Timmy, Johnny, & Spike - Rules for different types of players

[Ainamacar]

I reject the entire paradigm offered in that the three types all refer to combat only, particularly in manipulating rules for benefit (rules-play). If there's something for rules structure to be learned from another game, I'm for it, but not to put the entire "crunch" of the game into combat.

The only "type" offered that has something to offer is Timmy, who possibly represents that in-game improvisation that is at the heart of real role-playing games.

Let's borrow concepts that will allow participants to act in a way that the rules "fade into the background" in the light of free flowing play at the table.

That's right, the entire MtG paradigm as presented is more-or-less limited to combat only. Therefore, in pondering how MtG could influence D&D we can take inspiration from its combat and the paradigms which that game seems to serve reasonably well. (If you like, call Timmy, Johnny, and Spike "aspects" of players: precisely the aspect that interacts with crunch.) None of this necessarily conflicts with the existing or future scope of D&D. If that's the case, I don't see the need for .

In fact, it is entirely possible to borrow concepts from MtG that might allow the rules to fade away. For example, the stack/"interrupt" nature of MtG might inspire a system that describes dramatic action with some form of renewable drama point, where spending these allows one to interrupt the description of the narrative such that more recent modifications always have precedence, until we determine what really happened. This could be extremely light, diceless, applicable to more than just combat, and still be influenced/inspired by MtG. How would this not meet your criteria?

Your characterization of the "heart of real role-playing games" as one of improvisation is at best incomplete, unless we're using a very broad definition of improvisation. I object to the use of "real" since it allows anyone, without a moment's thought, to label any characterization of role-playing they don't agree with under the "not real" category. It is an invitation for No True Scotsman at its finest. (I am not suggesting you would necessarily do this.) Rather than get into the age-old argument of what an RPG is, please allow for the possibility that a crunch-heavy and, yes, combat-heavy game can be a method of immersion. That is, at least, in keeping with the reported experience of some players. If you wouldn't want to play in such a game, I can hardly object. Play whatever game suits you.

 

[TwoSix]

I reject the entire paradigm offered in that the three types all refer to combat only, particularly in manipulating rules for benefit (rules-play). If there's something for rules structure to be learned from another game, I'm for it, but not to put the entire "crunch" of the game into combat.

The only "type" offered that has something to offer is Timmy, who possibly represents that in-game improvisation that is at the heart of real role-playing games.

Let's borrow concepts that will allow participants to act in a way that the rules "fade into the background" in the light of free flowing play at the table.

Nah, let's not. I actually like rules, I enjoy reading about them, and thinking about how to best manipulate them. I don't play Magic, so I found this particular article rather insightful, and not something to be ignored. (I'm definitely a Timmy, although I have some strong Johnny leanings.) I find any system that helps me classify the motivations of the people I play with to be an aid to make me a better player and DM, so I'm certainly glad to read it.

Also, phrases like "real role-playing games" add nothing to the discourse, and just invite semantic arguments.

 

[howandwhy99]

<Casts Counterspell>

This is a good list of ideas, but I think you're missing how a Timmy player can be a real problem at the game table. I'm sure we've all run into players who were simply not playing the game in order to engage in a strategic enterprise. Timmy is having fun, but what is fun for him can become a nuisance for others. In fact, by being oblivious enough to the risks and current strategic standing of the game he can become yet another obstacle to enjoyable play for other player types (their puzzling out of the rules to achieve their own ends - whatever those may be).

Here's an example: Spike has a simple, yet devious plan for tricking a band of orcs and leading them into a dead end where they will be easier to combat and/or negotiate with. Johnny has a brilliant idea to dig and hide some pit traps within the dead end beforehand. He even casts a magic mouth in each pit to give off lion roars when triggered. With a well timed cloud of fog after the orcs have entered, chaos will hopefully ensue. Timmy, on the other hand, decides to grab a keg of ale, march up to the orcs under a white flag (thereby revealing himself), and challenge the chief to a drinking contest.

He's off doing his own thing in this case. Not so bad, but is it helping the group? What if he decided to tell the leader secretly about the party's strategy because turning the tables on them is an interesting twist? Of course, he could also decide to disguise himself as an orc and run in the fog cloud as part of the party strategy. Each one one of Timmy's options is potentially fun and dramatic (his player archetype), but the case can be made that so are Johnny and Spike's ideas.

I think a problematic Timmy is best dealt with through determining shared goals at the table. "Do something fun" isn't nearly descriptive enough to help the other players or DM provide collective enjoyment at the table. How shared goals are instituted can be designed into a game's rules or made by each group.

 

[OnlineDM]

I agree with [MENTION=20187]GSHamster[/MENTION]: Without the concept of "cost" as you have in Magic, the Timmy/Johnny/Spike analysis breaks down.

I can agree that some RPG players might be Johnnies who like to find cool combinations, and I definitely agree that there are Spikes who just want to optimize their characters. But I don't think Timmy neatly fits into the paradigm, at least for a game like D&D.

In Magic, Timmy is described as liking big, cool things, regardless of what they cost. Timmy would love casting a fireball that torches a whole room full of monsters... but in D&D, so would Spike if that spell is on the class spell list for his level.

In a game like D&D4e, I could see an argument for the Timmies preferring classes with splashy daily powers and Spikes preferring classes like the Thief that don't get dailies but are brutally effective with every single attack.

I know that Mark Rosewater often explains the three psychographics along the lines of: "Timmy plays the game to experience something, Johnny plays the game to express something about himself, and Spike plays the game to win." So from that angle I could see the argument that Timmy would want to try things that are cinematic like the flaming grapple... but I'm not convinced.

As for the question of a game that serves them all, I think that might not be the way to go. I don't think Timmy and Spike should play at the same table in a game like D&D; different games should cater to each of them. Maybe a single game can be broad enough to offer something for both, but I think they're going to have more fun if Timmies play with other Timmies and Spikes play with other Spikes. Johnny could probably go either way (creative combinations that are cool but not overly powerful could play well with Timmy; creative combinations that break game balance would play well with Spike).

 

[1Mac]

HERO anyone? Or M&M?

You're either not catching the irony, or deliberately hiding the fact that you are. In any event, Mutants and Masterminds is also an example of the sort of game Firelance is talking about.

 

[chaochou]

Just assuming that there are three broad playstyles as outlined in the OP, I wonder why Timmy, Johnny and Spike would look for a game that appeals to all of them instead of a game written for their particular style.

Because, ime, T, J & S don't roleplay together for long. Each goes off and finds more people who want what they do. There's no reason at all for them to play, or even wnat to play, the same game.

I think it has become increasingly difficult for any one game (or D&D edition) to have the collosal market share that was possible earlier in the hobby's history. There are enough rpgs specifically and well-enough designed for differing tastes that for a new game to attempt to be a 'broad church' may be a losing proposition.

 

[GSHamster]

As for the question of a game that serves them all, I think that might not be the way to go. I don't think Timmy and Spike should play at the same table in a game like D&D; different games should cater to each of them. Maybe a single game can be broad enough to offer something for both, but I think they're going to have more fun if Timmies play with other Timmies and Spikes play with other Spikes. Johnny could probably go either way (creative combinations that are cool but not overly powerful could play well with Timmy; creative combinations that break game balance would play well with Spike).

Timmy + Spike is actually a pretty good combination for a team working together. (Provided, of course, that Timmy isn't working at cross-purposes with the rest of the group.)

Spike ends up buying time, softening up the opposition, and Timmy ends the game in decisive fashion. The thing about Timmy in Magic is that if he gets his big stuff down, and he's in good shape, he will probably win the game. Spike beats Timmy by preventing him from getting to that point, or making sure that Timmy is too weak to take full advantage of his power.

Spike + Timmy is a remarkably effective combination in a multiplayer game.

 

[amerigoV]

Just assuming that there are three broad playstyles as outlined in the OP, I wonder why Timmy, Johnny and Spike would look for a game that appeals to all of them instead of a game written for their particular style.

Because, ime, T, J & S don't roleplay together for long. Each goes off and finds more people who want what they do. There's no reason at all for them to play, or even wnat to play, the same game.

Well, yes and no. Playing some 2e for the first time in about 15 years made me realize that 1e and 2e was actually built along the parameters the OP layed out. People played 1e and 2e for a long time that had these mixed styles because the system, while not optimized any style, allowed people to enjoy their style along with the other players. But certainly people to move on to other systems over time.

Timmy likes simpler rules, because there are fewer ways the rules can get in the way of doing cool things.

Thats the 1e fighter to a T. Any time you got a player new to the game, you started them on a fighter. Simple mechanics and constantly involved in the action. And, all other classes share their main mechanic - roll a d20 to hit, roll other dice for damage. Roll a d20 to save. Basic, simple, and fun.

You want to try something cool, the DM basically says "yes, no, or roll something to see if works"

Johnny likes rules that are interactive.

A rougher fit, but thief. They have their own ruleset for them to interact with the environment - an exploration player. This may not be what the OP means, but they thieves have a custom rule that is more expansive and that no one else copies (mechanically, anyway - there are a few spells). Its not playing chess, but using more creative approaches to finding things about the environment.

Spike likes rules that he has to figure out. Winning tic-tac-toe is not nearly as satisfying as winning chess, because chess is a better demonstration of skill

Wizard/Cleric. Every spell is a subsystem and have a wide range of effects. Playing these classes effectively and in a variety of ways requires system mastery. It is playing chess to the fighter's checkers.


A driver between 1/2e and 3e is the lack of unified mechanic between fighter, thief, and magic user. 3e has these items to a degree, but the unified mechanic and upping the thief to a striker blurs that line (and feats are fiddly when compared to 1e). 4e normalizes the classes (if you can play one, you can play them all) and relies on role as its distinction.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Here's an example: Spike has a simple, yet devious plan for tricking a band of orcs and leading them into a dead end where they will be easier to combat and/or negotiate with. Johnny has a brilliant idea to dig and hide some pit traps within the dead end beforehand. He even casts a magic mouth in each pit to give off lion roars when triggered. With a well timed cloud of fog after the orcs have entered, chaos will hopefully ensue. Timmy, on the other hand, decides to grab a keg of ale, march up to the orcs under a white flag (thereby revealing himself), and challenge the chief to a drinking contest.

Leeeeeeeeeeeeeroy!

 

[OnlineDM]

Timmy + Spike is actually a pretty good combination for a team working together. (Provided, of course, that Timmy isn't working at cross-purposes with the rest of the group.)

Spike ends up buying time, softening up the opposition, and Timmy ends the game in decisive fashion. The thing about Timmy in Magic is that if he gets his big stuff down, and he's in good shape, he will probably win the game. Spike beats Timmy by preventing him from getting to that point, or making sure that Timmy is too weak to take full advantage of his power.

Spike + Timmy is a remarkably effective combination in a multiplayer game.

Effective, perhaps, but I don't think they'll like playing with one another in an RPG. I think Timmies will get annoyed with Spikes "power gaming" and making the same "boring" (though effective) choices at every opportunity ("spamming" twin strike or something like that). I think Spikes will get annoyed at Timmies making "sub-optimal" choices that might lead to their character being "dead weight" or that could get the party in trouble.

Balanced-power parties are ideal. I think Spikes are likely to be highly optimized for combat deadliness and Timmies are optimized for whatever they find cool - which is likely to be different from what Spikes find "optimal".