Player "Engagement" and Self-Selecting What We Play

[innerdude]

The day after our play session last week, my wife made an incredibly interesting observation about our play group.

She mentioned that she had been having a hard time roleplaying her character that past week because she felt that one of the other players was trying to control all of the in-game action. She said something to the effect of, "It seems to me that Player X isn't really interested in playing the game, he's more interested in controlling it. He's not interested in interacting with the game world, or on a character-to-character level, he's interested in interacting with the rules to achieve an outcome. To him, 'winning the game' means that his character always makes the most precise, rational, likely-to-succeed choice, the one that demonstrates how great he is at 'mastering the game.'"

And it got me thinking about how we as players choose to interact, or at what level do most RPG players choose to interact with the game?

In some ways it may be similar to the whole "Player Types" outlined in the GM guides for various games, but to me it seems to reveal something more. It's not just about talking about what each player type "wants to get out of the game," but about the core emotional motivation behind it.

 

[innerdude]

Follow-up--

So if "Rules Interaction" is one form--meaning a player is primarily interested in interacting with the rules of the game as a game, what might others be?

1. Rules-level interaction--likes the game to be a game. Primarily a logical approach, emotionally invested in their own internal mastery of the game. This could be combat--but could just as likely be in out-of-combat, or world-building elements.

2. Character-level interaction--likes human emotional and psychological exploration.

3. Combat/Encounter-level interaction--More focused, tactical-level rules mastery, but the emotional investment is in the "win/loss" spectrum. Combat success = player success = emotional satisfaction.

4. Non-game social-level interaction--More interested in the player-level sense of community than in any actual in-game happenings. The in-game narrative and meta-game is really just a way to emotionally validate their sense of group inclusion.

Any thoughts/additions/changes to the list?

 

[Mortagon]

I would add story-level interaction, those who play the game because they want to be part of a great story and through their action be able to shape how the story goes.

Personally I like a mix of all five.

I play with a married couple and the wife is more of a character-story-level interaction player while the husband (who also GM's on occasion) is more in it to win the game. They often cramp each-others style and argue about it at the table. The wife tends to make non optimized choices to fit with her vision of her characters while the husband gets personally offended if other characters aren't as optimized as his own characters. That said he usually also role-plays his characters really well, but can get cranky if the other players aren't as invested in the rules as he is.

My other two players are also pretty easy to fit into these categories. One guy is clearly in it for the non-game social interaction while my last player is more of a combat/encounter-level interaction person.

 

[MortalPlague]

Interesting thread. I'm heavily on the story side myself, but I enjoy most aspects of the game. When I DM (which is pretty frequent), I enjoy challenging my players with interesting, memorable combats.

Some of my players definitely sway more to one side or the other... notably, my best role-player also always takes the time to make the most optimal action. It frustrates me to no end... Especially when I'm trying to run combat at a good pace; when his turn comes up, things slow down.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

at what level do most RPG players choose to interact with the game?

All different levels. Some are heavily into roleplay (e.g. playing a character with a different accent or a distinctive voice, having a backstory that won't fit onto a single side of paper, or having a description of each of their character's tunics). Some want to be told a story by the GM. Some want to create their character's own story. Some want to play a tactical-scale wargame using miniatures. Some want a game where there are plenty of choices, and others want a game where the GM has already planned and detailed where the characters will go (which means there are fewer choices). Some want to describe each swing of a weapon and each gesture of a spell, but others want to get that tedious combat stuff over with as fast as possible so they can get back to roleplaying.

This is why there are so many different preferences for ruleset, system and setting: they focus on different things. If there was one level at which "most" RPG players chose to interact with the game, then it would all be a lot easier.

 

[Zhaleskra]

This topic is giving me insight on how to write a more effective "game available" ad. As I learned from yet another forum, I will still do player interviews to see how well the other people and I "mesh".

On the subject, my level of interaction depends on the kind of game. For RPGs, I am utterly uninterested in people who want to "master" the rules. Tactical war game? Why not? The difference for me, is if I wanted a specific X, I'd use the game best suited to creating that X.

 

[Umbran]

And it got me thinking about how we as players choose to interact, or at what level do most RPG players choose to interact with the game?

Most players? I don't know. I wouldn't know if there was any clear majority. It may be enough to speak of interaction styles used by enough players to be of relevance to the typical GM.

The research done by WotC back in 1999 is apt to be interesting to those in the discussion:

Breakdown of RPG Players

It breaks folks down in two basic measures - where they sit in terms or preferring to thinking strategically or tactically, and whether they are rules/combat focused or story focused. So, not too far from your posits.

 

[steeldragons]

I'm with Mortagon. I like to think I'm an "all fiver", though less concerned with the "rules-to-win-the-game", by far, than any of the others.

But actually, now that I'm examining it, I guess I'm really a "2+4+5" or Character Success/Interaction + Social Success/Interaction + Story Success/Interaction = a rollicking real good time in my gaming experience. Granted, the point of "what game" is well taken, so I'm speaking from an "Ye Olde Skoole" (and recent/limited "New Skoole") specifically D&D perspective.

Both of the Character & Story elements, I think, can (perhaps even "should") encapsulate the "Combat/Encounter" option.

That said...I'm also on Umbran's page. I don't think there is such a thing as a "most"...and obviously, as with all of the "soul of the game/true game experience" hullabaloo of the past few days, there is no "right" all-encompassing answer.

Obviously, everyone has preferences or "favorite" ways of interacting with their game (otherwise why would they be playing?). But other than rating from a "most" to "a least" types of interaction in which a particular gamer would be interested, I don't think "most people" are one particular way or the other...IMHO.

I can, for example, get totally stoked on a combat. Pull out all of the stops and play my characters abilities to the max (within the rules) and have a GREAT time! But that, I would say, is not a core or primary way of "interacting" with the game, for me. Character development, world building, story evolution and character/world/NPC interactions, plus the real world social element are my bread n' butter.

Given all of that rambling...I think your breakdown of the 4 (+Mortagon's addition of "Story") covers pretty much all of the potential/possible avenues nithely...at the least, I can't think of another option.

--Steel Dragons

 

[TerraDave]

Umbran posted the data...

But, from my own experience, there are different ways to win:

*there are some players who win by drinking their coke or their beer, roll some dice, and have some fun

*there are players who win by achieving certain story or charecter goals that are not entirely, or at all, connected to mechanics

*there are players who win by using rules and mechanics effectively

*there players who win by combinging most of the above.

No big revelation in the categories. Also, I think an RPG works well when it can catter to all of the above, since I think most groups combine most of the above. And its probably better to combine--I am usually just as thankfull for my easy going casual player as for the guy that really knows the rules and helps us remember what they are.

BUT, to get back to the first post, I think a totally different issue is being raised. That issue is the player that tells other players and or the DM what to do. That player could be story driven, he could want a light hack and slash game, whatever, but if has to control the whole game, then maybe he should DM (smile) or someone will probably have to talk to him.

 

[Umbran]

That said...I'm also on Umbran's page. I don't think there is such a thing as a "most"...and obviously, as with all of the "soul of the game/true game experience" hullabaloo of the past few days, there is no "right" all-encompassing answer.

Read down through to the end. It says:

All of the people who indicated a strong interest in RPGs identified eight "core values" that they look for in the RPG experience. These 8 core values are more important than the segments; that is, if these 8 things aren't present in the play experience it won't matter if the game generally supports a given segment's interests - the players will find the experience dissatisfying. These 8 core values are:

* Strong Characters and Exciting Story
* Role Playing
* Complexity Increases over Time
* Requires Strategic Thinking
* Competitive
* Add on sets/New versions available
* Uses imagination
* Mentally challenging

I think it would follow that much of the soul of D&D would lie in that parts of it that enable these 8 things to happen. I still think that's too broad to be useful, but it is less broad than just any old thing people associate with the game.

*there are players who win by achieving certain story or charecter goals that are not entirely, or at all, connected to mechanics

This is not inconsistent with the Breakdown - these could be the "Storytellers" and "Character Actors".

*there are players who win by using rules and mechanics effectively

In the Breakdown, they note that "combat Focused" is more about mechanics than actual combat. So, these would be consistent with the "Thinkers" and "Power gamers"

*there players who win by combinging most of the above.

Again, in the article, they note that real people generally like some of everything. Few actually only live within one segment. Your power-gaming combat monster player still likes role playing interactions with others (a bit of character acting along with his power gaming). These are not hard divisions - a person who falls into one of the segments does not exclude the others, he or she just emphasizes one.