I play primarily at my high school's mtg club, but we don't have very members, so as you'd imagine, i play against the same people all the time. But, i've recently run into a roadblock with enjoying playing with my peers. While I enjoy casual magic very much, and have a very small budget for most commander decks, none of mthe other people in my playgroup are willing to politic, or just be casual about playing the game. Most of them are very focused on winning, and play with their best, most optimal decks, while I end up lagging behind, because im trying to lengthen games, and have fun with politicing, and just do wacky things. I'm not sure what i should do, becuase I'm having a hard time enjoying the game when all my peers want to do is win, and don't care about enjoying the process of the game itself.
P.S. I'm new to mtgsalvation, so if I posted this in the wrong forum, or somebody else has already posted a thread discussing this type of issue, just let me know, and i'll do what i can to fix the issue. thank you!
Thank you for sharing. I've experienced similar things as well where the group doesn't play the same style as I do. It's not something you can forced, and YOUR personal entertainment should be priority, or there's no point playing, especially if you also don't have similar budget like others.
I'd find another group either via local game store or through internet. It's probably safer to play in a store than to answer an invite to strangers' group. You can also consider playing digitally (for now) to meet like-minded people via apps and/or MtG Arena.
are you discussing plays and possible outcomes? are you trying to broker deals?
who is your commander? what's your curve like? are you shooting for long term late game plays or earlier efficient plays?
what type of deck are you running? does it force interactions? you say you're trying to do wacky things, but are you aiming for too wacky given the nature of that group? maybe toning it back for cheaper misdirection and removal style plays would force it more.
can you keep up with your current build or do they outrace you? for example if one of us has a deck that just races past everyone politics become a nonissue until someone slows it down or speeds their build up to interact with them more
in my group most of us are cutthroat, but a lot of the time someone will roll up with a deck thats removal/counter heavy with very few wincons and it causes all manner of chaos as people have to choose a little better in regard to what they try to do. there's also a guy that periodically plays chaos oriented decks that just wreck the table - its not about jamming as many chaotic effects as possible so much as it is the right ones at the right time. a well timed fork or misdirection can **** with a persons plans really hard.
For the most part, i am trying to encourage more interaction between players than just " i play X card", or friendly banter. i am trying to encourage talking about plays with other players. ANd i do talk about plays myself, but it seems that noone cares becuase i tend to talk a large amount out of game, so talking in game about these things is ignored.
I play multiple commanders, but I usually play late game, high impact decks,(like a jodah chaos deck for example) or really out-of-the-box decks. i'm not really consistent there, or in my curve. i tend to be all over the place.
I think part of it, is i might have gotten off on the wrong foot, as i am the one who likes to build decks that are there to have fun, but don't care about winning, and that is contrary to what they like to do. They tend to have the most fun when their decks pop off, and they all have higher budgets than me, as i trade for just about everything.
Funnily enough, i also have a chaos deck, but it is the opposite of your friends' deck. it's a jodah deck that is just about doing the stupidest crap to the board, like scrambleverse.
the first thing i'd try is to build something with fewer late game chaotic effects and more surprise i ruined your day effects with cheaper costs.
if they're popping off all the time they'll be less likely to just go off knowing that they could be stopped at any moment. plus, it can lead to more dynamic and exciting gameplay resulting in a better discussion along the way. once that starts happening they have to start playing better as they know there's disruption present. they can't just ignore the table to their own end. they have to start playing smart, and have to start thinking long term. that inspires more politics. for example arguments like i can handle this if you don't stop this increase because without that their plans just get foiled. the more disruption in the game the more people have to communicate if they want to get off the ground. now you've also got leverage to argue things like i'm not a threat he's a threat because you stopped someone at that clutch moment, or you helped someone else out.
after all, you don't need 30 scrambleverse effects going off to disrupt a game, you really just need 1.
anecdotally, i have this prime speaker zegana build i bust out when i feel a pod ignores removal, ignores interaction, and ignores each other. its by no means a tier 0 deck, but in those environments where people are all aiming for late game, or focus entirely on going off, its an unbeatable house because of the level of synergy in the build. i've had people hate playing against it because its too oppressive (it really isn't it just runs a good mix of combo and answers to people's combos) when i run it i tend to be able to ignore the entire table and win regardless because they won't take any steps to disrupt me so long as they're trying to hit their own ends. the minute someone sits down packing a lot of removal though? have to tighten up play, have to be smarter about everything, have to talk to the people next to me because any time i try to get ahead someone might pop off a red elemental blast and stop me.
at least that's my take on it, but i'm also a huge proponent of up your spot removal, up your interactions, reduce your wincons, pretty much across the board in any group. i've had a lot of fun games where almost everything is stopped, it makes wins more satisfying and increased discussion in all of my playgroups. that's me and my style of gameplay, everyones is different, but it might be worth a shot.
You're going to find that a lot of groups find constant politicking obnoxious (I know I do). Politics seriously alter the way the game is played, on par with Planechase or Archenemy, and by my reckoning most people don't enjoy those formats because they obviate deckbuilding and play skill. Enjoying the game and politics are not correlated in any way, shape, or form, but if your enjoyment of the game hinges on wacky random stuff happening every game you're unfortunately going to need to find a new playgroup I think. Trying to force a group of people enjoying the game their way to enjoy it your way is both selfish and ultimately futile.
I think playing politics is intrinsic to the format, but politicking for the sake of politicking is not. Let's say that there's a threat on board that's screwing with the rest of the table, and you can take care of it, but it'll leave your shields down. Offer to take care of the threat in exchange for not being attacked or targeted for a turn cycle. Most players will take a good deal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can you name all of the creature types with at least 20 cards? Try my Sporcle Quiz! Last Updated: 6/29/20 (Core Set 2021).
I think this is a hard one to comment on without seeing what’s happening directly. The other thing that could be a possibility is that maybe the deals your proposing don’t actually make sense.
I think the better people get at assessing threats themselves the less politics happens. Politics thrive in low level games because threat assessment seems much more ambiguous. Once people get better at assessing threats for themselves the number of opportunities to sway someone’s actions drops dramatically. They still exist but they are fewer and far between, and overdealing gets annoying, especially when one player is constantly tricking the least experienced player into bad threat assessment situations.
I think this is a hard one to comment on without seeing what’s happening directly. The other thing that could be a possibility is that maybe the deals your proposing don’t actually make sense.
I think the better people get at assessing threats themselves the less politics happens. Politics thrive in low level games because threat assessment seems much more ambiguous. Once people get better at assessing threats for themselves the number of opportunities to sway someone’s actions drops dramatically. They still exist but they are fewer and far between, and overdealing gets annoying, especially when one player is constantly tricking the least experienced player into bad threat assessment situations.
I think in one direction, you are right. There are fewer chances to trick someone into bad deals, fewer stupid deals being made..but otoh, I have actually seen MORE deals as my playgroup has gotten better. We build better decks with better answers, and as we become better at weighing pros and cons, we are more likely to offer 'I deal with this and you give me a turn free of being attacked' deals, and the rest are more likely to accept it looking at problems where we would try. I do't think there can really be hard statements about 'good players don't use politics are much', good players are flexible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Project Booster Fun makes it less fun to open a booster.
I would counter by saying the next time you are watching a game of EDH, it could even be a VOD, to analyze a deal and see if the person getting something intangible like a "free turn of not being attacked" is actually getting anything at all. Because in my experience, as people get better when those intangible deals do get agreed to, its often because it's just the best play for both players involved. And what is happening is less politics, and more just talking out and executing the best line of play in the open, and making sure the people that your playing with also see that it's the best mutually beneficial line for both players to take.
Even though sometimes these things get phrased as a deal, I think if you were to take a snapshot in time of the board before the deal was about to be made, and replace everyone at the table with a bunch of pro players, I think most deals that get made by good EDH players, would be how the game would play out even without politics by very strong technical players that can analyze the board and see that if they attack person X, they will essentially be getting a free turn of not being attacked by player Y because it's not in Player Y's interest to attack them back anyways.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
P.S. I'm new to mtgsalvation, so if I posted this in the wrong forum, or somebody else has already posted a thread discussing this type of issue, just let me know, and i'll do what i can to fix the issue. thank you!
R lovisa goes berserk R
G sachi big mana G
[/spoiler]
GU vannifar's eye UG
URG xyris group hug/politicsGRU
[spoiler=modern/pioneer]URG The feral dawn GRR
WG selesnya proliferate G W
I'd find another group either via local game store or through internet. It's probably safer to play in a store than to answer an invite to strangers' group. You can also consider playing digitally (for now) to meet like-minded people via apps and/or MtG Arena.
Good luck with your endeavor!
Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest WUR Voltron Control
Temmet, Vizier of Naktamun WU Unblockable Mirror Trickery
Ra's al Ghul (Sidar Kondo) and Face-Down Ninjas
Brudiclad, Token Engineer
Vaevictis (VV2) the Dire Lantern
Rona, Disciple of Gix
Tiana the Auror
Hallar
Ulrich the Politician
Zur the Rebel
Scorpion, Locust, Scarab, Egyptian Gods
O-Kagachi, Mathas, Mairsil
"Non-Tribal" Tribal Generals, Eggs
are you discussing plays and possible outcomes? are you trying to broker deals?
who is your commander? what's your curve like? are you shooting for long term late game plays or earlier efficient plays?
what type of deck are you running? does it force interactions? you say you're trying to do wacky things, but are you aiming for too wacky given the nature of that group? maybe toning it back for cheaper misdirection and removal style plays would force it more.
can you keep up with your current build or do they outrace you? for example if one of us has a deck that just races past everyone politics become a nonissue until someone slows it down or speeds their build up to interact with them more
in my group most of us are cutthroat, but a lot of the time someone will roll up with a deck thats removal/counter heavy with very few wincons and it causes all manner of chaos as people have to choose a little better in regard to what they try to do. there's also a guy that periodically plays chaos oriented decks that just wreck the table - its not about jamming as many chaotic effects as possible so much as it is the right ones at the right time. a well timed fork or misdirection can **** with a persons plans really hard.
I play multiple commanders, but I usually play late game, high impact decks,(like a jodah chaos deck for example) or really out-of-the-box decks. i'm not really consistent there, or in my curve. i tend to be all over the place.
I think part of it, is i might have gotten off on the wrong foot, as i am the one who likes to build decks that are there to have fun, but don't care about winning, and that is contrary to what they like to do. They tend to have the most fun when their decks pop off, and they all have higher budgets than me, as i trade for just about everything.
Funnily enough, i also have a chaos deck, but it is the opposite of your friends' deck. it's a jodah deck that is just about doing the stupidest crap to the board, like scrambleverse.
R lovisa goes berserk R
G sachi big mana G
[/spoiler]
GU vannifar's eye UG
URG xyris group hug/politicsGRU
[spoiler=modern/pioneer]URG The feral dawn GRR
WG selesnya proliferate G W
if they're popping off all the time they'll be less likely to just go off knowing that they could be stopped at any moment. plus, it can lead to more dynamic and exciting gameplay resulting in a better discussion along the way. once that starts happening they have to start playing better as they know there's disruption present. they can't just ignore the table to their own end. they have to start playing smart, and have to start thinking long term. that inspires more politics. for example arguments like i can handle this if you don't stop this increase because without that their plans just get foiled. the more disruption in the game the more people have to communicate if they want to get off the ground. now you've also got leverage to argue things like i'm not a threat he's a threat because you stopped someone at that clutch moment, or you helped someone else out.
after all, you don't need 30 scrambleverse effects going off to disrupt a game, you really just need 1.
anecdotally, i have this prime speaker zegana build i bust out when i feel a pod ignores removal, ignores interaction, and ignores each other. its by no means a tier 0 deck, but in those environments where people are all aiming for late game, or focus entirely on going off, its an unbeatable house because of the level of synergy in the build. i've had people hate playing against it because its too oppressive (it really isn't it just runs a good mix of combo and answers to people's combos) when i run it i tend to be able to ignore the entire table and win regardless because they won't take any steps to disrupt me so long as they're trying to hit their own ends. the minute someone sits down packing a lot of removal though? have to tighten up play, have to be smarter about everything, have to talk to the people next to me because any time i try to get ahead someone might pop off a red elemental blast and stop me.
at least that's my take on it, but i'm also a huge proponent of up your spot removal, up your interactions, reduce your wincons, pretty much across the board in any group. i've had a lot of fun games where almost everything is stopped, it makes wins more satisfying and increased discussion in all of my playgroups. that's me and my style of gameplay, everyones is different, but it might be worth a shot.
My 720 Peasant Cube
I think the better people get at assessing threats themselves the less politics happens. Politics thrive in low level games because threat assessment seems much more ambiguous. Once people get better at assessing threats for themselves the number of opportunities to sway someone’s actions drops dramatically. They still exist but they are fewer and far between, and overdealing gets annoying, especially when one player is constantly tricking the least experienced player into bad threat assessment situations.
I think in one direction, you are right. There are fewer chances to trick someone into bad deals, fewer stupid deals being made..but otoh, I have actually seen MORE deals as my playgroup has gotten better. We build better decks with better answers, and as we become better at weighing pros and cons, we are more likely to offer 'I deal with this and you give me a turn free of being attacked' deals, and the rest are more likely to accept it looking at problems where we would try. I do't think there can really be hard statements about 'good players don't use politics are much', good players are flexible.
Even though sometimes these things get phrased as a deal, I think if you were to take a snapshot in time of the board before the deal was about to be made, and replace everyone at the table with a bunch of pro players, I think most deals that get made by good EDH players, would be how the game would play out even without politics by very strong technical players that can analyze the board and see that if they attack person X, they will essentially be getting a free turn of not being attacked by player Y because it's not in Player Y's interest to attack them back anyways.