On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Roger Burton West wrote:

RBW>Each time I take it, I get closer to absolute centre. I guess that means
RBW>I'm a balanced personality (drooling from both sides of my mouth at the
RBW>same time?).

That's me, pretty much.  Though on looking at the test, I can see where 
some of it's influenced by, as I said, ADD, and some of it by me occupying 
two parts of the spectrum simultaneously (MB, at least in the pop versions 
circulating here and there, seems to conflate introversion and shyness).

RBW>"As we all know from the Big Model the first thing that happens at a
RBW>gaming table is real people interact with other real people. For that
RBW>reason it's obvious that the most important MB types are those of the
RBW>actual players."

Yeah.  Players are more important than characters.  Well... duh.

RBW>Hmm. I think I should be quite offended if I thought my GM were running
RBW>psychological models against me to give me the sort of game I'd enjoy,
RBW>even though the similar ad-hoc process seems an entirely normal part of
RBW>GMing ("Roger is playing a character who thinks of himself as
RBW>chivalrous, so it would be good to give him an opportunity to be it").
RBW>Maybe it's a matter of separation:

Yes, I think it's just an attempt to codify what the GM (and perhaps other 
players) ought to be doing anyway, consciously or otherwise.

RBW>* Player desires for the game in general (player's concern, to pick or
RBW>stay in a game that gives him what he wants). A GM playing to this
RBW>starts to seem either over-calculating or desperate to hang on to
RBW>players. Am I arguing for creative integrity over popularity? I guess I
RBW>am.

Maybe.  I mean, unless you have the perfect group you're going to have to 
compromise like this.  Now, if you go overboard you're catering, and it's 
no longer a compromise.

RBW>* Player desires for his character (something the GM should reasonably
RBW>expect to cater for).
RBW>* Character desires (some overlap with previous category, but the GM can
RBW>be much freer about frustrating these in the short term).

Definitely, and this I think has been some of what's going on in Carl's 
game... he doesn't want to frustrate the *players* so he's hesitated about 
frustrating the characters.  Now, in one case (our new guy) that's the 
same thing, which complicates things.

RBW>I try to play characters from all over the place; I occasionally use
RBW>MBTI randomly (i.e. picking one of the sixteen blocks based on the
RBW>population distribution, sometimes furkled about with for isolated
RBW>populations) in order to generate a core personality for an NPC.
RBW>Usually, though, the personalities just "come to me" (almost always with
RBW>PCs). I do try to avoid playing a "type"; if I've had a lot of careful
RBW>thinking PCs recently, I'll go with a reckless type (e.g. Dona
RBW>Constanza, the exiled Castilian sorceress in the 7th Sea game I've just
RBW>started playing in; she's pretty solidly ESFP).

My characters tend to be more of a slow progression... "I liked so-and-so, 
but what if he/she had *this* completely opposite trait?"  From MBTI, I 
might be flipping one trait each time, for sort of a drunkard's walk 
around the board...

RBW>If I were looking at a personality model for RPG mechanics, I think I
RBW>might go for something more like the Big Five
RBW>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_five_personality_traits), since this
RBW>gives the ability to rate on a continuous scale rather than in one of a
RBW>set number of boxes.

I prefer the extremism of the on/off traits for characters, though.  Big 
brushstrokes.

-- 
Karen J. Cravens  silver@phoenyx.net

----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/