Sothera, the SupervoidSothera, the Supervoid | Art by Dominik Mayer

I'm not going to lie, that title is a little bit click bait. I apologize, in part because we're motivated to click something like this because we have a vested interest in this concept of "Hat Sets." I'm not concerned if they're bad, as much as I would like to explore it as a phenomenon, and naturally we'll have to talk about its effect on Magic: The Gathering.

I spoke with the community on Blue Sky to get a baseline of sentiment - just general community thoughts about this concept. I interviewed Jay Annelli and Henn, prominent Vorthos in the Magic community that I know. Some of their expert opinions on this are basis for some perspectives, but understand these are my own sublimations.

Definition of a "Hat Set"

I'm sure when I mention "Hat Sets," certain sets pop into your head. Probably Murders At Karlov Manor, Outlaws of Thunder Junction, and/or Aetherdrift. Some players might include things like Arabian Nights, Ixalan, or Kaldheim. Does that feel weird? What about Edge of Eternities? This is part of this concept I find fascinating.

What is the definition of a Hat Set? From what I understand there's some contention about the origins and explanation for this social phenomenon. Most would agree a set is a Hat Set because it diverges from the typical, well developed original Magic story both aesthetically and lore-wise. I think most would agree with this sentiment because it's a conglomeration from sentiments online, and it's fairly broad.

Origins

Where does this term "Hat Set" come from? Is it new? Jay Annelli mentioned the term comes from the trope "Planet of Hats." According to TV Tropes a Planet of Hats is "a planet whose inhabitants all share a single defining characteristic. Everybody is a robot, or a gangster, or a Proud Warrior Race Guy, or an over-the-top actor, or has the same name, or wears a silly hat."

Validity of the Term

Jay Annelli, Henn, and Mark Rosewater, seem to push back on this kind of term mostly because the term doesn't point out something significant. Mark Rosewater notably pushed back in the following statement:

"Do you feel that way about all of Star Wars and Star Trek? Hoth is “the ice planet” and not a diverse ecosystem of which we’ve seen the cold part.

When your IP has a lot of worlds, it requires having a singular identifying quality so you can tell them apart. We don’t want to say we’re going to plane X and the audience has no idea what to expect.

Also, having a singular identifying quality doesn’t make it inherently two-dimensional. Countries on Earth have identities yet are not two-dimensional."

I mostly agree here. The points expressed don't really explain the phenomenon. Not to undermine what Rosewater is saying here, but just because the term has become pejorative, it still attempts to name a phenomenon the community thinks is happening.

It might not still be defined by the origins of the word, but it has evolved to hold fairly specific meaning, at least in so far as we've explored in this article. The initial definition doesn't completely encapsulate what the community seems to think - at least not how their opinions about this seem to manifest.

The Metamorphosis of Hat Sets

The reason I say the initial definition doesn't seem to add up is because of which sets are Hat Sets. Or more insidiously, which ones remain Hat Sets. The most notable Hat Sets are Murders At Karlov Manor (MKM), Outlaws of Thunder Junction (OTJ), and Aetherdrift (DFT). A lesser mentioned set to fall in this category is Duskmourn (DSK).

These sets make some sense to be Hat Sets, at least by the initial definition. As Annelli pointed out, "Thunder Junction didn't have a Planewalker Guide or extra material explaining more about how the world became what it is." It seems to have less material lore wise. The other thing is that these sets have modern aesthetics like sneakers and TVs in DSK and cowboy hats in OTJ.

Wait. There's a problem here, then, with Aetherdrift. It takes place in a typical Magic plane and has the aesthetics of previous set's plane Avishkar. It has additional lore information related to the plane. The aesthetics are consistent with that plane. Unless I'm missing something here, Aetherdrift shouldn't be on the list. Except the fact that it meets the Planet of Hats trope: It's a racing set; everyone is a racer.

Then which is it? Is the term for Hat Set still holding on to the developed meaning or its initial meaning? There are other elements at play here. I'll eventually talk about whether or not this concept is harmful to the game of Magic, but for now let's leave this point dangling.

The Weird Thing With Bloomburrow and Edge of Eternities

There's something else interesting happening with Bloomburrow (BLB). This set is fairytale aesthetics: It's light, cute, adolescent. Even the conflicts seem PG. This is very different from the mostly serious, sharp, bleak aesthetic of Magic.

Maybe I'm quibbling here. The set is very fantasy inspired if not cute washed. Maybe this isn't enough of a divergence for dissenters to talk about.

But what about Edge of Eternities (EOE)? One of the things that drew me to writing this article now was the general acceptance and success of EOE. Even the most hateful and frustrated players sing EOE's praise. I was floored by this. Aesthetically, it's so divergent from typical Magic. It's a space set, a Sci-Fi set. It has some of the most seriously well developed lore writing in a long time, though. Tons of information about the "plane."

Is there something protecting EOE? No one named EOE as a hat set anywhere. It has lore, but it doesn't meet the aesthetic. If this is okay and BLB is okay, surely the fact that DFT has a single unifying theme is okay? Yet it's cited as one of the biggest offenders for being a Hat Set.

Time Does Tell

The second, though more important, thing that drew me to writing about this topic was the fact that this term didn't just appear with the "Hat Set Period." Between 2024-2025 - which includes MKM, Fallout, OTJ, Modern Horizons 3, Assassin's Creed, BLB, DSK, Foundations, Innistrad Remastered, and DFT - sit the most commonly named Hat Sets. At least, that's when I first heard this term.

Annelli mentioned, "Magic has worked to make each plane unique for 20 years, and the whole hats thing has been applied that whole time." This surprised me. Even amongst the community criticisms about the term Hat Set, a lot of the old sets aren't considered Hat Sets. A lot of sets we've come to think of as the aesthetic of Magic now, since the dawn of this game, had at some point been thought of as a Hat Set.

Henn mentioned "I mean like Innistrad is a Hat Set. It's every gothic horror trope in a trench coat. Kaldheim and Theros are Hat Sets. They're referential to real world mythologies. Strixhaven was a Hat Set for wizard school." And he's so right. This concept of "aesthetic" of Magic is fairly flimsy.

That's just with in-universe sets. Don't get me started about how this doesn't make sense when talking about UB as well.

Do Hat Sets Exist and Does it Matter?

We have to accept that there isn't a clear definition for a Hat Set. It's not aesthetics, because EOE isn't a Hat Set; not in lore information being necessary because DFT is considered a Hat Set; and not a combination of the two because old sets aren't considered Hat Sets anymore, but once were.

The term seems to function as a placeholder for those not comfortable with things they enjoy changing. When Magic stretches the boundaries of the game, if it goes in the direction a player likes, then it's an Edge of Eternities and is lauded as a perfect set. But if it goes against the direction a player likes then it's a Hat Set.

I don't say this as a criticism. Players should feel empowered by hating a set. They're allowed to have opinions and justify them by the consensus of that outcry. But the term basically falls apart as Rosewater, Annelli, and Henn stated. It doesn't describe something universally - as universally as any word does. It brings up a sentiment, but not universally beyond discontent.

We have to talk about UB and Hat Sets together in this. Both of these kinds of sets are just sets that the community are commonly disappointed about for lots of different reasons. That might be more relevant. People simply don't like Aetherdrift - and in a lot of ways UB, but not because it's not "aesthetically similar to Magic aesthetic."

Is This Harmful to Magic?

We have to ask ourselves if these UB and Hat Sets are harmful to the game. That's a whole other article, but I'll touch on a few points - metrics specifically. When talking about what is good for Magic we have to understand there are lots of factors. Wizards of the Coast (WOTC) has to juggle what's profitable, enjoyable, and consistent.

I'd love to live in a world where art has nothing to do with capitalism, but alas. We have to factor in their metrics into what we think is harmful to the game.

Obviously stretching boundaries is profitable. Final Fantasy, a UB IP, and Edge of Eternities, a sci-fi set divergent of the typical Magic aesthetic and story, are proof of this. I've seen fans online talking about the attention to detail and inside references in every set. Success of these sets have little to do with how much effort WOTC puts into their sets. They're not lazy, but more... ambitious.

However they try to listen. People didn't like the racing set or the cowboy set. They like Ravnica. They like Jace - at least now. It's hard to please everyone's shifting moods, but WOTC attempts to be loyal to the people who play this game and have tried to pivot as needed.

I'm not sure in the grand scheme of things if WOTC is making mistakes here, but I do think they're trying to make everyone happy when they decide things. It's profitable to keep us happy.

Conclusion

Hat Sets aren't accurate and effective terminology for the phenomenon we experience when a set doesn't meet our expectations for what a Magic set ought to look, feel, or read like. That doesn't mean it's necessarily harmful, but it can be frustrating not to get what we want. But like I constantly say: Just because your siblings are getting love from your parents, doesn't mean they won't eventually show you love and make time for you. We can coexist.

Just because some sets appeal to you and others don't doesn't mean the game is taking a turn for the worse.

Either way, give me your takes on Blue Sky. I'm @Strixhavendropout.

Read More: