Intentional strategic misplaying

[DirkGently]

@TheAmericanSpirit I agree with all that. But I don't see how #2 goes against those things. If someone genuinely thinks that managing their threat profile is more valuable than hitting their land drop, I say go for it. If someone assumes they're out of lands when they aren't, that's their own mistake. It really seems virtually identical to the etali situation to me, just a bit more unusual. If you think there's an important difference between the two, what is it exactly?

Side question - I assume you'd agree that it's within good sportsmanship to withhold lands because you're sitting on an Armageddon (assuming a meta where such cards are okay), and that if opponents assume it's because you're mana screwed that's their mistake (incidentally - in the aforementioned sol ring play, a smart player might consider this as a possibility...). Do you you think it becomes unsportsmanlike if you say anything to encourage this mistaken belief? I.e. if you say "darn, no land" when you draw? What if you just say "darn" and people assume it's because you wanted a land? Does it matter if you legitimately meant "darn" because it just wasn't a card you wanted at the time? What if it wasn't a card you wanted so the "darn" was "truthful"...but also you knew it would make people think you were hoping for lands and that you're mana screwed when you aren't?

[TheAmericanSpirit]

@DirkGently I dunno, man. I admit I smoked it all today and this is just too nitty-gritty for me. Something about holding the t2 land feels like an appeal to pity at a time in the game when no one really wants to punch down, whereas holding etali is likely self-preservation at a later stage of the game when bets are off. It's like faking a limp to get handicapped parking, for lack of a better comparison. Sure, no one else may have needed the spot and maybe nothing *technically* was lost by using the spot, but it's still a dishonest advantage. It shouldn't be on others to disprove the fake limp, rather personal restraint and respect for others are necessary.

As to the side note, I do think the performative aspect has a bearing on it. Most scams are essentially elaborate theater, so I do think an deliberate reinforcement of mistaken notions is unsporting. That being said, I curse on my draw step all the time, but I just like swearing. It's never to bluff or mislead. Intention of outcome is the key difference imo.

[DirkGently]

@TheAmericanSpirit Okay, I think we can find common ground then. I agree that if you're trying to manipulate people's sympathy/pity by "missing" land drops (or anything else, i.e. pretending to be bad and/or new) that's dumb and lame. Part of why I hate it when people theatrically complain about their "terrible luck" (even if they're describing it accurately). When I get stuck on 3 lands for 10 turns, I just sigh and pass. If someone asks me if I've seriously been stuck without a play for that long, I'll just say "sometimes that's how it goes."

However, I don't think people should use sympathy/pity in their play at all. Or like, maybe when playing with children, or SOs that you're trying to coax into playing, but as a general rule, no. I'll leave you alone when you're horrendously mana screwed, not because of pity, but because I know how to play multiplayer. If I'm in first (board-state wise) I'm trying to disable my most threatening opposition - namely, whoever is in second. And if I'm not in first, I'm trying to disable whoever is in first - and I probably want to keep allies alive, even if they're not in a very helpful state. So the only reason I'm likely to take pot-shots at someone who's floundering is because I need combat triggers or something.

Manipulating threat assessment I think is generally fine, so long as you aren't being annoying. If someone wants to miss a land drop thinking it'll throw me off, more power to them. The bad-plays-on-purpose thing is definitely pretty wacky, but personally I think it's fun and interesting to try experimenting with outside-the-box strategies like that. Again, so long as you aren't being annoying. Though unfortunately I think a lot of commander players are loathe to call out anyone for being annoying, because they all secretly fear that they're annoying themselves, and thus people can get away with some really annoying %$#%. I can't imagine how anyone else can tolerate playing that one dude, but somehow they do.

Fair enough on the sidebar. Though I'd point out that #2 and #3 both don't involve any theatrics, just executing the moves without comment.

Can you imagine it?

It's 2034, the Pro Championship Ultimate. The format is commander, which has absorbed all other formats after decades of wotc projectile-vomiting commander products. Finkel, Kibler, PVDDR, and LSV sit across from each other at the table. The mood is hushed.

Finkel puts a finger on his 3/3 elephant token, his eyes crinkling in thought as they stare down at the table. Suddenly, they dart upwards, directly at Brian Kibler. With a deft flick of his fingers, he turns the token sideways, then points his index finger at Brian's chest. The attack has commenced.

The commentators suck in breath audibly. "It can't be," Marshall says, "I thought that move was only a legend!"

Brian, raising an eyebrow warily, looks down at his own board. After a moment's hesitation, he points his own finger, straight down, at Yeva, Nature's Herald. "I'll block."

The hall is as silent as a life-or-death game of hide-and-go-seek.

Finkel lifts the token off the board, and throws it into the crowd. Several die in the scramble to grab it, and it's ultimately graded "heavily played".

"Genius," says Marshall, "Now all his opponents will have no choice but to assume that their opponent is actually a stupid baby living inside of Jon Finkel's body, and will almost certainly pay him no heed. This one is going to go down in the history books, folks."

Finkel attempts to shove his foot into his mouth. The crowd erupts with cheers.

[Dunadain]

So three quick thoughts then a big essay that is only mildly related to the subject at hand:

1: Why in the world would you miss a land drop after playing a sol ring when you could instead make your land drops and just not play the sol ring? Lol. I've actually done that a couple times when I was confident it wouldn't matter.

2. @DirkGently you're buyback removal spell against a vanilla 5/5 scenario doesn't really hold up because revealing the information that you have that spell is still a cost (and if your opponents already know about it, and you still manage to manipulate them into not taking you seriously because you didn't use it, then that's on them, don't expect everyone you play against to be so easily manipulated). I also would not kill it, and not out of any attempt to look weak, just to encourage the other players to NOT play around my removal.

Having said that, I DO crack my fetches as soon as possible to avoid all the "attack that guy cause he's still at 40 life" attacks, which shouldn't be necessary, but if you're opponents threat level goes no deeper then: the player with the most life is in the lead, then you'll just have to play along.

3: I believe the guy, my win percent is pretty ridiculously high, I thought it was at least in part because I do have a bad habit of building over powered decks, but my Ebondeath, Dracolich deck has been taking Ws left and right and it's objectively a lower powered deck then the majority of my meta. Magic is a hard game, and I think I'm just better at it than a lot of my opponents (not trying to flex, I just had no life throughout highschool/early college).


Okay now for my rant:

I am extremely quite when I play magic and I play quickly, not sloppily, but as quick as I can while still playing as tight as I can. Some players have taken that to mean I'm not paying much attention, and I probably have lowered my threat level because of that. Others, however, have been intimidated by my no-no sense demeanor and I've probably garnered undue attention from them, I don't try to ease the mind of these people, I keep them guessing. Of course, amongst my more established play groups, they've just come to understand that's how I play. Yes, I even play Phelddagrif like this.

I came into edh after becoming pretty well entrenched in competitive constructed formats, so when I first sat down at a commander game, I played the same way I'd play a competitive game.

I've certainly seen this play style come back to bite be, but to be honest, every player isn't nearly as good at bluffing as they think they are, and they would be much better at manipulating the table by keeping their trap shut. I honestly believe it's helped me at least as much as it's hurt me.

Their is also a lot of value in being silent simply because people forget about you. Sure, saying "oh no, that Bolas's Citadel is going to be a problem" might raise the owner of the citadel's threat value, and lower yours, but you know who's threat value is even lower? The player that kept his mouth shut.

To be clear, I don't have some vow of silence while playing, but if I speak up, it's usually for a very pragmatic reason and the benefits for speaking up are concrete (the player with Revel in Riches is going to win on their upkeep if we don't do something, If you handle X I'll be able to take out Y, seriously, it's amazing how often I have to say "hey guys, Stevie has lethal on board", or "James has three parts of his four card combo, and he just cast a tutor spell" XD).

I remember not to long ago, pro vintage and legacy magic player, Brian Coval had a podcast with someone who plays edh (sorry, forgot his name). And they shared a story where Brian Coval cast Gitaxian Probe, looked at the other players hand, and made no comment, his opponent was surprised and went on to win the game with the cards in his hand, and Brian identified that as a misplay that he hadn't caught due to being unfamiliar with multiplayer magic (if he had told the rest of the table, they could have conceivably stopped him). That's a pretty cut and dry scenario and of course I'd say something then.

So yeah, I think most players overestimate the value of trying to act a certain way, the fact is that, whatever your doing, your drawing attention to yourself and that's just as likely to backfire as to help you out.

Thus far I've only talked about the strategic consequences of saying different things, what do I actually think of all this discussion? I find a lot of it extremely annoying. I think my biggest pet peeve would be the player that has to explain every card in their deck as they play it, yes Jimmy, we can all see that this card synergizes with the rest of your deck, very good, what are you doing next? I don't say anything cause i'd probably come off as an asshole, and I imagine these people are just proud of their deck building ideas, but it's annoying and it's usually supported with a gratuitous amount of "don't worry my decks is just running this famously busted card for one niche effect, it's not as dangerous in this deck as it would be in others". People drumming up other people's threats? Eye roll inducing. People downplaying their own board? Even worse. Heck, I usually decline any truce agreements ("I won't kill your commander if you don't attack me") out of principle.

But would I call any of these things poor sportsmanship? Not really, it's annoying, but their trying to win, I respect that.

Trying to garner pity however, that I would consider poor sportsmanship.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

@DirkGently that was a pretty funny aside (the ending sentences are particularly hilarious), but I have two quibbles with it:

1. Really? BDM? I like BDM as much as the next guy, but Randy Buehler was the best commentator the Pro Tour ever had.

2. Let's assume that, unbeknownst to everyone else, you're possessing LSV's body through a scientifically induced psychic trance. You've come all this way, battling through through GPs and inventing medical technology years in the future, all for the chance to battle against the best in the only format in town. It's the decisive game at the decisive moment, and suddenly Jon Finkel throws away an elephant and then eats his shoe. Is that sporting behavior? You've sacrificed so much to get here, to play against Finkel and the Greats, and you instead get Finkel's best impression of a troglodyte. It may still be the funniest thing you've yet seen, but that's not the axis at play within the context of this debate.

Granted, we all make exceptions for humor in our lives. As a little guy with a big mouth, I know I've avoided at least a few well-deserved beatings with a few well-timed jokes. So my question to you is this: in your opinion, does unsportsmanlike conduct wrap back around into acceptable territory if the end result is sufficiently amusing? If so, how amusing does it have to be? Is a chuckle enough or are we talking gut-busting, roll-on-the-floor laughter?

[DirkGently]

@TheAmericanSpirit I actually meant Marshall Sutcliffe. I don't really follow any pro magic, I just know he does commentating because he mentions it on the LR podcast. Maybe he doesn't commentate the pro tour, though, I really wouldn't know. Sorry! I have met him in person a couple times though.

Wait, we're hypothesizing a universe where mind control is an option? In that case wouldn't I have to consider the possibility that Finkel is actually being controlled by an infant? All bets are off tbh. We're all just meat shells, housing unknown masters.

As far as how I'd respond to my opponent trying some of these off-the-wall plays, I think I'd probably find them interesting and/or funny (so long as they don't become annoying). That's why I really can't be harsh towards the "I'm a stupid baby" strat, because it's just too damn funny to me conceptually, and at the end of the day it's almost certainly not worth it anyway. I do think it's a narrow line to walk without being annoying - I've played a lot of people who were irritatingly transparent with their attempts to throw off threat assessment. So as regards the OP, I do think there's a solid chance that he's insufferable to play against, at least as someone experienced enough to understand what he's doing. But, theoretically, I think anything except 6 COULD be done in a way that I'd find acceptable. Or at most sarcastic-finger-waggle-worthy. Humor isn't required, just so long as they're not being annoying and they think they're making a good play (in whatever context that may be). But humor is appreciated.

So in an ideal case, I think 1-5 COULD be sportsmanlike, or at least sportsmanlike-enough that they wouldn't bother me. I do have a pretty firm stance on it being unsportsmanlike to intentionally make suboptimal moves (meaning suboptimal in every context - suboptimal on-board but potentially optimal in the 5D mindgame you're playing is okay by me). People will sometimes make suboptimal moves that are "funny", and the problem is that most of the time that "funniness" is only "funny" because they haven't played enough magic to realize it's pretty banal. "OMFG, my Emrakul is wearing boots! That's so hilarious!" Yeah okay whatever, haha, shut up and make your play already. I don't have a problem with someone using funniness as a bit of a tiebreaker between potentially viable moves, but it someone is just wasting everyone's time by jerking themself off about how funny they are when they could clearly move towards ending the game, my patience is exceedingly thin. Maybe if I'm stoned or drunk I'd tolerate it? I've seen enough weird stuff in magic that it's really hard for anything in-game to be THAT funny to me, and I've never seen someone attempt a gambit as ridiculous as #3 that involves metagame elements like that.

But in general, the humor I derive from a game is usually from the conversation on top of the game, not from any in-game moves themselves. Since sportsmanship generally is related to the game moves, it's rare that humor and sportsmanship have a direct relationship.

[illakunsaa]

I think people are just bad and even slightly above average player can dominate due to this.

I usually test my decks on xmage and if my winrate isnt 90% then the deck is bad.

[PrimevalCommander]

1) not playing a big threat because you want to keep your threat profile low (i.e. don't play etali)
2) not playing a land on turn 2 after t1 sol ring to keep your threat profile low
3) attacking a 3/3 into a 4/4 with no combat trick or intended bluff to make people think you're a moron
4) holding back t2 land and complaining about being mana screwed
5) attacking a 3/3 into a 4/4 and commenting on how stupid you are
6) telling everyone you're new to the game when you aren't

Personally I think 1-3 are all totally fair game, and 3 is kinda hilarious tbh. 4 could be okay if you don't get annoying about it. "dang, no land" is okay. Kvetching ad nauseum is not. 5 is probably transparent and cringe. 6 is bad bad no no territory.

Feel free to add to and/or modify these stepping stones as you see fit.

#1 I'm fine with, and it is a common play pattern to sandbag threats for when they are most effective and won't turn you into archenemy.
#2 could work on me, but not with SOL RING. You loose more sympathy points than you gain when you are still up 1 mana on the table even after missing turn 2 land. I may ignore you for 2-3 turns, but by the time I'm actual going to do something turn 4-5, you are back on my radar. gaining a turn 2 and 3 grace period does nothing in my meta since no one is attacking or comboing on turn 3 beyond a little chip damage.
#3 only works if I never see you again, or against inexperienced players who could see themselves making that mistake and taking you in as one of their own. Overall, if you are more experienced than the rest of the table, you already have a large advantage over them. Why try to bait and switch inexperienced players into gaining a few sympathy points you don't need. Fair game I guess, but I don't feel the desire to do this. I like playing correct and want my opponents to do the same. If you win one game using this tactic, every further "misplay" will only be detrimental to your game, not beneficial as your "new guy" persona crumbles since you obviously know what you're doing.

These three are the limit of what I would call acceptable sportsmanship. Maybe not "Good", but not really poor sportsman ship, with #3 being a bit shady. Using these against a table of randoms may help boost win rates especially since you may not know their experience level either, so there is no knowing what tricks they are up to as well. In an established meta these are crummy and unnecessary as overtime everyone gets acquainted. I have not played against randoms in many years, so I can't comment on its effectiveness.

I will raise my hand as one who does whine sometimes, and it will usually happen about 1 time every 6 games or so. So 15% of games I may complain a bit (not a lot). But not for the reasons stated in #4-6. Just because I get targeted with all the removal, or get focused out of the game by the whole table makes me salty every once in a while. Last session I was getting attacked for 3 turns straight with flying creatures from one player. I had the worst deck at the table and no one else had fliers. I asked the aggressor why he was focusing me when no one else had blockers. He was Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign, I was Zurzoth, Chaos Rider, other two Urza, Lord High Artificer and Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger. He provided no explanation and then mentioned no less than 3 times throughout the game how I was taking things so seriously and overreacting because I took some flying damage. While my question was raised to garner sympathy, I was genuinely curious what his logic was since the two other players were playing very high threat decks, but this particular player uses more emotion than logic in magic, which is a pet peeve of mine. You could say I was fighting fire with fire, or tears with tears , but his announcement of my dissaproval left the whole game feeling empty. He did divert his attacks and ended up getting into a feud with Ulamog after getting hit with him and copied the exile trigger losing 40% of his library (surprise, surprise). So I ended up winning that game after everyone else sort of scooped, but jeeze that game was cringe.

[Crazy Monkey]

Honestly it's topics like the referenced thread that make me really appreciate having a moderate sized and well established group. When we're at the LGS and a new face comes in, I can run more on prior knowledge about the other players and shift energy to figuring out what they're doing. It's honestly more about making sure the newcomer enjoys the game though.

I guess sportsmanship wise, in game stupidity is fine, but complaining about it endlessly is just unnecessary. I do a bit of complaining if I am legitimately mana screwed/flooded and additionally being focused, sure. That's just playing politics. But acting out a manascrew to complain about? I cannot comprehend it.

All the other in game stupidity seems between pointless to annoying. If you attack an elephant token into a 4/4 and start gratuitously self-flagellating, that's just a waste of time. If you walk in, claim to be a new player but play well and cast threats/tutor a lot, that also means nothing to me regarding your threat profile.

The most common situation is when a new player joins, and misrepresents their deck either too high or too low. But that's just for one game, and the group will chose different decks in the future. I would rather be playing underpowered for a game than watching an upgraded precon slog through a stax heavy cEDH game based on bad information from the new player.

[Dunharrow]

I remember about 10 years ago reading an article about a player watching his friend, playing a Standard control deck, intentionally didn't play his 3rd land for 2 turns. The author was going nuts - what is he doing, he's throwing the game!
But then the opponent overextended and walked into a wrath... the wrath being a 5 for 1 vs a 2 for 1 is a huge momentum shift and worth taking the extra damage.

I always think about this article, but never skipped a land drop on purpose in my life. I realize I am not someone who wants to play up the psychology of gaming. I will try to politick - make a deal with someone to not attack / remove a spell / etc. But I won't try to psychologically manipulate people. I don't usually sandbag threats either, unless I am ahead on board.
So, all that to say that I don't think I would personally do anything described above..

But I think on Dirk's list, # 1-3 is fine. Playing badly on purpose is fine.
I don't like 4-6 because they seem too much like a hustle. And I get that making an intentional misplay like attacking a 3/3 into a 4/4 is a sign of a hustle, but there are legitimate reasons to do things like this (delirium, threshold, delve, etc). If my opponent did this I would assume they did it on purpose and become suspicious. I wouldn't think they were that bad at Magic.
The better play if you want to make people think you are bad, would be to attack your 3/3 into two 2/2s. That happens a lot at prerelease - people attack into my board forgetting about double blocking.

I also think these strategies are not as successful as described. You might occasionally be able to sneak a win this way by letting opponents use their resources against each other. But you will not be fully ignored and experienced players will not leave themselves open to you.

[benjameenbear]

Huh. This is a very interesting topic. And one that I can say I've actually done, for an ulterior reason people may not agree with.

I've occasionally intentionally thrown games/misplayed in order to help a struggling/newer player feel more comfortable with our playgroup and therefore come back more frequently. It hasn't been extremely common throughout my almost two decades of experience (hot damn I've been playing this game for a LONG time lol), but I've definitely done it. Especially when EDH was first coming into being in 2008-2009.

Yes, I readily admit that this can create a sense of false confidence that may lead to player dissatisfaction. But in my own experience, I've found that the thrill of winning and the FEELING created through a cool play/win-game-sequence/etc. is enough of a psychological buffer that you can then increase your in-game playskill without making the newer player feeling inadequate (as they more consistently lose). In the LGS where I first started playing EDH, I helped grow the EDH community there from 5-6 people to almost 20 strong before life intervened and I left the local area. So while my win percentage is most definitely lower, the overall engagement, growth of community, and long-term increase of overall playskill has been worth my strategic misplaying.

To be clear, I've always communicated this philosophy with my regular playgroup and also had their support in it (though they would never do this). More often than not, I demonstrate this in withholding interaction that my opponents are unaware of.

And I also get that my specific response is not necessarily in line with the OP's comment or the discussion that's since been created (in that he intentionally misplays to lower their threat profile and thus increase their win percentage). But, I think it's worthwhile to consider intentional misplaying for reasons OUTSIDE of increasing my own personal win percentage.

[duducrash]

I challenge anyone to pic a precon, to play against other players (players that cedh decks mind you. Not a 4 year old that can barey hold 7 cards) and win 21 of those games. Im astonish people entertained this topic for it is an obvious and quite honesty lowkey dumb lie. I tought wotc released too much product, but this thread conviced me it needs to pump up twice as many stuff. We need topics

[Dunadain]

I challenge anyone to pic a precon, to play against other players (players that cedh decks mind you. Not a 4 year old that can barey hold 7 cards) and win 21 of those games. Im astonish people entertained this topic for it is an obvious and quite honesty lowkey dumb lie. I tought wotc released too much product, but this thread conviced me it needs to pump up twice as many stuff. We need topics

As dirk has said several times, the actual truth behind the post isn't really the point of this discussion...

Also, have any of you played the prosper precon? It seems about right for a casual meta. Barely deserves to be called a precon tbh.

[BaronCappuccino]

In a 1v1 years back, I had a hand with a swamp, a Reanimate and a Grave Titan, and I thought I might have a shot at winning out of nowhere if I could convincingly make no land drop turn 1, and discard my titan due to having eight cards at end of turn. Can't vouch for how the game would've gone if it worked, but the opponent ended up having a Force of Will. Never tried that again.

[Dunadain]

In a 1v1 years back, I had a hand with a swamp, a Reanimate and a Grave Titan, and I thought I might have a shot at winning out of nowhere if I could convincingly make no land drop turn 1, and discard my titan due to having eight cards at end of turn. Can't vouch for how the game would've gone if it worked, but the opponent ended up having a Force of Will. Never tried that again.

Discarding to have size is a somewhat common strat for reanimator. Not a very good one, but as a plan C it comes up from time to time.

Manaless dredged DEPENDS upon discarding to hand size (or the ones without Lion's Eye Diamond do).

That's only tangentially related to this topic though.

[duducrash]

Also, have any of you played the prosper precon? It seems about right for a casual meta. Barely deserves to be called a precon tbh.

I did! it's actually pretty good, amongst the strongest for sure. Still 100% impossible to win 21/29 games against anyone that knows what they are doing. But I get your point, sometimes the optimal play isn't the optimal play when there are 3 other players involved, staying under the radar is nice but I imagine it gets old really fast. if my dog knows we are going to walk whenever I grab some plastic bags surely humans would realize that prosper would do something after laying low 20 games. It's not realistic to say "I sure don't know what I am doing" and keep winning, but I am sure not overextending against 3 other players increases your win %. I'm sure there is a absurd scenario where not hitting a land drop on purpose is 100% brain usage, I'm sure in all commander games played in all multiverses this scenario has happened before, mostly strategically to hold your opponent's "catch up" ramp or not enable their land tax or something. But it's so fringe I can't see it as a example of something that will increase your win%. What I'm trying to say is, I think laying low is a viable strategy, I don't think playing dumb and making net negative plays is

[DirkGently]

@duducrash To be clear, the examples I gave for my ladder aren't meant to be evaluated in terms of effectiveness, just as examples of the types of things that might be considered BM. If I wanted to try to find more realistic examples that use the same intentions I could, but my interest is more on the sportsmanship than on the effectiveness.

If consensus is that making an intentionally bad move, in order to make people think you're a weaker player than you are, is poor sportsmanship, then there's not much point to discussing the particulars of when/how that sort of maneuver could actually be effective.

But if you want to move forward and talk about that aspect, for the record, I absolutely think that there are ways to "play dumb" that will increase your winrate. Suicide attacking for no reason? Probably not. But I think most people would agree that someone who's playing very carefully and seems very focused is going to seem more threatening to the other players. I know for me, other peoples' demeanors is something I'm evaluating (largely subconsciously) when I'm threat-assessing. So it follows then, that acting more blasé and casual is likely to seem less threatening. So being able to act that way, while still mentally playing a relatively careful and focused game, gives you an advantage compared to someone who needs to act focused to be focused, because they're more effectively juking enemy threat assessment. Even if they're making the exact same plays.

[duducrash]

@DirkGently I was talking to the points OP made in the reddit post.

I could agree Dirk, but not always. Whenever Im in the mood for actually playing good games of magic I will 100% knock out the guy who is halfway there playing sloppy. I think staying under the radar is a net positive for the win %. I also think the examples OP gave, specially not playing lands wont raise your win %. I also think that out of 30 games your opponents didnt learn a deck will win if left unbothered you are probably playing solitaire. You should stay low sometimes, sure. But some other times you should just flat out dominate if given the chance. Its the first good lesson anyone learns whenever they want to improve magic right? Effectively learning when you're and when you're not the beatdown. Magic is complex enough (again, assuming you're playing someone who is capable of stringing half a thought together) that it demanda you to be like water and adapt to what is in front of you

[DirkGently]

@duducrash I was generalizing a bit - If the table vibe is serious and focused, then being/acting nonchalant might attract more attention, and you'd probably want to play somewhat seriously. It just depends on the situation. Reading the vibe of the table and fitting in is generally the best option I would say, though erring on the side of casual.

I didn't say anything about playing sloppy - I was talking about making the exact same moves, just having a more relaxed presentation. Of course it's harder to make good plays while also moving quickly in a casual manner, rather than going into the tank, but that's where skill comes in.

I do agree that missing land drops is very unlikely to benefit your threat profile enough to be worth it. If we were evaluating every move as a ratio of value : threat profile, playing a land is generally very high. Whereas playing Sen Triplets is (in my experience) extremely low.

I don't want to waste time talking about the plausibility of the OP since I really don't care, but he did say that he was playing in places with constant rotation of players, which means none of them would be able to "learn". I've played at LGSs with a lot of people coming through, and it's very possible to win a high percentage of games without anyone really noticing. A lot of these sorts of maneuvers only really work in that sort of environment where people don't know you.

With a normal commander deck, yes, you need to find your window and exploit it when given the opportunity. With a low-powered decks, though, laying low is likely to be the best course of action for a much longer period of time. For example, my set-commander Soul of Windgrace would have an extraordinarily difficult time 3v1ing for any length of time by being in the lead, and has basically no way to win quickly. So I need my opponents to eliminate each other before I can even really think about trying to win. Usually I'm hoping to have 2 decks duke it out, wait until one kills the other, then find a way to quickly finish off the weakened winner, and hopefully overpower the remaining player. So usually there's a lot of waiting.

[DirkGently]

Had some further fodder for this topic that I felt was worth mentioning. Specifically, as regards the commander Breena, the Demagogue.

Last night my group had a precon battle. I forgot to bring my own precon, so I borrowed the 5c DMC precon (won handily, thanks for asking). However, I did get offered Breena and my instinctual reaction was, to quote Pee Wee Herman, "Eeech, no." Which is kinda unusual because ostensibly Breena is a political commander, and I'm kinda the political guy. So what gives? Why does Breena give me a strong yuck vibe?

Thinking about how the commander tends to play out, at least at lower-powered tables, as long as you keep attacking and your opponents have different life totals, Breena is going to grow by +2 counters per turn, while also drawing you cards, even if you're only the one triggering her. If anyone else is also attacking, she grows VERY quickly, becoming a lethal threat within just a few turns. I really dislike this dynamic because you're simultaneously saying "hey, attack each other, look at this great value I'm giving you for doing so!" but then you're also becoming the threat in very short order, making attacking your other opponents a very bad idea, especially while also growing Breena further. I think this frequently pushes you into a situation where you're heavily motivated to misrepresent your own on-board threat value just to make the commander do what it's "supposed" to do. "Oh, sure, Breena can 2-shot anyone at the table, but if you attack him you'll get a free card!" I absolutely despise that sort of disingenuous threat deflection but Breena almost forces it upon you.

But okay, you say, there's an easy solution to that - just don't put the counters on Breena. Put them on some other, less-threatening permanent. Some random utility creature or whatever. Spread them around, even. Basically with the goal of getting as little value as possible, specifically to avoid becoming the threat, so that Breena will keep doing what she's "supposed" to do.

And that's where we meet back up with the original topic of this post - How do people feel about that line of play? Making "subpar" plays like holding back a bomb because you're waiting for the right time is a hidden "misplay" - unless someone has Telepathy or whatever, people don't know that you're holding back. Whereas distributing Breena counters "badly" is completely visible and everyone knows that you're intentionally holding back. BUT, it is true that holding Breena back from being too threatening can overall increase your winrate, since otherwise people are likely to target her for removal, or you with attacks, etc. So if someone was doing this, would it annoy you? How would you feel about it? How much does it matter if you think they're doing it because they're weak players, or because it's a deliberate power-level moderation tactic?

[TheGildedGoose]

@DirkGently Yeah, that was exactly my brief experience with Breena. She really encourages a Voltron-esque strategy mechanically while incentivizing political play conceptually. Not my cup of tea.

I think power-level play moderation is an important part of EDH. I've seen a lot of users on this forum discussing narrow interaction strategies such as Maze's End or one card win cons that can generally only be stopped on the stack like Torment of Hailfire, but what most players don't really think about is having a narrow threat profile. Of course, combining both of these gets you your own Phelddagrif list.

You've gotta be anti-fascist when you play; simultaneously both strong and weak.

EDIT: Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, you almost never want to be the beatdown in non-cEDH, level playing field games.

[materpillar]

Whereas distributing Breena counters "badly" is completely visible and everyone knows that you're intentionally holding back. BUT, it is true that holding Breena back from being too threatening can overall increase your winrate, since otherwise people are likely to target her for removal, or you with attacks, etc.

I'd say that if putting the counters on something other than Breena increases your overall winrate then putting counters on Breena is the "bad" play. In a pre-con battle trying to Voltron someone out with Breena is likely correct. At higher powerlevels, trying to keep Breena alive for value is likely correct. Just depends on the situation.

I don't mind suboptimal plays for style points or to increase everyone's fun. If someone played Breena and randomly Voltron's someone out of the game turn 5 and then the game went on for an extra hour I'd somewhat annoyed. I'd much prefer if they distributed counters "incorrectly" specifically to avoid killing someone 15minutes into an hour and a half long game.

Here's a question for you Dirk. Someone alpha strikes you for lethal. You're sitting on a Darkness. Do you ever not cast it and just die?

[DirkGently]

@materpillar I think we're going to disagree on a fundamental level, then, because I'm not really okay with my opponents making fully-suboptimal plays intentionally. If they have the same chance to win, and they can win in a silly/fun way or the not-those-things way, then it's their choice ofc. But if they're holding back a win just because they THINK it'll be more fun for me (or someone else) then piss off. The primary thing that makes the game fun is honest competition, and holding back undermines that.

If Breena's (or anyone's) actual best play - meaning the one that gives her the best overall chance to win - is to knock someone out on turn 5, and then it gets knocked down and the game drags on, I'd agree that it's not fun, but it's a problem that should be fixed at the deck construction level. For example, not playing Breena, or by protecting her better to mitigate the chances that she gets reset and drags out the game. Building a fun voltron deck is tough because it will inevitably lead to those sorts of games, though.

Not sure what you mean about darkness. I will concede a game if I have no chance to win. If I think I have a 1% chance to win, though, I'm going to do what I need to stay in the game and give myself the best chance I can, no matter how slim.

I feel like I need more context for why I might not cast darkness? I'm guessing maybe you mean in a scenario where someone else has been eliminated, in an effort to speed up the game? That wouldn't have an impact on my decision at all. I guess if I was playing against a literal 5-year-old for no stakes then maybe I'd let them win? That's a really niche scenario, though, we're barely playing magic at that point.

[PrimevalCommander]

Had some further fodder for this topic that I felt was worth mentioning. Specifically, as regards the commander Breena, the Demagogue.

...

But okay, you say, there's an easy solution to that - just don't put the counters on Breena. Put them on some other, less-threatening permanent. Some random utility creature or whatever. Spread them around, even. Basically with the goal of getting as little value as possible, specifically to avoid becoming the threat, so that Breena will keep doing what she's "supposed" to do.

And that's where we meet back up with the original topic of this post - How do people feel about that line of play? Making "subpar" plays like holding back a bomb because you're waiting for the right time is a hidden "misplay" - unless someone has Telepathy or whatever, people don't know that you're holding back. Whereas distributing Breena counters "badly" is completely visible and everyone knows that you're intentionally holding back. BUT, it is true that holding Breena back from being too threatening can overall increase your winrate, since otherwise people are likely to target her for removal, or you with attacks, etc. So if someone was doing this, would it annoy you? How would you feel about it? How much does it matter if you think they're doing it because they're weak players, or because it's a deliberate power-level moderation tactic?

If winning is the goal, and spreading counters helps increase win%, then it is not a misplay or a "bad" play. It is a good play.
If winning is the goal, and spreading counters decreases win%, then technically it would be a misplay.
If fun is the goal, and spreading counters increases fun by reducing salt levels, then it is not a misplay or a bad play. It is a good play.

I would not be upset in the slightest from the above mentioned situation, as fun is 60% of my motivation, winning 40%.
I like the build casual, play competitive, but there are limits there too. Sometimes I'll pull a punch here or there for the overall fun of the other players at the table, and I don't feel sorry in the slightest for it, and will continue to do so.

Playing in a low power play group has softened my skin to more cut-throat plays that my best friend still uses. He is accustomed to a higher level of experience in opponents, so I have caught myself getting salty for the "right" play because I was struggling in-game and he cut the legs from under me. Good play because I have the most skill besides him, but overall made that game unfun for me. I need to toughen up some because I got a little snappy and it wasn't really warranted.

It is a fine line and we can't make everyone happy. But being conscious of other player's fun goes a really long way to make the game more enjoyable, regardless of win%.

[DirkGently]

@PrimevalCommander Well, I think the complication is that whether or not distributing your counters is a misplay (whether it overall lowers your chances to win) is unknown.

To simplify, imagine it's a 1v1 game, and you have a big fat flyer (i.e. breena) and a medium-power ground creature, and you have +2/+2 to give. If you give it to the flyer AND they have no removal, you kill them this turn. But if they do have removal, they completely stabilize and you're in trouble. Whereas, if you put the counters on your ground creature (which they can block but not trade once it has the +2/+2), you insulate yourself from potential removal, but might unnecessarily drag out the game and give them the opportunity to find an answer. So is putting the counters on the flyer a misplay or not? Well, from an omniscient pov, it depends on whether they have removal. From the player POV, I'd say it depends on how likely you think the removal is, how dangerous giving them an extra turn is, and how likely your win is if they do have removal.

To relate this back to the Breena situation, obviously things are a lot more complicated. Does piling counters on Breena mean that they'll attack you instead of other players? Does it mean they'll target Breena with removal? Do they have removal at all? From an omniscient POV it could be the case that none of them have removal, and piling up the counters on Breena will give you quick kills and an easy victory. Or they could have removal and piling the counters on Breena will just make her a removal magnet. So you have to make the judgment from your seat, obviously.

Let's assume that putting the counters onto your other creatures is effectively useless in this case - you're doing it intentionally to avoid increasing your threat level. From your opponents perspective, if they know they don't have removal etc, it's going to look like you're intentionally throwing the game by not going for a win with Breena. And ofc it's not necessarily clear why you're doing it. It could easily appear like you're not taking the win when you have it.

Power level moderation happens all the time, ofc (well, at least when skilled political players are playing) but it's usually hidden behind hands. Nobody knows you could have played a bomb because nobody knows you have it. Maybe they're breathing a sigh of relief thinking "whew, I'm glad he didn't have a bomb because I have no answer and he would have won". Or maybe they're thinking "Damn, how long do I have to sit on this answer, should I burn it on a subpar target?" This situation is somewhat unusual because everyone can see that you do have the option of building a threat, but aren't doing it.

Of course all of this is admittedly build on the foundation that playing to win is necessary for the game to be fun. And I get that not everyone agrees with me on this. But I do feel very strongly about it. I struggle to think of a good metaphor to explain my point, but here's the best I've got at the moment:

You are having a home-made go-kart race with a friend. You set up a long, winding course in your backyard. You both build your karts, and his ends up much faster. Even if he drives much worse, he can still easily beat you. However, after he initially blows past you, he suddenly starts driving really slowly, and you catch up and overtake him. Then he suddenly surges ahead again, with an obviously superior engine. But as soon as he does, he puts on the breaks and you pass him again. This whole time, you're trying your best to take good corners, ekeing out every bit of advantage you can. But it's painfully obvious that the only reason you're "close" is because he's intentionally letting you get close. If you drive better and make better time, he would just use more power and catch up, rendering your own good driving irrelevant. It doesn't matter how badly or how well you drive, because he's going to make it close no matter what. Who wins is entirely dependent on who he allows to win and is completely divorced from any driving skill.

So my question is - is that fun for you?

Because I would not find that fun. I would find it patronizing and infuriating. I want my good driving to matter. I want an honest competition. I would want to find a way to put the karts on relatively even footing so that we could have a "real" race.

If you do think it sounds fun, then that's fair enough - there's not really a logical argument for why it shouldn't be. Fun isn't logical. But I don't think we'll be able to find any common ground on this topic.

(aside - conversation can mitigate some of these problems, both in the go-kart race and in magic. If someone says "hey, I COULD win this way, but if it's okay with the table I'm going to do X instead because it's more fun" I would have much less of an issue with that than if they just quietly made the suboptimal play "to make the game more fun" without saying anything. Similarly, if the fast go-karter said "hey, my cart is obviously superior, how about I have X handicap?" which can be agreed upon in advance, then that could do a lot to remedy the situation.)