Types of Gamers, and Conflict on the Internet

We all know there are three types of 40K player:

We've got the casual, fluffy player.  Here's a dude that probably won't play without a painted army; if it isn't, it will be!  He's got big plans and lovingly created conversions.  He loves narrative campaigns and wild scenarios.  He probably has a core gaming group that meets weekly at a mate's house.

Then we've got the tournament player - and here's a dude that may not get to play in a tournament all year, but he's thinking about it.  If his army is painted, it's because the event requires it.  It's a sure bet he's spent more time thinking about the in-game advantage of a unit than what it looks like in comparison to the rest of his army.  He plays at the local store and tries to get in as many games as possible with as many different people as possible, because he's convinced he needs the practice.  Here's a guy that plays at one points level - that is, the value of the next tournament he hopes to attend - with one army, and with one goal in mind.  Winning!

But he not a WAAC-douche - that's a third category of guys that would club baby seals and hasn't seen a chick naked in a long, long time.  If he has, they're dating and she's a bipolar control freak.  He's a miserable piece of shit that get's his jollies cheating so he can lord it over 12-year old kids.

Most of us are a mix of all three - and yes, I mean category shithead as well.  We've all of us had moments we weren't proud of.  We're human.

That guy in solitary at your nearest prison staring in his toilet bowl trying to decide which piece of poop to smear himself with is human too - so remember that the next time you're feeling full of yourself.

I've been giving this topic some thought this week, given the maudlin kind of mood I've been in since graduation.  Sorry: I've got no answers for you, just thoughts.  There is no wrong way to play... except the WAAC douchebag, of course, but remember when you slip into this mode - and you will, if you play long enough - that there's nothing that's not made worse by failing to see where you went wrong and apologizing to your peers.

Now, a detour.

I'm a happily married man.  Now.  I used to be married to the Bipolar Control Freak from example three, who I happily refer to as my ex-whore, but I digress.  Still, most of my gaming group is made up of happily married, otherwise normal guys.  Sometimes you can spot a geek coming from a mile away (if you can smell him first, he's a card-gamer) but more often than not, the successful geek is a Stealth Geek.

A Stealth-Geek is an otherwise normal guy who can't shake off childhood and just has to play with toys.

With me so far?  So my mates are Stealth-Geeks, by and large the best kind of geek to be.  I've theorized the Stealth-Geek learned his trade in high school, to avoid getting his ass kicked.  That's how I developed, I think.  I was actually fairly popular, being lucky enough to attend a school in England where being weird and having a strange sense of humor was actually appreciated.  Except by the football team - I know!  How cliched!  They'd regularly gather in packs to beat the crap out of me due to my inability to keep my mouth shut.

Yea, you'd think muscular dudes could take a joke at their expense.  Not so, I'm here to say.

Since I've detoured to this place, I'll finish the story.  I came up with the best joke of all, and tried out for the football team.  Turns out running from jocks is a good way to develop speed, because during tryouts, to the utter chagrin of all concerned, it turned out I was the fastest sprinter in school.

True story.  I made the Varsity team my sophomore year.  The beatings didn't stop though, just went underground.  You see, there's a type of jock called the Stealth-Beater...

Not interested?  Okay, he's probably serving you Happy Meals now.  (Probably not.  There is no karmic justice; the Stealth-Beater is probably on Wall Street, having gone through higher education to learn the maths necessary to convince women 4-inches is 6.)

Categories aren't limited to war gamers.  Despite the card gamer joke, most of us have multiple failings.  Chances are you like role-playing and video games.  No?  Then you've stumbled here by mistake.

You see, I learned something about role-players that I'd like to share, briefly, since this is turning into the Great-Wall-of-Text.  There are two types:

Roll-Players and Role-Players.

Roll Players are those who, like the Master Manipulator (every store needs one), treat these games like an extension of wargaming.  They use miniatures and know every rule in the book.  Their enjoyment comes from building the toughest party possible to defeat the GM's toughest NPC's into the dirt.  There is a very adversarial, us vs him thing going - but they like it that way.  Each gaming session is punctuated by a fight scene that can take hours.  They love it.  Numbers matter.  Gear matters.  These groups can be quite large.

Role-Players enjoy telling a story.  To them, the game is like a favorite book, and there are times the rules become an annoyance that gets in the way.  These players work with the GM and don't mind if games go by without conflict, as they believe the conflict is more meaningful for the buildup.  The death of a favorite enemy can be a kick in the guts, but often the enemy manages to escape right before capture.  The players don't feel cheated.  Numbers don't matter.  Gear doesn't matter.  These groups are usually quite small.

If you haven't figured it out, I'm in the last group.

There is no right or wrong way to do it.  The MM(esno) and I have talked about these topics before, and both of us are aware we wouldn't enjoy playing in the others group.  We each have a group we fit in and expectations for how the game is going to play out.

So why doesn't it work this way with wargamers?  If you take the categories of 40K player I outlined above, why doesn't it fit so neatly?  I think many times folks have an expectation for 40K based on how they'd prefer to see it played, but there is a disappointment when it doesn't pan out that way.

MVB already tackled this topic far better than I could.  Check it out.

I leave you with this.

My gaming group is currently playing the new edition of Star Wars.  In yesterday's game, four Stormtroopers walked into a bar - and if that's not the start of a joke, someone ought to invent it!  Anyway, when our meeting in a dive bar on Tatooine was interrupted by a sweep of Stormtroopers, the bar when quiet and folks were scared.

Stormtroopers shouldn't be a joke; these dudes are soldiers in an occupied territory.  Imagine a group of them putting the boot to some sapient behind a bar, right beneath promotional posters of the Empire.  Or a checkpoint that's deadly serious business, because the Hutts are using Jawas as suicide bombers.  C'mon!  You don't think the Hutts aren't running an inter-species sex trade?

Add a touch of realism to Star Wars and it's a scary place to be.  That's why I think my way is better than the MM(esno)'s, because if the stats in a book aren't what they should be, I'll change them.

That's said, I'd never dream of doing that to 40K...

So can you see why there's conflict on the internet?

EDIT: I've now got the material I need to finish this article.  Here is a comment from the other camp.  The Master Manipulator (every store needs one) said:

You contradicted your self in saying that there is no right way to play, but then go on to say you way is better.

As a side, I don't particularly mind the style you prefer. The problem is those who I game with and those who GM tend to make it that way and so it is what it is.

To me it is sort of an extension of war gaming. Mainly because that is how the groups I am in normally play. We tend to view the game rules as laws of physics. Only to be changed by God or the GM(if you believe in such things). Its a framework of unalterable guidelines that every player is bound by.

The gear and skills are great but not a necessity. I get as much enjoyment out of the tactical challenges laid before me as I do the interaction of the characters. I enjoy the interaction, but most of my groups do not place enough thought into their characters to really see things the way you describe the Star Wars example above. As well the GM never tends to emphasize those traits when we are presented with such adversaries.

Mainly it takes a certain type of player, who is placed in the correct type of situation. For me and those I game with most frequent it is the tactical side and the accomplishment of goals inside the limitations of the rules that we have come to enjoy.

It does not make what I do better or worse than what you prefer, it simply makes it different. I do not think you can even begin to decide on whole what is better or worse except in your own view, and that is the only thing that really matters. It is what I/you enjoy, so it is what I/you do. Or its possible that is what you were saying and this reply is wasted text arguing to agree...

 

Maybe! - Brent