Case study: What type of player are you

[Sindal]

Hi everyone

So every once in a while you'll see a thread about someone not enjoying their time at their table. Depending on the situation the feedback is sometimes "make sure you find a table that suits you."

With this in mind, I'd like to ask you all to articulate as best as possible
What type of player are you, in terms of your dnd preferences

What i mean is, do you prefer:
-more or less rp/social activity
-more or less combat
-more or less puzzles and problem solving/ investigation
-difficult or easy games
-more or less 'rule of cool' (you prefers your games to be more structured or more laid back and possibly memey)

Stuff like that.

If i were to try and articulate my preferences...

Balance of combat and rp
Not fond of puzzles though they can be fun
I lean towards wanting a nice challenge in battle ( not meatgrinder 'you will die'hard mind you)
I like the rules and i like when people follow them properly (typically wont say anything when someone does something wrong unless its very wrong)
Memes are fine but i never want to see anything have thr face of nicholas cage or meet shrek

[Yakmala]

My personal preferences:


-more or less rp/social activity: I prefer roleplay heavy games. I'm perfectly happy playing or running a multiple hour session with zero combat [In fact, I played in one yesterday evening. It was a blast!]

-more or less combat: I'm fine with combat, but would be bored if the entire session was nothing but combat.

-more or less puzzles and problem solving/ investigation: I like puzzles and investigation as long as they are interesting and fair. By interesting, I mean there is more to solving them than simply making perception and investigation checks and by fair, I mean that the solution is something the players could reasonably determine, given the facts at hand.

-difficult or easy games: I'll go with challenging? I want to feel like my skills were tested. That victory was achieved by asking the right questions, making the right choices and using my character's abilities, and the party's synergies, in creative and effective ways. I don't want a cake walk, but I also don't wan't to feel like but for a few lucky rolls that went our way we would have had our butts handed to us.

-more or less 'rule of cool' (you prefers your games to be more structured or more laid back and possibly memey): When I run, I plan with exhausting levels of detail... Then I end up tossing half of it and adapting to the personalities of the characters and the situations they get themselves into. I don't think being flexible is the same as being laid back. Structured and malleable can both arrive at the desired destination.

[CharacterIV]

I prefer a slight emphasis of combat/strategizing over RP/social.

I like a more investigatory aspect over fixed "riddle" style puzzles. I appreciate puzzles, but they must be used sparingly.

I definitely prefer a challenging game. I don't mind if my character dies, so long as they die AWESOMELY.

I definitely prefer a structured narrative over open-world exploring. I don't like hand-holding, but feel it's imperative there be a clear sequence of objectives. Note that I think it's vital that there be more than one solution to any problem.

As a side note to structure, I really dislike murder hoboing or randomly exploiting NPCs. As player characters, we do big stuff. We slay dragons and raid ancient vaults. We don't roll random drunks for pocket change. If you're a sticky-fingered PC, come up with a plan to burgle the Crown Jewels rather than break in to the village blacksmith's shop.

RAI over RAW. I'm anti-rules lawyering and exploits. The DM is the boss, even when it goes against you. That said, the DM has to obey that creative solutions happen sometimes.

I take the world and story pretty seriously. No memey stuff except in out-of-character joking between the players. I definitely appreciate good world-building.

Multiclass because you have an awesome story idea, not because you want a certain class feature. Or ideally, do both. I do enjoy good synergy, but frown on abuse. It's a delicate balance.

Disclaimer: about 90% of my playing time is as the DM. This may bias my answers.

[DeTess]

more or less rp/social activity
I generally enjoy plenty of RP and social stuff, as long as every gets the spotlight frequently.

more or less combat
I enjoy combat, but generally as an important part of the plot or the dungeon. Throw-away combat encounters that are literally only there to force us to spend some resources feel unnecessarily gamey, but a single encounter just to break up a session that was mostly RP is fine with me.

more or less puzzles and problem solving/ investigation
I enjoy investigation if the game was themed around it, but for a more 'traditional' DnD game I'd say its more of a 'sometimes food'. It's a nice change of pace but if the party is not build for it it should probably be optional.

difficult or easy games
Difficulty is a bit hard to define. I'm currently playing in a campaign that's alternatively difficult, with an end-of-the-world scenario playing out and the GM warning us in advance that the campaign isn't about saving the world, it's about saving as much of it as we can manage (which won't be a lot), which I enjoy, but its also a bit emotionally draining a I've invested a lot in a set of characters and am constantly worried about their survival.

On the other hand, I've played in a campaign that reached its conclusion a couple of months back that had very difficult combat encounters at times, but all of those where win-able, and the overall narrative (heroes beat the BBEG) was never really in doubt, which was fine too.

Overall, I think a campaign needs a bit of challenge somewhere, but that doesn't mean you need to struggle, bleed and sacrifice for every inch of narrative progress.

more or less 'rule of cool'
I'm overall a big fan of 'rule of cool' for campaigns where it fits the theme. The campaign I'm currently playing in doesn't really suit it, but the one I finished a couple of months ago was similar in style to a good marvel movie, with lots of cool and badass acts and stunts, as well as plenty of one-liners.

[Asmotherion]

Hi everyone

So every once in a while you'll see a thread about someone not enjoying their time at their table. Depending on the situation the feedback is sometimes "make sure you find a table that suits you."

With this in mind, I'd like to ask you all to articulate as best as possible
What type of player are you, in terms of your dnd preferences

What i mean is, do you prefer:
-more or less rp/social activity
-more or less combat
-more or less puzzles and problem solving/ investigation
-difficult or easy games
-more or less 'rule of cool' (you prefers your games to be more structured or more laid back and possibly memey)

Stuff like that.

If i were to try and articulate my preferences...

Balance of combat and rp
Not fond of puzzles though they can be fun
I lean towards wanting a nice challenge in battle ( not meatgrinder 'you will die'hard mind you)
I like the rules and i like when people follow them properly (typically wont say anything when someone does something wrong unless its very wrong)
Memes are fine but i never want to see anything have thr face of nicholas cage or meet shrek

To sumarise my preferances: i prefear heavily encounter including campain that allows for a lot of encounters: Be it combat role play or a puzzle. i'm particularly fond of trying to solve encounters without resolving to combat through intimidation/persuation (and do appreciate when the DM allows for that option in through realistic RP). i enjoy a good puzzle as long as it's not too far-fetched or unsolvable. And finally i love using a tactical approach to combat were i'll use cover and concealment to my advantage.

i want rules followed properly but won't mind if the DM includes some (non absurd) home rules or a bit of rulebending acceptance in favor of a character concept to be archivable; i'm somewhat in the middle on how strictly RAW should be followed leaning a bit towards strictly.

i prefear a campain to have a funny tone though all comedy should be in-game. Having the DM describing wile half the players are commenting out of game or sharing memes on their phones is irritating for me 'cause it distracts me from the game.

[Zaltman]

I prefer a slight emphasis of combat/strategizing over RP/social.

I like a more investigatory aspect over fixed "riddle" style puzzles. I appreciate puzzles, but they must be used sparingly.

I definitely prefer a challenging game. I don't mind if my character dies, so long as they die AWESOMELY.

I definitely prefer a structured narrative over open-world exploring. I don't like hand-holding, but feel it's imperative there be a clear sequence of objectives. Note that I think it's vital that there be more than one solution to any problem.

As a side note to structure, I really dislike murder hoboing or randomly exploiting NPCs. As player characters, we do big stuff. We slay dragons and raid ancient vaults. We don't roll random drunks for pocket change. If you're a sticky-fingered PC, come up with a plan to burgle the Crown Jewels rather than break in to the village blacksmith's shop.

RAI over RAW. I'm anti-rules lawyering and exploits. The DM is the boss, even when it goes against you. That said, the DM has to obey that creative solutions happen sometimes.

I take the world and story pretty seriously. No memey stuff except in out-of-character joking between the players. I definitely appreciate good world-building.

Multiclass because you have an awesome story idea, not because you want a certain class feature. Or ideally, do both. I do enjoy good synergy, but frown on abuse. It's a delicate balance.

Disclaimer: about 90% of my playing time is as the DM. This may bias my answers.

+1 well said. All the above and the following add(s)

For me, it is all about tension at the table.
- Tension can be from an epic battle or sneaking in to steal the gem of power and escaping without combat.
- PC deaths/consequences must be part of the game or you lose tension, but those deaths should be so memorable they talked about by your group for years.
- My problem with puzzles is that they rarely create tension.
- My biggest problem with rules lawyering is that it often breaks the tension and drags the game down.

[MrStabby]

I am probably a pretty difficult player. I am probably more comfortable as DM.

I guess my desire is probably similar to what I try to offer.

Exploration is the central theme, but exploration through all sections if the game. Social encounters spin tales and ancient history, books talk of remote locations and the whole world maps to a cohesive plot/set of world events. Behaviour in combat maps to objectives and each piece of the world should inform in some way.

Balance matters to me. A DM that makes no effort to prevent over-frequent long resting is likely to lose me as a player. Likewise a DM that allows rules interpretations that meet my subjective standard of being abusive. The game is never going to be perfectly balanced so there is a lot of leeway here.

Rule of cool and ad hoc rulings are fine but only for the party, not an individual. Letting an individual PC do "cool" stuff often steps on the toes of another PC. Always care if it is cool for the other players at the table. If a player wants to use strength to intimidate someone rather than charisma, I would prefer it happened elsewhere - there is a role for that skill and another player is likely having their skill relevance diminished. If we wanted to teleport into the palace and the DM ruled that coinage had likely spent enough time in the treasury to let us use it as a local object I would be fine with it (Although I would question why the palace wouldn't be protected with forbidance).

Easy vs hard puts me heavily on the hard side. That said I have enough difficulty finding a character I want to play so I am not that thrilled at the prospect of a character loss!

I like a bit of combat and importantly others at my regular table enjoy it. As a general principle I like people to do what they like as long as it doesn't inhibit others from playing their characters as they might wish. A diplomat talking past encounters is fine as long as another player doesn't want to play a fighter who smashes face. I would expect a DM to ensure that the different pillars of the game continue to have sufficient importance that every PC gets equal time in the spotlight.

I like a pretty serious tone, but some lighter relief from some characters is good. I find it a nice reminder of the good stuff in the world that heroes should be fighting for.

[Blood of Gaea]

-more or less rp/social activity: 4/10
-more or less combat: 6/10

I like a lot of combat, but it is disappointing if there's not a good story and interaction too.

-more or less puzzles and problem solving/ investigation: 6/10
-difficult or easy games: Very hard, no matter the DM of my group, we tend to fail campaigns about as often as we complete them successfully.
-more or less 'rule of cool' (you prefers your games to be more structured or more laid back and possibly memey): Rule of Cool just enough to keep the game running smoothly. I hate overly goofy stuff like three gnomes in a trenchcoat.

[Arkhios]

I'm fine with less in-character roleplay and more of rolling the dice, BUT I still prefer a believable fantasy.

If I were to play at a table in which even just one player is playing a character with a name such as "Sir Killalot", I'd rather not play at all.

Having fun while playing and trying to be funny while playing are two very different things.

[NRSASD]

Roleplay: I prefer roleplay heavy games. Interacting with the world and seeing it bend due to your actions is the absolute best.

Combat: definitely should be present, but isn't necessary. Needed to break up the roleplay, but it definitely should be meaningful! Mindless, meaningless combat is terrible.

Puzzles and Investigation: More is better, but they should be solvable. It's far too easy to make a puzzle that isn't solvable by 6 tired, slightly tipsy adults.

Difficult or Easy: I like difficult, but mostly because I enjoy consequences. I want to try and thread the needle as delicately as possible, aiming for the best ending, but I want to know what happens when I miss. As a result, I hate killing characters; I'd much rather wound them permanently.

Rule of Cool: To a certain degree, but so long as it's a. reasonable and b. dangerous. I want to be allowed to do something profoundly stupid, but I want it to have the very real risk of getting of getting me killed.

[Bjarkmundur]

I am a cog in the wheel, and I take the vacant role. This is not done consciously, mind you, it just sort of happens. I mean, if we have a guy that's really into talking to NPCs, I'm not gonna step on his toes. If we however don't have a player who's willing to move the story forward, I love walking around town and getting **** done. I have a player with a very strong personality in my Wrath and Glory 40k group, and another player who's very knowledgeable of the world. In this setting I don't RP much, since they pretty much take care of it. It's like going to the theater, and I love it. But since we already also have a combat-focused player, I'm struggling to find my niche. I don't know anything about the 40k world, so my favorite part is getting to know the world and its creatures. I make sure to give the DM a lot of clues on what I love about his sessions, hoping it'll subconsciously make him emphasize it more.

-more or less rp/social activity
-more or less puzzles and problem solving/ investigation
-difficult or easy games
-more or less 'rule of cool' (you prefers your games to be more structured or more laid back and possibly memey)

I love a balanced game. I always really notice the missing aspect during a session. If a session is 90% memery, puzzles and social interactions, I really want 3 rounds of medium/hard combat to round it out. Same goes with dungeon crawls, if 2/3rds of the session is just walking through trapped corridors, I get very bored very quickly. In the perfect world, a session is 1/3 story, 1/3 moving through hostile territory, and 1/3 glorious dynamic combat. Because of my love for homebrewery and game design, i want at least 1/3 to half of the session to include mechanics. We've all have character's with all these fun spells and features, would be a shame to not include them. The other half can easily be no-dice all-roleplay, and I'll have a blast.

I also love handouts, both as a DM and as a player. If you give me something printed or drawn on a piece of paper, I will treasure it for weeks.

Maybe I should start focusing on that in my own game a bit more :/

EDIT: this thread is a perfect place to try to pick out players for an online session, since we can see everyone's style of play ^^

[Man_Over_Game]

What type of player are you, in terms of your dnd preferences

What i mean is, do you prefer:
-more or less rp/social activity
-more or less combat
-more or less puzzles and problem solving/ investigation
-difficult or easy games
-more or less 'rule of cool' (you prefers your games to be more structured or more laid back and possibly memey)


So on a scale, of 1-4, where 1 is Much Less, and 4 is Much More, mine is:


Social/RP: 3
Combat: 2
Puzzles: Depends. Puzzles that require player thinking rather than using character tools, a 1. Puzzles that are more about the characters using tools and resources rather than the players coming up with the right answer to a riddle, a 4. Player intelligence shouldn't play a major factor in a Wizard's ability to solve a puzzle.
Difficulty: 3. Not enough to die, but always getting close.
RoC: Depends. I don't want people to be doing stupid stuff. I want people doing cool stuff. Exceptions should be made to the rules, because an exception should be made, defended even. If there's no good reason for the exception, it shouldn't happen. So...3? With a bad DM, I want stricter rules, so that I know that everyone's playing on the same level, and so my expectations aren't changed. With a good DM, I'd like more flexibility, to give him more room to work his magic.

[Demonslayer666]

Hi everyone

So every once in a while you'll see a thread about someone not enjoying their time at their table. Depending on the situation the feedback is sometimes "make sure you find a table that suits you."

With this in mind, I'd like to ask you all to articulate as best as possible
What type of player are you, in terms of your dnd preferences

What i mean is, do you prefer:
-more or less rp/social activity
-more or less combat
-more or less puzzles and problem solving/ investigation
-difficult or easy games
-more or less 'rule of cool' (you prefers your games to be more structured or more laid back and possibly memey)

Stuff like that.

If i were to try and articulate my preferences...

Balance of combat and rp
Not fond of puzzles though they can be fun
I lean towards wanting a nice challenge in battle ( not meatgrinder 'you will die'hard mind you)
I like the rules and i like when people follow them properly (typically wont say anything when someone does something wrong unless its very wrong)
Memes are fine but i never want to see anything have thr face of nicholas cage or meet shrek

I prefer a good balance of both roleplaying and tactical combat. Neither should be pointless.
Puzzles are a lot of fun, but should be kept brief, light and fun. I prefer character challenges over player.
I love investigation and piecing together clues.
I also love appropriately challenging games where there is a risk of death in combat.
I like my games structured, and I play by the rules. I don't like it when the game is too whimsical. I prefer the core rules and dislike the more exotic races.

On a side note, I prefer to use a battle board over theater of mind. I like magic items and gear - I like having the right tool for the job. I like using encumbrance and my game grounded in reality (e.g. no swimming in plate).

[Guy Lombard-O]

I prefer a slight emphasis of combat/strategizing over RP/social.

I like a more investigatory aspect over fixed "riddle" style puzzles. I appreciate puzzles, but they must be used sparingly.

I definitely prefer a challenging game. I don't mind if my character dies, so long as they die AWESOMELY.

I definitely prefer a structured narrative over open-world exploring. I don't like hand-holding, but feel it's imperative there be a clear sequence of objectives. Note that I think it's vital that there be more than one solution to any problem.

As a side note to structure, I really dislike murder hoboing or randomly exploiting NPCs. As player characters, we do big stuff. We slay dragons and raid ancient vaults. We don't roll random drunks for pocket change. If you're a sticky-fingered PC, come up with a plan to burgle the Crown Jewels rather than break in to the village blacksmith's shop.

RAI over RAW. I'm anti-rules lawyering and exploits. The DM is the boss, even when it goes against you. That said, the DM has to obey that creative solutions happen sometimes.

I take the world and story pretty seriously. No memey stuff except in out-of-character joking between the players. I definitely appreciate good world-building.

Multiclass because you have an awesome story idea, not because you want a certain class feature. Or ideally, do both. I do enjoy good synergy, but frown on abuse. It's a delicate balance.

Disclaimer: about 90% of my playing time is as the DM. This may bias my answers.

Agree with much of this. However:

I'm okay with player-thinking puzzles, used sparingly and not too difficult or time-consuming. Anything that derails the game immersion for more than about 30 minutes needs to get dues-ex-machina'd away. Investigations to solve game mysteries are much better.

I like all 3 aspects of the game about equally. I find that I can go for a three hour tour without needing combat on occasion, if the role play and investigation is intriguing. But two sessions in a row would likely test my patience. However, I do find that I'm slowly morphing into appreciating the role play and investigation branches of the game more than I did a few years back.

I'll absolutely multiclass some cheese, purely for mechanical reasons. I won't apologize for it, but I will try to backstory and justify the character so it don't stink too bad. And since I usually play support characters, my creations tend not to annoy my fellow players (no comment on my DMs, though).

I like having the rules followed more or less. It ensures a certain level of fairness, both between the players and with the DM. That said, I'm fine with pre-declared house rules and the occasional allowance for the rule-of-cool when somebody's earned it with fun play.

Sandbox works just fine for me and my group. Having well-developed PCs tends to always give us plenty of backstory hooks to pursue whenever the DM has nothing planned out. But we run through pre-made adventures too, and they're just fine.

I find that I used to like a lethal challenge more than I do now. I work too hard on building a mechanical battle-bot, and then fashioning reasonable backstories, personalities and goals which fit into the DM's world, to want to see the PCs killed off. Of course, an awesome death is still best, and having somebody occasionally die is necessary to make the game have stakes and tension. But a little death goes a long way.

[Fable Wright]

To me, the game is a problem solving one.

Social, investigation, and combat are all facets of the same puzzle: conserving spell slots while keeping us in a good position. If combat is foolish, can we social? If we can't social, can we explore around the issue?

I'm fine with RP heavy. I'm fine with combat heavy. I love problem solving. I like challenge, because otherwise there's no problem to solve.

I despise mandatory puzzles with a passion. If I need to guess the GM's arbitrary answer to the puzzle and don't have alternate recourse, we have an issue.

[Yakmala]

I think it's important to mention that while I believe in "The Rule of Cool" I also believe in the "Rule of Stupid".

What this means is that cool, life threatening choices that add to the flavor of the story get preferential treatment.

Example: The air ship is crashing. The evil boss just leapt over the side, plunged 200 feet and then activated his feather fall token. The character decides to leap after him, grapple him as he plunges past and attempt to wrestle for control of the token. That's pretty cool. I'll allow a normal skill check. (they have disadvantage due to the difficulty but advantage due to surprise). I might even fudge the bad guy's roll a bit because this is a very cool and cinematic thing to do.

On the other hand, stupid, life threatening choices, after the character/party have been given repeated hints that such a course of action would be foolhardy, are treated with zero mercy.

Example: The evil sorceress begins transforming into something bigger. The party's Warlock gets a sudden feeling of dread, and hears a voice in their head whispering "By the Nine Hells, Run!" and realizes it's their patron. The Warlock relays this information to the party and they agree that if a being of that power is suggesting they run, they should run.... All except the party Barbarian who insists "I've got this!". The rest of the party flees. As the Barbarian marches forward, the spirit of their dead ancestor appears before them and says "Now is not the time! Get out and live to fight another day!" The Barbarian walks through the shimmering figure, ignoring it, deciding that their rage, high hit point pool and legendary weapon will surely be enough. It's not. And the sorceress, now an Ancient Red Dragon mercilessly dispatches the Barbarian in the space of two rounds and then incinerates the remains.

Both of these are actual incidents from games I ran. I'm not the type of DM that thinks it's fun to slaughter the party. I make my encounters challenging but fair. If the encounter is designed specifically to not be fair, there will always be indicators to the party that they are in over their heads. If they choose to ignore these indicators, that's on them.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I like my games to have options on how to proceed, and to feel like my decisions have an impact. I like puzzles, but I hate when the game can't progress until some stupid arbitrary riddle the DM found on Facebook has been solved (especially when I'm playing an archetype that wouldn't realistically be good at them, as I tend to forgo doing things that aren't in character). I like complex combat scenarios, and I like them to be hard hitting and difficult. I don't like inflated HP sumo wrestling matches. I absolutely hate combat that lasts more than 15 minutes per fight. I don't like it when they're handled by some deus ex machina new power/item/NPC, I'd rather die to an improperly balanced encounter than see anything solved in such a manner. I like clever ideas that don't have rules winning the day, but I hate when something stupid with no rules bypasses everything instead- so I suppose, allowing realism to triumph when there aren't rules for it, but not 'rule of cool'. Though I'm not bothered when it's not responsible for winning and is just there for a quick stupid joke.

I like there to be meaning behind whatever it is I'm doing. An entire session of roleplaying or combat is perfectly acceptable so long as there's purpose to it, and I was prepared accordingly for it. If either are the result of free choice dictating it (talking our way out of every fight, or fighting our way through every diplomat), that is also acceptable. I despise player favoritism, even when I'm the player benefiting. I don't like having my hand held when I'm adventuring; I like the raw feeling of needing to suss out what I need to do and where I need to go myself.

So, I guess I'm saying that I like having a super hard, open-ended, impartially arbitrated game best of all.

[sithlordnergal]

more or less rp/social activity

I tend to lean a bit more towards less rp. While I do enjoy social activities, I'm not exactly great at RPing vocally.

more or less combat

I prefer to have more combat then rp. Though the combat does need to have some sort of depth to it. I dislike encounters where you just hit people. Give me strange environmental effects, unexpected tactics, basically anything that can make it more interesting.

more or less puzzles and problem solving/ investigation

I love this, though I suck at it.

difficult or easy games

The more challenging the better. I enjoy making powerful builds that are then pushed to the limit.

more or less 'rule of cool' (you prefers your games to be more structured or more laid back and possibly memey)

I always follow the rule of cool. If something seems like it will be awesome, I will gladly ignore rules, like you can only cast cantrips after casting a bonus action spell.

[Rukelnikov]

What i mean is, do you prefer:
-more or less rp/social activity

a Healthy amount of rp, at least twice that of combat


-more or less combat

I like combat, and wouldn't mind sometime or another spending 2 whole sessions in a dungeon run, in general though, I preffer to have more rp, as I said above, the ratio I preffer is at least 2:1 game time


-more or less puzzles and problem solving/ investigation

I like investigation when its something that takes place across adventures, some mistery it takes half of the campaign or more to discover.

I also like puzzles now and then, but if its the players solving them, otherwise its a dice roll, why call them puzzles?=


-difficult or easy games

Depends a lot on the mood, but in general nothing below challenging.


-more or less 'rule of cool' (you prefers your games to be more structured or more laid back and possibly memey)

I like rule of cool as long as it happens sporadically and in appropiate situations, if it becomes the norm, then you are just playing a different game (I think I remember FATE or Exalted granting bonuses for attempting over the top stuff, could be way off the mark though)

[TheCleverGuy]

What type of player are you, in terms of your dnd preferences

What i mean is, do you prefer:
-more or less rp/social activity
-more or less combat
-more or less puzzles and problem solving/ investigation
-difficult or easy games
-more or less 'rule of cool' (you prefers your games to be more structured or more laid back and possibly memey)

I lean toward favoring combat scenarios to RP/social ones (say 60/40 split). And I like to have enemies that are intelligent and tactical so that the players are forced to think tactically as well. Puzzles and traps can be fun, too. I like a game that's challenging and at least feels dangerous for the characters.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'll just respond the example preferences you listed and then add a few of my own additions to try and keep this neat.

-more or less rp/social activity
I prefer more RP and social activity but have not had the chance to explore that avenue at games that I've played in, the games that I've run have been primarily populated by players who prefer their social pillar to be shorthand. This has been one of the major difficulties in running games in my friend group and I've avoided doing so because of it. It's not enjoyable for someone trying to build a narrative when the players are interested in the resolution more than the path there.
-more or less combat
This might seem to contradict my previous point but I prefer for my games to have a decent amount of combat. Characters can shine out of combat but it's no secret that most of them gain an overwhelming amount of combat abilities opposed to social. It's easier for a character to build an identity when challenged in a combat scenario.

It helps that dialogue is a useful tool even in combat. Just because you're in initiative and fighting doesn't automatically make conflict resolution with words impossible.
-more or less puzzles and problem solving/ investigation
Puzzles haven't gone well with our group, for much the same reason as the RP/Social front. A few of the regulars in our group don't pay active attention during exposition and that's where a lot of the puzzle hints tend to get dropped. I don't necessarily equate that behavior to them being uninterested in a puzzle but it does hurt the ability to use them. As for my personal preference, if they're used rarely it's good. Puzzle solving tends to be very meta in DND from my experience and that takes me a bit out of it.
-difficult or easy games
I would prefer if the games I was playing in right now were a bit more difficult. I have a heroic self sacrificing character in a party full of softies who have more than enough time and resources to simply leave when challenged instead of overcoming it. I sympathize with the DM because I think one of the party members in particular would react poorly if we were challenged more than we already are and it seems frustrating to have that hold back the group. This is entirely conjecture on my part however and I could just be reading into things that aren't there because of my own dissatisfaction at the challenge level.
-more or less 'rule of cool' (you prefers your games to be more structured or more laid back and possibly memey)
More rule of cool but with the strict caveat that it can't always be rule of cool. The rules are flexible but they aren't something to be entirely ignored all the time. Especially avoid overusing the rule of cool if it would limit the ability of another player at your table to contribute.
-Proactive or reactive play
I think this is a very important aspect of being a player and I fall squarely into the reactive role. I prefer for other players to discover things as that gives me more time to think of my solution to them. My choice of character class and abilities often focuses around dealing with the inevitable problems that arise and then working towards a more permanent solution to them in the future. I'm also not the type of player to try and look for more to do, especially when we've already got a task that needs doing.
-Selfish or selfless tendencies
My characters and role play most often focuses around selflessness. Even my most hardened/brooding characters tend to focus more around the groups wellbeing than their own. This extends into the table play as much as I can manage, I'm trying to have fun as a group and if I have to sacrifice a bit for that I'm willing to do it as long as it benefits the group.

[Tawmis]

Hi everyone
What type of player are you, in terms of your dnd preferences
What i mean is, do you prefer:
-more or less rp/social activity
-more or less combat
-more or less puzzles and problem solving/ investigation
-difficult or easy games
-more or less 'rule of cool' (you prefers your games to be more structured or more laid back and possibly memey)


- I prefer RP/Social aspects of the game. Because I've made a background for my character, and want to embed him (or her) into the story that the DM has provided.
- I do prefer SOME combat, because it keeps the action flow of things.
- I do prefer SOME puzzles because it forces the party to come together and think of the solution (rather than it being found at the end of the fighter's sword, or Wizard's fireball).
- I prefer a balanced (not easy or hard) - but ideally, do not want the DM trying to kill the party. I always feel like we're a part of a story - but as adventurers - our lives SHOULD be at risk.

[Misterwhisper]

Personally.


Very heavy rp and plot driven.
Love investigating and social interaction.
Combat is great if it means something. A dungeon crawl is cool as long as there is an rp reason to do it.
More difficult is good especially combat. If we are just going to steam roll it, skip it.
Rule of cool is great for rp and plot but not mechanically.
Ex. If you are supposed to sneak by some guards and instead of sneaking through the shadows or conning your way in you decide to go around the corner and have your barbarian throw you over the wall. Ok
If you plan to disguise yourself as a horse and go in pulling a wagon. No.
Proactive end reactive comes and goes. Depends on my role in the group.
Selfish and selfless depends on the character I am playing sometimes I play a selfless background kind of guy who does everything for others and stays out of the spotlight but sometimes I play captain arrogant who is in everyone’s business.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I can see I'm quite different than most who have responded.

more or less rp/social activity, more or less combat

I don't really have a clear preference here--I want a balance over the long run. What I need is narrative. Pointless dungeon crawls in the classic mode (there dungeon, go loot it) don't do much for me. I need the adventure to fit into a world and for my character to have a reason to be there. I'm totally willing to manufacture such a reason, but it helps if it's not just looting for the sake of looting.

more or less puzzles and problem solving/ investigation

Problem-solving: good. Investigation: good. Puzzles (as they're usually played): not so good. Things that require the player to do ooc work to solve them (riddles, word games that only work in english, puzzles that require references to out-of-universe things) are no good, because they pull me out of the universe and out of my character's head. Investigation and problem-solving are best when they're in-character, for character/narrative-driven reasons. Figuring out the purpose of a structure. Determining a motive. Etc.

On the other hand, I want action. I don't like heist games, where 90% of the time is spent planning. I want the unexpected to happen, I want the events to snowball in unforeseen/unforeseeable ways. As long as they're tied to the narrative and the world. Nintendo Hard is not my thing.

-difficult or easy games
If by this you mean "needing to have tightly optimized character builds and great tactics or run the overwhelming risk of TPK", then easy for sure. I care about what happens next, not about overcoming challenges. I play games on the easy setting. I would be totally ok with the DM stating something like "my expectation is that you'll win every significant encounter. None of your characters are likely to die unless you do something totally stupid." In fact, that's the way I DM.

I don't care about answering the question "will they win". I'm much more interested in games that pose the questions
* Who are you?
* What do you want?
* What are you willing to give up to get what you want?
* How will the world be different because of you?

I want to be able to play a character that could have grown up in the world without meta-knowledge, without picking and choosing the optimal routes at every turn. The one who has proficiency in History despite low Intelligence, because the character was fascinated by the oral histories of his people. I need room for my characters to be affected mechanically by the events of the narrative. To take a level of Cleric (despite that being suboptimal) because of an encounter with the Divine. Etc.

-more or less 'rule of cool' (you prefers your games to be more structured or more laid back and possibly memey)
I prefer to play relatively seriously. I'm not playing Toon Town, so joke characters aren't my thing. That being said, I'm more than willing to...bend...the rules to let people do amazing, in-character things.

[th3g0dc0mp13x]

Honestly this is highly dependent on the DM. In the year or so I've been playing I've had seven DM's. Some DM's are great at exploration but suck at social. Some of them are great at creating difficulty without making it seem impossible, others not so much. Generally I like for a campaign to play to the DM's strengths.

Social [3/10] This is the one most contingent on the DM. I've only had one DM that I was comfortable actually doing social RP with and that was their first campaign.
Combat [8/10] I love combat as long as it makes sense. If there is no reason for me to be fighting this Kobold clan then why are we?
Puzzles [2/10] I have yet to meet a DM that does good puzzles, every single time the answer is either way too obvious or the DM is obfuscating something our characters would be seeing or would know.
Exploration [7/10] I have a blast with exploration and this is my strong suit while DMing describing exotic environments and trying to navigate treacherous dungeons is a blast.
Difficulty [8/10] Make it hard, make me stretch my imagination for an answer but don't make it so I have to make the perfect call each turn to survive.
Rule of Cool [10/10] Make my investment worth it. If I spend three turns setting something up and my rolls don't go against me let it happen and let it be epic. Is there a decent chance of death if I fail, okay reward that risk. Make it awesome.

[elyktsorb]

-more or less rp/social activity I'm going to put this at a firm 6/10 since I can really enjoy these types of games, but I'd want to know beforehand, so I can make a character that fits this more.
-more or less combat 8/10, I enjoy combat, it's one of my favorite things. Chances are when I make a character how they attack is a big priority for me before I know what kind of game it will be.
-more or less puzzles and problem solving/ investigation I'll give this 6/10 because I like having puzzles and stuff, but constant puzzles would be a bit grating.
-difficult or easy games I don't like easy games. It doesn't have to be difficult, but I definitely don't enjoy easy games.
-more or less 'rule of cool' (you prefers your games to be more structured or more laid back and possibly memey) I like serious games, but I think there should definitely be room for cool/memeish shenanigans at times, mainly during battle or with odd encounters.

Personally I think I'm pretty flexible as a player. I've played in very serious, we're going to die always campaigns, more silly ones, and ones with lots of talking and such.

[Sariel Vailo]

I prefer rp heavy games with a mix of decent combat scenarios,mainly some banter or social interactions where I can talk to villains instead of battle.
I like puzzles but I'm never verry good at them. I prefer social activities and dungeon exploring.
I prefer when the dms dungeon help tell a story of what's happened In the world.
I really enjoy the rule of cool it's made for some fun games .(*fluffed jack of all trades to handsome insert skill name.*)

[GreyBlack]

Definitely more RP/social activity oriented. I love being able to interact with the NPC's and find out their backstories, while also trying to maybe take over the world at the same time.

Medium to less combat; combat is awesome but the most tense moments shouldn't be the battle itself. Ideally, I would want less frequent combat, but more gravitas and more importance to combat, with bigger stakes. To me, the most tense moments should be the moments either right before the battle when you're trying to avoid it, or right after when you realize how badly the combat is going to mess things up for everyone/make things much better for everyone.

Puzzles: Depends. If the puzzle is too easy/kinda useless, or too hard, and what's the point? Puzzles used effectively should challenge the players while also providing a way around them.

Difficulty: Hard. I like meatgrinders. I'm the kind of old school player who believes the highest level players should attain should be around level 7, and anything after that is epic level play. This is not contradictory to my more RP thing; I often can't decide on a character, and so being able to constantly switch characters because they die frequently allows me to change things up more frequently, keeping me happy.

That said.... Heavy Rule of Cool. As a DM, I always allow the players some pretty substantial leeway for the Rule of Cool, and as a player I'd like similar.