I am mainly curious if people have observed the same sort of groupings I have and maybe a few I haven't. Essentially, it seems like you can group players into two types.

1. Group Players - Want to be involved with the group; Want to build something via character play; Want to socialize

2. Lone Wolf Players - Want to be the hero; Want heroic play; Want stories with plenty of opportunity for the individual to shine; As a side benefit, all of the above in a group.

Now, most of us will think we are 1 but may be 2 and in truth I think people drift between the two. What I am talking about is the primary focus, why you game.

I also believe there are many subcategories of the above and that they are very broadly defined player types.

So,
1. Do you have any more top level player types?

2. Do you have sub-category types?

3. Do you think the whole exercise moot and if so, why are you reading this thread?

For my part, this ties into RPGs because that is the focus of the question, and our collective experiences with it. I am sure it could be expanded to other hobbies but I think such exercises are good from an introspective position.

Thanks,
Bill

I think the "types" of players have more to do with what the individual is looking for in the game, and this can vary depending on their mood, the group, how the game is progressing, etc.

RPGs are an unusual type of game in that they (usually) lack clearly defined game objectives.  You know what the goal of playing Monopoly, Risk, or Charades is.  A game like D&D is a lot more open ended than that.

Players may start out wanting to build great narratives together, but later change to wanting more "lone wolf" attention because they're getting bored with the narrative the rest of the group is pursuing.  An encounter with a monster can change their objective to a more strategic / tactical one.  A puzzle in the dungeon may switch their focus again.

Players can be seen as "group players" when the goal in the game they're pursuing is the same as the other players at the table.  They're a "lone wolf", "Munchkin" etc when they have a alternate goal than the rest of the group.

If 4 players are into the strategy and tactics, and 1 player wants to emote about their character's extensively written backstory -- that's a different kind of lone wolf.

After our long discussion, Bill, I came to the conclusion that there is a divding line, or scale, or some measure of how much a player wants meta-game issue to affect in-game events.

For example, IMHO, something like action points seem to represent some kind of "heroic" or "cinematic" or "luck" meta-game mechanic to allow do-overs or add content to the narrative; whatever they allow in a specific system. They are invoked, however, as a meta-game affect.

Whereas an actual "Luck" attribute might be seen more as a facet of the character that represents almost the same thing but in-game. So "Luck" affects things but as an in-game mechanic.

I'm sure there are subtle variations, probably a scale of where players might like or not like these things to happen.  But it seems to me that you've got two basic type, people who like meta-game influences and people who don't.

Does that make any sense?

Or I could be way off base...

Quote from: James J SkachI'm sure there are subtle variations, probably a scale of where players might like or not like these things to happen.  But it seems to me that you've got two basic type, people who like meta-game influences and people who don't.

Does that make any sense?

Or I could be way off base...

No, you are on the money. LUCK is a stat in Cold Space and IHW for that very reason. It belongs to the character, not the player.

-clash

Cool, Clash.  In fact this all came about (this perspective in my tiny brain) because of a long conversation with Bill after Game Day - and he brought up some of the feedback he'd received on..what was it now...I think something in Iridium Light that some people were picking up on this subtlty.

In fact, it took me a few minutes to even put into words the sense I was having.  And, with much thanks to Bill for a great conversation, helped me understand/put into words what I like, and conversely don't like, in systems.

It's why I'd love to have a small con with all you small press guys - where we could pick your brains on these things.  Totally selfish, but I am so I don't lose sleep over it...

I don't really know.

I'm a bit of both #1 and #2, but moreso #2. I don't like to hog the spotlight necessarily, I like filling in a niche and giving each person in the group a chance to be the big hero and to shine individually. I played in an L5R game recently with 3 players, one got a chance for the spotlight in an encounter with a fellow monk, discussing magic, trying tricks on each other and such. One player got to shine during the battle scene, as his dual wielding Dragon reigned destruction on the enemies. My chance to shine was at the end, in an informal trial and social conflict pitting us (with me as speaker) against a well known and respected person who we strongly suspected as being a traitor.

This was a great example of an ideal session. Each person got the spotlight and got to be the lone wolf hero for a bit, and each gladly stepped aside to let the others have their moments in the sun.

In the end, I often think about what I really like in gaming (RPGing) and can never really come up with a satisfactory answer. I'd say 80% or more of my gaming time is surprisingly unrewarding and not that much fun. Every once in a while I'll hit a real high point, but I'm still trying to figure out what I really like and then find a way to focus on that.

My group plays RPGs to socialize. It's a way for us to get away from the wife and kids and play a game for a couple of hours.

When we play we are almost all Type 2 (Individual Focus) because of the nature of the game we play (DnD 3.5). We are rewarded for individual achievements and not group goals. Being good munchkins (and power gamers) we seek to maximize our power.

The reward mechanic of the game will, I believe, steer (not completely control) the way the game is played (Type 1 or Type 2). Another component is the type of player you are. Different Worlds had an article 25 or so years ago that defined the different player types: Storyteller, Wargamer, Powergamer, etc...

Or am I completely off base here?

Quote from: James J SkachCool, Clash.  In fact this all came about (this perspective in my tiny brain) because of a long conversation with Bill after Game Day - and he brought up some of the feedback he'd received on..what was it now...I think something in Iridium Light that some people were picking up on this subtlty.

In fact, it took me a few minutes to even put into words the sense I was having.  And, with much thanks to Bill for a great conversation, helped me understand/put into words what I like, and conversely don't like, in systems.

It's why I'd love to have a small con with all you small press guys - where we could pick your brains on these things.  Totally selfish, but I am so I don't lose sleep over it...

I think Bill and I spent three hours talking at GenCon. It was the highlight of my trip! I learned a lot.

-clash

According to Christian Aldridge, original author of Story Engine, there are 3 types of players (these would probably be a subset of Bill's main two):

1. Those who focus on telling the story and don't worry so much about the rules (don't take this to read that they are story-games types). At best, they are creative and dynamic players. At worst, they are self-involved and try to keep the limelight on their characters.

2. Those who focus on rules as tools for their characters. At best, they are good problem solvers. At worst, they are power-gaming rules-lawyers.

3. Those who focus on the intricacies of the rules over their characters, trying to use them to their advantage. At best, they are experienced and can prevent rules-lawyering. At worst, they are nitpickers who must go by the letter of the law, and who must always win, and must have a game mechanic for every situation.

I'm really not looking for a GNS discussion.

Quote from: StuartPlayers can be seen as "group players" when the goal in the game they're pursuing is the same as the other players at the table.  They're a "lone wolf", "Munchkin" etc when they have a alternate goal than the rest of the group.

If 4 players are into the strategy and tactics, and 1 player wants to emote about their character's extensively written backstory -- that's a different kind of lone wolf.

Hmm, perhaps I was too literal or picked loaded words. I will try again.

The Lone Wolf type is really going to be less interested in anything that takes from his character. This is a generalization so yes, on occassion and perhaps for short periods, they will do what they have to to get to the part about them. Their basic type is centered on a certain play style, namely, taking center stage.

The Group Type is all about working with the group to accomplish a goal. Even if they are handed a "Do it yourself" goal they will look for ways to make it a group activity.

Let me stress, I have had great campaigns with both types and am not stressing one over the other. Also, I have had many VERY successful mixed groups. So, it is not so much about how you are playing in the sense of "This is my objective and it is Lone Wolf Type" as it is "I really like it when my character finishes the big bad".

I hope that is clearer but I somehow feel I have not made the distinction clear from your point. It seems to me to that you are saying play objectives can change play style and I am saying play preferences forms the actual play...still not it. I should know better than to post on migraine medication.

Bill

Sure, players may often use teamwork as a strategy for meeting their goals -- or the teamwork itself may be a goal they're pursuing.

Any time someone is playing an RPG, at any given time they're trying to do "X".  Give a good performance.  Beat a tactical challenge.  Solve a puzzle.  Make the other players laugh.  Upset the other players. etc.

A player may have a frequently preferred goal (good performance) or they may change their goal throughout the game session.

If you have someone who is constantly pursuing a different goal from the rest of the group, and in pursuing that goal they make it harder for the other players to pursue their goals... that's where you run into trouble.  Or you have a competitive game.