<p style="text-align: right;"><em><span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Threaten" href="#" target="_blank">Threaten</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> | Art by <a href="https://peteventers.com/portfolio/illustration.html">Pete Venters</a></em></p>
<p>I've made a career here on EDHREC by writing about social elements of Commander. With titles like <a href="https://edhrec.com/articles/the-etiquette-of-removal-in-commander">The Etiquette of Removal</a>, <a href="https://edhrec.com/articles/when-should-you-concede-in-commander">When Should You Concede in Commander?</a> , and <a href="https://edhrec.com/articles/lets-talk-about-the-magic-final-fantasy-prices">Let's Talk About the Magic<em> Final Fantasy</em> Prices,</a> I've always been fascinated with various aspects of why players get upset. One little concern has cropped up here and there in my articles but I've never dedicated an entire article to it: the feelings surrounding threat assessment.</p>
<h2>What is Threat Assessment?</h2>
<p>Mark Rosewater, the head designer for <em>Magic: The Gathering</em>, said in his <a href="https://open.spotify.com/episode/6Fs2jlYmiF50bVEIQgw4VP">Drive to Work Podcast #24</a>, "the person....adapt[ing] their skill set to the situation is very skill-testing and adds a lot of strategic complexity to a game...there’s three kinds of complexity we talk about: comprehension complexity, which is 'When I read the card, can I understand it?' Do I know what it does? There’s board complexity, which is 'Can I understand looking at the board, what is capable of happening?' And then there’s strategic complexity. 'Do I understand the big picture, what is going on?' Not what can happen, but what strategically matters."</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Imaginary Threats"></div></div>
<p>I would say that threat assessment is the ability to combine all the types of complexities that Rosewater talks about, but there is another element. There is a wild card of social deduction into effective decision making. What do I mean? Roman Milan breaks down some of the important specifics of threat assessment in his article <a href="https://edhrec.com/articles/how-to-be-new-at-threat-assessment-in-commander">How To Be New at Threat Assessment in Commander</a>. He says something that I think is particularly interesting here, "But there's another layer to threat assessment, and that's the social deduction aspect. A lot of the things we do at a Commander table, like spreading around damage, not going all out with early attacks, these are things we do in an attempt to label ourselves as not the threat."</p>
<p>Threat assessment seems simple, right? Understand your cards and others, how it fits into the overall board state, how to pick out when is the right time to strike, while factoring in how social contract affects our decision making and you'll be golden? Right?</p>
<p>I googled "threat assessment" a little while ago for this section of the article and there were a lot of similar iterations of the same interpretations. Why, then, do we all struggle with this same problem? We don't <em>always</em> have good threat assessment even when we usually do. What is our barrier?</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Thrash // Threat"></div></div>
<h2>The Strategic Barrier to Threat Assessment</h2>
<p>Rosewater said in that same podcast that, "part of... keep[ing] interest in the game, part of that...add[ing] a lot of strategic depth, right... If Thing A is always good...that’s not as good as 'Well, Thing A is good at a certain time, and you have to know when and where to use A.' Later on, maybe A’s not so good...and that adds a lot of strategic depth...what makes a good strategic gameplay is the ability to adapt on the fly."</p>
<p>The <em>design</em> of Magic was conceived with the intention that this element of the game — the ability to parse threatening or powerful moves — would be difficult. It was designed to make the value of a card matter conditionally on the other cards in hand and on board. We play with concealed information in <em>Magic</em>. We see a threat and hopefully, upon seeing it, it isn't too late. In Commander, the knowledge of the meta gives us an idea of what might be coming, when something should be stopped, and how quickly.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Threaten"></div></div>
<p>A <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Rhystic Study" href="#" target="_blank">Rhystic Study</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> on turn two or three is extremely powerful. It slows down the table's ability to progress efficiently unless they want to fuel the fire that is the owner of the Rhystic. Do we <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Time Walk" href="#" target="_blank">Time Walk</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> ourselves, using mana inefficiently until we can remove it? It's a double-edged sword. Slowing yourself down could be your death as well. But if that player played their whole hand and needs the card advantage, that might change which option makes more sense. That's also without factoring the strategy and intentions of your own deck though.</p>
<p>All of these elements play a role in the strategic depth of interaction. Being able to balance all of these things, what we know, what is concealed, what is experienced, how it fits into the puzzle of the current board state, is all such a tremendous undertaking. I am frequently on a Twitch stream called <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/benjithebrewer/videos">The Breakdown</a>. <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/benjithebrewer.bsky.social">Benjithebrewer</a> hosts a Monday night Commander gameplay show where he and his guests slow down the game and talk through threat assessment. The intention is to be accurate, without revealing hidden information, trying to avoid gaslighting each other or gaining an advantage in the discussion of threat.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Threats Around Every Corner"></div></div>
<p>In this game, I am frequently surprised by what players find scary. Hidden information plays a big role in the game swinging in someone else's favor. Well-timed board wipes or optimal sequencing on a turn after removal has been blown, tells us a lot about where the game is going. Benji does something interesting at the end of The Breakdown that I find very effective in building the threat assessment muscle: asking what was the play that ended the game. As Benji often reminds, it isn't always the card that was played right before a win, but the card that turned the game down the road that led to an inevitable victory for whoever wins. It retrospectively shows us how the cascading of decisions in a game leads to a win.</p>
<p>All of this is so say that threat assessment is complex. It is a muscle you have to train with good habits and experience. It's looking back on your games and understanding how your actions contributed to a win. But before we can get to the real reason I wrote this article, we have to talk about my specialty, social elements of threat assessment.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Threats Undetected"></div></div>
<h2>The Social Barrier to Threat Assessment</h2>
<p>In one of my <a href="https://edhrec.com/articles/the-etiquette-of-removal-in-commander">previous article</a>s I wrote, "I fly into a rage when I see <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Exquisite Blood" href="#" target="_blank">Exquisite Blood</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> because it is a very political card. I love a little politics in my games, like a <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Tempt with Discovery" href="#" target="_blank">Tempt with Discovery</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span>, but the reason I can't handle the politics of <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Exquisite Blood" href="#" target="_blank">Exquisite Blood</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> is because most of my opponents don't recognize it's a political card... The easier, most relevant game action might actually be player removal. No player, no <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Exquisite Blood" href="#" target="_blank">Exquisite Blood</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span>, no player with the combined life of your opponents after you eliminate them."</p>
<p>In this article I talk at length about the social contract associated with removal and interaction. Sometimes doing something strategically advantageous breaks a social expectation, upsets the social contract. Removing a commander over and over is a taboo. Playing <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Counterspell" href="#" target="_blank">Counterspell</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> typal is taboo. <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Tergrid, God of Fright" href="#" target="_blank">Tergrid, God of Fright</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> is taboo. Playing a reasonable <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Farewell" href="#" target="_blank">Farewell</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> is even taboo. Sometimes these strategies are actually beneficial but they also bring this anxiety and anger from your podmates.</p>
<p>There is sometimes a force of social pressure to play suboptimally, to distance ourselves from accurate threat assessment. I think this is why there are varying degrees of success with accurately threat assessing. Some players are banking on the sympathy of social structure to keep their <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Fire Lord Azula" href="#" target="_blank">Fire Lord Azula</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> from getting popped for the third time. That messes up how clearly people see threats.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Ultimecia, Temporal Threat"></div></div>
<h2>Do We Hate Other Players or Poor Threat Assessment</h2>
<p>I've been tossing around a concept in my mind: a lot of salt in a game of Commander comes from poor threat assessment. Hear me out. Why does everyone hate Farewell? It's a card that sets everyone back to zero except the lands deck. Everyone windmill slams all modes with Farewell. We hate how long it makes the game. Is it actually strategically advantageous to do this...ever?</p>
<p>It costs <span class="mana-container-container"><span class="mana-container"><i class="ms ms-cost ms-4" style="margin-left: inherit !important;"></i></span><span class="mana-container"><i class="ms ms-cost ms-w" style="margin-left: inherit !important;"></i></span><span class="mana-container"><i class="ms ms-cost ms-w" style="margin-left: inherit !important;"></i></span></span> so it'll likely take your whole turn. So everyone gets a turn rebuilding before you. It's not an advantageous thing to do. Farewell is actually an excellent and powerful card. It just isn't always utilized the way it should. It's not an emergency reset button, hoping you can get back to where you were faster than everyone else. It's efficient targeted removal of four very powerful archetypes of play. Good threat assessment here, complexity of strategy, is utilizing that removal to your advantage, pushing yourself ahead.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Farewell"></div></div>
<p>I think players hate <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Cyclonic Rift" href="#" target="_blank">Cyclonic Rift</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span>, but it isn't an unofficially banned card in local metas the way Farewell is. I think this is because Cyclonic Rift is a <em>good</em> thing to do for your game plan, gets you closer to winning.</p>
<p>In a similar vein, I think players also get more frustrated when something of theirs gets removed when that piece wasn't the most important thing to remove. Most players — not all because I know players aren't a monolith — are more understanding and reasonable when their <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Rhystic Study" href="#" target="_blank">Rhystic Study</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> or <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Smothering Tithe" href="#" target="_blank">Smothering Tithe</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> is removed. Especially when it was doing actual work for them. Accurate threat assessment here leads to less salt.</p>
<p>On another note, players get frustrated when they've been beyond stopped, knocked back to the stone age, mainly because the advantageous thing to do with your removal is simply stopping a player, making space for yourself, not making sure they never have a chance to win again. Making a player unable to recover by using all your interaction to dismantle their board is a bad use of resources. The next player in turn order with a win in-hand goes unstopped because everyone overcommitted to stopping the first player. This is a lack of foresight. This is an inability to strategize around your own possibility of win. It's putting your blinders up and hyper focusing down one threat without the thought of the next. I think this inability to threat assess, this lack of board complexity, is what is actually frustrating to players.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Fire Lord Azula"></div></div>
<p>Lastly, I think players get frustrated at the difference in social expectations of threat assessment. One player is saying to remove the <span class="edhrecp__link"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Kaalia of the Vast" href="#" target="_blank">Kaalia of the Vast</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> for the fourth time, while the Kaalia player is saying it's miserable playing against a deck that uses all these removal spells. It's hard to navigate that impartially. What do you do? Whatever you choose, someone is going to feel like the choice is inappropriate. The accurate threat assessment is to run as many removal spells as you need and removing whatever gets in your way, but if I'm being honest I'd certainly consider you an unfun person to play with if you remove a commander four times on your own.</p>
<p>Ultimately, my point is that some of the reasons we think we hate certain interactions and situations in <em>Magic</em> are because of how difficult it is to reconcile threat assessment in ourselves. Threat assessment isn't as easy as it seems to parse strategically, let alone emotionally. I think we should still attempt to train this muscle, assess our boards and potentialities before acting, but those are just my thoughts. What are yours? I'm <a href="https://linktr.ee/strixhavendropout">@strixhavendropout</a> on everything.</p>


Was Bad Threat Assessment The Reason You Hated That Game?

<p style="text-align: right;"><em><span class="edhrecp__link only-front"><a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Birgi, God of Storytelling" href="#" target="_blank">Birgi, God of Storytelling</a><span class="edhrecp__link-image"></span></span> | Art by <a href="https://www.ericdeschamps.com/magic">Eric Deschamps</a></em></p>
<p>Eleven years ago, on the <a href="https://lrcast.com/">Limited Resources</a> (LR) subreddit, a user made a post titled, "<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/lrcast/comments/31rnqg/6_things_you_can_do_to_get_more_women_into_magic/">6 things you can do to get more women into Magic: follow up to the gender survey</a>." It had a link to a ChannelFireball (CFB) article, now defunct.</p>
<p>The post had 70 upvotes and 155 comments. I didn't get to read the article — the thing I was looking for — but I did find the comments really fascinating. One post in particular, actually.</p>
<p>Someone who has since deleted their account started with, "I guess as one of the 3% of women who listen to LR, I'll put my two cents worth in. I've only been playing<em> Magic</em> for about five months now, so I may not have had the time to fully experience how women are treated in the <em>Magic</em> community (so far it's been pretty positive though)."</p>
<p>I was surprised by the end of her post. I'd started playing <em>Magic</em> around the same time, and my sentiment was rather the opposite.</p>
<p>My experience as a femme-presenting person, and back then fully identifying as a woman, was awful. I kept reading though, and I got to the gold of this post. "I think the worst bit of sexism I've heard at my shop is a guy being poked fun at for a girl (me) knowing more about a certain card than him, which was in good fun with everyone laughing.</p>
<p>That experience is extremely mild compared to what a lot of women face in geek spaces, so I feel I am fortunate in having a safe, welcoming space to play <em>Magic</em>."</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Alesha, Who Smiles at Death"></div></div>
<p>I don't mean to undermine this poster's sentiments here, or her positivity, but that very comment is the core of the problem with getting femme-presenting people into the <em>Magic</em> space.</p>
<p>Even the comment she downplays as mild is part of the overall problem with creating a "welcoming space to play <em>Magic</em>" for femmes.</p>
<p>To her credit, I think her point is that her experience wasn't upsetting enough to deter her, that these comments weren't a big deal. It is. Let's talk about it.</p>
<h2>The Problem of Visibility</h2>
<p>This woman who posted on Reddit did say something else, something important:</p>
<p><em>"I think right now the biggest issue Magic is facing in getting more women into the game is just the tradition of it being male dominated. When you go to websites like Star City Games or ChannelFireball, there's mostly male authors there.</em></p>
<p><em>When you tune into the Pro Tour, you're greeted with mostly male players and male commentators. When you go to your local card shop, probably 75-100% of the people there will be male.</em></p>
<p><em>It's rather intimidating for a woman to get into what is seen from the outside as a very male game." </em></p>
<p>This is a hugely important point, even now.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Zimone, Quandrix Prodigy"></div></div>
<p>This has changed some in the last ten years, but I think this point is still worth talking about. <a href="https://articles.starcitygames.com/articles/women-in-magic-the-gathering/">Meghan Wolff posted about why women don't play in 2015</a> too, "This lack of female visibility at competitive events is indicative of a larger trend in <em>Magic</em>; there is not enough <em>Magic</em> content written, recorded, created, or produced by women. The <em>Magic</em> community as a whole is very engaged in content, from reading articles to watching videos, streams, and event coverage to listening to podcasts.</p>
<p>For as much quality content as there is available to players at any point in their careers, little of it is created by women."</p>
<p>We see <em>Magic</em> presented, deconstructed, and uplifted predominantly by men. It's gotten better, but is it in proportion to the women who play? It got me wondering how many women were playing <em>Magic</em> back in 2015.</p>
<p>Luckily, <a href="https://www.tumblr.com/markrosewater/122446948628/38">Mark Rosewater posted on Tumblr</a> roughly around that same time. His post opens with "38%."</p>
<p>It was the number of self-identified women who played <em>Magic</em> in 2015. That number is surprising — weird even — especially thinking about Pro Tour demographics.</p>
<p>He knew this, and said: "The number of female players is up (and I believe everyone in this debate acknowledges this), yet is not represented at equal numbers in organized play. Why is this? Please share your experiences."</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Kaya, Orzhov Usurper"></div></div>
<p>I have a theory as to why this is. <a href="https://www.tcgplayer.com/content/article/5-Steps-to-Break-Down-Gender-Barriers-in-MTG/eca1e978-3bc9-4fae-a1a6-855e1b96dda5/?srsltid=AfmBOoqrJsH0R_iSU0Nn1fj7J_azb7hMiFV6icLpLpQEuJo01IWNwP2j">Haiyue Yu spoke on women's attendance at the Pro Tour in 2025</a> saying, "The lack of consistent PT-level players who aren't men isn't an unfortunate accident, and we're not inherently less interested in gaming or competition." She went on to say, "A large part of this requires working on our listening and empathy skills — and they are skills that can be practiced and strengthened, just like your mulligan[ing] or technical play skills." This brings us to our next hurdle in getting women into the game: creating welcoming spaces.</p>
<h2>Welcoming Spaces for Everyone</h2>
<p>Before we take a step into discussions about sexism and inclusivity, we have to understand something about patriarchy, male-dominated spaces, and their effect on men and women alike.</p>
<p>I find it deeply upsetting how little we talk about the motivations and pressures in male-dominated spaces in conversations about making safe spaces.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Kaalia of the Vast"></div></div>
<h3>Asking for Help</h3>
<p><a href="https://www.nextgenmen.ca/blog/why-patriarchy-hurts-men-too">How Patriarchy Hurts Men Too</a> is an article written by Veronika Ilich in 2021. In her article she said, "Patriarchal ideas ... encourages risk-taking behavior and discourages help-seeking or health-enhancing behavior." In spaces dominated by men, the culture of not asking for help, not "needing" help is dominant.</p>
<p><a href="https://girlypopmagic.com/">GirlyPopMagic</a> is <span style="font-weight: 400;">a </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">501(c)(3) nonprofit based in North Carolina that is committed to fostering inclusivity for women and gender-expansive players in <em>Magic: The Gathering</em>. They stated that one of</span> the barriers to inclusivity in the <em>Magic</em> space is that "it’s not clear how to get started — the store doesn’t clearly showcase how to sign up for events or how to view/access product."</p>
<p>Men are imposing an expectation on men and women equally. Men are conditioned to see help as a woman-need, a negative thing. "Everyone has to just figure it out, and if you don't, then you're girly." This way of thinking doesn't consider a feminist perspective that both men and women deserve space to ask questions and ask for help.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Felothar, Dawn of the Abzan"></div></div>
<p>Katherine Basch speaks on this more in, "<a href="https://medium.com/@kbasch/how-patriarchy-also-hurts-men-and-how-that-hurts-us-all-e793172f21ca">How Patriarchy Hurts Men (And How That Hurts Us All)</a>." She said, "Homophobia doesn’t just target queer men. It’s also used as a powerful tool to enforce traditional masculinity — to make sure all men stay within the narrow boundaries of what is considered 'acceptable male behavior.'”</p>
<p>We can apply this to sexism as well. Anything seen as feminine isn't traditionally masculine and in this system is seen as wrong, bad. It's why that comment from that Redditor at the beginning of this article is actually so insidious.</p>
<p>A phrase like "a guy being poked fun at for a girl (me) knowing more about a certain card than him, which was in good fun, with everyone laughing" encourages men to reject femininity and exclude other men socially through humor for their inferiority to a woman. It is really about separating themselves from women, which is harmful for women feeling safely included.</p>
<h3>Women Are Competitors, Too</h3>
<p>Basch goes on in her article to say, "From an early age, many men are taught to view each other...as rivals — competing for success, status, attention, power, and even love or sex... there’s a constant underlying pressure to prove you’re better, stronger, richer, more desirable, 'more dominant.'" This is considered a male trait, competition, perceived as distinctly different from what a woman is capable of.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Helga, Skittish Seer"></div></div>
<p>It creates a 'Girlfriendification,' as Wolff put it. "[It is] the common misperception that women at competitive events are there because they’re dating a competitive player rather than because they’re a serious competitor themselves." This goes back to Yu's point as to why a lack of women in the Pro Tour isn't an unfortunate accident. Wolff puts it perfectly, "We’re often comfortable with characterizing women as...walking messes as opposed to committed, motivated, and goal-oriented individuals."</p>
<p>It's why women don't feel comfortable in these competitive spaces, but comfortable with kitchen table games. It's why a woman might fill out a poll saying she plays <em>Magic</em> but doesn't show up to Pro Tour events.</p>
<p>There is no interrogation about your ability or intentions, no scrutiny of your body or your investment. Embedded thinking and structures like this make spaces hostile to women.</p>
<h3>Women's Appearances</h3>
<p>Basch also points to the expectation of men to prioritize, "Strength without weakness. Constant sexual desire," because of the internal structure of the patriarchy. The constant sexual desire mentioned above often presents itself as sexual harassment. Wolff talks about the kind of pressure that sexualization has on women, the fixation on the appearances of women.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Saheeli, Radiant Creator"></div></div>
<p>"It takes a lot of strength and determination to play in an event where your height, weight, makeup, or clothing choices might come under unwelcome scrutiny."</p>
<p>GirlyPopMagic points out that the conversation isn't always about overt sexual harassment: "<span style="font-weight: 400;">Obvious sexual harassment may be the easiest thing to identify but flagging crude/crass jokes, micro-aggressions, overly sexual game accessories...matters too." </span>Deconstructing how our biases and oppressions work, allows men to unpack how they treat each other, giving real understanding on how to treat women in all spaces.</p>
<h2>How to Get More Women Into <em>Magic</em></h2>
<p>All of my solutions for overcoming the barrier and hurdles for women joining <em>Magic</em> fall on authority. The highest authority on <em>Magic</em> is Wizards of the Coast (WotC).</p>
<h3>Hierarchy of Power</h3>
<p>LGSs look to WotC for guidance. They rely on each other for their livelihood. "<span style="font-weight: 400;">We really need more folks (particularly men) to step up and say something when other players act out, either to the offending player themselves or to a store/venue employee," according to GirlyPopMagic. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">How do we encourage these kinds of behaviors or enforce them if LGSs don't hold the offending party accountable? And how do we hold LGSs accountable if not through their relationship to WotC?</span></p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Huatli, Dinosaur Knight"></div></div>
<p>If WPN stores could be reported for their lack of follow-through with creating safe and inclusive spaces for everyone, then WotC could take recourse.</p>
<p>If a store doesn't care about the safety of their players, then they don't get product early, can't run prereleases, can't hold other official events. Authority is something WotC can use to enforce positive behavior.</p>
<p>People who feel discrimination can have recourse. Yu even simply asked: "What kind of gathering are you cultivating? Are you taking feedback from marginalized people seriously or just concerned about ticking a box? How are your staff trained? Do you make use of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) consultants? Are the people you're hiring going to inspire confidence in your commitment to inclusion?" All good questions and expectations WotC should be expecting of their WPN stores.</p>
<p>We can't always expect people to be motivated to be better on their own. We can, like Yu, ask that when someone "tells you about a behavior that had a negative effect on them, try to believe them and not immediately try to gauge whether you would have been affected negatively or whether you think it's an issue."</p>
<p>What do we do when players just decide they don't need to? WotC needs to bring consequences.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Teysa Karlov"></div></div>
<h3>Representation Matters</h3>
<p>WotC can prioritize women in their advertisement and creator outreach. We've seen a lot of this recently. Ashlizzle, Scrybabies, and even Sylvie Sherman's visibility are perfect examples of the growing trend on WotC's part to make <em>Magic</em> spaces feel inhabited by women.</p>
<p>We need to push for more of that. There can never be too much. There is still disparity in inclusivity in their creator program on the axis of gender, sexuality, and race. WotC can continue to grow there.</p>
<h3>The Big One: Catering</h3>
<p>WotC needs to cater their product to women. This has been a controversial topic as of late and I'd like to speak on it carefully. Sometime last year, Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks said, "[D]on't be surprised if you see us poking into Romantasy, don't be surprised if you see us looking at K-Pop bands, nothing is off the table." <a href="https://icv2.com/articles/news/view/60122/hasbro-looking-romantasy-k-pop-magic-sets-expand-female-players">Cocks said that</a> when talking about "possible licenses with appeal to female consumers, which currently make up about 30% of the player base, according to Wizards of the Coast estimates."</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Winota, Joiner of Forces"></div></div>
<p>The most common response to this from women in the <em>Magic</em> space is essentially that "women like dragons and fantasy the way it's been depicted in <em>Magic </em>already. Not all women are the same. We don't all love Romantasy or K-Pop Demon Hunters."</p>
<p>There is a nugget of good in this sentiment. Yes, not all women like Romantasy, but when we talk about marketing, we're talking about common trends with certain demographics. It is stereotypical, based on data. It's the common denominators.</p>
<p>The women who like the current aesthetic aren't the target audience. You all already like the content when it is stereotypically catered to men. If we want to cater to stereotypical women who aren't already playing, we need to look at other things.</p>
<p>These are K-Pop and Romantasy girlies. It doesn't feel good to summarize women into Romantasy and K-Pop but <em>Bloomburrow</em>, a very feminine-coded set, was really popular amongst women, bringing more into the game.</p>
<p>But somewhere embedded in this conversation about women not being the same, there is a sentiment that WotC shouldn't try to appeal to stereotypical women.</p>
<p>Why not? There is an insidious dynamic here. Unconsciously we're doing precisely the thing that oppresses women. We're saying that these typically feminine things aren't valuable, that these K-Pop girlies aren't worthy of WotC's attention.</p>
<p>We shouldn't have to like what is catered to men to enjoy this game. If we want games to become safer for us, we need the space to be built with us in mind. That means sets that are feminine, even though stereotypically.</p>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Narset, Enlightened Exile"></div></div>
<p>The organization, GirlyPopMagic, took a similar stance. "Approachable sets using cute design or related IP can help get more women into the game. <em>Bloomburrow</em> and <em>Lorwyn Eclipsed</em> were a huge success within our community and added attractive play elements."</p>
<p>Yes, there are stereotypes at play here in the conversation. Similar to the way that men tease each other for their proximity to femininity, they're talking about stereotypes. We need these stereotypes to become acceptable to be. Girls should be allowed to be as girly as they want and play this game safely. WotC needs to cater to stereotypical girls. They need this game, too.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>I want to leave you with a quote from Haiyue Yu: "We're at a time of flux in <em>Magic</em>, with our game going through huge changes in focus, aesthetic and audience. I think we've all been somewhat taken aback by the pace of change, and many of us are mourning aspects that we've lost. But let us also see this time as an opportunity to drive the community and the game forward in the best way possible, and leave gender exclusion in the past."</p>
<p>Femme-presenting people want to play <em>Magic</em>. Let us. Make it safe to do. Make it fun to do.</p>


social contract

Was Bad Threat Assessment The Reason You Hated That Game?

How Are We Going to Get More Women Into Magic?