This is a general (in that it can be applied to roleplay gaming as a whole) perspective on role playing. This is the perspective that underlies the Composed System.
A game in which you make choices while taking on the role of a fictional character.
A capability is a statistic that represent something a player character can do, such as a skill in melee combat, or a resistance to poison. An Intrinsic Capability is something that is internal to the character, where the character depend on himself in order to be able to use it. An extrinsic capability is a capability that depends on things that are external to the character.
The more extrinsic a capability is, the more it depends on things being present in the game world for a player to be able to use it.
The less extrinsic a capability is, the less it depends on things being present in the game world, and the easier it is for the player to use the capability on his own.
Examples:
First example
One character has a skill in Deceit, which allows him to lie about things, and Bureaucracy, which allows him to handle bureaucracies. In order to use Deceit, the character has to come up with a lie, something he can do entirely on his own. In order to use Bureaucracy, there needs to be present in the setting some institution the character can interact with.
Second Example
One character has a skill in life magic, which allows him to manipulate living things. He is alive. Even if the game master did not include a single other thing in the game but his character, he’d still be able to use life magic. Another character has spirit magic, which allows him to manipulate spirits. The game master must read up on spirits in this rpg system so that he can implement them so that the character can use this magic in game.
Extrinsic capabilities relies more on the game master than intrinsic capabilities. It is easier for extrinsic capabilities to vary in power and usefulness massively just by how the game master runs the setting.
Extrinsic capabilities also require more knowledge from the game master.
Extrinsic capabilities give a game master a good way to apply his real world capabilities in the game.
Extrinsic capabilities tend to tie more into the setting than the more intrinsic capabilities.
Intrinsic skill meanwhile requires very little to work, are more consistent, easier to balance, and easier to just throw into a game.
When you make a new player character with a game master you are not familiar with, you might want to load up on intrinsic capabilities, and not rely on extrinsic capabilities to much. It’s no fun playing a bureaucrat with a game master who’s idea of bureaucracy is ‘some guys in a room that fills in papers’. If you are a game master you might want to take a look at what capabilities a player have taken, and if you know for a fact there’s an extrinsic skill you do not have a good grasp on, you could warn your players about it. (Or go and cram it). A game master who’s making a new campaign might consider what extrinsic capabilities he’d like to spend time to implement. During a game, a game master might consider what extrinsic capabilities his players have in order to figure out cool ways to reveal setting information or cater to players.
Player psychologies is a way to think about what a player wants out of a game and how they approach a game. Player psychologies as a concept is lifted from the design philosophy of Magic The Gathering who defined several player psychologies related to their game.
In roleplaying games, the following two player psychologies are useful to think about: Active and Passive.
Active players likes to initiate things on their own. They like being in the spotlight (a player is in the spotlight when the gamemaster focuses on and directly interact with them). Their initiatives often becomes campaign defining, the things they set in motion determine where a campaign goes. If a game master throws out a hook, an active player is often willing to grab it.
Passive players are not proactive. They will go along with whatever is happening. Passive players usually have a specific interest within the game, determined by some part of their character or the system or the setting that they found interesting. As long as this niche interest is catered to, passive players don’t care that much about having the spotlight.
A good active players makes things happen and ensures the group takes action and that the campaign goes somewhere.
A good passive player goes along with what is happening while interjecting at opportune moments. They are low maintenance, and very willing to go along with a plot line or help out in small and non intrusive ways.
A bad active player takes up too much space. They will hog the spotlight. They might also butt in constantly, in everything, and everyone’s business, all the time, not so much out of ill will but from a genuine interest in what is happening. Their natural instinct is to try and help things along and make more stuff happen.
A bad passive player engages to little. They will sit as a wallflower, doing little except when directly spoken to, and even then will only respond with the absolute minimum before returning to silence.
As a game master, when dealing with an active player it is good to let them take charge on occasion and push things a long. When dealing with a passive player pay attention if they have any specific thing that interests them and try to cater to them on occasion but otherwise let them interject when they wish to.
As a player it is good to consider whether one is active or passive and if so try to adjust accordingly, paying more attention to if you take up to much or to little space. Keeping in mind these categories can also help when playing out of type. If a passive player runs a highly active character (such as a leader, a social butterfly, or a trickster) they might have some problems, and the same for an active player. You can then try to figure out either how to run a bit more against your preferred approach, or how to change the character to fit your preferred approach.