What type of player are you? Timmy, Johnny, or Spike?

[Cadilon]

Lately I've been doing a lot of soul searching and mantric meditation regarding what type of player I am. I've not been really happy with the way I feel during some games and that bothers me a little.¹ There are also times when my opponent doesn't seem to be enjoying himself either, and that bothers me too. On a suggestion, I found a pretty insightful post by the R&D department of a certain CCG that rhymes with "Tragic".² They defined three types of game players: Timmy, Johnny, and Spike. I found this helpful in identifying my own and other gamer's playing personalities. Maybe with some understanding between different types of players, there will come a more harmonious gaming community.

Timmy is the "power gamer". He likes to win big and smash his opponents. He doesn't like to eke out a last minute victory. He takes the biggest, most powerful models. Its not about the quantity of wins for him, its about the quality of wins. He only wins three games out of ten but the three he wins, he dominates his opponent. Timmy had fun. Timmy walks away happy.

Johnny is the creative gamer for whom gaming is a form of self expression. Johnny likes to win, but he wants to win with style. It’s very important to Johnny that he win on his own terms. He likes a challenge and enjoys winning with models that no one else wants to use. He likes making crews that win in innovative ways. What sets Johnny apart from the other profiles is that Johnny enjoys crew building as much as (or more than) he enjoys playing. Johnny loves the cool interactions of the models. He loves figuring out new combos and seeing how well they work. Johnny is happiest when he’s exploring uncharted territory. Like Timmy, Johnny cares more about the quality of his wins than the quantity. For example, let's say Johnny builds a new crew that has a neat but difficult way to win. He plays ten games and manages to get his crew to do its thing… once. Johnny walks away happy.

Spike is the competitive player. Spike plays to win. Spike enjoys winning. To accomplish this, Spike will play whatever the best crew is. Spike will research the Internet to find what crews are working the best (sometimes as designed by Johnny). To Spike, the thrill of playing is the adrenalin rush of competition. Spike enjoys the stimulation of outplaying the opponent and the glory of victory. Spike cares more about the quantity of wins than the quality. For example, Spike plays ten games and wins nine of them. If Spike feels he should have won the tenth, he walks away unhappy.

Then there are a number of hybrids between these three types of players. Players are diverse and often one play type won't fully capture the personality of the player.

I am a Spike/Johnny. For me, winning is the thing. I get a rush from being competitive. I love marking down a win in my game log.³ I love the tournament scene. I am getting better at letting losses go, but for the longest time if I didn't do what I thought was acceptable at a tournament, or if I had a losing streak going, it would ruin my whole gaming experience. I love putting myself up against another person and finding myself worthy.

But like Johnny, I want to do it on my own, unique terms. I don't run out and buy the new forum hotness just because someone says its the new killer thing. I started out almost two years ago playing Guild and its still my main faction.⁴ I decided I wanted to be the best there is at Guild. So I focussed exclusively on those crews.⁵ I enjoy analyzing the models and trying to see how I can get just that extra one or two more horsepower out of a crew. And when I can orchestrate such a crew to its fullest potential and win, well there is nothing that feels better. I know someday I'll switch to another faction, but at this point playing another faction for me is like a violinist trying to play a french horn. I can do it, but its not very fun for me.

I found these categories helpful in understanding what type of player I am and its helped me understand Malifaux a little better. It also helps me understand the people I am playing. If I play someone who is not enjoying the game, at least perhaps I can figure out why and maybe even change things up a little to make both our experiences better. Understanding this is also essential for Henchman who are trying to build (and more importantly hold together) a local Malifaux community.

Any thoughts? Any types that aren't represented here?

^1. see http://www.wyrd-games.net/showthread.php?31151-How-to-be-less-competitive

^2. see http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b

^3. Just the fact that I HAVE a game log should say something about what type of player I am.

^4. Much to the chagrin of my small, local play group. I played Perdita exclusively for almost a year and I KNOW they were more than sick of her. Because they told me. *grin*

^5. And dog gone it, I am going to win with Guild, no matter what it takes!

[nix]

Interesting article, I find the ideas here very thought provoking. I am having trouble placing myself in these categories however. Here are some of my thoughts and why I am having issues:

I enjoy winning games of Malifaux. I especially enjoy winning games against some of the local players who are better than I am, and who I lose to regularly. That should put me at least partially into the Spike territory until we get to the end of the description. I can lose 20 games our of 20 and still walk away having a good time, as long as the games were cool. The games where I walk away having a bad time are those games that become predictable and boring. This is one reason I dislike Hamelin so much, simply due to his play style. Either I will win vs Hamelin, or I will be insignificant and unable to affect the game. Either I will win vs Hamelin or I will be swarmed by near-unlimited rats with straight flips and lots of blight. The games are very predictable in my local and not-so-local area.

So, I then look at the Johnny. I love putting together combinations that others may not have seen. I really get enjoyment out of making cool combo's work. I hate it when those combo's only work once in a while though. I would become very frustrated by putting together cool combos but only seeing it come up once in 10 games.

I can say I am definitely not a Timmy. I prefer a close game to a shut-out game. I prefer my wins to come in with some effort and a lot of thinking. My Filth Games at Gencon 2011 were some of the least fun games from an overall gamer perspective for me. My opponents were fantastic but the games were too one sides. This was not due to my opponents, but very heavily to comparable skill in the game combined with a broken mechanic combined with a tough-to-overcome weakness. I really like games that come down to the wire and pushed me as a player.

So, with that said:

- I enjoy losing as much as winning if the game is fun overall (and has cool moments in it)

- I enjoy new cool combo's, but only if they are reliable

- I do not enjoy one sided games

What type of player does that make me?

[CRC]

Vorthos. You'll find a lot of them out there, especially in a as flavourful a game as Malifaux.

In fact, many players who self-assess as Spike or X/Spike are actually Vorthos/Spike, and they'd be happier if they realised it.

[nix]

Vorthos?

[DeusInnomen]

- I enjoy losing as much as winning if the game is fun overall (and has cool moments in it)

- I enjoy new cool combo's, but only if they are reliable

- I do not enjoy one sided games

That's a fairly accurate assessment of myself as well. In any game where it's a rather crushing victory on my part, I actually feel bad unless I'm absolutely assured the opponent is enjoying the, uh, experience. I also like to think I'm a very good loser, in that at worst I'm not going to flip the table or gripe and at best I'll thank them for a fantastic and educational game. (Several of my games at AdeptiCon fell into this category, where all I could say was that they were "the most fun I've ever had getting my ass kicked up one side and down the other.")

I've never been a big fan of distilling down personality types into a limited number of options, but I'll grant that the study Cadilon mentions makes an admirable attempt at doing so.

[Bruglyother]

I don't know as it's a missing type or a strange hybrid of the listed types, but I think my type of player isn't quite represented. While I like to win, it's not my driving goal. I'm not real big on list construction because I often put a crew together just for the hell of it. That's not to say I can't figure nasty combos, it's just not my mindset. Win or lose, I like to do it in style, and I want both myself and my opponent to have a good time.

Locally, I am probably one of the top players. I don't lose often, but when I do, it tends to be spectacular. Most of my losses fall into the 8 - 0 category. But, most of my wins are close games because that's the way I like it. I don't see the point in stomping on an opponent unless that is the specific point of the day. (A tournament using differential for victory conditions would be a case for this.) I am just as likely to tell an opponent how to better play as I am to pull a nasty trick. And I like the Funky combos.

I guess I'm mostly a Johny, but the description just doesn't feel right.

[PierceSternum]

I am a spike combined with contrarian. I like to figure out some things on my own and I also like to play things/ NOT play things DESPITE other's views on them.

ie. I play Carrion Effigy and will NEVER touch Von Schill.

I think that about sums me up.

[Cornelious1424]

It's fun to try and categorize our selves like this!

I may be a Timmy (cause that is my real name lol) but I'm far from that guy when I play. One sided wins are only fun if you really dislike someone and want to stick it to them, but other than that I rarely enjoy those kind of games. I highly dislike getting my ass handed to me, and I don't enjoy winning games in the same manner. This is part of the reason why I don't play Warmachine/Hordes any more, because so many times I've played a game and lost turn 2 or 3 to an assassination run...in a friendly game. If I had known this was going to be a twenty minute affair, I'd just stay home.

Spike is the guy that I fear, especially within my own group, because if you have too many Spikes, all games tend to become about winning. When I say fear, it's more of, "these are the kinds of players I don't want to dominate my local meta" because then things become strictly about winning and less about fun. Competition is good, but every game does not have to be about the win. I like to win, but I enjoy the the ones I lose too. Like the old saying goes, "A bad day of fishing, beats a good day of work!". I try and follow this with my gaming as well.

Let's do it for Johnny! I own Hamelin but I've only used him a few times, and it was on request to help a player prepare for Adeptacon. I love his rules but I won't bring him out on a regular bases...he is just unfun for my opponent. I also own Jack Daw, but you'll never see my use him. The games are more about quality for me, and I think my local meta can back me up on that (at least I hope). I'd much rather figure things out on my own, than surf the interwebs for the ultimate combo (this is probably why I struggle with Kirai). I enjoy winning, but I feel more fulfilled when I do it my own way. Also, I'd much rather a game come down to the final flip (hopefully me being on the better end =P).

Based on this information I believe that I'm also a hybrid of Johnny and Spike, on the lines of 70% Johnny/30% Spike.

@Nix: I can 100% say that you are right about your interpretation of your self. I've played you a few times now when you come up for Monger events, and you are a great opponent. I vaguely remember you cheering for a few of my Bayou Gremlins to take out your Peacekeeper in the last turn...in which they ended up shooting themselves lol.

[Snacktastic]

I'm one of Cadilon's local players, and yes, Perditia sucks. I've seen WAY to much of her.

But I don't beleive Cadilon has correctly described himself. He has a lot of Timmy in him (without the need to dominate, but that he wants to win his way "With guild.) He has decided that its Guild or bust for the last year or so and probably the next.

On to me, I'm definatly a Spike. I always have been.

[LordZombie]

Looks like I fit in well with the Johnny style. I have ran Seamus with 3 belles and 3 dead doxies. I never kill my own 2 ss model in order to summon a 7ss model. If I flip Reconniter against a Lady Justice crew, I forget the stratergy and make it my personal statergy to put at least one wound on lady j, that is my 2vp. I play to play and enjoy the game. Win and lose are secondary objectives on my list.

[JayBarlekamp]

I don't know as it's a missing type or a strange hybrid of the listed types, but I think my type of player isn't quite represented. While I like to win, it's not my driving goal. I'm not real big on list construction because I often put a crew together just for the hell of it. That's not to say I can't figure nasty combos, it's just not my mindset. Win or lose, I like to do it in style, and I want both myself and my opponent to have a good time.

Locally, I am probably one of the top players. I don't lose often, but when I do, it tends to be spectacular. Most of my losses fall into the 8 - 0 category. But, most of my wins are close games because that's the way I like it. I don't see the point in stomping on an opponent unless that is the specific point of the day. (A tournament using differential for victory conditions would be a case for this.) I am just as likely to tell an opponent how to better play as I am to pull a nasty trick. And I like the Funky combos.

I guess I'm mostly a Johny, but the description just doesn't feel right.

Wow, I was going to post a description of myself, but I think Bruglyother just wrote it for me.

[ToxicMushroom]

Vorthos?

It's been about a year since I myself became aware of the Timmy, Johnny, Spike psychographic profile article on Wizards' website.

I just looked back at it because I also didn't know what Vorthos was. They revisited the concept later and clarified/expanded on the whole thing. Vorthos wasn't originally included because according to the author of the original article, Vorthos isn't so much a psychographic profile because he is defined by what he cares about, rather than why he plays. Of course, that doesn't make Vorthos any less an important demographic, and the wargaming community is full of Vorthos-es, because games like Malifaux lend themselves well to artistically inclined people.

Each of the 3 profiles got broken down even further:

Timmy - Social Gamer

Timmy - Diversity Gamer

Timmy - Adrenaline Gamer

Johnny - Combo Player

Johnny - Offbeat Designer

Johnny - [Crew] Artist

Uber Johnny

Spike - Innovator

Spike - Tuner

Spike - Analyst

Spike - Nuts & Bolts

I'm not going to take the time to summarize here, but it's fairly easy for non MTG gamers to follow along with this revised article.

I'm about 50% "Offbeat Designer" Johnny, 45% "Diversity Gamer" Timmy, and 5% "Uber" Johnny. And, I'm at about a 40 out of 100 on the Vorthos scale.

Edited June 19, 2012 by ToxicMushroom

[ThePandaDirector]

As far as analogue gaming goes, I don't have a competetive bone in my body. I like to get better, sure, but that doesn't mean I need to win harder or lose softer. I suppose I direct all my competetiveness to just trying to be a better person - smarter, kinder, more proactive - and so gaming is actually a break from that cycle.

After reading those 3 descriptions I couldn't help but groan, because for me the motivation isn't the quantity/quality of wins, but the quantity/quality of social interaction. I wish I could game more, not so I can test out my experimental PW Toyboxes against better players, but so I can meet new people and explore the simple joy of shared experience. So if I meet someone who doesn't appreciate that, doesn't understand empathy, then it becomes a little more likely we'll waste each others' time.

I suppose the true challenge of playing against me is that it's not your strategy being truly tested, but your personality; some people will always struggle to win those games

But I'm just a humble Panda :Smug_Puppet2:

[dunce002917]

I guess by these categories, I'm a "Johnny" type of player. I build crews and list that I think are cool which most "Spike" players would make fun of..

I like winning but having fun is more important to me than winning at all costs (annoying my enemy). The games I feel horrible after are the ones where I got smashed by a "Timmy/Spike" player... these kind of games I typically call in after turn 2 (cuz either the my opponent got the VPs or my army's 3/4s wiped out - in PP games).

I enjoy playing with "Johnny" players especially if they try something new which adds a new dimension to the game.

From what I've seen, Spike and Timmy players are the ones who are most vocal complainers after a model from their crews got cuddled or errata'd. sad.

[col_blitzwell]

looks like its my turn hmmm..

well this is me

*i like to win but like a close hard fought game

*if i paid to play i love to win but still love a hard fought games

*i also like to play for fun and am very relaxed about things like when you flit a + and it should been something else or got some cards mixed up ect..

*but when i run into someone who will do any thing to win or cant handle a lose(i mean rage and leaves on some bad cards or if getting beats stops caring and gives off a bad vibe)then i love to crush them.

* i can take a lose but will be a bit steam or some bad luck or if i did something that cost me the game. but can handle it

*i be leave in calculated odds but love blind luck(i always put black joker back in enless it's very important)

*if i can walk away knowing i played my best then you will find me a happy man.

one other point you should know its i get mad at my dice some times i had a die roll 7 ones in a row then tossed it somewhere never to be found.

in the end i think i am relatively fun gamer. well that's me hope you had fun reading it.

[EnternalVoid]

I am clearly a hybrid of Johnny and Spike. I like winning, but I also enjoy losing if it meets criteria. If I lose because my opponent is a better player then me or outfoxed me, that puts a smile on my face though I might go over the game or tactics in my head for a while taking apart the match and seeing what I can learn or identity from it. For me many times it is not winning but a mixture of the challenge and knowing I played my best that brings enjoyment. Now that does not always mean a close game, if I can catch my opponent in a clever trap or trick, or outfox them and it leads to a beat down that can be nice. Though I might feel bad for my opponent sometimes judging by how bad *namely if they were doing fine and one bad flip ruined everything*. For me it is often playing your best against someone else trying their hardest and seeing who comes out on top. It is not always about having the best groups but who is the better tactician in the game.

I dislike when others complain though sometimes about my groups or gangs, more so when I can see some clear counters in their own set up that they could have utilized but choice not to or just made some bad decisions *like walking a 10ss model into Zoriada's line of sight first turn before she has activated*. Or when they pretty much go in and play to lose *label you as to strong or competative and don't even try*. My mentality is even in a losing game to struggle every step looking for even that 1% chance to snatch victory from defeat.

But I dislike hamstringing myself going into games. Picking models that don't work together or don't fit the direction just to 'handicap' me does not strike me as fun. Kind of the same way stabbing yourself in the foot before going for a walk does not make the excersise better for you. If you lose in such a game it could be passed as your handicap was to much, rather than you were outplayed. It is just not a fun way for me to play. If I do it by accident by picking the wrong models for what my opponent had that is the fault of my own tactics or accessment, and that is fine.

That is not to say that I don't like trying new combos or models to test their potiental out. I like creating theories but sometimes you just need to test the theories you came up with. For example I took Lelu twice now in a lower SS game with out Lilitu while playing Zoriada. First time I hexed away the talent that hurts them if the other is missing, second time I hexed it away like second or third turn. Would I do it again? Sure if I felt it was a worthwhile. I have even taken a desperate merc before and and hexed his thing off so that he was just a 2ss model I could put in the front and they could not just ignore for the first few turns and try to let it kill itself. I have even in a few games picked stuff like Kill Protegee but kept it hidden to throw up my opponents so they might think it was kidnap or something if I felt the tactics warranted it.

I will add in one more thing, I will also educate my opponents whether it is in game or outside. I might warn them that I can still see a model they are trying to hide, or remind them of an ability they activated earlier and forgot *like giving their own model fast*. I also play by the rules, if they have paired weapons but forgot, I remind them right away. Same if they do the math wrong. If I am going to win I am going to win fairly, nothing takes the wind out of the sails called fun like winning because of a rule mistake. If other players come to me for advice after a game or between them, I will give them honest and helpful suggestions.... after generally asking how far they are willing to go. If they don't want to drop a model or a theme I will try to help with in the confines of their wish. I will often tell my opponent after a game what they might have done differently if they express they wish they knew how they could have stopped something. Making my opponents better at tactics and theories makes the game more challenging with out handicaps.

Edited June 19, 2012 by EnternalVoid

[Soulless Life]

I dunno. I really just try to make sure everyone has fun. "The objective of the game is to win. The point is to have fun. Don't confuse the two." My favorite quote ever. Well, from a gaming forum. If my opponent is new/not very confident, or I know they don't have a great grasp on the rules, I'll gimp my list and just be a good sport. If I'm playing against Patrick or Josh, I play to curbstomp, and they do the same. It's enjoyable for us. As long as my opponent and I both had fun, I'm pretty flexible.

Except in tournaments. Then it's curbstomp or broke.

[dunce002917]

I guess it boils down to PP's Page 5 and Will Wheaton's Don't be a D*ck rule.

Play to win, have fun and keep it clean (cheese, cheating fate are fine just don't break the rules).

[Athan Allgood]

Hah, I used to love the Rosewater articles (Long time MtG player).

I think it's worth noting that the desire to win does not put anyone in the Spike category. Its a competitive game, if you dont care about winning at all you could just stay home and paint without ever playing.

A spike is someone who care about winning above all else. If you can have fun without winning, than you are not a Spike (this is the explanation as described in the original MtG articles, as I have always understood it).

Me, I have fun because I get to play a game with my friend, and it's a creative outlet. I love the story and fluff more than any individual model or set or stats, which I suppose puts me in Vortos territory.

Vorthos is the fourth proposed category. A player who enjoys the world building aspect more than anything else. Its the guy who, for example, hates to take non-master specific minions (Playing Raspy in a non full frozen-heart crew, bah!). Its the guy who hates the idea of playing against their same faction, and has to devise a story excuse around doing so.

Easy answer: If you love the story behind the Dead Heat event, even though it doesn't effect gameplay in any real way, than you have a good bit of Vorthos in you.

Given that in my last game with Raspy, against Kerris, for a disputed piece of territory (graveyard) I felt the need to make a story around how December had drawn Raspy there for a buried artifact which Ramos also wanted, and had sent Kerris after... yeah, Im a Vorthos.

As a player who came to the game from a Role Playing background, and not a wargaming one, I guess this isn't too odd.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Athan Allgood

[ToxicMushroom]

EDIT: Having just joined the forums, I couldn't initially see my first post, above. Sorry about the duplicate info.

The Rosewater articles are fascinating stuff. And I think most gamers and budding game designer should give them a read.

I happen to think that Rosewater makes a good point about Vorthos not actually being a psychographic profile, but that he fails to mention something fairly important about him. You could think of all gamers as having a Vorthos Scale of 1 to 100, in addition to their Timmy/Johnny/Spike characteristics, basically representing how into the background, fluff, and world building they are.

I love trying to find good uses for things that look really lame on the surface, but I only game like this sometimes. There must be a little bit of Analyst Spike in me somewhere, because while there are certain uber johnny characters and builds that I'd like to try out, I'll rarely do it utnil I've tried out my more sensible options.

Edited June 19, 2012 by ToxicMushroom

[Dustcrusher]

Looks like I fit in well with the Johnny style. I have ran Seamus with 3 belles and 3 dead doxies.

Uh, isn't fielding 3 Doxies normally illegal? Did your opponent OK it anyway (I would've let it go- it's not a huge advantage, IMHO)?

I guess I'm a Timmy more than anything.

What I like about miniatures games:

- Hanging out with (more or less) like-minded people.

- Playing games where everyone has fun, ideally with at least a couple of "aw, snap!" moments because those are what I remember most.

- In a similar vein, close nail-biter games, whether hard-fought victory or valiant effort in defeat.

- Learning to be a better strategist (even if I am not good at it).

- Painting the miniatures (same).

- Toy soldiers, whoo!

- Creating crazy stories via games.

What I dislike about miniatures games:

- Crushing defeats- nothing says joy-kill like the feeling that a trained ape would've gotten the same results.

- Crushing victories- I don't like the idea of killing someone else's fun.

- EDIT: WAAC guys. They suck. Be ruthless in a big tournament. Don't be in a small store tourney or a friendly game, jerkwad.

- Being the slowest on the uptake when learning these games- most people are learning crew 3 or 4 while I'm still getting the hang of crew 1. I hate this second only to...

- Prepping miniatures. I never, ever get all of the damned mold lines off, or if I do, I end up destroying some of the detail.

- I'm going to mention prepping miniatures twice. I dislike it that much. It's a big part of the reason I have a gigantic backlog.

- Being a good reactive player when I need to be a better proactive player (oh well, at least I'm good at Smallworld).

- I tend to discredit my victories most of the time. For example, my last win with Rasputina was due largely to using Freeze Over on a large hill terrain piece, which we agreed afterward should've been quartered for the purpose of that power. If I manage to beat a good player soundly, it will probably get annoying because I'll be fishing for reasons other than "I played well" to explain it.

- Tabletop games are a big fat reminder that I often have trouble thinking outside the box.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Dustcrusher
These names confuse and infuriate me!

[dunce002917]

oh snap moments have made me cry a few times... like flipping the Black Joker on a Slow To Die Healing Flip or rolling triple snakes eyes on a boosted dice roll...

[pixelante]

If I was a Spike or Timmy I'd be playing Guild, instead I mostly play Arcanists, when I'm done learning my Showgirls maybe it'll turn out I'm really Spike after all, but I picked the Showgirls on looks not power.

[Turbodog]

Hrm. Interesting article!

I'll label myself as "Johnny Vorthos with Spike - Nuts and Bolts". Heck I sound like a superhero and his sidekick robot.

I'm picking this because I get into the world and like to create crews around an idea/goal/or mechanical synergism. I look specifically for interesting interactions between models, or simply "fluffy" ideas. When I play, I certainly consider it a test of my own ability and understanding of the game, irrespective of crew build...but it's making the crew "work" that determines if I have "won" or not in my mind. My least favorite games are "lockdown" games where my opponent or my card draw prevented me from feeling like my models were performing the way they should. My most frustrating games are when I feel like my models didn't perform due to my own poor decision making. My favorite games are when I make good decisions that allow my crew to perform as expected. This could mean achieving the strategies/schemes or simply helping create a "fluffy" matchup scenario. I also enjoy when I feel like I make my opponent pause and think during the game - forcing him to make a difficult decision.

[Rathnard]

Johnny. To the Core.

I love finding a neat combo or unusual list and winning with that. To me, the idea of taking the best crew/models and winning with that is just not interesting. I'd much rather present myself with a challenge and win because I made good use of a "low tier1" crew/models or pulled off some wacky combo. Not because I took all the best toys and pressed the "win" button.

1- For the record, I really dislike the idea of putting models/crews into Tiers. I'll admit that some Masters tend to be easier to win games with than others, but the idea of putting models into tiers and concluding that the high tier ones are plain better than the low tier ones just bugs me. As far as I'm concerned the game tends to be far too dynamic to be able to make such an assumption2.

2- Except the Malifaux Child. That poor kid is just aweful.