One section was entitled Types of Champion Players, and was later used in the 4th edition Champions core rule book. Sadly like Blacow's Four Aspects, this was before the web and so is difficult to get hold of today. After some searching I did turn up a Vocabulary by Phil Masters that includes most of the terms. The original gave Advantages and disadvantages for each of the Types and hints for dealing with them in play, although by no means were these equal in either number or attitude.
The link provides the following types (except those marked with an '*'):
- Builder - wants to have an impact on the world
- Buddy* - he comes to the game to be with his friend(s)
- Combat Monster - wants combat, in a reasoned way
- Copier - is interested in recreating a character from another source
- Genre Fiend - wants to model everything after genre elements
- Mad Slasher - kill everything that moves, no reason needed
- Mad Thinker* - seeks clever solutions to in game problems
- Plumber - wants intricate characters and exploration thereof
- Romantic - focuses on relationships
- Rules Rapist - interested in bending the rules
- Showoff* - seeks the most spotlight time for his character
- The Pro from Dover* - desire a character who is the best of his field
- Tragedian - like tragedy and wants to play it out.
Still you can see how some of these map onto Blacow's Four Aspects. Combat Monster is roughly equal to Wargamer. Plumber and Romantic are flavors of Role-player, etc. Additional types are added, Rules Rapists for example aren't found in Blacow's model.
In one way Allston work here was a serious improvement on what went before, as he related the Types directly to the game and offered advice for dealing with players matching them (even if that was in a couple of cases- "get rid of them"). What they'd like, tendencies to watch out for, etc. He also noted that individuals could display one or more traits, and even change type over the course of a campaign.
Reduced to its basics, this was another "people play for different reasons" model. The core concept was: find out what your players want, and deal with them on those terms.
On its down side, it was clear to me that he didn’t much care for some of the Types and there wasn’t an even-handed treatment of the various approaches. In many ways he sounded more like Blacow’s disenchanted GM after he determined the cause for the campaign going south, and he wasn’t happy with some of the reasons.
In a way I like the hard pragmatism of this, as it mirrors my own approach for my campaign (i.e. remove those who don’t fit, work with the others until they do). But therein lies it’s greatest failing. This is meant for a certain type of GM who mirrored the author’s tastes. There’s no advice there for other types of groups, say for example a number of Copiers who want to re-imagine the Marvel Universe (like my group for example). The wording and approach would be insulting to such, and the advice close to useless. Thus I must judge this model as a failure.
Despite this, there’s another take away that shouldn't be forgotten. Sometimes general labels hide very specific and important factors. Yes Plumbers and Romantics are each just Role-players, but they aren’t happy with just any role-playing. A factor some models with fewer labels completely forget about.
Allston should be remember for pointing out that no matter your working theory- one still needs to determine the individual desires of your players.
*Thanks to Zweihander for pointing out these which are missing from the provided link
Posts
