Call Me Timmy - or Melvin

This entry will be about Magic: the Gathering (aka "MtG," aka "Magic"), a game I've been playing for twelve years now. But it's also about me. If you are not a Magic player, sorry -- this won't make much sense.

One of the truly excellent things about MtG is that it can be enjoyed at many levels and for many reasons. The design and development team knows this, and they have created three "psychographics" for describing the types of players who play Magic. These psychographics describe in general terms what creates a fun, enjoyable experience for those player types.

Every week, Mark Rosewater, the Head Designer for Magic (No, he does not design heads) writes a column about Magic design, and one of his most popular topics is describing the psychographics. Today's article expounds on the basic three (Timmy, Johnny and Spike) and points out how the two new concepts (Melvin and Vorthos) interact with them.

See -- I told you this would not make sense if you don't play Magic. Unfortunately, it might not make sense even if you do play Magic. For you Magic players, at least go read the original article. It's a classic.

Anyway, ever since that original article came out, I've realized that I am a "Timmy." I like the experience of playing. I like cards that are "cool" and full of evocative images. I like big things. Give me a dragon that can burn my opponent to a crisp, and I'm happy. I think I used to be a "Johnny" when the game was new and I spent more time on it. Back in those days, the number of cards was much smaller, and it was easier to wrap my head around the interactions. Additionally, back then I had a group of people to talk to about Magic, so it was more fun to spend time finding card interactions. Now, as pretty much a solitary player, I just like the fun of playing.

Yet, even though I've known I'm a Timmy, and I'm quite sure Mike is a Timmy, I've always known that we are different from one another in a very significant way.

Well, in today's article, Mark Rosewater explains "Vorthos Timmy" and "Melvin Timmy" and now I can see the distinction. A couple of quotes will help:

"Melvin Timmy searches for cards that are fun to play because what they do is fun."
"Melvin Timmy wants cards that excite him because of what they do. ... In particular, he likes high variance in play—that is, cards that have the potential to do great things even if often they don't quite work out."

That is me!

So, how is Mike different? Mike is "Vorthos Timmy." Again, quotes will help.

"Vorthos Timmy likes cards that just ooze impressive flavor. Vorthos Timmy hunts down cards that he wants to get into play because they feel awesome. ... When Vorthos Timmy talks about his games, he tells stories, because to him that is what he lived as he played."

That is Mike!

We are alike in the joy we get from the cards. We differ slightly in how we approach deck building and game play because of how we define fun.

Paul? Paul is a Johnny. I'm pretty sure he is more "Melvin Johnny" than "Vorthos Johnny," but he has definitely made decks based on obscure themes ("Hallowe'en," "Lions, and Tigers, and Bears") but I think he focuses more on creative interaction of cards.

I'm pretty sure this examination of how and why I enjoy my favorite game says something about me at a deeper level. I'm going to let that thought simmer a bit. For now, I'll enjoy the fact that I know I'm Timmy, and Melvin.