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

[Impeesa]

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 have to disagree with this, and the multiple assertions that the psychographics apply only to combat. There are mechanics to everything, from games both combat and non, to real-world physics, to social dynamics. The ones that aren't in books may not be obvious, but if you can't see them at all, you're not looking hard enough. And if you see rules and mechanics governing something you wish to be involved in (be it a game, or a social circle, or a traffic system separating you from the grocery store), and don't have some instinctive sense of how to work with them, I'm not sure what to say really. Choosing actions based on prediction of outcomes, in any context, is a pretty basic brain function and requires an understanding of the rules and mechanics involved in order to make those predictions. The thing about costs is pretty fundamental as well (see also game theory).

So, then, given that premise, it's not unreasonable to restrict your scope back down to "all games" or "all roleplaying games" and then categorize people by the manner in which they approach this process. Rather than try to get too comprehensive here (because it's 4 AM as I write this and I don't want to lose my tenuous grip on some sort of a point), I'll just throw out an example. I put it to you that the drama major with the woefully ineffective character may in fact be a Spike at heart - but his definition of optimal choices (both in character making and in play) is based on an entirely qualitative scale of game quality, rather than any particular rules-backed competence. If, though, he really likes playing some particular handicap, and does so repeatedly even if it adds less to the quality and atmosphere of the game than he might otherwise bring, maybe he's more of a Timmy with regards to variables he values.

Can a game serve all three? Or, more accurately, all seven (the M:tG player profiles consider combinations of 2 or all 3 equally valid - I'm probably an all-3 sort of player, maybe a bit heavier on the Spike). Assuming the game has sufficient substance to be interesting to at least one of them, I suspect it's nearly guaranteed to have something for all of them. After all, the psychographics are more about how we interact with systems than what outcomes we're seeking in doing so. In brief, if there is a nontrivial system, there are ways of interacting with it. In something like roleplaying games, which can be simultaneously rigorously rules-regulated and highly subjective, it might be better to ask what all possible values and and outcomes people might seek are, and whether a game can offer something for all of them. I sort of suspect the answer is, again, "technically, trivially yes," but that could just be my limited perspective.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I have always prefered a mix of playstyles and preferences at the table. If its all optimizers, all role players etc i get bored.

 

[OnlineDM]

I'm okay being in the minority here. And maybe it's true that a Spike psychographic can be really motivated by "winning" at role-playing, but I haven't seen that yet in my (admittedly limited) experience.

I do continue to feel that, at least in a game like 4e (the only game I really know well enough so far to have formed opinions about), the game will be more fun for everyone if no one greatly outshines anyone else in combat on a consistent basis (assuming that everyone at the table finds combat to be fun). And while that doesn't necessarily mean that Spike and Timmy won't have fun at the same table, my hypothesis is that they will usually have more fun if Spike plays with other Spikes and Timmy plays with other Timmies.

Yes, I'm making assumptions here that the Spike psychographic is likely to have a combat-optimized character and the Timmy psychographic is not. If that assumption is wrong, then I'm wrong and Timmy and Spike can probably play together just fine.

I just don't think the Timmy/Johnny/Spike analysis is as useful for a game like D&D as it is for a game like Magic. Somewhat useful, maybe, but it's REALLY useful for Magic design. I think it's likely that all three psychographics can enjoy a game like D&D, but I don't think it's as useful for D&D designers to think of players in those buckets as it is for Magic designers.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think it might be worthwhile to link to the original article.

Timmy isn't just about the dramatics. He's about crushing his opponent dramatically!

He's the guy who Power Attacks for giant amounts, missing most of the time, but absolutely crushing his opponents when he does hit. He's the guy who takes critical hit feat after critical hit feat, so he normally does average damage, but waits with baited breath for that one big crit that kills his opponent in one swing. When he thinks back to the game, he doesn't focus on the planning or the scheming, he focuses on the dramatic moments where everything came together for the perfect storm of awesome.

I wouldn't say he doesn't want to win. He just doesn't have to win as often. A Timmy just doesn't care about your average win. He cares about the big win. If he doesn't get his big wins, he won't be happy at all.

 

[OnlineDM]

I think this is an excellent Timmy in D&D example - maximizing the awesomeness of a critical hit. He makes it so, on that 1 in every 20 attacks when he rolls a natural 20, the world around him EXPLODES! Yep, that's very Timmy.

Spike, on the other hand, would skip the enhanced crit feats that result in overkill and take those that result in an expanded crit range and higher to-hit bonuses and so on, dealing very consistent damage.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

There is a concept that I've been mucking around with for some time now, that I think may help in this quest, which I call, "specialization is its own reward." Or since it is meant to be prescriptive, more formally, "specialization should be its own reward, and only its own reward."

This is based on real-world expectations, and the Adam Smith economic concept that, given a sufficiently open market (and "sufficient" isn't a very high bar), the most productive course (for the group) is for everyone to do what they do best. In game terms, or in the OPs terms, the analogue would be for Timmy, Johnny, and Spike to all do what they do best.

Nevertheless, people often remain somewhat generalist in outlook, if only to understand how to cook their own dinner or pursue hobbies or simply a felt preference to broaden ones' experience. That is, some people aren't brain surgeons because they have other specialties. And some people aren't brain surgeons because they don't have the ability. But a non-neglible set of people aren't brain surgeons because dedicating yourself to that kind of career implies a cutting off of other things that, on balance, the person isn't willing to give up. The opportunity cost of, "Having a life," for example, is a constraint on specialists that doesn't exist, usually, in roleplaying games.

So one way to let all three types play together is to design a system that will be somewhat self-regulating at the table. The more things are pushed, the harder they get--and this escalates as choices are made. When you push to be the greatest mage in this century, you aren't only hitting a set number in a game, but pushing the definition of what "great mage" means. GURPS is, I believe, aiming for a bit of this with the way skills rapidly escalate in costs, but fails to achieve it in that it is fixed in the game system, and not tied appropriately to the rest of the game to give feedback results. (In effect, what GURPS does is apply an effective cap, that moves within a narrow band, for given point totals. I'm not sure if 4E changed this or not.)

What you want, then, is that all three play styles are optimum--up to a point--and the point has lots of wiggle room, but it is there. Timmy is encouraged to go for the big bang by the system. And then because he is Timmy, he pushed a bit beyond that, and becomes not so efficient anymore. OTOH, if Spike is really all that worried about staying efficient, then he becomes somewhat of a generalist, but never gets the big result without ad hoc combinations.

You can't do a game that has lots of niche protection and encourages rabid specialization, and cover all three guys--not within the system. (You can have a game that encourages that style and lots of handwaving to keep them all going.) If you want them all to sit at the same table, make the generalist the most efficient character, but the specialists still do meaningful things that the generalist can not. Then specialization will be its own reward, and the players can pick their sweet spot.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think this is an excellent Timmy in D&D example - maximizing the awesomeness of a critical hit. He makes it so, on that 1 in every 20 attacks when he rolls a natural 20, the world around him EXPLODES! Yep, that's very Timmy.

Spike, on the other hand, would skip the enhanced crit feats that result in overkill and take those that result in an expanded crit range and higher to-hit bonuses and so on, dealing very consistent damage.

And by extrapolation, Johnny finds that critical hit feat that doesn't look that great on the surface and nobody takes. Then, he notices another feat that goes perfectly with it, puts the two together along with the ability to crit more often, and now does some debilitating effect when he criticals. Nobody saw it coming, and its highly effective.

 

[Calzone]

I kind of view Timmy as the guy who can get behind 4e's "Page 42" rule. He's the guy who is willing to spend a couple of turns cutting support ropes for a swinging bridge because if he can pull it off, all of the enemies fall hundreds of feet to their doom.

Johnny I see as the guy who has built the fighter build that allows him to hold his end of the bridge trivially, using his build's powers to soak large amounts of attacks/damage and constantly throw engaging enemies to their doom.

Spike would the be ranger or wizard calmly standing back, doing just enough damage to kill each enemy as they come single file across the rickety bridge.

• Timmy chooses the fun, splashy way of ending the combat, even though DM fiat is the risky path.
• Spike chooses the "sure thing," and uses the core rules to his utmost advantage.
• Johnny finds an interaction of the rules that allows him to complete the combat in a unique and interesting fashion.

I don't see why these three can't play well together.

 

[OnlineDM]

• Timmy chooses the fun, splashy way of ending the combat, even though DM fiat is the risky path.
• Spike chooses the "sure thing," and uses the core rules to his utmost advantage.
• Johnny finds an interaction of the rules that allows him to complete the combat in a unique and interesting fashion.

I don't see why these three can't play well together.

I think Johnny could play well with either Timmy or Spike, depending on what Johnny creatively accomplishes. If Johnny uses disconnected elements to get that big effect from time to time, he plays well with Timmy. If he uses them to be ultra-efficient and mow down enemies time after time, he plays well with Spike.

I don't think Timmy and Spike play well together, and this is about character optimization rather than psychographics to some extent. If Timmy is going for the occasional "holy cow!" effect but often accomplishes nothing while Spike is going for efficient consistency in every round, they're probably not going to like each other's play styles.

Timmy will find Spike boring; Spike will find Timmy frustrating.

It's not to say they couldn't be an EFFECTIVE combination (sometimes a little "holy cow" is exactly what Spike needs), but I don't think the players would enjoy sitting down together. Timmy would like it if other Timmies were doing the occasional amazing thing and they all missed with their attacks about as often as one another. Spike would like it if other Spikes combined to be an unstoppable monster-demolishing force.

I think both Timmy and Spike would be likely to look at the other and think, "You're doing it wrong."

 

[ThirdWizard]

Timmy will find Spike boring; Spike will find Timmy frustrating.

I think this can be very true!

I have a Spike and a Timmy in my group. They will argue for hours, if allowed, over the merit of Timmy's feat, power, whatever choices. In game, Spike isn't a fan of Timmy's tactical decisions, and Timmy thinks of Spike's character as a bit on the cheesy side.

However, they're friends, and when its time to play the game, its time to play the game!

In addition, I've taken a break from the big seat, and Spike is going to start DMing now. That should prove be interesting.