Realism on the Battlefields of Imagination

There are a lot of misconceptions about the concept of realism.

 

Often, folks tend to think of realism in terms of the observed, as the concept of receiving reality. It can be a tough concept to fully articulate, but you might be surprised that almost every decision you make while playing a game of Magic can be considered realistic in nature.

 

For students of history, philosophy, and politics, you might know of realism as a school of thought in international relations. Some of the same concepts that you unconsciously recognize and base gameplay decisions on can be found in Hobbes’ Leviathan, or in Machiavelli’s The Prince. Without necessarily being cognizant of the fact, we apply a framework first articulated nearly 400 years ago to help us make decisions while playing Magic, particularly multiplayer varients.

 

Think back to a game of Magic you’ve played recently, particular a multiplayer game. I’m a Commander player, and so most of my own examples will be drawn from such games, but ultimately, the format doesn’t matter.

 

Can you recall an instance where you managed to convince someone not to attack you? Maybe a bluff, maybe misdirection, maybe convincing someone that another player was a bigger threat. While I’d argue that the method in which we approach doing these things can matter, all of the begging, pleading, bluffing, eyebrow-raising, and knuckle-cracking we do comes from a basic understanding of realism, and the four beliefs that exist at its heart.

 

These are:

 

1.      The world exists in a state of chaos, or anarchy.

 

This one is pretty straightforward. The game of Magic contains a set of rules, and so the argument can be made that a game of multiplayer Commander isn’t pure chaos, but I’d liken the game rules of Magic to the physical laws of the universe (gravity, relativity, cause and effect, etc.). Earth obeys the laws of physics, but the nations of the world go to war, oppress their subjects, or attempt to improve the world in which we all reside. So while we’re all bound by the physical laws of reality, each part of the world tends to perceive the world differently. So we have natural order, but people add a layer of chaos to a game. This segues nicely into the next point:

 

2.      States are the actors.

 

If a game of Magic is “the world,” and the rules (“the laws of the universe”) apply, then each player is a sovereign “state.” Each player has their own reason for playing, their own philosophy for deck construction, their own definition of “fun” (a hotly debated topic). They also bring things to the table that aren’t Magic-related per se. Some people are quiet, and others have a tenuous grasp on the rules. Others still are confrontational and openly hostile, and some people can adapt the way in which they’re perceived to great effect and greater benefit. Others bank on their reputation in a given "meta," a metaphor here for the international community. Each player is unique.

 

While the game's rules apply, the format is determined, and everyone is playing with legal cards, we sometimes cannot adequately prepare for our opponents themselves. And for the unprepared, differences in conduct and perception can impact how effectively we can play Magic together.

 

3.      States are self-interested and pragmatic.

 

This is what players tend to forget, in my experience, often after losing a game. “Why did you attack me and not him?” is a common line. The person who asks often forgets that they had no creatures, or a suspended Kozilek with one time counter, or had antagonized the winner the entire game. That individual would often make the same decision you did, and yet criticizes you for making it. Players can forget that all players tend to act, wherever possible, in their own best interests.

 

4.      The number one goal of states is to survive.

 

Survival is often in one’s best interest. If convincing the active player that attacking a third player is a better choice than attacking me, then I’d certainly consider it, if it kept me alive. Now, as I mentioned before, the way in which we approach influencing others can matter, as we don’t want to hurt feelings. Intimidating somebody over a card game is going too far. But if we can keep these four points in mind, all of us, then losing might not hurt so badly. It’s worth remembering that it’s just as okay for your opponent to try to win as it is for you to try to win. I’ve played against some people that focused so hard on their own enjoyment that when I countered a key spell or flashed in a blocker they reacted poorly. The spectrum is a broad one, and ultimately doesn’t matter, but the game is interactive, and it’s worth keeping in mind.

 

So, with all of this in mind, how do we use this knowledge for our gain?

 

Well, I’d suggest remembering that people come from different backgrounds, learned to play in different ways and at different speeds, and have different ideas of what “fun” and “fair” are. While this sounds obvious, it can be easy to forget. For years, I played Commander with the same 5 guys. We had our unspoken rules, and had a mutual understanding for what was okay (giant boss monsters, ramp, spot removal) and what was not okay (Sundering Titan. He’s gone now, and good riddance). Now, we recognized that removal of lands is necessary, but going overboard was unnecessary. And we had established what “overboard” meant. Going from this group to another group (across Canada, even!) was a bit of an eye opener. It wasn’t a huge shock, but it really drove home that different people, and playgroups, have their own views. I ended up fitting in, after a while, but understanding this concept helps keep you flexible. If a deck is poorly received, then you can switch it up for the next game. If you're too aggressive, you can adjust. While it's unfair to constantly be the only one to adapt, on a short-term basis this flexibility will enable you to at least play Magic.

 

Of these 4 core concepts, it’s the last of the four beliefs that I’ve personally struggled with. More accurately, my fiancée struggled with this, and I didn’t know how to rationalize it in a way that helped, so it bothered me, too.

 

The ultimate goal of states, or players, is survival. We’ve talked about convincing players who to attack; this, and “peace-offerings” (allowing players to draw cards, untapping the occasional creature, etc.) are the two most often-cited examples of tabletop politics. Politics is generally considered a part of multiplayer Magic, and rightly so. Subtly suggesting to Player A that Player B has larger creatures than you, or that Player C just tutored for a hand of answers with Conflux is fine, and a good laugh can be shared over such antics. Allowing a player in a good position to draw a card with Jace Beleren’s second ability? Maybe you just convinced them to attack someone else.

 

But the understanding that players will do anything to survive often focuses on legal and sportsmanly lines of play, and we don’t often stop to consider that our opponent might attempt something unsportsmanlike. A deck full of Counterspell-effects? Fine, do what you must. Derevi Stax? Sure, why not?

 

But lying? Not fine. Drawing extra cards? Nope. “Forgetting” to tap a creature (without Vigilance) to attack? Not okay. Granted, such actions are "realistic" in nature, as they can help ensure that a given player wins the game. But while I'd argue that realism is a critical concept to understand in the context of multiplayer Magic, the goal is to play Magic fairly and in line with the game rules.

 

Cheating to win, even understanding that it’s “realistic,” is wrong and must not be tolerated. So when a less-honest player, playing in a Commander pod with my fiancée used creative license to explain what his foreign cards did, and she told me about it after, I didn’t know what to say. The realism framework explains why he did what he did, and it serves as a useful tool for understanding the players in a Commander game, but in the context of Magic: the Gathering, realism does have its limits, and should not be used, as Machiavelli alludes to in The Prince, as the defining principle of one’s day-to-day life. So, don’t accept the rationale of “prizes were on the line” when they try to explain away their behavior. Outside of the game, realism becomes much less acceptable.

 

I hope this piece helped to shed a little light on why players make certain decisions, and pointed out things you can remember to put player behaviour into context. Everyone’s trying to win, so if we’re all on the same page, we can keep the salt to a minimum. At least, up until the point someone crosses a line in the name of winning. Realism shouldn't be used to rationalize unacceptable behavior, but understanding one's opponents is the first step in defeating them, and so should be consciously understood.