It wouldn't be wrong, but on the inside I'd judge you as obnoxious, passive aggressive, a bad sport, and some one I wouldn't want to be friends with, if that was my initial impression of you, not that my judgement means anything in the grand scheme of things.
This, on the opposite side, is precisely some people don't prefer to use the term "Good Game" as their "Basic Courtesy/Sportsmanship" term for MTG.
Ultimately, "Basic Courtesy/Sportsmanship" is not a flat, inflexible list of words to be used in the game. It should be based on logic and empathy, both flexible factors depending on the game itself.
If you were playing a game with someone and he or she got mana-screwed badly and you said "Good Game" simply because it was on the flat list of "Basic Courtesy" and he/she just shakes your hand without saying much (or a Thanks), it doesn't mean he's/she's wholeheartedly accepting the term - likewise he's/she's probably judging you as a person devoid of empathy without throwing a tantrum about it. Just because people don't throw tantrums about it doesn't mean they aren't feeling the same things a person throwing a tantrum are.
Someone can be accepting that the game is randomness-based, but even randomness doesn't justify that all "games that are bad due to randomness automatically become "good" because hey, it's randomness". It's still a "bad game" to the player whether he or she shows it or not and an opponent saying "Good Game" when it isn't one isn't going to feel good.
Remember "Good Game" is not actually as ingrained in MTG culture as it is in other games due to the randomness factor (logic) PLUS people putting empathy in their "Basic Courtesy" terms to not just import the term over, even if they use it in other games where the term is ingrained in (and those games are usually much less randomness-dependent).
"Basic Courtesy" without the use of Logic & Empathy is at best a facade and at worst hypocrisy (depending on how the player takes the term on the receiving end as well).
Other competitive sports and e-games have elements of luck in them too. Competitive pokemon game boy battling (yes, it's a big thing) is one example. Sometimes crits allow you to win games you have no business winning. it's still expected to say good game afterwards.
If you only say "Good game" if a game was good for you, and you played well, and drew all the cards you wanted to draw, and get salty and butthurt when your opponent says good game after beating you when you didn't draw the cards you wanted, that just means you're a good winner, and a poor loser.
The theory still applies. If there's an overwhelming number of critical hits that caused your all/most of your opponent's checks/counters to fall without doing anything the entire match, you can indeed still say "Good Game" because it's "expected to", but that doesn't change that saying it would make you look thoughtless. If it's a single critical that decided the game, then it's pretty much a topdeck in MTG terms, and those can happen after games that can be generally defined good, or at least a decent game, then in which the term is okay.
And no, deciding to say "Good Game" is not determined by how you played, or the cards you drew, it's determined by how well the opponent played. Like I said, the basis behind Basic Courtesy is Empathy, which refers to others, not yourself. It's not a matter of a "Good Winner", it's a matter of a "Thoughtful Winner" and a "Thoughtless Winner". The former considers the game that happened and whether it could be considered a "Good Game" from his opponent's perspective, not his or her own. The latter is just the opposite.
Yes, ultimately, the actual way to judge whether a game is good or not is highly subjective, but there are some games where it is too obvious that your opponent didn't have a good game (2 mana and casting nothing the entire game). Even if the opponent was bad at the game, it falls down to your Empathy to use better word choices.
Ultimately though, nothing can stop us from using the terms we want to use though. The point is needing to understand that Empathy (and emotion) lurks in every person, whether they show it or not - to assume everyone is devoid of them because it is simply "expected" term is too much of an ideal - not everyone subscribes to that even if it is expected. However, a little more thought in the choice of words would go a long way to make people feel slightly, or at least, not worse - it's not walking on eggshells or babying people, it's simply sparing a thought.
Can someone who says "I only say good game if it was actually good" give me a checklist of what makes a game good? Concrete, something a computer or robot could decide.
Generally speaking, not missing a land drop for the first 5-6 turns and playing a card at least every other turn and possibly having some response actions for the cards you play.
In a card game, 'good' should be accepted as a game where both opponents get to actually play cards. A game where only the victor is able to actually play cards should be universally accepted as a 'not a good game'.
Generally speaking, not missing a land drop for the first 5-6 turns and playing a card at least every other turn and possibly having some response actions for the cards you play.
In a card game, 'good' should be accepted as a game where both opponents get to actually play cards. A game where only the victor is able to actually play cards should be universally accepted as a 'not a good game'.
5 or 6 turns? Isn't that a bit excessive?
What about if I play a control deck or land destruction or a prison deck? Is it just impossible to have a good game against those decks unless you beat them?
What about if I play a control deck or land destruction or a prison deck? Is it just impossible to have a good game against those decks unless you beat them?
This is where reading your opponent comes in.
Did they make some plays through your stuff? Get close to victory before you established a lock? Did they seem interested in figuring out how to play around/through what you were doing? Then sure, it probably was a good game.
Did you counter 12 spells in a row and get in with a single Delver? Did you blow up all their lands before they could play anything and force them to spend 5 turns in a row discarding? Probably worth being a little more sympathetic.
Did they make some plays through your stuff? Get close to victory before you established a lock? Did they seem interested in figuring out how to play around/through what you were doing? Then sure, it probably was a good game.
Did you counter 12 spells in a row and get in with a single Delver? Did you blow up all their lands before they could play anything and force them to spend 5 turns in a row discarding? Probably worth being a little more sympathetic.
But that's the whole problem with this "Only say good game when it was actually a good game and make sure to get salty if your opponent says good game when it wasn't" approach people have to things. It's completely subjective. Because on some level, people tend to only consider games they win "good". Sure you have examples where your opponent plays some wacky deck that entertains you with its novelty, even if you lose. But most of the time, it can't be a game that was a blowout. It can't be a game that's too close, or else it wasn't a "good game", just a lucky top deck. Unless you win. Then it was your smart deck design, meta choice, skill plays, etc. that made you win so it was still "competitive".
Why can't "good game" just mean "We both played the game. Neither of us cheated. Neither of us were scummy." without it having to mean that you take the variance of the game into account.
What about if I play a control deck or land destruction or a prison deck? Is it just impossible to have a good game against those decks unless you beat them?
This is where reading your opponent comes in.
Did they make some plays through your stuff? Get close to victory before you established a lock? Did they seem interested in figuring out how to play around/through what you were doing? Then sure, it probably was a good game.
Did you counter 12 spells in a row and get in with a single Delver? Did you blow up all their lands before they could play anything and force them to spend 5 turns in a row discarding? Probably worth being a little more sympathetic.
So you should act sorry and "sympathetic" for beating someone in a tournament where the point of the game is to beat someone?
"Sorry for winning bro. Act salty and act like a dick if you want to. I understand."
What's the point of playing if you feel guilty for winning?
So you should act sorry and "sympathetic" for beating someone in a tournament where the point of the game is to beat someone?
"Sorry for winning bro. Act salty and act like a dick if you want to. I understand."
What's the point of playing if you feel guilty for winning?
Being sympathetic isn't the same thing as being sorry or guilty. It means understanding things from the other person's perspective.
Do you not see how, after a match that was a complete blowout where your opponent didn't get to do anything meaningful the entire time, essentially saying "hey, thanks for that awesome game, you did great out there" might sound just a little patronizing? Because that's basically what you're saying when you say "good game." There's nothing wrong with wanting to win or being glad you did, but if your opponent is clearly on tilt then just acknowledge that things went well for you, or thank them for the round and wish them luck, and be done with it.
So you should act sorry and "sympathetic" for beating someone in a tournament where the point of the game is to beat someone?
"Sorry for winning bro. Act salty and act like a dick if you want to. I understand."
What's the point of playing if you feel guilty for winning?
Being sympathetic isn't the same thing as being sorry or guilty. It means understanding things from the other person's perspective.
Do you not see how, after a match that was a complete blowout where your opponent didn't get to do anything meaningful the entire time, essentially saying "hey, thanks for that awesome game, you did great out there" might sound just a little patronizing? Because that's basically what you're saying when you say "good game." There's nothing wrong with wanting to win or being glad you did, but if your opponent is clearly on tilt then just acknowledge that things went well for you, or thank them for the round and wish them luck, and be done with it.
Should kids who get blown out 11-0 in a soccer game not shake hands and say good game with the team that beat them at the end of the game?
Kids say "good game" in soccer because it is a cultural expectation that they do so. The cultural expectation around the phrase is not as universally accepted in Magic. Several people in this thread have explained why some people do not automatically accept the phrase "good game" as a canned phrase that is spoken for the sake of tradition with no specific meaning.
Can I ask what exactly you're trying to accomplish with this thread? As far as I can tell, your position is: You place a personal value in using the exact phrase "good game" after a match and want to be able to continue to do so, but sometimes people react negatively. You want people not to react negatively so that you can continue to behave in the same manner that you currently do. People have explained the rationale behind the lack of universal acceptance for the phrase, and now I'm not sure what you're getting at. You can accept that it's not going to make everyone happy all the time, but if you did that then we wouldn't still be talking. I can only surmise that you are interested in how not to get an occasional negative reaction, but you turn around and attack anyone who makes a suggestion. So help me out here. What are you trying to accomplish?
What's the point of playing if you feel guilty for winning?
I think most of us at one point or another felt "guilty" for winning. But it sure beats feeling badly that we lost.
*Example - I beat an Abzan Red deck with Atarka Red this past Friday. When I saw all of the answers that he had after SB, I really did truly realize that the match was definitely a bunch in his favor. Still, it feels better beating a deck that you shouldn't beat because of variance than going 3-3. (4-2's definitely not good, but it's not as big a blow)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Kids say "good game" in soccer because it is a cultural expectation that they do so. The cultural expectation around the phrase is not as universally accepted in Magic. Several people in this thread have explained why some people do not automatically accept the phrase "good game" as a canned phrase that is spoken for the sake of tradition with no specific meaning.
Can I ask what exactly you're trying to accomplish with this thread? As far as I can tell, your position is: You place a personal value in using the exact phrase "good game" after a match and want to be able to continue to do so, but sometimes people react negatively. You want people not to react negatively so that you can continue to behave in the same manner that you currently do. People have explained the rationale behind the lack of universal acceptance for the phrase, and now I'm not sure what you're getting at. You can accept that it's not going to make everyone happy all the time, but if you did that then we wouldn't still be talking. I can only surmise that you are interested in how not to get an occasional negative reaction, but you turn around and attack anyone who makes a suggestion. So help me out here. What are you trying to accomplish?
I'm not hoping to accomplish anything, but I'm unable to understand and comprehend how so many people are fighting against basic principles of sportsmanship in here.
If you don't like good sportsmanship, keep your negative comments to yourself.
It does not mean I am rubbing your nose in it if I win. It does not mean I am a sore loser if you won.
It means playing against you was good, regardless of the outcome.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
============================
Hooked on Magic since The Dark.
Blue Rules. Berserk, Fork, Fork, Fork, Fork
"Does trample go around the table?"
============================
Is a handshake and silence acceptable? I usually am vocal if the player is new, and i'll read the rules text out loud. otherwise silence.
Yeah, it's probably fine. Like, I usually talk and make jokes unless my opponent asks me to quiet down or seems uncomfortable or whatever, but quiet is fine.
Maybe you'll seem a little cold, but mostly people are ok with that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The theory still applies. If there's an overwhelming number of critical hits that caused your all/most of your opponent's checks/counters to fall without doing anything the entire match, you can indeed still say "Good Game" because it's "expected to", but that doesn't change that saying it would make you look thoughtless. If it's a single critical that decided the game, then it's pretty much a topdeck in MTG terms, and those can happen after games that can be generally defined good, or at least a decent game, then in which the term is okay.
And no, deciding to say "Good Game" is not determined by how you played, or the cards you drew, it's determined by how well the opponent played. Like I said, the basis behind Basic Courtesy is Empathy, which refers to others, not yourself. It's not a matter of a "Good Winner", it's a matter of a "Thoughtful Winner" and a "Thoughtless Winner". The former considers the game that happened and whether it could be considered a "Good Game" from his opponent's perspective, not his or her own. The latter is just the opposite.
Yes, ultimately, the actual way to judge whether a game is good or not is highly subjective, but there are some games where it is too obvious that your opponent didn't have a good game (2 mana and casting nothing the entire game). Even if the opponent was bad at the game, it falls down to your Empathy to use better word choices.
Ultimately though, nothing can stop us from using the terms we want to use though. The point is needing to understand that Empathy (and emotion) lurks in every person, whether they show it or not - to assume everyone is devoid of them because it is simply "expected" term is too much of an ideal - not everyone subscribes to that even if it is expected. However, a little more thought in the choice of words would go a long way to make people feel slightly, or at least, not worse - it's not walking on eggshells or babying people, it's simply sparing a thought.
In a card game, 'good' should be accepted as a game where both opponents get to actually play cards. A game where only the victor is able to actually play cards should be universally accepted as a 'not a good game'.
5 or 6 turns? Isn't that a bit excessive?
What about if I play a control deck or land destruction or a prison deck? Is it just impossible to have a good game against those decks unless you beat them?
Did they make some plays through your stuff? Get close to victory before you established a lock? Did they seem interested in figuring out how to play around/through what you were doing? Then sure, it probably was a good game.
Did you counter 12 spells in a row and get in with a single Delver? Did you blow up all their lands before they could play anything and force them to spend 5 turns in a row discarding? Probably worth being a little more sympathetic.
But that's the whole problem with this "Only say good game when it was actually a good game and make sure to get salty if your opponent says good game when it wasn't" approach people have to things. It's completely subjective. Because on some level, people tend to only consider games they win "good". Sure you have examples where your opponent plays some wacky deck that entertains you with its novelty, even if you lose. But most of the time, it can't be a game that was a blowout. It can't be a game that's too close, or else it wasn't a "good game", just a lucky top deck. Unless you win. Then it was your smart deck design, meta choice, skill plays, etc. that made you win so it was still "competitive".
Why can't "good game" just mean "We both played the game. Neither of us cheated. Neither of us were scummy." without it having to mean that you take the variance of the game into account.
Why? Do you think that people descended from Aztecs today still practice ritualistic human sacrifice or are you just making a cringey joke?
So you should act sorry and "sympathetic" for beating someone in a tournament where the point of the game is to beat someone?
"Sorry for winning bro. Act salty and act like a dick if you want to. I understand."
What's the point of playing if you feel guilty for winning?
Do you not see how, after a match that was a complete blowout where your opponent didn't get to do anything meaningful the entire time, essentially saying "hey, thanks for that awesome game, you did great out there" might sound just a little patronizing? Because that's basically what you're saying when you say "good game." There's nothing wrong with wanting to win or being glad you did, but if your opponent is clearly on tilt then just acknowledge that things went well for you, or thank them for the round and wish them luck, and be done with it.
Should kids who get blown out 11-0 in a soccer game not shake hands and say good game with the team that beat them at the end of the game?
Can I ask what exactly you're trying to accomplish with this thread? As far as I can tell, your position is: You place a personal value in using the exact phrase "good game" after a match and want to be able to continue to do so, but sometimes people react negatively. You want people not to react negatively so that you can continue to behave in the same manner that you currently do. People have explained the rationale behind the lack of universal acceptance for the phrase, and now I'm not sure what you're getting at. You can accept that it's not going to make everyone happy all the time, but if you did that then we wouldn't still be talking. I can only surmise that you are interested in how not to get an occasional negative reaction, but you turn around and attack anyone who makes a suggestion. So help me out here. What are you trying to accomplish?
I think most of us at one point or another felt "guilty" for winning. But it sure beats feeling badly that we lost.
*Example - I beat an Abzan Red deck with Atarka Red this past Friday. When I saw all of the answers that he had after SB, I really did truly realize that the match was definitely a bunch in his favor. Still, it feels better beating a deck that you shouldn't beat because of variance than going 3-3. (4-2's definitely not good, but it's not as big a blow)
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)I'm not hoping to accomplish anything, but I'm unable to understand and comprehend how so many people are fighting against basic principles of sportsmanship in here.
If you don't like good sportsmanship, keep your negative comments to yourself.
It does not mean I am rubbing your nose in it if I win. It does not mean I am a sore loser if you won.
It means playing against you was good, regardless of the outcome.
Hooked on Magic since The Dark.
Blue Rules.
Berserk, Fork, Fork, Fork, Fork
"Does trample go around the table?"
============================
Maybe you'll seem a little cold, but mostly people are ok with that.
Art is life itself.