Magic: The Gathering card back courtesy of Wizards of the Coast | Pokémon card back courtesy of The Pokémon Company

We all know that every TCG player will defend their passion with the utmost strength, but that doesn't mean we can't look out for some quality of life improvements we'd like to see applied to the game we love. So, today I'll be telling you about three things I think Magic: The Gathering (MTG) should learn from the Pokémon TCG (PTCG).

But, before delving into it, some disclaimers. First, I'm not advocating in favor or against any of the two games: I love them both for different reasons and I think they both are great ways to spend free time and make friends. Through the years, I've heard way too many insults being directed from one player base to another, simply on the base that "my game is better," and I've grown really tired of this narrative.

Everyone is free to enjoy the game they like and no one should think they're entitled to judge games and/or people simply because it's a hobby: you're free not to like it, you're not free to think your opinion should be everyone's.

Next, I'm not saying Magic is unplayable as it is now, nor am I trying to convince you PTCG is some sort of paradise land with no problems. The only aim of this article is to point out some aspects about which MTG could improve. They're some thoughts I've developed now that I play both games, nothing more, nothing less.

Lastly, a more technical note. PTCG's main formats are 60-cards, 1V1 and best-of-three, similar to many MTG formats, but with no sideboard. This makes game balancing and design completely different from Magic's, especially if we consider a format like Commander, which shares basically no feature with PTCG's most popular ways of playing. Still, it's possible to see some macro-features that are common to the two games and thus comparable.

With all of this out of the way, let's see three things that Magic: the Gathering could learn from the Pokémon TCG.

First: Sharing the Tools

A major difference between MTG and PTCG is that the latter doesn't have a color system like the former. If we look at the two cards above, we know that Ragavan, Nimble PilfererRagavan, Nimble Pilferer requires red mana to be cast; differently put, if we don't have a red-producing land, we won't be able to cast it. On the other hand, our friendly Charizard does require fire energies to attack, but they're not needed to play the card. This because energies are attached directly to Pokémon, but players can leave Pokémon in play with no energies attached.

To put it in Magic terms, it's as if you could play RagavanRagavan from your hand for free but, if you wanted to attack, you'd have to "assign" a MountainMountain to it.

Now, all of this might seem a simple technicality, because, who in their right mind would play Charizard with no fire energies to make it attack? Well, you'd be surprised to learn about how many Pokémon present in competitive deck lists don't ever attack, or maybe can't even do so because of how the deck is built. 

For example, these three Pokémon are all played in the same top-tier deck. Without going into the details of what they do, we can easily see that they need three different types of energy to attack, with Raging Bolt needing two different types, Latis two of the same type and Ogerpon three of the same type.

So, how can a deck support such specific requests? Well, it doesn't. In fact, only the two Pokémon on the sides are considered attackers and the energies of the deck match their role. Latias, on the other hand, is a support Pokémon only and it'll never attack during any game.

Even more so, the decks don't even run the Psychic energies it requires, so, from the moment the game starts, the pilot knows it won't ever even be in the position to attack. This card is exclusively present for its Ability (which is similar to a plansewalker's static ability, like the one Teferi, Time RavelerTeferi, Time Raveler has), nothing more.

Nonetheless, if we look at this card from a MTG perspective, it's basically colorless, because it doesn't require anything to be played. As a consequence, every deck can run it, regardless of the types and requirements of their other Pokémon. This idea is at the core of PTCG card design, and it results even more clear if we look at non-Pokémon cards.

The above are trainer cards, one Item and one Supporter. Both of them can be played in any deck and don't require anything more than what's in their text box to be played. The Ultra Ball is a very strong tutor that allows you to get any Pokémon from your deck into your hand. Professor's Research is an extremely powerful one-sided wheel effect (remember, it's free: just imagine what would happen if Wizards of the Coast printed a zero-mana Wheel of FortuneWheel of Fortune).

There are tons of Item and Supporter cards, and every deck can choose the ones that fit their playstyle best. These two are among the staples of the format, meaning that the vast majority of the decks run at least a certain number of them. Then, of course, there are more deck-specific cards that wouldn't fit within other strategies.

Still, the point is that in PTCG there is a huge pool of cards that every single deck can experiment with, trying to find the ones that fit it best. There are no color restraints and no worries about a card being sustainably castable.

So, what I'd like Magic to learn from this is that a vast, shared, plethora of options every deck could choose from would actually be positive for the game. If we think about commander, for years white has been addressed as the worst color when it comes to card draw, followed by red.

At the same time, green has access to their variants of card advantage, like Colossal MajestyColossal Majesty, while blue and black can feast on cards such as Rhystic StudyRhystic Study and NecropotenceNecropotence.

Allegedly, with time, the difference has been growing thinner and thinner, but it's still there and it's undeniable. I'm not saying there should be one universal solution, the card draw engine that makes everything else obsolete; at the same time, I also consider it limiting that, in order, to perform certain game actions efficiently, you should be forced into some specific colors.

Creating a deep pool of colorless-ish cards that reward a number of different strategies (remember, not all decks can support running four copies Professor's Research, so they rely on completely different engines!) could solve some color-innate problems and put all the decks on an equal field.

From there, true creativity could be rewarded. In other words, if you're sure you'll be able to access some card draw, ramp, and removal options, you can fully focus on the gimmick of your deck, never feeling behind simply because you didn't include green's Rampant GrowthRampant Growth, white's Wrath of GodWrath of God or red's Crackle with PowerCrackle with Power.

Second: Breaking the Bank

This point and the following one will be a bit less gameplay-focused, looking more at other aspects of the game. In particular, I'd like to address an elephant in the MTG room: the financial cost.

I'm not an economist, but I do know that I'd like as many people as possible to enjoy the game at whatever level they'd like to. As I said before, the most played PTCG formats are 1v1 and competitive, meaning that people tend to build decks whose primary goal is winning and not personal expression or preferences.

With this in mind, I was shocked when I learned that I was able to buy a fully competitive, top-tier, deck for as low as 45€ (which is slightly more than $50), with basically no cards being over the 5€ ($6) mark.

And remember, it was my first deck ever, meaning I had to buy every single card present in the decklist. At that time, the only card game I had ever played was Magic, and it's pretty easy to imagine I immediately thought about what 45€ could get me in Magic.

Needless to say, the answer is "not much."

If we're talking about competitive formats, I'm better off not even starting the topic. Modern became a $1000 format years ago, and Standard is dangerously getting closer to the same numbers or, at the very least, it's been years since it was an accessible entry point for everyone to competitive play.

I enjoy playing Pauper, the de facto budget format, but I'm realizing day after day I can play it only because I was lucky enough to pick up certain cards years ago when I first started delving into the format. In fact, many decks right now are well over the 50€ mark and prices don't show any sign of slowing down.

Of course, Commander is a whole different topic. First, the main goal isn't strictly winning, but rather having a good time with friends (usually). So, it's more than usual, if not straight-up incentivized, to play non-optimal builds.

I recently bought the cards for a Malcolm, Keen-Eyed NavigatorMalcolm, Keen-Eyed Navigator/Breeches, Brazen PlundererBreeches, Brazen Plunderer deck and, discounting some cards I already had lying around, I was able to respect the 25€ budget I had set myself. I had to change my deck list and cut some cards I would have liked to buy, but I was determined to respect the limit I had set myself, and perhaps one day I'll make the changes I first had in mind.

Yet, even if I actively worsened my own deck, I still had a blast playing it: I didn't ever care about its optimization, I've been wanting a Pirate deck for ages now and I was finally able to do so. That's all that mattered.

I'm still a bit bitter about having to cut cards from my deck solely for economic reasons. This aspect creates an artificial barrier that divides people into different levels of enjoyment of the game based on how big their wallet is. I've been positively surprised by the way in which PTCG has surpassed this obstacle, and that is, balancing prices around collecting rather than playability.

Let's look at an example.

These are three variants of my beloved Gardevoir, the namesake card of the deck I bought. The version I acquired is the first one, and it goes for less than 1€. Want to know how much the other two are? Well, the middle one sells for around 45€ and the right one's average price hovers around 85-90€. So, could I say a Gardevoir playset is worth 360€? Technically, yes; but technically it's also 3.50€, which is the amount of money I needed to get my hands on a completely functional competitive deck.

What I'm trying to say is that the PTCG environment allows everyone to get into the game, even on an extremely limited budget. Then, if you're a collector or you're ok with spending way more money for the same exact card, you can spend way more money on it. This eliminates any kind of economic obstacle from the equation, allowing players (especially younger ones) to be able to focus only on having fun and playing with the best cards available.

And I can't stress this point enough, but we're not talking about some weird rogue deck, rather, somewhat of the boogeyman of the format, a deck everyone knows they'll face sooner or later at any given event.

This is the direction I'd like to see Magic move towards: creating a glaring discrepancy between the base version of a card and the special ones. Making the standard variant easily accessible would have a double positive effect. On one hand, as I've just explained, it'd mean truly everyone could play the game, with the only limiting factor being their free time (something not even actual free cards could improve).

Then, it'd make special variants special again. In fact, lately I've been noticing myself being less and less impressed (when not actually annoyed) with alternative arts, special treatments, or extended arts. They simply don't feel like something out of the ordinary. There are so many cards receiving so many different treatments that they're expected, rather than acclaimed.

This is the case, for example, of full-art lands. I remember clearly when I bought my full art lands from original Zendikar for my Pauper deck. They felt special; it was something rare and special for a card to have that display. But then, every single set started to have their own variant of full-art lands; at first, it was fun to see what they'd come up with the next time around, but eventually it got old. As of now, I've lost any interest in this treatment.

Even worse, I'm expecting to find some sort of full-art basic in my pack, otherwise I'd be a bit disillusioned. They're not special by any means; they're required.

So, with all of this in mind, I really hope the price problem will get addressed soon. First, because I'd love to see competitive play thrive again, with people going head to head in hard fought rounds. I really hope to see any trace of economic influence being removed from organized play, leaving room only for people expressing the highest level of play and finding the correct line to best their opponent, regardless of their income.

Then, because I'd really like, one day, to open a fresh MTG pack and be surprised and amazed by the rare alternative variant of card I found inside of it. I'd really like, one day, to open a fresh MTG pack and feel like a kid once again.

Third: The Universe Within

Now, I already know this is going to be controversial, but I also think it needs to be said: lately, Magic has been losing its identity.

Before jumping to some very angry conclusions, allow me to explain myself.

First, I'm not against Universes Beyond sets, although I personally don't like them. Magic's a game for everyone's enjoyment and, statistically, a lot of people like UB sets. Even if it was only one person's favorite products, I'd be in favor of it, because everyone has to have the tools to express themselves through Magic and its cards. This reasoning especially applies to Commander, a format that thrives on personal taste, quirkiness, and overall fun.

Still, this doesn't mean I'm a fan of these products, nor that I'm looking forward to buying cards from these expansions. On one hand because I'm not really into any of the franchises MTG has collaborated with until now, on the other, because they just don't feel Magic to me.

It's pretty hard to put into words what I mean by this expression: at the end of the day, what even isn't Magic? The game covers a universe so wide it can easily include creatures from Lord of the Rings, Sonic the Hedgehog, or Spider-Man. Nonetheless, what really bugs me is that cards that don't belong to MTG's universe are glaringly different from the ones that do.

So, while in theory they can all find their place under the enormous tag of "fantasy," it's clear from the very first moment that some of them were not a product of Magic's specific universe.

But hey, that's a personal preference, this is only me, what's the deal? Well, I was pretty neutral on this topic until a few weeks ago. More precisely, the release day for Edge of Eternities. On that day, I was skimming through social media and various websites to see what people had been toying with in Standard and other formats from the new set, but all that I could find were spoilers from a newly revealed Spider-Man product. That was the last straw for me with UB.

Final Fantasy had just dropped and certain cards (I'm looking at you, Vivi OrnitierVivi Ornitier) had already taken over entire formats, which stung a bit. But now, the release of a "canon" in-universe set had deliberately been overshadowed by some generic product coming from the next crossover set.

Here is where I draw the line, here is where it becomes clear that something has shifted in product placement's mentality: "traditional" sets are nothing more than placeholders to fill the time gap between one UB and the other. And this is just sad.

Actually, this realization is at the core of this article. In that moment, I thought about the game I had picked up comparatively recently: PTCG. And I couldn't help but notice how they've been able to create an extremely strong bond between players and the characters depicted on the cards.

The same Charizard that was present in the Base set (which is PTCG's Alpha, to put it in Magic terms) in 1999 is still present in 2025 products. The effects on the cards change, but it still the same, just like all the other Pokémon. This creates a sense of affiliation with the brand: Wherever you will go, wherever you will play, Charizard will always be the same as yesterday and tomorrow.

When I decided to start playing this game, I was mainly drawn into it by Gardevoir as Pokémon, not as a card. It was present in the team I used to beat my first Pokémon Game Boy game, and I've always liked its elegant design. Alongside it, printed on other cards, there are Pokémon I know from my childhood and others I haven't ever played with, but it's so obvious that they all belong to the same universe.

And, in 15 years time, I'll still be able to recognize them, just like I can easily recognize those that came out 15 years ago.

In conclusion, what I'd like to see in Magic going forward is a return to its old focus. I'm not trying to support some delusional "golden age of Magic" that clearly never existed. Nor am I advocating for ending UB products.

I honestly think in-universe and Universes Beyond products can coexist in harmony; at the same time, I think the name and the history of the game should be respected. Magic is full of beloved places, characters, and events that people are eager to learn more about through cards. There's no need to feed on other universes, for the Blind Eternities offer everything that is needed to craft and model a deep and complex universe.

What do you think? Do you agree, or do you think there's something more Magic could learn from PTCG? Let me know in the comments below!