Timmy, Johnny and Spike (Player Psychographics explained)

There's been a lot of discussion about the terms "Timmy, Johnny and Spike" lately as tools for game design. I know a lot of people are getting confused to what is meant by this, so I'll include an abridged explanation here.

Timmy, Johnny and Spike are core player psychographic profiles commonly used by Magic the Gathering's R&D team (the people that design and develop new cards for MTG). They're a simplified breakdown of the most common types of players that play games which involve creating and customizing your own strategy (whether with decks in a cardgame or with a character in a Pony Tales campaign). Regardless of whether you're building a deck in a card game or building a character for combat, it's helpful to understand that many different types of people with different preferences are going to play the game. If you can understand what these different types of people like - you can design combat talents, items, traits, destinies etc. specifically for them, so you know that they'll be happy.

Naturally, these psychographics are all about combat design – though they can have some loose translation to adventure design and the design of utility talents. But what we’re talking about here is combat, which is why story-focused roleplaying aspects aren’t discussed here. Roleplaying psychographics are very different (plus even more varied) and are a discussion for another thread. The fact they’re not being discussed here does not mean we’re ignoring them. After all, the overall story is driven by the outcome of the combat. These psychographics are about what happens inside the combat to lead to those outcomes.

And of course, these are rules of thumb. They're just a great game design tool for understanding the various types of desires players have when they sit down to play some combat.

Here's a brief description from Mark Rosewater himself, the head of MTG’s design. It’s slightly truncated to translate better to Pony Tales design, but I’m also linking the full article if you want to read it from the source. Naturally, Pony Tales is a different game than MTG (and is cooperative rather than competitive) so some small transpositions are required. I’ve also changed most instances of “cards” to, “combat talents” or “effects” for easy reading from the pony tales perspective.

Note: Many players are hybrid types of multiple psychographics, a little of this and a little of that. Some change things up from game to game too, for the sake of variety. Many people vary depending on the situation. This isn’t to say that every player is a specific cardboard cutout archetype listed below, that’s not the case at all. However, this kind of thinking in these profiles does tend to break down the major desires most people have about how they like playing combat.

Timmy
The first question I always ask of a profile is: what does this profile want when they play combat? Timmy wants to experience something. Timmy plays because he enjoys the feeling he gets when he plays. What that feeling is will vary from Timmy to Timmy, but what all Timmies have in common is that they enjoy the visceral experience of playing. Timmy is in it for the journey.

One of the great myths about Timmy is that he is young and inexperienced. I think this comes from the fact that a non-Timmy, looking at a Timmy play reads his choices as those of inexperience. Why else would he play over-costed items or coin flipping combat talents or with traits that, simply put, aren't that good? Efficiency-focused players like Spike often miss the point. Timmy plays with effects that make him happy; combat talents that create cool moments; items that make him laugh; effects that cause him to have a memorable and fun experience in combat. Beating the encounter isn't even really the point (although beating the encounter is often fun – Timmy gets that). For Timmy, the entire reason to play is having a good time.

Interestingly, Timmy is often prone to playing with huge effects – even when they’re inefficient. Timmy often loves to do things in combat that have huge gameplay effects – like summoning a Fire Giant. One subset of the Timmy psychographic is the Power Gamer. Dropping a Fire Giant on the battlefield and watching it lay waste to a dragon is definitely a huge experience for many Timmy-minded players.


Johnny
So why does Johnny play combat? Because Johnny wants to express something. To Johnny, combat is an opportunity to show the world something about himself, be it how creative he is or how clever he is or how offbeat he is. As such, Johnny is very focused on the customizability of the game. Building characters isn't an aspect of the game to Johnny; it's the aspect.

One of the strengths of our highly customizable character-building system is the ability for players to imbue much of themselves in their characters – both in the roleplaying aspects and their combat builds. When you play Monopoly you don't get emotionally attached to the board. But with Pony Tales, your character becomes an extension of yourself. When your character triumphs, you triumph. When your character build gets complimented, you get complimented. It is this principle that drives Johnnies.

Johnny is more focused on the interactions between abilities and seeing what he can do with the combat system than with actually playing combat. Johnny will often make a lot more character builds than he’ll ever play. Some Johnny’s prefer to focus on finding cool combinations of abilities that no one has found before, while others like to try to do the impossible and succeed where all others have failed by finding a great use for a combat talent that everyone thinks is useless. Johnny wants to express something about himself when he’s playing and he does it through his character build. Johnny’s why we design combat talents, traits and items that have nifty combos with other effects or even seem outright terrible. Johnny loves a challenge and he loves to play with the system. When he’s put together a cool original creation that he’s proud of, he has a great time playing it in combat – even if it doesn’t always work that well.

Johnny might also just focus his build as a form of self-expressive art, using his build to portray a cannon character (what would Celestia have as a character?) or to create a thematic representation of a character’s redemption arc (starting with savage berserker abilities but after the character falls below zero using Phoenix Cloak or similar to rise again and start using healing abilities on his allies). Johnny plays to express himself and the game elements are his paint and paintbrushes. We try to make a great selection of them so that Johnny is never wanting for paint of precisely the color he needs.


Spike
Spike is both the most often misunderstood archetype and the one that needs the most distinct translation when working with a cooperative game like Pony Tales rather than a competitive one like Magic. I’ve seen a lot of people just equating “Spike” to, “Jerk” and this isn’t at all fair.

So why does Spike play? Spikes plays to prove something, primarily to prove how good he is or to see how far he can take his understanding of the system. You see, Spike sees the game as a mental challenge by which he can define and demonstrate his abilities. Spike gets his greatest joy in combat from triumphing over the group’s enemies because his motivation is using the combat system to show what he is capable of. Anything less than success is a failure because that is the yardstick he is judging himself against.

Spike is the player most interested in efficiency. While Timmy doesn’t mind paying more pips for his abilities than a comparable power if the power is cool enough and Johnny often actively likes trying to win with a machine built from imperfect parts – Spike like handicapping himself. His reasons for this might vary. Sometimes it’s the simple mental challenge of playing perfectly. Combat can be a puzzle and the same minds that tackle Sudoku or strategy gaming often enjoy building characters and playing them to perfection. Sometimes it’s a desire to master the system for its own sake, as many players enjoy the feeling of getting better at games. Other times, Spikes are story-motivated. They want to play an epic hero that can save kingdoms and help defend the world from darkness, and thus they want to have the most powerful characters possible to vanquish evil when combat does arise. There are additional reasons as well, and often a Spike-focused player will have several of them together.

Most players have some Spike in them. If you ever find yourself torn between a cool power and one that is more efficient for its pip cost, your Timmy or Johnny side is probably battling with your Spike side. For example, I’ve always wanted to play a Warforged Druid in D&D. I loved the flavor of a metal golem devoted to nature and the essence of life. However, Warforged don’t make very good druids compared to the more traditional races in other systems, because the racial choice impacts your combat ability… So I find it painful either way. If I play the Warforged, I know I’m not being the best I can be. If I don’t play the Warforged, I miss out on my cool character concept.

Thanks to Pony Tales/Living Legends, we don’t have to choose anymore. This is why we’ve done so much in the system to make flavor malleable and to keep the races from affecting combat – so players don’t have to choose between interesting characters and powerful ones. My Warforged druid can be just as strong as another player’s Elf druid – so I get to enjoy the best of both worlds.

Spike isn’t at all bad for the game. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to play as efficiently as possible. The time Spike spends into learning the system and the thought he puts into strategy often results in Spike being highly emotionally invested in the game and story. After all, a Spike genuinely cares about triumphing in combat, which a character in the game probably should too. He genuinely wants to triumph over the villains, his character's victories are his own victories and his character's defeats are his own defeats.

Being a jerk is completely possible for Spike, but it’s also possible for Timmy or Johnny. Spike is rarely going to backstab a party member (as that would hurt his team's overall power in combat), but if Timmy wants to experience that sudden and memorable swing – a less pleasant Timmy to game with might stick the knife in a friend and grin about it. On the other hand, a less pleasant Johnny (a hipster-like Johnny) might build completely unworkable characters with convoluted themes and then insult everyone else for playing more traditional builds that actually work. On the other hand, Spike is more likely to be the mentor figure than other archetypes. Spike will often be the experienced player that understands the game well and, in a desire to help the party be more powerful as well as simple friendship, will often be happy to help less experienced players work on their builds if they ask.

Hybrids
Most players are hybrid types, very few are purely one or another. For example, I’m a Johnny/Spike that has splashes of Timmy mixed in. I want to build epic heroes that triumph over the forces of darkness, but I want to build them with style. I love exploring games and slowly attempting to master them, but only if I’m triumphing in an original way. I love building with undervalued abilities, but only if I can find a way to make them good. When possible, I prefer that the results be big and impressive – which is where the splash of Timmy comes from – but that’s purely optional. If our team is triumphing in a creative and unusual way, I’m very happy.

Here’s a quick list of Mark Rosewater’s breakdowns of some common hybrids.

Timmy/Johnny & Johnny/Timmy
Timmy wants to experience something. Johnny wants to express something. Put them together and you get someone who wants to show others how much fun he can have. Timmy/Johnny wants to enjoy himself, but likes to be innovative in how he has his fun. Timmy/Johnny enjoys making up new formats, rules or character constraints. He likes to build characters specifically for offbeat and fun adventures.

Timmy/Spike & Spike/Timmy
Timmy/Spike is torn. He wants to win, yet he also wants to have fun. To solve this dilemma, he searches among the viable builds for the one that seems like it will be the most fun to play. Timmy/Spike is the guy who goes out of his way to play a huge [-7] talent in his deck. Not one that shouldn't be played, mind you. But if there's an expensive talent that makes sense, Timmy/Spike is all over it.

Johnny/Spike & Spike/Johnny
Johnny/Spike wants to triumph. He just wants to triumph with style. Johnny/Spike is the rogue character builder. He's the guy that comes up with the crazy builds that just might work. But Johnny/Spike takes the next step; he actually plays it. Johnny/Spike is out to triumph while having the limitation of also being innovative while he does so. He also enjoys finding undervalued effects that most people think are terrible but he sees the hidden potential buried within.

Timmy/Johnny/Spike
Timmy/Johnny/Spike wants it all. He wants to prove that he can win while being innovative and having a rousing good time. This is a rare breed because it's hard to stay centered between all three desires. Most players that have a leaning towards all three profiles tend to lean more towards one or two than the other. But the triple-hybrid does exist and is the AB Negative of player profiles.

Hopefully that clarified some things. A lot of this was in Mark Rosewater’s words, modified and added by my own to demonstrate the changes that we’re talking about when dealing with the Pony Tales system rather than magic the gathering – plus a few of our own thoughts too. The original articles by Mark Rosewater can be viewed here.

Timmy, Johnny and Spike – Detailed Version, Most of this post came from this article

Timmy, Johnny and Spike [simplified]

Except you've forgotten the key issue somehow. These are archetypes for collectible card games. Not tabletop roleplaying games. These aren't the archetypes you should have in mind for an rpg at all. The same mindsets that are good to have for a ccg mindset are horrible mindsets for rpgs. Designing for non-existant archetypes that are counter-productive to the experience of an rpg is only going to result in a broken game that isn't as enjoyable for the average player.

Or in simpler terms, you are comparing apples to oranges and deciding that our apple needs more citrus. This doesn't make sense and is going to ruin our apple.

Super-simply put - Timmy wants to experience cool and memorable moments in combat, Johnny builds characters to express himself and his ideas and Spike approaches the game system as a mental challenge that he loves playing with.

These desires are not unique to card games at all and fit perfectly into the combat design.

I have to run for now, got a Christmas party to tidy up for, so hopefully some of the other designers will be able to chime in and answer further questions.

I didn't say I didn't understand the archetypes. I said they aren't the ones you need to have in mind.

What types of archetypes should he keep in mind then, Ramsus?

Timmy Johnny and Spike are Archetypes for combat, not for the entire system. They work really well for combat systems in all games, regardless of CCG or otherwise.

For non-combat stuff, we don't design for them in mind.

Ohh I like these.
It may not apply in all situations, but they can work as a rule of thumb.
It does feel like there should be more groups, but I can't tell what's missing....

hmmm, I think I'd rate about 40-40-20 (T-J-S)

50/50 Timmy Johnny.

50/40/10 Timmy/Johnny/Spike myself.

But the point Dan is trying to get across, or one of them, is that these are combat psychologies that we use to create the combat system. Nothing else.

This is a bit trickier than it is with a ccg because there is combat and there is not combat in an rpg and your focus is really dependent on what kind of system you have but, I'll give this a shot.

Archetypes you mainly want to be designing for in an RPG (that isn't about combat)

So, we've got Steve. Steve is your basic all rounder. He wants to hear the story the gm has in mind, he wants to be a part of making the story, he wants to feel cool doing it, and while he often might feel combat is just a hurdle that needs to be jumped to get to more roleplaying, he wants to have fun with it. What Steve doesn't want is having to basically learn a special kind of algebra to learn how to build his character in combat so that it isn't just plain bad.

Then we have Sally. Sally wants to have a good hand in crafting the story and likes make up stuff about the world (be it history, strange creatures, or secret motivations for her character's and npc characters in her character's background or just npcs that the party meets) more than anything else. She probably also enjoys a good deal of exploration in her games. Sally doesn't care about combat at all and the less cumbersome it is the better.

Third we have Dave. Dave cares about roleplaying. For Dave the plot/events are mostly there so there is something to roleplay about. Combat, is a chore to be done to get to more roleplaying. It's more palatable if roleplaying in combat is viable. Thus, when combat is built so that there are good and bad choices, this is very frustrating for Dave since in the first place he didn't care a whole lot about looking into the mechanics of combat and now his character is being punished by being ineffective because he didn't spend time doing something he finds unejoyable and now combat is not only a chore but outright detracting from his enjoyment of the game.

Others to consider

We've still got Timmy, because Timmy wants to be awesome. He more or less only cares about things as they relate to his character (and if he's a good Timmy, also his party). Combat for Timmy is a place where he wants to do awesome stuff but, being Timmy probably doesn't actually want to have to pour through the mechanics of the system to do so. He sees something that looks awesome and he wants to do that. He hates it when he takes something that looks awesome and it turns out to be both horribly impractical and not as good as the non-awesome looking thing someone else is doing.

Jack likes a challenge. Both in and out of combat. He's the most likely to have the Spike or Johnny subtypes. He, like Timmy wants to feel awesome but, not because his character is intrinsically awesome. He wants to face challenges and overcome them. However, unlike a pure Spike or Johnny, he will push the entire party to do cool and interesting stuff, since he can't play the game all by himself. He probably doesn't mind the combat to be complicated and crazy and have potentially bad choices since he'd just see it as another challenge. That said, if he's a good player, he probably can see how that wouldn't be the kind of fun the rest of the group wants. At best he gets stuck helping the rest of the players who don't really care for combat in making their combat builds function, which may or may not be enjoyable for him, and leaves the other players still annoyed that the combat system isn't accessible to them and often they are doing things for reasons they don't understand.

Other

Johnny isn't even a full archetype for an rpg. He's a subtype of other archetypes. It is meaningless to try to please him because he's not the design goal and you'll do so without trying anyway.

Spike in an rpg is either also a subtype or is missing the point of the game. Often times when he's missing the point he's the jerk munchkin and detracting from everyone's fun.

Note
It's important to consider the type of game you're building. In say D&D, there is very little mechanics for purely out of combat activity. It's more acceptable to keep you ccg concepts in mind there because what you're really looking at is a tactical combat game of sorts with roleplaying to give it context.

In Pony Tales/LL the focus is clearly much more on non-combat activity. This requires different mindsets to be the focus.

Stairc -Dan Felder wrote:the combat design.

Ramsus, I think the fact Dan specified Combat means they do something different for out of combat stuff.

Back for a second before I run out the door.

1) Great to see so many people breaking their in-combat profiles down. It's really great information for designing the system.

2) Absolutely Kajisora. These are guidelines for various player desires for in-combat, not hard and fast rules. It's a great way to shape your thinking, but don't feel you have to be nailed down to it.

3) As Chad and I have mentioned several times, these psychographics are purely for designing the combat system. All this discussion is for in-combat play, and Pony Tales goes to great lengths to separate its in-combat elements from it's non-combat elements so that one doesn't interfere with the other.

There are many out-of-combat psychographics too, and players often conform to Timmy, Johnny and Spike while in combat, then switch to one of the out of combat psychographics when they're roleplaying. We'll talk about them at some point too.

*facepalm* That doesn't make any sense. I don't stop being me when my character goes into combat. I don't hand the character off to Timmy. I'm still there, playing my character, and don't like it when I have to learn bizzaro combat algebra variant number 2257-8.27 to have any ability to play in a way that isn't A) useless or B) practically cheating.

You can't treat the combat system as if the same player isn't stuck playing with it. Not unless you have multiple optional combat systems. One for Timmy, Johnny, and Spike and one for people who are actually there to play an RPG.

Actually, it not only makes sense - it's just the way reality is.

When I'm in combat, I want to triumph in a creative way and care deeply about triumphing over the enemies.

When I'm out of combat, you have to practically drag me away from talking in-depth to every NPC and trying to find ways to ally with people.

Nehiel loves being a timmy/johnny that does huge explosive things in combat, but he tends to play reclusive, knowledgeable and ominous characters that simply sit back and watch the grand story play out in Gandalf-like tranquility during the story.

Karilyn is obsessed with maximizing her build in-combat, but gets so emotionally invested into the story and characters that she gladly throws herself in the way of any bullet for an NPC she cares about. She is purely focused on power optimization and grabbing every advantage she can for her character in combat, but out of combat she's near-selfless.

That's three off the top of my head.

People often have different desires in different contexts. And the experience of playing tactical combat is very different than the experience of roleplaying. These profiles are a system of listing specific desires for these different experiences and contexts. While it might not make sense to you, it is just how a lot of people are.

Another context is me. I've got a Turn Two fire giant in one of my games, that I LAUGH at as I summon it turn two or three in various ways. But in that same game I have a group of NPC timberwolves that recently have gotten a combat upgrade. That I completely ignore because they can be permakilled.
Quite a few players play Combat much differently than they would roleplaying, as Dan said, so although you don't, you still have to consider those that do.

Edit: Ramsus, looking at you from my own game, if you don't mind, Your combat falls under the Johnny side= you want to do something creative- with a small hint of Spike if your build with Royal Command and Fire Giant was any inclination, where you want to do something powerful- But looking at you rp-wise and such, it's more along the lines of a Timmy/Johnny hybrid. You want to play something that's unique and something that you find fun. Just my thoughts about you from just Ponysona.

LoganAura wrote:Another context is me. I've got a Turn Two fire giant in one of my games, that I LAUGH at as I summon it turn two or three in various ways. But in that same game I have a group of NPC timberwolves that recently have gotten a combat upgrade. That I completely ignore because they can be permakilled.
Quite a few players play Combat much differently than they would roleplaying, as Dan said, so although you don't, you still have to consider those that do.

For fun

Ritual Knife+Rabbit Filled Hat=Turn 1 Fire Giant.

Thanks, but my guy is the designated healer (lol what) so sadly I have the Staff of Miracles as my weapon.

In combat I'm drawn to general support builds. I don't want to be the one to take out an enemy, I want to be the one that knocks out the creature's crutch and gives my ally the opening and I want to do it well. Because that's the general drive of my character's combat view, I cannot justify doing it without efficiency.

I think I'm about 40% Spike and 40% Johnny for wanting to generally express that role in combat and wanting to to it efficiently.

Out of combat kind of follows through with my in-combat. I generally play quieter characters who watch with a smile on their face as their allies succeed, always offering to help them with their plans, but rarely suggesting those of his own. I like seeing my allies succeed, that's the best feeling I get out of roleplaying in either combat or out of combat.

Stairc, I'm sorry but, no. You don't get to tell me "this is how reality is". Your opinions are not magically more valid than my own. If you want to continue making a combat system that is at odds with the players the rest of your system aims for, go ahead. I just happen to think this is absurd. Declaring that all people automatically enjoy combat and want to deal with crazy bull instead of being able to grasp the system and not have to worry about if their build is somehow built wrong, is ridiculous. Just because the people you play with act that way, does not make the rest of us like them. Asserting that everyone who plays this non-combat focused game is as combat focused as your personal group of friends (who happen to know the system better than everyone else because it's their opinions that mostly get listened to and they get to test stuff before the rest of us even come close to seeing it) is.... well actually I'll just let you fill in the blanks.

Logan, haha, no. See, in your game what's going on is that I did each time, something that I thought was a bit fun and silly. I'm not Spiking, Johnnying, or Timmying at all. If I did, I'd probably have something really really absurd since you're one of the GMs least likely to say "no" if I did. I just don't feel inclined to because I don't really get my jollies off on combat, this would make things harder for the other players who don't know the system well enough (or at least are willing) to pull out the same levels of absurdity, and I don't want to do anything that lessens the fun of those who do enjoy combat.

Ramsus, You say you made a build you think is fun? That's what a Timmy is. It's the most basic definition of a timmy, even if you don't fall under the other more specific types of Timmy that Dan had linked to.

These are just the combat types, and they're not at odds with the rping portion of the game. Someone can be considered a 'timmy' type combatant and still fall under one of the RP classifications that you posted in here.

I think that might be why the combat is so seperate from the RP, so someone that's a Spike and a Dave doesn't have to give anything up to be a Spike in combat or a Dave in rp, like Dan's Warforged Druid.

Even if this is an RP heavy system, there's still combat, and you still have to make things fun for those people. Things such as Discord's Game, and the two PVP campaigns are examples of combat being important. Even if this system isn't meant to be Combat every single day, combat still happens. The game is seperated from Combat and RP so that people can make combat builds they want to attest to their Johnny sides, while still rping the way Sally wants.

Dan isn't saying /all/ players are combat oriented. the AoH team- which were the original playtesters and none of them being Dan's friends- were MUCH more RP oriented and combat was normally an aside thing, but it still was important, and it still happened, and it showed what type of combat those players liked.

And Dan's listened to a LOT of opinions that aren't just his group of friends, ramsus, as the Dragon Disciple and Vile Villain destines, along with the entirety of Genetic Enginering, proves.
Edit: Oh, and the racial Utility removal.

Logan, that doesn't make me a Timmy. That's my way of dealing with combat is a thing that I have to do that I'd rather skip most of the time.

The combat system is at odds with Steve, Sally, and Dave though. They look at it, and because it's goal is to pander to Timmy, Johnny, and Spike and they don't have the option to not have combat, their only option is to pick whichever method they find is the lesser of the evils. That's still not them enjoying it. Maybe some people are Dave outside of combat and Spike in it but, that certainly isn't the majority.

The reason combat is separate from RP is a mechanics issue. Your mechanics aren't ever really balanced at all if you combat and non-combat are linked. This is why I tend to ignore things like Xand's race mechanics or something. They're introducing weird problems where we had a system that was thankfully free of such things.

I never said that people don't enjoy combat but, the combat system should match the overall system type. The way things are going, we're soon going to have a combat system and a non-combat system that don't match at all.

I didn't say that Dan doesn't listen to opinions. We just have this situation where there is almost no transparency for what is going on for those of us on the forums. When major things do happen (like the new combat system or the new destinies) they tend to mostly come out of left field already finished or nearly finished. There's no time for any of us to suggest doing things differently and there's a lot of resistance to changing anything a lot of the time. Most of us don't know who is in Dan's groups and who the designers are and what any of them are up to. I have several times heard the question if new things come out just because that's the stuff Dan's groups happen to be doing. Yes, we get some stuff that originates with those of us in the forums. But, as you mentioned the GE document, do those of us whose ideas those things were even get included in the design process? Nope. So we can say our opinions are noted but, we have no control over the result of the response they generate.

Edit: Removing the racial barrier was just good old common sense. Nobody should be getting credit for that.

Not everyone is one and not the other, Ramsus. Like I said, you can have a Dave/Spike, a Johnny/Sally, or a Steve/Timmy, etc.

I never said you couldn't. It's just silly to assume most people are though. You're probably more likely to see Dave/Sally than Dave/Spike. That leaves Dave/Sally still sad.

I'd also at this juncture to note that what is being asked for to make Steve/Sally/Dave happy is to limit the amount of stuff that creates "your build is useless" situations and things that are only useful to Spike or Johnny.

Well they say archetypes are meant to be broken (or was that promises) I wouldn't think too hard on generic typecasting like this. It just helps organize their thoughts and considerations for players when designing. Much like the terms 'rogue' or 'cleric' are generic terms for move types, it doesn't actually mean that they are particularly effective for your rogue or cleric build. It's just a means to organization as they consider the new parts they are putting into the game.

These archetypes were never meant to be a restriction at all. In fact I think I'd be hard pressed to find anyone that fits these archetypes perfectly anyway.

Ramsus wrote:Stairc, I'm sorry but, no. You don't get to tell me "this is how reality is".

Yes, I really do in this case. Because you said that it doesn't make any sense that people might desire to play combat in a certain way, fitting under a certain psychographic, and then desire to roleplay and talk to people and in a different way. While you might not believe that it makes sense for these people to exist, I'm one of them and so are a number of people that I've played with. So, this *is* how reality is, because the reality of the situation is that these types of players do exist. That was all that I was saying. I think I'm allowed to confirm my own existence.