Hi, I decided to register on this forum to resolve some ethical doubts related to what the French call "etiquette". These days I am playing magic commander with some friends. There were three of us the other night, and one of these three players was ahead (he had two very strong creatures on the ground: Void Winnower and Bane of Bala Ged). The other player suggested that I use "Toxic Deluge" to eliminate all the other creatures. The owner of the two creatures urged me not to, saying he would not attack me. I preferred to follow the suggestion of the other player, and I used the "Toxic Deluge". At that point I was accused of being duped. My question is this: in a multiplayer game, is it right that all players team up to curb the strongest and best player? Is it ethical to create temporary alliances? What is the boundary that separates a tactical alliance from manipulation?
Another problem is that of the "paternalistic spirit". Whenever I cast a spell, it's always the wrong one. The other players expect me to line up alongside one of them. They do not accept that it can have my own independent strategy. How can you play magic in this unbearable climate?
It seems that in this group, the competition is taking over the fun.
My question is this: in a multiplayer game, is it right that all players team up to curb the strongest and best player? Is it ethical to create temporary alliances? What is the boundary that separates a tactical alliance from manipulation?
All of this is definitely part of the game and to be expected in a free for all multiplayer format. If you don't want to get ganged up on, then you need to pace yourself and not play every threat you have, just because you can, if it won't cause you to win on the spot. Managing your own threat-level is an important art to learn.
edit: regarding boundaries, as long as all agreements are kept in spirit (as well as to the letter), I'm fine with temporary alliances, even if in hindsight they benefited one player more than another
Another problem is that of the "paternalistic spirit". Whenever I cast a spell, it's always the wrong one. The other players expect me to line up alongside one of them. They do not accept that it can have my own independent strategy. How can you play magic in this unbearable climate?
Call them out on this. I've been told I did something like this in the past (without me realizing it) and since then I've tried to do better. The people you play with might need a similar wake-up call.
The only thing i'd add is that most multiplayer games have this inherent downside; players are trying to 'play' each other, and sometimes, that leads to people taking "who's taking who's side" a bit too seriously, or that they just feel like it's kingmaking. It's the nature of the beast unfortunately.
One more thing i'd add is that things that are secret in-game (your hand, contents of your library, and so on) should be kept so. It means that other players are then much less likely to be able to "tell you what you should do". It's your game, and it should be you who's playing it. AFTER the game, it might be worth looking over some misplays and whatnot, but during the game, what your opponents tell you about how you should be playing should be kept to a respectful level.
Ive made this sorta mistake many times in the past, and it's worth repeating for y'all who have a hard time with it. I don't recall the exact situation now, but there were times when the table knew that a player had removal for a particular problem for the table, but wouldn't remove it. Myself and the other player were pretty annoyed about it, and kept hounding the player with removal. one or two rounds later, the player with the removal not only killed off the problem player (with the problematic permanent as a synergy piece or aikido-piece), but severely crippled the other two, and pushing himself waaaay up into the lead. That was something that the player planned, and regardless whether or not the other players thought removing that permanent was a good idea, it certainly was the correct play for the player with removal to not use it.
Use the hidden zones!
I totally get where you're coming from. I also have a player that frequents my LGS who also has the Paternalistic instinct to always tell me i'm doing something wrong (often coincides when I do something to put him behind... coincidence?). After a couple of matches of this happening and him being super salty about my plays, I talked to the player afterwards just simply saying: hey man, I play the game my way, and if you want to critique me the entire game that's fine, but no one will want to play with you if you're like that.
He seemed a bit flustered afterwards and definitely embarrassed to be called out on it so plainly. I haven't seen that player return back, but if he were to change his attitude, I would definitely not hold anything against him. I feel like some players just get too controlling in a game and sometimes it's best just to call them out to bring them back down to earth. I never would promote being mean or bullying a player doing this, but having an open discussion on things that negatively impact your play experience is the adult thing to do!
Also a good go-to I use when people are razzing me to take sides is just to plainly say "you do you, I do me". If they want to make a deal, it's different, but if it's a consistent razzing just ask them to stop playing the game like they've perma cast Worst Fears, that should shut them up.
no really, politics are part of a pod and a huge draw for a great many players. its not uncommon for people to be cutthroat, its also not uncommon for people to team up to take down a bigger threat - only to backstab the other person. embrace it, exploit it, its part of the nature of the format.
as for the people who tell you you're doing something wrong... well there's always going to be those people in a pod, they're looking to put themselves ahead, its up to you to believe them or not. sometimes its better to blow them out, sometimes it actually isn't, there's no hard rule here other than your own judgement. what i will say is that, well... talk it out. if you're on the fence get a convincing argument out of them. there's been a lot of games where i've seen someone change their play based on someone elses argument and the game dramatically shifts based on that. someone says don't do that because i can do this other thing, and sometimes they're telling the truth, and sometimes they're not. its your call in the end, not theirs.
the best advice, more than anything else, once you've weighed your decisions and made your choice. explain why if you think anyone is testy, and more than anything else don't try do any take backs.
{1}My question is this: in a multiplayer game, is it right that all players team up to curb the strongest and best player? {2}Is it ethical to create temporary alliances? {3} What is the boundary that separates a tactical alliance from manipulation?
1- Sometimes, sure. For each player, the goal is to win. If someone pulls out ahead very quickly in terms of mana, card advantage, and board presence, it's only natural that they find themselves in an archenemy situation, and if they don't, they simply win. A lot of the time, a game will be relatively even, and you won't need to collaborate. In the case you mention, he has Void Winnower and Bane of Bala Ged; your other opponent does not have a way to deal with these, but your way of dealing with them is at sorcery speed. If you have instant speed removal, you would have to make your decision before Bane attacks anyway, lest he is tempted to swing into you with it, since once that trigger is on the stack you could be set very far behind. So this situation depends mostly on the general board state, cards in hand, and where casting Toxic Deluge leaves you. Obviously you'll have used a card and a chunk of life. But if your other opponent has a board full of enchantments or something else that Deluge won't remove, letting those eldrazi swing in might be your best bet at winning. It's not so much collaboration then as it is playing your own odds.
2- Sure! And if you prove that your word is reliable, you definitely can leverage it to your advantage at times. Sometimes it's as innocuous as pointing out potential situations that could arise from an opposing permanent being on the board. "Maybe you should attack that Narset, Enlightened Master. We wouldn't want him to play Wheel of Fortune and leave us dead." It might not even be your primary reason for wanting it gone, but if they agree with you and get rid of the problem, you've removed something without going down a card, which inches you ahead.
3- A tactical alliance is manipulation, but remember, the person you are dealing with is willingly accepting that manipulation, meaning that it is not unethical to "use" someone this way. If they refuse to cooperate with you, don't take it personally, of course. And I find that being honest with these things and avoiding backstabbing situations like the plague is key to keeping a good reputation when playing in person. It's much harder to do this stuff on MTGO, but it's bad practice to start betraying people there.
Keep in mind that if you wish to keep a "lone wolf" mindset, people may become suspicious of you, which is bad because you have a plan to win the game eventually, and if people are picking apart your strategy at random you lose. Be affable when you can be.
Whenever I cast a spell, it's always the wrong one.
I imagine what you mean is that when you target something to blow it up, someone pipes in and says, "No, you should have blown THAT up instead!" Or, perhaps, "Use your instants at instant speed!" Or maybe it's something else. Elaborate if it's not just typical table talk/whine, because it's worrying the way you wrote that.
Okay so typically people will try to point out whoever is winning at any point at in time because it is very easy for people to snowball games and then attempt to get everyone to do their part to stop them. Particularly important when there is an important enchantment and people are playing grixis and you are the only one that can deal with it. There is almost always a point in my games where people ask everyone else if they have an answer, or wrath or a way to stop someone from winning.
There is obviously limits to this, a semi, fleeting co-op, it should always be a suggestion and never a command, do your own thing only help if it helps you win.
In my opinion, games are just better if everyone has built their decks with sufficient interaction that unless people are super unlucky one of you will have an answer card when a player plays a threat. so you shouldn't just sit in your corner and try to combo out faster than your opponents because everyone is going to get bored real quick.
Another problem is that of the "paternalistic spirit". Whenever I cast a spell, it's always the wrong one. The other players expect me to line up alongside one of them. They do not accept that it can have my own independent strategy. How can you play magic in this unbearable climate?
It seems that in this group, the competition is taking over the fun.
All of this is definitely part of the game and to be expected in a free for all multiplayer format. If you don't want to get ganged up on, then you need to pace yourself and not play every threat you have, just because you can, if it won't cause you to win on the spot. Managing your own threat-level is an important art to learn.
edit: regarding boundaries, as long as all agreements are kept in spirit (as well as to the letter), I'm fine with temporary alliances, even if in hindsight they benefited one player more than another
Call them out on this. I've been told I did something like this in the past (without me realizing it) and since then I've tried to do better. The people you play with might need a similar wake-up call.
The only thing i'd add is that most multiplayer games have this inherent downside; players are trying to 'play' each other, and sometimes, that leads to people taking "who's taking who's side" a bit too seriously, or that they just feel like it's kingmaking. It's the nature of the beast unfortunately.
One more thing i'd add is that things that are secret in-game (your hand, contents of your library, and so on) should be kept so. It means that other players are then much less likely to be able to "tell you what you should do". It's your game, and it should be you who's playing it. AFTER the game, it might be worth looking over some misplays and whatnot, but during the game, what your opponents tell you about how you should be playing should be kept to a respectful level.
Ive made this sorta mistake many times in the past, and it's worth repeating for y'all who have a hard time with it. I don't recall the exact situation now, but there were times when the table knew that a player had removal for a particular problem for the table, but wouldn't remove it. Myself and the other player were pretty annoyed about it, and kept hounding the player with removal. one or two rounds later, the player with the removal not only killed off the problem player (with the problematic permanent as a synergy piece or aikido-piece), but severely crippled the other two, and pushing himself waaaay up into the lead. That was something that the player planned, and regardless whether or not the other players thought removing that permanent was a good idea, it certainly was the correct play for the player with removal to not use it.
Use the hidden zones!
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
He seemed a bit flustered afterwards and definitely embarrassed to be called out on it so plainly. I haven't seen that player return back, but if he were to change his attitude, I would definitely not hold anything against him. I feel like some players just get too controlling in a game and sometimes it's best just to call them out to bring them back down to earth. I never would promote being mean or bullying a player doing this, but having an open discussion on things that negatively impact your play experience is the adult thing to do!
Also a good go-to I use when people are razzing me to take sides is just to plainly say "you do you, I do me". If they want to make a deal, it's different, but if it's a consistent razzing just ask them to stop playing the game like they've perma cast Worst Fears, that should shut them up.
no really, politics are part of a pod and a huge draw for a great many players. its not uncommon for people to be cutthroat, its also not uncommon for people to team up to take down a bigger threat - only to backstab the other person. embrace it, exploit it, its part of the nature of the format.
as for the people who tell you you're doing something wrong... well there's always going to be those people in a pod, they're looking to put themselves ahead, its up to you to believe them or not. sometimes its better to blow them out, sometimes it actually isn't, there's no hard rule here other than your own judgement. what i will say is that, well... talk it out. if you're on the fence get a convincing argument out of them. there's been a lot of games where i've seen someone change their play based on someone elses argument and the game dramatically shifts based on that. someone says don't do that because i can do this other thing, and sometimes they're telling the truth, and sometimes they're not. its your call in the end, not theirs.
the best advice, more than anything else, once you've weighed your decisions and made your choice. explain why if you think anyone is testy, and more than anything else don't try do any take backs.
1- Sometimes, sure. For each player, the goal is to win. If someone pulls out ahead very quickly in terms of mana, card advantage, and board presence, it's only natural that they find themselves in an archenemy situation, and if they don't, they simply win. A lot of the time, a game will be relatively even, and you won't need to collaborate. In the case you mention, he has Void Winnower and Bane of Bala Ged; your other opponent does not have a way to deal with these, but your way of dealing with them is at sorcery speed. If you have instant speed removal, you would have to make your decision before Bane attacks anyway, lest he is tempted to swing into you with it, since once that trigger is on the stack you could be set very far behind. So this situation depends mostly on the general board state, cards in hand, and where casting Toxic Deluge leaves you. Obviously you'll have used a card and a chunk of life. But if your other opponent has a board full of enchantments or something else that Deluge won't remove, letting those eldrazi swing in might be your best bet at winning. It's not so much collaboration then as it is playing your own odds.
2- Sure! And if you prove that your word is reliable, you definitely can leverage it to your advantage at times. Sometimes it's as innocuous as pointing out potential situations that could arise from an opposing permanent being on the board. "Maybe you should attack that Narset, Enlightened Master. We wouldn't want him to play Wheel of Fortune and leave us dead." It might not even be your primary reason for wanting it gone, but if they agree with you and get rid of the problem, you've removed something without going down a card, which inches you ahead.
3- A tactical alliance is manipulation, but remember, the person you are dealing with is willingly accepting that manipulation, meaning that it is not unethical to "use" someone this way. If they refuse to cooperate with you, don't take it personally, of course. And I find that being honest with these things and avoiding backstabbing situations like the plague is key to keeping a good reputation when playing in person. It's much harder to do this stuff on MTGO, but it's bad practice to start betraying people there.
Keep in mind that if you wish to keep a "lone wolf" mindset, people may become suspicious of you, which is bad because you have a plan to win the game eventually, and if people are picking apart your strategy at random you lose. Be affable when you can be.
I imagine what you mean is that when you target something to blow it up, someone pipes in and says, "No, you should have blown THAT up instead!" Or, perhaps, "Use your instants at instant speed!" Or maybe it's something else. Elaborate if it's not just typical table talk/whine, because it's worrying the way you wrote that.
There is obviously limits to this, a semi, fleeting co-op, it should always be a suggestion and never a command, do your own thing only help if it helps you win.
In my opinion, games are just better if everyone has built their decks with sufficient interaction that unless people are super unlucky one of you will have an answer card when a player plays a threat. so you shouldn't just sit in your corner and try to combo out faster than your opponents because everyone is going to get bored real quick.
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own