Types of T2k Player

[Raellus]

I can only speak to PbP games, as that's the only type of campaigns that I've Ref'ed and/or played in. Here's an assemblage of player types that I've encountered over the years.

High Ability / High Effort: A top-notch writer and role player. A frequent, proactive contributor, in both the IC and the OOC. Never misses a beat. A Ref's dream. Really fun to play with.

Low Effort / Low Ability: Not particularly good at writing and/or roleplaying. Doesn't bother to carefully read others' posts, either IC or OOC, so constantly misses things, fails to reply when addressed IC, etc. Frequently misses turns without giving the Ref a heads-up. Adds little the game besides frustration to his fellow players and the ref.

High Effort / Low Ability: Not particularly good at writing and/or roleplaying but tries really hard. Reads others' posts and always replies. Seldom misses a turn and is a frequent contributor to the OOC channel as well. Might be a little behind the curve, but adds to the game by being a reliable, enthusiastic poster.

High Ability / Low Effort: Great writer and role player but just sort of ghosts through the campaign. Seldom participates in OOC discussions and misses turns pretty regularly. Often starts off strong, but then quickly seems to lose interest. Frustrates the heck out of the Ref because player has so much potential but squanders it. Could add so much to the game but usually chooses to do the bare minimum.

The Pedant: Constantly explaining things to his/her fellow players and/or Ref that don't need explanation, correcting others, offering unsolicited mini lectures on game world trivia, weapons, tactics, and various esoterica. Can sometimes offer really helpful info, but usually just gets on others' nerves. In T2k, the Pedant is often, but not always, a veteran of the military (but seldom a combat vet). Has trouble admitting when he/she is incorrect on a proffered "fact". Is often a rules-lawyer too.

Rules Lawyer: Constantly questioning and challenging Ref's interpretation and execution of the rules. Argues any die roll that doesn't go his/her way. When all of the other players keep calm and carry on, this player refuses to proceed until the rulebook has been dissected and any unfavorable results reversed.

Monday Morning Quarterback: Doesn't always make the best decisions in real time but is constantly telling other players (and/or the Ref), "You should have done this or that instead". Often dual-classes as a Pedant.

The Solo: Despite T2k being a team game, the Solo always tries to go it alone. They play a brooding "lone wolf" (usually SOF a-la John Rambo). They don't participate in planning and ignore most social aspects of RP'ing (both IC and OOC). During combat, they quickly abandon the team to do their own thing. No one in the gaming group really likes The Solo, but it's because he/she makes no effort to be sociable IC or OOC.

The Warrior: Only posts during combat encounters. Otherwise, largely absent.

Needy: Constantly asking for "clarification" or reassurance (usually via frequent PMs to the Ref). Rarely, if ever, takes the initiative. Is only comfortable following other players' detailed instructions. Often holds up turns waiting to see what everyone else does.

The Troll: Often combines aspects of the Pedant and the MMQ. Learns what pushes the gaming group members' respective buttons and pushes them. Responds to any criticism or corrective action by doubling down and being even more obnoxious. Eventually gets kicked out of the group, if he/she doesn't manage to scupper the game first.

The Bully: Plays pretty well as long as everything goes their way. If crossed IC or OOC, this player goes off on whoever crossed him/her. Wields sarcasm and condescension like a laser beam. Eventually rage quits, unless he/she hasn't sabotaged the whole campaign already. Often multi-classes as a Pedant and Monday-Morning Quarterback.

The Ghoster: Drops out of the game without warning. Wastes the Ref's time with char-gen, and figuring out how to write the character out of the campaign on the fly.

Did I miss any?

-

[Gunner]

I think you covered 'em all.

[Southernap]

There are a couple a friend of mine who is a GM/DM thought of that don't seemed to be covered by your list.

The A55hat - Basically this is the player who will be evil when the players are good or even neutral. "I shoot the orphans with the largest explosive...." or when everyone decides to go left because that is the safe way, this player will go right and into the mess of bad guys. They will toss the sarcastic and combative during diplomatic checks. They will also just start fights with NPCs or other players because they are bored with what is going on during a scene.

The Scoundrel - This is the player that will immediately grab up all the good stuff after an encounter or during a find of goods. They will rob group blind and then ghost after everyone forgets about the good stuff that the GM just dribbled out to the players. Usually appears in a group that isn't taking good notes or not paying attention to what the others at the table are doing.
They have parts of a Ghoster in them.

The Whiner/Complainer - This is the player that even though they made all the decisions to make what they thought was a killer character. They don't know how to actually play it and complains all the time when the rules go against their idea of cool. The dice goes against them when trying to make things occur. Depending on the actual player they will either go Ghost, Rules Lawyer, or become a mix of Troll and Bully.

The gopher - This is a player who drops in from time to time. Like a gopher that pops up in a field. They sort of know what is going on, but will waste about 30-45 mins of the session asking for a recap of everything in the plot to that point. They will also disappear early before the end of the session. Yet, they are always there for the full admin session when it comes time to update character sheets, rest for characters, and updating plot paths. This player is worst than a ghost since you never know when they will drop in and for how long they will drop out. Yet, they expect to be immediately brought back to the table and the plot when they do show up.

[Adm.Lee]

The Buddy: Pairs up with some of the above "Hey, you're running a game? My pal and I would love to play that, can he come, too?" When paired with The Ghost, he'll disappear at the same time, and your game will have too few players to continue, in which case he may be The Keystone

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I have one that I don't have a good descriptive name for, but it's based on the player I mentioned in one of my posts in the GM thread I think (the guy playing the cleric in a D&D game who wouldn't use any healing spells on other party members)

I'm only here for myself: Not quite selfish but definitely not selfless. This guy is a team player only in that they will help out on tasks that benefit everyone, but if they have to help another individual in their group, they don't bother. They put in enough effort to ensure their fair share of the loot and XP but they expend no effort outside that, particularly if it means helping another PC where no reward will be earned.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

I have one that I don't have a good descriptive name for....

Sounds a bit Jack to me.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Sounds a bit Jack to me.

Spot on, he was a right "jack cunt" but I didn't think that term would translate well for the non-Australians here.
Every nation likely has a term for that one soldier, sailor, airman who does the bare minimum of effort that he can get away with but expects to get a fair share of the rewards, I think the Australian label is probably more brutally truthful than most!

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Spot on, he was a right "jack cunt" but I didn't think that term would translate well for the non-Australians here.

That would be "Shammer" or "Ghost" in the US Army.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Interesting to see the different labels given to this type of person!
For some clarity, the Australian label derives from a longer expression, "I'm alright Jack, fuck you", meaning basically that as long as I am okay, I don't give a shit about anything else.

[Raellus]

I didn't serve, but I've frequently come across the term "goldbricker" in the literature, referencing soldiers who do less work than they are capable of/supposed to be doing but somehow manage to maintain the appearance that they are doing the work.

I PbP, this is the player that doesn't miss a turn but only posts a line or two.

-

[ChalkLine]

I'm wincing wondering if I'm any of those.

However there's the good ones too:

The Book Keeper:
This person diligently handles party records and often has everything laid out for the GM to easily refer to. The best are ones that work in partnership with the GM.

The Facilitator:
This isn't the real army and what's needed isn't a leader or commander but someone that combines ideas into a workable whole and puts them back to the party. Not often needed in face to face games but often required in text games. Essentially a coordinator that can show why some ideas are unworkable but incorporate parts of those ideas into the group plan.

The Descriptor:
The player that gives vivid accounts of their actions that stops the game being a boardgame, "Last Battle" is freely available for sale, and makes it alive. Tends to enthuse the GM and also to provoke similar descriptions from other players. A gem.

The Voices Guy:
This person talks in character, often using a distinctive voice and appropriate accent. It can be a bit daunting and in text games it might be hard to read but it does tend to add to the game and also make it very easy for the GM to know when they are in character.

[Raellus]

Those are good ones, Chalk. I've played alongside or GM'ed the first three on your list. I've only played T2k PbP so I haven't encountered The Voices guy, but I've been in games where other player/writers ran PCs with really distinctive written "voice" (i.e. distinct personality and deep characterization).

I can see how my list comes across as largely negative. Part of that is because bad apples can really spoil the bunch, so to speak, so they tend to be pretty memorable. Asides from Ghosts, I've only personally encountered bad ones on my list once or twice- i.e. few and far between- but they're not easy to forget. Another reason is probably just the nature of PbP. One doesn't always know the other players IRL, or outside of the game. Anonymity, and the ability to just disappear at will, tends to excuse bad behavior in a lot of people's minds.

-

[ChalkLine]

They do tend to stick out in your mind. I'm getting over-sensitive I reckon but often a dud player makes the game so frustrating to play or GM I often feel like chucking it in. I've developed the mantra of "no gaming is better than bad gaming" as I get older.

The unfortunate players, apart from ghosts which you can't even interact with, are very hard to retrain. They often have no idea what their effects are. I recently had a guy who wouldn't post in-game but gave regular updates on his busy life on the OOC thread, wanting to make me tear my hair out. I talked to him offlist but he didn't seem to understand the problem.

As for one that's a problem I might add:

The Commander:
This person makes orders and refuses to countenance any deviation. They expect their orders carried out to the letter and often micro-manage other players, even when not personally present. It's very dangerous to let this PC have NPCs to control as they then end up all over the battlefield barking orders at other players. Woe betide the GM that hands out radios to the group and lets this person get one, and they will get one.
Their main negative effect is that they drive everyone away. Once productive posters go silent or start posting monosyllabic responses as the game is not an environment they enjoy.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

The Book Keeper:
This person diligently handles party records and often has everything laid out for the GM to easily refer to. The best are ones that work in partnership with the GM.

That is sooooooo me! I probably spend more time on prep work and admin than the Ref!

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

That is sooooooo me! I probably spend more time on prep work and admin than the Ref!

Well... I didn't want to be the first to say it, but yes, you definitely are!

[Lurken]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

That is sooooooo me! I probably spend more time on prep work and admin than the Ref!

You sure do. Much to my enjoyment.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

The table flipper: they're willing to play whatever and even ignore gaffes by the GM unless GM fiat or gaffes go against them, then they'll bring the game to a screeching halt, throwing a fit, yelling about how the game is being run unrealistically, etc.

ask me how I know.

[Raellus]

The Cipher: This player's character has zero personality, voice, or any other distinguishing characteristics- no flavor whatsoever. Background NPCs have more personality than this player's character does.

The Hoarder/Pack Mule: The Hoarder keeps every piece of loot he/she comes across and seldom helps with the bookkeeping. If someone else's PC needs it, the Hoarder can produce it. The Packmule is similar but insists on carrying it all. In addition to their body armor and tons of ammo, this player's weapon loadout includes multiple sidearms and melee weapons, a GPMG, a grenade launcher, a LAW, and an assault rifle. This player forces the Ref to actually look up and use the seldom used encumbrance rules. When challenged, the Pack Mule will insist that they could carry it all easily IRL (often claiming to have done so in the reserves).

-

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The Hoarder/Pack Mule: The Hoarder keeps every piece of loot he/she comes across and seldom helps with the bookkeeping. If someone else's PC needs it, the Hoarder can produce it.

The Selfish Hoarder. As above except if someone else's PC needs an item of kit which the Hoarder possesses s/he will do all possible to avoid handing said item over.

See also: 'it's mine my own my precious'; Helmetgate.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

The table flipper: they're willing to play whatever and even ignore gaffes by the GM unless GM fiat or gaffes go against them, then they'll bring the game to a screeching halt, throwing a fit, yelling about how the game is being run unrealistically, etc.

ask me how I know.

DON'T TEMPT ME!!


Too late... how do you know?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The Lone Wolf 2.0. We probably all know what's meant by the Lone Wolf type player, that one person who thinks they can deal with any in-game situation all by themselves or they play their character with the bare minimum of interaction with the other PCs (sometimes trying to portray their PC as "dark & brooding" or as some sort of "mystery man/woman"). EDIT: In Raellus' original post, this is The Solo.
The Lone Wolf 2.0 is a variation on that and once again, inspired by a Player in some of games I ran or played in. The 2.0 variant is the type of Player who seems to be onboard with the PC group until any opportunity arises in which they can wander off and do their own thing - and they do, nearly every single time.

This is the type of Player who is so focused on their own character doing whatever it is they're doing, that even the rest of the group being in mortal danger is not enough to convince them to re-join the team. But this is not out of self-preservation, they genuinely feel that what their character is doing is more important than rescuing their team-mates. The kind of Player who has the only character to survive a Total Party Kill type event because their PC was never with the party when that event happened.

Alternately, they sometimes get their PC into some sort of trouble that often results in the death of their PC because they were so intent on doing their own thing, that they left the party and any protection that the group could provide. Surprisingly, some Lone Wolf 2.0 Players are not at all upset or annoyed at the other Players for not helping them because it seems they understand that the other PCs would not be able to locate them and help them in time.
That doesn't stop them from doing exactly the same thing again with their next PC though.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

DON'T TEMPT ME!!


Too late... how do you know?

Hm? Oh. I ran a pretty good PBP game many years ago when I had a forum of my own. Everything was going spiffy, there was a "narrative event" where an arty shell burst near the group's PC and peppered it with fragments. By the rules I had to do lethal amounts of damage to the vehicle - I rolled it up, catastrophic fuel/ammunition hit - but instead let that slide on the players behalf. I didn't tell them or even indicate I was doing that, because the arty round was a one-in-a-million direct hit. But, I thought, no, I should at least suggest that was a really close round.

So I did. I said that there was the wham of an impact, a couple of caution lights on the dash came on, and the whistling sound of air through a new hole or three in the hull could be heard.

My GM ruling was to just have that "omigod!" moment and carry on, but apparently this was too mean to the players, and formerly levelheaded players started throwing a fit, the game got derailed for a long while, and I lost nearly all the players; half because they thought I was being a dick with that "impossible hit", and the other half because they were disgusted with the first half.

tl;dr, don't game with people you don't already know.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Hm? Oh. I ran a pretty good PBP game many years ago when I had a forum of my own. Everything was going spiffy, there was a "narrative event" where an arty shell burst near the group's PC and peppered it with fragments. By the rules I had to do lethal amounts of damage to the vehicle - I rolled it up, catastrophic fuel/ammunition hit - but instead let that slide on the players behalf. I didn't tell them or even indicate I was doing that, because the arty round was a one-in-a-million direct hit. But, I thought, no, I should at least suggest that was a really close round.

So I did. I said that there was the wham of an impact, a couple of caution lights on the dash came on, and the whistling sound of air through a new hole or three in the hull could be heard.

My GM ruling was to just have that "omigod!" moment and carry on, but apparently this was too mean to the players, and formerly levelheaded players started throwing a fit, the game got derailed for a long while, and I lost nearly all the players; half because they thought I was being a dick with that "impossible hit", and the other half because they were disgusted with the first half.

tl;dr, don't game with people you don't already know.

Ouch!
Yeah that's a bit ridiculous on the part of the Player throwing the tantrum, it's not as though their character was killed or lost anything

[Legbreaker]

Players of all types of games need to understand right from the first moment that their players are not invulnerable and plot armour only covers so much.
If you can't die, or even suffer significant injury, then where's the challenge?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Players of all types of games need to understand right from the first moment that their players are not invulnerable and plot armour only covers so much.
If you can't die, or even suffer significant injury, then where's the challenge?

And further to that, any rewards you get are meaningless because you never really had to work for them. You didn't work for it, so you do not deserve to earn the reward. If there's no struggle to earn the achievement, then it really is NOT an achievement!