Multiplayer Politics

[Killer Joe]

In his words, he had the mana, he had the counterspell, so he just HAD to use it. I showed him my hand after that with 4 cards he needed to counter a lot more, and gave him the opportunity to take it back. He does dumb stuff like that all the time.

Ooooooooo, I just HATE IT when folks do that! In the MML at GASP, I am percieved as the best player with Killer Decks galore! But some other player with a non-descript non-focused deck will play Apocalypse and no one ever responds or retailiates. I play first turn Tropical Island then play BoP and all the *Oink!* comes flying my way until I'm dead brfore I can even get started!!!!!

I once read somewhere that "Polictics" in Multiplayer are an inherent part of the game since it involves 3 or more players. In a duel, I don't think you CAN use politics.

Here's an interesting way to play with three folks:
Siamese Twins
The active player vs the other two players. Obviously the "Teams" are in constant flux since in one turn, the person next to you, is your team-mate and then the next turn they're your enemy .

 

[Ferret]

That's what I loved about my old group: Everyone played for themselves. We never showed cards to each other and we never talked across the table and we never ganged up on players - unless, they were playing a really vile deck (I'm sorry, but a deck that sports 12 counters, 8 beefy flyers, and a Time Walk needs to be destroyed quickly!!)

I guess it's just a matter of setting ground rules and inform anyone that breaks them that they immediately become a target to anyone - you know, kind of like the United Nations...

-Ferret

"Except, ground rules sometimes work..."

 

[HOUTS]

"Jorael and I object to the severe lack of subtle politics"

Are you kidding? I understand about the idea of politics in multi-player, but this is just stretching it. I read your sappy situation and I have to say you really are stretching this whole idea.
MTG is a game-it will happen.

And btw-who 'draws' in multi-player games? Wtf is that?

I love how you all use these words of 'priniciple', 'matter at hand', 'politics', and so forth to overexeplify this simplistic situation.

Get the point?

It is a game, let me repeat. This is a game, stop trying to break it down. People will gang up, and some people will lose. That is just how it is. Deal with it. Reading what he, and others, have said it makes you guys sound like a 12 year old whining because someone 'teamed up'.

"We went too far. It was funny at the time, but not for the other players and playing magic should be fun for everyone. Using constant mist once, and using some hippo tokens to establish board control is one thing, totally annihilating 2 opponents and then offer remise is another"

Went to far? Wtf?! If you have a friggin card, and you want to abuse it-so be it! Who cares, abuse the hezzll out of it. And, NO, the game doesn't have to be fun for everyone. Because there will be a few whiners who'll complain because a player is "abusing his power and authority" or "playing the game the way he wants it". Cheez, remind me not to ever play with you or your friends. Offering remise? I hope you are kidding? You do realize you are in a MTG forum, right? I mean, you are supposed to annihilate opponents, flaunt, and maybe even teabag your opponents.

"I'd say the play was a bit... crude, but legal"

Legal you don't say? No shizt. It is a game. I have to repeat this every time because I hope you figure this out. I've been teamed up against 325r2435235235 times in my life. You could even square that number if you wanted. But, the most important thing I took away from it was---nothing. I realized it was a game...
Also, crude should be used for REAL example of such nature. Don't use it to describe a person kicking your azzs in a game. Ugh...

Stop taking things so personal and just play the friggin' game. If you really care that much, then maybe you need to reassess your life.



HOUTS

 

[Istanbul]

Stop taking things so personal and just play the friggin' game. If you really care that much, then maybe you need to reassess your life.

Mr. Pot, the Kettle already knows he's black...

 

[Dragon Bloodthirsty]

Our playgroup is pretty mature; we KNOW that the people who try to politic too much are the ones MOST likely to be packing some uber-death-trap that's just waiting to spring and kill us all. We discuss board position, and generally don't mind temporary teams; most of the people who REALLY enjoy politicing ALSO enjoy backstabbing. The ones who don't just end up making teams and not wanting to backstab the other player, so they call it a draw, split up the country, and each take his share (just got done playing an Ideological game; I was American Capotolists, and I ended up allied with Nazi Germany; We split it because neither one of us really wanted to mess with the other).

Generally, the whole "Politics" is over-rated; either you CAN do something, or you can't. Statements of "He's wide open!" are perfectly legit; replies of "But he can't play Wrath" are just as common.

It doesn't hurt that the players who care the least about politicing are the ones who always seem to have the best board position; no Rancor favors there "if you won't attack me" LOL. It might make a small difference, but you're as likely to take an extra 2 until you're within one attack of death if you pull stunts like that.

Teams happen; it isn't that much fun, but that's one of the problems innate to multiplayer games: There's more of them than there are of you, and if they really want to, they can take you out.

Just try to remember that multi is supposed to be for fun; if you want to put an end to politics, make the teams official. At least then, there's less of an "Unfair" feeling to it.

 

[jorael]

Went to far? Wtf?! If you have a friggin card, and you want to abuse it-so be it! Who cares, abuse the hezzll out of it. And, NO, the game doesn't have to be fun for everyone. Because there will be a few whiners who'll complain because a player is "abusing his power and authority" or "playing the game the way he wants it". Cheez, remind me not to ever play with you or your friends. Offering remise? I hope you are kidding? You do realize you are in a MTG forum, right? I mean, you are supposed to annihilate opponents, flaunt, and maybe even teabag your opponents.

HOUTS

You ask wtf a remise is about. The teamed up officially that is wat went too far. Helping each other or teaming up against one other player is normal casual magic. it happens all the time in our group. But offically teaming?! That was what went too far.

Magic is a game and the idea of games is to have fun. Sure winning is part of it. But I like too see that everybody has a good time. That doesn't mean I or other players adapt to whiners. We make sure the game is reasonable fun if you can cope. If you can't cope, bad luck, adapt or leave. We are not some whiners group united, but I like to have fun. More than winning.

Play groups differ in their goals and playstyle, so do their politics. There isn't one right way to play magic.

 

[Limited]

Houts, lets NEVER play together, okay?

 

[Gizmo]

My initial reaction to the scenario in the first post is that Limited is the person who was out of order.

The interaction between Player A and B was simply takling about good plays. yes it advantaged one player over another but like you said... it was a good play he hadn't seen. He needs you out of the game to win, and he can achieve that by giving Forestwalk out he can achieve HIS goals of winning.

What Limited did was utterly different, it's known as 'Kingmaking' and it's a huge no-no in any multiplayer game I know, Magic or otherwise. It's where one player goes 'oh I'm going to lose, but I want my mate to win so I'll screw myself over since Im losing anyway to give him a better chance", and basically it's really rude and spoils the game for everybody else.

ie. Monopoly - "Damn, I need to be going or I'll miss my bus... hey Brian, you've got Park Lane... do you want to buy Mayfair off me for £1?"

What Player A did was suggest to Player B a better way that Player B could knock out other players and advance towards winning the game himself.

What Limited did had no impact on whether he could win the game, but helped Jorael to win instead.

That's totally different. Regardless of what you think about players communicating during MP games (I'd encourage it, MP games are for fun and communication is essential for that sort of thing - leads to backstabbings from people you were wroking with, which are hilarious), but what Limited did went way way WAY beyond that and would be frowned on almost anywhere.

You should always be able to justify your actions in turns of 'it helps me to win'. If you can't, then find something else to do instead.

 

[Limited]

I never thought about it like that; that's probably because it's common practice with our playgroup.. If someone takes you out, you try to get back at him by 'changing his board position' (screwing him over).
Should you also actively NOT destroy his creature when you're about to die? Say I'm at one life with two blockers, and someone attacks me with three creatures.. Should I just not block at all, or I am 'supposed' to killblock anyway (in fairness to other players at the table?)

 

[jorael]

Good question. I know players who find it honorable not to take a last stand and let the opponent enjoy the playerkill without making a last stand.

I am not such a person. You gun for me? I'll use everything in my power to make it hard on you (disenchant their artifact, killblock as much as possible). This way I can start the new game without any grudges and nobody thinks I'm a easy target.

We have a houserule that a player gets 5 life for killing an opponent. Even if I fireblast an opponent in response to killing me he still goes up 1 life. So with that houserule I really don't feel sorry to do so (if possible I rather weaken his board position).

 

[Limited]

This way I can start the new game without any grudges and nobody thinks I'm a easy target.

But that's allready planning ahead for the next game. Is it "Only do stuff if it helps you win" or "Only do stuff if it helps you win THIS GAME"?
Another thing is, that I don't understand why this "dying-breath" action is worse than blatant teaming.. if Jorael and I had discussed cards, me offering life, cards and hippos in exchange for saving my life, it would have been okay?

 

[Spiderman]

HOUTS: The point is that they were playing among friends and the goal is to have fun. It seems with them, you don't have fun with this kind of politiking. Yeah, Magic is a game and you get ganged up, blah, blah, blah. But you also usually try to play among friends (at least in this case) where you "mature" past that point and have some houserules or understandings so everyone can enjoy yourselves. It seems that in your playgroup, you like it your way you describe. That's fine. But it doesn't mean everyone else has to.

My initial reaction to the scenario in the first post...

Did you have a second reaction?

 

[Ferret]

Spidey makes a good point there. Each play group will have different rules when it comes to politics. In one playgroup, alliances can be made and broken at will and in the end everyone is still out for themselves (kinda' like the U.N. ) In others, it's all about honour. You fight to the bitter end. Even if you're going down, go down fighting. Never play ferform actions out of spite. It's all relative to your playgroup.

A tactic I use when I play with a new group is to sit back durring the first game and watch what the other players are doing and how they react to threats. Listen to what they say and see what kind of spells they favour (Do they counter anything, or just direct threats? Do they use direct damage on creatures, players, or both? Things like that). Once you get a feel of the group you can addapt to their mode of play and make the most of it.

-Ferret

"Of course, if they're all jerks grab as many Mountain Dews as you can cram in your jacket and RUN!"

 

[Spiderman]

Mountain Dews? Not their cards?

 

[Killer Joe]

I didn't understand the "No Whinning" rule on these forums or during a game.

I'll check the updated Comp Rules to look for a ruling on whinning

 

[Gizmo]

Limited, on blocking... I think it would be to your discretion but I would probably block. Your opponent can't win without attacking you, so making him pay the full price for knocking you out in that attack is legitimate IMHO - all the remaining players potentially benefit from you taking out his creatures. You owe it to the other players in the game to give it your best shot, if you ask me.

It's in the rare instances where you really obviously just try to help a friend out - say using your last gasp to move Spike counters onto his creatures. I mean in this case it sounds like you gave the Pheldagriff flying and Protection multiple times, which is really blatantly pointless EXCEPT as 'kingmaking'.

In most of these 'politics' questions there's not definining line where acceptable becomes unacceptable, and every group will draw lines in different places. But I think most groups would draw the line far short of what you did with that sort of action.

if Jorael and I had discussed cards, me offering life, cards and hippos in exchange for saving my life, it would have been okay?

It's certainly not as bad as what you did and would depend on how you feel about those sorts of pacts being made during games, which is a different issue. The difference AGAIN is that you gain something in this second scenario - he saves your life, thus giving him tokens helps you win - you might untap and draw Reverse The Sands, or Wrath Of God, or Energy Field, or Drain Life, or, or or...

Sorry Limited, still going to give you a slap on the wrist.

 

[HOUTS]

HOUTS: The point is that they were playing among friends and the goal is to have fun. It seems with them, you don't have fun with this kind of politiking. Yeah, Magic is a game and you get ganged up, blah, blah, blah. But you also usually try to play among friends (at least in this case) where you "mature" past that point and have some houserules or understandings so everyone can enjoy yourselves. It seems that in your playgroup, you like it your way you describe. That's fine. But it doesn't mean everyone else has to.



Did you have a second reaction?

Um, the last time I remember...killing, ganging up, and good ole' teabagging was legal in MTG.

I mean, (but thanks though) I understand the obvious "that is the way we play in our candyland world" but don't complain about it here. If they're your friends, obviously they understand what the 'so called' rules are set in place. However, even if they "disobey" those house rules-what are you going to do? Kick them out? Shake your finger at them and send them to your room? Isn't this a women's form of gossip by going and telling someone about this ****? Answer: Yes.

But apparently because my friends:
1. Don't whine about killing someone.
2. Set rules that make the game unfun, or try to even a game based on skill to even the floor.
3. Go on forums and whine about it.

Yeah, I guess I play with "immature" people, huh?

Answer: No.

If my friend came on here and wrote this **** about our "fun" games, I'll kick him in the head. Not because he might have questioned my 'unethical' play, but only because he was a moron enough to whine about a friggin' card game and waste the time writing about it. And, of course, for asking the liberal group of casualplayers.org for help.

Then again, I am wasting my time spelling out the obvious here:
P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C

Much love,

HOUTS

 

[Istanbul]

So...if we're so pathetic...why do you come here, HOUTS? Why not find a forum that's more attuned towards your play style?

Seriously. If you don't like us, why not leave? We won't miss you.

 

[HOUTS]

So...if we're so pathetic...why do you come here, HOUTS? Why not find a forum that's more attuned towards your play style?

Seriously. If you don't like us, why not leave? We won't miss you.

Because regardless if you like me or not, I am here to stay. And please don't speak for everyone. And I have to admit there is more of an elitist attitude here than those of the pro's groups/forums/inner circles/sites.

Secondly, I was remarking the reply, and not towards everyone. So stick on the subject. However, you didn't even reply on my remarks which leads me to believe that you have no validity behind your statements. Don't get off subject-stand up for what you said.

Don't try to throw off with an immature "Noone likes you" remark.

And the "Pathetic" remark was in regards to the person who submitted the reply. Please read next time-thanks.

HOUTS

 

[Mikeymike]

Because regardless if you like me or not, I am here to stay. And please don't speak for everyone. And I have to admit there is more of an elitist attitude here than those of the pro's groups/forums/inner circles/sites.

Secondly, I was remarking the reply, and not towards everyone. So stick on the subject. However, you didn't even reply on my remarks which leads me to believe that you have no validity behind your statements. Don't get off subject-stand up for what you said.

Don't try to throw off with an immature "Noone likes you" remark.

And the "Pathetic" remark was in regards to the person who submitted the reply. Please read next time-thanks.

HOUTS

HOUTS, why is it that everytime you on come here you are looking for a fight and/or to try to offend as many people as possible? Believe it or not, it is possible to make a point without being an antagonist.

EDIT

Duh, forgot the word 'an'.