Robin D. Laws Player Types Quiz

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by johndallman

I wouldn't say bias, but just disagreements over terminology.

For example, "ST vs TT The "rule of cool" is preferred to careful planning and preparation."

I don't see "the rule of cool" as a storyteller value - I don't see it as a positive feature of any kind of roleplaying style. It's been abused so much as an excuse for inconsistency that any attempt to invoke it at me just diminishes the invoker's credibility.

Originally Posted by tbrock1031

Indeed, I've always seen "rule of cool" as part of a Butt-Kicker trait.

Rule of cool seems largely a trait of cinematic gaming. I think cinematic gaming can be either tactical or storrytellish without much of a stretch.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Rule of cool seems largely a trait of cinematic gaming. I think cinematic gaming can be either tactical or storrytellish without much of a stretch.

Isn't it fundamentally against thosee principles that tacticians enjoy when the subjective artistic preferences of the players and GM, regardless of in-setting logic, preparation of the characters or the soundness of their plans, govern the outcome of events in the game?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Isn't it fundamentally against thosee principles that tacticians enjoy when the subjective artistic preferences of the players and GM, regardless of in-setting logic, preparation of the characters or the soundness of their plans, govern the outcome of events in the game?

But I have rather strong storytelling impulses, and I don't much care for "rule of cool." I want the story to follow logically from the premises; that's part of what makes it a good story.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

What is interesting is that recently you said things that seem to place you away from the Method Actor archetype. Something about being more okay to break character than MA's believe, and about not placing a high priority on sharing the character's emotions/internal mood/etc. I don't think I can recall the precise wording.
I also did not expect you to score that high on the Butt-Kicker.

Well, neither did I. But it may be kind of like dealing with the old GNS system. Its definitions both of S and of N had me shaking my head and wondering which of us was insane. Different people have radically different concepts of what any given concept is about. And you have to realize that I haven't actually read Laws's definitions.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by whswhs

But I have rather strong storytelling impulses, and I don't much care for "rule of cool." I want the story to follow logically from the premises; that's part of what makes it a good story.

I did not make a statement one way or another about storytellers according to Laws. In my view, it's possible for more than one player to be be a storyteller while having radically different preferences as to the genre and mood of fiction.

So that the both of us, for example, score high on 'storytelling', despite not being prepared to see the integrity of the setting or characters sacrificed in the service of a pre-determined storyline.

As for what my post was about, I can't see any way for tacticians to enjoy 'rule of cool' trumping their in-game preparation and planning. The only way I can see is if the tactician was a very gamist kind of tactician and the game rules had clearly defined 'Rule of Cool' inspired rules that the tactician could account for in his preparations.

But that requires a very strange setting, one where characters in it are aware that the Rule of Cool influences their reality.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I did not make a statement one way or another about storytellers according to Laws. In my view, it's possible for more than one player to be be a storyteller while having radically different preferences as to the genre and mood of fiction.

So that the both of us, for example, score high on 'storytelling', despite not being prepared to see the integrity of the setting or characters sacrificed in the service of a pre-determined storyline.

Sure. It's just that if you have "A or B" and you have "not B" then you have "A." Since I don't think "rule of cool" makes sense as a storytelling value, I think the initial premise is entirely wrong. I'm not saying that it's your premise.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Isn't it fundamentally against thosee principles that tacticians enjoy when the subjective artistic preferences of the players and GM, regardless of in-setting logic, preparation of the characters or the soundness of their plans, govern the outcome of events in the game?

Well, let's take Exalted Stunts* as an example. A bonus provided if you provide a description of an actions that interacts with a part of the environment that has been mentioned by the GM, such as using a curtain in a feint, or using a table when tumbling behind an enemy, or a chandelier when moving around the room. Surely the reason for the bonus is a pure rule of cool. But it is also part of the in-setting logic, since it is a cinematic setting. And it is also a part of the game-rule logic, since the rule is quite precise about the prerequisites for gaining a bonus, and what the bonus value is.

* == I might be confusing this with environmental interaction from Swashbucklers of Seven Skies, Fudge or some other related system; but the idea still stands.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well, let's take Exalted Stunts* as an example. A bonus provided if you provide a description of an actions that interacts with a part of the environment that has been mentioned by the GM, such as using a curtain in a feint, or using a table when tumbling behind an enemy, or a chandelier when moving around the room. Surely the reason for the bonus is a pure rule of cool. But it is also part of the in-setting logic, since it is a cinematic setting. And it is also a part of the game-rule logic, since the rule is quite precise about the prerequisites for gaining a bonus, and what the bonus value is.

Yes and the Exalted setting is an example of a strange setting, as per the end of my post.

I've actually played Exalted, and yes, the tactician in me did enjoy the chance to operate at massive plusses for nearly anything I did so long as I could manage to describe it dramatically and with more Coolness than other players.

In restrospect, I don't think that this made it any more enjoyable for other players, as the combination of these constant bonuses and a very unbalanced character design system meant that while the other PCs were demigods, my PC was a bona fide God who could make short work of any published opposition.

[Anaraxes]

Thanks for posting quiz, as well as the behind-the-scenes page. I appreciate the work. The comments below are just review, attempting to analyze the quiz and perhaps make it better, not to complain about it.

Originally Posted by whswhs

It's just that if you have "A or B" and you have "not B" then you have "A."

This is the thing that troubles me about some of the questions. The "agree" sense of the questions might be well aimed at a particular style, but then the "disagree" sense is assigned to some other one style when it may not be that strong of an indicator. For example, trying to dissect my own results:

41. ST vs MA My satisfaction comes from my character's involvement within the larger story.

That seems pretty directly pointed at ST. But you might disagree for any number of reasons which don't point to MA. My satisfaction comes from exciting combat (BK); my satisfaction comes from levelling (PG); my satisfaction comes from being with the group (CG). Any answer but "always" is building up weight for MA that may not be justified.

25. CG vs MA My characters are pretty much just me, but with special abilities.

Personally I just plain dislike the "stat yourself and throw the mundanes into the setting" premise. I like the escapism and power fantasy. If I wanted to be me, I can do that without an RPG. So, this question draws a "never" from me. The disagree here doesn't seem to me to point to MA. Even the agree doesn't seem to be CG in particular. The psychodrama types might be MA, Billy Badass might think his BK is "pretty much just me", or the ST is just as happy with characters that are "just me" because he can still develop the plot.

There are also some questions where I'm not sure the "agree" sense points strongly at one type.

3. TT vs MA Accomplishing party objectives trumps role-playing opportunities.

Going along with the party is a CG trait, as well as TT. "Accomplishing objectives" is usually a lot like "finishing the story", which would be a ST trait.

5. MA vs BK My characters need a fully-realized, personal, in-game motivation to fight.

ST as well as MA is likely to agree.

Some questions that don't work well for me, because I like variety. I've seen a lot of characters in a lot of games. Think of it as "anti-SP".

12. SP vs BK All my characters approach combat situations in the same way.

Well, no; when they're different classes/roles/skillsets, they pretty much have to approach combat differently. That's not "BK", just a result of rules systems.

38. TT vs SP I'm willing to play any character that is integral to achieving the campaigns goals.

At least as much CG as TT, I'd think. Also a fair component of ST, because you can't tell much of a story if the party is dysfunctional and inept. (Better be a comedy, or it'll be short and unsatisfying for more than just the STs.)

40. SP vs TT Since I play the same type of character, everyone knows what to expect from me.

Again, any non-SP style fits, not just TT. "Type" is also vague. The stereotypical MA that always has to have the angsty conflicted character would be "the same type", even if it changes from swashbuckler to vampire to paladin "types".

I don't know of a good solution here other than a vector of weights for all styles for both "agree" and "disagree" answers. (This might get even uglier, since even the proportions may not remain the same at each agreement level.)

Originally Posted by Captain Joy

the correct conclusion is that you have an aversion to clicking "Never" buttons.

Also general issue with the "radio button" style of survey. People don't like to choose the extreme ends. I've heard sometimes the designers pad them them out with an extra pair of buttons not really meant to be used, just to get the degree of detail they wanted from the remaining inside choices.

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by Quiz as of 16 Feb 2015

6. ST vs TT The "rule of cool" is preferred to careful planning and preparation.

Originally Posted by whswhs

Sure. It's just that if you have "A or B" and you have "not B" then you have "A." Since I don't think "rule of cool" makes sense as a storytelling value, I think the initial premise is entirely wrong.

Well said. So, I need to come up with something better that seperates a Story Teller from a Tactician.

How about: "Memorable spontaneity should override careful planning and preparation."?

Or: "Memorable actions are preferred even when they disrupt previous planning."?