Timmy, Johhny, and Spike for dnd 5e.

[Rfkannen]

The designers of magic the gathering have 3 hypothetical players, Timmy, Johhny, and Spike. With every release they make sure that there are cards for each type of player. I thought this would be useful for dms making campaigns for their group of players, so I adapted it, and gave advice for how to cater campaigns to each type of player.

Timmy:
Timmy likes COOL things. Timmy lives for that big moment. Timmy finds one cool thing, wants to see it in action, and is willing to use it over more effective options.

Story: Timmy lives for that big climactic moment, the fight against the bbeg, unraveling the mystery. Timmy doesn't feel the need to be involved in every scene, but make sure to give Timmy a couple of big spotlight moments focusing on their character.
Magic items: Timmy likes things with huge effects, even if they don't always work; Items that only have a random chance to work, items that work on crits, and items that Timmy can use rarely but have HUGE effects. Timmy also wants things that, more than anything, look COOL. Find your Timmy's definition of cool and help them achieve it.




Johhny:
Johhny likes clever things. Johhny wants to go through extensive lists of things and find unexpected combos and uses. Johhny likes to have tons of options so that they can have the perfect one to pull out of a hat when an unexpected situation pops up.

Story: Johhny likes to self-determine and find solutions to things the gm didn't think of. Give Johhny opportunities to make decisions without clear answers and make their mark on the story and setting even when it interferes with your previously established plan.
Magic items: Johhny wants new tools in their toolbox. Give Johhny items that do something that Johhny couldn't do previously. The best types of items for Johnny aren't particularly powerful, but Johnny can find weird uses for them.




Spike:
Spike likes reliability. Spike likes that when making a decision, it will matter. Spike wants their character to be able to do the things they are meant to do. Spike likes going through lists but finds good options that they will then stick to. Spike likes it when any failure is from a mistake they made rather than random dice. Spike wants to feel useful.

Story: Spike wants to be involved in every plotline but doesn't need the spotlight as often as other players. Always give Spike a chance to be involved when you can. When Spike does something that Spike thinks will work, and their reasons are good, just let it work.
Magic items: Spike likes items that make them better at what they are already doing and make their thing more reliable. If it gives Spike new options, make sure those are good enough to be used alongside Spike's preferred ones and reliable enough for Spike to depend on them.




What do you think? Are these useful categories for dms?

[Dork_Forge]

I think it's hard to reduce 5e players to three archetypical players like this, for example from a quick read I can't really place a 'roleplay first' type player in any of those buckets, but it's a player type I find 5e attracts quite well.

[Raven777]

I think it's hard to reduce 5e players to three archetypical players like this, for example from a quick read I can't really place a 'roleplay first' type player in any of those buckets, but it's a player type I find 5e attracts quite well.

I think it's just a different axis. Something like:

Axis #1: Character Building Preference (or "TJS (Timmy-Johnny-Spike) Spectrum")
Axis #2: Roleplay Engagement Preference

[Rfkannen]

I think it's just a different axis. Something like:

Axis #1: Character Building Preference (or "TJS (Timmy-Johnny-Spike) Spectrum")
Axis #2: Roleplay Engagement Preference

That axis also has names in mtg! Vorthos and Mel.

Vorthos find cards cool because of the art and the writing. Mel finds cards cool because of the interplay of the mechanics. I think the dnd equivalent would be how much a player focuses on roleplaying.

[JackPhoenix]

What do you think? Are these useful categories for dms?

Not really, and the DMG covers players' interests better. It's not the best player categorization ever, but it covers more options, and at least uses descriptive names.

[Unoriginal]

Not really, and the DMG covers players' interests better. It's not the best player categorization ever, but it covers more options, and at least uses descriptive names.

I have to agree that "Timmy, Johhny and Spike" are not very descriptive names.

If anything it makes me imagine Spike from Buffy The Vampire Slayer/Angel having two comic-relief henchmen whose real names are never spoken on screen but who are called Timmy and Johhny by everyone anyway.

Maybe Timmy would be a big human who fights by walloping people with punches charged with basic spells, while Johhny would be a demon, as in the actor gets rubber-forehead-horn and maybe special contact lenses, with a running gag he hides his horns with different hats and his eyes with gaudy sunglasses.

Then in one of the last seasons they get an episode from their PoV called "The Ballade of Timmy and Johhny (and Spike)".

[GloatingSwine]

I think it's hard to reduce 5e players to three archetypical players like this, for example from a quick read I can't really place a 'roleplay first' type player in any of those buckets, but it's a player type I find 5e attracts quite well.

They're categories specific to a competitive card game, so that informs how they are intended to be understood.

Timmy, Johnny, and Spike don't want to play in different ways, they want to win in different ways. So if you tried to apply it to D&D you could really only apply it to the elements where the concept of winning makes sense (basically combat).

Timmy wants to hit things with a big number, Johnny wants to hit them with a killer combo, and Spike doesn't care how he hits them as long as they don't get back up.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

They're categories specific to a competitive card game, so that informs how they are intended to be understood.

Timmy, Johnny, and Spike don't want to play in different ways, they want to win in different ways. So if you tried to apply it to D&D you could really only apply it to the elements where the concept of winning makes sense (basically combat).

Timmy wants to hit things with a big number, Johnny wants to hit them with a killer combo, and Spike doesn't care how he hits them as long as they don't get back up.

Which makes me think of 3.5 more than 5E, personally, though that's I think a consequence of the lack of splat-support for 5E.

[Joe the Rat]

Loosely, Timmy is a Schticklord, Johnny is a Gearhead, and Spike is an True Optimizer.

Or to turn this to more common gaming descriptors:

Timmy leans more to Roleplayer (loves the big epic scenes)

Spike is classic Min-Max (high build efficiency with flowcharts and progressions designed through 20)

Johnny would combine Min-Max with High Concept (Cranky Tanky Blizzard Wizard Lizard) *sip*

[Psyren]

I wouldn't say Timmy/Tammy (plug for the distaff labels MaRo came up with for these) is primarily a roleplayer - as mentioned, that's a different axis. Rather, the stuff that appeals to players with that label are the big things that don't work most of the time but are massive and game-changing when they do. Stuff like laying waste to mooks with Meteor Swarm or Circle of Death, or landing a Dominate Monster on the Big Bad or their lieutenant, or finally succeeding at that Divine Intervention roll as a Cleric, or just about any build centered around cool stuff happening on a critical hit. Roleplaying those moments can certainly be fun, but how they're roleplayed is ultimately orthogonal to their design. What matters more is that they feel big.

Johnny/Jenny is more focused on taking something niche or suboptimal or overlooked, so long as it's unique, and making it viable - e.g. optimizing the Blowgun, or Sling, or making a Cantrip-focused build.

[Particle_Man]

Also, players can shift. I have become a lot more Spike-like since I now have less free time and psychological bandwidth. That means I go for something simple and reliable like the standard human champion fighter, even if that is not optimal.

[Kane0]

I guess i'm a Spohnny? Or would that be Joke?

[GloatingSwine]

Spike is classic Min-Max (high build efficiency with flowcharts and progressions designed through 20)


This is a common misunderstanding.

All three are minmaxers, they're just minmaxing different paths to victory.

Spike is about reliable wins. It's not about whether it's shiny, it's about whether it works as often as possible.

[KorvinStarmast]

Not a big fan of the MtG bleed into D&D, but I guess it can't be helped.
Corporate brand unification is a thing.
I see no reason to pander to it, though. :smallwink:

[tchntm43]

I was just thinking about making a thread very similar to this. One of the things I have noticed while reading and participating in D&D discussion (here and elsewhere) is that different people want the game to be different things. And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as everyone in the group is on the same page. The game is flexible enough to accommodate different campaign styles.

I had thought about it in terms very similar to the well-known political compass that people often talk about. In the case of D&D, I would define the axes as:
axis 1: Sandbox - Railroading
axis 2: Hack & Slash - Story

The extremes of each axis are defined as such:

Sandbox: A game without a specific objective. The party can travel anywhere they want and this necessitates much content being created spontaneously by the DM. This requires significant improvisational skills that can be challenging for many DMs

Railroading: Although the term is often used negatively, I don't imply that here. In this extreme, the DM writes a story that the players participate in. This is much easier to DM, but most players don't like this extreme because they have less agency in the outcome of the game. However, many players do like like epic climaxes and plot-twists, and this is difficult to do without some degree of railroading.

Hack & Slash: Players don't need any backstory at all and conversation with NPCs is almost always limited to strictly functional purposes (like buying equipment). Encounters are almost always handled by combat. Players spend most time thinking about how to maximize the build of the character. Character death tends to be extremely common, even including level 1 deaths.

Story: Players write long back stories for their characters, and they are embedded into the world they play in, with family and friends as NPCs they may encounter. The DM creates adventures that are often centered around one or two specific characters at a time. Players expect that character death is possible, but they expect a DM that goes easier on them than in a Hack & Slash game, especially in the early levels. They would at least like the opportunity to develop their character's personality and relationship with NPCs before the character is killed. For many encounters, combat can be avoided entirely through conversation.

As an example, I would place Critical Role on the axes this way:
Sandbox <--o-------> Railroading
Hack & Slash <---------o> Story

[GloatingSwine]

Not a big fan of the MtG bleed into D&D, but I guess it can't be helped.
Corporate brand unification is a thing.
I see no reason to pander to it, though. :smallwink:

This isn't really a D&D design thing, it's a player thing and they're already doing it.

This thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?655862-Critical-hit-optimization) for instance is a Timmy thread. Someone wants to optimise for critical hits, chasing crits is a very Timmy thing to optimise for because big number feels good.

[Joe the Rat]

This is a common misunderstanding.

All three are minmaxers, they're just minmaxing different paths to victory.

Spike is about reliable wins. It's not about whether it's shiny, it's about whether it works as often as possible.
This is true. I was leaning more into the obliqueness of the axis between the Magic Trio and the RPG Trio.

Timmy is optimizing for the Big Number, which can drag you out of practical optimization (Once your AC hits 30, anything more is bragging rights).
For Johnny, it's either making the crazy mix work well, or even just making it work at all.

[JNAProductions]

Railroading: Although the term is often used negatively, I don't imply that here. In this extreme, the DM writes a story that the players participate in. This is much easier to DM, but most players don't like this extreme because they have less agency in the outcome of the game. However, many players do like like epic climaxes and plot-twists, and this is difficult to do without some degree of railroading.

I wouldn't call that railroading-I'd call that linearity.

A linear game is completely fine, provided that that's what was agreed upon. A railroaded game is, by its nature, linear-but without the agreement to keep it linear, and instead forced from the DM.

[BlueHydra]

Not one of them could be Tammy or Jenny?

[Kurald Galain]

Well, the traditional four types of RPG players are the
Real Man (which resembles Timmy)
Real Roleplayer (close to Johnny)
Loonie (kind of like Vorthos, because you forgot Melvin and Vorthos from your MtG player archetypes)
Munchkin (basically Spike)


Does it help to know what you have at the table? Sure. Timmy wants big swords, big fireballs, and big monsters; Johnny wants convoluted stories and item combos; the loonie wants the silliness you usually get in Paranoia and Toon RPGs; and Spike wants to level to 20+ and one-shot Chthulhu. There's probably a few more kinds of players. Point is, if the DM isn't delivering what the players want, then the campaign is less fun for them.

[Witty Username]

A quick thing, is that power is a factor for Spike, that is not the primary draw for her.
Timmy likes big powerful things, Spike likes the feeling of agency
-reactive effects that allow to respond to situations as they appear
-design that has inherent choices of when and how

Shield, find familiar, and counterspell are all very Spike spells.

Blasting out Chultuhu with a meteor swarm is Timmy's want.

Note, in MTG, all the archetypes care about "Winning" in a way not as applicable to D&D. Spike translates to power though MTGs lens because she is the tournament player, and tends to gravitate toward things effective in her prefered format, but that is secondary to the goal, agency + victory = skill expression.

[False God]

Note, in MTG, all the archetypes care about "Winning" in a way not as applicable to D&D.

No, at least one specifically does not. Vorthos cares about the visuals, playing X card with Y art. They don't care about winning the game, their "win" is that they got to showcase their favorite card/character and their favorite art thereof.

Timmy arguably doesn't care as much about winning, as being able to play big cool monsters. The "win" is not when they drop Emrakul, the Aeons Torn and destroy any concept of game balance, but when they drop Zacama, Primal Calamity because three-headed t-rex!

Johnny similarly cares more about the combo they find fun and interesting and less that this combo wins the game.

----

All players, be they MTG or D&D, want to succeed in their endeavors. But what those endeavors are and what winning looks like can vary greatly.

[GloatingSwine]

Timmy arguably doesn't care as much about winning, as being able to play big cool monsters. The "win" is not when they drop Emrakul, the Aeons Torn and destroy any concept of game balance, but when they drop Zacama, Primal Calamity because three-headed t-rex!

Johnny similarly cares more about the combo they find fun and interesting and less that this combo wins the game.

----

All players, be they MTG or D&D, want to succeed in their endeavors. But what those endeavors are and what winning looks like can vary greatly.

I'm not sure about that.

Timmy does want his big monsters to win the game, he wants to hit you in the face with the 9/9 monster and he's willing to accept the weaknesses of high investment big monsters (like Remove Soul) in order to get there.

Johnny wants the cool combo to go off and win the game, and he's willing to accept that it might be interrupted and not happen because it's cool when it does.

Spike doesn't want to use strategies that have obvious points of failure like that.

[OldTrees1]

I'm not sure about that.

Timmy does want his big monsters to win the game, he wants to hit you in the face with the 9/9 monster and he's willing to accept the weaknesses of high investment big monsters (like Remove Soul) in order to get there.

Johnny wants the cool combo to go off and win the game, and he's willing to accept that it might be interrupted and not happen because it's cool when it does.

Spike doesn't want to use strategies that have obvious points of failure like that.

Timmy and Johnny care about how they play (and thus how they win) more than they care about winning. In MtG part of the default social contract is that all players are trying to win. When that detail of the social contract is relaxed or removed (speaking from personal experience) then Timmy and Johnny no longer care about winning (although winning can be a side effect). Spike on the other hand wants to win independent of the default social contract.



You could apply these to D&D. Timmy wants to experience something. Johnny wants to express something. Spike wants to succeed. Mel wants interesting mechanics. Vorthos wants interesting flavor. However these are not separate people and it is not a very useful division for RPGs.

On the other hand, no division is useful in itself (and they are a dime a dozen online). They just help create a language to allow the group to ask and answer the more personal questions about what they are looking for and what they enjoy.

For example (based on language from the 5) I might say:

I like others to be able to enjoy the game too, so import their considerations to this list.
I like the experience of us getting together and playing a game with each other.
I also like to explore what was alien because it is interesting and I want to understand it (hence the past tense).
When creating a character I find characterization and capabilities to be very intertwined. The character chooses what capabilities to acquire and their capabilities influence how they think.
I am looking for a system that can handle mechanical support for these characters. It needs mechanical support for the capabilities I am trying to express, to do that it needs to allow a broad diversity of distinct options and allow enough combination for me to be able to instantiate the capability composition I was envisioning.
I enjoy empowerment more than disempowerment. In general, I want the party to be expected but not guaranteed to succeed. Instead the uncertainty would be on how they succeed and the consequences of that success. However for shorter experiences I can enjoy a "we watch as the PCs lose again and again or get pyrrhic victories" provided that is the tone going in and it does not go on too long.

[Rfkannen]

Not one of them could be Tammy or Jenny?

Spike is usually represented as a woman

https://prod.assets.earlygamecdn.com/images/Timmy-Johnny-Spike-MTG-philosophy.jpg?x=0.5&y=0.5

it would have been cool if they used more gender neutral names though.