Should We Let Other Players Win In Commander Magic?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 พ.ค. 2024
- An Indie Dev and a AAA Dev discuss sub-optimal play in Commander Magic and if players should be holding back plays to ensure others have a good time.
Hosts:
Forrest Imel forrestimel.com/
Gavin Valentine www.gavinvalentinedesign.com/
Join the Distraction Makers Discord: / discord
Thumbnail Artwork: Fblthp by Jesper Ejsing
Decklists:
Miracle Whip: www.moxfield.com/decks/-Rfku-...
Hot Snakes: www.moxfield.com/decks/G6kw0Q...
Booby Trap: www.moxfield.com/decks/WZ5Ke5...
Tiamat: www.moxfield.com/decks/Pe3jNF... - เกม
For those who think you shouldn’t play suboptimally, how do you feel about gameplay channels doing so to make their content more exciting?
There is a difference between building a deck without the requisite board wipes and building them in and then not playing when you have them. In circumstance one you can play optimally but have handicapped yourself in service to the content. The other mode is much more disingenuous in terms of showing the audience real game play.
@@UltimateerA fair point. I deliberately excluded counterspells from a Sultai list in order to change the gameplay experience for myself and pods.
I mean their literal job is to be entertaining so its kinda w/e. I would care more if they were presenting their content as being competitive when its not, but idk I cant imagine most of those channels really sell it like that.
I agree that building a suboptimal deck is more interesting. Seeing Rhystic Study, Smothering Tithe or other staples for the 100th time is not interesting to play against or watch.
This doesn't even mean playing "bad" cards, just not playing the absolute most efficient, commonly (ab)used cards all of the time.
So bear with me here but I see a similar “problem” in Dead by Daylight. Dead by Daylight is an asymmetrical game with customizable perk loadouts. Sometimes I want to play hyper serious sweaty win at any cost. Sometimes I want to play goofy funny laid back. The only time I have a bad game experience in Dead By Daylight is when there’s a mismatch between my goal and my opponent’s goal.
Similarly, if everyone in the commander game is rushing their wincon as hard as possible that can be fun. And if everyone is just messing around with weird decks that can also be fun. The least fun I’ve had is when I shuffle up and play my Shelob Spider aesthetic deck and the other guy starts swamp into dark ritual into sol ring into arcane signet into rustic studies.
All this to say, I think either can be fun as long as everybody goes in knowing the score.
All this discussion boils down to defining what is fun. The player archetipes show us that this is not linear.
Correct
well there is another discussion to be had, which is, should the game's 'intended design' path to fun be completely disregarded or should it be at least respected enough that we revise that design to further the newfound targeted path?
@@00101001000000110011 In magic overall this discussion is very easy. In commander it has alreedy gone to this newfound path. This is the success of commander actually, it has space for this kind of paths. It is better as a kitchen tabble game. My playgroup usually say it's a borad game. Not so much classic magic.
The intended path to fun should be followed if it leads to your fun, which is quite literally the only objective to said "path". By the way it's not even "intended", it's "implied" because they're no piece of a Magic manual that tells you winning = fun. Also should we even be playing commander if we can't disregard the intended path of the game? Clearly the game was designed for 1v1 so that must be what they considered as fun while making the path, if we follow your reasoning.
@@pascalsimioli6777 My argument is exactly that win = fun is not the only path in commander.
Distraction Makers has solidified itself as my favorite MTG discussion podcast. Really interesting discussions, broad conceptual topics, and there isn't any sludge content (set previews, spoiler reactions, news story reactions, etc). I wish y'all nothing but the best ❤
I think if I thought we were playing a game of commander with everybody trying to win, but one player is instead trying to be a GM, I would feel patronized and/or deceived. In my own playgroup I've seen people pull their punches because they want me to have a better play experience, but it almost always ends up with me enjoying the game less. Turns out, you need to be a great game designer to be a good GM, you need to know and understand your audience... my fun is different from your fun, and overall I've found people are really bad at predicting what kinds of things would make for an enjoyable game of Commander for me, and it's really frustrating if they avoid the things I like "for my benefit".
I trust the other players at the table to have answers. If I swing 20 damage at you, it's not only because I think you are a threat, but also because I think you can handle it.
As a GM player, my counterpoint is that either you learn to like what I'm doing or I just use your logic and say my fun is different from your fun. The players who think commander is all about playing to win have no issue trying to enforce their playstyle on everyone else without hesitation.
@@Cybertech134 Two points about this: "trying to enforce their playstyle on everyone else without hesitation" is a problem no matter who does it, but that isn't a game problem if you ask me, I think that's an interpersonal problem.
Secondly, I don't think that's a counterpoint. I specifically dislike people sabotaging their own fun in an attempt to spare my feelings or increase my fun. I'd prefer if everybody was focused on making the things that seem fun for them. If your fun is trying to manipulate the game dynamics to make for, say, really good pacing? I wouldn't mind that at all. Go nuts.
@@Cybertech134That's because playing to win isnt a playstyle. It is a linear game with a winner. This is addressed in the video.
@@PensFan96 It is a playstyle. Just because a winner must exist doesn't mean that must be the goal for everyone playing.
Fun is a metagame we all play to convince our friends to keep playing with us.
What is "fun" tho? For the opponent "fun" is pumpkin his 1/1 elf up to 18 +1/+1 counters on turn 33. For me fun is whipping the damn dirty board on turn 4th Wrath of God.
@@errrzarrr that's the great thing. Fun is subjective. It's why you should negotiate each game before you play
@@seanedgar164 Fun is subjective, but unfun usually isn't. And if your definition of fun is only fun for one player in a multiplayer game, your definition of fun doesn't need to be respected.
I don't remember who said it but I remember a quote that you should build suboptimal commander decks but play them optimally.
I think he Professor has said this in the past.
I am actively trying to do this but am struggling. I still enjoy optimizing my decks and want to match a theme but I try to pick a theme that’s not well represented in the cards of magic and I omit obvious powerhouse cards like dockside and bowmasters. In spite of this, I continue winning lots of commander games. I genuinely feel like I’m too dominant but I don’t know if it’s a difference of skill or if I’m just not building weak enough decks.
Yes this. I don't want to have a fun deck that I think is interesting only to be hit with land black lotus mana crypt sol ring Jin Gitaxias turn one.
@@thechikage1091But like, how often does that actually happen? And not just for you, but across all games of commander.
@@AgentMurphy286 Well, not very many of them, given black lotus is banned.
I had a game the other day with friends.
I draw a one shot kill (satoru umezawa and nijutsu blightsteel colossus) in my oppening hand.
I keep it when i attack the first time, because we were having a good time and i didn't want to just remove someone from the game this quick and then have a 3 players game without him.
Then, another player had to chose a card to put under their library from their hand and they said "i'm gonna put that card under the deck cause i want the game to last"
He had an infinite combo and didn't use it.
I found that very fair and that made me proud for not using my blightsteel colossus the previous turn.
Then after 4-5-6 turn, he developps a game winning state with like 60x 4/4 dragon.
And then i killed him. And he didn't feel bad, and after that, i was slowly killed.
And then both of us had to look at the remaining two player doing their shinanigans for something like 45min. And after that i had to go, so i just wasted time technicaly.
I think both of us should have kept and use our win condition when we had it just so that we can make another game afterward.
By keeping your punches, you make the game last longer and you expose yourself to uncertainty.
By playing optimaly and winning instead, you can move foward to the next game faster.
My EDH philosophy is this: I want every deck to do their thing and I will stop you at the last possible moment before your thing kills me.
This is just playing the game as intended though generally. A lot of times, doing exactly this IS the optimal path. Only got one counterspell/kill spell? Gotta use it when Person A actually goes for the win or does a thing that is obviously setting up the win.
I think you are massaging my words a little bit to serve your narrative though. More often than not your "combo" will have a weak point to interact with that is not the last possible card you play. I won't do the optimal thing of counter the weakest link in your chain and make it all fall apart, I'll let you do it and barely save myself before it's too late.
Play to win, build for fun.
(whatever is fun for a group)
I don't know who said it but I've lived by it ever since.
If winning is fun, then do you build to win?
@@shorewall I always build to win, but only on my and my group's terms.
For instance I have an Aegar the freezing flame deck that can only deal damage, interact and draw cards using giants, that I've tuned to a point of becoming one of the more feared decks in our games. I'm very happy about all of it 😊
Yeah, there's someone at my LGS who hates counterspells because and I quote: it stops the player who was meant to win from winning. Yet he runs removal.
Ooof, yeah, that’s a tough one. 😆
This podcast made me realize I still enjoy the philosophy and discussion of magic, even though I haven’t enjoyed myself playing Commander in at least 5 years. Keep it going!
I love how the video turns in a conversation between a grull player and an azorius player. The interaction "We can talk about this deck" "I HAVENT MADE MY POINT"
In response…
Years from now someone will respond to this thread with their necromancer reanimator post.
I know players that prioritize their own enjoyment over everyone else at the table. I literally don't understand that mentality. It's so frustrating trying to explain that the decks they play and the way they pilot them are actively unfun for everyone else, but it's like talking to a brick wall, they just do not care.
Those are the same morons who will say "B..but fun is subjective!" and not realize that unfun usually isn't subjective. If your fun is only fun for you in a multiplayer game, then your definition of fun doesn't need to be respected.
@Cybertech134 A good way to look at it is that fun is definitely subjective, but that doesn't stop people from being objectively unfun.
I play suboptimal because I want friends to come back and play again.
Or you could play optimally and just take the cards nobody likes out of your deck. If all you play is stax and quick combos and board wipes, it kinda speaks for itself right?
@@jaredwright1655
I'm not a jerk, I just like to optimize decks. Deck building is most of my time spent with magic. And it's easy enough to just not remove someone's commander for the third time and let them win.
Seeing my friends happy makes me happy. Playing with trash cards doesn't.
@worstever6 never said you're a jerk. If someone doesn't have a deck even close in power to yours, that's a tough spot to be in. If you have the time to deckbuid though, I'd recommend a deckbuilding restriction, like budget or theme or whatever. If you told me after the game "yeah I could have won a turn or two ago but good job buddy" I would, personally, find a different pod to play in
@@jaredwright1655 "I'm not calling you a jerk"
[described an imaginary scenario where I'm acting like a jerk]
@worstever6 OK then, how do you go about telling people you could have won or stopped them but didn't? Is that not a weird interaction to have with people? Please enlighten me. I'm a bit autistic
I build decks that are suboptimal for winning but optimized for fun. Just being on theme and synergistic is enough for me.
I think you guys just agree with each other even though it was framed as a debate of sorts? Running a “sub-optimal” deck, but trying to win, is analogous to the initial D&D example of fudging the health, not the die roll. Playing your deck incorrectly to prolong the game is the equivalent of fudging the dice roll.
I think the tl;dr of this convo is it’s generally more fun to play commander when the decks are roughly on the same power level.
This is pretty much what I heard. Both are just different examples of getting the shenanigans out of the way pre-game, so you're not risking the experience feeling cheapened.
Love listening to you guys, even when I have never played the game you are talking about!
For commander normally one of them has a real bad take and the other is more chill 😂
@@seanedgar164 lol, yeah I think neither of them are really the audience for Commander
In my playgroup as the aggro voltron player, I make it very clear that if you pull punches you will die first.
There is active in incentive for me to encourage pressure from others because that means life totals are lower in general.
I feel like Commander isn’t really casual anymore. It’s not a tournament setting, sure. But when people watch hours of content, have decks that are worth hundred of dollars. Perfect their mana base and their deck features loads of cards that are the best cards ever made in the game’s 30 year history, I wouldn’t call that casual either. It’s some sort of “Power Fun” deck. When I play 60 card casual Magic, I don’t use sleeves, because none of my cards are worth more than a few dollars. I play cards I like around a theme. It’s not “optimized”, but then again, there isn’t a concensus best version of my Golgari Threshold deck with cards worth a few bucks or less. I just toss it together picking from a pile of cards on the floor.
Command zone did a video on playing for content conpared to normally. Behind the scenes.
Avid commander player here and I love your distrust of the format’s structure! The criticism helps me in building and playing so much!
During a game, I expect people to try and win - whatever that entails including sandbagging when you think it's the wrong time to become a threat. But during *deck building,* I choose to include interaction and build strategies that get the table talking and involved, and maybe even interactive cards that give the affected player something in place of their problematic card (think Chaos Warp, Tibalt's Trickery, even Baleful Mastery which lets you choose who draws). I'm always going to try and win the games I play, I just limit myself to strategies that involve everyone at the table at least somewhat so as to reduce the time players spend staring at their own cards until someone is about to win.
would LOVE to see yall dive into other formats. there's dozens of multiplayer modes, cube is a deep deep rabbit hole with tons of designer agency, and many of these other ways to play dodge the issues inherent to commander
very interesting video and discussion. I dislike if someone has a win obviously and doesn't do it but idc too much.
Me winning isnt fun if my opponents could have stopped it or played better but chose not to. I didnt actually overcome the challenge of besting another human, I fiddled with my cards and showed how smart i am for building the deck i did.
This. Reason why I'm surprised Commander is as popular as it is.
If I wanted such an approach to a fun afternoon, I'd play a "Board Game".. Magic is hardly that! And when I played, my objective was to play decks with Cards I wanted to use and owned (mostly Kamigawa stuff).
I can attest to exactly what you are talking about. I have had instances where I've had game-winning combos in my hand where I decided not to play them because it was clear to me that everyone at the table was having a great time. Who am I to instantly take that away from them? For context, it was around turn 9 and the game was in a mostly even state.
Gavin shitting on commander has to be one my favorite things to watch and listen to.
SHE IS BACK!!!
The worst games I have had is when people is playing not to try to win, but to try not to loose. Those games are long but mostly boring, most of the time this has to do with people taking the game too serious in casual pods.
Recently have heard people talk about this thing, target removal is more fun for the pace of the game but Ward is everywhere and is not that effective anymore to run that kind of removal, so let use board wipes even if it makes games more slow.
So in conclusion, sometimes playing optimally is making everyone life's a nightmare or slow a game (with stax, land destruction, etc) with the hope to win eventually. But perhaps we are not embracing enough that is most common to loose in commander than win, it changes the way you approach the game. Most of the time I play decks that pressure people to be active, like poison proliferate, burn or any ticking bomb that force people to act.
PD: Love the way she looks at the cam before jumping xd
I try not to play suboptimal, but I will use suboptimal cards to rein in power of a deck.
Build the deck for fun, play it to win
Don't tell me how to play.
Finally, a fellow gamer
Left is wrong Right is correct
Does anyone else often give the other player(s) a chance to do something crazy when you are obviously ahead and a turn or two away from winning? Often times my opponents will have some kind of random element mechanic so instead of swinging all my creatures or using all my burn to end the game, often I will just let people see what they can do on the final turn because if nothing happens, cool I still win, but if something crazy happens where he gets the perfect top deck or perfect random outcome to win and seeing that happen is more fun for me than winning most of the time.
I agree.
Anyone who is against this. I am going to show up with a deck who's goal is cast Armageddon like things while having my side less affected. Have fun doing draw and pass.
This just boils down to how much you personally care about winning (or if you solely play mtg to win). Alot of people view commander as a social game/experience
"One boardwhipe and you can only play 5 removal"
That sure would be something to behold, I personally love playing my Lurrus control / value deck. It has over 5 boardwhipes, which are mostly onesided as they blow up big things, and everything in a Lurrus deck is required to be 2 or cheaper in cmc.
It mostly wins though Approach of the second sun, which I think is a very special card when it comes to how visible your win condition is.
The effect of Approach is as follows: if you cast it the first time, you gain 7 life, and put it as the 7th card of your library, if you cast it the second time, you win the game.
On top of that, the deck has a strong focus on card selection and draw and a few search effects, both to find the right interaction, and eventually approach.
On the one hand Approach commits nothing from the board, and everything happens in hidden zones, apart from its casting, but on the other hand, it will need to be cast a first time, revealing it, whereafter it is basically a "7 card" clock.
This however, is often deceiving, as the deck does not lose its ability to select / draw / search after casting it the first time, so after casting approach, it will often win not the same turn, but 1-3 turns later.
Hi!! Great topic to debate and great video! Love your talking!
To debate a little, I feel and think the following:
We agree that mtg core rules of playing to win designed for 1v1 has flaws in EDH 4 players where the social element comes in. If we acknowledge that issues, why we keep tight to the core rule "the main objective is to win"? as Forrest said.
We know wizards it is not to change any rule to adjust mtg to the 4 player social dinamics of EDH, so we can try to fill that space, as the EDH's format creators did with the social contract of EDH. We cannot escape the fact that someone gonna win at the end, but it is more interesting and fun if there is a give and take than one player smashing everyone. I know players that follows the core rules tight may find it contraintuitive or judge it as "wrong", but it seems the best way to have fun all players at the same time. Bringing D&D as you did: You can play tight to the mission book and try to beat whatever mission suffering as player, or you can beat it in a fashion and hillarious way where everyone does their part. I feel EDH the same way.
About suboptimal: I tend to create suboptimal decks rather than suboptimal plays because my decks are suboptimal enough, worse than the tiamat you mention, like Gor muldrak salamander tribal or Torgaar triskadecaphobia. Moreover If I have the chance to win or the chance to play Goblin game I will always choose the fun option of Goblin game card because after some days and weeks I will remember with more joy the crazyness of Goblin game rather than I win with a Burn spell, and my friends too. It's hard to achieve it but if everyone gets in the mindset of doing the FUNNIEST for everyone (not only them) the result it is amazing, like D&D!
Forrest I love your Booby trap deck, couls you explain it a little more how to play it. Which card you mention If you have no ways to look at the top of your opp's libraries?
Enjoy and thanks!
I think that optimal play is very subjective in commander, since commander is a social game. In the example of the game where one player has a massive board and you have a board wipe and have to decide whether or not to use it, it’s very multifaceted. You could use the player with a huge board to eliminate your two other opponents before trying to take them out. But the opponent with a large board could instead choose to attack you especially if they know you have a sorcery speed board wipe since they know you have the best chance at stopping them and if they don’t know then you have a 1 in 3 chance of being eliminated, additionally using the board wipe can build you two allies without really making an enemy. Since a board wipe is not targeted it doesn’t feel like you are singling that player out, but the other two players can see that you likely gave them another life and may repay you later in the game.
IMO the only actual suboptimal play you can make in commander is you actively trying to lose.
I guess my only comment is getting very frustrated when I agree to play a casual game of commander, im getting a little mana screwed and its already frustrating and I finally draw a mana rock that puts me back on curve and it gets countered by the player who is already so far ahead. It leaves a really bad taste in my mouth, was he wrong competitively for denying my mana? No it was the right call from a tactics viewpoint, but socially I was upset, I never got to play an actual game with that group cause they locked me out with counterspells and removal. I never played with that group again. So for me it ended up being more of "why am I even here playing with you all if im not having fun,"
Yeah, I think the casual aspect of Commander is often ignored by people who can't not be competitive.
All I'm hearing is two ways of enjoying the format. Commander is fun first, but that can look however the pod agrees for it to
I vouch for tweaking power level in deck construction, but playing to win once the game has started. (As was mentioned about halfway in.)
For me it’s more about the possibility of winning , or even just the possibility of doing something cool. I can have a lot of fun if that possibility is always there, even if my win rate is technically lower. So I see it not as a tactics/strategy tradeoff but a possibility space calculation - which sub optimal setup gives each player the most options?
Context matters. For example, if you have a board wipe in hand, but the game has already gone on too long. It's okay to not cast it. Same thing with winning games. In casual commander the final result matters less than the experience of the players. So if you've won the last two games, maybe you don't need to win the third.
100%
with how complicated the edh board states often are and the amount of hidden info, it is impossible to play optimaly... recognizing that, I recently started leaning more towards making plays which just seem fun, rather than taking 10 minutes every turn to try and calculate what gives you the best odds at winning... of course you are still trying to make good plays, and not taking the win when you can feels bad for the whole table... but rather than trying to calculate the exact amount of blockers you need to keep in case a big creature with haste comes down, just attack with everything and hope for the best
diplomacy is also a key factor to consider... casting a board wipe to stop one player and help the other 2 opponents is suboptimal, leveraging the same play for a two-turn immunity can be a gamechanger
I can definitely attest that playing for content can affect your playstyle. I like to play very inclusively in general, so it doesn't change mine all that much. But a lot of times, if I'm streaming, I will pull the "fuck it, let's do it for the content" card because I think it's funny or explosive
I grind commander on MTGO a lot, so I usually end up making a lot of suboptimal plays so that one player doesnt feel miserable.
Part of it is due to the fact that you dont really interact with the other players outside of the game, so they arent having fun if their board sucks.
But also somewhat tying into that, is that theres waay less keeping you in the game. And theres always those kinds of players, the ones who leave as soon as you thoughtseize them in 1v1 if it isnt ranked, who will leave regardless of how much you try to cushion it.
Although I usually just win when I have the chance, unless its like an infinite combo in a low power queue. Then I make aware what they can do to prevent me from winning as soon as I recognize that I probably win here.
It’s interesting how much the social contract, IRL, keeps people playing when they’re not having a good time.
My philosophy is to build to have fun, but play to win.
Explicitely, the game ends when a player wins or everyone else loses. Or the game is drawn because of some bs.
When you sit down, play to win. You're all here to have a good time, sure. Fun is not mutually exclusive from winning.
"When you sit down, play to win."
Don't tell me how to play and especially how to have fun.
I maintain that Commander is a Casual Format, which is in opposition to a Competitive Format. I see Competitive as trying to win, so if Casual is not that, then that means that there are other motivations for playing. Winning is always there, but it isn't the main reason or even most of the reason for playing.
I do think Commander is a collaborative game, much like DnD. You can also compare it to 4 player Mario Party. If you win in Commander or Mario Party, does that mean you were the best player in that match or game? No, it just means you were the last man standing.
In DnD, you can overoptimize your character, to do the most damage, or break the game, but that might take away from other's fun. In Mario Party, if you are way more skilled, you could blast the others, but then they aren't having fun and you might lose out on games.
Same with Commander. If you constantly beat down the others is pursuit of a victory, then the group might not want to play with you, or they might insist that you play another deck or build it suboptimally. I don't see a difference between suboptimal deck building and suboptimal tactical play, as long as the motivation is making sure that everyone has fun. In fact, I lean more towards wanting to build the deck that I want to play, within some limits, vs holding back to make sure everyone is able to do something.
Which comes to my main theory of Commander. I don't think the aim of most commander players is to just win and be the last man standing. I think the main aim of most commander players is to be able to do their deck, make some noise, impact the game, even if they aren't the last man standing. If they are able to go off, to do their thing, maybe knock 1 or 2 players out, even if they aren't the last man standing, then I think that counts for more than if they were locked out of the game for most of it, and then managed to snipe the win at the end.
I found the group hug specialist
the only time to show mercy in a game of EDH is during deckbuilding.
Lol, how patronizing.
also, i love the black cat. you guys should just act natural and continue the convo even when the kitty comes get attention. yes some ppl will get distracted, but those that do not you are forcing them to, which might arguably put the content quality in check.
They need to do a short with just the intro music, and cut to the two cats with the cats curled up sleeping...
The cat is the real star of the show!
I do think these conversations are good to have. However I also think, due to the nature of the format, the only true way to optimize everyone's fun is to have a regular consistent playgroup. LGS' will always be a wild west environment where a menagerie of different philophies, budgets and personalities coincide. The closest you get to defined power levels in public spaces is regular patrons that see eachother often and know generally what to expect from them.
P. S I definitely feel that playing "sub optimally for fun" comes much much more from the deck building part than it does in the play part. You do no one any favors by having a clear win on board or in hand and just choosing not to use it. But holding your deck back by giving it less powerful or more corner case tools creates more interesting casual games not only for opponents but for yourself as well
I feel like I would rather build a tight tuned deck with answers and threats, and then hold back as necessary during a game. That is more optimal play anyway, not to overflood your board into a wipe, or become the archenemy through multitude of threats.
I think people make fun of the idea of a "7" deck, because everyone's deck is a 7, even though they are not. I think people need to be able to hold back, based on their playgroup. If everyone is on an even level, then fine, go all out. But what if the power level is uneven, are you going to stomp on the newbies? If you don't, you are holding back.
I only pull punches when my deck pops off majorly and would result in kill 1 player WAY too early. Like I don't want bro sitting around for 4+ full turns
I think you lose people at “your objective is to win”. Which is also the root of a lot of your other complaints about the format. For a certain population of commander players that is simply not their primary goal, despite it being the game’s primary goal.
Exactly. Modern's goal is to win. Standard's goal is to win. Legacy's goal is to win. Commander's goal is to have fun. If people want to play to win, there's an entire cEDH section for that. Really, the issue is competitive sweatlords overreaching into a format not made for them.
i have a rule. i will only play sub-optimally only when i am the dm of that table. what i mean is that if i am the post experienced player and i get into a game with the thought that i don't care to win i want to create an environment to teach people stuff about the game i will try to make not obvious mistakes to be capitalise. however you might notice that now i am not playing commander. i am playing tutorial simulator a game that i would argue is far harder than commander.
It does feel like its own challenge a bit haha
I'm gonna be a pedant real quick and recommend that instead of fudging dice/HP, just play a game with exciting combat like B/X or its retroclones.
Phew, okay with that off my chest, I like suboptimal decks because they allow more creative space than optimal decks. If you're trying to build a good deck, around 50% of your non lands are determined by staples. this is why I lose in commander and I regret nothing
I've played games sub-optimally before if I feel like people are going to take getting beaten really bad personally, but I don't like it and it made me feel gross. Probably because I don't want anyone to pull their punches against me. I'd feel like that'd be condescending and patronizing.
Most people don't enjoy deck building. Spikes dont, and very casual people don't either. Casuals specifically enjoy the group dynamic and expressibg themselves... whether that's Johnny or Timmy or just drinking Miller Lite and attacking all out.
I don't agree with the D&D analogy because as a GM, my purpose is creating and running an adventure for the players. When I sit down to play magic, I just want to play the game. These are different things, in my opinion and experience
My general perspective is that if the goals of a game are this muddy it just isnt really worth playing for me. dnd works because the understanding is its a casual fun-first experience and the co-operative nature supports that. 1v1 mtg works because the goal is to have fun in direct competition with someone and the design of the game makes that very fun. Commander is built on top of a competitive system, but with weird social baggage that actively decentivizes the more on-paper goals of the game. its easy to scoop go next in 1v1, it feels like youre letting people down as both the person doing that and the one making them do that in a group game, especially because the game just keeps going without you.
fwiw I dont pull punches in competitive games, part of the competitive game learning curve is learning that the fun isnt "winning" its playing and learning. if 1v1 games were only fun when you win they would suck ass because youre only having fun 50% of the time whereas tons of games are a lot closer to 100% of the time.
I think a lot of ppl would be better served playing a eurogame or smth. Those are games where you get to build your big funky engine but without mana screw or counterspells or much direct interaction in general. theyre competitive but without the same friction. Even if youre losing you can still do your best to make something out of your game.
I shouldnt need to say this but im anticipating some replies: this comment isnt me shitting on commander, obviously it works well enough otherwise we wouldnt be hearing about it. This is just a post about what aspects of it dont work for me relative to other games that do work for me
Commander is quite LITERALLY a casual fun-first experience. The people who say you need to play to win are just people from competitive formats overreaching and telling a casual format how it needs to be played.
@@Cybertech134why did you reply to my comment lmao. The first half of your comment is very obvious and the second half has nothing to do with what I was saying
My rule of thumb is to consider what's fun or not during deck construction, and when you play you don't pull any punches. If you put the card in the deck, it's there to be used. If it's not fun, remove it from the deck.
I think that is lacking context. Is it fun to gang up on someone making a slow start?
@@shorewall I don't understand how this relates to my comment?
I don't agree with your definition of orthogonal. Orthogonal ≈ perpendicular. It can also refer to two concepts being unrelated to one another, or statistical independence
In what sense do you mean orthogonal = having an end?
Don't podcast optimal, let the cat in for content.
The DM can't decide a minute in for a Balrog to drop in... not since the Tolkien estate sued TSR back in the day and turned all the Hobbits into Halflings, all the Ents into Treants, and all the Balrogs into Balors.
True.
I feel like this is just another "power level" discussion. If 3 guys are playing cool decks that have unique flavors, and one guy does a turn one lotus, mana crypt, sol ring, 8 mana drop, thats not going to be a good game for anyone. Sure, having fast mana is "optimal" but its removing the ability for anyone else to even play the game at all.
How does this whole discussion apply to someone whose objective was never to win, but to choose the winner? Lots of group hug players I've played with over the years are completely unconcerned with actually winning and much prefer distributing resources and acting as a pressure valve against other strategies in order to essentially puppet the game. Actively saving players with no return on that investment towards winning, etc.. Their decks aren't even really built with win conditions beyond "I could swing 20-40 times per player to kill them with my 1/1 bird or 2/2 drake or like 5-10 times per player with my commander." Not only is their goal antithetical to the supposed goal of the game, their entire deck and playstyle could be considered "sub-optimal" to people who view winning the match as the primary goal. To them though, they *are* playing optimally to achieve their goal.
I’d say group hug is the embodiment of this idea, but doing so in a very overt way. I could see some players being quite frustrated with that or appreciative of the clarity in goal.
The fact that this is even a question makes me have an atavice hate for the format. There are plenty of other games outside Magic to enjoy the company of your friends. (sorry I'm a bit salty today against EDH after the debut of Commander Horizon 3)
Playing suboptimally is unfun, but piloting a suboptimal deck as best you can is super fun. If I need to nerf myself I need the deck not the play. Going "easy" on people is disrespectful
commander is just standard 2.0. Same issues as standard. If you have to play to lose intentionally there are deeper issues than anything imaginable...
Is guy on left assuming that guy on right wants the gm mindset should be inhabited by all players? In my experience, you run a game like this (personally suboptimally) in order to show newer players the ropes and encourage them. Once they're bought in and have some personal strategy going, then it's go-hard time. There have been times when I've had to put in literal years of "GM"ing games to get to that sweet spot with someone. But once we're there, I don't have to do that anymore. (In fact I better not cuz theyll kick my ass!)
EDH is by far the worst format to define fun in, because no one agrees. The fact that this video exists is a testament to that.
You don't have to 100% agree, just agree enough, when you find a play group that share a common ground a lot of fun is haved.
Should I let this video have an upvote so it has optimal algorithm experience or not?
Nah I'll updoot.
I think it does depend on what people are in the mood for. We've had games of, "do we play as fast and hard as possible to end ASAP - no tears or whining allowed" and we've had games of, "no no, I want to see where he's going with this."
Just try to win, it's a card game. Even board games are designed to have a winner, unless they're pve
No
Nothing is worse than having someone take the win from right under you as your about to win. I dont care that they were sandbagging their wincon to let the table play, If you can win you should.
Does their motivation matter to you? If they were sandbagging to avoid being targeted, or they were sandbagging so everyone can do something? Because this channel had made the point that often sandbagging is the optimal play, but in this video, they talk about sandbagging as a suboptimal play. Is it decided by why the player sandbags?
in duel MtG i like to toy with my opponent if i have a win state and believe myself capable of maintaining it until a grandiose death blow can be attained. that's about it regarding me pulling punches. and the only reason i do so, is because the game shifts after that point to both ppl just trying to win with their strats, to "can i really keep you under my thumb until x?" vs "i can come back and take the game from you" of the adversary and the catharsis/powertrip of have exactly 1000 creatures attack at once, or 1000hp, or do 1000 damage in 1 swing, or get 20 poison counters, or clear their entire board, lands and all, or mill their entire deck, or whatever other arbitrary state that should be too improbable or impossible to materialize to show up.
Nah dude, don't fudge hit points. Ultimately you're lying to your players, and indirectly removing their agency by making actions or attacks they've scored essentially meaningless. Your perception of what is "more exciting" for the players isn't more intrinsically valid than what the dice have to say.
If you're gonna move goal posts behind the scenes because you think it doesn't matter, just come right out and tell them not to bother attacking this round because it wont matter and see how they feel about it. It isn't somehow different because they don't know you're lying to them about the encounter, you're just fooling them, which sucks.
Normally love your guys' takes but as a long time DM that was a bummer
No biggy. We have a difference in approach. Not sure why that would bum you out. My approach doesn’t invalidate yours.
Some do, some don't. It's one of those things.
But they dont know hes doing that thats the whole point. They just think theyre having an awesome dnd campaign
Commander is not a well designed game
Commander isn’t Magic.
ok grandpa
Is Modern Magic? Legacy? Pauper? Will you stop crying and be an adult? You play card game ffs you don't really need to lower people's opinion of you even more.
Friendship is magic.
It’s commander
You're right, the only correct way to play Magic is Dandan. Good opinion
‘Orthogonal’ means ‘perpendicular’, it’s the opposite of parallel. It can mean ‘contrarian’ outside of geometry. The word has nothing to do with having a measurable end. “For those who don’t know”, my arse. This bit rubbed me the wrong way, it sounded ignorant yet arrogant.
Unless you guys came with your own meaning for an existing word…
Orthogonal is the term Richard Garfield uses to describe games with 2 sides and a clear outcome.
No arrogance intended, the comment was about those who don’t know that is the term for games like mtg.
@@distractionmakers Ok, thanks for the clarification. Looks like Richard Garfield himself, with all due respect, uses the word rather orthogonally (to its usual meaning). Ha, ha.
Liked the video in general, no hard feelings.
Yeah it's not my favorite term, but it's the only term that is available to describe games like this unfortunately. That being said I think there is probably a reason why the term hasn't caught on haha
A lot of the rule 0 conversation is snowflakey nonsense. You spend good money to collect the cards you have. Yes you shouldn’t bring your net decked “blue-farm” list to the unsanctioned commander night at your LGS (which no one is doing) but if you put the work in to have a good tuned deck and furthermore had some good pulls from collecting over the years in said deck then play it.
The problem is the subsect of people who think Commander is about winning. The best games of Commander are where each player is trying to be a DM for the table.