Motivations...

[ross_winn]

In my own little theory of how RPGs work the motivations of the characters are critically important. Important to the dynamics of the play group and to the dynamics of the games I am interested in designing.

I have delineated three distinct types of motivations.

Survival Motivation: Why does the character keep going. In the face of the cold cruel world why don't they just say "fsck it" and pull the pin on a grenade, take a bottle of pills, or jump off a bridge.

Team Motivation: Why not just go it alone? You don't have to share the treasure, you don't have anyone to let you down, you don't have to share the spotlight. So why do you want to work as part of a larger whole?

Heroic Motivation: Why are you a hero? Are you righting a past wrong? Are you avenging something? Are you just altruistic and good? There has to be a reason you are a hero.

With these three motivations I can build a character for nearly any kind of game. However would it be better to codify a mechanic to reinforce these ideas? Should aspects of each motivation be parameters or attribuites of a system?

[Zoetrope10]

Yes, no.

It depends on what kind of rpg you want to play. In my limited experience, if you want to generate a good story, character motivation mechanics can get in the way. That is, the dice say one thing but the story would be better if something else happened. I find there is also a conflict of purpose. I play a story-telling game more for the intrinsic satisfaction of telling a good story, not for the extrinsic motivation of playing a good game.

On the other hand, if you want a good 'game', character motivation mechanics can be fun. Clever game play and leveraging the game mechanics to your advantage can be extrinsically satisfying (a la D&D).

About your motivations, what value do you see in labelling them? 'Heroic' and 'Survival' are hard to distinguish. Frex, my character Abelard seeks the basis of eternal life. His motivation is to uphold family honour---his father sought the secret, but failed (as did his father). There is no need to label his motivation as heroic or survivalist. He has a goal and a motivation and that's sufficient. (Actually it's not really, because he also needs a conflict---the thing that is stopping him from achieving his goal; in his case it's that the basis of eternal life is an unkown mystery, veiled in legend, hearsay, danger and secrecy.)

I don't think "Team motivation" is a motivation. Rather, being part of a team is an end to a goal. Whether or not a person joins a team will depend on other aspects of their personality (extraversion, intraversion, pride, stubborness etc) and the current strength of their goal-motivation.

[Alan]

HI ross,

How do player motivations relate to character motivations?

[ross_winn]

I think that discussing player motivations is counterproductive in this. I am trying to discuss quantifiable character elements.

[Alan]

It's just that I recall trying to put character motivation mechanics into several games in the past and my players just weren't interested in using them.  As a result, the character's behaved as the player wanted, not as the mechanic indicated.  It seems to me that the players have to be brought into character motivations somehow.

[Lxndr]

Or that the mechanic needs better rewards, perhaps.  Or a little of both.

But I'm not entirely sure that ross's Three Motivations are at all necessary for characters.  "Team" in particular isn't necessary for, quite frankly, the majority of characters - it's only through the relic of "party-oriented" play that you have to consider this element.

[ross_winn]

Or that the mechanic needs better rewards, perhaps.  Or a little of both.

But I'm not entirely sure that ross's Three Motivations are at all necessary for characters.  "Team" in particular isn't necessary for, quite frankly, the majority of characters - it's only through the relic of "party-oriented" play that you have to consider this element.

I think team motivation is imperative unless you are playing a solo game, period.

[ross_winn]

It's just that I recall trying to put character motivation mechanics into several games in the past and my players just weren't interested in using them.  As a result, the character's behaved as the player wanted, not as the mechanic indicated.  It seems to me that the players have to be brought into character motivations somehow.

Ok, I'll bite. Why would they be different at all?

[jhawkins]

I say motivations should be represented in mechanics.

Some examples of when players can use them:

1. Resist mind-effecting magic.
2. Resist any other form of persuasion.
3. Keep going when the character is in a tight spot.
4. Possibly in convincing others, if the genuine feeling of the character is in question.

Cheers, Jim

[Doctor Xero]

I've found motivations, such as the three motivations delineated by Ross, can be
important when I'm attempting to run a story-oriented game with roleplayers.  Rather
than impose the storyline from above via game master fiat/manipulation or via player
meta-gaming, I work together with the players to devise character conception motivations
which inherently direct their PCs in the general direction of the storyline.

In terms of motivation influence on the game itself, I will usually give bonuses and
penalties to rolls based upon character conception and the PC's motivations of the
moment.  This not only rewards genuine roleplayers but penalizes players who have
not bothered to determine motivations for their PCs and who therefore miss out on
any chance to argue for bonuses and any chance for the extra experience points I give
players for working with penalties which come from PC conceptions and motivations.

Apropos Ross' motivation schema:

Survival Motivation.  It can be useful to the story we're weaving if each PC's survival
instinct fits into the anticipated story direction.  However, I perceive a lot of overlap
between Survival motivation and Heroic motivation -- as Otto Rank pointed out, in
some ways it is an act of mundane heroism to continue onward each day without
selling out (to rephrase his turn-of-the-century words into modern idiom).

Team Motivation.  I've always found it valuable to ask players to determine consciously
a team motivation for each PC because, at university, one encounters a vast number
of people who want to participate in large gaming groups yet are enamoured with
the image of the unfriendly loner, and the Batman-as-loner-in-a-team shtick only
works so often.

Heroic Motivation.  This motivation only matters in campaigns in which I ~want~
players to play heroes!  Some of the more intriguing World of Darkness campaigns
have protagonists without ever having heroes.

A side frustration: I find it harder and harder every year to react gracefully to players
who insist that no one in real life would ever do anything for altruistic or ethical
reasons.  Aaargh!

Doctor Xero

[Lxndr]

I think team motivation is imperative unless you are playing a solo game, period.

So a game like, say, most versions of Sorcerer, is untenable?  Or any sort of political-struggle-between-characters-and-players (like Amber, mayhaps)?

[ross_winn]

I think team motivation is imperative unless you are playing a solo game, period.

So a game like, say, most versions of Sorcerer, is untenable?  Or any sort of political-struggle-between-characters-and-players (like Amber, mayhaps)?

I didnt say that the players would only have a team agenda. However they do need a reason to work within the collaborative framework.

[ross_winn]

"Team" in particular isn't necessary for, quite frankly, the majority of characters - it's only through the relic of "party-oriented" play that you have to consider this element.

Since about ninety five percent of the play I see is either party or troupe oriented, how does this become a relic? Relic implies old and ununsed, which these are not.

What ither tyoes of play do you see in roleplaying groups?

[Lxndr]

I didnt say that the players would only have a team agenda. However they do need a reason to work within the collaborative framework.

So the PLAYERS need a reason to work together, not the CHARACTERS (who might indeed be working at odds, i.e. not "as a team" within the collaborative framework).  Which makes this a player motivation, not a character one, yes?

Relic implies old, not necessarily unused (at least, in my experience).  But we're definitely roaming into the realm of personal preference and anecdotal evidence, which is outside the realm of theory.  All I can say is yes, there are a substantial number of games where the CHARACTERS don't work as a team, or even towards the same goal (but the players often do work together nonetheless).

[ross_winn]

So the PLAYERS need a reason to work together, not the CHARACTERS (who might indeed be working at odds, i.e. not "as a team" within the collaborative framework).  Which makes this a player motivation, not a character one, yes?

Relic implies old, not necessarily unused (at least, in my experience).  But we're definitely roaming into the realm of personal preference and anecdotal evidence, which is outside the realm of theory.  All I can say is yes, there are a substantial number of games where the CHARACTERS don't work as a team, or even towards the same goal (but the players often do work together nonetheless).

I think it is disingenuous to separate the players and characters. Characters are either reflections of or reactions to the player's own self.

I would like you to put forward a listing of five or six of the "substantial" number of games that portray the characters as working at cross purposes. I am aware that players can and often do, but I would prefer that the game have design elements that actively aid or abet this.

While we are doubtless in the realm of personal preference in any public forum, I would go so far as to say that stating anything as fact here is somewhat hypocritical. After all if we are trying to create new and different experiences we can accept nothing as fact, nor take anything for granted. I am simply stating an opinion that in my experience most games appear to be designed for collaborative play and to enhance the reliance on others. D&Ds reliance on parties made up of different classes is that most base example, but not the only one.

I invite you to share your opinions as well, that is why I posted this question here on a public forum. I want other opinions, clearly stated.