D&D 5E Personality Test for insight on how a group wants the Rules to Function

[jodyjohnson]

I was hoping one of the results of the 175,000 player playtest and the surveys would be some insight on the various ways players want the rules to function and a tool to help players recognize, challenge, or validate where they may come down on the Role of Rules.

WotC is in a unique position to know all the permutations of ways D&D players want their rules to create the game they really want to play (whereas the message boards reveal where a specific subset lean).

If the Bartle Test (Achievers, Explorers, Socializers, and Killers) is useful as a way to analyse how a player wants to primarily play a game, maybe WotC could take their feedback from during the playtest and the upcoming post-release survey (which is primarily for assessing the need for errata) to generate a tool for assessing how individuals psychologically want the rules to function as opposed to how they may answer the questions directly.

For example, during one of Morrus' interviews with Monte Cook, Monte discusses how an AD&D DM may say they want "Combat as War" (planning and tactics used to minimize risk) but may insert challenge when things are too easy or the plan works too well. That behavior is antithetical to that style of play.

Or an "attrition-style" DM finds himself bothered by an encounter that requires few resources and leaves the party with no damage taken. Where the DM isn't satisfied if the party isn't half-dead after a major encounter.

Now individually many of these issues are at the core of some of the biggest edition wars and arguments on the internet. So tact is needed.

I suppose we could list them out, but I expect that things would quickly spin out of control as the battle lines are drawn over the mere labeling of our differences.


Would some sort of Play-style assessment from WotC be useful? It seems they spent a lot of time talking about supporting the various play-styles. It would be nice to have a tool for gauging where our preferences lie more complicated than a simple survey on yes-or-no responses to hot-button topics.

Considering personally it has taken decades (5+ editions) to really sort out where my preferences are, it seems it would be helpful to have a way to recognize those play style questions faster.

 

[not-so-newguy]

Something like the meyers-briggs personality test?

 

[Beleriphon]

Something like the meyers-briggs personality test?

Meyers-Briggs is probably a good place to start anyway. You can suss out quite bit of people's rationales from that test. Its not perfect, but it goes a long way towards knowing why people want certain things from the game.

 

[Bawylie]

You could do a session zero and simply ask what the players want.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You could do a session zero and simply ask what the players want.

I never assume that what people say they want and what they really wnt are always the same...

 

[Morrus]

I never assume that what people say they want and what they really wnt are always the same...

Yeah, there are different things, and surveys have to be designed cleverly to distinguish between:

1) What people want
2) What people think they want
3) What people say they want
4) What people need
5) What people think they need
6) What people say they need

For planning an RPG, though, the stakes are pretty low, so it's generally safe to take people at their word.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yeah, there are different things, and surveys have to be designed cleverly to distinguish between:

1) What people want
2) What people think they want
3) What people say they want
4) What people need
5) What people think they need
6) What people say they need

For planning an RPG, though, the stakes are pretty low, so it's generally safe to take people at their word.

yup, and depending on how well you know them, it is also safer because if you guess wrong then you literally messed up the game by doing what they didn't want AFTER they told you that...

having said that I do know there are some clues... when every story player A tells is about combat and how awesome damage or what ever they do, then they say "I really want indepth rp with little combat" you may notice something off

 

[jodyjohnson]

You could do a session zero and simply ask what the players want.

Yes, this would be a way of asking the players what they want with specifics that can inform which rules to leave, which to house rule, and which to ignore.

And to establish a common vocabulary for when Mearls writes articles on options. He can direct them towards certain styles without having edition wars erupt over whether it's too gamist like Edition X or too DM-centric like edition Y or too rules heavy like Edition Z. He can just label it "Gamist", or "DM-Empowerment", or "Rules Heavy" right off the bat and individuals can immediately sort out why they like it or don't like it.

And maybe spell out where the default 5e rules sort out so folks don't have to play 3 years unhappy with the game because they didn't recognise that Rule 42 skews toward a specifc "Genre Sim" when they really want World Sim or a different genre and there is a Rule42b and Rule42c in Unearthed Arcana for those.

A way of reinforcing the mandate to customize your game with options and house rules because the specific rules as default only speak to specific styles by necessity - currently as a baseline for Adventurers League.

 

[Rune]

Don't ask. Listen.

 

[aramis erak]

You could do a session zero and simply ask what the players want.

What many claim to want and what they actually want often overlap, but are seldom the same. Often, the overlap is a slim region.