Gamer Type and PF2 Friction

[HWalsh]

I think it is important that we start looking at some of the underlaying types of gamers (to which we all belong to as a whole or in part) to one way or the other. Note: This doesn't call anyone out, it isn't an accusation, and none of these types of gamer is wrong, and this is by no means a complete list. Identification of what kind of gamer we each are helps us to understand why we don't like something and how best we can direct feedback to have an impact without raging. Or, to put it simply, it helps us explain what we don't like or do like in a way that is useful.

So without further delay:

1. The Story Gamer
This kind of gamer is sometimes called a casual gamer, they are generally gamers who are here for the story and to hang out to have a good time. They aren't so much into the mechanics and in fact many may not even know the mechanics. They don't optimize for a myriad of reasons that range from they don't like it, they don't care, or they don't know how. They want a game that they can pick up and play with minimal effort into learning so they can jump in and go.

This is a growing demographic among gamers. It used to be that this group was an extreme minority. Gaming was an esoteric thing that wasn't mainstream and, due to some really bad stigmas around gaming, especially in the lat 1970's and early 1980's, it tended to only attract the more hardcore crowd.

2. The Optimizer
This kind of gamer is sometimes called a Power Gamer, but there are much worse names used as well. They are generally gamers who are here to win. By win, it means to be able to do what they set out to do in the most extreme way possible. This character will deal the most damage, they will have save DCs that cannot be hit, and they will generally take a look at an equal CR opponent and snicker before they go off to 1v1 an APL+3 CR opponent for the funsies.

This kind of gamer works hard and plays hard. They comb through hundreds and hundreds of pages to find the perfect combination of feats, features, spells, and abilities. They put in an extreme amount of effort into making absolutely certain that they are running the best. They check and cross-check everything from every angle and will discern what is the biggest bang for their buck at any given time. Does it target SR? Can I ratchet up the save DC? Does it provide the highest bonus? Is it consistent? That is what this gamer values. For them it is all about being the best at what they choose to do and that is how they derive their value from the game.

3. The Contrarian
This gamer name is a bit misleading, but not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes contrarians are a kind of Optimizer. They will look at a game system and see if they can find a way to do the game in a way that was clearly not intended. These are the kinds of players who will decide, "I am going to make a character that will never kill anyone, ever." If they are playing in a game where the expected path to victory involves copious crimson wall and floor redecorating.

They aren't trying to be disruptive, but they tend to upset other gamers because usually the two methods simply don't work together and the contrarian really wants to see if their idea works. Often contrarians become something known as a "Diplomancer" but not always. Sometimes the contrarian will go the alternative route, they will build the combat monger in the social campaign, or build the super villain in the superhero campaign, they simply don't want to do what everyone else is doing. It could be because they don't like being part of the machine, they don't agree with a certain philosophy, or because they are simply bored of doing the same old thing. Regardless the Contrarian doesn't want to do things in the way they were intended.

-----

Now, not everyone fits into a neat little box. I, for example, sit somewhere between the Story Gamer and the Optimizer. I like to build good characters, but I see no reason to go to extremes, and I am interested in the RP and how the story plays out. I have a hint of contrarian in me as well, in that I will sometimes play the good character even in a setting where good is probably not always fitting.

-----

What is important is to note what each group of player really looks for though.

The Story Gamer wants simple rules, clear and concise, and doesn't want to spend hours and hours pouring over the mechanical aspects of their character. They get frustrated when they have to make too many mechanical choices because it isn't what they care about. They are going to like PF2's initial character creation, but may not be a fan of all of the feat choices because they simply don't want to make many choices about the mechanics of their character as that gets in the way of developing the character's personality, backstory, appearance, and interactions.

The Optimizer wants complex rules because complicated rules means that they have more to work with. They love the idea that PF2 has tons of feats, they just wish that those feats always had a higher mechanical impact. They aren't the kind of people who want to hit most of the time, they want to succeed all of the time, they want to be assured when they go in that they will win. The outcome, for them, was decided before a die was rolled. Because of PF2's much lower power level and higher dependence on randomization the Optimizer isn't overly pleased right now. They can't optimize to significant power levels and even if they do, a natural 1 is a failure even on skills. They long for what they could do in PF1, where they could shatter the world if they wanted to, because the game had a much higher power curve.

The Contrarian wants options. They want feats and such that upend the normal flow. They want a feat that lets them stop combat in its tracks to find a diplomatic solution. They want a feat that goes against the general flow of the game because it lets them do something different. They are the kind of person who wants 100% non-magical healing because they want to stick it to the magic users. They want a skill feat that lets them stop a combat in a single action and force the enemy to negotiate. They want something that lets them use Lore: Logic in place of Diplomacy to negotiate so that they can make a social character that relies on Intelligence. They want weird, different, and unique all the way. PF2 doesn't cater to this type of player at all. There are very few upending options.

-----

So, in closing, these simple rails can help you when formulating feedback. Instead of just saying: "X feat sucks." you can articulate why you feel it sucks, what appeals to you in general, and that goes a long way to getting changes.

[Mathmuse]

These categories overlap a lot.

My wife is a story-creator who contrarily upsets the normal flow of the game by playing characters realistically. For example, when her dwarf who grew up in the town of Torch discovered a potential illegal operation in Torch during Iron Gods, she went to the local government to report it. The module assumed the party would fight the Ropefist thugs themselves. The dwarf was a gadgeteer, cobbled together from the Experimental Gunsmith archetype for Gunslinger and a few unusual feats.

Another player wants to win, but he did not know how to optimize. His fighter carried a dozen weapons because maybe using the right weapon for the job is the way to win. He created an optimized Samsaran crafter wizard as a Leadership cohort--I suspect that he copied a character design from the internet--and then sent that wizard into melee combat beside his fighter.

I have several story gamers who routinely optimize. They have science, engineering, or programming backgrounds, so the rules are not complicated to them. My grandmaster wife taught them the true secret to battlefield effectiveness, that teamwork is the best strategy, and story gamers are good at teamwork.

[HWalsh]

Mathmuse wrote:

These categories overlap a lot.

My wife is a story-creator who contrarily upsets the normal flow of the game by playing characters realistically. For example, when her dwarf who grew up in the town of Torch discovered a potential illegal operation in Torch during Iron Gods, she went to the local government to report it. The module assumed the party would fight the Ropefist thugs themselves. The dwarf was a gadgeteer, cobbled together from the Experimental Gunsmith archetype for Gunslinger and a few unusual feats.

Another player wants to win, but he did not know how to optimize. His fighter carried a dozen weapons because maybe using the right weapon for the job is the way to win. He created an optimized Samsaran crafter wizard as a Leadership cohort--I suspect that he copied a character design from the internet--and then sent that wizard into melee combat beside his fighter.

I have several story gamers who routinely optimize. They have science, engineering, or programming backgrounds, so the rules are not complicated to them. My grandmaster wife taught them the true secret to battlefield effectiveness, that teamwork is the best strategy, and story gamers are good at teamwork.

While I admitted that there is a lot of overlap, that people sit between these things, I don't know what you are trying to say.

Hardcore optimizers in PF don't actually need teamwork. They really don't. I have been in PFS games where one character "won" every single combat on the first round on the first action. I have seen other ones where optimized characters could take on 3 APL+2 enemies and win in 1-2 rounds. There is no "true secret" to battlefield effectiveness in PF1.

Teamwork works, but so does not teamwork, it all depends on how you build yourself.

But regardless this is to help people who aren't sure how to articulate what their feedback is.

Example:
Someone is a contrarian, they might say:

"I feel the game doesn't have enough options."

Someone is an optimizer, they might say:

"I feel the game doesn't have enough options."

That feedback doesn't help.

A contrarian who realizes what they want though might say:
"I feel that the game doesn't have enough options that allow me to move against the intended, or most direct, gameplay route."

An Optimizer who realizes this may say:
"I feel that the game doesn't have enough options that feel mechanically relevant to what I want. I want to be able to increase my character's power significantly, with significant bonuses, not simply +1's and +2's."

[ENHenry]

I'm more of a fan of the types of gamer as defined in "Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering."

http://www.sjgames.com/robinslaws/

Most gamers seem to have one of these traits as dominant, and one or more of these traits in a secondary capacity. Laws defines them as what gives a certain type of gamer their "emotional kick", and the more you can identify which traits your gamers most enjoy, then targeting parts of your game to satisfy these means you have gamers who are energized and ready to come back.

Power Gamers - those who most enjoy accumulating new abilities, power or influence in-game, and enjoy the chance to flex those in some fashion in-game. (Laws does not use this term in a negative connotation, to the contrary he notes it does not have to mean that the gamer exploits the game to anyone's detriment, and the rewards do not necessarily have to be mechanical ones.)

Tactician - Those who love complex problems or challenging obstacles and enjoy the chance to encounter and beat those problems using the in-game rules to engineer a solution.

Method Actor - Those who enjoy the creative expression that comes with building a character full of quirks, nuances, or internal or external conflicts to force interaction with the other players of NPCs of the world. They enjoy every chance to interact in-character or evolve their character personalities.

Butt-kicker - Those who want to, quoting Duke Nukem, "kick ass and chew bubble gum." They enjoy every chance to flex their abilities and make indelible changes to the world, most often with their fists.

Specialist - Those who make one type of character consistently, one "build" or archetype no matter the setting. Ninja, great-weapon warrior, Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock, etc. They enjoy it most when that archetype's abilities play to perfection.

Storyteller - Those who enjoy most the story itself, its arcs, its conflicts, for the good or ill of their character, as long as it makes a fantastic story. They enjoy it most when the narrative is gripping and the story plays to an amazing conclusion.

Casual Gamer - Those who are low-key, and usually up for most anything, as long as they can enjoy the time with their friends and everyone in the end has a good time.

If PF2 can appeal to each of these types -- if it has something that can satisfy each of these types, then it's going to be just as much of a runaway hit as before, I should think. The biggest problems may well come from what Laws calls "power gamer" and "specialist" types, because if you already have a strong idea of what constitutes advancement in-game, or you already have a strong idea of what package of abilities are required to fulfill your idea of a concept, then the game may be harder pressed to fulfill these.

[Mathmuse]

HWalsh wrote:

While I admitted that there is a lot of overlap, that people sit between these things, I don't know what you are trying to say.

Consider how Paizo could use your three psychographic profiles. I found the name "psychographic profile" from a Wizards of the Coast article, Timmy, Johnny, and Spike, that explains how the Magic: The Gathering developers used their three categories.

HWalsh gives contrary advice for profiles that overlap. "The Story Gamer wants simple rules," and "The Optimizer wants complex rule." If so, then the Story Gamer Optimizer wants simple, complex rules. The contradiction is because HWalsh jumped to a conclusion about what the profile wants based on a secondary traits rather than primary traits. The Story Gamers do not want simple rules. Instead, they want rules that don't get in the way and simple rules are often better at that. The Optimizers do not want complex rules. The AD&D rules were more complex yet harder to optimize than the D&D 3rd Edition rules. They want mix-and-match rules that can work together in supercharged combinations.

A better use would be to look at each rule proposed for PF2 and speculate how the three psychographic profiles will react to the rules. Look at the three-action system. Story Gamers are not obsessed over mechanics, but the three-action system won't interfere with storytelling. The Optimizer sees no advantage in it, and would be slightly disappointed over no longer squeezing significant abilities into swift actions. The Contrarian will like the flexibility.

HWalsh wrote:

Hardcore optimizers in PF don't actually need teamwork. They really don't. I have been in PFS games where one character "won" every single combat on the first round on the first action. I have seen other ones where optimized characters could take on 3 APL+2 enemies and win in 1-2 rounds. There is no "true secret" to battlefield effectiveness in PF1.

Teamwork works, but so does not teamwork, it all depends on how you build yourself.

The teamwork of my players took out an APL+8 challenge during the 6th module of Iron Gods. Three APL+2 enemies is only APL+5. The party's battle did take over 20 rounds rather than 1 or 2 rounds. Then they had to move on to the next encounter without a rest.

How did my players encounter such a challenge? They could handle it so I let it happen. I boost the challenges to ensure they have fun. I heard that Pathfinder Society games don't have that flexibility. Their challenges cannot be changed, so a certain level of optimization is enough to run roughshod over the scenario.

My Jade Regent campaign had an optimized two-handed fighter who could kill an APL+3 oni in one round. The other PCs supported him by making sure the oni were caught by surprise. Without the teamwork, the oni would have escaped and the fighter's player would have lost his fun. Hardcore optimizers can benefit from teamwork. As the GM, I added more oni encounters because that player liked fighting them and it fit the story the other players were telling.

[ErichAD]

I'm not really sure that the story gamer is worth catering to as any group primarily defined by what they don't like isn't looking to enjoy themselves. We have hang out and have a good time, which are both things that would happen even with the worst game as friends can enjoy hating something together. That leaves us with enjoy the story, as TTRPGs are collaborative, any dissatisfaction is going to largely be the responsibility of the player themselves. This is the class of player I would define as "enjoys side chat, drunken gaming, blaming others for their dissatisfaction, and dropping the game after a few sessions."

The closest I can think of is the distractable gamer. They need the rules to be intuitive and precise so the game can keep a fast enough pace to keep their interest without being bogged down in rules arguments and minutia. They don't spend time on their characters and tend to go with the first thing that catches their eye. That being the case they need abilities to be rather broad so that they have something to due regardless of their choices.

[SteelGuts]

I don’t like putting people in boxes for the sake of it. This game should be able to please many people from different backgrounds. Or it should aim to do that. I got power gamers and fan of huge intense role playing in our table in PF1 for years, and that game succeeded very well to accommodate all of us.

Classify people can only leads in my opinion to further damaging the different opinions of the community. I know your hearth is in the right place but the only group that should matters is « players » for me when we are talking about PF2.

[PossibleCabbage]

Personally, the most hardcore (as in time,effort, and attention paid) tabletop folks I know are far and away "storygamers". It's the mechanics above all people I'm familiar with who are more casual. So I don't think "what you care about" and "how much interest you have" are in any way correlated.

[Aadgarvven]

ENHenry wrote:

I'm more of a fan of the types of gamer as defined in "Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering."

http://www.sjgames.com/robinslaws/

Most gamers seem to have one of these traits as dominant, and one or more of these traits in a secondary capacity. Laws defines them as what gives a certain type of gamer their "emotional kick", and the more you can identify which traits your gamers most enjoy, then targeting parts of your game to satisfy these means you have gamers who are energized and ready to come back.

Power Gamers - those who most enjoy accumulating new abilities, power or influence in-game, and enjoy the chance to flex those in some fashion in-game. (Laws does not use this term in a negative connotation, to the contrary he notes it does not have to mean that the gamer exploits the game to anyone's detriment, and the rewards do not necessarily have to be mechanical ones.)

Tactician - Those who love complex problems or challenging obstacles and enjoy the chance to encounter and beat those problems using the in-game rules to engineer a solution.

Method Actor - Those who enjoy the creative expression that comes with building a character full of quirks, nuances, or internal or external conflicts to force interaction with the other players of NPCs of the world. They enjoy every chance to interact in-character or evolve their character personalities.

Butt-kicker - Those who want to, quoting Duke Nukem, "kick ass and chew bubble gum." They enjoy every chance to flex their abilities and make indelible changes to the world, most often with their fists.

Specialist - Those who make one type of character consistently, one "build" or archetype no matter the setting. Ninja, great-weapon warrior, Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock, etc. They enjoy it most when that archetype's abilities play to perfection.

Storyteller - Those who enjoy most the story itself, its arcs, its conflicts, for the good or ill of their character, as long as it makes a fantastic story. They enjoy it most when the narrative is gripping...

Well, I am a tactician, specialist. But rather out of game solutions.

And I love playing with storytellers and method actors. Well and with butt-kickers if they restrain themselves to 30 minutes.

Well what I love is to use spells to create something "out of the box".

Return of the temple of elemental evil. we were attacked by a kraken while in a raft, I enlarged the raft and we stayed in the middle of the raft. Problem solved.

I hate what happened to the wizard in 2e less spells, spells full of numbers instead of descriptions, powerless spells and spells focused on combat.

Shame!

[Vidmaster7]

I demand a "The hippy" category.... or not whatever really.

[AndIMustMask]

by ENHenry's post i'd classify myself as a powergamer-tactician?
i enjoy optimizing things, especially things that are generally considered gimmicky or even outright bad (i've got a wonderful collection of oddball builds kicking around on my hard drive)--i spent months working on collecting tidbits of information and little tricks to make the core/chained rogue actually fit into all of the boxes one expects for the class (sneaky, good at theft, charming, good at skirmishing/initiating combat, etc etc) and even managed a few stripes of it successfully (both magical and nonmagical variants)!

it's fun to make use of interesting combinations of rules/feats/items to make exactly the character you want and have it work well (and it working well contributes to it being a fun experience for the player), and is exactly why the general limiting of choice and overall muting of exciting class abilities pains me so, since it actively stifles the sort of diversity I loved most about the previous system.

[Wowie]

I like the Robin's profiles, though I've only just heard of them now. Under them, I'd consider myself primarily a Method Actor and Power Gamer, with the secondary traits of Specialist and Storyteller. Now, Actor/Storyteller and Power Gamer might seem mutually exclusive, but I view mechanical effectiveness as an extension of one's narrative power. So whatever my character is supposed to be narratively strongest at, I'll also endeavor to make them mechanically strong in the same areas. Both halves make the whole, but whenever they're in conflict, Method Actor edges Power Gamer out. And so it goes.

Another theory I like to use to categorize things is the Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist theory. In this theory, every gamer has some level of all three. Gamists play to win, narrativists play for the story, and simulationists - a little harder to define - play for verisimilitude and consistency. PF1 focused heavily on simulation. Even if it was complex at times, it was always internally consistent and always made sense. PF2 skews heavily toward gamism, but rips out large chunks of narrative and simulation in the process. My primary two aspects are narrative and simulation, so the way PF2 is aiming has dismayed me accordingly.

Ultimately, buckets can't define the specifics of a person, but they're good for making quick generalizations.

[AndIMustMask]

having roughly equal narrative power is a big priority of mine as well! though I understand folks don't all share my views on how fantastical/legendary/high-fantasy/whathaveyou, but even if not it's a really important pillar to help quash things like the caster/martial disparity at it's roots, something that has been positively haunting the TTRPG genre.

[ErichAD]

I agree, narrative power should be the biggest focus for balance. It's also the only real metric for advancement. If you go from 1-20 and you're still attacking creatures and selling loot, then something went wrong. If you went from 1-20 and you're the only player still attacking creatures and selling loot, then something else went wrong. PF2 seems built too much on solving problems and not enough on supplying excitement for various player types.

With Robin's laws, it's hard to say where I'd fit. I tend always to be power gamer/story teller, and I alternate between tactician and method actor depending on the character. It could just be that I often method act tacticians though. I'm not 100% on that.

[FitzTheRuke]

I'm primarily a Storyteller but I would NEVER EVER call myself a "casual" player - I play upwards of 3 days a week and have done for 30 years. I also like game design, so while I'm not a rules lawyer, I have a better understanding of the rules than 95% of anyone I've ever played with. Robin's Laws works a bit better, IMO, than the three categories in the first post. I think it's better to split this theory up into more categories with the understanding that everyone usually falls under two or three of them (with bits of others here and there) than to try to boil it down to three, and have everyone say "I'm this but not that part and a little of this but not most of it..." It just breaks down too easily.

[Slim Jim]

I'm an Optimizer *but* who prefers tables that can play in-character. (I.e., "magic tea party" as we please until SHTF, at which point I got it covered.)

[gustavo iglesias]

I think there are 2 groups of players.

The players that try to profile other players in groups of players, and those who don't.

I'm in the second group. :)

[graystone]

Depending on the game, table and day I could fall under any of the categories. ;P

[WormysQueue]

ErichAD wrote:

I'm not really sure that the story gamer is worth catering to as any group primarily defined by what they don't like isn't looking to enjoy themselves.

Why do you think we Story Gamers are defined by what we don't like?

[thejeff]

WormysQueue wrote:

ErichAD wrote:

I'm not really sure that the story gamer is worth catering to as any group primarily defined by what they don't like isn't looking to enjoy themselves.

Why do you think we Story Gamers are defined by what we don't like?

Probably because of HWalsh's definition in the OP.

Which, while it does say "here for the story" says a lot more about not caring for mechanics, not optimizing, casual, not caring and minimal effort.

The Story Gamer bit in the "what they look for" section gives a better feel, I think.

I'd actually particularly object to the "casual". The rest of it is fairly true, even if the emphasis is wrong. But I've met plenty of "casual gamers" who just wanted to roll dice and kill things with no interest in the story. And plenty of story gamers who were damn serious about their gaming, even if they weren't focused on mechanics and optimization.

[master_marshmallow]

I'd suggest reading up on GNS theory.

[ENHenry]

No categorization is going to work for everyone, gaming scratches so many itches for different people. I am indebted to Robin Laws’ various works over the years (I HIGHLY recommend people check out “Hamlet’s Hit Points” as well, a great read into game scenario construction.)

Laws’ book above was the first book that got me thinking more about what my players wanted to see in a game than what I wanted to see. I found that, once I started looking for those moments that got each player seriously engaged, feedback on my quality as a GM drastically improved, and the only thing I did differently was making sure that each player got their 15 minutes of fame to shine, whether that be a short roleplay-heavy encounter for the “method actors”, a moderately hard riddle or puzzle for the tacticians, a moment for the specialist ninja to be swift and deadly as only he could do, etc.

[Vidmaster7]

Its probably not a category as so much of a continuum as is so many other human traits.

[Kjeldorn]

Soooo…..

Am I a Contrarian Story Optimizer then? ^^'

[thejeff]

master_marshmallow wrote:

I'd suggest reading up on GNS theory.

I'm well aware of it, if that was directed at me. More so of the earlier Threefold model.

It was the presentation here that I objected to - particularly the negative definition and the use of "casual" for the Story Gamer.

Though the Story/Optimizer/Contrarian division isn't GNS or the Threefold and doesn't seem as useful to me.

[Elorebaen]

Then there is the grandfather of modern gamer types, the Bartle Test. I also suggest checking on Koster’s Theory of Fun book(his website is a treasure trove of game theory btw).

[thejeff]

Elorebaen wrote:

Then there is the grandfather of modern gamer types, the Bartle Test. I also suggest checking on Koster’s Theory of Fun book(his website is a treasure trove of game theory btw).

It's so focused on video games, I don't think it really applies well to Table top RPGs.

A lot of the questions in the test don't make any sense applied to roleplaying.

[ithardin]

For me its not so much what kind of gamer they as much as what kind of person they are. I try to have the goal of the whole table enjoying themselves and having a good time.

Different types of gamers create friction when they refuse to be inflexible in their play style and it effects the entire tables' enjoyment of the game.

Obviously this is a fine line, you don't want to avoid doing something that will be detrimental to the party (like not trying to one-shot the BBEG who goes right after you in initiative and could potentially kill someone in the party on their turn). But there should be a way that you can be cognizant of the rest of the party wanting to feel included and effective.

We've all gone to a convention or a game day and sat at a table full of strangers and regretted it. I just make it my goal to not be the person at the table that makes it regrettable.

[wraithstrike]

I disagree with these categories. It's not nearly that simple, and yes I understand it wasn't intended to put everyone in only those categories.

The optimizer as an example has levels to it. There are those like myself who know the game very well, and could create what I call "Super Character" who want to be good enough to contribute. However, my goal is to be good enough to contribute to the party, and not die. I also try to minimize defensive weaknesses.

Another person who knows the game equally well, will try to make the very powerful characters, to the point where they are very hard to kill, but at the same time don't step on anyone else's toes.

Someone else may try to hog the spotlight all the time through use of combat prowess.

As for the story based players, not all of them are casual gamers. They may make a "flavor first" character, but they aren't casual in the sense of not knowing the rules well. Many often learn the rules so they can their flavor, and excel in the mechanical side of the game also.

Yes there are some who barely know the rules even after years of playing, but that is a small minority, and even between these two there is room for a lot of different players in between theme.

As for the contrarian I think they are a very small minority. When I hear about them they are the type to agree to an all dwarf campaign, and then show up with an elf character.

Honestly, I don't even them as a player type. It's just a trait some people have, that makes them want to go the opposite of where they are expected to go.

[WormysQueue]

wraithstrike wrote:

As for the contrarian I think they are a very small minority. When I hear about them they are the type to agree to an all dwarf campaign, and then show up with an elf character.

Honestly, I don't even them as a player type. It's just a trait some people have, that makes them want to go the opposite of where they are expected to go.

I think I have a little bit of that trait in me, but to be clear, I would never come to an all-dwarf party with an elf character (especially not when that is what we agreed upon before).

It's more like that if someone tells me "that's the way how it is intended", I tend to go in contrarian mode, because I feel that very often, the meaning behind that phrase is more akin to "that's the way how I want it to be intended".

Also if I read a guide (for example a class guide), and a certain option is marked as especially bad , I immediately start to think about how to prove that you can take that option and still have a playable character or whatsoever.

But to be contrarian to what we agreed upon before as a group? That's being a jerk, in my mind, so I won't do that.

[ErichAD]

The furthest I'd go is asking before hand "When you say all dwarf, do you mean dwarf race only, or could I bring a tiefling or asimar who was born to dwarves?"

[Hythlodeus]

wraithstrike wrote:

As for the contrarian I think they are a very small minority. When I hear about them they are the type to agree to an all dwarf campaign, and then show up with an elf character.

Where I come from, we call those players Alternatieflings