Subject: Re: Crediting the Deck Designers ( was: Is Deck Design Dead? )
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 15:32:00 GMT
From: edt@umich.edu (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strategy

 >When it comes to whether or not someone deserves "credit" for an idea, I
 >have some very definite opinions.  I am part of a small group of people
 >given credit for Squandered Stasis, credit I appreciate, and feel I

Deck designs are not merely "created."

They are also "discovered."  The bloom drain that Mike Long played at
nationals was a matter of tuning and tweaking re-engineering pulling 1
card for another testing until the final deck was done.

The idea for bloom drain was going to be found no matter what.  And
this exact deck design was going to be discovered.  It wasn't a matter
of "creation" to find this bloom drain so much as a matter of
discovery.  The deck was already out there waiting to be found.

When all the bloom drain decks look identical it's not a matter of this
or that player copying someone else's ideas.  It's a matter of many
people converging at the same time to the same exact idea.
There is only one best way to make that deck, however there are still
things being found that enchance the design.  Single cards find
their way into the bloom drain deck, cards like "final fortune", a
wonderful answer to a blue mage who is trying to whisper during bloom's
discard.  I'm not sure who first thought up that card for bloom, and I
believe Finkel was the first one to start using it, but once it had
been discovered all the bloom decks converged and begin using it.

You are not just "creating".  You are discovering the best way that
these cards fit together.  And when bloom drain first was played in
Paris many people independently and cooperatively made the deck.

How did all these people come up with the same idea?  When did they
first get the idea?  For some it was a matter of a friend telling them,
"Hey did you see the cad bloom prosperity combo in mirvis yet?"  Then
this player would, based on this simple single sentence, go out and
discover the bloom drain deck.  Some people took longer to find the
combos than others.  Now you tell me who do you give credit to for
"creating" the cad bloom deck?  That's a silly question.

Ideas spark and flow and interaction from all kinds of people go into
creating new designs.

If you sit in a room all by yourself for a month with nobody else to
help spark your ideas, you won't create as many different decks as you
would with help.

My main point is: does it really matter that much where the deck idea
comes from (aside from the historical interest or perhaps a matter of
boosting your ego)?

There's nothing wrong with copying other's deck designs and working
with them.  That's how some people create new decks.  I believe when
Mike Donais made his 5cu deck, he started with Adrian Sullivan's Baron
extended deck and then decided he needed to add this and that, and
pretty soon after swapping virtually every single card out, he had a
brand new deck.

I think it's relatively rare that a single person creates a totally new
new deck design that does not use other people's ideas.  What control
deck does not owe allegiance to Brian Weissman's original "The Deck?"
What beatdown deck does not owe allegiance to David Price's beatdown
strategy (especially evinced by his use of lava hounds) in last year's
t2 tournament?

How about necro?  Who really created "the necro deck" of the "black
summer?"  Many people came up with the idea independently or
cooperatively.

Squandered stasis is also an idea which I saw developed by many people
independently and simultaneously.  There is no single "creator" for
this idea, and I think it's foolish to think anyone in particular
deserves credit for "creating" this deck.

Also, you have to give credit not just to the creators of a deck but
also to the players playing deck designs.  The Cuneo Blue deck which
dominated Europe championships recently owes a lot not just to Cuneo
but also to the players who have been testing and tweaking the original
design, ironing out the bugs, taking it to tournaments, even losing
with it, and then going back to the deck and fixing flaws in it and
turning it into a force to be reckoned with.

However, there are some decks which have been created it seems totally out
of thin air.  Sullivan's Baron Harkonnen.  Zvi's Turbo-Zvi.  The Stupid
Green Deck by Seth Burn or Jamie Wakefield's Secret Force.  These decks
you have to give credit to the creator of them.  I think there's
something about green as a color that tends to give rise to more
totally new deck ideas.  The reason I think is because green is more
relatively "unexplored" so that it's much easier to stumble upon new
things that nobody has yet tried, whereas in black, red, blue, or white
it's much more likely that someone else out there has independently
come up with the same idea, so like an astronomer discovering a new
comet, it's much easier to not to have to share your discovery if are
living in the the southern hemisphere because so many fewer people are
looking in that direction.

One more thing.

I think that building your own deck doesn't have to be about this "you
have to be totally original" kick.

I think that building your own deck is part of the great pleasure in
magic and one of the reasons many people love this game.

When someone builds his very own his white weenie, all on his very own,
and then plays it in a tournament, here's what usually happens:

opponent: "Dude, where did you get that deck?  Off the dojo?"

creator of WW deck: "It's my very own deck.  I didn't copy it from
anywhere."

opponent: "You liar.  That deck is completely unoriginal anyway.  Why
can't you make an original deck?  I'm sick and tired of playing against
all you dojo copycats."

That kind of attitude in my opinion is uncalled for.

I say, make whatever decks you like.  So what if a deck isn't totally
original?  Part of the fun of the game is thinking and choosing what
cards *you* want to play.  And so what if it's not completely original?
It's still your very own deck.

--- edt