The Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology

Kestrel

As mentioned by @Oryx!

Take the test: http://matthewbarr.co.uk/bartle/

Kestrel

Explorer

You are 87% Explorer

What Bartle says:

♠ Explorers delight in having the game expose its internal machinations to them. They try progressively esoteric actions in wild, out-of-the-way places, looking for interesting features (ie. bugs) and figuring out how things work. Scoring points may be necessary to enter some next phase of exploration, but it's tedious, and anyone with half a brain can do it. Killing is quicker, and might be a constructive exercise in its own right, but it causes too much hassle in the long run if the deceased return to seek retribution. Socialising can be informative as a source of new ideas to try out, but most of what people say is irrelevant or old hat. The real fun comes only from discovery, and making the most complete set of maps in existence.

You are also:

60% Socialiser

33% Achiever

20% Killer

This result may be abbreviated as ESAK

Slander

Explorer

EASK here. 73/67/40/20.

bairloch

Every time I take it I get the same thing. Mostly E, a lot of S, and so little A and K as to barely register.

Cubey

As far as the test is concerned, I got 80% explorer and roughly 40% of everything else.

But actually I got nothing because, as I said in the other thread, Bartle's classification has no place in modern online roleplaying - it's extremely outdated and doesn't apply anymore, and even back in the day it ran on some assumptions I disagree with. I can elaborate in detail if anyone is interested, but I think I already did enough party pooping for one post.

Xiru

Socialiser

I got 67% socializer, 60% explorer, 40% killer and something low on achiever, I accidentally closed the window. I don't know that I would have guessed socializer, but given that I play most to interact and roleplay, it makes sense. And exploration and killing fell about how I would expect as well.

Qitorien

Socialiser

You are 67% Socialiser

What Bartle says:

♥ Socialisers are interested in people, and what they have to say. The game is merely a backdrop, a common ground where things happen to players. Inter-player relationships are important: empathising with people, sympathising, joking, entertaining, listening; even merely observing people play can be rewarding - seeing them grow as individuals, maturing over time. Some exploration may be necessary so as to understand what everyone else is talking about, and points-scoring could be required to gain access to neat communicative spells available only to higher levels (as well as to obtain a certain status in the community). Killing, however, is something only ever to be excused if it's a futile, impulsive act of revenge, perpetrated upon someone who has caused intolerable pain to a dear friend. The only ultimately fulfilling thing is not how to rise levels or kill hapless drips; it's getting to know people, to undertand them, and to form beautiful, lasting relationships.

You are also:

67% Explorer

47% Killer

20% Achiever

This result may be abbreviated as SEKA

-------------

Apparently everyone else is going to surpass me in every area. Underachiever. :P

Kuraksvi

Explorer

Esak! 87/67/27/20

Antidas

Killer

I got 80% killer, 60% explorer, 34% socializer, and 27% achiever: KESA. Absolutely no surprise for anyone who knows me haha.

Orion

Explorer

You are 73% Explorer What Bartle says: ♠ Explorers delight in having the game expose its internal machinations to them. They try progressively esoteric actions in wild, out-of-the-way places, looking for interesting features (ie. bugs) and figuring out how things work. Scoring points may be necessary to enter some next phase of exploration, but it's tedious, and anyone with half a brain can do it. Killing is quicker, and might be a constructive exercise in its own right, but it causes too much hassle in the long run if the deceased return to seek retribution. Socialising can be informative as a source of new ideas to try out, but most of what people say is irrelevant or old hat. The real fun comes only from discovery, and making the most complete set of maps in existence. You are also: 60% Killer 33% Achiever 33% Socialiser This result may be abbreviated as EKAS

Kestrel

Explorer

Cubey said:

As far as the test is concerned, I got 80% explorer and roughly 40% of everything else.

But actually I got nothing because, as I said in the other thread, Bartle's classification has no place in modern online roleplaying - it's extremely outdated and doesn't apply anymore, and even back in the day it ran on some assumptions I disagree with. I can elaborate in detail if anyone is interested, but I think I already did enough party pooping for one post.

I am interested! I don't think anyone feels strongly enough about Richard Bartle for any divergent opinions on the subject to be controversial, and speaking for myself, I think thought-provoking discussion is generally a good thing.

I don't think Bartle's classification is too relevant to the topic of roleplaying, though it may certainly impact individual roleplayer preferences. For instance, I tend to prefer 'wilderness RP' over generic tavern RP, and try to encourage exotic scenes to take place in a wide variety of places. I also prefer one-on-one scenes to big groups and care less about my character having IC friends than I do about having story-rich dynamics. Could this have something to my preference for exploring over socialising? I think so. And I think killers may prefer antagonistic RP, such as a torture/interrogation scenes, and would be more likely to play complex villains than happy-go-lucky social butterflies. Nothing wrong with that IMO. Although, perhaps they are also more likely to be competitive rather than collaborative in their RP, which could lead to the creation of Gary-Sues or possibly a propensity for less appropriate behaviours such as metagaming and godmoding.

I have no evidence for any of this, this is purely hypothetical. pls no one get mad @ me

In this thread, @Oryx seemed to be implying that a love of roleplaying may be specific or even exclusive to one Bartle type, and with that I would disagree — presumably you do as well. There are some really conflict-heavy MUDs out there that encourage things like antagonism, a policy of ICA = ICC (in-character actions = in-character consequences), and even a policy of explicit non-consent: meaning that if I wanna fuck you up IC and kick over your sandcastle I don't need your permission or approval to do it. Such games permit everything from torture and rape to permanent mutilation/disfiguration, forced enslavement and murder (in perma-death games) without requiring the victim's permission. On the other hand, there are also MU*s which are the complete opposite (MUSHes, generally) where your RP partner can at any time withdraw consent to even continue the scene with you at all if they so choose, and conflict/antagonistic RP is generally frown on or seen as mean and inappropriate unless prearranged. Surely, one of these MU* genres is more blatantly suited to killers, the other to socialisers. RP exists to suit killers too.

However, while I somewhat agree that Bartle's classification isn't too relevant to the topic of roleplaying, in that it would be unfair to equate socialisers with roleplayers — I actually think you can be very social without being a heavy roleplayer at all, see OOC clans, meta conspiracies and IM-style/text convos at the city square — I do think it remains very relevant to online gaming, especially to MUD gaming.

Here is a conversation snippet from the Starmourn Discord to illustrate my point:

@Kestrel the Explorer: I love it when you're exploring this area a hundred people have explored before, but you stop to read the room descs and you see something interesting about a waterfall, then out of curiosity you type 'enter waterfall'
Kestrel the Explorer: and bam
Kestrel the Explorer: secret area woo
Kestrel the Explorer: puzzle quests are a huge draw for me with IRE
Kestrel the Explorer: also will we have something like the fellowship of explorers in Starmourn?
@Tecton our Lord and Saviour: there are explorer ranks/titles, and rankings, yes
Kestrel the Explorer: yay
@Tir_Orin the Killer: Only exploration that needs doing is about where the choke points are to murder people in.

Bearing in mind that you can be more than one type, even if you lean more heavily towards some than others, and there's also nothing stopping you from occasionally dabbling in something you wouldn't wanna do all day every day — I think the classifications are useful for breaking down most of the major activities. Achievers are more likely to have the patience for fishing and grinding, Explorers are more likely to care about puzzle quests and explorer rankings, Socialisers are more likely to be found at the city square or local tavern, and Killers are more likely to care about PvP. Of course, you can break outside these types for various reasons; an Achiever might try their hand at exploring in order to attain a better rank, Killers might put up with PvE so they can get a higher level and a better weapon with which to PK people with, Socialisers might try and get a bit better at PvP in order to improve their reputation among their peers and get a leg-up in IC politics. Personally though, as someone who literally only started grinding XP in Aetolia so I could finish exploring some high-level areas with aggro NPCs that kept crushing my attempts, I can attest that breaking outside my 'type' is something I would do as a means to an end, not because it's something I want to continue doing on a regular basis.

Archer

Achiever

But what if I want more experience so I can kill more people?!

93% Achiever

73% Killer

20% Explorer

13% Socialiser

Traveler

Socialiser

I think there should be one more: Builder. For those whose favorite part is being a guide/mortal builder/god (even being a city leader involves some interesting "behind the scenes" work that makes you feel a bit like the architect of other people's fun - which is really cool when it turns out). I think there may be some people who would enjoy just skipping straight to that part if it were possible.

I didn't take the quiz .. I started to, but too many of the questions were "both" or "neither" and it frustrated me.

Cubey

Kestrel said:

Cubey said:

As far as the test is concerned, I got 80% explorer and roughly 40% of everything else.

But actually I got nothing because, as I said in the other thread, Bartle's classification has no place in modern online roleplaying - it's extremely outdated and doesn't apply anymore, and even back in the day it ran on some assumptions I disagree with. I can elaborate in detail if anyone is interested, but I think I already did enough party pooping for one post.

I am interested! I don't think anyone feels strongly enough about Richard Bartle for any divergent opinions on the subject to be controversial, and speaking for myself, I think thought-provoking discussion is generally a good thing.

Alright then! Before we start I'll say that I agree Bartle is not too relevant for roleplaying. When I said "online roleplaying", I meant online RPGs - as in, MMOs (and MUDs, but MUDs are just text-only MMOs), most of which don't actually have roleplaying yet are called roleplaying games anyway. Anyway it's true that all kinds of people are interest in RP, and implying that only "explorers" or "socialisers" like to RP is being ignorant.

This post is massive tl;dr so I'll split it into two parts. In the first one I'll talk about faults in Bartle's article as written in its original context (mid 90s MUDs). In the second I'll talk about how times have changed and why Bartle's classification is even more wrong nowadays than over two decades ago.

Part one - faults and wrong assumptions

Simply put, the Explorer category is useless. There's a reason almost everyone scores so high in it - it's so broad that most people fall here, even if they are interested in very different facets of a video game. According to Bartle, if any of the following interests you:

-Descriptions and lore behind ingame locations,

-Knowledge of ingame topology, "how to get from point A to point B",

-Mastery of game mechanics, knowing how individual "gears" of the mechanism work together and interact,

-Crafting/building (the poster above mine asked for a category Builder - while not explicitly calling it as such, Bartle's article does mention that being able to build/edit content in the game is a part of the World/Interacting section, which is Explorer),

then you are an Explorer. This is ridiculous and I don't think I have to explain why. Interest in game mechanics and interest in fluff/lore are two totally different things - not mutually exclusive, but virtually opposite in terms of what you want from the game. Yet for Bartle all of this is "interacting with the world". Yeah, technically true. Except interacting with the world is such a broad statement that it's virtually useless. And so is the Explorer category.

The Killer category has the opposite problem - it's too specific. It assumes everyone who is into PvP is a stereotypical asshole PKer who only wants to wreck some noobs and steal their loot while being afraid of a fair fight. This makes me suspect Bartle was bullied pretty heavily in MUDs he played and now he's acting out. Make no mistake, griefers exist in large numbers nowadays and even moreso in the past. But the Killer is someone who is supposed to want respect from other players. You don't get respect from preying on the weak while avoiding the strong! Anyone who does that gets (accurately) labelled as a coward and a bully.

To make things even more confusing here, Bartle's article mentions at several points that competetive people are Killers. This includes saying Killers treat MUDs as a sport. Yet once again, all the assumptions are that these competetive people are only interested in griefing weaker players who can't fight back. Hardly competetive behaviour, especially in the context of PvP as it's understood nowadays.

Player interactions and dynamics are two joke sections, good for a laugh and not much more. Achievers realize killers are necessary for victories to be meaningful? Explorers don't mind being killed? Socializers think explorers are sad and need to get a life? You gotta be kidding me. Did Bartle actually talk to people or did he just come up with comedically exaggerated stereotypes in his mind and then have them interact with one another? I definitely wouldn't bet on the former. Likewise the dynamics section doesn't sound like anything rooted in reality. It sounds like Bartle talking out of his ass, describing a pretty system with clearly defined mechanics governing player population depending on their type - but one that exists only in his imagination and nowhere in reality.

Coincidentally, these two sections are very thin on citations - interactions has none, dynamics has two talking about specific MUDs as opposed to balancing player types.

Not a single mention of mixed type preferences. Sure there are two axes (acting/interacting, players/world) but the problem is: I can easily picture a player who is interested in activities that, according to Bartle, are polar opposites. An Achiever + Socializer is easy to imagine, Explorer + Killer a little less so but still doable (depending which one of myriad definitions of the explorer you decide on). Where do those people sit on the graph? Nowhere, that's where. Because the whole graph is bullshit.

Overall, I strongly suspect Bartle did not study facts and then build his theory around it, rather he came up with the theory first and then twisted gathered facts to fit it. I am also suspicious of his neutrality, sensing positive bias towards Explorers (or rather, a wide category of player activities he all classified as Explorer type), and a negative one towards Killers and to a lesser extent Achievers.

I'm getting tired now so part two will come later. Possibly. In the meantime, is there a way to fold the huge block of text above into something, so it doesn't take so much space unless I click a button to expand it? I know some forums have spoiler boxes for this kind of stuff.

Cubey

Kestrel said:

I am interested! I don't think anyone feels strongly enough about Richard Bartle for any divergent opinions on the subject to be controversial, and speaking for myself, I think thought-provoking discussion is generally a good thing.

Okay, first of all curse me for writing a very long post and then accidentally deleting it all. At least now I can write a superior, concise version instead of a tl;dr block of text.

Before we begin: by online roleplaying I meant online roleplaying games, as in MMOs (and MUDs which really are text-only MMOs if you think about it). But I agree, Bartle is not too relevant in context of roleplaying. None of the types have either an inclination nor disinclination for roleplaying (or specific type of roleplaying!) so acting like, for example, Explorers are better roleplayers than Achievers is just being ignorant.

Now to the topic. I will try to keep this concise and split the post into two sections.

Why I think Bartle's classification is faulty even for the time when it was written

The Explorer type is all over the place. According to Bartle, if you have interest in any of the following:

• Lore behind areas in the game and room descriptions
• Ingame topology ("know how to get from point A to point B")
• Indepth mastery of ingame mechanics
• Crafting/building (not directly stated but implied from elements of Interacting/World - which means Explorer type)

Then you are an Explorer. The problem is, these are wildly different areas of the game and attract a different kind of players. Someone who wants to know how the game ticks mechanically will approach it from a different perspective than someone who wants to know the lore/fluff. Yet according to Bartle they are both Explorers because they interact with the world. The term "interact with the world" is so broad that it's meaningless. So is the term Explorer.

If Explorers are too broad, Killers are too narrow. They are described as nasty PK stereotypes of bullies who prey on weaker characters while avoiding stronger ones. The problem is, Bartle mentions at several points (including saying Killers treat the game as a sport) that Killers treat the game as a competition and want recognition and to be respected. Griefers exist in games nowadays and existed in the past too, but the PvPers who were respected and recognized were never the ones who dunk on newbies, but those who are able to defeat other, strong PvPers. I suspect Bartle has had bad experience with PvP in the past and is equating every PvPer with a griefer because of that.

The player interactions section has no basis in reality. According to Bartle, achievers understand that without killers there wouldn't be any challenge in the game, that explorers do not mind being killed, and that socializers think explorers are sad and need a life. This does not read like opinions of real people. This reads like opinions of artificially created constructs, exaggerated stereotypes that exist and interact with each other only in Bartle's mind. This section does not have any quotes or citations either, which further makes me suspect its accuracy. The dynamics section likewise reads like an idealized system that exists only theoretically.

Last but not the least: the interest graph has two axes, Acting/Interacting and World/Players. Technically this allows for mixed player interest types (even though they are never mentioned in the text itself, like if every player was allowed to be interested in only one specific game area!), for example: a player interested in the game world could be both an Achiever and an Explorer. The problem is, according to the graph players interested in opposing activities are impossible. This is blatantly untrue - I can easily imagine an Achiever + Socializer, while a Killer + Explorer somewhat less so (depending on which of the myriad of Explorer definitions we're going with now) but it still can be done. According to the classification these types are impossible, therefore the classification is wrong.

Overall Bartle's article gives an impression of a theory that was thought up and then had facts twisted to fit it, as opposed to one that came from careful analysis of factual data. Also I perceive author's bias, with general positive view of Explorers (or rather, several different types of players that Bartle all calls Explorers), and a negative view of Killers and to a lesser extent Achievers.

Okay, now we move on to...

Why Bartle is even less relevant today than he was 20+ years ago

Simply put, MUDs/MMOs went through an extensive paradigm shift. In particular:

PvP has changed too much. Unrestricted PK is basically unheard of, except for a few niche games with very low population. It generally moved out to dedicated, non-RPG titles with short iteration times and a focus on player characters killing each other: PUBG, Fortnite, Dead by Daylight, DayZ, etc. In MMOs, PvP is either restricted by rules (only in specific areas, under specific conditions, open PvP servers, etc) or limited to specific game modes, arenas or battlegrounds. This means the Killer type as Bartle understands it basically doesn't exist anymore.

PvE also has changed. The argument that without PvP there is no achievement in PvE due to lack of challenge? Maybe true 20 years ago (let's give it the benefit of the doubt), but preposterous nowadays, with overall massive focus on endgame raiding and content. This means the definition of an Achiever is muddled, as endgame itself often requires intense dedication and a certain competetive attitude (Killer?), and can't be done without extensive system mastery (Explorer?). Bartle's description of an Achiever mostly fits what nowadays we consider a low pressure, "casual" player who has time to play but no interest in indepth system mastery and doesn't like their experience to be very challenging. Opposing that one could say that the Explorer is "hardcore", except once again, half of Bartle's Explorer definitions are saying something completely different and unrelated.

Out of Bartle's four types, one doesn't apply, another is muddled into irrelevance, the third was muddled into irrelevance from the get go. All we're left is are vague statements of "likes to socialize with other people", "likes to do stuff ingame" and "likes PvP". We hardly need a standarized classification for this kind of statements.

Galen

Socialiser

SKEA - 67/53/47/33

Its interesting that it says at the end that socialisers don't like killing, and then my next score down is Killer with only a small difference.

Draos

Socialiser

100% Socialiser

67% Explorer
27% Achiever
7% Killer

I suppose it really depends on my character and the game, but I've been far higher on the killer scale in the past. It seems, in my older age, I prefer others to do it for me. Should be interesting. 

Zerva

Explorer

ESKA - 80/60/33/27

I'd personally put myself as more of a socialiser, but I can't deny I loooove being a loremaster of sorts, so I can't deny the results!

Aldruid

Explorer

100% Explorer. Hopefully Starmourn will have plenty of exploration opportunities.

zacc

Achiever

EASK. 67/67/60/7.

IMO, questionnaire is inaccurate due to its narrow choice of answers per question. Open-ended answers would provide more accuracy but require someone to evaluate them, so... yeah.

Kestrel said:

@Kestrel the Explorer: I love it when you're exploring this area a hundred people have explored before, but you stop to read the room descs and you see something interesting about a waterfall, then out of curiosity you type 'enter waterfall'
Kestrel the Explorer: and bam
Kestrel the Explorer: secret area woo
Kestrel the Explorer: puzzle quests are a huge draw for me with IRE
Kestrel the Explorer: also will we have something like the fellowship of explorers in Starmourn?
@Tecton our Lord and Saviour: there are explorer ranks/titles, and rankings, yes
Kestrel the Explorer: yay
@Tir_Orin the Killer: Only exploration that needs doing is about where the choke points are to murder people in.

That wasn't the waterfall in the mountains area - with all the wyverns - in MKO, was it? I knew there was a disconnected room via MAP meta but could never figure out how to get in there... I HATE when rooms have invisible exits/portals/items/etc. that you can't LOOK/TAP/TOUCH/etc. but can use a single, specific command on. I can't be bothered to play the million commands game. "Oh, boy! Let's go through a thousand RL verbs to see if any work because the game hasn't published a list of IG verbs. Maybe one will work on a noun in the room desc, because, you know, there's no other way to verify if it's an actual thing." SMH

bairloch

zacc said:

EASK. 67/67/60/7.

IMO, questionnaire is inaccurate due to its narrow choice of answers per question.

Yep, none of the above would have been my answer like 60% of the test.

Squeakums

Socialiser

When I submit it, it sends me to a page that says "Please go back and verify that you are human." But I see no captcha and my adblock is turned off. Anybody have an idea what might be going wrong? (I'm in China, if that helps.) I imagine I'll get socializer though, with a touch of killer.

Kuraksvi

Explorer

Squeakums said:

When I submit it, it sends me to a page that says "Please go back and verify that you are human." But I see no captcha and my adblock is turned off. Anybody have an idea what might be going wrong? (I'm in China, if that helps.) I imagine I'll get socializer though, with a touch of killer.

There's a little white box next to the submit button that says "I am not a robot". It also has a small, grey circle on it. Click the circle, and then do what the prompt tells you to do. If you do it correctly, then a blue tick will appear, and you'll have a few minutes to submit before it needs you to re-verify. 
If you don't do it correctly, then it'll keep giving you prompts and questions until you can. I don't think it's ever given a limited number of tries, but I might be wrong on that.

Squeakums

Socialiser

60% Socializer 
53% Killer
47% Explorer
40% Achiever

At first I was surprised at how even they all are! And it is as I expected, mostly social with killing second. I agree with a lot of the points @Cubey made, and I think my score reflects that. 

I really like knowing the lore, crafting a character that fits in well inside that lore, and having interesting RP that is not always holding hands and being nice. I like having IC rivals and antagonistic relationships that are settled through fights. I like getting stronger so that when those fights do come, I'm prepared and more likely to win. I also like knowing the world and being a helpful resource to newbies.

So with all that in mind... It makes sense that the scores are all so even. I feel like the categories of "social, achiever, explorer, killer" mean very different things to me than they did to Bartle.

(also the Chinese connection totally was the problem. Captcha is blocked for some reason, had to take the test through VPN for it to load. Thanks for the help) 

Thaith

Explorer

80% Explorer
60% Socialiser
33% Achiever
27% Killer

Having Explorer at the top wasn't really a surprise, but I would've expected Achiever > Socialiser personally. I'm definitely into joining guilds and factions and things, but I usually only have a small handful of people I really like to play with and tend to be less talkative in groups. I feel like like-minded people are really helpful when I'm trying to figure something out or accomplish a certain task, but I'll definitely play for hours at a time without talking to another person sometimes.

Rothare

Killer

I'm honestly very surprised at all of my results, everyone of them. I guess deep down...

I am 87% killer.

I am also:

47% Achiever

40% Explorer

27% Socialiser

This result may be abbreviated as KAES.

Homura

Killer

53% Killer
53% Achiever
53% Explorer
40% Socializer
Seems balanced.

Quell

I gave up on the test about halfway through, I can't relate to half of this stuff. I have to decide whether I can "become a hero faster than my friends" or "know more secrets than my friends?" I must not be a very good friend! I have to decide between knowing where to find stuff and how to get stuff? That's practically the same thing in modern game terminology.

Also the questions are randomized, which is like one of the biggest standardized testing sins.

RheaGhek

80% Social, 67% Explorer, 33% Killer, 20% achiever SEKA

That seems about accurate from my experiences.

Victoria

Explorer

Apparently I'm an even split between explorer and achiever.

Aerry

Explorer

80% explorer