Problem-Solving --- The Games We Play

 

1.     Introduction.

The (non-psychological) games we play open a window to who we are, what we excel at, and how they may fit with what we do in life. Knowing and understanding their relevance to your life could be most important in understanding your success or lack thereof. It can help parents to understand more clearly the inner workings of their children and even themselves. In this brief essay, we take up how games may well point to preferences in our jobs. In fact, it may show a mismatch between games and profession may help understand dissatisfaction in the workplace. Also included is a limited discussion of non-gamers, a perfectly acceptable decision.

You are most likely a gamer of some sort, maybe not digital, sports, cards, or on a board, but a gamer, nonetheless. Many games can form addictions, an aspect not addressed here.

The brief essay may serve as a non-technical guide for school counselors, recruiters, and others wanting an indirect background picture of a person under study or consideration. As a personal note, when I compared by job as a professor, my games matched well. Does yours?

2.     Bartle’s Taxonomy.

The Bartle Taxonomy of player types, developed by Richard Bartle in his seminal 1996 paper, published only thirty years ago, categorizes gamers into four primary motivations: Achievers, Explorers, Socializers, and Killers. While we are not pursuing psychological games, gamers of all types do have psychological characteristics, or at least descriptors.

 

Originally derived from observations of players in Multi-User Dungeons (MUDs), this framework posits that individuals engage with games along two axes: preference for acting on the world versus interacting with players, and preference for the world versus other players. This results in distinct playstyles that reveal underlying personality traits and motivations. Understanding these types offers more than insights into game design; it serves as a predictor of professional inclinations. Research demonstrates that video game preferences correlate with career interests, as gaming motivations align with vocational traits like competitiveness, curiosity, and social orientation.

 

For instance, players drawn to competitive genres show stronger interests in STEM fields such as engineering and physical sciences, while social gamers lean toward collaborative roles.

Gender moderates these links, with competitive play particularly boosting women's STEM aspirations. By mapping game likes to Bartle types, educators and career counselors can forecast fits: an Achiever grinding leaderboards might thrive as an engineer, while a Killer dominating PvP (Player versus Player) could excel in law. This predictive power stems from games as low-stakes simulations of real-world behaviors, amplified in gamification for workplaces and training. In contrast, PvE (Player versus Environment) focuses on overcoming challenges against computer-controlled enemies, such as monsters, quests, or bosses. 

3.     Indicators of the Four Player Types and Their Professional Indicators

Bartle's types encapsulate core drives, blending in individuals but dominating in preferences. Each maps to professions where traits shine.

Achievers pursue points, levels, and mastery, thriving on measurable progress like leaderboards or 100% completions.

 

They are persistent, efficient, and self-competitive. Professions: project managers (milestone tracking), accountants (audits/balances), sales executives (quotas), engineers (prototypes/optimizations), data analysts (KPIs), pilots (flight hours), surgeons (successful procedures), athletes chasing personal bests (e.g., marathon runners), financial traders (portfolio growth), and quality assurance testers (bug quotas). Students that excel in their classes may well fit here as achievers.

Explorers delight in discovery, lore, and mechanics, experimenting patiently like mapping uncharted areas or exploiting glitches.

Curious and analytical, they suit investigative roles: researchers (lab hypotheses), scientists (experiments), journalists (scoops), archaeologists (digs), software testers (edge cases), detectives (clues), writers (world-building), historians (archives), geologists (field surveys), and market analysts (trend hunting).

Socializers prioritize chats, alliances, and role-play, using games as social hubs like guilds or forums.

Empathetic team-builders, they excel in: teachers (classroom dynamics), HR specialists (team building), marketers (campaigns/networking), counselors (therapy), event planners (conferences), diplomats (negotiations), nurses (patient care), community managers (online forums), politicians (constituencies), and customer service leads (relationship management).

Killers seek domination via PvP, or outsmarting foes, fueled by thrill and power. Strategic and aggressive, they dominate adversarial fields: lawyers (court battles), competitive salespeople (deals), military strategists (tactics), contact sport athletes (e.g., boxers, wrestlers), negotiators (high-stakes deals), CEOs (market conquests), stock traders (short-selling), surgeons (crisis operations), bounty hunters (real-world analogs), and debate champions (verbal takedowns). These mappings draw from Bartle's observations and extend via gamification, where leaderboards motivate Killers/Achievers in sales, while social features engage Socializers in teams.

Incidentally, poker, with strategic aggression, risk-taking, and psychological insight, fits will within these constraints, together with Achievers. Low stakes or high, both fit. However, more serious players can develop serious pathologies, for which we are ill-equipped to discuss.

According to Bartle, these four categories complete the taxonomy, though subcategories and combination categories always arise. Let’s summarize all this in a table.

Table 1. Summary of game types, motivations, and respective players.

 

4.     Individual and Team Sports in the Taxonomy.

Bartle explicitly analogizes types to real-world activities, grounding the framework. Individual sports like tennis or golf align primarily with Achievers, emphasizing personal progression, scores, and self-mastery, "games like chess, tennis" appeal to their goal-oriented play. It is suggested, however, that while tennis players covet high positions on leaderboards together with  money, they perform more like Killers on the court.

 

Secondary Killer traits emerge in direct rivalry, as in checkmate or aces. Examples: tennis pros (Elo rankings), golfers (handicaps), track sprinters (records), swimmers (laps), archers (bullseyes), and weightlifters (personal maxes), all reward persistent achievement amid competition. Team sports like soccer, basketball, or hockey lean Killer-primary, mirroring sports like hunting, shooting, fishing for imposing will on opponents.

Socializer elements add via coordination, with Achievers tracking team stats. Examples: soccer forwards (goals/assists), basketball point guards (plays), hockey enforcers (checks), rugby players (tackles), volleyball setters (passes), and American football quarterbacks (drives), blending predation, collaboration, and progression. Video game variants (FIFA, NBA) amplify this in multiplayer.

5.     Chess and Sudoku: Single-Player Fits.

Even non-multiplayer games slot into Bartle via analogies. Chess epitomizes Achievers (primary), with structured progression through openings, middlegames, and Elo climbs, "like chess or tennis."

 

Killer secondary thrives on checkmating rivals. Examples: Grandmasters (ratings), speed chess players (blitz wins), puzzle solvers (tactics). Professions reinforced: engineers (strategic builds), lawyers (endgames).Sudoku fits Explorers (primary), as grid-mapping rewards logic discovery and rule experimentation, akin to "puzzles" for world-interaction.

 

Achiever secondary enjoys completion. Examples: Daily solvers (variants), tournament competitors (times). Professions: scientists (hypotheses), software testers (debugging). In the popular board games venue, Monopoly fits the Killer category and Scrabble is more aligned with the Achievers category.

6.     Non-gamers.

People who do not play games, especially video games, represent a heterogeneous group influenced by demographics, psychology, and lifestyle choices. Common reasons for avoidance include time limitations from work or family obligations, fears of addiction (particularly among those with addictive tendencies or ADHD), and a lack of appeal or understanding of games' depth. Older individuals are more likely to abstain, often viewing gaming as immature or unproductive, while perpetuating stereotypes of gamers as isolated.

Instead, non-gamers channel their time into alternative activities that fulfill similar needs: reading books or watching media for escapism, engaging in physical sports or outdoor pursuits for competition and health, socializing with friends/family or volunteering for connection, and creative hobbies like crafting or music for achievement. Personality traits such as higher extroversion and conscientiousness may predispose them to prefer real-world interactions over digital ones, potentially steering them toward hands-on professions like trades or teaching.

Mutual misconceptions exist. Gamers see non-gamers as "missing out," while non-gamers criticize gaming as wasteful, highlighting subjective hobby values. Ultimately, non-gamers often lead balanced, non-digital lives, avoiding gaming's risks like sleep disruption while embracing tangible fulfillment.

7.     Conclusions.

The Bartle Taxonomy of Player Types provides a robust framework for understanding gaming motivations. Achievers' drive for progression, Explorers' quest for discovery, Socializers' emphasis on interaction, and Killers' pursuit of dominance—mirror real-world professional strengths, offering predictive insights into career trajectories.

 

Empirical studies confirm this linkage: competitive gaming preferences correlate with STEM interests like engineering and sciences, while social motivations align with interpersonal roles, with effects amplified for women. Similarly, challenge-oriented play predicts scholarly pursuits, and arousal-seeking ties to adventurous occupations.

 

Extending to non-digital pursuits, individual sports and chess embody Achiever/Killer blends for strategic, goal-driven professions like engineering or law, team sports fuse Killer/Socializer traits for leadership in military or athletics, and Sudoku exemplifies Explorer patience for investigative fields such as research or IT—hobbies that signal analytical prowess under RIASEC's Investigative type.

 

This predictive power manifests practically: adolescents' gaming hobbies like Minecraft modding propel them into high-wage IT careers (median $104,420), with parental support facilitating the "hobby-to-career" shift.

 

Employers now leverage games for hiring, valuing strategy titles (e.g., StarCraft) for problem-solving in operations or World of Warcraft for collaboration in customer service—skills 43% struggle to train traditionally.

Career counselors can deploy Bartle tests alongside vocational assessments, while gamification tailors leaderboards for Achievers or social features for Socializers to boost engagement in training.

 

Ultimately, game preferences serve as a low-stakes oracle for vocational destiny, transforming leisure into levers for fulfillment. However, this taxonomy is not hard and fast. BTW, this topic is currently active in psychological research.

Finally, this taxonomy, focusing on games, which is a form of problem-solving, reveals the type of problems a person prefers. And this informs employers and educators alike.

References.

1.     Bartle, R. A. (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs. MUSE Ltd. http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

2.     Giammarco, E. A., Schneider, T. J., Carswell, J. J., & Knipe, W. S. (2015). Video game preferences and their relation to career interests. Personality and Individual Differences, 73, 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.015

3.     Kumar, J., Herger, M., & Dam, R. F. (2025, October 24). Bartle’s player types for gamification. IxDF - Interaction Design Foundation. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/bartle-s-player-types-for-gamification

4.     Peterson, E., Van Noy, M., Scovill, S., & Edwards, R. (2024). From hobby to career: Video games as a pathway to IT studies and jobs [Study by Rutgers Education and Employment Research Center]. Journal of Advanced Technical Education. https://www.rutgers.edu/news/all-time-your-kids-play-video-games-could-lead-career-study-finds

5.     Perna, M. C. (2023, November 14). Why more employers want to hire people based on their video game skills. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/markcperna/2023/11/14/why-more-employers-want-to-hire-people-based-on-their-video-game-skills/

6.     SIGMA Assessment Systems. (n.d.). Gaming & career selection. Retrieved February 17, 2026, from https://www.sigmaassessmentsystems.com/gaming-career-selection

7.     Job Personality. (n.d.). RIASEC theory. Retrieved February 17, 2026, from https://jobpersonality.co.uk/riasec-theory

 

 

 

©2026 G Donald Allen