Whenever I feel as though my deck is overperforming, I deliberately take it down a notch, usually by making it more convoluted. In doing so, I ensure I never have to actually pull punches ingame.
Whenever I sit down to play a game of Commander, I want to play as tight as possible. I know I feel cheated when other players pull punches against me, so I refuse to pull punches against others. "Pulling punches" through intelligent deckbuilding ensures that I never have to actually pull any punches ingame. It also tends to make my deck more complex, giving it a lot of extra character.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
There are a few different categories of pulling punches. Do you? Do you think it's something that's worth doing some of the time?
I would categorize these differently:
Playing less aggressively than you otherwise could.
Not winning as soon as you can, either from a lethal boardstate or an immediate win combo.
Ending your turn early when you could make numerous more plays. (in cases where you have 20+ mana)
Not use every option available to you, when there's little reason not to. (Like using Terrastodon to kill a single permanent.)
Not casting a critical spell to stop someone from getting into a boardstate that you won't be able to manage otherwise.
Any 'suboptimal' card choice made at deck-building time where reducing power level of the deck is the only factor.
Absolutely. While I'm a pretty competitive player, I still consider the fun that the group is having and if it's going to affect their desire to play with me in the future, or cause me to become instantly targeted first every game.
1. Yes. When playing Ayli I could easily lock everyone out of ever playing anything with Yosei, the Morning Star, but I almost never go for a lockdown unless an opponent is being degenerate or causing the game to be miserable for everyone.
2. I do this all of the time. I try not to constantly win in the same way, or even necessarily the most direct route. Keeping opponents guessing is part of the fun for me.
3. I do this far less often than others here. I do it a lot but it has more to do with my play style and not drawing attention to myself.
4. I'll be that guy that will go out of my way not to destroy someone's land with cards like Terrastadon, or that will stop short of exiling your entire board with a combo and just exile the targets that are of most concern to me.
5. Not guilty of this. There's a limit to the kind of punches I'll pull. I tend to play an unspoken role of arbiter of sorts and keep people in check in a lot of decks I play, even if it's a means to an end where I emerge victorious.
6. I have 'personal' flex slots where I allow myself to play cards I enjoy or that create fun/interesting situations instead of more optimal, powerful cards. For example I play Magister of Worth because I love the promo artwork, it's signed my rk post and it creates an interesting moment in the game when I play it. I play this over Sorin Markov because he's extremely unfun to play against, and ditto with Mimic Vat.
I don't pull punches when someone starts dropping planeswalkers. I viciously attack them to remove their repeated values from the board and IF I can't do it I do my hardest to coerce the others to kill them off. I'll not attack the same person twice in a row unless I can tell that they are about to win and I need to remove them from the game.
I prefer to pull my punches in-game rather than in deckbuilding because I believe in being reactive to all sorts of different situations and the actual times you do that are mostly in-game and demands you actually have the answers to begin with. Perhaps the way I play my games tend to be more political (either Kingdom variants at the LGS, or if it's with my closer playgroup, it's just all fun-and-laughter-grudges), it's important that you are able to keep the balance of the game and have all the tools available to do so.
I never pull punches. I believe in the Build Casually, Play Competitively adage - there's nothing interesting about a win while you know the opposition could've won but they chose to hold back. That's why my decks are on various powerlevels, if newer players join the fray, I'll pull up one of those decks instead of going for my stronger decks.
So yeah, the only pulled punches from me are through deckbuilding.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
No...
Which is odd, I am actually wondering is there is something wrong with my decks that I never had to.
I typically choose my deck carefully to try and balance the power level to the table.
My decks do have infinite combos but not a lot of tutors.
I will target certain decks in game, typically combo or ramp decks and do so agressively.
Playing less aggressively than you otherwise could.
No, not unless I am a control/controlling deck that is worried about my opponent killing me with a sudden play
Not winning as soon as you can, either from a lethal boardstate or an immediate win combo.
If I have it I go for it, it annoys me when others don't. Unless you are scared of fog or something. Actually it is a bit more complicated than that. I often wait for exactly the right moment to pull off a kill, such baiting counters end of turn then going off. Good magic play in general.
Ending your turn early when you could make numerous more plays. (in cases where you have 20+ mana)
I am not sure I have ever had 20+ mana. Ramping out of control isn't really something I enjoy doing. If anything I annoy people trying to squeeze maxium effiency out of every turn.
Not use every option available to you, when there's little reason not to. (Like using Terrastodon to kill a single permanent.)
Only if it is politically advantagous. Typically not.
Not casting a critical spell to stop someone from getting into a boardstate that you won't be able to manage otherwise.
Always casting that critical spell. I have annoied many players making a play that seems awkward but knowleadge of my deck that I am not going to be able to solve that issue later means I have to do it now.
Any 'suboptimal' card choice made at deck-building time where reducing power level of the deck is the only factor.
It is more that I just stop upgrading my deck if I think its power level is good as it is. Especially most of those upgrades are very expensive at this point. I have Ghost quarters and not strip mines.
I absolutely pull punches. Especially in scenarios where the other person hasn't been able to contribute to the game via mana flood or lack of lands. Commander is supposed to be fun.
Whenever I feel as though my deck is overperforming, I deliberately take it down a notch, usually by making it more convoluted. In doing so, I ensure I never have to actually pull punches ingame.
Whenever I sit down to play a game of Commander, I want to play as tight as possible. I know I feel cheated when other players pull punches against me, so I refuse to pull punches against others. "Pulling punches" through intelligent deckbuilding ensures that I never have to actually pull any punches ingame. It also tends to make my deck more complex, giving it a lot of extra character.
This is more or less my approach. I follow the "build casually, play competitively" adage. I avoid putting truly broken stuff into my decks. Even my single stax deck is a lot more fair than what you usually see in a stax deck... it could certainly be a lot more oppressive if I chose to build it that way. That said, it and a couple of other decks (Heidar mono-blue control, for example) function at a very different level than the majority of my decks, which is why I play those decks a lot less often.
And I also play less aggressively when playing against people who are fairly new to Magic and to the format. Sometimes I will even team up with that player for a couple games. Just new to the group, though... not so much. People were pretty surprised recently when a new player showed up with an Oloro deck and I targeted him from the start, but the way he'd talked when he intro'd himself suggested to me that he was coming in with something pretty tough, and as the game progressed it turned out I was correct, as he was playing a pretty sophisticated, staxish, enchantment-based build intended to let him sit back behind a pillowfort and use his lifegain to fuel a ton of black draw while keeping anyone else from having much of anything on board via sacrifice/recursion effects combined with Martyr's Bond, Grave Pact and so forth.
Deckbuilding is where I pull punches. I have several decks and try to maintain an overall stable powerlevel between them so that they can reasonably compoete against each other (I often invite friends who don't own decks) and the other decks in my local meta. I refrain from 2 card combos (especially with the commander) and will defang decks that have too much power (e.g. I cut Purphoros and Food Chain from my Prossh deck).
I also avoid killing a single opponent in the early game because it is lame for them to have to watch/wait out the rest of the game.
I absolutely pull punches. Especially in scenarios where the other person hasn't been able to contribute to the game via mana flood or lack of lands. Commander is supposed to be fun.
I do that, too, but I don't consider that to be pulling punches so much as I consider it good threat assessment. The guy with the four-color deck full of guildgates who is stuck on three lands just isn't much of a threat, so I will leave him alone unless I need to get an attack through to trigger something.... and even then I will target him only very minimally, while directing my resources to the greater threats.
Also, there are times when I have let a game go on for a bit when I could have ended it earlier, but when I've pulled my punch in that way, I've done it out of curiosity, usually because I've wondered what an opponent's deck might do given a couple more turns. This has bitten me in the ass more often than not, as those couple turns have sometimes allowed the deck which has caught my eye to pull off some pretty crazy stuff, but I'd honestly rather see something interesting happen even if I lose than win before I got a chance to see what an opponent's interesting build can do.
Im a mix. Sure i can go for the combo but i try to get a feel of the atmosphere and which players im facing. At the same time i do not like groups which cry about everything or they don't run any gravehate/enchantment hate so they just autoscoops.
But People are different and reacts differently to things that happens, decisions and more. Then again i like to stirr the pot with some of my decisions, being a puppetmaster is quite fun when it works out the way you want, pulling some strings here and there and voíla, using the chaos or an agreement to your advantage.
Some times i can go for the combo but i choose not to, someitmes i can kill but i choose not to because often times you could need that partner in crime, atleast for a while.
I have decks of varying powerlevel so it depends on the group and their powerlevel.
And in deckbuilding i don't try and play all the same staples in every deck or proxie mana crypt into every deck. Mana crypt is there to stay in my unfair Kozilek build, the other decks get other manarocks.
And variation is just fun, i don't want to play the same 60% of cards whenever i play Magic.
My decks are atm:
Kozilek, the great Distortion - Voltron/stax/control (strongest cards available in this one, Workshop, Mana Crypt etc.)
Nekusar - wheel combo of course... But i love it since it isn't consistent, it can whiff if i don't get the correct cards. Oh, and it ruins tutoring etc.
Dakkon Blackblade oldborder only really bad enchantress/pillowfort
Mikaeus the Unhallowed (modern border only)
Ruhan, Tribal Giants
They're either limited in cardchoices/availability or they do not share the same strategy.
Almost exclusively through deck building and deck choice as others have stated. I have many various levels of deck power and will often choose the appropriate deck based on who I am playing and how well I'm doing. From there I am generally trying to win no matter what, but I will occasionally show some mercy to a player who has been having a rough time or getting teamed up on.
Talking about infinite combos specifically, I'm getting my playgroup to use a point system and killing everyone off at the same turn with an infinite combo will be a negative. And I like infinite combos that win the game, probably too much.
Whats the reasoning behind this? I would think that dragging out the game by comboing off and killing only one person per turn is worse than simply ending the game once you have the means to do so.
I don't pull punches in game but my decks are heavily built down. I generally try and build in a way that I would enjoy playing against the deck, which includes skipping cards like Sol Ring and friends. People who pull punches in game generally annoy me, especially if they announce that they're pulling punches.
Obviously none of this applies to choices made for strategic reasons. If there's an in game reason not to kill someone or remove something that needs to be taken into account.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
Yes and no. I'll pull punches in game, depending on what's going on I won't go for the hardest thing first. I'm by nature cautious though, so I rarely go all out until I'm sure of victory anyways though. But if I feel like I can absolutely win and I don't go for it usually it's because the game is just too early. It's just much more interesting when I don't take over the game right away. Kind of depends on why too. If someone is making bad calls that's different than someone drawing a really bad hand, and I'll respond based off of that too.
Talking about infinite combos specifically, I'm getting my playgroup to use a point system and killing everyone off at the same turn with an infinite combo will be a negative. And I like infinite combos that win the game, probably too much.
Whats the reasoning behind this? I would think that dragging out the game by comboing off and killing only one person per turn is worse than simply ending the game once you have the means to do so.
I would think the reasoning would be to get people to try to stop building around infinite combos as a wincon, and possibly to encourage a less-competitive mindset.
Sometimes I feel like I should, because I picked a deck that was too powerful for the meta. Ultimately, I don't pull punches because it just prolongs the inevitable, but also because I find it undermines the integrity of the game. I think the ideal game has everyone making the right play at every moment.
The closest to pulling punches I have ever been is to play towards a softer combo that doesn't win on the spot, or to keep cards in hand if I'm already winning and the opponents don't see it.
Playing less aggressively than you otherwise could.
Yes, but not really for the sake of "pulling punches" in the normal sense. It is usually more in the vein of trying to not make myself a huge target by jumping way out ahead until I know that I can hold my own against multiple opponents. I also don't want to fall victim to the first sweeper.
Not winning as soon as you can, either from a lethal boardstate or an immediate win combo.
No. I try to not include 'I win' combos, but I otherwise would never back off of a lethal board state; I kinda see that as being condescending to the rest of the group.
Ending your turn early when you could make numerous more plays. (in cases where you have 20+ mana)
Yes, but usually more in the interest of time than anything else.
Not use every option available to you, when there's little reason not to. (Like using Terrastodon to kill a single permanent.)
Yes, but almost always in the interest of not mana-screwing a guy (unless its my brother Kevin, in which case the gloves are always off)
Not casting a critical spell to stop someone from getting into a boardstate that you won't be able to manage otherwise.
No. The group I play with has a bit of a standing rule that everyone is responsible for helping to contain other players, running the appropriate amount of removal, and generally helping police one another. If someone casts something that is going to get out of hand, everyone is looking at each other to figure out who can get rid of it.
Any 'suboptimal' card choice made at deck-building time where reducing power level of the deck is the only factor.
I try to think of them less as "suboptimal" and more along the lines of "optimizing what I want to do with the deck". I don't run infinite combos or 1-card "I win" combo cards (like Tooth and Nail), but I am all about running the very best cards that would otherwise support my theme. I have decks of varying power levels mostly through the power of the theme, so if the theme is powerful then the deck is powerful and I'll play it accordingly. So while I'm not playing Curiosity, Eye of Ophidian, Mind Over Matter, or Tandem Lookout in my Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind deck, I am surely going to play all the best draw spells/permanents that the deck can otherwise use like Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Brainstorm, Consecrated Sphinx and all the best removal like Cyclonic Rift, Forbid, and sweepers/bounce that I can stuff into the deck to survive.
I pull punches all the time for social reasons, but not when it comes to deck building. Unless it's something I just don't like because I see it so much it bores me to death, i.e. Mike n trike. It might be stronger than another 2 cards that are in the deck, but I get so bored when a deck is optimized to tutor for a specific combo win and that's all it does.
If my opponents are obviously having a bad game with mana then its either end it quick or pull the punches to give them more time to get into the game. Most of my punch pulling comes from building my deck a certain way rather than playing sub optimally.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH BRGKresh the BloodbraidedBRG, A box of lands and ideas.
Modern: RG Titanshift. A deck made of cards too stupid for EDH.
Retired: Lots. More than I feel you should suffer through or I should type out.
When playing more casually, I occasionally hold back for reasons beyond immediate in-game politics. Otherwise, I often play less aggressively than I could, but at least nominally out of risk/reward calculation rather than to pull my punches.
I do make suboptimal design choices when building decks, though typically for combination of power-level, card-availability, variety, thematic, and aesthetic concerns.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would categorize these differently:
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and no.
WBG Karador, Ghost Chieftain
B Toshiro Umezawa
BG Pharika, God of Affliction - Necromancy and Politics
WWW The Church of Heliod
WBR Zurgo, Helmsmasher
RG Wort, the Raidmother
UBR Jeleva, Nephalia's Scourge
UG Vorel of the Hull Clade
Whenever I feel as though my deck is overperforming, I deliberately take it down a notch, usually by making it more convoluted. In doing so, I ensure I never have to actually pull punches ingame.
Whenever I sit down to play a game of Commander, I want to play as tight as possible. I know I feel cheated when other players pull punches against me, so I refuse to pull punches against others. "Pulling punches" through intelligent deckbuilding ensures that I never have to actually pull any punches ingame. It also tends to make my deck more complex, giving it a lot of extra character.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Absolutely. While I'm a pretty competitive player, I still consider the fun that the group is having and if it's going to affect their desire to play with me in the future, or cause me to become instantly targeted first every game.
1. Yes. When playing Ayli I could easily lock everyone out of ever playing anything with Yosei, the Morning Star, but I almost never go for a lockdown unless an opponent is being degenerate or causing the game to be miserable for everyone.
2. I do this all of the time. I try not to constantly win in the same way, or even necessarily the most direct route. Keeping opponents guessing is part of the fun for me.
3. I do this far less often than others here. I do it a lot but it has more to do with my play style and not drawing attention to myself.
4. I'll be that guy that will go out of my way not to destroy someone's land with cards like Terrastadon, or that will stop short of exiling your entire board with a combo and just exile the targets that are of most concern to me.
5. Not guilty of this. There's a limit to the kind of punches I'll pull. I tend to play an unspoken role of arbiter of sorts and keep people in check in a lot of decks I play, even if it's a means to an end where I emerge victorious.
6. I have 'personal' flex slots where I allow myself to play cards I enjoy or that create fun/interesting situations instead of more optimal, powerful cards. For example I play Magister of Worth because I love the promo artwork, it's signed my rk post and it creates an interesting moment in the game when I play it. I play this over Sorin Markov because he's extremely unfun to play against, and ditto with Mimic Vat.
(Also known as Xenphire)
BWREDGAR MARKOV VAMPIRESBWR
So yeah, the only pulled punches from me are through deckbuilding.
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
Which is odd, I am actually wondering is there is something wrong with my decks that I never had to.
I typically choose my deck carefully to try and balance the power level to the table.
My decks do have infinite combos but not a lot of tutors.
I will target certain decks in game, typically combo or ramp decks and do so agressively.
Playing less aggressively than you otherwise could.
No, not unless I am a control/controlling deck that is worried about my opponent killing me with a sudden play
Not winning as soon as you can, either from a lethal boardstate or an immediate win combo.
If I have it I go for it, it annoys me when others don't. Unless you are scared of fog or something. Actually it is a bit more complicated than that. I often wait for exactly the right moment to pull off a kill, such baiting counters end of turn then going off. Good magic play in general.
Ending your turn early when you could make numerous more plays. (in cases where you have 20+ mana)
I am not sure I have ever had 20+ mana. Ramping out of control isn't really something I enjoy doing. If anything I annoy people trying to squeeze maxium effiency out of every turn.
Not use every option available to you, when there's little reason not to. (Like using Terrastodon to kill a single permanent.)
Only if it is politically advantagous. Typically not.
Not casting a critical spell to stop someone from getting into a boardstate that you won't be able to manage otherwise.
Always casting that critical spell. I have annoied many players making a play that seems awkward but knowleadge of my deck that I am not going to be able to solve that issue later means I have to do it now.
Any 'suboptimal' card choice made at deck-building time where reducing power level of the deck is the only factor.
It is more that I just stop upgrading my deck if I think its power level is good as it is. Especially most of those upgrades are very expensive at this point. I have Ghost quarters and not strip mines.
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own
This is more or less my approach. I follow the "build casually, play competitively" adage. I avoid putting truly broken stuff into my decks. Even my single stax deck is a lot more fair than what you usually see in a stax deck... it could certainly be a lot more oppressive if I chose to build it that way. That said, it and a couple of other decks (Heidar mono-blue control, for example) function at a very different level than the majority of my decks, which is why I play those decks a lot less often.
And I also play less aggressively when playing against people who are fairly new to Magic and to the format. Sometimes I will even team up with that player for a couple games. Just new to the group, though... not so much. People were pretty surprised recently when a new player showed up with an Oloro deck and I targeted him from the start, but the way he'd talked when he intro'd himself suggested to me that he was coming in with something pretty tough, and as the game progressed it turned out I was correct, as he was playing a pretty sophisticated, staxish, enchantment-based build intended to let him sit back behind a pillowfort and use his lifegain to fuel a ton of black draw while keeping anyone else from having much of anything on board via sacrifice/recursion effects combined with Martyr's Bond, Grave Pact and so forth.
I also avoid killing a single opponent in the early game because it is lame for them to have to watch/wait out the rest of the game.
UR Mizzix of the Izmagnus ~~~ Build your own win-condition: Finite Spellslinging
UR Brudiclad, Telchor Engineer ~~~ We are the Borg. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own.
WUB Oloro, Ageless Ascetic ~~~ A Guide to dying slowly
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose ~~~ Marchesa's undying Marionettes
RGW Mayael the Anima ~~~ All Hail the Big Chungus
GWU Chulane, Teller of Tales ~~~ Permanents Only ETB Shenanigans
BGU Sidisi, Brood Tyrant ~~~ Sidisi's Restless Servants
WUBRG The Ur-Dragon ~~~ Dragons eat your face
I do that, too, but I don't consider that to be pulling punches so much as I consider it good threat assessment. The guy with the four-color deck full of guildgates who is stuck on three lands just isn't much of a threat, so I will leave him alone unless I need to get an attack through to trigger something.... and even then I will target him only very minimally, while directing my resources to the greater threats.
Also, there are times when I have let a game go on for a bit when I could have ended it earlier, but when I've pulled my punch in that way, I've done it out of curiosity, usually because I've wondered what an opponent's deck might do given a couple more turns. This has bitten me in the ass more often than not, as those couple turns have sometimes allowed the deck which has caught my eye to pull off some pretty crazy stuff, but I'd honestly rather see something interesting happen even if I lose than win before I got a chance to see what an opponent's interesting build can do.
But People are different and reacts differently to things that happens, decisions and more. Then again i like to stirr the pot with some of my decisions, being a puppetmaster is quite fun when it works out the way you want, pulling some strings here and there and voíla, using the chaos or an agreement to your advantage.
Some times i can go for the combo but i choose not to, someitmes i can kill but i choose not to because often times you could need that partner in crime, atleast for a while.
I have decks of varying powerlevel so it depends on the group and their powerlevel.
And in deckbuilding i don't try and play all the same staples in every deck or proxie mana crypt into every deck. Mana crypt is there to stay in my unfair Kozilek build, the other decks get other manarocks.
And variation is just fun, i don't want to play the same 60% of cards whenever i play Magic.
My decks are atm:
Kozilek, the great Distortion - Voltron/stax/control (strongest cards available in this one, Workshop, Mana Crypt etc.)
Nekusar - wheel combo of course... But i love it since it isn't consistent, it can whiff if i don't get the correct cards. Oh, and it ruins tutoring etc.
Dakkon Blackblade oldborder only really bad enchantress/pillowfort
Mikaeus the Unhallowed (modern border only)
Ruhan, Tribal Giants
They're either limited in cardchoices/availability or they do not share the same strategy.
Who needs Colours?
My most played EDH deck:
X Kozilek, the Great Distortion
UBR Nekusar, the Mindrazer
I will also deliberately make my decks weaker because it makes the game more fun.
Whats the reasoning behind this? I would think that dragging out the game by comboing off and killing only one person per turn is worse than simply ending the game once you have the means to do so.
UR Mizzix of the Izmagnus ~~~ Build your own win-condition: Finite Spellslinging
UR Brudiclad, Telchor Engineer ~~~ We are the Borg. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own.
WUB Oloro, Ageless Ascetic ~~~ A Guide to dying slowly
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose ~~~ Marchesa's undying Marionettes
RGW Mayael the Anima ~~~ All Hail the Big Chungus
GWU Chulane, Teller of Tales ~~~ Permanents Only ETB Shenanigans
BGU Sidisi, Brood Tyrant ~~~ Sidisi's Restless Servants
WUBRG The Ur-Dragon ~~~ Dragons eat your face
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
Obviously none of this applies to choices made for strategic reasons. If there's an in game reason not to kill someone or remove something that needs to be taken into account.
I would think the reasoning would be to get people to try to stop building around infinite combos as a wincon, and possibly to encourage a less-competitive mindset.
The closest to pulling punches I have ever been is to play towards a softer combo that doesn't win on the spot, or to keep cards in hand if I'm already winning and the opponents don't see it.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
Yes, but not really for the sake of "pulling punches" in the normal sense. It is usually more in the vein of trying to not make myself a huge target by jumping way out ahead until I know that I can hold my own against multiple opponents. I also don't want to fall victim to the first sweeper.
No. I try to not include 'I win' combos, but I otherwise would never back off of a lethal board state; I kinda see that as being condescending to the rest of the group.
Yes, but usually more in the interest of time than anything else.
Yes, but almost always in the interest of not mana-screwing a guy (unless its my brother Kevin, in which case the gloves are always off)
No. The group I play with has a bit of a standing rule that everyone is responsible for helping to contain other players, running the appropriate amount of removal, and generally helping police one another. If someone casts something that is going to get out of hand, everyone is looking at each other to figure out who can get rid of it.
I try to think of them less as "suboptimal" and more along the lines of "optimizing what I want to do with the deck". I don't run infinite combos or 1-card "I win" combo cards (like Tooth and Nail), but I am all about running the very best cards that would otherwise support my theme. I have decks of varying power levels mostly through the power of the theme, so if the theme is powerful then the deck is powerful and I'll play it accordingly. So while I'm not playing Curiosity, Eye of Ophidian, Mind Over Matter, or Tandem Lookout in my Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind deck, I am surely going to play all the best draw spells/permanents that the deck can otherwise use like Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Brainstorm, Consecrated Sphinx and all the best removal like Cyclonic Rift, Forbid, and sweepers/bounce that I can stuff into the deck to survive.
Jalira, Master Polymorphist | Endrek Sahr, Master Breeder | Bosh, Iron Golem | Ezuri, Renegade Leader
Brago, King Eternal | Oona, Queen of the Fae | Wort, Boggart Auntie | Wort, the Raidmother
Captain Sisay | Rhys, the Redeemed | Trostani, Selesnya's Voice | Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight | Obzedat, Ghost Council | Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind | Vorel of the Hull Clade
Uril, the Miststalker | Prossh, Skyraider of Kher | Nicol Bolas | Progenitus
Ghave, Guru of Spores | Zedruu the Greathearted | Damia, Sage of Stone | Riku of Two Reflections
WUBRGReaper King - Superfriends
WUBRGChild of Alara - The Nauseating Aurora
WUBSharuum the Hegemon - Christmas In Prison
WUBZur the Enchanter - Ow My Face
WRJor Kadeen, the Prevailer - Snow Goats
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden - International Goblin All Purpose Recycling Facility Number 12
WGSaffi Eriksdotter - Saffi Combosdotter
UPatron of the Moon - The Age of Aquarius
BHorobi, Death's Wail - Bring Out Your Dead
GSachi, Daughter of Seshiro - Sneks
BRGKresh the BloodbraidedBRG, A box of lands and ideas.
Modern:
RG Titanshift. A deck made of cards too stupid for EDH.
Retired: Lots. More than I feel you should suffer through or I should type out.
I do make suboptimal design choices when building decks, though typically for combination of power-level, card-availability, variety, thematic, and aesthetic concerns.