One of the neater things I've noticed about discussion on the Forge is how it helps cut through the typical RPG theory dogma, which rarely get you anywhere. Things such as the roll-playing vs. role-playing debate which is just Exploration of System vs. Exploration of Character but is used more to mean What I do vs what you do and why I'm "really" roleplaying and why you are not.

For this thread I'd like to address a bit of RPG dogma (for lack of a better term, not to be derogatory about it) namely the Types of Players. The Types of Players was written by Aaron Allston. It appeared in the Champions suppliment Strike Force (I.C.E./Hero Games, 1988) and in the 4th edition of the Champions rules. It reached a wider (non-Champions playing) audience in Sean Patrick Fannon's Fantasy Role-Playing Gamer's Bible.

I'd like to see what the Forgers think of this list in light of the vocabulary for being built here. I wish I could give the whole list here,but it is copyrighted material. The Types are: the Builder, the Buddy, the COmbat Monster, the Genre Fiend, the Copier, the Mad Slasher, the Mad Thinker, the Plumber, The Pro from Dover, the Romantic, the RUles Rapist, the SHowoff, the Tragedian. The descriptions are more or less contained here among the other terms defined there.

Hi Jack,

I've been wanting to discuss this for a while, so thanks for bringing it up.

I think the big issue is just how much of the "Layered GNS model" (or whatever it is we end up calling it) is accounted for by these terms.

To review, and with luck not to be too boring, the Layered Model is:

1. Everything occurs embedded in the Social Contract, which includes many things about play and not-play, especially the Balance of Power. #2-5 may be considered ever-deeper "skins" or "boxes" into the model.
2. Exploration is the primary act of role-playing, composed of five parts with some causal relationships among them.
3. The agendas or "modes" of play (because they have to be expressed via communication and play itself, not just "felt") are currently best described as Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist play.
4. Techniques of play include many different relationships among rules, people's decisions, announcements, and similar. "System" interacts with Techniques all the time, in terms of things like Currency, Resolution (DFK, IIEE), and Reward systems.
5. Actual play shifts quickly among Stances.

Anyway, so what are player-classifications in these terms. At first glance, they are part and parcel of Social Contract, and as such, they would be expected to follow whatever personality types and social roles we see in practically any social, leisure activity. Who's "leader," who's "the flirt," who's "must disagree," who's "gets squinty-eyed about details," who's "placator/peacemaker," and so on. Tons of different social roles, tons of different adjustments and shifts among them too, as I'm sure most will agree.

However, most of the time, I see such classifications as "skewers" into the layered model. They start with a strictly social role (such as you might see just as easily among a softball team or members of a band), then apply its consequences to Exploration preferences, GNS goals/play=stuff, and even down to preferred Techniques and specific commitments to certain rules.

My problem with such a "skewer" classification of people is not that one or another does or does not exist - my problem is that one particular (e.g.) placator/peacemaker person doesn't necessarily penetrate to the core of the model along the same trajectory as another placator/peacemaker. This one might be all about hard-core Gamist play (sub-categories forthcoming in my upcoming essay) and this other one might be all about highly-internal Character-Explore Simulationist play. So the classification, if it purports to be exclusive in any kind of usable fashion, is rendered non-insightful relative to actual role-playing.

However, if such a set of classifications is not presented as the "types of players" as such, but rather as a strictly social set of habits or preferred social roles, then it makes a lot more sense to me. We could talk about whether particular social roles are distributed non-randomly relative to GNS goals, for instance, and I think that would be pretty interesting.

Thanks again for bringing this up and stating it so clearly, Jack.

Best,
Ron

I think you're shooting fish in a barrel, Jack. Dogma? Every presentatinof these player types I've seen was tongue in cheek, and meant, I think, to get the GM thinking about player needs, and common problems (for which they worked for me). As such, I don't think they ever were meant to be rigorous, and that, of course, GNS handles describing the behaviors in a more thourough way.

If it didn't, I'd spend all my time discussing theory over on the Hero System forums.

Mike

Interesting, Ron.

I would suggest that your "skewer" effect might be a useful tool when including a list like Allston's in a particular game system. The above list was made for Champions, more or less (I assume) and as such was helpful as Mike describes for that game. So mabye it is helpful to understand the different layers and then the different skewers you can get when playing a specific game and advice for addressing potential and likely problems can come about.

I have a small issue with this whole topic in general (and have had such since I saw the Rules LAwyer in an April's Fool issue of Dragon Magazine (89 I believe) who looked suspiciously like myself).

Its both dangerous and handy as a Camapign Runner (ie GM) and Game Designer to understand WHAT PLAYERS WANT. Their ultimate and real goals. Indeed there needs to be some classification I suppose from a marketing of your game or campaign to attarct players and having a rough idea of what gamers your going to attract.

However, from Classification can come Preference and from Preference can come Prejudice. Jack, you mentioned in several of your threads that you quit the one group because they failed to meet your needs as a player. Now I am not trying to paint you as a bad guy because of this, but your standards of gaming acceptability have changed. You demand more. this is not saying your a GNS meanie nor prejudiced, but just an example.

Now there are what 5 or 6 people who you have more or less ruled out as fellow or potential gamers. I have done the same thing, people who did not meet my standards of play I just will not play with. Its a dangerous precadent to set.

I do not believe it has any place in a game's text. It act more like a mr yuck warning then a classification system because I think its difficult to make it non-judgemental. Now defining players as to their preferences of play i.e. GNS vs non-GNS* or Gamist vs Sim is I think pretty safe ground and as non-judgemental as we can get (Gamists no longer have to hide their heads under paper bags like Saints fans afterall).

Outside of this, I think anything else is just superfilous. As long as a group's social contract can accomodate all the different modes, techniques, and desires, then more power to them.

Sean
ADGBoss