On the starting life total in magic (and the meaning of life?)
General forum
Posted on Nov. 8, 2017, 7:52 p.m. by cgomes
This is a question for the MtG historians and theoreticians out there: What's the rationale for a starting life of 20 and not, say, 15 or 25? Why is it exactly 20?
I know this is not true in some variants (e.g., EDH) but I'm talking about the more traditional formats (standard, modern, legacy, vintage).
Mr Garfield certainly had something in mind when he said that 20 would be the starting life points. As a mathematician, I wonder if he chose it for a property of that particular number (it's a semiperfect number, for example).
If you know of any sort of material on this topic, please feel free to mention it here. Thanks!
But why is it exactly 20 life points? I mean, it could be 21 or 19 then... but it's 20.
It's likely (speculation) that in the early days of development, Richard Garfield and friends tested this aspect of the game by simply playing many games with different starting life points. There's nothing wrong with that and I'd love to get confirmation that that's what really happened (e.g., a talk in which Richard talks about this). But then if that's how we ended up with 20, then several new questions arise when you consider the development of the game over its nearly 25 years of existence because, as you know, the game changed a lot over the years: there are new formats, there are thousands of new cards, there are new archetypes, people came up with new ways of thinking about the game (strategies), there's now the Internet, metagame, netdecking, and so on. And then you think, well, if 20 was something that was established during Alpha/Beta days, why it should still be a valid starting life for contemporary magic?
I understand that R&D does take that into consideration when they come up with new sets and what not. Let's say, the basic rules remain and new development adjusts itself to the basic 20-starting-life rule. This might be the case in Standard, where you have a fairly small card pool, but I doubt this would apply to eternal formats, as this would require R&D to keep eternal formats into consideration since Alpha/Beta, and that's obviously not the case. However, such an issue and its implications are a topic for another thread. Here, I just curious about the rationale for the starting life total of 20.
November 8, 2017 9:28 p.m.
Game_of_Cones says... #4
This is probably waaaay too simplistic, but here goes:
One word: Icosahedron!
November 8, 2017 9:30 p.m.
cgomes,
I have no idea if it's actually true, but I asked the same question when I first started (way back in Revised) and was told it was so folks could use D20s as spin-down counters.
November 8, 2017 9:36 p.m.
I should have refreshed before posting ... HorseFist, I think you've got it!
November 8, 2017 9:37 p.m.
Does it really boil down to a D20? Lol. I refuse to believe it but damn, that's one hella good explanation.
Do you guys have a source for that? Such as a talk or document Richard or WotC staff wrote. That would be much appreciated.
November 8, 2017 9:53 p.m.
Game_of_Cones says... #8
I just always assumed it was just a functional transfer of game piece from D&D over to magic - It was already there so why not use it in a different way?
November 8, 2017 10 p.m.
SteelSentry says... #10
It was probably the d20 thing - the game's original design was a game that could be played during downtime at conventions. There's a short article about how Magic was originally pitched on the Mothership:
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/beginning-2009-06-01
(embedding links isn't working for me)
November 8, 2017 10:20 p.m.
@HorseFist and clayperce: Thanks for pointing out the d20 hypothesis. Right now, I think it's the best one we have but I couldn't find any documentation online to support it, so I've decided to send a couple of messages to wotc staff. Let's wait and see if someone there can clarify this issue.
@SteelSentry: Thanks for sharing the article. Just finished reading and even though it doesn't tell much about the origin story of the 20, it does provide some context. "From that fateful meeting in August of 1991 it took almost exactly two years to get Magic on the market. That time was filled with enough stories of hard work, fun, pain, euphoria, and desperation to fill a novel." And we will never know what actually happened...
@AMJacker: Unfortunately, I don't have a twitter account but I sent the question to Mark's blogatog. If you don't mind, could you tweet him as well and then post the answer here? That would be much appreciated!
--//--
The investigation continues. Any further information about the origin story of the starting life of 20 will be posted here. If you have additional information/theories, feel free to post as well.
November 9, 2017 7:08 a.m.
Catalog9000: I understand your points and agree with most of them but that's not what this thread is about. We are trying to find out why the starting life came to be exactly 20 and not anything else. The best hypothesis we have so far is the d20 hypothesis. If you know of any documentation to back it up (or even better, reject it), feel free to post it here.
As a side note, I stumbled upon some old blog posts from wotcs founder and employees that talk about the first years of the cia and a little bit of mtg as well. I thought you guys mind find it interesting, so I'll share it here:
http://www.peteradkison.com/blog-entry-1-preamble/
http://oathsandfates.blogspot.com.br/2011/07/wizards-peter-on-cusp-part-three.html
http://oathsandfates.blogspot.com.br/2013/04/wizards-moment-pregnant-with-future.html
No word from Maro or other WotC employee yet...
November 9, 2017 1:23 p.m.
Catalog9000,
I think your math is spot-on for why Garfield picked a life total around 20. But I personally believe he did in fact see everyone playing D&D with D20s at the time, and that's why he landed on exactly 20.
That's pure speculation of course, until we hear something definitive. But it's solid speculation, imo.
November 9, 2017 2:26 p.m.
Is that the "20 feels right" hypothesis? lol
Listen, we can't talk about what feels right or wrong about the number because our context is too different. We've been playing magic for a long time and naturally, anything other than 20 "feels wrong" for us. How about blackjack? It's 21 and it doesn't feel particularly wrong or cumbersome. In addition, there's always been non-creature sources of damage in magic (mana burn, sorceries, instants, etc.). Did Richard and friends take that into consideration as well? That sounds like a shit ton of work to just come up with a number.
What if you reverse the order though? Say, first they came up with the number (20) and then design was adjusted to it (damage dealt by cards, cmcs, and so on). Now, that sounds a lot easier but it raises the question of where did 20 come from? "d20!" It's the early 90s and even though Richard was responsible for most of the game, he wasn't responsible for all of it (the game was in development for roughly 2 years). Even if Richard didn't play RPG at the time, I'm certain that many of the other individuals in the development group played RPGs and d20s have been part of it for as long as I can remember (D&D has been around for a long time, for example, and even became a WotC product later on). I want to believe that there's a fancy (mathy?) explanation behind 20 but everything seems to point to a coincidence (the d20 just happened to be around and was useful in keeping track of life total).
Have you guys ever read "SO DO YOU WEAR A CAPE?: The unofficial story of Magic: The Gathering"? It seems the author interviewed Richard and some of the WotC founders and talked about the origin of mtg. I'd love to know if there's anything there about the 20. THink will have to send a message to the author as well...
November 9, 2017 4:37 p.m.
Brief updates:
No confirmation from WotC yet
I found a book called "A Collector's History of Magic the Gathering" (Ryan Rooks, 2014) that details the history of MtG. It looks like both Richard Garfield and Peter Adkinson had played D&D many times before the creation of MtG. It says that Richard started playing in 1977 and Peter between 78 and 79. I don't have access to the whole book (not available online) and I'm missing parts of the pre-magic history that might clarify this. Will contact the author and see what can be done.
- The d20 hypothesis keeps getting stronger but it's possible that it might be another piece that was transferred. I'm not that into RPGs, so I'm not sure if there are other things that could have been used that relates to the number 20.
November 10, 2017 8:31 a.m.
Update
I sent a message to Titus Chalk, the author of the book SO DO YOU WEAR A CAPE?: The unofficial story of Magic: The Gathering, asking about the origin story of the starting life total of 20. He interviewed Richard Garfield for his book, so I figured he might be able to help us. Here's what he told me (he authorized me to post his message verbatim):
"Hi, thanks for getting in touch. As far I as I can remember from talking to Richard Garfield, many of those facets of the game (five colours, 20 life etc) just felt "right". I think your theory of D&D culture is probably possible - perhaps even just on a sub-conscious level. Remember, by the time Garfield designed Magic, he had already designed dozens of games, even if they weren't published. One thing his friends from the time say, is that he really just understood games on an instinctive level - so I imagine the 20 life came from a sub-conscious place, perhaps inspired by years of playing D&D. I know that's not a concrete answer, but I hope it helps!"
I'm not sure how much this helps us but for one, it makes the "20 feels right" hypothesis more credible, or as Titus mentioned, it could be a mixture of the two we have because they are not mutually exclusive.
Still no answers from WotC.
Thesage79 says... #2
This is all just guesswork, but it's probably so that games will take a reasonable amount of effort to win while not taking too long. With 15 life, games could reliably end a turn or two quicker. (How many times have we all been saved by 1 point of life?) With 25 life, games would likewise be a bit longer.
Just conjecture though.
November 8, 2017 8:22 p.m.