I've been playing MTG with my partner recently (like, two games, and they want to play more) (yes I've vigorously ascertained that they enjoy it and they aren't just humoring me, yes I'm insecure about that). Since they're new, I have to keep reminding myself that they don't have my eleven years of experience, notably the philosophy behind why certain strategies\archetypes\cards don't work like they should.
I have my tastes. I enjoy heavily interactive games where shit gets blown up all the time, I like scrappy games where no one has any agency, I like meticulous games where I have no cards in my hand and half my deck in play... This is all from years and years of losing game after game. I've become jaded to the prospect of losing, and unfortunately, just as numb to winning. I still use everything I have at my disposal to win (otherwise it'd be a disservice to everyone else at the table), but I'm much more interested in seeing how my opponents will try to stop me. I become the archenemy (AKA the other three players team up against me) not because I'm powerful, not because I'm threatening, and not because my opponents are stupid nor because I am smart. I become "the threat" simply because I'm just... Unapologetic about being a Problem.
As I've discovered by talking to my partner, they have their tastes, too. They enjoy stalemates, they like both sides taking small potshots at the other, they like long games of amassing resources... They have never experienced a three-hour slugfest where the game just never ends. Most importantly, they hate losing their creatures. They like their little guys. We've only ever played 1v1. They have no concept of "the archenemy" or "virtual card advantage" or even "not playing into a boardwipe." Those are just things they'll learn, be it this month or six years from now.
I will mention that they are a very very sore loser. Not in an unnanageable way, they're very self-aware regarding their disdain for losing. The joy of success, understanding, and progress was just yoinked away from them in one of the recent games, all because I forgot that they'd never seen a card that essentially says "kill all your creatures. Yes, all of them." I got into the mindset of "see a kill, take the shot, go to round 2" and missed an opportunity to let them keep having fun with their new deck (I foiled up a deck and gave it to them for their birthday).
Context aside, I don't understand how to give them the games they want. I don't mean that I'll roll over and let them win, I mean I want to balance their love for near-stalemates with the overabundance of tools a player has to end stalemates. So many cards say "Kill everything" and even more say "kill that thing," many say "prevent all damage," many more say "gain a bunch of life." I don't know how to solve this. In order for them to understand how to craft enjoyable games, they need to understand how their current games can be transformed into stalemates, cold wars, or battles of attrition. I've been playing for... Longer and still don't know how to do so without killing everything\something they own or winning in a way they can't "block."
There are easy ways to do this, of course. MTG is abundant in strategies which fuck over all players involved. I enjoy these strategies too much, and know that my partner will feel even more helpless when facing them. Stax is aggravating to decks without backup plans. Pox is aggravating to everyone. Pillow fort decks are just annoying and only make new(er) players feel even less empowered. MLD has to be done right, and I do not trust myself (nor anyone I know) to try.
I want to deny them progress, not agency. I want to make our games strategically difficult, not technically difficult. So, I pose a question to you, dear reader: how? Either in MTG terms or normal human language:
How does one manufacture a cold war without the threat of a nuke?
How does one die to a thousand paper cuts, but only two or three at a time?
How does one turn a volatile power-struggle into a stalemate without removing any weapons?
How can it be feasible, let alone optimal, for an army to beat another by firing only one bullet per day?
I want answers. I want help. I want to figure this out.















