And au contraire, I think the fact that p3 (I assume, you keep getting the numbers mixed up so it's a little hard to follow) has no way to win makes it much more interesting, because there aren't any simple outs. This is the sort of weird, counterintuitive situation that can only ever happen in multiplayer. If you don't think it's interesting that the optimal play for p2 involves giving a chance to win to an opponent who should, by rights, have no chance to win whatsover, then I'd like to see what you DO think is interesting.
Within my summary, Player 1 is the one with the Indestructible 5/5. Player 2 is the one with Disk and Player 3 is the one with Banefire. I may have messed them up somewhere but it looks like you got the gist of what I was trying to get at.
Flipping a coin is never an acceptable method of determining a winner. Whether this is because it is against the rules of tournament Magic or just antithetical to the nature of a game, it should never come down to a literal coin flip.
In any case, it doesn't appear that you are going to get much agreement from a majority of people. Which is fine. Do whatever you want or think whatever you want to think. You don't need consensus from random internet people to say you think this is interesting. I just disagree.
I just wanted to answer the question above as you seem to have asked something similar in a couple of posts when people disagree with you. I personally find everything but this choice interesting. How did the game get to the point of Player 1 having a 5/5 Indestructible without it dying? Why did no one get rid of it? Why do they have nothing else? Since they have nothing else, how did Player 3 get the board state they have? The answers for this hypothetical are, obviously, irrelevant. But, the point is the game of Magic up until this point would be interesting to be part of. The fact that you want to take the past 1-2 hours of gameplay that led the current state, boil it all down to a single play of bartering/threats/politicking, and then call that interesting, you are free to hold that opinion. But, with the little information we have regarding this current state, I would find the outcome of this standoff to be, most likely, the most inconsequential play of the entire game. Every play that led to this situation is infinitely more interesting than the decisions Player 2 and 3 have right now.
And au contraire, I think the fact that p3 (I assume, you keep getting the numbers mixed up so it's a little hard to follow) has no way to win makes it much more interesting, because there aren't any simple outs. This is the sort of weird, counterintuitive situation that can only ever happen in multiplayer. If you don't think it's interesting that the optimal play for p2 involves giving a chance to win to an opponent who should, by rights, have no chance to win whatsover, then I'd like to see what you DO think is interesting.
Within my summary, Player 1 is the one with the Indestructible 5/5. Player 2 is the one with Disk and Player 3 is the one with Banefire. I may have messed them up somewhere but it looks like you got the gist of what I was trying to get at.
Flipping a coin is never an acceptable method of determining a winner. Whether this is because it is against the rules of tournament Magic or just antithetical to the nature of a game, it should never come down to a literal coin flip.
In any case, it doesn't appear that you are going to get much agreement from a majority of people. Which is fine. Do whatever you want or think whatever you want to think. You don't need consensus from random internet people to say you think this is interesting. I just disagree.
I just wanted to answer the question above as you seem to have asked something similar in a couple of posts when people disagree with you. I personally find everything but this choice interesting. How did the game get to the point of Player 1 having a 5/5 Indestructible without it dying? Why did no one get rid of it? Why do they have nothing else? Since they have nothing else, how did Player 3 get the board state they have? The answers for this hypothetical are, obviously, irrelevant. But, the point is the game of Magic up until this point would be interesting to be part of. The fact that you want to take the past 1-2 hours of gameplay that led the current state, boil it all down to a single play of bartering/threats/politicking, and then call that interesting, you are free to hold that opinion. But, with the little information we have regarding this current state, I would find the outcome of this standoff to be, most likely, the most inconsequential play of the entire game. Every play that led to this situation is infinitely more interesting than the decisions Player 2 and 3 have right now.
I do think it's weird that people seem SO against flipping a coin to decide a winner. Every game of magic that has ever happened has been HEAVILY determined by luck. This total distaste for luck strikes me as misunderstanding the foundation of the game.
Nearly every magic "riddle" that has been asked (i.e. "What's the play" on CFB) is something that is totally divorced from politics. Sure, there are plenty of interesting magic riddles, and I love solving them, but this is, imo, a totally different genre. A riddle that not only asks you to think about every player's thought process and likely reactions, but also to think so far outside the box as to require analyzing potential CONVERSATIONS? I mean, that is something that, afaik, has NEVER been talked about in a serious way. There are so many weird factors that come into a situation like this - i.e. if P3 lets P1 and P2 talk, he may well lose win% by getting into a bidding war with P1, so he has to declare an ultimatum early to ensure that p2 cannot trust p1 if p1 makes an attempt to wager with p2. That is so freaking insane. That is so distant from anything that's ever going to come up in a 1v1 magic riddle. We're talking about making a wager outside of the game itself in order to optimize win% inside the original game. You don't think that's bizarre?
I mean, sure, I'll grant that the original riddle doesn't leave a ton to be solved (although I think there are still interesting angles) but simply the potential for this sort of conundrum I think is a super interesting part of multiplayer that cannot exist inside the normal 1v1 game. You really think it's more interesting to analyze "gee, why didn't someone draw stp earlier?" or "how did a person draw nevinyrral's disk after exhausting their other cards?" Really? That's more interesting to you than analyzing elements of the game that have, afaik, never even been analyzed before? Card order? That's what gets your motors running? Not turning an unwinnable situation into a winnable one by manipulating your opponents desire to win. That's boring, trivial stuff compared to the thrill of no one drawing exiling removal for a few turns?
I'll grant that the actual result of the coin flip is inconsequential, but the (apparent?) fact that a coin flip to decide a winner is the optimal play is anything but. And I daresay that potential haggling (I'd assumed p1 had no power, but in fact he does seem to have a little so long as he barters with p2) is truly strange, in terms of what might end up determining the match, from a purely min-max point of view. Again - these are really weird factors that simply have no impact nor analysis in 1v1 games. You think it's uninteresting to talk about elements of the game that have never been talked about in terms of maximizing win% (afaik)? You must surely have some truly staggeringly exciting conundrums, to be more interesting than something that's literally never been discussed before. By all means, let's hear it.
P3 cannot make a deal with p1 because p2 has the ability to sabotage it by killing p3 with fireball no matter what. So p3 cannot win if he makes a deal with p1.
P2 could make a deal with p1. P3 can set off the disk to attempt to sabotage the deal, but p1 can just concede regardless after p2 fireballs player 3, if player 2 wins the wager. This requires some trust on p2's part, but so does the previous wager (for player 3 trusting player 2).
Depending on how p3 reacts this could go a couple ways. P3 could basically say "if you even TRY to make a deal with p1, I'll set off the disk immediately and then p1 won't take the deal, he'll just kill you." If p3 lets the conversation take place, though, then the bidding war could happen and p2 "wins" (insofar as he'll have a great deal when the dust clears).
Assuming everyone takes the optimal line, conversation-wise, p2 and p3 have 50% and p1 has 0% (I think).
See? This is interesting.
Not necessarily - P3 is dependent on P1 to have any bargaining power in the first place (like you said P3 cannot deal with P1). If you reduce P1's chances to 0%, P1 has the exact same advantage over P3 - "If you even try to make a deal with P2 for a win, I'll concede now and you will lose with me anyway". Add in the fact that all players know P3 cannot win legitimately it becomes an issue of whether spite-scooping or coin-flipping is less "ethical".
P1 has the absolute authority to shut down P3's abilities to make any deals, because if he or she loses (be it conceding or 20 damage), P3 loses along with him or her due to Banefire. If P3 attempts to make any deal that results in p1 having 0% chance of winning, why should P1 let P3 win? (Unlike between P1 and P2 from P3's point of view, from P1's point of view between P2 and P3, P2 should clearly be the winner disregarding other social factors in a vacuum).
"You think it's uninteresting to talk about elements of the game that have never been talked about in terms of maximizing win% (afaik)? You must surely have some truly staggeringly exciting conundrums, to be more interesting than something that's literally never been discussed before. By all means, let's hear it."
Wow, that was unnecessarily rude. You could have just thanked them for their input. Even if you are actually discussing something that hasn't ever been discussed, they're simply telling you your enthusiasm for your topic's esoteric viscera isn't shared as much by other people. Their opinion is as valid as yours, and your behavior as the thread host here is inappropriate. But, this is the internet and this seems to be your modis operandi, so whatever.
And au contraire, I think the fact that p3 (I assume, you keep getting the numbers mixed up so it's a little hard to follow) has no way to win makes it much more interesting, because there aren't any simple outs. This is the sort of weird, counterintuitive situation that can only ever happen in multiplayer. If you don't think it's interesting that the optimal play for p2 involves giving a chance to win to an opponent who should, by rights, have no chance to win whatsover, then I'd like to see what you DO think is interesting.
Within my summary, Player 1 is the one with the Indestructible 5/5. Player 2 is the one with Disk and Player 3 is the one with Banefire. I may have messed them up somewhere but it looks like you got the gist of what I was trying to get at.
Flipping a coin is never an acceptable method of determining a winner. Whether this is because it is against the rules of tournament Magic or just antithetical to the nature of a game, it should never come down to a literal coin flip.
In any case, it doesn't appear that you are going to get much agreement from a majority of people. Which is fine. Do whatever you want or think whatever you want to think. You don't need consensus from random internet people to say you think this is interesting. I just disagree.
I just wanted to answer the question above as you seem to have asked something similar in a couple of posts when people disagree with you. I personally find everything but this choice interesting. How did the game get to the point of Player 1 having a 5/5 Indestructible without it dying? Why did no one get rid of it? Why do they have nothing else? Since they have nothing else, how did Player 3 get the board state they have? The answers for this hypothetical are, obviously, irrelevant. But, the point is the game of Magic up until this point would be interesting to be part of. The fact that you want to take the past 1-2 hours of gameplay that led the current state, boil it all down to a single play of bartering/threats/politicking, and then call that interesting, you are free to hold that opinion. But, with the little information we have regarding this current state, I would find the outcome of this standoff to be, most likely, the most inconsequential play of the entire game. Every play that led to this situation is infinitely more interesting than the decisions Player 2 and 3 have right now.
I do think it's weird that people seem SO against flipping a coin to decide a winner. Every game of magic that has ever happened has been HEAVILY determined by luck. This total distaste for luck strikes me as misunderstanding the foundation of the game.
Nearly every magic "riddle" that has been asked (i.e. "What's the play" on CFB) is something that is totally divorced from politics. Sure, there are plenty of interesting magic riddles, and I love solving them, but this is, imo, a totally different genre. A riddle that not only asks you to think about every player's thought process and likely reactions, but also to think so far outside the box as to require analyzing potential CONVERSATIONS? I mean, that is something that, afaik, has NEVER been talked about in a serious way. There are so many weird factors that come into a situation like this - i.e. if P3 lets P1 and P2 talk, he may well lose win% by getting into a bidding war with P1, so he has to declare an ultimatum early to ensure that p2 cannot trust p1 if p1 makes an attempt to wager with p2. That is so freaking insane. That is so distant from anything that's ever going to come up in a 1v1 magic riddle. We're talking about making a wager outside of the game itself in order to optimize win% inside the original game. You don't think that's bizarre?
I mean, sure, I'll grant that the original riddle doesn't leave a ton to be solved (although I think there are still interesting angles) but simply the potential for this sort of conundrum I think is a super interesting part of multiplayer that cannot exist inside the normal 1v1 game. You really think it's more interesting to analyze "gee, why didn't someone draw stp earlier?" or "how did a person draw nevinyrral's disk after exhausting their other cards?" Really? That's more interesting to you than analyzing elements of the game that have, afaik, never even been analyzed before? Card order? That's what gets your motors running? Not turning an unwinnable situation into a winnable one by manipulating your opponents desire to win. That's boring, trivial stuff compared to the thrill of no one drawing exiling removal for a few turns?
I'll grant that the actual result of the coin flip is inconsequential, but the (apparent?) fact that a coin flip to decide a winner is the optimal play is anything but. And I daresay that potential haggling (I'd assumed p1 had no power, but in fact he does seem to have a little so long as he barters with p2) is truly strange, in terms of what might end up determining the match, from a purely min-max point of view. Again - these are really weird factors that simply have no impact nor analysis in 1v1 games. You think it's uninteresting to talk about elements of the game that have never been talked about in terms of maximizing win% (afaik)? You must surely have some truly staggeringly exciting conundrums, to be more interesting than something that's literally never been discussed before. By all means, let's hear it.
Ok, this is getting pretty ridiculous and your responses are oddly confrontational if one doesn't agree with you.
For the flipping a coin aspect, it is because it is outside the game in every conceivable manner and has nothing to do with the game that has been played to this point. Yes, every game has luck built into it. Every play requires some random chance to get the right card at the right time. But then it still requires that you a) put a card in your deck to get to that point and b) know what to do with it at that time. On turn 14 I could draw a Merciless Eviction to finally get out of a potentially bad situation. But, do I cast it now or wait just a little longer to get something more with it? Did I even give myself the chance to draw it by putting it into my deck? I don't know how you can equate card choices, play choices, and skill with the cards drawn up to this point with flipping a coin at a random point in the game.
As to what I find interesting, I meant the game as a whole. That is, there have been plays and decisions that led to the current state and would find those decisions more interesting than trying to win off a coin flip. Either everyone played a tight game with absolutely no mistakes and it still came to this point. Or, there were things the Disk player (or either other player) could have done differently to avoid this scenario. In either case, the game decisions (and yes, some random elements) led to a game state where the Disk player is bound to lose (most likely). That is fine but it is a lot better than ignoring every play before this (good or bad) and just saying a player wins by coin flip.
I would also say that riddles are immensely interesting, fun, and satisfying when solved. But this isn't a riddle. This isn't some ridiculously convoluted line of plays where a player can eke out a win that the other players thought they couldn't do. This isn't a situation where someone can say they stole an opposing player's Protean Hulk, sacrificed it to get Body Double to copy something in the other player's graveyard and then went on to find a way to chain some plays for the win from there. That would be interesting. Finding a way to win, using game elements, skill, knowledge of your deck (and potentially your opponents' decks) against insurmountable odds to come out victorious. That would be entertaining to both win with and get beaten by. That would provide a game/story that would be interesting and entertaining to talk about again in the future.
Again, you are free to find your hypothetical interesting. You can think that it is thinking "outside the box" (and, arguably, it probably is) but being outside the game entirely (ie, a coin flip) makes it not interesting to me. There is no skill in that. Even if you want to argue that is takes skill in the sense of convincing another player to participate, that still doesn't make up for the fact that the action being taken is a completely random element that negates literally everything up to this point.
Now, obviously these are just my opinions regarding your hypothetical. It seems that other posters agree with me and I am sure some agree with you. Neither of us is going to convince the other that their opinions are wrong, but the above summary should provide a little insight into why I don't feel this is interesting in any way.
Why not? If they start discussing before p2 main phase, p3 will have the chance to activate the disk before p2 has the chance to do something sorcery speed. Considering this, the first thing p3 has to do is to make p2 banefire p1, then they can start the bid war.
Maybe I'm missing something, but why would p2 banefire p1 without some sort of deal from p3? In which case it would be too late for p3 to make a deal with p1? (assuming the "no-reneging" clause, which is kind of mandatory for any of this to work)
I mean sure, p2 can't stop p3 from activating disk and making p2 lose, but p2 can still make p3 lose the game with the banefire no matter what, unless p3 makes a deal with p2.
Not necessarily - P3 is dependent on P1 to have any bargaining power in the first place (like you said P3 cannot deal with P1). If you reduce P1's chances to 0%, P1 has the exact same advantage over P3 - "If you even try to make a deal with P2 for a win, I'll concede now and you will lose with me anyway". Add in the fact that all players know P3 cannot win legitimately it becomes an issue of whether spite-scooping or coin-flipping is less "ethical".
P1 has the absolute authority to shut down P3's abilities to make any deals, because if he or she loses (be it conceding or 20 damage), P3 loses along with him or her due to Banefire. If P3 attempts to make any deal that results in p1 having 0% chance of winning, why should P1 let P3 win? (Unlike between P1 and P2 from P3's point of view, from P1's point of view between P2 and P3, P2 should clearly be the winner disregarding other social factors in a vacuum).
Good point - p1 can threaten to concede which would make p2 also lose (provided he hasn't "closed the deal" with p2). That said, since it's his only way to win, he has no reason not to bargain with p2 even if it means p1 may scoop, and p1 has no political power over p2 (as far as I can think, anyway). So I'd assume p3 will go ahead and bargain anyway, in which case p1 can either follow through with his threat and concede, or can try to offer p2 a better offer (p3 can threaten to set off the disk, but it's sort of hard to stop p1 from talking at player 2 even if p2 isn't haggling or anything). If p1 concedes then p2 wins, obv. If p1 tries to haggle, that gets into a weird situation where it sort of depends on what constitutes a deal. P1 would be pretty motivated to coerce p3 into setting off the disk, so he's likely to try to offer whatever will get p2's attention, thus potentially causing p3 to set off the disk before the deal is "ratified" or whatever, and giving the win to p1 as a deterrent to p2 to deal with p1. Ofc p1 is sort of trying to do the same thing to p3, but I think it's different because p1 knows that no amount of scoop-threatening is going to deter p3, whereas disk-threatening may deter p2 since he actually has something to lose.
So I think it's either going to end with p1 scooping and p2 winning, or a successful deal between p2 and p3. It could theoretically end in a deal between p1 and p2, but only if p3 is slow on the uptake and allows them to "ratify" the deal without setting off the disk. If p2 is a bit stupid he could also lose to p1 if he tries to make a deal with p1 but can't complete it before p2 sets off the disk. Of course any of these things could be thrown off by one of the players being excessively honorable and fulfilling a deal even if it wasn't fully "ratified", but I think the scenario is simplest if we assume that everyone is going to play as ruthlessly as possible so long as there isn't any successful deal restraining them.
So depending on how easy it is to "close a deal", depending on how honorable people are, depending on how trigger-happy people are to scoop (or effectively scoop) to block someone else...it could end in a p2 victory, a p1 victory, a p2-p3 wager, or a p1-p2 wager. It can't end in a p3 victory without a wager, obv, and it can't end with a p1-p3 wager.
Flipping a coin is never an acceptable method of determining a winner. Whether this is because it is against the rules of tournament Magic or just antithetical to the nature of a game, it should never come down to a literal coin flip.
In any case, it doesn't appear that you are going to get much agreement from a majority of people. Which is fine. Do whatever you want or think whatever you want to think. You don't need consensus from random internet people to say you think this is interesting. I just disagree.
I just wanted to answer the question above as you seem to have asked something similar in a couple of posts when people disagree with you. I personally find everything but this choice interesting. How did the game get to the point of Player 1 having a 5/5 Indestructible without it dying? Why did no one get rid of it? Why do they have nothing else? Since they have nothing else, how did Player 3 get the board state they have? The answers for this hypothetical are, obviously, irrelevant. But, the point is the game of Magic up until this point would be interesting to be part of. The fact that you want to take the past 1-2 hours of gameplay that led the current state, boil it all down to a single play of bartering/threats/politicking, and then call that interesting, you are free to hold that opinion. But, with the little information we have regarding this current state, I would find the outcome of this standoff to be, most likely, the most inconsequential play of the entire game. Every play that led to this situation is infinitely more interesting than the decisions Player 2 and 3 have right now.
Nearly every magic "riddle" that has been asked (i.e. "What's the play" on CFB) is something that is totally divorced from politics. Sure, there are plenty of interesting magic riddles, and I love solving them, but this is, imo, a totally different genre. A riddle that not only asks you to think about every player's thought process and likely reactions, but also to think so far outside the box as to require analyzing potential CONVERSATIONS? I mean, that is something that, afaik, has NEVER been talked about in a serious way. There are so many weird factors that come into a situation like this - i.e. if P3 lets P1 and P2 talk, he may well lose win% by getting into a bidding war with P1, so he has to declare an ultimatum early to ensure that p2 cannot trust p1 if p1 makes an attempt to wager with p2. That is so freaking insane. That is so distant from anything that's ever going to come up in a 1v1 magic riddle. We're talking about making a wager outside of the game itself in order to optimize win% inside the original game. You don't think that's bizarre?
I mean, sure, I'll grant that the original riddle doesn't leave a ton to be solved (although I think there are still interesting angles) but simply the potential for this sort of conundrum I think is a super interesting part of multiplayer that cannot exist inside the normal 1v1 game. You really think it's more interesting to analyze "gee, why didn't someone draw stp earlier?" or "how did a person draw nevinyrral's disk after exhausting their other cards?" Really? That's more interesting to you than analyzing elements of the game that have, afaik, never even been analyzed before? Card order? That's what gets your motors running? Not turning an unwinnable situation into a winnable one by manipulating your opponents desire to win. That's boring, trivial stuff compared to the thrill of no one drawing exiling removal for a few turns?
I'll grant that the actual result of the coin flip is inconsequential, but the (apparent?) fact that a coin flip to decide a winner is the optimal play is anything but. And I daresay that potential haggling (I'd assumed p1 had no power, but in fact he does seem to have a little so long as he barters with p2) is truly strange, in terms of what might end up determining the match, from a purely min-max point of view. Again - these are really weird factors that simply have no impact nor analysis in 1v1 games. You think it's uninteresting to talk about elements of the game that have never been talked about in terms of maximizing win% (afaik)? You must surely have some truly staggeringly exciting conundrums, to be more interesting than something that's literally never been discussed before. By all means, let's hear it.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
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 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - 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
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Not necessarily - P3 is dependent on P1 to have any bargaining power in the first place (like you said P3 cannot deal with P1). If you reduce P1's chances to 0%, P1 has the exact same advantage over P3 - "If you even try to make a deal with P2 for a win, I'll concede now and you will lose with me anyway". Add in the fact that all players know P3 cannot win legitimately it becomes an issue of whether spite-scooping or coin-flipping is less "ethical".
P1 has the absolute authority to shut down P3's abilities to make any deals, because if he or she loses (be it conceding or 20 damage), P3 loses along with him or her due to Banefire. If P3 attempts to make any deal that results in p1 having 0% chance of winning, why should P1 let P3 win? (Unlike between P1 and P2 from P3's point of view, from P1's point of view between P2 and P3, P2 should clearly be the winner disregarding other social factors in a vacuum).
Wow, that was unnecessarily rude. You could have just thanked them for their input. Even if you are actually discussing something that hasn't ever been discussed, they're simply telling you your enthusiasm for your topic's esoteric viscera isn't shared as much by other people. Their opinion is as valid as yours, and your behavior as the thread host here is inappropriate. But, this is the internet and this seems to be your modis operandi, so whatever.
For the flipping a coin aspect, it is because it is outside the game in every conceivable manner and has nothing to do with the game that has been played to this point. Yes, every game has luck built into it. Every play requires some random chance to get the right card at the right time. But then it still requires that you a) put a card in your deck to get to that point and b) know what to do with it at that time. On turn 14 I could draw a Merciless Eviction to finally get out of a potentially bad situation. But, do I cast it now or wait just a little longer to get something more with it? Did I even give myself the chance to draw it by putting it into my deck? I don't know how you can equate card choices, play choices, and skill with the cards drawn up to this point with flipping a coin at a random point in the game.
As to what I find interesting, I meant the game as a whole. That is, there have been plays and decisions that led to the current state and would find those decisions more interesting than trying to win off a coin flip. Either everyone played a tight game with absolutely no mistakes and it still came to this point. Or, there were things the Disk player (or either other player) could have done differently to avoid this scenario. In either case, the game decisions (and yes, some random elements) led to a game state where the Disk player is bound to lose (most likely). That is fine but it is a lot better than ignoring every play before this (good or bad) and just saying a player wins by coin flip.
I would also say that riddles are immensely interesting, fun, and satisfying when solved. But this isn't a riddle. This isn't some ridiculously convoluted line of plays where a player can eke out a win that the other players thought they couldn't do. This isn't a situation where someone can say they stole an opposing player's Protean Hulk, sacrificed it to get Body Double to copy something in the other player's graveyard and then went on to find a way to chain some plays for the win from there. That would be interesting. Finding a way to win, using game elements, skill, knowledge of your deck (and potentially your opponents' decks) against insurmountable odds to come out victorious. That would be entertaining to both win with and get beaten by. That would provide a game/story that would be interesting and entertaining to talk about again in the future.
Again, you are free to find your hypothetical interesting. You can think that it is thinking "outside the box" (and, arguably, it probably is) but being outside the game entirely (ie, a coin flip) makes it not interesting to me. There is no skill in that. Even if you want to argue that is takes skill in the sense of convincing another player to participate, that still doesn't make up for the fact that the action being taken is a completely random element that negates literally everything up to this point.
Now, obviously these are just my opinions regarding your hypothetical. It seems that other posters agree with me and I am sure some agree with you. Neither of us is going to convince the other that their opinions are wrong, but the above summary should provide a little insight into why I don't feel this is interesting in any way.
I mean sure, p2 can't stop p3 from activating disk and making p2 lose, but p2 can still make p3 lose the game with the banefire no matter what, unless p3 makes a deal with p2. Good point - p1 can threaten to concede which would make p2 also lose (provided he hasn't "closed the deal" with p2). That said, since it's his only way to win, he has no reason not to bargain with p2 even if it means p1 may scoop, and p1 has no political power over p2 (as far as I can think, anyway). So I'd assume p3 will go ahead and bargain anyway, in which case p1 can either follow through with his threat and concede, or can try to offer p2 a better offer (p3 can threaten to set off the disk, but it's sort of hard to stop p1 from talking at player 2 even if p2 isn't haggling or anything). If p1 concedes then p2 wins, obv. If p1 tries to haggle, that gets into a weird situation where it sort of depends on what constitutes a deal. P1 would be pretty motivated to coerce p3 into setting off the disk, so he's likely to try to offer whatever will get p2's attention, thus potentially causing p3 to set off the disk before the deal is "ratified" or whatever, and giving the win to p1 as a deterrent to p2 to deal with p1. Ofc p1 is sort of trying to do the same thing to p3, but I think it's different because p1 knows that no amount of scoop-threatening is going to deter p3, whereas disk-threatening may deter p2 since he actually has something to lose.
So I think it's either going to end with p1 scooping and p2 winning, or a successful deal between p2 and p3. It could theoretically end in a deal between p1 and p2, but only if p3 is slow on the uptake and allows them to "ratify" the deal without setting off the disk. If p2 is a bit stupid he could also lose to p1 if he tries to make a deal with p1 but can't complete it before p2 sets off the disk. Of course any of these things could be thrown off by one of the players being excessively honorable and fulfilling a deal even if it wasn't fully "ratified", but I think the scenario is simplest if we assume that everyone is going to play as ruthlessly as possible so long as there isn't any successful deal restraining them.
So depending on how easy it is to "close a deal", depending on how honorable people are, depending on how trigger-happy people are to scoop (or effectively scoop) to block someone else...it could end in a p2 victory, a p1 victory, a p2-p3 wager, or a p1-p2 wager. It can't end in a p3 victory without a wager, obv, and it can't end with a p1-p3 wager.
Man, what a mess.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
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 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - 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
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6