[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

WISH 52 asks what Robin Laws classification fits you best. I’m Iron Man! Um.

Robin Laws identifies several types of gamer in his book of GM tips: The Power Gamer, the Butt-Kicker, the Tactician, the Specialist (plays one type only), the Method Actor, the Storyteller (plot and pacing fan), and the Casual Gamer. Which of these types do you think you are, and why? Most people aren’t pure types, so multiple choices are OK.

I’m some unholy blend between the Method Actor, the Storyteller, and the Tactician. The first two are fairly obvious — I like playing interesting characters, and if you want to call that immersive you can; I also like backstory. Maybe that doesn’t make me a Storyteller, but there’s no Lawsian classification for “people who dig a coherent world.” Unless it’s an aspect of Method Actor, which it might well be.

I blame the Tactician in me on too much exposure to Hero gamers. On the other hand, I do really like D&D 3E grid combat. It’s an interesting challenge at about the right level for me to be interested in it. Wargames and miniatures do not capture my interest, but pushing a little lead figure painted to represent a Celtic Bronze Age priest of Mercury around the map? That’s quality fun!

Comments

[mgrasso.livejournal.com]

That combination describes me to a T. I love a good story and good "acting," but sometimes I also like a cool combat with weird features that require both me and the players to strategize. Problem is, I'm not a good tactician, never have been. Players usually can well and kick my ass when I'm running a combat and I'm notorious for my characters (when I do play) being utter combat morons. I always lost when I played Warhammer 40K, and Blood Bowl. So I enjoy tactical combat, but I'm not especially good at it. I think I'm much better at plotting and acting.

[bryant]

See, I think that's OK for a GM. In some ways it's a bonus -- it means you can just ladle on the baddies without worrying about overwhelming the PCs. You gotta expect the PCs to outstrategize you anyhow, since there's one of you and many of them.

(This does not apply for games without a grid, so don't get any fancy ideas about Buffy. ;)

[jadasc.livejournal.com]

Maybe that doesn’t make me a Storyteller, but there’s no Lawsian classification for “people who dig a coherent world.” Unless it’s an aspect of Method Actor, which it might well be.

The key to the Laws system (which I adore) is that the emphasis is not so much on what you do but why you're there -- what is it about RPGing that satisfies you enough that you keep playing? Thus, if what you dig about having a coherent world is that it allows you to have a better grasp on the character you're portraying, it's a Method Actor thing. If the coherency of the world satisfies you because it's easier to plan a strategy in a world where the rules don't change, that's a Tactician perspective. I know some people who like coherent worlds because they like playing font-of-information characters , and that'd be a Specialist (knowitall).