Mechanic for matching Players to Characters

[Emmett]

I'm trying to think of a kind of "E-harmony" for Players to find/create the character they will enjoy playing the best. It seems to me that so many new players don't know what their play style is much less what they will enjoy playing. Most start by trying to build uber characters that they can be completely safe with. The problem with completely safe is that it's not interesting, and as they mature in their characters they find that they like a different kind of character.

My first thought is to have a list of play styles something like the BIG LIST of RPG Plots http://www.io.com/~sjohn/plots.htm It's inclusive and as much as you try your idea would be somewhere in there. I've written down a few, but I have no Idea how many there would be.

Examples
Builder
Thoughtful, introspective Players who appreciate the cerebral aspects of the game; and chatty types, who like the social interaction of the game. A Player who enjoys being around lots of people and has a slight competitive edge will really enjoy this Play Type.

Not good for: Players who have a hard time focusing or are easily bored.

Team
Players that look for safety in numbers and try to build consensus among the team. Enjoys social interaction and dislikes each player going a different way.

Pirate
Player likes to dominate the opposition and is reluctant to take on anything that they cant attack safely. The player likes to hoards heavy equipment and builds up combat attributes to do this. Tends to try to be self sufficient.

Loner
The loner is attracted to the mystique of a character that is not part of the group and can stand on their own. The loner may "bail out" the group at times by suddenly showing up when their abilities are most needed.

Specialist
The specialist Player will accept weakness in most areas of the character as long as they have at least one strength they can contribute to the group. These work well with Team Players because they are ready to work in a group to compensate for any inabilities.

Leader
The Leader Player takes the front seat when deciding what the group will do. This Player has a natural charisma that other players look to and is ususally motivated by goals either given by the GM or their own. They usually are progressive in the game and push the story along. The leader uses the strengths of the other Players and their Characters.

But then I don't even know if those are good descriptions, or if that is the best way of handling this.

Any thoughts? Any player types that you play with that could be included? Even if it's completely different mechanic I don't care.

The second problem is how to match an inexperience player with the types. The worst but only obvious idea I have on that is to have them read the list and choose one. If there were a questionare that the player could fill out then they could be assigned a type (or types it's good to switch things up). So what questions would you ask for a type.

[Tomas HVM]

Interesting. I believe this will be a good tool if you relate it to people in a way that let them reckognise the types on a human level, and then relate it to the game, telling the players how to build a character to match their choice.

I've done some more thinking on the types. Still: I'm sure you can dig up some phsychology-types somewhere that may apply, and then focus your work on how to match the different types to specific player characters.

Constructor - a ressource-gatherer, technological and crafty
Negotiator - an alliance builder, opinionated and intelligent
Teamworker - the consesus builder, social and trustworthy

Pirate - the risktaker, adventurous and pragmatic
Soldier - the conflict veteran, sturdy and loyal
Commander - a dominating leader, strongwilled and though

Loner - an independent contractor, selfsufficient and reserved
Specialist - a carrier of expertise, focused and confident
Inventor - a creative genie, inventive and enthusiastic

Schemer - a player of intrigues, smart and charming
Climber - a hierarcical animal, cynical and patient
Inspirator - a riser of emotions, enthusiastic and targetminded

Hope that give some more stuff for thought.

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

Hi Emmet,

My game Nine has some similarities to what it sounds like you are doing, although I didn't really envision it as a way to match player to type, and that isn't my goal. I'm trying to make a game that has some inspiration from TV shows like Firefly where characters fit a specific role or niche in the story.

Enough whoring, let me get to what's relevant. I think one of the best ways you can pull Players by type to a certain character "class" is by being clear about the reward. For example in Nine, the Heart gains XP when other characters confide in the Heart, protect the Heart, or when the Heart helps and protects the weak. The Heart can give XP to other players when they confide in the Heart. To give contrast The Rebel class gains XP when they don't follow the leaders directions, when they challenge other characters and NPC's positions, and when they convince someone to change their actions from right to wrong, or from wrong to right. The Rebel can give XP when characters let the Rebel do things in the Rebels way. I expect those two classes to draw players who are looking for different things.

I believe that by setting the reward to the actions you want to reinforce and having that in the class will be the greatest "pull" you can get to have players correctly align themselves by type. They will be able to see what they are rewarded for doing, and go towards the thing that lets them go towards what they want to do.

Here's some stuff I'd like to suggest you should check out: The Game Design Seminar at Gen Con in California with John Wick, Jared Sorenson, and Luke Crane. It's at the Sons of Kyros Podcast. It's between Episode 8 and Episode9.  I wish I could be more specific, but somewhere in that talk I remember there was something useful that spurred some thoughts on what I'm trying to do and hopefully it would be helpful for you also. I've heard that Iron Kingdoms has some similar idea in that it has classes intended for player types.

I hope my whoring had purpose and you found something useful in my blathering.

[Filip Luszczyk]

I'm not sure if it applies, but in Crystalicum there is something called Narrative Role. It roughly corresponds to alignment or Nature in many systems, but it simply states what function does the character play in a series. In standard version of the game, it is used only in simplified method of character creation, where it acts as a template shaping about 1/3 of the character (another 1/3 is his professional template and the rest a number of freebie points that can be distributed by the player). It doesn't influence game after character generation. In Crystalicum d20 and Crystalicum Lite, though, I based mechanical rewards on putting yourself in situations that are key for your chosen role.

Now, the types you mention remind me of the Narrative Roles:

Daredevil, someone who is there in order to takes risks. Perfect for a player who wants a feeling of gamble and a surge of adrenalin from the game.

Romantic, who is there to act with passion and woo ladies or seduce. Perfect for a player who wants to involve himself in much interaction and acting, or find himself engaged in personal choices.

Muscle, who is there simply to use his might. Perfect for any player who strives for a direct physical conflict.

Brains, who is there simply to think. Perfect for any player who is interested with mental challenges.

Rogue, who is there to do wrong things in order to make things better. Perfect for a player, who wants to involve himself in making moral and ethical choices.

Leader, who is there to lead others. Perfect for any control freak.

Pushy, who is there to strive for domination. Perfect for a player who wants to involve himself in intra-party conflicts, intrigues and backstabbing, or simply likes things to go his way.

Loner, who is there to be mysterious and create questions. Perfect for a player who doesn't like to cooperate or likes to have his own little secrets.

Friend, who is there to be likeable. Perfect for a player who is there for mainly for social reasons, to interact for the sake of interaction, or to act as a mediator.

Jinx, who is there to complicate his own and others lives. Perfect for a player who likes to be involved in constant dramatic twists.

[Emmett]

Thanks everybody! Your suggestions are really fleshing out and adding to the player descriptions. I think that the narrative crowd is a bit more used to thinking about this kind of question than I am (I'm mostly a gamist) so thanks for the expertise.

Clyde, I'll have to check out that podcast. The reward system would work good within a game, and anybody who wants to can try using this to generate a character in their games, but what I'm more or less trying to do here is step out of system (not all even have XP) and make something universal. Now it might be possible to suggest what types of behavior the player will feel gratified by, and I think that was the point of your post, so yeah, something like "Player likes material rewards" or "Player likes to advance their character" etc. would be extremely useful to making this a useful tool.

Keep em' coming!

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

If you want a LONG read by someone who's done quite a bit of thought on the matter (vis a vis MUDs):
Players Who Suit MUDs
http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

That model lead to tests like these:
The Bartle Test (for Puzzle Pirates)
http://www.black-knight.org/pp/bartle/genq.cgi

So maybe it's already been done? And all new designers need to do is align their games' "roles" (classes, powers combinations, professions, etc) to those four styles of player?

HTH;
David

[Emmett]

David, I'm just starting to read your first link and already this is hitting gold! Thanks, I'll see if I can summarize what I glean here.

[contracycle]

This would be most interesting applied not to players but to characters.  That is, it seems to me that at one level the characters are themselves ingredients that combine in the "story".  While generally wary of classification systems I like Tomas list quite a bit, and I thought: han = pirate, luke = inspirator, leia = negotiator, obi wan = commander.

So can you then exploit a character type specification to implement player flags and to obtain some kind of agreement for the form play is going to take?  This is quite distinct from the construction or relationships based on funcitonal role (skillset) but rather from dramatic role.

Its also not an attempted analysis of player personality as per the the MUDS document, which I think is largely a red herring.  It is an interesting read, if only to see the different kinds of problems MUDS are having to solve (some of which IMO tabeltop has a head start on addressing).

[Emmett]

This would be most interesting applied not to players but to characters.

Well yes, I agree but most games already have some kind of built in character classification system, while setting up a "universal" system for others to use might be handy, it does tend to be rather intuitive. The trust of the Idea here is to ask "Who are you?" and be able to take the answer and use it, one, to keep the player happy playing their character and as a bonus perhaps learn how to balance the game so that those players are most gratified.

So can you then exploit a character type specification to implement player flags and to obtain some kind of agreement for the form play is going to take?

Hmmm. . . There was a very extensive article that I don't have with me right now that addressed just that. I'll try and PM you the link when I'm able to get to it. On the whole, I've found that it's interesting but only serves to inform the game master what kind of game they like to play (maybe more useful to those games without GMs) and to warn players who are not used to their play style.

Its also not an attempted analysis of player personality as per the the MUDS document, which I think is largely a red herring.  It is an interesting read, if only to see the different kinds of problems MUDS are having to solve (some of which IMO tabletop has a head start on addressing).

Well to be sure, tabletop automatically solves some problems, but is subject to some of the same social dynamics. The group labeled as killers is usually much more muted because of the loss of anonymity and the fact that most games require social interaction to function. On the whole though I recognize a lot of Player traits that I've observed in the article. (I just finished it) So although it doesn't directly apply to tabletop RPGs it has some insights to the task at hand.

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

This would be most interesting applied not to players but to characters.

Well, in fact, this whole classification discussion is quite useless unless it is applied BOTH to players and to character archetypes. What use is it to discover that one is "SEAK" if one can not map each of the S, E, A, or K to the modes of play of particular character archetypes?

That is, it seems to me that at one level the characters are themselves ingredients that combine in the "story".

I'd say that's more of a red herring for this thread than the Bartle Quotient. Emmett did not start out (as far as I can tell) looking to create character archetypes that "efficiently interface" or "serve discrete goals." He wanted a way "for Players to find/create the character they will enjoy playing the best." So the roles ARE relevant vis a vis the ways they will stimulate the player's goal/moods/interests. But NOT in the (merely mechanical?) way that they work together to provide efficacy: be it efficient application of ability, or be it service to some notion of the "components" of a "complete" cast for a story.

So can you then exploit a character type specification to implement player flags and to obtain some kind of agreement for the form play is going to take?  This is quite distinct from the construction or relationships based on functional role (skillset) but rather from dramatic role.

Not so distinct as all that. Your "agreement for the form [of] play" is really just Agenda... and thus, the intermeshing or categorization of these character roles is just elements in service to that Agenda. It might be the delineation of the "needed" roles, no matter what the need is: gamist efficacy, narrativist "dramatic role", or even simulationist tropes of the genre. OR it might be the way to figure out what game Agenda will be enjoyed, by virtue of the set of roles players self-select. In other words, they are about as distinct as the two lanes of a road ("This is the road to Rome! No! It's the road to London!").

Its also not an attempted analysis of player personality as per the the MUDs document, which I think is largely a red herring.

So you think that, in some way, gamer-on-a-MUD is working with totally different RP goals, rules, issues, techniques, etc than a gamer-in-a-tabletop-RPG? (And why only tabletop? I don't think The Forge is so restricted, nor is GNS.)

It is an interesting read, if only to see the different kinds of problems MUDs are having to solve (some of which IMO tabletop has a head start on addressing).

At the risk of seeming a pedant, I have to comment that this "interesting read" has shaped the development of "grouping roles" in most MMORPGs, has fueled game designs at least as much (by weight of publication) as any theories on The Forge, and it is (furthermore) based on a slightly broader general personality profile test (Jung-Myers-Briggs) which has shaped team management practices in most major corporations (or did at one time).

I'd give Bartle FAR more credability than "interesting read," if I were hoping to become knowledgeable on subjects of human personality (within a gaming context or not).

David

[Emmett]

Well, in fact, this whole classification discussion is quite useless unless it is applied BOTH to players and to character archetypes. What use is it to discover that one is "SEAK" if one can not map each of the S, E, A, or K to the modes of play of particular character archetypes?

I agree completely, although all I could hope to do for a universal tool is to guide the game creator/GM into developing their own interface to their game. While I could easily apply the Player types to my game's archtypes, it would be necessary for each game to have a direct interface, guided by rough guidelines.

Emmett did not start out (as far as I can tell) looking to create character archetypes that "efficiently interface" or "serve discrete goals." He wanted a way "for Players to find/create the character they will enjoy playing the best." So the roles ARE relevant vis a vis the ways they will stimulate the player's goal/moods/interests. But NOT in the (merely mechanical?) way that they work together to provide efficacy: be it efficient application of ability, or be it service to some notion of the "components" of a "complete" cast for a story.

This is true, but it is also true that the Bartle quotient is good for balancing a game, so it might also function in that respect.

Maybe go back to the source of this? The Myers Briggs Type Indicator? While less relevant for gaming, It would help to relate to a novice gamer who doesn't normally think about if they would rather get points for killing a player or a mobile.

An article on the test leaves me with questions about a straight adoption.

[Emmett]

Ooops! That should be Myers Briggs Type Indicator

[Emmett]

I'm thinking that the best way of going about this is to re-create what Ol' Richard did for MUDs he asked what players liked best about playing and then collected the responses. This would most likely be best done free form since we don't want to railroad the responses. I'm trying to figure out if that would be something to just continue here or if a different thread somewhere else would be required.

So here goes. . .

What Do You Like About Playing RPGs?

Post it here, there is no right or wrong answer. Please do not reply to the previous posts if they are stating why they like playing RPGs. Only if it is about how to go about collecting and correlating this information. If you can, please ask your players if you are a game creator and then post for them. This will only work if there are a significant number of responses. That's pretty much the only way to figure this out without just guessing.

[talysman]

Maybe go back to the source of this? The Myers Briggs Type Indicator? While less relevant for gaming, It would help to relate to a novice gamer who doesn't normally think about if they would rather get points for killing a player or a mobile.

There was a big 20'x20' Room discussion on Myers-Briggs and roleplaying, sparked by this discussion on Brand Robins's blog. They actually are discussing typing not only yourself, but the characters you play to determine the kind of play you are looking for. I'm a little skeptical of it all, myself; knowing I'm an INTP has helped me to understand my life better, but I'm not all gung-ho about typing everyone and everything.

To answer your question "What Do You Like About Playing RPGs?", I like the elaboration of the fiction, of course, and the way that accidents of decision and accidents of the dice can combine to spin fictional events into unexpected areas.

[contracycle]

Well yes, I agree but most games already have some kind of built in character classification system, while setting up a "universal" system for others to use might be handy, it does tend to be rather intuitive. The trust of the Idea here is to ask "Who are you?" and be able to take the answer and use it, one, to keep the player happy playing their character and as a bonus perhaps learn how to balance the game so that those players are most gratified.

I have difficulty seeing this as a good idea.  If we are trying to find What Players Want, then that is precisely the question answered by the GNS model.  If we are trying to find out What Players Are, in some broader sense, then I have difficulty seeing how it helps, becuase there is nothing we can do it about but give them what they want.  See question 1.

So I'm dubious about the validity of a typing strategy as applied to the players at all.  But a number of the things you mentioned did strike a chord, in their descriptions of forms of play that players actually adopt.  But therein lies the rub; it is a form of play that is adopted, and may vary from case to case, which is why a single relationship between a person and a form may not be visible.

Now as you say, games already have some sort of character classification system, but these are almost universally framed in terms of a classification within the game setting.  But, you started out looking at a document discussing plots, and what I am suggesting is that there is a functional role at another level, that of the dramatic function of the character vis a vis the other characters.  Thats what jumped out at me from your list, that there might be identifiable functional and non-functional relationships.  We say, characters should be designed on conjunction with other characters, with an eye to how they will be used in play, but we have very little language with which to have this discussion. 

Well to be sure, tabletop automatically solves some problems, but is subject to some of the same social dynamics. The group labeled as killers is usually much more muted because of the loss of anonymity and the fact that most games require social interaction to function. On the whole though I recognize a lot of Player traits that I've observed in the article. (I just finished it) So although it doesn't directly apply to tabletop RPGs it has some insights to the task at hand.

Sure, I said it was interesting, but the differences are really profound.  When a killer turns up in tabletop play, they get a punch in the face, and they go away, and its their problem.  When they are a paying customer, its the administrators problem.  Also, all these things hugely limit the amount of communication between real people - even the telephone chops off some 20% of the information bandwith between people in voice tone alone, not considering body language, and the channels available online are much, much smaller than that at present.  Its not only that they are premised on a totally different social contract, but they are also operationally dissimilar at many levels.