Hey mark, long time reader, also long time asker. I like a challenge when deckbuilding. When I first found out about your psychographics, I thought “woah! it even have the same name as me!” (John). Commander helps tickle that itch for me, because I can start off with a dumb premise and try to make that concept as best I can, and since it’s not a competitive format, I know that there will always be SOMEONE with a deck on a similar power level, however bad that terrible deck idea ends up being.This brings me to a qualm that I personally have, and have seen purely anecdotal evidence that other people have too.It feels kinda lame when you guys make a commander that’s just “this is the best commander for X”. More and more we’re getting legends where they’re just the *correct* choice. If I want to build a sultai graveyard deck, Muldrotha is the answer. Nothing tops it, and I doubt anything every will top it. And that’s just one archetype. 5 color sagas? Bombadil. Snow? Jorn and Isu. Flash tribal? Nymris. Sure there are other cards that can be the commander, but you can say that about anything. Sure, I COULD make a Rakdos exile deck with Pavel Maliki in the command zone, but that’s just objectively wrong. The commander is always gonna be prosper. My point is that it’s getting harder and harder to say “how do I make this work” when you’re just handing us the blueprints and all the parts with a step by step instruction booklet on what to do.To be fair, many archetypes have so much innate complexity to them and have reached a critical mass of options where it’s impossible to tell what the “best” option is, as there are so many different facets and roads to go down. Orzhov aristocrats and mono-green stompy are easy examples.But the fact that it isn’t always the case doesn’t change the fact that happens a lot. I’m sure I’m not the only one that feels this way, but I’m also sure that if it was a majority opinion in the community y’all wouldn’t be doing it this much. I just want to know if you have anything to say about this perception that I and many others hold. Thank you for all you do in magic, I hope you respond.

One of the most common requests I get here on the blog is “make this color combination Commander for this particular theme”. Eventually, for some of them, we find an opportunity to make it. We don’t know when that opportunity will arise again. We shouldn’t try to make the best Commander we can for that slot? If it’s too weak, players will just complain and ask we make another one. The reality is a lot of players want prescriptive answers, and there’s no way to make them for the players that want them and not for the players that don’t. The idea is that players who want to do something different have access to the history of Magic to find less obvious answers.

Hey Mark, I’d love some birthday Trivia on psychology or philosophy in magic!

The Timmy/Tammy, Johnny/Jenny, and Spike psychographics are based upon a tool used in advertising to understand the psychology of a brand’s users. I created the psychographics as a way for the designers to think about why players played certain cards. Part of my fascination with psychology comes from my mom who’s a psychologist.Happy Birthday!

I hope you’re doing well, Mark. I study the Enneagram of personality and I thought you’d find this interesting. I believe your psychographics are analogous with what we call the instinctual drives: Tammy the “self-preservation” drive; Jenny the “one-to-one” drive; and Spike the “social” drive. (The names of the drives might be slightly counterintuitive to how they manifest in behavior, e.g., social types are often concerned about status.)

Interesting.

Do you think the Tammy, Jenny, Spike psychographic triangle is complete or do you think it can be added onto with greater understanding of the playerbase? Thank you for all your writing on game design.

Twenty-eight years in, I haven’t found a new psychographic.

Since there's three out of Spike/Timmy/Johnny, why are there only two for Vorthos/Melvin? Or are there supposed to be 5 for all the magic colors?

The first are psychographics. The second are aesthetic profiles. They are different things, so they exist in different number. Why are there three basic silverware, but just two types of spices (salt and pepper) in shakers on the table? : )

So we have Timmy, the green gamer who loves putting big stuff on the battlefield, Johnny, the blue gamer who lives for cool and interesting combos, Spike, the black gamer who wants to win as fast as possible, and Vorthos, the red gamer who cares about the theming and lore of a character/place/etc. What will the white gamer be called, and what will they care about, if we even get a final gamer in the cycle?

Timmy/Tammy, Johnny/Jenny, and Spike are the three psychographics. The two aesthetic profiles are Vorthos and Mel. Mel does like things orderly. : )

How useful do you feel the psychographics/aes-tho-graphics(?) are in the current day? Does it still make sense to design 'Timmy cards' or 'Mel cards'?

They are still very useful. Players are still psychologically motivated to play Magic, and as designers understanding that is key to making appropriate designs.Note Mel is an aesthetic profile and not a player psychographic.

Tammy, Jenny, and Spike are the player pyschographs - have you ever given a name to the collector psychopaths? That is, the different ways in which players collect Magic?

Let me start by stressing collectors aren’t psychopaths. : )The three psychographics focus on psychological motivation (experiencing something, expressing something, or proving something). Each of those can be applied to collecting. Timmy/Tammy is in it for the visceral experience, the joy of collecting, the excitement of finding something you’ve been seeking. They collect because it generates emotion.Jenny/Johnny is in it as a means to say something about who they are. Their collection speaks volumes about them. They collect something unique to who they are.Spike is in it for the thrill of the hunt. They collect something that will be a challenge and then they go about figuring out how to make it happen. The big joy for them is the completion of their collecting goal.

What psychographic would you classify someone that creates a cube or battle box with the main focus of giving their playgroup an experience?

It depends on what their psychological motivation was. Are you trying to experience something? Is seeing your friends happy a great thrill for you? Timmy/TammyAre you trying to express something? Is having the players admire how you built your cube what makes you happy? Johnny/JennyAre you trying to prove something? Is knowing you were capable of building it what provides your thrill? Spike

Is there a psychographic for a player that their nain goal is to make the game unfun or tediuos for their opponants? There have been several players I have had the honor of neetibg who only enjoy making the game aweful for other players with decks focused on heavy draw go/ld, prison,but not playing to win, show creativity or to do cool things?

The psychographics are about what psychology draw the game has.Timmy/Tammy wants to experience something.Johnny/Jenny wants to express something. Spike wants to prove something.Most griefers are Timmy/Tammy because they enjoy the experience of making others miserable.