Which Bartle Personality Are You?

jalexbrown · November 2015

httpwwwjonathantolercomwp-contentuploads201304playerTypes_flatpng

Which one (or combination) of these most closely defines what you look for in an MMO? What does your favorite MMO offer you as someone of that personality type?

sunandshadow · November 2015

I like the 3D one a little better:

Image: https://files.ifi.uzh.ch/isr/factsheets/Bartle%203D%20Player%20Types%20Graph%202.jpg

I'm halfway Between Planner and Scientist here. In the original set I'd be an achiever except I don't give a crap about status if it means status among other players. I only care about status in terms of abilities unlocked within the game, such as levels of shapeshifting ability or summoning ability, or rank within an NPC faction. I'm a completist who likes to collect and to experiment with crafting or minigame gameplay mechanics that aren't too expensive, random, or black box-ish.

waynejr2 · November 2015

I am always an A**h**e.

thundercles · November 2015

Hold on, need to kill 3 more kolbolds for a title then I'll answer.

waynejr2 · November 2015

DMKano said:

waynejr2 said:

I am always an A**h**e.

Arthose?

AntHire

Flyte27 · November 2015

I would say I'm in between explorer and achiever. I've never cared much about PvP even though it added an emotional element to games like Ultima Online. If I am not forced into I'll generally avoid it. I'm definitely not a socialite even though I like encouraged interaction though activities outside of just grouping and raiding. For instance people asking other people for a buff, teleport, or to trade.

Deathofsage · November 2015

I'm a killer I guess but I much prefer protecting mates by tanking, healing, or carrying them.

Salvadorbard · November 2015

Haven't taken this for years but last time was some killer/achiever hybrid. OCD MUD PLAYING FTW.

anemo · November 2015

Mostly an explorer, occasionally a socializer.

The game that I've spent the most time on(Wurmonline) pretty much ended up hooking me for years the first time that I actually got "real" lost in a videogame(As in really lost, not I'm not seeing what the developers want me to lost). When they ended up removing the automatic compass, they hooked me again when I knew that the stars actually worked for navigation(Along with the sun)(and got to be the first to post tutorials of how to), and actually moved like real stars.

iixviiiix · November 2015

Killer and explorer .
While i did explore but "killer" is bit of wrong i don't like killing but simply mess up people while not kill them.
I did pvp but my main role was tanker while use CC and healer to control the battle . Rarely i start PVP by myself .

JamesGoblin · November 2015

"Bartle" (it wasn't him actually that classified, but they named it in his honor) is good in some situations, but reality is, as always (and as others here already noted) bit more complex.

At gunpoint, I would likely describe myself as killer/achiever!?

Lobotomist · November 2015

Im Explorer.

Yet so less games actually cater to explorers. The funniest is "explorer" content in Wildstar.

For some reason they confuse Explorer with Compulsive platformer fan.

Anyway. Explorer is not someone that is interesting in exploring every piece of map. Its player that wants to try out every thing in the game - be it new skill , new area , new class , new level ....

Archlyte · November 2015

The killers and achievers got together and murdered Bartle. Then they killed every game for socialites and explorers before giving themselves a title for their success.

Theocritus · November 2015

Definitely Explorer...The Killers and Achievers have won in today's MMOs

Beatnik59 · November 2015

I'd rate as a social/explorer, but not in the conventional sense.

I don't socialize with other people. My character socializes with other characters in the RP fiction.

And I don't explore through the mechanics. I explore by building things like structures, exploring the nuances in the lore by creating immersive RP plots and GMing.

Pnurchili · November 2015

If we are using Bartle (rather than Yee), I would say I am a Killer/Griefer. I loved PvP when I played UO. When they introduced Trammel, I would kite monsters to AFK players and watch the monster kill them. It was so satisfying.

I prefer Yee's motivations however. It is more nuanced and does not place gamers in a box. I am not into the dichotomous motivations expressed by Bartle.

waynejr2 · November 2015

Lobotomist said:

Im Explorer.

Yet so less games actually cater to explorers. The funniest is "explorer" content in Wildstar.

For some reason they confuse Explorer with Compulsive platformer fan.

Anyway. Explorer is not someone that is interesting in exploring every piece of map. Its player that wants to try out every thing in the game - be it new skill , new area , new class , new level ....

I consider myself an explorer. For me, it is going around finding areas on the map. There doesn't have to be a payoff within the game, just the satisfaction. Sometimes a reward can be a beautiful view!

jalexbrown · November 2015

Pnurchili said:

If we are using Bartle (rather than Yee), I would say I am a Killer/Griefer. I loved PvP when I played UO. When they introduced Trammel, I would kite monsters to AFK players and watch the monster kill them. It was so satisfying.

I prefer Yee's motivations however. It is more nuanced and does not place gamers in a box. I am not into the dichotomous motivations expressed by Bartle.

I'm not familiar with Yee's paper, and I don't have the time to read through the whole article. Can you give a cliffnotes version for the uninformed?

Deathofsage · November 2015

I googled for Yee for a second and just glanced over it. The paper I found didn't highlight roles like Bartle does (or maybe you actually have to read the whole thing, which I didn't do), but this... this is me (not literally, but I could have been the person this person was talking about).

He showed rare courage by staying until everyone was clear, including me, knowing that he would probably not make it out alive. That was the most selfless thing I had seen done before or since. He stayed, knowing the corpse retrieval that awaited him, the experience he would lose, and the wasted time he was about to experience because of it. He could have run and lived, but he didn’t for our sakes. When you make sacrifices for people, they will remember, and the best groups are those built on loyalty, self-sacrifice, and courage. [male, 32]

Now, even though I /facepalm a little bit at "rare-courage", that has been me. If the puller pulled too much, I'd taunt it all and tell everyone else to run to safety. I'd die, lose exp, get raised when they came back in, or maybe do a corpse run if I had to.

This is why I think protector is an important top-level archetype. I can protect as a tank, I can protect as a healer, and I can occasionally protect as a dps.

It may sound strange, but I don't care if the enemy dies as long as my groupmates are alive. I've seen other groups wiping, while I was out solo, and picked up a boss monster and held it while they regrouped. There was no gain for me to do that, and nothing but risk, but that's who I am.

In one game, my task was to clear rooms so that the boss could be safely pulled and I merrily did that. Showing my mettle with an awesome tanking set, defined my attitude.

I'm a naturally-terrible DPS/DD for numbers because my tank/healer mindset has me watching everything else besides my ability bars. I will want to use a GCD to stun the enemy if I think the tank needs a breather. In content without rage timers, I will stun, I don't care. If an add is on the healer, I will taunt it and if we have no method of crowd control, and the tank isn't doing his job with it, I'll do my best to tank it.

Axehilt · November 2015

Achiever I guess, but I never felt these terms were a good fit. For example many of the core traits of achiever don't fit me at all: I'm not in it for status, or arbitrary points, or completion. I'm in it for skill mastery. For that reason Koster's A Theory of Fun will always feel like a vastly better framework for describing my core interest in games. (And really it's broad enough that it describes most players' interest: mastering patterns is relevant to achieving, killing, exploring, and socializing...it's just a different pattern you're mastering in most of them.)

Quirhid · November 2015

The Bartle test can't die fast enough.

jalexbrown · November 2015

Quirhid said:

The Bartle test can't die fast enough.

Almost all psychology is flawed to one degree or another, because everyone is basically somewhere in the gradient. I largely look at psychology as a framework for generalization of the human mentality. It's hard to create any sort of accurate psychology; the best we can hope for are generalizations that work most of the time. I think the Bartle test passes that test. I think it's pretty well proven to work most of the time as a generalization of the four types of behavior in gaming.

Quirhid · November 2015

jalexbrown said:

Quirhid said:

The Bartle test can't die fast enough.

Almost all psychology is flawed to one degree or another, because everyone is basically somewhere in the gradient. I largely look at psychology as a framework for generalization of the human mentality. It's hard to create any sort of accurate psychology; the best we can hope for are generalizations that work most of the time. I think the Bartle test passes that test. I think it's pretty well proven to work most of the time as a generalization of the four types of behavior in gaming.

"Works most of the time" how? Because you can put yourself on that matrix somewhere? And "well proven" where?

jalexbrown · November 2015

Quirhid said:

jalexbrown said:

Quirhid said:

The Bartle test can't die fast enough.

Almost all psychology is flawed to one degree or another, because everyone is basically somewhere in the gradient. I largely look at psychology as a framework for generalization of the human mentality. It's hard to create any sort of accurate psychology; the best we can hope for are generalizations that work most of the time. I think the Bartle test passes that test. I think it's pretty well proven to work most of the time as a generalization of the four types of behavior in gaming.

"Works most of the time" how? Because you can put yourself on that matrix somewhere? And "well proven" where?

"Works most of the time" as in everyone sits somewhere in there. Maybe in the gradient, but they're still in there. Can you clearly define a personality type not at all present? Unless you can identify and define some type of player that doesn't exist somewhere in the system - either as a solid member of one group or somewhere in the gradient between groups - it works.

As for it being "well proven", there's a reason it's still relevant in game design.

Quirhid · November 2015

jalexbrown said:

Quirhid said:

jalexbrown said:

Quirhid said:

The Bartle test can't die fast enough.

Almost all psychology is flawed to one degree or another, because everyone is basically somewhere in the gradient. I largely look at psychology as a framework for generalization of the human mentality. It's hard to create any sort of accurate psychology; the best we can hope for are generalizations that work most of the time. I think the Bartle test passes that test. I think it's pretty well proven to work most of the time as a generalization of the four types of behavior in gaming.

"Works most of the time" how? Because you can put yourself on that matrix somewhere? And "well proven" where?

"Works most of the time" as in everyone sits somewhere in there. Maybe in the gradient, but they're still in there. Can you clearly define a personality type not at all present? Unless you can identify and define some type of player that doesn't exist somewhere in the system - either as a solid member of one group or somewhere in the gradient between groups - it works.

As for it being "well proven", there's a reason it's still relevant in game design.

Just because you can put yourself in the matrix doesn't mean it works or its any good.

Also, I highly doubt the Bartlet test has any significance in game design. Then again, Freud's theories were almost all wrong yet he is still quite relevant in psychology.

Anyway, the reason why Bartlet test still lives on, is precisely the same why some certain personality tests keep popping up in popular culture: People who don't know any better find it entertaining.

jalexbrown · November 2015

Quirhid said:

Just because you can put yourself in the matrix doesn't mean it works or its any good.

Also, I highly doubt the Bartlet test has any significance in game design. Then again, Freud's theories were almost all wrong yet he is still quite relevant in psychology.

Anyway, the reason why Bartlet test still lives on, is precisely the same why some certain personality tests keep popping up in popular culture: People who don't know any better find it entertaining.

It is largely an exercise in frivolity; I don't deny that one bit. Is any harm being done by perpetuating something you don't like though - especially if you legitimately believe it to already be irrelevant? If it's already so irrelevant, then who cares? Let people have their fun. If we were talking about the perpetuation of a relevant topic that was holding back the potential of psychology then maybe there would be grounds to say, "Can we stop this and focus on something important?" But by your own admission that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a silly topic that is fun to ponder in a completely harmless way. I mean...if it's not fun to you, there's probably a big BACK button on your browser and you should become acquainted with it.

To me it's like horoscopes. A few people take it seriously, most people take it with a fun sense of humor, and it's a no-harm-no-foul thing.

Howdy, Stranger!

Which Bartle Personality Are You?

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Which Bartle Personality Are You?

Comments