PDA

View Full Version : What kinds of players do you like?



WarKitty
2012-08-15, 12:23 AM
Let's face it - for all that GM's should be flexible, we all have our preferred game styles to run. And we like some types better than others. So this is a companion for DM's to the "What Kind of Player are You?" thread.

My favorites: Explorer or storyteller. I make fantastically detailed worlds, so I will adore the players that want to interact with it in a detailed way. And making the effort to give me a story you want almost guarantees that it'll get worked in.

Also like: Tactician. Gives me an excuse to plan complicated encounters and expect them to come up with creative solutions. Sometimes even encounters that I have no idea how to win.

Dislike: Butt-kicker, loony. I despise loonies with a passion. I make somewhat dark, complicated, realistic worlds (in terms of humanoid reactions, not magic and whatnot), and I do not want to deal with yet another pc that really ought to have been either arrested or carted off to an asylum by now.

Logic
2012-08-15, 12:49 AM
Let's face it - for all that GM's should be flexible, we all have our preferred game styles to run. And we like some types better than others. So this is a companion for DM's to the "What Kind of Player are You?" thread.

My favorites: Explorer or storyteller. I make fantastically detailed worlds, so I will adore the players that want to interact with it in a detailed way. And making the effort to give me a story you want almost guarantees that it'll get worked in.

Also like: Tactician. Gives me an excuse to plan complicated encounters and expect them to come up with creative solutions. Sometimes even encounters that I have no idea how to win.

Dislike: Butt-kicker, loony. I despise loonies with a passion. I make somewhat dark, complicated, realistic worlds (in terms of humanoid reactions, not magic and whatnot), and I do not want to deal with yet another pc that really ought to have been either arrested or carted off to an asylum by now.
I like (in this order) storytellers, explorers, tacticians and method actors.
I dislike min-maxers and loonies, and sometimes butt-kickers. Loonies can be fun, if you only have a semi-serious world. Min-maxers break my game and make it no longer fun for me to DM. Especially since I am supposed to be balancing the fun for everyone. Most min-maxers I know are only having fun when they are showing everyone else how much smarter than the other players and/or DM they are. And they hog the spotlight form the other player. To me, there is no type of normal player behavior that is more disruptive than a min-maxer.

Tvtyrant
2012-08-15, 12:54 AM
Like: Minmaxers, Loonies. I find that the two work rather well today, since they don't step on each other's toes. And I have to face it, most of the time my players don't care about the intricate backstory of how a castle got shifted onto the moon. They just want to visit it. Explorers are also good by me.

Dislike: Buttkicker, Method Actor. Butt kickers just want to fight, which I find boring as a DM. Method Actors tend to disrupt gameplay more than anyone else IME, often finding reasons their characters would do things that completely shutdown the game. Like leaving the party because they felt their character wouldn't travel with "low born scum" like our loon. :smallannoyed:

Knaight
2012-08-15, 01:12 AM
I don't have particularly strong preferences on the scale being measured. Instead, the big thing is proactive players. I want players who will actively push things along, on their own. Reactive players that never do anything without the proper stimuli coming along are tiring to GM for, and Baby Bird players who have to be railroaded because they are basically just observers who are in the game are immensely frustrating.

In practice, proactive players are usually some combination of tactician, method actor, explorer, and storyteller. I'm quite happy with this combination, as it mixes being proactive with being effective, and means that I don't have to bother making sure there are countermeasures in place for anything NPCs might do, instead being able to assume that the players will figure out something.

Rallicus
2012-08-15, 08:51 AM
I like all sorts of players, even loonies if they're done right. Min maxers don't bother me too much because, if that's how they want to play, fine. My favorites are good roleplayers obviously, and also players who are invested in my game.

However, there's two types of players I dislike immensely. The first is the complainer, such as the person in my group who went on a tangent about how something was imbalanced in the last game session I was in. The GM buckled and I was disappointed in him for that, especially since said player has never even opened the core book or any supplements. She's left an awful first impression.

Second, the rule thrower. If I'm DMing and a player corrects me for something major, that's fine. If the players discuss among themselves something minor, then present me with a good argument for RAW vs RAI, fine. But when a player throws a rule at me every 10 minutes on average, and argues with another player for 20 minutes about something while I'm in the bathroom, then I can't stand them. I don't miss that player at all.

So... I like all sorts of players, and I only really dislike two. Besides maybe the rude guy who doesn't want to be there, but I'm sure that goes without saying.

Serpentine
2012-08-15, 09:15 AM
I like players who are communicative and proactive, who will, say, listen when I describe a scene, ask questions about it for more details, and use and interact with the scenery, so to speak. Players who, if they find a problem, will talk to me about it - whether that's "you've taken away my material components and locked me up and I'm completely out of spells that can be cast without them" or "I don't like the way you handled X". I also get along much better with players who are forgiving - who doesn't exploit my flaws as a DM or punish me for them, but who works with me to overcome them or at least lets them slide.
I like players who are clever, creative and cooperative, working as a team to execute interesting solutions to problems.
I like a balance between silly and serious. A player whose entire character concepts are pun-based or whose every second line is a double entendre gets annoying, and breaks the desired atmosphere. On the other hand, I love it when my players do things like make a carving of a particularly despised enemy being violated by a god they've taken a liking to, or trick one another into awkward situations, or whatever. I want players who make characters who are real people, with real growth, but that doesn't mean they can't have a sense of humour.
I like players who prefer interesting over powerful, and who take genuine pleasure from flaws and failure. A player who whinges every time they fail a check is a lot less fun than someone who revels in it. One of the things I particularly like doing is, if a player seriously fails a check, I let them decide the consequences, usually resulting in amusement and often more inconvenient results than I would have made. If they can't get in the spirit of that, we're probably not gonna get along well.

Finally, I ESPECIALLY like a player who is enthusiastic, organised, and willing to put a substantial amount of effort to make it to a game, on time, and raring to go :smallsigh:

Siegel
2012-08-15, 09:17 AM
I like to play with GMs. In games that are highly player driven and that give you high impact on the meta level such players are better for this.

I don't like "we don't need rules"/handwave happy players.

Vorr
2012-08-15, 10:55 AM
Players that want to play the game! I like players that want to play the game. Ones that have spent just a little time during the week thinking about the game. And they show up for the game all excited and ready to play the game and nothing else.

Players that can handle OOC stuff A joke or such every half hour or so if fine.....to to take up several dozen minutes of game time with dumb jocks, stories or other dumb stuff is too much.

Players that can forget about real life for a while Yea, yea, I know Duck is in a comma and he is the only one who knows where the engagement ring for Sally and Mark is and they owe Boss Hog $1,000 that they borrows from you after you got a loan from Jummy Two Toes and got Jimmy a date with your sister Lisa after you got her husband deported.....but really can you just forget about all your stupid real life drama and just play the game for just a couple hours.

Players that can take a tiny bit of time out of their busy life to get ready for the game Yea, I know your wonder woman and you do a billion things a day as your so amazing(and disorganized), but still it would be nice if you could take a whole hour and write down your spell effects.

Siegel
2012-08-15, 12:05 PM
I forgot,

Gamers that know the rules of the system we are playing. Or at least can use them well enough. (know what to do when they need to roll etc. but not necercarily being able to use the system in an optimal way for their character)

Jay R
2012-08-15, 12:59 PM
Close friends who get along well, enjoying their friends' successes as much as their own. That's really the only crucial requirement.

Beyond that, I want at least one tactician, at least half the group should be role-players, at least one who enjoys painting miniatures, at least two who own all the books, and at least one person who takes notes.

We currently have one player whose fiance likes to cook snacks for the game. That's always a blessing.

Logic
2012-08-15, 05:46 PM
I don't have particularly strong preferences on the scale being measured. Instead, the big thing is proactive players. I want players who will actively push things along, on their own. Reactive players that never do anything without the proper stimuli coming along are tiring to GM for, and Baby Bird players who have to be railroaded because they are basically just observers who are in the game are immensely frustrating.

In practice, proactive players are usually some combination of tactician, method actor, explorer, and storyteller. I'm quite happy with this combination, as it mixes being proactive with being effective, and means that I don't have to bother making sure there are countermeasures in place for anything NPCs might do, instead being able to assume that the players will figure out something.
Ok, I think defining my players on a sliding scale of proactive-reactive may be a better idea. I like my players about halfway between proactive and the middle.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-08-15, 06:11 PM
I'm gonna come out and say something y'all are probably gonna hate me for: I don't particularly like explorers.

I'm a lot better at composing characters and set pieces than making places that are actually fun and interesting to explore. I cover this up with some really dirty DMing tricks, and players who like to poke around explore the map tend to expose the ugly seams of my environments and just break the immersion completely.

I realize this is my fault though, not theirs. If I were a good DM this wouldn't be a problem.

Logic
2012-08-15, 06:13 PM
I'm gonna come out and say something y'all are probably gonna hate me for: I don't particularly like explorers.

I'm a lot better at composing characters and set pieces than making places that are actually fun and interesting to explore. I cover this up with some really dirty DMing tricks, and players who like to poke around explore the map tend to expose the ugly seams of my environments and just break the immersion completely.

I realize this is my fault though, not theirs. If I were a good better DM this wouldn't be a problem.

Fixed that for you. :smallwink:I shall assume you are a good DM proven otherwise.

jackattack
2012-08-15, 07:33 PM
The ones that bring me snacks and soda.

Remmirath
2012-08-15, 09:57 PM
I like just about any player so long as they make at least some effort to roleplay and stay a bit focused - and don't act completely bored about either fighting or non-fighting parts of the campaign. I expect that, like most people, most of my players will get on my nerves every now and then.

I suppose that, of those categories, my favourites would be the Storytellers and Actors. I also like to have at least one or two Power Gamers, because I tend to have fairly difficult challenges in my campaigns, and if everybody in the party is underpowered that can be a problem (ideally, they'd all have a reasonable level of optimisation). I both do and do not like having Tacticians in the game - on the one hand, I enjoy it, but on the other hand I'm not as practiced at strategy as some of them, so it can make things difficult. Similarly, Explorers are fun to have around, but I sometimes feel that I fall short on creating a detailed enough world for them to really thrive in.

The ones I dislike would be Butt-Kickers (of the variety who care only about combat), Casual Gamers (of the sort that don't even seem to pay attention) and Loonies (particularly the ones who get overly upset when the consequences of their actions catch up to them). People who are too hung up on the rules also bug me. There's a place for rules, surely, but in my opinion there is not a place for hour-long arguments about them; or if there is, that place should be on your own time and away from me.

Masaioh
2012-08-15, 10:12 PM
I don't really care what kind of players I have as long as they aren't apathetic. My first group had a semi-serious DM, me as the loony/thespian, one apathetic guy, one guy who was always too drunk to know what was going on, and that guy that always comes up with the stupid ideas, always gets hit on the head with the DMG, and always gets the party TPK'd.

Related to that, the stupid guy once failed a hide check so badly (he was a psion with like -5 and he wanted to "scout the area ahead") that the DM decided to have a giant neon sign saying "IM HERE" appear over his head. He was mauled from full to -4 by displacer beasts, and my character healed him into the positives only to punch him unconscious himself and heal him again.

WarKitty
2012-08-15, 10:15 PM
I like players who are communicative and proactive, who will, say, listen when I describe a scene, ask questions about it for more details, and use and interact with the scenery, so to speak. Players who, if they find a problem, will talk to me about it - whether that's "you've taken away my material components and locked me up and I'm completely out of spells that can be cast without them" or "I don't like the way you handled X". I also get along much better with players who are forgiving - who doesn't exploit my flaws as a DM or punish me for them, but who works with me to overcome them or at least lets them slide.
I like players who are clever, creative and cooperative, working as a team to execute interesting solutions to problems.
I like a balance between silly and serious. A player whose entire character concepts are pun-based or whose every second line is a double entendre gets annoying, and breaks the desired atmosphere. On the other hand, I love it when my players do things like make a carving of a particularly despised enemy being violated by a god they've taken a liking to, or trick one another into awkward situations, or whatever. I want players who make characters who are real people, with real growth, but that doesn't mean they can't have a sense of humour.
I like players who prefer interesting over powerful, and who take genuine pleasure from flaws and failure. A player who whinges every time they fail a check is a lot less fun than someone who revels in it. One of the things I particularly like doing is, if a player seriously fails a check, I let them decide the consequences, usually resulting in amusement and often more inconvenient results than I would have made. If they can't get in the spirit of that, we're probably not gonna get along well.

Finally, I ESPECIALLY like a player who is enthusiastic, organised, and willing to put a substantial amount of effort to make it to a game, on time, and raring to go :smallsigh:

See if my loonies acted like this I'd have no problem with them! My biggest issue is that mine always seem to derive their enjoyment from trying to do inappropriate things. Like, if we're approaching the dragon and it's supposed to be a tense moment....lol FART JOKE TIME! Or we're on an undercover mission in a city under the control of a repressive cult, so it's suddenly time to start doing jumping-jacks in the middle of the temple!

Remmirath hit it - they of course assume that their antics will be disregarded and get mad when they are realistically (1) killed, (2) arrested, or (3) hauled off to the asylum.

DigoDragon
2012-08-16, 07:57 AM
I'd just be happy with players who are willing to work together, even if they're faking the sincerity.

RandomNPC
2012-08-16, 08:42 AM
I'm not to particular, but lately I've been forming a more solid opinion. I don't like the gamers that fit into any one defined group excessively well. A little power-gamer mixed with a bit of a role-player is good. A bit of a homicidal maniac is okay, if he's willing to work with the party and let them keep him in check. A little inter-party conflict is good, as long as they can trust one another in combat and to keep watch at the end of the day.

If I had to pick from defined characteristics, I'd like storytellers and actors over all the rules hard power-gamers and homicidal maniacs, but most gamers I've met are a little of everything, exact measurements subject to what kind of day they've had.

valadil
2012-08-16, 08:58 AM
Without resorting to labels, there are two things I like a player to be:

1) Proactive. The character should have needs and goals. The character should try to achieve these. Players who show up and do as they're told are boring. I can deal with one or two of these in a group, but I'm not going to sing and dance just to make up for their lack of entertainment value.

2) Cooperative. And I don't just mean with the group. I mean with the game. I can play with power gamers in a contest to optimize. I can throw out the dice and method act all night long. What I can't deal with is that one power gamer who is trying to show up the rest of the group. Or that one method actor who has to have a 30 minute chat with the innkeeper about tea, while the rest of the party is trying to get out the door to start dungeoneering.

I also like the players to be cooperative in the sense of getting into the spirit of the game. If the game is about swashbuckling pirates, don't show up with a ninja (unless you have a story or plot to back it up) and expect to play L5R.

jseah
2012-08-16, 10:01 AM
Most liked: Proactive; characters should actively use and manipulate the game world. I write a game world often with a few major ways that it could be affected on a large scale and a bunch of active NPCs with their own goals and schemes. There is almost never an overarching story plot, macguffins rarely exist, and hooks will not land on your lap except in the form of a red dragon eating you.

Liked: Explorer; characters who like to push the limits of knowledge and go past the edge of the map. I have always wanted to run a game of wizards who did nothing but sit in their tower conducting experiments.

Disliked: Excessive Roleplayer; I don't care if your character thinks the beer is horrible or the inane drama with imaginary Tim and Sarah. Recounting the exact way your character kicks the shine off the dragon's tooth counts but will be tolerated. Would prefer it if the descriptions made some sense.
It counts double if the action is not possible in the game and WILL be vetoed; if you wanted that ability, talk to me about homebrew.
Social networking with NPCs does not count.

Most disliked: The Loony & Weird; characters do not exist in a vacuum, they have backgrounds and must fit into the game world. No, no matter how many times you ask, you CANNOT have a rainbow mushroom for hair (unless it's a race with rainbow mushrooms for hair; which does not exist, so no, you cannot have it).
I don't even know what you mean by 'rainbow mushroom' when describing hair; and yes, I will veto your invisible fairy friends or decide your character is just insane. And by the gods, if you jump off that cliff, I will apply the full effects as per the rules. Characters who actively endanger the group are fair game for sniping or IC removal, including by other players.
I am not afraid to kill your character if it acts dumb. Having racially extreme characteristics (eg. 2.5 meter tall human) is allowed but will draw NPC comments and alter behavior; beyond extreme characteristics (eg. 4 meter tall humans) needs major justification or be outright forbidden.
---- You can tell I have had a few run ins with these guys. I am not amused.

------------------------------------------------

The rule about not godmoding other characters applies just as much to NPCs. I decide how NPCs react unless I specifically say otherwise (usually for NPCs attached to a character), players do not.
Minor transgressions are tolerable but are subject to revocation at any time; significant or combat actions are right out and will be immediately retconned, even if I then proceed to do the exact same thing.
That's not to say that suggestions for NPCs are unwelcome, I like feedback about character construction; but as GM, only I control anything NPC related.

In certain special cases, particular effects (especially ones the players know little about) are subject to the same rule. A cursed mirror might not necessarily shatter if you whack it, although I am rather forgiving in that respect since I cannot reveal that a particular object cannot be godmoded without having it attract attention it would never have.

Velaryon
2012-08-16, 02:21 PM
Rather than describing archetypes or categories, I'll just describe the qualities I look for in my players:

-Understands the game system or at least makes an effort to learn. This isn't asking for much. I have one friend who has been playing D&D for 10 years and still can't make his own character without someone else's help (and by help I mean basically doing it for him with a little input as to what he wants his character to be good at). I tolerate it because he's my friend and I hardly get to see him except at the gaming table, but it drives me nuts.

-Is willing to work within the group, both in and out of character. That means he doesn't refuse to play the campaign that everyone else wants, just because it's not his first choice. It also means he doesn't build characters who can't get along with the rest of the party. I enjoy disagreement and rivalry within the party, as it adds to the drama. But if it gets to the point where one character constantly goes off alone, or refuses to help another party member (let alone actively tries to harm them), then I have a problem.

-Gets into the game. When the player really wants to know what's going to happen, how the plot line they're following is going to turn out, or has emotional investment in characters (especially beyond their own PC), it's a great feeling. At its best, there is nothing that pleases me more as a GM than hearing my players talk about the game outside of game time because they can't wait to play again.

Those are all pretty general qualities. I'll save my more specific list for another time, since I don't this post to get super lengthy.

Morithias
2012-08-16, 03:33 PM
Players who appreciate what the DM does: I almost had a breakdown after a play last session basically told me I was unoriginal and could write stuff that wasn't inspired by something. I nearly raged at him because this is the ONE guy in our whole group who I have NEVER played a game with where he was the DM...OVER EIGHT YEARS OF PLAYING.

kardar233
2012-08-17, 02:11 AM
I have little to no experience as a DM, but here's the kind of DMs I like:

Open-World Friendly: I'm often of a mind to pursue character-appropriate goals rather than adventuring in the conventional way. A DM who can create a world populated with motivated people is one I like playing with.

Reserved when Necessary: Occasionally I find DMs take too forceful a hand when intra-party conflict arises. Differences of motivation or justification crop up when characters are played well, and when DMs have an outside force interfere it stifles character growth.

Spanner In The Works: I'm very much a Tactician player myself (a character of mine has adopted "I have a cunning plan" as her catchphrase) and I love it when a plan works smoothly. What's even more fun is having the plan being ruined at a vital point (either due to a mistake or something I couldn't have known) and then madly improvising a way to salvage the situation. Makes me think I should try Shadowrun sometime.

Stubbazubba
2012-08-17, 07:53 AM
I tried to post this earlier but the internet failed me.

My favorite player is one who approaches the game focused on the group's welfare. A player who respects all other players and actively tries to make it fun for everyone. This is a social activity, dangit, but too often players approach it like a video game or a personal stage. Whether it's the method actor who refuses to go on the quest because such work is beneath his character, or the min-maxer giving orders about what other characters should be doing on their turns, or the loonie who is convinced that his pun-based character only gets funnier the more frequently he brings it up, they make everyone else at the table feel frustrated, belittled, or awkward, and kill the team spirit you need to play and have fun.

When you are aware of and actively adding to the other players' fun, a whole lot of group issues go away and you actually have more fun. It does require sacrificing what you might think is the most rewarding playstyle if your group is not into that, but consciously changing your own expectations and enjoying the game the group wants to play is easier than trying to change everyone else.

The group will then, all on its own, tend to be more tactical or theatrical or just beer and pretzels fun, and everyone will be cool with that, instead of everyone trying to yank the game in their direction.

So just be aware that there are people sitting at this table with you, and how much you enjoy the time spent playing with them is in large part proportional to how much you are willing to put the group before yourself.