PDA

View Full Version : Player archetypes by game designer



Alessander
20-08-2007, 05:33
I pulled this text from the designer's log of another game. I think it splits the gamers into 3 extremes here. I've modified it a little to suit the GW games, but check it out, it' interesting:

Player1 is a long-time, hardcore Wargames player. Sometimes he drifts from game to game, based on what is new and cool at the time, or what his friends are playing. Player1 may or may not have read the background material (often not), but after playing the game he enjoyed the mechanics and armybuilding options. As long as this game remains unique and fun, he will probably stick with it, if nothing better comes along. He likes models that keep the game fresh and exciting, and continue to differentiate the GW playing experience from that of other games. Player1 is our greatest challenge to design for, because if we do not please him, he will move on to another game.

Player2, a distant cousin of Player1, is a big fan of the background, with a stalwart sense of story. More often than not, Player2 is also a fan of wargames’s (and may have played others), but his primary motivation for picking up this game is because it is based on the series. He’s a big fan of novels and fluff, and may be an active member of the books’ growing online community. Game art is also a big part of his enjoyment; seeing the characters come to life is exciting to him. Player2 loves to roleplay while playing the game, and enjoys it most when it simulates events that happened (or would be amusing to have happened) in the books and fluff. His favorite models are those that effectively capture the spirit of the characters/locations/events they represent.

Player3 is more likely than not a fan of the series, but he loves the game. The sheer brutality of it allows him to win, and win big. He enjoys it when the game simulates the books, but it is far more important for it to play well as a game. Player3 would be a bit disappointed when the tournament point minimum was changed from 1500 to 2000, but has since found other ways to destroy his opponents. It’s not that Player3 is cruel, he just really enjoys brutal games. Although it may not always seem the case, he has surprisingly strong sense of sportsmanship he wants to win fairly, when the opponent has a chance. People often confuse him with rules lawyer, which he finds disappointing sometimes, as he is also one of the strongest supporters and community builders. His few criticisms of the game are sharp, but that is only because he cares he knows how to play, and he wants to take on all comers.

Finally, since the above quote was from a non-painting-based game, I'll add Player 4 who is someone who isn't in the hobby for any of the above reasons, but is here because they just like to paint and assemble models. They don't really play, the just like the artistic element. They often browse the GW and fan sites just to see the painting styles of other players.

Based on these 4 extremes, which do you think you'd be grouped into? Obviously, in reality everyone is a mix of all of them, but if you had to choose one these player stereotypes who would it be?

Drogmir
20-08-2007, 06:01
I'm split between all of them really.

I enjoy making the models, painting them, and playing them for the big win.

I'm also pretty well read on 40K fluff.

But it I had to be put into one I'd guess I'll be the 5th option.

The guy who spends all his money buying the models then makes about half of them in a themed army and plays a few games, then gets bored, moves on to a new system. Rinse, Recycle, Repeat.

Hellebore
20-08-2007, 06:32
Story first, and models as a means to visually express the story.

Thus I love converting and customising in order to make my miniatures little characters in their own right.

Hellebore

Arcanus
20-08-2007, 06:41
I think I'm a player 2. I love fluff even though, I end up reading so much in one sitting that I normally get it mixed up.

GreenDracoBob
20-08-2007, 07:05
I'd probably fit most into number 2, though I'm not too sure about the role-playing. Maybe a little bit, though not so much during the game.

JustTony
20-08-2007, 07:12
I'm definitely a player one type, with a healthy amount of player 3 added in. Very little if any player 2 and I'm a decent table top painter at best, but I do very much like the modeling aspect.

Peace; through superior firepower.

sebster
20-08-2007, 07:17
If either the painting, the background or the game were gone I wouldn’t be interested in the remaining elements. It’s the way all the elements come together that appeals to me, there’s really nothing quite like a close fought game on a good looking board.

Curufew
20-08-2007, 07:21
I think I'm player 2. I love the fluff alot and alot of times I prefer to create fluff base army than effective ones

theshadowduke
20-08-2007, 07:32
Player 2. I love the backstory. Fantasy is a good game too, but the 40k background just pulls me back anytime I try to stray away.

grickherder
20-08-2007, 08:07
1 - 10% 2 - 50% 3 - 10% 4 - 30%

bungeeboy
20-08-2007, 09:25
Player2, a distant cousin of Player1,



ok, thats pretty scary, my cousin is exactly like player one, and i'm just like player two, just without the fluff obsession :D

The_Outsider
20-08-2007, 15:31
Player 3 all the way, give or take the rules lawyer bit.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
20-08-2007, 15:42
A happy mix of all 4, to be honest.

I drift from game to game occasionally, always coming back to Fantasy and 40k, as they have the most scope, in my opinion.

I do like to have my army painted, even if it is roughly, and I like the Novels.

I also like to win, and win big, but for the right reasons.

Does this make me Player 1234?

Darnok
20-08-2007, 15:46
I'm a mix between mainly 2 and 4, with only very little portions of 1 and 3 in it.

El_Phen
20-08-2007, 15:59
Just out of interest, could I re-name the choices a, b, c and d? I don't like the idea of saying "I'm a number two" and meaning it.

Colonel Deal
20-08-2007, 16:03
I'd say I'm in the player 2 catagory.

killa kan kaus
20-08-2007, 16:10
I am a player 2 but love the ingame player 1 aspects

Grand Master Raziel
20-08-2007, 17:18
I disagree with Drogmir about the Player 5 archetype. What he described is a newbie who never really gets around to settling on an archetype before he drifts out of the game. IMO, this is the more accurate portrayal of Player 5:

Player 5: Player 5 likes to win. Winning is more important to him than anything else. He doesn't care if the other guy has a chance or even has fun playing. Player 5's opponents exist only to be crushed by Player 5. Player 5 spends endless hours poring over his codex and internet forums to try and find out the most powerful builds he can make with his chosen army, and exploits every beneficial loophole he can. Player 5 will interpret rules creatively if he has to. If Player 5's opponents put up unexpectedly stiff resistance, or even have the temerity to beat Player 5, he whines about how his opponent's army is cheesy and storms off in a huff after the game.

Personally, I think I started off as a Player 1, but I've been finding myself drifting into a Player 2.

dybbukdude
20-08-2007, 18:27
I'm not sure what I am I don't really do fluff i have read a few books here and there but I'm not so hardcore I mean I play when I want but I like the miniatures just not painting or assembling
(NO I have not hears of the dot button on my keyboard two buttons to the left of the right-side shift key)

Lord Cook
20-08-2007, 18:43
I'm a blend of 2 and 3. Fluff is very important, but I also play competitively to win, however I value sportsmanship. I'm definitely not a 1 or 4, and the only element of 5 I possess is the habit of endlessly honing lists.

TheSanityAssassin
20-08-2007, 18:43
Mostly 2, with a fair bit of 3. I don't get great enjoyment of crushing someone mercilessly, but I do like to win, and I like to do it fairly and within the rules, and use a game where I win to help my opponent get better.

ReDavide
20-08-2007, 19:49
3 describes me very well.

1 describes an alien.

4 isn't really me... I take pride in a well-painted model, but I hate the actual painting part.

2 I'm torn about... daydreaming about fluff is a large part of my enjoyment of the game - I pick my army largely based on whose fluff is most attractive, and I like to think about the motivations of the different characters in my army.

But novels and backstory battle re-creations? Zero interest in either one. I'll take my fluff on a one-page codex blurb level, and my games will be of my own creation, thank you very much.

Jampire
20-08-2007, 20:41
Player 3 most definately describes me.
I play with armies based on their fluff and models, and I love to paint, but other than that I am very driven to win (albeit in a very sportsmanlike way of course, I'm not a jerk).
After all, is there anyone out there who just can't wait to have a good old fashioned @$$-kicking?

Luke
20-08-2007, 23:10
Player 1 I guess. 12 years in the hobby now, as a full time working adult I don't get the time to pursue it as much as I would like, and that extends to reading and buying all the latest crap that comes out. I'll play whatever is going, whatever my few friends are into just to get a game.

Alessander
31-08-2007, 05:08
this deserves a bump, lets get more answers. A lot of insight into the variety of 40K players here.

Outlaw289
31-08-2007, 05:17
2, 4, 1 ,3 in order of most like to least like.

I love the 40k background, its very open and open to a lot of possibilities and can be shaped to fit any scope, from epic battles to platoon scale war dramas.

I also enjoy painting a whole lot. I play IG, but I've spent nearly as much money on Terminator Chaplains, Ork characters, and Eldar doodads to paint up as I have on my IG force. I'm far from the best painter (I haven't done shading/lighting or inking), but I like bringing out the details and making nice miniatures, sometimes as gifts.

1 because I like wargaming in general, and 40k is a relatively quick and easy game to play. 3 comes in last because while I like winning and I make relatively competitive army lists, I don't powergame and I let a lot of things slide.

Nabeshin1106
31-08-2007, 05:38
Probably 3 with a healthy dash of 2.

I play the game to win, but it's not the only reason for playing. As long as fun was had by all, it was a good game. I think I may be seen as a Rules Lawyer from time to time, but that's just because I like to have a good grasp on the rules, and I try to get everyone to follow them. Sportsmanship is pretty important to me, I've stopped games before on account of unsportsman-like conduct.

I do have a great fondness of 40k fluff as well. that's another thing that drives me. I can't even count the number of times I've wanted to start an army after reading a particular story regarding that faction.

There are a few things that make me stick around with 40k, those two probably being the biggest, but not the only reasons.

Blackwolf
31-08-2007, 05:52
I am pretty much a number 1. I have tried many other games but I always come back.

Drogmir
31-08-2007, 05:59
I disagree with Drogmir about the Player 5 archetype. What he described is a newbie who never really gets around to settling on an archetype before he drifts out of the game. IMO, this is the more accurate portrayal of Player 5:

Player 5: Player 5 likes to win. Winning is more important to him than anything else. He doesn't care if the other guy has a chance or even has fun playing. Player 5's opponents exist only to be crushed by Player 5. Player 5 spends endless hours poring over his codex and internet forums to try and find out the most powerful builds he can make with his chosen army, and exploits every beneficial loophole he can. Player 5 will interpret rules creatively if he has to. If Player 5's opponents put up unexpectedly stiff resistance, or even have the temerity to beat Player 5, he whines about how his opponent's army is cheesy and storms off in a huff after the game.

Personally, I think I started off as a Player 1, but I've been finding myself drifting into a Player 2.

No Offense but calling me a newbie is really insulting. I take the hobby very seriously, but my loves for both 40K and Fantasy both as a game system vs the fluff leads me to make a army, play with them, switch to a different system, and continue in that pattern.

That doesn't mean I'm some kinda kid who can't make up his mind and would very well want to play Pokemon instead. This is just who I am.

Not the guy who loves everything so much in the end he loves nothing.
But the guy who loves his hobby but loves so many aspects he cannot respectably choose one over the other.

MapleLeafSoldier
31-08-2007, 06:39
I would call my self a number 1 for the sheer amount of times ive left and renterd the hobby. Occasionally another form of hobby moves in the way
(MTG, video games, sports) and GW stuff gets pushed aside

Commissar_Sven
31-08-2007, 07:56
Two with a dose of three thrown in.

Corax
31-08-2007, 12:50
Player #2. Definite fluff junkie.

Captain Micha
31-08-2007, 14:45
2, 3 and 4 really on my end.

but if I had to choose I'd say 4.. since I've painted more minis than I've played in games so far....

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
31-08-2007, 15:16
player #2 and #4

and i'm forced play with powergamers :( but crushing (23:0) powergamer is enyoyable :D not as much as re-creating event from chapter's history but still :)