How Magic Players Recognize and Respond to The Emergent Qualities of the Activity Network
RQ1b: How do participants in the system recognize changes to the system and its protocols over time, if at all?
Perhaps unsurprisingly, there can be considerable difference between how an activity network functions (or can function) and how the actors within it recognize or activate particular functions in order to achieve certain goals. In terms of the Magic games played for this project, a noteworthy pattern emerged as each game resolved (both in particular turns and at the end of each game): each player offered repeated comments about their success or defeat, with the perspective on each defeat being especially interesting in regards to the game as well as to the mindset of the individual player. Whenever the game was turning against Adam, he would tend to identify external problems, often blaming his card draw or his shuffling (when certain mechanics required him to shuffle his library). Trevor, in contrast, tended to identify internal problems, blaming losses on his (perceived) lack of strategy, his improper decision making, or ability to read the emerging protocols of a given game quickly enough at any moment. Meanwhile, Kevin was mostly unflappable, keeping his focus on his curiosity in seeing what could happen when playing certain cards or attempting to complete combinations of card plays for particular effects (even if he was ultimately unsuccessful in executing his plans).
These differences in reflective practice—and the specific concerns emphasized by each player’s reflections—signal some significant concerns for identifying Magic or other procedural systems as continually emergent networks. Each player focused his reflective analysis on some unique component of the game activity by pure coincidence rather than research design, suggesting that the means by which each attempted to understand the game—by drawing on particular rhetorical and protocological features of how the game could work and what could or should be valued in order to play it—can vary dramatically while not necessarily compromising the system as something communally recognizable and with qualities and features shared among its players.
One specific and very brief example of an anticipated protocological exploit from our body of games is the use in Kevin’s constructed deck of the only planeswalker card in our pool of cards: Chandra, Pyromaster. The card was chosen in part because of its unique position in our pool, as it would offer an opportunity for underhanded strategy without being too game-breaking—that is, Kevin knew he was potentially exploiting a limitation of the participants’ available cards, since neither Trevor nor Adam would have a planeswalker card to add to their own decks. The addition of a planeswalker risked changing the figurative terrain of the battlefield; however, Chandra, Pyromaster ended up only being drawn in two constructed games, and in one of those the card was immediately Negated to prevent its use. The variable factor of card draw, along with the fact that a single copy of the Chandra card (1/60 of the total deck), meant that its potential effect would, overall, lack major impact. Reliance on a single means of manipulating the larger activity network became more of a weakness than a hidden strength.
Recognizing and Responding to an Emergent Network: An Example of Adam v. Trevor
A slightly more extended example—an exploded turn of play—from our games comes from a constructed deck match between Adam and Trevor (match two of five for them). In this example, we can see a moment of protocological expression occurring that impacted gameplay and the game’s outcome. Adam and Trevor had something of a stalemate occurring, with Adam able to slow down Trevor’s progress enough to prevent the latter’s victory. Trevor had an opportunity to alter the pace of the game so as to eliminate Adam more quickly.
The game state at the midpoint of Turn 6 (after Adam’s turn and before Trevor’s) consisted of the following elements, with both players at 20 life:
| Adam’s battlefield | Adam’s hand | Trevor’s battlefield | Trevor’s hand |
|---|---|---|---|
|
At the beginning of his turn, Trevor did not have many options in his hand. During his previous turn, the Charging Rhino on his battlefield had been weakened by a Stab Wound enchantment that Adam cast on it. However, Trevor had drawn a Solemn Offering that he could use to remove the enchantment and threaten more strongly Adam’s position.
In the draw step of his turn, Trevor acquired an Ajani’s Pridemate. For the way his deck was constructed, this card could work well for him. However, the Hornet Queen already in his hand could also serve him well by disincentivizing Adam from attacking, since it created several token creatures whose “Deathtouch” ability would automatically kill any creature they blocked.
Trevor’s side of the table at the beginning of his turn.
Trevor’s side following his Draw phase.
Adam’s side of the battlefield at the beginning of Trevor’s turn.
Trevor’s decision was further complicated by two additional pieces of available information. First, Adam was playing a Blue/Black deck with a Control strategy/play style, something Trevor had learned from his previous match with Adam. Second, Adam had all of his available mana open for use—meaning that, should he have any countermeasures in his hand, he would be able to play them on Trevor’s turn.
For Adam, there might initially appear to have been considerably more options, but only a few were useful at this moment (as most could only be cast during Adam’s turn). Compared to Trevor, Adam had few lands to work with—in the previous Trevor turn, when Trevor cast Solemn Offering, Adam had in his hand a Negate that he was unable to cast in response after playing on his own turn the Stab Wound. Peel from Reality was Adam’s best option, but its effectiveness required Adam to be willing to return his own Child of Night to his hand.
So, what was Trevor’s decision, and why did he make that choice?
Trevor’s battlefield at the end of his first Main phase.
In his first Main phase, Trevor opted to cast Ajani’s Pridemate in the hopes of using other Lifelink cards to boost its +1/+1 counter-gaining ability, even though at the time, Trevor had no such cards in hand or on the battlefield. For Trevor’s Vorthos and Timmy qualities, a desire to play to the central deck theme at every opportunity won out over the potential advantage gained by playing Hornet Queen. However, the threat of a potential counter by Adam (the specifics of which were unknown to Trevor but could have included spells like Cancel or Counterspell) might mean that the loss of Ajani’s Pridemate would be preferable to Hornet Queen. However, Adam did not cast any counter-measure to the newly summoned creature.
During his Combat phase, Trevor declared an attack on Adam with his Charging Rhino. In response, Adam cast his Instant spell Peel from Reality, targeting Trevor’s Charging Rhino and Adam’s Child of Night. Each creature was returned to its controller’s hand. Because this occurred while Trevor was declaring attackers, the Charging Rhino did not cause damage to Adam’s life total.
Trevor attacks Adam in his Combat phase.
Adam responds to the attack.
As a result, Adam protected his life total, but he did so at the cost of his own next Combat phase (as he would need to cast Child of Night again first). Trevor, meanwhile, still had the Ajani’s Pridemate on the battlefield in preparation for future +1/+1 counter bolstering from any cards he might hopefully draw to complement his general Lifelink strategy.
Trevor’s side of the table at the end of his turn.
Adam’s side of the table at the end of Trevor’s turn.
Could Ajani’s Pridemate have been played in the second Main phase and thus been more protected from any counter-measure played by Adam, even though it was not targeted in the play outlined above? Perhaps—although the Charging Rhino was the more powerful and immediate threat. A second Main phase play of the spell would also have, to Trevor, prevented Adam from weighing any options he might have had (i.e., which creature to return to Trevor’s hand?). On the other hand, playing Ajani’s Pridemate might have been perceived as an attempt to goad Adam to pay attention to the newly played card—and the potentially larger and longer-term threat it might imply, given Trevor’s deck strategy—rather than the Charging Rhino already on the battlefield.
Adam was further hindered in his own range of possible reaction plays, both on Trevor’s turn and his own next turn, due to the total amount of mana available to him. With four total lands to work with, Adam could not cast his most powerful creature (Indulgent Tormentor), nor could he cast multiple spells together (such as both Child of Night and Mind Rot).
In his next turn, Adam opted not to shut down Trevor’s creatures with his Encrust enchantments but rather played his Child of Night again to maintain creature presence on the battlefield, especially useful given the Child of Night’s Lifelink ability. Trevor brought his Hornet Queen to the table and, thanks in part to these decisions and Adam’s lack of drawing any more mana, had a decisive victory three turns later.
While this example is not incredibly complicated in terms of card interactions or major changes to the overall game state, it nonetheless demonstrates how each player can approach a moment of play with radically different available procedural strategies and conceptualizations of how the game might progress based on their employment of one or more of those strategies.