesting, which, to me, is pretty miserable. In a similar vein, decks which don't let players keep creatures on the board (think Grave Pact, Dictate of Erebos, 15 board wipes, etc) also leave a very sour taste in my mouth. Playing creatures for combat feels disadvantaged enough already by comparison to tutoring for combos, and sacrifice effects are so powerful with so few answers,

[HereticNick]

Things I dislike in CMDR games.

Fast mana
Games where a player has fast mana they are disproportionately advantaged over all or multiple players beyond a reasonable amount. This advantage is unearned as it has virtually no cost in deckbuilding or archetype or colors and punishes the other opponents at random and at no fault of their own.

Broken mana
Other than the non obvious rocks Burgeoning, Selvala's, Cabal Coffers, Nykthos, Gaea's Cradle, Sword of Feast and Famine, Nature's Will, Vorinclex

Repetition/over redundancy
This is when a deck can find the same small collection of cards through tutoring or mass drawing. This gameplay makes games with said player/deck predictable and their strategy is likely insular / non interactive making the game more or a simple race than a mix of our fun / cool cards. Decks that mimic this trait are mono black coffers decks mono green ramp decks mono blue draw decks. The mono color decks are less powerful but still repetitive and could be hampered if they were missing some key cards. Cards I would cite here are tutors that cost 3 or less mana.

Brain-dead game enders
This ties in with tutoring / repetition above. Cards I'd like to cite are Craterhoof Behemoth, Exsanguinate, Torment of Hailfire, (Cabal Coffers, Gaea's Cradle usually with this mana advantage you've won we just have to watch you win longer), Tooth and Nail(with combo), Triumph of the Hoards, Debt to the Debtless, Expropriate, Cut//Ribbons, Paradox Engine, Pallinchron&his friends, Umbral Mantel, Paradox Engine, Staff of Domination, Razaketh, Grey Merchant of Asphodel, Approach of the Second Sun, Enter the Infinite, Doubling Season, Aetherflux Reservoir

Multiplayer abuse cards
Rhystic Study, Smothering Tithe, each player x spells, Tempt with Discovery, Selvala's Stampede, Consecrated Sphinx, Biorhythm, Seedborn Muse, Edric Spymaster of Trest,

Absolute mud cards
Humility, Overwhelming Splendor, Contamination, Winter Orb, Armageddon&co, Ruination&co, Wave of Vitriol

Time Vampires
Sensei's Top, Scroll Rack, Land Tax,

Extra Turns in general
Nexus of Fate, Beacon of Tomorrows, Walk the Aeons, Temporal Mastery

Absolutely broken cards.
Necropotence, Skullclamp, Ashnod's altar, Phyrexian altar, Greater Good, Sneak Attack, Birthing Pod, Ad Nauseam

[DrSeaMonster]

What -do- you like in Commander, then? Since you apparently dislike anything that gives one player any form of advantage in a game.

58 cards by name, several of which are banned and have been for a while, plus several entire swaths of card types. Including seemingly all X spells.

[JaceBluesMaster]

My top 10 in no particular order aside from #1.
5. Akward pod sizes. (rare)
This may be very personal, but i love 3-4 player pods. Anything else results in bad games regularly. 5 players can be okay as Secret Partners, but once you get past 6 players, split them up in 3 and 4 player pods. Downtimes, swingy games, bloated boardstates and players not paying enough attention are just not worth it

Completely disagree with you about 3 people. In my experience, 3 way games just become 2 v 1 scenarios, where one person is ganged up on until they are either dead or nearly so.

[Rumpy5897]

It might depend on the meta. I always preferred a 3 man pod to anything 5 or more, the games just feel a bit snappier.

[DrSeaMonster]

4 people is the sweet spot, I think.

[pokken]

It might depend on the meta. I always preferred a 3 man pod to anything 5 or more, the games just feel a bit snappier.

100% prefer 3 over 5.

Most of the time I prefer 3 over 4, but I like both just fine. More than 4 is a no go for me period.

[FoxOfWar]

I find it tough to enjoy games at tables where people think their pet hates about the game's various elements are more important than a pleasant shared experience. would love to find players who'd relax in the face of their least favourite cards instead of immediately taking a soapbox about things like counterspells, Tangle Wire, creature stealing and blanking, Wraths and Shatterstorms and Cleanfalls and all that. Of course, everyone develops exceptions as they play the game (cards that destroy your entire graveyard for zero mana, or cards that destroy every enchantment in play bug the hell out of me privately), but please let the player express what their deck is built to express and forgo the urge to tell them how horrible they are.

Oh, absolutely. During a game is not when you start an argument about cards or playstyles or power levels.

I might groan when I see certain cards, but I'm going to keep playing anyway.

[Toshi]

Just my $0.02:

2 Players - Why play EDH?
3 Players - Sweet spot as far as archetypes go. E.g. Aggro and Voltron far more viable.
4 Players - Sweet spot as far as player interactions go. Midrange control is a tad too strong in avg metas.
5 Players - Akward spot in most aspects of the game. Few playable variants and usually awful and swingy in FFA.
6 Players - Two 3 player pods or you must have too much time on your hands. Seriously.
7+ Players - Anything other than combinations of 3 and 4 player pods is absolutely insane.

5. Akward pod sizes. (rare)
This may be very personal, but i love 3-4 player pods. Anything else results in bad games regularly.

Completely disagree with you about 3 people. In my experience, 3 way games just become 2 v 1 scenarios, where one person is ganged up on until they are either dead or nearly so.

9/10 games i'm playing in my playgroup and no LGS. Unless there are in game reasons there's no teaming up. Might be a luxurious bubble to play in though.
In my LGS i usually play in 4 player pods, so i can't tell if it would be far worse in contrast compared to our 3 player pods.

[materpillar]

1) Highly un-interactive wincons. I have my own mental description, I call them "Counterspell or die" cards (in the vein of Time Stretch or Craterhoof Behemoth). Personally, I like running aggressively restrictively themed decks, very frequently they're not U. Almost exclusively counterspell isn't on theme. I dislike losing games because I have the audacity to be running a mono-B deck.

2) Taking more than one extra turn in a game. Time Warp is fine. Time warp into durdling, into eternal witness, into some more durdling is not. I came to play magic, not to watch someone else play magic. This is almost a sub-point 1, as extra turns can't really be dealt with outside of U and some niche R cards.

3) Any game where one player is drawing more cards than the rest of the table combined and also has more mana than the rest of the table combined. This usually means someone's deck popped off crazy hard pre-turn 5 and the rest of the table is in full mode. This also means that this person's turns are taking longer than the turns of the entire rest of the table combined. Not ok.

[75chan]

The worst games is when people have to leave and then grief the game beforehand and the other players are okay with it. I never understood why this is a thing that happens.

Another thing is when people aren't playing to win. That just completely takes me out of the game. Build as casually as you want, but at least try to win, otherwise what is the point of playing. Any type of poor play ingame not to hurt someone's feeling ingame. Like what's the point of even playing if that's the case.

[Maluko]

My feelings are reflected in much of what has already been written here before, so rather than propagate the echo in this chamber, I'm going to focus on the aspects that have not been so developed yet in this post, such as:

1) Too much interaction (read: chaos decks, group hug decks). Like it's written in the format's philosophy, I want to be able to express the power of my decks as I intended when they were build. In the same vein that not interacting is bad, giving the entire table resources they were not supposed to have messes with the deck's plan and is generally unfun for me. This is even more aggravating when such decks have literally zero wincons, and they simply join a game with the intente to watch chaos unroll.

2) Poor threat assessment. This englobes both genuine poor threat assessment and "I know I should stop the guy with Consecrated Sphinx, but you blew up my Sol Ring on turn one, and now you will pay the price" kinds of situations. I understand that different gameplay experiences are part of a multiplayer game, but when it's really obvious that guy will steamroll the entire table if left unchecked, and someone has a way to prevent that, but decides not to because of reasons*, it really pisses me off.

3) Tutors. I don't want to enter into an argument about why I think tutors are bad for the format, but I should at least note it's irritating to see someone cast a tutor just because, without any idea what that person actually wants to pull out of their deck. Precious minutes of my life have been wasted watching players searching and searching and searching their deck for… something. If you're going to cast a tutor, at least make a favor to the whole table and know beforehand what you want.

4) Ending the game in an anti-climatic way. I personally find it desolating to be having such a fun and interesting game, and then someone decides it's time to end it and casts Tooth and Nail for an infinite combo, invalidating everything that has been developed before.

And last, but not least, one thing that not only makes for bad games of Commander, but I consider very disrespectful for the whole table (other than poor sportsmanship):

5) Not playing to win the game. This is in part related with (1) and (2). If there's one thing that makes me angry more than anything else in a game of Commander is watching someone playing with an intent that is not winning the game. The most common versions of this attitude that I see are "defeat player A because he angered me" and "let's create chaos just because and see what happens*". Just don't do this. Please.

*Notable exception is when someone is about to make some epic play, and even though you could stop it, you let it resolve because (1) a win is not guaranteed and (2) you want to see where things go. I personally find this acceptable because (1) it's an epic play, something you probably don't see in a lot of games; I'm talking about storm shenanigans and Warp World levels of play, and (2) the owner of the epic play still has an intent to actually win the game, and is not creating chaos just because.