Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Why do Pokémon players shun creativity?

B

Box of Fail

New Member
Why do people look down on others for trying to run without Claydol for the sake of running without Claydol, for example, and other staples? Or for deliberately avoiding the BDIF? I don't understand why it's better to run a tested Archetype deck with many wins under its belt than one that gives you satisfaction or pride to play.

Deliberately running a subpar deck/ list just for the sake of being unique should be encouraged. I do it all the time. I remember that 'Claydol sucks' thread and how everyone tore the OP apart for being original. The fact is, a lot of popular decks are not that fun to play. It's more fun being weird than having an optimal deck IMO. I know a few people with my mindset, but some people are so competitive that the idea of not running key cards for the sake of it seems idiotic to them.

Let me ask you, do YOU think being creative is important or just a stupid way to make yourself lose?
 
It's always good to be creative, but people play to win, and sometimes claydol is the difference between that.
 
I think if you play rogue or a creative version of an archetype you deserve kudos. I refuse to embrace Luxchomp because everyone calls it BDIF. In fact, the fact that so many people call it BDIF repels me from going anywhere near it; however, I will build a solid list to stomp all over with other decks.

It's cool if you win a big tournament with an archetype, but tbh doesn't seem like a major accomplishment to me. I didn't feel super excited about my win solely for that fact - I had a lot of fun playing games with great opponents/judges, and Wobbuffet is king, but winning with style is the only way to do it. I'll make sure that in future tournaments I'll play something more creative.

Everyone's in it for different reasons, and for some people it's more about the in-game choices, so if that's what drives them, more power to them.
 
I enjoy being creative, and don't think deck builders should be ripped a new one for using sub-par cards in their fun decks. On the other hand, some cards are just the absolute best they are at what they do; I can't imagine a deck that I wouldn't play Claydol or, at least, Uxie in for card drawing and Azelf for prize manipulation.

Playing a rogue deck or net deck w/ different tech is one thing, but purposefully leaving out deck staples just to be different is something else... if someone really doesn't want to run Claydol, that's fine, but they shouldn't post a decklist and expect people not to tell them to add it in... and they certainly shouldn't try to act superior for being "different" or "rogue" just because they take a deck and make it worse by replacing good cards with bad ones. That's not creative, it's just stupid.
 
Because I play to win? Cool if your out-of-the-box thing does well, tbh though it's scarcely worth the time investment to refine make optimal a rogue that can perform well in the meta. I can quickly find a high caliber list for whatever archetype I think is the play. It takes about as much time to make a really solid list of said archetype just off the top of my head. All I need to do is go fish a little to get a feel for it and play a couple games to check for design flaws/playstyle preference. In exchange, rather than spending all Friday night testing, I can do other things and sleep well, as realistically only TOM, luck, and my own misplays will influence my performance beyond that point.

tl;dr - it's not worth the time investment to go heavily out of the box for tournaments despite the possible greater reward, personally. It's also not worth playing a bad list just to play a bad list and see how well you do, because I like winning/making returns on my investment.
 
If you don't run an archetype cos you can have more fun with another deck, that's cool.

If you don't run archetypes cos you have an original competitive deck, then congrats . . . that's a real achievement.

If you don't run staples just so you can strike some kind of superior pose about your so-called orginality, then that's a bit silly really.

After all, there's nothing orginal whatsoever about playing without Claydol and Uxie and using a bunch of subpar cards . . . you see Juniors do it at league every week.
 
What's original is WINNING without Claydol and Uxie and using a bunch of subpar cards. The reason people like myself try to take bad decks to tournaments is because it feels like an accomplishment, whereas winning Nats with Luxchomp doesn't. Obviously I didn't skip out on Unown Gs at Nats because I felt they would make my deck lose. On the contrary, I play bad decks because they're bad, and someone somewhere goes "this guy's crazy".


Doesn't it sound good to win with an outdated, inferior deck? Methinks so.
 
Well, yeah . . . sure if the format and the other players aren't enough of a challenge then running a crappy deck could make things interesting.

I'm just not good enough to get away with that I suppose.
 
I like running decks that aren't mainstream, however, I still play the staples that make a deck run. Not playing Claydol is like not playing Bebe's Search or whatever - it just makes the deck ineffective.

But using an interesting new strategy is something really funny, and you can still win with it, because most opponents never played against your deck. I played Wailord/Feraligatr and Magnezone at Battle Roads, and both of them did quite well. Last year I got 2nd at Nationals with my Blaziken build. But sometimes, non-meta decks just have too many disadvantages. That's why I played decks like Flygon and Plox at States.
 
I usually try to make sure a deck I'm playing has 3 things -

I have the cards to run it ( obviously.)

I have fun playing it.

I think I have a chance to win a tournament with it.

I don't see how just because a deck becomes an archtype, that suddenly makes it boring to play with. I love playing Luxchomp, just as much as through Cities and then onto States. I don't like going into games and thinking that I have no chance to win it, thats not fun to me. I don't really wanna travel to tournaments to get that feeling, it's the same when you've been donked.

If you want to be original and purposely make yourself worse thats up to you, but most people won't agree with that. Why can't you develop a new rogue that is fun to play, wins tournaments and is original? I'd bet people didn't think Gyarados was unoriginal for running Claydol and Uxie. People respect that kind of creativity - I'm trying rogues all the time and I bet others do. Alot of the time, they're just not good enough.

Also why just target Uxie and Claydol? Do your decks run cards Like Bebes, Roseannes, Rare Candy, BTS, Collector, DCE etc? They're just as popular. Does running those make you unoriginal?
 
I run Claydol and all those cards. I have no problem with that. What I DO object to is the criticism given to the OP of the "I HATE CLAYDOL" thread.

Knowing that many other people are playing the same deck makes it boring for me. I played Luxchomp for BRs before it boomed. Then I quit because it became popular. I played Cursegar with Mime, Shedinja, and stuff, and then I tried it with Tomb. It became popular. So I quit. I don't even play Shuppet anymore now that it's so popular.

Oh, and BTW, Gyarados runs 1 Uxie and no Claydol most of the time....
 
Box of Fail said:
I run Claydol and all those cards. I have no problem with that. What I DO object to is the criticism given to the OP of the "I HATE CLAYDOL" thread.

Oh, and BTW, Gyarados runs 1 Uxie and no Claydol most of the time....
Click to expand...

I think everyone loves seeing a rogue deck do well, no doubt about that. But to do that, you need to run cards like Claydol and Uxie. Its nothing about being unoriginal, its just making sure the actual original strategy of the deck functions and shows how original it can be. Sometimes being original can just be a secret tech or a good metagame call which isn't high in the Tier Lists.

I meant when Fabien ran it at Worlds, at the point when it was considered rogue. The majority of people wanted him to win it and considered it original, despite the Claydol and Uxie.
 
baby mario: To whom were you speaking? And what about?

nnaann: I do run Claydol and Uxie. All I am saying is that not using Claydol and Uxie to make a statement should not draw tons of criticism.
 
Actually I think that the opposite of the OP is true. Too many players refuse to play archetypes "because they are cheap" or similar feelings. At the same time many players seem to want to be "that guy" who created a new archetype. Everyone seems to love rogue players "because they play rogue." IMHO Archetypes are built into the game by design. Playing them makes sense if you want to win. Playing rogue can make plenty of sense too for many reasons.

I personally found the following article helpful, along with part 2 & 3.

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html

This pretty much explains the "hate" from many good players. It's not that good players don't appricate a good rogue.
 
I agree that you don't need Claydol and Uxie to make an effective deck.

I remember in september a very effective deck was posted on the gym:

1x Sabeleye SF
4x Special Dark
55x Basic Dark

You know why it was effctive, because it was called:
i_want_me_some_uxies.dec

Effective or what?!?!??!
 
"I don't run Claydol and Uxie and I'm 2-0, how original!!!"

Honestly, no one will really care enough if you win without Uxie/Claydol; not saying it is a bad thing. I play luxchomp and half the time I never use Uxie, and I don't run Claydol. Does that make me original? I play the BDIF but didn't use the two best draw cards we have to win my game....so that must mean I am different, correct?
 
Box of Fail said:
baby mario: To whom were you speaking? And what about?

nnaann: I do run Claydol and Uxie. All I am saying is that not using Claydol and Uxie to make a statement should not draw tons of criticism.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't if you don't have the cards, or if the deck isn't hindered by not playing them. It isn't a good idea if you have the cards and want to be original by not playing them. Cards like Claydol and Uxie aren't part of a strategy usually, just to make sure the actual deck works.
 
The I HATE CLAYDOL thread . . . wasn't that months ago?

Anyways, there's nothing wrong with not playing Claydol if

1. Your deck works well enough without it
2. You don't have any

But not running it because you want to pose as being superior to people who slavishly use it is just rubbish really. Like nnaan said, you better ditch Roseanne, Bebe, Lux Ball etc as well otherwise you are just being inconsistent.

The irony is that Claydol actually makes MORE rogue decks possible. Having a solid draw Engine in the format means that decks with multiple Stage 2 lines, loads of tech, and low Energy counts can function. Without Claydol decks will become more boring as people will have to build for consistency.
 
I think we just need to remember that not everyone plays the game for the same reasons - not even those players who go to competative tournaments. I say "go to competative tournaments" instead of "play competatively" because it shifts the focus to being at the tournament rather than playing to win.

I know some players find it very hard to imagine why anyone would not want to play the best deck so they have the best chance to win. Other players can't imagine why someone would want to just play arch-types. But to me, it doesn't really matter why I play, or how I play (as long as it's legal).

It would be nice if players would simply respect the choices that others make, even if they can't understand or agree with them. Respect is often shown just in the way idea is worded. "I think the deck will set-up and run faster with Claydol" is more effective than "This deck can't compete without Claydol" or "This deck has to have Claydol".

I'm only using Claydol as an example but the idea is to be more specific about how a card does or does not help a deck, or how one deck plays against another deck.

At the end of the day, I don't think anyone should be looking down on anyone else - it's just a game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top