How Much Motivation Does Your PC Need?

[cailano]

The title says it all, fellow weavers. How much motivation does your PC need to get involved in the story? Is the lure of rewards and experience enough, or do they need something more? To be a hero? Something more personal?

If you could wave a magic wand and have the perfect campaign appear, how hard would the GM have to work to keep your PC engaged?

Do you think there's any room for players to make this any easier on game masters?

If you prefer sandbox campaigns to plot-based ones, what sort of adventures do you usually pursue?

How do game masters get motivation wrong? How do they get it right?

Please discuss.

 

[Penchant]

I think that players really are obligated to motivate their characters. If you make someone who has to be pried out of their barstool, then you're doing a disservice to the game. You have to go out of your way to provide at least one motivating drive and multiple hooks for the DM to use. Help them out as much as you can. A DM does have to give interesting things for characters to do, but it's a two way street.

[Papa Bear]

@Penchant is right. The player needs to 'pre-engage' into the adventure. Its OK for the PC to be some kind of curmudgeon that doesn't want to leave their "bar stool" but the player needs to have hooks to draw the character into the adventure and they really need to be willing to work with the GM to fit their character INTO the adventure. I've tried to GM a player on Play by Post (over at Plot Hook, which I think is dead these days... it was a long time ago) who created an overly complicated character. A lot of depth and thought, but the character just didn't have anything for the adventure. I tried several times with this or that to hook in the character but the player kept saying that it wasn't in the character's personality to do any of it. I was like, what the heck? Do you or don't you want to play? They groused about it, but finally made some 'exception' as to why the character might be motivated to do the adventure.

the thing was that the player was very excited and putting out a lot of effort and I wanted to make it work... but for some reason, they just didn't want to or something. That's how it started feeling to me until they finally relented and 'accepted' a hook. I think that player was just a bad egg because not long into the adventure he was fighting with another player and then angry at me because I tried to do something different for looting that they didn't like. I killed the game and left that site.

[Lord Foul]

I very much agree with the others here. If you are taking a player slot in a game, then you have an obligation to bring something to the game; something that adds depth and flavour and contributes to the collective experience. Nothing more demoralising for a GM than a group of 'baby birds' all chirping "feed me, feed me" and giving nothing back for them to work with, or any kind of engagement with the other players to help the party to gel as a believable group.

That said, it is also incumbent on the GM to keep the game moving and provide a steady flow of material for the players to work with. They cannot just create stuff out of nothing. An important factor is providing little things within and around the main plotline that help to engage individual players, so everyone gets a bit of time in the spotlight as well as being a part of the main group story. Much of the rest is simply down to style compatibility, which is very much a trial and error thing.

 

[MrAndrewJ]

This first part will not answer the question. It feels like every answer can only be personal preference and context. A person's play style or reason for playing at all would be a huge motivating factor.

• Deeply immersive games often call for richer backstories and player-created plot hooks. Wants and motivations are necessary, often in the plural. Some systems even bake this into the rules. Having this established beforehand is beneficial to this kind of group: Everyone can dive into the deep waters as quickly as possible.
• Improv-heavy play might call for characters to grow during gameplay. This middle ground accepts that motivations are needed, but also gives the player the room and responsibility to customize those motivations to anything that happens in game.
• Social just-for-fun games might be unconcerned with deep character motivations. Maybe the group is learning or trying out a system. Maybe people are there to socialize rather than immerse. Maybe this is the new table at an organized play event. Maybe it's a one-shot session at a gaming store or convention.

So, my perfect is only a comfort zone for me. Although, I'd bet there are others like me.

21 hours ago, cailano said:

Do you think there's any room for players to make this any easier on game masters?

Ask for the GM's preference. Match the character to the game.

21 hours ago, cailano said:

How much motivation does your PC need to get involved in the story?

This is an explanation of my comfort zone.

One in-character want backed up by one reason for the character to want it feels like a perfect start. Just one want/reason pair:

• The character wants to become powerful because (they never want to be bullied again, leadership might make them feel safe after a painful past, they have a charitable goal, they want power over someone who wronged them, their birth family expects it from them).
• The character wants to become rich because (fear of returning to poverty, grew up with money in a culture that prizes it above all else, to help a loved one, to help strangers, to swim in a pool made of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck).

Then, hopefully players and the GM would be looking for more want/reason pairs to add to the character.

When I think about GM'ing: I had two GMs back in the day who could instantly weave character & player types together to create fun games. If I grew the nerve to try it again then I would definitely be looking to follow in their footsteps. In my case, it may require me to apply the KISS principle. Ask characters for their one primary motivation. Then, take a deep breath and look for ways to apply them.

[CharmingSatyr]

I've gotten into the habit of including potential motivators in my applications to new games for the GM to note and take advantage of if necessary. For example, "Will always protect and defend children", "Hates slavery and will participate in any mission to free slaves", "will take any pathfinder contract if there's the prospect of learning new spells."

Some GMs use them. Most don't. But as a GM, I know that I appreciate when players make things easier for me, and I feel better knowing that I've made efforts to do the same for people running the games that I'm in.

[Roughtrade]

14 hours ago, Penchant said:

If you make someone who has to be pried out of their barstool, then you're doing a disservice to the game.

I have this almost exactly as part of my creation process for anyone wanting to be in my game.

"Your character's personality is your choice. That being said, I am not going to waste a ton of time and energy cajoling your character to join the others. If your character is the kind of person who is going to sit in the bar and brood over how unfair the world has been to them and wait for adventure to push them into a corner, then your character sat there crying in his beer while everyone else went off to adventure. I like dark characters, I can enjoy someone who is written with deep motives and emotional scars. I just don't like having to drag people along kicking and screaming to get them into the adventure with the rest of the players."

[Roughtrade]

22 hours ago, cailano said:

If you could wave a magic wand and have the perfect campaign appear, how hard would the GM have to work to keep your PC engaged?

The Pazio Adventure Paths for Pathfinder include Campaign Traits, which are for the most part hooks to get your character invested in what is happening.

[Roughtrade]

I am usually very clear on what the campaign will be like before I even begin recruiting. Players can look over the AP or, for self made campaigns, my write up on what the game is about. From that point, it really is up to them to make their place in the world. With most games getting more applicants than there are places, my choices on players are going to be those who have made an effort to fit their characters into my world/game/set-up.

If a Player cannot make the smallest effort to find a reason to go along with the plot, I do not have much interest in dragging them along.

 

And I apply this same concept to characters I audition with. I look at the setting, the world, the GMs introduction and then I look for something that catches my interest or would suite my typical player character. It just seems like the way things should be.

[Actana]

On a personal level, my characters need little motivating to find a reason to go on an adventure that everyone else is going for. I can and will, if need be, make up exceedingly convoluted scenarios to make them tag along. Because that's what I signed up for. I hope not to have to do that, but I can if I need to. Assuming the game is about a party and such - plenty of games aren't that and thus don't need much, if any, such contrivances.

 

On the other hand, how much I need to be invested in an adventure is a lot more important to me. I often find that if I feel like my character could be replaced by anyone else and the ongoing narrative would see zero changes, I start to lose a lot of interest in what's going on, and instead it feels like I'm simply going with the motions in an adventure, there not to really be part of it, but just to see what's behind the next corner and resolve it in the way that is most convenient for the game we're playing. Give me, the player, some more influence and give my choices (both in character creation and during play) more meaningful interactions and that's what I really like.

[leons1701]

I sometimes play "reluctant" characters, some much more reluctant than others. Really depends on the game. But one thing I make sure of, they are THERE. Maybe whining about being the ones who always have to go save the kids, beat the bandits, find the McGuffin, whatever, they aren't happy about it, but they are doing it. Sometimes, they got railroaded, they're only there because there wasn't any real choice once the plaza collapsed, the ship wrecked, the bad guys kidnapped them, whatever. Sometimes, it's their own sense of duty driving them out of their comfort zone. But it's all up to me, and I'm never going to make the GM motivate my character.

[Saberfan]

I think that it's largely up to the player characters to provide the initial motivation themselves based on whatever direction the game has. A GM's only job at the beginning is to create a compelling hook that people create their characters around.

After the game officially starts, it's up to both the GM and players to keep motivation going. A GM who slacks off and only offers a mediocre story and/or gameplay experience can kill motivation. On the other side of the coin, a single PC who is uninvested in the game can also drag down and deliver it a coup de grace.

[shawnhcorey]

On 2/3/2024 at 2:13 PM, cailano said:

How do game masters get motivation wrong? How do they get it right?

 

GMs have to motivate the players first, then then PCs. What sort of character did the player choose? What is their strengths? Their weaknesses? These tell the GM what sort of adventures may intrigue the player. Adventures that highlight the characters' strengths will allow the player to be a hero. Adventures that challenges their weaknesses will give great satisfaction to the player when they are overcome.

[Roughtrade]

11 hours ago, leons1701 said:

But one thing I make sure of, they are THERE.

That is really all a GM can ask for. That the Player invest the Character into the game.

There are a lot of people who pitch loner/grimdark characters. As long as they make it clear in OOC notes or whatever to me, as a GM, then I have no issues with their submissions.

Amber Diceless RPG and Vampire the Masquerade, and some other games, make use of Character Questionnaires. Ten to twenty questions which the GM asks the Players to answer. Some of the questions are In Character and others are Out of Character. I have a modified set of about ten. But this is more about how to choose a Player, and not specific to the current question. I bring it up only to say, something like this process can help the Player find a motivation for his Character.

[cailano]

As a GM (I almost always GM), I tend to run many published modules, but I try to be selective about which ones I run. There are some great ones out there.

But they often rely on PCs bringing their own motivation to the table. In a longer campaign, procedural storytelling tends to bring out a lot of PC-centric subplots, and that's a good thing, but in PbP, those can be slow to develop. For that first adventure, the PCs have to be willing to dive in.

I don't often encounter the bar stool sitters, but it has happened. I like the suggestion above of asking the player, "Are you in or not?"

That idea reminds me of an over-the-table game years ago in which a friend was acting as GM, and he tried and failed to engage a PC in the story.

NPC: "The kingdom needs you."

PC: "I'm not really interested in politics."

NPC: "And, of course, you'll be generously compensated."

PC: "But I'm rich! Don't tell anyone."

NPC: "And the woman who needs rescuing is quite beautiful"

PC: "My heart already belongs to another, I'm afraid."

GM: ...

Player: ...

GM: He talks you into it.

PC: Well of course I'll do it! How could anyone refuse? Just show me the way and I'll be off.