Colors. Pairs.
My main thesis, which i wanted to share in response to some folks asking to hear about it: individual colors in the Magic: The Gathering color pie represent the foundational, inchoate goo of the universe. 2-color guilds are the most accurate approximation of the human condition.
Note that this isn’t a thought that’s born of competitive magic. i think there is a foundational aspect to competitive, optimized magic that is ‘how to optimally pilot this set of equations and interactions against other sets of equations of interactions’ which removes a certain amount of personal style (not all of course); in these cases, the pilot serves the optimal lines of the deck, and thats a beautiful thing to watch.
I don’t pretend to live in that world, and I definitely don’t want to try to speak to it as if i were plugged in. Rather, this little essay is about the soft squishy side of magic. the kitchen table and the box of bulk or the sealed box that is a breeding pit for stylized play. So please; don’t look here to find a competitive player’s insight. I’m not that!
Some pieces of the mental puzzle I have in my head:
Singular colors have nuance, yes. They have aspects of their identity that predominate, some that are secondary, and a whole bevy of concepts, abilities, and tactical approaches to magic’s systems that are antagonistic. This is foundational to Magic as a game, and probably (IMO) the greatest aspect of the game universe. The color pie is what makes Magic work, as a resilient, deep, and rewarding game to play.
There are many deep, deep rabbit holes of color pie : if you want to learn more on this, go to the experts. Magic game designers are wonderfully open and communicative about this aspect of the game, and they have been wonderful stewards of that philosophy for years
However, despite all that caveating about the Magic color pie, that’s not what we consciously experience when we play. It undergirds us as players, but doesn’t overtly define our experience. We do not become these colors. we stay people, playing a game defined by and made excellent by the color system. The game works for us, we don’t work for the game.
Playing magic is communicating something of yourself; your identity, your passions and interpretation of the real world and the in-game universes that Magic brings us. You don’t vanish into the mechanics and the color pie: you bring those things to life and their realities come into existence in a game environment because of and through the human player
So: what is inside a human player? Is a human player all colors? one color? Is that answer fixed or is it evolving or fungible?
My opinion is that humans … logical, emotional, romantic and mathematical - overflow the constraints of single colors and innately express themselves as 2-color guilds. In my past life, as a wayward bayesian mathematician, a colleague might say that the true heart of a person is unknown, but that intrinsic thing - that mystery - can be predicted and prospectively described through a model. Even without the data, you can predict what type of model defines that player’s heart. I think that a 2-color guild model is the best way to characterize how humans find themselves and their voice through playing the game of Magic The Gathering.
This is just my perspective - i am not trying to convince you of it; just talking through my thoughts because i think this is a sort of beautiful way to think about the game. I encourage you to find your own answers to the same question, however you do it!
I think about this as one might physics or mathematics. I view the innate goal of the game is to go from point A (the origin, turn 1), to point B (the conclusion of the game, win or lose). Imagine this as a math function in plotted in multi-dimensional graph space.
For example, one way to express a line 𝐿 that passes through the point (𝑥0,𝑦0,𝑧0) and is traveling in the direction (𝑎,𝑏,𝑐) is : (𝑥,𝑦,𝑧)=(𝑥0,𝑦0,𝑧0)+𝑡(𝑎,𝑏,𝑐). This is a fluid, 3-Dimensional space of possibility. Blockers, responses, removal, interaction, all navigate you through this 3D space. It’s a field of infinite possibilities, and you try to be present in any point of that space, at any time, playing with 1 or more partners in that experience.
the optimal, most efficient, straight-line from point A to point B would be easy enough to define. maybe, to humor me, think of that straight line as a monochromatic deck, and a pure 1-color playstyle.
But in a game with more than one player, the rules of the 3D space change. Imagine it like minesweeper or stratego. there’s an information asymmetry where you don’t know if your line from point A to point B will hit a trap or resistance.
when you are dealing with an unknown environment like this, most folks will approach that unknown with their own personality and playstyle. We see this in sports. we see this in other highly cognitive and complex games. we even see this in writer’s developing their own style.
You are a pilot in this multidimensional space! you are crafting an equation to go from A to B that represents your style and your spirit. One that interacts, responds, accelerates, curves and thrills you when you hit a good game.
In this universe, a single color - a straight line function - has limited opportunities for discovery, but the efficiency and clarity of that line is unbeatable. At best, it will get you to your destination fastest. At worst, it will drive you directly into a pitfall, with maximum consequences. when the world is unknown, and the players know it, a single color can often impose limitations where the player could otherwise expand their set of tricks and tactics. When you change course and adapt to changing game conditions as a singular facet of the color philosophy, the adjustments are more discrete and absolute. They are forceful and powerful, but more like a square digital wave than a smooth sinusoidal one.
Why two colors?
It’s not just ‘why are they better than single color’ (the notion of “better” is not the point of this little diatribe), but why do they better represent the innate playstyle of a person playing magic?
As humans, we do not usually think of Magic games as mathematics of 3D space. we often think as emotional and rational creatures. Players vs. players with surprises up oursleeves and a strategy to deploy. Some circumstances trigger our rational side, some our pure emotional side, but often we seek to find our playstyle in a blend of things - reactive or proactive; aggressive or defensive; wide or tall; it’s always changing and dynamic, and that’s one thing i love about the game.
back to math: that, to me, represents a higher-order equation. One that accomodates a wide variety of circumstances. that, to me, is a wave. a waveform that moves between extremes of thought processes, and often which blends their playstyle somewhere between extremes. Each waveform is unique and different, a combination of deck and player style.
In this sense, two colors (whether friends or enemies or however you want to define) gives the perfect framework for the magid experience - allowing you to craft between the extremes of the two colors let’s you blend across their strengths and their weaknesses in a way that covers an infinite variation of approaches and playstyles. that, to me, is the optimal playspace for a human mind.
Two colors give so many more opportunities to explore those dualities mentioned above (reactive/proactive; aggressive/defensive; wide/tall, and so on). In two colors you can choose any blend of dualities, either synergistic or dissonant, and craft a game plan around it. This just gives so much range and space to find your unique voice, all while retaining some constraints around an ideological identity …. in math terms, you could make an equation so complex that it would run you in circles, but a 2-color balances the constraints that keep you focused on going from point A to B, but allow you so many degrees of freedom that your voice can effectively emerge, and emerge with clarion acuity.
Why not 2+ colors
Maybe you’re right - maybe the optimal is 3, or 4, or 5 or whatever. if you think this, i’d love to read your thoughts! For me though, why am i all about 2-color?
Every deck I have seen or played or played against, once it shifts into multiple colors, does one of two things:
(1) it retains a fundamental identity in 1 or 2 colors. Often these decks are “guild __ splashing __”. they add some unique pieces on a base of a single or dual color identity, but they aren’t, to me, fundamentally played as a separate concept than a 1 or 2 color play style. maybe i’m wrong - probably! - but this is something i’ve anecdotally observed, and these words are free to read, so i hope you don’t get upset. Maybe think about it through the lense of your decks, and see how well or poorly this fits.
(2) the deck drives the player more than the player drives the deck. I sometimes see these higher color content decks - which can flourish and be absolute houses at all levels of play - somewhat “railroad” a player into a specific playstyle. I think this is natural to some extent for all decks, but you have probably come across a game where you played with someone who became something of a servant to their deck rather than its maestro. Again….just my thoughts and anecdotal experiences.
I think 2-color leaves the optimal balance of design space flexibility and playstyle flexibility within the constraints of many popular MTG game archetypes. to me, 2-colors is the sweet spot of constraints and freedom of style.
For example
I love that 2-colors include the options for friendly partners and enemy partners in colors, and how each of those defines a clear playstyle heuristic, with its own canon and its own coherent philosophy.
Boros, for me, is a wonderful example. The lawfulness of white, its penchant for the collective, paired with red’s penchant for ACTION makes for a combination that beautifully mirrors humanity.
[white] + [red]
[the collective] + [action] = collective action
[high potential energy] + [kinetic thrust] = kinetic energy
[blademaster] + [sharpened blade] = a powerful threat
you can somewhat repeat this between color. pairs; Golgari; Rakdos; Izzet; Azorius. You may not like the playstyle, but each takes the id of a single color and blends / balances it with some level of ego, to create a consciousness. To attempt a VERY ham-handed metaphor.
in a 2-color combination, both components share equal weight; both deliver their identity with the greatest ratio of signal:noise
add a color — add noise, and water down the color duality with another layer of strengths and weaknesses, which always overlap somewhat - maybe with dissonance - but always differently between those base 2 colors
remove a color, and remove that second pole of strengths and weaknesses that the second color provided. Like removing a pole from a magnet. Those decks of course work, and can be fantastic, but they are very different.
anyway, that’s all a big wall of IMO. Please don’t let this dissuade you from playing how yo uwant to play. taht’s the best part of Magic. play whatever works for you! I’m just some boomer with a web page 🙂
