51.45,
Although that quiz pissed me off, in that it was heavily D&D-biased (crits, level-drain, etc), heavily player-based (your character), biased againt towards nerftastic DMs, and unfairly biased against metagaming.
Is asks bullcrap loaded questions like if you have:
"Fought a God in a game? (Not just argued with - fought, with drawn weapons and all) and won? (And if you've done this and were over fifteen, you should be ashamed of yourself!)
Which is a sentiment totally, and I mean totally, out of place on a survey that also asks if you've played any of the multiple incarnations of Marvel Super Heroes (Hello, Thor is a playable character in that game and he regularily beats on his half-brother Loki).
Come to think of it, Frodo Baggins, Cloud Strife, Heracles, Odyesseus, The Ghostbusters, Fingolfin, Faffhrd and The Grey Mouser, Jacob son of Isaac, Alias of the Azure Bonds, John Carter Warlord of Mars, characters from Discworld and
This Guy could pretty much all be said to have fought against one or more gods and won. And well, that's a huge chunk of the D&D source literature right there, so you should probably be ashamed of yourself if you're over 15 and are so unread that you can't realize that.
It asks if you have "Rejected a PC because the PC was too mix/maxed or overpowered? " But fails to ask "If you have ever rejected a PC because the PC was too underpowered to be effective?" So apparently party balance is a one-way street in this author's mind.
It also asks if you have:
Used outside knowledge that your character could not possibly have known in order to drive his or her actions? ("I'll go rescue Ardenal from the demonspawn!" "You don't know she's hurt yet, Fred - she's in another room.")
...on purpose?
...and gotten away with it?
And yet there're no options for "...in a way that helped the story along"? or "...in a way that helped other players enjoy the game?"
Which seems to presume that this is a bad thing. Somehow, I find acceptance that a protaganist just luckily happens to make the right choice without a key piece of information far more palatable in a heroic fantasy (or really, any genre other than horror) game than the alternative of having a character die due to somebody stubbornly insisting on
ROLEplaying that he knows solely the information that the GM has told him. I mean, does saying stuff like "Hey Mari, your character died because Rob was staying in character." really make for a good game in anyone's opinion?
Dammit, Metagaming is a
good thing,
when it is used to enhance the gaming experience!. The attitude that acting on out-of-character knowledge is always a bad thing upsets me deeply. It seems to me to be the same as the tale of my great grandfather complaining that he couldn't watch Tarzan movies because they'd show characters getting on to the steamer, but wouldn't show the characters getting off of the steamer. In all works of fiction, details are ommited - it is okay, and sometimes even necessary for characters in those works of fiction to make reasonable assumptions about those details. And while "reasonable" is subject to quite a bit of interpretation, I flat-out refuse to game with DMs who don't accept that some metagame knowledge is beneficial