Social Contract

Sheldon
Posts: 105
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Sheldon » 3 years ago

Generating some talking points for an upcoming episode of Commander Community. Either in the context of the format or in general, what does the term "social contract" mean to you?

Legend
Aethernaut
Posts: 1639
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Eternity

Post by Legend » 3 years ago

"Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others."
Philippians 2:4
“Comboing in Commander is like dunking on a seven foot hoop.” – Dana Roach

“Making a deck that other people want to play against – that’s Commander.” – Gavin Duggan

"I want my brain to win games, not my cards." – Sheldon Menery

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6276
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 3 years ago

Sheldon wrote:
3 years ago
what does the term "social contract" mean to you?
For me I view it as a challenge to reflect on how my choices in deck construction, play patterns and behavior impact the enjoyment of others. If someone has a bad game with me I want to understand why and see to what extent I can fix it.

Things I've addressed over the years that I can remember:

* A tendency to over-critique other people's lines of play, to the point of almost playing the game for people who are less confident
* Being a rules stickler (e.g. over-zealously making people stick to things that were obvious misunderstandings)
* Playing cards like Hokori, Dust Drinker and Grand Arbiter Augustin IVand Catastrophe that upset fellow players.
* Durdling really badly - taking way too long to play my turns
* Building decks that are overly controlling of the board state
* Pettily telling people how I could have won with a different line but chose not to (in a variety of circumstances, I smash it every time I see it:P)
* Whining about being targeted

I'll do a Bible verse too, one of my faves:
New American Standard wrote: "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
Matthew 7:3

User avatar
Krishnath
Mechanical Dragon
Posts: 3565
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: A cave somewhere in Scandinavia

Post by Krishnath » 3 years ago

In the words of someone greater than me: "Don't be a dick".
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.

Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.

The Commander Legacy Project, Come say hello and give your thoughts.

Like to read? Love books and want to recommend one to your fellow forum users? Go here.

User avatar
Mookie
Posts: 3460
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 47
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: the æthereal plane

Post by Mookie » 3 years ago

To me, in the context of EDH, the social contract is an implicit agreement with other members of my playgroup regarding how people are going to act, both with regard to deck construction and also with regard to actual gameplay. Depending on what sort of meta you're in, the exact terms of that agreement may differ.

For example, in an extremely competitive environment, it may be implicit that everyone is optimizing their decks to be as strong as possible, and I would expect players to also be piloting their decks in a way that maximize their winrate. For a more casual environment, it may be implicit that you are instead optimizing the deck for a criteria other than winrate, such as fun, or ability to create a janky board state. I'll also call out that social contracts are going to vary from person to person, and from playgroup to playgroup. So, I wouldn't say that any terms on any given contract are guaranteed to be universal - some things may be more prevalent than others, but it's possible for them to be missing from some metas. As such, if there were one term I would throw on a hypothetical universal social contract, it would be to double check with others if you're in an unfamiliar meta.

As for the terms of my own, personal social contract...
  • Players should try to play decks that are, on average, roughly the power level of the playgroup
  • Corollary: you can play a stronger deck occasionally, but if you do, switch to a weaker deck afterwards
  • Players should take the enjoyment of others into account when building their decks - don't build a deck that will make the rest of the table miserable.
  • Players should have reasonable threat assessment - focus more resources on whichever player is in the strongest position, and don't pick too much on players in a weaker position.

User avatar
folding_music
glitter pen on my mana crypt
Posts: 2236
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: they / them

Post by folding_music » 3 years ago

pokken wrote:
3 years ago
* Building decks that are overly controlling of the board state
I like yr ideas in general but I find this one the toughest to define. If you show up with a deck too weak to become the archenemy except by limiting what yr opponents attempt, does that mean yr breaking some sort of set of social rules? If I'm running a deck that starts slow but scrys a lot and plays islands before setting up Crystal Shard, Riptide Laboratory, Tradewind Rider, Mark of Eviction, Capsize-type stuff that isn't really powerful but with enough islands can kinda become unfriendly, does that make me a bad player or something? What if I can't afford any of the big name cards but still wanna play magic?

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6276
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 3 years ago

folding_music wrote:
3 years ago
pokken wrote:
3 years ago
* Building decks that are overly controlling of the board state
I like yr ideas in general but I find this one the toughest to define. If you show up with a deck too weak to become the archenemy except by limiting what yr opponents attempt, does that mean yr breaking some sort of set of social rules? If I'm running a deck that starts slow but scrys a lot and plays islands before setting up Crystal Shard, Riptide Laboratory, Tradewind Rider, Mark of Eviction, Capsize-type stuff that isn't really powerful but with enough islands can kinda become unfriendly, does that make me a bad player or something? What if I can't afford any of the big name cards but still wanna play magic?
I think like most things in the social contract there are few absolutes. Lots of people love paying hours long boardwipe slogs.

I have had feedback that my decks tend to be overly controlling and reactive, to the point that people feel like everything they do is immediately answered somehow or is meaningless because I'll kill/wipe it the moment it's a threat. I used to play a ton more board wipes and removal and almost every deck would wind up with people not able to keep anything on the board.

My reaction to that was to try to at least have some decks that are more proactive and try to find ways to engage with the board without having to remove everything. I still have control-heavy decks but at least I can mix it up and not always gravitate toward that approach. This pattern kinda corresponded with making more clear approaches to winning--so that if I did get control I could close it out fast.

Ultimately it's about hearing how other people experience the game.

Regarding the bolded -

I think it makes you pretty clever to go removal heavy if you're on a budget as most removal spells are cheap and it's a pretty good equalizer. My tendency that was complained about was mostly toward lock-up effects like Dismiss into Dream and Derevi, Empyrial Tactician, or Evacuationloops or Deadeye Navigator + Duplicant or even just having 10 boardwipes in my deck :P

So long as you hear your playgroup. I don't think there is any like rule of thumb you can just apply that says if you're a being a bad guy or not by what's in your deck

User avatar
Kelzam
Posts: 135
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Post by Kelzam » 3 years ago

An understanding of what your play group does and doesn't find fun, and being willing to compromise to make the best experience possible for the most people rather than expecting everyone to cater to one individual. Not expecting people to power up their decks beyond their means to meet you when you step on their toes, when it's not asking so much of you to build or tune decks for the group you're in.
Level 1 Judge US-South
Founder of MTG Salvation (2005-2019), Proud New Patron of MTG Nexus! (2019+)

My CMDR Primers:

User avatar
benjameenbear
Posts: 1111
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by benjameenbear » 3 years ago

The social contract, as I believe it is, is a binding agreement on behavior of any human group. Ultimately, Commander is a game/avenue of self-expression and interaction. Any comments or behavior that jeopardizes the safety of any one person's self-expression is worthy of review and evaluation. The social contract, therefore, is an implicitly understood set of rules (sometimes explicitly described by a playgroup) that is meant to protect everyone's right of self-expression and their enjoyment of an event.

I think this is what rule 0 is meant to protect or describe, @Sheldon. This format, and this game generally, is an inherently social game and the human element must be respected and cultivated. People can feel negatively about Commander and/or their playgroup when they perceive a player is playing a deck that is above their own budget and skill level because it inhibits their chance to play their own cards and strategy and thus self-express. If I were to take my cEDH Breya deck to a non-cEDH table, crack an Ad Nauseam on T3 and win on my T4, many of them would feel robbed, like I've stolen something from them. What have I stolen? Their chance to develop their board state, execute their specific strategy, etc. and thus their ability to feel like they had a genuine chance to be important to the game.

That's the key here, I think. People want to feel important and like their actions matter in whatever context they're in. Breaching the social contract with decks and/or attitudes diminishes people's feeling of importance.

User avatar
BeneTleilax
Posts: 1330
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by BeneTleilax » 3 years ago

dont play antifun cards like land destroyers and combos.

User avatar
Outcryqq
Posts: 441
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Indiana, USA

Post by Outcryqq » 3 years ago

I'd explain it simply: to me, the "social contract" concept of commander means that everyone that sits down at the table wants to have fun themselves AND make sure the other players are having fun. This sometimes needs a brief discussion with strangers about what you each consider fun.

umtiger
Posts: 394
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by umtiger » 3 years ago

If you make a show with social contract as the topic, could you also include some talking about "what it isn't" to you and how you've seen the concept of social contract mis-applied?

I've seen the concept used as an excuse to berate me and others for playing certain cards (e.g. Torpor Orb). Surely it's more nuanced than saying any player that plays any card that depicts an Orb is "bad."

User avatar
BeneTleilax
Posts: 1330
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by BeneTleilax » 3 years ago

torpor orb is bad though it just stops cool effects and says no fun allowed.


Sheldon
Posts: 105
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Sheldon » 3 years ago

umtiger wrote:
3 years ago
If you make a show with social contract as the topic, could you also include some talking about "what it isn't" to you and how you've seen the concept of social contract mis-applied?

I've seen the concept used as an excuse to berate me and others for playing certain cards (e.g. Torpor Orb). Surely it's more nuanced than saying any player that plays any card that depicts an Orb is "bad."
We didn't have the time to explore it deeply, but we did make mention of what it's not.

User avatar
ISBPathfinder
Bebopin
Posts: 2154
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: SD, USA

Post by ISBPathfinder » 3 years ago

The social contract to me is a list of things I plan on not doing that I would likewise not like opponents to do. My issue is that often times everyone at the table doesn't view the social contract the same.

As an example, there is someone at my LGS who refuses to continue playing to a resolved Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite which I do personally feel is a bit odd. I refuse to play a number of things such as combos and land destruction normally but there is someone at my LGS that I just assume every game he is playing a combo deck and some of his even boarder into CEDH but he apparently doesn't care about how others feel about this.

So.... to me, the social contract is a list of rules that nobody agrees to be the same. Sometimes in older established metas you might be on the same page but I find it a lot harder with having more people especially people who started at different times and or are more transient to be on the same page.
[EDH] Vadrok List (Suicide Chads) | Evelyn List (Vamp Mill) | Sanwell List | Danitha List | Indominus List | Ratadrabik List

User avatar
Hawk
Slayer of Threads
Posts: 1165
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Salt Lake City, UT

Post by Hawk » 3 years ago

Discuss what everyone's expectations are, with the default expectation being "everyone is here to play a nice, long, friendly game".

There's a thin line there - I avoid STAX, mass-LD, locks, or two-card combos, and have still had players scoop to the first Counterspell or Wrath of God or Imprisoned in the Moon that shuts down their gameplan. I try to fall on the side of the line that answering big threats needs to be fine - if your deck crumbles because I Pithing Needle'd your commanders text, run more of your own answers or resiliency right? But literally making the game an unplayable slog is not okay. I do try to keep around some more aggressive, removal-light decks for players who really, really hate the endless stream of answers though.

More broadly, I am there to have fun, and want to win as that's fun which by necessity limits my opponent's fun - but their fun is also my responsibility. In addition to avoiding stuff that I know tends to lead to folks having a bad time, I like pokken have worked to eliminate some of my bad habits:

- Over the years I've worked to get my durdling routines down to a few minutes instead of sprawling 20 minute turns (like pokken, I do love me some durdling). I accept that sometimes I will play fast and not good in the interest of keeping the table light and breezy.

- When I have a pseudo-lock, I do the courtesy of following it up with a reasonably swift kill and don't "play with my food". I don't actually think I have any such locks even available to any of my current decks but when I did have some sort of Gravecrawler + Grave Pact + sac outlet engine, I made sure that players only had to handle a turn or two of endlessly losing their boards before they were dead.

- I don't play (as many) mind games. There was a time when every time anyone did anything while I had islands untapped my response was "wait...wait...okay sure"; now I don't screw around and either make clear it resolves or make clear that I'm going to counter it or need to seriously consider it.

- I eschew most non-land-fetch tutors, because A) they are time-consuming and B) they make the game very same-y. I still run cute silver bullets like a Trinket Mage package in Sai, and will probably toy with a Sunforger package in the Samut build I am a'brewin, but raw tutors, especially repeatable ones, are something I know I just can't be trusted with (no Entomb or Gravebreaker Lamia in Gitrog, no Gamble in Daretti, no Quiet Speculation or Mystical Tutor in Sevinne, etc). I'd love to run a Momir Vig, Simic Visionary deck but know I can't handle that sort of text responsibly from the time I briefly had a Birthing Pod engine in a few of my Gx decks.

User avatar
BaronCappuccino
Posts: 246
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Quiet Corner

Post by BaronCappuccino » 3 years ago

The social contract, broadly in practice, seems to be something of a last wall of defense of the format's original preferred play style. It can be summed up as, "Don't prevent big plays". Commander was a battlecruiser format at inception, and that's what the social contract protects any time that it's actually needed. Deck archetypes that make big plays challenging to pull off are assumed to be discouraged by social contract - not the social contract that arises at the table, but the social contract that's planned for at deck construction. The latter is the only interaction with the social contract that I've ever dealt with. I have never had a discussion at the table about what sort of decks/game people are bringing. I know I'll never initiate one. I don't care one bit what sort of decks my opponents are playing. If it taps, I can kill it. That said, I always choose my deck contents carefully and purposefully. I don't want to have multiple decks for different possible play styles. I want one pet deck that I perfect over time. The only social contract I actually can negotiate with is in construction, and in that regard, I do keep within a step of the original format mandate - demon battlecruiser at the moment. I've long abandoned my fascination with stax.

NZB2323
Posts: 588
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by NZB2323 » 3 years ago

Adhere to rule 0. Match the power level of the table and ask if there's anything that's "not allowed" at the table.
Current Decks
rg Morophon, the infinite Kavu Eowyn, human tribal Legolas, voltron control Wb Tymna/Ravos cleric tribal Neheb, Chicago Bulls tribal Ug Edric pauper

Retired Decks
Edgar Markov Kaalia, angel board wipes Ghen, prison Captain Sisay Ub Nymris, draw go Sarulf, voltron control Niv-Mizzet, combo Winota Sidisi, Zombie Tribal

User avatar
EonAon
Posts: 274
Joined: 3 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by EonAon » 3 years ago

My personal contract is while individual land destruction is fine on a 1 to 1 basis mass land destruction will never be in any decklist I play, nor will I continue playing with somebody who's decklist is all about aoe land destruction over and over.

That and you may only have 1 Balance type card in your deck. I dislike the balance card type on the whole since it like land destruction in that it SLOWS the game down. Since I mostly played 4 to 6 person EDH and those games can take a 3 hour minimum, constant complete resets of the board state means a 4 hour game may become a 6+ hour slog game. Wraths are fine. Even extreme cleansing wraths like Akroma's Vengeance are fine since lands are still in play to keep the game moving on.

Otherwise I cant say much since in my area there are many wanting to be professional players so the relatively high power level means adapting or finding another playgroup which is fine but as a decently competitive person myself its part of the fun and challenge.

I will say I've bumped into certain players over the years that will not abide the constant showing of hands that some card allow and basically say nope and walk away.

User avatar
cryogen
GΘΔ†
Posts: 1056
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Westminster, MD
Contact:

Post by cryogen » 3 years ago

EonAon wrote:
3 years ago
My personal contract is while individual land destruction is fine on a 1 to 1 basis mass land destruction will never be in any decklist I play, nor will I continue playing with somebody who's decklist is all about aoe land destruction over and over.

That and you may only have 1 Balance type card in your deck. I dislike the balance card type on the whole since it like land destruction in that it SLOWS the game down. Since I mostly played 4 to 6 person EDH and those games can take a 3 hour minimum, constant complete resets of the board state means a 4 hour game may become a 6+ hour slog game. Wraths are fine. Even extreme cleansing wraths like Akroma's Vengeance are fine since lands are still in play to keep the game moving on.

Otherwise I cant say much since in my area there are many wanting to be professional players so the relatively high power level means adapting or finding another playgroup which is fine but as a decently competitive person myself its part of the fun and challenge.

I will say I've bumped into certain players over the years that will not abide the constant showing of hands that some card allow and basically say nope and walk away.
Yeah the board resets should really be kept to a minimum for the sake of keeping games progressing.
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Rules and Philosophy”