Recently, I’ve heard a number of people talking about the difference between proactive and reactive strategies—including the good folks at CommanderCast¹ and my partner in crime Bruce Richard. Basically, these terms are most commonly used as proxies for Alongi-style and Ferrett-style multiplayer strategies, respectively, although there seems to be a lot of wiggle room in how these terms are used. I have three problems with the introduction of this terminology.

Why Not?

First, of course, “proactive” is a bullshit word that should be dragged from its bed in the middle of the night, flayed with broken beer bottles, and executed in front of its family. Thank you, corporate America, for introducing this abomination into our lexicon.

Second, I don’t think the terms are being used precisely enough. Words are tools for communication, and each word is supposed to have its own meaning; when a word doesn’t have a clear meaning all its own, you should stop using it, figure out what you’re really trying to say, and choose a word that has that specific meaning. This is especially important when we’re trying to use the terms as multiplayer jargon to clarify our understanding of the game.

Does “reactive” refer to casting strong spells in reaction to whatever your opponent does (e.g. Swords to Plowshares, Spinal Embrace, Counterspell), joining the rest of the table in taking down The Threat, playing Ferrett-style politics, sitting behind what Andy calls a pillow fort so that your enemies can’t attack you, or laying low until you're ready to make the game-winning play? Does “proactive” mean playing strong threats and protecting them, always attacking the strongest player, always hammering away at one opponent until he’s dead, or pissing off your opponents until every game is like Archenemy without the schemes? Is there a connection between pro- and reactive strategies and the basic aggro/control/combo classifications?

I've heard “proactive” and “reactive” used to include all of the above, and that’s just way too many different cards, strategies, and play styles to try to incorporate into those two little words. I say that if you can’t narrow down what you mean by “proactive” to just one of these, this terminology is probably reducing our understanding of multiplayer strategy rather than adding to it.

Third, and most important, is that whatever meaning you take from these terms, there is no way that this should be a dichotomy; if you're either proactive or reactive all the time, you're definitely doing something very wrong.

Let’s focus on the main (original?) use of these terms: the age-old Ferrett/Alongi distinction. Yes, The Ferrett encouraged sneakiness and backstabbing, and Alongi frowned on that sort of thing, saying:

Does that mean that the Ferrett’s followers are reactive while Alongi’s acolytes are proactive? No—for three simple reasons.

1. The Ferrett acknowledged that sneakiness usually accounts for no more than ten percent of the outcome of a given game, meaning that something from the proactive column is necessary to actually put the game away—no matter how cunning your plan.
2. No matter how aggressively you may want to play, there are any number of times when you just can't—whether you haven’t drawn the gas or an opponent has a foil to your deck, whether a Nevinyrral's Disk, a Standstill, a Circle of Protection, or any of a thousand other cards that can turn a lion into a lemming.
3. In a complex strategic environment, there will be times when the sneaky play is the smart play and other times when the bold move is the best move.
4. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: There isn’t as much space between The Ferrett and Alongi (or between me and Bruce) as people would like to think. The truth is that the world doesn’t break down that neatly into black and white; Alongi knew it, and The Ferrett knew it, and so do the Muses.

So, when I wrote Kenny Rogers Can Kiss My Ass, I was expressing the idea that playing boldly is the best way to win, and when Bruce wrote Standing Up for Sitting Back, he was talking about the advantages of conserving your strength and waiting for the opportune moment. But the fact that we focused on two particular strategic elements in those articles doesn’t mean that our play styles can be reduced to a simple dichotomy.

In the same article, I wrote: “I'm not saying that you should always rush in, guns blazing, without any consideration of the risks. I've had plenty of times playing a nominally aggressive deck where I just couldn't draw enough threats. In games like that, I tend to shepherd my resources a little bit more, keep my creatures back on defense and be very wary attacking into open mana or pissing off someone who appears stronger.” In his article, Bruce wrote: “At some point you have to assert dominance on the board.”

There are two important lessons we learn here: Bruce is a lot more concise than I am, and every player needs to know when to make his move and when to bide his time.

If Not That, Then What?

Most multiplayer games have their own ebbs and flows, and whether you should be trying to take control or trying to stay out of someone else’s way depends on a lot of different in-game factors—too many factors for any one theory to tell you what to do. In the end, whether you should be bold at any given time depends on a very complex kind of cost–benefit analysis. Can you go the distance—or at least get some good licks in without triggering a fatal balancing action? Can you play something that others will be happy to see or something that will scare the bejeezus out of them? Can you recover if your opponents destroy your board position? Will they kill you for trying to win, or can you win anyway?

The biggest reason people believe that there is such a thing as a superior reactive strategy is the old bugbear, “If you try to win, the rest of the table will try to kill you.” Admittedly, there are times when this is true, but not many; if you play with people who know what they’re doing, this really isn’t a serious concern. If you threaten to win next turn, people may kill you this turn, but if you play something scary and your opponents respond, they usually have to play something scary of their own or it doesn’t matter what they do—you’ll win anyway. So tell me, if you aren’t the only one with something scary in play, why do you expect to be dogpiled out of the game?

My favorite games are the games in which everybody has his turn in the driver’s seat and is eventually supplanted by someone else, and that’s because the first person to make an unsuccessful play for dominance (whatever “dominance” means; sometimes it’s no more than a big creature on turn three or four) is more likely to be knocked down than knocked out. Maybe his threats are easily dealt with; maybe he pulls back to a defensive position and nobody can finish him off; maybe a new threat emerges that draws attention away from him. The rest of the table might even need his help to deal with a more powerful player. In any of these situations, a bold play might bring you a little bit closer to victory—whether it succeeds or not—without costing you the game.

On the other hand, a single relatively innocent play can get you killed later in the game. For instance, playing an Auriok Champion on turn two might be enough to draw the attention of a dominant token player or B/R mage in the late game or that 2 damage you sent at the combo player just because he was open in the early game might get you killed first. It really is impossible to tell.

Conclusion

My point is that the downside of bold plays is situational, rather than automatic, just as the risks and rewards of any strategy are situational. Any strategy can fail, or even backfire, depending on whom you’re playing with, how you’ve won in the past, and a thousand other factors. Rather than eschewing one style of play for another, you need to develop a feel for the changing pace of the game. This, along with a little bit of common sense, is the only way to know whether a bold play, a sneaky play, or a don’t-look-at-me-I’m-not-here play is the best way to advance your interests.

But make no mistake, advancing your interests is ultimately the name of the game, and pretending that you aren’t trying to win the game is a less effective strategy than actually trying to win the game (which I think is really what motivated Alongi’s strategy articles in the first place). There is no magic or political intrigue to being the guy who doesn’t receive any negative attention until he’s ready to pounce and nobody can stop him; it all comes down to the same strategic factors as any other game: threat assessment, resource management, and timing.

¹Episode 45. As with all episodes of CommanderCast, you can and should download them from www.commandercast.com.

² http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/aa72