What type of player are you?

also probably a difference between “the players are too fast at killing” (which is fine) and “the monster is bad at surviving” or “the monster is hitting harder than intended”, with no real special input from the players side, but a failing of the system/stat block.

need to go now though, already running late for the rpg event @ the library today hahah

10 seconds. That’s all you need. Current campaign: “This is a game. Not everything we do when we play D&D is a game; this is one. If you want to know in advance what kind of game, ask me. If you want to figure it out for yourself, that’s cool, too.” Done.

That’s why I think focusing on the game is more useful, because you can categorize things in much more concrete terms. What’s the core of the game that leads to success? Resource management. That’s something a bit more tangible than “Why are we here?”

to bring it back to the article. I think to frame the article to be about different player types does it a disservice. As I understand it it is about the relationship between players and optimisation, not about all the different ways one can have fun playing DnD. Which would make more sense to me since this is from an optimisation blog for 5e that generally doesn’t talk about the roleplaying part other then maybe that Roleplaying and Optimisation aren’t exclusiv to each other.

Not that the what was discussed wasn’t interesting or correct. I just think the discussion went in a direction the article never planed to explore.

1 Like

Well, the article does attempt to group players into three different types.

But maybe I missed the point here. (Perhaps I’m confused because the author uses sport and war differently than we generally do in RPGs.)


It absolutely does try to categorise players. But as many models, they are only functional and relevant in context, and their target audience and context is hyperspecific.

I assume there is some form of misunderstanding going on due to different play cultures. I would be very interested in hearing what the general uses for sport and war are, as I lack strong preconceptions of it, in a gaming context.

Broadly speaking, combat as sport is tactical, with players using optimizable abilities in a mechanically balanced battle. It’s WotC D&D.

Combat as war is more strategic. It’s luring the medusa into the ogre’s cave and grabbing the loot after the ogre’s been turned to stone. It’s TSR-era D&D.

It’s not so much different player outlooks, but different games. And it doesn’t really have anything to do with playing to win or experience or DM fudging.

1 Like

The way i see it is when you casually play soccer (e.g.) with your friends. It’s casual but there is still an incentive to win. Now put 500€ on the line and the way players play the game changes. It’s about how hard you try to win, but in contrast to the “stage” player, both sport and war try to win. (That’s not the best example for a ttrpg, but thats what i would say is the difference between sport and war)