how do you "learn" to multiplayer?

[Rumpy5897]

A lot of common grievances with the format boil down to letting people play. Attacking lands/resources is bad as it stops them from being able to do so. Ripping Expropriates is bad as that's you playing and not the others. Surprise combo finishes can feel like they invalidate everything that came before. Even in games with randoms, the ones that people walk away from happy at the end are the ones where folks got to do stuff.

I've been on a similar journey for five or so years now. While even my earliest/conceptually Spikiest decks were somewhat off the beaten trail (my earliest surviving deck is a Patron of the Orochi), I held back no punches with regards to means of victory. I had a deck that jammed Contamination as it was a play that led me to winning the game. People hated it, the deck died as a result of the groans, and I learned a little. But not a lot. My pet Daxos the Returned jammed Rule of Laws for years despite groans. Hey, the deck's weak, this is the correct play to make, so I'm gonna make it. Only during a prolonged EDH streak during lockdown did I properly, finally realise what made great games in my group. The secret was that everybody got to do their thing. It stopped mattering who won, and became about ridiculous board states and whatnot.

I had occasional prior moments of wilful suboptimality. When trying to make Kumena, Tyrant of Orazca survive, I would often look at my hand with some amount of answers and fall over to whatever was coming after me, having the moral victory that I could have survived it and kept going. I'm now openly embracing this side of me. I occasionally turn Ghired, Conclave Exile into a lifegain deck by slapping down an Angel of Destiny (without using it for its purpose as a beatstick). The lifegain serves no purpose, I just pad my life total as high as I can for no actual reason while accomplishing nothing with my primary game plan. The most memorable Rograkh, Son of Rohgahh game wasn't where I had the power to zerg someone turn three. It was where I farmed a gigantic mound of Bloodforged Battle-Axes by repeatedly promising the defending player that I'd only trample over for one, and keeping my word. Lolbold became 79/29, I could have theoretically killed folks at the table, but why would I when there were axes to be made? My newest deck, a silly Simic pile, is my first contraption where after a game win my gut response is "do I need to cut this?" rather than "how do I make this happen more reliably?". It should be noted that this level of nonsense takes a group on the same page to pull off, but injecting a little whimsy goes a long way even in pods of randoms. I tried to dabble with the local EDH group on arrival, the only guy I remember specifics of had a deck made up of stuff that looked like he found his older brother's 90s jank shame box.

[DirkGently]

I had occasional prior moments of wilful suboptimality.

I have to say that I disagree pretty strongly with this way of playing the game. The purpose of the game is fun, yes, but the goal is to win - without the goal of trying to win, there's no meaningful context to make things fun. Imagine if you were playing checkers (or any game, really) and your opponent started making moves at random instead of trying to win - it wouldn't really be very satisfying to play, would it? When a wild play wins the game, or at least is a good play in context, that's exciting and cool. When a wild play happens just because it's funny...well, it's all a little meaningless imo.

If you want to make funny things happen, build a deck that is motivated towards doing funny things in the service of trying to win. One that comes to mind (although admittedly it was pretty linear after a few games) was Korlash, Heir to Blackblade. The deck was built around trying to clone korlash, put the original in the grave, recur him somehow, and then abuse his grandeur ability to get (depending on the setup) potentially all of the deck's swamps into play. A pretty silly "combo", but performing this combo was fun, imo, because it was actually the right play because of how the deck was built. If I did the same combo but already had lethal on board...well, it wouldn't be fun anymore imo. Robbed of the context of competition, it would just be a waste of everyone's time.

Imo. If your playgroup all enjoy that sort of (for lack of a better term) time-wasting, then you should do whatever you enjoy. But I wouldn't want to join you - I want to play an actual game, and imo a game needs a goal.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

I had occasional prior moments of wilful suboptimality.

I have to say that I disagree pretty strongly with this way of playing the game. The purpose of the game is fun, yes, but the goal is to win - without the goal of trying to win, there's no meaningful context to make things fun. Imagine if you were playing checkers (or any game, really) and your opponent started making moves at random instead of trying to win - it wouldn't really be very satisfying to play, would it?

I'd have to say that you wildly misinterpreted what he was talking about, Dirk. In so far as I understand, Rumpy still wants to win, but as a self-proclaimed "Tuner of Jank", he just wants to do so in a technically suboptimal way, his way. If we're in a footrace and he wants to run in clown shoes just to see if he can, he's still running the race and trying to win, just not "optimally".

And frankly, considering that the "OPTIMAL" way to play edh (in a functional sense i.e. to win the game) is to play singleton vintage with turn 3 combo kills, I'd say you're playing just as suboptimal of a game as Rumpy by abstaining from playing the combo decks you so frequently label as uniformly boring. Instead, you play pheldagriff for crying out loud, an objectively suboptimal choice by almost every modern metric and you get your wins anyway. So leave him alone about this "glory of competition" crap or go play vintage.

Edit: wow, the formatting on this one came out half-baked. Fixed for clarity

[DirkGently]

I had occasional prior moments of wilful suboptimality.

I have to say that I disagree pretty strongly with this way of playing the game. The purpose of the game is fun, yes, but the goal is to win - without the goal of trying to win, there's no meaningful context to make things fun. Imagine if you were playing checkers (or any game, really) and your opponent started making moves at random instead of trying to win - it wouldn't really be very satisfying to play, would it?

I'd have to say that you wildly misinterpreted what he was talking about, Dirk. In so far as I understand, Rumpy still wants to win, but as a self-proclaimed "Tuner of Jank", he just wants to do so in a technically suboptimal way, his way. If we're in a footrace and he wants to run in clown shoes just to see if he can, he's still running the race and trying to win, just not "optimally".

And frankly, considering that the "OPTIMAL" way to play edh (in a functional sense i.e. to win the game) is to play singleton vintage with turn 3 combo kills, I'd say you're playing just as suboptimal of a game as Rumpy by abstaining from playing the combo decks you so frequently label as uniformly boring. Instead, you play pheldagriff for crying out loud, an objectively suboptimal choice by almost every modern metric and you get your wins anyway. So leave him alone about this "glory of competition" crap or go play vintage.

I don't think I misinterpreted anything, if you read his complete post:

The most memorable Rograkh, Son of Rohgahh game wasn't where I had the power to zerg someone turn three. It was where I farmed a gigantic mound of Bloodforged Battle-Axes by repeatedly promising the defending player that I'd only trample over for one, and keeping my word. Lolbold became 79/29, I could have theoretically killed folks at the table, but why would I when there were axes to be made?

emphasis mine. That doesn't sound like playing to win to me.

I've often repeated the mantra "build casually, play competitively."

If I got to create magic from the ground up, I'd love for no-holds-barred deckbuilding to be fun and varied, but unfortunately we don't live in that world and concessions are necessary to play in the fun zone. Playing intentionally suboptimally isn't necessary, and imo massively cheapens the experience.

Let me reiterate - this is just my opinion. If everyone in your group loves playing like this, go nuts. But, personally, I don't see why it would be fun. What's less opinion-y is that you definitely don't NEED to play suboptimally in order to "do a multiplayer". Playing competitively is, at a minimum, one of the options for doing multiplayer politics correctly.

Also I genuinely believe Phelddagrif is among the best commanders of all time and no I'm not kidding.

[Rumpy5897]

There's a time and place for everything, including putting 78 damage on blockers to get more axes. People are still trying to win in my group, just not win at all costs. It's pretty common for aggro decks to spread damage around the table rather than beeline for one target, for example. Not every game is fully silly, but if I've already won for the evening and my deck's showing potential to rev up relative to the rest of the table again, I'm very likely to go for silly stuff like the life-gain or axe collection. And it's those games that I tend to remember more after the fact.

We're just incompatible, Dirk. Your flagship deck runs 44 pieces of interaction. My most controlling one has 13.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

@DirkGently

I did read his entire post, and I still think you missed the mark. The comical quantity of axes are the clown shoes, to continue an unwieldy metaphor, and killing people that early would be stretching beforehand and tying the laces of one's nikes. Again, he wants to run in clown shoes, and it's his prerogative to do such in so far as he is still running the race.

And pheldagriff in a vacuum is terrible, no bones about it. If you can't entertain either of those points though, then you've cut the legs off this debate and there's no point. C'est la vie, I wanted a debate with the great Dirk Gently, but apparently you're just going to cast doubt on my reading comprehension and deflect today. Color me disappointed.

[DirkGently]

We're just incompatible, Dirk.

I was never in disagreement with that. As I've said a thousand times, this is just my opinion.

@DirkGently

I did read his entire post, and I still think you missed the mark. The comical quantity of axes are the clown shoes, to continue an unwieldy metaphor, and killing people that early would be stretching beforehand and tying the laces of one's nikes. Again, he wants to run in clown shoes, and it's his prerogative to do such in so far as he is still running the race.

And pheldagriff in a vacuum is terrible, no bones about it. If you can't entertain either of those points though, then you've cut the legs off this debate and there's no point. C'est la vie, I wanted a debate with the great Dirk Gently, but apparently you're just going to cast doubt on my reading comprehension and deflect today. Color me disappointed.

If there was a game where creating 70 axes or whatever ended up being the best way to win the game, that would be sweet, no doubt. I'd still consider that to be "clown shoes" in the sense that running the axe in the first place is likely suboptimal - that's the fun of building a deck with the intention of making silly things happen by including suboptimal, but funny, cards. I'm all for that.

Intentionally holding back damage onto blockers isn't like wearing clown shoes - if I'm adopting your metaphor, I'd say it's the equivalent of running right up to the finish line and then, instead of crossing it, jogging in place and saying "lol look how random I am". How is your competition supposed to feel about that? I'd feel I was having my time wasted, personally, if not being outright disrespected.

Either of which points do you mean, exactly? I'm afraid you've lost me a bit.

I've written very long essays on why Phelddagrif is powerful. If you actually want to debate about it, go read my primer - I don't feel like repeating myself here when it's not really the topic of discussion (if OP wants to master politics I'd say Phelddagrif is an excellent choice, ofc, but it seems like he's got his own ideas, which is great). Suffice to say that, whatever vacuum you think cards ought to be evaluated in is not the reality that games exist in.

EDIT: it also really doesn't matter even if you think I'm wrong and Phelddagrif is awful, so far as the main topic of discussion is concerned - my position has always been "build casually, play competitively". So any suboptimality in my deck construction is just that principle at work (though again, for the record, I strongly believe that Phelddagrif is more powerful than God, and have the sacrificial altar to prove it).

[Treamayne]

People tell me I have this "beautiful mind evil genius" syndrome in 1v1 play and that I suffer greatly in multiplayer. ... 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.

I won't bother to repeat all of the awesome discussion so far that has encapsulated most of the answers you are looking to find. I will add a few things that I have not seen yet mentioned. Sometimes it is the little things that can gain mileage:

- If you are another player, like myself, that enjoys the deckbuilding portion, you may find that adding additional restrictions (like your white-border restriction on Kaalia) help curtail some hate. It doesn't matter if you use theme, tribal, cross-format (e.g. Rainbow Stairwell EDH) or some other construct; if you can avoid "staples" unless they can be "justified," (e.g. Craterhoof is only in the Beast tribal deck, RoR is only in the Shapeshifter Tribal deck) you can find more under-the-radar cards to fill those holes, which makes your decks more interesting, which makes them more fun to see across the table. I changed to mostly Tribal EDH over a decade ago (because that is a theme I enjoy), and while it hasn't solved all decks' hate-magnetism it has improved the overall ratio of games where I am the archenemy starting on turn 1.

- Find some social jank you enjoy, and test it out. Find the keys that you enjoy, then replace some interaction with politics. Example: one of my favorite includes, if a deck needs more politics, has become Phyrexian Splicer. It's so versatile (helping your creatures, hindering an opponent's creatures, upending an attack btwn opponents, convincing one opponent to attack another, etc.). Another example, using an early Fertilid to help the mana-screwed player (or just offering to do so if they do you a good turn). Find, test, and play those obscure cards that can be used as a carrot, bribe, etc. and try them in the mix. See if it helps.

- Find the "less disturbing" alternatives of effects you don't want to give up. Example: replace Ruination with From the Ashes, Volcanic Offering,and/or Mercadia's Downfall.

Why would anyone target the mono-r deck when mr 5c ramp is there exploding all over the table.....

If that mono color deck is the one that will remove my ability to play, why would I not target them. You can take it a step further and ask:

- Why would the mono-X deck run something that they know "has" to be answered by most of the table when by cutting the card they allow other decks to use that removal on the GolosLoL deck that deserves it?

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...

Of course you are allowed to play whatever you want that is legal. There are just repercussions to doing so. Through my real opinion of the above is that they are both not something I want to waste time playing against.

In an average week, I deckbuild a handful of hours, and I goldfish a few more hours (for play-testing, deck editing and learning the deck to improve play speed). However, I only have both the time and opportunity to play an actual game less than once a month. If I waste 2 of my meager 3-4 hours of playing time per month(ish) looking at a hand of things I can't cast or watching somebody play a 4-player round of solitaire... I get fairly, uh, grumpy.

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.....?

I'm sure it's a wonderful deck, with some nifty interactions ... that will inevitably draw tons of hate for the sole reason that it exists.

For example: Back before C14 (?) when Uril, the Miststalker was one of the most overplayed groan-manders and also happened to be the only Legendary beast in Magic (as Gahiji, Honored One had not yet been printed), I tried to make a Beast Tribal Uril. I even cut it down to one "enchant creature" (Breath of Fury) in the whole bloody deck. It did not matter. Uril was "kill on sight." Outside of a playgroup that was familiar with the deck, and my style of deckbuilding and piloting, the only chance that the game was other than 3-5:1 was when another Uril or Zur was at the same table.

Some deck ideas can only be both realized and enjoyed in a stable playgroup, with trusting friends and open minds.

Where else will I play my Zodiac Dragon?

Might I suggest Scion of the Ur-Dragon? Zodiac's ability meshes well with Scion. Add Wheel of Sun and Moon for a dragon slinging fun.

I want to play an actual game, and imo a game needs a goal.

Agree

I had occasional prior moments of wilful suboptimality.

The purpose of the game is fun, yes, but the goal is to win - without the goal of trying to win, there's no meaningful context to make things fun. Imagine if you were playing checkers (or any game, really) and your opponent started making moves at random instead of trying to win - it wouldn't really be very satisfying to play, would it? When a wild play wins the game, or at least is a good play in context, that's exciting and cool. When a wild play happens just because it's funny...well, it's all a little meaningless imo.

I have to say that I disagree pretty strongly with this way of playing the game. (ba-dum ching)

Ref italics above: Games do need a goal, and winning is one common goal. It is not the only goal, nor is it the only worthy goal. If a player is not "playing to win," it does not mean they are playing to lose.

For example: I left competitive Magic behind during Urza's block in 2000 (for various reasons). I used to do a random pre-release now and then if the set intrigued me, but I haven't even done that since Khans. Now, my goal when I play Magic is to relax, have fun and try new* things ^(tm). While playing I may see if I can successfully get 3-4 token copies of Powerstone Shard online (C Karn Golem deck); or get Cream of the Crop and Lurking Predators in play at the same time (RGW Gahiji Beast deck); etc. Each deck has one or two "things" I would like to see if I can make work. I won't try to lose and I won't throw the game, but I don't really care if I win the game. I'm much more interested in enjoying the game and trying to do the "thing"

I understand you repeatedly backpedal with "it's my opinion" (in various methods and phrasings), I'm only responding to highlight that it is phrasing like the bolded section above (emphasis mine) that comes off as polarizing and dismissive. It is your opinion, and other opinions are valid; but a phase like "there's no meaningful context to make things fun" implies to me that your real message is "this is actually fact, but I call it an opinion to make it more palatable in a social forum setting."

Hopefully you really meant "without the goal of trying to win, I find there's no meaningful context to make things fun for me."

My apologies if I have misconstrued your message.

**Edited because it submitted accidentally when I tried to preview.
*Note: New to me, at least

[DirkGently]

I have to say that I disagree pretty strongly with this way of playing the game. (ba-dum ching)

I think you need to look yourself hard in the mirror and decide if responding to "I disagree" with "I disagree" was really a "ba-dum ching" moment.

Ref italics above: Games do need a goal, and winning is one common goal. It is not the only goal, nor is it the only worthy goal. If a player is not "playing to win," it does not mean they are playing to lose.

Tbh, I'd say it does. Although I guess you could separate "playing-to-win-ness" into 3 groups: playing to win, playing to lose (i.e. "I play necro and pay all my life"), and playing for some other goal. Depending on the exact nature of what that goal is and how hard you're committed to it, that might be virtually unnoticeable or it might be unbelievably frustrating.

But here's the thing - when I signed up to play a game of magic, I didn't sign up for a game of "try to do this silly side goal", I signed up for a friendly competition of strategy and luck. If you're not going to give it your best, then you're not just modifying your own goal, you're also modifying my goal because you've effectively prevented me from having a real competition. If you want to declare that before we shuffle up, then no hard feelings, I'll play someone else. If you start farting around in the middle of the game, then I feel my time has been wasted, because it turns out it was impossible from turn 1.

Now, my goal when I play Magic is to relax, have fun and try new* things ^(tm).

That sounds like a great purpose for playing magic - and it's roughly what I'm usually doing too. I would say a PURPOSE is the reason you do something in the first place, whereas the GOAL is your objective within that something. Saying that having fun is your goal creates kind of a nebulous situation in my mind - if you start doing unrelated fun things in the middle of the game - i.e. start playing vg's on your phone - are you accomplishing your goal? Obviously that sounds kind of silly, but that's the dichotomy I'm trying to establish here for clarity of language.

While playing I may see if I can successfully get 3-4 token copies of Powerstone Shard online (C Karn Golem deck); or get Cream of the Crop and Lurking Predators in play at the same time (RGW Gahiji Beast deck); etc. Each deck has one or two "things" I would like to see if I can make work. I won't try to lose and I won't throw the game, but I don't really care if I win the game. I'm much more interested in enjoying the game and trying to do the "thing"

So say you have lethal on board, everyone is tapped out, the win is yours, but you haven't done "the thing" yet. Do you pass the turn so you can try to assemble the thing on a later turn? Or do you take the win, and maybe consider how you might retool the deck to better accomplish "the thing" on your way to victory?

I'm all in favor of the latter - no so much a fan of the former. And if the former is what you're doing, I'd definitely consider that throwing the game.

I understand you repeatedly backpedal with "it's my opinion" (in various methods and phrasings), I'm only responding to highlight that it is phrasing like the bolded section above (emphasis mine) that comes off as polarizing and dismissive. It is your opinion, and other opinions are valid; but a phase like "there's no meaningful context to make things fun" implies to me that your real message is "this is actually fact, but I call it an opinion to make it more palatable in a social forum setting."

There is obviously no objective answer to the question "how ought one play commander". It's not backpedaling. I've made that painfully clear in every post I've made, from the first one until now.

If you need me to put that disclaimer in front of every single sentence, I'm very disappointed in you.

I notice you didn't respond to my checkers analogy. If you sat down to play another game - anything really, but let's say chess - and your opponent started trying to achieve some other objective - let's say, trying to move as many pieces as possible onto the right hand side of the board - especially if they didn't tell you that was their goal before sitting down - would you find that fun? Or would you feel like they were wasting your time? Of course there's no right answer - if you tell me you'd love it, then congrats, you have a consistent view on this topic. But personally I find it hard to believe that most people wouldn't be annoyed if they thought they were getting a competition but were actually just playing the straight man to someone else's wacky hijinks.

[jubjub]

So say you have lethal on board, everyone is tapped out, the win is yours, but you haven't done "the thing" yet. Do you pass the turn so you can try to assemble the thing on a later turn? Or do you take the win, and maybe consider how you might retool the deck to better accomplish "the thing" on your way to victory?

I think you are somewhat missing the point... The reason you would be merciful is so others at the table can do their "thing". Rumpy prefaced his post with:

A lot of common grievances with the format boil down to letting people play.

It very much depends how the game has gone so far; maybe ending the game already would be an unsatisfying conclusion for the rest of the table.
Playing sub-optimally can lead to more interesting games for others. Perhaps sitting on a lethal board state for a few turns isn't the best way but you could always delay assembling said board state.

[DirkGently]

I think you are somewhat missing the point... The reason you would be merciful is so others at the table can do their "thing". Rumpy prefaced his post with:

Not relevant, I wasn't talking to Rumpy, and other people doing their thing isn't relevant to this hypothetical which isn't asking that question (and if you're determined to sidetrack, just pretend they've already all "done their thing" and you're the only one in consideration). Treamayne said his goal was to do a "thing" - if that's his goal, then that would imply that taking a lethal attack would be counter to his actual goal (if he's to be taken literally; I'm not sure how he'll respond).

It very much depends how the game has gone so far; maybe ending the game already would be an unsatisfying conclusion for the rest of the table.
Playing sub-optimally can lead to more interesting games for others. Perhaps sitting on a lethal board state for a few turns isn't the best way but you could always delay assembling said board state.

This sounds a lot like "what they don't know won't hurt them."

I think most people would feel that, if someone else already had a winning position and let the game continue so the other players could do their thing, it wouldn't really feel like they'd pulled it off properly. Again, without the context of a competition I don't find anything satisfying in doing some wacky thing. Concealing that you have a winning board state is, imo, just adding deception to an already unsatisfactory situation. Personally, I want to do my thing, but without an adversarial force doing its utmost to prevent me doing it, I may as well be golfishing, and there's no satisfaction when I do pull it off.

Ofc, if someone pulls out a combo kill T3 every game, that might be too much adversity for the other players' "things" - but I'd say that's a fault with the deck and another deck should be played, not the same deck slowrolling to condescendingly let other players have their fun.

[jubjub]

Not relevant, I wasn't talking to Rumpy.

It was the "let people play" rhetoric that started the whole "play sub-optimally" discussion so that seems pretty relevant to me. The OP is asking how they can stop being focused and they haven't discounted changing their playstyle.

I think most people would feel that, if someone else already had a winning position and let the game continue so the other players could do their thing, it wouldn't really feel like they'd pulled it off properly.

Hence why I suggested not assembling the lethal board as soon as you possibly can. Unless you've been looking at my hand or seeing my draws you aren't going to know that I chose to play sub-optimally.

In the case of the 79/29 Kobold... Yes it was in plain site but I was in that game and appreciated not being deleted before I'd even cast my commander.

if you're determined to sidetrack, just pretend they've already all "done their thing"

Funnily enough I hadn't done my "thing" or much of anything when Rumpy had lethal on me.

You can tailor your approach based on who you are playing with and their preferences.

Here's a hypothetical:
You are tapped out and the OP has an opportunity to blow up all your lands. Would you rather they did?

[DirkGently]

It was the "let people play" rhetoric that started the whole "play sub-optimally" discussion so that seems pretty relevant to me. The OP is asking how they can stop being focused and they haven't discounted changing their playstyle.

It was a hypothetical aimed at understanding one person's views (and that person was not Rumpy, nor was it you).

It's not relevant.

You want to argue over my position, great, let's do that. A hypothetical is not a position, it's a question, and that question wasn't aimed at you in the first place.

Hence why I suggested not assembling the lethal board as soon as you possibly can. Unless you've been looking at my hand or seeing my draws you aren't going to know that I chose to play sub-optimally.

So...what they don't know can't hurt them... literally exactly what I said...

In the case of the 79/29 Kobold... Yes it was in plain site but I was in that game and appreciated not being deleted before I'd even cast my commander.

You're allowed to have that opinion.

Funnily enough I hadn't done my "thing" or much of anything when Rumpy had lethal on me.

This is a hypothetical. Not whatever specific game you're talking about. If the hypothetical is that people did their thing, people did their thing.

You can tailor your approach based on who you are playing with and their preferences.

You can. If other people want me to sandbag my wins, though, I'd just play with someone else. Same goes for if they're sandbagging theirs.

Here's a hypothetical:
You are tapped out and the OP has an opportunity to blow up all your lands. Would you rather they did?

I'd rather they didn't put Armageddon (or whatever) into their deck in the first place. And I might ask them to switch decks for the next game because I don't find those sorts of effects to be fun or balanced. But if they've got the card in hand and it's the right play, I 100% want them to take it, abso-damn-lutely.

[WolfWhoWanders]

Boo, spent 20 minutes typing a response and lost it somehow. Anyway, gist is checkers is one on one and EDH is not. Some social contract blah blah blah. A little discussion on group power levels and being an experienced player with a good collection. Whatever, it's lost.

[jubjub]

Intentionally holding back damage onto blockers isn't like wearing clown shoes - if I'm adopting your metaphor, I'd say it's the equivalent of running right up to the finish line and then, instead of crossing it, jogging in place and saying "lol look how random I am". How is your competition supposed to feel about that? I'd feel I was having my time wasted, personally, if not being outright disrespected.

You express the opinion that such behaviour is inconsiderate to your opponents. Others are suggesting that this is not always the case and that they appreciate being given the opportunity to keep playing:

my goal when I play Magic is to relax, have fun and try new* things (tm). While playing I may see if I can successfully get 3-4 token copies of Powerstone Shard online (C Karn Golem deck); or get Cream of the Crop and Lurking Predators in play at the same time (RGW Gahiji Beast deck); etc. Each deck has one or two "things" I would like to see if I can make work.

Wouldn't necessarily be possible if he was dead at the first available opportunity.

In the case of the 79/29 Kobold... Yes it was in plain site but I was in that game and appreciated not being deleted before I'd even cast my commander.

Instead of simply accepting that the "play sub-optimally" approach can work in certain playgroups and letting the OP make their owns judgements you come back with this incoherent babble trying to deconstruct something.

You want to argue over my position, great, let's do that. A hypothetical is not a position, it's a question, and that question wasn't aimed at you in the first place.

So...what they don't know can't hurt them... literally exactly what I said...

While being incredibly condescending.

You're allowed to have that opinion.

Personally I'm of the opinion that wielding a pile of removal/wraths/interaction and calling it a deck is inconsiderate (referring to your Phelddagrif deck in case that eluded you). Funny how people can have different opinions.

[Treamayne]

Sir,

Before I respond, I think we can agree that our play styles are unlikely to be compatible. I think you are probably a great, fun, insightful person who is probably just a bit too competitive for me.
No hard feelings and to each their own.
Good luck and happy gaming.

I think ...playing the straight man to someone else's wacky hijinks.

Rather than going back and forth, I will simply use bullets, if you don't mind:
- I'm sorry for my failed attempt at humor. Though I will note I did not reply to "disagree" with "disagree" as I had moved your sentence out of the quote (that was the, admittedly failed, joke). Does a "rimshot" not indicate a weak joke that is likely to fail? That was the indicator.
- You seem to believe that playing well is incompatible/contraindicated by having a goal other than winning be the primary motivator for playing? Is this correct?
-- I disagree with your assumption that having a side goal somehow implies that I am not trying
-- Having something the deck wants to accomplish is not incompatible with winning
-- I don't think that any one player in a multiplayer game is truly preventing any other player from having "a real competition" (unless they are the obvious stax/mld/lockout type decks)
- Please define " farting around in the middle of the game." Is this failing to execute threat assessment? Failing to attack? Failing to track board state? Something else?
- Purpose/goal/semantics.
-- The point is when I play EDH, my number one goal/purpose/drive/motivation/etc. is the fun of the table.
--- Examples: helping somebody who is lagging early to help make sure they remain a relevant part of the game (try to avoid kingmaking though); if newer players are present, I'll announce the first card of known 2-card infinite combos to help them learn and make sure they aren't caught off-guard; trying to use politics and verbalized threat assessment to reign in pub-stompers; etc.
-- My number two goal (etc.) is exploring my deck and how interactions with other decks affect how it pilots
-- Winning the game is a distant third. I would much rather have fun and lose than slog a win.
- My phone is a landline, and unlikely to be involved in a game of Magic (not that I might not be tempted to pick up my book and read a paragraph or three if somebody is taking long turns)
- No, you do not need to preface a disclaimer for every sentence. You should however be aware of how diligent you have been in portraying opinion as fact. It does give the impression of backpedaling to do so, then end with a qualifier of "JMO" (it's akin to insulting somebody repeatedly, then ending with a "just joking" - saying it only reinforces the impressions of the former, not the latter).
- I did not ignore your "checkers analogy", since this was my first post to the thread I didn't think the checkers analogy was for me to answer.
-- In the interest of the hypothetical, I'll ignore that I would not be playing chess (unless, maybe Knightmare Chess). If I were to engage in a social game without having had a discussion as to what and why I was playing, then when/if I stopped having fun I would open the dialog to find the disconnect.
-- This hypothetical again reinforces what I mentioned above, that you seem to believe that two player and multiplayer are largely the same, and that if I don't care about winning, it must mean that I am not trying (or worse, sabotaging a game for everybody). I believe that entire line of reasoning to be incorrect.

Direct response:

So say you have lethal on board, everyone is tapped out, the win is yours, but you haven't done "the thing" yet. Do you pass the turn so you can try to assemble the thing on a later turn? Or do you take the win, and maybe consider how you might retool the deck to better accomplish "the thing" on your way to victory?

This was covered in the previous post, but I'll be more explicit. No, I would not pass up the obvious win (which is what "not playing to lose" means). Just because I can enjoy myself and the game without winning, and I don't enter into a game feeling like I *need* to win does not mean that I will insult other players by ignoring an obvious win to chase butterflies (which does not obviate the capacity to actually miss something through stupidity).

[jubjub]

-- The point is when I play EDH, my number one goal/purpose/drive/motivation/etc. is the fun of the table.
--- Examples: helping somebody who is lagging early to help make sure they remain a relevant part of the game (try to avoid kingmaking though); if newer players are present, I'll announce the first card of known 2-card infinite combos to help them learn and make sure they aren't caught off-guard; trying to use politics and verbalized threat assessment to reign in pub-stompers; etc.
-- My number two goal (etc.) is exploring my deck and how interactions with other decks affect how it pilots
-- Winning the game is a distant third. I would much rather have fun and lose than slog a win.

You must be my long lost twin Treamayne... I have the same priorities when playing EDH.

[DirkGently]

Boo, spent 20 minutes typing a response and lost it somehow. Anyway, gist is checkers is one on one and EDH is not. Some social contract blah blah blah. A little discussion on group power levels and being an experienced player with a good collection. Whatever, it's lost.

I wouldn't say power levels is really in the scope of this conversation. I think we all agree that finding approximately equal power levels is crucial for having a good game.

Being multiplayer does dampen the edge a bit, insofar as, even if one player is off doing some invented quest of his own, the other players can still have a competition without them (whereas a 1v1 game where one player wants competition and the other wants to flick boogers is a complete waste of time). However, even in multiplayer it's still not nearly ideal imo - even if someone seems to be doing some alternative goal, it's still going to throw off threat assessment and they can't really be ignored, as they could still win or otherwise affect the game. Plus, for me personally, if I sit down to 4-man I want a 4-man FFA game, not a 3-man with a distraction.

You express the opinion that such behaviour is inconsiderate to your opponents. Others are suggesting that this is not always the case and that they appreciate being given the opportunity to keep playing:

I'm not saying people can't enjoy other players sandbagging wins to let them play in the sandbox.

I'm just saying I don't get it.

I guess I just don't like sand...it's coarse, and rough, and irritating...

Wouldn't necessarily be possible if he was dead at the first available opportunity.

Ok, so here's my puzzle for you - if you want everyone to be able to do their "thing", every single game, and that's how you're going to have fun - why bother following the rules of the game? This sounds flippant, but seriously - why not just start the game by everyone tutoring up whatever silly synergy they want to do, and putting it into play for free? Everyone gets to do their thing, 100% of the time, nobody gets left out by mana screw, getting killed by aggro, having their synergies get blown up, countered, or discarded. Everyone wins, right?

Now, maybe that actually sounds fun, in which case, enjoy your new format. But I suspect it most likely doesn't sound that fun - it certainly doesn't sound fun to me. Because, to me, the fun of doing one's "thing" requires the context of adversity. If you pull off your silly synergy relying on drawing the right cards, getting enough mana, surviving aggro and control - then it feels like an accomplishment. It feels like you DID it, you EARNED it. If you always get to do your "thing" - whether because you tutor them directly to play on T1, or because the table is going to wait patiently for you to do it before ending the game - then, to me, it's meaningless.

If I die at the "first available opportunity" and don't get to pull of the synergy I've built into my deck, that's a bummer, but it will make it so much sweeter when I overcome the odds and pull it off next game.

In the case of the 79/29 Kobold... Yes it was in plain site but I was in that game and appreciated not being deleted before I'd even cast my commander.

If the win was really that quick, I'd say 1 of 2 things:
1) wow, that was an incredibly lucky hand. Neat to see that happen, let's start another game.
2) hmm, that deck is probably too strong, can you play something else next game?
I don't see much point in prolonging the game in either case. If the game was really that fast, not much has really been lost, has it?

Instead of simply accepting that the "play sub-optimally" approach can work in certain playgroups and letting the OP make their owns judgements you come back with this incoherent babble trying to deconstruct something.

I've said repeatedly that, if your group is fine with this, then go nuts.

That said, I consider this mindset to be in opposition to what I enjoy about this format and magic in general, so if someone wants to argue about it, I'll argue. But me arguing about it in no way prevents you from playing how you want to play.

If you think it's "babble" then let's see your counterarguments.

So...what they don't know can't hurt them... literally exactly what I said...

While being incredibly condescending.

Are you saying that I'm wrong with my assessment? Seemed pretty spot-on to me. If you think I'm wrong, explain the difference I'm not seeing.

Personally I'm of the opinion that wielding a pile of removal/wraths/interaction and calling it a deck is inconsiderate (referring to your Phelddagrif deck in case that eluded you). Funny how people can have different opinions.

Man, I love when people think they understand my deck.

I think I've been crystal clear that these are just my opinions, over and over and over. So yeah, you can have the opinion that my Phelddagrif deck is inconsiderate, go nuts. Do you think I'm going to disagree and say you can't feel that way?

If you want to convince me, though, you're going to have to make some arguments - just like I've been doing to try to convince people that sandbagging wins is an unsatisfying way to play the game.

Before I respond, I think we can agree that our play styles are unlikely to be compatible. I think you are probably a great, fun, insightful person who is probably just a bit too competitive for me.
No hard feelings and to each their own.
Good luck and happy gaming.

Possibly, but I'm not sure. Most games don't come down to a sandbagging situation in my experience. I've probably played hundreds of people with very different opinions to mine, mostly without issue.

- You seem to believe that playing well is incompatible/contraindicated by having a goal other than winning be the primary motivator for playing? Is this correct?

No, actually. This is why I've tried to be really careful with word choice to differentiate specific terms (even if the thesaurus might consider them roughly synonymous). I'd say "motivator" is a lot closer to "purpose", and my purpose for playing commander is fun, not winning. But I achieve that fun by attempting to win. Note that I don't actually need to win to achieve fun, but I have to attempt it.

-- I disagree with your assumption that having a side goal somehow implies that I am not trying
-- Having something the deck wants to accomplish is not incompatible with winning

To me, this depends on how you define a "side goal". Here are a few examples from my recent decks:

With my Falthis/Jeska/Obosh brew, one synergy I thought would be really funny is animating jeska with Sarkhan the Masterless, tripling her own damage, and with obosh/equipment/etc dealing lethal commander damage with a planeswalker. This was something I considered when I built the deck, it was one of the reasons I included sarkhan, and when it did happen in a game (and won me said game), I was psyched about it. I wouldn't call that a "side goal" so much as "achievement unlocked", but it's certainly an adjacent concept.

With the aforementioned korlash deck, my plan was to copy him, put him in the grave, recur him, and then grandeur him repeatedly to dump a ton of swamps into play and then win via big mana. Now, that's a fairly silly thing to try to do, imo, but within the deck I built, that was the best way to win. So I wouldn't call it a side goal, so much as an unusual plan. But it's definitely common for a deck to have some unusual plan - or multiple plans - as a stepping stone to victory. That doesn't make following those plans (accomplishing a "side goal") counterproductive to winning - if you've built the deck right, it makes them VERY productive to winning.

In both those cases, though, what made achieving those "side goals", "achievements", "unusual plans", whatever you want to call them, enjoyable was that I did it in the context of a game where my opponents were trying to stop me, because everyone was playing to win. If my opponent had removal for jeska and just didn't play it to let me "have my fun" - or worse, could have killed me the turn earlier but didn't for the same reason - that would demolish what was fun about it by removing the context of what made it fun.

I'm guessing Ardenn was equipping the axes onto rohgahh (Whatever his name is) to double them every attack - that's a great synergy, and a solid funny plan. Making that happen in a real game sounds fantastic. But, to me, once that's happening, the next step is to see how effective that plan is to actually winning the game by trying to kill everyone and win.

And if they all get blown up by a Vandalblast or whatever and the plan fails, hey, that's fine! You still got to do the funny thing before it got rekt, even if it wasn't good enough to win the game. The fact that it almost worked is still fun, because it was in the context of an authentic game where everyone was playing to win.

-- I don't think that any one player in a multiplayer game is truly preventing any other player from having "a real competition" (unless they are the obvious stax/mld/lockout type decks)

While I'm not thrilled about playing against MLD or stax, I wouldn't say they prevent a real competition from happening. Maybe not a fun competition, but it's still a competition. The context is still there - if I pull off a sweet thing, it still feels like I've earned it, it's still satisfying. Probably it's even more satisfying, tbh.

I went into more detail at the top of this post, but having someone in the game who's playing for some nebulous side goal and not trying to win is...distracting. To return to the footrace analogy, it'd be like having someone running all over the lanes, doing a little dance, pretending like they're going to run into you and then not, or maybe they do...it's likely to affect the outcome of the race, even if they don't win it. And I'd rather they weren't there, if they're not going to follow the conventions of the sport.

- Please define " farting around in the middle of the game." Is this failing to execute threat assessment? Failing to attack? Failing to track board state? Something else?

Playing badly (incorrectly) on purpose.

Playing badly on accident is fine, obviously.

I do find players who never want to attack somewhat frustrating, but that's an unrelated conversation.

-- The point is when I play EDH, my number one goal/purpose/drive/motivation/etc. is the fun of the table.

I feel like I tried to separate some related concepts so we could pick them apart individually, and you're shoving them back together again.

--- Examples: helping somebody who is lagging early to help make sure they remain a relevant part of the game (try to avoid kingmaking though); if newer players are present, I'll announce the first card of known 2-card infinite combos to help them learn and make sure they aren't caught off-guard; trying to use politics and verbalized threat assessment to reign in pub-stompers; etc.

See, this is why I think we might not be so different. I generally do those things as well. But some of that is just smart politics - if someone is bringing in a pubstomp deck and the rest of the table doesn't realize it, it's in your best interests to direct their hate towards that player.

I think I might be confusing you with how I'm using the word "goal". I'm not desperately hungry to win. I'm not necessarily sad when I lose. I'm not "playing to win" because I'm the king of spikes, I'm playing to win because that's what's expected in a game. It's necessary for the table to establish that context - the context of a competitive game - in order for whatever amusing nonsense to have weight. (to me. If I don't say "imo" every sentence I'll be drawn and quartered apparently.)

-- My number two goal (etc.) is exploring my deck and how interactions with other decks affect how it pilots
-- Winning the game is a distant third. I would much rather have fun and lose than slog a win.

I'll clarify a little further - what I actually want to achieve in a game is pretty similar to what you do. I want to try new things, I want to see new interactions, I want everyone to have a good time. Winning is nice but not terribly important. I don't consider it at odds with my purpose, though, they aren't competing elements. Playing to win is, imo, a prerequisite for having fun, and especially a prerequisite for exploring my deck. If my opponents aren't playing their utmost, anything I "discover" about my deck will be, to some extent, counterfeit. (I.e., say I win from some silly combo and think "wow, maybe this combo is actually pretty good because it won that game against strong decks" but someone else already had the win 2 turns earlier and just sandbagged it so I could "do my thing". Well, it didn't REALLY win, then, did it?)

-- In the interest of the hypothetical, I'll ignore that I would not be playing chess (unless, maybe Knightmare Chess). If I were to engage in a social game without having had a discussion as to what and why I was playing, then when/if I stopped having fun I would open the dialog to find the disconnect.
-- This hypothetical again reinforces what I mentioned above, that you seem to believe that two player and multiplayer are largely the same, and that if I don't care about winning, it must mean that I am not trying (or worse, sabotaging a game for everybody). I believe that entire line of reasoning to be incorrect.

See top of this post for my thoughts re: multiplayer vs 1v1 games.

Imo, the default assumption for a game is that players are playing to win. If people don't want to play that way, then imo they should be the ones to say so before the game begins.

This was covered in the previous post, but I'll be more explicit. No, I would not pass up the obvious win (which is what "not playing to lose" means).

I'm not sure that definition helps you - I was trying to be charitable by saying "playing to lose" could mean literally trying to lose as quickly as possible (i.e. necro pay 40). But I'm happy to use this definition instead.

If "not playing to lose" means not passing up "obvious wins", then what constitutes an obvious win? If you have a tutor for the winning combo piece, is that obvious? What if the tutor is on-board, or it's previously been revealed so everyone knows you have it? What if you have lethal, but only if your opponent doesn't have interaction and he has mana up, is that obvious? What about the same circumstance, but you've got a counterspell in hand? How obvious IS obvious, exactly?

Just because I can enjoy myself and the game without winning, and I don't enter into a game feeling like I *need* to win does not mean that I will insult other players by ignoring an obvious win to chase butterflies (which does not obviate the capacity to actually miss something through stupidity).

I can also enjoy the game without winning, lol. It's not the winning that's fun, it's ATTEMPTING to win that allows for fun. But I guess I haven't been clear about that until this particular post.

[RxPhantom]

I don't have time to address everyone's points, but I will say this: I hate playing games where opponents are holding back, especially if it's in some kind of misguided attempt at letting everyone have their fun. I get to play Magic every two weeks if I'm lucky, and I don't want to spend it playing pointless non-games. I can empathize with not wanting to stomp the table, but if you have the win, just do it so we can play a new game instead of prolonging one that should already be over.

I admit though, despite my strong views on this, I have held back on killing players when it would result in them sitting around for an hour waiting for the game to end. I've been getting better about this. What I really hate is durdling. I had a game a couple of weeks ago where my opponents were taking 3-4 minute turns on Turn 4. TURN 4!!! And the board states weren't even complicated!

[jubjub]

Man, I love when people think they understand my deck.

You're right... I don't understand your deck. I should go and read one of your essays on how each of the 44 removal pieces should be used as if building and piloting such a deck isn't incredibly pedestrian...

Now let's just get to the point: Different strokes for different folks.

my goal when I play Magic is to relax, have fun and try new* things (tm). While playing I may see if I can successfully get 3-4 token copies of Powerstone Shard online (C Karn Golem deck); or get Cream of the Crop and Lurking Predators in play at the same time (RGW Gahiji Beast deck); etc. Each deck has one or two "things" I would like to see if I can make work. I won't try to lose and I won't throw the game, but I don't really care if I win the game. I'm much more interested in enjoying the game and trying to do the "thing"

This is an opinion that is shared by me and Rumpy (and the two others in our playgroup) and presumably a lot of other EDH players.

when I signed up to play a game of magic, I didn't sign up for a game of "try to do this silly side goal", I signed up for a friendly competition of strategy and luck

This is an equally valid expectation for an EDH game which RxPhantom shares:

I hate playing games where opponents are holding back

The OP can always ask which approach their opponents would prefer before they play. They can even ask the table if they want the game to end when they are presenting lethal.

[DirkGently]

Man, I love when people think they understand my deck.

You're right... I don't understand your deck. I should go and read one of your essays on how each of the 44 removal pieces should be used as if building and piloting such a deck isn't incredibly pedestrian...

I honestly find it really weird that you think it's good argumentation to (attempt to) insult my favourite deck. Seems about 1 step above insulting my mother in terms of both taste and relevance. There are certainly fair criticisms that can be leveled at Phelddagrif, and for a moment I wondered if you actually knew what you were talking about, but this has made it clear you've only really looked at the decklist and made up your mind based on that. So your insults aren't finding a lot of purchase.

This isn't relevant, and honestly it's kind of pathetic. I can't imagine deciding to pick on your deck of choice and pretending that was a valid argument, no matter what deck it is. If you actually want to dive into Phelddagrif, do it in my primer thread and I'll be happy to discuss it. Attempting to throw shade here really isn't doing you any favours.

my goal when I play Magic is to relax, have fun and try new* things (tm). While playing I may see if I can successfully get 3-4 token copies of Powerstone Shard online (C Karn Golem deck); or get Cream of the Crop and Lurking Predators in play at the same time (RGW Gahiji Beast deck); etc. Each deck has one or two "things" I would like to see if I can make work. I won't try to lose and I won't throw the game, but I don't really care if I win the game. I'm much more interested in enjoying the game and trying to do the "thing"

This is an opinion that is shared by me and Rumpy (and the two others in our playgroup) and presumably a lot of other EDH players.

when I signed up to play a game of magic, I didn't sign up for a game of "try to do this silly side goal", I signed up for a friendly competition of strategy and luck

This is an equally valid expectation for an EDH game which RxPhantom shares:

I hate playing games where opponents are holding back

The OP can always ask which approach their opponents would prefer before they play. They can even ask the table if they want the game to end when they are presenting lethal.

I've refined my position a little (in that huge block of text up above) so I think maybe I can clarify myself in a way you might find more satisfying/compelling, because I do have roughly the same purpose for playing commander as you and Treamayne. I'll probably be repeating a bit of what I've said above, but that was a pretty long post so you can be forgiven for not wanting to read through the whole thing. So here's 2 points of (I think) useful clarification:

1) I don't consider "trying to win" and "having fun" to be competing objectives - I consider them to be mostly inline with each other, but on different levels. "Trying to win" is on roughly the same level as "playing by the rules" - it's the expected framework on top of which more complex objectives - such as trying to pull of some dumb combo, or to have fun - can rest upon. If I wasn't trying to win and playing by the rules, maybe I could still have fun, but I wouldn't really be playing magic. I've determined that playing magic is fun, which is why I play it - and that includes both following the rules as well as the expectations that everyone will be playing to win.

2) And to clarify, I don't need to win to have fun. It's not winning that's fun, it's attempting to win that allows for fun. Without everyone attempting to win, all the other stuff, to me, becomes kinda meaningless. It'd be like finding a rare item in a video game, vs using a cheat engine to just acquire it immediately. One has satisfaction because you have to earn it through adversity, whereas the other one just rings hollow.

I actually hate the idea of asking "should I end the game" a lot less than either pretending you don't see it or keeping it secretly in hand. At least everyone's acknowledging the reality of the game, and people who would rather "play in the sandbox" can make that decision without compromising the integrity of the game for those who don't, since the game is already "over" they can either start a new game or, if outvoted, leave. This seems like a reasonable middle ground, I suppose.

(It can get tricky in niche situations though - imagine one player, seeing everyone else tapped out and him with conscripts in hand and kiki on the field, asks "should I end the game?" - but unbeknownst to him, one player has Slaughter Pact in hand. Another player says "no, don't end the game yet" so the kiki player says "Ok, I won't do it then"...but he never actually had the win, and it does kinda rob the other players of a genuine game unless the SP player says "no, you should play out your win...seriously, try to do it...." in which case they kinda give away their hand. Obviously this is an unusual situation since slaughter pact doesn't see a lot of play, but I could certainly imagine some phantom wins featuring FoW, for example, and I've actually had games where someone said "ok, so I have the win" without actually playing it, and I had to ask them to please step through their win so that I could disrupt it optimally. It's really hard to ask for that without making it obvious what you have going on).

[toctheyounger]

I don't have time to address everyone's points, but I will say this: I hate playing games where opponents are holding back, especially if it's in some kind of misguided attempt at letting everyone have their fun. I get to play Magic every two weeks if I'm lucky, and I don't want to spend it playing pointless non-games. I can empathize with not wanting to stomp the table, but if you have the win, just do it so we can play a new game instead of prolonging one that should already be over.

Exactly this. Don't screw me around if you got a win. Shoot your shot, see if it lands and we can shuffle up for another. Frankly if someone is farting about with a win con in hand, whatever their intentions are I find it at least a little patronising personally. It just feels like a misguided attempt at holding my hand through a game, and that's just not necessary or wanted.

I realise different strokes for different folks etc, some people love the weird plays that make this game great and would draw out a game to make them happen. I do think these kinds of things are neat but I'm not interested in extending the game unnaturally in order to play into them myself. But that's me - I've got a young kid, and spare time is the most valuable resource I have so I want to use it as efficiently as possible.

[BaronCappuccino]

I'm also of the opinion that holding back is only appropriate during deck construction. Further, the need to hold back in game is better prevented than carried out.

[jubjub]

I honestly find it really weird that you think it's good argumentation to (attempt to) insult my favourite deck.

The following read like the pinnacle of condescension and arrogance like I'm too stupid to assess your big brain masterpiece:

Man, I love when people think they understand my deck.

I saw red... Nice jebait. At least we've arrived at an approach that you agree can be potentially useful to the OP:

I actually hate the idea of asking "should I end the game" a lot less than either pretending you don't see it or keeping it secretly in hand. At least everyone's acknowledging the reality of the game, and people who would rather "play in the sandbox" can make that decision without compromising the integrity of the game for those who don't, since the game is already "over" they can either start a new game or, if outvoted, leave. This seems like a reasonable middle ground, I suppose.

Earlier you said that not killing your opponents is like:

running right up to the finish line and then, instead of crossing it, jogging in place and saying "lol look how random I am"

When the first person crosses the finish line in a race does it immediately end? To some there might be value in being the runner up.

I get to play Magic every two weeks if I'm lucky, and I don't want to spend it playing pointless non-games.

In my mind playing infrequently is one of the reasons that we sometimes carry on after a victor has essentially been established. To us the pointless non-games are the ones where someone can win and the rest of the table is multiple turns from even being in contention.

[DirkGently]

The following read like the pinnacle of condescension and arrogance like I'm too stupid to assess your big brain masterpiece:

Man, I love when people think they understand my deck.

I have no doubt that you could grok my deck just fine if you read through the primer and made a reasonable good-faith effort. I am proud of it, and I reckon it's a relatively difficult deck to play, but it's still just a magic deck. It's not, as they say, rocket science.

But you weren't making a good-faith effort - you were looking for ammunition. So you didn't actually put in any effort, and instead grabbed onto a surface-level view of the deck so you could fling it in my face. If it's seems like I'm being derisive, it's because I consider attacking my decklists to be VERY irrelevant to this discussion, and because the clear lack of effort you put into reading Phelddagrif makes it pretty transparent that you didn't have any intentions beyond trying to insult me.

At least we've arrived at an approach that you agree can be potentially useful to the OP:

It's not without flaws, but it's a reasonable system.

Earlier you said that not killing your opponents is like:

running right up to the finish line and then, instead of crossing it, jogging in place and saying "lol look how random I am"

When the first person crosses the finish line in a race does it immediately end? To some there might be value in being the runner up.

I think that's getting into the weeds where this metaphor breaks down a bit. In a race, the other runners don't generally impact the outcome for each other (maybe psychologically or something, but not directly). If the game was, say, one player combo wins on turn 3 without affecting the other players at all, then sure, they could keep playing for runner up. But in a more interactive game, I'd argue that the idea of a "runner up" is basically meaningless. Usually if I win, it's the LEAST powerful deck/player who's the runner up, because I'll try to eliminate the more threatening competition first. So being the runner-up really says nothing in commander, whereas it makes total sense in a footrace.

In my mind playing infrequently is one of the reasons that we sometimes carry on after a victor has essentially been established. To us the pointless non-games are the ones where someone can win and the rest of the table is multiple turns from even being in contention.

Imo if that happens, it's a sign that one of the decks might be too strong. Maybe it can be fixed with threat assessment, or maybe they need to play another deck, but either way, what happened in a game is what happened. It would be great if it was a close game, but if it wasn't a close game then it just wasn't.