It's a wonderfully detailed theory, with lots of thought into interaction between groups and a very practical core. I'm sure it could be adapted to LARP at least as easily as these silly RPG GNS/Big Model theories, and be more useful.

Here's my feeble attempt to adapt it. The theory says there are four types of gamers:

Spades: Explorers. In MUD, people there to explore the game world and dig up secrets. In LARP, this could cover everyone who really gets fascinated by the background of the world. People who memorise all the details of the fictional world, and then get overenthusiastic and write new stuff. People who submit hugely long backgrounds. These people will look for games with highly detailed or very exciting background concepts. They won't like systems with boring background and no background growth. They want to find everything out, and know it all off by heart. They'll enjoy events that reveal HUGE SECRETS. They see LARPs as hobbies.

Diamonds: Achievers, goal-orientated people who set out to fulfil a set task (in MUDs, often involving getting money). In LARP, this is all about character advancement. Min-maxers, power gamers, possibly even Lawyers. People who want to get that +1 Level or Shiny New Skill in each event. These people will look for systems with strong rulesets (especially Character Generation). They tend to shy away from things with a high chance of Player Death, but there need to be a chance (there needs to be a challenge!) They'll enjoy events that have HUGE REWARDS (in XP or skills or levels or whatever). They see LARPs as games.

Hearts: Socialisers, people who like interacting with people. People looking for fun parties and lots of good people to roleplay with. People who come in big groups with lots of their mates. These people will be attracted by word-of-mouth, if their friends attend. Or if the event specifically advertises as being very social. They won't like things that have too much combat. They'll love fests and freeforms. They'll enjoy events that have HUGE PARTIES. They see LARPs as entertainment.

Clubs: Killers, people who like fighting (with clubs). People looking for lots of good fights, and interesting challenges. Character Generation and the Rules are important to these people, but only the combat sections. They'll want to kill lots of NPCs, and possibly also PCs. They'll enjoy events that have HUGE FIGHTS. They see LARPs as sports.

This is an elegant theory, was based on a lot of debate, and included suggestions on how to do things to keep everyone happy. In the LARP-modified form, it is quite close to Shelford's Model (except without the Costumer, an important part of LARP but not so much in early MUDs- tho they could be seen as part of Spades?) And I think Shelford's Model is the only sensible thing proposed so far here. So it could be a very useful theory, IMHO.

For an example, I recently attended Serenity. As a Spade/Heart, I loved it. My character background was carefully read and integrated into the plot & secrets were revealed, and everyone was lovely & there was some great roleplay. But I know people who were more Diamonds/Clubs who didn't enjoy it. Combat happened but was hard to locate, and there could have been more (or rather, more obvious) goals. This is Stable Type 2 in the MUD theory.

On the other hand, something like LT sounds more of a Club/Diamond game (Stable Type 1 in the MUD theory). Maelstrom sounds pretty balanced between all four (Stable Type 3), although possibly not enough for the Clubs?

So, thoughts?

---------------
Masquerades & Massacres (Jane Austen's Aliens): Organiser
Maelstrom: Papa Abgal (The Rum Fairy of Doom, High Exarch of Entertainment)
Serenity: Xavier Yu Ji ('Pointy Hat Man')
White City: Too Many Characters To Mention!
Dark Ages Society: Godfrid Swine-Herd (Scummy Saxon), Hauk Ragnarsson (Rus Viking Flashman)

If we want to apply online game personality theory to larp, a far more suitable starting point IMO would be the work of Nicholas Yee (http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/), which takes more factors into account. Of course the real benefits come from combining the stuff: these are not mutually exclusive works, and you can get a lot by combining, say, Edwards and Bartle, and thinking about, for instance, what the difference between a club-Gamist and a spade-Gamist is.

"This beast, though affectionate and fond of being caressed, was crabbed and set in its ways. It would tolerate no whims, no departures from the regular course of things."
-J. K. Huysmans, Lа-Bas

True. They're broad groups covering large areas, and there are definitely weaknesses with it.

Oh, interesting new things to read! Thank you.

I dunno, it was always going to be difficult to integrate a group of carnival freaks into a game alongside more conventional groups. You had such different goals and methods. Giving you opportunities for performance, a competition to take part in, plus making the ringmaster into the MC of the events were steps in the right direction tho, they were trying... Of course, more would have been better. I noticed you guys standing around a bit bored a few times. Dunno what I would have done if I was writing the event.

But yes, the different types of Club is definitely a key point. They're all broad groups with a wide spectrum of people in. Hmm, the intergrating with other models may be an interesting path... Ah no! The nice simple picture is becoming all complex and I'll end up trying to understand GNS! Help! -5 san!

---------------
Masquerades & Massacres (Jane Austen's Aliens): Organiser
Maelstrom: Papa Abgal (The Rum Fairy of Doom, High Exarch of Entertainment)
Serenity: Xavier Yu Ji ('Pointy Hat Man')
White City: Too Many Characters To Mention!
Dark Ages Society: Godfrid Swine-Herd (Scummy Saxon), Hauk Ragnarsson (Rus Viking Flashman)