Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > Roleplaying in General

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-07-2019, 09:36 PM   #101
RyanW
 
RyanW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
Default Re: Robin D. Laws Player Types Quiz

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Joy View Post
Good points. How about “The characters I play are the most integral to solving the campaign’s problems.”?
"I carefully consider what problems we might be facing before choosing what sort of character to play."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Joy View Post
Maybe something like “Since I play the same type of character, everyone knows how I’ll deal with any problem.”?
“Since I play the same type of character, everyone can just make their plans around that.”
__________________
RyanW
You can never know someone's strength until you see their weakest moment.
RyanW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2019, 08:13 AM   #102
Anaraxes
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Default Re: Robin D. Laws Player Types Quiz

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Joy View Post
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...)

Quote:
{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.

Quote:
{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"?

Quote:
{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"?

Quote:
{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.)

Quote:
{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.

Quote:
{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?)
Anaraxes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2019, 06:10 PM   #103
Captain Joy
 
Captain Joy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Heartland, U.S.A.
Default Re: Robin D. Laws Player Types Quiz

#3 TT vs MA: Accomplishing party objectives trumps role-playing opportunities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Joy View Post
Indeed. 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.
Then that’s what we’ll go with Doing what is tactically sound trumps role-playing opportunities.

#5. MA vs BK: My characters need a fully-realized, personal, in-game motivation to fight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Joy View Post
I agree “fully-realized” and “in-game” match ST and a well as MA, but “personal” is pretty unique to MA. I’m thinking I need to reword this question so the “personal” aspect is prominent and the more ST elements are minimized.
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.
There is already a BK vs MA questions where affirmative inclinations give points to your BK score (and MA can’t accumulate). What we’re looking for here is an MA vs BK questions whereby affirmative inclinations will boost your MA score (and your BK score won’t change). I'm going to change this one to:

My characters engage—or don't engage—in combat out of inner, personal, motivation.

12. SP vs BK: All my characters approach combat situations in the same way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes View Post
Maybe something like "I'll happily change my character concept to most effectively use the combat system for each new game”?
A Specialist “favors a particular character type, which he plays in every campaign and in every setting”. Maybe you were thinking of a BK vs SP questions instead of an SP vs BK question? At this point, I can’t think of a way to improve the current form of the question.

25. CG vs MA: My characters are pretty much just me, but with special abilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Joy View Post
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. There may be a better way to separate the CG from the MA; I haven’t come up with any and am open to suggestions.
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”?
Again, you’ve come up with an MA vs CG questions; we need a CG vs MA question. I’m going to change it to:

I forget/don't bother properly role-playing my character if it annoys another player.

38. TT vs SP: I’m willing to play any character that is integral to achieving the campaigns goals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Joy View Post
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.)
I like it. I’m changing this question to:

My characters are uniquely designed to effectively overcome the in-game obstacles.

40. SP vs TT: Since I play the same type of character, everyone knows what to expect from me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Joy View Post
Maybe something like “Since I play the same type of character, everyone knows how I’ll deal with any problem.”?
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.
(As you’re probably surmised, the quiz doesn’t even support “binary counts”. On the player-type for which an affirmative answer supports—the “XX” in the “XX vs YY” scheme—gets its score built up for that question.)

I’m changing this one to:

I play my favorite character concept even when it means I'll be less effective.

41. ST vs MA: My satisfaction comes from my character's involvement within the larger story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Joy View Post
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?)
Then let’s go with:

My satisfaction comes from the larger story, not my character’s personal story.

As always, I welcome feedback, especially any will reduce bias in the questions.

Last edited by Captain Joy; 01-21-2019 at 09:40 AM. Reason: Reworked several of question replacements.
Captain Joy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2019, 07:56 AM   #104
Kromm
GURPS Line Editor
 
Kromm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
Default Re: Robin D. Laws Player Types Quiz

I just noticed this. Here's a data point from a games professional, arrayed in descending order:
Casual Gamer: 88%
Tactician: 67%
Method Actor: 63%
Storyteller: 54%
Power Gamer: 33%
Butt-Kicker: 21%
Specialist: 17%
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com>
GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games
My LiveJournal [Just GURPS News][Just The Company]
Kromm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2019, 09:07 AM   #105
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Default Re: Robin D. Laws Player Types Quiz

My latest try at it shows Method Actor 63%; Storyteller 58%; Tactitian 50%; Power Gamer 38%; Casual Gamer 33%; Butt-Kicker 25%; and Specialist 8%. That more or less fits how I perceive myself. In particular, I very consciously and deliberately try to play a new character type in each new campaign, most of the time, to expand my roleplaying range; thus, in different campaigns, I've deliberately set out to play an upper-class twit, a habitual liar and BSer, an adrenalin-addicted combat monster, a young idealist, and a skilled persuader.
__________________
Bill Stoddard

A human being should know how to live fast, die young, and leave a beautiful corpse. Specialization is for insects.
whswhs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2019, 12:42 PM   #106
johndallman
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cambridge, UK
Default Re: Robin D. Laws Player Types Quiz

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndallman View Post
Nearly four years ago:
Power Gamer: 46%
Butt-Kicker: 17%
Tactician: 83%
Specialist: 33%
Method Actor: 63%
Storyteller: 58%
Casual Gamer: 50%
Now:

Power Gamer: 54%
Butt-Kicker: 29%
Tactician: 67%
Specialist: 38%
Method Actor: 63%
Storyteller: 71%
Casual Gamer: 54%
johndallman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2019, 09:09 AM   #107
Apollonian
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Robin D. Laws Player Types Quiz

Power Gamer
50%
Butt-Kicker
33%
Tactician
54%
Specialist
21%
Method Actor
50%
Storyteller
75%
Casual Gamer
75%
Apollonian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2019, 07:53 AM   #108
Michele
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Udine, Italy
Default Re: Robin D. Laws Player Types Quiz

I'm by far a Tactician, then a Casual Gamer. That's OK with me.
I like not to be a Butt-Kicker or a one-trick pony.
But I was surprised to see I rate relatively high on Power Gaming.
I think it's also a good thing not to have any very low or very high scores.

Power Gamer: 42%
Butt-Kicker: 25%
Tactician: 75%
Specialist: 25%
Method Actor: 54%
Storyteller: 42%
Casual Gamer: 58%
__________________
Michele Armellini
GURPS Locations: St. George's Cathedral
Michele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2019, 10:57 PM   #109
ak_aramis
 
ak_aramis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Alsea, OR
Default Re: Robin D. Laws Player Types Quiz

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Joy View Post
EDIT: I ended up making my own online questionnaire, last updated 2018 Dec 11.
Good on ye, mate.

I got:
Power Gamer: 38%
Butt-Kicker: 21%
Tactician: 63%
Specialist: 33%
Method Actor: 42%
Storyteller: 79%
Casual Gamer: 17%
ak_aramis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2019, 05:33 PM   #110
Captain Joy
 
Captain Joy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Heartland, U.S.A.
Default Re: Robin D. Laws Player Types Quiz

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michele View Post
I think it's also a good thing not to have any very low or very high scores.
The only way to get a 0% score would be to overwhelmingly avoid a particular player type’s proclivities when it’s pitted against all six of the other player types.

My impression is that not having any very low or high scores probably means you’re an easy to please player. An exception would be a very low Specialist score: you’d still be easy to please.
Captain Joy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
gm advice, online aids, player types, quiz, robin's laws

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.