Mark Rosewater classified Magic: The Gathering players into three categories or motivations. The awesome Matt Cavotta added Vorthos. Based on the popularity of the Timmy-Johnny-Spike theory, the head of Magic: The Gathering design revisited the concept again.
Theories like this can prove very useful when designing a game, like D&D Next, because they help you identify differences in players where you need to do specific things for each segment in order to keep all groups playing your game.
I think Mark was too narrow-minded in his revisit article so I'll include Vorthos.
Timmy - players who prefer heroic action with a slight emphasis on gamist elements (such as big numbers aka my character looks powerful on paper).
Johnny - players who create complicated and unique characters that play against stereotype or mix wildly divergent mechanics to achieve a certain vision. Slight preference for narrativist elements.
Spike - players to min/max in the extreme and create bullet characters with a sense of "winning" at the table. Slight preference for simulationist rules (because they can argue to have the rules bent to their advantage).
Vorthos - players who could care less about rules. They write long, involved backgrounds or care primarily about getting the perfect miniature or the ultimate illustration of their character. Strong preference for narrativist style but probably don't care what style of rules are used. The most system-neutral player.
These players do not map 1:1 to the GNS Theory (gamist, narrativist, & simulationist). Can one game fit these play styles simultaneously? I think D&D has done so since 1974 so I believe it can continue to do so. Sometimes it did a better job at accommodating all styles than other times.
Notes:
Good polls and well formulated market research are difficult. Why force people to make either-or choices when they might answer "all of it"? By making respondents differentiate you get stronger signals that are more useful in analysis. Let me state, for the record, that I believe everyone has a little bit of each and all of the three styles in their life.
Also, I do not believe that GNS Theory is perfect or complete. The GNS designations have just as many flaws as the Timmy-Johnny-Spike-Vorthos model. Nevertheless, both provide useful data.
Further, each respondent will interpret the labels differently. That is not a problem. If Wizards of the Coast R&D ever uses this data they'll have their own understanding of the labels as well. It's better to get more data and additional poll responses than to argue definitions.
Take all four polls:
Butt-Kicker-Casual Gamer-Method Actor-Power Gamer-Specialist-Storyteller-Tactician poll
Character Actor-Power Gamer-Storyteller-Thinker poll
Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist poll
Timmy-Johnny-Spike-Vorthos poll
Theories like this can prove very useful when designing a game, like D&D Next, because they help you identify differences in players where you need to do specific things for each segment in order to keep all groups playing your game.
I think Mark was too narrow-minded in his revisit article so I'll include Vorthos.
Timmy - players who prefer heroic action with a slight emphasis on gamist elements (such as big numbers aka my character looks powerful on paper).
Johnny - players who create complicated and unique characters that play against stereotype or mix wildly divergent mechanics to achieve a certain vision. Slight preference for narrativist elements.
Spike - players to min/max in the extreme and create bullet characters with a sense of "winning" at the table. Slight preference for simulationist rules (because they can argue to have the rules bent to their advantage).
Vorthos - players who could care less about rules. They write long, involved backgrounds or care primarily about getting the perfect miniature or the ultimate illustration of their character. Strong preference for narrativist style but probably don't care what style of rules are used. The most system-neutral player.
These players do not map 1:1 to the GNS Theory (gamist, narrativist, & simulationist). Can one game fit these play styles simultaneously? I think D&D has done so since 1974 so I believe it can continue to do so. Sometimes it did a better job at accommodating all styles than other times.
Notes:
Good polls and well formulated market research are difficult. Why force people to make either-or choices when they might answer "all of it"? By making respondents differentiate you get stronger signals that are more useful in analysis. Let me state, for the record, that I believe everyone has a little bit of each and all of the three styles in their life.
Also, I do not believe that GNS Theory is perfect or complete. The GNS designations have just as many flaws as the Timmy-Johnny-Spike-Vorthos model. Nevertheless, both provide useful data.
Further, each respondent will interpret the labels differently. That is not a problem. If Wizards of the Coast R&D ever uses this data they'll have their own understanding of the labels as well. It's better to get more data and additional poll responses than to argue definitions.
Take all four polls:
Butt-Kicker-Casual Gamer-Method Actor-Power Gamer-Specialist-Storyteller-Tactician poll
Character Actor-Power Gamer-Storyteller-Thinker poll
Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist poll
Timmy-Johnny-Spike-Vorthos poll
Last edited:
