Mastin's Player Type Theory

[Mastin]

This is something I’ve been thinking about for a few months now, about a basic idea: every single player can be categorized into a type of playstyle. What would I use as a model, though? Well, I found something, and then I went, “There’s no way this works that well. There’s no way I just found something like that working flawlessly.” It turns out that I did: I found a way to categorize players, and found they fall into one of four types, divided into two categories, for eight total—they are…

Type One

—Players who have no true reason to be playing:

They aren’t playing to win. They aren’t playing for fun. What

are

they playing for, then? Well, it depends, really. It can vary significantly. This kind of player might not sound good, but they’re not necessarily bad. An IC who doesn’t actively try to fulfill their “Play to Win” half of their role can be an example: their reason for playing is to teach. It’s also to win, but not all ICs play that way. Another example is a player who is retired, accepting an invitation into a game run by an old friend—chances are, they retired for a reason: perhaps they weren’t having fun, or lost the thrill of victory. If they are like that, and still play, their reason for playing isn’t to win, it isn’t to have fun, it’s to help an old friend moderate their game.

1 a:

No reason to play themselves. This is the mentioned examples, pretty much. Many players who get sick and tired of elements of mafia will end up like this, yet keep on going for whatever other reason. Look around for people who’ve said they’ve retired. I know quite a number. Now look at how many of them actually have. Not as many, eh?

1 b:

For Everyone. There’s another word for this type: troll. Anyone who wants to ruin the game for everyone is of this type. If they don’t want to have fun and have no desire to win themselves, that’s fine. (See 1 a.) If they’re

intentionally

trying

to make

others

not have fun

as well

(that is, they want everyone as miserable as they themselves are), then they are trolling. I sincerely hope I never see one of these players. (I haven’t seen one, and I hope I never do.) This player is the kind who you want to ban from your games, eternally blacklist until they stop intentionally trying to make your life a living netherworld.
Note, however, that they are only this type if it is intentional. If they do it accidentally, they genuinely tend to not want to cause any harm, and will try to improve.

Type Two

—Players Who Play for Fun:

We all know the type. They enjoy what they are doing. These are the kinds of players who will replace into a role publicly outed as a Serial Killer, for the lulz. They tend to enjoy third party roles, but it is not a guarantee. They are the kind who just wants a good time in a game, and are people who tend to be party animals. Like with all the player types listed, there is a huge variety in this field. A lot of them, however, will be in multiple games at the same time, to get the adrenaline rush associated with playing, no matter their role. (They also run the risk of replacing out or--worse--being a living corpse if they get bored.)

2 a:

Play Personally for Fun. This player doesn’t really care how another person plays. They’re a bit carefree, you could say, and tend to heavily be on the reckless side of things. These people tend to just ignore play-to-win players, because they’re nothing more than distractions to the true goal of a game: enjoy oneself! These people love every moment, and tend to have highly erratic styles of playing. These players love challenges. They like things exciting for themselves. Even if a setup is unbalanced, they don’t care, so long as they can have a good time. On the positive end of this scale, you get players who are very active, who are flexible, will accept any role you give them, and are likely to liven up a game with their presence. On the negative side of the scale, you get people who disregard everyone else for themselves, who post too much, and might harm the game if they lose interest. I, for example, was this type of a player. Self-voting and claiming scum can

really

tick some people off, but they are things not intended with malice: they’re intended to be fun (and are...for the player doing it. For others? Not so much). It’s a good idea to have one or two players of this type, but you have to both –try to limit how extreme they are, and –not have too many of them; things can get a bit…disorganized…if there are too many of them.

2 b:

Players Who Want Everyone to have Fun. This kind of a player tends to really dislike players who play to win (to say the least), seeing them as killjoys. The point of the game is to enjoy oneself, not whether they win or lose. These people tend to like playing a bit more traditionally than 2a’s: they dislike extremely outlandish behavior. This also applies to gamebreaking strategies: as they are not how the game should be played, they’re not welcomed by this type of a player. This kind of player will try to make everyone participate, because anyone not participating obviously isn’t having a good time. They want to have a good game, a fun game, and want everyone to share the experience. They are the kind of person who as mafia would kill a lurker and leave the more active players alive, instead of killing a good player and letting the lurkers slow the game down. This means they’re a great asset to have in most games, though it’s best to not have too many of them. The thread will become cluttered and the game might ironically end up being less fun and harder to read. I’d recommend at least one or two, but they can make up to 40% of the players in a game. Beyond that, and you’re getting a bit risky.

Type Three

—Play To Win

. These people don’t really care about the beginning or the middle. For them, the thing most important is the

end

: Them winning, victorious. Playing to win is the point of any game; fun is a simple byproduct. Like Players Playing for Fun, they have variety: some of them enjoy the thrill of the hunt, the chase, but only because they want to win. Others don’t feel a shred of positive emotion until the game is over, and—obviously—only if they have won. Like all the types of players, these people aren’t bad or good: they just are. People playing to win tend to be really good scum hunters, for instance. They also make good backup/co-mods: if you make a game to be fun, they’ll make it balanced for you. While they do contrast Fun-Players, this ends up augmenting the overall experience if done right, instead of detracting from it.

3 a:

Play To Personally Win. These people tend not to object to being handed a third-party role, if they think it’s possible to win. They’ll see it as an interesting challenge. People playing personally to win tend to not mind people playing for fun that much, because they’re nothing but a mere distraction—they aren’t actively hindering the goal of trying to win. This kind of player tends to devote a lot of attention to a game, knowing that if they stray into too many games at once, their chances of winning in each will decrease significantly. They also tend to be quite moderated in their behaviors: everything has a reason. These folks are good for games you feel are a bit cluttered: they tend to be annoyed enough to make things less so, but not angry enough to replace out. Too many of this type of player can make things ugly; debates will soon become personal. In general, they can make things boring if overused. You definitely want at least one of this type in a game, and you can get up to 40% of this type with no problem.

3 b:

Everyone

Must

Play to Win, or Get Out! This kind of player tends to be a bit on the arrogant side. Most gamebreakers are of this type. Screw playing for fun! Everyone should be playing to

win

; it’s one of the universal rules on the site, after all. To give an example, I’ve seen what happened in Stars Aligned II: Adel and Phate had a gamebreaking strategy; they were trying to bully others into following it, and when they thought the mod was shooting it down, Adel replaced out and Phate almost did. This kind of player tends to be quick to anger: things

have

to go their way, and any who object are lynched. That’s their mindset; they are right. They obviously hate people playing for fun; games should be taken seriously, not laughed off as a joke!

Obviously, these things aren’t always true for this type of player. Some can be calm, cool-headed people. However, even the best of them will still dislike those playing for fun, because they feel they’re ruining the game. These players tend to be highly analytical. Either they are extremely open to suggestions (the more they get, the more likely their plan will work, therefore, the more likely they are to win), or be extremely closed off to suggestions. (“No, you’re WRONG! We’re doing it this way, END OF DISCUSSION!”)
Similarly, this kind of player is not a bad thing. Obviously, you don’t want more than one or two in a game, or you’ll find yourself overwhelmed with replacement requests. They tend to make the game overall less fun, but at the same time, they can make it more interesting. It’s always nice to have a Chessmaster or two in the game, planning every move of the game, how everything will go. If they’re the flexible half of the scale, they might end up being one of the most praised players in the game.

(How come I know so much about this group? Well, my playstyle was definitely the Play for Fun type, but my personality seemed to be heavily on the Play to Win end of things—the negative half, of course. However, the difference between playstyle and personality isn’t concrete. If this proves to be two separate ideas, that could potentially double the number of possibilities from eight to sixteen, and add the possibility of combinations. Further research is required in this matter, though.)

Type Four

—Play To Win, Play for Fun:

These people remember that the site rule is play to win

and

play to have fun. This means they are always open to suggestions, and are generally a very flexible player. You want to be this kind of a player, you want to play with this kind of a player, and you want this kind of a player in your game, because they can do anything that the other types can do. However, they’re not perfect: most of them tend to be JOATs, of sorts: The above player types tend to be masters of what they do. These players tend to be really good, but not as good as a player specializing in their field would be. These players tend to have a lot of distinct personality, and it’s almost always in a good way.

4 a:

Play for Fun, Play to Win. These people want to have a good time…but they also really want to win. They’re good for flexibility, but also tend to be limited. They like to choose a lot more. So—ironically—in their flexibility, they tend to not be very flexible at all. They are open to compromises, and often are valuable players to have, but can sometimes be hard to actually get in the game. They enjoy every element of the game, and appreciate every little thing, tending to have no objection to any other player type. They have a good balance between goofing off and scum hunting, tending to balance instinct and intuition. They recognize others have different opinions, but will almost always still think that theirs is the correct one. (Most, however, are too polite to say so.)

4 b:

Everyone Should Have Fun, Everyone Try Their Best To Win. These people are the greatest gift one can get in a game. They tend to be very good at making everyone get a good game. They recognize gamebreakers—for example—and see both sides of the argument. These players can do anything, and be anything. They want to help people out in any way they can. They’re excellent.

However, they are somewhat on the rare side. Some are a bit too selfish, falling into 4 a. If they favor one side too heavily (like 2b or 3b), they tend to be that side, instead of a 4 b. Being the most balanced also means they’re extremely skilled, and unfortunately, extreme skill is something you can’t always get. They’re always going to be a good asset, so it’s pretty much what most players will strive to be.

However, they have their limitations—they might be very good at being leaders in a town, but personally, they might not be very good at, say, defending themselves from attack, meaning, they are often vulnerable. They tend to not make good followers, because they want to ensure a good time, something not guaranteed if they’re not in control. They also might be good in all fields, but—as mentioned—they will never perfect any of them as well as a specialist would.
Basically, you can have quite a number of these, again, up to 40% in a game. However, you’ll almost never get that many, because they’re not only rare, but also incredibly busy. These players tend to be extremely skilled, and therefore, in high demand, similarly, not being able to devote as much time to it as other player types can.
(I know a lot about this player type because it’s what I, personally, hope to eventually become. I don’t think I’ve gotten there, yet, but who knows? With enough practice, I might end up achieving it.)

---

So, that’s about it. Now, this doesn’t have to be limited to games. For example, the types’ estimated response to this thread:
-This sucks! (1 a)
-This thread is the worst thread ever! *insults* *curses* *generally nasty stuff*. (1 b)
-Ooh, nice! (2 a)
-How interesting! Ooh, ooh, maybe you could… *suggestions, compliments, etc.* (2b)
-What’s the point? / How does this help me? (3 a)
-I do / do not think this is a valid thread. *reasoning, explaining why* (generally, it’ll be negative feedback). It is /is not a good idea. (3 b—different than 1b, in that this type will give real reasons, as opposed to just shouting insults to get the flames going. They offer a genuine critique. It doesn’t have to even be negative: maybe they’re just not very good at wording things positively. Maybe they do honestly believe that this doesn’t work—but they explain exactly why they feel that way. Some may approve, just think it's currently flawed.)
-This is nice, because of *reasoning, compliments, etc.* (4 a)
-Oh, wow, nice thread! *reasoning, compliments* However, *critique*, so I would *suggestions*. A nice job, though! (4b)

I’ve revised this so many times, and will probably continue to do so. I think I have a good concept, and that the theory behind it is solid, applicable to all games, and all players. However, I’m not quite sure I have the details worked out. The differences between some categories are a little blurred. I’m considering making this a Wiki article, but I want to work out the kinks, first.

Ideas? Suggestions? Feedback?

[Super Smash Bros. Fan]

Really do like this article. It fits into my line of thinking and I agree with it.

That being said, I would fit as a Type 4 player. What sub-type I am, that I am not sure about.

[Beefster]

HOLY CRAP! I'm all 4, depending on the situation. My W/L record is horrendous, though, so I'm probably more of type 2 than anything else.

[DeathRowKitty]

I'm not sure I see the point of this classification scheme.

[KittyMo]

I don't think you can so easily put people in to categories like this, Mastin. I know I've entered games in the mindset of 1a, 2a, 3a, and 3b, possibly some others. If you want me to cite specific examples, I will. Basically, it seems oversimplified and doesn't take into account how people change, even within a single game. Perhaps if this idea was more developed, I agree.

However, I echo DeathRowKitty's statement as well.

[Korts]

You're not saying anything new or interesting here. This could've been said without your verbal diarrhea in much simpler terms:

1. Have fun
2. Play to win

[Battousai]

You're not saying anything new or interesting here. This could've been said without your verbal diarrhea in much simpler terms:

1. Have fun
2. Play to win

You're just jealous you didn't think of it first!


Verbal diarrhea seems a bit extreme, though. I agree that this isn't anything new, but it is a more expanded version of it for people who ARE interested in it.

[Max]

I thought this would include things such as people who aim to set-up the game, people who aim to survive, people who try to rat out scum by running them in circles.

I aim to provide the town a good strong lynch day one (not necessarily scum) and get killed night one (as vanilla). As power roles I aim to make my power useful while not infringing on my main role as a townsperson. So as a cop, survive through one night - get an innocent on a VI, just to prevent that obvious 'they're a VI' lynch.

I play for the beginning, but I try and give a good enough footing for the town to win by the end. I don't play for the win, but I hope that my actions day one improve the town's chances of winning.

I'm not sure this is classifying players but it

is

giving motives for their play. It isn't that useful when it comes to analysing their play. I don't think you could say "A lurker was NKd, therefore scum must have people playing for fun".
You were right when you said 'Personality' somewhere in there. This seems to be a measure of personality more than of playstyle.

[Elmo]

Not seeing the hate. This looks like a perfectly decent writeup for people who haven't seen this first-hand, or who can't easily articulate it.

I think this (or something like it) is quite important for mods, simply because it's knowing your target audience.

[UncertainKitten]

I guess I think I'm somewhere between 2a and 4a, probably closer to 2a since when I get bored, I don't feel like doing anything with a game. Then again, I really, really like winning, hence why there's a chance of 4a. I think it's a decent classification system, really. Well, as decent as classification systems CAN be. People kinda of are hard to shove in boxes.

[VP Baltar]

I agree with Elmo. I think this is a good resource to have in one spot, particularly for mods thinking about the composition of their player list and wanting everyone to have fun. Mastin makes a very good point about having too many play to win types in one game...it can range from very hot to a completely sterile experience.

As far as classifying myself, I have no clue. Probably depends on my mood from game to game. I'll probably think about it more next time I play though.

[danakillsu]

A great read, Mastin. Thanks a bunch for putting in the time. It should help me as a mod sometime down the road. Speaking of which, I think I fall into a fifth category. I get suspected and lynched so much, whether I'm town or scum, that it kind of depresses me sometimes. I haven't been in a game where I haven't been at L-2. So I decided to mainly mod. I am modding my second game right now, and have plans laid out for a third, and I'm running a Mish Mash right now. I'm only playing in one game, currently.

[Kilgamayan]

Speaking of which, I think I fall into a fifth category. I get suspected and lynched so much, whether I'm town or scum, that it kind of depresses me sometimes. I haven't been in a game where I haven't been at L-2.

It's the avatar. =P

I've been trying to pigeonhole myself into one of these categories, and having the damnedest time because I see parts of myself in a handful of them. I try to play games I play by keeping in mind both the "play to win" and "play to have fun" rules, and I expect every other player in the game to honor both rules as well since I don't think they're all that unreasonable as requests. This means I get irritated when playing with people that play against their win con in the interest of having fun (because I want to win) and I get irritated when playing with people that make the game not fun for everyone else (because I want to have fun, and everyone else has the right to have fun and they don't deserve to have that trampled on). This ties back into what I say about Mafia being a "social game": both the "social" and the "game" aspects are important. Social-friendly attitudes are very important to the game; they're arguably just as important as quality scumhunting tactics.

That being said, I have a lot more fun when I win than when I lose. >_> I have had fun in losses and I have been very frustrated in wins, but on average I think I can definitely say I'm happier after a win than a loss.

So I dunno. I can see any of 3a, 3b, 4a or 4b for myself, really, as pompous as I risk being by judging myself a Type 4.

[Fate]

This should be good.

[Fate]

Meh, some of the numbers are pretty arbitrary (40% ftw?), but otherwise a very good articulation of ideas that were floating around the collective site meta.

Like, "Fate and Ythan shouldn't be in a game together" has always been common knowledge, but now people actually

know why.

<3

Now the next step is making a thread pidgeonholing people into these stereotypes and watching the page numbers rack up.

Hmmmmmmmm....

/temptation

[Zachrulez]

Type 4 seems kinda redundant. I'd cut it out of the theory with the idea that it's possible to exhibit traits of multiple player types.

[VP Baltar]

New game! Assign personality type to the person above you. Let the fights begin!

Zachrulez: 3a

[Zachrulez]

New game! Assign personality type to the person above you. Let the fights begin!

Zachrulez: 3a

I think I've failed epically at the stated goals in 3a.

VP Baltar: 3b

[Empking]

I'll trust VP and say 3a.

To be on topic though, though its an intersting read and I thank you [Mastin] for making it, I don't see it as much use (though then again, I adore modding guides but I don't think I've ever been impacted by one, so that's not too important.)

[Mastin]

I don't think you can so easily put people in to categories like this, Mastin. I know I've entered games in the mindset of 1a, 2a, 3a, and 3b, possibly some others. Basically, it seems oversimplified and doesn't take into account how people change, even within a single game. Perhaps if this idea was more developed, I agree.

Again, this might be why there is a difference between "personality type" (something I touched upon in 3b), and "playstyle type"--also, I could've sworn I mentioned somewhere that it does, indeed, change over time. When I originally started playing, I was a 3a, but soon shifted into a 2a and stayed there for most of my games...
With a few exceptions. Some, I lost the fun in it. (That's mentioned in the Play For Fun category.) People playing for fun...who lose the fun in the game...automatically shift to 1a. Some, I started out as being a 2a, but when I got desperate, shifted severely into a 3a. (It didn't work. :/) So, I do know it does change over time, and to some extent, in each game it will be a little different.
As for being more developed, well, that's kinda the point of posting it here; to get feedback, so I can better build it up. I'm quite the wordy person, somewhat repetitive, too. (*Points to title*. ) I also have trouble finding some of the best ways of saying things, going on a long-winded explanation whereas someone else might be able to say the same thing in only a few words--words which I never thought of myself, because I couldn't. Not to mention, this is something mostly based off of half-finished games I read on my hiatus, on the old forum. It has a good theory to it, but I have trouble with the finer details, pinning it down to the essential argument. (Being: Not playing for fun or the win, playing for fun, playing to win, playing for both, and then, wanting everyone to not play for fun or the win, wanting everyone to play for fun, wanting everyone playing to win, and wanting everyone to play both for fun, and to win.--Each has their own distinct personality to them, and the traits common between a and b are the overall characteristics of that type.
Can I say that in a more brief way? Possible, but I simply do not think that way. This really is as brief as I can make it.)

You're not saying anything new or interesting here. This could've been said without your verbal diarrhea in much simpler terms:

1. Have fun
2. Play to win

I think you're missing the point. That's not what I'm saying. Those are the universal rules, to have fun, and to play for victory. So, I know about those rules. This is specifically about the

people

--both mods and players--and which

they

follow between the two

more

.* More to fun, more to win, positive equal (4), negative equal (1).

*I mention somewhere that you can have, say, traits from 3a and still be a 2a. People who are roughly (though not necessarily entirely--that'd be incredibly rare) equal are most likely 4's. (Or 1's.) People who aren't even close to equal will fall into whichever category they tend to favor a lot.

I thought this would include things such as people who aim to set-up the game, people who aim to survive, people who try to rat out scum by running them in circles.

That is exactly the kind of information I WANT to put in there, just...well, I'm not very good at it. :/
People aiming to survive, for example, tend to be in the Play to Win category. (Some people playing for fun

might

want to survive, seeing death as boring. Most probably don't.) They--regardless of alignment--do not want to die; they want to win, and they stand better chances of winning if they are alive. (Presumably.)

I'm not sure this is classifying players but it is giving motives for their play. It isn't that useful when it comes to analysing their play. I don't think you could say "A lurker was NKd, therefore scum must have people playing for fun".

Yeah, I figure it isn't that useful for analysis. For me, it seems to be a good tool for psychology. If you know someone tends to play for fun, you can expect certain things from them, and compensate for them to best suit your alignment. You can avoid conflicting with them if you're a, say, play to win type. Without that understanding, you might be their enemy. With the understanding that you have opposite playstyles, you might be able to find a slight compromise. You can't use it to, say, determine a kill. But it isn't to me worthless. Certain players will do certain things more often. If they fall outside the normal perimeters, that might send up warning flags to you, that something made things different. The lurker being killed example is to give an example of what that kind of player tends to do, not something which they necessarily have to do. Obviously, you could never use it to determine who is scum based off of the kill, alone.
Ack, rambling. Get what I'm saying, though?

Meh, some of the numbers are pretty arbitrary (40% ftw?), but otherwise a very good articulation of ideas that were floating around the collective site meta.

Eh, the numbers were the best I could come up with without doing more extensive research, looking for games which have too many of a single player type. I figure less than half is as much as you want in any category, 'cause most games, half the players is quite a lot. That's generally anywhere from 5 to something like 12. (Don't see a lot of games that go over 24 people.) So, I came up with 40% as a decent mark for the max.
Thanks for (mostly) the support.

[Mr. Flay]

Not seeing the hate. This looks like a perfectly decent writeup for people who haven't seen this first-hand, or who can't easily articulate it.

I think this (or something like it) is quite important for mods, simply because it's knowing your target audience.

[AGar]

Awww Flay and Mastin broke the game (and I'm going to as well, cause I've never played with Flay).

I'm more of a rude, obstinate 4a.

[Max]

That is exactly the kind of information I WANT to put in there, just...well, I'm not very good at it. :/
People aiming to survive, for example, tend to be in the Play to Win category. (Some people playing for fun might want to survive, seeing death as boring. Most probably don't.) They--regardless of alignment--do not want to die; they want to win, and they stand better chances of winning if they are alive. (Presumably.)

I don't think wanting to live and wanting to win are correlated. In fact playing to survive is a bad way to play to win (unless you're scum). You improve your chances by being alive but if you play to win you would have to play not as well in order to survive (assuming you play well. Some people aren't great but play to win).

The other part I do get, having re-read the whole thread (I say that like it's an epic 100 page game). It's not for a player per se, but more a tool for moderators to try and ensure a good balance of players and trying to reduce inter-player tensions.

[Albert B. Rampage]

It's been a month now so I published it http://mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?tit ... ype_Theory

Now you

have

to edit it!

[Untrod Tripod]

ABR is a 3b I think