I'm always of mixed feelings about MBTI; everyone seems to say "Oh, that's
ME to a T!" exactly the same way they do about a horoscope sign.
Nevertheless, it's been interestingly discussed in a few blogs, in
particular here:
http://yudhishthirasdice.blogspot.com/2005/12/myers-briggs-and-gaming.html
Now, me, I'm about as wishy-washy as can be... I score INFP fairly
reliably (sometimes INTP) but always marginally. I'm introspective but
not shy, for instance. And I'm probably more Judging except I'm also ADD,
which brings in spontaneity and disorder anyway.
I'm not so sure about my characters. I sort of thought of Fastlane as an
extrovert, for instance, but on consideration, he might not be. He's got
skills I don't have as far as fast-talking and conning people, and plenty
of contacts ("I know a guy who..." is a regular quote), but real
extroversion hasn't really come out in play, in part because it's a pretty
foreign outlook for me. It's something I need to think more about,
especially since Carl's wanting to try to bring in more of the "normal
lives" stuff.
I'm also not sure if he's Sensing or Intuitive. Probably on the fence,
like his player, though perhaps a little more toward Sensing.
Thinking/Feeling... Again on the fence. He'll do the Right Thing
regardless of his own feelings, which is supposedly T. But he'll also go
for the immediate Right Thing rather than the long-term (that is, if a
supervillain leaves a hostage in peril to occupy Our Heroes while he goes
off to do villainy, Fastlane's going to have to do the rescue thing every
time). At least, I think that's F.
Judging/Perceiving... probably more Judging, because Fastlane's not ADD.
He's tenacious, which I can be all day long, right up until I go "ooh,
shiny" and forget what I'm
--
Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 10:35:27PM -0600, Karen J. Cravens wrote:
>I'm always of mixed feelings about MBTI; everyone seems to say "Oh, that's
>ME to a T!" exactly the same way they do about a horoscope sign.
Heh.
Each time I take it, I get closer to absolute centre. I guess that means
I'm a balanced personality (drooling from both sides of my mouth at the
same time?).
>Nevertheless, it's been interestingly discussed in a few blogs, in
>particular here:
>
>http://yudhishthirasdice.blogspot.com/2005/12/myers-briggs-and-gaming.html
"As we all know from the Big Model the first thing that happens at a
gaming table is real people interact with other real people. For that
reason it's obvious that the most important MB types are those of the
actual players."
Hmm. I think I should be quite offended if I thought my GM were running
psychological models against me to give me the sort of game I'd enjoy,
even though the similar ad-hoc process seems an entirely normal part of
GMing ("Roger is playing a character who thinks of himself as
chivalrous, so it would be good to give him an opportunity to be it").
Maybe it's a matter of separation:
* Player desires for the game in general (player's concern, to pick or
stay in a game that gives him what he wants). A GM playing to this
starts to seem either over-calculating or desperate to hang on to
players. Am I arguing for creative integrity over popularity? I guess I
am.
* Player desires for his character (something the GM should reasonably
expect to cater for).
* Character desires (some overlap with previous category, but the GM can
be much freer about frustrating these in the short term).
>I'm not so sure about my characters.
I try to play characters from all over the place; I occasionally use
MBTI randomly (i.e. picking one of the sixteen blocks based on the
population distribution, sometimes furkled about with for isolated
populations) in order to generate a core personality for an NPC.
Usually, though, the personalities just "come to me" (almost always with
PCs). I do try to avoid playing a "type"; if I've had a lot of careful
thinking PCs recently, I'll go with a reckless type (e.g. Dona
Constanza, the exiled Castilian sorceress in the 7th Sea game I've just
started playing in; she's pretty solidly ESFP).
If I were looking at a personality model for RPG mechanics, I think I
might go for something more like the Big Five
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_five_personality_traits), since this
gives the ability to rate on a continuous scale rather than in one of a
set number of boxes.
--
Roger, gaming grognard
Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
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/
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 01:03:22PM -0600, Karen J. Cravens wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Roger Burton West wrote:
>>Hmm. I think I should be quite offended if I thought my GM were running
>>psychological models against me to give me the sort of game I'd enjoy,
>>even though the similar ad-hoc process seems an entirely normal part of
>>GMing ("Roger is playing a character who thinks of himself as
>>chivalrous, so it would be good to give him an opportunity to be it").
>>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.
Nobody expects to be able to codify the process of writing interesting
fiction such that anyone could do it. I'm not at all convinced that it's
worth trying with games.
>>* Player desires for the game in general (player's concern, to pick or
>>stay in a game that gives him what he wants). A GM playing to this
>>starts to seem either over-calculating or desperate to hang on to
>>players. Am I arguing for creative integrity over popularity? I guess I
>>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.
There's a timeframe split as well; I'll ask the players in advance what
sort of campaign they want (and usually run up three or four different
ones, including notes on tone, for them to choose between). Once the
game has started, I'm a lot less willing to tweak things.
--
Roger, gaming grognard
Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Roger Burton West wrote: RBW>Nobody expects to be able to codify the process of writing interesting RBW>fiction such that anyone could do it. I'm not at all convinced that it's RBW>worth trying with games. No, but places like Writer's Digest make a fair amount of money codifying as best they can. Seems like they can at least codify hack writing. I don't know that it's unreasonable to codify hack GMing... RBW>There's a timeframe split as well; I'll ask the players in advance what RBW>sort of campaign they want (and usually run up three or four different RBW>ones, including notes on tone, for them to choose between). Once the RBW>game has started, I'm a lot less willing to tweak things. That's true. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Karen J. Cravens wrote:
> No, but places like Writer's Digest make a fair amount of money codifying
> as best they can. Seems like they can at least codify hack writing. I
> don't know that it's unreasonable to codify hack GMing...
Writer's Digest makes money by making you _think_ they can codify it.
Really, my experience is that the biggest obstacle to writing for most
people buying books on writing isn't craft... it's sitting down and
actually writing.
There's a lot of good advice in some of those books... I own way too
many of them, and many of them say the same things. But when it comes
down to it, it doesn't do a lick of good if you aren't applying any of
it. That's why they sell so many books... "Well, that book had good
advice, but it didn't make the process of writing any more attractive
or comfortable. This book promises to unlock my potential, so I think
I'll read it next."
I put a moratorium on buying how-to books until I actually write
something. (This does not exclude me from buying any of the books
that are useful to roleplaying, of course. :)
--
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net) Gamers List Owner
[ General RP Discussion -- http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/ ]
Gimme another clip--we're gonna change lanes!
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Carl D Cravens wrote: CDC>Writer's Digest makes money by making you _think_ they can codify it. CDC> CDC>Really, my experience is that the biggest obstacle to writing for most CDC>people buying books on writing isn't craft... it's sitting down and CDC>actually writing. You remember that study that said the less competent people are, the more likely they are to think they're competent? Yeah. There are a lot of writers like that out there. They don't have trouble writing, because they think they're good. *Those* are the hack writers I'm talking about, and WD works a treat for them. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
Karen J. Cravens wrote: > You remember that study that said the less competent people are, the more > likely they are to think they're competent? Yeah. There are a lot of > writers like that out there. They don't have trouble writing, because > they think they're good. *Those* are the hack writers I'm talking about, > and WD works a treat for them. There there are the appallingly bad writers who are nevertheless best-selling authors. Jeffrey Archer, for instance. I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation as to why people read him. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Tim Hall wrote: TH>There there are the appallingly bad writers who are nevertheless TH>best-selling authors. Jeffrey Archer, for instance. I have yet to see TH>a satisfactory explanation as to why people read him. Is he a bad author or a bad writer? -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
