PC motivation/character and inadvertant GM authorship of it

[Callan S.]

Hey all,

This is a quick one to address GM techniques like 'keeping em poor keeps em motivated'.

Not the stingy part of it, but that identification of motivation and what it forces by acting on it.

I mean, weve all been in session where THAT guy in THAT bar hires us to do THAT dangerous job.

And, as we, the players sit there, we know if we don't do it, there is no session.

I just have to wonder, if part of the mind numbing boredom of games like this (well, potentially numbing. Some like it) is what it's done to your character.

I'll submit that a good, solid way of judging character is what a person will risk their life for. What you'll risk your life for is what your life tends to revolve around.

So, what happens when you as a player have to have your PC accept the job or there isn't any fun to be had.

Well, despite your particular plans for the personality of that character, you just made him risk his life for cash. It defines a pretty big chunk of him.

There's nothing wrong with that. Except every time that dude in the tavern turns up, that notice board with sewer clearing jobs appears, that whatever cash 'hook' happens, your defining him the same way. Again and again and again.

And your pretty much blackmailed into it via the GM's design. The GM is even usually well meaning when doing this, trying to find a way to attract your PC into the fun. Which means either your PC accepts the cash, or nothing fun happens for you as a player.

A bunch of people at the forge and others already recognise problems similar to this, but has this particular one been discussed before? A good intention usurping player desires and leading to characters who's core passion is the same, over and over again? A repeating problem that could be solved by probably just one paragraph in any given RPG.

Certainly, I think I now realise my groups gaming history has been colored by this. Years...a decade. Ouch.

Clearly you can just ask players 'What does your character care about enough to risk their life for, and they'd just have to pursue', then build it in. It was in Vallamirs RPG.net rant awhile ago, its actually built into the system of TROS and suggested elsewhere.

Is there a way to crack this 'Someone hires you for a life risking job, thus defining you greatly.' recurring problem, that's recurring in RPG culture? That is, if it is indeed a problem as I'm seeing it. I'm pretty certain it is, but let me ask you the audience, what you think. :)

[komradebob]

I had a buddy who was a gamer junkie who suggested that the situation was actually a result of the PCs running up huge bartabs during their downtime. Basically, mysterious stranger came into the bar, asking for rowdies that need work and the bartender point out our "heroes". Either way, the bartender is ahead. If the PCs succeed, the heroes pay their bartab and hopefully break off the bartender better than expected. If they fail to return, the bar takes a loss, but at least those guys aren't around soaking up free suds anymore...

[CRScafidi]

The solution that I typically use to the "Quest from the Bar" or "Man's Dying Wish" scenario is putting the PCs into a situation that they cannot control.

Take this scenario for instance:

Your players wake up, one by one, bound and gagged on a cold basement floor. They were drugged and kidnapped in their sleep, they didn't even see it coming. As they wake up, they vaguely hear orders to the guard to kill them after interrogating them. The guard, in order to "keep himself going", accidentally overdoses on cocaine, and now lay dead or convulsing on the floor.

Now, your players have to act, otherwise they are dead.

- Rocco

[Bankuei]

Hi Callan,

Actually, quite a few games already deal with this issue in full.  

First, any game that gives players direct input into the conflict being generated handle this problem quite well.  Sorcerer's Kickers, Trollbabe's scene request/conflict declaration, octaNe, the Pool, etc.  The key point is some level of input, which can range from a declaration of conflict(kickers) to narrative control(octaNe).

Second, some games make it the POINT of play, clearly in the text, about the "mission", such as Donjon.  Taking it from the unspoken agreement to the actual text tends to help in that regards.

In both cases, you'll see that the tendency is to avoid GM tricking, conniving, or otherwise forcing the players into action, and aiming instead towards group agreement about what action is about and would be more entertaining for everyone.  

As far as the overall issue, I believe it comes to the texts themselves.  As long as the primary form of play supported in texts is Illusionism (Preplanned story, "illusion" the players into believing they have input), you'll see this happen again and again.  You cannot tell people they have free will and can do anything, and not expect someone, at some point, to actually attempt it.

I don't believe there is any feasible way to shift the mentality of gamer culture, and I'm sure many people are quite happy with Illusionist play.  The real problem is that people aren't aware that there could be other ways to play games.

As far as individuals who have that problem, who want something different, I run Inspectres, and give them first hand experience of what I call Anti-Illusionist play to break some ingrained beliefs on their part.

Chris

[Bankuei]

Hi Bob & Rocco,

Actually those solutions are exactly what Callan is pointing to as the problem.  GM's forcing, tricking, conniving, or otherwise controlling player decision is one way of playing, and a way that many people do not find fun or functional.  

For those that do, they are already out there using those methods and having fun.  For those that don't there's very little support in terms of texts in games that you'll typically find on the shelves at your FLGS.

Chris

[Silmenume]

Hey Chris,

I don't know if you over generalized Callan's point too much.  He may or may not be complaining about "GM's forcing, tricking, conniving, or otherwise controlling player decision is one way of playing" specifically.  

However he was complaining specifically about cash being the sole and only means of motivation and, in my opinion (which could also be wrong), was searching for other opportunities/motivating events that a GM could bring to the table.  Whether or not he is seeking to empower his players to make those decisions or whether he was seeking to increase the repertoire of situations at his creative disposal is yet to be determined.

What say you Callan?

If you are seeking to increase the tools in your story telling pouch, as a DM, I can point you in a couple of very useful and fruitful directions.  You can start with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and George Polti's 36 Dramatic Situations

Best of Luck!

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[CRScafidi]

Hi Bob & Rocco,

Actually those solutions are exactly what Callan is pointing to as the problem.  GM's forcing, tricking, conniving, or otherwise controlling player decision is one way of playing, and a way that many people do not find fun or functional.  

For those that do, they are already out there using those methods and having fun.  For those that don't there's very little support in terms of texts in games that you'll typically find on the shelves at your FLGS.

Chris

Aah, I misunderstood what the original point was. In this case, you may find it helpful to run solo sessions with each of your players, utilising their group "downtime" (ie when they arent all together). Give them free reign and see what they do. Take note of where they are going and what it is that they want to see and do with their own personal character. Then, try to incorporate all of your groups individual goals into a larger storyline. I know that this is still having the GM control the actions, but this way the players are being steered towards the goals that they want to accomplish.

Another way of doing this would be to simply ask the players what it is that they want, but that seems a little direct, and when they find their group actions moving towards one of their personal goals, the effect that it has seems a bit dampened.

- Rocco

[Callan S.]

Silmenume got it. I'm surprised I didn't get my point across well.

What I'm talking about is the fake choice offered by the GM that causes a character to be defined by it. By fake I mean that if you don't accept the cash, there is no game for you as a player.

I'm suggesting that you've then gone and made your character almost the same as all the rest who will risk their lives for cash. It's either that or not game.

For example, you make a character who cares about the forrests not being logged. He's willing to put his life on the line to save the forrest. The GM then starts a game where your offered cash to risk your life clearing a sewer of orcs. If you don't accept it, there is no game.

So, what exactly happens to your character then? Apparently you wanted to have a character who cares passionately about something...willing to prove that passion by risking his life over it. Ah, but now he's risking his life for cash.

Really now, forrest or money, they're both equal in terms of passion. He's just proven that he'll risk his life for either. Therefore his passion for anything else is demonstrated as being no stronger than his lust for cash. The same lust every other character demonstrated, because the GM put all of them through the same fake choice. The same thing, over and over.

I guess one school of thought is 'Oh no, my greenie PC can do the sewer clearance and still care more about the forrest, because I know he does and that's all that matters'. Well, if your playing by yourself your fine. But when your with others, the only way to demonstrate a characters individuality in terms of passion is to walk the walk, he can't just talk the talk and say the forrests are his love. He's got to demonstrate it, and in action games you do that by putting your PC's life on the line. But how can you do that when you've already 'put out' for cash, and really seem to care more about the forrest? How can he differentiate himself from every other character that demonstrated a love for cash? He can't!

Think of it another way, where the GM takes up the PC concept in a skewed way...the character is offered cash for saving the forrest. The GM designs it so the PC has to go through a scene where he can 'accept the cash to do the mission'. This is directly screwing up character concept, insisting they accept cash to do what they care so much about that they'll risk life and limb for it! Clearly, you'd find most/all characters declining the cash or only accepting enough for much needed resource purchases, and still the less accepted the better!

This should clearly highlight how a player would want no confusion between cash and his passions, and which his PC loves the most. So why has the forced 'choice' of taking cash jobs become so prevalent in RPG culture?

Another way of doing this would be to simply ask the players what it is that they want, but that seems a little direct, and when they find their group actions moving towards one of their personal goals, the effect that it has seems a bit dampened.

I think I've run into the 'dampened' effect before. Its basically represents a desire for the session to be myserious in content, yet match up with player desires for the session. Asking the players for what they want is assumed to remove the 'mystery' part, since they know what's going to happen.

But really a 'mystery, but it ends up being what the players wanted' concept is paradoxical ('Ah, what a good session because out of the mystery I got what I wanted...wait a second, the idea is to HAVE good sessions! Therefore...'). I'd just give up on the entire 'mystery game' and lay it straight 'were going to do sessions on what your character cares about, plain and simple. The mystery comes in in terms of how their tackling of what they care about, plays out'.

Anyway, the method I prefer is player empowerment. I feel if I do anything else, like using other needs for food/freedom/entertainment, its just replacing cash with something else the PC then seems to care about the most, rather than fixing the problem.

Of course, I've only just come to this realisation recently, after about a decade of gaming. Wow, I'm quick!

[John Kim]

Is there a way to crack this 'Someone hires you for a life risking job, thus defining you greatly.' recurring problem, that's recurring in RPG culture? That is, if it is indeed a problem as I'm seeing it. I'm pretty certain it is, but let me ask you the audience, what you think.

Well, sure.  I'd give some broad categories of approaches:

One is to provide alternate "standard" motivations as part of the games' assumption.  The simplest one is that the PCs work for a given cause or organization -- i.e. James Bond 007 PCs work for MI6, Mage PCs are by default fighting against the Technocracy, etc.  The players know at the start to work out why their PC is motivated to work for M.I.6 or the orders and so forth.  

Another is to give players the power to define issues of importance for the PCs.  This includes things like Champions disads (i.e. Hunted, DNPC, and Psychological Limitations) as well as TROS spiritual attributes.  By having mechanically-defined options as signals, the GM knows what to prepare for.  Both of these are defined individually, though, which can make it tricky for the GM to work together all the PCs motivations.  

A third is take away the pattern of the GM deciding on what the adventure is.  There are very different approaches to this.  The Threefold Simulationist approach is that the world is strictly defined, so that the players define what conflict their PCs engage in by defining where their PCs go and what they do.  Another approach is to have the players use more director-stance to define the conflicts which their PCs face.

[M. J. Young]

If I had the time, I could probably offer up a hundred hooks that I have used or seen used to effectively draw player characters into an adventure. The king offers a reward for whatever the task is. The characters are shipwrecked together in the wilderness. A merchant hires the group to help open a new trade route. A company is looking for security guards. There's a rumor that a girl you knew years ago is now a wizard's apprentice in a city fifty miles to the east. Someone hands you a medallion he claims is a lost heirloom from your family, and it points to some fragment of a nursery tale your mother used to tell which you had forgotten as childhood nonsense but now find may have some significance to it.

The problem of which Callan is complaining is peculiar to a very narrow type of play, and is only a problem if you're playing in that niche and you don't like it. Let me illustrate that by taking a step back and describing what he seems to have overlooked.

My character is an adventurer; he has learned a profession, for one reason or another, in which the best jobs are all essentially working freelance for whomever will pay for people to risk their lives. Hopefully, I'm good at that; if not, the only way to get good at it is to practice.

I'm in a bar, but it's not just any bar--I'm in a particular kind of bar. I'm in a place where adventurers hang out when they aren't working. Everyone knows this. There's a notice board where jobs are posted--businessmen seeking caravan guards, bars seeking bouncers, trade guilds seeking various types of assistance. Sometimes someone comes it specifically looking for someone like me. If I've got a reputation, he might be looking for me.

I don't have to take this job; I can sit here and wait for the next job. If I'm in a big city, there will be another job within the week, and if my money will hold that long and my crew won't kill each other out of boredom in that time, I can see what the next job looks like. Or I can take one of the jobs on the notice board, settling for a safer salaried position or a riskier venture.

All of that was part of the only game I ever played in which waiting in a bar for something to fall in our laps was ever considered. Even then, that wasn't the way it went. We were looking for work. When a prominent businessman sent a note asking me to meet him for lunch, I went to his office. When I realized that a trip to which I was honor-bound would take me through uncharted territory, I contacted import/export traders to discuss a financial deal for establishing a new trade route. Remember, I was a professional adventurer--that's what I did for a living. It is incumbent upon me to find ventures which would pay, and pay worth the risk, for my own economic survival and, as I became a prominent leader of others, to fulfill a moral obligation to them to keep us all employed.

If you don't want to play in games in which you work as an adventurer for other people, then don't play games in which your character is an adventurer who makes his living by risking his life for treasure.

In fairness, it sounds to me like the games you played weren't entirely like this. It sounds like your referee was schooled in the trailblazing model--basically, the concept of trailblazing is that the referee lines up the breadcrumbs, the clues that will lead the player characters through the adventure, and the players are committed to following that trail. This is one of the several means of solving The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast: the referee has complete control over the story, because he wrote it in advance for the players to discover; the players have complete control over their characters, because they can do anything they want; the two are reconciled by the player commitment to discovering and following the referee's story, getting through the adventure their own way but following his path. Trailblazing is a valid and functional way of playing, but it is dissatisfying to players who want to write their own destinies. Many referees can't handle players who aren't actively trying to follow the story; that creates dysfunction, usually in the form of referees raising the level of force until they've changed from trailblazing to illusionism (in which player choices don't matter, the referee's story will be told), occasionally in the form of the game fizzling because the players have left the referee's story and discovered that there are no sets or characters a hundred yards away from the intended trail.

I run Prisoner of Zenda as a Multiverser world. It generally is intended to play out that the player character will take the role of the "play-actor", that is, he is the spitting image of the king, and when the king is incapacitated the player character is pressured to take his place. There is only so much pressure the NPCs can put on him to do this, though. If my player wants to walk away from it, I have to let him. That means that wherever he goes, I'm going to have to be able to recreate the story in response to his actions.

A lot of referees are completely unprepared for this. We as referees are often taught that we're to create the scenario and the players are to respond to it--referees act, players react. But in this sort of play, it's exactly the other way around: players act, referees react. The referee becomes the player who has the difficult job not of creating what is going to happen but of responding to what happens; he has to create his world on the fly, because no matter how meticulous his original preparations, there is no way he can pre-guess every possible move the players might make. The world now truly is one of the characters in the game, revealing facets of itself and expanding its identity as play progresses.

So there's nothing wrong with the concept of starting your adventures the way you've described, if you've created characters whose livelihood depends on going on such adventures (and the typical player characters are generally exactly that sort of characters); but there is something wrong with the standard paradigm of the referee dictating to the players what the adventure is going to be about in a completely linear fashion.

Does that help?

--M. J. Young

[Scourge108]

I probably read too many comic books as a kid, but I usually use their plot devices to force someone into an adventure, like having the bad guy kidnap a PC's kid sister, or they need the money to pay the cleric to heal their dear old Aunt May.  Sometimes I'll use the tendencies of a PC to get them in trouble.  One of my favorites is a few warriors attacking some peasant girls just as the PCs round the bend.  Jumping at the chance to play hero in front of the peasant girls, they kill the warriors only to find they are the boisterous sons of the local noble.  So the characters can either go to the Dungeon of Doom or face the gallows.  But still, the players end up feeling forced and that their character has no choice in the matter.  Perhaps simply more player input on how they want their character to be motivated is a good idea.  I think experimentation helps find some you like, too.   I'm beginning to think that character motivation for play should be a part of character creation.

[simon_hibbs]

It seems to me there are only two solutions to this problem we've identified so far.

In the first method, as orriginaly pointed out, the GM has to make some pretty big assumptions about who the characters are and what they're interested in. Now this can be done in mores subtle and co-operative ways. I prefer to tell my players up-front what my general assumptions are going to be about the characters. this signposts to the players what kinds of things are likely to be important in the game. I even suggest some sample characfter sketches, that the players can then interpret in a number of ways while still ensuring that the characters will match what I need for the game.

The other way is to give the players complete controll in generating their characetrs, but remove all their freedom when it comes to the situation they are in - they're shipwrecked, or drugged and bound, etc.

We could generalise this and say that as freedom in character design increases, freedom in character situation decreases.


Simon Hibbs

[Blankshield]

It seems to me there are only two solutions to this problem we've identified so far.

There's a third option that a lot of traditional RPG's ignore:

Co-operate and compromise.

The players and the GM sit down and build the characters together at the table, and from the get-go intend to build a set of characters that will work together and have goals that do not rip the party apart or force the kinds of integrity compromise that kicked this thread off.

It's the middle ground between your two options.  

James

[Mike Holmes]

FWIW, there's another funcitonal method that some people use here. The GM sets up the situation, and then asks the players to invent a reason why their character's are interested. Instead of just offering money, the GM says, "Why would your character do what the PC is asking?" It's then the player's responsibility to figure out a reason that they can live with as to why they're interested.

But easiest of all is what Chris pointed out above. Have the system mechanically record the characters motives and then just have all "hooks" appeal to those motives. That way the player defines things, and play proceeds normally. For instance, if the one character has on their sheet that they want money big time, then money works fine. If they don't then the GM has to find something else on the sheet, and appeal to that.

Essentially make the adventures about the PCs priorities, instead of the reverse.

Mike

[Storn]

As a GM, I range from "tight" character concepts to hew to the game environment... to much "looser".  But I start campaigns with a lot of thought and a clear premise.  Sometimes that limits character archtypes a lot, sometimes, not so much.

Some examples that are all in the same fantasy world.

Brothers Avery:  I told the three players that they could play any fantasy type they wanted, except that their last name was Avery and that they were brothers and heirs to the dockworkers guild of the city.  Lots of freedom in some ways, not so much in other ways.  For the record, I got from oldest to youngest; A Priest of the Sea goddess, A Privateer captain and a young Mage.

Life During Wartime:  There is a city that is going into its 2nd year of being captured and a seige by the "good guys" to reclaim i keeps everyone in.  All the characters are stuck in the city and will become the resistance.  Character type and class is WIDE open.  You'd just had to be stuck in the city when it was captured.  I haven't run this one yet.  I keep this one in my back pocket in case I need it.

Reclamation of Myth Drannor:  PCs need to be elves or very much involved with elven politics.  The ancient city of Myth Drannor has been found and their is a call to all the elven enclaves to send people and resources to rebuild the city to new heights of glory.  For the record:  I got an ex-spy seeking a purpose and a an ex-senator seeking to rebuild his political life, both from the same elven enclave.