Personality Types

[SDLeary]

I've been thinking about how to use the Personality Type (p.11 UGE), and come to the realization that it's somewhat small, and that perhaps the distribution is off. This isn't different from the BGB, it just that I've been looking recently.

If we wanted to expand it a bit, say to six personality types (so a d6 can be used in a pinch), how would you break up what's there, or would you add? Also, in the expanded list, if you were to add % ranges for each, what would they be? I understand about cultural variables, and so on; but for the moment assume a generic table.

In addition, If you were to add a single Personality Trait bonus/malus (rated on %; use the Pendragon table rather than the one in UGE) to each, what would it be?

Thanks!
SDLeary

 

[g33k]

If I were going to do this, I'd probably use someone's pre-existing system (like Myers-Briggs or Enneagram), and gamify those.

[SDLeary]

3 hours ago, g33k said:

If I were going to do this, I'd probably use someone's pre-existing system (like Myers-Briggs or Enneagram), and gamify those.

Taking a quick gander, Enneagram looks useable. Even defines vices and virtues for its categories, which may be more easier to map onto Traits. Nine types though... hmmm. 

Myers-Briggs looks to have a lot of baggage associated with it, along with it being something of a matrix model with 16 possibilites (a bit less adaptable, at least for my poor brain). Something that used Myers-Briggs as a jumping off point is the Keirsey Temperament Sorter which starts with four categories, and then further subdivides by either two or four per category (this last mapping onto Myers-Briggs). This appears more adaptable, at least based on the language used on Wikipedia. 

Out of curiosity, what made you suggest these rather involved models as a starting point?

And something of an observation. None of these models seem to have a personality type/temperament where action is the primary ... choice?

SDLeary

[g33k]

2 hours ago, SDLeary said:

...

Out of curiosity, what made you suggest these rather involved models as a starting point?

...

I just grabbed a couple of the "big names" in the field, as examples; there's others.

2 things made me look at this field, basically:

#1 - A lot of the "heavy lifting" is pre-done; they were created by professionals, there's a ton of resources for them.

#2 - They're based on real systems, people have been happily using them for decades; they appear to work.  And BRP is a simulationist system at heart, so "real systems" are my go-to for complex stuff, particularly people-related stuff; amateur-created personality stuff I'd expect to break down sooner than later (CoC "SAN" honestly sucks).

[NickMiddleton]

13 hours ago, SDLeary said:

I've been thinking about how to use the Personality Type (p.11 UGE), and come to the realization that it's somewhat small, and that perhaps the distribution is off. This isn't different from the BGB, it just that I've been looking recently.

If we wanted to expand it a bit, say to six personality types (so a d6 can be used in a pinch), how would you break up what's there, or would you add? Also, in the expanded list, if you were to add % ranges for each, what would they be? I understand about cultural variables, and so on; but for the moment assume a generic table.

In addition, If you were to add a single Personality Trait bonus/malus (rated on %; use the Pendragon table rather than the one in UGE) to each, what would it be?

Thanks!
SDLeary

 

I revised the version from step 5 of Elric! CG for 6 Outlooks in Magic World (see here: 

)

My first instinct re personality traits etc would be to use Passions: all PCs start with three, one each linked to  Culture, Profession and Personality type. And I’d let the player decide (I always prefer the system telling the player to link mechanical things to the PCs history & personality but letting them define the details…). If I were to use them with the Personality Traits, I’d say pick a trait and apply a +10/+15/+20/+25 (depending on Campaign level).

[Ian Absentia]

19 hours ago, g33k said:

If I were going to do this, I'd probably use someone's pre-existing system (like Myers-Briggs or Enneagram), and gamify those.

Gamified more than they already are?  They're the corporate HR counterpart to old school D&D's alignment system and about as scientifically valid.

9 hours ago, NickMiddleton said:

My first instinct re personality traits etc would be to use Passions: all PCs start with three, one each linked to  Culture, Profession and Personality type.

I think Nick is on the right path here.  The fact that fixed personality "types" seem too narrow and limited won't be remedied by expanding the list -- they'll just highlight a narrower range of exceptions that the players come up with.  Elsewhere, I was involved in a similar discussion about the inadequacy of cultural backgrounds like Primitive, Barbarian, and Civilised, in that they front-load stereotypes that aren't necessarily helpful for individuals (and that are woefully outdated* academically).  Passions are ripe for the picking on p.214.

!i!

Edited October 8, 2023 by Ian Absentia
*I really wish I'd used the word "antiquated".

[SDLeary]

6 hours ago, NickMiddleton said:

I revised the version from step 5 of Elric! CG for 6 Outlooks in Magic World (see here: 

Bingo. I probably read it and it stuck in the back of my mind. That's why the table in BRP feels off! Thanks!

6 hours ago, NickMiddleton said:

My first instinct re personality traits etc would be to use Passions: all PCs start with three, one each linked to  Culture, Profession and Personality type. And I’d let the player decide (I always prefer the system telling the player to link mechanical things to the PCs history & personality but letting them define the details…). If I were to use them with the Personality Traits, I’d say pick a trait and apply a +10/+15/+20/+25 (depending on Campaign level).

I thought about Passions, but am changing focus of some things. Im toying with the idea of using Personality Traits as a focus for external sources. powers, artifacts, a sanity mechanic, and so on. 

SDLeary

Edited October 8, 2023 by SDLeary

[SDLeary]

2 hours ago, Ian Absentia said:

I think Nick is on the right path here.  The fact that fixed personality "types" seem too narrow and limited won't be remedied by expanding the list -- they'll just highlight a narrower range of exceptions that the players come up with.  Elsewhere, I was involved in a similar discussion about the inadequacy of cultural backgrounds like Primitive, Barbarian, and Civilised, in that they front-load stereotypes that aren't necessarily helpful for individuals (and that are woefully outdated academically).  Passions are ripe for the picking on p.214.

Passions are certainly part of the equation. And while the cultural types were ok-ish for a game from the '80s, they certainly don't work now, and as you point out they are academically outdated. Nomadic, Rural, and Urban are my current choices for cultural backgrounds; haven't really come up with a replacement for Primitive that I like, might just stick with Band (from MW). A "society" in game would be composed mainly of two of these types. 

SDLeary

[Jason D]

If I were to rethink it, I'd go with six classifications, each favoring a particular characteristic. 

STR - brute force

DEX - finesse

CON - determination and resilience

INT - expertise 

POW - willpower and luck

CHA - teamwork and delegation

 

[g33k]

2 hours ago, Jason D said:

If I were to rethink it, I'd go with six classifications, each favoring a particular characteristic. 

STR - brute force

DEX - finesse

CON - determination and resilience

INT - expertise 

POW - willpower and luck

CHA - teamwork and delegation

Honestly, this seems forced -- trying to fit the personalities to the Characteristics.

I'd rather see the "personality" issues as an entirely different thing; with -- to be sure! -- interplay between stats (and skills) but not directly stats-defining-personality this way, because it gives no real scope for concepts like (for example) the "frail" (low-CON) person with a crapton of "determination and resilience."

[g33k]

6 hours ago, Ian Absentia said:

Gamified more than they already are?  They're the corporate HR counterpart to old school D&D's alignment system and about as scientifically valid.

I wasn't using "gamified" in any perjorative sense, as you seem to have read; simply in the sense of attaching game-rules to something that hadn't had such rules; but your criticism is fair enough, and raises valid points!  I was just nominating the more-visible (because, I guess, "more marketed") systems.

Wikipedia-research says the preferred (clinically-supported) "personality" language is "traits" rather than "types" and the Big Two for "trait theory" are:
the Big Five model:
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
and the EPQ (three factor) model:
 -  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eysenck_Personality_Questionnaire
(n.b. each of the three or five are an axis, not just a unitary label)

 

6 hours ago, Ian Absentia said:

...

I think Nick is on the right path here.  The fact that fixed personality "types" seem too narrow and limited won't be remedied by expanding the list -- they'll just highlight a narrower range of exceptions that the players come up with.  Elsewhere, I was involved in a similar discussion about the inadequacy of cultural backgrounds like Primitive, Barbarian, and Civilised, in that they front-load stereotypes that aren't necessarily helpful for individuals (and that are woefully outdated* academically).  Passions are ripe for the picking on p.214.

!i!

I too like the "Passions" mechanic, here.

In fact, I'd consider taking the Passion mechanic itself, and just adopt it wholesale:  have a category of "Personality Traits" that work more or less identically to Passions:  If you're doing something (making a roll) and it aligns closely with one of your Traits, you can use that Trait to augment your roll, because that thing just "comes naturally to you," i.e. you're better at it.