> Could someone give a quick recap of this? I never saw the original article
> that presented the four-fold scheme, and while I think I see the
difference
> between a wargamer and a powergamer, I don't understand the difference
between
> a roleplayer and a story teller.
In a nutshell:
Powergamer minimaxing rules-abuser (and self-abuser)
Wargamer colourless combat-system die-roller
Roleplayer tedious character-driven bore
Storyteller arty-farty story-driven plonker
Difference between Roleplaying and Storytelling players, IIRC, is that a Roleplayer will bore the pants off you writing up genealogies and autobiographies and linguistic tics for his character, drawing pictures of them and dressing up as them on Sundays and refusing to compromise their artistic integrity for the sake of everyone else's fun -- while the Storyteller is happy to prat around in the GM's world, enjoying themselves, muddling through, ducking out of big decisions, and seeing how it all turns out in the end. The Roleplayer is a solipsist; the Storyteller is depending on the GM to tell them a story.
Wargamers treat RPGs as a cadet branch of their hobby, and aren't too fussed with the rationale behind their battles so long as they get to fight them.
And we *all* know powergamers, right?
An "immersive" player who immerses himself in rules (and especially the ever-so-realistic Combat System) is probably a Wargamer in disguise. An immersive "player" who sinks under the surface of his character so far that he begins to drown (or speak Sartarite) is probably a Roleplayer.
I hope the original article is available on the Web somewhere -- it was a great piece of observation, comparable to the "Powergamers, Roleplayers, Lunatics and Munchkins" analysis by Sandy & Jeff.
Nick
:::: web: <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Nick_Brooke>
Powered by hypermail