New Social Contract Breach Discussion
General forum
Posted on March 14, 2022, 8:07 p.m. by Gleeock
A discussion of when it is ok to quit a game & evaluation of this game aspect in relation to the current "social contract" of multiplayer games
With the MULTIPLAYER game & the mechanics evolving, there seems to be more complex situations leading to poor sportsmanship in games... The item I am speaking of is: when is quitting the game right to do?
It used to be that quitting at sorcery speed was fine, but with more and more diverse "use opponents permanents" & "goad" type strategies I think this approach needs to be reevaluated.
I for one believe it is only right to concede if the others are conceding as well. It ruins previous setup turns and such. I highly suggest discussing it prior to game in rule zero convo.
March 14, 2022 8:38 p.m.
I have to admit, I haven't seen a lot of different opponents recently, but I'll take the other side here. Should somebody be obligated to stay ineffectual just so someone else can benefit?
Eventually, people will start losing one way or another. What difference does it make if they lose by concession, or by life = 0, or by mill? A deck that uses other people's resources will lose those resources no matter what, unless it makes a dedicated effort to keeping its opponents alive. At that point, the opponents are basically being parasitized. Is it worth their time and energy to support someone to no benefit to themselves?
If it makes a difference, I love spamming Dominating Licid and Praetor's Grasp and other "fun" cards. But if someone wants to leave, I'm not going to hold them hostage.
March 14, 2022 8:42 p.m.
This is just my two cents but... Approaching multiplayer Magic with the same mindset as competitive two-player Magic is fundamentally flawed. Unless you're playing something like a multiplayer cube where the environment was crafted to create a certain experience, I don't think multiplayer is suited to competitive or hardcore gameplay. Like, foundationally. It becomes more like a board game. One person may win, but everyone should enjoy playing. If people don't enjoy playing, eventually they won't want to play and your playgroup will diminish.
If someone isn't having fun at the kitchen table or in a casual game, I say they're free to go. There's no obligation here. There are no prizes on the line, no one is being obliged to play against a certain opponent/deck or stay in a game because there is a prize on the line. And quite frankly if someone isn't having fun I don't want to keep subjecting them to an experience they are actively disliking.
I think the problems of people leaving who are having their permanents stolen and/or their actions controlled speak more to the issues with how those mechanics play out, but that's just like my opinion man.
March 14, 2022 8:46 p.m.
I think because it's a casual format it will ultimately be at the mercy of "fun."
What I mean by this is that because there isnt anything really at stake... if the game is unwinnable and it isnt "fun" for a player to stay at the table then why continue?
I can understand a social contract between friendly playgroups and having good sportsmanship to see things through if thing just aren't going your way... but if the game just outright is not fun then the game will die.
March 14, 2022 8:52 p.m.
plakjekaas says... #7
It's been a problem forever, people scooping before damage of a lethal combat, to spite the attacking player and prevent their lifelink attackers from gaining life and keeping them in the game for example.
The moment your scooping provides a tactical (dis)advantage for one or more of the remaining players, that wouldn't be obtained by playing it out, your decision to scoop at that time is what's referred to in bird culture as a dick move and you deserve to be called out for that.
Our playgroup usually plays it out with the player who scooped making no gameplay decisions anymore until they'd be knocked out if the issue arises, but it hasn't been an issue in ages because we all gotten got by it, and having your chances ripped away by a cowardly move like that feels bad enough to not do that to other people in the future. We've learned our lesson to be more social, without a contract, which is probably the best outcome for everyone ;)
March 14, 2022 9:16 p.m.
I understand the mentality of not wanting to play out the game of Monopoly when the other player has the board completely... In a game that does not swing as wildly as MtG does & not even wanting to be the player to force someone to stay. I think it is; not seeing the forest for the trees, to feel that you have no chance in a multiplayer game where anything can happen.
legendofa It makes a lot of difference if they lose by concession because they can't see the forest for the trees staring at their hand in a vacuum, alot of difference with alot of strategies that are being endorsed more & more. I've had a field of goaded permanents turn around & swing at me next turn because the only other valid target player threw a tantrum & left the game, this is in a game where one board wipe would change the complexion of the game completely.
& losing often isn't fun; casual, competitive, etc. The game involve(s) multiple subjective unfun aspects: it doesn't give people license to essentially dip out of it all. That is akin to deciding you just aren't voting on the resolving Expropriate because it ain't that fun to you.
No, it is not an issue in my regular playgroup. It is more of an issue with randoms, who I don't think are understanding on the rationale of why they may be called out on it... I think some people legitimately don't understand the disadvantage it creates & they feel like it's "what's it to you?" situation.
I feel that this should be at the forefront of all these other contentious "social contract" discussions, such as: MLD, stax, draw-go-counter, T0, combo, etc... If it was talked about more I think there may be some more social conscientiousness with it & the situations where it is right.
March 14, 2022 11:05 p.m.
Grubbernaut says... #9
As usual, I'll bring the cEDH mindset in for sake of argument.
Quitting early, especially when it's a single player and not everyone else losing at once, is BM (unless you're in a VERY casual game). There are situations where the game isn't literally over, but it's effectively over, and it's better in that case to simply ask the other players if they're also willing to concede with you for the sake of getting more games in.
March 14, 2022 11:51 p.m.
Gleeock I haven't gotten in a multiplayer game with randoms for years now, I've never played cEDH, and I don't actually have a regular group at the moment (frustration and sadness), so I'm probably out of touch with actual multiplayer reality.
All the same, though, I have a couple of responses. "[T]he only other valid player threw a tantrum & left the game" is not good play. But I take special exception to the tantrum. If, hypothetically, the other player said "I'm afraid I have no chance at winning, I concede. Good game, and well played," would that still be an issue? I understand that the game flow can be radically changed by who's present and available. However, I see the following: conceding gracefully is respectful and legal. Conceding with a tantrum is disrespectful, but legal. Refusing to vote on Expropriate, then continuing to play, is disrespectful and illegal. And 104.3a very much says a player can dip out of it all: "A player can concede the game at any time. A player who concedes leaves the game immediately. That player loses the game."
But the legality of concession isn't really the issue here. The issue is "when is quitting the game right to do?" Instead of directly answering, I'd like to add some supplemental questions, based on this thread and my own thoughts.
-
Is it fair play to concede in response to being attacked? If Gahiji, Honored One Beatdown attacks Tobias Andrion with a Titanic Ultimatum and enough creatures to defeat Tobias, can Tobias concede immediately to avoid the lifelink damage? Does the answer change whether Gahiji is dominating the match at 300 life + board vs. barely hanging on at 4 life and built up a Fervored board this turn?
-
Is it fair play to concede if a player can reasonably expect to be unable to proceed, if an opponent is relying on their presence? If Sen Triplets Stax has stripped all artifact removal from The Lady of the Mountain's deck through Sadistic Sacrament and has taken control of nearly all of The Lady's permanents, can The Lady concede on the grounds that she reasonably believes she can't win, even though it would cost Triplets some key blockers?
-
Is it fair play to concede a game if it forces another player into a line of action? Marisi, Breaker of the Coil Combat Control goads Jedit Ojanen into attacking. During Jedit's first main phase, before Jedit attacks, Barktooth Warbeard gets a critical removal spell countered and decides this game is unwinnable. Is Barktooth free to gracefully and respectfully concede, forcing Jedit to attack the remaining available player?
I don't claim to have objectively correct answers to these questions, but I think they add some needed nuance to the central question of when someone can concede to another person's detriment.
Obviously, conceding shouldn't be done yelling and tableflipping. But assuming a modicum of decency, I think conceding should be available at any time, within the agreement of the group. It can be difficult to determine whether conceding is done tactically, spitefully, or simply to cut losses, and having a pre-match conversation can settle these issues, so that's a point I strongly agree with. In a more competitive setting, I guess leave it to the judges to explain pre-tournament and adjucate as needed? That's outside of my expertise.
March 15, 2022 1:44 a.m.
plakjekaas says... #11
If you can explain the detriment the scooping causes, that wouldn't be the case if the game was played out, and the scooping player is still refusing to play it out, of course that's fair game, but for me that decision comes with a grudge for the rest of the evening. You've shown yourself to be an antisocial player in a social format (OP specified multiplayer games, those are not played much in that competitive of a setting) and I will weigh my decisions against that in following games, which seldom comes with beneficial consequences.
-
If the Gahiji player is dominating at 300+ life, they are unlikely to complain about the life not gained. If the Gahiji player is struggling to stay alive and is denied the vital lifelink hit, scooping was obviously done with malicious or kingmaking intent, which I'd say should be frowned upon in social games.
-
I'm a bit partial to this one, because I detest playing against steal-your-stuff decks. I do think losing every wincon and answer in your deck will effectively lose you the game, and being held hostage by your own deck while you didn't get to play it, feels overwhelming enough to say that you've lost the game, therefor it's defensible to eliminate yourself from it. I'd say that's a risk you take when you play Sen Triplets, relying too much on stealing from one player is like overextending into a pending boardwipe, it's a gameplay mistake.
-
This is the hardest one, because the scooping player disappearing gives one of the remaining players such a strong tactical advantage that might cause the difference between winning and losing, especially if the Marisi player was sitting on a boardwipe to use for the moment opponents had eliminated each other and the 1v1 phase would begin. The scooping player effectively handed out a free Time Walk to the remaining opposing player. That's such a big impact that it would feel like a knife in the back of the Marisi player, personal enough that I think it's not the preferred line of play.
I might be nitpicking the specific situations here a bit, but the context is important. Scooping the game is always bad for you, but it shouldn't be significantly bad for any of the other players at the table. If I was the victimized player in the Sen Triplets example, I would voice my scooping considerations, and could possibly be convinced to stay in the game for one more turn to give the Sen Triplets player a chance to react to my decision to leave. If asked nicely enough, I'd suppose. Communication stays key.
Your mileage may vary, of course
March 15, 2022 2:29 a.m.
I play a LOT of 3 or 4 player EDH, and while we have never talked about it, we don't scoop unless one player is clearly winning.
If I have an overwhelming advantage, my opponents will ask each other "Do you guys have a way to deal with this? No? Let's scoop." and we move on.
If I am overwhelmingly behind (say, stuck on two lands for multiple turns) I will keep playing until the other players ask me if I want to concede, or until someone wins. I'm not going to keep other people from having fun just because I'm experiencing a less enjoyable part of Magic.
March 15, 2022 11:11 a.m.
I am not a fan of quitting during games. If you beat my deck I will take it like an adult, I hope.
With that being said, having fun with friends is more important than the game.
I feel that anyone can quit at any time for any reason. The rest of the table just needs to deal with it. At times its poor sportsmanship or can lead to remaining players now having a not fun experience as well. But there are no good alternatives other than refusing to play with a particular person because of their behavior. Its not like you can force, or should force, them to continue playing when they don't want to.
Rule 0 conversations can help. Like someone already mentioned, discussing the timing of when to do it is good. I don't think its ever cool to do it during the attack steps. Asking people to only do it "at sorcery speed" is one of my group's house rules and seems reasonable.
Its hard to avoid Kingmaking when this stuff happens since we play a turn-based game but that is part of the game too.
March 15, 2022 1:09 p.m. Edited.
I would say in most any situation I'm not a fan of a single player conceding, with the main exception being concessions that end the game. If everyone is conceding or it's down to 2 then it's not really an issue as everyone involved has had their say and no one is impacted.
Is there a difference between leaving in response to lethal combat with lifelink and leaving at sorcery speed when you feel out of the game? yes, obviously. The first one is far more malicious, but that doesn't mean that the second one is completely justified. There was an argument made that scooping is an issue when you might provide an (dis)advantage to someone with your absence. I agree, but this will always be the case. If only for the reason that you don't know what everyone else is capable of. You might only be useful for another player because someone will still need to take a turn out of their master plan to kill you. but that buys everyone else at the table a turn.
When you are playing in a multiplayer game, people make decisions based off of your existence. No matter how little you feel you would contribute to the game, or how little chance you feel you have at winning, your existence matters. You change everything from the math on cards like Exsanguinate, to the options of cards like Sylvan Offering. Your presence might be poor now but things have the ability to change, especially since you being in a poor spot means that many people might leave you be since you're not a threat.
To be transparent, I used to often be in the situation where friends of mine would concede and this would lead to me subsequently losing the game. So I do have some experience with the issue and have a reason that i'm arguing this side of things. But i think lots of people underestimate the ability to make a comeback in a game as swingy as edh. what does your empty board state even mean when someone could just play Farewell next turn and level it out? In one game where I was spectating, my friend, who did this frequently, decided they were going to concede because they felt their board state was untenable. They had nothing but lands in play and they were even behind in that. I asked if they wouldn't mind if i just took over instead if they were just going to leave. everyone was fine with it since i had no knowledge of anyone's hands or anything. I then went on to win that game because edh is like that sometimes. They have since stopped conceding as much. but you know what, i could have still lost that and i think the point would stand. even if i never came back from it. because i could have, and other people still had to devote their in game resources to me and my existence.
trying to respond to some of the above comments questions
legendofa: would it matter if they said it politely instead of "threw a tantrum"? yes, but while the second scenario is more polite i still don't think they should do it. and to your supplemental questions.
1) No it's not fair play to concede when being attacked. this is by far the most cut and dry of these as there are very clear consequences for the attack resolving or not. I think most people would agree this is spiteful. does it matter more if they have 4 life? yes but its still a spiteful play even if the attacker has 300. Regardless of the fact that the difference between 300 and 350 life might not matter to most, it's still was only done to spite the other player. this is very rude and very poor sportsmanship.
2) Still no. Sure they sacramented all 15 of your removal spells, but theres other players at the table who could kill it. And if Sen Triplets still is choosing you every turn its because they feel that any card you draw would be amazing to have otherwise they should be picking someone else. You should try and use this situation to your advantage. Invite the other players to attack and kill you. Sen now has to either defend you or start allowing you to defend yourself. Either way your likely to have more leverage in the argument than you'd think.
3) Also no in again what feels very cut and dry to me. you are literally going to make someone else lose/start losing because of your decision to leave. This is just a small step removed from scenario 1 in my mind.
There was also a mention by plakjekaas (hopefully i don't have another episode of spelling your name wrong like 3 times), where others are expected to explain the reasons for the detriment. But that now means that you likely have to give up secret information such as cards in hand or your strategies that opponents might not be aware of. we agreed on most of the scenarios except for the Sen trips one but i wanted to point out that you are right that when a player takes all of your things that it can be a detriment to fun and lead to a terrible game experience. But i think that if you see that as an unfun experience (which it is very reasonable and acceptable to feel that way) then you should bring that up before you start playing with a sen trips deck at the table. because once the game begins the sen trips player has to start doing that to people as thats what their deck is designed to do.
I understand a lot of arguments about leaving when you are not having fun, but this also then leads to other players having less fun because of said leaving. Yes you can and should talk to people about things before hand such as this, but i think the baseline assumption should be that if you are there to play the game you should stick around to play the game through the ups and downs.
March 15, 2022 1:52 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #15
As soon as someone is no longer having fun with a game, it is fine for them to scoop it up. Instant, sorcery, when no one even has priority, doesn't matter. You should not be held hostage just to help someone else in a game. The only caveat to this is that if you prevent lifelink or some trigger from happening by scooping I feel the table should allow that action to happen, but that is between the players still in the game.
Multiplayer MtG is by its very essence casual. If winning a casual game is that important to you and you feel you would have won if they had stayed around, count it as a win in your head. If you are playing a casual game for prizes, plan for the fact that people can leave at any time.
It isn't bad sportsmanship, it isn't being salty, my time is valuable and I only get so much leisure time. If you want me to spend time not actively having fun be prepared to pay my hourly wage, otherwise you have absolutely no right to my time.
March 15, 2022 2:49 p.m.
Rules wise? It's completely allowed. Ethically it depends on how a player goes about conceding. However, the ethics of the argument are irrelevant, I think to the topic with the context that EDH by definition is a casual format and should be handled as such. Don't take it so seriously or personal when someone makes a legal play in our hobby. And if it does bother you that much dont play with them. Simple as. No one sitting at the table is there to help you win, and considering the political nature of EDH sometimes people will make plays specifically to hurt you and help others. I conclude though, that it is best practice to not have a shitty attitude when socializing with others. Game play though? Everything is free game.
March 15, 2022 4:27 p.m.
Good discussion. It is not so much of a "being pissed about scooping" or "needs to win" issue as an issue with a lack of awareness that there is an increasing amount of political complexity in the game & there should be more consideration to how scooping affects the entire table instead of oneself.
I know many people that have midrange decks that rely on other opponents as resources of a sort & it is almost their wincon to pit players against each other & then pick just the right moment to play the finisher.
aholder7 & some others mentioned a good thought; what about the rest of the table? Is the rest of the table already thinking the same thing? & really it usually doesn't hurt to ask the next person over if they've got nothing as well. I think it is bad form for the most part to bow out for what is going to be a super short swing out for example. I stay around for the shellacking that I've earned or the shellacking that the aggressor has earned.
I don't think the ethics of the argument are irrelevant either since I was talking about this concept in relation to the social contract of the game, which is essentially all about: player conduct, unwritten rules, ethics... Similar to MLD again; rules wise, yes: social contract, many say no. I just see alot more online content about those things & why people feel that way, whereas not so much about this topic.
March 15, 2022 10:41 p.m.
plakjekaas says... #18
I think you'll see content about those things more, because they create worse memories. When you feel powerless enough to scoop it up, it was your deck not running as well as it could have. Which can be written up to chance, just bad luck. When someone drags on a game with a winconless Jokulhaups, that was someone else's deck doing what you can only assume it's supposed to do, and actively making you feel bad, which is a lot more negative as an interaction in the social game we play. I think that's why the personal, egotistical scoops described in this topic to spite other players, are as bad of a strain on the social contract. Scooping is also removing yourself from the game you showed up to play, I don't think it's going to happen as much. I assume most players will try to survive as long as they can, because you never know what miracle card could turn everything around. I know I will.
March 16, 2022 4:01 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #19
Personally the part of the social contract that I feel this falls under is "just because I consent to play a game with you doesn't mean you are entitled to any more of my time than I freely give". It is exceedingly presumptuous to think that people will continue to play a GAME past the point where they are having fun.
March 16, 2022 4:38 a.m.
If I play more than 2 players I want an agreement that you play until you die.
I don't see that as some obvious unspoken rule though, it's up to me to voice that preference before the game or negotiate it as a permanent house rule with that group.
So if I fail to do that I wouldn't feel justified bitching about it happening.
March 16, 2022 12:53 p.m.
You can concede at almost anytime, unless you are conceding solely for resource denial.
As an example, lets say a player with Rafiq of the Many is swinging at you and he has some of the swords of X and Y on. You have no blockers. He is going to kill you with commander damage. You don't get to concede on the declare blockers step just to deny him the swords triggers.
Or, for example, if you have Karn Liberated out, and you can ult him next turn. You're playing oloro stax. He's well defended because you played him after a boardwipe and, you got a creature and have a counter in hand or something like that. So then someone else Word of Seizings him to ult him themselves. You don't get to concede for that. Conversely, you can't concede just because some guy has taken all your stuff and is using them to win the game, just to take from him all the permanents you own but no longer control, blowing up key parts of his board and letting someone else win when, up until your concession, the "thief player" was playing a stellar game.
This, of course, only matters in a multiplayer format. In 2 player, them conceding means you win, so it doesn't matter. Maybe they're being a little bit of a sore loser, but at the end of the day you still won. In multiplayer, it's more complicated because, like, the game keeps going after a concession. in the toski example, lets say he can take you out, but he's out of cards in hand and really needs that draw. If he draws, he gets something that kind of just forces someone to remove it or it wins the game. But you concede, so he doesn't draw, and then he loses. Or in the karn example, if they restart the game with the stuff karn exiled, yeah, thats not "guaranteed win", but it is a very strong advantage. The exception to this would be when you're the last 2 players in the game. Then it can be "concede whenever" again.
The one hard part about this is slaverlocking people. They don't get to play anymore, but, it's not really fair to the person slaverlocking if the person slaverlocked just concedes, because then thats a 4 mana sink that they just wasted. I understand that it's just unfun, there is no chance to win when youre slaverlocked, but like, what happens then, after you concede? does the Mindslaver guy then get to retroactively change his mindslaver target to someone staying in the game, or does he just have to waste his mindslaver?
March 16, 2022 1:52 p.m.
plakjekaas says... #22
If Mindslaver becomes a recurrable way to kill a player for 4 mana, instead of the actual effect, that should be a powerful enough effect to not complain about when you're using it, and if your goal is to actively seek out to steal away playing the actual game from the other players, prepare for the disappointment of other players not wanting to play against your deck anymore, I suppose.
March 16, 2022 3:35 p.m.
Having a deck that uses Gilt-Leaf Archdruid and another that can cast a 20+ x Villainous Wealth both of which usually causes a player to concede but leaves me short of the resources I would have received and resources spent on the effects. Disappointing and usually ends up being a kingmaker move for another player. Feels like a slap in the face for a deck working well.
March 16, 2022 9:57 p.m.
Fuzzy003 those are more powerful effects than what I was even proposing as examples, but it is nail on the head. I think people that play opponent-dependent decks with opponent dependent-wincons can empathize best.
I think it might be a personality thing too, because for me personally I can't imagine needing to basically "rule 0" talk beforehand the idea of staying in a game that you came to play & seeing it through to the end.
Where then, do you draw the line of: I quit when I'm "not having fun anymore?" Is that as soon as you feel you are losing? Does that mean its either win or quit then? Maybe the quitters should be pregame discussing the fact that they will concede if you play: x,y, or z strategy because the game will no longer be fun to them?
March 16, 2022 10:49 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #25
"Not having fun" is going to be different for each player. That is why there will never be a metric you can put down for when it is "OK to scoop". No longer having fun because of being behind in a casual game is a poor attitude to have. However; if that is how someone feels then they have every right to stop playing.
If you want to have a rule 0 discussion and express your feelings on the matter go ahead. However; baseline should always be "rules of the game" and anything outside of that is for your playgroup or pod to decide on. I personally can't imagine having to rule 0 the basic understanding that you are not entitled to another person's time and attention. Continuous enthusiastic consent should be the name of the game in any interpersonal interaction.
March 17, 2022 1:19 a.m.
It does truly vary wildly
I've seen players scoop & significantly alter the game for everyone else on Crescendo of War with goad in effect. This is a very low-compete, able to respond, game expediting effect. I wonder if they just didn't know how game-altering it was to not complete 1 more go-round?
Likewise for Havoc Festival with Kardur, Doomscourge. I'm not exactly time-burgling (the opposite actually) & this is not stopping anyone from playing magic... maybe dedicated lifegain decks, for 6 cmc
It would be nice if players considered the ramifications a little more before they scooped is all. For me, my way is black & white. If I've committed I stay in I play until the end. I pick up a snack or something if I hate my opponents strategy :)
March 17, 2022 6:54 a.m.
There is no default set of social contract rules. If the event you're playing in uses a social contract, that contract will not have any rules, including ones regarding when players can concede, until the people in charge of the contract decide to add some. If there are no such rules, the regular Magic rules for conceding apply.
Gleeock says... #2
Goad decks are a good example of this. Goad is a fairly acceptable midrange mechanic, in fact becoming "commander evergreen" & is also a deck strategy. It is not overly powerful, relies heavily on mid-game exchanges, multiple turns. When I play a Marisi, Breaker of the Coil deck sometimes I purposefully will spend extra commander tax to goad someone, take the time & think ahead & use my opponent's as life cushions instead of a large setup turn. This is all fine except when other players feel that, since their strategy is not working their way, they will just quit out early with the: "I'm not going to win attitude" or "I have 5 life left".... Well, yes, you have 5 life left by design & the entire turns worth of decisions made by the goad player was predicated on players staying in the game & playing by the rules of the game. This is an example where I think the social contract view of quitters needs to be re-evaluated, there are many more political decks than there used to be as well that lose many benefits when there are less opponents in game
March 14, 2022 8:21 p.m.