Gaming the game, or telling a story?

[Umbran]

Presuming that the survey was competently done and analyzed, you probably will not be able to just look at the survey and "rate" on a scale. If the survey was competently done, the "scales" used to present the results would not even exist when the survey was compiled. Instead, a very large number of factors would have been surveyed and then factor analysis would have been used to reduce the variables until the eigen vectors stopped sorting out. Then one goes back and puts names and labels on what you've found.

To quote from Mr. Reynolds' page:

"We generated this data by asking a series of questions during the Market Research study in 1999 to create what is called a "segmentation" of the players. The questions were not designed to find these four quadrents; they correleate to all kinds of player interest and behavior. The original survey had several hundred questions, but only about two dozen have a bearing on the segmentation results. Once the study was complete, the data was plotted in several dimensions to look for clusters of responses; those clusters became the five player types. Once we know the segmentation was there, we reverse-engineered the axes, by comparing the responses of the people in each segment to find similarities."

Which sounds to me like a de-jargoned description of the process. Most folks wouldn't know an eigen vector if it poked them in the tush, after all.

Given the survey, and the proper definition of the final axes the analysis generated, one should be able to take the survey and find where on the graph one sits. Unfortunately, if the person surveyed knows that this is the purpose, he or she is likely to skew the results (consciously or unconsiously), as they'll tend to attempt to match their answers to a desired category.

 

[shilsen]

I'm an unabashed powergamer and I like creating PCs (and NPCs, when I DM) who are very effective at what they do. I also enjoy creating complex backgrounds which will find expression during the game. I enjoy combat and I enjoy non-combat interactions and would probably get bored if I had to do without one for a long period of time (though a non-combat session would be preferable to an all-combat session). In short, just like most previous posters, I like to have a good mix.

 

[Wombat]

Give me a complex world first

From that a powerful story will arise

You are welcome to place rules on it afterwards, then, to give the matter some parameters, but don't let them get in the way of A or B.

Hey, I got into rpgs to get away from miniatures rules-mania...

 

[Ourph]

I don't like powergaming. When I create a character I want to roll a few dice, pick a weapon and maybe some armor or spells and sit down and play. Crunching numbers to figure out the ultimate character build just isn't what RPGs are all about to me.

I don't like backstories. I want my character's story to be created in the game, not beforehand on a piece of paper. I figure every one of my characters starts out as some no-name farmer's third son. Whether he becomes somebody interesting depends on what happens once we start playing.

What I DO like is thinking like my character while overcoming challenges in-game. Give me a Magic-User with one sleep spell, a fighter with a broken sword and a longbow (with no arrows) and a thief with 50ft of rope (cut into five 10ft sections) who have to find some creative way to defeat an ogre guarding the object of their quest and I'm in gaming heaven. I guess that's a primarily gamist attitude, but tempered by the fact that I expect the game world to function basically like the real world (simulationist) and by the fact that I'm only allowing myself to problem solve using info that my character would have and from my character's perspective (that's a little bit narrativist).

But over all I could care less if there's some overarching story behind the game. I just want the game.

 

[Snoweel]

In his book, Robin Laws broke gamers down into categories according to the emotional kick they receive from gaming.

Emotional reward is essentially the only reason people engage in recreational activity, including gaming.

These groups, according to R. Laws are:

Label Emotional kick

Power Gamer Tangible (ie. statistical) improvement of PC.

Tactician Avoidance of risk, circumvention of challenge.

Buttkicker Participation in martial conflict.

Method Actor Immersion in roleplaying of PC.

Storyteller Participation in sweeping narrative.

Specialist Fulfilment of particular character role (most common is that of the ninja, but others include chivalrous knight/paladin, mystical princess, etc.)

Casual Gamer Hanging out with friends.

Robin's point is that in order to run a successful gaming session, you have to figure out why each player is at the table, and make sure they get what they want (to a certain extent).

Of course this means that some groups are doomed due to players having conflicting emotional kicks. For example, one player may love the thrill of battle while another gets her kicks from skilfully avoiding martial conflict.

 

[kingamy]

I find myself in a bit of a conundrum.

I prefer a story-oriented RPG, but find that I am not very skilled in that area. I am, however, quite skilled in the game aspect of the hobby. No matter how hard I try to keep the story in the forefront, the game always takes over.

(I avoid the simulation aspect whenver possible; my characters probably have bodily functions, but I don't want to know about it.)

kingamy

 

[MonsterMash]

My group are largely in it as a game, while I'm GM I also tend towards the simulationist approach to create the world and scenarios, but things don't have an overarching story - there are lots and lot of potential stories from plot hooks and things just evolve organically from there.

 

[Buttercup]

I think it's both, in equal measures. As a DM, I've taught the game to several people, and with regard to PC creation/leveling, I stress both having a character concept and survivability. But I also run games that are collaborative storytelling sessions. Sometimes there is no combat at all.

As a player, I always consider those things which will make my PC strong in a fight, but I love the roleplaying too. For example, my current character in Steve Creech's game just reached 3rd level. I've been waffling over whether to take that level as fighter (like her first two) or switch to sorcerer. I decided for sure just this morning that she needs to stick with fighter for this level because not enough time has passed in-game for her to manifest sorcerous powers in accordance with the concept I have. But now that I've decided that, I guarantee you I'll be picking a feat that will enhance her combat skill in some way.

To sum up, I don't see the two things as incompatible.

 

[Faraer]

When people are *trying* to understand RPGs, and have terminology which helps them do that, and a vibrant community based on their efforts to make new and different games, it's rude and destructive to thumb your nose at them because what they're doing doesn't work for you. 'No practical application' is obviously false from the first glance at the Actual Play forum or the game-specific forums. Reading the discussion would also make it clear that no one, Ron least of all, is trying to forcibly pigeonhole anything. And -- subjectively -- I think indie-rpgs.com has the least dogmatic RPG forums on the internet.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

My games have always been just that, games. But at the same time, I always wanted to do more. After being on these boards and reading story hours and seeing how others bring more of the narrative to their sessions, without sacrificing the game, I am slowly shifting things into what I hope to be a more balanced style. My players run from classic Powergamer to Immersive Roleplayer, so it is best for everyone if we can tread the middle ground.