AstroArtificer
Explorer
I set out to find out what players think about this question. I've been building a player personality quiz for TTRPGs (Think Myers-Briggs, but for what kind of player you are), and I've been collecting data over the last month. Wanted to share some interesting trends that showed up in the results.
I've been enjoying some really good conversations here on ENworld about why campaigns fizzle and what makes them stay together. To study that, I framed tables failing in my quiz as a problem where the wrong people showed up to play the game, and I waited to see who showed up. When I broke down the results, I saw which players really cared the most about campaign health. Two major patterns showed up.
Improviser Types care the most. Around 25% of the respondents were some variant of this archetype. These are your "yes-and" players, who are energized by spontaneous collaborative storytelling. They love making rousing speeches on the doorsteps of your BBEG. And apparently, they are consistently the ones who feel it the worst when a campaign breaks down.
People-oriented players broadly showed the same pattern. ~76% of the players who filled out the survey favored the personal aspects of TTRPGs. Some common types are your Observers (who I reckon are the quiet players who appreciate your game deeply), and Storytellers (I'm one!), who are more likely to be GMs. When more of your fun comes from relationships between NPCS, players, and the story, they'll want the campaign to thrive.
It's obvious once you think about it. Duh. For these players, the campaign is the relationship. Ending it early feels more like a breakup than it does a game. So, of course, they care more.
The flipside is worth talking about, too.
Mechanics-focused players showed less investment in campaign longevity on average. These include your Wargamers, Optimizers, Rules Lawyers, and Instigators. I think these players get a bad rap as "problem players", but I think the conversation often goes wrong (and hostile).
These players aren't less committed. In fact, they're super dedicated to their style of fun. That dedication is what causes problems. For example, an Optimizer loves to theory craft builds. They actually love it when a campaign ends, because it gives them a chance to build a new character. When tables end, they just make a new character and continue on.
It's not a character flaw. But it is an issue when that player ends up at a table where people see losing a campaign as losing a relationship. The worst part is that these players are unaware of why everybody is upset.
So the question shouldn't be "is this a problem player?", which I know people are quick to say. It should be "are they at the right table?". Throw a table of Wargamers into a gritty tactical campaign with rotating one-shots, and they'll love it. But drop that same player into a long-form emotional narrative campaign, and you'll see how quickly that table becomes incompatible.
The Mechanical players who did fill out the survey were overwhelmingly casual, which meant that their level of emotional investment was lower. To them, a session is meant to be easy fun. It signals that on the other side of the coin, there is a group of mechanics-focused players who probably feel really frustrated at not being able to find a group that plays the way they do. The problem really wasn't them, but the fact that they were at the wrong tables.
So here's my question to you. What have y'all experienced? Do your "problem player" horror stories tend to cluster around certain playstyles? Do you think that the longevity investment gap is really about people vs mechanics orientation, or something deeper is happening?
I've been enjoying some really good conversations here on ENworld about why campaigns fizzle and what makes them stay together. To study that, I framed tables failing in my quiz as a problem where the wrong people showed up to play the game, and I waited to see who showed up. When I broke down the results, I saw which players really cared the most about campaign health. Two major patterns showed up.
Improviser Types care the most. Around 25% of the respondents were some variant of this archetype. These are your "yes-and" players, who are energized by spontaneous collaborative storytelling. They love making rousing speeches on the doorsteps of your BBEG. And apparently, they are consistently the ones who feel it the worst when a campaign breaks down.
People-oriented players broadly showed the same pattern. ~76% of the players who filled out the survey favored the personal aspects of TTRPGs. Some common types are your Observers (who I reckon are the quiet players who appreciate your game deeply), and Storytellers (I'm one!), who are more likely to be GMs. When more of your fun comes from relationships between NPCS, players, and the story, they'll want the campaign to thrive.
It's obvious once you think about it. Duh. For these players, the campaign is the relationship. Ending it early feels more like a breakup than it does a game. So, of course, they care more.
The flipside is worth talking about, too.
Mechanics-focused players showed less investment in campaign longevity on average. These include your Wargamers, Optimizers, Rules Lawyers, and Instigators. I think these players get a bad rap as "problem players", but I think the conversation often goes wrong (and hostile).
These players aren't less committed. In fact, they're super dedicated to their style of fun. That dedication is what causes problems. For example, an Optimizer loves to theory craft builds. They actually love it when a campaign ends, because it gives them a chance to build a new character. When tables end, they just make a new character and continue on.
It's not a character flaw. But it is an issue when that player ends up at a table where people see losing a campaign as losing a relationship. The worst part is that these players are unaware of why everybody is upset.
So the question shouldn't be "is this a problem player?", which I know people are quick to say. It should be "are they at the right table?". Throw a table of Wargamers into a gritty tactical campaign with rotating one-shots, and they'll love it. But drop that same player into a long-form emotional narrative campaign, and you'll see how quickly that table becomes incompatible.
The Mechanical players who did fill out the survey were overwhelmingly casual, which meant that their level of emotional investment was lower. To them, a session is meant to be easy fun. It signals that on the other side of the coin, there is a group of mechanics-focused players who probably feel really frustrated at not being able to find a group that plays the way they do. The problem really wasn't them, but the fact that they were at the wrong tables.
So here's my question to you. What have y'all experienced? Do your "problem player" horror stories tend to cluster around certain playstyles? Do you think that the longevity investment gap is really about people vs mechanics orientation, or something deeper is happening?
