Gamer Levels


log in or register to remove this ad


I don't see any category for "LARPER" or "LARPER trained in use of period weapons" or "LARPER trained to make period gear/equipment" or "Actually lives in a fantasy world."
 

I'm around a 10 on a normal basis, but I haven't DM'd a campaign for almost 6 months, a Deadlands HOE campaign that was suppossed to last a year and take them through Unity, but managed only a few months before I accidently TPK'd my friends.

I'm really starting to feel the itch to run, and should have something up by the end of March.

So, I guess 6, atm.
 

I don't agree with the ordering of some of these but that's probably because I don't see players and DMs on the same scale (e.g. occasional DMs aren't necessarily more invested in the game than some full-time players).
Some are also just different 'flavours' of players, e.g. power-players, roleplaying players.

Anyway, I seem to qualify for level 12, that's nice ;)
 

I have pretty major disagreements with some of the numbering, but will not bother to list them. By this scale I wold clearly put myself at .... "Censored"
 


This is an attempt to map a 2-D space on a 1-D scale. Not very possible.

Oh, mathematically speaking it is entirely possible. Easy, even. Though, if you are not careful, you can lose information in the process.

But, so long as the scale you are mapping into is of equal or greater ordinality than the scales you are mapping from, you don't need to lose information. However, in so doing you may either inject information that was not in the original data, or merely imply relations in the data that did not exist.

For example, let us assume the 2 dimensions here are "investment as GM" and "investment as player". This makes some sense - some folks can be highly invested as a player, but hate GMing. And some folks can love GMing, but not get much of a kick from playing, right?

So, assign the levels of player-investment to odd numbers, and GM-investment to even numbers. No data is then lost, if you know the mapping. Of course, that ranking kind of implies that the lowest-rank player is less invested than the lowest-rank GM. Which is not necessarily true.

The basic flaw is the assumption that "investment" can be measured and assigned a numeric ranking.
 


What rank is "has the 1e DMG's 'Random Wandering Prostitute Table' completely memorized?"

I think that's just below "Wrote the 1e DMG's 'Random Wandering Prostitute Table'" so pretty close to epic.

Oh and I think I peaked around 10 but have slipped back to 6.
 
Last edited:

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top