Letting your emotions tell you how to play

[Hermes_]

After reading comments about cards and the "salt" score, it got me wondering to what degree do you let your emotions guide in either playing/deck building or card buying?

[kraus911]

Every decision we make is grounded in emotion, even those of us who proclaim to be super rational still ultimately make decisions based on emotion.

But I think this answers your question, or what you're looking for - I definitely tend to watch my emotions in relation to MTG and EDH. I've designated this game as my stress relief, my hobby, my social time, and I'm pretty careful about not letting it become another stressor. So I keep an eye out for frustration and anger and tend to ground myself by remembering why I'm even here.

I have felt shame and embarrassment when a deck of mine dominates a table by taking too much time and I've made the decision to take apart decks based on that.

I do get frustrated by certain plays, especially when people appear to be playing a different game than I am, and I'll make a decision to either speak up or let it go depending on the situation.

I think it's impossible to like a game so much and spend so much time engaging with it and not get emotionally escalated at certain points, but I try to keep a weather eye on my behavior so I don't get tilted.

[DirkGently]

I'm not really sure what this question means but I'll take my best guess.

When acquiring cards, I try to acquire all cards that I think are viable in any reasonably optimized deck, which I think is pretty objective. I don't make much effort to acquire full-art, alt-art, etc, but if someone has one for trade I might go for it if it's a style I like. I avoid foils and foreign cards if possible because I think they have less utility than nonfoil english cards (in the English-speaking world, as an English-only speaking person).

When building, obviously I build within certain restrictions. My general procedure, as I've said many times, is to take a janky strategy and try to make it as optimized as possible. Now, what makes a janky strategy interesting enough that I want to build it? Obviously that's purely subjective, so I guess you could say it's emotion-based. I think there are some loose rules that I tend to follow, though. I don't build combo decks, I rarely build stax decks, I don't build decks that take extra turns, I tend not to like token decks or tribal decks, etc. Some of those are based off my opponents enjoyment, whereas some are based off mine. Same thing for card selection. I also tend to avoid goodstuff inclusions in my card selection, so as to use an overall wider selection of cards and experiment with more diverse effects. All of those preferences are ultimately pretty subjective/emotion-based. I could argue that using the salt-score as a metric is objective, but the desire to avoid high-salt cards is subjective. As is building decks to win instead of lose, I guess. I may have lost my train of thought.

As far as playing, I do my best to make the optimal move at any given time and not based of which cards I personally don't like. Of course, cards with a high salt score (and cards that I don't personally like) are frequently indicative of a powerful deck. If someone is willing to run high-salt cards, then they're also a lot more likely to be willing to run a high-powered deck (potentially something cEDH-adjacent in a casual game) and so I think it's correct threat assessment to boost their perceived threat level when they play a high-salt card unless you have reason to lower your guard. I think that's pretty objective. Now, I will also do things like, when someone sits down with a commander I think is %$#%$#%, such as Kykar, Wind's Fury, and I have an early attack, I'll send it their way - not just because putting a few more damage on them is likely to kill them sooner, but also as a signal to other players that they should have a high threat assessment of that player. I would likely do that even if it means I'll be open to attack by another player, because I think the value in signaling threat is more valuable than whatever life points I might end up losing. I think this is mostly defensible as objective. And btw this also holds true if I think the player is highly skilled even if their deck doesn't look as threatening. If I can vocalize why I legitimately think they're the threat, I'll do it. Probably playfully, to avoid looking like too much of a tryhard. Y'know, "You're playing that bastard Kykar, so take three" or "You won the last two games, taste it", etc.

That said, occasionally there are games where I lose it a little bit. Maybe someone has been constantly dogging me even when I was clearly behind, and I don't think I have a realistic chance to win, where I might try to torpedo them down with me. So emotions aren't completely out of the equation. I'll do just about everything I can to avoid that sort of situation, though.

At the end of the day, though, if life has taught me anything, it's that anyone who thinks practically any decision they make is purely logical is deluding themselves.

[Jemolk]

I would argue that all decisions are to some degree based in emotion. The question of what we value is not something that we find out in the world, but rather something we determine based on our own subjectivity. Without emotion, logic is directionless. That said, before I delve too heavily into the philosophy question, much as I enjoy doing so, I think your question is something more along the lines of, "to what degree does emotion tend to throw logic off-course or get used in place of logic for game decisions," correct? As I said before, I think to some extent this is unavoidable, but I do tend to try to stay calm. Works better for de-stressing that way.

Sometimes, though, when someone keeps kicking me while I'm down (in the sense of, for example, choosing to always attack me despite a far bigger threat being open and me being mostly out of the game), I will absolutely get really angry and do everything in my power to sabotage that player, even to my own detriment. But even then, there is a logic there, however perverse one may consider it to be from the perspective of the single game -- to send the message that you really shouldn't do that ever again. Simply trying to take the high road may make some people feel like doing that is fun, and the most reliable way of showing that it isn't is to include them in the frustration it causes.

So... yes but also no? To a question that doesn't really admit either as an answer....

[Mookie]

I would absolutely say that emotion plays a role in my EDH experience, both in deckbuilding and piloting. I try to play cards that make me happy, and avoid cards I find frustrating. I often build decks because I'm looking to feel something specific that my other decks don't grant, and I choose the decks I want to play based on my mood - my durdley combo decks definitely make me feel different from the adrenaline rush that I get from playing a storm deck, or the relaxation I feel while piloting a control deck. I tend to play stronger decks if I'm feeling down or frustrated, and slower decks when I'm feeling more confident. I also have emotional attachments to my decks and pet cards - it hurts when I'm cutting a card I have fond memories of, but I also feel excited when I get to try out something new and shiny.

Anyway.... I'd say that a good heuristic is to play cards that make you happy, as long as that doesn't come at the expense of your opponents' happiness.

[folding_music]

agh, I play less and less, the main emotional decision I'm making is to get out of magic and particularly out of commander cos familiarity has bred a bunch of contempt x3

[TheAmericanSpirit]

agh, I play less and less, the main emotional decision I'm making is to get out of magic and particularly out of commander cos familiarity has bred a bunch of contempt x3

Distance makes the heart grow fonder. I play legacy, limited, and mtgo cube to get myself out of edh-driven funks.

As for emotions, my poker face is awful. How I feel is alway painted on me, and always has been to some degree. The thing I've learned over time is not to lose perspective about this being a game at the end of the day. Makes it a lot easier to shrug off tilt or let an annoying play go instead of fussing. There will always be more games of equally little consequence to play.

[Sinis]

After reading comments about cards and the "salt" score, it got me wondering to what degree do you let your emotions guide in either playing/deck building or card buying?

I am absolutely run by emotion for Magic. I often buy cards because I like the art.

The fact of the matter is that many jobs require a hyper-rationality to do, and I just get tired of enforcing rigid logic on things. I do that all day, and when I sit down to sling some cardboard, I can't be bothered. It's one of the reasons why EDH is so appealing; playing competitive Standard would also require rigid logic-based decision-making where EDH's 'punishment' for a grievous misplay is to shuffle up and play another game.

This isn't to say that I won't play 'rationally' in some circumstances, but it's not the same as exhaustively mapping out decision trees like I would in Legacy, or another format. I don't apply the same rigour. Sometimes I just want to roll dice with Farideh, and I will play a card that rolls a die.

[Cyberium]

I try to make decks with interesting mechanics or theme. When I use powerful cards in a vortho/melvin deck, there are significantly less complaints and I also feel less guilty about it. (The example being my Nicol Bolas, the Ravager // Nicol Bolas, the Arisen and his Egyptian gods deck)

I avoid combo decks, that helps also.

[Hermes_]

I'm not really sure what this question means but I'll take my best guess.
Now, I will also do things like, when someone sits down with a commander I think is %$#%$#%, such as Kykar, Wind's Fury, and I have an early attack, I'll send it their way

So, if I sat across from you and played Rick, Steadfast Leader as part of a soldier token deck, you'd swing at me partly because of how you feel about the card/product it came from?

[Jemolk]

So, if I sat across from you and played Rick, Steadfast Leader as part of a soldier token deck, you'd swing at me partly because of how you feel about the card/product it came from?

My policy on Walking Dead cards is "proxies only." You can write the card name on a basic forest for all I care, but I won't play with anyone who insists on using the real card. Not even pulling it out to reference the rules text. If it just showed up without warning in the 99? Yeah, I probably would attack the player who played it. Not because it's powerful, but because I really, strongly want to discourage buying those products as much as possible. Not in-game logic, really, but there is a logic to it. I put a great deal of value in devaluing mechanically unique Secret Lairs, so the logic I'd follow when confronted with them flows from that. Which sort of feeds into my earlier point -- emotions and logic are both going to be involved regardless. Just sometimes the logic follows a different paradigm than you might expect.

[DirkGently]

So, if I sat across from you and played Rick, Steadfast Leader as part of a soldier token deck, you'd swing at me partly because of how you feel about the card/product it came from?

To clarify, when I say "%$#%$#% commander" I mean in terms of power level. If someone's playing Korvold, I'm probably going to attack them first unless other information supersedes in my threat assessment.

Haven't seen anyone playing the SLxTWD commanders yet...I do dislike them a lot, as (1) mechanically unique secret lairs and (2) mechanically unique non-magic-IP cards and (3) being based on an absolutely atrocious show. Initially my reaction was closer to Jemolk's, but at this point if someone actually pulled one out I'd probably just roll my eyes and play it normally. It will probably be almost impossible to play "magic IP only" within a few years once more UB cards with much larger print runs are in circulation. Magic sold its soul already. Nothing I can do is likely to make one iota of difference.

[Hermes_]

So, if I sat across from you and played Rick, Steadfast Leader as part of a soldier token deck, you'd swing at me partly because of how you feel about the card/product it came from?

To clarify, when I say "%$#%$#% commander" I mean in terms of power level. If someone's playing Korvold, I'm probably going to attack them first unless other information supersedes in my threat assessment.

Haven't seen anyone playing the SLxTWD commanders yet...I do dislike them a lot, as (1) mechanically unique secret lairs and (2) mechanically unique non-magic-IP cards and (3) being based on an absolutely atrocious show. Initially my reaction was closer to Jemolk's, but at this point if someone actually pulled one out I'd probably just roll my eyes and play it normally. It will probably be almost impossible to play "magic IP only" within a few years once more UB cards with much larger print runs are in circulation. Magic sold its soul already. Nothing I can do is likely to make one iota of difference.

So you've mellowed lol,I should have realized you meant power.level.