|
I know this isn't the Magic thread but suddenly it seems really important to ask if resignation goes on The Stack
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 13:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 14:21 |
|
|
Yes but nothing can be put on the stack after it as it immediately ends the game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 14:05
|
|
|
I got the impression from the four-player version they were talking about that the other three would continue. Which is why the timing suddenly becomes critical
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 14:12
|
|
|
Resignation goes on top of the stack and that player scoops, so invalid target(s) for the combo below it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 14:20
|
|
|
I'm more wondering when multiplayer FFA magic got tournament support. Some kind of Commander thing I'd guess?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 14:27
|
|
|
cEDH is essentially oxymoronic. Attempting to approach a fan-made format turned official loaded to the gills with deep, fundamental imbalances, RNG, and myriad other design flaws competitively is inherently fairly absurd when you pull back and look at the big picture from a game design perspective. Power to the people who want to try and muddle through such a thing I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 14:42
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I know this isn't the Magic thread Yeah, it is not... That being said: we had the same MTG fights back in the day about conceding, and it was from the most old-school MTG poo poo you can imagine. If you conceded after an attack step but before damage, someone would not gain life from their Spirit Links. This was before Lifelink was keyworded and made more commonplace but Armadillo Cloak had been printed. That should show how long ago this was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 16:09
|
|
|
Gumdrop Larry posted:cEDH is essentially oxymoronic. Attempting to approach a fan-made format turned official loaded to the gills with deep, fundamental imbalances, RNG, and myriad other design flaws competitively is inherently fairly absurd when you pull back and look at the big picture from a game design perspective. Power to the people who want to try and muddle through such a thing I suppose. If there’s a rule set people will try to optimize it, seeing how far you can push it is its own reward
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 16:15
|
|
|
If you have trouble with me resigning a game then I’m resigning our friendship.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 16:18
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:Yeah, it is not... A lot of playgroups play with a "scooping happens at sorcery speed" to stop this exact pettiness issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 19:25
|
|
|
I once got yelled at and was permanently disinvited from a boardgame group for resigning in Through the Ages. Like, dude, it's explicitly a valid move in that game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 19:48
|
|
|
Good riddance to them, wtf, as you said, it's in the rules for a reason!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 19:58
|
|
|
Why go through the motions for something that isn't fun anymore? I don't want to simulate the career experience in my entertainment!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 20:19
|
|
|
Gumdrop Larry posted:cEDH is essentially oxymoronic. Attempting to approach a fan-made format turned official loaded to the gills with deep, fundamental imbalances, RNG, and myriad other design flaws competitively is inherently fairly absurd when you pull back and look at the big picture from a game design perspective. Power to the people who want to try and muddle through such a thing I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 20:55
|
|
|
i genuinely don't understand what issue people have with it (resigning)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 20:59
|
|
|
In games with 3 or more players, one could argue that you are spoiling other people's fun due to being a sore loser. The other players don't get to scrabble for victory because you can't stand to lose. e: be losing, not to lose. Me personally, I don't mind it and think we should be resigning more. Mr. Squishy fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Apr 18, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:06
|
|
|
mikeycp posted:i genuinely don't understand what issue people have with it (resigning) In a multiplayer game, you're cutting the experience short for everyone else and reducing the game to being only about winning and losing. It makes it more about the competition and less about playing a game with friends. If someone quit halfway through a game of like Root because things weren't looking good for them, I'd be pretty annoyed and think they're just a sore loser and whiner. The 2nd and 3rd place players are also screwed out of a chance of winning and it makes the game only about who's in first (or really, who's in last). Most multiplayer games are not a foregone conclusion early enough for resigning to be acceptable. And just quitting and telling the rest of the players to continue just leads to a messed up board state in any game with meaningful interaction (or player count dependent setups). In a head to head 2p game I think it's fine though. Most card battling games especially. Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Apr 18, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:10
|
|
|
with a 3+ player game i'd personally rather a person not having fun and only going through the motions be able to stop before they get to that point, as someone who has had to keep playing a game i stopped enjoying long before it was over it doesn't have to end the game for everyone there's also imo a big difference between "quitting because you can't stand losing" and "quitting because the game is already decided but not over"
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:13
|
|
|
Yeah I think in a 3+ player game (without in-built rules for how resignation works) it can ruin the game for the other players because you're a sore loser but in 2 player games or games where everyone at the table kind of agrees to call it, and especially TTA which has an actual rule for how to resign because it's a long game, I don't understand how anyone can have a problem with it. Usually I think we'll play it out because people wanna see who gets second or whatever but usually with cooperative games or team games if one team just has it or the coop game is a foregone conclusion, everyone agrees to stop and we all commence the typical after game discussion and/or "so what's next".
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:18
|
|
|
mikeycp posted:with a 3+ player game i'd personally rather a person not having fun and only going through the motions be able to stop before they get to that point, as someone who has had to keep playing a game i stopped enjoying long before it was over In some games it absolutely ends the game for everyone, but that's fine. I agree with you that if someone's having a terrible time and wants to stop, the other players' "but I wanted to see what happens" is less important than that, mostly. It's a spectrum, of course, being affected by how interactive the game is, how long the game is, how far the game you are, etc
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:19
|
|
|
mikeycp posted:
Again, most board states are pretty hosed if a player just walks. And multiplayer games are rarely decided early enough for calling it to be meaningful as opposed to just playing it out. Playing out a game you're not enjoying is just an unfortunate reality of the hobby. It can even happen in games you love just because you're getting trounced or the RNG is not going your way. Quitting and ruining the play for the rest of the table because you don't like how it's going is disrespectful to the setup and teaching time involved in 90% of sessions. If it's a game you play with the same group all the time and you can all agree when to call it, then obviously that's fine. Like almost everything in this hobby, it's a social problem that requires social skills to resolve for everyone, but most times that means 1 person just playing it out for the rest. TTA and Pax Pamir 2nd edition having built in early end triggers for runaway leaders or resignations is a good solution and if anyone has an issue with that they have social issues of their own to resolve.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:20
|
|
|
imo if the others really wanna continue have someone play 2 handed
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:25
|
|
|
That seems practical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:26
|
|
|
That is an even worse idea for balance
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:27
|
|
|
well your choices are balance or making your friend unhappy someone playing the bare minimum is pretty bad for balance too
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:29
|
|
|
mikeycp posted:well your choices are balance or making your friend unhappy Why is the one person's unhappiness more important than the rest of the players? That's the core issue here. Besides, what are they going to do while the rest of the table plays on? IME this has never been about someone legitimately having a bad time in a way that finishing the game would be detrimental to them in any way and entirely someone being a sore loser. I think that's a big part of why conceding is so common and acceptable in TCGs, it prevents that saltiness by cutting it off early. Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Apr 18, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:33
|
|
|
If someone is miserable, then yeah they should resign. If someone gets miserable because they are down 5 VPs in Castles of Burgundy it's not wild to not want to play games with them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:36
|
|
|
The whole cEDH thing kinda exposes that the mtg rules were not really designed for multiplayer, and the fact that one person resigning can have such a huge impact on how the game plays out is a massive problem. I mean in this case the event was being played for real rear end money, and to be honest, I feel like in these situations, I think making resigning against the rules period shouldn't be out of the question. (when you're playing for money in like a real rear end tournament, that is) Then again, cEDH players are willing to play webcam magic for money so they're just completely off their rockers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:36
|
|
|
I mean if someone really fuckin wants out that's fine but I feel like we've had the conversation of That Dude (who is not everyone's friend but is probably SOMEONE'S friend) who just wants to quit every time it looks like he's going to lose which is also a dick move. I dunno I guess board games are a land of contrasts. Social contract to me says that if you start a board game you are committing to finishing it but no one should be compelled to keep doing something they don't want to do. I guess just reconsider what friends you invite to game night if they're the kind of person who can't stand continuing to play when things go poorly for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:37
|
|
|
Really, if everyone but one player is over it, the final player should be willing to allow it to end, regardless of how much fun they're having, as a friend and a good sport. Anything else probably has to be a gametime decision, unless withdrawing is within the rules like TTA. This is all reminding me of when me and three others were hyped to try a game, max five players. My friend with lovely taste was looking like he wanted in. So we said "In or out, let's do this, we're not waiting much longer" so he joined. On turn 3 of 5, he saw I was doing quite well and said, "Do you want to call it?" This was everyone's first play, the very first play on this copy. I just about hit the ceiling. I couldn't think of anything so crazy loving rude when you were already sort of a hanger-on in the moment, so outrageously inconsiderate you'd make a suggestion of spoiling the fun for four others who would have been just fine if you'd hosed off to play whatever garbage you were considering. I swear it's put sort of a cloud over that game, and has seriously made me reconsider what I even consider putting in front of him. And guess what? I lost that game. I lost BAD.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:37
|
|
|
Mr. Squishy posted:If someone is miserable, then yeah they should resign. If someone gets miserable because they are down 5 VPs in Castles of Burgundy it's not wild to not want to play games with them. I think this is a good summary of the issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:38
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Why is the one person's unhappiness more important than the rest of the players? Well also it's something kinda like chess where a lot of times you can tell who's going to win well before it happens and both players can agree on the outcome. That but I also think that traditionally 2 player games are different because when you concede you are only affecting yourself and your opponent, and you're declaring your opponent the winner so I doubt they have much problem with it. It's different in yeah, castles of burgundy where you're kind of making it so no one else can continue the game either. Edit: Also I see it seems like everyone's pretty much in agreement on this good talk everyone, disregard. Glagha fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Apr 18, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:40
|
|
|
they could do anything take a piss check email go home personally i value everyone having a good time over actually finishing a game at the cost of making a friend miserable
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:41
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:Really, if everyone but one player is over it, the final player should be willing to allow it to end, regardless of how much fun they're having, as a friend and a good sport. Anything else probably has to be a gametime decision, unless withdrawing is within the rules like TTA. In games where I'm losing badly I just start preparing my excuses for the post game round table. "I was a turn too late trying to do X" and "I had a 75% chance of drawing the Y I needed but the deck was unkind" are a couple of my favourites. You don't have to quote me when you use them, they're on the house. I think conceding/calling it is a tricky one because it's very contextual, especially because lots of people are awful at figuring out when something is actually over. That tends to go both ways as well. I've suggested ending a game because there was a clear winner and had people say we should carry on (in which case fine and cool, we play it out) and I've seen people suggest we call it when they think it's over but it's still in the balance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:55
|
|
|
Speaking of Cole Wehrle games, in the Oath expansion he is working on, he wants to have something meaningful for players to do even when they have very little chance of winning the current game. His games in particular break down when players actually or mentally resign.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:55
|
|
|
I think the trick is everyone needs to get their head on straight and realize if they're upset over the outcome of a game they need to reset and play it again fresh straight away. Grind that poo poo out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:58
|
|
|
the other option to resigning is playing kingmaker, which people also tend to take issue with
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 22:01
|
|
|
Allow the player to resign and everyone has to give them a hug. They get to choose the next game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 22:02
|
|
|
This conversation reminds of an alien in Cosmic Encounter called the Sniveler, which is parody of the kind of player that complains about losing:quote:Sniveler is an alien that can whine about what it lacks in order to force other players to give it something he wants. It can whine if it has the fewest foreign colonies, has the most ships in the warp, or lacks an encounter card it wants; if he does, the other players must agree to either give Sniveler what it wants or give up what they have that Sniveler is whining about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 14:21 |
|
|
Gumdrop Larry posted:I think the trick is everyone needs to get their head on straight and realize if they're upset over the outcome of a game they need to reset and play it again fresh straight away. Grind that poo poo out. I wholeheartedly agree with you (I never want to play a game more than when I've just lost) but In my experience the person getting extremely mad over the outcome of the game is not the same person who wants to play a second round while they're already in a bad mood over the outcome of the first one. Maybe I've just had bad luck but there seems to be a lot of correlation between people saying "I'm losing at this game and I don't like it" and "I decided that this game is bad and I don't want to play it ever again"
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 22:08
|
|
