- Matt: It's a bit of a close call between whether I'd peg Matt as more of a simulationist or more of a narrativist. I'm tempted to say I'd go with simulationist, but that may be influenced by already having read this thread. Regardless, I'd put gamist in third tier.
- Kat: I had Kat in the gamism column, with narrativist in second and simulationist in third. I come to this conclusion because in my mind in games Kat likes to be competent and likes to win. And if I'm trying to picture her having to give up one agenda or the other: say, playing a competent badass with no real emotional ties vs. playing a dramatic but incompetent loser, I have an easier time seeing one than the other. But I could be wrong.
- Micah: I would have labeled Micah as gamist, simulationist, narrativist, which is particularly interesting because it's the opposite order of what he labeled himself. I would have given these labels because in my mind Micah likes engaging with the external plot (gamist agenda) and likes exploring and pursing his character's specific endeavors (simulationist agenda). Let me give an example: early in this Zeotis campaign Splice's sister comes to him and says “We need to lay off funding AEE for a while because Hooke Biotechnolgies needs to have its financials look good this quarter.” Okay, there's the conflict. Considering player agency, there are a number of different directions the player (Micah), can run with this. Some possibilities: 1) Focus on the internal conflict this presents (narrativist agenda). What does Splice value more, his public corporate life or his super secret society? Focusing on this could spawn scenes of dramatic revelation (“yes, sister, I am Splice and we need to fund the AEE to save the world from an extinction event!”) or scenes of heartfelt advice (“Pollinator, you've got a stake in this, too. I have this terrible choice to make, what do you suggest?”). 2) Focus on solving the external conflict (gamist agenda). Hey, this must be caused by corporate espionage. If I solve this external problem I win and am able to fund both my organizations! 3) I can't think of a specifically simulationist response here, I think in part because the simulationist agenda is less about pursuing conflict and more about tinkering with the game world. Maybe the simulationist response would be to say, “Sister, you're Hooke Biotechnology's chief financial officer. You balance corporate books for a living. I will yield to your expertise in this matter. Now I'm going to go play around with experimental biotechnology, because that's my expertise.”?
- Eric: I have Eric pegged as a narrativist, easily. I'd go with simulationist as a distant second, followed by gamist.
- Carroll: I'd also label Carroll as narrativist, then simulationist, then gamist, although I think Carroll has very different tastes than Eric (and some of the rest of the group) when it comes to the sort of drama pursued in the narrativist agenda.
- Brian: Out of the group, I have the hardest time figuring out what I would call Brian. If I had to pick, though, I'd go with simulationist, gamist, narrativist. I'd say this because game world consistency seems important to Brian, as does having external goals to keep him occupied.
EDIT: I've spent the most time explaining my thoughts in places with they different from other peoples'.