Roleplaying and personality (What’s your style?)
So here we are — roleplaying style. An awkward topic, as it is difficult to fit people into broad categories, though they do exist: Munchkins, roleplayers, power gamers, et cetera. It makes for an interesting dilemma. Many writers would simply divide players into categories that everyone will recognise, and proceed from there. However, I feel that this paints with too broad a brush.
Rather than re-hash what is a topic which is oft-discussed by those (like me) with no authority other than experience, I intend to look at more established personality types and what they mean for the game. Hence, I would like to introduce Mr Topp’s Modified Myers-Briggs for roleplaying (or MTMMB). We will look at the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, and look at its ramifications for the roleplayer.
Introversion vs Extraversion
Perhaps the clearest bit of Myers-Briggs asks if you are an introvert or an extravert. Introverts tend to internalise things, whereas extroverts deal with things through interactions with others.
In roleplaying terms, this is best seen through the character/world dynamic. To what degree is the players enjoyment of the game defined by their character’s development, in contrast to the manner in which they (as a player of character) interact with the world?
An introvert will more value the development of their character — be this gaining levels and new powers or exploring their character’s personality. An extrovert will more value the interactions they have with the game world — this could be in the form of battles, exploring the world, uncovering the plot, or simply interacting with NPCs.
In my experience, the majority of players tend to be introverts. This means that a GM need to give them the opportunity to grow their characters. Depending on the player and the game, this could mean powers, experience points, personal quests, or NPCs who really care what they think. For the rare extraverted character, they will want to know more about the game’s world — finding out about the NPCs, exploring the world, and so on. The GM needs to be prepared for this if they have an extraverted player. This is not so much a problem for the introverted GM who will care more for their own invention than the player characters wreaking havoc upon it.
Sensing vs iNtuition
In MBTI, this reflects how information is gathered from the world around us. Sensers prefer tangible things which are present to be senses, they distrust hunches an prefer facts. Intuitive types are more abstract thinkers that develop theories and look for patterns. They are less interested in the here and now, and more concerned about future possibilites.
In roleplaying terms, sensers will be more in the moment, prone to ignoring (or not appreciating) foreshadowing. They like the in-your-face stuff: bad guys who show up to taunt, plain talking NPCs who say what they mean, and mean what they say. Clear goals and challenges. Intuitive players will enjoy foreshadowing, and piecing together the plot from hints. They will also like the more abstract part of the game, if there is one. The “where does magic come from” and “how/why does this magical world function” type stuff.
As a GM, this presents more of a challenge. GM’s who are on the Sensing side will find it much easier to feed Sense-type information to the players, and vice-versa. As a GM, this needs to be balanced. Some things need to be put on a plate for the sensers, others need to be hinted at for the Intuitive players.
I have found the best way to achieve this is to have both short- and long-term plots. The long-term plot is hinted at more and more loudly as the game progresses … the iNtuition types will not mind when it gets really loud, they’ll be getting excited at it, and the Sensing types will enjoy the short term stuff, where things are more evident and straightforward. It’s important to keep some things as unfinished jigsaw puzzles as long as possible, so your intuitive players will continue to enjoy … no matter how anxious you are to unveil your creation.
Thinking vs Feeling
In MBTI, this refers to the decision making process. Thinkers like to detach themselves when making a decision, making choices based on reason and consistency with a given set of rules. Feelers come to their decisions by empathising with the situation, and attempting to reach harmony with all involved.
In roleplaying terms, thinkers naturally try to play the system, an make decisions based on the rules of the system they play in and their character’s (or the party’s) strengths and weaknesses. This causes Thinkers to approach different games in different ways, due to the mechanics. Feelers have more of a tendency to ignore the mechanics of the game, and to what feels right in a given situation. They will likely react the same way to a given situation, regardless of the rule-set being used.
As a GM, this can make your game-choice important if you have players who lean heavily towards Thinking. Thinkers will try to manipulate the rules to their advantage, even if they despise this behaviour in others. Additionally, you need to ensure there isn’t a resulting power imbalance between the Thinkers and the Feelers — the existence of a conflict resolution mechanic necessarily makes the Thinkers more powerful. The GM will have the challenge of rectifying this without making the Thinkers feel that the Feelers are being given unfair advantages. If the GM does not equalize that, the Feelers will definitely feel put out — they will notice that things are not in harmony.
Judgment vs Perception
In MBTI, judges come to decisions quickly and hence tend to show off their decision-making nature, be it thinking or feeling. Perceptors, on the other hand, focus more on the information-gathering process and tend to put off decision-making where possible. Their information gathering nature (Sensing or iNtuition) will be more apparent than their decision-making nature.
In game terms, Perceptors need to be led around (sometimes by “railroad” plots). They need other players, NPCs, or outside events to show them the way. Judges will feel stifled by railroad plots, and will want to make their own decisions.
As a GM, you will usually have some players who tend towards Judgement, but if this is not the case you need to be sure to have a means to direct the players each step of the way. They are not resisting, but rather in eternal information gathering mode until something forces that decision upon them.
On the other hand, railroad plots are always “easier” because a GM knows their plot will have to be followed. However, this will not sit well with the Judges in the audience. Judges have a tendency to break the GM’s plots, so contingency plans are the measure of the day.
So what does this say about me, and my gaming style?
Well, I am traditionally an INTP, though I find that each time I take a MBTI test I get closer to INTJ — my last one was actually 50/50 between Perception and Judgement, so I may actually be an INTJ now.
When I run a game, I tend to get pretty involved in developing the world and its NPCs. I need to know them all and develop them all. I want to learn about them as the game goes on. Typical introvert behaviour.
I need to understand how and why magic works (or whatever). There need to be theoretical underpinning for everything. I think very much in the abstract. I also have a tendency to create grand designs and overarching plots, and need to force myself to remember to put in little rewards and achievable milestones along the way for my players. Typically intuitive.
And I always think ahead about the game’s mechanics. Mechanics are important to me — they need to do what I want them to do, and should not surprise me (too often) when conflict resolution is necessary. I throw out rules, customise rules, and so on to get it just right. So I’m a Thinker.
As a player, I like games that are light on mechanics. I have never been much into wargames, and that is what a mechanic-heavy game ends up being to me … because I cannot help it. I have to min/max my character, and use every tactical advantage I can find. So I try to avoid those mechanics, if I can, to ensure that I find myself in games I enjoy.
All this leads me to a tendency to slice apart game mechanics, while not liking the truth of their necessity. I love a game where characters and worlds can develop (or be developed), and in-game metaphysics can play a role in the overall game development.
And that is my style.
Related articles:
Recent Comments