Generating an Effective Prize Structure

In the nonexample outlined last week, the store started with good intentions but did not account for large tournament participation. You should plan for growth. After all, the format is the fastest growing (unsanctioned) style of play, and people love to participate. It can be a sort of "Field of Dreams" endeavor in which you build it . . . and they will come.

Let me outline one effective prize structure that has worked for our current league. Each player contributes a $3 entry fee. The price is set in order to be cheaper than most FNM tournaments, but a small amount over free. All of the entry fees are returned to the prize pool in the form of store credit. Store credit is better than packs because it will allow players to acquire those Commander staples and supplies that you stocked before the league's start. I love it when a plan comes together.

Packs do not appeal to most Commander players because they are not necessarily (or exclusively) chasing Standard cards. In fact, you want to promote an atmosphere where players are purchasing older and newer cards. This will reward players and the host store by building up a variety of options for tournament play. The hope is that some of your Type 2 players will become Commander players, and vice versa. The most effective way to offer great prizes while keeping competitiveness in check is to divide the prize pool among competing initiatives.

We have found some success taking the $3 entry fee and dividing it in thirds. One third of the prize pool can be earned by eliminating the most players. We use "headhunter" points that can be earned for each kill. The last person standing typically earns an additional point, and suicides earn no credit. We also discourage "scooping" save emergency situations. We do not want to allow players to quit before they are about to die in an attempt to alter the points or manipulate the resources (time, number of attackers, etc.) that a given player must exhaust to secure a headhunter point. This seems simple, but is important to healthy multiplayer games.

The second third of the prize pool is distributed to the player who earns the most sportsmanship votes. At the end of each round, players from a specific game cast sportsmanship votes. These votes are collected anonymously and tallied at the end of the tournament. We use an honor code that asks players to refrain from voting for themselves. Whoever earns the most sportsmanship votes wins that part of the pool.

The final third of the tournament pool is reserved for random participants. The only thing you have to do to earn this prize is show up, register, and have fun. If you did not win one of the first two types of short-term rewards, you are eligible for the participation prize. This allows any player who experienced bad luck, played an underpowered deck, or just goofed around to still potentially walk away a winner. Again, we want to reinforce all aspects of play and emphasize the casual orientation.

Pairings and Number of Rounds

Let's start with some of those nonexamples. My first EDH game involved eighteen players, one giant circle, and a five-hour game that left players tired, frustrated, bored, and confused. We played a modified grand melee in which you could attack and target only the players on your left and right. There were a couple of tokens that rotated around the large playgroup that allowed players to take simultaneous turns. It sucked.

After reformatting the tournament design, we ran into our second problem. Time became a huge issue. We ran tables of five to six players. Some tables finished in forty minutes, while one of the other tables would complete in three hours. No one really appreciated sitting around for two hours waiting for their next (potentially forty-minute) game. Two or three rounds of play would take up to eight hours. It was out of control.

At the onset of the next iteration of League play, I borrowed the concept of timed rounds. The best way to understand time in Commander is to allocate thirty minutes of playtime for each player in a pod. This might sound a bit random, but lots of tournament play and experimentation makes this statement less arbitrary. Try it out. You could provide three players ninety minutes, four players two hours, and so on—add a half-hour for each additional player. In our league, we have found a multitude of factors contributing to what I will call the "golden foursome." Three players is a little thin and can be lopsided in terms of game play and power balance, while five-, six-, and seven-player games can take too long! If you can force it, go for four players per pod.

We use 120-minute rounds and try to generate tables of three, four, or five depending on attendance. If you are at five players, you could bump the round time up to 2.5 hours as needed. After two rounds, we check the point totals, count sportsmanship votes, and determine the attendance award. Our aim is to provide players with a solid four-hour play experience. This seems to fit many players' tolerance without dragging play out, but offering enough time to complete a vast majority of games.

We begin the first round with random pairings. We generally randomize four of each land and pair players with other players that draw the same lands. For example, the four players who drew Mountains go to the first table, the four players with Islands move to the second, and the five players who drew Swamps go to the third. You can add land or card types as necessary. It should also be noted that we graduate all of the leaders in the "headhunter" race to the same table. That way, our four most competitive players that week might get a chance to face off and battle. Players who are not in the top four or five headhunters are again randomly seated using our pairing method.

Player Communication

The social interaction and casual nature of the tournaments are reinforced on multiple levels. We have long- and short-term rules that shape a style of play that seems beneficial to the success and growth of the league. However, at the beginning of tournaments, we explicitly state the nature of play and make connections for players. We note that the league was developed with a casual emphasis and we aim at maintaining a fun, interactive environment.

Further, experienced players will invite new players and explain the way the tournament works. The folks who run the counter share information about the league and promote the style of league we try to make. In fact, there are all sorts of communications to the player base about the league and its intentions. This helps folks manage their expectations and makes it less likely that someone will show up with their second-turn kill deck. Every once in a while, a player will jump in the league with a different understanding of Commander, but the players try to politely encourage social interaction. Typically, if the player does not respond, the group politics take over. This will be the trickiest type of problem for your league to encounter.

We know that turn-two kills will turn many players off. The league can suffer and attendance may drop. However, you don't want to ban players from joining in. The tournaments are open to everyone. I have seen these situations handled in the following ways: ignoring (led to problems), social ostracizing (led to loss of a player), and tournament organizer communication (led to a correction of the problem). A tournament organizer noticed that a number of players complained about the nature of a competitive deck. The organizer offered the player a chance to rework his deck with a 20% discount on any cards needed to make the deck more effective in the league. That is pretty awesome . . . and it worked.

Whenever you have social groups and design tournaments for group interactions, you have to ensure the positive means to deal with politics and players who might not typically fit in the group. This will largely depend on the social group, the personality and social skills of the players, and the ability of the group to positively promote fun and interaction. Some situations resolve poorly, but you should be mindful of how poor communication and lame problem-solving can impact your efforts to build a strong playgroup.

I am almost certain that I have presented ideas that sound great to the readership and some that will inspire a bit of controversy. Not everyone shares a casual orientation. Not everyone wants to play multiplayer. You might not agree with all of the methods outlined in this article series, but I encourage you to play around with the suggestions and find the right formula for your group. I have always said that you can join our Commander league, or simply form one on your own. The most important point is to form leagues, tournaments, and playgroups that support this format. There is a great deal of fun to be had and lots of great suggestions to be discovered by folks who have spent the last couple of years building the format in a grassroots effort to bring Commander to the masses. The release of the Commander preconstructed decks is among the many signs of success. Do some of your own pioneering and help build a strong community. Consider leaving your own success stories or positive suggestions in the forums. Thanks for reading.