u/KAM_520

Wake up bb new EDH player type system just dropped. Tag yourselves! Note this is half-serious and for entertainment purposes only. Also this is an AI-free zone; I did this on the elliptical at the gym this morning lol, some people just write like this sorry about it

Ten Types of Commander Players:

1. Sodium Free Spike ("SFS")
2. Alien Brewmaster
3. Stockholm Syndrome Spike ("SSS")
4. Melvorthos Hipster
5. Dino Brat
6. Typal Goober
7. EDH All-Star
8. Yu-Gi-Oh Dropout

These are in no particular order.

1. Sodium Free Spike: This is the player whose mental orientation to the game revolves around winning entirely, but whose table presence is rather benign. They are often friendly and low-key. Will [[Opposition Agent]] your land fetch but will explain to you why they are doing it in a nice way, and they will nod with approval if you remove it. Should probably avoid the more casual tables because their matter-of-fact, unapologetic play-to-win energy is completely at odds with the more outspokenly opinionated casual player types. The natural villain of casual EDH, this type of player prioritizes optimization, staples, and WR% over other factors.

Spikiness: Very high

Saltiness: Very low

Creativity: Low (generally favors proven cards/decks and is extremely practical)

Politics: Moderate

Example: Logan Doan from CriticalEDH

Natural Enemy: Politics Pusher (shifts the axis away from optimized individual game actions), Dino Brat (complains about the SFS instead of upping their game), Melvorthos Hipster (SFS would run 98 staples and 2 basics if it increased their WR by 0.7%)

2. Alien Brewmaster: This strange bird is somehow both a Spike player and a hipster. This is the person getting yelled at on r/competitiveedh sub for having unconventional ideas. Orientation revolves around winning, but they are big believers in brewer’s advantage and want to explore new ideas. They tend to believe that other players haven’t “solved” existing deck archetypes so they will spend a lot of time on Scryfall looking for the next big innovation. They have no problem cutting staples if they believe it will improve the deck’s win percentage. Note that this player is discovery-oriented, not self-expression oriented; their goal isn't to be different for its own sake but rather to improve their decks’ power by finding cards and strategies others haven't thought of.

Spikiness: Very High

Saltiness: Low

Creativity: High

Politics: Varies

Example: Sam Black

Natural Enemy: Sodium-Free Spike (the gatekeepers of their deck concepts and the champions of what is already proven to work)

3. Politics Pusher, aka the Yapper, aka 4-D Chess Player: This is the big talker. Generally this is a Spike player who relies on table politics to overcome any shortcomings in their deck lists or cards in hand. They will sandbag and try to get other players to use interaction before they ever use theirs. They want to make deals whenever they can. Generally extroverted with strong personalities. Note that this player isn’t defined by opinions about deck power level or individual card choices; their chatter is focused on in-game actions. Compare the Politics Pusher’s “That Esper Sentinel is a problem, does anyone have removal?” to the Melvorthos Hipster’s groans about a boring staple or the Dino Brat’s allegations that Esper Sentinel should be a game changer (unless they have one). This is the most “e-sports” player type.

Spikiness: Very High

Saltiness: Moderate

Creativity: Varies

Politics: Very High

Example: Blackneto from Tabletop Jocks, Evan Pierce aka FreedomWaffle

Natural Enemy: Yu-Gi-Oh Dropout (4-D chess player can’t work with the player who entirely ignores the social layer of the game), Dino Brat (too stubborn, doesn’t “get it”), Taboo Troll (doesn't want to play ball, enjoys flouting the social atmosphere), Alien Brewmaster (doesn't know how to politic as well because they don't understand what the Brewmaster is doing)

4. Stockholm Syndrome Spike: This is the casualpilled Spike player whose ambitions are somewhat disguised. Their mental orientation to the game revolves around winning but they have succumbed to “spirit of casual” ideas in spite of their natural inclinations. They will make token concessions like cutting Sol Ring to score political points or if they feel like their pod is demanding this, but they will often still have decks that are slightly more powerful than what their pod is playing. This is the “my deck is a 6.99/10” min maxer. This player might make low-key comments about other decks’ card choices or power level but they will virtually never get upset about these things (their inner Spike “gets it”). This player is generally very low salt unless it’s a Rule 0 issue, in which case they are probably the saltiest player of any type; this player relies heavily on "rules" to manage the power level of their own decks and avoid red flags, so they'll get very angry at anyone who decides to ignore these things.

Spikiness: High but somewhat suppressed; more expressed in gameplay than deck building

Saltiness: Low unless Rule 0 is violated, in which case extremely high

Creativity: Low to moderate

Politics: At least moderate

Example: Josh Lee Kwai from Game Knights

Natural Enemy: Taboo Troll (Rule 0 nemesis, tends to dismiss the TT’s generally true claims “My deck isn't that strong” as bad faith excuses), Melvorthos Hipster (doesn’t respect what the SSS is doing), EDH All-Star (clash over the purpose of the social contract, SSS leans on social contract as rules defining “fair game” while All-Star is more focused on vibes and the fun of the table; SSS is much more comfortable playing disagreeable strategies), Themselves (if only they could play what they wanted to)

5. Melvorthos Hipster: This is a Johnny deck artist whose brewing style is all about thematic consistency or mechanical coherence or both. This may be the most opinionated player type when it comes to critiquing other players’ decks and gameplay. Not only do decks need to be fundamentally casual, they ought to be original, down to the last card choice. This is the player type most likely to criticize what you’re doing for reasons that have nothing to do with gameplay. r/edhbrews is filled with this mindset. "Unique", "weird", and "unpopular" cards/decks are their catnip. This player secretly loves EDHREC.

Spikiness: Low

Saltiness: High to Very High

Creativity: Very High

Politics: Varies

Example: Tomer Abramovici from Commander Clash

Natural Enemy: Everyone except other players of the same type (snobby)

6. Dino Brat: This is one of the more common player types to encounter in a casual pod. This is the core “Do the Thing” Timmy player who is trying to have fun, not win as their primary objective—but their fun is highly correlated with the success of their deck. Not as pedantic about card choices as the Melvorthos Hipster, but if this player isn’t enjoying the game you will definitely hear about it. I affectionately call them Dino Brats not because they have to play dinosaur decks but because dinosaur players are a very easy-to-recognize example of this type of player. This player is essentially “the meta” in B2-3. This player might try to politic a lot but they encounter mixed success because this player (not always) is the most prone to tilt over threat assessment and get mad at other players for doing things that they themselves do, like not paying the 1 and using interaction on key pieces, etc.

Spikiness: Moderate

Saltiness: Very High

Creativity: Low to Moderate

Politics: Varies

Example: Jimmy Wong from Game Knights

Natural Enemy: Taboo Troll (these players' primary goal is to stop Dino Brats from doing the thing), Sodium-Free Spike (cannot grok the Dino Brat’s entitled attitude)

7. Typal Goober: More innocent and less opinionated than the Dino Brat or Melvorthos Hipster, this player enjoys playing silly piles of typal cards, or similarly thematic decks. Bonus points for offbeat typal decks and oddball cards within more popular archetypes. Cards make it into their decks based on UwU and OH COOL at least as often as practical reasons. This player typically relies on the Dino Brats or Melvorthos Hipsters to police the pod’s power level. Newer players start here not infrequently. Will often only be openly salty if you interact with their commander: this is the type of player who likes boardwipes because they affect everyone but feels like pinpoint interaction is mean. Note that this player does not necessarily always play typal decks but that vibe is noticeable in what they do play.

Spikiness: Very low

Saltiness: Low

Creativity: At least moderate

Politics: Low plus

Example: Olivia Gobert-Hicks from Commander at Home

Natural Enemy: Stockholm Syndrome Spike (stealthily effective at stopping the Goober without red flags), Sodium-Free Spike (tragically prevents them from ever winning), Taboo Troll (no fun)

8. EDH All-Star: This is the social chameleon commander player whose deck building, card choices, and game play are optimized for agreement with the EDH community’s preferences. This player could look like any other type if they’re in a pod that prioritizes a specific style. Like the Stockholm Syndrome Spike, this player emphasizes the social contract, but for different reasons; the All-Star’s primary goal is for the game to end with everyone in a good mood (who won is secondary) while the SSS is trying to win in a manner other players will recognize as fair. This is the Goldilocks-oriented player whose decks aim to be strong but not too strong and different but not dysfunctional, while adhering to the social contract 100%. If this player’s vibe is that other players won’t enjoy a card or strategy, they will not play it, end of discussion. This player is the reason airlines have to tell people to put on their own oxygen masks first.

Spikiness: Moderate

Saltiness: Optimized (this player will try to be exactly as salty or not salty as the pervading social expectations dictate)

Creativity: Moderate

Politics: Moderate

Example: Rachel Weeks from Game Knights

Natural Enemy: Taboo Troll (values the exact opposite things; the All-Star is the champion of community standards and the TT wants to break them), Yu-Gi-Oh Dropout (antisocial), Sodium-Free Spike (views them as selfish and inconsiderate pubstompers)

9. Yu-Gi-Oh Dropout: Solitaire player. May misrepresent the power level of their decks just to find pods. This is the player resolving triggers for 15 minutes at the Bracket 2 table and then passing the turn. Defined by social cluelessness; somewhat more prone to pubstomping than other types.

Spikiness: Moderate plus

Saltiness: Moderate plus

Creativity: Moderate

Politics: Very low

Example: We all know this type of player.

Natural Enemy: Everyone (self-explanatory)

10. Taboo Troll, aka Stax Johnny, aka Salt Farmer: This type of player enjoys taboo strategies and disrupting opponents. This is the player who has 20 counterspells in their bracket 2 deck, or who wants to play MLD in bracket 3 to fight landfall even though everyone knows that MLD is bad against landfall—which just makes them want to do it even more. This is one of the most misunderstood player types; they’re Johnnies, not Spikes, and their goal is to see if they can make the thing work not to win at all costs per se. I see this type of player all the time in bracket 4 games. They are usually running a weird commander. “Oops all extra turns”, counterspell tribal, and heavy stax are expected archetypes from them. Would be interested in Lantern Control if only they could figure out how to do it.

Spikiness: Moderate at best

Saltiness: Low (they are the salt)

Creativity: High

Politics: Low

Example: Crim from Commander Clash (he’s a mild case of this—the heavy griefers don’t really make content)

Natural Enemy: Dino Brat (hates what the TT is doing and is outspoken and entitled about it), EDH All-Star (polar opposites), Stockholm Syndrome Spike (Rule 0 hardliners)

I want to engage the “few colors vs a lot of colors” discourse in a long-form post, as well as share some thoughts about how people here are assigning colors. Note that this is my opinion. I can’t prove any of this in a laboratory. As someone who strives to make his thinking as coherent and reasonable as possible, however, I wanted to share my viewpoint.

This subreddit is about color philosophy. I want to begin by describing *what kind of philosophy* color philosophy is.

The color philosophies are *philosophies of value*. Red’s color philosophy, for example, isn’t about metaphysics. It isn’t epistemology. (At least, not directly. We could make some extrapolations.) Rather, a color philosophy is a philosophy about what is valuable and important. More specifically, it is a philosophy about what is more valuable and important than other things—in other words, prioritization.

Someone might think, “Hey, Black is amoral and denies the importance of values. How is Black’s color philosophy about value?”

Black’s color philosophy holds that the self and the self’s own interests are more important than other considerations. Black says: my advancement, autonomy, power, survival, and self-interest matter more than other things.

White says the opposite. White says that the welfare and interests of everyone collectively matter more than other things.

Furthermore, philosophies of value like these come into play when values are in conflict. In Black’s case, for example, when self-interest and interests of others conflict—when Black and others cannot each have what they want—then Black’s philosophy says, “Me getting what I want is more important than other people’s interests.” In other words, color philosophies have maximum import when interests conflict and trade-offs have to happen.

What I see on this subreddit is, people often ignore that color philosophies are about value and priorities. They are not about traits.

That distinction matters enormously because a lot of color assignments on this subreddit operate almost entirely descriptively.

“This character has strong emotions, therefore they must have Red.”

“This character wants to learn something or is intelligent, therefore they must have Blue.”

“This character is self-interested, therefore they’re Black.”

But that is not actually how the philosophies work.

Everyone has emotions. Everyone uses reason. Everyone has self-interest. Everyone cares about other people sometimes. Everyone accepts some things and changes others.

The question is not whether these elements exist in a person. The question is which principles govern their decision-making when those principles conflict.

If caring about your own well-being was all it took to be Black, then everyone would be Black. That’s not sufficient. For a character to be Black, they must care about their own well-being enough that they’re prioritizing it over other things and regularly willing to act to the detriment and harm of others to further themselves. Because that is their philosophy of value.

In the same vein, a truly Red character is not simply emotional. A truly Red character prioritizes emotion over competing considerations. It is not enough to have emotions, even strong emotions: For a character to be Red, they must give their emotions precedence in situations where other considerations would lead them in a different direction. *They must care about their strong emotions enough that they’re prioritizing their emotions over other things when conflicts arise and values conflict*.

And this is why I think fewer-color interpretations are often more coherent than maximalist ones. Because philosophies of value are inherently about prioritizing one set of considerations at the expense of other considerations.

It is difficult to prioritize multiple things to the exclusion of other things simultaneously. Not impossible, but difficult.

Because if everything is prioritized, nothing is prioritized. The entire meaning of value systems emerges through trade-offs. A philosophy only becomes visible when it overrides competing considerations. Otherwise, the color pie collapses into a vague personality inventory where every psychologically normal person becomes five-color by default.

For a character to have many colors, they must be quite inconsistent as a personality. To be Red, they must prioritize emotions over other factors. To be Blue, they must prioritize intellectual deliberation over other factors. To be both, they must prioritize both, and these are often in direct conflict. As we all know, Blue and Red are enemy colors. Once we add one or more other colors, the prioritization process becomes very complex, if not unmanageable.

This is why WUBRG characters in MTG are often represented as impersonal forces and entities. WUBRG and colorless are similar in this regard. They seemingly prioritize everything and nothing.[[Jodah, Grand Unifier]] is a personification of legendary status, and [[The Ur-Dragon]], all of dragonkind. They represent an abstraction or category that spans all colors, prioritizing none yet representing something that is contained within all of them. What they aren’t is an average Joe who has ethics, intelligence, self-interest, emotions, and instincts, all five.

In a similar vein, if we look at color philosophies as philosophies of value that prioritize things over other things, to get to even three colors, we’re looking at quite a complex character, because at least two of the colors individually will oppose each other. To prioritize things that are in conflict simultaneously is difficult to do and usually requires cross-sectional thinking like Rosewater has elaborated for the Ravnica guilds. It might sound hard to prioritize others and the self at the same time, so Orzhov represents prioritization of a sub-group aligned with the self over others. We would have to see these cross-sections at work once we get to even two opposing colors, to say nothing of three or more colors.

Hopefully yall have gotten the idea I intended to share at this point. I hope you enjoyed reading this if you did. I know this is a controversial topic so if you want to argue with me in the comments feel free to do so.