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

#21
MagnusArcanis

MagnusArcanis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 334 posts

This naming system is really a small tool to help lesser inclined people understand some basic psychological profiles of common player tendencies. For reviewers, it can be used as a way to help describe the value of a card.



IE. This Necronomicon card is going to be great for the Johnny and Timmy’s of the world. It’s a bit hard to set up, but the pay off could be amazing with right set up. Spikes will do well to avoid it though as it’s a relatively inefficient method.



If that’s how you want to address your player base, then fine. However, be warned. The above example is often confusing people who didn’t read whatever you use to label players. Decent chance that the information given will eventually, in part, become wrong. And unless you detail out the set up cards and what/why the set up is hefty and explain the pay-off… you basically didn’t tell the reader anything.



If you are explaining everything, great, then the extra bit about John, Tim, and Spike is just unnecessary.



My opinion, if you’re going to explain a card… the best service you can do is to actually explain the card. Labeling, it as good, bad, inefficient, x out of y stars, or claiming its for a specific type of player… just limits the reader’s imagination and creativity instead of expanding upon it.

Show quoted text
This naming system is a small tool to help lesser inclined people understand some basic psychological profiles of common player tendencies and for those in certain positions to be better organized with their thoughts, designs, etc… Personally, I find them completely unnecessary, but for reviewers, it can be used as a way to help describe the value of a card and talk it up to its targeted type of player.

IE. “This card is going to be great for the Johnny and Timmy’s of the world. It’s a bit hard to set up, but the pay off could be amazing! Spikes will do well to avoid it though as it’s a relatively inefficient method of achieving victory in most games.”

If that’s how you want to address your player base, fine. However, be warned. The above example is often confusing to people who didn’t read whatever you use to label players. Decent chance that the information given will eventually, in part, become wrong. And unless you detail out the set up cards and what/why the set up is hefty and explain the pay-off… you basically didn’t tell the reader anything.

If you are explaining everything, great, but the extra bit about John, Tim, and Spike becomes rather superfluous.

My opinion, if you’re going to explain a card… the best service you can do is to actually explain the card. Labeling, it as good, bad, x out of y stars, or claiming it’s for a specific type of player… only serves to limit the reader’s imagination and creativity instead of expanding upon it.

Despite that, it’s a common trope in today’s gaming community. However, I’ll cycle back to my original point, the typical competitive ccg labels aren’t going to work with Arkham Horror. They live in two completely different categories/genres of gaming and I imagine people are going to get enjoyment out of this game in a different way.

So to continue to attempt to be constructive in this conversation. Instead of or in addition to the team roles I outlined previously and you’re trying to identify just the player, perhaps going with something like the below could be a way to?

Reader – someone who just wants to experience the story.
Investigator/Explorer – someone who will likely explore every nook and cranny of every quest/campaign.
Challenger – The type of person who wants to win at all costs, on the highest difficultly, and often as quickly as possible.

Again, feel free to theme those up should you choose to use them.
  • Toqtamish, Carthoris and Ironswimsuit like this

#22
HappyDD

HappyDD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 236 posts

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

 

You know, if you're going to go ahead and post stuff like this indicating your irritation you really should be more open to other people explaining why they find the naming of player types irritating. Just trying to help you out with the brand. 



#23
gramyotron

gramyotron

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts

Since this will be a co-op game, typical PvP cardgame archetypes does not apply, I think. Alligning them is negative theory crafting, I think :)

I have been thinking about this and archetypes will be the factions. Enforcer will be a killing machine, Scientist or how is it called will be investigating like crazy.

 

Every player will be Jaimie type - everyone wants to survive. With 30 card decks it will be difficult to sort players.



#24
Ironswimsuit

Ironswimsuit

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1081 posts

Since this will be a co-op game, typical PvP cardgame archetypes does not apply, I think. Alligning them is negative theory crafting, I think :)

I have been thinking about this and archetypes will be the factions. Enforcer will be a killing machine, Scientist or how is it called will be investigating like crazy.

 

Every player will be Jaimie type - everyone wants to survive. With 30 card decks it will be difficult to sort players.

 

Certainly there has to be some other co-op card game in which archetypes apply and includes room for play styles outside of ruthless efficiency. If only I could think of one....

 

 

 

 

 

mec01_boxlayout.png


  • Toqtamish likes this

#25
Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Conquest Rules Arbitrator

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3289 posts

You know, if you're going to go ahead and post stuff like this indicating your irritation you really should be more open to other people explaining why they find the naming of player types irritating. Just trying to help you out with the brand.


My apologies. My dying grandmother has my nerves a bit shorter than usual. Not an excuse.
  • HappyDD likes this

#26
gramyotron

gramyotron

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts

Are there any in LotR? I do not know if you are sarcastic or not.

What is the card deck in LotR? I read some comments that LotR is mostly about mechanics whereas AH will be most likealy a story driven game. Even designers call it a narrative experience.


  • Ironswimsuit likes this

#27
Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Conquest Rules Arbitrator

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3289 posts

Are there any in LotR? .


https://www.fantasyf...in-and-boromir/

#28
Ironswimsuit

Ironswimsuit

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1081 posts

Are there any in LotR? I do not know if you are sarcastic or not.

What is the card deck in LotR? I read some comments that LotR is mostly about mechanics whereas AH will be most likealy a story driven game. Even designers call it a narrative experience.

 

It's a 50 card deck, though while players were waiting for the first expansions to come out, making efficient 30 card decks out of cores wasn't entirely uncommon. Yes, I am very sarcastic. It's all in fun, though. LotR is still pretty narrative, though it's not designed quite the same as AH. The saga expansions had campaign play, which is similar. I remember in the early days players made narrative decks as often as they made efficient ones. Then Zigil Miner came out and janky combos were all over the place. Then Glorfindel 2...and Keen Eyed Took....



#29
Vlad3theImpaler

Vlad3theImpaler

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts

Or a Mary Sue.

 

 

 

vwRhhkr.gif

No need to be like that just because I offered a dissenting opinion.



#30
MagnusArcanis

MagnusArcanis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 334 posts
Now now, be nice. It's just a philosophical discussion about psychological profiles and our need for them.

That being said... I'd be shocked if nate didn't pump out an article and make the decision for everyone.

#31
Ironswimsuit

Ironswimsuit

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1081 posts

No need to be like that just because I offered a dissenting opinion.

 

You're right. I could have been nicer after reading your comment even though I found it contrarian. I apologize.



#32
JonDigman

JonDigman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 110 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/


Thank you...

#33
mnBroncos

mnBroncos

    Advanced Member

  • Small Council
  • 3801 posts
Can tell this game needs more to talk about lol this was just meant for names to give cards during reviews lol. Like to say a card is more for "cultist" players that want to try this cute combo but probably not the best card.
  • PaxCecilia likes this

#34
PaxCecilia

PaxCecilia

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 54 posts

Agreed mnBroncos. While it might be a silly topic it does show that people are interested enough in the game that they want to talk about it. Sounds like we need a new spoiler article. Hopefully the one that talks more about deck building will get released soon.