Ethical aspects of conceading
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on April 22, 2019, 5:47 p.m. by Alexev
I want to talk about the 'moral' aspects of conceding and if it is or is not a good practice
I think conceding is a 'bad player's' choice (bad not for skill reasons) and these are my thoughts abut it.
Sometimes in some games we will want it to end because it is looking bad for us, one or more opponents just focuses on us, or we are mana screw, or we misplayed a lot or any other reason that is taking the fun away from us.
I know the feeling, I have been there a lot of times and I will be there a lot more, but no matter hw bad is the game for me, no matter how much I want to concede I don't do it for these reasons
-
It is a game we play with friends, so, we should have our focus on having fun altogether, if I am the victim of a focus by two players and I rage-quit the game, I will leave the table, but the bad feeling will stay at the table, so why ruining the game for the other players?
-
The game is not over for us until our life total get's 0, so we can try to overcome the problems, maybe winning sometimes will be very out of our reach in some games, but we can try, we can learn, we can take the opportunity to study how our deck behaves against such games and how to improve it.
-
Maybe one or 2 players are focusing on us to 'have revenge' for past games, and that is ok too, I remember a session were I won 2 games in a row, one player was very salty because I killed him first at 1st game, then he 'side boarded' tons of counter spells with the sole focus of not letting me play and I won the 2nd game too and other player got salted, so when we got to the 3rd game, I knew they will be focusing me, I got mana screw, I had 5 lands at turn 7 and one of my opponents played Terastodon aiming for 3 of my 5 lands, so it was pretty much game over for me, but I didn't concede, I play to the end working hard to overcome the situation, to survive long enough and try to win, I din't won, I was killed first, they had the blood they wanted and we all had fun, no bad feeling at my side of the table. So, if the players are focusing you because you won too many games, or you commander is scary or any other reason, just suck it up
-
Some times some one will cast Bribery on us, nobody want's our opponents having our stuff, but conceding to an effect like this, or a annihilator X or any other bad stuff just ruins the game for your friends. What is the deal then? The opponents can't target us Bribery or similar effects because 'in response' we will concede and it will be a wasted attack or a ' Counterspell like'?. For me this kind of behavior show bad sportsmanship to say the least.
-
Let people do their magic, if you are in a 1v1 against the last player, and he will attack us for lethal, let him do it, it wont take more than 30 seconds, do you feel better saying 'concede' than 'lose'? is that it?
So many times I saw that a player gets his engine going, he is getting the upper hand against the last one, the last player knows the game is not in his favor, so he concedes, well that is also bad sportsmanship, because you may find a way to overcome it, and even if you don't, the winning player build his or her deck to do some magic and it is doing it, by conceding 2 or 3 turns earlier we are taking away his fun
What are your thoughts?
In a timed tournament, I think a player should generally concede a round if it is clear there is no hope of victory. This could be because you are going to lose next turn and your draw was insufficient, or it is clear they have locked you down and can just stall for the next couple turns until you deck yourself. It’s much better to get three full rounds with a concession than two rounds and tie after going to turns.
With friends I never concede, as that’s not fun for them. I also try not to concede on Arena so people can work toward their daily quests.
That said, I don’t really have any issue with others conceding. If they are not having fun, no point in getting upset if they choose to end their suffering early.
April 22, 2019 7:20 p.m.
ZendikariWol says... #4
1) valid, but applies exclusively to rage-quitters.
2) I take issue with the first clause of this paragraph as a mill player, but also not everyone is so deliberate and introspective about their deck.
3) some people get a LOT more annoyed by losing than you. Is that a pleasant or desirable quality? Not really. But you have to be patient with those players, as you and they probably both want them to be less annoyed by losing than they are.
4) yeah that is garbage sportsmanship. That’s why nobody does it outside of cutthroat competitive metas.
5) I would call bad sportsmanship “anything that makes the gaming experience less enjoyable for another player.” Conceding, especially against slow and obnoxious decks, isn’t necessarily that. If you have another definition to present, go ahead, but I think sometimes it’s a LOT faster and more painless to just scoop.
April 22, 2019 7:37 p.m.
So the best part of winning is having the time to actually demonstrate to the opponent how "You can to do it all the way to 0", instead of just skipping all that and starting a new game when its technically over?
Disagree. My time is valuable, and I would rather spend it playing interesting games.
That said i rarely have done it in real life. Online it happens a lot though.
April 22, 2019 8:20 p.m. Edited.
Disagree. My time is valuable, and I would rather spend it playing interesting games.
And by 'interesting' you mean the ones you can win? so, if you are not the winner, then the game is not interesting, I got it right?
April 22, 2019 8:45 p.m.
ZendikariWol says... #8
Alexev there’s actually a name for what you just did; the Strawman Fallacy. In short, you answered a question that Rzepkanut never asked. No, Rzep didn’t say anything that might even imply or indicate that winning was all they cared about.
The reason I think it’d be a waste of time is because unless they’re killing you NEXT TURN, turns consist of one of you doing nothing and the other one dicking around. Can’t speak for Rzep tho.
April 22, 2019 8:57 p.m.
I asked a valid question, what are those 'interesting games' he is talking about when he says 'my time is valuable' because I think everyone's time is valuable, so if we seat at a table and start playing a game and one player rage quit for whatever reason he is not respecting our own time which is just as valuable as his
April 22, 2019 9:01 p.m.
Alexev - if you look at Rzepkanut’s post, they clearly indicate they are talking about games where, for all intents and purposes, the game is a loss. That could mean “I am going to lose next turn” or “I mulled to 4” or “I have not drawn a single land/nonland” or any number of other reasons why the game is merely struggling by on life support.
Everyone might have different ideas of what an interesting game is, but I think we can all agree playing with or against someone who is mana flooded/screwed is not fun.
April 22, 2019 9:11 p.m.
cdkime Everyone might have different ideas of what an interesting game is, but I think we can all agree playing with or against someone who is mana flooded/screwed is not fun.
If the player is manascrewed, the table can give him a break and just go soft on it, or just wuick kill him.
Anyway, a couple weeks ago, I played in a 5 man table with my Pheldagriff deck, while I play 40 lands in that deck, I was mana screwed and I wasn't able to cast my commander up to turn 7-8, by that time one of the players got me at 1 life, yes 1 life, I didn't scooped, I play to the end and guess what, I was the last one to die (the first was precisely the one who got me at 1 hp), I lost against the last player but.. I could have won.
I had fun, I wasn't happy being the focus of one player while I have zero board presence, but for me, giving up is just not an option, I can enjoy a game even if I lose
April 22, 2019 9:19 p.m.
Alexev - Your post is talking a bit past mine, ignoring some critical pieces of information.
You’ll note that I only listed mana issues as an example of the greater point I made - it is fine to concede if, for all intents and purposes, the game is over.
You then provided in your response a counterexample where the game was not, “for all intents and purposes” over, and therefore is not particularly responsive. I completely agree such a situation would not warrant leaving the game; it would not meet the precondition I set for justifying concession.
April 22, 2019 9:54 p.m.
JANKYARD_DOG says... #13
I believe there is a time and a place to concede, being salty is not one. If you are in a losing position take a look at the situation and learn from it, play it out to see how they are winning and what you can do differently. If it's a slow stalemate game, then if everyone agrees we fold in and deal a new game. Then there's the combo players; player announces and visible shows how they are comboing off, asks for responses, and if none then its agreed to just call it and start anew. Sometimes there is that one person who wants to see it through, but those are few and far between.
TLDR: When you're at a game store/venue/friends house for a limited amount of time, playing more than 1 game is usually better than one super long game that no one is making headway with.
April 22, 2019 11:21 p.m.
JANKYARD_DOG says... #14
shadow63 I agree that should be a rule, kinda falls under the 'salty' part where they either mad or just 'oh I'm losing so I'm not going to give you the satisfaction' type deal. Respectively if a player wishes to concede they should wait for either their own turn or a non crucial point in the game. Unless of course you get a call your having a baby or other emergency then, well... not gunna hold ya to it.
April 22, 2019 11:25 p.m.
shadow63 and Mj3913 - Allowing concessions only during one’s turn is extremely problematic, and can lead to some situations where a person probably should concede, but would not be able to do so.
To use a famous example, there’s a legacy deck called Four Horsemen that is infinite, but it involves shuffling your deck repeatedly. Because there is an element of uncertainty - the shuffling - you cannot use a shortcut to say “I do this X times, I assemble the correct deck order, and I win the game.”
In a world where you can’t concede at instant speed, you have to sit their as your opponent takes some actions, shuffles their deck, takes some actions, etc. a large number of times.
That’s one particularly famous example, and isn’t playable in EDH, but there are plenty of other conceivable situations where the game is over in all but name, but going through the motions would take ages.
April 23, 2019 12:22 a.m.
ZendikariWol says... #16
So set a time limit. Maybe after the first two and a half minutes of turn you can concede.
April 23, 2019 12:46 a.m.
ZendikariWol - that would have implementation difficulties (hypothetically such a loop could come out of nowhere, so you’d have to time every single turn), and really wouldn’t make a difference in effect - you can usually tell in 30 seconds the game was over; those extra two minutes are just going through the motions.
To bring back to EDH, an EDH example would be infinite casting of extra turn spells/casting an extra turn spell each turn. Per your rule, the game would last until the person won - after all, each of their turns might fall short of the 2.5 minutes to allow concession.
The rule is fine as is. The problem is people abusing it. In a tournament setting, you get a win out of the concession, and thus closer to a prize. That might not be what you want, but it’s at least something to mitigate the pain. In a casual setting, you’re well within your rights to tell the other person to knock it off.
Messing with the rules will just create more problems than it will solve.
April 23, 2019 1:24 a.m.
Winterblast says... #18
I think it's not correct to look at conceding in multiplayer from the perspective of what the reasons for not wanting to play out a game might be. Imo there are two aspects of why a single player conceding in multiplayer shouldn't ever be done:
- Conceding is never strategically correct apart from a best of 3 match with time limit.
You don't gain anything by conceding a multiplayer match, you just lose. If you stop someone else from winning by losing at the "right" time, you still lose. It's never a correct decision to lose on purpose and at worst it can be illegal teamplay and collusion. Therefore I'm very much for simply not allowing it at all in a tournament setting.
- Conceding of a single player will always ruin the rest of the game.
Everyone bases their decisions on the known information and a player suddenly leaving with all his permanents for no logical reason will result in utter randomness. Imagine stax pieces suddenly disappearing, potential interaction from another opponent not happening for sure, maybe even permanents switching controllers for no reason...if that leaving player had any presence in the game at all it will ruin the game for the remaining players. And even if he was not doing much, another opponent to consider will often have a slowing effect on the currently dominant player.
April 23, 2019 7:18 a.m.
cdkime if someone's about to go infinte and win on the stop they should just tell everyone st the table what they're doing and if they win on the spot theres no reason to keep the game going. It would be on the person comboing off to say something. But half the fun of combos is seeing them play out.
But theres a world of difference between casual play with your buddies and playing cedh with strangers
April 23, 2019 8:43 a.m.
Winterblast says... #20
shadow63 the correct way to play a loop is to demonstrate one iteration and - if there were no responses during that first sequemnce - ask the table to shortcut to a point in the game after X more iterations of that loop. Opponents will have to say if they want to respond to anything within a shorter number of repetitions, otherwise the game continues after the number of repetitions you said you want to go through. There's no need to announce a combo before a winning loop has been shown because you would just give away information that the opponents might not have. For example if they don't see that it's a loop that can be repeated as often as you want...you wouldn't want to tell everyone "here comes my combo" before the point where you propose a shortcut.
April 23, 2019 9:01 a.m.
shadow63 - Under the rule modification you presented--an inability to concede except during one's own turn--the combo player could announce they would be winning, but the other players could do nothing to end the game. It's not enough for the combo player to say they are going to win--the current rules only allow them to shorten the path to victory if (a) everyone else concedes, or (b) their combo is a definite loop. If players can't concede except on their turn and the combo player is using something like infinite turns or four horsemen, or any number of janky combos that might be seen at casual tables, your rule would force everyone to sit around until the game ended.
While I will admit there is a clear difference between casual and cEDH, and that half the fun is watching other players combo off, that doesn't change the fact that concessions on only your turn will be problematic for both casual and cEDH.
I can't speak for anyone else, but my very casual playgroup tends to be filled with all manner of odd, janky combos that (a) everyone at the table has seen get executed before and (b) cannot be shortcutted. Watching someone else combo once (or watching them demonstrate the combo to a player who has never seen it before) is fun; having to sit through it the 8th or 9th time... not so much.
April 23, 2019 9:08 a.m.
Winterblast says... #22
cdkime you can easily address that by making it so that no individual player can concede in multiplayer. For conceding to have the effect it has in 1vs1 (one person wins and the rest loses) all players except one would have to concede. with a round time limit and one win needed per round there's no reason though to end the game by conceding before someone really presents a winning move.
April 23, 2019 9:28 a.m.
Deadpoo111 says... #23
I think it really depends on the game. I usually don't concede in commander bc well, it's a crazy format and anything can happen. However in paper standard, it's perfectly acceptable to concede. If you can see you are somehow unable to win or your opponent will simply win in the end, you're using your time wisely. Even at the mythic championship, Autumn Burchett showed Yoshihiko Ikawa a hand full of counterspells and protection with tempest djinn on the board and about 5 minutes into game three, he conceded. This was a smart move and I think, especially in competitive 1v1 formats like modern and standard, conceding is acceptable.
April 23, 2019 9:49 a.m.
Winterblast - That's a slightly different rule than proposed one I took issue with, and I'd be fine with that as a kitchen table rule/rule at a commander tournament. Unlike the "no concessions on others' turn" rules, which has practical difficulties when applied to Magic's other rules, as I've outlined above, the only real issue with the rule you are proposing is that one player who insists on making everyone else suffer because they are losing. Since multiplayer is not played in any sanctioned event, that problem can be addressed as a discussion between friends/by not inviting that person to future kitchen table gatherings/some sort of penalty imposed by the LGS running the multiplayer tournament.
April 23, 2019 9:55 a.m.
My playgroup only concedes as a group, unless someone has to leave of course. It lets us start right back into a game we all feel we have a chance of winning
April 23, 2019 10:40 a.m.
Dredge4life says... #26
I have a few points to add to this.
Conceding because of tilt:
If someone is on tilt during a game of EDH, I am a firm believer that the correct move for them and everybody else is to leave the game. That way, they can go cool off, and they aren’t going to say something they regret to other players at the table. Magic is a game meant to be played by friends, EDH even more so. Doing anything that may injure a friendship is best left avoided, which includes getting angry. I’ve been on tilt before, and the last thing I wanted to do was stick with the game. Had I continued in several of these occasions, I most likely would have ended up hurting my friends’ feelings. Obviously there is a correct way to leave the table. Don’t flip your cards and yell about it, just do it quietly, but I would advise against staying at the table, at least for the next few minutes so that the tilt wears off.
When is a game over:
Even if life totals are not zero, games can definitely be over. For instance, last Saturday I played a game with my Daretti, Scrap Savant deck, and managed to resolve Ensnaring Bridge , Meekstone , and Winter Orb against my Xenagos, God of Revels opponent. I also had a Ghirapur AEther Grid in play, making the Winter Orb one-sided. He theoretically could have gone on to play for a few more turns, but he conceded because the odds of him escaping the lock were almost nonexistent. We then ended up playing another two games, which we would not have had time to play had he tried to play out the 3% chance of winning. There are definitely scenarios in which a game is over, even if the life totals aren’t zero.
Conceding to Bribery:
Great! My five mana spell just took out an entire opponent! That’s way better than getting a creature from their deck.
In all seriousness, though, unless you don’t want your opponent to look through your deck, this is a strange strategic move.
Four Horsemen:
In a casual game, I’m just conceding to FH 100% of the time if I can’t stop it. If they’ve got me, it’s just going to take time, then there’s no point in me playing it out and sitting there for half an hour when we could be starting a new game. In competitive REL, though, I’m calling a judge on my opponent for slow play and failure to advance the game state. I assume that anyone going into a competitive REL tournament is going to know that FH is not deterministic, and they are the ones accepting the risk of playing it.
In closing, there are many reasons to concede a game of EDH, and I don’t think it should be considered taboo. I’ve lost a lot of games before they were over, and I’ve won a few as well. It’s just an action a player can take. No more, no less. Doing it in response to Mindslaver is a little frustrating though.
April 23, 2019 2:29 p.m.
GhostChieftain says... #27
My opinion is that any concession should be a) to make the combo win not take as long or b) while nothing is on the stack [during second main phase/end step if it is an opponent's turn]. There are too many casual edh players who will concede in response to a game changing spell so their buddy has a better chance against whoever cast the spell. Conceding certainly has a time and a place, but it should absolutely never happen with the purpose of making it harder for someone to win.
April 23, 2019 3:26 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #28
There is nothing wrong with conceding when you are not having a good time or another player has obviously won. "Tactical Scoops" are in bad taste because you are actively being a detriment to one player who would otherwise have a good chance of winning. Forcing someone to play a game when they are not having fun via social pressure is in bad taste too though. People play games to have fun, if they are not having fun then they have every right to no longer take part in the game.
April 23, 2019 10:08 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #29
And now for a point by point rebuttal since I feel most of your post is based on arguments from bad faith.
1. It is a game we play with friends, so, we should have our focus on having fun altogether, if I am the victim of a focus by two players and I rage-quit the game, I will leave the table, but the bad feeling will stay at the table, so why ruining the game for the other players?
So, first and foremost; not all concessions are rage quits. Many people can simply say "I'm out" and honestly not be angry. If you are pressuring people to play a game they are not having fun in, I feel you are actually more likely to have the adverse outcome of a rage quit than if you just allow people to leave games with no stigma.
Most of the time, if you are playing with friends, leaving the game doesn't always equate to leaving the table. A lot of the time after I concede I am still at the table taking part in the conversation as I was when I was in the game. I am just able to focus better on what we were talking about outside of the game.
2. The game is not over for us until our life total get's 0, so we can try to overcome the problems, maybe winning sometimes will be very out of our reach in some games, but we can try, we can learn, we can take the opportunity to study how our deck behaves against such games and how to improve it.
There are many ways for the game to be over without your life total reaching 0, and I'm not just talking about alternate win conditions. I personally run 2 combos in my Oloro deck that completely lock other players out of playing spells. I actually appreciate people scooping instead of making me go through the motions of drawing to and then playing one of my win conditions. There are times when it is literally impossible to win and there is nothing to be learned by watching someone solitaire.
Then there are the times when it is merely hard to win, not impossible. Even in these scenarios it is perfectly fine to concede. If you want to learn and improve your play and deck it is much faster to do so when not playing. You have already decided that at some point earlier in the game it became extremely difficult for you to win. It is easier to identify when that was, look through your deck for things you could have done differently, and look up cards that can shore up this weakness when you are not actively playing a game.
3. Maybe one or 2 players are focusing on us to 'have revenge' for past games, and that is ok too... So, if the players are focusing you because you won too many games, or you commander is scary or any other reason, just suck it up
I'm not really of the opinion that it is ok to focus someone down for "revenge" about past games, but that is more of a difference of opinion on other topics than scooping. Again, this comes down to people shouldn't be pressured into continuing to play games after the point when it is no longer fun for them. There is no "sucking it up" necessary. Multiple other people don't want you to win this particular game. You don't feel like you have a chance under the circumstances. You give them what they want by removing yourself from the game and allow them to play a better game of Magic.
4. Some times some one will cast Bribery on us, nobody want's our opponents having our stuff, but conceding to an effect like this, or a annihilator X or any other bad stuff just ruins the game for your friends. What is the deal then? The opponents can't target us Bribery or similar effects because 'in response' we will concede and it will be a wasted attack or a ' Counterspell like'?. For me this kind of behavior show bad sportsmanship to say the least.
The Bribery example falls under "tactical scoops" and I have no disagreement that it is poor form. Unless someone has It That Betrays being attacked with annihilator is a completely different scenario though. Let them have any damage triggers and then concede. There is no worse feeling to me than not getting to play Magic when I sit down to play Magic. If I am at a point that I am sacrificing more things than I am putting out, I am no longer playing Magic and so will not even go through the motions.
5. Let people do their magic, if you are in a 1v1 against the last player, and he will attack us for lethal, let him do it, it wont take more than 30 seconds, do you feel better saying 'concede' than 'lose'? is that it?
Also the conclusion: So many times I saw that a player gets his engine going, he is getting the upper hand against the last one, the last player knows the game is not in his favor, so he concedes, well that is also bad sportsmanship, because you may find a way to overcome it, and even if you don't, the winning player build his or her deck to do some magic and it is doing it, by conceding 2 or 3 turns earlier we are taking away his fun
And the strawmanning in the comments: And by 'interesting' you mean the ones you can win? so, if you are not the winner, then the game is not interesting, I got it right?
I don't see that the actual act of swinging for lethal or actually executing the combo is all that important. Playing magic to me is about the strategic choices that lead up to that point. They are no more a winner if they actually do the thing. There is no difference between conceding and losing. If there are no more meaningful decisions to make there is no point in continuing to play.
April 23, 2019 11:24 p.m.
Raging_Squiggle says... #30
In my playgroup we have a house rule that if someone does a “tactical scoop” immediately after their own board wipe or some sort of big spell (usually
Wrath of God
,
Armageddon
,
Cyclonic Rift
,
Sunder
, etc), then their actions will be automatically reversed unless they wait 1 turn cycle.
this prevents those “fuck you scoops.” Otherwise no one really cares if you scoop or intentionally kill yourself in response to whatever.
dbpunk says... #2
I never concede. I let them beat me, because if I'm at a point where I can concede and have no hope, they deserve to win.
April 22, 2019 6:19 p.m.