Mercurius
Legend
Ethan Gilsdorf is known for his book from a few years back, Fantasy Freaks & Gaming Geeks; you can check out his blog here: Dungeons & Dorkwads. Anyhow, I just watched a short video interview on a local Boston news channel which, while not really saying anything new to any who might be reading this, inspired an interesting thought. Gilsdorf pointed out that D&D appeals to both the more story-based, acting types, and the more "nerdy" left-brained types. While most of us don't fit neatly into either category, but instead have varying elements of both - and perhaps one or two other major qualities - in our gaming persona, I did find it an interesting framing that explains many of the debates and disagreements in the D&D world.
I'd actually expand Gilsdorf's two types, to three major "gaming persuasions." This isn't quite the same as Ron Edwards' theory, but here are some similarities. Please note that these aren meant more as general types and that no person--or rather, very few--fit neatly into one or the other. Rather, they are broad archetypes, and we all have elements of each in our gaming persuasion.
Strategic, game-focused, stat-based (competitors, analysts, "nerdy")
These tend to be the folks that get really into rules complexities and the fine-points of the rules, from rules lawyering to character optimization, to tactical combat. For them it is game-first, story and world second. They tend to like to play characters that are as powerful as possible, or at least really fun to play from a mechanical standpoint. For them, player autonomy is key, yet they often play their character from a third-person perspective ("she/he draws his sword").
Dramatic, performance and story-focused (thespians)
For these folks, the narrative is first and foremost - and the role aspect central to their enjoyment. They tend care more about playing any role well than what role they are playing. They often like playing characters that are off-beat, and don't care as much how "powerful" their character is relative to others, and usually say "I" in reference to their character. DMs of this persuasion often really get into the narrative, using voices for NPCs, and creating a dramatic experience.
Imaginative, lore and world-focused (explorers, creators)
These folks are focused on the imaginative experience and enjoy world building, world exploration, and the setting elements of the game. They're the ones, as players, that want to know the "true history of the world" - are into arcana and lore and see the gaming experience as an immersion into imagination. They have a tendency to focus on these aspects at the expense of others, and sometimes care more about the history and cosmology of the world, rather than the story and game itself.
Again, this is not a narrow typology - all D&D players have elements of all three, but most of us have more of one than the other. Its just a particular lens, not absolute law. I'm also not quite sure about the names - Strategic, Dramatic, and Imaginative. I started with Analytic for Strategic, but thought Strategic worked better.
So my question is: what does this miss? Are there other, major archetypes that should be included? Or do those three cover the major persuasions? And where do you fit in?
Speaking for myself, I would say I have a primary persuasion of Imaginative and secondary and relatively balanced persuasions of Strategic and Dramatic, with perhaps a slight edge towards the Dramatic. If I had to put it into percentages, I'd say 45/30/25 IDS, or something like that.
I'd actually expand Gilsdorf's two types, to three major "gaming persuasions." This isn't quite the same as Ron Edwards' theory, but here are some similarities. Please note that these aren meant more as general types and that no person--or rather, very few--fit neatly into one or the other. Rather, they are broad archetypes, and we all have elements of each in our gaming persuasion.
Strategic, game-focused, stat-based (competitors, analysts, "nerdy")
These tend to be the folks that get really into rules complexities and the fine-points of the rules, from rules lawyering to character optimization, to tactical combat. For them it is game-first, story and world second. They tend to like to play characters that are as powerful as possible, or at least really fun to play from a mechanical standpoint. For them, player autonomy is key, yet they often play their character from a third-person perspective ("she/he draws his sword").
Dramatic, performance and story-focused (thespians)
For these folks, the narrative is first and foremost - and the role aspect central to their enjoyment. They tend care more about playing any role well than what role they are playing. They often like playing characters that are off-beat, and don't care as much how "powerful" their character is relative to others, and usually say "I" in reference to their character. DMs of this persuasion often really get into the narrative, using voices for NPCs, and creating a dramatic experience.
Imaginative, lore and world-focused (explorers, creators)
These folks are focused on the imaginative experience and enjoy world building, world exploration, and the setting elements of the game. They're the ones, as players, that want to know the "true history of the world" - are into arcana and lore and see the gaming experience as an immersion into imagination. They have a tendency to focus on these aspects at the expense of others, and sometimes care more about the history and cosmology of the world, rather than the story and game itself.
Again, this is not a narrow typology - all D&D players have elements of all three, but most of us have more of one than the other. Its just a particular lens, not absolute law. I'm also not quite sure about the names - Strategic, Dramatic, and Imaginative. I started with Analytic for Strategic, but thought Strategic worked better.
So my question is: what does this miss? Are there other, major archetypes that should be included? Or do those three cover the major persuasions? And where do you fit in?
Speaking for myself, I would say I have a primary persuasion of Imaginative and secondary and relatively balanced persuasions of Strategic and Dramatic, with perhaps a slight edge towards the Dramatic. If I had to put it into percentages, I'd say 45/30/25 IDS, or something like that.
