The Essentials articles are atrocious.

[Garthanos]

Hmm... okay. PoeticJustice has a point; it's been a while since I read the definitions.

So, substitute "Vorthos" for "Timmy" in my posts above. However, while Vorthos's tastes don't really affect Magic gameplay - Mark Rosewater claims he belongs in his own category, separate from Johnny/Timmy/Spike - they have a huge impact on D&D, where flavor actually affects the mechanical game. Indeed, many of the big debates on these forums boil down to a running battle between Vorthos and Spike that's been going on since the birth of the game.

Flavor affects game experience but not necessarily "game"... at least not often or much (I do give boosts to character performance when player narrative syncs particularly well with features in the environment) I have played rpg's where narrative dominated the action resolution mechanics. In comparison to these D&D is and pretty much always has been roll the dice then paste flavor on top of mechanics ( and it used to feel like that part was all the DM's job, atleast now in 4e it actively encourages player involvement.)

And umm if they didnt have cool art and flavor on the entire MTG game premise I would have never bought mtg cards so I dont think the divergence or degree of divergence is what you think...

 

[Garthanos]

Very simply put, Vorthos appreciates good flavour, Malvins appreciates well thought out mechanics. It's kind of a feel/think dicotomy.

I've always liked both those.. but honestly I experience both through atleast partially a Johnny lense.... interacting with elegant mechanics via cool combos visualized with awesome narrative....

And I want to win... (again the role playing definition of win.... I want my character and my design choices have significant amount of screen time... and be significant to the unfolding story, I want my character to win the battles and properly support his allies too.. in part because I like happy stories and getting the snot beat out of you and yours just isnt very happy.... is that spikey?

 

[PoeticJustice]

Hmm... okay. PoeticJustice has a point; it's been a while since I read the definitions.

So, substitute "Vorthos" for "Timmy" in my posts above. However, while Vorthos's tastes don't really affect Magic gameplay - Mark Rosewater claims he belongs in his own category, separate from Johnny/Timmy/Spike - they have a huge impact on D&D, where flavor actually affects the mechanical game. Indeed, many of the big debates on these forums boil down to a running battle between Vorthos and Spike that's been going on since the birth of the game.

Assuming a M:tg standard, we're all Vorthos here. D&D doesn't have the rigid structure nor the adversarial nature nor the competitive environment necessary to make being a Vorthos significantly different from another type of gamer. The Elf Archer player who picks weapon focus or whatever isn't a Spike--he's a Spike/vorthos.

At least he would be, by the Magic Standard--the player probably doesn't play the most efficient build to beat his DM into submission and crush every single encounter. He probably plays an Elf Archer because he likes Elf, Archers, or is curious about the experience. He likely has one or two races or classes he prefers and a few he would never play. It likely has less bearing on power levels than personal preference, though.

 

[WalterKovacs]

The article nightwyrm linked is pretty good.

I mostly like it because it really helps separate out how things that are very similar in concept can be very, very different in actual outcome.

Let me give you an example using D&D powers. Suppose we had two powers, which read

1. Immediate Interrupt. Trigger: An enemy hits or misses you. Attack the triggering creature for: Intelligence versus Reflex, 2d6+Int fire damage and 5 ongoing fire damage.

2. Effect. Until the end of your next turn you gain the following: Immediate Interrupt. Trigger: An enemy hits or misses you. Attack the triggering creature for: Intelligence versus Reflex, 2d6+Int fire damage and 5 ongoing fire damage.

These are really, really similar. But very different in play. The first is a Spider power. Your enemy doesn't expect it, they foolishly attack you, and you light them on fire. The second is a Rattlesnake power. Your enemy DOES expect it. Your enemy knows that attacking you will result in being lit on fire. So your enemy probably chooses to attack someone else.

The first power gets its strength from being used. The second gets its strength from NOT being used, but rather from threatening your enemies with its potential use and causing them to change their behavior as a result.

The first power is great if you don't mind getting hit in order to deal more damage. The second power is great if you don't want to get hit at all, and don't mind not getting to deal damage.

That is a great way of explaining the problem someone had with the Avenger CharOp guide. It was a guide on turning the Avenger from a rattlesnake into a spider.

EDIT:

On the Spike/Timmy/Johnny thing:

Any of them can optimize. The difference is what do they optimize. For Timmy it would be finding a way to deal the most damage. Some of the "how to make the biggest attack in a single turn" builds would work that way. It may not necessarily have the best dps, but it builds for the once per day bombs and stuff like that. For Johnny, they find a combination (like Eyebite with Divine Challenge) and find a way to optimize it. Spike doesn't just optimize something, but optimizes the optimal choice in the first place. For example, if Spike is going to be a striker, he won't optimize a warlock because an optimized warlock isn't as "good" as an optimized striker of another class.

EDIT 2: Electric Boogaloo

Vorthos/Melvin is definitely something that fits into D&D. From a design perspective it seems to fit sort of top down design vs. bottom up design. For Vorthos, the mechanics should fit the flavor while for Melvin, great mechanics are important, and the flavor can come in later. I'm a total Melvin, and I really appreciate some of the mechanical unity of 4e class design as a result. The Warlord and Warden could be seen as Melvin type concepts (creating a new class for the role/power source combinations that are "necessary" to fill things out) while the Monk is the redheaded stepchild of the psionics in part because it's more important that it "be the monk" than for it to be forced into fitting into the mechanical "whole" of psionics.

 

[Jhaelen]

Wow! I'd never thought this thread could be turned into an interesting discussion

 

[EarthSeraphEdna]

I am sorry, everyone, but Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos/Melvin does not fit into 4e at all. It's already a controversial topic for Magic players, but trying to apply it into 4e is like trying to apply the concept of rare/medium rare/medium/medium into ice cream. Categorizing player types is dumber than horoscopes, and Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos/Melvin don't even align with the usual gamist/narrativist/simulationist categorization, which is an entirely different beast.

 

[catsclaw227]

Actually, the gamist/narrativist/simulationist categorization isn't meant to align with player archetypes either.

I recommend (if we're talking 4e) that we use the DMG/DMG2 archetypes. I don't have my DMG2 here with me so I can't list them. Anyone else available to list the player types from 4e DMG/DMG2?

EDIT: Here they are:

The Actor
The Explorer
The Instigator
The Power Gamer
The Slayer
The Storyteller
The Thinker
The Watcher

 

[FireLance]

I am sorry, everyone, but Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos/Melvin does not fit into 4e at all. It's already a controversial topic for Magic players, but trying to apply it into 4e is like trying to apply the concept of rare/medium rare/medium/medium into ice cream. Categorizing player types is dumber than horoscopes, and Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos/Melvin don't even align with the usual gamist/narrativist/simulationist categorization, which is an entirely different beast.

I don't think categorizing player types is "dumb". If nothing else, it's an exercise in thinking about what different players might want out of an RPG. I will admit that Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos/Melvin is more mechanics-focused and less extensive than Robin Laws' Tactician/Power Gamer/Butt Kicker/Specialist/Method Actor/Storyteller/Casual Gamer categories, but it does present insight into (for example) why some players prefer high-damage powers even if it can be shown mathematically that the extra damage is wasted most of the time, and another lower-damage power is the better choice in the long run. Playing an RPG isn't only about mechanical effectiveness to many players, and they (we?) are willing to sacrifice some mechanical effectiveness for other considerations: flavor, or a personal preference for certain types of abilities or to create certain types of effects.

Incidentally, the simple reason why player categorizations don't align with G/N/S is that one deals with player types and the other deals with games and game mechanics. It's like complaining that the mammal/bird/reptile/amphibian categorizations don't align with the igneous/sedimenary/metamorphic categories for rocks.

 

[chitzk0i]

I am sorry, everyone, but Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos/Melvin does not fit into 4e at all. It's already a controversial topic for Magic players, but trying to apply it into 4e is like trying to apply the concept of rare/medium rare/medium/medium into ice cream. Categorizing player types is dumber than horoscopes, and Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos/Melvin don't even align with the usual gamist/narrativist/simulationist categorization, which is an entirely different beast.

I don't think the Magic psychographics fit D&D exactly, but there is some truth to them. The profiles are expressions of some basic motivations that pop up in D&D as well as Magic.

As for "dumber than horoscopes": people pick powers for a reason. Trying to figure out those reasons is not that bad of an endeavor.

 

[PoeticJustice]

I am sorry, everyone, but Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos/Melvin does not fit into 4e at all. It's already a controversial topic for Magic players, but trying to apply it into 4e is like trying to apply the concept of rare/medium rare/medium/medium into ice cream. Categorizing player types is dumber than horoscopes, and Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos/Melvin don't even align with the usual gamist/narrativist/simulationist categorization, which is an entirely different beast.

Categorizing things is a method of understanding them. Approaching things from another perspective often yields results. So rather than just shouting out about how the entire premise is flawed, why don't you actually comment on the analysis given by any of the posters?