Necessity per Personality

"Necessity per Personality"
Duelist Ascention (Article 1)

Can you remember the last time you were thinking of the next deck you were going to build, or when you were looking at one of your buddy's decks only to find yourself wondering, "What does this thing really need?" For most players, especially myself, this is always the first and last step of deckbuilding. But, where do you draw the line? When do you decide that you have enough or you need more before actually testing the deck? The answer, for me, is simply my personality.

Now before I try to dive in to some psychologically-based discussion, let's face facts. Let's say you've made a deck. You like it. It's powerful, rarely shows any signs of weakness, and you always seem to win with it. Then your best friend has a similar deck, minus some minor variations, that yields similar results for him/her. Yet, when you look through each others decks, you are constantly critiqueing your friend's choices for certain cards while he/she does the same. "Why are you playing with this janky crap when you ought to be using ______." How many times have we all heard this?

I think back to a time when Yu-Gi-Oh! was a brand new game to me. It was a different beast that I had never tackled before, yet, the challenge of getting better and beating those that looked at me as nothing more than the average n00b was too great to pass up. It was my relationship with these very people that introduced me to the concept of "Necessity per Personality", which was in direct conflict with the cookie cutter of the old meta back then. I remember vividly, pulling a Pot of Greed from my third or fourth Tournament Pack, and immediately placing it into my deck thinking that it was going to make my things that much better. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Pot of Greed did nothing more than draw two cards that were simply blown away by any and every opponent I ever faced. Eventually, I deemed Pot of Greed to be unworthy of my time and side-decked it. Out of nowhere, my gameplay shot through the roof. Although I never won a tournament, I made it to second place several times, all the while giving the top players of my area the biggest headache. I had almost gained their respect. That is until they looked at my side deck. All at once, every player in the store was crowded around me, mocking me for having made such a stupid mistake by side-decking Pot of Greed. Needless to say, I never went back to the establishment again.

The point of digging into my past was to prove a point. Necessity per Personality dictates that I, not necessarily anyone else, do not need Pot of Greed to be competitive. My theory is that, because I'm not a Greedy or very wanting person, Pot of Greed does little for me besides getting in my way. Of course, this doesn't mean that everyone that plays with Pot of Greed is a Greedy person. It is, after all, a theory.

Now here comes the psychology part. I've theorized that many players in this game have encountered Necessity per Personality on more than one occasion. It's the reason why some choose not to use Premature Burial in a Zombie deck; the reason why some like more Trap Cards than Spell Cards; the reason why some use straight cookie cutter versus others who prefer to build on their own terms. Many people feel that Swords of Revealing Light should be played in most if not all Tier-1(1.5) deck types. I, however, refuse to play with it. Why, you ask? Because I don't need it. It doesn't fit my personality to hide behind something for a while, no matter how effective it may be.

I wonder just how many players out there are willing to try out this theory. In fact, I challenge you all as players. Make a list of cards you personally don't like or don't prefer. Create a deck that excludes those cards, and see how successful you can be. If it doesn't work, then the theory doesn't apply to you. That's right, the theory doesn't apply to everyone unfortunately. Some players simply have to depend on certain cards to get by. But for those of you that can make it work, embrace it. Take it to heart in this game and everything you do.

-bjswp56
 
You're not alone. And excellent article. I'm a little condused by:

I think back to a time when Yu-Gi-Oh! was a brand new (GAME?) to me.
But other than that, awesome. And since I like talking so much, I'll go ahead and point out some cards I don't need, or at least not in all of my decks:

Swords of Revealing Light
Call of the Haunted
Delinquent Duo (back when it wasn't banned)

I never found these to be the godly cards everyone made them out to be.

-pssvr
 
I loved some of the staples and hated them at the same time. When the second Ban-list hit American shores, I built a deck that was really similar to Soul Control before it was popular, but I didn't use Thestalos and didn't call it Soul Control. For months after that I won local tournaments with it, and it excluded:

Mirror Force
Sinister Serpent
Jinzo (Which was considered a Staple in my Meta.)
Torrential (This was actually Side decked.)
Tsukuyomi

L8r people learned how to fight my particular deck and i had to scrap it, but it definitly turned some heads. I also echo your sentament on swords. I prefer Messenger of Peace, I do run swords sometimes.
 
Well, now that Pot of Greed is banned I probably would never go back to it, even if it did come back. If I did, I would not change any of the cards in my Decks, just increase the number. People put in the cards that they know will win them games. I on the other hand respect what those cards do, but rather use different cards no one else is using. Who here uses Recycle competitively? Who uses Spell Reproduction over Magician of Faith? Frozen Soul anyone? I never even used Mirror Force, except in the video games. I always liked Negate Attack over it. If there are staples in my Deck, for example my Formula & Mineralogical Magnet Deck, I put Book of Moon in. I did not put it in because it was a staple, I put it in because I can protect my monsters from Bottomless Trap Hole with it or have my Hydrogeddon get its effect off easier. This was also the first time since that card even came out that I decided to use it. Talk about cards people hate, I never understood a lot of the past cards. Karate Man for instance, in my opinion rules now that I started using him. Rock Ogre Grotto #1, Stone Ogre Grotto, Steel Ogre Grotto #1, and Steel Ogre Grotto #2 are cards I hated for being weak or unplayable and look at what happened when I made a Grotto Deck, I won with it.
 
I agree whole heartedly with the article. A person's personality and play style certainly have a huge effect (or should have) on how their deck is constructed and what type of deck they choose to play to be competitive.

This choice may change as a player evolves as well. Personally in my early days of playing I was a very impatient player and a beatdown deck suited my playing style just fine. After a few years of seasoning and calming down I've found I do much better with a less aggressive strategy. One not only has to constantly look at their deck....but the person playing it. We change as players and our deck needs to reflect that for best results.
 
As many people know, I run a Burn deck and this article really hit home with me.

Burn decks are one of the very few deck-types that require many of the 'staples' everyone else is using to be successful.

Premature Burial? No, revival doesn't work too well in Burn. I would know.
Snatch Steal? For what, Cannon Soldier? Not worth the LP-gain risk.
Smashing Ground? Perhaps, but that wouldn't leave me any room for my stalls.
Sakuretsu Armor? For a deck like mine that prevents attacks? Sorry.

Running a Burn deck is one of the best ways for me to show my personality. I think about my moves, but I like to make my opponent think, too. It's one of the few decks that really punishes careless play.

Quite frankly, I can't see myself running Toolbox or Tomato Control or anything like that, anyway.
 
Basically, when people ask me why their Deck is losing or why they do not have fun winning with it, I ask them what did they put into their Deck that was themself. When I build my Decks, I put my heart and soul into it. As corner as that sounds. When you are able to make a Deck that suits your Duel Style and your personality you will enjoy using all that much more. Sure you may not win as much or you probably will win as much with it, but you at least have a Deck that represents what you are and what you are about. I think my Formula & Mineralogical Magnet Deck perfectly incorporates my personality, my soul, and my dueling style into it in every way. It revolves around careful planning, more than 2-3 steps needed, a very calculative and logical process.
 
I liked the article- much truth there.

The main problem with netdecking is that on the whole, the person who originally put the deck together did so to match his/her playing style. When other people try to play the same deck, their style will be subtley (or not so subtely) different, and they won't understand certain card synergies.

This is compounded when one is playing a deck that is quite different to the standard meta, and many such cards that would do well splashed into a generic deck fail utterly when in an unusual deck. One definately needs cards that emphasise your own playing style. if you find that graveyard recursion gets in the way, don't include it. If you find that your deck doesnt really mind if it is being attacked, then sakaretsu armor is useless to you.

One just has to go with what is right for you.
 
Back
Top