There has been an outburst of topics using the terms "Optimiser", "Min-maxer", "Roleplayer" and "Rollplayer" regarding their various behavior during character generation and development and wether they are mutually exclusive or not.
However many people seem to use these terms rather differently and thus some fruitless discussions have cropped out.
So should we try and define the terms?
Like:
The Optimiser
The Optimiser tries to create a character that can fulfill it's role as best as possible when considering the game mechanics in dependancy to the characters historiy and standing. Will usually not use meta-gaming.
Example:
Creates a barbarian prince because it fits the story. Doesn't care if the GM seems to favor spellcasters before melee characters. Sells down Wisdom to gain high Strength but does not sell down Charisma as it wouldn't fit the concept.
The Min-maxer
Tries to create the best possible character considering the game mechanics and the meta-game. Stops at nothing to archieve this.
Example:
Would create a Wizard because he knows that the GM favors spell casters. Sells down Charisma because is isn't needed (someone else is the party face) and also sells down Strength because he knows the GM will not play with encumbrance rules. Nevertheless plays the Wizard as a charming, well build, good looking guy if the GM lets him.
The Roleplayer
Tries to capture the concept he envisions for the character as closely as possible without caring a lot for game mechanics powerwise. This *may* result in a sub-optimal character which the roleplayer may or may not be aware of.
Example:
May create a Barbarian Prince with average Strength and high Charisma because he has been "spoiled" by an elven mother that was abducted and later married by his father, so he still "suffers" the wild primal outburst of rage of his father but longs to become something more sophisticated some day (ie will take 3 Levels of Barbarian before the Adventure holds an opportunity for him to switch to Sorcerer).
The Rollplayer
Tries to build a character that is very good when it comes to producing high numbers in relevant situations (mostly combat) because that is what he likes best. This character may be very lopsided and has some weak, even crippling spots but absolutely rocks the table when it comes to his speciality.
Example:
A Wizard with extremely high Spellpenetration and Save DCs owning all the sos and sod spells from even the most obscure sources that the GM allows but that has low Strength and Charisma to pull this off despite the fact that the GM is penalizing this quite accurately.
---
Note that it is rare to find a player that lives one of these archetypes 100%. As with alignment (gasp, I said it) there are many grey areas and in between cases but stating "he is an optimiser so he can never be a roleplayer" is clearly not the case when using these definitions.
Your take on this?
The Roleplayer
Tries to capture the concept he envisions for the character as closely as possible without caring a lot for game mechanics powerwise. This *may* result in a sub-optimal character which the roleplayer may or may not be aware of.
We were discussing this on another thread yesterday.
Creating a concept isn't roleplaying. Choosing a concept that has sub-optimal mechanics isn't roleplaying either.
Many of the most boring and forgettable character's ever played were from players who don't care about game mechanics power-wise.
Many of the most inspired, well played, well roleplayed and unforgettable characters ever played happened to be mechanically effective too.
There is no relation between picking a concept that is not optimizable, or picking a concept then not optimizing it mechanically, and good roleplaying at the table. None, zero, zip.
Think of the most memorable characters you've ever heard. Were they memorable because the player chose the sub-optimal endurance feat, or the way they brought the character to life with role playing?
|
The Roleplayer
Tries to capture the concept he envisions for the character as closely as possible without caring a lot for game mechanics powerwise. This *may* result in a sub-optimal character which the roleplayer may or may not be aware of.
We were discussing this on another thread yesterday.
Creating a concept isn't roleplaying. Choosing a concept that has sub-optimal mechanics isn't roleplaying either.
Many of the most boring and forgettable character's ever played were from players who don't care about game mechanics power-wise.
Many of the most inspired, well played, well roleplayed and unforgettable characters ever played happened to be mechanically effective too.
There is no relation between picking a concept that is not optimizable, or picking a concept then not optimizing it mechanically, and good roleplaying at the table. None, zero, zip.
Think of the most memorable characters you've ever heard. Were they memorable because the player chose the sub-optimal endurance feat, or the way they brought the character to life with role playing?
And of course a concepts viability is all relative to the needs of the group they are playing in.
Creating a concept isn't roleplaying. Choosing a concept that has sub-optimal mechanics isn't roleplaying either....
Right, one has nothing to do with the other.
Because of that I stated "Tries to capture a concept" and "this may lead to a subotimal character".
A Roleplayer isn't primarily concerned with optimisation but nothing prevents him from optimising, in fact it may even be necessary to optimise a character if the concept you try to roleplay out is that of an, say, orphan savant that is secretly the child of a king and a dragon.
And let's not forget that there are still groups out there that place playing out scenes in character before rolling dice. If you were a member of such a group otimisation is wholly unecessary as long as your character isn't total crap (like a 1st Wizard, 1st Rogue, 1st Ranger, 1st Barbarian character with 20 Cha and 6 Con).
Guy I want to game with.
Guy I don't want to game with.
That's the only definition necessary.
And it works regardless of the game rules.
I agree with what's been said.
Roleplaying is separate from the rest listed here. In fact, so much so, that I would have another list drawing out examples of it. This one deals more directly with the character sheet and rulebook, but meanwhile, there are various types of roleplaying that can be defined. Although I wouldn't want to write that list - most who put roleplay at the top of the list put it WAY at the top of the list and cannot stand when it's quantified and/or has to take a backseat to the numbers. [I don't mean any offense by that statement, there's nothing wrong with that, and it is just an observation. If it's wrong, let me live, I beg you!]
I would also add something to the list, though it's probably the least common. Players who intentionally create suboptimal characters. It might be for roleplay purposes or to simply put the odds against him-/herself. I have seen it once or twice and heard about it plenty, but it carries it's own thing. If done for roleplay purposes, this one might easily overlap with the would-be list for roleplay - i.e. a story on these forums talked once about a rogue who had a fear of being hit in melee yet refused to buy a bow. He was suboptimal on this list, and probably falls into something about having some sort of debilitating fear of something rather common for an adventurer (making you wonder why they ARE an adventurer).
Guy I want to game with.
Guy I don't want to game with.
I'd hug you but I'm afraid I might catch something.
|
|
I would not use these definitions, for me the terms mean something else. However if you plan on starting discussions you are of course free to say "for the purposes of this discussion these terms mean this..."
For me Optimiser is almost synonymous with Min-Maxer.
A "roll-player" (not that I would ever use that term) is only interested in the game aspect of an rpg, treating his character as he would a piece in Monopoly. The focus is purely on the mechanics of the game and the person will not engage in dialogue, leaving it to another player or simply stating "I fast talk the guard into letting me in, I roll Bluff and get 21".
A role-player is basically anyone who plays a roleplaying game, but I guess in the context of "roll-player" it is someone who gets involved in both the mechanics of the game and also the in-character talking, the making decisions based on character motives as well etc.
Someone could be 100% a roleplayer and 100% an optimiser, or 100% roleplayer and 0% optimiser - they are unrelated concepts just as a car can be red and fast or red and slow.
I'd hug you but I'm afraid I might catch something.
I feel the same way.
Maybe we can just give him some bromance from a distance?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think it would behoove everyone to stop using these words altogether. Currently, they're just labels, letting Person A categorize Person B so that A can feel different (and therefore superior) to B.
So basically, these terms are doing exactly what they've always been meant to do: put people down. "I don't like gaming with you, but rather than address that issue honestly and directly, I'll just find something that's different about you and use it to separate myself from you so that I can be 'right' and you can be 'wrong.'"
You see, if you have a negative experience gaming with someone, there could be any number of reasons: maybe they're an overbearing jerk, maybe they're too timid or don't engage, maybe there's a no-fault personality clash, maybe you can't accept someone who does things differently than you do, maybe they're more skilled at a particular thing than you are and the contrast makes you feel bad, maybe you're used to praise/positive response for something you do and they don't provide that, maybe you're an elitist prick who can't stand gaming with someone who isn't as good at X as you are, etc.
If you actually look into the conflict, you have to do some work, have potentially uncomfortable conversations, and also risk discovering that you're the problem rather than the other person.
But if you can just toss a label on them, you can dismiss them with no effort, no risk, and no self-examination.
That's why these labels exist in the first place, and they're doing their jobs as well as ever. No amount of mutual definition will stop them from doing what they were designed for.
Optimizer: A player, who when given a character concept, makes the best possible character mechanically while staying true to the chosen concept.
The concept can be simple combat: Do as much melee damage per round possible.
The concept may be more esoteric combat: be the best shortspear and net gladiator on the planet.
Or it could focus on a couple of skills, a follower of a diety, a concept like a fallen paladin or a noble barbarian, a wizard who has lost his spells (like Aahz, for example), or whatever. However, given the core concept, regardless of how mechanically questionable it is, the optimizer makes it the best damn mechanically questionable character it can be, while staying in the theme.
Min-maxxer: A player who minimizes his unimportant stats and abilities, while maximizing those that are important. The min-maxxer chooses the 'best' weapon, has the 'best' stat array, and the 'best' armor. They choose the 'best' race, and the 'best' favored class bonuses. They only choose the 'best' spells. A min-maxxer generally creates a character that is astonishingly good at one thing to the expense of all things that do not directly relate to that one thing.
This type of player tends to maximize prime requisite stats. Some min-maxxers completely ignore defense, others consider defense a secondary requirement. Min-maxxers want to do the most damage, have the hardest to resist spells, etc etc.
Role-player: A person who plays a role-playing game to take on a persona other than theirs. At some point during a game session, a roleplayer will talk in character, act in a way that their character should act, make choices based on their character's personality or foibles.
Roll-player: A person who plays a role-playing game solely for the mechanics, and disregards all play-acting and in-character choices, staying fully out of character while meta-gaming the mechanical and tactical situations.
And of course a concepts viability is all relative to the needs of the group they are playing in.The Roleplayer
Tries to capture the concept he envisions for the character as closely as possible without caring a lot for game mechanics powerwise. This *may* result in a sub-optimal character which the roleplayer may or may not be aware of.
We were discussing this on another thread yesterday.
Creating a concept isn't roleplaying. Choosing a concept that has sub-optimal mechanics isn't roleplaying either.
Many of the most boring and forgettable character's ever played were from players who don't care about game mechanics power-wise.
Many of the most inspired, well played, well roleplayed and unforgettable characters ever played happened to be mechanically effective too.
There is no relation between picking a concept that is not optimizable, or picking a concept then not optimizing it mechanically, and good roleplaying at the table. None, zero, zip.
Think of the most memorable characters you've ever heard. Were they memorable because the player chose the sub-optimal endurance feat, or the way they brought the character to life with role playing?
Straw man - a logical fallacy in which a person attempts to refute an argument by creating a similar, but weaker argument (the straw man) and refutes it.
If your purpose is to improve the group's power level and you optimize to do that, you are optimizing.
|
|
And of course a concepts viability is all relative to the needs of the group they are playing in.The Roleplayer
Tries to capture the concept he envisions for the character as closely as possible without caring a lot for game mechanics powerwise. This *may* result in a sub-optimal character which the roleplayer may or may not be aware of.
We were discussing this on another thread yesterday.
Creating a concept isn't roleplaying. Choosing a concept that has sub-optimal mechanics isn't roleplaying either.
Many of the most boring and forgettable character's ever played were from players who don't care about game mechanics power-wise.
Many of the most inspired, well played, well roleplayed and unforgettable characters ever played happened to be mechanically effective too.
There is no relation between picking a concept that is not optimizable, or picking a concept then not optimizing it mechanically, and good roleplaying at the table. None, zero, zip.
Think of the most memorable characters you've ever heard. Were they memorable because the player chose the sub-optimal endurance feat, or the way they brought the character to life with role playing?
Straw man - a logical fallacy in which a person attempts to refute an argument by creating a similar, but weaker argument (the straw man) and refutes it.
If your purpose is to improve the group's power level and you optimize to do that, you are optimizing.
Aww...I'm so proud of you being able to use the new word that I taught you.
The next step is learning how to use it in proper context, but baby steps.
Good job lil' buckaroo!
The Anti Sue?
Standard TVTropes warning applies.
Can someone please tell me exactly what a Mary Sue is and where this term started?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Can someone please tell me exactly what a Mary Sue is and where this term started?The Anti Sue?
Standard TVTropes warning applies.
The page on Mary Sue is linked in the first few words of the text TOZ linked for Anti Sue. That should tell you all you need to know (and I doubt anyone here knows more than is on that page, anyway).
Aww...I'm so proud of you being able to use the new word that I taught you.The next step is learning how to use it in proper context, but baby steps.
Good job lil' buckaroo!
If only you actually KNEW what a straw man was instead of pretending, you might use less of them.
And looks up argumentum ad hominem while you are at it so you can stop using them too.
The page on Mary Sue is linked in the first few words of the text TOZ linked for Anti Sue. That should tell you all you need to know (and I doubt anyone here knows more than is on that page, anyway).Can someone please tell me exactly what a Mary Sue is and where this term started?The Anti Sue?
Standard TVTropes warning applies.
Thanks. I get it now. Doh!
Because of that I stated "Tries to capture a concept" and "this may lead to a subotimal character".
Your example clarified your point just fine. You think "role playing" can be defined as a Barbarian taking an average strength and a high Cha because it fits a sub-optimal concept. That's the exact example you give for a "roleplayer".
That's not roleplaying, that's simply a failure to optimize. Not optimizing isn't roleplaying.
Excellent examples of a "roleplayer" have been posted already, so I'll quote them for truth:
Marshall Jansen gets it:
Role-player: A person who plays a role-playing game to take on a persona other than theirs. At some point during a game session, a roleplayer will talk in character, act in a way that their character should act, make choices based on their character's personality or foibles.
Erato said it better than I ever could:
The roleplayer
Technically speaking, everyone who plays a roleplaying game is a roleplayer. But if we're trying to use the term in a narrower sense (which I don't think is necessary) I would say someone who puts a lot of effort into portraying their character at the table. For people who make a big deal out of how much of a roleplayer they are, the term usually means spending a lot of time outside the game making up stories about one's character while taking mechanically weak choices – but we really need a separate word for those kinds of people.
If I was to add anything to Erato's definition, he's said a roleplayer puts lots of effort into portraying their character at the table, while I would point out that good roleplaying is portraying an interesting character well at the table.
I have recalled memorable characters in separate campaigns many times with friends, where someone comments, "If (memorable character) were here he would say (some memorable quote or catchphrase)", or "If (memorable character) were here, he would (do some memorable thing)"
I have never, nor will ever recall a character fondly with my friends like, "Remember Brutus the Barbarian? If he were here his Strength score would be 10, but his Cha score would be 18! Good times. Good times."
...Not optimizing isn't roleplaying...
The examples you cite do not support your own statement?!
So for you a player who wants to roleplay a beautiful Wizard (and thus raises Cha over, say, Con) isn't roleplaying?
...Not optimizing isn't roleplaying...The examples you cite do not support your own statement?!
So for you a player who wants to roleplay a beautiful Wizard (and thus raises Cha over, say, Con) isn't roleplaying?
If he/she roleplays a beautiful Wizard, then thats 'Roleplaying'.
If he/she supports that roleplay with the appropriate stats, then thats congruency between the mechanics and character. Which is 'good'.Taking Cha over Con on a character sheet alone and simply saying 'beautiful wizard' is not roleplaying. Thats just playing a statblock.
The Statblock is there to support roleplay, but the statblock is not 'roleplaying' in and of itself.
I should be able to determine your stats and what your character is about (interests, skills, and to some degree 'ability') by simply interacting with you and observing - if you have a 16CHA Wizard then your playstyle and interatctions should reflect that character.
The examples you cite do not support your own statement?!
This is a question? I don't get it.
So for you a player who wants to roleplay a beautiful Wizard (and thus raises Cha over, say, Con) isn't roleplaying?
That's correct. Playing a character who has a mechanic that would suggest they are beautiful isn't roleplaying. It's making a character, something you can do alone.
Here's a tip you can use: Anything you write on your character sheet isn't roleplaying. It is preparation for roleplaying.
Roleplaying is something you do with your friends while snacking on Doritos and Dr Pepper (or my case coffee). If you like, you can essentially call roleplaying "acting out your character"
If you can do it in your basement by yourself, then it's not roleplaying.
Let's use a different example. If you and your wife decide to do some "roleplaying" in the bedroom. The "roleplaying" occurs in the bedroom with your wife, NOT when you go buy the Han Solo and Princess Leia costumes.
Optimization:
GM: So, this is the first session of our new Robin Hood campaign. What is each of you playing?
Player 1: I play an exiled nobleman who wants to help the oppressed people of Sherwood. He is chivalric and a little mischievous. He's a great archer, too. I spent some feats on archery and leadership.
Player 2: I play an outlaw. He is a giant of a man and good with his quarterstaff. He is trustworthy and outgoing, albeit a bit loud at times.
I spent my feats on stronger attacks and I took a low Charisma, cause the guy is wont to say the wrong thing at the wrong time.
Player 3: I play a monk. He loves his food and his ale. He is concerned for the people of Sherwood, too. He is not a great fighter, but a good diplomat.
This guy is a little fat, so I took low dex, but I put some feats into improvised weapons and diplomacy.
- Characters built for the setting and campaign. Able to do what is likely to happen during adventures. Where is that bad optimization?
Bad optimization:
Player 4: My character is a knight and ambassador. I did not spend points on diplomacy and I dumped my mental stats to buy up my strength. I will not roll on social encounters, because I am eloquent and I don't think a character's skills need not represent what he is actually able to do, with the exception of combat oriented abilities. I spent feats on exotic weapons because the katana has a better crit and damage ratio.
Do we have a word for the 90% of players who don't care about any of these schisms, if they are even aware of them?
Optimization:
GM: So, this is the first session of our new Robin Hood campaign. What is each of you playing?Player 1: I play an exiled nobleman who wants to help the oppressed people of Sherwood. He is chivalric and a little mischievous. He's a great archer, too. I spent some feats on archery and leadership.
Player 2: I play an outlaw. He is a giant of a man and good with his quarterstaff. He is trustworthy and outgoing, albeit a bit loud at times.
I spent my feats on stronger attacks and I took a low Charisma, cause the guy is wont to say the wrong thing at the wrong time.Player 3: I play a monk. He loves his food and his ale. He is concerned for the people of Sherwood, too. He is not a great fighter, but a good diplomat.
This guy is a little fat, so I took low dex, but I put some feats into improvised weapons and diplomacy.- Characters built for the setting and campaign. Able to do what is likely to happen during adventures. Where is that bad optimization?
Bad optimization:
Player 4: My character is a knight and ambassador. I did not spend points on diplomacy and I dumped my mental stats to buy up my strength. I will not roll on social encounters, because I am eloquent and I don't think a character's skills need not represent what he is actually able to do, with the exception of combat oriented abilities. I spent feats on exotic weapons because the katana has a better crit and damage ratio.
I agree with this.
Do we have a word for the 90% of players who don't care about any of these schisms, if they are even aware of them?
Naive.
Do we have a word for the 90% of players who don't care about any of these schisms, if they are even aware of them?Naive.
Yes, that's right Dumb Paladin, you have passed the test. People who care more about playing the came than categorizing other players are naïve.
The two monkiers could and should be
Players: People who enjoy playing.
and
Munchkins: A**%@+@ who selfishly attemps to Win the game to the misery of the group.
Munchkin isn't a play style, it how you play.
Mr. Fishy has met a roleplaying Munchkin [his trollop]. She talks to everything and recruits monster pets. Shes had a insane kolbold, a gnoll, a abberation dragonfly from hell, an imp, a zombie, a gang of skeletons, a slave human, and a cleric. This were not cohorts or familiars or animal companions these were RPed pets. [She equipped them with gear even the zombie.]
So yeah it cuts both ways.
Do we have a word for the 90% of players who don't care about any of these schisms, if they are even aware of them?
Wouldn't assigning a word to them create another schism?
Now we have:
Optimizers
Roleplayers
Rollplayers
min-maxers
Awesome people/Exquisite people...either way, isn't assigning them a name, complimentary or not, self defeating?
Munchkin isn't a play style, it how you play.Well, that's an... interesting distinction to make.
It's a distinction?
Also, don't forget that Shirts aren't a dress-style, it's how you dress.
BBQ isn't a cooking-style, it's how you cook
Waltz isn't a dancing-style, it's how you dance
and my personal favorite
gorging on cheese isn't an eating-style, it's how you eat
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Do we have a word for the 90% of players who don't care about any of these schisms, if they are even aware of them?Wouldn't assigning a word to them create another schism?
Now we have:
Optimizers
Roleplayers
Rollplayers
min-maxers
Awesome people/Exquisite people...either way, isn't assigning them a name, complimentary or not, self defeating?
I think that was actually his point.
I think that was actually his point.Do we have a word for the 90% of players who don't care about any of these schisms, if they are even aware of them?Wouldn't assigning a word to them create another schism?
Now we have:
Optimizers
Roleplayers
Rollplayers
min-maxers
Awesome people/Exquisite people...either way, isn't assigning them a name, complimentary or not, self defeating?
What else could his point be?
What else could his point be?
Missed.
Someone should make an alignment chart for players with the axes being 'roleplaying' and 'optimization'.
Here we go...with the X being optimization and Y role playing
Optimized Role player-Drama Queen-'da gimp
The Casual role-player-True Neutral-the n00b
The number cruncher-Joe six pack-the idiot
Optimized role-player-Player plays a 22DEX elf archer, who only speaks in elvish at the game table. The chacter is 100% effective at both combat, skills, and has a full personality to boot. Everybody wants to game with this guy.
Drama Queen-The bard or rogue with low DEX or STR because "It fits my character concept" The player thinks part of the fun is playing sub optimal characters. Tends to be drawn to Specialist Wizards, Weak clumsy rogues, and druids who practice bestiality. Fighters who don't wear armor 'cause I might fall in the water.' even though it's a DARKSUN game!
'da gimp-Plays wizards who 'like fighting with swords! Small barbarians who specialize in fighting unarmed, and low charisma Paladins. Elf archers who specialize in 'thrown weapons'. May ask to play 'blind,crippled, or deaf' characters. 'da gimp is a strange strange person.
The Casual role-player-Plays a dull, well designed fighter. Has little personality, but can manage to speak. Tends to favor INT or CHA as a dumb stat, so as to get out of needing to roleplay much.
The N00b-In addition to being utterly clueless at character design, also can't seem to remember that the game is NOT about 1 Star wars Jokes 2 World of Warcraft 3 LEROY JENKINS. May attempt to seduce female PLAYERS at the table by saying "My character has a charisma of 17, don't you want to sleep with him, I mean me?" The N00b can't really figure out why he got into this game anyway...(I hate the N00b)
The Number Cruncher-Can tell you the odds of a terrasque failing it's save vs his heightened-maximized-empowered-spell-focuses-free delivery optical-prismatic-loop the loop-death ray of Burkina faso!. Yet he may hit level 17 before filling in the 'name' section of his character sheet. Carries a scientific calculator or laptop running Linux. May have invented Linux. Hates Drama Queen. Has all the books of rules, and NEVER buys a campaign setting. Just borrows other people's as "I only need the feats and spells section!"
Joe Six Pack- "Well I an't a lame LARPER like the rest of you, I just want to kill me some dragons and level up. I don't speak Elvish...this is 'MERIKA got it now SPIK American." Politics aside, Joe Six-pack can't be bothered to read enough rules to make a gamebreaker. Asks his friend,the number cruncher to "help make my barbarian kill more stuff better." Joe Six Pack is the average man, but not the average gamer thankfully.
The Idiot-He is never invited back. His character is a sub-prime mortgage on a house in Detroit. it's ugly, it's bad, it lacks character, everything is wrong, and it gives everybody else a major headache and you end up having to either kill the character or keep bailing him out. The Idiot favors 'rogues who steal other people's *%^%^ cause that's what rogues do.' He may also play "Sexy characters!" Based on hentai or god knows what. The Idiot brings his own brand of abject failure at life to YOUR gaming table
Most gamers are true neutral. A few of the extremes are ok. N00b is often a stage they grow out of so I call it a N00b. I have actually gamed with several idiots.
Bonus round: Nine Gamer Alignments without stigmatizing any of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Roleplaying: What you do at the table
Optimizing: What you do to prepare for roleplaying
Rollplaying: What you say to reveal you are a smug prick
Do we have a word for the 90% of players who don't care about any of these schisms, if they are even aware of them?
Archetypes exist in any large groups of people, whether we want it or not (and I'm not talking class archetypes à la Paizo here).
But unlike what many people seem to think, archetypes are not 1) schisms and 2) mutually exclusive. I might add the fact that the OP's list is incomplete and does not categorize all type of players.
In that light, I agree with Lincoln here: you don't need to classify yourself in one of the so-called style of play and exclude yourself of all the others in order to enjoy the game. As long as anyone agrees with the 'don't be a prick' part of the social contract that a RPG game is, everyone can have fun the way they want.
Some people might be more compatible with other players and that's where archetypes may become a useful tool; but the archetypes of optimizers, munchkins and the sort aren't apt to become useful tools of any sort, especially since all bare some sort of negative connotation.
This thread introduced me to DM badges. I thinks this can be a good tool for DM-meet-players events, and I'm starting to consider that player's badges could be a good idea as well.
'findel