[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Captain Joy

Maybe something like “Doing what is tactically sound sound trumps role-playing opportunities.”?

An improvement, certainly. Kind of telegraphs the answers, but that's hard to avoid.

(Just fell victim to this one myself recently, letting a fleeing enemy flee from a vindictive character rather than kill it, because there were yet active enemies still up and fighting...)

{BK vs MA}

Maybe something along the lines of "Fighting is fun for its own sake, even when the character has no real motive"? This one's tough to distinguish, because a BK is probably going to design a character that does in-game enjoy fighting, so the difference between the player liking to fight and the character liking to fight is minimal -- which also means any good MA would pursue also the fights, if for a different player motivation.

{SP vs BK}My interpretation (correct me if I’m wrong) is that a SP will (at least try to) find a way to play his/her go-to character regardless of the genre/rules/whatever. A BK will find a way to kick the most butt regardless of the genre/rules/whatever.

Maybe something like "I'll happily change my character concept to most effectively use the combat system for each new game"?

{CG vs MA}My reasoning was that CG wouldn’t learn or care about the rules enough to really create and role-play a character that was much different from themselves.

Hm. What if the question played on the "often the mellow, moderating type" and "doesn't want to come up with a plot hook" bits of CG? Something like "I'll create characters with strong motivations to act even when they might cause friction with the other characters"?

{TT vs SP}How about “The characters I play are the most integral to solving the campaign’s problems.”?

Pretty good. Maybe lower the ego content of "most integral" a bit so as not to scare away respondents. "My characters are designed to efficiently overcome the main obstacles in the game, whatever character concept that may require"? (This one's also pretty telegraphic.)

{SP vs TT}

Maybe something like “Since I play the same type of character, everyone knows how I’ll deal with any problem.”?[/quote]The hard part hear is getting the disagrees to point at TT, rather than any non-SP type. "Always play the same type of character" is squarely anchored to SP, but I think most types will object to the "always the same" characterization. The previous question is the same thing, just with the positive response pointing the other way around. I suppose it's not bad to have some questions apply weights toward multiple types (assuming the underlying engine supports that rather than just binary counts). Does something like "I'd rather play my favorite character in a new system at best it fits than change the concept just to make it more effective at solving problems" work? MA doesn't care about "favorite", but is going to be pushed away from "change the concept just to make it effective". BK's as much of a "no" as is TT. So this question still isn't sharply focused. But it's good for distinguishing a couple of groups, if that's helpful in the scoring.

{ST vs MA}How about something like “My satisfaction comes from the larger story, not my character’s story arc.”

Nice improvement; hard for MA's to answer "yes". Maybe "my character's role" rather than "story arc", as MA is presumably happy even with supporting roles as long as they're rich enough. But it's nice for the question to be all about story, and "role" might attract too many TTs or BKs. (My role is overcoming the challengings / kicking butt!, whereas neither stereotype would care about story per se. "Role" has multiple meanings to the different mindsets, as does "performance" -- dramatic or objective statistical effectiveness?)