Something I found out about today was this article by one of the card designers that describes the three archetypes of magic players that they've identified and catered to. Very similar to the mud/mmo paper that I hope you're all familiar with.
There is though one notable difference. The heart/spade/diamond/club paper describes mostly what people like to do in the game. It focuses on needs that the game designer must fill. The magic archetype model focuses more on what tickles certain players' fancies since each player essentially follows the same process while playing a game.
And mulling it over today, I thought that the magic article describes a fairly good model for programmer archetypes. It makes sense, since the game was originally designed to help teach certain programming concepts. For those that didn't read the article, here's the quick and dirty:
Timmy: This player likes to make a splash. They don't look at downside so much, just powerful effects, solid creatures. Swarming and going overboard are good too. A memorable victory or particularly gruesome overkill will make up for a number of losses.
Johnny: This player likes to create things. They won't ever just take a deck from someone else or the internet. Taking the various cards and creating something unique or under some odd constraints is often more fun than the game. Getting a quirky deck to beat the 'consensus pick' will make up for a number of losses.
Spike: This player likes to win. They are happy playing the same deck over and over again, as long as it wins. They're also happy to take decks off the internet or just buy their way to victory. A win is a win to these players; losses are unacceptable.
And of course these things are just stereotypes. All players fit somewhere between these extremes, with a certain mixture of each.
Each trait lines up with programmer behaviors that are beneficial, and some that become vices when taken to the extreme. Looking at programmers I've known, they too tend to fall towards these categorizations.
Timmy: The programmer that likes power. They probably got into programming to 'make the computer do things' or show off to friends. They love automating things, making flashy apps (that maybe don't work quite right). Their vices are feature creep, over-engineering, and occasionally an unreasonable tendency towards low level programming. They provide vision for a project, and at their best are the team members who just extrude useful little tools and enhancements.
Johnny: The programmer that likes creation. They probably got into programming as an artistic outlet, or as a natural expression of problem solving. They love creating new things and solving weird problems. Their vices are 'not invented here' syndrome, being too 'clever' while programming, and occasionally a lack of attention to mundane or practical concerns. They provide solutions for a projects, and at their best are the ones who solve the hardest problems and create the most elegant solutions.
Spike: The programmer that likes production. They probably got into programming as a means to an end; perhaps to make a mod or automate some task. They love getting things done, now. Their vices are disregard of usability, cutting corners with testing/maintenance, and occasionally low technical knowledge. They provide drive to a project, and at their best are the team members who pump out code and keep the rest in line with their uncompromising demand for production.
The most interesting thing I at least noticed was that an ideal team requires a mix of these sort of archetypes to keep each other in balance. Another thing I noted was that none of the archetypes was the 'perfectionist' sort. Someone who desired quality over anything else. That would mean that programmers by default don't like testing, which I'm not sure is true. It might be that there's a style of programmer missing from here. In the original article, the sort who needs to tune and refine something to the best it can be falls into the Spike archetype. Perhaps then that should be split into the 'make stuff, be proud of it' and the 'hacker' archetypes.
I'm not sure. What do you think?
