Post
by tempoEDH » 4 years ago
Time to make my first real post about a philosophical topic in commander, rather than just lurking around the threads. This is an interesting topic, that I'm not sure I've seen covered in any kind of rule zero discussions. Should 1v1 be any different than multiplayer? Does the game become more competitive when 2 people are left? In theory, the set of expectations set out by the group shouldn't change no matter what happens. Hypothetically, if we as a playgroup have an issue with MLD, killing half the table shouldn't suddenly make Armageddon okay. However, I think the source of the perceived change in acceptable plays that you talk about stems from the gamestate. For example, I'd feel bad about playing some mana rocks, and then casting an Armageddon as soon as I can to deny the rest of the table resources and play solitaire for a few turns. It's simply not fun for the rest of the table. But, if I'm about to win, poised to clear the opponents in one sweep, I wouldn't at all feel bad about casting an Armageddon for some extra assurance, to make sure I win. The difference is in how far the game has progressed and how close to it's conclusion it is.
Once you've gotten to that 1v1, (assuming a 4 player pod) you now have 2 players who are waiting for you to finish to be able to play again. Isn't the idea of a preconceived set of expectations for play to craft the most fun environment possible for the group? So, by that argument, ending the game as quickly as possible once you get to 1v1 is the right play, since that means the other players can now play. Bringing in a whole new argument (my thought process just jumps around like this, roll with it), I personally believe a lot of the "salt" around land destruction (which is mostly what I'm focusing on, it seems a good representative of "taking off the gloves") is caused by setting one player behind in an environment in which there are more than one players. If I'm playing Yarok, I'm going to be a lot more mad about the Torpor Orb then I might be about Winter Orb, because it hits me harder, with little effect to the rest of the board. Nonsymmetrical plays tend to get on people's nerves. Again, totally different train of thought: if I played an In Garruk's Wake with 4 players alive, would you be mad about an asymmetrical effect? No, because it (assumedly) hit everyone else just as hard, so the caster made a good play that doesn't particularly hose one player. So in a 1v1, isn't it okay for me to make a good play, such as land removal, that doesn't hose you anymore than any other players (since there are none)? It's just a "good play" from me that hurts you no more than anyone else. After just throwing these ideas around (kind of just to see if anyone else wants to expand this discussion, I think it's actually an incredibly important topic that doesn't get enough attention, how "rule zero" isn't set, and it's values can shift based on how things are in the game), my personal opinion is- go right ahead!
Current Decks:
Alesha, Who Smiles at Death EDH
Karlov of the Ghost Council EDH
Sidisi, Brood Tyrant EDH
Edgar Markov EDH
Emmara, Soul of the Accord EDH
Yarok, the Desecrated EDH
Grenzo, Dungeon Warden EDH
Kalamax (No infinites) EDH
Ghalta EDH
Current Projects:
Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa/Silas Renn, Seeker Adept EDH
Neheb, the Eternal EDH