Alpha or Beta Gamer?

[DocMan]

Some interesting stuff in this thread.

 

But I noticed that there seems to be some drift in the idea of what makes an Alpha or a Beta. Here are my definitions so y'all can judge my reply.

 

Alpha: comes into the game KNOWING that they will shape the game/situation into what THEY want it to be. The Alpha is first and foremost the boss of themselves, and don't anyone take it in their heads to try for the position. And if you can't keep up on your own, they'll be happy to tell you what you should be doing. For your own good, of course. Alphas have vision, but they don't compromise. They operate, but very rarely cooperate. "My way or the highway. So here's what you're going to do..."

 

Beta: Improves themselves by supporting the group. The Beta doesn't mind taking orders from others as long as they're reasonable. The Beta is perfectly capable of giving orders, but would prefer to let someone else do it, or to get consensus from the group. Betas want more facts, want to exmaine the clues, and need to prove or disprove before committing to action. Betas have no problems doing things once the decisions have been made. "So we're agreed, we'll go with plan C?"

 

Omega: Takes loads of abuse just to belong to the group. The Omega doesn't care what the group is doing as long as they get to participate. Often, the Omega has no strong skills, but tries to make up with it by finding wacky ways to use what abilities they have. Fortunately, the group very rarely follows their plan. Omegas can still be surprisingly useful, and make excellent cannon fodder. "Can I come, too?"

 

I tend to play Beta Characters. Usually my characters tend to slip into Second in Command or Power Behind the Throne type roles. They tend to influence events through suggestion and negotiation than by barking orders. I can stand up and take the lead on things, but I prefer to keep things on a friendly footing.

 

A party full of Alphas is a catfight.

 

A party full of Betas is an endless comittee.

 

A party full of Omegas is a kindergarden class at recess.

 

Doc

[lemming]

Originally posted by DocMan

A party full of Alphas is a catfight.

 

A party full of Betas is an endless comittee.

 

A party full of Omegas is a kindergarden class at recess.

You forgot Gamma Gamers:

"Stupid Dice!!! HULK SMASH!"

[Vondy]

Originally posted by DocMan

Some interesting stuff in this thread.

 

But I noticed that there seems to be some drift in the idea of what makes an Alpha or a Beta. Here are my definitions so y'all can judge my reply.

 

Alpha: comes into the game KNOWING that they will shape the game/situation into what THEY want it to be. The Alpha is first and foremost the boss of themselves, and don't anyone take it in their heads to try for the position. And if you can't keep up on your own, they'll be happy to tell you what you should be doing. For your own good, of course. Alphas have vision, but they don't compromise. They operate, but very rarely cooperate. "My way or the highway. So here's what you're going to do..."

 

Beta: Improves themselves by supporting the group. The Beta doesn't mind taking orders from others as long as they're reasonable. The Beta is perfectly capable of giving orders, but would prefer to let someone else do it, or to get consensus from the group. Betas want more facts, want to exmaine the clues, and need to prove or disprove before committing to action. Betas have no problems doing things once the decisions have been made. "So we're agreed, we'll go with plan C?"

 

Omega: Takes loads of abuse just to belong to the group. The Omega doesn't care what the group is doing as long as they get to participate. Often, the Omega has no strong skills, but tries to make up with it by finding wacky ways to use what abilities they have. Fortunately, the group very rarely follows their plan. Omegas can still be surprisingly useful, and make excellent cannon fodder. "Can I come, too?"

 

I tend to play Beta Characters. Usually my characters tend to slip into Second in Command or Power Behind the Throne type roles. They tend to influence events through suggestion and negotiation than by barking orders. I can stand up and take the lead on things, but I prefer to keep things on a friendly footing.

 

A party full of Alphas is a catfight.

 

A party full of Betas is an endless comittee.

 

A party full of Omegas is a kindergarden class at recess.

 

Doc

 

Using this definition I'm still an alpha - not because I feel a need to dominate, but because I'm decisive. My group consists of betas and I get tired of the committee not being able to make up its mind. So once we've hashed everything out and people start hemming and hawing and droning on maddeningly about what to do I put my foot down and make a decision. Every committee has to have a chairman. And every debating society has to have a man of action.

 

I want other people to contribute to tone and strategy and story development, but if they hold everything up with indecisive gobble-de-gook then someone has to push things forward. I have one player who is fairly strong in all categories, but the rest of them can be like a bunch of spinsters at a tea party - not to put too fine a point on it.

 

/megalomaniac mode on!

 

THE WEAK YEARN FOR LEADERSHIP!!!!

[Snarf]

In my last game, I played a character who was completely nuts after living in the forest too long. Because I only did stupid and crazy stuff, I was the center of attention often and did a lot to set the tone for the game, but I never did anything useful except when when someone asked me to or when there was a fight. I've been told that I always roleplay like this. I'm not sure whether that makes me an alpha or beta. Or is that an Omega?

[White Heat]

I'm an Alpha PC. I think it was my post in the Play or Run thread that started this whole debate. It's not that I ever plan it that way, it just happens. I can't tolerate a bunch of Betas talking the plot to an early grave, so I jump-start it. I guess that means I'm impatient, too.

 

I have to agree, though -- GMs tend to be Alpha players. I'm an Alpha player, and I run. Klytus is an Alpha player when left to his own devices, and he runs. DocMan is a Beta player, and although he has run games, he prefers to play. I suspect that it's the same thing that makes me prefer to run that makes me an Alpha player. I can't think of anything else it could be, and I've been trying for years.

[Klytus]

Originally posted by D-Man

Using this definition I'm still an alpha - not because I feel a need to dominate, but because I'm decisive. My group consists of betas and I get tired of the committee not being able to make up its mind. So once we've hashed everything out and people start hemming and hawing and droning on maddeningly about what to do I put my foot down and make a decision. Every committee has to have a chairman. And every debating society has to have a man of action.

 

I want other people to contribute to tone and strategy and story development, but if they hold everything up with indecisive gobble-de-gook then someone has to push things forward. I have one player who is fairly strong in all categories, but the rest of them can be like a bunch of spinsters at a tea party - not to put too fine a point on it.

As per usual, I'm with D-Man here. He sums-up my own thoughts so perfectly, to say anything else is redundant.

[starblaze]

I have played both Alphas and Betas.

In one AD&D game I played a cleric who was given the task of bringing back the religon of a god who had been gone for 1,000 years. So I played Clarissa with a leadership thing going and had alot of fun. I also played Darius a Paladin who ended up becoming ruler of his home city. The cool thing about Darius is that he didn't even want to be anything more than a fisherman or maybe raise horses on a farm. He had his greatness thrust upon him.

 

Other times, usually when I am new to a group I just play Beta and let other people do the committee thing. I do agree that group of Betas take forever to make a decision and need a leader. Makes me long for old days of party leader.

[Doug McCrae]

I've noticed that gamers who usually GM often make poor players. They tend to argue with the GM a lot.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by DocMan

Some interesting stuff in this thread.

 

But I noticed that there seems to be some drift in the idea of what makes an Alpha or a Beta. Here are my definitions so y'all can judge my reply.

 

DocMan, great definitions, I appreciate the focus to this.

[Lord Mhoram]

Beta all the way.

 

My characters have a lot of personality but are total combat monsters. In a Rolemaster game I played, I had a 7th level mage outswordfight a 15th level fighter (yeah confessions of a teenage powergamer) and the GM looked over the character sheet and said "He could take over the party" he then looked at my other character (we ran two) who was a healer (cleric of a healer god) who foreswore weapons (yes I played martial artists even before Champions) who could have taken the rest of the party apart if it came down to it. The GM looked at me and asked "Why aren't you in charge here"

"The Dwarf is a mage, not interested. The Cleric is a follower of a healer god, he just cleans up the messes. Why would I want to".

 

Blackcat my long running champs PC turned into more of a leader as she became the teams tactician, and the new member trainer, but she just implimented policy, she never really came up with up.

 

 

 

 

My wife on the other hand.... I mentioned the topic of the thread and asked her "Alpha or Beta?" then I looked over, and looked back to the computer, and something in my gaze must have said what I was thinking, as she then started bouncing the large can of sauce and noodles she was holding and asked "What did that look mean?!?"

To paraphrase her "I've let other people be in charge, but they always mess it up".

[White Heat]

Originally posted by Doug McCrae

I've noticed that gamers who usually GM often make poor players. They tend to argue with the GM a lot.

I can't stand here and let this slide. Couple of things:

 

1) I argue with the DM. Sure. Sometimes what the DM has said makes no sense, and I request clarificatiion. Sometimes the DM will do things one way for one player, and a different way for another player, and I want to be sure I understand why. Sometimes the rules change, and I want to be sure they changed and the DM wasn't just remembering differently than I was. However, I notice that all players do this to some extent, and it's unfair to single out the other DMs. I remember one player who was sure the DM was doing it wrong, when all the DM had done was make an improvement on the rule, and that player argued so much and for so long that he caused the DM to go back to that rule as written, which cost the rest of us. No, that wasn't me. No, that player doesn't run games himself. Yes, he still games with us.

 

2) If you mean that the DMs can't play their characters very well, I really have to disagree with you there. We are accustomed to playing many characters in one evening. Most of us try to play those characters well. You confine us to a single character, and we (ok, so I) tend to run with all that character can do.

 

3) If you mean that DMs get bored easily because the plot doesn't move and there's nothing they can personally do about it, bingo. Ya got me there. That, I believe, is why so many of us are Alpha players. We're just trying to move the plot along.

[BlackSword]

Originally posted by DocMan

I tend to play Beta Characters. Usually my characters tend to slip into Second in Command or Power Behind the Throne type roles. They tend to influence events through suggestion and negotiation than by barking orders. I can stand up and take the lead on things, but I prefer to keep things on a friendly footing.

This is where I usually fit into the party. I come up with the plans that everyone says, "Thats a really good idea, we're gonna do it that way," then I just sink back behind the scenes and let the leader take the reins. There are a few times I will snap and bark out a few orders because the group will over analyze a situation to death, but usually I try to take the second in command role.

[Mentor]

I always end up alpha, even when my PC originally was conceived as more behind the scenes or subtle, if not beta. Most of our gaming group is fairly to very passive, as Trebuchet can attest. He has really picked up the pace when I GM or am not there.

Blackjack has a female brick who is not afraid to mix it up with anyone as a hero, but the character is a Beta "nerd" out of hero ID. Makes some cool roleplay.

 

Interestingly, my two sons, age 14 and 9, now play in our campaign, and are pretty aggressive; sometimes too much so. That will change a team dynamic.

[Chromatic]

I'm a meddler not a leader dammit

 

Lemming's comment about us all being alpha's in your game was certianly tongue in cheek, but it got me to thinking:

 

When I originally designed the character in your campaign, I specifically looked for a way that I would be forced to not be the one in charge. I planned on being the one behind the scenes that would set up a situation that the team could use to gain an advantage. Mostly I wanted to have an interesting twist with a character that had the dicotomy of not being able to do anything physicially, but in turn nothing could effect him. Originally, in statue form he wouldn't even have the ability to communicate with the team mates. This was a planned limitation from the start.

 

Other characters in the campaign created the ability to have team based private communication (Mind link) and presto! all my carefully laid out plans were destroyed. My character now was in the position of coach and organizer. This gave me a lot more to do, and more chances to interact as a player, as well as turning a character that was by design a Beta into an Alpha.

 

Combine this with the other abilities of the character - passably high intelligence, some light detective skills :^), and he makes a pretty effective Alpha. Being a paranoid scheemer doesn't hurt either.

 

In the past this has never happened for me-- a planned design of the character's Alphaness or Betaness being completely switched around through game play. I usually start a character concept with a personality and power idea and build on top of that. In the Sam Bell Protector's game, Chromatic Dragon was designed from the start to be the "great thinker" leader type. Even at the start, with few skills to benefit, he had the overall levels and skill modifiers structure to fill out with what he eventually became (a 1100 point skills twid combat monster that could take out most of the rest of the team and fight the brick to a stand still. But I digress...). In a Deadlands game we played a couple years ago, the character was designed to be a follower. He was rather deceiving in his physical description: big fat smelly guy with two huge guns. The idea was someone else would tell me what to shoot, and El Puerco would shoot it dead. With many bullets. All of them hitting precisely where he wanted them. There was no effort to offer up even the minutest of suggestions for direction or leadership. Both those characters are an extreme example of this initial design process for Alphaness or Betaness, but this is still a typical trait I seem to have: at the onset of my character design I try and determine if the character is going to be a leader or a follower.

 

In Lemming's game, hmmm we are all such nut cases its hard to figure out what's going on at times. Being the big blow hard, loud mouth type, my character will claim to be the leader, but since he is the loud mouthed opinionated one, he tends to grate on everybody's nerves and his leadership potential is discounted. (also a planned trait at the start- he has wind powers it seemed logical).

 

;

[lemming]

Re: I'm a meddler not a leader dammit

 

Originally posted by Chromatic

Other characters in the campaign created the ability to have team based private communication (Mind link) and presto! all my carefully laid out plans were destroyed.

I'm pretty sure I was dragged kicking and screaming to play a mentalist. I think it was a ploy by Hamlet.

[zornwil]

Re: I'm a meddler not a leader dammit

 

Originally posted by Chromatic

Lemming's comment about us all being alpha's in your game was certianly tongue in cheek, but it got me to thinking:

 

When I originally designed the character in your campaign, I specifically looked for a way that I would be forced to not be the one in charge. ...

 

...In the past this has never happened for me...

 

Ah, I see you really did post!

 

Yeah, it's interesting how things switched around, I'm glad my game at least has accomplished an unexpected turn-around! I think in the Justice Squad game there's so many plot twists per character that everyone does get to play alpha with their destiny once in a while, at least that's the idea.

 

I think Hamlet was destined to be an alpha character in a way, though, just as Sammy was destined to be a beta for the most part. Given Hamlet was the detective and in the very beginning I used the agency as a meeting place, that made a difference. That and, as you said, the conspiracy theorist stuff makes an intrinsic difference, although that's also an artifact of my strong tendency to build in conspiracy stuff, something you wouldn't have known in advance.

 

Also, nobody really wants to be the clear leader in the game, which is fine as Sihn and Laughton can share that a lot of the time, even if without the intention to do so, while Palmer is more often than not the deciding factor when there's a conflict. It seems to work well, and seems "realistic" in the context. Sammy and Neumann of course are built-in betas with their inexperience and naivete. Interestingly Kirk's next character, a sort of sidekick-by-design, will be much the same.

 

Lest this be purely an internal conversation, I think the interesting take-aways are the shifts in characters and why they happened (some part GM bias admittedly) and the group dynamic, which I think is one of the better ones.

 

You know what also makes a difference? I think that you guys all play your disads well makes a huge difference in keeping the game moving without anyone being too overtly alpha and anyone being too lag-behind beta. Because of the quirks and spontaneity, things move along no matter what, much as they did in that Deadlands campaign you mentioned. And I like that a LOT, it's one of my favorite aspects of gaming with this group and with people in general when it happens that way.

 

In Lemming's game, hmmm we are all such nut cases its hard to figure out what's going on at times. Being the big blow hard, loud mouth type, my character will claim to be the leader, but since he is the loud mouthed opinionated one, he tends to grate on everybody's nerves and his leadership potential is discounted. (also a planned trait at the start- he has wind powers it seemed logical).

 

What's weird is I expected my game to be more like lemming's has gone, although I'm happy as it's turned out in both games. I think both Blazing Arrow and Coriolis are alphas-as-needed, given their agendas. What's neat in the Portland game is that the characters are all more specialized, regardless of points, and tend to not step on eachother's toes out of combat. That tends to make the alpha-ism more situational than in some games.

[DocMan]

Originally posted by Snarf

In my last game, I played a character who was completely nuts after living in the forest too long. Because I only did stupid and crazy stuff, I was the center of attention often and did a lot to set the tone for the game, but I never did anything useful except when when someone asked me to or when there was a fight. I've been told that I always roleplay like this. I'm not sure whether that makes me an alpha or beta. Or is that an Omega?

 

That makes you a Real Looney!

 

There are more types of gamer that Alpha, Beta, and Omega, but the Alpha, Beta, and Omega types tend to show themselves fairly clearly.

 

Doc

[DocMan]

I'd also like to speak up on the comment that GM's make bad players because they argue with the GM.

 

I don't think that's accurate or fair to a lot of player GM's.

 

ANYONE can be a rules lawyer. It's not the purview of GM's who are Playing. Yes, you do sometimes have GM's who when they're playing forget that someone else is in charge of the rules. But not all GM's do that. And plenty of Players turn to Rules Lawyering in order to gain special power for their character.

 

I will agree that Rules Lawyers are usually Alpha players: they're trying to enforce their image of the game on everyone else. And Rules Lawyers HATE to lose.

 

But there is a reason you call the GM "God" when they're running a game.

 

Doc

[Killer Shrike]

All true, but also a GM taking turns as a player may just happen to know the rules better than the current GM. So whats the lesser evil? Pointing out rules infractions or sitting idly by while the current GM fumbles around?

 

Theres a difference between a GM doing things X way bcs they are cognizant of deviations from the rules and have thought thru any incongruities, and a GM ignorant of the rule(s) they are ignoring/misrepresenting/breaking.

[White Heat]

Originally posted by DocMan

I will agree that Rules Lawyers are usually Alpha players: they're trying to enforce their image of the game on everyone else. And Rules Lawyers HATE to lose.

 

But there is a reason you call the GM "God" when they're running a game.

 

Doc

*ahem* Thank you, Doc.

 

I am an Alpha player.

 

I am a GM, I do run games.

 

I am not! a rules lawyer. I hate dealing with the rules. That's why I only run Storyteller games.

 

Merri Kissmoose!

[TheQuestionMan]

Omega to Alpha

 

I was always an Omega . Then some one pointed out top me who I resembled ( an Alpha-Omega ) and I immediately set about to change ( quite successfully I might add ) . It was a long and painful process ( 3 characters killed in rapid succession before I figured it out ... duhhh ... ) . I was the youngest member of our group and then new players came and went . I got less competitive and started to focus on Role Playing .

 

I've always tied to build characters capable enough to survive the character concept and still fill in a support roll in the group . Which should logically make me a Beta , but somehow I always end up an Alpha or power behind the throne type .

 

Having GM'ed and Played I often as not do arg..hmmm debate with the GM , but the group has long ago learned to handle me .

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

All true, but also a GM taking turns as a player may just happen to know the rules better than the current GM. So whats the lesser evil? Pointing out rules infractions or sitting idly by while the current GM fumbles around?

 

Theres a difference between a GM doing things X way bcs they are cognizant of deviations from the rules and have thought thru any incongruities, and a GM ignorant of the rule(s) they are ignoring/misrepresenting/breaking.

 

I have a player who has started running games (to give me time off) and barely knows the rules at all. He tends to rely on me to review characters (incl. npcs) and to adjudicate things in game while he controls the storyline and non-player characters. Its an odd dynamic, but it works really well. Then again, when he does make a mistake, I seldom see fit to correct him in-game (unless its huge) because the mistake can often be spun as dramatic license. My players are used to story over mechanics in style so they don't complain about the little stuff, either. It does require a little additional role play on my part (ignoring things about npcs the other characters don't know), but its good to have time off.

[Nightfire]

Re: Alpha or Beta Gamer?

 

I guess I'm either an Alpha minus or a beta plus. I tend to be fairly easygoing, but as GM I give the players their time in the sun, but even as a player, even if I'm trying to be in the back round, I still somehow end up being the leader. Just sort of happens

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Alpha or Beta Gamer?

 

When I get the chance to play, I usually play the leader. Nobody else wants to, except for one guy who has the tactical expertise of a box turtle with a learning disability.

[John T]

Re: Alpha or Beta Gamer?

 

I GM a lot, but still have little problem jumping back and forth between Alpha and Beta roles, I think because I put a lot of personality in my Beta-type NPCs when I run.

 

Generally, I DO play Alphas, though they tend to be less obvious than most. And while I will discuss rule issues with GMs when I'm a player, I try to keep long-winded debates OOG.

 

John T