Timmy, Johnny, and Spike, for D&D 5E, and Tasha's

[x3n0n]

History: I spent roughly 20 years playing Magic: the Gathering, and reading all of the main Wizards of the Coast writings about card and set design.

One concept in particular still jumps out at me: Mark Rosewater's player "psychographic" classification of players by their primary motivation, perhaps documented best here: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/timmy-johnny-and-spike-revisited-2006-03-20-2

"Timmy" primarily wants to have a memorable (and generally pleasurable) experience. He wants exciting things to happen in the game, and often wants to be surprised. (Classic Timmy favorites are cards with huge numbers and effects with high variance.)

"Johnny" primarily wants to use the game to express something, often creativity in pre-game (deck) design, and finding and highlighting unusual interactions in gameplay. (Johnny favorites include cards with convoluted preconditions and building decks that need many different parts to work together.)

"Spike" primarily uses the game to prove his competence or even superiority, doing whatever is necessary within the rules as stated to win the game. (Spike's favorite is whatever tool will give him the best chance to win, especially if it offers effects that blunt variance, preventing luck from "stealing" a win.)

In general, players have some motivations from each category, but one or two tend to dominate.

There's another pair of dimensions, documented in other articles: high-"Vorthos" players are very sensitive to game world flavor concerns, and high-"Mel" players particularly appreciate rule-mechanism concerns.


I think many of those concepts transfer directly to modern D&D.

Effects that let you roll lots of dice for an effect offer one kind of Timmy effect ("look at all of those dice!"), and so do things like Wild Surge ("and then my hair turned purple!"). Johnny tendencies go toward interesting spell uses and chances to find new ways to build characters with features that combine well. Spike tends to take whatever advantages are offered and to emphasize "correct" play that minimizes the chance of things going poorly.


It's another way to classify the "types" of fun, and I find it a useful reminder that people enjoy games for different reasons. For example, I was definitely a Johnny/Mel in M:tG, with minimal Vorthos.

For players like me, a "new-to-me" system has lots of mechanical space to explore: making tens or hundreds of character concepts to find things that offer unusual advantages. (In order to support that, there needs to be a repeatable way to generate ability scores, hence my affinity for point-buy.) Eventually, the format can seem stale, and then, when new options are offered, there's a lot of excitement to see what new combos are available.

Tasha's is pure catnip for me: new subclasses, new feats, many many new race/ability-score combinations (available via point-buy), and even the possibility of creating "my own" origin (either though the vhuman-like custom origin or monster/sidekick). Once I've found mechanical things that I want to interact, then I can still choose to invest in the flavor side.

When I'm so excited, I can have a hard time remembering that others enjoy other parts of the game that don't hold together as well if everything is wide open.

I hope we each find the game we are looking for.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There's also words in the 4e (and 5e IIRC) DMGs about this. They break it out into more categories, because D&D also has narrative and worldbuilding pieces that MtG mostly lacks, but there's utility there.

The other key thing they mentions are that
* no one is pure anything. Everyone has parts of each motivation.
* no motivation is good or bad. They all have pitfalls and benefits. And what works for one may not work for another, but there are tricks to tame the pitfalls and accentuate the positives.

[MaxWilson]

History: I spent roughly 20 years playing Magic: the Gathering, and reading all of the main Wizards of the Coast writings about card and set design.

One concept in particular still jumps out at me: Mark Rosewater's player "psychographic" classification of players by their primary motivation, perhaps documented best here: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/timmy-johnny-and-spike-revisited-2006-03-20-2

"Timmy" primarily wants to have a memorable (and generally pleasurable) experience. He wants exciting things to happen in the game, and often wants to be surprised. (Classic Timmy favorites are cards with huge numbers and effects with high variance.)

"Johnny" primarily wants to use the game to express something, often creativity in pre-game (deck) design, and finding and highlighting unusual interactions in gameplay. (Johnny favorites include cards with convoluted preconditions and building decks that need many different parts to work together.)

"Spike" primarily uses the game to prove his competence or even superiority, doing whatever is necessary within the rules as stated to win the game. (Spike's favorite is whatever tool will give him the best chance to win, especially if it offers effects that blunt variance, preventing luck from "stealing" a win.)

Johnny and Spike are all about making a statement to other people, so it turns out that I'm actually a Timmy: I want to experience something (challenge/discovery/fellowship/etc.), not convey a message about myself to the other players/the world at large.

I'm not sure it makes sense though to have just one psychographic profile for experience-oriented D&D players though, because the range of possible experiences in TTRPGs is much wider than for MtG. Timmy:"I want to experience a fight that's challenging and complex enough that I am kicking myself afterwards for all of the missed opportunities and things I could have done better--I want it to be a learning experience" is a Timmy persona, as Timmy is defined above. But it's also lumped in with Timmy: "I don't want to have to think too much, I just want to feel powerful by cutting the heads off monsters and finding treasure" and Timmy "I want to have thought-provoking conversations with unique NPCs who expand my ideas of humanity." But, I think they want very different things.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Here are the motivations from the 4e DMG (the explanation I've liked best):
Actor: "likes to pretend to be her character. Emphasizes character development that has nothing to do with numbers and powers, trying to make her character seem to be a real person." These are the ones who often speak in voices and focus on "roleplaying" (ie talking in character...not the real definition of making choices for a character. They all do that).

Explorer: "loves to see new places in the fantasy world and meet the residents of such paces, fair and foul....presses for details: proper names of characters and places, descriptions of the environment, and some idea of what's over the next hill." If you enjoy David Eddings' books, you might have some Explorer in you.

Instigator: "enjoys making things happen. No patience for careful planning or deliberation...provokes authority figures...Things rarely grind to a halt with an instigator in the group..." Tend to be a chaotic influence on the game, always throwing curveballs.

Power Gamer: "thrives on gaining levels and loves the cool abilities that come with those levels. Defeats monsters to take their stuff and use that stuff against future enemies. Story and roleplaying are secondary to action and awesome abilities and magic items." Focuses on numbers. This is where theorycrafters often fall.

Slayer: "emphasizes kicking the tar out of monsters. Like the power gamer, but even more simple." Mainly interested in battle and especially winning, disinterested in anything else. Groups with lots of these tend to be beer and pretzels and/or murderhobo games. Nothing matters but the next fight. Very easy to please, though.

Storyteller: "prefers the narrative of the game to individual character motivations and personality. Rules are there to support the narrative." Often attracted to more narrative games. This is me when I'm in DM mode. Not so much about telling my story as about discovering what the story of the characters is.

Thinker:" likes to make careful choices, reflecting on challenges and the best way to overcome them. Enjoys the most when planning results in success with minimal risk and use of resources." 5D chess. Xanatos Gambits. Etc.

Watcher: "there for the social scene, not the game itself as much." Can be distracting but also fills needed slots and acts as needed ballast. The SO that someone dragged along.
-----------
It also emphasizes that most people have multiple motivations.

Personally, I'm an explorer/storyteller, with a bit of actor and sometimes instigator. I get bored easily when people overthink things (ie the opposite of a thinker), and I'm not as interested in numbers (Power Gamer) or combat (Slayer)

[ff7hero]

I'm not sure it makes sense though to have just one psychographic profile for experience-oriented D&D players though, because the range of possible experiences in TTRPGs is much wider than for MtG. Timmy:"I want to experience a fight that's challenging and complex enough that I am kicking myself afterwards for all of the missed opportunities and things I could have done better--I want it to be a learning experience" is a Timmy persona, as Timmy is defined above. But it's also lumped in with Timmy: "I don't want to have to think too much, I just want to feel powerful by cutting the heads off monsters and finding treasure" and Timmy "I want to have thought-provoking conversations with unique NPCs who expand my ideas of humanity." But, I think they want very different things.

I'd say this is more of a feature than a bug. There are also a number of things Spikes seek to prove it Johnnies/Jennies seek to express. The Palahexeror Spike is proving they can make the strongest 'toon, while the monk or ranger Spike is proving they can make the best of a suboptimal kit.

Broad categories are helpful when you're trying to simplify the myriad reasons why people play games.

[MaxWilson]

I'd say this is more of a feature than a bug. There are also a number of things Spikes seek to prove it Johnnies/Jennies seek to express. The Palahexeror Spike is proving they can make the strongest 'toon, while the monk or ranger Spike is proving they can make the best of a suboptimal kit.

Broad categories are helpful when you're trying to simplify the myriad reasons why people play games.

How is it a feature? If there are a dozen different kinds of Timmies all wanting different (often mutally-exclusive) things, how is it useful to call them all Timmy?

Also remember that it's only Spike if it's an outward-facing proof (to others), otherwise it's a Timmy thing (challenge-seeking, feeling vindicated/engaged). E.g. "Innovator Spike's dream is to spawn the next dominant deck. He wants to break the game. And like Johnny, he wants credit." If doesn't want credit, just internal satisfaction, then he's a Timmy--but how is that Spike/Timmy distinction useful to a TTRPG designer?

[x3n0n]

Here are the motivations from the 4e DMG (the explanation I've liked best):


Thanks for the pointer! The corresponding 5e DMG section is "Know Your Players", labeling the categories as gerunds, mostly overlapping with 4e: acting, exploring, instigating, fighting, optimizing, problem-solving, and storytelling.

I do think the 5e version undersells "game-mechanical system exploration" ("Mel" in my OP). The 5e DMG "exploration" is about game-world discoveries ("what's around the next corner?"), and their "optimizing" is about "demonstrat[ing] their characters' superiority", and their corresponding DM suggestions don't speak to the "explore the rules" player. Perhaps this is because it's a mostly-outside-the-session concern?



Johnny and Spike are all about making a statement to other people, so it turns out that I'm actually a Timmy: I want to experience something (challenge/discovery/fellowship/etc.), not convey a message about myself to the other players/the world at large.

I'm not sure it makes sense though to have just one psychographic profile for experience-oriented D&D players though, because the range of possible experiences in TTRPGs is much wider than for MtG. Timmy:"I want to experience a fight that's challenging and complex enough that I am kicking myself afterwards for all of the missed opportunities and things I could have done better--I want it to be a learning experience" is a Timmy persona, as Timmy is defined above. But it's also lumped in with Timmy: "I don't want to have to think too much, I just want to feel powerful by cutting the heads off monsters and finding treasure" and Timmy "I want to have thought-provoking conversations with unique NPCs who expand my ideas of humanity." But, I think they want very different things.

All fair. I think this psychographic profile schematic is colored by M:tG's essentially-PvP nature: the game is well-suited to "proving" dominance, in particular.

It is also tuned for his use: the author's products are sets of cards. If a given set does not have enough cards that appeal to a particular psychographic, then it does not sell as well. From a product-design standpoint, the cards that work well for Johnny tend to work well for "deckbuilding Timmy", so he does not need to design independently for them.



I realized another reason why I felt compelled to write about this last night: I think that Johnny and Spike have a lot to do with why we are here on this forum. If we did not want to express our options and demonstrate/prove our correctness, why would we spend so much time and effort here?

[NorthernPhoenix]

I find any sort of categorization from MTG to be incompatible with DND, because not only do the regular players have a entirely different default dynamic vis-a-vis each other, but there is a person in the DM role who for the purposes of this analysis is in fact a "player" of the game, who's own opinions and fun matter and are impacted by the "PC role" players in a way that is incomparable to, say, the judge in a MTG game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I find any sort of categorization from MTG to be incompatible with DND, because not only do the regular players have a entirely different default dynamic vis-a-vis each other, but there is a person in the DM role who for the purposes of this analysis is in fact a "player" of the game, who's own opinions and fun matter and are impacted by the "PC role" players in a way that is incomparable to, say, the judge in a MTG game.

I basically agree. It's the same issue as when people try to use competitive board games (like chess) as examples or rules references (in chess....so D&D can do....). Competitive games with a neutral, non-playing referee at most, are very different in nature than cooperative games where the "referee" is really part of the team. And the attitude of intra-party competition[1] that evokes makes for poor game play.

It's one reason I prefer the 4e descriptors. Beyond what I posted up there, each entry has a list of things that motivation likes, ways to keep them happy, and failure states to look out for and counter (such as "don't let the instigator drag the party into a TPK" or "make sure the power gamer doesn't finagle his way into making others irrelevant" or "make sure the thinker doesn't bog everything down" etc).

And it can apply to DMs as well--DMs have motivations that fit very well into those categories. And being aware of that lets you find people who fit your style and adjust to others' styles.

[MaxWilson]

I realized another reason why I felt compelled to write about this last night: I think that Johnny and Spike have a lot to do with why we are here on this forum. If we did not want to express our options and demonstrate/prove our correctness, why would we spend so much time and effort here?

For me it's a combination of pedagogy (desire to be of service answering questions and educating others), looking for cool insights from others (neat tricks or amusing rules technicalities), and bad habits (similar to reflexively checking Facebook, it's just something I've got unfortunately wired into my habits right now).

So again, not about demonstrating or proving to others, and when people try to turn things into demonstrations or winning arguments ("proofs" of "correctness") I get annoyed and/or set them on Ignore. I've got nothing to prove but I am here to share ideas.

[cutlery]

This reminds me a lot of Bartle's taxonomy of MUD players:

https://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

MUDs had a lot more solo play, of course, and unlike the MMOs of the current era tended not to have an internets worth of pre-solved guides for how to do and find everything. MUDs also had a lot more pvp; so killers were really killers.

If WotC is worth their salt they probably have some rather detailed internal taxonomies of players that they update frequently. This essentially becomes internal marketing data.

[False God]

How is it a feature? If there are a dozen different kinds of Timmies all wanting different (often mutally-exclusive) things, how is it useful to call them all Timmy?
If 10 people want dessert, except none of them can agree on what they want, their commonality is that they all want dessert. Some kind of after-dinner treat meal.

While there may be as many different wants as there are players, ultimately the reasoning for those wants remains the same.

"It's after dinner, I want a treat." Doesn't matter if you want a doughnut or a dog biscuit.


Also remember that it's only Spike if it's an outward-facing proof (to others), otherwise it's a Timmy thing (challenge-seeking, feeling vindicated/engaged). E.g. "Innovator Spike's dream is to spawn the next dominant deck. He wants to break the game. And like Johnny, he wants credit." If doesn't want credit, just internal satisfaction, then he's a Timmy--but how is that Spike/Timmy distinction useful to a TTRPG designer?
Knowing what your players want is useful for selling them product. What Timmy wants is to go home and feel like he had a good time. What Spike wants is to have everyone at the table recognize his skill. So providing options for players to build powerful characters, and thus play them at the table "winning" at D&D caters to the Spike. Everyone at the table gets to see how good he was at finding those options and putting them together and effectively playing it at the table.

Timmy on the other hand gets catered to by designers by rules being implemented to balance the outward-facing Spikes with the cooperative nature of a TTRPG. If the end result of Spike's power-building is a character that is supportive of the group, helpful towards the resolution of gameplay, and rather than dominating other characters, coordinates with them to succeed, then the Timmy (who may or may not be an inward-facing Spike) is satisfied because the group succeeded at their goals, completed the adventure, and cooperated while doing so, resulting in what Bureaucrats may refer to as "a good time".

---
Of course these things are generalizations, and the overwhelming majority of people probably fit into a several categories and may shift through them depending on the game, the group, and their mood that day.


I realized another reason why I felt compelled to write about this last night: I think that Johnny and Spike have a lot to do with why we are here on this forum. If we did not want to express our options and demonstrate/prove our correctness, why would we spend so much time and effort here?
As a Vorthos/Timmy, I'm primarily here to find creative ideas to create a better game. I really don't care who's "right", but I do enjoy a good discussion.