As an extension to the discussion in Interesting Article... below, we'd like to look at a discussion of what sorts of motivations are found in people who play RPGs, and, thence, what sort of behaviors are associated with these motivations. Associated, in that actual play is conducted using these behaviors to satisfy certain motivations, and also ideas of what sorts of behavior might optimally satisfy these motivations in theory.

Here is a partial list of motivations and behaviors most often associated with those motivations which I personally have observed, or have heard reliable accounts of.

Motivation--------------Behavior
--------------------------------
Socialization-----------Any (just arriving to play)
Passive Entertainment---Listening, Watching
Overcoming Obstacles----controlling character as a "Pawn"
Empathy with character--thinking as the character
Self-satisfaction-------portrayal of character
Gaining approval--------portrayal of character, playing for success (depends on what other players expect)
Creativity--------------portrayal, authoring or directing details/plot
Exploration-------------directing character to find new things in game
Adventure---------------directing character into conflicts
Safety or stability-----direct character away from danger


This is just a fraction of the reasons that people might play. It is mostly intended to be representative of the concept of linking motivations to behaviors. Note that there are probably many other behaviors associated with each motivation, and that just because one behavior hass been associated with a particular motivation is not intended to mean that it cannot be.

Also note that many can be subdivided much further. Creativity can fall into creation of character or of plot. And the motivations that are still applicable can be further segregated. Plot creativity requires creation of events, whereas character creation can be acomplished by portrayal.

Anyhow, presumably this can be useful in looking at what are the most common and powerful of motivations in the target audience, and tailoring game mechanics to facilitate such behaviors.

Make any sense?

Mike

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-10-02 15:03 ]

I came up with a basic 5 reasons people play RPG's. There's some overlap with the ones you listed but mine are a little more broad, I think:

Entertainment - fun, as defined by your GNS goals
Social - get together with like-minded souls
Artistic - from character creation to using accents, costumes and make-up (for LARP) or drawing pics of your character or from the game
Cathartic - deal with real-life issues through the game
Escapist - put aside real-life issues in favor of game reality

I've been thinking about going back to square one with the question "what do you like about RPGs?" Compile a list of the nitty-gritty responses (from as many people as you can manage) - you know, "I like fiddling with the numbers to make a cool character", "I like the thrill of rolling the dice and hoping for a 20", "I like figuring out what's going on in the adventure with as few clues as possible", "I like wielding AWESOME POWER!", "I like constructing intricate character backgrounds", "I like revealing a new world to my players" . . .

Make a very big list. Don't worry about overlaps - whatever pops into your head, if it seems like something fun associated with playing or running RPGs, write it down.

Once you've compiled this big list, there are all kinds of interesting things you can do with it - group 'em, label 'em as applicable to player and/or GMs, get folks to rank 'em on how important they are . . . (yes, I've done this sorta stuff in my work life, as part of project assesment and planning - it's always intersting, and often valuable).

If you could get enough folks at something like, say, Gencon to participate, it might even yield statistically significant info. But doing it right would be a lot of work. And might just result in lists almost identical to what have been proposed here.

Not sure where I'm going with this, other than to say I find the ideas here so far interesting and this is one way to "deepen" them. Anything more coherent will have to wait until I'm back from vacation - 2 more days, but I'm already half way there . . .

Gordon C. Landis

Well, if we can get a survey set up somewhere where people can enter in the reasons that they play, I'd be happy to do the analysis. The problem is the overlap, etc. that you point out, Gordon. When sorting, you get bias. If you present set options, you get bias. But it would be interesting. I bet some of the most popular reasons would be unexpected. I wonder how many would respond leveling up.

Anyhow, I like Jared's classifications. Note, that GNS is entirely subsumed within the (as Ron likes to call it) Uber-goal of entertainment. Many of the other motivations are to satisfy needs unrelated strictly to entertainment. I'm not sure that I totally agree with the divisions, but it does seem to coincide at least partially with Fang's POV. In that GNS only caters to a subset of all motivations.

Hmmm... The problem with this is that I can still see that some will have predelictions towards one of the three modes that will satisfy these other desires. For example, creativity is best sated for some by pursuing the best tactics, for some by making a detailed world, and for some by making a story. So, I'm still fairly confident that GNS covers all styles of play, it just doesn't necessarily differentiate players by motivation for these sorts of high level motivations. I think that you have to get down to some very specific motivations before GNS starts to become useful.

For example, desire not just for challenge, but for the game to provide tactical challenges, is one thing motivates people towards Gamism. Not in the military sense of tactics, necessarily, but in the sense that strategies and tactics can be devised and employed to achieve a sense of achievement as rated by the game. It certainly can be challenging to come up with a story, but the nature of the challenge sought is different. Again, it relates to the specific goal.

Why some people prefer a challenge that is tactical versus one that is story creative is beyond me and probably the scope of this discussion (though Fang may want to investigate). But the observable fact that people have thse specific motivations is what leads certain of these motivations to be associated with certain of the GNS modes. Or, at least that's how I see it.

To the extent that a player can be satisfied by any form of creativity, or challenge, etc, that player will not have a strong GNS leaning (myself for example, I've often said that I'm easily entertained :smile: ). To the extent that their desires are more specific (as in Ron), a person will tend to lean towards a particular part of GNS.

Seems pretty straightforward, no?

Mike

...this can be useful in looking at what are the most common and powerful of motivations in the target audience, and tailoring game mechanics to facilitate such behaviors.

My initial thought is that I'm not sure it would be all that valuable. For one, self-reporting is a notoriously unreliable method of collecting data. Subjects are frequently either in denial, or they just don't examine their motivations closely enough in order to provide useful responses. An example is the response of one of my friends to being invited to play Prince Valiant. He said, "Paul, you know how I feel about games with not enough rules." There's a clear layer of some game-related scar tissue evidenced by that response. But you can't tell exactly what he's rationalizing.

And beyond that, I think, players are not directly adopters and evangelizers of games. The motivations of players were not at all in my mind when I designed The World, the Flesh, and the Devil. My intent was to create mechanics that didn't millstone what I consider to be my GMing strengths. The design effort was more a reaction to things I hate about other games, than it was an effort on behalf of things I like. Am I being disingenuous? Not at all. It's not shared authorial power that I love. It's the lack of it that I hate. The whiff-syndrome is painful to me. It's not that I love fortune-in-the-middle. It's that I hate the whiff-syndrome. Other alternatives to the whiff-syndrome would be well received.

And I think a vigorous and enthusiastic GM is very much a more sought-after commodity among players than a rules-set built to very specific characteristics.

Paul

Well, I didn't mean to imply that we weren't looking at the motivations of the GM. These should of course be included. I tried to indicate that, but the phraseology always slips back to it being about players. Ron is right when he says that we need a word that means players and GMs. Like RPG participants. But even using that we sometimes forget that the GM is a participant.

And to the extent that the GM is probably the most important participant, Paul is right, we have to look at what motivates the GM. But I think that these are often sepaarate issues, or rather game design often does address or can address these issues in one manner for GMs and in another for players. Quite often (I'd dare say usually) the desires of the GM are quite different than the players. First, there is the likely hood that the participants have different desires to begin with. Then add to that that the usual GM experience is very different from that of the players, and you can see how likely it is that the GM will be differently motivated than the players.

That having been said, in addressing the issues separately, I think that most games handle these desires fairly well. The GM creates, the players are entertained is one common model. All participate more or less equally is a newer model. The different duties assigned to each is the means by which this is usually acomplished. But future designs might look more closely at how to satisfy the more typical desires of the GM or players respectively. Something might be created to alleviate the problems that often arise from having an active GM and passive players, for example.

Anyhow, an ultimate goal for an RPG might be to find a way for people of all motivations to participate in the manner that was most likely to please them. This would, of course, be nigh impossible given that one possible motivation is collaboration with others and another might be, essentially, playing the game by oneself, for instance. Still, many games claim to satisfy a larger set of desires than others. It is almost certainly possible that certain designs are more flexible this way.

Anyhow, another whole area of discussion is whether or not it is appropriate to attempt to create (awaken?) motivations in people, and, if so, how to acomplish this.

Mike

On 2001-10-03 13:11, Paul Czege wrote:
The design effort was more a reaction to things I hate about other games, than it was an effort on behalf of things I like. Am I being disingenuous? Not at all. It's not shared authorial power that I love. It's the lack of it that I hate.