[INTJ] Help with INTJs

[Mycroft]

Evidently at the age of 13 Niffer has already mastered the female arts of emotional blackmail and tear-anny. An ENFP with a high IQ is like a bear with laser eyes.

 

[Economica]

Anyway cracking an INTJ isn't that hard when you understand their motivations. INTJ's tend to be frustrated that other people don't realize how truly brilliant they are, so you can win points by feeding this delusion. (Do it subtly though, if you overdo it, then you will turn them off.) This will be enough to stroke their ego, but it won't be enough for them to actually respect you in any way. For that you have to get involved into their interests and help feed it in some way. Often times knowing the subject thoroughly enough so that they can bounce ideas off of you is all that this takes, because if nothing else it helps them to verbalize the ideas that they've already had but couldn't adequately express. Once you are past the preliminaries then the INTJ will be willing to open up more, so you can learn more tricks toward the specific INTJ in question.

Well put, sadly.

Seconded. Think Frasier.

 

[Mycroft]

You think Frasier is an INTJ?

 

[Economica]

You think Frasier is an INTJ?

Like most fictional characters I think he defies typing. I think his dominant function is Ni but for obvious reasons he is made to be more extroverted. His auxiliary function is not consistent, but I think it is more often Te than Fe.

Martin Crane: If you weren't so damn stubborn, you'd apologize to Roz, get her back on the show, and everybody'd be happy.
Frasier: As usual, you've overlooked a key psychological component in this whole issue.
Martin Crane: You'd have to admit you were wrong.
Frasier: Exactly!

 

[Mycroft]

Other than offering the obligatory "any type is capable of being adverse to apologizing", I will respond with an unequivocal, resounding: Hmm. Okay, fair enough.

 

[Xander]

Wow you guys really do manipulation well. I love it !

I think I've got his attention now. I've basically tried to lay things out so that they appear to be neat and getting sorted, sort of laying the ground work for him to spring board from.

I'm not sure but I think it's just me he doesn't trust. Either that or he's being competitive. Everyone in the group has designed their character with him sitting beside them offering ideas and suggesting ways in which they could make their character more powerful, more efficient etc etc but when it comes to mine he seems more likely to undermine the choices and rationales laid out and ends up basically totally apathetic towards the character unless confronted at which point he says it's fine as it is. Perhaps I'm making him think too hard or perhaps it's because my knowledge of the system rivals his? Who knows.

It'd sure be nice though to find a nut cracker so that I can see where I'm going wrong. Bloomin IJs are a frickin nightmare sometimes.

Oh and Niffer, I think you get the award for most cunning answer yet though it's a tight battle between you and The_Liquid_Laser.

 

[Xander]

Frasier as an INTJ? I can't see it myself. He lacks the ENFP side as far as I can see. I suppose considering the background it's possible but he'd have to be quite a stupid INTJ.

 

[Economica]

Other than offering the obligatory "any type is capable of being adverse to apologizing", I will respond with an unequivocal, resounding: Hmm. Okay, fair enough.

I actually do agree with this. (Whaddyaknow! ) Frasier's M.O. of aggressively rationalizing when he's wrong ("As usual, you've overlooked a key psychological component in this whole issue.") is just so INTJ though.

 

[Totenkindly]

Like most fictional characters I think he defies typing. I think his dominant function is Ni but for obvious reasons he is made to be more extroverted. His auxiliary function is not consistent, but I think it is more often Te than Fe.

And to not be a party pooper, I will offer my own resounding, "Hmmm, sounds reasonable," response.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Interesting.

I ran a group of eight and nine players for three years, every weekend, summers and holidays, and the most memorable sessions were when the more inventive of the party would veer off, forcing me to ad-lib. It really was exhilarating -- once a suspension of disbelief had been achieved, I could choose to employ, based on the expressions of my friends, which of the plot devices I had thought of the minute before.

How, I wonder, does that reflect on either me or your observation?

Actually I was being a bit facetious in my comment. (I probably should have put a smiley in there.) Although I did have an INTJ friend plan out an entire campaign and then when my INTP friend made up his character he had to scrap the entire campaign because the character couldn't fit into the elaborate storyline that had already been planned out. That was just one incidence though, usually he was a very good GM.

In general I think INTJ's can make excellent GM's because they can make elaborate storylines which are fun to play through. Also their worlds end up as some type of organized insanity which is always fun to play in. Gladly I've never had to play through an INTJ death dungeon. I bet it would be too difficult to be fun (unless there was a huge stack of pregenerated characters to go through and you had to see who could get through it with the least amount of deaths).

 

[htb]

Actually I was being a bit facetious in my comment. (I probably should have put a smiley in there.)

That's all right -- were there an "innocent curiosity" emoticon, I could have used it myself.

It's funny, but I quickly found that meticulousness, however disguised, rarely lasted through half a session. Major plot points and encounters were always reached, but exposition could only be used sparingly. Inwardly, I was frustrated to see D&D's carefully organized rules (and my own prepared application of them) made extraneous to the fun my group was having. Although I was pleased with the spontaneous results, I would never begin a session without a framework.

 

[Usehername]

Frasier as an INTJ? I can't see it myself. He lacks the ENFP side as far as I can see. I suppose considering the background it's possible but he'd have to be quite a stupid INTJ.

INTJs have an ENFP side?

 

[Xander]

INTJs have an ENFP side?

Damn it. ESFP. Ta.

 

[Xander]

That's all right -- were there an "innocent curiosity" emoticon, I could have used it myself.

It's funny, but I quickly found that meticulousness, however disguised, rarely lasted through half a session. Major plot points and encounters were always reached, but exposition could only be used sparingly. Inwardly, I was frustrated to see D&D's carefully organized rules (and my own prepared application of them) made extraneous to the fun my group was having. Although I was pleased with the spontaneous results, I would never begin a session without a framework.

I have two DMS one is a femael ISFJ and the other this male INTJ. The difference is stark. The INTJ is precise and meticulous, his bad guys are lethal and are used to maximum effect. The ISFJ is unplanned, disorganised but much much more characterful. We have tried an ESTP DM but it usually ended up with them having to re read the adventure each time we played because either they hadn't prepared or just plain couldn't remember what happens next...chaos.

 

[raincrow007]

Have you ever tried being a DM, Xander?

Just curious.

 

[htb]

The INTJ is precise and meticulous, his bad guys are lethal and are used to maximum effect.

That reminds me of a DM under which a friend of mine suffered. This fellow was apparently so fond of adversity that he kept a folder full of characters that his game-mastering actions had killed. Blessed with a vacant imagination, he led the party into THE LAND OF THE ORCS in order to RESCUE A MAIDEN. A notable lack of fun followed.

I never killed a character -- it's almost always a waste of investment, plot sources and good will. Instead, I took one that had been in the wrong place during a dragon's gambit and, making up as I went along, sent him to a plane inhabited by eccentrics. One of the residents pushed the character through a mirror and he came back to life, but completely physically reversed (left-handed, an identifying tattoo now on the other side and illegible, etcetera). The player loved it.

 

[Xander]

Have you ever tried being a DM, Xander?

Just curious.

Twice. Never really enjoyed it and always ended up wishing I was playing in my "masterful" campaign.

That's why I try and make DM's jobs easier. They're a rare breed.

 

[Xander]

I never killed a character

How in the seven planes of Tartarus did you manage that?

Have you bought shares in Fiat?

Don't you find that your player's lose some suspension of disbelief if there's no threat of permanent character death? Do they not become all hell for leather and reckless?

 

[htb]

Don't you find that your player's lose some suspension of disbelief if there's no threat of permanent character death? Do they not become all hell for leather and reckless?

Let me rephrase: aside from the aforementioned twist, I never needed to kill a character. My players, totaling nine at one point, held different values than, perhaps, are established by the game. They weren't concerned with hit points or level or gold so much as prestige and respect among the NPCs of the world I had created. Dungeons and creatures bored them; outwitting or being outwitted by adversaries innervated them. And, too, each player enjoyed his (or her, we had one girl) character, so would play with survival in mind.

I occasionally disabled a character or two for trying to circumvent an important encounter; one, I had reciprocally maimed when he rushed to tear apart a sworn enemy of the party. Otherwise, knowing that I had the power to bring death was enough.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

How in the seven planes of Tartarus did you manage that?

Have you bought shares in Fiat?

Don't you find that your player's lose some suspension of disbelief if there's no threat of permanent character death? Do they not become all hell for leather and reckless?

People play different types of D&D games I've found. Some focus more on battle tactics, avioding traps, etc... and others focus more on plot and character development. Realism in one style is not necessarily the same as realism in the other style.

I can't remember killing a character as a DM, although I might have. If a character behaves too stupid or reckless I certainly would, although I've never had that problem. The more you focus on character/personality development the more players become attached to their characters and therefore do not want to see them die.