"Politics" Hub Discussion
TappedOut forum
Posted on June 8, 2022, 3:08 a.m. by legendofa
The most-requested hub right now is for Politics. I'm reluctant to add it for two reasons, which are discussed further in the "New hubs to be added" thread:
-
The definition of Multiplayer largely overlaps with the definition of Politics. Theoretically, there could be a multiplayer game where everyone does their own thing without any input from anyone else, but in my experience, as soon as more than two people sit down, people start teaming up and making deals. This is simply the nature of competitive group interaction.
-
It has potential to lose meaning through overuse. The precise and exact usage has been hard to pin down, and any deck that has a quid pro quo card or two, or even a board wipe that could be used as a bargaining chip, could be considered a Politics deck. I trust this isn't the requesters' intent, but vague and poorly defined hubs are likely to be closed quickly.
My current working definition is "a multiplayer strategy that aims to create and capitalize on alliances and conflicts between players." If this, or something similar, can serve as a definition that enough people agree on, that will help its case.
Please let me know if you think Politics should be added as a hub or not, and please let me know why or why not. I'm willing to be convinced that it's appropriate for a hub, but I'd like a solid foundation.
For whatever it's worth, I found this recent blog post from Mark Rosewater:
- "From a game design standpoint, “political” means that some decisions are based on an element of diplomacy, that players have the ability to talk to each other to influence how their opponents choose to play. In many formats (one-on-one, Two-Headed Giant, Emperor, Star Magic, etc.) there is no diplomacy because the rules dictate priorities. Being political is not a bad thing, it’s just an element of gameplay. If you’re playing a multiplayer game and the rules don’t dictate your priorities, it’s political. The only way for it not to be political is if you have house rules that dictate your actions (“you must always attack the opponent with the highest life total.”). If your opponents are able to suggest what you should do, it’s political."
Gidgetimer says... #3
To me politics is in how the deck is played, not how it is built. I don't really see a need for a hub for it, admittedly I'm not a fan of political games though.
June 8, 2022 7:08 a.m.
I think there is a big issue here, 'political' can refer to either how a deck is played, or how it is built. If a hub is added, it should be used to mark decks that feature many cards that enable you to add substance to a deal, usually through interaction that is selective in some way (targeted removal is more political than a board wipe) or some kind of gift/buff (if you help only 1 opponent, it is political). Flumph is a Political card, while Howling Mine is a Group Hug card. Back to Basics is a Group Slug card, Mistbind Clique is a Political card. Politics is restricted to multiplayer, but many players do not design their decks to be able to hold things other than attacks/winning over an opponent's head. These are obviously the non-Political decks, and I feel like they are the majority at this point.
I don't think Group Hug or Group Slug are decks that would share ground with a Politics hub, which would be for decks that specifically help/harm selectively, such that that help/harm serves as leverage to affect other players.
Politics as a strategy of deck building (rather than playing) tends to be more casual than competitive, in part because other competitive players are much harder to deceive/manipulate, and tend to see through your plans much more. I have some decks that would probably add the Hub if it was added, obviously Tobias Andrion, Political Mastermind would get it, note that it actively favours effects that are 'known entities' in a lot of cases, where the idea is more to hold a stick (or rarely carrot) over people's heads, such as various Punisher effects and stuff like War Tax. War Tax and War Cadence are pretty good examples of Political cards, they can help you or someone else, it depends on when you use them, and the effect can also scale up, such that they can be impossible to pay for opponents if you dump all your mana into them, so they stay relevant. War Tax is a Politics card, Propaganda is not. Interaction that is stapled to a permanent (especially non-ETB stuff, but ETB stuff can be blinked) is top tier Poltics IMHO, but something like AEtherize can easily be political, because you can use it vs any opponent, even if they aren't swinging at you, and it only will hurt the attacking opponent.
TLDR: Politics effects are generally 'carrots' or 'sticks', and they tend to derive value from how much leverage they can exert on an opponent, and they almost never are symmetrical. I think that seems clear/concise, and I don't know what other hub that fits under atm.
June 8, 2022 7:18 a.m.
I think alot of "political" decks utilize other players as a resource, willfully or not, at least alot of the commonly explored "politics" avenues seem to go this way. There is also the under-utilized Machiavellian politics (IMO the best kind :) ), which is underutilized in my book. I've won so many games by just NOT joining in on temporary team-ups, not discussing picking apart a players boardstate, not taking proposed deals, fearlessly telling people to shit or get off the pot with their removal (don't hang it over my head), remembering that the game is a FFA. Anyway, it may be interesting to discuss politics inherent to certain strategies or decks. Maybe I am such a big Machiavellian player because that is the best way to win with Group Slug, forced combat, or direct damage decks?
enpc says... #2
Generally, "political" decks boil down to either a group hug, group slug or some sort of pillow fort build. And so 95% of the time (don't ask for a source on that statistic) politics will typically be something like playing Edric, Spymaster of Trest or saysing something like "if you attack player X, I'll let you draw a bunch of cards". And again, this falls under group hug (as not all hugs have to be equal). I think that this also relatively well covers king maker scenarios.
We are seeing a lot more cards which are actualy voting cards however, which is a true political deck. With your listed concerns however , I would shy away from calling this "political" as you're right in that it will be miscategorised ohh so very much. Perhaps the idea of a "Voting" hub to cover this would suffice.
June 8, 2022 6:25 a.m.