Well too bad, you've said "I don't understand" several times through this thread and failed to explain what it is you don't understand. It is not communicating when you just repeatedly say you "don't understand" or "aren't getting it" without explaining what you don't understand.
True enough. Sorry 'bout that.
The issue was that I didn't understand enough to know exactly where my confusion was from. I was just generally befuddled.
Fortunately, I think most of my confusion has been resolved now. Later replies have been illuminating.
Just one question: were you trying to tell me that I shouldn't be questioning the validity of this scale?
- The Questions are all multiple choice, often binary: It gives a grouping of percentages that summarize where you as a player of RPG's fall on a 4 axis scale. You may not add a fifth axis, subtract an axis, apply it to a game like craps/checkers/chess/etc/writing a novel... because then you are not "playing an RPG"! I'm not sure where your confusion lies because you've again failed to state what you don't understand & instead chose to post a number of facts with nothing about what you fail to understand.
Not so. The test is clearly designed for MMORPGs, and I think it'd fail for a great number of tabletop RPG players. The questions say very little about collaborative storytelling, and they often talk about showing off your general awesomeness to the other players in the game. Which doesn't work so well in a tabletop game where there are only three or so other players and the game isn't very competitive.
You'd say that sucks & keep playing: You wouldn't even attempt to find out why they were able to, or decided kill you. Kinda hard to keep playing if you don't know why you were just killed. If you were just killed because "rocks fall/lightning strikes, you die" you might want to consider why the GM decided on that particular course of action or where your character went/what they did to cause the other player to kill you. I think you are definitely in the minority in that you would make no attempt to find out why you were killed by another player in an RPG. It's rather rare to have one player in an RPG kill your player character without having done something exceedingly annoying/stupid, the same holds true with most tabletop RPG's *calling warhammer an RPG is a pretty huge stretch)[/li][/list]
Well, in MMORPGs (I hear) people kill each other all the time. I was trying to answer from that perspective.
On the tabletop, it really depends. If the killing was the result of an in-character conflict with no bad blood between players, my answer stands. Otherwise it's time for an out-of-game conversation and maybe somebody leaving the group.
True...but then it was never really a Theory. Not in any scientific sense at least. At best it's a classification system but it fails there because it redefines terms in a verbosely obtuse manner and attempted to make each category exclusive.
...
Sigh, people can certainly be insulting and many of the GNS flame wars certainly were. But there's nothing inherently insulting about studying and classifying an activity. And we humans study ourselves so much there are a few dozen such fields of specialty. 
People tried to present it as a theory, and for much of its existence it was mainly a club used to beat people in flame wars.
That's because classification makes a good insult. GNS was used for insults because that's generally the point when you label people.
I'll check out the link though.
Sanctaphrax does fall outside of the "normal" range of what is interesting to players about games.
I don't think I'm that unusual...I think many many people would fall outside of that test's categories.
At least for RPGs. MMO people might be different, I know little about MMOs.[/list]
