Re: Timmy, Johnny and Spike (Player Psychographics explained)

Stargaze Mon Dec 24, 2012 5:01 am

Nah, he's talking about me with my love of Misdirection/Paranoia/Betrayal...

Hayatecooper Mon Dec 24, 2012 5:05 am

To be fair, who doesn't love a good betrayal?

**Stairc -Dan Felder** Mon Dec 24, 2012 5:19 am

Thanks for bringing this up Hayate!

Yes, the MUD player psychographic profiles. You can find the full extended discussion from the original author here, for those not used to this breakdown of gamer psychographic profiles. Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs

These psychographics were then further expanded on into various subtypes and so on, as they're rather limiting and were focused specifically on a specific type of gameplay. MUDs, for example, usually don't have a wealth and depth of build options and combat strategy - which is what the Timmy/Johnny/Spike distinctions are for.

The reason that such inclusive psychographics often break down when you try to wrap up the whole system in one bundle is because the game has very differen't elements in it. At any given point, the best way to think of creating game elements is to think about what the player desires. The experience of combat is very different from the rest of the roleplaying experience, which is why it's often used as a pallet-cleanser. Players often start to hunger for some combat after a long string of roleplaying, even players that tend to prefer roleplaying. Conversely, combat-lovers can often get tired after too many encounters too close together and look forward to some roleplaying.

Combat exists as its own system, distinct from skill checks. Tactical decisions made on the battlefield are a different kind of engagement and behavior than acting, roleplaying or deciding what quest to undertake. Forming a political treaty or defending oneself in a court-room scene, or puzzling over the ambiguity of a city's web of intrigue, feels very different than deciding which attack to use. And both those things feel different from building a character's combat capabilities.

Trying to capture a psychographic that encompases all of roleplaying and combat also misses the many players that like to play combat one way and roleplay another. For example, I love laying waste in combat and uncorking as much as I can as soon as I can. Aint no kill like overkill. But before and after combat, I would much rather play the long game and try to find ways to turn enemies into allies. I absolutely love finding ways to work together and to get Darth Vader on our side.

Since miniatures combat, or the non-board version, so different from the rest of the roleplay experience (though they often feed off one another) that almost every DM I know tries to vary a mix of alternating roleplay and combat - thus using them as palette-cleansers for each other... The experiences are so different that it's helpful to think of them separately.

The story is about what you are doing in the world. Combat is how, when it involves fighting, you can have fun while doing it. We want to make playing combat fun, and thus we're using combat-focused psychographics for in-combat things. We've simply got a list of differing player desires that's pretty close to comprehensive. Out of combat is a different experience and thus has different psychographics (some of which you mention in your post). Putting a single player to these profiles would thus involve their desires regarding roleplaying, character objectives in the overall story and how they prefer to play combat. If they have several similar profiles, like SilentBelle, that's fine. But if they have different ones like quite a few posters here (and me) in the distinctly different experience of combat contrasting to their roleplaying; then a single profile is going to miss the mark. It helps a lot more to examine their in-roleplaying desires and their in-combat desires. If they're similar, great. If they're not, good thing we separated them. =)

Whiteeyes Mon Dec 24, 2012 5:20 pm

The separation of combat and most RP is kinda why I made a separate thread about roleplay archetypes in its own thread. In addition to TJ and S though, some others that arise in a non-combat focused game we need to consider do exist. These are the player types that like the games noncombatant elements and as such do not enjoy fighting when it breaks out.

Frank Frank doesn't give a hoot about combat. His motivation is Get it over quickly. Unlike Spike who oes for the challenge of perfect efficiency, Frank plays a very direct build that's easy to use and gets the job done fast not for the challenge, but in order to end combat quickly so the game can get back to what he likes. Frank prefers things that are simple,direct, and do damage fast. He's not in it for the long hull, he just wants this done. Frank is easy to design for; give him something simple that does a lot of damage with no weird rules and he's good.

Andy Andy neither likes combat, nor does he dislike it. He's the guy who asks others what he should do, plays builds the party asks for, takes his turns, and otherwise doesn't really care. You don't really design for Andy, he either takes the same stuff as Frank or whatever the party feels it needs. Andy often ends up a healer if nopony else wants to be one.

Peter Peter is scared of combat. After all, what if his character dies?! Peter can be satisfied with healing and defensive talents, especially those that prevent damage in the first place. Peter is also likely to go out of his way to stop fights from starting, so things like the Element of Kindness and good diplomacy skills are also common.

**Stairc -Dan Felder** Mon Dec 24, 2012 5:41 pm

These are some good additions Whiteeyes. I particularly like Peter, though I think we should call him Sir Robin. Some players view combat as hazardous for their character's help. I know one player that spent every turn in one of my D&D camps readying an action in case something hit him.

**LoganAura** Mon Dec 24, 2012 5:45 pm

That, and like I said before in this thread there's my timberwolves that I make avoid combat, even if they're meant for it really. In that case I'm a peter, but in most others I'm more of one of the combat ones *nods*

I like those classifications Very Happy

Demonu Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:16 pm

I honestly don't see what all the fuzz is about. As an outsider and probably the closest one can be to true neutral here (I simply don't care about things that don't affect me (in)directly), all I can see here is high school drama of a subpar level. Regardless, my two cents on the matter.

Yes, T/J/S are archetypes from a game (MtG) that resolves solely around combat. Meaning that if ideas derived from those archetypes are used in the design of combat, there isn't much wrong with that. Alternatively, as been said, role playing isn't designed with said archetypes in mind. Hence why the argument that a system with combat designed around T/J/S wouldn't be much fun for the role players isn't a valid one.

Also, combat is an intrinsic part of any RPG (unless you play political intrigues or something) so everyone playing an RPG is going to get involved with combat and all the mechanics related to it. I fail to see why this is a bad thing. After all, for the role players out there, isn't combat just a different outing of role playing? Especially seeing how you can reflavour just about anything, means that role playing and combat don't need to be seperated. Want to role play as an obstructive bureacrat (I've seen it happen)? Great: your hp equals the amount of forms the enemy has to fill out before you stamp their form APPROVED.

As for all the arguments being slung back and forth: you don't have to adhere to this or any other specific archtypes using theory of game design. These archetypes are just guidelines to understand the intended game/mechanics demographic. If you think the entire thing is bullshit and that people can't be shoved into 3 or more different categories, more power to you. On the flipside, calling other people's theories bullshit because they don't adhere to your views isn't being a critic, it's being an douchebag.

I've seen both sides fling with equal amounts of mud to each other. I'm also in the rather unique position to witness how both parties act outside this forum. But it's not my place nor my function to act as an arbiter or to judge who is more right than the other.

If you find whatever is written in this thread to be interesting, good.
If you disagree because you have a different view on the subject matter, feel free to share.
If you think everything said is a load of baloney, then please disregard this thread.
But do remember there are better ways to work out a disagreement other than to see who can fling the most mud.

On a more personal note then: I'm quite familiar with nearly all theories of game design or at the very least, the ones that propose player archetypes.
- Regarding T/J/S: I'm a Timmy/Johnny player overall. With a touch of Spike added in whenever I feel I can gain something from winning. Case in point: my combat build before Daredevil's Rush got nerfed.
Daredevil's Rush for 10 --> shit ton of abilities/traits/items to keep me alive --> bloodied + Furious Rage + damage boosters (vicious hawkeye + Robes of the Reaper) = 3d12+3+2d6 damage
Add in full build of King of Fools traits and have Logan tell you about last Friday's game where I rolled 9 or so crits in a single turn and had to break off my actions because the other party members were getting bored.
Or for those who play MtG: Commander --> Warp World --> shit ton of "When enters the battlefield" --> me getting banned from playing that card due to the amount of time it takes to resolve it and royally screwing up everything
- In terms of pure role playing: I'm the Actor/Storyteller. Usually a mix of both but a little bit more the latter than the former. Though I'm not aversed to combat when push comes to shove.

I could list all the other archetypes I could potentially fall under but except of doing that, have a list instead:
Player Archetypes

Whiteeyes Tue Dec 25, 2012 1:57 am

I made a separate thread for discussing RP archetypes; this thread is for discussing combat archetypes.

These are some good additions Whiteeyes. I particularly like Peter, though I think we should call him Sir Robin. Some players view combat as hazardous for their character's help. I know one player that spent every turn in one of my D&D camps readying an action in case something hit him.

That...sounds a little cruel actually. Remember, no archetype is inherently wrong or inferior. Peter has just as much right to play the game as Timmy, and you have to design elements for both of them. Giving one of them an insulting nickname is rude. Some players don't like combat, and those players need safety oriented options if a fight breaks out. Even if it's not your style there still exists a need to account for it in designing game elements.

**Stairc -Dan Felder** Tue Dec 25, 2012 2:13 am

I think of it more as a joking reference to another character that is afraid of falling in combat. Not meant to be taken seriously. Wink

Greywander Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:36 am

Huh, apparently the three psychographics I posted a while back are from something called GNS Theory. I knew I'd heard of them somewhere before, but couldn't remember it exactly. Apparently I nailed not only the names of the three types, but also what exactly they want from a game.

RE: T/J/S:

I see a lot of people trying to figure out which profile they fit into, or how they're split between them. More interesting, and possibly relevant, is how we express each profile. Let's talk about the Elder Scrolls.

Spoiler:

So what have we learned from this? Well, I don't like to miss out on things, or deliberately gimping myself for no reason. I LIKE being creative in my character builds, and, given the option, will use over-the-top abilities just for fun. But not if it makes it impossible to win. If a game has an optimal build that far outclasses everything else, and the game is unbeatable with most other builds, I'll min/max to the moon and back, partially for the sake of perfection, but mostly because I have no choice if I wish to win. If I'm playing a game to lose, and that game isn't Dwarf Fortress, then the game is designed poorly. Or... unconventional, see Dwarf Fortress. By the same token, though, if a game is way too easy, I'll start playing around with it and trying to find creative ways to add to the difficulty by playing in a suboptimal but interesting way (try playing a Zelda game without getting any heart containers, for example). I enjoy a challenge, and if the game doesn't already present one as it is, then it is also poorly designed (or unconventional).

However, it is often the unconventional games that tend to catch my interest. Games like Minecraft, Dwarf Fortress, Portal... Mainstream games tend to be a little flat, and I like intellectual stimulation. My first time through a game, I might approach a game from a Spike perspective, because the game is a puzzle to be solved, a challenge to be overcome, and generally winning is my first priority. But when I come back to it later, I can try more creative approaches to play, especially since now I know what I can and can't get away with in the mechanics of the game. When I first played Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, I wanted to be a gunslinging Jedi. That didn't exactly work out (lightsaber >>> dual blaster pistols), and I still spent a lot of time agonizing over which feats to take for an optimal build (I do this with perks in Fallout or Skyrim, too).

Basically, I want to be a Johnny/Timmy, but keep finding myself falling back to a Spike because I can't stand anything less than perfection. If you want to build a system with me in mind, then you have two options. The first is to indulge my Spike side, by providing lots of complex mechanics just waiting to be exploited for the optimal build of true perfection. This can be fun, but once I've found the perfect combo, it can get kind of stale, especially if it makes the game really easy. The other option is to construct a system that doesn't force players to min/max in order to compete, and doesn't have obviously optimal builds that outclass other builds.

Pony Tales is generally pretty good about this, providing many ways to build a viable character. As far as combat, you really only need to follow a few simple rules: make sure you have a way to get pips, and a way to damage the enemy. You can still min/max by choosing combat talents that work well together, but there's still a lot of options that will work just fine. As a general rule, though, I ignore It's Over! in all my combat builds because (a) it's inefficient, (b) in any situation where (a) is inapplicable, it's cheap, and (c) it's uninteresting because it's just a ship-ton of damage without any sort of twist (see Crescendo for a more interesting ability that's still just raw damage).

Pokemon is also pretty good at this, because although some Pokemon just aren't that great compared to others (I'm looking at you, Pikachu), there's still a lot of undervalued Pokemon that can be used in a creative way to build a winning team. Oddball Pokemon like Shuckle, for example. Crap attack, speed, and HP, but godly defense. There's some interesting things you can do with that. I mean, hay, you can even build a team around Magikarp and still take out a full team of legendary Pokemon.

Lastly, I've noticed that my playstyle is completely different depending on whether I'm playing with other humans or against a computer. If I'm playing Civilization single player, then I have to build every wonder. RPGs that give random stat increases at a level up will have me restarting over and over until I can get above average boosts. Again, perfection. Playing with humans, though, I'm much more willing to let that slide, because I understand that I have to treat them as equals and accept the hand I'm dealt, whereas I don't give the same courtesy to the computer.

RE:Combat Lethality:

I've been awake for around 18 hours after only 6 hours of sleep, so please excuse any typos in the above. Now I'm going to go hibernate for probably 12 hours or so. Merry Christmas, everypony. And everyone who's not a pony. Which is everyone.

Appkes Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:03 am

Demonu wrote:
Want to role play as an obstructive bureacrat (I've seen it happen)? Great: your hp equals the amount of forms the enemy has to fill out before you stamp their form APPROVED.

...

...

*steal*

Whiteeyes Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:42 am

Correct. Some of us are bunnies. As to your comment on lethality levels, I decided to list some RPG systems that are examples of High, Middle, and Lowvlethality for the PCs. I also explain why it is that level for each system, and this is by no means a complete list, but just some stand out examples.

High Lethality
Paranoia - It's a game where you are SUPPOSED to die. Repeatedly. For stupid reasons. Never base a combat system off of this unless you want to make a game that's not supposed to be taken seriously.

Legend of the Five Rings - The average PC has 10 health before death. The average sword attack does 1d10 damage. Needless to say, getting in your attack first and hitting is vital to survival, which fits the settings samurai drama style.

Shadow Run - This is a game with pistols that fire shotgun flatchets, shoulder mounted rocket launchers, mages, and cyborgs with superstrenth weilding monofilament swords. Everything is designed to rack up that body count in this game, where human lives are cheaper than guns.

Aberant - A game of dark supers, if you don't build your Nova right you'll die quick once any fighting breaks out. An example of what not to do when designing combat.

Scion - See above, but even more glaringly so.

Call of Cthulu - 1d4 players per round damage. That is all.

Mid Lethality
Grimm - No, not the TV show, this is the game where you play kids drawn into the world of Grimm's fairytales, and not the nice sanitized versions either. It's dangerous, but some good sense, teamwork, and knowing how these sorts of stories go cuts down on a lot of the danger.

Hunter: The Recconing - You ever seen the first two seasons of Supernatural? Yeah, it's just like that, though this game is older. You're regular people who hunt monsters, armed with what lore you could put together and any weapons you can get your hands on. Be prepared, work together, and you'll probably all make it out alive. Probably.

Deathwatch - You are a genetically enhanced super soldier armed with devastating weapons and one of the most advanced armor systems in the galaxy. You are a member of a brotherhood of only 1000 such warriors, one of only a few hindered such groups in the galaxy, and are expected to perform the job of a 50,000 men army. Your brotherhood usually performs it in months instead of years. Beyond that, you are a recognized elite member of one of these brotherhoods and selected for special duty. You are now a member of a squad of warriors equally as impressive as you, have received additional advanced training, and now have access to ever better weapons. The only reason the mortality rate is so high is because every mission you're expected to succeed in would be considered suicide for anyone else to attempt.

Geist: The Sin Eaters - You died before the game even began. Welcome to your second chance; you even get powers out of the deal. All you have to put up with now is an insane and amoral spirit sharing its soul with you, ghosts being attracted to you (even the violent ones), and the world being full of monsters, like yourself. Have fun!

Low Lethality

Mutants and Masterminds - Damage is abstract, and characters only die if the Master Mind sys they do; otherwise at the worst they'll be out of commission for a while.

Champions - It's very easy to KO someone in this system, to the point where killing is basically deliberate.

Toon - You can't really die, you're just "off screen" for a bit before you can come back.

Bunnies and Burrows - You can't die. At all. You're bunnies.

Reuses - Yes, like the monkey. The system...yeah if you haven't played it this one's hard to describe.

Sponsored content