Commanders Greatest Strength And Weakness

[@ThatMillGuyShaf]

Out of game benefits is why I quit monopoly It devolved into older family taking advantage of younger family member's lack of experience or good decision making skills to gain anything "I'll let you take the car out this friday if you give me your utlities" Like fam NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[@IVIaskerade]

That's a great deal and if I was the youngster I'd absolutely try and play monopoly as often as possible to manipulate real-world favours out of your elders at the cost of a mere game.

[@soleo2783]

​@@IVIaskeradefr tho, give me 20 bucks irl and you can have all my ingame pieces if you want

[@thomasgraveline-ri8ck]

They found the analog version of in game transactions lol

[@AgentMurphy286]

Nah man, subtly teaching your kids to prioritize socializing over getting better at games is solid parenting. (Before the absolutists jump down my throat, I’m not saying games are bad or pointless, or anything bad, I just want the people I do play games with to know know to socialize and that’s the parents job. Their friends and simply being observant can teach them to be better at games)

[@alexmoskowitz811]

My family had to stop playing catan once chores became viable trade offers

[@TheL0rd0fSpace]

Your point about Dungeon Mayhem being the "minimum" game required to get a good politics experience reminds me of classic game designer advice: "Stop cramming in more stuff." Generally, games that use the minimum number of mechanics to achieve what they're going for tend to be a lot more slim, streamlined, and efficient. (And also better received.) It seems that where lots of games fail is that they create all these systems, mechanics, that serve the genre they're trying to be a part of, but the "politicing game" is like a black hole that sucks them in and turns them into an over-complicated version of this genre that they weren't even trying to be a part of.

[@cadetri9716]

I get frustrated with the politics of Magic quite often. I think that politics tend to more often than not lengthen games obnoxiously and start fights. I've gradually become a "shuffle up and play again" kind of player and I think that ambivalence towards losing is something that people should try to adopt. The game is so much more fun that way

[@AgentMurphy286]

Yes! Casual should mean: Not caring if you win _OR_ lose. (Always set expectations with the table as best you can) I don’t politick with strangers; that’s just asking for bad times.

[@andrewgreenwood9068]

Yes.. everyone should play to win and deals or politics should be focused around that. Eg, if you don't kill this i can destroy that players big scary threat. Rather than being spiteful or king making.

[@blazetrinity9462]

Same, the game should be about the cards and player skills first and foremost. I generally don't politic at all, I feel like it gets in the way of the game. Your cards should only be able to do what it says it can do in the situation it can function. It irks me when ppl try to yap their way around a removal or counter, it seems simple, but it actually violates the game rules, why ? Because in the actual rules, you can only respond when you have priority, not just yap your way around by offering this and that deals, they still can't legally respond ofc, but it already changed the dynamic and decision making a lot just by them doing this, which means they have ways to influence the game outside of the game rules. It's just so annoying every time it happens.

[@bradleyhoward9638]

A large portion of the fun of edh for me is the challenge of winning so I want to win im very competitive but also if I lose, I let it roll off my back because untimely it's not a serious issue. I just enjoy playing and competing and even politicking when the situation calls for it.

[@tobyyasutake9094]

As a collector and curator of politicing games, the beauty of the mechanics is how and why they each facilitate or encourage different aspects of politics.

[@danielpaxton3560]

A. Loved the video and having a small goodbye and thanks for watching made it a lot clearer when the vid ended so I could avoid forced KZbin adds. So honestly thanks. B. I’m excited to hear you guys pick apart the league tcg C. I do enjoy myself some normal commander politicking but one of my groups makes the craziest deals because it’s funny. Like agreeing to a tie after we kill the combo player 😂

[@kyllanburt994]

Omg! That twilight imperium comment made me laugh so hard! Love it.

[@aba1design]

I think politics are a great way of giving new players a smaller barrier to entry. The better players are more likely to leave the new player alone a little more so they don't feel cheesed. It also helps with balancing since any strategy that is a bit too strong can be balanced out by players teaming up on that player or even just giving them more attention.

[@blazetrinity9462]

Yes, new players should always be welcomed, but shouldn't we teach them more about the game instead of politics ? We don't wanna give a false expectation to new players though; the game should always be about the cards and player skills. Maybe instead of whipping out the OP decks, the veteran players can bring out their weaker decks, this way the beginners can enjoy the game more fairly without needing to rely on politics. Imo, the moment we see politic as more "fun" than actually playing the game the way it should be, we have stopped playing mtg and should just switch game at that point.

[@simplesandcastle]

Better players are also more used to politics, manipulating other players to take actions they want. If you're introducing anyone to any "VS" game, letting them learn the game mechanics and play what they want comes first by a mile, imo

[@MrCraftingchannel]

Politics really does create a problem for me in commander. It compresses matches into a single point of strategy sometimes, which makes the format more tiring for me to play personally. There's only so many times I'll have fun playing the game when people always devolve into small bean syndrome and trying to convince others not to attack them/trying to convince others to attack a specific player

[@andrewgreenwood9068]

For me i think politics is essential to the format due to the fact that power levels are going to be more varied than in a typical 1v1 format and weaker decks working together can help balance that out. However everything should be in game and everyone should be trying to win (aka don't go after someone unless that is to win and don't just let someone else win because that will make the other 2 players feel bad.

[@jacobd1984]

I generally agree, but I think some amount of metagame action may make sense. For one example, if I expect to be playing against certain opponents multiple times, it could be useful to persecute anyone who breaks a significant deal with me in one game, so I don’t have to expend significant resources or provide unduly disadvantageous incentives in following games to compel adherence to our deals. Where I draw the line is punishing in-game actions with “real world” retaliation. If you want a political Magic format, IMO that means accepting that political game strategy involves betrayal and planning accordingly.

[@hiffwelaflare]

Multiplayer card games teach you that being an unbothered, laser-focused gigachad is the only viable policy

[@blazetrinity9462]

Yes, if I want to yap my way around and influence decision makings, I will just play other games, not mtg. Everyone should just play the game the best they can with the cards they have, relying on politic to gain advantage is just wrong, your decks can't handle the heat? That's on you, build a better deck instead of relying on your opponents making deals.

[@djnowickiwicki]

Although I do agree with this, there is a Machivellian way of having others see threats in a more dangerous light than you ever will. 😉 Very satisfying yet not truly harmful to anyone & a true way to practice speech skill.

[@BS-gk2cb]

One of my favorite board games is the Game of Thrones board game. Really strategic and rewards skilled playmaking. However… in the rule book it also encourages you to politic. Make deals, break alliances, and even outright lie about your intentions. It’s the game of thrones universe after all. But what I love is that no one complains when you break an alliance because the expectation is set. EDH has this weird unwritten rule where most players just want to play the cards and ignore the human element. I genuinely think most 1v1 players would have more fun playing against AI.

[@distractionmakers]

That is very interesting! Communicating expectations to players is so important.

[@sammckay1307]

What an odd thing to say about 1v1 players. Do you think a tennis player who plays singles over doubles would prefer to play against a pitching machine? I don't like commander because I can lose because someone else is bad at the game and tempo is basically nonexistent.

[@lracseroom8286]

@@distractionmakers hey, would you find it fair to say a community format is bigger than anything you ever made and maybe you're a little bit biased? P.S.: How does MaRo's genitals taste?

[@juanlopesss]

Tell me you don't get 1v1 Magic without telling me

[@carlduzett]

Finally we will learn what you think of the Commander MTG format

[@aylmao8723]

the thing about politics in commander is how different the experience is in any pod, it's incredibly reliant on personalities and has so many different applications, sometimes it can be fun, and sometimes it can be incredibly frustating to deal with, but the variance of it makes it very interesting

[@blazetrinity9462]

Politic is just annoying, period. It shouldn't be a part of the game; it hinders players from playing the game the way it should be. The only time it is acceptable is when you build a politic based deck, like those vote decks for example.

[@BTTUCKER]

it's interesting that your thumbnail for this video is kenrith, who is generally my politicking commander of choice. while i have done some of what you listed i always think of politicking as more of offering deals, "If you don't attack me, i'll revive that creature that got blown up last turn" or "i'll help you draw 2 cards if you don't attack me for 2 turns" using effects like kenrith's activated abilities or spectral searchlight. the sort of politicking listed here is interesting because it's so radically far from what i think of, where it's just manipulation tactics, basically.

[@spray_-8507]

Canadian Highlander is the true goat of singleton formats

[@AnimatorVector]

This conversation made me thought that Bluffing is mainly politics, and is a mechanic that most of the people like. And yes, bluffing is a skill. It is related with hidden information for sure, but politics is about information and how we handle it to convince others to act. I agree that always ganging towards someone on a group could feel really bad, but a skilled politic player will be able to subvert that, obviously the system should help to build the opportunities for that to happen. Great talk as always!

[@AgentMurphy286]

My favorite phrase in response to getting grouped up on is asking “and then what” to the person who will still be in a bad spot after I’m dealt with. “Join me and we can fight the 1v1 later” Doesn’t always work, but it’s fun turning Archenemy into Two-Headed Giant lol

[@eduardoserpa1682]

Some games are great at telling a story through systems and social dynamics, and that's fun and all, but people need to know that's the type of game they're engaging with. I wish more of my EDH friends who dislike the politics part would play those "dry" euro games with limited interaction instead. There's a lot of fun in building engines and untangling the mechanical puzzles for that type of player.

[@sunriseoath]

Play money no limit poker, being a game where players have massive amounts of agency and also can punt their own expectation for victory to decrease another player's, has all the makings of a game that could be heavily political. Two factors make it not political in practice: (1) the tying of chips at the table (cash game) or ranked finish (tournament) to real-world consideration, leading to more serious gameplay on the front of optimizing the number of chips or the lifespan of one's stack; (2) many strict regulations on what kind of politicking is allowed, with some forms of collusion being heavily punished. As much as adding real world consideration can make some games degenerate or even predatory, it also is a useful tool in shifting the focus of the game back to the mechanics rather than to the political metagame. The political metagame is only one of many other metagames, and sometimes the way to keep it in check is to just outcompete it with something else. It is pretty much never the case that the stated object of a game is the ultimate motivator for play, so the only way to strengthen it is to tie it to something closer to an ultimate motivator. It is a (perhaps sad) fact that money serves this role in many people's lives.

[@sunriseoath]

Essentially, a game’s designed metagame needs to fight fire with fire. If you want to reduce the influence of one metagame factor, you need to offset it with another metagame factor. This is because it is already a given that no one is intrinsically driven by the game itself. The game is not the entire world, and its object is not God.

[@dansloat7078]

Thanks so much for adding an outro!

[@lucasfigueroa6165]

Guys i would like you to explore the idea of how to scale a free for all multiplayer, when there's only two player. How would you approach design when something like 1v1 commander is posible, on top of having 4v4. What's the best way to have your mechanics scale to it.

[@bbyowll]

Star Realms mention😮 What a great game

[@IlCremo]

The first minute of the video is a bloodbath

[@jonpringle6719]

I would be interested in your view of "bang"

[@warpsterdash5420]

One of the best free for all multiplayer card games in the world issssss Poker. Honestly it keeps it relatively fair, there is 'politics' and social deduction as well as math and reads to be the balancing act, but ultimately its super high variance with hidden information and total player agency to continue beyond the buy in phase. I think that's as close you can get to a really well balanced game like that because King Making is actively the losers detriment because they will also be losing the stakes which to me is why most multiplayer free for alls don't work. To make sure its not a giant waste of everyone's time because one person decides to throw the game and give someone the win, there must be stakes for those types of eliminations, what they are I don't know, but it is ultimately what keeps most Free for Alls in check since if there is consequence to defeat it will be avoided by players playing most optimally.

[@IVIaskerade]

So... bring back ante?

[@warpsterdash5420]

@IVIaskerade hahahahaha thatd do it

[@dustinchang5089]

I don’t get how “politics” decks work more than once in the same playgroup. Who in their right mind cooperates with the politics deck again the second time around, especially when the deck is designed ally with one person for the most part?

[@BorkBigFrighten2]

Well, one thing about politics in Commander is the opportunity cost. If you're not willing to make a deal with somebody, then you've put yourself at a disadvantage against someone who will. The person who *is* willing opens themselves up for more opportunities to sneak past the other 2 players at the table. The true "right" way to deal with politics is to treat it as a prisoner's dilemma and have the entire table not be willing to make deals. But then, having the rest of the table not making deals will tempt another player into gaining an edge over those who won't, so it's a vicious cycle.

[@dustinchang5089]

@ love it, thanks!

[@KyleTremblayTitularKtrey]

I dont do any of those opening politics. Uh, emotional shenanigans get in the way of winning. The only one ill do is hiding while they fight and trying to only barely mitigate threats so the rest of the table has to help. This is probably because I played too much munchkin.

[@systemerror07]

idk why i was hoping for an answer to how to deal with the insane amount of interaction in mtg.. good video though, thank you!

[@distractionmakers]

Haha it is a problem. You could try only being able to attack to the left or right. There’s also the star variant, which requires specific seating, but it follows the back of the card pattern. So, attacking those across the table from you.

[@alexspeedwagon3701]

So what’s the fix? If people playing commander aren’t actually playing magic anymore then how do we bring the magic back into the game? Do we create a new format for commander players to further splinter themselves into, but one that solves the free for all problem? That hardly seems worth it and would probably face some amount of backlash from wizards if it gets popular enough- either that or they just take it over too lmao

[@distractionmakers]

There are a few changes that would help. Start the game with the player who goes last as the monarch and limit direct interaction somehow. Could be only being able to target to your left and right, could be something more sophisticated.

[@pierredupont1096]

RQ (lunch) I'm really ambivalent on pol. (CMDR context) b/c I find it bogs down game time too much, but yes I have in the past offered Reese's Cups as "fogs", wit ha full pack as gaining indestructible until end of turn. The old, pre-Commander days. These days, I am ok with politics in my own group but never with strangers, whom I don't know personally. There would need to be a feeling out process first, then it would be ok!

[@josebarrera6104]

Oh no, my fav game design podcast got political

[@BlazingLee0610]

I never politicked when playing Commander a few years ago, it wasn't my thing. Just want to play my cards. Lol Multiplayer games aren't my thing.

[@nicks4802]

If it weren’t for the table politics I would simply just be playing 1V1 Pokémon instead

[@gamenlift1726]

Man I enjoy playing Commander, but politics suck. It baffles me when a person will try and make a case for not being targeted as if each individual pod members objective isn't to win. I loathe this element of Commander. So many times I caved and didn't target someone, just for this same earlier assessed threat, to win. I believe losses in Commander dont even mean you're bad or your deck building is terrible, most times losses means the exact opposite. I dont think I've ever been able to say that about another card game.

[@Chilipotamus]

The "shut up and play" crowd really just needs to get into competitive solitaire if they want no politics. Really just smacks of "I've taken one too many bad deals and don't understand why I cant do the same thing" The idea that Magic is played in some sort of vacuum devoid of interaction is just goofy, socially inept wishful thinking. If you wanna play without politics, just play MTGA against faceless, voiceless opponents that won't get the table to gang up on your smol bean Tegrid deck

[@aba1design]

I LOVE twilight imperium. I have played it more times than I can count. It is a huge inspiration for the game I am working on.

[@isambo400]

End the commander format imo

[@iamfunnyface]

I hate Commander and will no longer be watching Commander videos

[@Chilipotamus]

See ya next week, bub

[@sayntfuu]

lol politics make the game great again