Line #67 Main/PlayerArchetypes


1	->''When they encounter a sleeping dragon:''\
2	Real Men ''wake it up and THEN attack it.''\
3	Real Roleplayers ''sneak away quietly.''\
4	Loonies ''tie its shoelaces together.''\
5	Munchkins ''kill it instantly and then carry off all its treasure in one backpack.''
6	-->-- The Munchkin Files
7
8	Different people want different things out of games.
9
10	The most basic division is the CasualCompetitiveConflict, but sometimes things get a little more nuanced (especially in roleplaying and adventure games where competition is not supposed to be the point). For instance, one kind of player (the most Competitive kind) may have absolutely no use for AwesomeButImpractical abilities; they avoid even getting them, they write to publishers asking them not to put them in future games, and they deride players who ''do'' use them as ignorant newbies. On the other hand, other, more Casual players go straight for them, and use them as often as possible, just because they like the impressive visual effects and the feel of doing [[{{Cap}} the maximum possible amount of damage]]. And yet ''another'' player will acquire them, but not use them except as a FinishingMove, because it's [[RuleOfDrama more dramatic that way]].
11
12	A number of ''ad hoc'' terms have developed in various sorts of game for different types of player, such as the ''RulesLawyer,'' who is compulsively attached to the rules as written, the impetuous and annoying ''LeeroyJenkins,'' and the ''{{Griefer}}'', a common type of {{Troll}} in multiplayer computer games, who plays to piss people off and have fun at other players' expense. But some people have gone further, creating ''systems'' of terminology. This may be intended as an aide for {{Game Master}}s; if the GM has a clear idea what the players want and how they’re likely to behave, it makes running a satisfactory game much easier. Alternatively, the system may be intended for the use of game designers and publishers; if you're making a game, it can be very important that you know [[{{Demographics}} who, exactly, you're trying to sell it to]]. Thus, a fair amount of work has been done on codifying the relevant psychographic profiles. All of them, to a greater or lesser degree, are about what the player thinks is fun.
13
14	Several different categorizations have been proposed or created. Most of them were made for the purposes of one specific game or genre, but can be applied more widely with a bit of tweaking.
15
16	* Probably the oldest attempt at a categorisation system was created by the late '''Glen Blacow''' in an article entitled [[http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/blacow.html “Aspects of Adventure Gaming.”]] in ''Different Worlds'' magazine in 1980. Although Blacow was identifying four different aspects of ''games'', each rather obviously mapped to a type of ''player'', if only because players accustomed to a specific style of game will play to that style, and his article was soon followed up by other writers in the same magazine, picking up on this aspect of the topic. Blacow’s four aspects were:
17	** ''Power Gaming'' — adventure games as wish-fulfilment power fantasies.
18	** ''Role-Playing'' — games focusing on character-driven dramas, with the [=PCs=] as the central characters.
19	** ''Wargaming'' — games as somewhat competitive exercises in tactical skill.
20	** ''Story Telling'' — adventure games as generators of complex narratives.
21	* Another early system appears in '''[[http://dragon.facetieux.free.fr/jdr/Munchkin.htm the “Munchkin File”]]''' (AKA "Real Men, Real Roleplayers, Loonies and Munchkins"), a list that has been passed around the Internet in various forms for decades, apparently originating in 1983. It describes four types of TabletopRPG players, each of whom focuses whatever skills they have with the system onto making their character capable of accomplishing their goals. It is primarily a joke, but one that hits the target; its influence or its accuracy may be indicated by the fact that each of the four types has an entry here on TV Tropes.
22	** ''[[TheRealMan Real Men]]:'' "The tough macho type who walks up to the dragon and orders it to leave before someone gets hurt", who's into {{RPG}}s for the two-fisted action. A sub-type enjoys the combat aspect of {{RPG}}s, but prefers tactical roles such as healer or status-effect-causer to being out in the front line whaling on or blasting away at the enemy. There's no consensus on what this subtype should be ''named'', although "The Real Woman" is moderately popular due to the number of guys who make their token female characters a healing class.[[note]]Female gamers have also compiled variations on the idea of "The Real Woman", i.e. the one who isn't a DungeonmastersGirlfriend. Often these definitions involve scathing remarks about all the other (male) archetypes' attitudes, although SelfDeprecation is also common.[[/note]]
23	** ''[[TheRoleplayer Real Roleplayers]]:'' "The intelligent cunning guy who tricks the constable into letting you out of prison", who's into {{RPG}}s for roleplaying and problem-solving. A variant treatment, [[http://web.archive.org/web/20100213070917/http://www.io.com/~angilas/5gamers.html The Five Gamers]], divides this archetype into "Brains" ("the mad genius who actually disarms the Six Skull Trap") and "Thespians" ("the melodramatic type who writes novel-length character histories and talks to every monster in the dungeon").
24	** ''[[TheLoonie Loonies]]:'' "The guy who will do anything for a laugh, including casting a fireball at point-blank range", who's into {{RPG}}s for their idea of fun -- which ''may'' be hilarious to other people, but there's some implication that these players will all too often get everyone killed through ChaoticStupid behavior.
25	** ''{{Munchkin}}s:'' "Need we say more?", who are into {{RPG}}s to "win", even if the game isn't supposed to work that way. See the trope page for more detail.
26	** Some versions of the Munchkin File also include the ''Psychopath,'' who plays {{RPG}}s to do things [[ForTheEvulz that are frowned upon in normal society]]; their character may appear to be a BloodKnight or PsychoForHire. They're into {{RPG}}s for violent {{Escapism}}, and tend to suffer from ChronicBackstabbingDisorder. However, that behavior is more often covered by the Munchkin archetype.
27	* A third early attempt at archetype classification was made in 1988 by author and game-designer '''Creator/AaronAllston,''' who included a list of the Types of ''TabletopGame/{{Champions}}'' Players in ''Strike Force'', his award-winning campaign supplement for that game. The list applies to players of nearly any TabletopRPG, and has inspired terminology used in many later discussions, though it is phrased in terms that make it most applicable to superhero games. In the form found in the most recent edition of ''Strike Force'', the types are:
28	** ''The Builder,'' who wants to have an impact on the world.
29	** ''The Buddy,'' who comes to the game to be with their friend(s), and while they're having fun, they're not as deep into the game as everyone else.
30	** ''The Combat Monster,'' who wants combat, pure and simple; their fun is wrapped up in beating the bad guys.
31	** ''The Copier,'' who is interested in recreating a character based on something they've seen in other media, and thus can be counted on to make a character who is (for example) a Batman clone or a Spider-Man homage.
32	** ''The Genre Fiend,'' who wants to model everything after established genre tropes, and is disappointed when the GM veers from the genre norms.
33	** ''The Mad Slasher,'' who kills everything that moves, no reason needed.
34	** ''The Mad Thinker,'' who seeks clever solutions to in-game problems.
35	** ''The Plumber,'' who wants intricate characters with deep, complicated backgrounds and motivations, and expects exploration thereof.
36	** ''The Pro from Dover,'' who desires a character who is the ''best'' in their field, whatever that field happens to be.
37	** ''The Romantic,'' who player focuses on relationships and character interaction.
38	** ''The Rules Exploiter,'' who is primarily interested in bending the rules in order to [[MinMaxing min/max]] their character as much as possible.
39	** ''The Showoff,'' who seeks the most spotlight time for their own character, usually at the expense of the other characters.
40	** ''The Tragedian,'' who wants their character to suffer, and to play that suffering out.
41	* The minds behind '''''TabletopGame/MagicTheGathering''''' have created ''two different'' categorisation systems:
42	** ''Timmy/Johnny/Spike:'' At one point, the creators decided to personify three major motivations that (so far as they could tell) drove their players. Nowhere in their [[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b original article]] or [[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mr220b its followup]] does Creator/WizardsOfTheCoast suggest that you can be only one of them, but they feel that most people empathize with one of them more than others.
43	*** ''[[http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=9786 Timmy, Power Gamer]]'' plays to have fun. He doesn't care if it's CoolButInefficient as long as it's ''interesting'', because for Timmy, "fun" is more about the journey than the destination. Timmy puts the most emphasis on the game as a social experience. Timmy lives for awesomeness, and enjoys deploying the [[InfinityPlusOneSword Infinity-Plus-One Whatever]] that makes your eyes bug out. Wizards deliberately prints cards that are AwesomeButImpractical to keep him happy.
44	*** ''[[http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?popularpage=2&multiverseid=74271 Johnny, Combo Player]]'' plays as a form of self-expression. The more customization there is in the game, the more Johnny's interested, because he thrives on taking the pieces the game gives them and making something uniquely his own. He lives for the ''strategy'' that makes your eyes bug out. Cards made with Johnny in mind tend to be open-ended; like Franchise/{{LEGO}}s, they can be combined in new and different ways. Johnny also loves {{Junk Rare}}s with hideous {{Necessary Drawback}}s, because if he can just find a way to get ''around'' that drawback, he's got a GameBreaker on his hands--not to mention the fifteen minutes of fame associated with turning a JokeCharacter into a LethalJokeCharacter forever.
45	*** ''[[http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=439458 Spike, Tournament Grinder]]'' sees the game primarily as a competition, and likes to win. They're most likely to be a {{Tournament Play}}er, spend time analyzing and scrutinizing any available strategies, looking for the one which gives them the best odds, and is most likely to copy other people's designs and strategies (as opposed to inventing his own) if he thinks that holds the key to victory -- the CollectibleCardGame version of MinMaxing. Spike is also the most likely type to be a "Mr. Suitcase," a player who spends unusually large amounts of money on the hobby; as such, Spikes determine the market value for almost all components, since they're the ones first in line to grab them. His favorite cards are BoringButPractical or SimpleYetAwesome ones; efficiency is king for him. This culminated in [[http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?set=%5B%22Modern%20Masters%22%5D Modern Masters]], a set composed solely of cards with a proven impact on tournament play.
46	** The other set of archetypes is ''Vorthos/Melvin.'' This is a separate axis; one's Vorthosity is unrelated to one's Timminess. Essentially, it's a matter of appreciation for form vs. appreciation for function: Timmy/Johnny/Spike is about why a person plays (and what he plays), whereas Vorthos/Melvin is about what he ''appreciates''. When evaluating cards, Vorthos likes them based upon how they make him feel, and Melvin likes them based on how they make him think. Original article: [[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mr278 here]] before we elaborate.
47	*** ''Vorthos'' is primarily interested in fluff, setting, background, story, etc. A Vorthos-Johnny might build a deck with contraints of "Soldiers only. It doesn't matter the color, because soldiers are professionals, and know how to work together." Or, "I am going to build a zombie deck, with a handful of necromancers and maybe a powerful demon. It fits storywise." Or (and this one's straight from the ''Magic'' website), "How about about a deck focused [[http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=5824 solely]] [[http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=5763 around]] [[http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=5770 clams]], with a single [[http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=631 Mox Pearl]] in the middle?" Vorthos is on the Casual side of the CasualCompetitiveConflict.
48	*** ''Melvins,'' at the opposite end of the spectrum, are more Competitive, and would see such constraints as pointless. They still care about what's written on the cards, but focus on mechanics rather than flavor. A Melvin might build a deck around a mechanic such as vampirism (dealing damage while gaining life) and completely ignore any flavor. A Melvin-Johnny might say "I am going to figure out how to use these oddly-worded cards that seem kinda counter-productive, figure out how they actually work, and then build a Goldbergian deck that I understand, but will leave my opponent hopelessly confused". Melvins LOVE the TabletopGame/YuGiOh CCG, and were deeply offended when a card for [[http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Griselbrand a demon]] had the number "7" in every possible spot except one (the casting cost).
49	* '''Richard Bartle''' wrote an article in 1996, "[[http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs]]", describing four different player archetypes in [[MultiUserDungeon MUD]]s (though as ever, the types are quite recognizable to players of other types of game). It's had quite a bit of influence on subsequent development on [[MassivelyMultiplayerOnlineRolePlayingGame massively multiplayer games]]; ''VideoGame/KingdomOfLoathing'' references it directly, and the Path system in ''VideoGame/{{Wildstar}}'' is clearly influenced by the four archetypes.
50	** ''Diamonds, AKA Achievers:'' These players go for the goals of the game themselves. Gaining [[CharacterLevel Character Levels]], getting a High Score, slaying the {{superboss}}es, and so on. Also called power gamers or raiders. A subset of these are the kind who like collecting rare items.
51	** ''Spades, AKA Explorers:'' These players like to explore the game world itself. They're the ones hunting for the EasterEgg, SequenceBreaking just because they can, and being the first one to write a complete {{Walkthrough}}.
52	** ''Hearts, AKA Socializers:'' These players play to hang out with other players. They play because their friends play, and if their friends all packed up and moved to another game, they would too. To the extent they play single-player games, Socializers prefer ones with a heavy focus on character relationships.
53	** ''Clubs, AKA Killers:'' These people play to have an effect on other players. Sometimes, this can mean healing, buffing, and generally being helpful, but most often, it means kicking their asses. These are the ones most likely to engage in PlayerVersusPlayer content.
54	:: In short, [[{{Pun}} Diamonds sparkle, spades dig, hearts care, and clubs hit things.]] Modern versions of the Bartle Test generally subscribe to the opinion that nearly everyone has parts of all four inside them and give their ratings accordingly. For example, E/S/A/K gives the proportions of each from highest (explorer, or spade, in this case) to the lowest (killer, or club). The newer "Kol Bartle" version of the test will give the top two percentages if they both are close enough together; for example, a "Roving Hugglebunny" is mostly heart and spade, in that order.\
55	Bartle's original conception also catalogued the impact various player types had on one anothers' populations in a multiplayer environment. For instance, Clubs/Killers tend to drive down the population of Hearts/Socializers as they propagate, because the Socializers don't appreciate getting picked on, but find Spades/Explorers unsatisfying to kill at best, since it barely inconveniences their actual goals, and hate being, at worst, [[LethalJokeCharacter completely schooled by some weird combination the Spade had in their back pocket from their experiments]].
56	* '''Creator/RobinLaws''' has identified a few flavors of tabletop role-players in various works, mostly as a tool for [=GMs.=] For example, in his ''Robin’s Laws of Good Game Mastering,'' while acknowledging the influence of Glen Blacow (see above), he described the following:
57	** ''Power Gamers,'' who want to make their characters “bigger, tougher, buffer, and richer”.
58	** ''Butt-Kickers,'' who want to let off steam with a little old-fashioned vicarious mayhem.
59	** ''Tacticians,'' who want to demonstrate wargamer-style tactical mastery.
60	** ''Specialists,'' who play one type of character, and ''only'' one type of character. The most common type of Specialist loves ninjas, but there's a flavor of Specialist for every race, class, and personality type. The Specialist gets terribly, terribly upset if you tell them they can't play a ninja in your caveman campaign, regardless of how silly it would be.
61	** ''Method Actors,'' essentially Real Roleplayers (see above) who believe that roleplaying is a medium for personal expression, strongly identifying with the characters they play. They may believe that it's creatively important to establish a radically different character each time out.
62	** ''Storytellers,'' who again resemble Real Roleplayers, but are interested in the quality of the story as a whole, not just their own acting within it.
63	** ''Casual Gamers,'' who are playing because that's what their friends are doing. They aren't there for the grand plot, the fantastic magic, or even for sticking things with sharp objects. They're just there to socialize, and gaming is the social activity their friends are doing. While Laws provides detailed advice on how to satisfy the needs of each of the other types of player, he specifically offers no special advice for Casual Gamers, since they'll either remain a CG, drop out, or become more involved in the game - at which point, they'll differentiate into one of the other types.
64	* In an attempt at deep analysis of tabletop [=RPGs,=] gamers on Platform/{{Usenet}}, and specifically on the newsgroup rec.games.frp.advocacy, came up with a classification called the [[http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/ Threefold]] which makes the division Gamist/Dramatist/Simulationist. This was eventually refined into [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory GNS Theory]] by Creator/TheForge community, which divides players and games by their objectives:
65	** ''Gamist:'' Focuses on playing the game as a game, often with a specific focus on overcoming challenges or accumulating rewards.
66	** ''Narrativist:'' Focuses on telling a compelling story with interesting characters.
67	** ''Simulationist:'' Focuses on representing a real and believable world modeled by credible rules.
68	* '''''TabletopGame/DungeonsAndDragons''''' rulebooks have tackled this topic more than once, primarily to help [=GMs=] understand what their players want:
69	** The ''Dungeon Master's Guide II'' supplement for edition 3.5, another work by Creator/RobinLaws (see above), identifies such player types as ''[[RuleOfDrama Dramatist]],'' ''[[RuleOfCool Supercool]],'' ''[[TheStrategist Master Planner]]'' and ''[[TheFool Oddball]].''
70	** Likewise, the ''Dungeon Master's Guide'' for Fourth Edition identifies eight player types:
71	*** The ''[[TheRoleplayer Actor]],'' who has fun by developing and acting out a fictional character.
72	*** The ''Explorer,'' who has fun by immersing in a large and detailed fictional world.
73	*** The ''[[TheLoonie Instigator]],'' who has fun by making ''something'' happen, regardless of whether it would be logical or in-character.
74	*** The ''[[TheMunchkin Power Gamer]],'' who has fun by MinMaxing a powerful character.
75	*** The ''[[TheRealMan Slayer]],'' who has fun by killing things in combat encounters.
76	*** The ''Storyteller,'' who has fun when the game sessions tell a continuous and engaging story.
77	*** The ''[[TheStrategist Thinker]],'' who has fun by solving challenges through strategy and planning.
78	*** The ''Watcher,'' who doesn't care so much about the game itself but about having fun hanging out with his/her friends.
79	** And for comedy — an {{April Fool\|s Day}} article in '''''Magazine/{{Dragon}} Magazine''''', "The Ecology of the Adventurer", parodies this trope, by imagining how PlayerArchetypes appear to the denizens of the [=D&D=] gameworld. [[{{Cannon Fodder}} Kobolds]] have apparently classified three types of adventurer: ''Gamists,'' whose every thought is about killing, and who never speak; ''Narrativists,'' who agonise over the right thing to do, and can be distracted by asking them about their life story; and ''Simulationists,'' who are CrazyPrepared, and talk in funny voices. According to the kobolds, "Every adventurer fits cleanly into one of these categories, without any overlap."
80	* '''''TabletopGame/YuGiOh''''' gives us ''Tourney Players'' and ''Casuals.'' Again, this relates to the CasualCompetitiveConflict, but some people mix these approaches. The fun here comes that the term {{Scrub}} is eagerly applied to ''both'' sides of the debate... and then you have the Timmy-esque ''"Billy"'' players, who can consistently trash meta-tier tournament decks with the card game equivalent of CherryTapping (and, in fact, [[http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Billy_Deck have their own deck type trope]], as a result), and are called {{Scrub}}s for not using top-tier decks. Even though they just won against such a deck.
81	* [[http://theangrygm.com/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/ A pair]] [[http://theangrygm.com/gaming-for-fun-part-2-getting-engaged/ of articles]] by '''[[Website/TheAngryGM]]''' divide players up into eight groupings based on what they enjoy about the game[[note]]though any given player will usually enjoy several, but probably not all, of these categories[[/note]], previously identified by Marc [=LeBlanc=] and incorporated into the MediaNotes/MechanicsDynamicsAesthetics model:
82	** ''Sensory'' seekers derive pleasure from the visual, audible, and tactile aspects of the game. They enjoy art, miniatures, battlemaps, and all the things that you can see or feel or hear. They tend to find games done purely in the mind, without props of any kind, unsatisfying.
83	** ''Fantasy'' seekers derive pleasure from immersing themselves in a realistic world and pretending to be in another time and place. They enjoy well-crafted and consistent worlds, and dislike anything that breaks their immersion, whether it be nonsensical or self-contradictory world-building or excessively "gamey" mechanics.
84	** ''Narrative'' seekers derive pleasure from experiencing a well-told story as it unfolds. They crave completed and properly-shaped plots and characters that act in a logical and understandable fashion, and hate it when characters take actions that make no sense just because the plot requires it, or a campaign breaks off in the middle and the story is left unfinished.
85	** ''Challenge'' seekers derive pleasure from overcoming a series of obstacles or tasks (these may include puzzles that must be solved or social challenges that must be defeated by IC dialogue). They want to be given fair challenges, the tools to solve them, and a real (or at least believable) risk of failure. They find games where the GM fudges the dice (either for or against them) or applies the rules unfairly frustrating, and are bored by sessions where there are no obstacles to overcome.
86	** ''Fellowship'' seekers enjoy the camaraderie among both the characters and the players themselves. They enjoy working together as a team, getting together with friends, and the feeling of being part of something larger than oneself. Their fun can be ruined by secrets, backstabbing, or anything that turns party members against each other.
87	** ''Discovery'' seekers derive pleasure from learning and finding out new things. They enjoy intricate worlds with lots of hidden things to uncover, including not only hidden treasure but also information and exposition that can be unearthed. They likewise tend to enjoy self-discovery, putting their characters through ethical dilemmas and sadistic choices in order to find out who it is they are truly playing. They suffocate in campaigns where there are no unknown regions, secrets, and lore to uncover, and no opportunities to learn who their characters truly are.
88	** ''Expression'' seekers derive pleasure from creating something that is uniquely their own. They desire characterization and customization options and the chance to leave their mark on the world their characters find themselves in. They are frustrated by games that deny them the ability to create unique characters and by campaigns that don't permit them to leave lasting legacies.
89	** ''Abnegation'' seekers derive pleasure from simply disengaging their brain and losing themselves in something that doesn't require too much thought. They enjoy simple, straightforward, campaigns with a clear objective and not too much necessity for intricate tactics or strategies, and dislike anything that requires them to expend too much effort to solve the problem or keep track of what's going on.
90	* '''''TabletopGame/SentinelsOfTheMultiverse''''' has ''Jeremies'' and ''Johns,'' named after a pair of Handelabra employees known for the appropriate playstyle: calculating optimisation for John, raw destructive power for Jeremy. This is the CasualCompetitiveConflict showing up yet again, in that John is being calculatingly Competitive, whereas Jeremy's love of raw power for its own sake may reflect a more Casual attitude -- but the match isn't perfect.
91	* For VideoGames specifically, the research group '''[[https://quanticfoundry.com/ Quantic Foundry]]''' has surveyed hundreds of thousands of players worldwide and identified twelve primary motivations for playing games. They have then applied statistical analysis to their data and discovered that certain motivations often go hand in hand, ultimately arriving at three "motivational clusters" that appear to hold up regardless of player nationality, age, and gender:
92	** The ''Action-Social'' cluster contains the motivations of Destruction, Excitement, Competition, Community, and Power. This cluster puts sensory enjoyment and interaction with other people above other concerns, and its members are often derisively dubbed "casuals" by detractors.
93	** The ''Mastery-Achievement'' cluster contains Challenge, Strategy, Completion, Power, and Discovery (the latter two serve as "bridges" between this cluster and Action-Social and Immersion-Creativity, respectively). This cluster contains the classic powergamers, min-maxing "hardcore" grognards,[[note]]Incidentally, "grognard" is another standalone category. It originally meant "old soldier," comning from the French for "grumbler" -- specifically meaning Napoleonic soldiers who were said to have earned the right to grumble through long service. It was adopted by historical wargamers as a jokey term for old hands in the hobby, and then carried over to roleplaying games with the same meaning. Like the original soldiers, gaming grognards ''may'' be prone to grumbling about "kids today".[[/note]] and [[HundredPercentCompletion completionists]].
94	** The ''Immersion-Creativity'' cluster contains Fantasy, Story, Design, and Discovery. This cluster contains players primarily interested in the narrative, self-expression, and emotional payoff.
95
96	Note that, with most of these categorizations, blends are entirely possible, and indeed likely; for example, you can have someone who's part Timmy and part Spike, or someone who integrates beating up bad guys with socializing with their team. Indeed, most people will have at least a ''little'' of each category. When used to flesh-out characters, these archetypes are reflected in CharacterDrivenStrategy.

Context Main / PlayerArchetypes