Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Player Type Names


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1
Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Conquest Rules Arbitrator

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3289 posts

Breaking this in to it's own topic out of the Review Group topic:

 

Lovecraft=theme player, Cthulhu=wants to play the very best decks, Cultist=combo type decks. 

 

Other suggestions have been:

 

Armitage: Theme Player

 

Shoggoth: Combo deck player.


  • MightyToenail likes this

#2
Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Conquest Rules Arbitrator

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3289 posts

Personally I am in favour of in universe names being used. 



#3
blinovitch

blinovitch

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 443 posts

I feel like the combo player would be Herbert (West), the mad scientist concocting ludicrous jank.


  • Toqtamish, Ironswimsuit, TheNameWasTaken and 1 other like this

#4
Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Conquest Rules Arbitrator

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3289 posts

Makes sense to me even though I have no idea who he is. 

 

 

Of course, another thing is, who says we have to have only 3 ? Why is it always 3 ? Even MTG has 4 with the addition of Vorath(sp?) the story theme player. 



#5
Ironswimsuit

Ironswimsuit

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1081 posts

Makes sense to me even though I have no idea who he is. 

 

 

Of course, another thing is, who says we have to have only 3 ? Why is it always 3 ? Even MTG has 4 with the addition of Vorath(sp?) the story theme player. 

 

His name and creepy hobby are the title of his story. Herbert West - Reanimator.

 

The  jank player type, Gustaf Johansen. It's pretty awesome ramming Cthulhu with a ship...it's less awesome when it doesn't matter and cultists get you anyway.


  • Carthoris and MightyToenail like this

#6
MagnusArcanis

MagnusArcanis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 334 posts

My first question is… why do we need this? Seems silly to me is all (then again, I’m often biased against labeling cards and/or players as it’s often inaccurate and never tells the whole story). Is it just because Magic did it every game has to have this?

Anyway, I digress. Arkham Horror isn’t shaping up to be your typical game. So terminology like aggro, jank, combo, theme, etc… doesn’t seem to fit.

You’d likely be better off using roles similar to rpg’s. Ie. Tank, Combat, Support, etc…

If I had to guess the primary roles cards, decks, characters, and players would fall into….
Tank – specializes in prevention and mitigation of damage, horror, negative effects, etc…
Combat – specializes in eliminating enemies and other obstacles.
Support – hands out buffs, actions, cards, and/ or is there to help recover from damage, horror, negative effects, etc..
Investigator – specializes in gaining clues and/or location and test management.

My 2 cents. Feel free to theme those up as you see fit should you agree.
  • HappyDD, Ire, BaraBob and 3 others like this

#7
gramyotron

gramyotron

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts

Shoggoth was most eficient killing machine it should not be combo player, but a "Jaimie" (from AGOT) type.



#8
Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Conquest Rules Arbitrator

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3289 posts

I don't know if I necessarily agree with the idea that it wouldn't apply since it is a co-op game but I will admit the idea of using MMO/RPG classifications has merit. 

 

Fascinating discussion so far. 



#9
Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Conquest Rules Arbitrator

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3289 posts

More info for those who have no idea what we are talking about.

 

http://magic.wizards...pike-2013-12-03

 

http://mtgsalvation....com/Player_type

 

https://www.reddit.c..._personalities/

 

http://magic.wizards...-mel-2015-08-31

 

https://www.fantasyf...aime-revisited/


  • ChaoticRainbow likes this

#10
Carthoris

Carthoris

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 327 posts

I don't really see why "Lovecraft" or "Armitage" would be a theme player. For me, the character to express that would be Randolph (Carter),* the dreamer par excellence who obtains full immersion in the Dreamlands. I'd see Armitage** (the librarian) as someone who tries to exploit obscure and undervalued cards, building decks around them.

 

I think the campaign-oriented co-op suggests some additional types, not focused as much on deck priorities as on play patterns:

 

(Richard Upton) Pickman***: Likes to re-play and fine-tune earlier scenarios.

(Henry) Akeley****: Always eager to get beyond the scenarios in hand.

 

An afterthought:

Asenath (Waite)*****: Has a irrepressible tendency to coach other players, trying to "possess" their characters, as it were.

 

* "The Silver Key," etc.

** "The Dunwich Horror" and others

*** "Pickman's Model"

**** "The Whisperer in Darkness"

***** "The Thing on the Doorstep"



#11
dboeren

dboeren

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 2834 posts

I never really bought into the player archetypes system either, it seems rather arbitrary and meaningless to me.  No real people will be 100% one archetype, it just becomes a goofy label for people to wave around pretending that they're better than someone else.


  • HappyDD likes this

#12
Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Conquest Rules Arbitrator

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3289 posts

 it just becomes a goofy label for people to wave around pretending that they're better than someone else.

 

I don't agree with that at all. 



#13
Ironswimsuit

Ironswimsuit

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1081 posts

I don't think people over the mental age of 18 use archetype labels in a pretentious way....beyond casual vs hardcore, maybe.  Granted, there's a lot of arrested development in the gaming community. Are the labels stupid? Yes. Are they still fun? Yes.


  • Toqtamish, Carthoris and phillosmaster like this

#14
HappyDD

HappyDD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 236 posts

Casual vs. hardcore: also stupid. 


  • Vlad3theImpaler likes this

#15
HappyDD

HappyDD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 236 posts

I never really bought into the player archetypes system either, it seems rather arbitrary and meaningless to me.  No real people will be 100% one archetype, it just becomes a goofy label for people to wave around pretending that they're better than someone else.

So what you're saying is that everyone thinks they're a Samantha, but really they're acting like a bunch of Mirandas?


  • Ironswimsuit likes this

#16
Vlad3theImpaler

Vlad3theImpaler

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts

My first question is… why do we need this? Seems silly to me is all (then again, I’m often biased against labeling cards and/or players as it’s often inaccurate and never tells the whole story). Is it just because Magic did it every game has to have this?

This.

 

The profiles that WotC came up with for different types of players came after years of playing the game, doing focus groups, and other research to make observations about how players naturally approach the game.

 

Trying to come up with archetypes for players before the game is even out just seems incredibly forced and unnecessary.

And even the WotC profiles that have some actual research behind them are frequently misapplied, so I question the usefulness of trying to come up with profiles before a game is even out, which will then inevitably be used by some to shoehorn players into "archetypes" they may or may not actually fit.


  • Ampersandrew and xchan like this

#17
Ironswimsuit

Ironswimsuit

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1081 posts

So what you're saying is that everyone thinks they're a Samantha, but really they're acting like a bunch of Mirandas?

 

Or a Mary Sue.

 

This.

 

The profiles that WotC came up with for different types of players came after years of playing the game, doing focus groups, and other research to make observations about how players naturally approach the game.

 

Trying to come up with archetypes for players before the game is even out just seems incredibly forced and unnecessary.

And even the WotC profiles that have some actual research behind them are frequently misapplied, so I question the usefulness of trying to come up with profiles before a game is even out, which will then inevitably be used by some to shoehorn players into "archetypes" they may or may not actually fit.

 

 

vwRhhkr.gif



#18
Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Conquest Rules Arbitrator

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3289 posts

No one is forcing anyone to use them or even participate in the discussion. If you don't like or want to use them then don't. 


  • Carthoris likes this

#19
HappyDD

HappyDD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 236 posts

That's totally a Miranda thing to say.



#20
Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Conquest Rules Arbitrator

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3289 posts

That's totally a Miranda thing to say.

 

I have no idea what that even means nor do I care really.