Mechanic for matching Players to Characters

[Emmett]

There was a big 20'x20' Room discussion on Myers-Briggs and roleplaying, sparked by this discussion on Brand Robins's blog. They actually are discussing typing not only yourself, but the characters you play to determine the kind of play you are looking for. I'm a little skeptical of it all, myself; knowing I'm an INTP has helped me to understand my life better, but I'm not all gung-ho about typing everyone and everything.

I too am a bit skeptical about the Myers Briggs pigeonholing players, and I guess what I'd like is a way of taking the things that players like and offering them to a player without their expressly knowing what is being offered. That way you get an honest/subconscious answer (well. . . hopefully). I would like the "test" to be repeatable so that when I'm about to play a character I can take it too and not easily be able to manipulate the results. The other thing that I'd like is to simplify the test by a lot so that it's quite a bit simpler to take and understand the test. Hopfully four axis are not required to work this mechanic. I like structure, I don't like complexity. The Myers Briggs Roleplaying link is insightful but far too complex for most people to want to use. However the Bartle test reduces the complexity to two axis and while more detail is good for a multipurpose tool, ease of use is better for a common use tool.

[contracycle]

I'd say that's more of a red herring for this thread than the Bartle Quotient. Emmett did not start out (as far as I can tell) looking to create character archetypes that "efficiently interface" or "serve discrete goals." He wanted a way "for Players to find/create the character they will enjoy playing the best." So the roles ARE relevant vis a vis the ways they will stimulate the player's goal/moods/interests. But NOT in the (merely mechanical?) way that they work together to provide efficacy: be it efficient application of ability, or be it service to some notion of the "components" of a "complete" cast for a story.

I didn't say he did, I said I had a thought.

Not so distinct as all that. Your "agreement for the form [of] play" is really just Agenda... and thus, the intermeshing or categorization of these character roles is just elements in service to that Agenda.[/quotes]

Its not an agenda, not as I'm addressing it, more like a schtick or a mannerism.  Definitely a techni\que, not at the agenda level.

It might be the delineation of the "needed" roles, no matter what the need is: gamist efficacy, narrativist "dramatic role", or even simulationist tropes of the genre.

No, the narratavists probably would not need it all I would think.  Maybe.  Anyway certainly dramatic role has no relationship at all to narratavism, which is the actual address of premise, not obedience to dramatic conceit or convention.

So you think that, in some way, gamer-on-a-MUD is working with totally different RP goals, rules, issues, techniques, etc than a gamer-in-a-tabletop-RPG? (And why only tabletop? I don't think The Forge is so restricted, nor is GNS.)

I think they are different as chalk and cheese myself, but I'm not aware of any kind of forge position, except inasmuch as you have obviously not been prevented from writing about it by those who run it.  Nor do I mind at all, there was no need to assume or imply such criticism, myself I think its interesting to look at both.

At the risk of seeming a pedant, I have to comment that this "interesting read" has shaped the development of "grouping roles" in most MMORPGs, has fueled game designs at least as much (by weight of publication) as any theories on The Forge, and it is (furthermore) based on a slightly broader general personality profile test (Jung-Myers-Briggs) which has shaped team management practices in most major corporations (or did at one time).

The last is like saying that priests believe dogma, what else is new.  All this typology stuff reminds me more of astrology than anything else, I'm afraid.   Would these be corporations like Enron, run by thieves, or corporations like Halliburton, run by war profiteers?  Please excuse my unfashionable lack of awe for the captains of industry.

[Emmett]

I have difficulty seeing this as a good idea.  If we are trying to find What Players Want, then that is precisely the question answered by the GNS model.  If we are trying to find out What Players Are, in some broader sense, then I have difficulty seeing how it helps, because there is nothing we can do it about but give them what they want.  See question 1.

GNS is how the game will be played, not what the players want to do. GNS is "how", I'm trying to establish "what".

So I'm dubious about the validity of a typing strategy as applied to the players at all.  But a number of the things you mentioned did strike a chord, in their descriptions of forms of play that players actually adopt.  But therein lies the rub; it is a form of play that is adopted, and may vary from case to case, which is why a single relationship between a person and a form may not be visible.

Yes, I don't want to play the same way every time either, that's why I would like to have this be re-testable. But in the end, this is less for advanced players that can walk into a game and say "I think I want to play this type of character". It's more for people that would be players but aren't sure how or why they're playing because they don't know like you or I. I deal with a lot of the later as opposed to the former.

Now as you say, games already have some sort of character classification system, but these are almost universally framed in terms of a classification within the game setting.  But, you started out looking at a document discussing plots, and what I am suggesting is that there is a functional role at another level, that of the dramatic function of the character vis a vis the other characters.  Thats what jumped out at me from your list, that there might be identifiable functional and non-functional relationships.  We say, characters should be designed on conjunction with other characters, with an eye to how they will be used in play, but we have very little language with which to have this discussion. 

I think that's a great idea but until I know what is being contrasted I don't know what doesn't work. I have to know where the axis are to say who doesn't like or who builds off who. Now just like I started off, I would like to have an interpreter of what the axis mean in plain language like the Myers Briggs tests include but that's step 3 or 4 and we haven't gotten to 1 yet. I like the list approach too, but theres no way to know who you are in it without knowing the elements common to each. Only then can you break the player up into pieces and know how to re-assemble them.

Sure, I said it was interesting, but the differences are really profound. . .Its not only that they are premised on a totally different social contract, but they are also operationally dissimilar at many levels.

Absolutely, but in the case of one of my Players, I see a lot of the "Killer" traits but I digress. . . I'd like to replicate the method of the Bartle test but have it specific to RPGs. I'd also like to see more depth in the questions but that's step 2ish, maybe 3

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

Would these be corporations like Enron, run by thieves, or corporations like Halliburton, run by war profiteers?  Please excuse my unfashionable lack of awe for the captains of industry.

OK, OK, whatever. Apparently, appeals to authority have no weight, here in the bastions of independence. Carl Jung, Katharine Briggs, and Isabel Myers gotta earn their cred in here just like the rest of us, eh? We gotta reinvent the wheel, to try to make a pushcart.... ;-)

Anyway, I am not on retainer from any of them (or any corporation--villains, all, and surely in no way sufficiently rational, motivated, or funded to become authorities on personalities or organizational structure, right?) so I'll drop the defense. Emmett, take or leave those existing personality systems; or springboard off of them.

What I'd *like* to continue with is to point out that LARPs have a pretty serious need for such a "player-to-character typing" method, be it astrology or behavioral science. It's because of their costs to play and to run that they need immediate and sustainable interest. They exacerbate a core issue in role playing: player ability v. activity enablement.

Consider: In tabletop, game systems might use mechanics for a variety of things you, as a player, can do yourself: Deduction, Persuasion, Conversation, etc. In contact LARP (AKA boffer, SCA, NERO), that becomes a multifold issue: your real ability is called upon for combat, maneuvering and movement, inter-player relations, and that list of above tabletop interactions with NPCs. (For simplicity, I will disregard fantastic abilities and focus on "real world" stuff that might normally fall into system.)

So a BIG problem for LARPs is that guy who is just sure he'd make a GREAT warrior; but once he's strapped up in chain and plate and left to run down his adversaries and succeed with boffer, he become quickly winded, finds he really doesn't know the first thing about stick fighting (which is what one learns to do in boffer, not fencing). YET, he will think, "Man, this game sucks!" Likewise, that gal who wants to be a healer and be "mysterious"; but once she's in a field battle, she can't keep her awareness of the lines and who's calling for aid; and meanwhile outside of battle, her idea of being mysterious is to huddle alone in a corner.

A good "personality test" would have directed both of those folks into what they "really" wanted: the guy wanted to be a Big Shot in combat, without the guns... so give him guns! He becomes a ranged/magic/skirmish fighter and he LOVES the game. The gal wanted to be helpful and role play interesting elements of her character... so give her a role that is actually helping (pre-combat buffing, backline safety and camp management) and get her into an information channel--she'd be a sage/mage/divinator or whatever the game world has for field hospital (NOT combat medic) and intelligence (NOT "invent mystery out of thin air").

Anyway, long winded way of saying that a good STYLE OF PLAY test for players, coupled directly to the classes/powers/skillsets of the game system would be a godsend for professional LARPs. As for how many axes will serve, I would bet three. Not sure what they'd be--hopefully, your list of "why play" will bubble them out--but I am sure it's three.

Bring it on!

I like to role play because:
1) It gets me into fun and weird situations with my firends, which seems to help grow my relationships with them as fast or faster than "common" entertainment offers.
2) I can become so immersed into a character than I can forget about the difficulties facing my "main" (this character called David Artman--have I mentioned that I think reality is just a sort of game played with light wavefronts and causality?)
3) To woo women. (Maybe that's 1.)
4) To crush my enemies, to see them driven before me, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
5) A weekend at a bar: $200  A weekend at a LARP: $50  A weekend you can remember on Monday: priceless

HTH, peace to all, and looking forward to the Emmett Quotient;
David

[Emmett]

As for how many axes will serve, I would bet three. Not sure what they'd be--hopefully, your list of "why play" will bubble them out--but I am sure it's three.

Weird my first sketch of the personality forces that I could think of gave me three, but we'll see. Emmett Quotient? There's a scary thought.

[Emmett]

Oh. By the way if anyone wants to PM or email me why they like to Role Play, please feel free.

[Emmett]

Okay these are some of the distilled elements that I am getting. Some of them are the same as what you see in the MUDs article but some of them are decidedly different.

Exploration - of story and/or world.
Novelty - Doing what would be impossible in life.
Social Interaction - Role Play is inherently social.
Social Freedom - A release from the normal social constraints.
Intellectual - Mental activity.
Acquisition - Getting stuff.
Freedom from risk - Decisions do not usually affect player.
Ownership - Even though other people may play the same game, Players "own" their story.
Random Events - Unpredictability both due to other Players and game Mechanics.
Status - Either through game mechanics or Players ability.
Aggression - satisfying aggressive feelings.
Cost - An inexpensive way to have fun.

There may be a way to distill this into a more cogent list but to do so requires an understanding of the reasons themselves which is doable. Still I think that this list is what you would want to formulate a questionnaire off of. The axis, whatever they end up as would then have to be how the Player would end up satisfying those reasons.

[Filip Luszczyk]

You put much stress on exploration and social issues, but there is only one category for "mental activity". I think there is a number of possible motives here that don't always fit under the same umbrella, e.g.:

-creating/expanding the game (making up new rules, detailing new areas of the setting and stuff).
-playing with the system (e.g. powergaming, breaking the system, maybe also rules-lawyering).
-strategizing (achieving maximum efficiency in play, by using the rules well or simply by making optimal decisions).

And that's certainly not all.

Also, "Exploration" seems to general to me. Exploration of what exactly? In what way?

Anyway, the problem I see here is that broad grouping of players motivations actually doesn't tell anything about the specific player preferences, and enumerating every possible motivation is in turn impractical because of the sheer number of possibilities.

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

You put much stress on exploration and social issues, but there is only one category for "mental activity".

It might be more accurate to say he, so far, has one mode or one instance of a superset "category" that involves individual gains/rewards that stem from purely internal mental processes and not from an interrelationship with another player, spectator, or entity (AKA "social"). But that isn't an objection, per se: he's collecting instances in the hopes of synthesizing commonalities; how can collection be somehow wrong, if still a work in progress?

I think there is a number of possible motives here that don't always fit under the same umbrella, e.g.:
-creating/expanding the game (making up new rules, detailing new areas of the setting and stuff).
-playing with the system (e.g. powergaming, breaking the system, maybe also rules-lawyering).
-strategizing (achieving maximum efficiency in play, by using the rules well or simply by making optimal decisions).
And that's certainly not all.

Now, you've got the spirit! And as that is "certainly not all," provide more examples. No, you won't exhaust all possible "things folks get out of roleplaying," but I think you will find that your instances become more and more particular and rarefied... and that's good, because their instantiation will eventually show the underlying core type. To use a metaphor: there are thousands of discrete examples of chairs, but I suspect we could collect a mere handful of that superset and define the underlying ideal that is "chairness."

Of course, it is ALSO possible to argue that noodling with a system, setting, or tactic isn't exactly "playing a game" but is more along the lines of a "drill" or "exercise" (a current line of inquiry in Actual Play, IIRC). But they ARE data points in the space of motives to play and styles which service the motives. If such noodling is somehow facilitated in a game's actual play, then they become very valuable categorizations: a noodler can see just exactly what class/skills/powers/widget gives them the most "noodly handles" and can play to their motives.

Also, "Exploration" seems to general to me. Exploration of what exactly? In what way?

Here, I can agree, but from a more pedantic stance. Exploration is a technical term, here at the Forge, and it means quite literally why ANYONE plays roleplaying games (or, perhaps, what's the minimum activity required to count as a roleplaying game). In short, exploration is the singularity into which these potential player types eventually collapse; and, as such, it is somewhat confusing to have it a mere category.

Anyway, the problem I see here is that broad grouping of players motivations actually doesn't tell anything about the specific player preferences...

That is true, to the extent that a category does not make an association. BUT one hasn't got a snowball's chance in Hell of making an association WITHOUT having categories. Hence my efforts to participate in this discussion. Once the categories are in place, then a "questionnaire" can be built which tests how a player self-selects themselves into the category(ies). Once a play has typed themself, and game they are playing clearly delineates which game roles serve which types, then the player can choose game roles (yea, even games themselves!) with confidence. I feel such a tool would be invaluable to new players (new to RP or new to a particular game or Agenda).

Of course, I must also wonder how your denial of the utility of this pursuit in any way aides Emmett: perhaps you hope to see him (and us) better spend our time?

...and enumerating every possible motivation is in turn impractical because of the sheer number of possibilities.

Refuted above, and refuted by the scientific method as applied to behavioral science. Induction IS a part of thought; one should not be required to collect all possible data points of a "soft" system or hypothesis to use pure deduction.

As for the state of the thread, I think I can start to see something of the axes we can use:

1) Internal v. External - The player is motivated by a desire to serve personal satisfaction v. the player is engaged in gaming to interface with other players.
2) Inclusion v. Dominance - The player is motivated by a need to be a part of some system (social, mechanical) v. the player seeks to control some system.
3) Challenge v. Credability - The player is in the game to be tested v. the player is in the game to be free of limitations.
4) Entertainment v. Obligation - The player is there to have fun v. the player is there to be needed (i.e. to enable fun, to be an authority on simulation accuracy, etc).

But maybe there are elements of those axes that overlap or can be further synthesized? The more axes, the more combinations of them are possible, which makes it all the harder to truly couple a player to a play style (i.e. a character or role). It is as if granularity of categorization works AGAINST the higher thread goal of quick qualification and association. Put another way, in that "axes space" of possible motives/styles (two sides of same coin), there is probably a smaller space of what is "really important." Thus, the other, nuanced spaces (perhaps) just define variations in techniques or ephemera, which should take a back seat to higher motives/styles that relate to Agenda and situation.

Hmmm... we have three Agendas... many games have something around nine archetypes/classes... three squared is nine. Maybe GNS is the hook onto which we can hang motive/style; sort of turn the Agendas on their ears and treat them as origin points of our axes? Then look at how system and situation/setting map into different agendas, to find the "weight" of the types. (?) If nothing else, GNS could go into the melting pot along with Jung, Briggs-Myers, Bartle, and my nascent categories above?

As always, hope this helps;
David

[Emmett]

First off I greatly apologize for not posting sooner, I've been working on this idea, a sourcebook and personal stuff so I've been really busy.

So I missed two very good comments on this and I'm sorry for that too.


The "elements" (its a horrible name I know i had a better one and forgot it) i posted earlier are vague and intentionally so. There's no way to take all the answers I got (I fished around outside The Forge also) and make them specific.In truth they're little more than labels that only begin to describe what they mean. I'm trying to think of a good way to fully describe these. I have changed them a little bit also. When working on a definition, I would find that it merged with another and became redundant so I would meld them. Again, I'm a bit pressed for time, but here's a real rough description of what I have.



Your Intellectual score is your interest in logic and process. A role player with a high Intellectual score may enjoy working with the rules to better play the game.

Your Exploration score is your interest in new information. This is usually satisfied by new elements of the game that follow what could be expected in real life or what fits into the logic of the story. This is the Player's interest in the story itself and how it is unfolding according to a pattern. It is also an interest in finding new ways of applying any rules in the game.

Your Social Interaction score is your interest in other people and friendships. A strong social score is likely to indicate a Player will interact heavily with the other players.

Your Random Interaction score is your interest in the uncertainty of dealing with other people. You may find that the ideas and conversation that come out of a large group is satisfying while a low score would indicate that you desire more direction in a game or conversation.

Your Ownership score is your interest in having a stake or part in an experience that is unique to your social group. A high score would suggest a desire to have a shared experience that you can call your own.

Your Acquisition score is your interest in getting things. This gives you the ability to do things that others may not be able to. In game, it usually is a symbol of power.

Your Status score is your interest in having approval from others. This denotes an interest in a high social standing that gives you the ability to do what others cannot.

Your Novelty score is your interest in having unexpected things happen. More precisely an interest in events that do not fit into the normal logic of the world or story. This is part of the Abilities Group because it means that the player character will have opportunities that most people cannot.

Your Risk Freedom score is your interest in being released from the normal social constraints and not having decisions affect they player.

Your Aggression score is your interest in aggressive action. A high score suggests that you may enjoy conflict.



There are three "groups" that I coalesced these into, Intellectual, Social, and Abilities. These are used to compare a players major interests and the overall tone of what they are interested in doing in a game.

-creating/expanding the game (making up new rules, detailing new areas of the setting and stuff).
-playing with the system (e.g. powergaming, breaking the system, maybe also rules-lawyering).
-strategizing (achieving maximum efficiency in play, by using the rules well or simply by making optimal decisions).

With the above descriptions let me address your comments Filip. They are valid and I understand your viewpoint.

creating/expanding would fall primarily to the Intellectual and Exploration and It depends on where on the GNS model you are expanding the game that these interests would fall. Now do we need a element (ugh I have to come up with new names for this) for creativity? Well It would be nice but also add a lot of complexity that makes the whole project more cumbersome. With the elements as stated, pure creativity falls into two separate and very different forms, Exploration and Novelty. There's a lot of room to disagree there but that can be worked on.

Playing with the system. This may be a good description for most of how Exploration would work in a RPG, but to a new player, they have no idea what this would mean so it has to be made more elementary.

Strategies.Well you kind of got me here, this would be mostly a mental mechanic, so It would fall under Intellectual, but there is something more to what you wrote that merges a rigorous mental process to greater ability in the game. (See how these things merge together?) So I'll try and work that idea in, but let me also mention that most of the time that people mentioned Strategy to me, they were more focused on logical process. You mention a tone of Status that goes along with being successful. I don't know if that means that something else is needed or not. I'll have to think about that.

Also about Exploration being vague, there may be a better term for what I'm looking to describe, but it is primarily a melding of story and discovery that I was trying to express.

Theres more, but I'm having difficulty expressing myself (as usual).

As for the state of the thread, I think I can start to see something of the axes we can use:

1) Internal v. External - The player is motivated by a desire to serve personal satisfaction v. the player is engaged in gaming to interface with other players.
2) Inclusion v. Dominance - The player is motivated by a need to be a part of some system (social, mechanical) v. the player seeks to control some system.
3) Challenge v. Credability - The player is in the game to be tested v. the player is in the game to be free of limitations.
4) Entertainment v. Obligation - The player is there to have fun v. the player is there to be needed (i.e. to enable fun, to be an authority on simulation accuracy, etc).

But maybe there are elements of those axes that overlap or can be further synthesized? The more axes, the more combinations of them are possible, which makes it all the harder to truly couple a player to a play style (i.e. a character or role). It is as if granularity of categorization works AGAINST the higher thread goal of quick qualification and association. Put another way, in that "axes space" of possible motives/styles (two sides of same coin), there is probably a smaller space of what is "really important." Thus, the other, nuanced spaces (perhaps) just define variations in techniques or ephemera, which should take a back seat to higher motives/styles that relate to Agenda and situation.

Hmmm... we have three Agendas... many games have something around nine archetypes/classes... three squared is nine. Maybe GNS is the hook onto which we can hang motive/style; sort of turn the Agendas on their ears and treat them as origin points of our axes? Then look at how system and situation/setting map into different agendas, to find the "weight" of the types. (?) If nothing else, GNS could go into the melting pot along with Jung, Briggs-Myers, Bartle, and my nascent categories above?

Okay you hurt my head with that one! My thoughts had gone a significant way and this makes me have to step back and rebuild to what you posted (not a bad thing, it was just hard to do). I agree with 80% of what you wrote, but I also ran into two things that made me abandon the idea of axis (sorry). One the drives that people expressed to me were not mutually exclusive for the most part. Which leads me to two, many of the Elements I had a hard time actually keeping them separated from each other. This meant to me (going back to 1) that as a players interest in one goes up, it does not reduce the interest in another. One simply overcomes the other.

Now don't get me wrong I'm not shooting you down, in fact I started off thinking like you've expressed I just ran into a problem. It doesn't, mean that that problem cannot be overcome.

Also in your description of Internal v. External  and Inclusion v. Dominance, Social is the External and the Inclusion, strongly referencing the same point. Soooo . . . are Internal and Dominance the same? Not exactly.

I came to describe what you term Dominance as an interest in greater Ability. This was facilitated by Acquisition, Status, Freedom from Risk, and to a lesser extent Aggression. (Novelty is the ability to do the unexpected and although I group it with abilities, it wouldn't fit with Dominance.)

Now Internal and Entertainment are vaguely related, but not enough to say they are the same.

Is Obligation the desire to be needed? No one expressed the thought to me that way, but they did frequently mention the desire for teamwork which is close, but does that naturally oppose being entertained? Basically what I mean is if you're asking a Player if he wants to be entertained or obligated, he's almost always going to say entertained.

Challenge v. Credability is summarized in Risk Freedom in that players are naturally expecting challenging and difficult things to happen to them as a function of any game, but they don't want that to hurt them if they fail. That is a Player desire for ability that people don't normally have.

I have to get going for now, I'll have to work on both of your suggestions and how to apply them. In the meantime, Here's my beta you may like it, you may not, let me know. http://www.store32.net/questions.php

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

I agree with 80% of what you wrote, but I also ran into two things that made me abandon the idea of axis (sorry).

You needn't be sorry--it's not my baby. :)  Ultimately, if you are doing the work of synthesis and categorization and test design... you get to make the final call on the categories. About the only thing you need to do to "serve" those of us contributing is to recognize that there's a chance that your system of categorization could occasionally misanalyze a player, if it can not embrace the motivation we toss out. You seem to be cognisant of that, by your efforts to map our ideas into your own.

And if you happen to miss a few types that are needed... well, that's what beta testing is for. ;)

One the drives that people expressed to me were not mutually exclusive for the most part. Which leads me to two, many of the Elements I had a hard time actually keeping them separated from each other. This meant to me (going back to 1) that as a players interest in one goes up, it does not reduce the interest in another. One simply overcomes the other.

OK, this is important to emphasize: player types/categories/motivations/elements almost ALWAYS will overlap. If they were completely unrelated, they would not map into play as we understand it in RPGs. For instance, (using Bartle for simplicity) an Explorer would not enjoy only Exploring if they did not occasionally gain Social out of it (e.g. "Check out this cool area I discovered!"). Or perhaps they do it to be an Achiever (e.g. "I have seen the entire world!") It is only the rare Explorers do it for purely Internal reasons--NOT for Achievement, NOT to impress other players, and NOT to kill folks (of course). Rare.

Soooo . . . are Internal and Dominance the same? Not exactly.

I'd say not at all; in my mind, those really were axes. Internal and Dominance have as much to do with each other as X and Y on a Cartesian Plane. I can imagine that a player could play for Internal goals (say, to work on strategy in the game) without trying to control aspects of play. In fact, Dominance is MORE closely coupled to External, as controlling a system in isolation is pretty much masturbation.

I think I needed to go further in my "versus" definitions of the dichotomies. I will try below. I do all of this knowing full well what I said before: "maybe there are elements of those axes that [I should have said COMPLETELY] overlap or can be further synthesized."

I came to describe what you term Dominance as an interest in greater Ability.

Your notion of Ability would be only one path to my notion of Dominance. Control is the hook, not efficacy. Unless Ability means something more like "enablement," in which case they are causally related: enablement can lead to Dominance, and the Dominance-serving player will want enablement.

Is Obligation the desire to be needed? No one expressed the thought to me that way, but they did frequently mention the desire for teamwork which is close, but does that naturally oppose being entertained? Basically what I mean is if you're asking a Player if he wants to be entertained or obligated, he's almost always going to say entertained.

This is another miscommunication. My notion of Obligation is, basically, what motivates GMs and grognards. Perhaps I should have said "Authority"--but authority is only relevant to an External motivated player, obviously.

Hmmm... perhaps there is a "super-dichotomy" that, in turn, would have variations on the other motivations. But I can't see it, because every time I try to say, "OK, THIS set is the Main One to resolve first because it characterizes all elements of the other three sets," I can think of another player type whose main motivation rests with what would be a "sub-dichotomy."

By the way, I know you've given up on axes... it's just how I think; I can not see things as standalone or independent of their "opposite". It's my Aristotelian-cum-Taoist nature, I think. :)

Challenge v. Credability is summarized in Risk Freedom in that players are naturally expecting challenging and difficult things to happen to them as a function of any game, but they don't want that to hurt them if they fail. That is a Player desire for ability that people don't normally have.

Again, I needed to be more clear. Credability as I use it means, basically, the player wants to say what "is real" for the game. Could be a grognard playing a WWII game with a generally ignorant GM; could be a GM who has a cool setting in mind. Basically, I use the same meaning as in The Big Model (GNS).

I saw this as a dichotomy because it seemed to me that someone who has a lot of desire for a lot of credability would end up "authoring" his or her way out of challenges.

And now that I say that, I see that it's not a dichotomy. The WWII grognard above might well "up the ante" on himself, if he felt the GM wasn't being "true to the war's danger" or something. I think I saw it as an opposed pair because I was thinking GM v. player: GMs are rarely "challenged" in the games that they run. Frustrated, confused, disappointed, and busy: sure; but not challenged as in "tested" by the game play itself.

In closing, I will check out your beta questionnaire and see if it guesses me right: I am pretty sure of why I play and, as such, which roles would best serve my goals, in a given game system. And it seems to me that your testers will have to either (a) know a good bit about gaming and themselves or (b) be willing to provide "test cases" of actual play in an associated role after being typed, so that they can prove or disprove the assessment of their types.

HTH and sorry I was incomplete in my definitions of dichotomies;
David

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

In Version 2 of your test, I am:
Intelect Group 33 percent
Social Group 40 percent
Abilities Group 33 percent

(BTW, you have a misspelling of Intellect.)

And I'd say that's spot-on (though it adds up to 106%. Is that OK?)

I did find some issues with questions, but that might be normal. For instance, I could not choose a "best" answer for some, for me. I had to go with "well, OK" answers. Also, I found some questions in which I could fairly equally choose more than one answer. In a few of such cases, I had the impression that the answers weren't even of the same scope; i.e. a few seemed to speak to one sort of reply and the others seemed to speak to another, equally valid type of reply.

So far, it looks good. Get her tuned up tightly (do you have connections with testing theory?) and then start going for game designer adoption. After all, the typing means nothing if associated games and roles are not also typed.

David

[Emmett]

David,

Yeah I'm a lousy speller, I noticed that earlier and didn't fix it yet, but thanks for reminding me. Theres more than that misspelled.

The percentages round and I expected them to sometimes yield 101% or 99% but 106% is a bit out of whack. I'll have to look at that.

The answers are mechanical to the system and I also wound up having to make those kinds of choices (that was strange to me because I wrote the questions and ended up not knowing how "best" to answer them). I'm working on more questions and hopefully I can tune some of them better. I know in beta version 1 some of the people taking the test didn't understand what was being asked, what they thought they would do or what they would like to do. That is a big distinction that I've been trying to get right. I think the proper answer is what you would like to do.

Can you give me some examples of questions that you didn't like/understand/were confusing? I can try to tune them.

The Elements that overlapped the most were the ones that I put into groups but the only ones I thought might in some way contradict each other were Aggression and Social, but since aggression can often be turned toward NPCs then they don't have to contradict each other. Now on the other hand, It could be possible that there is a counterpoint to these Elements and that counterpoint may indicate if a person has desires that would make them suited for playing RPGs or maybe it would be a way for RPGs to reach out to people that don't like intellectual challenge, or talking to people. That's a weird thought but somebody might have use for it.

So that brings up the question, should this also be a RPG fitness test? By allowing the person taking the test to say "No I don't like the things that most RPG players like". That idea is a bit irksome to me, but I could see it's functional value. It would also be an effective litmus test to see if the test is doing it's job. If that person that in effect had a negative score (bad way of saying it) still liked playing RPGs, that would tell you that the test is missing something. I'm still not so hot on it though.

[Emmett]

Also, I found some questions in which I could fairly equally choose more than one answer.

That can easily be done but I also was afraid that someone might just say, "I like all these things" for all questions. I thought the better avenue was to make the test taker struggle with what they like the most and that way the questions are more discriminating

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

Can you give me some examples of questions that you didn't like/understand/were confusing?

I did not dislike or misunderstand any, per se; I just found some seemed to have multiple, equally valid answers, for me. Equally valid, not merely tough decisions.

For example:
What is better to achieve?
1. Having lots of friends 2. Having a few close friends 3. Having friends look up to you
I would say 2 and 3 equally. I want close friends, and I want them to look up to me (tough phrasing; I'd prefer they respect me, but that's almost identical). I would not want any number of close (or not) friends who didn't respect me or who looked down on me--who would?

The best way for my schedule to be determined is by
1. Whatever comes up 2. Strict conformity to a schedule 3. Anything but the same thing
1 and 3 seem, to me, to be identical. Although, I guess, in the case of 1, the "whatever" could be "the same thing". Thus, someone could be happy with whatever, including if it is the same thing, and choose 1 without being equally inclined to choose 3. Perhaps this can be "corrected" with a slight rephrasing of 1.

What would you like to do if someone stole your wallet.
1. Remember as much as you can and report it to the police. 2. Chase the thief and fight them for it. 3. Yell for help and get somebody to stop them.
This is significantly situational, I feel. I would usually do 1 because someone who could actually gain possession of my wallet would, in most circumstances where I surrender it to the thief, have already intimidated me. However, in the right sort of crowd or environment, 3 would be the obvious choice--or could even be a more effective way to enable 1 (ex: at a sporting event with security). Conversely, if the thief somehow gained my wallet without intimidation (ex: a pickpocket) then 2 is going to happen 9 times out of 10.

If someone threatens you. . .
1. Try to ignore them and hope they go away. 2. Threaten them back to try and scare them off. 3. Call on your friends to back you up. 4. Get them first before they get you. 5. Try and reason with the person.
Again, very situational. Depending upon the threat and the threatener, I could go almost every way (except 4).

Same thing with the "If a person is upset with you the best thing to do is. . ." question.

In general, perhaps you need only make sure to use terms like "usually" and "most like" and set up questions to ask about preference, to defuse situational interpretations (i.e. "all thing's being equal").