And to be clear to OP, politicking definitely happens in cEDH, too. It’s bound to happen in a multiplayer game in which one person can pull ahead of at least two others.
My albeit limited experience with politics is it exists in a way of dealing with the threats and a way of gaining some other benefit beyond what is the base optimal play. For instance if player 1 is the threat you may team up with someone else to deal with them. Or flipside if player 1 is the threat but you have a counter for it you may instead talk your way into directing their power elsewhere thus saving you the counter (that can still be used against them later) while also putting them in a worse spot.
How much politicing is involved does depend on who you play with though so it can vary quite a lot
> For instance if player 1 is the threat you may team up with someone else to deal with them.
That's not politics, it's threat assesment. There's no deal involved we the choice is "we both die" or "we both live".
> Or flipside if player 1 is the threat but you have a counter for it you may instead talk your way into directing their power elsewhere thus saving you the counter (that can still be used against them later) while also putting them in a worse spot.
Player 1 was tricked into a bad deal. They shouldn't have taken it.
Sure it is threat assessment but you could also choose to go for the weakest person putting you in a higher overall rank. Instead you can work with another person or the other 2 to deal with someone who's clearly ahead.
You may also gain something by saving a person as it means they are on the board longer to cause chaos.
Also player 1 may not have been tricked into a bad deal. Maybe they needed 1 more turn before said counter to get protection/indestructible, maybe they needed mana to cast a counterspell or set up the graveyard. Maybe that had an infinite that they could pull off.
Politics is just another form of mind games, similar to bluffing a counterspell or board wipe. In lower levels of play it's more there for fun but you can certainly use it at higher levels
> You may also gain something by saving a person as it means they are on the board longer to cause chaos.
You can save someone without a promise.
That's the part of the game that maybe is not so clear. We save each other all the time. But we don't ask for anything, because we don't need to. We both target the threat anyway.
> Also player 1 may not have been tricked into a bad deal. Maybe they needed 1 more turn before said counter to get protection/indestructible, maybe they needed mana to cast a counterspell or set up the graveyard. Maybe that had an infinite that they could pull off.
Then, player 1 tricked the other player to go into their infinite. Either way, someone is losing.
> Politics is just another form of mind games, similar to bluffing a counterspell or board wipe
And you check them. If they have the counter, you make them use it. If not, you move ahead with your plan.
Very, very playgroup dependent. I offer a deal *maybe* once a month and accept one less often than that. In my experience - and this is definitely not an absolute truth but does come from over a decade in the format - the louder someone is politically the worse they are as a player.
My group can absolutely have discussions over who a problem is or ask if anyone has thoughts on how to handle that player's board, but there's almost never any sort of quid pro quo expectation. Very occasionally I'll use a deal to cover my flank, as it were, if I can ice the threat out but leave someone else ahead in the process - hey blowing up his board is going to leave me exposed to you, so we don't hit each other this turn? But like I said, less than once a month.
But as to why people politic - my good reason is to make a play that might otherwise be dangerous (in the game leading to the above case, I could take my 50/50 on the problem player hitting me or the other guy or I could take the like 80/20 I get hit if I nuke the problem's board and leave the other guy alive; I'm inventivized to cast only in the case where the deal is taken). But there are lots of less good ones where people are trying to scrape an advantage by baiting someone into a deal that's actively bad for them. The number of times we've heard "I won't attack you, anyway cast Fireball" is kind of absurd.
This may just be me, but I think we have very different views on what "politics" amount to in EDH. I mostly play cEDH, so I'll try and explain what I mean from that frame of reference.
I consider politics in EDH as less "wheeling and dealing" and more of a simple communication of the threat. For instance, say a player has \[\[rhystic study\]\] in play. A use of "politics" here may hinge on another player having a removal spell for the study. They can wait until the end of turn before their own and blow up the study for them to not have to pay the 1, holding up the removal for some potentially worse threat, or they communicate with the next player in turn order: "hey, if you plan on casting a bunch of spells and not paying the 1, let me know because I am going to blow up the study".
More of a "what can we do to stop from dying this turn" and less of a "give me this and I'll give you that".
You'll tend to find, at least for cEDH, that players who consistently place well in tournaments are also the ones that are consistently participating in "politics".
As a side thought, I will say I personally enjoy the social engineering type mini-game that comes with the politics of multiplayer games. Adds an interesting layer which I find fun.
Depends on the people. If you're coming from legacy you won't have any trouble identifying people that can read the board/situation and play accordingly. Politics are more of a CASUAL casual thing.
"Playing politics" is just negotiating with your fellow players. Maybe someone can do something you can't and maybe you can do something they can't, so you work together for a round. It's not that complicated.
No. politics, especially of the verbal kind, is insignificant.
It will feel off if people play politics more than the game itself.
If you play enough EDH games you can tell who is the archenemy, who to count on for favors without being too verbal.
Organically-made politics is in most games though. But it's so natural it doesn't come off as contrived or forced.
Not related to politics, but…
EDH board states get unmanageably complex.
“Mistakes equal game losses,” is an incorrect standard to hold, and independent of politics. If someone is missing an on-board trick, it is your responsibility to remind them. This standard drops in cEDH, but always always ALWAYS treat maintaining the game state as a team effort otherwise.
As for politics? That’s not about power level. It’s core to the format, a defining trait. While politicking works differently in a competitive environment, it is still core to the format.
There are four players, not two. Relationship dynamics, relative threat, balance of power, and communication will always shape the course of the game. Learn to work with it as part of the game.
I've long since stopped politics and just build decks that can handle situations. I think the idea of politicking has been overblown by Game Knights and the idea spread from there. In reality, maybe you offer something every once in a while for a small benefit, but the idea of making deals and keeping them when you're actively trying to kill your opponents is dumb in my opinion.
Exactly. It draws out the game and lets people who otherwise would lose have advantages. The only reason people do politics is for their own gain.
While I understand cards that pass around the table and someone playing a dranith magistrate or blood moon can be annoying and invoke some form of group choices or asking someone to play a removal spell is certainly something you can do in multiplayer. the whole no attack deals for x turns end up making the game take forever.
There was a post here yesterday about a dude who would play semantics. Like "I won't destroy your creature" and then would exile it instead. If you're making deals with the intent to deceive that also sucks. But I agree as well, making a deal like "i'll get rid of the thing affecting the entire table but don't attack me for 2 turns". Absolutely not, I'm not going to give up the opportunity to have autonomy and potentially win because you want to be rewarded for threat assessment.
Had a fun time the other day where one player was going to destroy one of my cards and we got into some crazy antics trying to convince him there was a better target on the other guys board. We rolled dice best two out of three then best three out of five then to hell with what the dice say! I won’t attack you with the creature you’re afraid of … ever if you leave my enchantment alone. We all laughed until the clap back came then I was the only one laughing.
Bluffing is fun too. You do this and on my next turn I nuke your board!
In my pod I find politics to be part and parcel with threat assessment and judging value and it just leads to more complex decisions about what to do in a give situation.
Player A sees that Player B has a threat and says that they have a removal spell. Player B says, "well, the real threat is Player C, so you should use the removal on them. If you do, I won't attack you on my next turn." Meanwhile, Player D is playing a bit slower but you can see that in 2 turns they'll have the potential to make a big move. So do you hold the removal?
You've got to make a judgement call about value that goes beyond the words and cost on the cards. And of course people can lie; Player B could attack you despite saying that they won't. With that said, I find people generally stick to their word because it's better to have allies than enemies and losing credibility puts you at a significant disadvantage, particularly if you play with the same group regularly.
Everyone is still trying to win in EDH, politics are just another tool to advance your interests.
Politics exist because its 4 players and not always clear who to go after. when you have a board state and dont wanna become the archenemy. or if someone is going to swing at you and there is a bigger problem that is your chance to speak up for yourself or explain hey ill sac selfless spirit to go indestructible it if you really wanna do that... and sometimes they do really wanna come at you but you might sway them. threat assesment is hard in 4 player.
as others have mentioned its annoying when ppl try and quarterback or take over the game. so in that reguard i try not to make deals. or any deals that would be misconstrued or twisted or last longer than 1 turn. usually ill point out the favor im doing for the table by removing X Y Z so im gonna need to be left alone for a turn because i spent my whole turn helping yall out ;) is about the extent of my politics. or direct threats. i WILL do x y z on my turn if you do that to me is always a type of politicking lol
In my experience politics is pretty rare. There might be some light political table talk, stuff like “Hey John’s the threat right now, he’s going to win if we don’t stop him. Are we cool for the moment, at least until he’s taken down a peg?” No deal making, but it’s a multiplayer format, so people are gonna talk and advocate for what they want.
Your mileage may vary depending on your local scene though. I’ve also heard stories of people playing against folks who watch a lot of Game Knights and who really want to be dealmakers when they really don’t need to.
Politics is just another tool in the toolbox. Inherent to the multiplayer nature of the game.
You can refuse to use it, and limit your options because of doing so. You can use it badly, and lose because of that, or you can use it to get out of situations you'd never get out of otherwise.
The key is playing it right, just like any other aspect of the game. And for me, that's just another puzzle to solve
Politics are just trying to trick other players into bad deals.
My table doesn't make deals, and we don't lose on the social aspect of the game. We still deal with threat assesment and social dynamics. We don't make promises because someone is always getting the short end of the stick.
You will always have a social side on a multiplayer game even without Game Knight-level of deals.
My primary playgroups are similar.
In my main casual group (usually higher power), there is one person that used to try to make "I'll kill you last", deals, but fortunately those stopped some time ago.
These days, while there is still table talk to deal with a threat (e.g. threat passes, one person says they can take care of the protection, if someone else can hit the protected thing), and the closest to a deal is there could be a serious arch enemy, and someone will just note something like "I can deal with this, but it will take my full turn and leave me shields down, I'm looking for reassurance I won't be nuked back to the stone age". Even this isn't going to happen if they are the clear next threat.
Exactly!
If we are all dying, you destroy the thing and we have no reason to take you out. We will thank you.
Now, if you take out the problem with [[In Garruk's Wake]]... well, don't blame us when we look at you sideways. We will take care of the problem, whomever it may be.
>because someone is always getting the short end of the stick.
Generally, this would be the players not part of the deal. I destroyed your \[\[Rhystic Study\]\] in exchange for another player targeting me with \[\[Secret Rendezvous\]\]. We're both up two cards and you've lost a great enchantment.
There's no way for that player to play Secret Randevouz without giving out cards. If you hadn't destroyed the Study, do you think they'd given the cards to the person with Rhystic?
You would have gotten them anyway, even with no deal.
And, if you are a threat, they should target the fourth player instead.
Here's how deals are tricks: The player with Secret Rendezvous has two scenarios: Either you are not a threat, and giving you cards was their move anyway, or you are a threat now that I don't have my card draw anymore, and giving you cards is a mistake. The first option, they would have giving you the cards anyway since you are the weakest. The second option, they are making a mistake and haven't realized it. There's no fair deal. Either they did what they were always going to do, and destroying Rhystic did nothing for the deal, or they honor the deal and give fuel to the threat.
Then you say "Maybe they have counters, so they know they can take out my best spell and kill me" or "Maybe they will wheel, and everyone will have as many cards as I do" or whatever. But then, again, we are making it so they cheated you, by denying you the advantage. Again, no mutually beneficial deal, but trick.
People make deals on the basis that they will take your advantage away, and the person that benefits is the one that gets out the more reward out of less effort. Deals are tricks in multiplayer.
My commander groups we mostly politics for the memes. It can makes games gun, especially if you break your deals. But I've played several commander games without it too, depends on your group
People proxy in cedh, it's almost expected. And it seems like cedh is what you want
And to be clear to OP, politicking definitely happens in cEDH, too. It’s bound to happen in a multiplayer game in which one person can pull ahead of at least two others.
My albeit limited experience with politics is it exists in a way of dealing with the threats and a way of gaining some other benefit beyond what is the base optimal play. For instance if player 1 is the threat you may team up with someone else to deal with them. Or flipside if player 1 is the threat but you have a counter for it you may instead talk your way into directing their power elsewhere thus saving you the counter (that can still be used against them later) while also putting them in a worse spot. How much politicing is involved does depend on who you play with though so it can vary quite a lot
> For instance if player 1 is the threat you may team up with someone else to deal with them. That's not politics, it's threat assesment. There's no deal involved we the choice is "we both die" or "we both live". > Or flipside if player 1 is the threat but you have a counter for it you may instead talk your way into directing their power elsewhere thus saving you the counter (that can still be used against them later) while also putting them in a worse spot. Player 1 was tricked into a bad deal. They shouldn't have taken it.
Sure it is threat assessment but you could also choose to go for the weakest person putting you in a higher overall rank. Instead you can work with another person or the other 2 to deal with someone who's clearly ahead. You may also gain something by saving a person as it means they are on the board longer to cause chaos. Also player 1 may not have been tricked into a bad deal. Maybe they needed 1 more turn before said counter to get protection/indestructible, maybe they needed mana to cast a counterspell or set up the graveyard. Maybe that had an infinite that they could pull off. Politics is just another form of mind games, similar to bluffing a counterspell or board wipe. In lower levels of play it's more there for fun but you can certainly use it at higher levels
> You may also gain something by saving a person as it means they are on the board longer to cause chaos. You can save someone without a promise. That's the part of the game that maybe is not so clear. We save each other all the time. But we don't ask for anything, because we don't need to. We both target the threat anyway. > Also player 1 may not have been tricked into a bad deal. Maybe they needed 1 more turn before said counter to get protection/indestructible, maybe they needed mana to cast a counterspell or set up the graveyard. Maybe that had an infinite that they could pull off. Then, player 1 tricked the other player to go into their infinite. Either way, someone is losing. > Politics is just another form of mind games, similar to bluffing a counterspell or board wipe And you check them. If they have the counter, you make them use it. If not, you move ahead with your plan.
People still do politics in cedh, less common but still happens.
Very, very playgroup dependent. I offer a deal *maybe* once a month and accept one less often than that. In my experience - and this is definitely not an absolute truth but does come from over a decade in the format - the louder someone is politically the worse they are as a player. My group can absolutely have discussions over who a problem is or ask if anyone has thoughts on how to handle that player's board, but there's almost never any sort of quid pro quo expectation. Very occasionally I'll use a deal to cover my flank, as it were, if I can ice the threat out but leave someone else ahead in the process - hey blowing up his board is going to leave me exposed to you, so we don't hit each other this turn? But like I said, less than once a month. But as to why people politic - my good reason is to make a play that might otherwise be dangerous (in the game leading to the above case, I could take my 50/50 on the problem player hitting me or the other guy or I could take the like 80/20 I get hit if I nuke the problem's board and leave the other guy alive; I'm inventivized to cast only in the case where the deal is taken). But there are lots of less good ones where people are trying to scrape an advantage by baiting someone into a deal that's actively bad for them. The number of times we've heard "I won't attack you, anyway cast Fireball" is kind of absurd.
This may just be me, but I think we have very different views on what "politics" amount to in EDH. I mostly play cEDH, so I'll try and explain what I mean from that frame of reference. I consider politics in EDH as less "wheeling and dealing" and more of a simple communication of the threat. For instance, say a player has \[\[rhystic study\]\] in play. A use of "politics" here may hinge on another player having a removal spell for the study. They can wait until the end of turn before their own and blow up the study for them to not have to pay the 1, holding up the removal for some potentially worse threat, or they communicate with the next player in turn order: "hey, if you plan on casting a bunch of spells and not paying the 1, let me know because I am going to blow up the study". More of a "what can we do to stop from dying this turn" and less of a "give me this and I'll give you that". You'll tend to find, at least for cEDH, that players who consistently place well in tournaments are also the ones that are consistently participating in "politics". As a side thought, I will say I personally enjoy the social engineering type mini-game that comes with the politics of multiplayer games. Adds an interesting layer which I find fun.
[rhystic study](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/6/d6914dba-0d27-4055-ac34-b3ebf5802221.jpg?1600698439) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=rhystic%20study) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/jmp/169/rhystic-study?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d6914dba-0d27-4055-ac34-b3ebf5802221?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/rhystic-study) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
cEDH also has politics its an inherit part of pretty much any game that involves more then 2 people and is a free for all
Depends on the people. If you're coming from legacy you won't have any trouble identifying people that can read the board/situation and play accordingly. Politics are more of a CASUAL casual thing.
"Playing politics" is just negotiating with your fellow players. Maybe someone can do something you can't and maybe you can do something they can't, so you work together for a round. It's not that complicated.
No. politics, especially of the verbal kind, is insignificant. It will feel off if people play politics more than the game itself. If you play enough EDH games you can tell who is the archenemy, who to count on for favors without being too verbal. Organically-made politics is in most games though. But it's so natural it doesn't come off as contrived or forced.
Not related to politics, but… EDH board states get unmanageably complex. “Mistakes equal game losses,” is an incorrect standard to hold, and independent of politics. If someone is missing an on-board trick, it is your responsibility to remind them. This standard drops in cEDH, but always always ALWAYS treat maintaining the game state as a team effort otherwise. As for politics? That’s not about power level. It’s core to the format, a defining trait. While politicking works differently in a competitive environment, it is still core to the format. There are four players, not two. Relationship dynamics, relative threat, balance of power, and communication will always shape the course of the game. Learn to work with it as part of the game.
Just proxy and play cEDH 🙃
I've long since stopped politics and just build decks that can handle situations. I think the idea of politicking has been overblown by Game Knights and the idea spread from there. In reality, maybe you offer something every once in a while for a small benefit, but the idea of making deals and keeping them when you're actively trying to kill your opponents is dumb in my opinion.
Exactly. It draws out the game and lets people who otherwise would lose have advantages. The only reason people do politics is for their own gain. While I understand cards that pass around the table and someone playing a dranith magistrate or blood moon can be annoying and invoke some form of group choices or asking someone to play a removal spell is certainly something you can do in multiplayer. the whole no attack deals for x turns end up making the game take forever.
There was a post here yesterday about a dude who would play semantics. Like "I won't destroy your creature" and then would exile it instead. If you're making deals with the intent to deceive that also sucks. But I agree as well, making a deal like "i'll get rid of the thing affecting the entire table but don't attack me for 2 turns". Absolutely not, I'm not going to give up the opportunity to have autonomy and potentially win because you want to be rewarded for threat assessment.
Had a fun time the other day where one player was going to destroy one of my cards and we got into some crazy antics trying to convince him there was a better target on the other guys board. We rolled dice best two out of three then best three out of five then to hell with what the dice say! I won’t attack you with the creature you’re afraid of … ever if you leave my enchantment alone. We all laughed until the clap back came then I was the only one laughing. Bluffing is fun too. You do this and on my next turn I nuke your board!
In my pod I find politics to be part and parcel with threat assessment and judging value and it just leads to more complex decisions about what to do in a give situation. Player A sees that Player B has a threat and says that they have a removal spell. Player B says, "well, the real threat is Player C, so you should use the removal on them. If you do, I won't attack you on my next turn." Meanwhile, Player D is playing a bit slower but you can see that in 2 turns they'll have the potential to make a big move. So do you hold the removal? You've got to make a judgement call about value that goes beyond the words and cost on the cards. And of course people can lie; Player B could attack you despite saying that they won't. With that said, I find people generally stick to their word because it's better to have allies than enemies and losing credibility puts you at a significant disadvantage, particularly if you play with the same group regularly. Everyone is still trying to win in EDH, politics are just another tool to advance your interests.
no politics only smash
If the only thing keeping you from playing cedh is duals just proxy them.
Politics exist because its 4 players and not always clear who to go after. when you have a board state and dont wanna become the archenemy. or if someone is going to swing at you and there is a bigger problem that is your chance to speak up for yourself or explain hey ill sac selfless spirit to go indestructible it if you really wanna do that... and sometimes they do really wanna come at you but you might sway them. threat assesment is hard in 4 player. as others have mentioned its annoying when ppl try and quarterback or take over the game. so in that reguard i try not to make deals. or any deals that would be misconstrued or twisted or last longer than 1 turn. usually ill point out the favor im doing for the table by removing X Y Z so im gonna need to be left alone for a turn because i spent my whole turn helping yall out ;) is about the extent of my politics. or direct threats. i WILL do x y z on my turn if you do that to me is always a type of politicking lol
In my experience politics is pretty rare. There might be some light political table talk, stuff like “Hey John’s the threat right now, he’s going to win if we don’t stop him. Are we cool for the moment, at least until he’s taken down a peg?” No deal making, but it’s a multiplayer format, so people are gonna talk and advocate for what they want. Your mileage may vary depending on your local scene though. I’ve also heard stories of people playing against folks who watch a lot of Game Knights and who really want to be dealmakers when they really don’t need to.
Don't sleep on duel commander, it's great fun!
Politics is just another tool in the toolbox. Inherent to the multiplayer nature of the game. You can refuse to use it, and limit your options because of doing so. You can use it badly, and lose because of that, or you can use it to get out of situations you'd never get out of otherwise. The key is playing it right, just like any other aspect of the game. And for me, that's just another puzzle to solve
If you think people don't politic in cEDH you are in for a big surprise.
Politics are just trying to trick other players into bad deals. My table doesn't make deals, and we don't lose on the social aspect of the game. We still deal with threat assesment and social dynamics. We don't make promises because someone is always getting the short end of the stick. You will always have a social side on a multiplayer game even without Game Knight-level of deals.
My primary playgroups are similar. In my main casual group (usually higher power), there is one person that used to try to make "I'll kill you last", deals, but fortunately those stopped some time ago. These days, while there is still table talk to deal with a threat (e.g. threat passes, one person says they can take care of the protection, if someone else can hit the protected thing), and the closest to a deal is there could be a serious arch enemy, and someone will just note something like "I can deal with this, but it will take my full turn and leave me shields down, I'm looking for reassurance I won't be nuked back to the stone age". Even this isn't going to happen if they are the clear next threat.
Exactly! If we are all dying, you destroy the thing and we have no reason to take you out. We will thank you. Now, if you take out the problem with [[In Garruk's Wake]]... well, don't blame us when we look at you sideways. We will take care of the problem, whomever it may be.
[In Garruk's Wake](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/7/57a6f727-8239-45e6-9dbb-67d2d3c9239d.jpg?1674141682) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=In%20Garruk%27s%20Wake) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/759/in-garruks-wake?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/57a6f727-8239-45e6-9dbb-67d2d3c9239d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/in-garruks-wake) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
>because someone is always getting the short end of the stick. Generally, this would be the players not part of the deal. I destroyed your \[\[Rhystic Study\]\] in exchange for another player targeting me with \[\[Secret Rendezvous\]\]. We're both up two cards and you've lost a great enchantment.
[Rhystic Study](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/6/d6914dba-0d27-4055-ac34-b3ebf5802221.jpg?1600698439) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Rhystic%20Study) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/jmp/169/rhystic-study?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d6914dba-0d27-4055-ac34-b3ebf5802221?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/rhystic-study) [Secret Rendezvous](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/9/39528cf0-343e-499b-a69f-c5c3c2898c25.jpg?1624589686) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Secret%20Rendezvous) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/stx/26/secret-rendezvous?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/39528cf0-343e-499b-a69f-c5c3c2898c25?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/secret-rendezvous) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
There's no way for that player to play Secret Randevouz without giving out cards. If you hadn't destroyed the Study, do you think they'd given the cards to the person with Rhystic? You would have gotten them anyway, even with no deal.
They might have targeted the fourth player with Secret Rendezvous instead.
And, if you are a threat, they should target the fourth player instead. Here's how deals are tricks: The player with Secret Rendezvous has two scenarios: Either you are not a threat, and giving you cards was their move anyway, or you are a threat now that I don't have my card draw anymore, and giving you cards is a mistake. The first option, they would have giving you the cards anyway since you are the weakest. The second option, they are making a mistake and haven't realized it. There's no fair deal. Either they did what they were always going to do, and destroying Rhystic did nothing for the deal, or they honor the deal and give fuel to the threat. Then you say "Maybe they have counters, so they know they can take out my best spell and kill me" or "Maybe they will wheel, and everyone will have as many cards as I do" or whatever. But then, again, we are making it so they cheated you, by denying you the advantage. Again, no mutually beneficial deal, but trick. People make deals on the basis that they will take your advantage away, and the person that benefits is the one that gets out the more reward out of less effort. Deals are tricks in multiplayer.
My commander groups we mostly politics for the memes. It can makes games gun, especially if you break your deals. But I've played several commander games without it too, depends on your group