You can take an online version of the Bartle taxonomy questionnaire to get your own results here:
Also, game-designers could learn a lot from psychologists. Whenever I heard Bartle's taxonomy for the first time during a game studies course, my question was (and still is): why is a taxonomy the best way to capture this? In a personality research course it became clear to me that the biggest successful models are dimensional in nature (e.g. five factor model/big 5) they are not taxonomies.
I'd love for more psychologist/personality researchers to team up with game-designers. I think it could advance some scientific discoveries into human behavior.
Back when the test was relevant (around 2000?) there was lots of multiplayer games (MUDs) and so you could enter what MUDs you were playing after you got your score -- it was interesting to see the averages for each aspect matching up with type of MUD (e.g. PVE versus PVP versus purely social/RP).
I also tried to match the results against a volunteered MBTI: http://mud-dev.zer7.com/2001/8/20412/#post20412
For example, one of the questions:
Which is more enjoyable to you?
- Killing a big monster
- Bragging about it to your friends
Umm... neither? What is a 'monster'? Is it one of the last remaining megafauna, the rest having been slaughtered to extinction by other gamers? Is it a sentient creature (say, a dragon) that happens to be rather angry, but can be reasoned with?
What if I'd rather study the 'monster', like a zoologist might, in order to discover more about its life? (Do 'monsters' lead their own existence in a gaming world?)
There should be more to gaming than killing!
There is Animal Crossing
There are dress up games
Games that detail the high school lives of people
Just to name a few
The types are labels for the extremes of a dimensional analysis of motivation:
Consider the following abstract graph:
Killers | Achievers
PLAYERS ---------+--------- WORLD
Socialisers | Explorers
ed: much like archetypes in personality tests
It was cool. I learned a lot.
I'm gonna do more.
In her book, You Just Don't Understand, Deborah Tannen highlights the differences between women and men: their inter-communication, and how they perceive the world.
"Women are also concerned with achieving status and avoiding failure, but these are not the goals they are focused on all the time, and they tend to pursue them in the guise of connection. And men are also concerned with achieving involvement and avoiding isolation, but they are not focused on these goals, and they tend to pursue them in the guise of opposition."
"If women speak and hear a language of connection and intimacy, while men speak and hear a language of status and independence, then communication between men and women can be like cross-cultural communication, prey to a clash of conversational styles. Instead of different dialects, it has been said they speak different genderlects."
And Ursula Le Guin also wrote about the vast gulf in reasoning and perception between men and women: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ursula-k-le-guin-the...
All I can say is, we need more women game designers... Balance!
I've enjoyed Le Guin's stories. So maybe i shouldn't be so put off.
s/sex/race/g see how you go with that.
s/sex/sexual preference/g likewise.
Those aren't arguments by any stretch they just highlight where too look.
There has always been really crappy, nasty arguments that people with characteristic X have a tendency to Y therefore we should/can/will be under-considered for being able to Z. To ignore that and the utterly false, pseudo-scientific garbage used in support really is living in denial. To go the other way and say the characteristics exist for a specific case/characteristic requires hard evidence that stands up to vigorous verification, for mine. I don't see that. I see pseudo-scientific garbage. Does that make me from Mars or Venus?
But that doesn’t mean we should disregard a sound observation in itself. Yes, it may be politically incorrect, but it’s still real. For example:
s/sex/race/g Black people tend to commit crimes more often.
s/sex/sexual preference/g Transsexuals tend to commit suicide more often.
Both of these are statistically true. What matters is what you conclude. Should we just get rid of blacks and transsexuals? Or is there a root to these issues that we can work on?
I have no further wish to continue this conversation at all in any way. I have a general tendency that way.
sigh That's exactly what I was saying in my last sentence.
You should take a minute to actually understand the post you're replying to. Especially if, as you almost figured out yourself, you have a general tendency to strawman and be snide about it.
Confounding factors are THE thing that make this kind of thing utter bullsht even if* there's data. But there isn't data.
Do you understand the point I made that you responded to now? I'll ignore the condescension in your response above because it's against the rules around here to respond to it other than by noting it.
It obviously doesn't follow that group X isn't Y anymore. It just means group X is Y and Z.
If someone says "let's accomodate group X by accomodating Y-ness", and you go and say that's shallow, X-ist, utter bullshit, then you are in denial that group X is Y.
> But there isn't data.
Is this denial again?
Sorry, I acknowledge that I was needlessly being a dick. But don't get on the high horse over it. It was just in response to you needlessly being a dick.
Most of my time though was on a deeper SillyMUD derived PK MUD called Forbidden Lands. It was neat because the focus wasn't on murder, it was just an option. So the politics and mores around killing got quite interesting.
Edit: Still KASE.
He made a brilliant explanation why is text the best medium to activate the imagination:
Bartle's book is great, it's highly recommended.
People are still developing interactive fiction ("text based adventures") today.
Bartle was unaware of the PLATO system, which had numerous MUDs up and running and mature by the time his was released online.
I believe the deal with the noted jurist who claims to have invented email is that he may have had an earlier version of a text delivering system called email, except that there is very strong disagreement that his version of email has any living descendants.
If we assume that he's wrong, then the right inventor of MUDs is the one whose creation has many (more popular) descendants.
I played on the original Essex MUD in the early 80s, and it had a lot of distinctive qualities that directly inspired many of the other MUDs, including I believe LambdaMOO.
And, unless you have any competing evidence, I think it might be fair to say that Bartle and colleagues predecessors at least coined the term "MUD".
Were there other world games on PLATO in the 1970s?
(Same section adds "In late 1979, the first ever fully-functional graphical virtual world was released [on PLATO]: Avatar.")
Interesting point of view.
I did it for myself, so I could put it on the front of the PDF, but I thought I'd share it here also.
As far as I am aware, the original book is long out of print, and second hand copies tend to cost quite a lot, if the rights have reverted back to Richard, as he says on his blog, then I'm guessing he's not getting any royalties these days anyway. That being said, I trust everyone here not to reprint the whole thing and sell copies at a profit!
I ask this as the usual line of “introvert - extrovert” never made intuitive sense to me, as it it was missing important details. For example I love talking with people and listening to their stories, and casual acquaintances would insist I’m an extrovert, but I tire quickly at social gatherings and recharge when I’m alone, and the pandemic lockdown was something I actually liked to some degree, which makes me feel like I’m actually a well adjusted introvert or something.
So when I first found Bartle’s taxonomy it all “clicked” I instantly knew where I was on the graph (explorer), and could easily place people I know, giving me more predictive clarity for mine and other people’s actions…
So was wondering if it is more generally known / accepted in psychology? Maybe it has some flaw that makes it not applicable to non gamers or something?
Especially since I'm building a MUD again, but using Discord and Slack as the clients.
Update: I'll have to ask if I can link the zip, but here is the opening text:
;Copyright (C) 1983 by
;Richard Bartle & Roy Trubshaw,
;Essex University, Colchester. CO4 3SQ.
; This software is furnished on the understanding that
;it may be used and or copied only with the inclusion of this
;notice. No title or ownership of this software is hereby
;transferred. The information in this software is subject to
;change without notice. No responsibility is assumed for the
;use or reliability of this software.
The book seems interesting. but the advertisement would have just led me to close the tab if it was not on hackernews.
>It occurred to me that if people are allowed to reformat the text of Designing Virtual Worlds, then perhaps I ought to provide it in a form more amenable to reformatting than .pdf is. I've therefore uploaded a .docx version to https://mud.co.uk/richard/DesigningVirtualWorlds.docx , for those readers who want to put it in a form that works on their phone, Kindle or US Letter paper (the .pdf is set up for A4).
>The news that I released the book for free seems to have made the first page of Hacker News. There are about 35 comments on it, many of which I'd love to reply to but know how much of my life replying to the resulting counter-comments would take up.