Am I The Bolas? - Play Level Disparity and Banning a Player

Mike Carrozza • August 21, 2024

Opinion
Rug of Smothering Illustrated by Ioannis Fiore

Hello, and welcome to Am I the Bolas?

This column is for all of you out there who have ever played some Magic and wondered if you were the bad guy. I'm here to take in your story with all of its nuances so I can bring some clarity to all those asking, "Am I the Bolas?"

I'm ready to hear you out and offer advice. All you have to do is email amithebolas@gmail.com! You might see your story in the column. You might even hear it on the podcast. Which podcast? 

THIS PODCAST!

I'm Mike Carrozza, aka Mark Carbonza, the guy who regrets not getting Festival in a Box for a Mystery Booster 2 box!

THIS FREAKING GUY KEEPS COMING FOR ME!

This week, a playgroup's dynamic is changed. 

(Post edited for brevity, clarity, and a bit of zip and zazz!)

HEY, MARK!

Hello,

This was a situation that happened a while ago, and I'm wondering if I reacted to harshly.

We have a pretty casual play group that meets weekly at my house that consists of about eight players who come when they can. We are always open to having new players come as well. We have a Discord chat group we use to chat and coordinate.
 
For reference, we are a very casual group. Using myself as an example: I always play to win, but I intentionally avoid building super powerful decks. I have a few, but I like to stick to about a seven. I intentionally avoid infinite combos, I love putting in group hug cards that allow me to help out people who are behind and make the game more diplomatic, keeping everyone in contention and having fun playing. Yes, I play to win, but I also recognize that it's a social gathering and everyone came here to have fun. We're not handing out trophies and it's not fun to get locked out of a game or get knocked out too early.
 
We had a new player join us. At the point of this story, he'd been coming regularly for six months or so. This player seemed to be a nice guy, but was clearly more competitive than the rest of us, which wasn't a problem. He would try to match our power level; he wasn't playing infinites or anything like that, but the social contract we had just didn't apply to him. All of his decks centered around punishing normal game actions: things like Rug of Smothering and stax effects. He had no qualms about taking opportunities to kill players if he could, regardless of how early or how behind they were. He also often complained when I played cards like Yes Man or other political plays. This was all mildly annoying, but he wasn't dominating games or locking people out, he just wasn't on the same page as us.
 
He did knock out a player VERY early one time, and that player was pretty mad about it because he drove an hour to play, and got knocked out in ten minutes. He had to wait an hour for *maybe* another game, and it caused an argument.
 
It came up in the Discord between him and another player; specifically it was an argument of him constantly playing Rug of Smothering in all his decks. He was contending that it was a good card strategically and there was no reason not to play it. It was getting a little heated. I stepped in and explained what I explained above about the causal social contract, saying it's kind of annoying to play against effects that discourage playing the game. I specifically told him that I'm not saying he shouldn't play what he wants, but that is why the other player was annoyed, and I agreed with that other player. I was not met with what I would call a reasonable response. He instead attacked me, saying that I make stupid decisions, that I don't kill players when I could have, my decks are "random and have no plan" (they're not), I have bad threat assessment (I don't), and that I make random decisions; basically that I'm stupid and don't know the game just because I play casually. I defended myself, saying that I make decisions with meta social considerations, but I also stated that the way he was speaking to me was unacceptable, and that he was no longer welcome in my home.
 
Now, however, I feel like I might have gone a bit too far in banning him. It feels like I banned a player for playing a card I don't like, even though there was more to it than that. Am I the Bolas?
 
Thank you,
Patrick
 

IS THIS PATRICK?

Howdy, Patrick!

Thank you so much for writing in. As I say every week, without folks writing in, there is no column, so if you, the reader, have a story you'd like to share or a Reddit post I should check out, send it over to amithebolas@gmail.com and I'll get to it here or maybe even the podcast!

Here's what I like about submissions like these: a line was crossed, and consequences were handed. It makes for an easy Not the Bolas. Verbal abuse between friends whose only ties to each other is a card game? Not in my house! Literally! It's important to assert yourself and your space. Barring someone from your home is totally fair if you don't feel like having them. That's your space. You are in charge, so no matter what, you cannot be the Bolas for banning a person from your home. Banning someone from a Discord or from a playgroup is fine if you have that authority, but I'd usually run that by folks in the group. If the group only meets at your home, then you've got a big veto card you get to play, for sure. 

This situation feels like an instance of just a bad fit. 

The newer player joined the group and played in a way that the group was not in sync with and that ruffled feathers. It seems like this was communicated a few ways. The player who was knocked out early checking in and let them know that it was unpleasant to be thumb-twiddling for maybe a second game after traveling for the hang: that's fair... but... that's also how Magic goes sometimes! That said, if this playgroup is intent on lower power with a little group hug and there are some playgroup rules to keep people in as long as possible to do the thing, then that's the playgroup! I can see his point: Rug of Smothering is not a very oppressive card to most decks, especially battlecruisers. The Rug puts a clock on the game and offers some punishment for those going a little too hard. If anything, this might be a good thing to see here and there. Descent into Avernus is celebrated at many casual tables I play at; doesn't that feel a little similar? But again, if the playgroup isn't about it, then the playgroup has a chat. 

I think what I have an issue with here is the whole "You're wrong for not taking out a player when you can" argument. At some tables, it's insulting to leave someone alive when they can be taken out. At others, taking them out is a huge faux pas. This is a faux pas group. If he had accepted that well enough, there might be room for discussion or something, but turning around and being salty and mean? Nah.

Is it a good idea to let there be some challenge to the rules here and there? Absolutely. But that comes when players are ready for it and it feels like the playgroup is not into it. The new player here pushed against the established dynamic and doubled down when told it wasn't what the playgroup does. 

Crossing the line and going into ad hominem attacks? I don't think I'd let them back into my house either. At the end of the day, this is a playgroups that established a dynamic it enjoys. Have fun with it! If you all head out to an LGS and some players start playing the oppressive stuff you don't like, well, then you'll have to deal with it or end the game and have another discussion.

It all comes down to having a good old conversation. Most of the time. 

Mike Carrozza

Mike Carrozza

Mike Carrozza is a stand-up comedian from Montreal who’s done a lot of cool things like put out an album called Cherubic and worked with Tig Notaro, Kyle Kinane, and more people to brag about. He’s also been an avid EDH player who loves making silly stuff happen. @mikecarrozza on platforms