Defining Play Style
General forum
Posted on Jan. 29, 2015, 2:10 p.m. by HeroInMyOwnMind
You will often hear people refer to themselves as Timmy, Johnny, or Spike - terms in the Magic community that describe a sort of play style philosophy that one might subscribe to.
These 3 player types have long been accepted as the major fundamental differences between play styles, and most players fall into some version of the 3 in one way or another.
Personally, I feel none of these characterizations, even in some convoluted combination, accurately describe my approach to Magic. I am curious if other people also find these play styles incapable of categorizing the way they view their tendencies.
So my question is this: What deck building or play style quirks do you lean towards that you feel do not fall under any of the 3 main styles? If you had to pick a name for your style (keeping in theme with the current names), what would you call yourself?
weisemanjohn says... #3
There are 2 more that you didn't list, Vorthos and Melvin.
http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr278
I personally am a Timmy player primarily and then followed up by Vorthos.
I like casting big spells, I like having various arts of cards, and I like a cohesive theme to a deck.
January 29, 2015 2:38 p.m.
ThisIsBullshit says... #4
I'm a Timmy/Spike. I love to beat people's faces in with giant things but I need my cards to be good and I love to win.
January 29, 2015 2:41 p.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #5
I'm with ThisIsBullshit. That's why I play Scapeshift. :) Do big stuff, win games.
January 29, 2015 2:53 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #6
I have said many times I am a dirty Johnny...over time I've realized that a simple two-card infinite combo doesn't rustle my jimmies. I prefer my combos to be grandiose. Also, my favorite commander deck is Mayael the Anima so I think I fit fairly well into a Johnny-Timmy kind of category...
That being said, I won't often bother putting a deck together these days if it will will lose more games than it wins even if I brew up many more. Does that make me a Spike too?
January 29, 2015 3:07 p.m.
HeroInMyOwnMind says... #7
I was actually looking for traits or play style preferences that people felt were not already represented by the character psychologies of the already established profiles (apparently there are two more I was unaware of, so thanks to @weisemanjohn for that information).
Feel free to respond with which profile already suits you, but I would also like people to include tendencies they have that are not represented.
January 29, 2015 3:07 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #8
I am curious to see how you see yourself not fitting the 5 archetypes. I think they are a pretty good representation of how people approach games in general, so like I say...it makes me wonder.
January 29, 2015 3:09 p.m.
Seraphicate says... #9
I'm bits of everything, which is why I never really stick with one or two decks, though primarily a Johnny, I'd think. Cards like Spellweaver Volute and Arcanum Wings are funny :D
January 29, 2015 3:18 p.m.
andymaul123 says... #10
I'm 100% Johnny. Generally I don't care who wins or loses, as long as everyone is having fun. I love building around interesting mechanics and themes, which is why I primarily play EDH now - it's a great format for playing oddball cards and seeing interactions you'd normally not see anywhere else.
January 29, 2015 3:30 p.m.
VampireArmy says... #11
I think I'm a bit of a Johnny-Spike.
I like to win but I love to brew something awesome in the process
January 29, 2015 3:31 p.m.
omnipotato says... #12
I don't see myself fitting into any of the 5 player types. I guess I'm an amalgamation of all of them. I'm not extremely big on always winning, but I do netdeck, so that kind of makes me a Spike. I love brewing, even though my decks usually aren't very combo-ish or cohesive, so I'm kind of a Johnny. I love playing control decks with big payoff cards like planeswalkers or huge hexproof creatures so I'm kind of a Timmy. I love card art and I get a bunch of cards altered, so I'm kind of a Vorthos. I recently read that someone made a Turing machine just with Magic card alterations and that gave me a massive erection, so I'm definitely a Melvin.
January 29, 2015 4:02 p.m.
Let's take away the fancy trappings and explanations of the Player Archetypes. I feel like the main player archetypes boil down to 3 things
Are you motivated by Simplicity(Timmy), Complexity(Johnny), or Just winning (Spike)
I can peg practically every player I meet with those archetypes based on the above.
Me and most of my friends are Timmy's. I want to drink a beer, eat pizza, socialize, and just play with whatever cool stuff I can find. Practically everyone in the lower brackets at a prerelease is an easy going Timmy who's just relaxing and having fun.
Johnny's decks are complicated simply for complexities sake. I've seen your decks and they are not Johnny decks. I have a friend who plays Johnny and he literally doesn't care what happens in a game ever... He's just content to be fiddling with whatever most recent creation he invented this week regardless of whether it works or not.
Lastly, there are the Spikes of the world. They're the folks who are in this just to win. My one spike friend has actually alienated his entire friend group (when it comes to magic) and has even admitted to me he personally prefers to play against total strangers because he can crush them without feeling guilty that he's ruining the game for them.
Having had the privilege of studying your decks in the past I have maybe a little insight into your character by what you play. You sir, by my estimation are a Timmy. Your decks all contain Green, if that isn't telling enough, and you like to play EDH. You're a social gamer and while you rarely combo out, neither do you have the patience to let the game go all night long because no one will take charge and start winning. By your own admission, your philosophy is that no deck can win every game - you are not a spike. A Spike would never be so casual in admitting that and abandoning the attempt to build the One deck to rule them all. You may like to run a variety of decks but you aren't fanciful or eccentric in your deck building choices. Your decks are solid, dependable, and reliable. Clearly you are not a Johnny.
Thus there is Timmy left. Let's ignore the trappings of "I like big creatures swinging" and just accept that simplicity, reliability, and understated strength are all things a Timmy likes. You play what you like but you also play what works, without it being overly complicated and potentially excessive and/or unnecessary.
If you still don't feel like the profile explains you then by all means dive into why.
January 29, 2015 4:59 p.m.
omnipotato says... #15
jraynor, you're oversimplifying what Spike is. Spike isn't trying to find the One deck to rule them all. He plays the game mainly to win but everyone knows you can't win every game. A Spike is someone who spends a lot of money on cards, reads Channel Fireball or SCG articles, watches videos of pros playing, and talks strategy and metagame with friends. All Magic players have at least a bit of Spike in them.
According to your explanation Timmys are the only set of fun Magic players and Spikes and Johnnys are either assholes or morons, which is just not true.
I think no one is a "true" Timmy or "true" Johnny or "true" Spike; everyone has a bit of everything in them. Wizards R&D create specific cards for these fictional individuals to make it easier for them.
January 29, 2015 5:15 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #17
Nobody is a true anything, because you can't be any one thing. I think the goal of the psychographic profiles is to create cards/decks that appeal to a person's core.
In the end if you enjoy Magic (primarily) because you enjoy winning at it (and things in general) you align with Spike. If you enjoy Magic (primarily) because you like doing big, splashy things, you get along well with Timmy. If you enjoy Magic because you enjoy seeing how you can take the rules texts on the cards and create shenanigans...you have things in common with Johnny. It doesn't mean you can't be shades of those things, and when you stack Melvin and Vorthos on top of them it becomes more complicated. I would say most Melvins are probably Johnnys and most Vorthoses are probably Timmys, but that doesn't mean Melthos doesn't exist (as MaRo so elegantly put it in the article posted above) as some combination of Spike/Johnny/Timmy middle of the spectrum "I play magic because I like everything about it's competitive and casual nature" kind of guy...
We've had this conversation in the context of "which of your decks personifies you?" and the answer everyone always rationalizes is "I'm not any one of my decks because I'm lots of things..." I would say the quest to define yourself is something we're all on, but you can't pick a category fully. Labels are for soup cans...but that doesn't mean the label says nothing about what's inside the can.
January 29, 2015 6:24 p.m.
HeroInMyOwnMind says... #18
@jraynor and omnipotato
The difference in opinion you guys have in even defining the characteristics is exactly what causes me to be skeptical of my ability to classify myself as any or all them.
I could make the argument that I share some opinions and traits with each style, but I clearly do not have other traits that those styles emphasize (to a point where I am adamantly against certain aspects of the psychology). The main reason I would be against the defining myself under the current classifications is because they do not address the main motivation I have when building or playing a deck.
Jraynor, I think you made a valiant effort to deduce my play style, but the motivations behind the way I build decks and play the game are not quite what you think they are. I do not fault you for failing to grasp my motivations, as it would be difficult without having actually played in the same play group with someone. While the information you gathered about me was accurate in terms of my deck building preferences, the reasoning behind the decisions is much more complex than the face value would suggest.
My main motivation when it comes to deck building is the idea that I can take a concept or theme and play it to the full potential that the collection of MTG cards will allow. I enjoy the challenge of piecing together a deck that is not generic and overused, with an established success rate. I want to prove how good I can make any style of deck, without relying on staples and "good stuff" to carry the load.
My main motivation when it comes to playing my decks is to win. Sometimes dramatically, sometimes methodically, and always in spite of the odds that are against me.
It's true, I do stick to EDH these days. Specifically, multiplayer EDH. It is definitely not a social decision though. I find the smaller (and more limited) formats too constricting, and because I intend to win, I am faced with the unfortunate choice of playing established decks that work, or not being able to win consistently. Personally, I find playing the same deck over and over somewhat bland. I also don't find 1v1 as entertaining, because you end up with a cheap, flavorless victory or an unsatisfying defeat.
My decks all contain green because I like to ramp. Green offers consistency that promotes situations that always leave me with an opportunity to win. Green also puts me in front of most other decks, and pacing is important to me.
I will admit that I do not like to combo out. I hate the idea of solitaire in a multiplayer game. I also tend to avoid cards that require another card or a specific set of circumstances to be valuable. I stack my deck with cards that have a similar effect or theme, however, and always have an engine that promotes dramatic results - which in itself is a style of combo playing.
You stated that my philosophy is that you can't win every game. That is not a philosophy, it is an understanding, and a challenge. Every deck can be beaten. If a Spike could not beat their own decks, how great of a Spike would they be? That being said, I build and play in a way that makes it so that while I am not always the most dangerous player at any given time, I am always a threat.
I run a variety of decks because of the Johnny in me. I want to experience different interactions and win with different strategies, I just find it inefficient to try to do it with one deck. I don't ever get to a point where I need 15 cards to make something amazing happen, because that is not how you win. It is true, I strive to make my decks solid, dependable, and reliable. I also try to make my decks unique and interesting, with an aspect to them that makes other player unsure of the best way to counter it.
And no matter what I say, or how well I try to build my decks, sometimes winning just isn't everything to me. I sometimes throw games to let other people have fun with their decks. I shake up the political structure of the table just to get a reaction. I leave openings in my deck and avoid playing oppressively, and I loath infinite combos. I want to win, but I want people to enjoy the game as much as I do.
So while I clearly share some aspects with each of the play styles, the heart and motivation is nowhere near the same. I want to win, sometimes in an epic fashion, and I want to enjoy the challenge in my attempt to succeed in doing it.
*As a side not, I have seen other player types I also do not feel are appropriately associated with any of the current meta tags. I have players at my table who don't care if they win, as long as player X loses. I have players that are hyper competitive... about getting second place. There seem to be a dozen motivations that are just as common as the styles that already exist (at least in my experience), which is what brought this whole thread in existence to begin with.
January 29, 2015 6:45 p.m.
HeroInMyOwnMind says... #19
I knew when I posted this thread that the classifications are mostly irrelevant. I meant for it to be more light-hearted, and see what motivates people outside of the meta concepts that are usually associated with the game.
I suppose it's more of a back-and-forth discussion to be held in person, and the lack of direct interaction and replies by attempting to have it online kind of takes away from the insight. I was just hoping for some unique primary motivations to provide for some interesting theories and conversation.
January 29, 2015 6:52 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #20
I hear you, I'm more supporting you in saying that it would be nice for the conversation to go in a different direction than it usually does.
I, like you, find winning with the same deck and same interactions all the time boring and tedious, which is why edh has such a draw for me. What it sounds like you're saying is you have an appreciation for the intricacies of the game itself. Sticking to a theme or concept and making the most of it is very Melvin, to tag it somehow. It sounds like you have an appreciation for the depth of the game and everything it has to offer. You also like to win with less than mainstream combinations which is very Johnny of you, which you've already recognized. Your focus on ramp tells me you know how you like to win, and need lots of mana to do it, which could be Timmy...but not only Timmy needs lots of mana.
January 29, 2015 7:12 p.m.
HeroInMyOwnMind says... #21
Yeah, I go in circles when I dissect my style, and that is without contending with outside circumstances. Are you generally the most hated player at the table? Well, your approach might be adjusted to suit that. Do you play in a group that has people that pair up in multiplayer games? Well, that will change things too. Does every deck at your table play removal and board wipes leaving you with as little as one turn to make an impact (my playgroup used to do this)? That is probably going to change how you build and play a deck as well.
I have my own terms I use to describe certain play styles of other people too. You have things like:
The Cop: The person at the table that polices the board state and keeps things balanced, but has nothing remarkable in their deck to net them a victory.
The Builder: The guy at the table who seems to play the game simply to construct as large a board state as possible, but who never attacks even if they could completely finish someone off. Probably enjoys games like The Sims and Minecraft.
The Headhunter (aka The Hater): The guy who plays nothing but targeted removal and counter spells and focuses the "biggest threat" in terms of players or deck general, regardless of board state.
The list goes on... but with sub-themes and politics like these, it's hard to pinpoint most of these types of players to meta-tag.
January 29, 2015 7:42 p.m.
I will give this a shot:
From the five profiles we have Timmy, Johnny, Spike, Vorthos, and Melvin.
Timmy: "Diversity Gamer Timmy wants to experience it all. Fun for him is this constant exploration. Each time he plays, he wants to try something different than what he did before. Yes, he occasionally returns to things he's done before, but only as a breather before he leaps once again into the great unknown."
Johnny: "The Deck Artist is trying to use deck building as a form of self-expressive art. These are decks that do things like embody the elf culture or represent Empire Strikes Back or play in a way that makes the opponent appreciate the uniqueness of the card choices."
Spike: "Analyst Spike understands that all decks have a weakness. If you can understand what will be played, you can figure out how to beat it."
Melvin: "Melvin enjoys comprehending the underlying structure."
I grabbed a snippet from each profile that appeals to me. As you will notice, I picked something from almost all of the profiles. Like most people will point out, I am divergent in style. I look at building a deck as an empty canvas to which I paint on, the "profiles" are nothing more than my color palette. Some colors have darker shades than other.
I think people make the mistake of viewing profiles like a personal prison in which they can trap themselves in. Hence, why so many players don't enjoy profiling themselves.
Hope that made some sense.
January 30, 2015 12:09 a.m.
I didn't mean to offend or oversimplify with my descriptions omnipotato
as for how I approach this, I guess I want those three to work for everyone so I like using broad thick brushes as I paint my description. If people don't enjoy profiling themselves because they feel it limits themselves, maybe I like to profile others because it helps me to understand them.
As far as breaking it down into finer points of interests whether it be the peeps who would rather someone else loose than win, I feel like those are dependent on the game not on why the person plays magic to begin with.
January 31, 2015 8:56 a.m.
Dalektable says... #24
Johnny - Spike all day. I love brewing, but I love winning equally as much.
January 31, 2015 9:25 a.m.
jraynor, I feel your reply was directed to me rather than omnipotato. Or am I mistaken?
If it was directed at me, then here is my reply:
I don't think you offend anyone, I certainly did that take any offense in your post. I like the idea of your post and finding it interesting.
What I meant by "trapping themselves" is that its a person may feel like they can not be part of more than one profile.
I find profiling individuals very useful, I do with everyone person I interact with. I use profiling as a tool to understand people as well. Helps with me to communicate with them a lot easier.
Scytec says... #2
I am a Johnny-Spike. :p I love to brew, but I want to kick people's asses doing it.
January 29, 2015 2:16 p.m.