Which profile are you?, Gah! It's like a magazine quiz! Options

[Dog]

I have a fledgling theory on the breakdown of gaming styles. Basically, I got it down to three types. (Keep in mind this is all in fun, guys. If we can't laugh at ourselves...)

First is the type of player that's into the rules. They want to make sure that the rules are all followed and often consider anything that's not canon to be cheating. When this style is overdone, it becomes min/maxing. Sometimes, these players are called lawyers.

Second is the reality junkie. These guys tend to invent a bunch of new rules to cover SNAPs and like to debate the GM a lot. Reality junkies generally want to believe that their game could've really happened. They tend to collect real world schematics and statistics for reference.

Third are the artsies. Artsies are all about the story and getting into character, and although they often never learned the basic rules, they often can tell you a lot of details about the game world. Artsies are the ones that can become those creepy guys who try to talk IC on the bus.

Obviously, none of these are -in principle- better or worse than the others. Nor is everyone is an extreme example of type, but I'll bet we could all be classified as belonging to one of these groups. Which are you?

[RunnerPaul]

Reminds me of the "Real Man / Real Roleplayer / Loony / Munchkin" breakdown, only with less categories.

[Dog]

Sounds like a hoot. Where would I find that?

[brohopcp]

I dabble in the first and third types, but laziness keeps me from going overboard. I like a good story and entertainment, but I usually spend time re-checking the rules before, during and after a game.

One link, though you might want to try searching yourself.

Also, a SR one.

[Tziluthi]

A 1/2 cross, without a doubt.

[mmu1]

Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering has probably the best (serious) in-depth breakdown of character types - I'd reccommend looking around for it if you're interested in the subject.

(Though I'm not crazy about the book per se, since I feel it spends too much time insisting that there's never a "wrong" way to play an RPG... which anyone who's seen D&D transplants try to play SR knows isn't true)

I think that under Robin's categories (for those who've read it) I come out as a "Butt Kicker / Tactician"... Or, in the simpler terms, a "Real Man" with a bit of "Real Roleplayer" mixed in, though it's not all that accurate a description.

[nezumi]

You forgot two groups:

Loons - The people who play just to be crazy. Generally prefer shamans and explosives. Very good at thinking outside of the box, not so good at thinking usefully. Tend to get themselves blown up or arrested for mass murder due to one of their hair-brained schemes.

Incompetents/n00bs - people who just dont' care about the rules, don't what to learn about the world, and would prefer you do all the rolling, number crunching and talking on their behalf. In short, people playing the wrong game.

[PlatonicPimp]

Of your catagories, I am in fact all three. But that's why I'm Gamemaster. :)

[Mr Cjelli]

Your observations parallel "GNS" theory, which the guys over at indie-rpg.com talk to death.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/

[nezumi]

Because I'm lazy...

What is GNS and should I bother reading that link? Will it amuse me at all?

[Mr Cjelli]

Disclaimer: I don't consider myself particulary versed on GNS nor have I read every single article. So feel free to correct any gross inaccuracies.

GNS stands for "gamism", "narrativism", and "simulationism" (sic, sic, sic). It refers to the three primary ways people derive fun from RP/the three aspects of RP. To paraphrase, gamism is competition in the arena provided by the ruleset, simulationism is the exploration of hypothetical situations, and narrativism is the development of story/theme.

[Scorpion]

I'd be a cross between 1 & 2