PDA

View Full Version : Oracle Hunter's Player Alignment System [PEACH]



Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-20, 11:53 AM
Denizens of the Playground!

As the result of problems in my current campaign, I've come upon a novel way of classifying Players. Unlike most of the known attempts, I eschew archetypes and instead use an Alignment-style system of two axes.

PreambleA two-axis "Alignment"-style system works best when the axes each represent something that is a leading concern for the system. In early D&D it was a single axis of Good/Evil (or Law/Chaos) as the prime thematic concern was one's allegiance to either side of the spectrum. In later editions, the system was expanded to two axes so that it could align individuals with different aspects of the game world. Now, rather than simple being a struggle between two factions, it could be a struggle within the two factions and within the factions themselves - with a sizeable middle ground.

With that in mind, I considered what a GM is most concerned about when running a game. While "fun" is the easy answer, we need to look at the big picture when we're designing an Alignment system of any kind - particularly one that needs to be generalizable across all RPGs. I decided to choose two axes I'm calling "Roleplaying" and "Plot."

Each GM must be concerned with the amount of roleplaying that an individual Player enjoys: some people live for the creation of detailed fictionalized people while others show much more interest in the creation of character sheets. This is not an invocation of the Stormwind Fallacy, mind you - it is simply true that some people focus far more on what their character would do rather than worry about the mechanics involved while others seem to delight in rolling up various builds and trying them out. As usual, there is the helpful "Neutral" middle ground for people who either enjoy both aspects equally, or are indifferent to the process of character creation entirely.

The second point that is common to all RPGs is the delivery of Plot. Adventures must be had, but who thinks of them? One one end of the spectrum is the Player who insists on making their own plot, regardless of what the DM is thinking. Plop them in any setting and they will already have an idea of what they're going to do - regardless of what Mr. Johnson or the Mysterious Figure in the Inn has to say about it. They are frequently hostile to attempts by the DM to guide their actions; tell them a river is impassible and they will immediately start building a boat. Others are the opposite - they hate trying to "find adventure" on their own and work best if clear objectives and "checkpoints" are placed out by the DM beforehand. This is not to say they are uncreative - they just don't like figuring out what the adventure is supposed to be, and they're not about to invent one for themselves. Others operate in the middle ground of "Neutral" where they're fine biting on Plot Hooks as they come around but are resistant to situations where they can't find their own thing to do on occasion - or they simply don't care how the adventure arises so long as there is an adventure.

The Axes
Oracle_Hunter's Player Alignment System ("PAS" for now) is structured much like the Nine Alignment System in D&D - each Player has an Alignment made up of positions on two axes: the Axis of RoleplayingGameplay and the Axis of Plot.

The Axis of RoleplayingGameplay contains three positions (Mechanincs, Neutral, Dramatics) and the Axis of Plot also has three (Sandbox, Neutral, Railroad). The shorthand notation for Player Alignment lists Roleplaying before Plot - so a Mechanics Railroad Player would be listed as "MR"

The Axis of RoleplayingGameplay
Mechanics means that the Player is most interested in the numbers on their character sheet, and how they interact with the rest of the system. They are unlikely to have much interest in the "fluff" behind their numbers and are more willing to do things for mechanical advantage than for any in-character reason.

Dramatics means that the Player is most interested in the "fluff" of their character and have little interest in how it is supposed to work mechanically. They are unlikely to show much interest in the rules of the system and act according to the internal motivations of their character rather than what would bring them the greatest likelihood of success.

Neutral on this axis means that the Player is equally interested in the rules of the game and the fluff of their character - or equally disinterested in both. Neutrals tend to pay enough attention to the rules to make sure their characters function and develop their character just enough to make it more than a collection of numbers. Neutrals usually act according to what seems "reasonable" to them as Players, rather than explicitly weighing mechanic advantage versus in-character motivations.

The Axis of Plot
Sandbox Players eschew plot hooks whenever possible and focus more what their character would like to do. If a plot hook happens to be in line with their character's motivations so be it - but they will do it their own way. Sandbox Players tend to be hostile to obvious DM intervention - whether it be in the form of Broken Bridges, Plot Coupons or similar tropes.

Railroad Players prefer to follow the plot as it is presented, rather than try to find adventure on their own. When given a plot hook, Railroad Players will try to find a reason to follow it, even if it has little to do with their characters and has no obvious reward. Railroad Players tend to prefer "bread crumbs" style games in which the DM leaves an obvious path to follow.

Neutral Players on this Axis enjoy having the autonomy to pick and choose plot hooks but prefer to follow one that is presented, rather than invent one on their own. These Players enjoy the occasional "bread crumb" to help them along on their path but will rebel if they feel that the plot can only be resolved in one fashion. Alternatively, Neutral on this axis can indicate an indifference to plot entirely - it happens however it happens.

Usage
The PAS can be used by DMs to better consider what style of game is suitable for their Players, and how to tweak a game such that a given Player will respond better.

For example, if you had a five man party with the following Player Alignments:
DN, DN, DS, NN, MR

You would want to run a game that focuses on the motivations of the characters while providing clear Plot Hooks and Plot Coupons to keep the party moving. At the same time you should not focus too heavily on the character motivations of the MR Player while allowing the occasional situation where the plot has "stalled" and the DS character has an in-character motivation to figure out a new path. Naturally, you should also be playing a system which has enough mechanics to keep the MR Player happy.

You can also use the PAS to classify gaming systems. Systems with similar Alignment to the Players you have should mesh better than exposing Players to a system on the opposite end of the PAS.

Conclusion
The PAS is designed to assist GMs in tailoring their games to Players generally. As it works across systems and genres, this can aid new GMs with choosing a system to propose to their Players and it can help even experienced GMs to get a better handle on how known Players will interact with each other when placed into a group.

Note that the PAS is not proscriptive; a GM should never tell his Player to "act more DN." Much like the Nine Alignment System it is meant as a descriptive tool - albeit a tool for DMs to describe Players rather than Players to describe themselves. Importantly, no PAS designation is superior to any other; they are simply different ways that people approach RPGs.

So, thoughts? Suggestions on wording? Criticisms on the system in particular parts, or on the theoretical level?

EDIT:
In another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10208608#post10208608), Yakk raised the idea of the Prep Axis - how much a Player likes to prepare before taking action. This is equally important to campaign design as the RP and Plot Axes and, importantly, it should be relatively stable across games.

Currently, I'm calling this variant the Expanded Player Alignment System ("E-PAS") but I need to spend some more time thinking about how/whether this should be integrated with the core system. Stay tuned!

EDIT 2:
I've revised the Roleplaying Axis to be the Gameplay Axis. It is a more accurate term (mechanics is not a subset of roleplaying) and is less likely to give folks a misleading impression of the system.

Waker
2011-01-20, 01:23 PM
This brings a smile to my face. As a long-time player and DM, I've seen pretty much everything you've just described. I can't really think of anything to add to your post at this time. I would probably fall under the Dramatic Neutral category.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-20, 02:37 PM
This brings a smile to my face. As a long-time player and DM, I've seen pretty much everything you've just described. I can't really think of anything to add to your post at this time. I would probably fall under the Dramatic Neutral category.
That's great! :smallbiggrin:

A Player of mine suggested that I work up a DM Alignment System but I haven't quite figured out what that can mean. I mean, Player Alignments aren't the same as GM Alignments (e.g. a DS Player can very well be a DR DM) and, more importantly, good GMs are able to run any sort of game their Players require.

As a Player, I turn out to be NN which isn't surprising. Like the Nine Alignments System, NN should be the default Alignment. I've named it the "Beer and Pretzels" Alignment.

For reference
From the classic definition (http://dragon.facetieux.free.fr/jdr/Munchkin.htm)

The Real Man: NN or DN
The Real Roleplayer: DN or DS
The Loonie: NS
The Munchkin : MS

The true issue with this classic definition is that Real Man and Real Roleplayer are too vague. "Real Man" describes a Fighter-mentality in AD&D - someone who is obviously not too worried about mechanics, but upholds the "manly virtues." The Real Roleplayer, on the other hand, is totally character focused which means he doesn't like Railroading of any stripe but it's not clear whether he really wants to find his own solutions or whether being true to his character is sufficient.

The Loonie and The Munchkin are sufficiently narrow to be clearly defined, but not all NS's are Loonies any more than all LG's are Paladins.

ninja_penguin
2011-01-20, 03:01 PM
Hm, I think I end up clocking in at a MN. So, my alignment is Minnesota?

Saph
2011-01-20, 03:04 PM
Well, it's not bad, but I think I prefer the expanded classic definition (Real Men, Thespians, Brains, Loonies, Munchkins). :smalltongue:

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-20, 03:09 PM
Hm, I think I end up clocking in at a MN. So, my alignment is Minnesota?
Exactly :smalltongue:

I've been encouraged to make a survey to "score" people on Alignments because - like trying to assign regular Alignment to real people - it's easy to fool yourself.

The easiest way I've found for self-diagnosis is to think real hard about your past characters. For example, I rarely can come up with a character that isn't firmly rooted in mechanics - yet, once I have that foundation, I always flesh them out. I don't just play "Human Paladins;" I play "A Human Paladin that is the daughter of a poor Lord without the money to pay her dowry." That makes me firmly Neutral in the RP Axis. Additionally, while I work hard to "work with the DM" I find myself rebelling against Plots which "make no sense" from an IC perspective - I'll go where the adventure is, but I resist following all the "bread crumbs" that are thrown my way - hence the N on the Plot Axis.

I'm cheered to hear that folks (so far) have found this an easy system to use. Next, I need to hear from DMs whether this is a useful way to categorize Players in their own game. I've found it so, and I'm helping some n00b DMs categorize their Players to help keep the game from exploding.

Anyone else? Does this seem helpful?

EDIT: @Saph - my problem with the archetypal approach is it leaves too many gaps. For example, what does "Real Roleplayer" tell you about how to plot your campaigns? Is this a thespian who plays to whatever scene you give him, or someone who thrives on improv and likes setting up scenes? The defining moment for me was the discovery that a guy I had always considered a solid player was the source of the collapse in my game. Trying to define him I came up with "Mr. 20 Questions" - he always likes to ask questions out-of-game to prepare for events, but seems to shrink from leadership roles within games and is remarkably passive when new situations pop up. I had no idea what to do with this.

As a NN, I understand him better as a "Beer and Pretzels" gamer - someone who's there for the game, but doesn't really have preferences for how it goes. A game with hard Railroading would probably bother him, and a game with hard Sandboxing (as per my current one) would be equally perplexing. Of course, he's not really a "Casual Gamer" either - he takes gaming very seriously; he just doesn't fit any of the extremes of the PAS.

Saph
2011-01-20, 03:23 PM
@Saph - my problem with the archetypal approach is it leaves too many gaps. For example, what does "Real Roleplayer" tell you about how to plot your campaigns? Is this a thespian who plays to whatever scene you give him, or someone who thrives on improv and likes setting up scenes?

Yeah, this is a problem with all attempts to categorise players. I like it mostly because it doesn't take itself too seriously. :smalltongue:

More seriously, I wouldn't find the alignment axes you're using useful, because they wouldn't describe the players within my group very well. For instance, our current group contains:

An actor who loves playing characters and who's also a dedicated power-gamer, always trying to be mechanically better than the other PCs. Strong opinions on games, loves to do individual things and also likes following story conventions.
An easy-going social gamer who has trouble with RPing characters and who isn't really that interested in mechanics, but gets on very well with the rest of the group. Will play whatever's going.
A solid gamer who's fairly good at both RPing and optimising, and can adapt to pretty much any game environment. Will also play whatever's going.
Under your alignment system, all three would come in as neutral on both axes, despite the fact that they really have very different playstyles.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-20, 03:29 PM
An actor who loves playing characters and who's also a dedicated power-gamer, always trying to be mechanically better than the other PCs. Strong opinions on games, loves to do individual things and also likes following story conventions.
An easy-going social gamer who has trouble with RPing characters and who isn't really that interested in mechanics, but gets on very well with the rest of the group. Will play whatever's going.
A solid gamer who's fairly good at both RPing and optimising, and can adapt to pretty much any game environment. Will also play whatever's going.
Under your alignment system, all three would come in as neutral on both axes, despite the fact that they really have very different playstyles.
Do you need to prepare differently for the three in the game? Remember that the point of the PAS is to help the DM create campaigns that work with their Players.

I'd suspect that you don't have to do anything special to make the game fun for these three - they're all happy with whatever game you're running provided you don't emphasize Mechanics over Roleplaying, or Railroading over Sandbox.

Is there anything special you need to do when planning games for these three? Remember that the PAS isn't designed to be wholly descriptive of Player's attitudes; it simply needs to track the sort of traits you need for generally planning a campaign.

Saph
2011-01-20, 03:34 PM
Do you need to prepare differently for the three in the game?

Yep. The first one wants story hooks and mechanical power, and requires lots of supervision. He's basically competitive, and needs to feel that he's centre stage. The second player's a facilitator and doesn't like conflict - she wants the group to get along (but also to get to do things). The third player's the easiest to please and can adapt to pretty much anything as long as it's done competently.


Remember that the PAS isn't designed to be wholly descriptive of Player's attitudes; it simply needs to track the sort of traits you need for generally planning a campaign.

The entirity of player attitudes is what I take into account when planning a campaign. :smallwink: Basically, if I wanted to know about a new player to my game, I'd find it very useful to get a paragraph of description from someone whose opinion I trusted, but I wouldn't really get anything useful out of where they fell on these axes.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-20, 03:48 PM
Yep. The first one wants story hooks and mechanical power, and requires lots of supervision. He's basically competitive, and needs to feel that he's centre stage. The second player's a facilitator and doesn't like conflict - she wants the group to get along (but also to get to do things). The third player's the easiest to please and can adapt to pretty much anything as long as it's done competently.
Interesting.

The second two sound very NN, but the first one sounds much more MN. I mean, someone who constantly feels the need to "win" seems like someone who would focus more on Mechanics than Dramatics. Of course, he could be sufficiently skilled at both to always pick a characterization which jives perfectly with his Mechanical superiority.

Well, two out of three ain't bad :smalltongue:

The paragraph idea is a good one, but not every Player can give you one of those. In my latest campaign, I gave my Players a fairly detailed survey (cribbed off of a much-better DM's survey) and I got back a confused set of answers. It could be that the DM I cribbed it from did not write it very well, but rather I got the sense that my Players didn't know for themselves what they wanted - they were largely new to gaming, and all were new to the system.

How does your paragraph-system work with brand new Players? That is to say, Players you know nothing about and who are relatively new to gaming in general? I've used the PAS to diagnose such individuals already; we'll see how accurate I am, but I feel confident about the matter.

Saph
2011-01-20, 03:55 PM
How does your paragraph-system work with brand new Players? That is to say, Players you know nothing about and who are relatively new to gaming in general?

I talk to them for two minutes and make a snap judgement. In D&D terms, I make a Sense Motive or Insight check. :smallwink: I play in a gaming club so we get a high turnover, and you actually get quite good at it after a while.

Anyway, with regard to the PEACH, these would be my suggestions, for what they're worth.

Mechanics vs Roleplaying

It's true that preferences for mechanics or for roleplaying are a very big deal for gamers, but it's important to remember that they aren't opposed qualities. If a player is very keen on powergaming and also on acting, the two traits don't "cancel out", they combine. If you represent them as opposed directions on an axis, you end up with the counter-intuitive result that a casual gamer who doesn't care much about character acting or mechanical power ends up with the same classification as a passionate actor who's also a dedicated optimiser.

IMO both interest in mechanics and interest in RPing should be separate scores - they shouldn't subtract from each other.

Railroad vs Sandbox

Although I've never thought about it in depth, it's my gut feeling that the great majority of gamers would, in your terms, end up as N on this axis. They dislike heavy-handed railroading but also don't like aimless wandering. They're willing to play railroad games as long as the DM runs it well, but also enjoy freedom to choose the direction of the story.

I've never run extreme railroad or sandbox games, but I've run games that leant more in one direction than the other, but I never noticed a significant split in how much the different groups over the years liked them.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-20, 04:16 PM
Mechanics vs Roleplaying

It's true that preferences for mechanics or for roleplaying are a very big deal for gamers, but it's important to remember that they aren't opposed qualities. If a player is very keen on powergaming and also on acting, the two traits don't "cancel out", they combine. If you represent them as opposed directions on an axis, you end up with the counter-intuitive result that a casual gamer who doesn't care much about character acting or mechanical power ends up with the same classification as a passionate actor who's also a dedicated optimiser.

IMO both interest in mechanics and interest in RPing should be separate scores - they shouldn't subtract from each other.
The main concern of the Roleplaying Axis is where the Player places their focus. A Player that can equally focus on optimization and character development deserves to be placed in Neutral - for them, it doesn't matter whether you're running a more mechanically-minded game or a more roleplay-focused game; they're happy either way.

In terms of keeping Players happy, both the casual gamer and the Renaissance Optimizer/RPer should be treated the same way - some mechanics and some RP. Chances are that your Renaissance Player wouldn't be happy optimizing the crap out of their character only to play in a game where the mechanics weren't important; the same is true for the Casual Gamer who would be pushed into more RP than they were interested in.


Railroad vs Sandbox

Although I've never thought about it in depth, it's my gut feeling that the great majority of gamers would, in your terms, end up as N on this axis. They dislike heavy-handed railroading but also don't like aimless wandering. They're willing to play railroad games as long as the DM runs it well, but also enjoy freedom to choose the direction of the story.

I've never run extreme railroad or sandbox games, but I've run games that leant more in one direction than the other, but I never noticed a significant split in how much the different groups over the years liked them.
A "well-run Railroad" is often a Neutral game - one where plots are well-defined, but there's a lot of wiggle room therein. Some Players, however, hate working within DM-designed plot hooks. The Loonie, for example, is always doing something orthogonal to what the DM has prepared. OTOH, some people are more than happy to follow the plot of the DM because they're interested in other things - flexing their mechanical muscles (M), reacting in a character-appropriate manner (D), or just playing the game as presented (N).

And yes, while I would say that most Players you can imagine would prefer N games, this is certainly not always the case. Butt-Kickers (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/robinslaws.html) for example, just want the adventure to happen. They're not interested in picking and choosing plots to pursue or finding personal motivations for adventuring; they're there to kick butt. Conversely, Method Actors (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/robinslaws.html) can be more reactive - they like acting out their character in response to stimuli, not trying to develop an overall plot.

WarKitty
2011-01-20, 04:19 PM
I know this messes up the graph, but might I suggest a new axis - serious vs. silly. I've had more trouble with this one than with the stuff you have listed. Running a game when one player wants high tension and one player wants to crack fart jokes is an interesting experience.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-20, 04:28 PM
I know this messes up the graph, but might I suggest a new axis - serious vs. silly. I've had more trouble with this one than with the stuff you have listed. Running a game when one player wants high tension and one player wants to crack fart jokes is an interesting experience.
Serious v. Silly is a major concern, to be sure, but I wanted to keep things simple. Most games are "Neutral" on the Axis, and Players who only want Serious or Silly games seem fewer and further between than Players who have opinions on Mechanics v. Dramatic or Railroad v. Sandbox.

But a good point, to be sure.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-20, 04:42 PM
The Axis of Roleplaying contains three positions (Mechanincs, Neutral, Dramatics)
This is basically a Stormwind Fallacy waiting to happen. Mechanics and drama are not a juxtaposition.


the Axis of Plot also has three (Sandbox, Neutral, Railroad).
The problem here is that both "edges" are generally impopular, so that almost no player (or DM) would self-identify with them.

What isn't covered here, for instance, is how "serious" the people are (do they like a slapstick plot with fart jokes and King Doodoo-head, or do they want an adventure that takes itself entirely seriously all the time, or something in between), or how much into teamwork people are (do they want the party to stick together, or to split up occasionally, or to fight among each other).

(edit) aaand ninja'ed by Warkitty. I don't agree, by the way, that "players who only want Serious or Silly games seem fewer and further between than Players who have opinions on Mechanics v. Dramatic or Railroad v. Sandbox".

Something else that isn't covered is what motivates the player. The classic Timmy/Johnny/Spike goes a long way into explaining this (Timmy wants big numbers; Johnny wants convoluted combos; Spike wants to win). This more-or-less corresponds to the Real Man, the Brain, and the Munchkin in the classic system, and does not cover e.g. the Social Player.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-20, 04:51 PM
The Real Man: NN or DN
The Real Roleplayer: DN or DS
The Loonie: NS
The Munchkin : MS

I don't think that fits. I'd say a Real Man is closer to NR/MR, a Real Roleplayer is DS if Thespian, but MN or MR if Brain, a Loonie is closer to DN, and a Munchkin is mostly MR (because if there's one thing munchkins can't handle, it's a sandbox).

Or, to put it differently, all generalizations are false.

Another axis to consider is whether people want balance or verisimilitude; those two tend to be diametrically opposed. I don't think "beer and pretzels" is the default, either; that depends highly on the game you're playing.

Saph
2011-01-20, 04:53 PM
The main concern of the Roleplaying Axis is where the Player places their focus. A Player that can equally focus on optimization and character development deserves to be placed in Neutral - for them, it doesn't matter whether you're running a more mechanically-minded game or a more roleplay-focused game; they're happy either way.

In terms of keeping Players happy, both the casual gamer and the Renaissance Optimizer/RPer should be treated the same way - some mechanics and some RP. Chances are that your Renaissance Player wouldn't be happy optimizing the crap out of their character only to play in a game where the mechanics weren't important; the same is true for the Casual Gamer who would be pushed into more RP than they were interested in.

Umm. Well, YMMV, but I wouldn't find this all that helpful for planning a campaign.

Personally, I think looking at players from the standpoint of game design and game mechanics is a bad place to start. Gaming is basically a social activity, and IMO that's the best way to look at players. Don't worry about whether they prefer mechanics or roleplaying, or whether they prefer railroads or sandboxes - look at who their friends are, who they defer to, who they boss around, who they get on with. Every serious conflict that I've seen in gaming groups has been basically a social problem, not a game problem.

Temet Nosce
2011-01-20, 05:09 PM
This is basically a Stormwind Fallacy waiting to happen. Mechanics and drama are not a juxtaposition.

This basically, I liked the idea until I noticed you'd dumped mechanics in on the opposite end of your Roleplay Axis. I'd actually say that this makes the system worse than useless due to resulting in a possibility where none of the answers describe a player.

I'd actually suggest considering replacing the Roleplay Axis with one for player involvement (which would cover all forms of investment in the game/character). It might not tell you quite as much about the particular type of involvement but as opposed to the current form the information it gave you would be less likely to be misleading. Alternatively, a third axis for optimization could work quite well.

As far as the other axis, I actually think it seems fine, and have no problem self identifying on the sandbox side.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-20, 05:13 PM
This is basically a Stormwind Fallacy waiting to happen. Mechanics and drama are not a juxtaposition.
Any response to my inoculation to that accusation? :smalltongue:


The problem here is that both "edges" are generally impopular, so that almost no player (or DM) would self-identify with them.
Ironically, my one MR Player gleefully identified himself as such when I presented him with the classification. There are Players that enjoy the classic Dungeon Crawl and modules design out there. Even if they're rare in your particular group, it is an Alignment that does exist.

Re: Serious/Silly
Again, I feel like this falls into adherence to a Plot. Provided the DM is wise enough to say "this is a silly game" or "this is a serious game" up front, the amount of seriousness or silliness is going to depend on how much Players are willing to follow the DM's Plot. Sandboxers can lash out against a Silly Plot as much as they classically lash out against Serious plots; they want to play their own game, not the one presented by the DM.

Personally, I always play "Neutral Silly" games when I play D&D - you have some hijinks but the plot is essentially serious. However, when a game is going to be silly it's always something the DM will say from the outset. The same is not true on the Sandbox/Railroad axis.

Re: Archetypes
Archetypes systems are a system of holes rather than a whole system. You can always find "almost-but" situations in archetypes, and attempts to expand any archetype system will eventually result into a "1001 faces" situation which adds more confusion than clarity to whomever is using them.

For a good example, look at the evolution of the Real Man/Real Roleplayer/Loonie/Munchkin paradigm.

Re: RM/RR/L/M
A Real Man rarely cares about numerical superiority; he simply does what a Real Man does. At most, he pays a moderate attention to his character, but look at the file (http://dragon.facetieux.free.fr/jdr/Munchkin.htm) - the contrast between a Real Man's action and a Munchkin's action seems entirely dependent on the Player's attention to his stats.

The Real Roleplayer is easily divided (as you've suggested) into the expanded Thespian/Brain system. Thespians usually focus more on their personal character than the plot (DN) while Brains are basically Real Men who use wits rather than swords (NN or DN). Loonies may look like they're playing to their character, but their actions are nearly always disruptive to the plot of the DM - Sandbox at it's finest. Since Loonies are, by definition, more interested in being wacky than playing characters, NS is the most appropriate Alignment - they play Wacky Bards as happily as they play Psionic Sandwiches.

Munchkins hate Railroading! They much prefer to find their own way to "win" the game outside of the DM's plans. Hence, MS.
Of course, this is tangential to the discussion. The archetypes above are often poorly defined (see Munchkin: need we say more?) which just goes to show that they're not intended to be true guides to Player classification - but more as in-jokes.

I'm trying to be rigorous.

@Saph - of course YMMV, but this system should prove more robust than a "sniff test" approach. I'm certain you have a keen "Player sense" by this point; I thought I did as well until this latest group threw me for a loop. However, using this short-hand helps me focus on the most important aspects of Players vis-a-vis campaign construction without limiting the "flavoring" aspects that trying to tailor a campaign to a Loonie, a Brain, a Real Man, and a Munchkin might.

@Temet Nosce - I worry that people are too obsessed with the Stormwind Fallacy to look at this closely.
My point isn't that you can't both roleplay and optimize - that's the Neutral position! - but that certain people focus on one side or the other. It can take a lot of effort to master a system; it takes a lot of effort to build a character worthy of short fiction. Most people have some interest in both, but some people simply do not.

I suspect that within the D&D population, WotC D&D tend towards N and M due to the mechanical complexity of the system. In other systems - WoW or Indie RPGs - you tend to find Players less interested in the mechanical optimization of their character and more in the character's personality and what sort of actions that implies. Strictly D Players probably feel uncomfortable making rules-intensive 3.5 builds that require lots of splatbook reading and sophisticated multiclassing; strictly M Players probably get frustrated when their STs don't let them break Werewolf or Burning Wheel.

WarKitty
2011-01-20, 05:23 PM
Re: Serious/Silly
Again, I feel like this falls into adherence to a Plot. Provided the DM is wise enough to say "this is a silly game" or "this is a serious game" up front, the amount of seriousness or silliness is going to depend on how much Players are willing to follow the DM's Plot. Sandboxers can lash out against a Silly Plot as much as they classically lash out against Serious plots; they want to play their own game, not the one presented by the DM.

Not particularly true in my experience. The serious/silly varies independently of the sandbox/railroad axis. What the plot is really doesn't have any effect on how serious or silly the players are in undertaking it. In my best examples of that dichotomy, both players were heavily on the railroad side - the serious player because she wanted an epic destiny quest, the silly player because he wanted to crack jokes about his sword. Same quest, same group.

Yakk
2011-01-20, 05:26 PM
Instead of alignment axis, why not tags or player properties?

Maybe break them down.

Motivations: [Roleplay], [Mechanics], [Scene], [Beer and Pretzels]
Paths: [Railroad], [Sandbox], [???]
Methods: [Silly], [Thespian], [Serious], [Planning], [Impulse]

Once you have a basket of motivations for each player, the route they like to take, and a feel for what their methods they prefer... you set up a game in which they are catered to. And you make sure that each player has a chance to experience their preferences.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-20, 05:36 PM
@WarKitty

Not particularly true in my experience. The serious/silly varies independently of the sandbox/railroad axis. What the plot is really doesn't have any effect on how serious or silly the players are in undertaking it. In my best examples of that dichotomy, both players were heavily on the railroad side - the serious player because she wanted an epic destiny quest, the silly player because he wanted to crack jokes about his sword. Same quest, same group.
Did you plan the campaign any differently? Would you have changed anything if both were Serious?

@Yakk

Instead of alignment axis, why not tags or player properties?

Maybe break them down.

Motivations: [Roleplay], [Mechanics], [Scene], [Beer and Pretzels]
Paths: [Railroad], [Sandbox], [???]
Methods: [Silly], [Thespian], [Serious], [Planning], [Impulse]

Once you have a basket of motivations for each player, the route they like to take, and a feel for what their methods they prefer... you set up a game in which they are catered to. And you make sure that each player has a chance to experience their preferences.
I dunno how that helps with planning - it's just a permutation of the Archetype problem. It gives you more "information" without providing the sort of clarity that can aid with a planning process. It's much like saying "He's Neutral with Good tendencies" - how is that different from someone who's just Neutral? Is it a matter of percentages? What sort of guidance can that reasonably give a human being?
I really like the responses, so keep 'em up! If I sound combative, it's just because I come from a Socratic tradition - if a point is raised, it needs to survive questioning. YMMV is well and good for opinions, but I'm looking to build a predictive system, not merely a descriptive one.

Temet Nosce
2011-01-20, 05:39 PM
@Temet Nosce - I worry that people are too obsessed with the Stormwind Fallacy to look at this closely.
My point isn't that you can't both roleplay and optimize - that's the Neutral position! - but that certain people focus on one side or the other. It can take a lot of effort to master a system; it takes a lot of effort to build a character worthy of short fiction. Most people have some interest in both, but some people simply do not.

I suspect that within the D&D population, WotC D&D tend towards N and M due to the mechanical complexity of the system. In other systems - WoW or Indie RPGs - you tend to find Players less interested in the mechanical optimization of their character and more in the character's personality and what sort of actions that implies. Strictly D Players probably feel uncomfortable making rules-intensive 3.5 builds that require lots of splatbook reading and sophisticated multiclassing; strictly M Players probably get frustrated when their STs don't let them break Werewolf or Burning Wheel

To address this particular point - then why bother with this system? If I as a DM desire information necessary to tell me how interested a player is in X type of play, I'd prefer something which provided me with this information for all the players rather than ignoring broad swaths of them through false dichotomies. So why set this up in a way that ignores such differences?

Also, to note I've found nearly the opposite from you - that people who are willing to put the time in to design the mechanics for a truly intricate and new build are frequently the same ones willing to put that effort into a backstory. The people who bring complex, powerful builds to the table that don't put effort into backstory actually tend in my experience to be people who just borrow those builds from others. Note that I'm not asserting this is always true, but my experiences should serve as an indication of why I'm coming from this direction.

After some thought I suspect that it might work better if each player were simply rated on a scale for each concept (plot, roleplaying, seriousness, effort, etc) to assemble a sort of basic profile of how they view the game as opposed to limiting it to two axis.

WarKitty
2011-01-20, 05:44 PM
@WarKitty

Did you plan the campaign any differently? Would you have changed anything if both were Serious?

The campaign plot would have been fine either way; I probably wouldn't have modified it. I would have modified some of the details, like treasure drops and some of the monsters, e.g. the Serious player would prefer the Sword of the Dragonslayer, while the Silly player would prefer the Sword of Expanding. What changes more is some of the table management. The serious player hates table-talk, wants to get moving right away, and NPC's are expected to be realistic with dramatic pants. The silly player lives for table-talk, wants time to crack jokes, and expects NPC's to be called "Mr. FunnyPants" whether that's their name or not.

Saph
2011-01-20, 05:50 PM
I really like the responses, so keep 'em up! If I sound combative, it's just because I come from a Socratic tradition - if a point is raised, it needs to survive questioning.

This is a good response to criticism if you want a discussion or an argument, but I think it's a bad one if you're seriously trying to improve your work.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-20, 05:58 PM
To address this particular point - then why bother with this system? If I as a DM desire information necessary to tell me how interested a player is in X type of play, I'd prefer something which provided me with this information for all the players rather than ignoring broad swaths of them through false dichotomies. So why set this up in a way that ignores such differences?
It's not a dichotomy - it's a trichotomy :smalltongue:
Remember that there is a Neutral position on the Roleplay scale - a place which is filled with people who are indifferent/equally interested in the mechanical and dramatic side of play. Your examples below aren't "opposite" my experience - they mirror my experience. This is why the Neutral position is important, and why the PAS is not a system of value judgment.

A scale could work, but trying to assign numbers to something as ethereal as "interest of mechanics v. roleplaying" adds more confusion than clarity. It's notoriously hard for people to consistently rate subjective states (e.g. pain, happiness) on a sliding scale. What one person lists as a 3, another may list as a 5 - without something to calibrate the whole system, you have data but no information.

A three-point system gets around this by noting the extremes and leaving everyone else in the middle ground. If someone cares enough about mechanics that they're willing to ditch character motivations, they're M; if they care more about character motivations than the actual numbers on a sheet, they're D. Everyone else is N - and you (as a DM) need do no more for them than to seek some moderation in the game.

Now, consider my not-so-hypothetical group: DN, DN, DS, NN, MR
If I ran a mechanics-heavy game, 3 of my Players would certainly be unhappy - they would want more opportunities to explore their characters rather than their powers. Worse, they'd be constantly bombarded with rules that they don't particularly care about. My MR would be plenty happy, and the NN would be indifferent - a game's a game, after all. However, a game that focuses on the character motivations of the D Players is going to be a big success - provided I don't bother the M Player too much and provide him some time to shine with his superior mechanics.

On the other hand, how do I handle the Plot Axis? Too many N's, and only one R and one S. A Neutral Game would sit just right - some clear Plot Hooks, but plenty of room to roam around - but a Sandbox would be a total failure unless the DS Player was willing to take the lead. Of course, if the R Player is in the lead, a Sandbox game would drive him mad with confusion. If the NN Players were in the lead... well, the party would tear itself apart in a S game since the NN character has no real criteria for choosing his particular course of action and everyone else in the party would be fighting amongst their characters' motivations (the D's) or simply get frustrated that the plot isn't going anywhere (the MR).

Well, that last case is exactly what was going on in my current game and I couldn't figure out why. They were all good friends and had played well together in different groupings. It turned out that my Sandbox game being placed in the hands of a NN Leader (with the only S Player being a DS devoted to being on the sidelines) was the core of the problem.

EDIT: @Saph - I've always found the Socratic method as being ideal for getting to the heart of a problem. There are many forms that criticism can take but it's important to figure out which ones to follow and which ones to ignore. I've always shied away from Appeals to Authority; which is probably for the best since it's hard to tell who has proper Authority on the Internet.

Lacking that, what better method for shifting through criticism than scrutiny? At the very least I can hope to understand the intent of the criticism - which may not always be clear from its first utterance.

In any case, I do hope my responses have been... well, responsive. If I've missed the point, then I apologize and would appreciate being told where I am dull :smallsmile:

Yakk
2011-01-20, 06:09 PM
Easy. If they have the Roleplay tag, then they enjoy scenes where there are roleplay.

Someone who finds their tags "starved" gets frustrated.

There are possibly anti-tags -- people who get frustrated when a tag is "stimulated".

So someone who is +railroad -sandbox is stimulated when there is a railroad, and frustrated when there is a sandbox. Someone who is +railroad is stimulated by railroads, but only frustrated by sandboxes if they go on "too long", or (possibly) if their other wants are also neglected.

Oracle hunter described a +Roleplay +Mechanics player. Both stimulate the player. This is distinct from someone who is neutral on both the Roleplay and Mechanics axis -- because a scene with little but Roleplaying will satisfy the +Roleplay +Mechanics player, while leaving the neutral player tepid (barring other likes being stimulated).

Placing things on an axis implies zero sum. Which means that someone who is tepid about D&D mechanics and roleplaying shows up identically to someone who is enthusiastic about both roleplaying and D&D mechanics. And for a DM, there are games that will stimulate one of these players, but leave the other ... tepid.

Saph
2011-01-20, 06:17 PM
Lacking that, what better method for shifting through criticism than scrutiny?

Listening. :smallamused:

WarKitty
2011-01-20, 06:20 PM
Listening. :smallamused:

Actually in this case I have to agree with him. Part of the point of the socratic tradition is to both refine your own ideas and help someone else refine theirs. So it starts with listening, but then continues into revision. Part of the process is saying what problems you have with a person's system so you can find out how they address them - if no problems are ever raised, then nothing gets addressed.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-20, 06:21 PM
Easy. If they have the Roleplay tag, then they enjoy scenes where there are roleplay.

Someone who finds their tags "starved" gets frustrated.

There are possibly anti-tags -- people who get frustrated when a tag is "stimulated".

So someone who is +railroad -sandbox is stimulated when there is a railroad, and frustrated when there is a sandbox. Someone who is +railroad is stimulated by railroads, but only frustrated by sandboxes if they go on "too long", or (possibly) if their other wants are also neglected.

Oracle hunter described a +Roleplay +Mechanics player. Both stimulate the player. This is distinct from someone who is neutral on both the Roleplay and Mechanics axis -- because a scene with little but Roleplaying will satisfy the +Roleplay +Mechanics player, while leaving the neutral player tepid (barring other likes being stimulated).

Placing things on an axis implies zero sum. Which means that someone who is tepid about D&D mechanics and roleplaying shows up identically to someone who is enthusiastic about both roleplaying and D&D mechanics. And for a DM, there are games that will stimulate one of these players, but leave the other ... tepid.
...interesting.

It certainly provides a greater fidelity, but it seems rather fiddly. I mean, how many people are really +Mechanics, =RP? Even if I assume 3-value variables (-1, 0, +1) is this really something susceptible to strict value calculations?

Also: a Neutral Player is either +Mechanics/+Roleplay or +0. A +0 Player isn't going to care about whatever is going on in the RP Axis so it doesn't matter what I do there so long as I don't detract from whatever does motivate him to play. For many, that would be the Plot Axis, but for some (the NN) there is something aside from Plot and RP that motivates him to play. It'd seem to me that this "something" would either be orthogonal to the DMing experience (e.g. "socialness") or idiosyncratic to the point that no reasonable system should bother trying to capture it.

PairO'Dice Lost
2011-01-20, 06:30 PM
A Player of mine suggested that I work up a DM Alignment System but I haven't quite figured out what that can mean. I mean, Player Alignments aren't the same as GM Alignments (e.g. a DS Player can very well be a DR DM) and, more importantly, good GMs are able to run any sort of game their Players require.

To sort of mirror the mechanical and plot axes for players, perhaps the DM axes could be Adversarial vs. Helpful and Storyteller vs. Referee?

The Mechanical Axis
The Adversarial DM plays the game with a "DM vs. players" mentality. Both DMs who aim for TPKs all the time and those who simply like making the PCs' lives miserable would fall into this category. This sort of DM like using lots of traps, wandering monsters, things that attack PCs in their sleep, and other sorts of attrition that keeps PCs on their toes. Restrictive houserules, "no save, just die" traps, and other things possibly judged to be unfair are likely.

The Helpful DM plays the game with a "we're all in this together" mentality. Both DMs who go out of their way to avoid PC death and those who simply rejoice in the PCs' accomplishments would fall into this category. This sort of DM lets the players set their own pace and comfort level. A permissive attitude with regards to allowed sources and rulings that make things "more fair" are likely.

The Neutral DM plays the game with a "by the book" mentality. Both DMs who vary between highly lethal/difficult and fairly safe/easy scenarios and those who strike a constant balance would fit into this category. This sort of DM like to constantly challenge the players, but never more than they can handle. A mostly RAW approach to the game is likely.

At their worst, Adversarial DMs run killer dungeons and Helpful DMs run Monty Haul games. At their best, Adversarial DMs aren't afraid to kick it up a notch to challenge expert players and optimized PCs and Helpful DMs are willing to work with their players to craft the most satisfying game experience for the group as a whole.
The Plot Axis
To the Storyteller DM, his story is paramount. This sort of DM likely plans the majority of the game and story out in advance, and probably doesn't appreciate it when the PCs go "off the rails" and force him to bring them back on track. The DM uses deep NPCs, intricate politics, and other highly-detailed aspects of the game world to enhance his story; as a consequence, he is likely to fudge rolls or ignore the rules when they conflict with the story.

To the Referee DM, the mechanics are paramount. This sort of DM likely leaves plots more open-ended and often ad libs, and probably doesn't appreciate it when the PCs wait around for plot hooks in his sandbox world and force him to invent plots for them to follow. The DM uses many minor NPCs, different subsystems and other highly-varied aspects of the game world to enable the PCs' story; as a consequence, he is likely to let the dice fall as they may and let the PCs or their opponents succeed and fail by the rules.

To the Neutral DM, a balance is best. This sort of DM plans out the major aspects of the story or world and leaves the smaller bits to be filled in later, and probably doesn't appreciate it when the PCs focus on the minor plots and force him to plan out things he didn't expect to need. The DM uses a broad but focused mix of story and rules elements to find a combination that works for the game; as a consequence, he sticks to the rules most of the time but might fudge things if he feels it necessary.

At their worst, Storyteller DMs are highly arbitrary and railroad the PCs to ridiculous degrees and Referee DMs run shallow, boring games that are inconsistent from one session to the next. At their best, Storyteller DMs run games that rival the best books and movies in their awesomeness and Referee DMs give the players the reins and let their imaginations run wild.

WarKitty
2011-01-20, 06:30 PM
...interesting.

It certainly provides a greater fidelity, but it seems rather fiddly. I mean, how many people are really +Mechanics, =RP? Even if I assume 3-value variables (-1, 0, +1) is this really something susceptible to strict value calculations?

Also: a Neutral Player is either +Mechanics/+Roleplay or +0. A +0 Player isn't going to care about whatever is going on in the RP Axis so it doesn't matter what I do there so long as I don't detract from whatever does motivate him to play. For many, that would be the Plot Axis, but for some (the NN) there is something aside from Plot and RP that motivates him to play. It'd seem to me that this "something" would either be orthogonal to the DMing experience (e.g. "socialness") or idiosyncratic to the point that no reasonable system should bother trying to capture it.

a +/+ player is probably a lot different than a -/- character. I'd probably rank as a Mechanics player on your system, but I would get extremely frustrated with a game that didn't give me roleplay scenes.

Temet Nosce
2011-01-20, 06:49 PM
It's not a dichotomy - it's a trichotomy :smalltongue:
Remember that there is a Neutral position on the Roleplay scale - a place which is filled with people who are indifferent/equally interested in the mechanical and dramatic side of play. Your examples below aren't "opposite" my experience - they mirror my experience. This is why the Neutral position is important, and why the PAS is not a system of value judgment.

A scale could work, but trying to assign numbers to something as ethereal as "interest of mechanics v. roleplaying" adds more confusion than clarity. It's notoriously hard for people to consistently rate subjective states (e.g. pain, happiness) on a sliding scale. What one person lists as a 3, another may list as a 5 - without something to calibrate the whole system, you have data but no information.

A three-point system gets around this by noting the extremes and leaving everyone else in the middle ground. If someone cares enough about mechanics that they're willing to ditch character motivations, they're M; if they care more about character motivations than the actual numbers on a sheet, they're D. Everyone else is N - and you (as a DM) need do no more for them than to seek some moderation in the game.

Now, consider my not-so-hypothetical group: DN, DN, DS, NN, MR
If I ran a mechanics-heavy game, 3 of my Players would certainly be unhappy - they would want more opportunities to explore their characters rather than their powers. Worse, they'd be constantly bombarded with rules that they don't particularly care about. My MR would be plenty happy, and the NN would be indifferent - a game's a game, after all. However, a game that focuses on the character motivations of the D Players is going to be a big success - provided I don't bother the M Player too much and provide him some time to shine with his superior mechanics.

On the other hand, how do I handle the Plot Axis? Too many N's, and only one R and one S. A Neutral Game would sit just right - some clear Plot Hooks, but plenty of room to roam around - but a Sandbox would be a total failure unless the DS Player was willing to take the lead. Of course, if the R Player is in the lead, a Sandbox game would drive him mad with confusion. If the NN Players were in the lead... well, the party would tear itself apart in a S game since the NN character has no real criteria for choosing his particular course of action and everyone else in the party would be fighting amongst their characters' motivations (the D's) or simply get frustrated that the plot isn't going anywhere (the MR).

Well, that last case is exactly what was going on in my current game and I couldn't figure out why. They were all good friends and had played well together in different groupings. It turned out that my Sandbox game being placed in the hands of a NN Leader (with the only S Player being a DS devoted to being on the sidelines) was the core of the problem.

As far as the lack of consistency and clarity in large undefined scales I'll agree (I encountered this precise problem in filling out my medical application), but this doesn't seem like an argument in favor of abandoning attempts to acquire the information for all players rather than leaving it as is. Rather this seems to indicate either a need for simplification (three points for each subject) or carefully defining each point on such a scale.

For the argument that everyone who falls under N currently on that scale needs nothing more than moderation... I honestly do not see how this would work in the slightest. The player who desire more of both requires different things from the player who is indifferent to them or who desires neither. Want to see more of X tells me something usable as a DM, whereas this system tells me they may want to see more, less, or the same.

As far as your game, yeah I was tempted to comment on it but it seemed to already be handled. Communication between player and DM particularly on expectations is one of the most important aspects of the game, and part of why I consider this kind of system a generally good thing to consider (I might run a full questionnaire next game I run, I'm undecided)

GoodbyeSoberDay
2011-01-20, 07:27 PM
What does this do that a brief paragraph describing what a player likes and dislikes does not do, aside from making the information somewhat more compact? Another way to put that is why do we need axes, categories, notations and theories (looking at you, GNS) when we can talk to each other in plain English?

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-21, 04:18 PM
@WarKitty, Temet Nosce - I have a hard time seeing how varying types of Neutrals need to be treated differently in the grand scheme of things. Remember that the PAS deals only with the overall style of game; so far, I can't see how I'd run a game differently for people who love both RP and Mechanics or are indifferent to both. Obviously, people who love one over the other fall either on the Mechanics or Dramatics side of the scale, not Neutral.

Also: what is a -/- Player doing playing a RPG? :smallconfused:

@PairO'Dice Lost - That's a pretty good start. I have some quibbles about the expanded definitions (e.g. does a Storyteller really imply Railroading? He could just like to tell stories - wherever they come from) but the basic idea is sound.

@GoodbyeSoberDay - one thing the PAS does which "paragraph questionnaire" does not is concisely and precisely ask the questions that need to be asked. Particularly with new Players, it can be difficult for Players to either understand the Plot and RP Axes (and why that's important to the DM) and the open format of an essay can result in muddy language and equivocating language.

Since, as a DM, I've found the issues raised in these Axes to be most important when designing a campaign. You can deal with flavor with simple questions - do you want to play an urban gothic game with magic or a cyberpunk game?. The metaconcerns in the PAS are simply harder to tease out.

WarKitty
2011-01-21, 04:41 PM
@WarKitty, Temet Nosce - I have a hard time seeing how varying types of Neutrals need to be treated differently in the grant scheme of things. Remember that the PAS deals only with the overall style of game; so far, I can't see how I'd run a game differently for people who love both RP and Mechanics or are indifferent to both. Obviously, people who love one over the other fall either on the Mechanics or Dramatics side of the scale, not Neutral.

To address your first point: Suppose you have a group with two +mechanics/+dramatics players and three +mechanics/-dramatics players. According to your system, you could run a mechanics focused campaign with little to no roleplaying. But that wouldn't work - the +mechanics/+dramatics players need both aspects to be happy. They'd quickly start feeling that your game was incomplete and get bored - it'd be like watching a movie with great acting but bad writing, it just never really makes it, no matter how good the one side is. I know that's how I am - I enjoy the mechanics of character-building and tend to go for optimal choices, but I also get frustrated if I don't get a chance to roleplay my character and all we do is roll dice.

Your second point: There's lots of reasons why people play RPG's. Some people are there for the social aspect - these people generally don't actually care what they do so long as they're with friends. That's the most common, really.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-21, 05:03 PM
To address your first point: Suppose you have a group with two +mechanics/+dramatics players and three +mechanics/-dramatics players. According to your system, you could run a mechanics focused campaign with little to no roleplaying. But that wouldn't work - the +mechanics/+dramatics players need both aspects to be happy. They'd quickly start feeling that your game was incomplete and get bored - it'd be like watching a movie with great acting but bad writing, it just never really makes it, no matter how good the one side is. I know that's how I am - I enjoy the mechanics of character-building and tend to go for optimal choices, but I also get frustrated if I don't get a chance to roleplay my character and all we do is roll dice.
That's not exactly the implication of the PAS.

A reminder on the Roleplaying Axis:
Mechanics means that the Player is most interested in the numbers on their character sheet, and how they interact with the rest of the system. They are unlikely to have much interest in the "fluff" behind their numbers and are more willing to do things for mechanical advantage than for any in-character reason.

Dramatics means that the Player is most interested in the "fluff" of their character and have little interest in how it is supposed to work mechanically. They are unlikely to show much interest in the rules of the system and act according to the internal motivations of their character rather than what would bring them the greatest likelihood of success.

Neutral on this axis means that the Player is equally interested in the rules of the game and the fluff of their character - or equally disinterested in both. Neutrals tend to pay enough attention to the rules to make sure their characters function and develop their character just enough to make it more than a collection of numbers. Neutrals usually act according to what seems "reasonable" to them as Players, rather than explicitly weighing mechanic advantage versus in-character motivations.
If I know I have 3 Mechanics and 2 Neutrals in a game, I will focus more on the mechanics to be sure - to give everyone a chance to play with something they enjoy - but I'm not running a wargame; there's going to be Roleplaying. However, I will make sure to focus the RP on the 2 Neutrals - when it arises.

The PAS is simply a way to "know your Players" - it tells you both what your general mix of Players are, and also which ones will appreciate what.

Now, were I to run a game where everyone was a Mechanics, I wouldn't bother engaging their characters in RP. There would be NPCs - to be sure - but little of the game would focus on the "motivations" of the characters (RP-wise).


Your second point: There's lots of reasons why people play RPG's. Some people are there for the social aspect - these people generally don't actually care what they do so long as they're with friends. That's the most common, really.
Well, yes. But the -/- point was, I believe, in reference to someone who hates both Mechanics and Dramatics :smalltongue:

EDIT: I've updated the first post to include the concept of Yakk's Prep Axis.

I don't have a written definition of the three points (Planner, Neutral, Impulsive) but as a thought experiment here's what my current Players are:
Mr. 20 Questions - NNP
"Are We There Yet?" - DNI
The Specialist - DSN
Casual Gamer - DNN
The Butt Kicker - MRN
This explains why Mr. 20 Questions and "Are We There Yet" are always butting heads with each other. Normally a NN and a DN shouldn't fight all that much - the NN should be happy to go along with the story.

As a rough outline, a Planner "prefers to plan before taking action. He asks the GM a lot of questions and tries to understand all the angles;" an Impulsive "prefers to act first, and plan not at all. He only asks the GM whether he could do a thing, not whether he should do a thing;" a Neutral "either appreciates there is a time for planning and a time for action, or does not particularly care either way."

I'll formalize this later, after I sleep on it.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2011-01-21, 05:41 PM
@GoodbyeSoberDay - one thing the PAS does which "paragraph questionnaire" does not is concisely and precisely ask the questions that need to be asked. Particularly with new Players, it can be difficult for Players to either understand the Plot and RP Axes (and why that's important to the DM) and the open format of an essay can result in muddy language and equivocating language.

Since, as a DM, I've found the issues raised in these Axes to be most important when designing a campaign. You can deal with flavor with simple questions - do you want to play an urban gothic game with magic or a cyberpunk game?. The metaconcerns in the PAS are simply harder to tease out.It really isn't that hard to write a clear paragraph stating what you want out of a game. If someone is going to mess that up, he could also misread your category definitions and put himself in the wrong one.

"What's wrong, Bob?"
"I guess I'm bored with the endless string of dungeon crawls."
"But you said you were MS. That means you didn't want a DM-guided story, and you like combat more than roleplay. So I'm giving you different locations to explore and fight new and interesting beasties."
"I thought it meant I hate railroads and I like making interesting builds. I still want to RP at least a little bit, and I still want to do some sort of quest."
etc.

Another question: How would you rate a player who wants to have rails presented to him so he can actively derail things? Assuming the DM doesn't thrive on a railroading style of play, this isn't necessarily a disruptive player, either. He might just like to subvert standard fantasy plots, and the best thing for the DM to for this player is to give him standard fantasy plots to subvert.

It might be tempting to just call this one a sandbox player and call it a day, but it seems like he has needs which are far different from a standard sandbox player.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-21, 05:49 PM
I've found that surveys and paragraph essays are confusing to novice Players. Plus, a paragraph can end up producing "unknown unknowns" - important factors that neither you nor the writer considered at the time.

YMMV, of course, but I've found this approach enlightening so far.

Another question: How would you rate a player who wants to have rails presented to him so he can actively derail things? Assuming the DM doesn't thrive on a railroading style of play, this isn't necessarily a disruptive player, either. He might just like to subvert standard fantasy plots, and the best thing for the DM to for this player is to give him standard fantasy plots to subvert.

It might be tempting to just call this one a sandbox player and call it a day, but it seems like he has needs which are far different from a standard sandbox player.
Sandbox.

If what you mean is someone who simply "likes disrupting the DM's plans" then he'd be a Problem Player - he's like the guy who comes to the table to play Pun-Pun or whatever. A normal person who simply enjoys "subverting standard fantasy plots" has an idiosyncratic desire that can't well be modeled. Personally, if I didn't have a Player who just wanted to go into a Dungeon and slay a Dragon then I'd write a game which is designed to subvert standard fantasy plots. Someone who enjoys the subversion will like the game; someone who simply wants something to subvert will probably try to subvert the story anyways.

EDIT: Misreading Alignment definitions is a story as old as time. Fortunately, I play with people with basic reading comprehension :smalltongue:

Seriously though - the only times I've met people IRL who get confused about Alignment can usually be straightened out with a re-reading of the text. As the designer of the PAS I can only try to make the text as clear as possible - which is one reason for this thread.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2011-01-21, 06:06 PM
In lieu of a paragraph, you could also talk to your players. That might sort out any initial confusion.

Temet Nosce
2011-01-21, 06:21 PM
@WarKitty, Temet Nosce - I have a hard time seeing how varying types of Neutrals need to be treated differently in the grand scheme of things. Remember that the PAS deals only with the overall style of game; so far, I can't see how I'd run a game differently for people who love both RP and Mechanics or are indifferent to both. Obviously, people who love one over the other fall either on the Mechanics or Dramatics side of the scale, not Neutral.

Also: what is a -/- Player doing playing a RPG? :smallconfused:

If someone loves both, obviously they want more of both. This is different from being indifferent or wanting less. To use your terminology a +/+ player desires a game full of both fine mechanics manipulation and verisimilitude rich meaning for such uses.

Whereas the -/- player you're asking why he's there for just wants to toss some dice, without needing to know the rules minutiae or getting bogged down acting stuff out. Can the player still want to play an RPG? Sure, but he's not looking for the things this system would indicate.

Mechanics and roleplaying on the same axis doesn't merely fail to describe such people, but actually results in false representations of their positions.

Saph
2011-01-21, 06:36 PM
Mechanics and roleplaying on the same axis doesn't merely fail to describe such people, but actually results in false representations of their positions.

Yeah, I have to say that of all the possible ways to represent a player's preferences regarding mechanics and roleplaying, an opposed axis is probably the worst way to do it. My recommendation would be to ditch the axes and use something like Yakk's tag system.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-21, 07:24 PM
Yeah, I have to say that of all the possible ways to represent a player's preferences regarding mechanics and roleplaying, an opposed axis is probably the worst way to do it. My recommendation would be to ditch the axes and use something like Yakk's tag system.
Eh, if you can come up with a meaningful tag system, I'm all ears.

But the "tag system" as presented can fall into the same difficulties as the archetype system - a system of holes rather than a whole system.

On Roleplay Axis Neutral
So far, I have trouble seeing how these differing varieties of Neutral need to be treated differently in terms of game design. Someone there who just wants to "throw some dice" is going to respond as well to a roleplay-heavy game as someone who is equally interested in both RP and Mechanics: they're going to want to be able to throw some dice occasionally.

Now, if the argument is that this Renaissance Man who wants lots of RP and lots of Mechanical difficulty is going to be upset that the game doesn't have "high" amounts of each, I'd like to point out that the Roleplay Axis is a relative measure. If there is both Dramatics and Mechanics going on in equal amounts, then the Neutral Player is going to be happy.
Now, if someone can give me a good argument for how you'd treat Roleplay Axis Neutral differently depending on certain "sub-traits" that the PAS ignores I'd like to hear them. However, please try to stick to "game treatment" which is within the scope of what the PAS is trying to accomplish: the PAS doesn't tell you exactly what your game is going to be any more than the Nine Alignments System tells you everything about a character.

Saph
2011-01-21, 08:13 PM
Eh, if you can come up with a meaningful tag system, I'm all ears.

But the "tag system" as presented can fall into the same difficulties as the archetype system - a system of holes rather than a whole system.

A system of holes is better than something which is actively misleading. Yakk already suggested a meaningful tag system, which IMO is much better than what you're using at the moment. I think by using an opposed two-axis model to represent players you're on basically the wrong track, and you'll need to significantly redesign your system to make it helpful for the majority of GMs.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-21, 10:06 PM
A system of holes is better than something which is actively misleading. Yakk already suggested a meaningful tag system, which IMO is much better than what you're using at the moment. I think by using an opposed two-axis model to represent players you're on basically the wrong track, and you'll need to significantly redesign your system to make it helpful for the majority of GMs.
It wasn't really complete.

As a reminder:

Motivations: [Roleplay], [Mechanics], [Scene], [Beer and Pretzels]
Paths: [Railroad], [Sandbox], [???]
Methods: [Silly], [Thespian], [Serious], [Planning], [Impulse]
This doesn't tell you anything about ordering a game, much less how to balance interests while designing a campaign.

How exactly is the Roleplay Axis misleading, BTW? It does not make the claim of the Stormwind Fallacy - that one must either be "good" at RP or "good" at Mechanics, but never both. Rather is a statement of interest, with those who are either indifferent to these two poles or who enjoy them equally as Neutral. As I've said before, this can be very helpful when designing a campaign (do I use more mechanical challenges, or roleplay challenges?) and also helps you structure individual plots (more mechanical challenges for the Mechanics Players, more dramatic challenges for the Dramatics Players). Seems pretty straightforward to me - but then again, that's why I'm looking for concrete problems with the system.

Bovine Colonel
2012-03-11, 06:26 PM
Could there maybe be a separate axis for degree hack-and-slash-itude?

Earthwalker
2012-03-12, 06:03 AM
I have one simple suggestion. Allow an unalligned state on each axis.

So for role play you have

Dramitic
Mechanical
Netral - Likes both side equally, the dramatic and the mechanical.
Unalligned - Doesn't care about both sides equally.

Its a small distinction but I think it would help classifying players.

arigatou
2012-03-26, 08:17 PM
Classic Timmy / Johnny / spike into the explain the long way to go. This is more or less corresponds to the real man, Munchkin, the classical system in the brain, does not include, such as social players.

Stubbazubba
2012-03-28, 11:54 PM
Yes, this is a very problematic thing. Most players end up in the Neutral category, but still have different interests, which gives you, the DM, nothing to go off of. The most important example here is the high mechanics/high role-player being the same category as the indifferent mechanics/indifferent role-player. That's simply misleading to the DM: If you have a party of people who are indifferent to mechanics and role-playing and give them a crunch-heavy game wrapped in an in-depth story with lots of intrigue, they will feel like they're trying way too hard just to sit around a table with some decent company and make jokes and would prefer it if they could play a light-hearted dungeon crawl with easy resolution that they could make jokes out of. You're not accounting for that difference, in fact, your PAS actually muddles the water more than if you just observed a single session. What PAS actually does is tautologically prove itself true; if someone is not particularly mechanically-oriented and simultaneouslynot particularly roleplay-oriented, then the games they enjoy spend a proportionately equal amount of time on both. What it fails to realize is that relative time spent on mechanics and roleplay doesn't tell you how much time to spend on mechanics or roleplay.

The problem is that you're measuring the relative weight of each, when you want to measure each as its own spectrum.

How about we try and consolidate things down to 3-6 aspects of playing RPGs that people enjoy, which hopefully will be enough to cover everything, and then ask a series of questions which have you rate yourself in those different aspects, and then total up the scores at the end. Now you know what your players want out of an RPG, and the proportions to boot.

For "outcomes," I propose the following-
Mechanics: Those who like to try out new builds, etc., etc.

Story: Those who like to be immersed in a rich narrative, who enjoy the rails.

Role-Play: Those who create great backstories for their characters and get into IC interactions.

Exploration: Those who like to be immersed in a great fantasy world, to explore it on their own terms.

Competition: Those who like to win, to minmax, to fight and kill stuff, or visibly and measurably win encounters in other ways.

Table Talk: Those who enjoy the social aspects of playing the game, who enjoy making jokes about NPCs and Monty Python quotes.

OK, now you make a couple of statements that describe each of these, and have a player rate themselves 1-5, as to how well you identify with that statement.

I get excited for character generation because it gives me a chance to try new builds.
I get excited for character generation because I love making great back stories.
Most of my favorite RPG memories include curbstomping enemies like a boss.
Most of my favorite RPG memories include my characters' own story and development.
Most of my favorite RPG memories include the inside jokes we had about that one NPC.
etc...


Because no answers decrease the ability to support another aspect, there is no false, misleading trade-offs in the rating system, and you end up with an absolute, if not objective, measure of the players' interest towards different things, which tells you how much of your time to spend on those things, which is far more useful to you, the DM, than a relative rating system.

Naturally, you can just forego the questionnaire and simply ask players to rate themselves in these 6 categories 1-5, 1 being not that interested, and 5 being this is key to my enjoyment, but the questionnaire will be 1) fun for those who enjoy that kind of thing (like me), and 2) useful in helping players think about it a little bit more objectively rather than just going off of knee-jerk reactions.

Also, looking back at my 6 aspects, there may be some problems, like are Mechanics and Competition really different? But the structure of the idea is still sound, and what you should try to aim for. The aspects themselves could be changed.

Edit: Re-read the thread and realized that this basically came up already. It's still leaps and bounds better than the PAS, though, because introducing false dichotomies and trade-offs, while it might seem like an elegant way to gauge something, does not deliver the desired knowledge to the DM. Starting with this framework and refining it is a better approach for that.


Now, if the argument is that this Renaissance Man who wants lots of RP and lots of Mechanical difficulty is going to be upset that the game doesn't have "high" amounts of each, I'd like to point out that the Roleplay Axis is a relative measure. If there is both Dramatics and Mechanics going on in equal amounts, then the Neutral Player is going to be happy.

Your last sentence here does not follow from the premise of your first. No, a Renaissance Man will not be happy if there are very few mechanical challenges, very few roleplay challenges, and lots and lots of table talk. So, the Neutral Player in the last sentence might be happy, but it's not guaranteed, therefore, your system doesn't create any useful conclusions unless players have asymmetric preferences.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-03-29, 08:25 AM
Your last sentence here does not follow from the premise of your first. No, a Renaissance Man will not be happy if there are very few mechanical challenges, very few roleplay challenges, and lots and lots of table talk. So, the Neutral Player in the last sentence might be happy, but it's not guaranteed, therefore, your system doesn't create any useful conclusions unless players have asymmetric preferences.
By a "relative measure" I was speaking of the overall balance of the game. That is to say, does the given Player enjoy more roleplaying (i.e. diceless/mechanicless activity) or more dice rolling (i.e. the ability to interact with the game mechanics). The hypothetical Renaissance Man both enjoys Roleplaying and Mechanics -- indeed, both at the same time IIRC. As a given session (and indeed, the entire campaign) is only a fixed amount of time there is no functional difference between designing a session which has a high amount of Roleplaying and Mechanics and one which merely has an equal amount. Therefore, the Roleplaying Axis (which I may rename the Gameplay Axis) adequately serves such individuals.

As an aside, you should consider the interplay between the two axes. While a NN gamer cannot be effectively tweaked by the PAS (as they function best in what I envision as a Standard Game -- equal amounts of roleplay, dice rolling, plot and Player autonomy) anyone who is Neutral on one Axis can still be tweaked (and indeed, should be tweaked) by applying pressure on the other side.

Much in the same way that a NG D&D character is more likely to be motivated by helping a starving orphan than either lawful order or rebellion, a NX Player is going to be more interested in the structure of the narrative than by giving them more dice rolling opportunities or more improv opportunities. Therefore, when designing a game for a group of people who are all N on the Gameplay Axis I would focus more attention on the few people who are non-Neutral on the Plot Axis. A NN Player is unlikely to get upset if the plot occasionally gets on rails, but it will be a great boon to the NR character who might otherwise feel lost and annoyed.

Stubbazubba
2012-03-29, 10:59 AM
As a given session (and indeed, the entire campaign) is only a fixed amount of time there is no functional difference between designing a session which has a high amount of Roleplaying and Mechanics and one which merely has an equal amount. Therefore, the Roleplaying Axis (which I may rename the Gameplay Axis) adequately serves such individuals.

So, assuming you have one 4-hour play session, there is no functional difference between designing 45 mins worth of Dice-rolling with 45 mins worth of Role-playing and 1.5 hrs of Dice-rolling with 1.5 hrs of Role-playing? You can tell the same story with either of those, but the latter is going to be more concerned with rules minutiae and lavish descriptions, while the former will be more heavily abstracted. Does your PAS instruct you which one to design? No.

Several people have brought up this fallacy already, but you don't seem to accept it as a flaw in your system. Each time, you then go on to describe how your system is tautologically consistent with itself, focusing on the difference between different 'alignments' and not differences within NN, which is our concern. Socratic method cannot help you like this.

Your system does give hints about certain scenarios, specifically the scenario where your players have asymmetric preferences, but it's a system of holes rather than a whole system. At the minimum, you need an axis divided between play-time and ooc interaction, which is not a false trade-off, and seriously impacts the kind of session you should be designing.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-03-29, 07:34 PM
So, assuming you have one 4-hour play session, there is no functional difference between designing 45 mins worth of Dice-rolling with 45 mins worth of Role-playing and 1.5 hrs of Dice-rolling with 1.5 hrs of Role-playing?
What happens in a session which is neither roleplaying nor dice-rolling? :smallconfused:

I'm certainly not arguing that the PAS will tell you how much DM monologing to include if that's the implication. Are there even Players who prefer less interactive roleplaying games and would therefore prefer the former to the latter?

In any case, I'm not sure I understand your argument here. How does "abstraction" vary within a rules system?

* * *

The best I can understand is that you're making an argument that games need to be designed with the amount of OOC chatter that the Players desire. As far as drafting adventures and plotting campaigns go, I'm not so sure that this is a concern that is helpful for a DM. Besides, the acceptable amount of OOC chatter is much more discoverable through play and requires less tweaking by the DM. I could make an Axis of it but it would be far less important to track than even the Active/Passive Axis.

Gamgee
2012-03-30, 02:18 AM
Not all that great. Everyone can be a little of everything. In psychological terms your axis basis makes no sense. Humans aren't hard wired to be diametrically opposed.

The best system I've seen to try and explain why people play games is the bartle gamer test. I've seen several proposals that branch off from that and show that people have different things that get them into roleplaying. Your on the right path and do touch on some of these ideas, but not extensive enough.

One person I think on these forums or another actually broke down what motivates people.

Simulationist In it to simulate a character based on known facts and rigid observations. They prefer their character to fit into the world.
Narrativist In it for the story. It doesn't matter if it breaks some rules like action movie physics or non stop drama. They're in it for a story.
Gameist: In it for the numbers, the killing, the most loot, and to be the best ect.
ect. a few more classifications. We can and do like them all, but we gain preferences over time. Or even dislikes.

Fatebreaker
2012-03-30, 02:58 AM
Oracle Hunter, first off, I wanted to say that you've got some interesting ideas, and I'd really like to explore this. I do feel like something's missing, though, and I think it's too easy for folks of very different playstyles to be NN, which isn't all that helpful.

So, in the interest of SCIENCE!(tm), I'm going to offer up your alignment system to the L5R group I'm running and see how they rank on it. Then, I'm going to talk to them more in depth, and see what information I can coerce out of them in terms of what they're looking for in a game. We'll see how the two match up.

I'll let you know how it goes.


How about we try and consolidate things down to 3-6 aspects of playing RPGs that people enjoy, which hopefully will be enough to cover everything, and then ask a series of questions which have you rate yourself in those different aspects, and then total up the scores at the end. Now you know what your players want out of an RPG, and the proportions to boot.

For "outcomes," I propose the following-
Mechanics: Those who like to try out new builds, etc., etc.

Story: Those who like to be immersed in a rich narrative, who enjoy the rails.

Role-Play: Those who create great backstories for their characters and get into IC interactions.

Exploration: Those who like to be immersed in a great fantasy world, to explore it on their own terms.

Competition: Those who like to win, to minmax, to fight and kill stuff, or visibly and measurably win encounters in other ways.

Table Talk: Those who enjoy the social aspects of playing the game, who enjoy making jokes about NPCs and Monty Python quotes.

Stubbazubba, I like what I see here, but I did want to point out that if you're avoiding opposition, you might want to remove the rails bit from the story-side. A rich narrative isn't inherently on rails (though, yeah, I can see that tendency). What if the story is one of exploration? Just a thought.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-03-30, 09:23 AM
Oracle Hunter, first off, I wanted to say that you've got some interesting ideas, and I'd really like to explore this. I do feel like something's missing, though, and I think it's too easy for folks of very different playstyles to be NN, which isn't all that helpful.
Thanks for the enthusiasm :smallsmile:

Could you list, say, 10 different playstyles which would all be NN?

As I've said before the PAS isn't supposed to define Players down to their eyeteeth but rather in broad strokes. I chose the Gameplay Axis and the Plot Axis because I felt they were the most important considerations when designing an adventure/campaign for a given group of Players and that preferences in these areas are unlikely to shift from session to session. So far I've seen Active/Passive and IC/OOC as other characteristics to consider but neither of them seems to me to be as important as D/M or S/R.

But if you can identify other areas I'm all ears :smallsmile: