Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By
Ian McCandliss
Research
Supervised by
Michael Casey
Department of Psychology
2013-2014
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !2
Table of Contents
Abstract........3
Introduction......4
Theories of Roleplaying......7
Methods..... 22
Participants.....22
Materials....22
Procedures..23
Results....24
Discussion..26
References .........31
Abstract
This study sought to understand the interaction between personality and motivation
within the context of Pencil and Paper Roleplaying games. Based upon the theories of Edwards
(2001), the Five factor model of personality (McRae & Costa, 1999) and the effects of social
pressures on behavior (Asch, 1955) it was hypothesized that certain personality traits would lead
These areas were overall motivation, gamist motivation and narrativist motivation. To test this,
data were triangulated from an experiment concerning the transformation of motivations in P&P
gaming, and a survey concerning personality and motivations within the context of P&P games.
The experimental data were analyzed in a one-way ANOVA and the survey data were analyzed
with correlations.
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !4
Introduction
Dungeons and Dragons, a popular pencil and paper fantasy roleplaying game, was
originally created in 1974 by Gary Gygax and Dave Anderson. In this game, a group of players
gather around a table and engage in a highly structured roleplaying session. In these sessions,
players utilize a fictional persona (Jung, 1966) who acts as their avatar in the imaginary game
world. Through a series of complex rules, fictitious abilities and unusual dice rolls, the players
seek to overcome challenges and obstacles set out by the game master or dungeon master. For
decades, this game has engaged young and old alike as groups of people come together to form a
unique and imaginative world, largely without the aid of advanced computing technology. While
this leisure activity has waxed and waned over the years, it still boasts an eager following.
Dungeons and Dragons has been studied by those interested in theology (Perlini-Pfister, 2012),
character immersion (Tychsen, McIlwain, Brolund & Hitchens, 2007), clinical therapy
(Blackmon, 1994) and personality research (Douse & McManus, 1993). Given the potentially
broad applications of Pencil and Paper roleplaying games (P&Ps) in addition to their longevity,
this paper seeks to examine what motivates people to play Pencil and Paper games (P&Ps) based
on personality factors such as the NEO-PI-R. This study will also seek to understand and
elaborate on the interaction between social pressures and motivations, and their potential
While pencil and paper roleplaying games may have been somewhat examined, it is
important to operationalize what a P&P game is within the context of the present study. It would
be simple to state that a pencil and paper game is any tabletop game that requires the use of
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !5
pencil and paper to record certain aspects of it, but going by that definition, virtually anything
could be considered a pencil and paper roleplaying game. Perhaps the definition could be
narrowed to only games that involve the player taking on a new persona for this game. Again,
this definition falls apart as even games such as Monopoly can create and utilize the persona of a
wealthy billionaire who, unlike the actual player, has no problem with brutally eliminating
friends or loved ones from the competition. In theory, virtually any board game could be
considered a roleplaying game so long as a person actively seeks to utilize a persona different
from their everyday personality within the context of the game. Perhaps in the context of this
study, a P&P roleplaying game might best be defined as any structured rule-based game, wherein
the players actively take on a fictional persona, with the primary goal of play being the creation
and maintenance of a narrative story involving these personas (Krier, 1979). Perhaps the most
unique aspect of Pencil and Paper games is that they mimic life, as they do not have a predefined
end-point. Rather the game ends when the players believe that they have experienced all there
was to experience in the fictional world with their fictional personas and that they must move
While there are many forms of P&P, the gaming format examined in this paper involves a
group of between three and seven players arranged around a table. Each player has created a
fictional character that will act out his or her strategies in the game world (MacKay, 2001). One
of the people around the table is the Dungeon Master or Game Master (GM). While the players
may only control the actions and behaviors of their own character, the GM has the authority and
the ability to control the actions of characters that are not controlled by the players (the so called,
Non-player characters or NPCs) (Gygax & Arneson, 1974). Furthermore, the GM is charged
with describing the game world to the players, designing challenges for the players characters to
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !6
overcome, and adjudicating the results of dice rolls, which are meant to represent random events.
Ideally, the game would begin with the GM describing a fictional scenario that the players must
navigate and overcome through a combination of their characters abilities and dice rolls. If the
players roll well enough, then their characters can succeed at the task at hand (though more dice
rolls with complex numerical factors may be added depending on certain events in the fictional
world).
Say for example the party begins in a tavern (a standard starting point) and are informed by
an NPC that a tribe of goblins hiding out in a local cave system has kidnapped his family. The
group of players would then travel to the cave and enter it, facing enemy goblins. The players
would roll dice to determine the turn order for combat. They would then roll dice to attack the
enemy goblins (adding in the bonuses that they allotted to their characters during character
creation). If the attack roll is higher than the enemies armor class (a number representing the
targets ability to avoid damage) then the attack hits. The player then rolls dice to determine how
much damage the enemy takes. If the damage the enemy takes exceeds their hit point total (a
number representing how much damage they can take and still fight) then they are considered
dead. If it does not exceed that number, then the damage is simply subtracted from the enemies
total hit points (Gygax & Arneson, 1974). The player may also move and perform small actions
such as drawing out items, opening doors etc. all within the confines of the descriptions given by
the GM. Aside from combat, players may also engage in a wide variety of activities, such as
solving puzzles, escaping traps, performing before an audience of NPCs or even crafting items
to help them in future encounters. Similar to combat, players roll dice and add relevant skill
modifiers (based on the task at hand) to determine how well they performed a given task, as well
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !7
as how long it took them to achieve that goal. As in combat, the GM adjudicates and interprets
Throughout this scenario it is important that players continue to act out their characters and
perform actions that are in line with their characters moral alignments, personal goals, and
unlike what is performed with stage actors, but performed in such a way that it is done before a
small group of friends with the intent of entertaining each other as opposed to a broad audience
(MacKay, 2001).
There exist multiple models of RPG theory but the most popular and comprehensive to
date is the Forge Theory or the Big Model (Boss, 2008). Ron Edwards, a pioneer in the
study of roleplaying games who sought to understand the mechanics of roleplaying games,
developed forge Theory. The theory stemmed from Edwards earlier GNS (Gamist, Narrativist,
Simulationist) theory. While GNS was later supplanted with Forge theory, it is significant and
substantive enough that it bears reviewing here. GNS theory holds that each person in a
roleplaying game session has one of three mutually exclusive agendas in a roleplaying game
1. Gamism: The persons agenda is to overcome predefined victory conditions and win
the game. For this person, the goal is to achieve victory regardless of character immersion or
storytelling.
fictional character, making choices, resolving and mediating conflicts as that character.
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !8
upon real world events or fictionalized alternate worlds (such as Tolkiens Middle Earth or
GNS would later be integrated into Forge theory as different forms of creative agendas.
Specifically, Forge theory details how roleplaying games are a culmination of five nested levels
1. Social contract: the level at which social agreements are made about the game, and
how RPGs are primarily social activities. Within the context of Forge theory, everything begins
with player interactions and social dynamics. Without this level, there is no shared consensus
2. Exploration: players activity of discovering novel elements in the game, and how it is
a shared consensus between the GM and the players. This is essentially the fictional world and
all its elements generated by the GM in which the players can interact. It includes fictional
characters, the existence of magic, the presence or absence of fictional deities, and even whether
or not technology is primitive or advanced. Without this level, players would have no idea what
they were experiencing and would be unable to interact with the fictional world that their avatars
inhabit.
3. Creative agenda: each person at the table may have a different reason for being there.
Some might wish to tell/create a story while others may want to increase the strength of their
characters. The people at the table must allow for a sharing of agendas, engaging in spoken or
unspoken negotiations with each other (allowing some people to engage in power playing
while others engage in role-playing. Failure to resolve differences in creative agendas can
cause friction within the group and may require mediation to resolve. However, the ultimate
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !9
goal of this level is generally achieving the greatest satisfaction on behalf of all persons at the
table.
4. Techniques: the game systems rules and how the game is played. These rules are
both those prescribed by the official guidebooks of the game being played (such as Pathfinder or
Shadowrun) as well as house rules, which are held by the particular roleplaying group. These
rules may be both clearly spoken such as your result is doubled if you role a twenty to if you
have to argue to get the extra experience points, then you dont get them etc. Without the
techniques section, players and GMs may be unable to adjudicate the results of certain dice-rolls
5. Ephemera: sum total of the four earlier levels. How they all combine and interact in
both explicit and implicit social constructs, resulting in a roleplaying experience. This portion is
not as well defined in the literature and is difficult to fully comprehend, but for the sake of this
paper it will be simply defined as the summation and interaction of the prior four levels of the
Forge Theory.
GNS and Forge Theory are key features of this study as they provide the theoretical
framework necessary to proceed. In particular, the creative agenda is a major theme in this study
as it is most likely that the individuals creative agenda is their primary motivation for engaging
in a roleplaying game in the first place. While there may be other factors which motivate a
person to engage in a roleplaying game (such as maintaining social bonds (Tyschen et al., 2006)
this study seeks to isolate the aspects of motivation which are specific to P&P gaming as
While there are many theories concerning culture and roleplaying games, as well as scant
literature concerning the personality of the typical P&P gamer (Curran, 2011) a key question
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !10
remains unanswered. Is it possible to evaluate objectively what motivates people to play P&Ps?
This is a difficult question to answer, as it is multifaceted and may even be extrapolated to what
motivates people to do any kind of leisure activity? Studies such as Barnett (2006) have looked
broadly at personality and motivation for leisure activities, finding strong evidence for
personality playing a role in motivations for certain kinds of leisure activities. Other studies such
as Jeng and Teng (2008) have looked more narrowly at personality and the motivation for online
roleplaying games, finding the following: people higher on openness are more motivated by
novel discoveries in the game world; people higher on conscientiousness are more motivated by
interactions. People higher on agreeableness are more motivated by their ability to help others
(getting strong enough to help others) and people higher on neuroticism are less motivated by
team play. These results are relevant to this study as they help form a strong theoretical basis for
Initially, it may appear that the motivations for online roleplaying games and pen and
paper games may be similar, in which case we could expect that the study of Yee (2006).
However, this study argues that to apply the same measure of survey data found in the Yee
(2006) study would be unrepresentative of the typical P&P gamers motivations. There are a few
obvious differences such as one is played online utilizing advanced computer graphics with
multiple people (Tychsen, Hitchents, Brolund & Kavakli 2006), while the other is a small insular
group of friends or acquaintances who seek to tell act out a story together (MacKay, 2001).
Many computer-based roleplaying games possesses only a limited means in allowing your
character to define them. Typically in an online game, players are provided with only a few, if
any options to define their character. These options largely involve either clicking a button and
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES 11
!
choosing a good or evil option, or choosing to give an acquired item to one or the other
person, if that option is even provided. In a P&P game, players are constantly roleplaying their
character and seeking to understand their characters cognitions and motivations within the game
(MacKay, 2001).
Furthermore, characters in P&Ps can be characterized by literally any action the player
can think of, such as shuffling cards, speaking with an accent, or even having bouts of
narcolepsy, almost none of which are assessable in a standard online game. Massively Multi-
player Online Roleplaying games (aka MMORPGs or simply MMOs) also have very little in
the way of players altering the environment (Tyschen, 2006). This makes sense in the context of
the game, as players are but one of many people trying to accomplish the same task for the
NPCs of the world. It is frequently impossible for players to alter the game world in any
significant way, as this is a world for many others who are supposed to accomplish the same
challenges. In a P&P game however, the world is more specialized and designed with the players
sitting at the table in mind (Krier, 1979). So long as the GM desires it, any choice that the
players make can have long reaching consequences and alter the world that they inhabit with
There is however a psychological phenomenon that has been applied to videogames that
could theoretically influence P&P games as well. This concept is known as flow Spawned
from humanist psychology; this theory is fairly popular and describes a mental state that crosses
many human endeavors, from mountain climbing to baking to videogames (Cowley, Charles,
Black, & Hickey, 2008). At its core, flow is a mental state wherein an individual becomes so
absorbed in a task that it occupies all of their conscious cognitive thought processes
(Ciskszentmihalyi, 1997). Often while in a state of flow, individuals will lose track of time, so
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !12
preoccupied are they with the task at hand that many concerns such as the passage of time are
almost entirely forgotten. To achieve a state of flow, an individual requires both the skill to
achieve a task and a task that is just difficult enough that it strains the individuals abilities,
without overextending them, thus causing them to become frustrated at their inability to do the
task. However, the task cannot be too easy as this may cause the individual to become bored,
particularly when having a much higher skill level than what is required for the task
(Ciskszentmihalyi, 1997).
In many ways, P&P games operate on similar principals of flow though on a much
more concrete level. In the real world, flow is often achieved by having a sufficient skill set to
complete a task that it is just challenging enough to extend a persons abilities. In the context of
a P&P game, what is stretched is the abilities of the character and to an extent, the imagination of
the player. While players can formulate creative solutions that will instantly resolve many
encounters, being consistently more creative than a GM (who has had time to prepare for such
easy solutions) is not the most reliable way to resolve encounters. Instead, players must rely
on the abilities of their characters and their own knowledge about when and how to use these
abilities. The GM must then carefully calibrate a challenge or encounter so that the party has
physical capabilities that are able to overcome it, without making the challenge too difficult or
frustrating on the part of the players. This calculation is aided by ratings of certain pre-created
enemies or obstacles that are calibrated to be impossible for characters at low levels, challenging
It bears reminding that the present research on flow shows that it only occurs at the level
of the individual. That is, only individuals can experience a cognitive state themselves. This is
again, fairly obvious as one cannot experience the cognitions of another. While it is possible that
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !13
individuals within a group may experience flow, the group as a whole does not experience this
state, and it is even possible that some people at the table will experience flow while others will
not. But is it possible that by some people at the table being more motivated to succeed others at
the table will also be influenced by them? Can one person in a state of flow elicit a similar
cognitive state in a person they are actively interacting with? It has been demonstrated that
within the brain there exist mirror neurons that allow us to experience empathy and to mimic the
actions of others (Carr, Iacoboni, Dubeau, Mazziotta & Lenzi, 2003). So if one person enters a
cognitive state of flow, could there be a similar activation of mirror neurons that will allow
another person to experience flow as well? This and other factors of motivation will be discussed
Personality is a nebulous term that many psychologists have used overtime with varied
definitions and successes. While there are many theories concerning what personality is, how it
is defined, and how it affects us (Engler, 2008) this study will primarily use the trait-theory of
personality. That is, personality will refer to a series of traits or characteristics that are relatively
stable over time within an individual (Engler, 2008). These traits will influence the individuals
behaviors, cognitions, thoughts and feelings, and that the behaviors resulting from these traits
can be observed and quantified. The Five-factor model of personality is based off of this trait
theory (Costa & McCrae, 1997) and so far has demonstrated great support of this theory with its
The Five-factor theory of personality is a trait theory, which follows from several
assumptions about personality. According to McCrae and Costa (1999) the assumptions of this
theory are as follows; knowability (i.e. that personality is knowable) it can be objectively
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !14
observed, and is the domain of scientific inquiry rather than humanistic or existential study.
themselves and others. McCrae and Costa (1999) acknowledge that this is an unpopular
assumption given that many perspectives in psychology have noted unconscious drives,
cognitive biases and overall irrational behavior that may interfere with an individuals
their personality and understand themselves, then this makes self-report data concerning
personality unreliable (Costa & McRae, 1997). Thirdly, the five factor theory of personality
assumes variability or that people differ from each other in psychologically significant ways.
This is a fairly simple and accepted assumption that there are consistent differences in behavior
between individuals. Finally the five-factor theory assumes proactivity or that at least some
causal factors for a persons behavior and actions is inherent to the person themselves. While
many aspects of our lives may be outside of our control, we all possess an inherent personality
that causes us to react in similar ways across multiple situations (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
With these assumptions in place, the model of personality proposed by McCrae and Costa
(1999) holds that personality can be quantified into five distinct personality traits or factors. The
five factors can be remembered by the simple acronym O.C.E.A.N. and are as follows (Atkinson,
O- Openness to new experience represents creative and intellectual curiosity and is often
associated with respect or enjoyment of art. People higher on openness tend to be more willing
higher on conscientiousness are more likely to work on projects until they have reached
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !15
completion, keep to schedules and possess an overall more organized living or workspace than
E- Extraversion refers to how outgoing someone is, with people higher on extraversion
being more sociable and gregarious, while people lower on extraversion are less sociable and
more reticent.
A-Agreeableness refers to how amicable and empathetic a person is, with people higher
person is, the less resistant they are to anxiety inducing situations. The less neurotic someone is,
the more adversity they can undergo without succumbing to anxiety. While personality has a
strong impact on all of our behaviors, perhaps more interesting is the possibility that personality
can alter why we perform the actions that we do or, our intrinsic motivations.
Another significant aspect of this study is the interaction between individuals within the
context of a P&P game. It has been demonstrated that in a group setting, there is a strong
tendency for uniformity across individuals. One example of this conformity would be an
individual withholding their dissenting opinions for the sake of group unity. In fact according to
Staw (1989) this same tendency to withhold opinions and maintain group unity can extend
towards creative endeavors as well. The study found that in a standard workplace environment
there was a strong tendency in group meetings for people to withhold their opinions, increasing
their uniformity and efficiency but also significantly decreasing their creativity and creative
output. Given the results of this study, it is highly possible that within the context of a P&P
game, the social pressures exhibited by other group members may alter the creative agendas of
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !16
individual group members. In particular, the GM has a place of authority at the table and there is
evidence to show that authority figures can significantly alter a persons behavior with only
slight verbal cues. Analysis performed on the iconic Milgram study, perfectly rational people
with their own individual goals, desires and morals were capable of and even willing to,
administer harm to another person simply by being told that what they were doing was alright by
an authority figure (Blass, 1999). While the comparison between endorsing torture and exclusion
of creative agendas is harsh, the principal is generally the same. Instructions by an authority
figure or even someone a person cares for can significantly alter the behavior of an individual,
perhaps even going so far as to affect their motivations for why they do something (Yovetich &
Rusbult, 1994).
This is further supported by the studies performed by Zimbardo in his historic study
wherein he sought to simulate the conditions of a real-world prison. Expounded upon in his
2007 book The Lucifer Effect, the study demonstrated how an authority figure (Dr. Zimbardo)
through inaction and few simple instructions permitted the guards in his prison experiment to
abuse their power over the prisoners in the study (Zimbardo, 2007). Following this train of
logic, it is possible that the creative agenda established by the Game Master may supersede that
of the players, altering their motivations in the context of the roleplaying game, at least
temporarily.
Also germane to this research are such psychological phenomena as the Bystander Effect
and other such studies on group conformity. Garcia, Weaver and Moskowitz (2002) performed a
meta-analysis of multiple studies on the bystander effect. In general, the effect occurs when a
group of people sees something that is potentially dangerous or unusual and yet to maintain
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !17
social order sand group continuity, none of them say or do anything that would violate the
While the iconic social experiment known as the Asch study may be seen as relevant
here there is a noted discrepancy in the literature concerning it. According to Friend, Rafferty
and Bramel (1990), the Asch study was misrepresented by subsequent research articles, which
generally ignored the discussion section of the original and instead focused more on the
quantitative data alone. In fact, the original analysis of the study argued for greater individuality
(Asch, 1955). In spite of these criticisms, there is strong evidence from a number of subsequent
follow up studies such as Scheff (1988), which support the idea of social conformity through a
combination of emotional factors, chief amongst them being shame and fear of breaking the
social norm. However, there is a possible alternative to this, that individual differences may
strongly account for whether or not a person bends to social pressures exhibited by group
members. Perhaps it is personality traits that moderate whether or not a person succumbs to
This study also bears strong resemblance to the experiment performed in Festinger (1962)
on cognitive dissonance. In this study the experimenters were able to create conditions wherein
the participants motivation and beliefs for performing a mundane task were transformed to make
the task seem more enjoyable than it actually was. In a similar way, this study also seeks to
transform intrinsic motivations and beliefs of its participants but through means of slight social
Most P&P research can be condensed into several broad categories. Firstly, personality
research which has played a significant role in the understanding of P&P games, however most
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !18
of these studies have only sought to compare P&P gamers to control groups (Curran, 2011).
Much of the information obtained about P&P games stems from anthropological studies, which
seek to catalogue behaviors, tendencies and beliefs held by roleplaying gamers, without
experimentally analyzing them. For example, books such as those by Fine (2002) look broadly
at the phenomena of roleplaying and the shared social environments that arise through it. While
the information and theories in this book are interesting, they are difficult to test as their findings
are not generally experimentally based, leading to a third set of roleplaying studies that are
sociologically based.
Psychological research in itself, has not led to many groundbreaking findings within the
context of P&P gaming. For example, Dous and McManus (1993) sought to understand the
personality profile of the typical fantasy gamer. However, the study utilized older personality
scales (which have since fallen into disuse) such as the Bem-Sex-Role Inventory, and the
Eyesenk-Personality Inventory (as well as empathy and decision making questionnaires). While
it is difficult to compare these data to newer tests such as the Big-5 inventory, based on these
tests, the authors claimed that on average, people who engaged in fantasy roleplaying games
(FRPGs) were significantly less androgynous and less feminine, but higher on masculinity.
Furthermore, they claimed that such people were also significantly more introverted and
displayed significantly less empathy than controls. To an extent, the study substantiated the
stereotype that players of FRPGs are shy, reclusive, well educated and tend to be more prone to
other studies that had examined the personality and stereotypes of fantasy roleplaying gamers. It
concluded that in general, the studies have looked at demographic and personality information,
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !19
and noted that there were still many aspects of roleplaying games that had not been empirically
explored by the scientific community. It also noted that the majority of the studies reviewed
(amongst them being Dous & McManus, 1993) demonstrated how on average, there is very little
difference between people who engage in pencil and paper roleplaying games and control
participants. Given that it is a literature review, it is fair to say that with so many studies finding
only minimal differences between P&P gamers and controls, it is more likely that the typical
P&P gamer is much more similar to a typical person than the stereotypical view presented in
Alternatively, there have been some rather interesting psychological studies such as
Tychsen et al. (2007). This study sought to understand the link between personality and character
immersion. Utilizing studies into both P&P games as well as computer roleplaying games, the
study found that personality actually had no impact on players enjoyment of roleplaying a
character with an existing backstory. While this may be a less than stellar finding it provided
evidence that satisfaction in roleplaying activities is not necessarily derived from the formulation
of a new persona, but rather the act of roleplaying itself. The study found that the more a person
was engaged in the act of playing the character, the more enjoyment they derived from the
experience. However, it is difficult to determine if this may have been true had a different
personality questionnaire been used (such as the Big-Five inventory) as the study utilized a
personality inventory known as EPAQ (an older personality test which includes some, but not all
of the variables presented in the Big-5 inventory, which has incremental validity over it).
Furthermore, the study leaves a number of other factors out of its design that may affect a
players enjoyment or satisfaction of a roleplaying game. For example, the aspects of a pencil
and paper gaming experience aside from the roleplaying aspect, such as social interactions with
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !20
peers, existing friendships between the players, or the style of game system used, the difficulty of
the gameplay, and the motivations the players characters had, all of which may impact the
The primary goal of the present study was to examine individual differences of
personality and motivation within the context of P&P games. While prior studies have looked at
demographic information (Curran, 2011) this study sought to improve upon these past studies by
examining the relationship between personality and motivation within the context of a P&P
roleplaying game. This information has been briefly examined in anecdotal studies conducted by
RPG theorists such as Edwards (Boss, 2008) but has yet to be experimentally evaluated in any
significant way. This study allows for a more in-depth analysis of P&P games than has been done
to date, as motivations are rarely examined in P&P games, often being secondary in importance
to the enjoyment of the players and the social interactions at the table.
According to Forge Theory, players are motivated to engage in a roleplaying game with a
narrativist, gamist or simulationist agenda as Boss (2008) described in the RPG theory section.
To that end, this study utilizes the theories of Edwards (2001) in line with Forge theory and GNS
theory, aiming to determine if there is a significant correlation between certain personality traits
and roleplaying agendas. There are however a few aspects of these theories that needed to be
modified or which could not be taken into account within the confines of this study. Firstly,
while GNS theory holds that the gamist, narrativist and simulationist agendas are mutually
exclusive, for the purpose of examining the results of this study, these motivational agendas were
measured as if they were personality traits. That is to say, they were measured utilizing several
questions of a 5-point likert scale, similar to that found on the Big-5 Inventory. This not only
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !21
makes more sense (as it is a fallacy to say that an individual is motivated by only one thing in
any given pursuit) but also allowed for a more concise and valid analysis of the data. It should
be noted however that while the agendas will be quantified in a manner similar to trait surveys
(such as the Big-5 inventory) that these are not stable personality traits, and that they are subject
Secondly, while it would have been an interesting study to evaluate the various
simulationist desires (science fiction, high fantasy, urban noir, etc.) doing so would be a time
consuming and difficult process requiring knowledge of numerous game systems in addition to a
large conglomeration of players who actively wanted to play in one setting over the other. For
this reason the simulationist agenda will not be tested in this study. The gamist and narrativist
perspectives however are reasonable to utilize in this study and are able to be analyzed more
concretely than the simulationist agenda or overall satisfaction. While it would be inappropriate
to state that all people who play roleplaying games are one of the three, it is highly likely that
there are different proportions of motivation for each agenda, similar to how there are varying
levels of personality traits in an individual. As such, players will be assessed not only by their
scores of the Big-5 personality inventory, but also by how much they rate their motivation for
playing the game as gamist (desiring to win and be victorious) over narrativist (the desire to role-
play and act out a character). To perform this study, multiple hypotheses are required, mapping
each relevant factor of the Big Five personality inventory (Costa & McRae, 2008) to enjoyment
and motivation in the context of a P&P game. The hypotheses are as follows:
Hypothesis 1: People higher on openness will be more motivated by new experiences and
so are expected to have a much higher narrativist agenda than people lower on openness. As
such, people lower on openness will be less likely to take on the perspective of a new person and
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !22
predominant gaming mindset at the table. That is, when there are more people with a gamist or
narrativist point of view at the table, people higher on agreeableness will tend towards the
viewpoint that is expressed more predominantly. Conversely, people lower on agreeableness will
be less inclined towards one agenda or another based on the surrounding agendas, and instead
will be more prone towards their own personality traits influencing their gaming agendas.
Hypothesis 3: People who are higher on extraversion will seek more stimulation and
challenges than people lower on extraversion (Green, 1984) and therefore are predicted to score
more highly on both the narrativist and gamist scales than people lower on extraversion (who
Hypothesis 4: People higher on neuroticism will have more anxiety then people lower on
neuroticism in situations that are more similar to real life. As such, people higher on neuroticism
are predicted to avoid the narrativist perspective (which involves a large amount of social
interaction and taking on a different role) and instead focus on a more gamist agenda.
Methods
Subjects
Eighty anonymous subjects were gathered online via mTurk so as to complete a survey
concerning personality and roleplaying motivation. Nine college age subjects who were familiar
with P&P games were also gathered so as to engage in the experimental condition.
Materials
The pathfinder beginner box was used so as to create a uniform roleplaying experience
for all participants. The players utilized the character sheets and dice that came along with the
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !23
box (see appendix B). The mTurk survey system was also used so as to collect a large sum of
data about role-players quickly and anonymously. The Big Five inventory (see appendix C) was
also utilized to assess both the experimental subjects and the survey subjects prior to completion
of the motivation scales developed for this test (see appendices D-F).
Procedures
This study featured triangulated methodologies. The first was the collection of survey
data via the website mTURK (Crump, McDonnell & Gureckis, 2013). In this aspect of the study,
subjects were asked whether or not they had or had not played P&P games before. If they had
played them before, then they were allowed to continue taking the survey that sought to quantify
what aspects of a roleplaying game motivated them to continue playing it. If they have not
played P&Ps before then they were not allowed to take the survey and would have to exit out of
the study. The subjects were then asked to fill out the 44-item version of the Big Five personality
In addition, the study also utilized in-depth data gathered before and after a roleplaying
game session. This was done utilizing a between groups measurement. While studying people
who have never played P&Ps would be interesting, ultimately the study sought to analyze the
personality and motivations of existing P&P gamers, rather than novices. An informed consent
was given prior to the experiment (see appendix A) and a debriefing form was given after the
experiment (see appendix G). Each person filled out a Big Five personality inventory prior to
the study as well as a questionnaire meant to quantify their roleplaying agenda. At the end of the
session, the subjects filled out the second portion of the survey meant to quantify their
roleplaying agenda. The subjects were assigned to one of three conditions that reflected
stereotypical ways a roleplaying game could be played, roleplaying heavy, mechanics heavy, or
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !24
balanced (aka control group). Subjects in the role-play condition were told that they would be
expected to role-play over the course of the game, and were also provided with the descriptions
and personalities of their characters. In the mechanics heavy group, subjects were told that they
must focus on the rules prior to the start of the game, and were educated on their characters
mechanical strengths and weaknesses. Finally, the control group was simply told that they would
be engaging in a pencil and paper gaming session and were not given any direction as to which
way the game was supposed to be played. The control group was given both the characters
mechanical abilities and their backstory though they were not told to look at any one part by the
Players were assigned characters based on the work of Tychsen et al. (2007), which found
that assigning players characters with an existing backstory did not significantly impact their
enjoyment of play. Players randomly selected their character by picking the names of the
corresponding characters out of a box. The experimental data were analyzed in several one-way
ANOVAs as well as a correlation between the personality factors and the particiapants
Results
Experimental Data
There was a positive correlation between overall roleplaying motivation and narrativist
motivation, r(9)=.668, p<.05. There was also a positive correlation between narrativist
motivation and gamist motivation, r(9)=.896, p<.001 this implies that they may have been
measuring approximately the same thing. However gamist motivation was not significantly
correlated with overall roleplaying motivation in the experimental data, r(9)=.474, p>.05,
meaning there are some aspects in each of the scales which differ from each other.
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !25
A one way between subjects ANOVA investigating the experimental conditions found
that there was no main effect for overall roleplaying motivation in the different treatment
conditions, F(2,8)=.600, p=.579 (See Table 1). The one-way ANOVA examining narrativist
motivation also did not show a significant difference between groups, F(2,8)=.036, p=.565.
Lastly, the one-way ANOVA exploring the effects of the gamist motivation did not show
Table 1.
Survey Data
In the survey data, openness was not significantly correlated with overall roleplaying
motivation, r(80)=.29, p>.05 or any of the other motivations (p>.05) and thus did not support the
first hypothesis. While not statistically significant, the relationship between agreeableness and
overall roleplaying motivation, r(80)=.200, p=.076, and agreeableness and narrativist motivation,
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !26
r(80)=.200, p=.061, were approaching significance. There was also no significant correlation
between extraversion and overall roleplaying motivation in the mTurk survey portion of the
The survey data showed that there was a significant negative correlation between overall
motivation and neuroticism, r(80)=-.243, p<.05, gamist motivation and neuroticism r(80)=-.291,
p<.01, and narrativist motivation and neuroticism, r(80)=-.328, p<.01. This suggests that the
higher a person is on neuroticism the less motivated they are to engage in P&P games.
r(80)=.256, p<.01. This suggests that people who are more conscientious are more likely to be
The survey data also demonstrated a significant correlation between overall roleplaying
between overall roleplaying motivation and narrativist motivation, r(80)=.347, p<.01 and a
significant relationship between gamist motivation and narrativist motivation, r(80)=.405, p<.01.
This is similar to the findings in the experimental condition that the scales may not have been
significantly different from each other, but that there were still some differences between gamist
Discussion
The first hypothesis that people higher on openness would also be higher on narrativist
motivation was not supported. However, this goes against the work of Tyschen et al. (2007) who
found that people higher on openness have a greater discovery motivation (something akin to
motivation was not examined in this study it could still be significantly influenced by a persons
openness to experience.
The second hypothesis was also unsupported as there was no significant statistical effect
for the varying conditions influencing a persons roleplaying motivations. However, it should be
noted that in the survey study it was found that agreeableness approached, but did not reach
significance for both overall and narrativist motivations. It is possible that people who are more
agreeable are more likely to want to aid fictional NPCs and advance the story more so than
people lower on agreeableness (Tyschen et al. 2007), and this result may have been shown had
The third hypothesis concerning higher extraversion correlating well with all roleplaying
motivations was also unsupported. There was no significant correlation between extraversion,
contrast to the research that states that people higher on extraversion should be more motivated
to obtain experiences so as to obtain a more optimal level of arousal (Geen, 1984). It could be
that extraversion does not affect these particular factors however and may affect other aspects of
a roleplaying game not observed in this study such as social interactions with other players and
with the game master. This would be line with the work of McCrae and Costa (1999) wherein
people higher on extraversion tended to seek out more social interactions than people lower on
extraversion.
The fourth and final hypothesis, which stated that people higher on neuroticism would be
more motivated by gamist motivations than narrativist motivations, was supported by the survey
data. It revealed that there was a moderate negative correlation between all the motivational
scales and neuroticism. This was unexpected, but it suggests that people who are higher on
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !28
neuroticism are less motivated overall to engage in P&P games, both for the story and the chance
to win. This is in line with the meta-analysis performed by Judge and Ilies (2003) that showed a
consistent negative correlation between neuroticism and overall motivation (not necessarily
roleplaying motivation per se). It is possible that people who are more neurotic become more
anxious in tense situations (even imagined tense situations such as in P&P games or other
activities that require intrinsic motivation to complete) and so are less likely to want to attempt or
complete them (McCrae & Costa, 1999). Of course this cannot be proven as correlation does not
equal causation, but it opens up an interesting avenue of study into whether or not higher levels
roleplaying games.
There were also aspects of the experiment that were not measured quantitatively, but that
were observed qualitatively. An interesting finding was that in the course of the gamist
experiment session, one of the players came up with a new solution to resolve a combat
encounter. In this session the player advised shooting the stalactites in the cave ceiling so as to
hit the enemy below. When he broached the possibility of using this unexpected and creative
solution to the group the other members quickly dissuaded him saying that he should just do the
normal attack and saying that such a thing was more reliable. This is telling, as he was able
to arrive at a novel solution that was quickly dismissed by the group in favor of a more uniform
practice. When questioned after the session it was mentioned that the player who had sought to
perform the creative action had only been playing for a short amount of time (about a month),
while the other group members had been playing for significantly longer (2+years). As a result
of this, future studies might try to look at the motivations of P&P gamers as a factor of how
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !29
much experience they have within the context of a P&P game. This could lead to interesting
While not measured quantitatively, the subjects were asked about their subjective flow
experiences. While some were keenly aware of the passage of time, others forgot about it, as
they were too engrossed in the game to notice it, a key aspect of the flow state of cognition
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). This implies that social activities such as roleplaying games may be
capable of eliciting a state of flow in the participants. In fact, roleplaying games may provide an
optimal means of studying flow given that the GM must carefully balance and actively think
about whether the challenges they are presenting are too challenging or not challenging enough
(Gygax & Arneson, 1974). Particularly those with prior engagements were more keenly aware of
what time it was, perhaps implying that flow may be interrupted or prevented by anxiety or other
pressing issues. It should be noted however that these were subjective measures taken post
experiment and the subjects may have censored themselves or come to certain conclusions about
what they believed should have been enjoyable, as opposed to a true reflection of their cognitions
while in the game. Further research may be needed to objectively determine a flow state and
whether or not P&P games may be an optimal venue for testing flow.
A primary limitation of this study was the small sample size in the experimental groups.
authority figure, such an effect was not observed, most likely a result of the small sample size. It
is possible that the treatment conditions given in the experiment may not have been strong
enough to elicit a transformation of motivation in the course of a single P&P gaming session and
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !30
motivation.
Another possible limitation was that the questionnaires concerning the motivations for
roleplaying may not have been significantly different from one another. The high correlation
demonstrates that the questionnaires on motivation may not sufficiently differ from each other
and may have been testing the same variable such that there was no significant difference
While this experiment may not have been ideal, this study offers insight into how future
iterations of this and similar studies may be performed. Firstly, more than half a year is required
to perform this study as large periods of time are needed to acquire subjects and organize
schedules to appropriately engage in many sessions of a roleplaying game. Along with greater
time, more subjects may be gathered, organized and analyzed thus resulting in greater statistical
power. Future studies may look more at the training of nave subjects and determine if their
initial expectations of what a roleplaying experience is like differs from their motivations post-
training. The type of game system used may also be significant, given the anecdotal evidence of
refined to ensure that the variables measured are most assuredly gamist and narrativist
treatments in the experimental condition may be emphasized (possibly through use of alternative
game systems) or through stronger overt instructions from the GM. Roleplaying games are a
diverse phenomenon that has persisted for over half a century and will persist into the future.
They warrant further study given their diverse applications in simulating human behavior and
cognitions.
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !31
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !32
References
Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), 31-35.
Atkinson, R. L., Atkinson, R.C., Smith, E.E., Bem, D. J., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S., (2000).
Blackmon, W. D. (1994). Dungeons and Dragons: the use of a fantasy game in the
624-624.
Barnett, L. A. (2006). Accounting for leisure preferences from within: The relative contributions
Blass, T. (Ed.). (1999). Obedience to authority: Current perspectives on the Milgram paradigm.
Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's
Boss, E.C., Key Concepts in Forge Theory, Playground Worlds. Creating and Evaluating
2008.
Carr, L., Iacoboni, M., Dubeau, M. C., Mazziotta, J. C., & Lenzi, G. L. (2003). Neural
mechanisms of empathy in humans: a relay from neural systems for imitation to limbic
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: the
Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1997). Stability and change in personality assessment: the
revised NEO Personality Inventory in the year 2000. Journal of Personality Assessment,
68(1), 86-94.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2008). The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R). The
Cowley, B., Charles, D., Black, M., & Hickey, R. (2008). Toward an understanding of flow in
Crump, M. J., McDonnell, J. V., & Gureckis, T. M. (2013). Evaluating Amazon's Mechanical
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life.
Journal,(2), 44-55.
Douse, N. A., & McManus, I. C. (1993). The personality of fantasy game players. British
Edwards, R. (2001, October 14). Gns and other matters of roleplaying, chapter 2. Retrieved
from http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/
Festinger, L. (1962). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. (Vol. 2, pp. 32-84). Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Fine, G. A. (2002). Shared fantasy: Role playing games as social worlds. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !34
Friend, R., Rafferty, Y., & Bramel, D. (1990). A puzzling misinterpretation of the Asch
Garcia, S. M., Weaver, K., Moskowitz, G. B., & Darley, J. M. (2002). Crowded minds: the
implicit bystander effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 843.
Geen, R. G. (1984). Preferred stimulation levels in introverts and extroverts: Effects on arousal
Gygax, G., & Arneson, D. (1974). Dungeons & Dragons (Vol. 19). Lake Geneva, WI: Tactical
Studies Rules.
Jeng, S. P., & Teng, C. I. (2008). Personality and motivations for playing online games. Social
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: a meta-
Jung, C. (1966). Two essays on analytical psychology. (2nd ed., pp. 139-162). London:
Krier, B. A. (1979). Dungeons and dragons. Gifted Child Quarterly, 23(4), 858-860.
MacKay, D. (2001). The fantasyrole-playing game: A new performing art. (1st ed., Vol. 1).
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. Handbook of
Perlini-Pfister, F. (2012). Dungeons & Dragons. Religions in Play: Games, Rituals, and Virtual
Worlds, 2, 275-281.
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !35
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item
short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in
Staw, C. J. N. B. M. (1989). The tradeoffs of social control and innovation in groups and
Tychsen, A., Hitchens, M., Brolund, T., & Kavakli, M. (2006). Live action role-playing games
1(3), 252-275.
Tychsen, A., McIlwain, D., Brolund, T., & Hitchens, M. Ed. Baba, A. (2007). Player-character
Yee, N. (2006). Motivations for play in online games. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(6),
772-775.
30(2), 138-164.
Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. (pp.