I found an interesting site with a quiz that details a person's tendencies towards four aspects of roleplaying games. Exploration and roleplaying, Achievement (of things others have a hard time doing), socializing, AAAAAAANNDD killing. When you take the test, it gives you a score in each category. It's rather interesting, if you like that sort of thing. Here is the link:
http://www.gamerdna.com/quizzes/bartle-test-of-gamer-psychology
I got a 93% Explorer, 40% Achiever, 40% Socializer, 27% Killer score. I'm not sure why it goes to 200%, but there you have it. From that, you can tell pretty well what I find most fun in these kinds of games rather easily, eh? It explains more and breaks it down better on the tests result page. If you feel like sharing your score, here's a good place to do it ;P
93% Achiever, (Yeah, I'm shocked too!!)
53% Killer
33% Explorer
27% Socializer.
I thought the Killer would be the high one.
(Doing Therapy)
93% Socializer
43% Explorer
33% Killer
27% Achiever
I would have thought achiever would be above killer and explorer.
Oh ya know what? I think a part of gamer psychology would be in the fact that dice are rolled. I think more people would be using their new-found psionic powers to harass police in real life than would say so in game. In real life, you're thinking "This cop is a real jerk." and get cocky with him. In game, you're thinking "The referee is going to roll the dice." I think that's a large part of why some players are careful. The thread is gamer psychology, so it seemed like an appropriate side-discussion.
(Doing Therapy)
Hmmm--I took the test, but my results don't make sense. It took me a while to figure out how to get these numbers, but I'm seeing:
- Exploratory 100%
- Thoughtful 48%
- Physical -38%
- Social 33%
- Competitive -100%
- Sadistic -9%.
Oh, there they are--they were too small to see on my monitor, until I magnified the face. Here we go:
- Explorer 87%
- Socializer 60%
- Achiever 47%
- Killer 7%
--M. J. Young
The first numbers you see are the expansion on the data i talked about. they are used to form the four primary numbers in some formula I don't know.
So, Mj's results say he is an explorer socializer; when playing, he prefers to think out his character's actions and get to know the game world around him, and he likes to socialize with the other players and (in character) their characters. He also likes recognition to some degree, like the recognition those guys got for blowing up B movie monster world. Achiever is about remembering the good times, and to some, bragging. It also says he doesn't much care about fighting for fighting's sake, hence the low killing score.
Ahmetia's says she is a Socializer Explorer. It's all about the people getting together to play a game, but the people are definitely the most important thing.
John is an Achiever Killer, which looks like to him it's all about his character-his tools, his power, his achievements, his dominance over the game world. He wants to be elite, and he wants the players around him to be elite too, so he can have the best of everything, including friends.
He wants to be elite, and he wants the players around him to be elite too, so he can have the best of everything, including friends.
Did you have to make it sound so smug and arrogant? (Laughing myself silly!!)
(Doing Therapy)
Having read your game thread, I'd have to say that's what you DO to a T. As to what you think while playing...not a clue.
It doesn't need to sound smug though.
I KNEW this could turn into an interesting discussion! That's why I posted it. :)
It just sounded really funny, that's all.
You really think that fits me? Cool.
(Doing Therapy)
By the way, the server remembers your IP for like 24 hours, if you revisit the site it will still have your result for awhile.
87% Achiever
47% Socializer
40% Explorer
27% Killer
That's... pretty close, I guess. A lot of the questions I would've wanted a third option. Especially the "you find yourself alone in an area. Do you think A: I'll have to go elsewhere for prey or B: It's safe to explore" I wanted a C: I'm seconds from being killed by someone I can't see.
My first result:
RESULTS BREAKDOWN: E.S.A.K.
Explorer: 93%, Socializer: 67%, Achiever: 47%, Killer: 0%
Look more like E.S.A. to me though.
1) Exploratory: 100%
2) Thoughtful: 61%
3) Social: 23%
4) Reward-driven: -26%
5) Physical: -61%
6) Competitive: -84%
*****
Then I try to get 100% in each category just for fun....
RESULTS BREAKDOWN: K.A.E.S.
Killer: 100%, Achiever: 60%, Explorer: 27%, Socializer: 13%
RESULTS BREAKDOWN: A.S.K.E.
Achiever: 100%, Socializer: 33%, Killer: 33%, Explorer: 33%
RESULTS BREAKDOWN: S.A.E.K.
Socializer: 100%, Achiever: 53%, Explorer: 47%, Killer: 0%
RESULTS BREAKDOWN: E.S.A.K.
Explorer: 100%, Socializer: 60%, Achiever: 40%, Killer: 7%
(This result is greater than 200%)
I also observe a weird result:
RESULTS BREAKDOWN: A.K.E.S.
Achiever: 133%, Killer: 127%, Explorer: 80%, Socializer: 60%
(This result is equal to 400% but this could easily be divided by 2 to get normal result.)
It is interesting to know how the program calculate it.
80% explorer
67% socializer
53% achiever
0% killer (yay! :))
Not a mean bone in your body at all, eh Nikolaj? (That's an expression, I don't know if it is used in your country, but it means you would never hurt someone if you can help it)
not unless there are people hurting children :)
"Use the rod, beat the child, that's my motto.... Disgusting things, children, glad I never was one."
Principal Trunchbull
Matilda.
Nikolaj, before you get upset, it's a quote from a children's movie that you will love. Matilda, starring Mara Wilson.
(Doing Therapy)
You probably should have mentioned that Miss Trunchbull was the antagonist of the story, John. Then it would be clearer where you were going with that statement.
Brock, you've seen that movie? Then you will agree that Nikolaj would love it. Matilda is a Little Bitty Pretty One (And it's the theme song of the movie.) I love it when she takes down Trunchbull.
(Doing Therapy)
I read the book; I saw the movie much later.
Six year old girl, born with a photographic memory, genius IQ, and the ability to do complicated math in her head. Also born with 3@10 ability in simple, multiple object, heavy object, and high speed TK. Engages The Trunchbull in single combat. Excellent movie.
(Doing Therapy)
more like 2@1 simple, high speed, multiple. and 'born' with more like 1@2.
You're right Brock. I thought she lifted The Trunchbull with her TK. That would have qualified for Heavy Object. However, watching it last night, Matilda never lifted that thing.
I'm kind of surprised that no one said anything about my "Psychology of the Dice" theory. I mean haven't you ever not done something that you wanted to do because the dice would be rolled and you feared botching over something stupid? Or am I the only one who has ever done that?
(Doing Therapy)
I haven't. When I play, I ignore the die result. I roll it next to the GM, and let him read it. That way, I can't meta game with the die result even if I wanted to. Though I doubt I would, since I choose character action based on what I think they WOULD do, not what they SHOULD do.
John - I'll cop to that.
And yes, Matilda is indeed an awesome movie. Anything with child heroes has a special place in my heart.
As a gaming character, you're thinking "I've done this move a hundred times" (And you have, in practice.) The character would be thinking that it's going to be like all of the other times. The player knows that the dice are going to be rolled. The character probably has very little concern for botches, due to a slightly cocky attitude, or a host of other factors. The player knows better. I think most characters would probably get into a lot more trouble than the players would let them.
(Doing Therapy)
I think you misunderstand the concept of practice, John.
I remember a gymnastics session in high school phys ed. For many of the techniques, we put on a belt which was secured to two ropes, each of which was held by a spotter. If we erred, we were hopefully caught so that no serious injury would occur.
Similarly, when the Architect set about teaching himself to walk a tightrope, he set up a net beneath the rope so that if he slipped he would land unharmed in the net.
I notice that when gymnasts actually compete, there are no ropes attached to their belts; and when a ninja crosses between the roofs of high buildings on a tightrope, there is no net to catch him.
Practice is about doing this move in a completely controlled and safe environment. Doing it in the real world is different; the safeties are off.
And the fear of the botch is supposed to have that affect on you. You are supposed to hesitate, to ask whether there is a safer way to do this, to take precautions against whatever might go wrong. These crazy and dangerous powers you're developing--particularly when they are at amateur levels--should give you pause.
That's part of why we have botches in Multiverser.
In Dungeons & Dragons, grandfather of all role playing games, the limitation on magic was always that once you cast it you cannot cast it again until you have sufficient "down time" to relearn it. The limitation on psionics in that game was that you have a pool of points that you spent, and when you had spent them all you were powerless. Many role playing games use these models to limit the use of magic an psionics in play. Multiverser does not. Multiverser rather uses the chance of failure and the chance to botch. The chance of failure means that if you've got a 50% chance to hit this guy twice in a minute with the knife on your belt and a 30% chance to hit him once a minute with the blade you're going to conjure out of mental power, you'll use the real knife when it matters, and the other when you're forced to it or you figure you can improve your skill with it by practicing. The chance to botch means that if you might give yourself a blinding headache by using this force blade instead of a kitchen knife to cut your vegetables, you'll probably use the kitchen knife, even though you've got a chance of cutting your finger with it.
You're supposed to be considering the odds, the factors of what works and what doesn't, what's reliable and what's dangerous. You do that in real life. You assess whether to run across the highway dodging traffic or to walk to the crossway to avoid it, partly based on whether you think the one is too dangerous or the other too time consuming. You try to choose the way of doing everything that is most effective, but that includes minimizing risk.
I don't think that the person who has done the flip a thousand times with the safety belt in place feels no trepidation about attempting to do it in the competition. I don't think that the one who practiced walking the tightrope three feet above the safety net feels no trepidation about doing it thirty stories above the pavement. That's what the botch chance gives you: the perspective your character has, that this is much more dangerous in reality than it is in practice.
--M. J. Young
MJ, I was more referring to psionic and magic botches. I practiced my TK by lifting lady's skirts. I did this a hundred times a day sometimes. I felt confident doing it. However, suppose we were trying to sneak in somewhere, and I tried to lift a skirt to distract the security guards? Then it gets rolled for, and has the chance to botch. My character wouldn't think twice that he would botch. He's lifted how many skirts by now? The player knows he has the chance to botch this time. That was the difference I was referring to.
(Doing Therapy)
I already saw Matilda (and am sad that I wasn't into reading when I was twelve, so I haven't read the book. The same with the great friendly giant.) Amazing movie, yeah.
I would probably get very angry at Trunchbull, but killing her? I would rather get the police involved. That's just what I don't like in 'gamer mentality'. It's like whenever gamers suspect something or someone to be an adversary, they just tend to try and kill it.
"Why can't we stop them from hurting us momma?"
"Because they have weapons and technology. All we have is love."
Sad but true.
73% killer, 67% explorer, 40% achiever, 33% socializer.
Funny, I think the socializer is artificially low as a result of clumping in things that aren't strictly what I'd consider socializing.
Here's one, regarding gamer psychology. Do you think players get more and more aggressive and violent the longer they play? I have heard Eric say "Me wants a BEEEG Gun!!" (or something) I know Kyler has a real problem with authority, and I know my character does. Is this a trend anyone else has noticed?
On a different note, speaking of psychology, drop me into Quest for the Vorgo next. My character would see the priests as ordering him. Trying to exercise their authority over him. Cops without guns, in a sense. Especially since I have a feeling he's going to verse out of this world whilst engaged in combat with the TerraNova security. I'm just thinking of his psychology to that situation. And yes, I, out of character, know the demons will come for me. You've never ran it like that before, have you? Could be a nice mix up for a change.
And speaking of that, my "Psychology of the Dice" theory came to me with a revelation. I'm not the only person who has a problem with authority figures, especially police. I honestly think more people would be TK pulsing a police officer in real life than would say so in game. I wasn't the one exception out of a hundred players who had a problem with police, I was just the only one stupid enough to say what a hundred other players would actually be doing. (Just so you know, I find it quite funny now)
(Doing Therapy)
Well, partly, as a game of multiverser progresses, character power rises but indig power can vary up or down. So, my character currently can't win a fight with two barely-armed goblins, but older characters are more capable, and charging a giant chimp with a huge silver sledgehammer is less a pointless act of defiance and more a workable idea.
As for people being less willing to do things in games than in real life, the opposite is actually the case, because even drastically bad ideas in games don't carry serious consequences, and no one gets hurt when you do something pointlessly cruel, like setting your opponent on fire in a battle of the bards because you are tone-deaf. (neverwinter nights 2, in case you were wondering)
John, I know you're not the only one would do that, BUT I think the reason people aren't is because they are roleplaying THEMSELVES, and not a character the made up. Thye might WANTto do something like that, but they won't, as you said, because of the consequences. The dice aren't the real problem, they just represent what would happen had you done that for real. Your real problem is you really consider the consequences. Which is a good thing, because it means you are roleplaying better.
John--
- I've told you before not to tell me to what world to send you. It only eliminates possibilities from my list. Anyway, I think you're probably all wrong for Vorgo--it needs someone who is attracted to the idea of being the hero, and that is not you.
- If you think that the TerraNova security forces are going to be your problem, you are way off base. Your death lies elsewhere, my friend.
- There are characters who become less violent as they progress. Joseph Kondor's view that indigs are fragile lives that need his protection was drawn from player character Richard Lutz (verser elder Pete Adams in the games), who took that view as an atheist. Sean Daniels (a.k.a. Dan O'Malley) much prefers finesse. My characters consider violence to be a last resort, and although one of them cut his teeth killing vampires, he made peace with the werewolves and forged an alliance between them and the humans that was legendary. He also (before that) created the peace treaty that exists between Umak Tek and the Dar Koni. He's not rash, and he's not violent, he's only prepared to do what must be done if there's no acceptable alternative.
--M. J. Young
The dice aren't the real problem, they just represent what would happen had you done that for real.
Right Brock, but with the dice, you have a visual example. You have something to think about. Doing it for real, you're thinking differently. Maybe it's just different in my head or something.
(Doing Therapy)
I've told you before not to tell me to what world to send you. It only eliminates possibilities from my list. Anyway, I think you're probably all wrong for Vorgo--it needs someone who is attracted to the idea of being the hero, and that is not you.
No, it's perfect MJ. You would have never run it the way I would play it. Don't you get tired of running pretty much the same story every time? Don't you ever want to tell a story which is completely unique? Completely dissimilar from the way you have run it a thousand times? A new use, perhaps?
(Doing Therapy)
Two Posts
Now MJ will say "John, it's always different". No, it's always people who agree to go get the Vorgo. You have yet to tell the story of the guy who tells the priests to get lost.
(Doing Therapy)
Probably because it would come in as one of the shortest stories of all time, essentially boiling down to, "And then everyone dies. The end. Oh, and you got some skill points."
While that may be interesting to you, I don't know that MJ is very interested. A world focused on following a pre-determined path isn't the best world for jumping off the rails, and there are plenty of better worlds. It probably wouldn't be very fun for you to run into the things intended to drive players back onto the path, which is what most worlds like that have sprinkling the area outside the path.
I think it would be fun. I like to color outside of the lines.
(Doing Therapy)