Iron Mongler wrote:Slippery slope.
No, not a slippery slope. You claimed that with hybridization, you can represent everyone. I am a "hybrid" of at minimum 5 of the 8 types. So is everyone else I know. That's not a descriptive type, it's an attribute.
Your claim is that by hybridizing instead of insisting someone conform to their type, you can represent everyone. I can do that too. I start by listing every single possible adjective in the english language, and then I say that I have described everyone in the world.
Iron Mongler wrote:It's a classic 'roleplayer, not rollplayer' kind of person. Keep in mind that most of this list is meant to get all different types of players that are normally shunned (such as watchers, actors, slayers, and power gamers) working together.
So in other words you are classic retard, and you deserve nothing but contempt.
Iron Mongler wrote:Not everyone else does. Some people just want to jump right in on the action. While people can always appreciate some detail, the explorer is the kind of person who thrives on them. You're also twisting the 'never used to a character's advantage' interpretation to your own liking. They are referring to metagame knowledge and being better than the other players due to rote, which would be retarded.
No, it's not about metagame knowledge. It's very explicitly about character knowledge. It's very explicitly demanding that people who know demons usually have vulnerability to radiance not be allowed to make decisions based on that.
No not everyone appreciates learning. Just like not everyone would be called 'smart' or 'attractive' or 'a jerk' That doesn't mean smart, attractive, or jerk is a person type. It means it's a fucking attribute.
It's funny that you mention that 'no one is this character' when I know a player in my group is deliberately this kind of person, which just shows that yes, people are different (shouldn't be a surprise). It's a 'so wacky rofl xD' type of player who does stuff that can be funny without being generally disruptive.
It's funny that you think the existence of 4 chan indicates that 'waxky rofl' is a type of player, rather than just something people do when they don't take what they are doing seriously.
It's also funny that you think that instigators aren't generally disruptive, even though they by definition are disruptive, both the actual word instigator, and WotC player type, which is described as disrupting things on purpose.
This is actually my favorite of the lists on the page, and is the one that fits me. Do you realize how many DM's I've seen (just look at /tg/ if you don't believe me) who STILL hate power gamers? I've been called a munchkin for wanting to play a competent character. There are definitely some power gamers who don't do well RP-wise (I don't think they needed to list that either) but that's why I mention some people can be multiple 'types'.
Yes, there are retards who think that powergaming is bad. We have an entire fucking fallacy that exists solely to decry those people who think that having one attribute, powergaming, prevents you from having other attributes. Just like people who think that smart people can't be attractive and attractive people can't be smart, you are fucking retarded.
Yes, people can be multiple 'types' Like for example, I have never met anyone more powergamish than me. Equal, sure, greater, no. But I have also never met anyone more strategist than me. Or anyone who cared as much as I do about defeating enemies. Or anyone who cares as much about fulfilling my character motivation. That's half the types.
I am the fucking pinnacle example of half the listed types.
If you are classifying people, you should not be able to demonstrate all possible types with two individuals.
If I am talking about about high school, I should not be able to explain everything with two people.
Well, you got your Jocks, like me. Your Nerds, Like me. Your Popular Kids, like Bob. Your arts kids, like Bob. Your student council types, like Bob. Your different nerd sub cultures, of which I am the most fitting example of each kind. Your different Sports types, cause the baseball kids like me hang out in the cafeteria in the mornings, while the football kids like me are out practicing in the mornings.
Does not work! Part of being one type of person is not being another type. You cannot be a jock and a nerd, not because you can't be smart and play sports (see attrbiutes) but because part of the definition of being a nerd is not playing sports, and part of being a jock is not studying a lot.
But see, when I talk about smart successful talkative, shy lazy stupid. I am not surprised to find that someone meets half those adjectives. Because they are not descriptors of type, merely attribute.
but their guidelines indicate not to let the powergamer outshine the others to a degree that makes them feel incompetent.
No, it indicates they should not outshine them at fucking all. It really does say that, you are just purposefully ignoring all their advice and replacing it with slightly better advice.
Since Dnd isn't a competitive game (another concept this board has trouble with) it doesn't matter if the slayer is 'worse' at the game than the powergamer.
Well, actually it does. Because the powergamer is not allowed to be better than the slayer. If he is, then you failed. Because it tells you not to let him be more powerful. But that's not the problem with the type. The problem with the type, is that it's not a different type, it's not even a different attribute. It's like claiming that Chocolate Milk is one type of Milk, and that Chocolate Milk from the same jug mixed in a 3:1 ratio with regular milk is a totally different thing.
So if a writer asks to join your group, you'll tell them to suck your cock? (Incidentally, this is yet -another- type of player that I know personally. The last paragraph just you wrote doesn't make any sense to me. Do you know what they're referring to when they say 'the narrative should win?' It's more of an anti-rules lawyer concept than 'whatever the DM says goes'.
Only if the Writer is an attractive female. Or Hugh Laurie.
If they are a good writer, they don't fit the storyteller description, because a good writer recognizes that how different characters motivations and abilities interact tells a story, and if you want the story to come out a certain way, you have to change the motivations or abilities. A 'storyteller' is someone who thinks that character motivations are less important then the story. Despite your attempt to deny it, it's right there in the description. It says not just that the narrative should win over mechanics, though it does say that. It explicitly says the narrative should win over character motivations.
A storyteller is someone who demands that my characters motivations change to fit the story that he wants to tell. If I'm playing exalted, I will spend a point of willpower to tell him to go fuck right off. If I am playing D&D, I will just skip to the telling him to fuck right off part.
You are again exaggerating the point for the sake of your argument (hyperbole, I believe?). This is the type of person who enjoys being a strategist, far moreso than other characters. One player may consider kicking in a door and rushing a bunch of kobolds on the other side, while the thinker has another plan in mind that could make that decidedly easier. And no, not everyone is a tactical genius. That's not a prerequisite to play Dnd. What they want thinkers to avoid with the last two lines is to dictate absolutely fucking everything the others do, and I'm kind of surprised you don't see that yourself.
You are again ignoring what it actually says, because what it actually says is stupid. But yes, it is the type of person who enjoys being a strategist far more then anyone else. Like me. This is one of those things that I am the best example of. This is one of the 4 of 8 attributes that I have a lot of. Strategist is not however, a type of person. Because all strategists are powergamers. And they have to either care about the story or their character motivations to do anything.