MTG Salvation

I've decided to use my blog for writing something like a short human interest article addressing something I find very important, that being the social aspect of Commander. This is an outlet for my ideas and to maintain my writing abilities. So I wouldn't necessarily expect these articles to be good.

'The Social Contract' is a phrase you've probably heard if you have anything more than just a passing interest in Commander. Even if you only play competitive 1v1 Commander, which is often a very asocial variation of the format, has been hit with this phrase. But I wonder how many players could adequately describe the concept. While this article exists to cover the concept in depth, I'll provide concise definition for those who can't stomach my terrible writing in larger chunks:

Don't be a dick.

This phrase, Wheaton's Law, describes the social contract of commander much more comprehensibly than I ever could that briefly. The phrase is simple, comprehensive, and universally applicable; it's as good as a definition could get.

If you're willing to sacrifice the enjoyment of others for the sake of efficiency, exchanging friendliness for a more probable victory, you've thrown out the social contract. And tossing the social considerations of Magic in general out the window is, in my opinion, always a poor decision. This does not mean that competitive or even cutthroat Commander is a violation of the social contract, which may not be your very first conclusion from what I've stated. But to play Commander in a very competitive manner is not always, and very often isn't, tossing enjoyment to the wayside to win. When someone playing 'cutthroat' Commander is faced with another player of similar inclination, it isn't making the game less fun for either of them. Most often such a player will find a match like that more enjoyable; how fun is it actually to stop some clueless goob? Competitive players do not necessarily disregard the social aspect of them game for the purpose of winning, competitive players have interwoven the fun into the competition.

"So you agree that players complaining something isn't fun have no buisiness saying so?" (This is what I'm imagining someone of dissenting opinion might be saying at this point.)

Absolutely not. This is where violations of the social contract begin. When players of different core ideologies meet, most notably the case with casual and competitive players, conflict will very likely arise. When the game ends someone, in this example the casual player, is going to be unhappy. This is a violation of the social contract, but one that is entirely excusable the first time, because you didn't know any better. No one can be expected to know the preferences of someone else if they haven't been stated, but if you continue to play against that casual player without any modification to your deck or behavior it's a grievous transgression.

"So I should have to modify my play or my deck for them? How is that reasonable."

It isn't, which is why I'm not saying you're expected to do so. There are two fair resolutions to this conflict:

a) Modify your behavior and/or deck to accommodate that player's ideology.

b) Stop playing against them, jackass*.

If playing against someone else will only ever result in one party being dissatisfied, then those individuals shouldn't be playing each other. It's needless to play a game that's going to make someone unhappy, because the point of a game is to be enjoyed. If they ask to play with you again, politely decline. If they press you, point out that you're not willing to play any less competitively for their sake. Past that point, it's entirely fair game and hopefully learn.

"Alright, but what about when a super casual player tells me I should change my deck? Aren't they violating the social contract?"

To an extent. Expecting someone to change their habits for you is generally an awful thing to do, but what they are doing is reactionary. They've been threatened, in a manner of speaking, so such a reaction is just as excusable as ruining their fun for that first game. If they continue it's a problem, but retaliation is still never a reasonable or practical response, stop playing with them. There is very little further to say on the topic.

Now, as a final note, there is one other kind of offense against the enjoyment of others that is inexcusable. If you intentionally play in a certain way for the sake of making another player unhappy, you're the worst kind of dick and I hope to never meet you. There is never a justifiable reason to do so, and such a person deserves no respect.

With that, I'm done. The next time I write it will be on the topic of the role of politics.

* The "jackass" only applies if you've done it more than once to the same player.