For a long time, I thought there was something wrong with me as a player. I was at a table full of people I genuinely liked. The GM was good. But as the sessions went on, I just kept on feeling like I was playing a different game from everybody else. Not a bad game, just a different one. And because these were all my friends, I couldn't just leave them. So, I stayed and quietly jsut bid my time, letting that mismatch sit there each week.
Eventually, I figured out what was happening. I'm a storyteller. I get excited by emotional narratives, character arcs, and the story moments that actually mean something. Most of my table was there to kill monsters and solve problems. We weren't both wrong, but we probably needed different games
This got me going down a rabbit hole, and I started mapping out player types. Not just "roleplayer vs. optimizer", but a proper framework built on five axes that capture how people engage with the game.
Here's what I came up with.
External vs. Internal: Does the player get energized by interacting with the table, or from their own internal worlds and relationship with their character
Concrete vs. Abstract: Does the player think in sensory, specific details, or do they see overarching narratives and themes?
Spontaneous vs. Planned: Does the player just go with the "vibes"? Or are they more methodical about how they approach D&D?
Casual vs. Immersive: Arguably one of the most important, as I am guessing this is where I felt most of the mismatch. Is the player emotionally invested in the game, or do they see it as just a game?
This is similar to MBTI and produces 16 distinct types.
Here are a few examples. Storytellers (that's me!) want emotional narrative, character arcs that go somewhere, and moments that matter. The strategist enjoys tactical coordination, calling targets, leading a team into battle, and genuinely sees combat as intellectually stimulating. The muse is a rarer type, but these are the players who like to commission character art, make playlists, and have a deep, lived connection to their PC. The explorer is the player who will literally roll an investigation check every room, because they have a deep curiosity in your world.
The reason why I built this was so that I could understand my players better and be understood by other GMs as well. I would love to see what some of y'all's results are. If you're interested, I made a quiz here -> https://form.typeform.com/to/bQxK0rYk
What you are experiencing is a very old problem created by the long and tragic legacy of Dungeons and Dragons self identity.
This is not a matter of "player" classification so much as it is about game classification.
Simply put, there is a difference between "An Adventure Game" and a "Role-playing Game". They are entirely different styles of games, but D&D, unlike most other RPGs have a very unclear lineage in this regard. D&D has been evolving and de-evolving on some crossroad between these two styles of game and never really fully committing to either method, at least not in a long time. It's particularly infamous for mixing up the mechanics between RPG mechanics that support an adventure game style of play and mechanics that support role-playing style of play.
For example, a mechanic that supports adventure gaming would be "Monster XP". If you look in the Monster Manual, every monster has an XP value. That is a legacy mechanic that belongs in an adventure game not a role-playing game, it was part of an old system of calculation from 1e days when the game was still very much an adventure game, which included 1 gold = 1 XP as a way for players to control their own progress. Aka, if you went in dungeons, defeated monsters, and recovered treasure, you were rewarded. How far into the dungeon you went, how much risk you took, those were player decisions in an adventure game where the player was in charge of their own advancement. More than that, it was the main meta driver for game play. You want to level up? You have to go into dungeons, find treasure and defeat monsters. That is the adventure game, game loop.
In a role-playing game, aka, a game about story, theatre, drama, emotion, story arcs etc is not a game where you want players making decisions like "let's fight this monster for the XP". Your meta motivation as a player has to come from a different place that rewards the playstyle and approach to the game trying to be achieved. D&D also offers that. For example you can use milestone XP where the milestones are story beats, the completion of archs etc..
D&D is full of such contradictions because there are many such legacy mechanics from a time when D&D was an adventure game still lingering in the system even today. The result is that it has a way of attracting players to the table from both of these preference spectrums in equal measure. Some players come with the promise of dungeons and dragons, quite literally, aka, exploring dangerous places, fighting monsters, finding treasure, while other players come with the modern promise of drama and theatre, aka what they see on shows like Critical Role.
D&D is on a very short list of games where session 0 is bonafid requirement. You don't need to have a conversation with players about "what this game is going to be about" or "what style of play you will have" when you pick up a game like Shadowdark or Vampire The Masquerade. These games live exclusively in their distinct genre of play. Shadowdark is an adventure game only, there is nothing else and the mechanics support that style of play exclusively. Vampire the Masquerade is a storytelling RPG, its design only supports this style of play.
D&D 5e lives in a kind of limbo inbetween both because of its legacy as being an adventure game when it first started and kind of evolving, albeit slowly to being more of a storyteller RPG and then also de-evolving.
To give you an example of this evolution and de-evolution. In 2014 we had a character background structure where you set attributes for your character meant to drive their personality and depict their mental self. These defining traits like Ideals, Bonds and Flaws for example, were meant to describe your character in the same context that you would define a character in a play. Their motivations, beliefs, etc. You could derive how characters might behave as individuals in a fantasy world based on those. This was an evolution of D&D towards being a more storyteller role-playing game. Things like this are completely unnecessary in an adventure game. In an adventure game, when you say "I" you mean you are acting on the behalf of an avatar, but when you say "I" in a game where your character's motivations are clearly spelled out in no uncertain terms, its very clear you mean "through the eyes of your character". "My character would or wouldn't do that" is a justifiable response in such a game. In an adventure saying "my character wouldn't do that" makes you a "problem player".
In any case, this was abandoned in 2024 and we went back to a more adventure game style selection where selecting your background is there strictly for the purpose of mechanical character options. Its completetly irrelevant to "the story of the character" and there is nothing you can derive from it in a drama. "I'm a soldier" says nothing about who your character is, it just tells us what they were doing before they became an adventurer, and the purpose of it is to give you some stats, no different than picking a feat or a weapon specialization.
So, hence your problem. A game with such unclear design and purpose, attempting to be everything to everyone, usually ends up bringing this kind of blending of people with different visions for the game, creating a disconnect between player expectations. Its a very common problem in modern D&D tables, its why the session 0 has become such a major part of the process of setting up a D&D game today. You really have to establish "How are we going to play D&D" with your group. Because "let's play D&D", says very little about what is about to happen.
Point being, "player type" is not really a thing. People who like combat, does not exclude them being socializers, writers and storytellers. Its a sort of pigeon holding to identify players in this manner. What you need is the right game for the groups preferences and in my experience, most players are quite flexible as long as they are in the scope of the right genre and playstyle.
For a long time, I thought there was something wrong with me as a player. I was at a table full of people I genuinely liked. The GM was good. But as the sessions went on, I just kept on feeling like I was playing a different game from everybody else. Not a bad game, just a different one. And because these were all my friends, I couldn't just leave them. So, I stayed and quietly jsut bid my time, letting that mismatch sit there each week.
Eventually, I figured out what was happening. I'm a storyteller. I get excited by emotional narratives, character arcs, and the story moments that actually mean something. Most of my table was there to kill monsters and solve problems. We weren't both wrong, but we probably needed different games
This got me going down a rabbit hole, and I started mapping out player types. Not just "roleplayer vs. optimizer", but a proper framework built on five axes that capture how people engage with the game.
Here's what I came up with.
External vs. Internal: Does the player get energized by interacting with the table, or from their own internal worlds and relationship with their character
Concrete vs. Abstract: Does the player think in sensory, specific details, or do they see overarching narratives and themes?
Spontaneous vs. Planned: Does the player just go with the "vibes"? Or are they more methodical about how they approach D&D?
Casual vs. Immersive: Arguably one of the most important, as I am guessing this is where I felt most of the mismatch. Is the player emotionally invested in the game, or do they see it as just a game?
This is similar to MBTI and produces 16 distinct types.
Here are a few examples. Storytellers (that's me!) want emotional narrative, character arcs that go somewhere, and moments that matter. The strategist enjoys tactical coordination, calling targets, leading a team into battle, and genuinely sees combat as intellectually stimulating. The muse is a rarer type, but these are the players who like to commission character art, make playlists, and have a deep, lived connection to their PC. The explorer is the player who will literally roll an investigation check every room, because they have a deep curiosity in your world.
The reason why I built this was so that I could understand my players better and be understood by other GMs as well.
I would love to see what some of y'all's results are. If you're interested, I made a quiz here ->
https://form.typeform.com/to/bQxK0rYk
What you are experiencing is a very old problem created by the long and tragic legacy of Dungeons and Dragons self identity.
This is not a matter of "player" classification so much as it is about game classification.
Simply put, there is a difference between "An Adventure Game" and a "Role-playing Game". They are entirely different styles of games, but D&D, unlike most other RPGs have a very unclear lineage in this regard. D&D has been evolving and de-evolving on some crossroad between these two styles of game and never really fully committing to either method, at least not in a long time. It's particularly infamous for mixing up the mechanics between RPG mechanics that support an adventure game style of play and mechanics that support role-playing style of play.
For example, a mechanic that supports adventure gaming would be "Monster XP". If you look in the Monster Manual, every monster has an XP value. That is a legacy mechanic that belongs in an adventure game not a role-playing game, it was part of an old system of calculation from 1e days when the game was still very much an adventure game, which included 1 gold = 1 XP as a way for players to control their own progress. Aka, if you went in dungeons, defeated monsters, and recovered treasure, you were rewarded. How far into the dungeon you went, how much risk you took, those were player decisions in an adventure game where the player was in charge of their own advancement. More than that, it was the main meta driver for game play. You want to level up? You have to go into dungeons, find treasure and defeat monsters. That is the adventure game, game loop.
In a role-playing game, aka, a game about story, theatre, drama, emotion, story arcs etc is not a game where you want players making decisions like "let's fight this monster for the XP". Your meta motivation as a player has to come from a different place that rewards the playstyle and approach to the game trying to be achieved. D&D also offers that. For example you can use milestone XP where the milestones are story beats, the completion of archs etc..
D&D is full of such contradictions because there are many such legacy mechanics from a time when D&D was an adventure game still lingering in the system even today. The result is that it has a way of attracting players to the table from both of these preference spectrums in equal measure. Some players come with the promise of dungeons and dragons, quite literally, aka, exploring dangerous places, fighting monsters, finding treasure, while other players come with the modern promise of drama and theatre, aka what they see on shows like Critical Role.
D&D is on a very short list of games where session 0 is bonafid requirement. You don't need to have a conversation with players about "what this game is going to be about" or "what style of play you will have" when you pick up a game like Shadowdark or Vampire The Masquerade. These games live exclusively in their distinct genre of play. Shadowdark is an adventure game only, there is nothing else and the mechanics support that style of play exclusively. Vampire the Masquerade is a storytelling RPG, its design only supports this style of play.
D&D 5e lives in a kind of limbo inbetween both because of its legacy as being an adventure game when it first started and kind of evolving, albeit slowly to being more of a storyteller RPG and then also de-evolving.
To give you an example of this evolution and de-evolution. In 2014 we had a character background structure where you set attributes for your character meant to drive their personality and depict their mental self. These defining traits like Ideals, Bonds and Flaws for example, were meant to describe your character in the same context that you would define a character in a play. Their motivations, beliefs, etc. You could derive how characters might behave as individuals in a fantasy world based on those. This was an evolution of D&D towards being a more storyteller role-playing game. Things like this are completely unnecessary in an adventure game. In an adventure game, when you say "I" you mean you are acting on the behalf of an avatar, but when you say "I" in a game where your character's motivations are clearly spelled out in no uncertain terms, its very clear you mean "through the eyes of your character". "My character would or wouldn't do that" is a justifiable response in such a game. In an adventure saying "my character wouldn't do that" makes you a "problem player".
In any case, this was abandoned in 2024 and we went back to a more adventure game style selection where selecting your background is there strictly for the purpose of mechanical character options. Its completetly irrelevant to "the story of the character" and there is nothing you can derive from it in a drama. "I'm a soldier" says nothing about who your character is, it just tells us what they were doing before they became an adventurer, and the purpose of it is to give you some stats, no different than picking a feat or a weapon specialization.
So, hence your problem. A game with such unclear design and purpose, attempting to be everything to everyone, usually ends up bringing this kind of blending of people with different visions for the game, creating a disconnect between player expectations. Its a very common problem in modern D&D tables, its why the session 0 has become such a major part of the process of setting up a D&D game today. You really have to establish "How are we going to play D&D" with your group. Because "let's play D&D", says very little about what is about to happen.
Point being, "player type" is not really a thing. People who like combat, does not exclude them being socializers, writers and storytellers. Its a sort of pigeon holding to identify players in this manner. What you need is the right game for the groups preferences and in my experience, most players are quite flexible as long as they are in the scope of the right genre and playstyle.