Political or Manipulative: where is the line?
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2022 6:06 am
@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?
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?