Player reputation

Most of us probably play most of our games with a certain circle of players. I mean, there can be changes and visitors, but most of the games are between people who know each other and have played the game together before.

In other words, the game has history which has rather big implications. Essentially, you know what to expect with some people whether it is that Bob always plays Assamites, Ginger plays very good, tournament-style decks, Pavel is a beginner so his decks are a tad lacking or that Harry loves combat.

Aside from this kind of prior deck knowledge, it's also possible to have other sorts of reputation. Rick is completely untrustworthy and breaks his deals the first chance or that Lars always adheres to the letter of his deals. Or maybe that Laura always responds to threats with aggression (even cross-table) or that Sam avenges perceived wrong-doings even when it might be a less than optimal gameplay.

Now, carrying actual grudges from match to match is certainly bad form (though threatening with such might be acceptable as long as one doesn't act on it ), but certainly the reputation of a player influences what others do on the table. Or does it? Should it?

What sort of reputation do you (or others in your playgroup) have? Or wish you had? Do you build a reputation on purpose?

So yeah, any thoughts on the matter?

I am a totally harmless player. You never have to worry about me. I just sit there and I'll be never a threat. Should I achieve something than it was given to me by others or I had immense luck.

Mephistopheles wrote:

I am a totally harmless player. You never have to worry about me. I just sit there and I'll be never a threat. Should I achieve something than it was given to me by others or I had immense luck.

+1

Mephistopheles wrote:

I am a totally harmless player. You never have to worry about me. I just sit there and I'll be never a threat. Should I achieve something than it was given to me by others or I had immense luck.

Aye, that is usually the correct strategy for one-off games (as in tournaments), but unless you're hyper devious so as to cultivate a huge number of losses in casual games in order to surprise everyone who knows you by playing extremely well in a tournament game, it's a bit off to the side on what I was trying to discuss (not that there is anything wrong with that, mind you).

In other words, keeping a low, harmless reputation in casual games is pretty impossible for competent players, so what sort of reputation do you have and what do you strive towards? And do you see more value in some reputations than in others?

Or do you perhaps wholly disagree with my premise?

I think that the best reputation to have is to be affable and a good player. Back that up with social skills and you have someone like Ruben Feldman.

brandonsantacruz wrote:

I think that the best reputation to have is to be affable and a good player. Back that up with social skills and you have someone like Ruben Feldman.

Aye, being fun to play against is naturally the best reputation, but I was kinda coming from a different angle in that you can be fun to play against but still be famous for quirky decks or never betraying a deal or whatever.

Maybe I'm not conveying my meaning well (English isn't my first language so apologies on that front) or else I think of the other players differently than anyone else.