The Types of D&D Player

[nedz]

did i mention mutant treeman chaos druids?

Wow, CN CE too I suppose ?

[Metahuman1]

As a player: A little bit of everything, but mainly this: Link And I usually tend to feel like this: Linky

Given how messed up and dysfunctional our party is. We have three powergamers and me, plus our newbish DM who lets the powergamers get with nearly everything. Seriously, our party is messed up. It sucks alot and i keep dreaming of finding another gaming group that works in terms of availability to play with.

An Example: Our current, the party's alignment is fairly neutral all across. Through some odd fashion the party is slowing slipping into being an evil party.

I think my DM style is this:

Stark Raving Mad-Your players are uncontrollable short of murdering them. They always powergamer and despite how many times you try to make things work, they always break the game. They can take just about any class/situation and completely brake it. You can never challenge them and have it work. Your only hope is to never DM again or run screaming away. Just RUN, RUN AWAY DAMNIT!!!! Save yourself!!!! oh, and your players? They BLAME you for the game not being any more fun after they break it!!!!

Eliminate the powergamer part of that and that's been my Party. Though Up till now I've referred to them as Chaotic Stupid.

Shenanigans included, among other things, attempted rape of the captured halfling sorceress while she was knocked out, playing with gunpowder on the captured pirate ship, attempting to make tequila in a temple while guarding a prisoner, and attempting to buy illegal booze to bribe the token lawful character, only to get busted by undercover guardsmen and lead a keystone cops chase through the town with your party member surfing the dwarf that's holding onto you and getting drug through the mud in the process while one player runs the theme to Benny hill on there laptop.

That last one had me laughing so hard I couldn't breath and had to stop the game for twenty minutes to pull myself together.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The Good Type The type that I am. Spontaneously generates rainbows of happiness for the entire group.
The Bad Type The type of players with whom I disagree. Their play is physically repulsive to everyone who knows the Right way to play.

But for serious...

The paranoid optimizes not for any sort of efficiency or utility, but to make sure he has a defense or counter for any harm that may befall him, however bizarre. In combat, enemies just ignore his character in favor of targeting his higher-offense companions.

[Darth Stabber]

The paranoid optimizes not for any sort of efficiency or utility, but to make sure he has a defense or counter for any harm that may befall him, however bizarre. In combat, enemies just ignore his character in favor of targeting his higher-offense companions.

That's just about the right way to play mid to high level wizards, especially abjurers, ignoring the last part.

If I am playing a wizard, woe unto the creature that tries to steal my spellbook. They aren't going to like what happens.

[Arbane]

A variation on The Mary-Sue: Mary Mary Quite Contrary: Most Mary-Sues want to hog the spotlight by out-doing the other player characters. This player wants to hog the spotlight by doing things none of the other characters would. If everyone else is playing a White-Knight Hero, they want to play a serial-killing demon-worshipper. If everyone else is playing Viking Berserkers, they want to play a pacifist monk. No matter what the premise or setting, they make a character who will fit in about as well as a snowman in the Sahara, and who will suck up vast amounts of the GM's time with their solo antics unless the entire group bends themselves around their schtick.

[Kerilstrasz]

What would you call a Player who constantly oppose the rules with "In Reality.."
or "by the worlds physics.." or "By the real world's principles.." ? A player who
prefers to disregard and/or recreate a tested rule just because it seems not
plausible to him by modern standards, even though that brings major unbalance
on a handful of other rules?

[Shaynythyryas]

A Catgirl Killer.

[nedz]

Catgirlman

[Avilan the Grey]

Hey, Playgrounders: What type are you?

I don't play D&D, we usually play Call of Chthulu (2nd Ed, I think) or homebrew. I would be a Storyteller. The group I play in consists of 1 or 2 Sideway Errants, 1-2 Storytellers and a Scribe. Works very will with that setting.

[White_Drake]

I'm a sideways errant, although my group seems oddly unappreciative of the diversity I add to the story. I wonder why?

[Axier]

My favorite playstyle: The Nuclear Deterrent: Builds his character like a true power-gamer, insanely high-op, capable of outshining the entire group. Never uses his full power, keeps his capabilities in check, and waits untill the DM nearly nukes the team. Then, the bombs go off, and the enemy everyone was facing is now dead when it was about to kill them.

The downside, is that it can trigger an arms race unless the DM understands that he is a nuclear deterrent in the first place.

I generally perfer that one person is completely OP, as long as I know they will only do this.

I tend to perfer this for my own characters:
The Factotum: Has some kind of usefulness in any situation, but rarely does it better than someone else in the party. Perfers to support and fill gaps.

[Guizonde]

My favorite playstyle: The Nuclear Deterrent: Builds his character like a true power-gamer, insanely high-op, capable of outshining the entire group. Never uses his full power, keeps his capabilities in check, and waits untill the DM nearly nukes the team. Then, the bombs go off, and the enemy everyone was facing is now dead when it was about to kill them.

The downside, is that it can trigger an arms race unless the DM understands that he is a nuclear deterrent in the first place.

I generally perfer that one person is completely OP, as long as I know they will only do this.

I tend to perfer this for my own characters:
The Factotum: Has some kind of usefulness in any situation, but rarely does it better than someone else in the party. Perfers to support and fill gaps.

i once bumbled into having a nuclear deterrent. reminds me of one of my types (unintentional hero, i believe, but you phrased it way better). it was fun, but only when the heat was on did i see all the munchkin style combos i could pull off. shame it happened in the endgame... well, not really actually, it was way cooler being a tough adventure.
bolded for truth
would your factotum be a jack of all trades or a master of none? that's really useful, and i wish no-one ever would create a one-trick pony. a warrior who can talk, a wizard (not gitp-standard-munchkin format) who can wield a sword, a monk who can i dunno... cook? helps give everyone spotlight time

@nedz: duh! but for once, closer to CE stupid sadistic than CE cthulu style. nice change when we knew we could just kill them to death easily. just don't get tangled. seriously, tentacle-hentai ahead otherwise, and without the funny uniforms
edit:@hxolhpths a killjoy, or a target your choice

[Eric Scott]

I am a Nuclear Deterrent, with Sideways Errant tendencies and a smidgen of Marine...

[Darth Stabber]

What would you call a Player who constantly oppose the rules with "In Reality.."
or "by the worlds physics.." or "By the real world's principles.." ? A player who
prefers to disregard and/or recreate a tested rule just because it seems not
plausible to him by modern standards, even though that brings major unbalance
on a handful of other rules?

I would call him "don't lett the door hit your @$$ on the way out"

[Certified]

If I had to call it I tend to fall into the Rule-Keeper role when GMing, if only to check the Storyteller. I try very hard to keep everyone engaged and give them ways to shine and yes, sometimes fudge the rules so my players live.

As a player, that's a bit trickier...

[Darth Stabber]

and yes, sometimes fudge the rules so my players live.

Why? Unless you set up what is supposed to be an easy encounter.

[AttilaTheGeek]

I had an epiphany about classifying D&D players when I was playing in an empty classroom one day when a freshman walks in, surveys the room, struts over to our table, slams his hands down, and shouts:

"WHAT IS THIS GAME AND HOW DO I WIN".

A lot of classic roles fit into the paradigm of examining player goals instead of player actions. There's the powergamer, who replies "You win by doing the most damage", the team player, who says "you win when everyone wins!", and the friend, who says "you win by having fun". But it also allows you to examine the manipulator, who says "You win when you're pulling the strings", the storyteller ("you win when you finish telling the story"), and the roleplayer, who was the one who responded in my group by saying "It's living life in a different world. How do you win at life?"

(The freshman then said "by being AWESOMER than EVERYONE ELSE". We kicked him out.)

[Guizonde]

I had an epiphany about classifying D&D players when I was playing in an empty classroom one day when a freshman walks in, surveys the room, struts over to our table, slams his hands down, and shouts:

"WHAT IS THIS GAME AND HOW DO I WIN".

A lot of classic roles fit into the paradigm of examining player goals instead of player actions. There's the powergamer, who replies "You win by doing the most damage", the team player, who says "you win when everyone wins!", and the friend, who says "you win by having fun". But it also allows you to examine the manipulator, who says "You win when you're pulling the strings", the storyteller ("you win when you finish telling the story"), and the roleplayer, who was the one who responded in my group by saying "It's living life in a different world. How do you win at life?"

(The freshman then said "by being AWESOMER than EVERYONE ELSE". We kicked him out.)

that was probably more eye-opening than you'd intended. duuuuuude...

how DO you win at role-playing games? (philosophy majors, that's your cue)

and to correct the freshman, i'd say it's by being awesomer than everyTHING else. so what if you're a technical pacifist who's good at absorbing damage, or a knight in shining armor, or the evilest evil necromancer of evilness. the only thing that matters is to make sure that 'til that point your character's and your party's adventure (and thus the story) are the awesomest ever.

[/smartass]

[Frathe]

I had an epiphany about classifying D&D players when I was playing in an empty classroom one day when a freshman walks in, surveys the room, struts over to our table, slams his hands down, and shouts:

"WHAT IS THIS GAME AND HOW DO I WIN".

A lot of classic roles fit into the paradigm of examining player goals instead of player actions. There's the powergamer, who replies "You win by doing the most damage", the team player, who says "you win when everyone wins!", and the friend, who says "you win by having fun". But it also allows you to examine the manipulator, who says "You win when you're pulling the strings", the storyteller ("you win when you finish telling the story"), and the roleplayer, who was the one who responded in my group by saying "It's living life in a different world. How do you win at life?"

(The freshman then said "by being AWESOMER than EVERYONE ELSE". We kicked him out.)

I don't think I realized it, but motivations are actually what I wanted to look at when I started this thread. A lot of people suggested specific combat styles, but this is more what I really wanted.

[Certified]

Why? Unless you set up what is supposed to be an easy encounter.

What do you do after a party wipe?

[RFLS]

I'm definitely a nuclear deterrent and rules keeper. I have a DM who's astounding with role play and and story, but less than competent with mechanics. I once played in a session of his where it was 3 level 7 players. He harried us with some kobolds for bit, which was less than challenging, and then BAM! Adult blue dragon to the face.

(He thought we had a good chance of winning. This was a severely unoptimized party; I hadn't learned the tricks for optimizing yet. That was my incentive, though.)

[Darth Stabber]

that was probably more eye-opening than you'd intended. duuuuuude...

how DO you win at role-playing games? (philosophy majors, that's your cue)

From an existentialist perspective there is no defined way of winning aside from that which you create for yourself.

What do you do after a party wipe?

Start over.

[Certified]

Start over.

And that sir is the answer. Although, I still hold a candle for a game, where the PCs fail, and die, and the world for their next characters is that much worse because of it.

[Darth Stabber]

And that sir is the answer. Although, I still hold a candle for a game, where the PCs fail, and die, and the world for their next characters is that much worse because of it.

Yep, that's the way to do it.

[Amphetryon]

What do you do after a party wipe?

Shout "Woohoo! New campaign!" and dance around like you scored a touchdown, of course.

[russdm]

New Campaign!!! Awesome

Then the DM says: You are all rabbits....

Umm, thanks but no thanks. I would rather play a squirrel.

[Guizonde]

New Campaign!!! Awesome

Then the DM says: You are all rabbits....

Umm, thanks but no thanks. I would rather play a squirrel.

"is it a vorpal bunny?"

"no"

"nuts!"

"no, that's for squirrels"

sorry, couldn't help myself

[russdm]

Yep. I have always remembered the beholder squirrel. By the way, whats the stats for a squirrel or mouse? I am thinking about playing Reepicheap, from the Aslan books by cs lewis, one of these days.

I ought to start a thread about making stats/builds for famous movie characters using D&D 3.5 or something.

[Guizonde]

Yep. I have always remembered the beholder squirrel. By the way, whats the stats for a squirrel or mouse? I am thinking about playing Reepicheap, from the Aslan books by cs lewis, one of these days.

I ought to start a thread about making stats/builds for famous movie characters using D&D 3.5 or something.

isn't there a system out already where you basically play in the Redwall (brian jacques) universe?

to get back on topic though, i guess you could create another division intra-playstyle.

happy vs grim, or fantasy vs realistic.
some people like their campaigns like their coffee: gritty and grimdark, others like their rootbeer floats: tasting like diabetes. with of course the gamut between the two. some people i game with HATE jokes with a passion, others crack 'em only when the going gets real tough. is this an archetype?

[Frathe]

isn't there a system out already where you basically play in the Redwall (brian jacques) universe?

You mean the Mouse Guard RPG?