Fblthp, the LostFblthp, the Lost | Art by Marija Tiurina

I was watching the beginning of Joey Schultz's video "These Decks Are Awesome and I'm Kinda Mad About It" and something struck me. He said: "Whenever something gets mega popular, sometimes it gets treated like — I don't know — the Pumpkin Spice of the Commander world, and we'll get accused of being more basic than a Plains."

I'm often scrolling on EDHREC to see how popular my commander choices are. I didn't think this was because of this Pumpkin Spice effect. I thought I was just curious about what directions other players take my commander or how many people know the good word. But some part of me thinks I might subconsciously care.

The Pumpkin Spice Deck

Let's unpack this first. There are decks we see at a large number in our community. It's your Y'shtola, Night's BlessedY'shtola, Night's Blesseds, The Ur-DragonThe Ur-Dragons, and Edgar MarkovEdgar Markovs. These seem to be the target of some initial resistance, the culprit when it comes to something unworthy as a commander. I was surprised in reading some of these things online that I had this resistance, too. Unconscious bias. I do notice a flutter in my heart when I think about some of my most powerful and fun decks not being on EDHREC's top 100 commanders of the last two years.

It matters to me a little. I wonder why, though. Is it right to feel this superiority for choosing a less popular commander? To discern this, I started looking into Pumpkin Spice Lattes as well, the idea of the "Basic™" person. I found an article by Charlie Brown called "Is Judging Pumpkin Spice Lattes Really a Judgement Of the Women Who Drink Them?" and she said, "I also didn’t want to be considered that girl — the one who falls for Fall. The one who, as soon as the weather turns, pulls out the chunky knits and knee-high boots, and carries a [Pumpkin Spice Latte] like it’s a status symbol." And she attributes this kind of opinion to an internalized bias around womanhood, girliness.

I don't think anyone likes to believe they're basic, obvious, predictable, but is it actually bad? In this case, Y'shtola might not necessarily be considered to be a "girly" deck, like perhaps Ms. BumbleflowerMs. Bumbleflower or Rin and Seri, InseparableRin and Seri, Inseparable, but maybe there is an inherit bias about the kinds of people who play them. There is nothing inherently wrong with a deck that is "girly" or "stereotypically femme-coded." But thinking these things are bad because they are are perceived that way is problematic.

What is it we think about players that pick these Pumpkin Spice decks? Is it problematic to think these things, whatever they are? To pick this apart, we must first uncover what it means to be a good Commander player. What are the characterizations these choices in commander do to discredit them?

The Perfect Commander Player, Presumptuously

Commander players are often complimented on their ability to win, their knowledge of the rules, their efficiency in building, their good-natured winning and losing, knowledge of the history and lore of the game, and some other it-factor. Tall order, right? No one Commander player is all of these things, but most players pride themselves on being some of these things. However, if you're not knowledgeable about the rules, you're an inefficient builder, bad-natured about winning or losing, and are clueless about the history and lore of the game, you're a bad player, right? Let's consider these things individually.

Rules Lawyer

Does playing Y'shtola or Ur-Dragon mean you're not knowledgeable about the rules? Perhaps. I'm unsure if there are any interesting and/or nuanced rulings on the cards typically played in these decks. However, where I often find the skill of a player's knowledge in rules is when decks intermix. A simple strategy from the player doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of understanding in another complex strategy that they might be up against. Preferring a simple and direct strategy and understanding a complex one can be true at the same time.

I have friends who play very simple strategies and help me parse my own more complex ones all the time. However I think there might be a bias about this amongst the community. There might be an association between preferring a simple strategy with an inability to manage or understand a complex one. I think this is a mistake, an implicit bias against a preference for simplicity.

Efficiency Builders

Does building Edgar MarkovEdgar Markov or Atraxa, Praetors' VoiceAtraxa, Praetors' Voice make you a less efficient builder? Maybe. Markov decks are extremely efficient. Eminence and proliferate make it hard to avoid that. A lot of the commanders in the top 10 on EDHREC are very efficient. Perhaps the criticism here is that they're so inherently efficient that it doesn't take a genius builder to make it so. Maybe it's a bit easy to make them efficient whether the builder has the skill necessary or if the commander allows for potentially large mistakes in building.

I think this might be a mistake in logic, however. Two Edgar MarkovEdgar Markov decks can have various levels of efficiency. A player who has optimized their deck to the nth degree will often outclass someone who let the commander do the heavy lifting. So, perhaps the commander's ability matters little in indicating an effective builder. We're looking at power and building incorrectly. Powerful decks aren't necessarily efficiently built. Playing something strong and common doesn't change the builder's ability to optimize. Optimizing a less known deck like Puppet Master, String PullerPuppet Master, String Puller would flex the same muscles as with Atraxa.

Nature in The Game

Does building Kaalia of the VastKaalia of the Vast or Krenko, Mob BossKrenko, Mob Boss make you less good-natured about winning and losing? Perhaps. We've all certainly been up against these decks and experienced some very unpleasant personalities. Maybe they scoop at instant speed to mess with someone else's game plan, spite destroy permanents, or just yell at other players. We've all experienced this at some point, but I've also played against Jennifer WaltersJennifer Walters and Slimefoot and SqueeSlimefoot and Squee players that were also sore winners and losers.

I think the misconception is that there is a link between higher emotional intelligence with the choice in one's commander. There is another bias here: basic-ness equates to poor emotional regulation. I find anyone playing anything can have poor emotional regulation. Even considering if it's more common with these kinds of commanders is hard to believe. New players tend to build the top 100 commanders and they're a far more emotionally diverse group of players than older, more enfranchised players — at least in my experience. And the community has increased in emotional intelligence in the last ten years.

Lore and History

Is there any link between being unknowledgeable about Magic history or lore and being a Pumpkin Spice builder? Probably not. What attracts players to the game are various things. I've met a lot of players who build Bracket 1 decks, revolving them around lore, Magic gameplay history, or mechanical aspects of the game. These decks are often the farthest from basic deck building as possible, but they sometimes run a Vivi OrnitierVivi Ornitier or Sauron, the Dark LordSauron, the Dark Lord as the commander.

I think the thought here is players that build the popular commanders are less invested players, people not wrapped up in Magic long enough to get invested in the story or the competitive history. I think this is a misstep in thinking, though. There are plenty of enfranchised players who know nothing outside of Commander, competitive and lore alike. Some players have been playing for eight-plus years and do not know about these things. I've been consistently playing Commander since 2016 and I only started reading the lore last year. I know next to nothing about competitive play history aside from what I've seen on a Rhystic Studies video in the last year. It doesn't make them or me less invested.

I know tons of players who are new who love the lore. I also know older players who play things like Teval, the Balanced ScaleTeval, the Balanced Scale and love the lore too.

Winners

Lastly, is there a relationship between winning and Pumpkin Spice decks? We all know that these decks win all the time. It might be why they're so popular. Most players are drawn like moths to the flame of winning. Power floats to the top of what is appealing to play. This is often seen as a problem with them though. Even though winning should be good, they're seen as big stupid idiot decks that anyone can win with, but is the commander all that matters in this? I think it's not the whole story.

Winning in Commander has so much RNG. Seat order, turn order, and match ups play a big role in who wins and loses. Any of these things can mess up a Pumpkin Spice deck, or juice it. No-name decks can win, punching way above their spot on EDHREC too though. A lot of the meta cEDH decks aren't Pumpkin Spice decks at all. Vivi is in the top 10, so Pumpkin Spice decks can often win at the highest level of play, but they're not common. Winning seems to matter beyond how popular your commander is.

Should We Build Pumpkin Spice Commanders?

Yes! Why not? Ultimately, I find that every trait of a good Commander player can exist in a player even when they run the Pumpkin Spice Lattes of Commander. If you can be the perfect player and play something basic, why not? If you like it, enjoy it. It doesn't make you a detestable person even though some people might think it does. That's just what I think, though. I'm just @strixhavendropout on everything.