Player Types

[Oracle_Hunter]

I was mulling over the types of Players that inhabit my current campaigns when I stumbled upon this.

This particular source split Players into the following categories:

• The Power Gamer
• The Butt-Kicker
• The Tactician
• The Specialist
• The Method Actor
• The Storyteller
• The Casual Gamer

Now, in one of my groups I have a Butt-Kicker and a Casual Gamer for sure, but the other three either have mixed characterizations or are simply outside these definitions. There are obviously many different people who have tried to categorize Players in varying ways and I was wondering:

Do you have a categorization system you prefer? Do you think these sorts of systems are valuable?

Discuss!

[Sipex]

I'm particularily fond of the system in the DMG for 4e. It's not perfect (as it's nearly impossible to categorize people so easily) but I find it works. Players may have symptoms of several groups but that just means, to me, that I have more effective ways of engaging them.

It's pretty accurate though, if I have a player who...say fits as a Watcher then the recommendations on engaging them are pretty solid.

[WarKitty]

Not bad categories. Although from watching our group, the power gamer might be modified, or needs a new category. Pet peeve: Enjoying the mechanical aspect and putting together powerful characters =/= wanting to win D&D. And I think most of our mechanical people would feel quite cheated if there were easy ways to add new abilities.

[Earthwalker]

That list seems ok.

As with all these things most people seem to take bits of different clasifications. These lists can be usful when trying to tailor a game to the players you have. Of course I usualy play with the same people and I know already what each is trying to get out of the game.

[Saph]

It's a fairly good categorisation system, but oddly, I've never found that categorising my players helps very much as a DM. While the comments in the article are fairly accurate, the problem with trying to tailor encounters to one player is that you risk leaving out the other four. The other issue is that most players are a combination of types, rather than just one.

When I'm designing a campaign, I try to focus on the common elements which everyone likes. That way, everyone's engaged, rather than only one or two. If I aim for something like "challenging combat against new enemies which give the party XP, loot, and plot advancement" and succeed, then pretty much everyone's happy.

[rayne_dragon]

I usually type players by if they prefer combat, roleplaying, or puzzles and how much they optimize. I also usually judge it based on character rather than player because I find that people can shift into a completely different gear with different characters. I know I've played some characters where I have more fun fighting and others where I have more fun roleplaying.

My last group had two optimized-combatants, a non-optimized combatant, two non-optimized roleplayers, and a non-optimized puzzle solver.

[hamlet]

Not bad categories. Although from watching our group, the power gamer might be modified, or needs a new category. Pet peeve: Enjoying the mechanical aspect and putting together powerful characters =/= wanting to win D&D. And I think most of our mechanical people would feel quite cheated if there were easy ways to add new abilities.

True, but there are those out there that look at D&D as a zero-sum game where if they aren't the most powerful thing stalking around, then it just isn't fun.


I'd like to add another category of player, but I don't quite know what to call it. It's the player that just can't be satisfied with the game as is. If you say the campaign will draw from core rules only, they're the first to whine and complain about wanting some supplement somewhere. Or if it's human only, they'll come at you with a pixie character, or something like that. It's not so much a power gamer (though they can be) but a "special cases" player.

[MightyTim]

Something that I think hasn't been mentioned, and yet I've found extremely interesting, is that knowing someone's player type will tell you a lot about what kind of DM they would be (assuming they expressed an interest in it).

Your Power Gamer/Butt-Kicker isn't going to think of a very detailed plot and backstory, but you can be rest assured that there will be lots of monsters for you guys to kill, and probably some very good loot.

Your Method Actor and Storytellers are going to put a lot of work into backstories and NPC personalities (and it'll end up being wasted effort when the power gamer just goes for their head without letting them get a word out).

The Casual Gamer will probably just run a module.

Having a Specialist as a DM could actually be fun once in a while. My one friend recently declared that he was running a ninja campaign. It was actually some of the most fun we'd had in a while until it petered off.

Me: I try to climb up the dragon's back and stab him in the head.
Him: Ok. Roll for damage.
Me: Wait, I don't even need to see if I got up there?
Him: Of course you got up there. You're a ninja. Roll for damage.

[Oracle_Hunter]

It's a fairly good categorisation system, but oddly, I've never found that categorising my players helps very much as a DM. While the comments in the article are fairly accurate, the problem with trying to tailor encounters to one player is that you risk leaving out the other four. The other issue is that most players are a combination of types, rather than just one.

When I'm designing a campaign, I try to focus on the common elements which everyone likes. That way, everyone's engaged, rather than only one or two. If I aim for something like "challenging combat against new enemies which give the party XP, loot, and plot advancement" and succeed, then pretty much everyone's happy.

I thought much the same, but my latest group has caused me to rethink my position.

Spoiler

Show

Despite being good friends IRL, this group has nearly imploded twice now over the course of 6 months. Considering that I've DM and Played with each of these people separately and in various combinations before with no problems I needed to figure out what was going on.

Eventually, I centered on identifying their Player Types and working from there:

Spoiler

Show

- Mr. 20 Questions: he likes doing a lot of prep work before doing anything.

- "Are We There Yet" : if nothing is happening, he is going to make something happen. He is happiest when something is going on, and dislikes discussing what to do next above all else.

- The Butt-Kicker : he just wants to kill some things. Really.

- Method Actor/Storyteller : he has a character and he wants to act the crap out of it. Has the good instinct of wanting to move the game forward but is a slave to his characterization.

- Casual Gamer : she's just there for the ride. She likes doing things in combat when it's her turn, but is always the first to "conk out" in a session. Takes a small delight in Method Acting, but rarely seeks opportunities to do so.

After looking this crew over, it became clear that the "Are We There Yet" was going to butt heads with "Mr. 20 Questions" every time and that both will exasperate each other. In the meantime, I had two Method Actors I needed to figure out how to engage while still providing enough combat for the Butt-Kicker.

Ironically, this meant I needed to change my Sandbox Game into one with slightly more Rails. Too many choices set "Mr. 20 Questions" and "Are We There Yet" at each other, while everyone else had only vague interests in where the plot was going.

So it wasn't so much that I needed to figure out a campaign that dealt with things everyone liked; I needed to structure the metagame such that the group dynamics flowed appropriately.

[valadil]

I distinguish between effective power gamers and wannabe power gamers. Some of them really like power gaming, but can't actually do it. Even though they're similarly motivated, they have different effects on the game.

I also add a distinction for warm body. Casual gamers show up to be social. Warm bodies take up couch real estate and contribute nothing else to the game.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I also add a distinction for warm body. Casual gamers show up to be social. Warm bodies take up couch real estate and contribute nothing else to the game.

Um, why did the Warm Body show up if not to be social? Are they a Choad Warriors?

[Dienekes]

Any player list without "the Loony" is not complete.

[SamsDisciple]

It is funny to try and classify everybody and when you start you also realize that there are to many new ways to classify that it is best to return to the simple classifications and say they are two part specialist one part butt-kicker or something along those lines. On the power gamers i have known a guy (only played about 4 sessions before his wife told him to quit) that would optimize the yin yang out of a character then not use it just because he wanted to see if he could but still play on par with the rest of the group. He had a hydra animal companion at low levels and all by RAW but he left the companion behind and just cast druid spells so as not to make things horrible for the rest of the unoptimized/low tier characters. As a side note I am suprised I havent seen a facebook quiz or something that would classify you into one of these categories.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Much like GNS Theory, I fear that most attempts to come up with a universal theory of Player type result in overgeneralizing to the point of uselessness. Even the classic Real Man, Real Roleplayers, Loonies and Munchkins works better as a joke than a system of classification.

If I were to try to create one, I'd either model it off the Nine Alignments System (i.e. two axes, with Neutrals in between) or a Major/Minor System with a set of common roleplaying behaviors. I'm not quite sure what it would look like, but...

Well, let's try the Player Alignment System.

Spoiler

Show

The key with any Alignment system is to pick axes that are relevant to your interests. As a DM, I am interested in my Players' interest in Roleplaying, and their interest in an external plot.

So we'll go with a Mechanics/Dramatics Axis and a Sandbox/Railroad Axis.

The Roleplaying Axis

Spoiler

Show

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

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

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

The Plot Axis

Spoiler

Show

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

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

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

I'm pretty happy with that, actually. If I were to classify my above-listed Players they would become (listed RP then Plot)

Mr. 20 Questions - NN
Are We There Yet - DR
Butt-Kicker - MR
Method Actor - DS
Casual Gamer - DN

Which tells me that I need to increase the Railroading on my game since the game was originally set at DS

Well, that was more for fun than anything else, but I'd like feedback all the same

[hamishspence]

Well, let's try the Player Alignment System.
[spoiler]The key with any Alignment system is to pick axes that are relevant to your interests. As a DM, I am interested in my Players' interest in Roleplaying, and their interest in an external plot.

So we'll go with a Mechanics/Dramatics Axis and a Sandbox/Railroad Axis.

The Roleplaying Axis

Spoiler

Show

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

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

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

The Plot Axis

Spoiler

Show

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

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

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

Well, that was more for fun than anything else, but I'd like feedback all the same

Seems like a pretty good "alignment system" I'd say.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Seems like a pretty good "alignment system" I'd say.

I'd never have thought we'd agree on any Alignment question

...I'm unreasonably pleased by this system. Its working title is Oracle_Hunter's Player Alignment System

Patent pending

[hamishspence]

I'd never have thought we'd agree on any Alignment question

So far the main difference has been over "what it takes to have an Evil alignment"

my preference has always been "regularly does evil acts" - not specifically "does evil acts to the innocent, for fun or profit" as the PHB might imply.

Since, for me, this is a rather too narrow definition of Evil- a person can do evil deeds for reasons other than fun and profit, and to people other than the innocent- these two factors should not be compulsary.
(Also, most of the splatbooks tend to allow for a similarly wide definition of evil alignments).

So- the "merciless judge" archetype- who is excessively cruel to "the morally guilty" but would never harm "the morally innocent" can qualify- as can various others.

(this is more for Evil By Deeds though- Evil By Natural Inclinations might work differently).

That said, I can't see anything odd with the "Roleplaying vs Plot" axis.