MTGNexus

This topic came up in another thread and I thought it was worth talking about in isolation.

I would define kingmaking, as a move/deal made by a player with the intention of allowing or helping another player win, without any intent to help themselves win. I consider strictly intention here - if someone makes a bad move/deal that allows an opponent to win, but they thought it would help them win, I would not consider that to be kingmaking, just an honest mistake. To be kingmaking, helping an opponent win has to be their goal, not just a side effect or accidental result.

Also assume for purposes of the hypothetical that you are 100% certain it's not a trick and that they genuinely intend to help you win.

The dictionary definition is more like "when someone cannot win themselves, but can choose which of the other players win", but that's not what I'm talking about here as I don't really see much to say about it in terms of sportsmanship. After all, someone has to win, if a third player is in a position to decide who it is, I don't see any sportsmanship problem with them choosing since they presumably don't have any alternative if they cannot themselves win. It's a bit annoying when it happens but it is what it is (I mean, they could try to do some crazy bartering to get a chance to win but that gets a bit far into the weeds for this discussion).

If there's an answer I haven't considered, feel free to post it but try to pick the option that best approximates it - I don't like having an "other" option since it doesn't really provide any information. One person's "other" isn't the same as another person's "other", and it makes it harder to see the overall trend.

I like it when people kinda pair off to make the culmination of the game more dramatic, kingmaking's one of the things that can result from that dynamic that I don't mind at all. Better a pre-indicated war than a win out of nowhere, anyway. I also like it when the other player is lying to make something sneaky and skullduggerous happen or plans to win themselves.

(The one thing I don't like about this sort of consciously multiplayer gameplay is when it all kicks off too soon; people are making very high power decks, calling them casual, and going into the end game on turn five and nothing's happened that deserves to be bookended by a win at that point; you might not feel like you deserve the win that quickly either)

I will always decline this behavior. I don't think it's very sporting and it doesn't feel like my deck won when someone just gave up and applied their resources to me.

It's actually slightly connected to how I feel about symmetrical advantage decks that don't try to win which was another recent tangent. I don't think that anything is necessarily wrong about people doing their thing but it's not for me.

No, and I'm going to kill you before you make an alliance with someone else.

Oh, y'know an option I wish I'd included would be "yes, if it was clear I was going to win anyway".

Though that might muddy the waters a bit - I guess I'd at least consider doing that if it was funny and didn't change the outcome of the game, just for a laugh. If there's any chance it'd change the outcome, though, then I'd be 100% against it. I'm not saying I wouldn't play with that person again, but I'd probably be less likely to want to sit down at their table in future.

I dislike it and I will always decline such an offer. It rarely happens in our LGS, but it has taken place in pods that I played in. In my experience most people disapprove and try to talk the would-be kingmaker into making a different play.

Depends on the situation, if it is clear that they will lose regardless of what they do, then yes. I mean, I've done it myself, so why shouldn't I accept if someone else offers?

I don't think I've ever come across a kingmaking scenario where there wasn't at least some other motivation behind it (from not wanting to place last to being politically obligated to the person they are kingmaking from some other point in the game), so I have absolutely zero issue with taking the win so long as I can see the line that brought me there.

The simple fact is that the game is complex and typically nuanced enough that kingmaking is rarely -just- kingmaking, and neither am I going to ask the "offending" player to just not do anything- their agency matters and if they want to help someone in a multiplayer format than they are welcome to do so.

I voted yes, but there are some significant caveats.

In my experience, it really depends on the situation and the deal. If the deal is more along the lines of " I will/won't X if you do/don't Y" with clear indications of trying to game the system; those are the types of deals I really enjoy. Trying to figure out what the out they have in their wording is and predicting whether I have a counter-loophole is common in my group at all levels of deal making, endgame included.

We don't really have players who go full "I will eliminate all other threats, then effectively concede". I'd be likely to make/take that deal in one of two situations; A hidden loyalty game mode where your role is assigned at the beginning of the game (and I'm likely either on their team or killing my own teammate is worth the appearance of being on their team), or ending a game more quickly so the players who are sitting out can get back in.

I'll also add that decks which can just sit there and threaten a player with "in response, you lose" such as Baron Von Count is my personal preference to the original example (I think it was Starlit Sanctum to kill the player offering the deal). Holding up instant speed player removal gives you leverage over not just that player, but also any opponents who they may threaten. This doesn't work with pure combat damage, but having an on-board method to remove a player is potent. Just beware the table-wide response if you're recurring Door to Nothingness.

I don't recall that I've ever been offered such.
I have been on the receiving end of a play by another player that resulted in my winning, but it was not offered beforehand, it was simply done.
I too have made plays that resulted in myself losing, but were the deciding factor in which of my opponents did win, typically to unseat a clearly dominant foe so a weaker one could finish the job. But again, not a direct offer, I will always work towards my own victory.

Frankly, I would be very suspicious of another player offering to help me win, because I always play under the assumption that each player is working towards their own victory, and an offer of help to me without an obvious advantage to for themself raises red flags, and while I'll take advantage of the situation, my guard would be immediately raised.

It depends on the situation. If someone is just being salty, or if they're playing some sort of goofy deck that just wants to choose the winner, Id talk to them about why that's not good behavior. If they are trying to make an alliance with me but unintentionally kingmaking, that's a different story entirely. If someone has intentionally bought a pubstomping deck to a casual table, at that point King making is fine because it's really an archenemy game and everyone wins if the douche loses.

I've never been given any sort of offer directly, but I've definitely won games where I was able to take advantage of a group hug deck the best and it doesn't ever feel satisfying to win that way.

A friend of mine had a Xantcha, Sleeper Agent deck for a while and that was just a frustrating deck that usually ended up being a king maker. He didn't use Xantcha as a combo piece to just life drain or whatever, it was just "here's my commander, swing it at people". I remember a game playing my Gisela, Blade of Goldnight deck, which has a number of damage multipliers, he gave it to me and I basically had two commanders just going nuts and he had no way to handle me when I killed off all of the other decks. I just felt bad even though I won. So glad he no longer has that deck put together.

I dislike kingmaking behavior. I'll usually kill them just to deny them the influence they think they can wield over the outcome, even if it's a pyrrhic victory for me. I just don't like that brand of %$#% hanging over a game and I want my wins undiminished by someone's "assistance".

My experience with it goes something like this, usually:

They: *offers kingmaking to me*
Me: "Get outta here with that charity crap, I don't need it. Maybe offer it to Johnny Precon instead? He probably wants it."
They: *offers kingmaking to Johnny Precon*
Me: "Oh ho, so you've allied with the precon against me, eh? Time to die, you kingmaking bastard."

TBH, I really never receive these offers, which is probably a result of being caught between a pseudo-competitive EDH group of friends and a second group that's way less competitive. That and my friends Kaalia and Meren apparently don't make good friends. Who knew? :p

That being said, I have often been in a position where I could make a deal, but usually, rather than make the offer, I just do what I want to get me the most personal keks if I know that I'm not going to win. Open deals just kind of sour the table by creating pseudo-alliances that can last multiple games. It also just gives a sense of trying to piggyback off of the player that actually won, which doesn't really do anyone any good. I suppose that if I could create a kingmaker deal that led to me winning, I'd do it, but I can't remember the last time I was in a position to make such a deal. Again, people tend not to negotiate with me when I'm on Kaalia, and the casual group negotiates even less with me when I play midrange Meren.

If someone gave such an offer, I probably would take it, but only because I'd be too oblivious to realize that someone was doing it. I'd much prefer that someone offer me what appeared to be a kingmaker deal in order to swoop in and knock me off my throne after I took a deal. Sudden but inevitable betrayal is, from my point of view, a vital EDH and multiplayer so long as all ends of the deal are held. Handing me a win either because I was going to win any way or out of pity just doesn't sit well with me.

TheAmericanSpirit wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Me: "Oh ho, so you've allied with the precon against me, eh? Time to die, you kingmaking bastard."

This made me and my girlfriend literally laugh out loud. I kinda want this situation to happen just so I can say "time to die, you kingmaking bastard" now

DirkGently wrote: ↑

2 years ago

TheAmericanSpirit wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Me: "Oh ho, so you've allied with the precon against me, eh? Time to die, you kingmaking bastard."

This made me and my girlfriend literally laugh out loud. I kinda want this situation to happen just so I can say "time to die, you kingmaking bastard" now

Lol, glad to inspire a chuckle.
Tbh, I was watching your debate with that other person about kingmaking the other day and emphathizing so hard with your opinion because of exactly these situations. Machiavellianism is for winning, not losing "less". Kingmaking is the coward's way out.

Voted: Maybe.
Kingmakers can be fun once in a while if the group vibe is right. Even with vengeance as motivation, it can still be fun for everyone, in a game where there are no real stakes.

I'm generally not a fan of kingmaking - I want to win on my own merits, and not because someone is helping me out. I'm fine with making deals to deal with a mutual threat, or convincing one opponent to deal with another problem, but those generally come from a philosophy of mutual self-interest. If one player decides to not even bother trying to win... yeah, not a fan.

I wont offer anyone anything but if I can't win I'll go out swinging and this will put someone in better situation. Something that has happened a bunch is when I'm over targeted by someone and while I'm going out I commit all my resources to screw with that persons game.

Never though much of it, do you guys think this is wrong?

duducrash wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I wont offer anyone anything but if I can't win I'll go out swinging and this will put someone in better situation. Something that has happened a bunch is when I'm over targeted by someone and while I'm going out I commit all my resources to screw with that persons game.

Never though much of it, do you guys think this is wrong?

Revenge is one thing, trying to play power broker is another imo. Sometimes launching that final nuclear salvo at someone who deserves it is real satisfying in a mutually assured destruction kind of way. For me, the critical difference is whether you start trying to wheel and deal for another turn alive when A) your doom is inevitable and B) your continued participation is only going to arbitrarily determine the non-you winner, rather than let the thing play out as nature, God, and Sheldon intended.

duducrash wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I wont offer anyone anything but if I can't win I'll go out swinging and this will put someone in better situation. Something that has happened a bunch is when I'm over targeted by someone and while I'm going out I commit all my resources to screw with that persons game.

Never though much of it, do you guys think this is wrong?

Some will say that you should turn the other cheek. Some will say that it's just desserts for the one over targeting you. As for me, I always say, "Go for what'll let you sleep at night"

I know I've had a least one game where I'd get all of my creatures removed from the board only to have a 2nd player immediately follow up with a swing at me because A: I was a known threat based on long-term history, and B: the player didn't know what an Azami, Lady of Scrolls deck can do. I was definitely frustrated at the time as I was getting kicked by a 2nd player when I was down, but as time went by, I had to ask: was some of this my fault for always playing a tier above my casual group because I didn't know how to tone down an EDH deck to adjust to a group?

tl;dr A vendetta isn't wrong IMO if it only lasts a game, but in casual EDH, actions can lead to long-term consequences if you aren't careful, so make sure anything regretful you do can be laughed off and cleared before the next game.

I think it's hard to not accept kingmaking.

Take this extreme example: a player takes out everyone takes out everyone and then concedes or otherwise forces a game loss for themselves (like drawing from an empty library).

For your discussion, I would pose a similar question: Do you consider it a win if another player decided to perform a kingmaking set of plays?

The answer is hard to say. Sometimes people legitimately believe they can win in a 1v1 scenario, only to find out you've been sandbagging something that pushes lethal on them. I consider those wins. But, if someone is making plays from spite, especially from previous games, I consider the win tainted, or not really a win at all.

duducrash wrote: ↑

2 years ago

if I can't win I'll go out swinging and this will put someone in better situation. Something that has happened a bunch is when I'm over targeted by someone and while I'm going out I commit all my resources to screw with that persons game.

Never though much of it, do you guys think this is wrong?

My conclusion in the other thread was mostly to avoid taking parting shots if I am going to slow the resolution of the game down. But I've got a few exceptions like if I think the person is wrong in targeting me and needs to pay for their threat assessment

There are definitely psychological advantages to people knowing that you're going to hurt them on the way out though I guess, just depends on if people are obstinate in the face of consequences. Some people are very much "if you make a threat I will come at you and make you have it" which is another mostly rational strategy for minimizing threats if you don't like being strongarmed.

Just so many layers do this that I don't think you can say it's right or wrong, got to think about maximizing everyone's enjoyment.

Another kinda situation I forgot to discuss is that if it's someone who doesn't win a lot I'm a lot less inclined to parting shot them since I like seeing people who rarely get wins get theirs. Not enough that I'll kingmake but it does incline me to hold off parting shot removal.

-----------------------------------------------------

And yet another tangent that popped into my head:

If you're on your way out, and you're sure the person who killed you will win but it will take an extra turn cycle if you don't take action, does it become rational to say - remove a couple of someone else's blockers, essentially hastening their win? It feels like it'd be hard to know if you're actually kingmaking or just shortening the clock I guess.

These threads have been excellent honestly - really nuanced discussions of some complex issues.

pokken wrote: ↑

2 years ago

And yet another tangent that popped into my head:

If you're on your way out, and you're sure the person who killed you will win but it will take an extra turn cycle if you don't take action, does it become rational to say - remove a couple of someone else's blockers, essentially hastening their win? It feels like it'd be hard to know if you're actually kingmaking or just shortening the clock I guess.

I think in theory if it was guaranteed who was going to win and parting shots would speed things up then sure...but in practice there's very rarely a way to know that, and if there is it's probably because the game will be over within a minute or two at the most anyway.

If I was the one whose stuff you blew up, while scrambling to find a way to stabilize, I'd be pretty unhappy. It's rational, perhaps in some sense, but imo the fun of a game comes from the competition (at whatever level the participants desire, from casual to cutthroat), and allowing something outside the game to influence it feels like it compromises the integrity of the competition to me. I really don't like the idea that another player would have won, except that Jimmy didn't want to be bored so he took a dump on them on the way out.

It is a difficult border to draw, though. I don't think anyone would say it's poor sportsmanship to try to hurt your attacker as badly as possible on the way out, you don't have to become a limp fish the moment you're targeted for unavoidable lethal. For that matter, if you know another player has a fog and could cast it to save you, I think it's smart play to threaten to kill their stuff if they don't use it, and I don't see any problem with following through on that threat if they don't comply. This is why I think intent is the crucial thing to consider when talking about whether or not something is kingmaking to me. Anything someone does in an effort to help themselves win is fair game imo.

Ofc then there's more weeds - if someone utterly kingmakes another player, in the hopes that they'll be more helpful back in the next game, is it still kingmaking? And if so, then wouldn't that sorta make any kind of threat-follow-through (in circumstances where executing the threat is a known poor play for you) kingmaking, since you're basically doing it just to establish precedent for future games? And same for parting-shotting the person killing you?

"I'd rather kneel alone in defeat, than stand only on the shoulders of another in victory."