Idle thought inspired by Robin Laws' Player Type Quiz thread in the main forum.
I don't put much stock in the categories, but I was thinking about how to design games that apply to as many categories as possible; one thought that came to mind was if you had a game where each class fit one category?
If you did do that...which classes would fit with which player category, and what would some of the class features look like??
 
The types listed again are:
Tactician
Storyteller
Method Actor
Specialist
Butt-Kicker
Power Gamer
Casual Gamer

God, I hope not.

While I can easily think of class-specific mechanics that reward Tacticians, or Butt-Kickers, Specialists and Power Gamers, I don't think you could draw in Storytellers and Method Actors based on class design. I mean, yeah, you could make up classes with abstract, storygamey mechanics -- but I cannot begin to fathom the sort of confusionb that would arise when characters with abstract story-emulation mechanics share a game table with characters with traditional mechanics.

Unless of course you go storygamey across the board, in which case you'll have to find a way to keep the first four entertained. Or you draw in the Storytellers and Method Actors to the intended classes by way of setting fluff.

As I've mentioned elsewhere recently, I think Laws' taxonomy of play styles not only shares the main problem of any such classification, i.e. people can and often do enjoy more than one of these things; cf. the Forge's ideas about "coherence" and ask the D&D 4e development team how that turned out for them; but also leaves some common player goals, such as the desire to explore new things and be surprised at the game table, or the drive to have a lasting impact on the setting.  Basically, again, like the Forge, they dismiss immersive playstyles and ignore so-called simulationism.

Quote from: The Butcher;576816While I can easily think of class-specific mechanics that reward Tacticians, or Butt-Kickers, Specialists and Power Gamers, I don't think you could draw in Storytellers and Method Actors based on class design. I mean, yeah, you could make up classes with abstract, storygamey mechanics --

Law's categories are poorly named. Most Laws Storytellers and Laws Method actors playing tradition RPGs have no interest in storygame mechanics. Laws Storytellers are interested in the story their character and party create by playing the game (story after the fact). LAWS Method Actors are simply the type of people who put roleplaying their character first -- over things like maximizing character effectiveness.

However, I agree that a class per category type game is not one I'd be interested in playing. Few people, after all, are 100% one Laws category and 0% all the others. Worse, Laws categories leave out some (more old school) player goals.

Quote from: RandallS;576845Law's categories are poorly named. Most Laws Storytellers and Laws Method actors playing tradition RPGs have no interest in storygame mechanics. Laws Storytellers are interested in the story their character and party create by playing the game (story after the fact). LAWS Method Actors are simply the type of people who put roleplaying their character first -- over things like maximizing character effectiveness.
 
However, I agree that a class per category type game is not one I'd be interested in playing. Few people, after all, are 100% one Laws category and 0% all the others. Worse, Laws categories leave out some (more old school) player goals.

As I understand it, "Method Actor" is the lawsian category that matches up best with immersion-focussed play -  so yeah they wouldn't want storygame mechanics. Method Actor is perhaps the hardest to cater for (it needs things that are Willing Sense of Disbelief breaking excluded, rather than put in?). For Storygamers, at worst just give them some emo background disadvantages and some luck points.
 
The idea has its limitations but it would at least make sure a game has something for all those types of gamer.

I'm not really sure why you would want to do this. If you're going to make a class based system enerally your classes reflect what you want people to be able to do in game and ive them abilities keyed to some kind of niche that the different classes have that are distinct from what other classes have.

I really can't imagine makin classes based on people's play styles. I can see how you can make general game mechanics that promote a certain style of play but I can't serally think of a reason you'd aim your classes to do this.

Quote from: MGuy;576984I'm not really sure why you would want to do this. If you're going to make a class based system enerally your classes reflect what you want people to be able to do in game and ive them abilities keyed to some kind of niche that the different classes have that are distinct from what other classes have.

I really can't imagine makin classes based on people's play styles. I can see how you can make general game mechanics that promote a certain style of play but I can't serally think of a reason you'd aim your classes to do this.

I think any RPG should try to cater to as many playstyles as possible, because its unlikely a group will consist of people who all like the same things.

Doing it class by class e.g. having a "simple fighter" (barbarian) for the Casual Gamers or Butt Kickers, and a separate complex fighter for the Tacticians, is going to be easier that fooling around with customizable modularity systems and whatnot to adjust one Fighter class to serve any purpose.

However this isn't a serious project at this stage, just me thinking out loud. I'm less concerned with why I should/shouldn't do it, than what it would look like.

Currently I guess lining up traditional D&D classes vs. nearest playstyle I would start with.

Tactician    - fighter or marshal
Storyteller - ?
Method Actor - ?
Specialist    - thief/rogue ?
Butt-Kicker  - barbarian ?
Power Gamer  - wizard ?
Casual Gamer - barbarian ?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;577044I think any RPG should try to cater to as many playstyles as possible, because its unlikely a group will consist of people who all like the same things.

Doing it class by class e.g. having a "simple fighter" (barbarian) for the Casual Gamers or Butt Kickers, and a separate complex fighter for the Tacticians, is going to be easier that fooling around with customizable modularity systems and whatnot to adjust one Fighter class to serve any purpose.

However this isn't a serious project at this stage, just me thinking out loud. I'm less concerned with why I should/shouldn't do it, than what it would look like.

Currently I guess lining up traditional D&D classes vs. nearest playstyle I would start with.

Tactician    - fighter or marshal
Storyteller - ?
Method Actor - ?
Specialist    - thief/rogue ?
Butt-Kicker  - barbarian ?
Power Gamer  - wizard ?
Casual Gamer - barbarian ?

Storyteller - Bard
Method Actor - Paladin/Antipaladin

Perhaps?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;577044I think any RPG should try to cater to as many playstyles as possible, because its unlikely a group will consist of people who all like the same things.

Doing it class by class e.g. having a "simple fighter" (barbarian) for the Casual Gamers or Butt Kickers, and a separate complex fighter for the Tacticians, is going to be easier that fooling around with customizable modularity systems and whatnot to adjust one Fighter class to serve any purpose.

However this isn't a serious project at this stage, just me thinking out loud. I'm less concerned with why I should/shouldn't do it, than what it would look like.

Currently I guess lining up traditional D&D classes vs. nearest playstyle I would start with.

Tactician    - fighter or marshal
Storyteller - ?
Method Actor - ?
Specialist    - thief/rogue ?
Butt-Kicker  - barbarian ?
Power Gamer  - wizard ?
Casual Gamer - barbarian ?

If this is your goal I don't think this guy's "Laws" are usable. For instance take the Bard class.You can seriously apply this class to almost every category presented with the exception of butt-kicker (though through charming tough allies you can do that too but not personally). Tactically you have to manage your abilities and the group's. There are tons of bard stories you can tell. A Bard is a performer so easily method actor fits. Specializes in bein the party "Face". Power Gamer maximizes effectiveness of charm abilities and applied bonuss. Casual Gamer knows he can sit back and play music through battles maybe casting Command or Dominate everyone once in a while.

Ok let's take barbarian. tactically you want to protect pary members and/or maximize your damage output. You automatically qualify for butt kicker and the ease of the barbarian concept fits casual gamers. Power gamers figure out how to maximize damage (as mentioned). Method Actor etsinto noble savage or internally conflicted rager or some other thing. For the story teller there are tons of barbarian stories you can tell.

So I don't see your goal being accomplished functionally with these categories since they aren't mutually exclusive or protectable.

Quote from: MGuy;577072If this is your goal I don't think this guy's "Laws" are usable. For instance take the Bard class.You can seriously apply this class to almost every category presented with the exception of butt-kicker (though through charming tough allies you can do that too but not personally). Tactically you have to manage your abilities and the group's. There are tons of bard stories you can tell. A Bard is a performer so easily method actor fits. Specializes in bein the party "Face". Power Gamer maximizes effectiveness of charm abilities and applied bonuss. Casual Gamer knows he can sit back and play music through battles maybe casting Command or Dominate everyone once in a while.
 
Ok let's take barbarian. tactically you want to protect pary members and/or maximize your damage output. You automatically qualify for butt kicker and the ease of the barbarian concept fits casual gamers. Power gamers figure out how to maximize damage (as mentioned). Method Actor etsinto noble savage or internally conflicted rager or some other thing. For the story teller there are tons of barbarian stories you can tell.
 
So I don't see your goal being accomplished functionally with these categories since they aren't mutually exclusive or protectable.

OK... good points. Ah well.
*consigns idea to the circular file*

More interesting is making sure your game appeals to all styles.

The thing you really want to know is which of the personality types spends more money on gaming. I suspect powergamers spend the most because they will be willing to buy splat books for addtional power, although storytellers are likely to buy setting material.

So from that

Tactician - usually they like to use real world tactics but extra rules may sell
Storyteller - Setting material
Method Actor - like good GM advice and ways to improve NPCs PC interaction
Specialist - splat books with details on skills
Butt-Kicker - tough sell but more combat options might help but need to be simple
Power Gamer - Splat books with loads of classes and feats
Casual Gamer - they aren't going to buy more than the base book but making that easy to pick up and play helps as does well prepared adventures they can pick up and play with less prep