The DMG refers to eight different types of players. Was it correct?
>>97280550Can an abstraction be correct? It's a way of broadly characterising people as an introduction to GMing for a heterogenous group with differing needs.
>>97280550WotC was basically the only people to actually survey players, so it's the closest thing to an empirical taxonomy.
I am 100% actor
>>97280550No, pic related is an objectively better list. What the DMG describes is somewhat true, but it's very theoretical rather than practical.
>>97281043That assumes some effort is made to correctly interpret the data, and im not seeing a latent class analysis. Besides, this categorization is at best descriptive of broad trends in the data, and its not information we can actually useI propose that players are interested in the game, and their interests will be specific to prefered facets of the game. The likely classes are>interested/disintrested in exploiting mechanics>interested/disinterested in character drama>interested/disinterested in social intrigue>interested/disinterested in the setting>interested/disinterested in combat>interested/disinterested in chaos>interested/disinterested in puzzles>contemplative/impulsive playstyle
>>97281180Sadly, to my knowledge, nobody else tried. They come up with Grand Unifying Theories and worked backwards from that.
>>97280550They aren't discrete. One of my players is equal parts Actor/Storyteller/Thinker/Instigator.
>>97280550No. In fact I'm not even saying it's too broad or abstract or whatnot, it's just inaccurate and even harmful to new GMs. As the chad GM in >>97281176 screencap points out, you shouldn't even fucking consider "Watchers" and "Slayers" human and prep for them if you value your time and sanity.
