GNS Gamer Personality Test?

[imlordpuppy]

This classification system is very interesting and seems to do a good job describing those gamers I've encountered along the way. However, as a new reader of The Forge, I am wondering if anyone has attempted to quantify this or has made a test already? Something along the lines of a gamer's personality test getting results that say "You're 36 percent Simulationist, 40 percent Narrativist and 24 percent Gamist" (Or maybe sliding scales for how much you enjoy each style of play, etc.?)

Thanks!

[John Kim]

This classification system is very interesting and seems to do a good job describing those gamers I've encountered along the way. However, as a new reader of The Forge, I am wondering if anyone has attempted to quantify this or has made a test already? Something along the lines of a gamer's personality test getting results that say "You're 36 percent Simulationist, 40 percent Narrativist and 24 percent Gamist" (Or maybe sliding scales for how much you enjoy each style of play, etc.?)

There was an attempt several years ago -- M.J. Young's Gamer Preference Quiz.  Since then, some people have talked about trying to follow this up with a quiz which better reflects discussion since then, but as far as I know no one has posted a draft of such. 

[greyorm]

It should also be noted that GNS does not and can not describe gamers. If someone says, "I am a Simulationist" it only means "I tend to favor decisions that support the Simulationist CA." This was one of the arguments against the old quiz: you can take the quiz on two seperate days and end up with two seperate answers, depending on the gaming mood you happen to be in that day.

[Jack Aidley]

I disagree entirely; GNS can and does describe gamers. To say it doesn't is akin to saying that ones tastes and preferences are not part of ones self.

[Ron Edwards]

This again.

1. No, no personality test. There will never be a GNS personality test that I will endorse; such tests are good for discussing preferences about techniques of play only.

2. I am on record as stating that I use the Creative Agenda terms to classify people. But that is not the same as saying the terms are defined for such a purpose. Nor is it the same as saying that any person can be matched to any one of the CAs.

a) It is non-controversial to state, based on extensive observations by me and others, that many role-players are "stuck" in trying to fulfill a given Creative Agenda. So it's fair, if not particularly nice, to say of a person, "He is a Gamist" or whatever, especially given the connotation that so far he's not been very successful at it, and that he is going to force any role-playing situation he encounters to conform to it if he possibly can.

The same thing, however, might be said of someone who's so confused about CA in general that he or she brings the same obsessive and transformational approach in favor of Incoherent play, especially a particular brand of it. My "bitterest gamer in the world" and "Ouija Board Narrativist" terms apply to such persons.

However, someone who is not "stuck" in this way will not be classifiable by CA.

b) It is also non-controversial to state that many role-players who are not "stuck" as above simply prefer one (or one or two) of the CAs. You can take the "why" for this into personality issues if you want, or into social goals if you want, or whatever. To say "He's a Gamist" in this sense is shorthand for saying this person will play Gamist if he or she has his druthers, but doesn't mean anything in terms of what he or she can play or whether, once in a while, he or she plays differently.

However, someone without any such preference will not be classifiable by CA.

Now, in my experience, most people are either stuck or exhibit some pretty strong preferences. But that's not to say that everyone must be, by definition.

So can we put this whole "classifying people" topic to rest ... or better yet, kill it dead? The definitions of the terms do not dictate that people can be classified as G, N, or S, but the observations suggest that a hell of a lot of people have ended up (for whatever reason) fixing upon a subset of them. I don't see these statements as difficult, insulting, problematic, or confusing.

Best,
Ron

[M. J. Young]

The GNS test I put together mumble-mumble years back when we were all still talking about this on a different web site is too focused on techniques.

I had suggested a few months back taking a stab at collecting snippets of game accounts and having players rate them according to whether this was like the way they played or unlike it. It was generally thought that this would be a reasonable approach to helping players identify their preferences. However, I have not had an opportunity to pursue that.

--M. J. Young

[beingfrank]

I had suggested a few months back taking a stab at collecting snippets of game accounts and having players rate them according to whether this was like the way they played or unlike it. It was generally thought that this would be a reasonable approach to helping players identify their preferences. However, I have not had an opportunity to pursue that.

Yeah, I was on board for that concept.  It was more designed to identify whether there were distinct patterns in what players preferred, and to aid self-identification of stuff people enjoy.  Not at all personality based, and I have embarassing memories of ranting rather a lot about why doing a personality based on would be an abomination.

Anyway, the project stalled due to lack of time by people creating the game account snippets (not something I feel competent to do myself).