PDA

View Full Version : Achievers, Explorers, Killers and Socializers: The Dynamics of Player Archetypes



Mr. Mask
2015-10-21, 07:12 PM
Extra Credits took a look at Bartle's analysis of players recently, and it has made me feel like discussing the subject. The videos are included below, but I'll give a brief summary of the types of players in a more tabletop context (as to how I estimate the dynamic is in DnD).


Killers: PvPers, plot-ruiners. These players want to mess with the GM, the other players, and all the NPCs, and they want the power to do it. This tends to lead them towards munchkin characters.

Socializers: Roleplayers, socializers. They're here for the roleplay, or for having fun with the group. An adventure without much challenge or a simple system would suit them fine.

Achievers: Murder hobos, levellers, questers. They want to level up and get powerful, so they're generally happy to follow whatever gets them EXP and gold.

Explorers: Lore enthusiasts, mechanics experts, adventurers. These players want to do something interesting and explore the world, or maybe they just want to explore the system and work out what crazy plans they can pull off. They might also be in love with the lore, if it's good enough, and want to explore that (most likely if they're the GM of the setting).


Which category would you get you fall most into? Explorer is definitely my main category, though socializer and killer have some appeals to me. I figure most players are somewhat in the achiever category.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxpW2ltDNow Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1drDuaQXm_U



Discussing the subject in more depth, what do you feel is a good way to slate your MMO or tabletop group so one category waxes or wanes? I was wondering in particular how to make classes that suit different archetypes.

For example, a socializer might prefer a simple class who buffs and heals the other party members, as they can communicate with the party to work out who needs what? And being interested in socializing, they're likely to take well to charisma-based classes, as that simulates dealing with people. So a priest who barters seems a good line for many socializers, or a bard with more buffing powers.

For a killer, it is hard to say what class they'd enjoy, as a group dynamic is sort of against the killer archetype. They might like something that allows them to mess with the other players and NPCs (and by extension the GM), say a class that can buff itself by causing inconvenience for the rest of the party, or can trick the party and others. Some kind of Loki-inspired class who pranks those around them, able to cause an acceptable level of mischief to make themselves happy without harming others' fun.


What are your thoughts on this subject? Have you encountered players who strike a strong resemblance to one of these types?

DigoDragon
2015-10-21, 07:25 PM
I'd mostly be in the Socializer category, with a little dabble in Explorer. The interaction with others is where most of my amusement comes from because I'm a ham and I love to have the spotlight for acting.

Tiri
2015-10-21, 07:38 PM
Socializers: Roleplayers, socializers. They're here for the roleplay, or for having fun with the group. An adventure without much challenge or a simple system would suit them fine.



I don't think this is entirely true. A difficult adventure creates more opportunities for roleplay. The two socializers in the group I regularly play with (one of which is me) definitely enjoy challenging adventures, because we get more chances to really flesh out our characters by thinking about what they would do in certain situations. I also am a bit of an explorer and achiever. The other players are mostly focused on achieving, although the poorly-optimized melee bard doesn't manage to actually do much achieving.

Mr. Mask
2015-10-21, 07:40 PM
Digo, Tiri: Would you say you have a preference for any character class or doing any particular thing in games/RPGs? For example, I tend to like fighters and melee classes despite being an Explorer, because the idea of a knight is appealing to me.


Tiri: This is true. I might argue that the illusion of danger can be enough for a hardcore socializer. Though, it's hard to say, as Bartle's system wasn't studying roleplaying groups specifically, so it may be an issue of inaccurate conversion. Like, if the socializer sees a party death as an OK outcome so long as it's interesting and they hang out, then a difficult or even unfairly balanced game can be fine.

I suppose a better way to frame it is that socializers are less interested in the mechanics, but in having an adventure with friends, so as long as they can use the system and interesting stuff happens in it, cool.

Tiri
2015-10-21, 07:47 PM
Would you say you have a preference for any character class or doing any particular thing in games/RPGs? For example, I tend to like fighters and melee classes despite being an Explorer, because the idea of a knight is appealing to me.

I think I generally play characters that favor negotiation over fighting, so I'm not inclined towards purely combat-oriented classes. Having said that, my negotiation is more through roleplay and less through any in-game systems, so I would be okay playing a fighting class.

Hawkstar
2015-10-21, 07:53 PM
I don't think this is entirely true. A difficult adventure creates more opportunities for roleplay. The two socializers in the group I regularly play with (one of which is me) definitely enjoy challenging adventures, because we get more chances to really flesh out our characters by thinking about what they would do in certain situations.

Ehh... how much does having an optimization floor that requires a 20 in your primary attribute (Or an 18 in both your primary and secondary attributes for more MAD builds), careful 5' positioning and exploitation of the game's movement system to mitigate vulnerability, optimal power/spell selection, while using hive-mind level coordination with your allies or DIE HORRIBLY! contribute to really fleshing out a character? Is Aelfwyn the Apprentice Wizard's character really developed by having his most notable character trait be "5' steps back, then Color Spray's three enemies at the start of every combat, unless the situation says another course of action is more effective"?

Sredni Vashtar
2015-10-21, 08:08 PM
In order: Explorer, Achiever, Socializer. I can't get into the mindset of a Killer (except possibly as DM, but even then I'm no Killer DM).

Mr. Mask
2015-10-21, 08:28 PM
Tiri: True that, if you're a socializer you can generally have fun with any class, so long as it doesn't put stringent requirements on you (like needing to research three splatbooks to make it good).


Hawkstar: Socializers will probably prefer simpler systems. But, they could still be difficult (like that Jenga roleplaying horror game, whatever it was called).


Stavrost: This brings up the point that the game and situation in question can make us delineate from our general type. Generally when you set up a game of Paranoia, everyone is itching for some PvP, even if it has different tones.



A question I'd like to pose to each of you, which ventures more into MMO territory. I was wondering about powerful characters interacting with low level characters. Nobles, essentially, interacting with commoners. There are various ways you can make this interesting, like have the noble bestow titles on other players in a clan-like structure, or hire other players to do their dirty work for them (allowing for some more-dynamic quests). I was thinking about the different appeals with such a role to different groups.


Killers like power, and ways to mess with other players. If it's possible to become king, raise an army, and just start wreaking havoc, you bet they'll like it. The question being how to have that appeal without it ruining the game for others. One way is to set the wolves against each other, encourage killers to target killers, so that it balances out somewhat. You could try to work the angle of tyrants for vindictive nobles, where the NPCs will lend some aid to players who are attacked by a killer-noble's faction to balance power.

Achievers will also want to achieve noble status. Part of the question then being where to move up from there. Noble leaderboards and several ranks of nobility, as well as a goal to conquer the land or unite it through trade or diplomacy may be appealing, along with quests and incentives related to managing their own land. Heck, you could even encourage the achievers to help the other achievers or other players, where one of the quests is, "hire 10 knights," where knights are level 20 players the noble has acted as a patron to.

Explorers will want to work out all the bits and pieces related to being a noble and interacting with that system, if they take interest in it at all. You could potentially further their interest by making nobles able to instigate expeditions to otherwise unreachable areas or the like. This'd encourage other explorers, who'd happily join such expeditions, and it'd create more interest than exploring the area under normal conditions would. Suddenly, a goal for an explorer would be to visit areas they heard about from other players, where there's some level of competition for spots. And of course, achievers will also be happy to come along on these trips. You could go further to say socializers might find it an interesting diversion, and killers would love to ambush these groups, but that could be a discussion of itself.

Socializers, I expect, would really enjoy the community aspect of managing a clan/princedom, and trying to organize their group to have major status in the community. One thing I wonder in particular, however, is what about the Killer, Achiever or Explorer who wants to become a noble, but doesn't want to interact much with other players? One idea I had, was a court vizier or steward role a socializer could take, managing the clan on behalf of the player with the money or mechanical prestige to form it. You could even try to have a form of social competition to get hired by these non-social players who want a community manager, one that could stretch into the forums and social media. That sounds really interesting to me, at least.


Anyone have thoughts on this subject? I find these sorts of theoretical group dynamics very interesting.

Tiri
2015-10-21, 09:30 PM
Ehh... how much does having an optimization floor that requires a 20 in your primary attribute (Or an 18 in both your primary and secondary attributes for more MAD builds), careful 5' positioning and exploitation of the game's movement system to mitigate vulnerability, optimal power/spell selection, while using hive-mind level coordination with your allies or DIE HORRIBLY! contribute to really fleshing out a character? Is Aelfwyn the Apprentice Wizard's character really developed by having his most notable character trait be "5' steps back, then Color Spray's three enemies at the start of every combat, unless the situation says another course of action is more effective"?

By 'challenging game' I didn't mean to the point where enjoyment disappears. Also, if Alfwyn's player chooses to play his character with no interaction or personality outside of combat, he is obviously not a roleplay-oriented person. A 'socializer' would undoubtedly give Alfwyn at least some moderately-interesting backstory and interactions with the other PCs and NPCs.

bobthehero
2015-10-21, 09:35 PM
70% Achiever 20% Explorer 10% Socializer 0% Killer (The DM makes the game challenging enough, no need to start stabbing one another, or shooting eachothers with lasguns and whatnot)

Talyn
2015-10-21, 10:16 PM
This spread, which was designed for computer games, isn't a great match for tabletop games. That being said, I'm primarily an Explorer, with Socializer as a strong secondary.

Interacting with the game world, either in-character or through the mechanics, is the most fun part of tabletop RPGs for me. I particularly like groups where the DM allows the players some control over world development, and lets players invent lore and history for the world in which they play (subject of his or her approval, of course).

goto124
2015-10-22, 01:58 AM
Let's petition to replace the current DnD alignment system with this.

I would say I'm largely an Achiever, but I grew on a diet of linear video games not tabletop ones, so...

Comet
2015-10-22, 02:19 AM
Killers: PvPers, plot-ruiners. These players want to mess with the GM, the other players, and all the NPCs, and they want the power to do it. This tends to lead them towards munchkin characters.
AKA bad people. Don't think anyone's going to admit to being in this category, making it a bit useless.


Explorers: Lore enthusiasts, mechanics experts, adventurers. These players want to do something interesting and explore the world, or maybe they just want to explore the system and work out what crazy plans they can pull off. They might also be in love with the lore, if it's good enough, and want to explore that (most likely if they're the GM of the setting).
AKA good people. I think everyone would like to be in this category.

For what it's worth: I'm 100% explorer (exploring the fiction is what the hobby is all about) and 100% socializer (getting together with friends is what the hobby is all about) and 100% achiever (playing the game is what the hobby is all about).
And 0% killer because I'm not an idiot.

Hawkstar
2015-10-22, 07:10 AM
By 'challenging game' I didn't mean to the point where enjoyment disappears. Also, if Alfwyn's player chooses to play his character with no interaction or personality outside of combat, he is obviously not a roleplay-oriented person. A 'socializer' would undoubtedly give Alfwyn at least some moderately-interesting backstory and interactions with the other PCs and NPCs.
Except, for some people, the enjoyment is only enhanced by the increase in the challenge. Their character is a pawn in a game, with the enjoyment derived from using and coordinating that pawn's actions with the pawns of other players to overcome seemingly-impossible tasks.

I hate these categories, though... 3.5's DMG 2 had a MUCH better (and far less condescending) grasp on what players enjoyed.

LudicSavant
2015-10-22, 07:28 AM
Extra Credits took a look at Bartle's analysis of players recently, and it has made me feel like discussing the subject. The videos are included below, but I'll give a brief summary of the types of players in a more tabletop context (as to how I estimate the dynamic is in DnD).


Killers: PvPers, plot-ruiners. These players want to mess with the GM, the other players, and all the NPCs, and they want the power to do it. This tends to lead them towards munchkin characters.

Socializers: Roleplayers, socializers. They're here for the roleplay, or for having fun with the group. An adventure without much challenge or a simple system would suit them fine.

Achievers: Murder hobos, levellers, questers. They want to level up and get powerful, so they're generally happy to follow whatever gets them EXP and gold.

Explorers: Lore enthusiasts, mechanics experts, adventurers. These players want to do something interesting and explore the world, or maybe they just want to explore the system and work out what crazy plans they can pull off. They might also be in love with the lore, if it's good enough, and want to explore that (most likely if they're the GM of the setting).


Which category would you get you fall most into? Explorer is definitely my main category, though socializer and killer have some appeals to me. I figure most players are somewhat in the achiever category.

Discussing the subject in more depth, what do you feel is a good way to slate your MMO or tabletop group so one category waxes or wanes? I was wondering in particular how to make classes that suit different archetypes.

For example, a socializer might prefer a simple class who buffs and heals the other party members, as they can communicate with the party to work out who needs what? And being interested in socializing, they're likely to take well to charisma-based classes, as that simulates dealing with people. So a priest who barters seems a good line for many socializers, or a bard with more buffing powers.

For a killer, it is hard to say what class they'd enjoy, as a group dynamic is sort of against the killer archetype. They might like something that allows them to mess with the other players and NPCs (and by extension the GM), say a class that can buff itself by causing inconvenience for the rest of the party, or can trick the party and others. Some kind of Loki-inspired class who pranks those around them, able to cause an acceptable level of mischief to make themselves happy without harming others' fun.


What are your thoughts on this subject? Have you encountered players who strike a strong resemblance to one of these types?

I would be careful about suggesting things like "Socializers are the ones who are here to have fun" and using pejoratives like "munchkin" or "plot-ruiner" to describe Killers as a whole (since that doesn't seem to apply to things like wikipedia saying "For most, the joy of being a Killer results from a friendly competitive spirit. They're in it for the sport, trying to read their opponent's moves and generally acting with honor"). I don't think Bartle's Taxonomy is saying that anyone isn't there to have fun.

Here's a bit of a more in-depth article on Bartle's Taxonomy: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6474/personality_and_play_styles_a_.php?print=1. And Wikipedia's section on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Test#Killers.

Anyways, you might also want to check out the Aesthetics of Play (or "8 kinds of fun"). Here's an article on it as it relates to pen and paper roleplaying.

http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/

Extra Credits did an episode on it, too.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uepAJ-rqJKA

The DMG II also has a solid section on player archetypes.

Tiri
2015-10-22, 07:44 AM
Except, for some people, the enjoyment is only enhanced by the increase in the challenge. Their character is a pawn in a game, with the enjoyment derived from using and coordinating that pawn's actions with the pawns of other players to overcome seemingly-impossible tasks.


I honestly don't understand where this is going. I tell you that I would not like to play in the game you gave as an example, and you say that there are people who would, which is a point I never disagreed with in the first place.

LudicSavant
2015-10-22, 09:30 AM
Even Richard Bartle's original writeup about MUDs says that "busybody do-gooding" towards other players is a type of Killer. The guy who engages in "futile, impulsive acts of revenge" on other players over perceived slights is also classified by Bartle as a Socializer, not a Killer.

FlumphPaladin
2015-10-22, 09:59 AM
Eck. Freaking. Splorer.

It's why I couldn't play Skyrim like I played Morrowind and Oblivion when I was younger: once I start, I can't stop!

goto124
2015-10-22, 10:05 AM
Why do we have a place for Game-Killers? Also, there's a difference between game-killers (munchkins etc) and those who find enjoyment largely in combat and all its nuances. Does that go under Achievers for some reason?

LudicSavant
2015-10-22, 10:29 AM
Why do we have a place for Game-Killers?

The sources I encountered on the subject seem to paint a rather different picture than "plot ruiners and munchkins who want to mess with the group."


For most, the joy of being a Killer results from a friendly competitive spirit. They're in it for the sport, trying to read their opponent's moves and generally acting with honor.


This desire for power over everything in their world is most closely echoed in the Keirseian description of Artisans, who (as their temperament name suggests) delight in the skillfully artistic manipulation of their environment. The Artisan/Killers are the tool-users, the adrenaline junkies, the natural politicians, the combat pilots, the high-stakes gamblers, and the negotiators par excellence. They instinctively find and exploit advantages in any tactical situation, and they express this need for dominance of their world in order to retain the greatest amount of personal freedom possible (External Change).

Millstone85
2015-10-22, 11:06 AM
After watching the videos, I would offer an alternative interpretation of the theory in a D&D context.

Socializers: They are here to sit around a table with friends and preferably some pizza. They do not care much about roleplay or gameplay, as long as everyone agrees to come back for another session. Some socializers spend more time discussing their day than playing their role or rolling dice.

Achievers: They are here to reach a goal, be it a satisfying conclusion to their character arc, the gain of levels and gold, or the defeat of the BBEG. In one way or another, they want to win. This presents the risk of an achiever feeling like they have lost.

Explorers: AKA munchkins. They are always looking for new toys, which they then proceed to combine in crazy ways, because they can and also to see what happens. Some work toward the optimal build and others realize a funny concept. No one derails a campaign like an explorer.

Killers: Either griefers or serious PvPers. I found the videos confusing on that point.

Mr. Mask
2015-10-22, 03:31 PM
Ludic: What you describe doesn't appear to cover player killers who are present in many MMOs (to the extent of ruining them for other players), DayZ, or the players who enjoy killing other party members, messing with each other, and the GM, who I've regularly seen in roleplaying groups.


Millstone: Killers: It covers both groups. Achievers can also be serious PvPers if they're fighting for high scores. Killers love competition, and/or seeing people suffer.

LudicSavant
2015-10-22, 03:48 PM
Ludic: What you describe doesn't appear to cover player killers who are present in many MMOs (to the extent of ruining them for other players), DayZ, or the players who enjoy killing other party members, messing with each other, and the GM, who I've regularly seen in roleplaying groups.


Sure it does. The problem is that you have redefined one group in Bartle's taxonomy to only include such players (as well as "plot-ruiners" and "munchkins"). As Comet put it, you've made the taxonomy about "good people" and "bad people."

Mr. Mask
2015-10-22, 04:04 PM
I mentioned PvPers specifically.

LudicSavant
2015-10-22, 04:12 PM
I mentioned PvPers specifically.

Yeah, and you mention it like a footnote that makes them guilty by association. "People in this category are munchkins and plot-ruiners. Their goal is to mess with the DM and the other players. For a killer, it is hard to say what class they'd enjoy, as a group dynamic is sort of against the killer archetype. Also, PvPers fall into this category!"

You don't say something like "some of the Killers want to mess with the DM or the other players. But others..." You make it a part of the general definition, and don't acknowledge the other side of the coin. You make the category about griefers and munchkins, and don't note that it also includes the sportsman, the "busybody do-gooders," the den mothers, or the artisans. Maybe that's not entirely how you meant to come off, but that's totally the message you're sending (as can be evidenced by, well, all of the responses).

Nevermind that statements like "the group dynamic is against the Killer archetype" specifically disagree with Bartle's taxonomy. You talk about them categorically as "wolves" to be set against each other. And you appear to ignore any way in which Killers can be a positive archetype in a non-PvP game.

If someone were to say that they identify as the Killer type, with no further clarification, to the audience you've primed they might as well say that they're, as Goto124 put it, a "game-killer." Or, as comet put it, an "idiot/bad person."

Mr. Mask
2015-10-22, 04:36 PM
"Yeah, and you mention it like a footnote that makes them guilty by association."

You're taking this a bit too personally. The whole line was a footnote of itself, the EC video acting as the real summary.

LudicSavant
2015-10-22, 04:47 PM
You're taking this a bit too personally.

And now you turn to making it about me instead of the topic of discussion. I'm not taking it personally at all, I'm saying outright that I feel your commentary is misleading and denigrating. I would do so no matter which group you misrepresented.

Mr. Mask
2015-10-22, 04:50 PM
"I'm saying outright that I feel your commentary is misleading and denigrating."

Precisely my point of taking this too personally....

LudicSavant
2015-10-22, 04:59 PM
"I'm saying outright that I feel your commentary is misleading and denigrating."

Precisely my point of taking this too personally....

So, your response to a game designer saying that you have the wrong idea about what the different categories mean is to say "you're taking it too personally" and dismiss them outright?

You are the one who is trying to make this personal, I'm trying to talk about Bartle's taxonomy. :smallannoyed:

You appear to be looking for any excuse to dismiss my comments about Bartle's taxonomy because they happen to disagree with yours.

Mr. Mask
2015-10-22, 05:04 PM
"So, your response to a game designer saying that you have the wrong idea about what the different categories mean is to say "you're taking it too personally" and dismiss them outright?"

My response to a rather personal and vindictive argument is to not participate.


EDIT: I see you've changed your mind on your original reply, which is fair. The original did seem to be continuing the personal trend.

"You are the one who is trying to make this personal, I'm trying to talk about Bartle's taxonomy."

My wish is for this to be far from personal. And as your comments have lead this to be a highly critical and personal argument, I do not wish to participate. I wanted to discuss the mechanics of Bartle's taxonomy without anything personal.

LudicSavant
2015-10-22, 05:08 PM
My wish is for this to be far from personal. And as your comments have lead this to be a highly critical and personal argument, I do not wish to participate. I wanted to discuss the mechanics of Bartle's taxonomy without anything personal.

No, you wanted to say that Killers are munchkins, plot-ruiners, and don't work with the group dynamic, and then advise people that they are wolves to be set against each other to try and avoid ruining the game for others. And then dismiss a guy giving you sources on Bartle's taxonomy pointing out that this is misleading (Killers do have group dynamics, Bartle even explicitly warns against assuming they don't in his original writeup) by saying that he's "vindictive" and "taking it too personally."

You are either mistakenly reading such subtext into my words, or you are just trying to Poison the Well (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well) to discredit me without addressing any of my points.


I wanted to discuss the mechanics of Bartle's taxonomy without anything personal.

If this were the case, you would address the point that the definition of Bartle's categories given by the linked sources does not agree with your definitions. Instead you keep talking about how you perceive my personality, all while ironically saying that I'm the one taking it personally.

Mr. Mask
2015-10-22, 05:13 PM
"No, you wanted to say that Killers are munchkins, plot-ruiners, and don't work with the group dynamic, and then advise people that they are wolves to be set against each other to try and avoid ruining the game for others."

"And then dismiss a guy giving you sources on Bartle's taxonomy pointing out that this is misleading (Killers do have group dynamics, Bartle even explicitly warns against assuming they don't in his original writeup) by saying that he's "vindictive" and "taking it too personally.""

If you do not consider this a personal thing to say, I don't know what you would consider such.

LudicSavant
2015-10-22, 05:16 PM
If you do not consider this a personal thing to say, I don't know what you would consider such.

Those were your words! You're dismissing my argument just because I'm saying that you said words that you said? Every single term that I said you used to describe players is a term you used to describe players, copy-pasted.



Killers: PvPers, plot-ruiners. These players want to mess with the GM, the other players, and all the NPCs, and they want the power to do it. This tends to lead them towards munchkin characters.



For a killer, it is hard to say what class they'd enjoy, as a group dynamic is sort of against the killer archetype. They might like something that allows them to mess with the other players and NPCs (and by extension the GM), say a class that can buff itself by causing inconvenience for the rest of the party, or can trick the party and others. Some kind of Loki-inspired class who pranks those around them, able to cause an acceptable level of mischief to make themselves happy without harming others' fun.



Killers like power, and ways to mess with other players. If it's possible to become king, raise an army, and just start wreaking havoc, you bet they'll like it. The question being how to have that appeal without it ruining the game for others. One way is to set the wolves against each other, encourage killers to target killers, so that it balances out somewhat. You could try to work the angle of tyrants for vindictive nobles, where the NPCs will lend some aid to players who are attacked by a killer-noble's faction to balance power.

Every response you have given to my posts about the classification of player types in Bartle's taxonomy has been about the nature of my personal character, and how I'm "taking it personally" or being "vindictive." I have not made a single argument ad hominem, or "to the person." Apparently I'm "taking it personally" by noting the actual words you said, saying that I find them misleading, and explaining why I find them to be misleading, complete with sources.

And what is this thing you're doing where you don't actually quote me but write my text in quotes or italics? Please just quote my text normally instead of reformatting it. I'd appreciate that, thanks.

Mr. Mask
2015-10-22, 05:28 PM
"You are either mistakenly reading such subtext into my words, or you are just trying to Poison the Well to discredit me without addressing any of my points."

Well, it'd be a little difficult for what you've said to be purely mistaken subtext. You began by saying how I'm rendering people guilty, and paraphrasing quotes I didn't say, and now are going on to accuse me of being incapable of arguing and being entirely false.


"If this were the case, you would address the point that the definition of Bartle's categories given by the linked sources does not agree with your definitions. Instead you keep talking about how you perceive my personality, all while ironically saying that I'm the one taking it personally."

What you're suggesting is illogical. If I wanted to have a calm, non-personal discussion about something, I wouldn't try to have it where the argument was bitter and becoming increasingly personal.


"Those were your words!"

You don't seem to understand what I'm communicating at all. Instead of understanding you're making me feel very uncomfortable and I'd prefer you not speak to me in this way, you only continue to try and accuse me and make this a personal discussion. That is why I refuse to speak about one word of what I said or the subject at hand, so long as you pursue this manner of argument.


"Every response you have given to my posts about the classification of player types in Bartle's taxonomy has been about the nature of my personal character, and how I'm "taking it personally" or being "vindictive." I have not made a single argument ad hominem, or "to the person." Apparently I'm "taking it personally" by noting the actual words you said and saying that I find them misleading."

I will not discuss or argue this with you as long as you continue to make this about me.

LudicSavant
2015-10-22, 05:38 PM
You don't seem to understand what I'm communicating at all.

I understand what you're communicating just fine.


Killers: PvPers, plot-ruiners. These players want to mess with the GM, the other players, and all the NPCs, and they want the power to do it. This tends to lead them towards munchkin characters.

You are saying that there is a category of players called Killers. You say that they are PvPers and plot-ruiners. You are saying that these players want to mess with the GM, the other players, and all the NPCs, and they want the power to do it. You are saying that this leads them towards munchkin characters.


For a killer, it is hard to say what class they'd enjoy, as a group dynamic is sort of against the killer archetype.

You are saying that a group dynamic is sort of against the killer archetype.


The question being how to have that appeal without it ruining the game for others. One way is to set the wolves against each other, encourage killers to target killers, so that it balances out somewhat.

You are saying that there is a question of how to appeal to Killers without ruining the game for other players. You suggest that one way to do this is to set the Killers (referred to as "wolves") against each other, encourage Killers to target Killers, so that it balances out somewhat.

I even was so kind as to note


Maybe that's not entirely how you meant to come off, but that's totally the message you're sending (as can be evidenced by, well, all of the responses).


Hence, I was not making it about you, I was making it about what you wrote.

Mr. Mask
2015-10-22, 05:44 PM
M: "You don't seem to understand what I'm communicating at all."

L: "I understand what you're communicating just fine."


Clearly not, as you intentionally ignored what that line was referring to.

M: "Instead of understanding you're making me feel very uncomfortable and I'd prefer you not speak to me in this way, you only continue to try and accuse me and make this a personal discussion."


I would've been happy to discuss the matter with you, if you were able to not pursue this manner of personal discussion.


EDIT: "Hence, I was not making it about you, I was making it about what you wrote."

I was more concerned with it being implied that I was trying to guilt a certain segment of players.

EDIT: You were correct that that wasn't how I intended the message to come off. Partially because I don't view those details as negative player behaviour, so much as a mismatch of player desire and the theme of the game.

LudicSavant
2015-10-22, 05:47 PM
Clearly not, as you intentionally ignored what that line was referring to. I've seriously been copy-pasting your exact text and putting "you are saying" before it. :smallconfused:

Mr. Mask
2015-10-22, 05:49 PM
Well, I meant what I was communicating in recent posts, that I was being made to feel uncomfortable, and didn't wish to argue while the argument was making me feel this way.

LudicSavant
2015-10-22, 05:54 PM
Well, I meant what I was communicating in recent posts, that I was being made to feel uncomfortable, and didn't wish to argue while the argument was making me feel this way.

My goal is not to make you feel uncomfortable or otherwise attack you. My goal is to point out that you may wish to reconsider the way you are presenting Killers, because... well, let's look at the message that's being received:


AKA bad people. Don't think anyone's going to admit to being in this category, making it a bit useless.


AKA good people.



And 0% killer because I'm not an idiot.


I hate these categories, though... 3.5's DMG 2 had a MUCH better (and far less condescending) grasp on what players enjoyed.


Why do we have a place for Game-Killers? Also, there's a difference between game-killers (munchkins etc) and those who find enjoyment largely in combat and all its nuances. Does that go under Achievers for some reason?


I can't get into the mindset of a Killer (except possibly as DM, but even then I'm no Killer DM).

If you included comments like:


For most, the joy of being a Killer results from a friendly competitive spirit. They're in it for the sport, trying to read their opponent's moves and generally acting with honor.


This desire for power over everything in their world is most closely echoed in the Keirseian description of Artisans, who (as their temperament name suggests) delight in the skillfully artistic manipulation of their environment. The Artisan/Killers are the tool-users, the adrenaline junkies, the natural politicians, the combat pilots, the high-stakes gamblers, and the negotiators par excellence. They instinctively find and exploit advantages in any tactical situation, and they express this need for dominance of their world in order to retain the greatest amount of personal freedom possible (External Change).

I doubt that people would be getting such a negative impression of that player group.

Even simply clarifying that sometimes the Killer is a griefer would help.

For instance, I can see things like the 3.5e-vs-5e debate about the skill system as being about not allowing players as much freedom to Act Upon things since they can't control their expectations for what skills do as much as they'd like. According to the Gamasutra article, Killers like to have control or express their mastery... and so perhaps too much DM fiat over what their actions can accomplish would bug them. Things like allowing "knot-cutting" creative use of spells (such as Silent Image's open-ended uses which allow for creativity) would also probably appeal to Killers. It doesn't have to entirely be a conversation about making other players upset, I think.

Mr. Mask
2015-10-22, 06:12 PM
Fair enough. I'm glad we've come to an understanding.

I really should've said plot-subverters. A hard case of a killer will enjoy competition, and that includes with the GM. The GM is trying to kill you, the killer is trying to survive and thwart the plot which is organized against him/her. Note that I say hard case, because a soft-case killer in an RPG environment may well be closer to an explorer or achiever, or even socializer. The thing is, subverting the plot isn't intrinsically negative, some games thrive on that kind of action. But stereotypically it is considered intrinsically negative.

Even messing with other players and the GM isn't an innately negative thing. It can be fun to have complications thrown your way, or just the risk/reward of competition means being messed with (killed or the like) is part of the gamble of the game. I consider PvP to fall in this category, as while sometimes it can be fun to get killed, "how did he shoot me from THERE?", it would still fit the definition of being messed with, or otherwise thwarted.

With the setting the wolves on each other... wolves are cool. Most hardcore PvPers and player killers, including in environments where player killing isn't frowned upon, would enjoy the comparison in my experience. Wolves are fine, when in their own environment, it's only when they become too aggressive that there is an issue. I consider the term killer much more derogatory (a lot of the reason people assume player killers), which is why I didn't hesitate to say wolves. As for setting them on each other, I feel that's only for their benefit, and others within an MMO. If I felt they were ruining the game in the sense of being parasites rather than crossing gameplay in undesirable fashions, I would instead have discussed how to eradicate their presence rather than coexistence.

My main interest has been how to make player killers and the like a part of the game's engagement and ecosystem, where they add to the game instead of taking away from it.


"I doubt that people would be getting such a negative impression of that player group.

Even simply clarifying that sometimes the Killer is a griefer would help.

For instance, I can see things like the 3.5e-vs-5e debate about the skill system as being about not allowing players as much freedom to Act Upon things since they can't control their expectations for what skills do as much as they'd like. According to the Gamasutra article, Killers like to have control or express their mastery... and so perhaps too much DM fiat over what their actions can accomplish would bug them. Things like allowing "knot-cutting" creative use of spells (such as Silent Image's open-ended uses which allow for creativity) would also probably appeal to Killers. It doesn't have to entirely be a conversation about making other players upset, I think."

This is a problem of book keeping, in many ways. Calculating your skill levels in a thousand different things takes time, space, and luck as to whether such skills get used in an adventure. My main thought on such is it might've been better to separate skills into job skills and adventuring skills, where you get a certain allotted amount of each. This'd encourage players to make their characters more personable, where they had a job as a baker back in their hometown and learned some stuff about tying ropes from a sailor, without putting them in a dilemma as to whether basket-weaving will ever get used in the adventure (it won't, 9 times out of 10).

LudicSavant
2015-10-22, 06:29 PM
Some more thoughts for accomodating Artisans/Killers or the "Acting/Players" type...

The Extra Credits example of a guy cornering the market also makes me think of, say, an Artificer who gets to decide how to kit out the party with magic gear, or even a support character distributing buffs and coordinating the team to take advantage of her abilities. "Here, I'll use White Raven Tactics on you so you can use your Web right now!" I can kinda see the main character of Log Horizon fitting into this type when he describes why he chose a support class.

In the case of designing a support class to appeal to Killers, they'd have to be able to influence other players actions with their own actions. So, for example, if they give the entire team a general buff that's useful for everyone to do just about everything, it's not going to be as satisfying because they're not causing as clear External Change. "The target gains the Crown of Buffing, which they can expend at any time to create one of 8 effects. The target chooses when to expend it and gain the effects." "As long as the Bard sings, everyone gains a bonus to dice rolls." If their buffs instead facilitate players to do specific things, Killers get to incentivize players to act the way they want in a positive way. "Okay, I think your plan of action is the best, so I'm letting you take your turn right now." "Now's the time to flee! I give you a bonus to putting distance between you and your foe."

Also, (and you alluded to this some already) NPCs are actually people too in pen and paper RPGs, so being able to manipulate them directly by their own actions may fit the Killer archetype too. Things like being able to use enchantment spells, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, etc. The more DM fiat is involved, the more this probably slides over to "Interacting" instead of "Acting." In fact, it occurs to me that the line between Players and World might be more blurred in the pen and paper space than in the video game space, since the World is operated by a Player.

There's also the example of the Mesmer class from Guild Wars. This class really exerts a lot of dominance. Their abilities really say "You will act the way I say, or else." I thought it was a pretty interesting way of giving them influence of the minds of other players without actually taking control away from those players. "Yeah, you can cast a spell, but if you do you'll take 100 damage."

Also, the more compelling the illusion of competition, the better they'll like it I bet. Set challenges, pockets within which the DM does play to win. So, for instance, while we all know the DM could just send a Great Wyrm at the level 2 party, instead he might be sending some kobolds at them... but have those kobolds be playing to win like Tucker's Kobolds. So, the DM limits themselves when deciding on the monsters to throw at them in out-of-game preparation, but plays those monsters to the hilt and doesn't actually try to let the players win in the in-game encounters.

Hawkstar
2015-10-22, 07:16 PM
The more I think about it, the more I realize I might have some "Killer" aspects - what the DMG 2 called "Outliers" - People who enjoy disrupting the social dynamic. It's fun to see a plot go off the rails and into a wild ride. It's fun to have the whole world go "Wait... what?!" to your character's antics. It's fun to have Old Man Henderson moments. It only becomes a real problem when it dominates the game... but that's true of all the playstyles. An "Achiever" can become a problem in "The Plot Train Has No Brakes!" situation, pulling the party along from objective to objective full steam ahead with no room for introspection, meaningful character interaction, entertaining diversions, tabletalk, etc. A "Social Gamer" can destroy a game by wasting the campaign on off-topic table talk. "Explorers" can crash a game by monopolizing the table into pursuing disparate leads that destroy the focus of the game.

There are two ways to handle the "Killer" fun - if you have two of such players and they're competitive, let them get into a fight of trying to screw each other over (While minimizing collateral damage), while laughing at the "Belkar vs. Varsuvius" antics that ensue from the sidelines. As a DM, or other player (But especially DM), recognize that they have fun with disrupting the plot or characters, and build "safety barriers" for them to crash into. Being a wolf is awesome. Wuff. Or, if you're clever, have the plot's rails actually be on another line than the one you're sending them down, knowing the "Killer" will jump off the false lead onto the 'real' one. Reasonable 'killers' will appreciate the concessions, and be willing to compromise with other's playstyles as well.

Mr. Mask
2015-10-22, 07:40 PM
Ludic: I forget, does the 4e warlord work the way you describe, or were his buffs more generic? Having specialized buffs sounds more interesting in general. One that lets you walk through the air for one turn, for example, would be pretty interesting in how and when you use it, it'd give the killer a lot of sway in how the encounter goes if he has the ability to bestow that on anyone (making it cooler than if he could only use it himself).

NPCs are certainly a great outlet for competition and pranks. Like when Jim Darkmagic convinces their manager he is a wizard.

A class that can damage your party members if they don't follow the plan sounds pretty heavy handed. That's not to say it couldn't be executed well, but that'd be pretty dicey balance-wise. How well does it work out in Guild Wars?

Competition between the GM and the player can be interesting, and is the theme of several board games. It is difficult to balance the odds, as the GM theoretically decides what plans are feasible in the setting and has a lot of environmental control, but it's doable.



Hawkstar: Indeed, it can be fun to make things take a wild turn. "The badguy is getting away in his helicopter!" "Hey wait... I have a grenade!" "Yeah, as if that's going to--" "20."

It's true what you say that each of the types can really hurt the game for the others, if their tastes are too extreme or they dominate the adventure. Playing killers off each other seems to be one of the best solutions, for just about all game setups. It creates interest for them, and can be fun for other players to watch, and prevents them getting over-zealous towards other players.



Though speaking of killers in parties, I do like the idea of a trickster class who can cause just the right amount of trouble. The question is how you'd set it up so they seem mischievous, but not too much. One idea I had, was the idea of a comeuppance mechanic, where if the character fails one of their tricks, they have to work out a way it comes back to bite them, preferably an amusing one. They might be able to earn points by both failure and success, so long as the pranks are amusing to the group. Say, their spells might be empowered by successful tricks that amuse those around them. You could also give them a paladin-like sense, detect sense of humour, to give them cues as to which people the party does NOT want to mess with.

How does that sound?

LudicSavant
2015-10-22, 07:50 PM
A class that can damage your party members if they don't follow the plan sounds pretty heavy handed. That's not to say it couldn't be executed well, but that'd be pretty dicey balance-wise. How well does it work out in Guild Wars? Sorry if it was unclear; the Mesmer damages or otherwise punishes (often brutally) enemies if they don't follow the plan. And it works wonderfully in Guild Wars. It basically lets you feel like an enchanter/mind-controller without actually being able to take control away from the player you're mesmerizing (a la Dominate Person).

Control/Tank type Warriors in Guild Wars have something similar going on. Instead of "taunt" abilities to hold aggro, they have things like Frenzy. Frenzy makes you gain a massive boost to attacks and a massive penalty to your defenses as long as you're in Frenzy mode. A Warrior can switch it off as soon as enemies decide to attack him, but if they stop attacking him he can just switch it back on and kill everyone for ignoring him.

Mr. Mask
2015-10-22, 08:05 PM
Ah, that's much easier to balance. That could be interesting. Its still a bit dicey since it could reduce engagement for the enemy player, but it's certainly much easier to balance.

Frenzy is a good way for a tank or warrior to have some control abilities. Controlling characters in combat by such incentives is an interesting topic.

LudicSavant
2015-10-22, 08:06 PM
Essentially Guild Wars allows players to control enemy player behavior without resorting to taking decisionmaking power away from the enemy player (like Dominate Person or Taunt would). They just alter the terms of the decision.

This works for allies too with buffs, or by creating tactical opportunities. For example, "I mark a player to be weak to fire" is basically telling your party's pyromancer "Attack this guy now!" Making an enemy flat-footed is basically telling your Rogue "sneak attack this guy now!"


That could be interesting. Its still a bit dicey since it could reduce engagement for the enemy player

In cases where it's well done, it actually makes the decisionmaking more intense in my experience. In David Sirlin's Yomi (I'll use RPS terms even though they're not called that in the game): "DeGrey says that if you use a Scissors type move this turn, he'll heal for 12." Now, you might be able to deal more than 12 damage with a Scissors, or be able to inflict status effects or simply stop him from attacking you. On the other hand, he might still counter you with a Rock move, so he'll heal 12 and you lose the round, and besides your Scissors now has a lower payoff if it hits. On the other hand, he's probably playing a Paper or Scissors, since your Scissors is now a disadvantaged option. It becomes a whole "does he know that I know that he knows that I know that he knows?" thing. Which is of course why the game is named Yomi.

In the case of Guild Wars, the Mesmer's influence means that the Valuation game is always changing. Valuation is the gaming skill wherein players are able to evaluate the worth of options available to them at any given time. By changing the value of options so rapidly, it means the player has to be more engaged, able to re-evaluate his tactical options quickly and effectively in the face of changing conditions.

This is in stark contrast to when a player is actually fully locked down (such as by D&D's Stun or Dominate effects). They basically have to sit and wait to be able to play again.

I think it's better for both the Killer and the killed. In the case of just straight up stunlocking so the player can't do anything at all, there are less moments of acting upon the other player. "Okay, I stunned them, that's it game over." As opposed to the Mesmer, where you have to keep switching up your tactics to keep people locked down, interfering with them at every turn. The Killer is doing more interfering/dominating, the killed is still engaged and able to respond.

RadioDask
2015-10-22, 09:17 PM
I am almost 100% certain that this study was not intended to apply to tabletop RPGs like DnD and the like, but rather to video games. EDIT: Ah, missed the "in a tabletop context" part. My bad.

I would say I'm part explorer and part killer. That is not to say I don't enjoy socializing and the achievement side of things. In fact, all 4 things intrigue me and are part of a gaming experience (tabletop or online)

LudicSavant
2015-10-22, 09:22 PM
Bartle's original writeup was about MUD players.

TheOOB
2015-10-22, 10:58 PM
I don't feel Bartle's Taxonomy was meant for, nor is it good for PnP Roleplaying Games. Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering (http://www.sjgames.com/robinslaws/) (which every GM should read) has a more useful breakdown based on which core engagement a player has.

It breaks players down into the following roles: The Power Gamer, The Butt-Kicker, The Tactician, The Specialist, The Method Actor, The Storyteller, and the Casual Gamer. It talks about what drives each type of player, how to provide what they want(and avoid what they don't want), and even talks about game system selection.

LudicSavant
2015-10-22, 11:24 PM
I don't feel Bartle's Taxonomy was meant for, nor is it good for PnP Roleplaying Games. Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering (http://www.sjgames.com/robinslaws/) (which every GM should read) has a more useful breakdown based on which core engagement a player has.

It breaks players down into the following roles: The Power Gamer, The Butt-Kicker, The Tactician, The Specialist, The Method Actor, The Storyteller, and the Casual Gamer. It talks about what drives each type of player, how to provide what they want(and avoid what they don't want), and even talks about game system selection.

Don't forget to check out the Aesthetics of Play (8 kinds of fun) or the taxonomy in the DMG II.

Extra credits did an episode on the aesthetics of play: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uepAJ-rqJKA

And there are some articles about it as it relates to PnP flying around: http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/

cobaltstarfire
2015-10-22, 11:48 PM
I think for table top games I'm mostly an explorer, I'm mostly there for the ride, as in to see where the story goes, and to learn about the world. This is partially because I'm terrible at roleplaying especially in person. I think I'm a little bit better via PbP though. Usually in real life games because it takes so long for me to figure out what my character feels and what I want to say I just get glazed over and rarely given opportunity to speak. So I'll probably never really learn how to role play in real time.

I like the social aspect too, but PbP games are never very social in my experience.

I'm not sure I have a strong class preference, though in general I usually gravitate towards a more supportive or flexible role in multi player video games. (mixed Druid vanilla WoW PvP server, Swords with a gun and bomb in Spiral knights (defender in pvp) , supporty mid/back line weapons in splatoon).

I actually think I play splatoon very socially, since there is no voice chat you have to pay attention to your teammates, their weapons, and where they're going. I always respond to "come on" and "booyas" too, though the booyas can be hard to decipher since people use them for a mix of raising moral, to say thanks for the help, or to say "lookout there's an enemy nearby".

But my 5e choices to date have been, a life cleric, a fighter/tempest cleric (focused on smashing/blasting), a supporty mage, and a barbarian.

In 3.5 I usually only played ranged or magic based classes, because I could never quite wrap my head around and remember the billions of tiny rules that applies for melee. But ranged/magic has always clicked for me.

I definitely have a bit of killer in me, but only for games that have it as an aspect baked in (WoW PvP, Splatoon, Smash Bros). I really enjoy being challenged and competing. Though I don't mind losing because from my perspective (the explorer in me I guess) losing just means there are more things I need to examine and learn in order to get better.

goto124
2015-10-23, 02:04 AM
If that's what 'Killer' means, I personally thinknit should be reworded. It does sound rather negative, and doesn't explain what the Killer is killing. Plot-derailer? PvPer? To be honest, the very archetype sounds negative and toxic in a game where players are expected to at least somewhat play along, not purposefully aim to go against whatever the GM puts up.

I find that I flip between Achiever and Socializer in computer games. Heck, I waste too much time helping others achieve their game goals, just because it's fun!

TheOOB
2015-10-23, 11:48 PM
Don't forget to check out the Aesthetics of Play (8 kinds of fun) or the taxonomy in the DMG II.

Extra credits did an episode on the aesthetics of play: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uepAJ-rqJKA

And there are some articles about it as it relates to PnP flying around: http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/

RLoGG is closer to the aestics of play one, but more focused on PnP RPGs.

In short:

The Power Gamers want to not only play powerful characters, but grow in power. They love leveling up, finding magic items, ect.

Butt-Kickers like fighting. If you got them around, try to have combat in every session.

Tacticians like to solve problems, they see the rules of the game and their abilities as a tool kit to find solutions to encounters, they love anticlimactic ends to encounters by combining several different abilities

Specialists have a specific role(s) they want to play, be it ninja, wizard, ect. If you're playing always rolls the same type of character, this might describe them.

The Method Actor wants to speak as their character and participate in a grand drama. They really like talky heavy sessions

Storytellers want to tell and grand and epic story with their actions

Casual Gamers just want to hang out with their friends.

While I'm not saying these types are any more correct than any other types, any system that tries to decode the infinite complexities of individuals as a limited number of types is doomed to failure, the book supports these types with lots of advice and info that will help GM's in making good campaigns in any system(including selecting the right system).

Piedmon_Sama
2015-10-23, 11:52 PM
It seems like kind of a broad category since some might want to explore the minutia of the rules and others not care about the rules at all, but yes I'm definitely an Explorer. I like to discover the world on my own terms, monkey with stuff, invent tactics... I also like building networks with PCs or NPCs but I hate sitting around doing "drawing room" type roleplaying scenes.

LudicSavant
2015-10-24, 02:19 AM
It seems like kind of a broad category since some might want to explore the minutia of the rules and others not care about the rules at all, but yes I'm definitely an Explorer. I like to discover the world on my own terms, monkey with stuff, invent tactics... I also like building networks with PCs or NPCs but I hate sitting around doing "drawing room" type roleplaying scenes.

Interesting you mention that, because...


Criticism

Bartle's divisions provide a foundation for investigating gamer psychology; however, subsequent studies have noted certain limitations. For example, Nick Yee has argued that a "component" framework provides more explanatory power than a "category" framework.[14] Bartle's motivation factors were analysed for correlation by factorial analysis based on a sample of 7 000 MMO players. One of the results was that the Bartle's Explorer type didn't appear and more importantly its subfactors "exploring the world" and "analysing the game mechanics" didn't correlate.[15] Jon Radoff has proposed a new four-quadrant model of player motivations that has a goal of combining simplicity along with the major motivational elements that apply to all games (multiplayer or otherwise).[16]


The 10 factor model covered all of the motivations listed in Bartle’s typology. In
addition, the factor analysis showed that Bartle’s Explorer Type was composed of two
uncorrelated motivations—geographical exploration and analyzing game mechan-
ics.

Piedmon_Sama
2015-10-24, 03:52 AM
Yeah I'm not a fan of MMOs. I've never gotten higher than level fifteen in one of those things, and I'm the guy who builds cabbage pyramids in Skyrim so it's not like I've got an aversion to long pointless tasks. I need a living system to test my creativity on (I mean I need a DM I can browbeat).