There are several typologies of players that I know of, but I hadn’t seen one for DMs. So I decided to write one, based on my own experiences of play, both good and bad. So, like, vibes. Just for fun.

The seven types are the drama queen, the technocrat, the novelist, the embroiderer, the oracle, the host, and the adversary.

(The illustration is “Philosophy and the seven liberal arts,” by Herrad of Landsberg ca AD 1180).

The Drama Queen

Lives for excitement, genre, tone, setting up high stakes situations for dramatic effect. Character-focused.

At best: Creates unforgettable emotional arcs, invests deeply in characters’ growth, and delivers catharsis.

At worst: Can prioritize “big moments” over player agency, may be manipulative or melodramatic.

The Technocrat

Loves the game, the rules, the calculations, seeing it all add up and come together perfectly.

At best: Smooth running games with everything consequentially enforced and mechanics that reinforcing game themes.

At worst: Pedantic enforcement of rules, and prioritising mechanical correctness over fun. Shutting down improvisation or narrative creativity if it doesn’t fit the system exactly.

The Novelist

Wants to see the reaction to the cool scenes and stories they’ve set up. Plot-focused.

At best: compelling narratives, setpieces rich with meaning, satisfying payoffs, a grand sweep.

At worst: Writes a story about the players rather than with them. Can ignore player choices or present very limited choice to hit prewritten beats. Players only actors in a personal screenplay.

The Embroiderer

Loves to riff and make things up on the fly. Focused on the moment.

At best: Keeps the game fresh, surprising, player-driven as they build forward from any action. Lush description.

At worst: Disorganised, inconsistent, or forgetful. Perhaps loses track of consequences or creates an arbitrary or disconnected world with a lack of long-term cohesion.

The Oracle

Relishes the game as puzzle, enjoys presenting the party with fiendish schemes. Delivers hints and clues for the character to unravel.

At best: A world full of intrigue and discovery, players can make their own way forward and secrets of the world will be laid bare. Smart play is prioritised and players feel accomplished.

At worst: Opaque or arbitrary puzzles, enjoys player failure, withholds too much information, enjoys their position as inscrutable god too much. Players can feel like it’s no-win.

The Host

Socially focused, cares less about any one aspect of the game than that everyone has a good time.

At best: Builds a welcoming and inclusive space. Joyful, collaborative, emotionally generous games.

At worst: Avoids conflict, ignores rules to please players, hesitates to make choices that might seem disruptive or difficult, making games bland.

The Adversary

Loves setting up challenging combats, cool monsters, and extreme combat environments.

At best: Combats are exciting, challenging, collaborative, memorable, dramatic, rewarding. Better than the best video games.

At worst: Loses sight of fun in pursuit of difficulty, has difficulty managing the game outside the tightly bounded combat rules. Can confuse “challenging” with “crushing.” Enjoys defeating players, and becomes the Enemy.

Finally

Since I just made these up, you may find you don’t fit within them. You may hate taxonomies, which is fair. But you might enjoy this as a bit of fun and reflect on your own personal style. There’s no right and wrong way to play the game and no game police, there’s just right and wrong for you and your table.