Philosophy There are all kinds of ways to break gaming skills and interests and devotees down. On one extreme, you can say games and gamers are just games and gamers. At the other extreme, you can say everything is unique. In between--if you want to establish some useful generalities--you set up whatever categories seem useful.

I'm 44 and I've loved games, played them, discussed them, and cogitated about them all my life. And in my experience, the four categories I named are sufficient. They do a decent job of separating games and gamers into groups that seem to reflect what they do, where they're coming from, and what works for them.

To put a slightly different slant on the categories than I did last time:

The Socializer is a "people person." He plays games mainly to get together with other people--so the typical Socializer probably prefers highly interactive multiplayer games. The main thing he'll avoid is solitaire.

The Gambler is a "cycle surfer." He's keen on the ebb and flow of fortune, on "riding the waves." Thus, whatever game he plays, it must have a random, or chance, element. The Gambler will tend to avoid deterministic, all-skill games like chess.

The Simulationist (which I've been calling the Dreamer) is--well, a "dreamer." He's into the immersive imaginative experience that the game's "chrome" (or "heavy theme") affords. The main thing he'll avoid is a purely abstract game, like reversi (Othello), which has little or no "chrome."

The Strategist is an "idea person." He plays games mainly for the mental exercise--problem solving, decision making, and so forth. Engineering his way to victory via whatever means the game provides. The main thing the Strategist will avoid is an all-luck game (e.g., Snakes and Ladders) or a simplistic game (one that calls for little brainpower).

Having reiterated all that, I'll get back to abstract games and bidding games. Yes, I agree that negotiating and bidding are unique strategic skills. Nevertheless, according to my handy-dandy little classification system here, they're still skills that a Strategist is likely to be most interested in developing.

There are lots of overlaps, though. The Socializer will probably like games with negotiating and bidding too, because they're interactive. The Gambler will like the fact that there's risk involved in them. Even the Simulationist may like negotiating and bidding if, say, it reminds him of how real-life business deals are carried out.

Typically, though, the games that come to mind when I hear the words "negotiating" and "bidding" are highly competitive games--i.e., games often (usually?) played by people with a strong focus on winning. All games are played to win; but it's the Strategist who's intent on "engineering his way to victory."

The Socializer may be satisfied if his fellow players were in a good mood and had a great time--whether he won or lost.

The Gambler may be satisfied if he got to experience some fascinating patterns--some highs and lows that he had to cleverly adjust to throughout the game. And even if he ended up losing, the "ride" may have been worth it to him.

The Simulationist will likely be happy if he just got to have an absorbing imaginative experience with the game. He may not have really cared much at all who won.

But the Strategist always cares about winning. To him, it's kinda what the game is all about. He may give a passing nod to the other three joys of gaming, but he plays for the intellectual challenge--the satisfaction of figuring out how to play well. And the measure of how well he plays is his win-loss record.

I guess I'd call myself sort of an ego-sensitive Strategist. I approach games in the Strategist's way--but I'm not very good at games, and so I try to hide my incompetence by ducking into the other three categories: Socializing (claiming to be just playing for fun), Gambling (blaming my losses on bad luck), or Simulation (telling myself I'm just in it for the imaginative thrill anyhow).