2x2 of learning types I was making turned out to be isomorphic to bartle test with x axis flipped and unexpected identification of “killers” with “theological learning” 🤣
I was actually expanding to 3x3 when I noticed
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_ta
Bartle test labels in parentheses
Conversation
I rarely go 3x3 but sometimes it’s useful. The 5 extra boxes here allow useful distinctions.
The explore/build/exploit and early/growth/mature triads usefully label well-defined transitions.
2
1
14
Sometimes I have fun
1
5
is this expansion of the bartle test useful?
1
Feels like it better models motivations in games with strong build/grow mechanics
Replying to
I’m somewhat generally suspicious of the Bartle model so I need to think about this a little. I find the Nick Yee/Quantic Foundry model much more enlightening in general though
1
At least in Magic though, killers and theological learning makes sense—“just tell me what deck you play and how to play it so I can win more” is absolutely a search for theology-like shortcuts to the answer
1
Replying to
I thought of that as Straussian doctrine priest training in general… learning to be a priest is learning to turn messianic religions into good/bad rule books and enforcing them with erudite justification even if it leads to genocide
Replying to
I was actually just thinking to myself that well-made PvP games in general are, artistically speaking, a way to drag people who would otherwise enjoy enforcing “correct answers” to gain power to engage in and appreciate a personal search for truth, which is neat
1

