Political or Manipulative: where is the line?

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4536
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 1 year ago

@onering brought this up in another topic and I thought it merited some main-page discussion. I think most people are okay with some degree of table politics - pointing out a combo in-hand revealed via Telepathy to a player who may not have noticed or not be familiar with it, coordinating answers against a common enemy, or the classic "if you don't attack me this turn, I won't attack you".

On the other hand, I think most of us have had games that fell onto the bad side of "politics" - players inches away from winning the game angrily pointing out semi-threatening cards on other people's boards when someone targets them, experienced players making unfair deals with inexperienced ones to easily win the game (I won't attack you if you don't counter my Omniscience?), or players constantly complaining about how bad they're doing in a transparent attempt to throw people off the scent of the combo they've been tutoring over the past couple turns.

The question is: where is the line between politics and manipulation - and how firm is that line?

I think a good case study is when someone attacks you, considering different board states. For example, if you're ahead on-board (to clarify: when I say on-board I mean the state of all visible information about you: permanents, life total, cards in hand, etc), what do you say? What about if you're at parity? What about when you're behind?

Personally my line is that I always try to be honest. If someone attacks me when I'm ahead, fair game, I say nothing (or maybe "ouch"). If someone attacks me at parity - well, they wanted to attack someone, it may as well be me. Until my life total gets low enough that I think I'm behind, I say nothing. If someone attacks me when I'm behind, though, and I think attacking me is a mistake from their seat (i.e. there's someone else who is more threatening to them) then I'll most likely point that out. If they still attack me, fine - maybe they have their own reasons.

When it comes to things like making deals, I think a similar principle applies. I rarely make deals that I think are bad for the other person involved - I think deals with me are usually mutually beneficial (almost always in the short term, though sometimes not in the long term). It helps that most of my decks aren't capable of winning quickly, so it's rare that I can take the advantage gained from a deal and turn it into a sudden victory. That said, I'm much more willing to make a faustian deal with another player if I think they're proficient at the game. Tricking a new player into a bad deal is an unimpressive way to win a game imo. But finding the right leverage and/or technicalities to make a dubious deal appealing enough for an experienced player is a more interesting and delicate art that makes a victory sufficiently satisfying.

But what do you think - where's your line, and how often do you cross it?
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

User avatar
Jemolk
Compulsive Jank Builder
Posts: 418
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Jemolk » 1 year ago

For me, I'd draw a pretty hard line at anything that involves lying. Other than that, so long as you're honest, and not deliberately omitting known information from your arguments to paint a false picture either, I think it's fair game to make the case for why going after someone else would be in a person's best interest. Deals are something I generally regard as a positive, but I'd want to stick to the spirit of the deal, rather than the letter. Going by the letter to the detriment of the spirit is something I'd consider manipulative. Knowing that, for example, Josh Lee Kwai tends to go for legalistic interpretations, I probably wouldn't make a deal with him if I could help it.

For myself, where I generally end up is, I won't actively point to myself as the threat even when I am, unless I'm playing with total newbies, but I also won't deny it when someone else does, so long as it's actually true anyway. I don't generally play ways to win from nowhere, and will use that fact to attempt to direct aggression elsewhere when at parity otherwise, but generally I'm not going to take too much issue with getting set back from parity, assuming I don't get just completely dumpstered out of the game. If the thing of mine that gets targeted is what's keeping me in the game at all, though, I can get pretty irritable, even if there's a strong argument to be made that it's the correct target. To the point where it might cross the line into manipulation, even, sometimes. When there's a scenario where I can't afford for something to target me and I have an answer, but I'd have to stop it before finding out where it was going, I'll ask where it's going. I consider this to be my opponent's chance to influence what the correct play is; if they refuse to answer, regardless of the reason they give for that refusal, I will treat that as though they said it was going after me ("I don't do politics" gets treated the same as "As soon as it gets these Lightning Greaves, Ulamog is attacking you," in other words). If I remember correctly, I've had a case or two where someone got a bit salty over that (at GenCon, years and years ago), but I just told them that they should have said something when I gave them the chance, and changed what the correct play from my perspective was, and made it clear I had zero regrets playing as I did. Depending on how good a day/week I've had, though, I might get pretty salty when I'm messed with while behind, and I don't exactly hide that well. If I've had a really bad time recently, I might even get salty enough that it might be classified as manipulation even though the thing I'm objecting to is a clear mistake.
39 Commander decks and counting. I'm sure this is fine, and not at all a problem.

User avatar
Treamayne
Posts: 591
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Treamayne » 1 year ago

I will always mention a two-card combo if I see one of the cards (board, hand, tutor reveal, etc.) and am likely to mention the same for the most egregious three card combos. I think table talk is acceptable (to an extent) when discussing Threat Awareness (especially when newer players are in the group). Otherwise, I prefer my politics to be more about abilities/spells cast in ways that help us both and/or earn goodwill.

e.g. Recently, a Trygon Predator was not attacking me (yet), but I Phyrexian Splicered it's flying onto one of the defending player's creatures so they could block and kill it. Defending player didn't ask me to do this, and I didn't barter the action. When asked I just said something like "I don't want it coming for me next - and maybe somebody will return the favor is the opportunity presents itself." Besides, I was convinced the only reason Trygon swung at Player B was because my splicer was untapped and they were biding their time to come at me. . .

I've always felt that things like Berserk and Phyrexian Splicer make great political tools. And I have always felt that bargaining was a poor political tool (whomever starts the bargain is obviously looking for advantage, so the correct answer is almost always "no").

Edit: Context is king - I probably should have remembered to mention that I play mostly MTGO. Playgroups will have their own political dynamic - but random games with random opponents. . .
Last edited by Treamayne 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.
V/R

Treamayne

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4536
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 1 year ago

Treamayne wrote:
1 year ago
I have always felt that bargaining was a poor political tool (whomever starts the bargain is obviously looking for advantage, so the correct answer is almost always "no").
Gotta push back on that one. Of course the person offering is looking for an advantage, but especially in a 4+ person game there's plenty of room to make deals that are mutually beneficial.

It's worth being skeptical, of course, and considering how the deal might backfire for you. If you're messing around with dangerous endgame-y stuff (I'll let you ult your planeswalker if you don't counter my next spell...) then there's a good chance they're trying to trick you into losing the game. But things like "you don't attack me I don't attack you" on turn 4 are seldom a trap. It's just a matter of using your best judgment. I accept deals all the time, and I can't remember any coming back to bite me.
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

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

Post by pokken » 1 year ago

I am closer to the "just don't table talk at all" side these days but people are so abjectly stupid you almost have to. Like. Apply just a tiny amount of critical thinking before you tap your mana please.

But I'm pretty aligned with dirk I think which is that I always try to be honest. I seriously hate the lying and trickery.

I like commander as a social game but it's more about spending time with people and talking about the game than trying to control its course through words.

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

Post by ISBPathfinder » 1 year ago

Its funny a lot of people accuse me of table politics but I am actually most of the time pointing out that their plays are actually just bad. I take my lickings when my stuff is the obvious target but a lot of people auto target me ignoring the boardstate as they are literally dying to someone else because they are trying to not let me win the game.

1) Win the game if you can.
2) Don't lose the game if you can't immediately win the game. This means stopping the person killing you from doing so rather than sandbagging the guy who is weathering the storm well. Don't worry if he is winning the war because you are currently losing it. It doesn't matter that someone else is doing well against another threat on the table if you are dying to it. ANSWER THE DAMN THREAT THAT IS KILLING YOU!
3) Proceed to generate value assuming you can't win and aren't immediately dying.

I see a lot of players who are actively dying to something like a Purphoros, God of the Forge or something of the sort and their concern shifts to the guy who is gaining life / preventing the damage because that player might win the game. If Purphoros is killing you then maybe you should kill the player who is killing you or answer their threat rather than worry that someone else isn't being impacted as much by it. Worrying about the guy gaining life only matters if you can kill everyone at the table before you will die because of the Purphoros. A lot of players accuse me of being manipulative but I see it as common sense and literally what I would do in their shoes. Worry about the guy gaining life only after you establish that you will in fact not die to the Purphoros. Lots of players put way too little effort into their own survival.
[EDH] Vadrok List (Suicide Chads) | Evelyn List (Vamp Mill) | Sanwell List | Danitha List | Indominus List | Ratadrabik List

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4536
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 1 year ago

@ISBPathfinder the thing that always happens to me in my current group is something along the lines of:

-Early on, I get targeted even if I'm playing a jank deck. Whatever, I take my licks.
-At some point, someone else starts to pull ahead. Often I take another few hits until I point out the obvious.
-The table stabilizes the person who pulled ahead.
-A grudge develops between whoever was ahead and whoever stopped them.
-They ignore me while killing each other.
-I quietly build power and find the win in the aftermath.
-Jon says "see, I knew we should have targeted you the whole time!"

I have had games where people get weirdly aggro about whoever is gaining life, though. Among my most hated types of players are those who say "well, I can't beat the guy in the lead, so I guess I'll kill you so I can come in second." There is no second place. There is winning and there is not winning.
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

onering
Posts: 1226
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 1 year ago

All politics is manipulation. That's the point, you are trying to manipulate other people's behavior. In magic, that is an inherent part of the game, even in 1v1 where it is mostly deception and bluffing. In multiplayer casual games, the sort of cutthroat deception that's acceptable in 1v1 isn't appropriate, but short of that it's fair game.

The inspiration for OP's post was a rules discussion about Maze's End. Dirk complained that Maze's End players are the worst because they are manipulative and try to throw people off of targeting them (in more derisive language). I pointed out that he takes pride in manipulating tables, and that his pet decks are dedicated to doing just that. The example he gave for the Maze's End player's unacceptable manipulativeness was the hypothetical player pointing out other threats on the board and trying to make themselves appear less threatening by pointing out how easy it would be to set them back by blowing up a gate (rather than trying to aggro them out).

I bring that post up because I think it provides some context to the discussion. I don't think what Dirk described verges into different territory than what he talks about doing in his own decks, nor do I think that breaks any social contract. The difference I see is one of elegance and skill. What Dirk described the hypothetical Mazes End player as doing is a pretty blunt attempt to deflect heat, and one that can be reasonably countered. Rather than slowly building trust with the table, identifying mutually beneficial opportunities and making deals based on them, and strategically sharing information all to subtly manipulate players into behaving in a way that benefits you long term, it's a condensed and overt attempt to change a person's behavior in a way they can identify. It's crass, and less effective long term, but it's the same thing. Knowing you can win off Maze's End if only you can deflect the heat long enough is no different than knowing you can win through combat and grinding out a resource advantage if you can deflect the heat long enough, it's still all about deflecting heat until you can win.

User avatar
TheGildedGoose
HONK HONK
Posts: 1473
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: any/all
Contact:

Post by TheGildedGoose » 1 year ago

onering wrote:
1 year ago
All politics is manipulation.
This. I'm not sure I grasp the point of the thread. Bad threat assessment is bad threat assessment, regardless of politicking.

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4536
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 1 year ago

@onering When I talk about manipulation I think I've generally phrased it as "manipulating the table", not "manipulating a person". Personally I would define manipulating a table as creating a game state that is conducive to achieving your goals. For example, intentionally not countering a bomb of someone else's, as a way to distract everyone and keep heat away from your own threats that you want to build - even though that could be done without saying anything to anyone. Whereas I would define manipulating a person as more direct and requiring talking, either to convince them not to target you, to convince them to target someone else, to make a deal with you, etc.

I guess I could rephrase the former as say, "architecting". Whereas the latter would be "coercion".

That's not to say I haven't dipped my toes into the latter on occasion, but I think the former is basically mandatory to be proficient at the game, whereas the latter is not.

I have no problem with a maze player sandbagging removal against enemy bombs because they're a useful distraction from their gate count. What I find coercive is when they disingenuously deflect blame onto threats that they know aren't important, or play up their vulnerability when they know they have answers in hand, etc. It's the dishonesty that annoys me.

Now if a new player uses an answer on a relatively unimportant permanent of mine (or anyone's) and another player has a revealed combo in hand, is it coercive to recommend that they hold their answer for that combo? I mean, it's definitely personal and you are trying to change their behavior directly with words. I think it's a bit academic since I think most people can agree that this is acceptable play but YMMV.

Of course we're all motivated to keep our opponents seeing our board as unthreatening, and our opponents as threatening, so there are some perverse incentives in the system motivating us to play up our opponents threat and downplay our own. Personally I think I do a good job of being honest about the current game state, but that might be a biased perspective. I will freely admit that, unless someone else mentions it, or unless I think I'm so far ahead that I probably can't lose, I will rarely volunteer the information that I'm ahead. I will never deny it if it's true, but if people are ignoring me I'm happy to shut up and win.

Dealmaking can sit on either side of the line imo. I think some people see it as a categorical evil and I think that's incorrect. It's very doable for a deal to be beneficial to both parties. I prefer to conceptualize it as artificially modifying the consequences of an enemy choice. For example, if a player decides to attack someone with an active Nevinyrral's Disk for lethal, they know that a consequence of that decision will be that the disk gets blown. That's just common sense. So when they're deciding whether or not to attack that person, they will naturally put "disk gets blown" into the calculation of pluses and minuses. If they attack the player, disk gets blown, if they don't, it probably doesn't. In a different game, if Phelddagrif says "If you don't attack me this turn, I'll give you 2 hippos" then that also becomes a consequence. If they attack Phelddagrif, they don't get hippos. If they don't, then they will get hippos. Same basic concept, it's just that it's being created "artificially" because the consequence wouldn't necessarily follow from the action except that Phelddagrif has stated that they do.

I think afterwards it's easy for people to say "phelddagrif won, so he was manipulating you and you shouldn't have made a deal with him" and that might be true for some of the latter deals, but odds are that most of the deals were in fact beneficial for the person taking them. In the early/midgame Phelddagrif is almost certainly not the threat, and certainly not in the short term. By only being the very, very, very long-term threat it's easiest for Phelddagrif to make deals because you need blockers to survive THIS TURN, and can't afford to worry about when Phelddagrif wins the 1v1 on turn 35. If you don't take the deal now, you're dead on turn 9.

@TheGildedGoose I think we both know that most commander players are garbage at threat assessment though. Bad threat assessment is a given, but what methods of changing it are kosher and which aren't?
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

onering
Posts: 1226
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 1 year ago

I still think that's hair splitting. It's still manipulation, and your drawing an artificial distinction. It's not dishonest to point out other threats, nor is it dishonest to point out ways that your deck might be vulnerable, even if you are the bigger threat and even if you have answers. Is it taking advantage of a less skilled player if it causes that player to make suboptimal choices because they lack either the skill or experience to predict unseen information? Yes, but so is any deal making where you expect to eventually end up on top, or any redirection if heat. Doing something like allowing the caster of a spell to choose Kaervek's targets so long as they don't mess with you is in the same boat, as a skilled table will ignore that and try to keep him off the board.

There are essentially two situations where you make deals: you either do so because it's ultimately more beneficial to you or because it's the only way you can survive right now. The former requires you to be taking advantage of a weaker player or deck, while the latter usually makes you the victim. Your strategy basically relies on your opponents not understanding game theory and not realizing that while working with you moderately increases their chance of winning that individual game, it drastically reduces their chance of winning games over the long term, and that everyone else would win more games if they didn't accept your deals.

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4536
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 1 year ago

onering wrote:
1 year ago
I still think that's hair splitting. It's still manipulation, and your drawing an artificial distinction. It's not dishonest to point out other threats, nor is it dishonest to point out ways that your deck might be vulnerable, even if you are the bigger threat and even if you have answers.
As far as pointing out other threats while ahead, while I'm not a fan of it in general, I think it does depend how it's done. If someone who is ahead on board points out "that other player does have an Avenger of Zendikar on board..." or something, that's certainly less egregious than the guy who says "wtf bro, why on earth are you attacking me, just because I have a Mind Over Matter in play? All it does is Twiddle, dude, twiddle is like a garbage common. I'm playing Azami, Lady of Scrolls even though she's terrible because I like tribal wizards, tribal decks are always terrible, attacking me is so dumb. That other guy has a Sensei's Divining Top in play, that card is banned in other formats, it's so overpowered!" Personally I'm not a fan of doing either of those things while ahead, but I would certainly say that the latter is much worse (and yes I've seen people do %$#% like that, it's unbelievably obnoxious). I'd agree that the former isn't dishonest (even if - depending on circumstances - it can be exploitative), but would you not agree that the latter is dishonest?

Personally I avoid doing either...I guess I might do something like the former if I think the board is balanced, but I do think the latter is pretty unforgivable, and I'd really prefer not to play against people who act like that.
Is it taking advantage of a less skilled player if it causes that player to make suboptimal choices because they lack either the skill or experience to predict unseen information? Yes, but so is any deal making where you expect to eventually end up on top, or any redirection if heat.
I disagree strongly with this statement. If I (or anyone who knows what they're doing) offers a deal, it's because they expect that deal to raise their overall win%, yes. But that does not mean that it lowers the other involved person's win%. To get really abstract, let's say we're playing a 4p game, and we each have a 25% chance to win. I offer a deal to another player - if they accept, I'll have a 35% chance, and they'll have a 30% chance, while the other players will each have a 17.5% chance. I would argue that, unless they think they can broker a better deal, they should absolutely take that deal. Yes, it benefits me, but it also benefits them.

Now, it's true that if the whole table never took my deals ever, then the table collectively would win more often. But "the rest of the table" is not a hivemind. If I'm the one being offered a beneficial deal, I'm not going to decline it just because it's detrimental to some of the other players. I know it's detrimental to them - someone has to lose out for me to gain - that's why I'm taking it!

As I said before, I will happily take deals offered by other players, and regularly do. It basically never bites me to do so. Taking a deal doesn't mean you're being taken advantage of - in fact I'd say that's pretty rare. Though of course I will decline deals if I think they're trying to pull one over on me.

When I offer deals with Phelddagrif, it's almost always to the benefit of both players involved (in terms of win%). Yes, if everyone declined my deals always, then the table would win more often, but I'm always offering deals to the players who are behind. If they don't accept my lifeline, then they're going to die to whoever is ahead. The ahead-player winning does mean "the table won more often", but most people don't really care about that unless they're the person who won.

When I "redirect heat", it's usually because, based on all the information I have including my own hand, I think another player is significantly more threatening that me. I won't say "c'mon, that guy is way more threatening!" while holding a combo in hand. Usually it's because I think both me, and whoever is targeting/attacking me, need to work together to overcome whoever is in the lead, not just to get the targeter/attacker off my back.
Doing something like allowing the caster of a spell to choose Kaervek's targets so long as they don't mess with you is in the same boat, as a skilled table will ignore that and try to keep him off the board.
Maybe, though there are often more threatening things that Kaervek at a commander table, especially when my side of the board has nothing else going on (which is often the case). And he can be a useful tool for my opponents to keep my other opponents in check. I think the actual best play is more nuanced than "always kill kaervek", but it is probably true that people kill him less than they should when I use my "Kaervek Rules". Although it's also true that people run a lot less removal than they should in general, so oftentimes they don't have the option anyway.

Kaervek isn't Phelddagrif, though. Phelddagrif was carefully designed to exploit politics, Kaervek is more "here's a funny idea I had, let's see how you all react to it." I've certainly had people work together to overcome it, and that's totally fine. I'm basically just an environmental hazard (albeit one that people tend to underestimate).
There are essentially two situations where you make deals: you either do so because it's ultimately more beneficial to you or because it's the only way you can survive right now.
I'd simplify this to just one reason: because it's ultimately beneficial to you. If you'd be dead without making/accepting the deal, then I'd say that the most obvious case of being "ultimately beneficial to you".

If I think my win% will increase be accepting a deal, I'll take it. Whether I'm on the offering side or the accepting side.
The former requires you to be taking advantage of a weaker player or deck
How do you figure that? I would say it's typically easier to make deals with someone who is behind on-board, because they have a lot more to gain from a deal than someone who's already ahead. To go to a win% example, if someone already has a 90% chance to win, and I have a 5% chance to win, with the other players have 2.5%...there's not a lot I can offer to the person with 90% in an effort to improve my 5%. Whereas the 2.5% players will probably accept basically anything they can get.

But that's to do with the board state, not the player or the deck. Good players and good decks can still lose games.
while the latter usually makes you the victim.
I'm not sure why I'd be a victim. I don't think either player would be a victim in that case. Both players benefitted -one by getting something they wanted, and the other by not dying (which is probably something they wanted). And I think that's typically the case for most deals. The "victims" are the people who didn't participate in the deal, and thus saw several of their opponents gain win% while they lost win%
Your strategy basically relies on your opponents not understanding game theory and not realizing that while working with you moderately increases their chance of winning that individual game, it drastically reduces their chance of winning games over the long term, and that everyone else would win more games if they didn't accept your deals.
If all my opponents collectively agreed not to accept my deals, sure, but thus far my opponents have failed to form a union.

Practically-speaking, in my current group I rarely make deals - Phelddagrif is way too strong for the table, and my set-commander decks aren't as well setup to offer things to opponents beyond short-term mutual no-attack agreements. I will do things like "if you can blow up his Lightning Greaves I can kill his commander", but that could be argued are more of a coordination than dealmaking. In an LGS environment, I'm usually playing new people, so the risk of collective bargaining is pretty low.

Of course some people will say "I don't do deals" (not with me specifically, but with anyone). Those people lose more often because the other players can create mutually beneficial deals, and they can't. Also, imo, it's kinda lame and unfun.

The real way to beat me would be to make deals with other players that mutually benefit you both, while cutting me out of the loop. Which does happen from time to time. Usually that's my signal to lower my threat profile (unless I think I can win right away).
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

onering
Posts: 1226
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 1 year ago

I mean, that's a lot of text to basically come back to what I said. The difference between what you do and what you don't like is that you find the latter obnoxious, but personally I see it as unskilled. The dude you described whining while playing combo Azami is obnoxious, sure, but also pathetic. That reads to me as a desperate and feckless attempt to deflect heat, and it should only work against people who have no idea what they are doing. That kind of manipulation might work occasionally, but long term it's going to just make people distrust you (and by that I don't mean you specifically, it's a generic you) and cost you games over time (and that's if it even works the first time you try it).

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4536
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 1 year ago

onering wrote:
1 year ago
I mean, that's a lot of text to basically come back to what I said. The difference between what you do and what you don't like is that you find the latter obnoxious, but personally I see it as unskilled. The dude you described whining while playing combo Azami is obnoxious, sure, but also pathetic. That reads to me as a desperate and feckless attempt to deflect heat, and it should only work against people who have no idea what they are doing. That kind of manipulation might work occasionally, but long term it's going to just make people distrust you (and by that I don't mean you specifically, it's a generic you) and cost you games over time (and that's if it even works the first time you try it).
I'm disappointed that you don't see distinctions in what we're saying. I think we have some pretty fundamental disagreements about the nature of dealmaking. Though our argument about heat-deflection is probably mostly semantics.

An interesting thought, to return to the DirkGently's-enemies-game-theory-reading-teamsters-union - it's true that my collective opponents would win more often if they never took deals from me. But it's also true that, for any given player (a 50% winrate player, a 25% winrate player, or a 10% winrate player), if all their opponents agreed to always gang up and kill them first, then their opponents collectively would win more often. I think when you figure out why the latter doesn't happen, you'll realize why the former isn't going to happen either.

The deflecting-combo-azami-equivalent is most common at an LGS, where they're playing different opponents frequently, and there are a lot of newer players. I'm not sure how often it works, because so long as I'm sitting at the table, I'm going to (verbally) slap them into last week. But I can definitely believe it works on new players. And even players who have an inkling of what's going on, might be too shy to say anything to someone being loud and angry. I have to believe it works often enough that they keep doing it, otherwise they probably wouldn't be doing it at my table.
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

User avatar
RxPhantom
Fully Vaxxed, Baby!
Posts: 1513
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Southern Maryland

Post by RxPhantom » 1 year ago

I tell the truth and expect to be told the truth. I also hate when experienced players try to take advantage of newbies. Sometimes, I'll even tell players that they should attack/target me instead of doing whatever it is they're doing.

Wheeling and dealing is fine, but I think everyone has played with that player who cries "I'm not the threat" whenever anyone breathes near their board, and that crap gets tedious so quickly. Sometimes I wish players would talk less.
Can you name all of the creature types with at least 20 cards? Try my Sporcle Quiz! Last Updated: 2/18/22 (Kamigawa: Neon Dynasty)

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

Post by pokken » 1 year ago

We played a lot of trial games with the zero-table-talk system and they were some of my favorite games ever. Just talk about other stuff, play the game. No pointing out mistakes or things people missed.

Without other people carrying the mental load it makes the game a lot more challenging.

It's still my preferred way to play but I feel bad just roflstomping people all the time so I feel compelled to point out when I'm about to win at least.

User avatar
TheAmericanSpirit
Supreme Dumb Guy
Posts: 2194
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him
Location: IGMCULSL Papal Palace

Post by TheAmericanSpirit » 1 year ago

I have only one hard fast rule for politics: I never lie. Beyond that, I'm a "When in Rome" kinda guy. I've played in environments where wheeling and dealing was a big part of the social game and in other places where politicking was far less prominent. Better to just play the local game rather than be a rock in the stream for ideological reasons.
There's no biscuits and gravy in New Zealand.
(Except when DirkGently makes them!)

ukkuhrmakhai
Posts: 52
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by ukkuhrmakhai » 1 year ago

No lying is number one.

I think a big part of is the experience level of the opponents. If someone offers me a deal that is clearly bad for them or makes a play that should clearly be considered a mistake (wrathing when they clearly have the strongest board state), whether or not I would consider it or say something about it really depends on what level of player they are. If a new player offers me something that is clearly a misunderstanding I'm going to explain why and ask them if they are sure about that. Whereas, if someone like DirkGently did, I would feel comfortable assuming they know exactly what will happen with the offer and that they expect it will work for them in the long run. So no taking advantage of bad players would be number two.

I also think another important line for me is whether or not combos are involved. Trying to hide or distract people from your combo pieces crosses the line into lying almost without exception. If a player has part of two or three card combo and they try to convince someone a value piece is a bigger threat than that is dishonest and manipulative. It also almost always relies on the other player being bad or not recognizing the combo.

How bad pointing out other threats is really depends on how far ahead you are. If you are solidly ahead it is not okay.
pokken wrote:
1 year ago
We played a lot of trial games with the zero-table-talk system and they were some of my favorite games ever. Just talk about other stuff, play the game. No pointing out mistakes or things people missed.

Without other people carrying the mental load it makes the game a lot more challenging.

It's still my preferred way to play but I feel bad just roflstomping people all the time so I feel compelled to point out when I'm about to win at least.
I love a no diplomacy/table-talk game but it really needs the right group. You have to basically accept that some players are going to get absolutely crushed in most games.



Comparing diplomacy rules from another game I've played with similar kinds of diplomacy (Illwinter's Dominions 4/5), the rules I've most enjoyed playing with are:
1) No lying
2) You are required to stick to any agreements you have made
3) Don't join games outside of your experience level
or
1) No communication relating to game state

So either be honest or don't talk at all. Rule 3 is obviously much harder to follow for in person games, so you would probably need to replace it with "Don't take advantage of worse players".

onering
Posts: 1226
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 1 year ago

I can see dishonest people getting away with it at an lgs every once in awhile, but that's just going to earn them a reputation as "that guy" and it's going to hurt them long term, as people won't trust them even when they're being honest. It's a recipe for just getting rolled whenever you legitimately stumble. I know people sometimes don't like to consider the meta game when it comes to politics, but it's real. Being a dick isn't just against the social contract, it's suboptimal.

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4536
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 1 year ago

onering wrote:
1 year ago
I can see dishonest people getting away with it at an lgs every once in awhile, but that's just going to earn them a reputation as "that guy" and it's going to hurt them long term, as people won't trust them even when they're being honest. It's a recipe for just getting rolled whenever you legitimately stumble. I know people sometimes don't like to consider the meta game when it comes to politics, but it's real. Being a dick isn't just against the social contract, it's suboptimal.
Hard for me to say for sure, since I don't play anymore at the stores where examples of that sort of character were present. I don't think I can recall anyone outright lying - i.e. making deals and reneging or claiming not to have a card in hand when they did, etc - mostly the extreme, disingenuous heat-dispersion, which I wouldn't say is a lie per se.

The worst example I can recall seemed to have no trouble finding games, and I didn't notice anyone else calling out his BS. But of course that's not exactly a huge sample size. I'd like to hope that maybe he's come around and realized that getting performatively salty whenever anyone does anything to him, while also playing the most powerful deck at the table by a significant margin, is not a recipe for anyone's enjoyment. But I kinda doubt it.
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

User avatar
Avacyn Believer
Faith Requires Sacrifice
Posts: 299
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Innistrad
Contact:

Post by Avacyn Believer » 1 year ago

I said it in a different topic but it fits here too... to me Commander is like a drinking game, the point is to have fun, not to win. I approach my politics with that in mind. Generally when I try make deals it's either because I want to do something 'cool' (not something that will win me the game, just cool interaction I want to see between cards), or because I want to eliminate someone else before I get eliminated. But it really depends on who I am playing with. If the group has easy banter and we share a laugh over the game, then I politic more, but some people just want to play and don't want to talk much.

I agree that tricking people into making bad deals is not a good sportsmanship. Same with lying. I'd assume that is a hard line with most people. If you make a deal, stick to it... or you'll quickly find yourself with nobody to play.

Some people play with logic, some with emotions, I try not to let it affect my enjoyment of the game. The important thing for me is to set the expectations before we start playing. If we are playing lower power decks for fun, let's do politics... but if we are doing high end casual, then I expect people to try win, and not listen to me trying to make deals.
Faith Requires Sacrifice
MTGNexus Primer | Archidekt | Church of Avacyn

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Commander”