[Dungeon Noir] Character Motivation

[Jon Scott Miller]

Hello, all. I have recently been working on a game tentatively entitled "Dungeon Noir." Some of the ideas I have been kicking around in my head re. this game came up in a previous thread about Moldvay D&D started by Rich Forest.

Dungeon Noir is about exploring the moral issues faced by (and the personal development undergone by) characters in a more-or-less typical fantasy rpg setting. Characters in the game are all Money-Hungry--they want money or other treasure, and they want it bad--but the reasons why they are Money-Hungry can vary considerably. From the standpoint of the characters, the game is about accumulating treasure so they can fulfill their Goal (which is the reason why they want the treasure in the first place). From the standpoint of the players, the game is about how far they will let their characters compromise their Humanity (as in Sorcerer) for the sake of their Goals.

I envision sessions of Dungeon Noir as using a lot of the same Color as a session of Dungeons & Dragons (or of other frpg's), but for entirely different ends. The game was mainly inspired by frustrated attempts at playing D&D and Warhammer FRPG with a Narrativist CA. I have also been inspired by watching the character development in various film noir pictures (including The Maltese Falcon, Miller's Crossing, Brick, and others). The setting, meanwhile, was partially inspired by Jack Vance's Dying Earth, but without the wit or levity.

My question is unfortunately about a rather fundamental aspect of the game's design. Given my goals for the game, does it make sense to make all the PCs Money-Hungry, even though they also have their own personal Goal? Would it suffice to just let every PC have a Goal and to not give the acquisition of treasure a central role in the game?

I got the idea of making all the PCs Money-Hungry because I wanted the play of the game to resemble, in some ways, the play of D&D and other frpg's, which often feature persistent and rather ruthless looting and pillaging by PCs. This is reflected in Dungeon Noir by awarding XP on the basis of how much treasure a PC spends on pursuing his Goal.

I have two worries. The first is that making all PCs Money-Hungry is an unnecessary restriction on the types of characters that can be played, and that the game-play I want would be supported just as well by not following so closely the mechanics of D&D. Another way of stating this worry is to ask whether you can have D&D-type fantasy without a universal obsession with treasure.

The second worry is that making all PCs both Money-Hungry and making them have a separate Goal might lead to incoherence in character concepts. Would it always make sense for characters to pursue their Goals by spending money? If not, there might be a problem.

I have so far stuck to my guns about the PCs being Money-Hungry because I feel as if the game needs the lure of treasure as a sort of universal McGuffin. But a sense of uncertainty remains.

Playtesting on Dungeon Noir has not yet begun. One player has made a character. We are waiting on the other player making a character until I can schedule a definite time to meet. I have a draft of the game ready, but there is still this big question about PC motivation on my mind.

Thanks and regards,

Jon

[Darcy Burgess]

Jon --

two thoughts popped to mind upon reading your precis:

a) coooooooooool!

b) give the characters two goals: money-hungry and another.  perhaps from a list.  make sure that the 'other' goal conflicts in some way with money-hungriness and/or with other items on the 'other' list.

sounds like instant fun and conflict to me...

oh, and let the players customize their goals (both money-hungry and 'other'), just like Dark Fates in The Mountain Witch.

[Simon C]

From AD&D onwards (since they stopped giving XP for GP in 1-1 ratio), the real goal of a D&D party has not been treasure, but rather, experience.  Sure, treasure is a nice addition, but a party would complain harder about an adventure with no xp than an adventure with no treasure.  I think you could make "advancement-hungry" a goal as much as "treasure-hungry", if you wanted to, and still be well within the tropes of D&D.  I think though that if you want to strongly adress a premise, it's no problem to restrict the PCs.  I'd be happy with being forced to be money-hungry.  I think it'd make for a more tightly focussed game as well.

One of the best dungeons I've ever run involved a bounty on orcs, claimable by presenting the left ear of an orc to the local inn for a 25gp reward.  The party was happily slaying and scalping their way through the dungeon, until they found a huddled mass of orcish women and children.  Will they kill them, just to take their ears? If I remember correctly, the party (one of whom spoke orcish) ordered them to cut off their own ears, and leave them in a pile, then flee.  It was pretty brutal.  Later they were hired by a wizard to capture an orcish child "bride" for his orcish slave.  Needless to say, they felt pretty conflicted. 

So, this game seems right up my alley.

[Jon Scott Miller]

b) give the characters two goals: money-hungry and another.  perhaps from a list.  make sure that the 'other' goal conflicts in some way with money-hungriness and/or with other items on the 'other' list.

sounds like instant fun and conflict to me...

Thanks for your encouragement. The idea of conflicting Goals is potentially interesting. You're probably right that being Money-Hungry would eventually conflict with another Goal. The way the game is currently written, though, a PC's desire for money is just supposed to be the means for accomplishing his true Goal. The only reason for that is I wanted to keep the D&D-inspired emphasis on treasure.

(I should clarify here. In D&D the main player motivation is probably to gain XP. But, at least in older editions [I'm not familiar with the XP rules in 3.0/3.5], the main way to do this is to get treasure. Hence the claim that treasure is central.)

The more I think about it, the less attached I am to the idea that all PCs should be Money-Hungry. There should be plenty of room for treasure-McGuffins even without that requirement. And I think the game could still support the kind of stories I want it to. I suppose I could directly award XP to PCs for pursuing their Goals. This may be harder to quantify, but we'll see.

I am thinking hard about your idea of conflicting Goals. I shared it with one of my players, who said she likes it. I'm not sure it's necessary, though. I'm thinking that there is already a potential for conflict between a PC's Goal and his Humanity. In addition, there is naturally a potential for conflict between a PC's Goal and that of other PCs or NPCs. I think I'll first try playing the game with only one Goal per PC, and seeing how that flies.

oh, and let the players customize their goals (both money-hungry and 'other'), just like Dark Fates in The Mountain Witch.

Actually, that is already written in to the draft. I will have to look at The Mountain Witch to get ideas on how players can customize their Goals, however.

Thanks and regards,

Jon

[Jon Scott Miller]

I think though that if you want to strongly adress a premise, it's no problem to restrict the PCs.  I'd be happy with being forced to be money-hungry.  I think it'd make for a more tightly focussed game as well.

It may well. I'm not sure it needs to be focused in that way, though. Right now, I'm grooving on the idea that PCs could have different kinds of Goals altogether. This seems to mesh with the noir-type stories that I have going around in my head. Maybe someone wants to make the big score, but someone else wants vengeance, and someone else just wants to be loved. In the currently existing prep for our first session, the NPCs certainly have a more diverse set of Goals than just being Money-Hungry.

Part of the initial appeal the Money-Hungry trait had for me was that I wanted the PCs to be fairly desperate, like low-level D&D characters. They are somewhat competent as adventurers, but in the grand scheme of things they are bottom-feeders. But now I think I can convey that idea without having to impose the Mone-Hungry trait on everyone.   

One of the best dungeons I've ever run involved a bounty on orcs, claimable by presenting the left ear of an orc to the local inn for a 25gp reward.  The party was happily slaying and scalping their way through the dungeon, until they found a huddled mass of orcish women and children.  Will they kill them, just to take their ears? If I remember correctly, the party (one of whom spoke orcish) ordered them to cut off their own ears, and leave them in a pile, then flee.  It was pretty brutal.  Later they were hired by a wizard to capture an orcish child "bride" for his orcish slave.  Needless to say, they felt pretty conflicted. 

So, this game seems right up my alley.

That sounds great. I have long been a fan of introducing moral dilemmas into D&D play. A few years ago, when I was GMing the Temple of Elemental Evil, I added a bunch of political and religious conflicts to the adventure, which had no obviously morally correct solution, but which the PCs became wrapped up in, in various ways. My players seemed to enjoy the ability to interact dynamically with the setting in a way that was of potential significance to their characters as well as to themselves. We had a partial success then as a would-be Narrativist D&D group, and I'm hoping this new design will enable my current group (or proto-group) to do even better.

Thanks and regards,

Jon