Method Actor    100%
Storyteller            58%
Butt-Kicker       50%
Specialist       50%
Tactician       33%
Power Gamer    17%
Casual Gamer    8%

Seems pretty accurate.

Quote from: flyingmice;576185This is fairly typical, and not very true. It keeps asking the wrong questions.

Method Actor     100%
Tactician             83%
Storyteller         42%
Specialist         42%
Casual Gamer    17%
Power Gamer     17%
Butt-Kicker         0%

Exactly.  For example:
"17. I like to play the same kind of character in every game."
That may or may not even be possible depending on the game.  I like Magic-Users or Thieves in fantasy games, but something like Traveller doesn't really have options that line up with those very well.  Even if they did, I don't necessarily want the same options in my fantasy as in my scifi/modern/horror/etc.  I assume they mean 'the same narrative niche', but that doesn't necessarily mean anything either.

Also, I don't find 100% Method Actor inaccurate.  StarCluster is practically a guide for writing novels.  

EDIT:  Forgot the rest.

That being said:

QuoteStoryteller     58%
Method Actor     50%
Casual Gamer     25%
Specialist     25%
Power Gamer     25%
Tactician     25%
Butt-Kicker     25%

You're more inclined toward the role playing side of the equation and  less interested in numbers or experience points.  You're quick to  compromise if you can help move the story forward, and get bored when  the game slows down for a long planning session.  You want to play out a  story that moves like it's orchestrated by a skilled novelist or film  director.

I do like to consider myself a pretty well rounded character, but I am not "less interested in numbers or experience points"; that is an integral part of the games I enjoy.  I also don't "get bored when  the game slows down for a long planning session".  I am usually the vanguard of such planning sessions.  I am also not terribly interested in "a  story that moves like it's orchestrated by a skilled novelist or film  director", although I do understand the usefulness of using techniques from literature or cinema to improve a game session.

You're more inclined toward the role playing side of the equation and  less interested in numbers or experience points.  You're quick to  compromise if you can help move the story forward, and get bored when  the game slows down for a long planning session.  You want to play out a  story that moves like it's orchestrated by a skilled novelist or film  director.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;576151I noticed a link to a Gaming Style Quiz in John Morrow's signature.  It seems that arguments about gaming style seem to come up frequently, with different suspicions about where a particular poster might be coming from.

I actually got the idea to put it in my signature from jibbajibba, which had it in his signature first, and I thought it was a pretty nifty idea.  I know the Laws categories aren't perfect, but I think it helps give people a rough idea of where someone is coming from.  I'd really like to see more people put their results in their signatures.

Quote from: CRKrueger;576270Remember this is a "Robin Laws" test made by whoever, so the focus will be story, of course, with the questions for the other sections not well crafted or done well.  For example, you didn't know you were Method Acting when you were roleplaying, did you?  

Don't take the names literally.  Think of them as the broad interest categories that they are.  I think it's an improvement over the various three or four category theories because it gives Butt-Kicking, Power Gaming, and Specialist their own category, along with Casual Gamer.

Blah, blah.

100% awesome.

I've always had a problem with this quiz as it does not include the "Explorer -- likes to explore the game world to discover new things" type which is one of my major interests in TTRPGs.

Method Actor - 75%
Storyteller - 58%
Casual Gamer - 42%
Specialist - 42%
Tactician - 33%
Power Gamer - 17%
Butt-Kicker - 0%

You Scored as Storyteller

You're more inclined toward the role playing side of the equation and less interested in numbers or experience points. You're quick to compromise if you can help move the story forward, and get bored when the game slows down for a long planning session. You want to play out a story that moves like it's orchestrated by a skilled novelist or film director.

Tactician    
   92%
Storyteller    
   92%
Method Actor    
   92%
Specialist    
   67%
Power Gamer    
   42%
Butt-Kicker    
   33%
Casual Gamer    
   8%

That's a lot of assumptions for a 21-question quiz.

Tactician 100%
Method Actor 58%
Storyteller   58%
Butt-Kicker 50%
Casual Gamer 33%
Specialist 33%
Power Gamer 33%

I'm fairly sure I took this before and the results were different.

Quote from: John Morrow;576363I actually got the idea to put it in my signature from jibbajibba, which had it in his signature first, and I thought it was a pretty nifty idea.  I know the Laws categories aren't perfect, but I think it helps give people a rough idea of where someone is coming from.  I'd really like to see more people put their results in their signatures.

It would be interesting to line the categories up against against favoured games and well worn arguments. So if you are the guy that always argues that character and roleplay are always key and that balance is secondary does that reflect in your score, or if you are the guy that espouses that every word in the 1e DMG was divinely inspired by the angel gabriel and gifted to Uncle Gary of sheets of gold which subsequently vanished, does that correlate to any prefered gaming style. And so on and so forth.
However, I have never had the urge to do the analysis.

Quote from: jibbajibba;576436It would be interesting to line the categories up against against favoured games and well worn arguments.

I do think my score match up with my dislike of long combats and charop given these are my low scores:

Tactician - 33%
Power Gamer - 17%
Butt-Kicker - 0%

However, I don't agree with Laws categories in general as I think there are some major categories of player interest left out -- Explorer and Builder, for example.  Explorers like to explore the game world. Builders like to create lasting things within the game world to make their long-term mark in it.

Quote from: RandallS;576438However, I don't agree with Laws categories in general as I think there are some major categories of player interest left out -- Explorer and Builder, for example.  Explorers like to explore the game world. Builders like to create lasting things within the game world to make their long-term mark in it.

Laws uses dungeon-crawling as an example of "linear adventure" (someone should send him a copy of Caverns of Thracia), so I'm not sure he's got a good grasp on what makes traditional games and gamers tick. The two types you mention above feel very "old schooley" to me.

It's pretty damn hard to nail down playstyles in broad categories, because IMHO just about everyone other than the most casual gamer, approaches the game table with more than one "goal". Furthermore, serendipity is a big factor; you often get to discover fun stuff you didn't even suspect existed, or just entertain yourself with different facets of the game you never cared about before. A GM who appeals exclusively to his players' tastes might actually rob them of discovering and enjoying new elements to play with.

Quote from: The Butcher;576441Laws uses dungeon-crawling as an example of "linear adventure" (someone should send him a copy of Caverns of Thracia)....

Yes, I get very tired of people assuming a dungeon is a linear adventure. While small dungeons (tombs, etc) often are, larger dungeons only are linear if the designer wants to railroad. Megadungeons almost never are -- even small megadungeons like Caverns of Thracia.  However, given that most "professionally designed" dungeons are part of adventure modules that have a plot to railroad, I guess I should not be surprised.

Quote...so I'm not sure he's got a good grasp on what makes traditional games and gamers tick. The two types you mention above feel very "old schooley" to me.

No, I don't think Robin Laws has a very good idea of how RPGs he would not have ever designed work.  Nor does he seem to understand the types of players who would enjoy such games. That's not much of a problem if you are just designing games, but when you are writing articles about player types and such that other designers are going to use to base their designs on, it's a real issue.

Not interested.  These things are about as useless and meaningless as Teen Magazine or Cosmo quizzes.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RandallS;576438However, I don't agree with Laws categories in general as I think there are some major categories of player interest left out -- Explorer and Builder, for example.  Explorers like to explore the game world. Builders like to create lasting things within the game world to make their long-term mark in it.

I agree that he's left things out and I think your two suggestions are good ones.  I also think that both Method Actor and Storyteller are lacking, but I think more categories are better than fewer categories, so maybe the next step is to add what's missing to Laws' categories.

Quote from: RandallS;576455No, I don't think Robin Laws has a very good idea of how RPGs he would not have ever designed work.  Nor does he seem to understand the types of players who would enjoy such games. That's not much of a problem if you are just designing games, but when you are writing articles about player types and such that other designers are going to use to base their designs on, it's a real issue.

I think one of the big problems a lot of game designers have is that they think primarily like GMs and not like players, to the point where I think a lot of storygame designers essentially assume that the palyers want to do GM-like stuff, even though many don't.

Quote from: RPGPundit;576940Not interested.  These things are about as useless and meaningless as Teen Magazine or Cosmo quizzes.

RPGPundit

Got burned by the former, didja?