For all the talk about the “social contract”, at the end of the day it ends up pretty empty.

For each person who plays the format, there’s a different social contract.  If you’re lucky, you find a group of like-minded people who share your perspective on EDH.  Your games grow into a really warm, familiar place.  You don’t face down the indignity of bringing a knife to a gunfight and getting blown out of the water by a cruise missile.

But at the end of the day, every person at the table sees things slightly differently, no matter how unified your group belief is.

You might be surprised at what you find if you truly look under the hood.  Speaking of which, let’s do that today.

In the first Mapping The Social Contract, I presented you with a scenario, and asked you a series of questions about how it made you feel, and what you would do if you were involved.  (If you missed it, go back here to get up to speed; it’s critically important to what comes next today.)

Today, we present the actual players involved in the situation I chronicled.  They each will tell their own sides of the story in their own words.  You’ll understand motivation from both sides of the table.  You can see how perspective changes everything and shapes a player, no matter what the accepted metagame looks like.

Follow the links below:

 

I AM PLAYER A.

 

I AM PLAYER B.

 

When you’re finished, join us for a conversation in the comments section.  What do you think of each perspective?  Do you agree or disagree with either position?  If you had an opinion of the situation based on part one, has it changed at all?

 

—>Cass
@GDCCommander