How important is character motivation?

[HidesHisEyes]

How important do you think player character motivation is? When you're a player, does it bother you if you feel your character doesn't have sufficient motivation to be taking part in the adventure? And if and when you write adventures, do you work hard to provide strong motivations within the adventure itself or do you consider it the player's business?

To put it another way, assuming a character's motivation to do whatever the game involves doing is important, how far is it the GM's responsibility and how far is it the player's?

I suspect the answer may be that it depends on the style of game. See, I write and run fairly classical dungeon-crawly adventures in D&D. Currently all my sessions are one-shots or very short series, for logistical reasons. Now I think that in this sort of game, assuming the players totally understand that it's this sort of game, it's reasonable to expect players to create characters with some kind of very broad, general motivation like "I want treasure" or "I want to fight evil and protect the weak" so that when faced with the choice of whether or not to go in a dungeon full of traps and monsters, they probably will.

But I have had occasions where, presented with an obvious adventure hook, players have said "I'm not really interested in that, I think we should keep moving". To clarify, this wasn't a case of the player thinking the adventure I had written sounded boring (I checked). It was that they felt their characters just wouldn't go for it.

Now, I want to restrict players' freedom to make whatever characters they want as little as possible, since making a character all of your own is obviously one of the joys of RPGs. But I also think that in the style of game I run - classic dungeon crawls and heroic escapades - it's necessary for the players to play along a bit and stick to characters who are likely to want to risk their lives on a daily basis.

On a related note, I don't want to rob the players of agency by saying "you have to do this, it's all there is to do" (as I have said to my players a couple of times), but unfortunately I don't have time to create a whole sandbox world and so can't guarantee that they will find something to do if they go around ignoring the adventure hooks I give them.

So what do you think? Am I overthinking all this? Or is it a problem for you too? And if so how do you deal with it?

[Geddy2112]

Character motivation is incredibly important- Characters generally need a reason to be adventurers and go about adventuring. They also need some reason they will stick with the party and give a dang. These reasons can be broad and simple, or specific and complex. While players should make characters that are motivated to do something with their lives, the DM should give them a lot of those things to do. It is important that the DM explains the setting, the players explain the basics of their characters, and both sides work to have motivated characters and things for them to do.


A character that wants to slay dragons has a lot of motivation to do so in a world oppressed by evil Linnorms, but won't have a dang thing to do if the last dragon died half a millennia ago. Likewise, a vagrant axe maniac has no place in a political intrigue setting, but is great for a grindy hack and slash.

I have never had a problem with motivation being an issue when the players and DM have a session zero-where characters are built together and some basic motivations are laid out in advance. Creating too much in a vacuum brings well intentioned players and DM's to bring things that are fundamentally incompatible for the party and/or setting.

[Comet]

Treasure is an excellent motivator because everyone can use money for something. Just make sure the players are playing characters that are incapable of making an honest living outside the deep bowels of the earth, which shouldn't be too hard with most players.

As for players wanting to skip adventures, it could still happen. I think an important part of dungeon crawling adventures is a sense of risk and reward. If the players feel the risk is too high compared to the potential reward then fair enough. Maybe they'll come back later and better equipped.

[Beleriphon]

How important do you think player character motivation is? When you're a player, does it bother you if you feel your character doesn't have sufficient motivation to be taking part in the adventure? And if and when you write adventures, do you work hard to provide strong motivations within the adventure itself or do you consider it the player's business?

To put it another way, assuming a character's motivation to do whatever the game involves doing is important, how far is it the GM's responsibility and how far is it the player's?

I suspect the answer may be that it depends on the style of game. See, I write and run fairly classical dungeon-crawly adventures in D&D. Currently all my sessions are one-shots or very short series, for logistical reasons. Now I think that in this sort of game, assuming the players totally understand that it's this sort of game, it's reasonable to expect players to create characters with some kind of very broad, general motivation like "I want treasure" or "I want to fight evil and protect the weak" so that when faced with the choice of whether or not to go in a dungeon full of traps and monsters, they probably will.

But I have had occasions where, presented with an obvious adventure hook, players have said "I'm not really interested in that, I think we should keep moving". To clarify, this wasn't a case of the player thinking the adventure I had written sounded boring (I checked). It was that they felt their characters just wouldn't go for it.

It is the obligation of the players to find reasons to go on adventures, not be jerk bags that waste your time under the guise of being "in character". The Giant has a really good article that talks about this very behaviour. If your one player is generally not disruptive then I wouldn't worry too much, but if it happens all of the time then the player is a being a dink for no good reason.

http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html


Now, I want to restrict players' freedom to make whatever characters they want as little as possible, since making a character all of your own is obviously one of the joys of RPGs. But I also think that in the style of game I run - classic dungeon crawls and heroic escapades - it's necessary for the players to play along a bit and stick to characters who are likely to want to risk their lives on a daily basis.

On a related note, I don't want to rob the players of agency by saying "you have to do this, it's all there is to do" (as I have said to my players a couple of times), but unfortunately I don't have time to create a whole sandbox world and so can't guarantee that they will find something to do if they go around ignoring the adventure hooks I give them.

So what do you think? Am I overthinking all this? Or is it a problem for you too? And if so how do you deal with it?

I think that if its all you have its all you have. I mean you can't assign motivation beyond what you have in play here, but at the same time its the obligation of all people participating in a game to keep things moving along. It isn't that hard to come up with reason that your character wants to continue adventuring, I mean it can be as simple as being friends with the other characters.

[Jay R]

How important do you think player character motivation is? When you're a player, does it bother you if you feel your character doesn't have sufficient motivation to be taking part in the adventure?

Why in the world would I design a character in an adventurer game with no motivation to go adventuring? That sounds like deliberate work for the express purpose of killing my own fun.


And if and when you write adventures, do you work hard to provide strong motivations within the adventure itself or do you consider it the player's business?

I have to create an interesting adventure. They have to create interested adventurers.


To put it another way, assuming a character's motivation to do whatever the game involves doing is important, how far is it the GM's responsibility and how far is it the player's?

To the extent that I want a fun adventure to happen, it is 100% my job to not create anything that prevents a fun adventure. As a DM, I won't build an adventure of filing tax returns, and as a player, I won't design a character who wants to stay home and bake cookies.


I suspect the answer may be that it depends on the style of game. See, I write and run fairly classical dungeon-crawly adventures in D&D. Currently all my sessions are one-shots or very short series, for logistical reasons. Now I think that in this sort of game, assuming the players totally understand that it's this sort of game, it's reasonable to expect players to create characters with some kind of very broad, general motivation like "I want treasure" or "I want to fight evil and protect the weak" so that when faced with the choice of whether or not to go in a dungeon full of traps and monsters, they probably will.

But I have had occasions where, presented with an obvious adventure hook, players have said "I'm not really interested in that, I think we should keep moving". To clarify, this wasn't a case of the player thinking the adventure I had written sounded boring (I checked). It was that they felt their characters just wouldn't go for it.

"OK. You keep moving, eventually settle down, open a cookie shop, and have an uneventful life."

If they refuse to play any game I'm capable of running, that's the only possible alternative. But it sounds like you haven't yet found out what kind of game they want to play.

Having said that, it's worth asking the players what they want to do before designing an adventure. If a character really wants to bake cookies, then why not build the Dungeon of Lost Cookie Recipes to give them an adventure.

You have to run a game that they will play. They have to play a game that you will run. If there is no intersection, then there is no game.


Now, I want to restrict players' freedom to make whatever characters they want as little as possible, since making a character all of your own is obviously one of the joys of RPGs.

Sure, but playing the character is also one of the joys of RPGs, and building a character who won't play the game is self-defeating.

They aren't willing to play the game you wanted to run. The next step is to find out what they are looking for, and decide if you are willing to run it.


But I also think that in the style of game I run - classic dungeon crawls and heroic escapades - it's necessary for the players to play along a bit and stick to characters who are likely to want to risk their lives on a daily basis.

If they don't want to play adventurers, why are they in the game? If they do, why are they turning down adventures?


On a related note, I don't want to rob the players of agency by saying "you have to do this, it's all there is to do" (as I have said to my players a couple of times), but unfortunately I don't have time to create a whole sandbox world and so can't guarantee that they will find something to do if they go around ignoring the adventure hooks I give them.

So what do you think? Am I overthinking all this? Or is it a problem for you too? And if so how do you deal with it?

No, it's not a problem for me. My players bite on my plot hooks. I bite on my DMs' plot hooks. But if it did happen, I'd aske them what kind of plot they would be willing to follow, and then decide if I will run such a game. [Yes, you have the right to decide not to run the game they want, just as they decided not to play the game you tried to run.]

I don't know if you are over-thinking it. You are certainly under-explaining it.

Please tell us what adventure they turned down, and the specific reason why they turned it down. Only then can we help you find an adventure they want to play and you want to run.

[Thrudd]

Character motivation is essential. It is not out of line to require players create characters that are motivated to participate in the game's premise. In fact, the game will not work very well if you don't do this.

Players saying "my character wouldn't want to do that" to your campaign overall should be answered with: "think of a reason they want to adventure, or make a new character that wants to participate."

[Aetol]

Why in the world would I design a character in an adventurer game with no motivation to go adventuring? That sounds like deliberate work for the express purpose of killing my own fun.

I think the concern was that the character would not be motivated to take part in that specific adventure, not any adventure in general.

In fact, I think character motivations can be dealt with in two different ways. The characters can be all-purpose adventurers, with vague enough motivations - wealth, fame, power, you name it. Then the GM just needs to make an adventure that would be interesting for any of these all-purpose adventurers : for example a dungeon filled with riches, dangerous creatures, and magical items.

Or the GM could work with each of the players to create custom motivations for the characters, for example why they would be after the BBEG : revenge, bounty hunting, sent as agent of the kingdom, etc. Then it's just a matter of making them stumble into each other, and watch them team up against their common foe.

The first method does not need much work on either side, and allows for easy character recycling, but nothing says the character won't turn tail when they stumble into the BBEG's evil plan when they just signed up for murderhoboing. The second method needs more work, maybe even a solo pre-adventure for each character, but they'll be committed to the adventure no matter what.

[Pluto!]

Players need to play if they want to be part of the game. It's part of the basic dynamics, and the onus on their cooperation is on them.

Some metagaming is not only acceptable but required to run a game - there are a million reasons why 3-6 people would leave one anothers' immediate vicinities for extended periods and go off to live their own respective lives away from danger, but that doesn't really work with the actual game dynamic of 3-6 people sitting around a table telling stories that they're all involved in.

(This is why I sprain certain muscles rolling my eyes when certain posters in CharOp threads say that it's unreasonably metagamey for unoptimized characters to even participate in D&D: all campaigns are held together by metagame considerations like contriving reasons for your characters to participate and more-or-less cooperate.)

[Broken Crown]

I once played in a campaign where the "quest-giver" showed up and basically assigned the plot to the PCs, scarcely five minutes after the PCs had been thrown together by coincidence by an encounter with some bandits. My own character hadn't even spoken to or otherwise directly interacted with the others yet, and my first though was, "Why would I want to go on a long and dangerous journey with a bunch of strangers, to accomplish a goal that has nothing to do with me?" I didn't want to be "That Guy," so I went along with it anyway, but it still felt contrived and unsatisfying.

When I'm designing an adventure, I try to incorporate reasons for the PCs to be interested. It admittedly becomes easier in a long-running campaign rather than a one-shot, partly because, as DM, you get to know the characters better and what motivates them, and partly because, after adventuring together for a while, Character X will go along simply because Character Y wants to do it, and X and Y have a history of adventuring together.

[nedz]

It's very important, and critically so in a Sandbox.

I did once read an account of a game where someone created a character who didn't want to leave his cave: It was a very short game.

[Beleriphon]

I once played in a campaign where the "quest-giver" showed up and basically assigned the plot to the PCs, scarcely five minutes after the PCs had been thrown together by coincidence by an encounter with some bandits. My own character hadn't even spoken to or otherwise directly interacted with the others yet, and my first though was, "Why would I want to go on a long and dangerous journey with a bunch of strangers, to accomplish a goal that has nothing to do with me?" I didn't want to be "That Guy," so I went along with it anyway, but it still felt contrived and unsatisfying.

I'm fond of the Doctor Who method of adventure. The Patron shows up and promptly tells the characters to shut up and follow him if they want to live. Adventure ensues and eventually The Doctor Patron leaves the characters to their own devices, usually some place completely strange and weird where the only people they know are these strangers that are suddenly less strange than the locals.

[Amphetryon]

It is both extremely important and extremely tricky, in my experience. I've played in groups where any Quest-giver was labelled 'Railroad Conductor' by the Players.

[Thrudd]

I once played in a campaign where the "quest-giver" showed up and basically assigned the plot to the PCs, scarcely five minutes after the PCs had been thrown together by coincidence by an encounter with some bandits. My own character hadn't even spoken to or otherwise directly interacted with the others yet, and my first though was, "Why would I want to go on a long and dangerous journey with a bunch of strangers, to accomplish a goal that has nothing to do with me?" I didn't want to be "That Guy," so I went along with it anyway, but it still felt contrived and unsatisfying.

When I'm designing an adventure, I try to incorporate reasons for the PCs to be interested. It admittedly becomes easier in a long-running campaign rather than a one-shot, partly because, as DM, you get to know the characters better and what motivates them, and partly because, after adventuring together for a while, Character X will go along simply because Character Y wants to do it, and X and Y have a history of adventuring together.

Yes, that is a very poorly conceived game. Before session 1, your characters' relationships and motives for adventuring should be established.

Unless the game involves characters that are literally trapped together, you just can't expect it to work if the players haven't coordinated beforehand. Even then, after the characters escape from their forced cooperation, it may feel contrived for them to remain together as a party.

[HidesHisEyes]

Thanks everyone. It sounds like you guys are pretty much on the same page as me. It seems like communicating the exact type of game you are running before it begins is the answer. "Metagame" is exactly it.

To be clear, it's not like I've had games ruined because of this issue. The last time some players ignored the hook for a one-shot adventure I said "if you ignore this person then we're not playing D&D today" and they laughed and were fine about it.

It's just that from being a player I know that it bothers me if I feel like my character wouldn't be on this adventure, so I do want to do what I can to avoid my players feeling that. Again, the answer is a very clear pre-game email explaining in no uncertain terms that they need to make characters who are up for risking their lives against horrible monsters and traps.

[HidesHisEyes]

When I'm designing an adventure, I try to incorporate reasons for the PCs to be interested. It admittedly becomes easier in a long-running campaign rather than a one-shot, partly because, as DM, you get to know the characters better and what motivates them, and partly because, after adventuring together for a while, Character X will go along simply because Character Y wants to do it, and X and Y have a history of adventuring together.

You're right, this is damn hard in a one-shot. Short of having them kidnapped or trapped by a landslide or something (or my personal favourite, all poisoned and they have to work together to find the antidote), there is very little you can do to provide foolproof motivation.

[Thrudd]

You're right, this is damn hard in a one-shot. Short of having them kidnapped or trapped by a landslide or something (or my personal favourite, all poisoned and they have to work together to find the antidote), there is very little you can do to provide foolproof motivation.

That's why one-shots work best with pregen characters designed to meet the needs of the adventure. Or at least dictate the relationships and motives of the characters and let the players choose the rest.

[ArcanaFire]

We played with a guy for a long time that always rolled reluctant hero types and if we didn't somehow find a way to drag him to the adventure he would go "you guys are nuts" and try to walk away from it. There were times we were tempted to let him do so because we got tired of hauling his ass along.

Mind you, you don't present a mostly LG party with the hook of "there's a lot of treasure in this village why don't you go plunder it", or expect a party full of selfish NE's to go safe a burning village with no lure of reward for it, but generally it's considered a faux pas to come to the table with a character that's going to want to skip the quests.

Typically at character creation I tell my players to do two things.

1. Give their characters certain things that are Things with them. For instance, someone in the party is way against slavery, I can get them anywhere I want if there are slavers there. This one is known as a ruthless undead killer? Zombies in the dungeon. Zombies everywhere.

2. Create the party together so that they're close enough that if one of them wants to go somewhere the rest of them will go along for support. In other words, 90% of the time I want them playing True Companions.

They don't have to care about the quest, they just have to care about each other.

[goto124]

Always make excuses. For example:


A character that wants to slay dragons has a lot of motivation to do so in a world oppressed by evil Linnorms, but won't have a dang thing to do if the last dragon died half a millennia ago.


But what if he thinks there's a dragon somewhere at the end of the adventure?

There also needs to be a reason he wants to slay dragons in such a world. Even if it's to have an impressive dragon corpse to show off.


Likewise, a vagrant axe maniac has no place in a political intrigue setting, but is great for a grindy hack and slash.


'Some Lady hired me to kill Some Lord. I have no idea what's going on, but I get to kill and make money at the same time, so what the heck.'

I suspect the main issues would be more about how the axe maniac would lack the skills for a political intrigue, but that's not a 'character motivations' problem.


Treasure is an excellent motivator because everyone can use money for something. Just make sure the players are playing characters that are incapable of making an honest living outside the deep bowels of the earth, which shouldn't be too hard with most players.

A spin on this: the character wants that particular treasure, because it's 'prestigious' and 'special'! Once you're rich, what else do you do anyway?



So far, we've only covered starting an adventure. What about cohesion problem that occur in the middle of the game? What if a twist was revealed, and the in-character reaction is to stop and go away? Is this always due to the lack of a Session Zero, or could it be due to a misunderstanding that is understandably not caught on earlier? Example here:


when i noted that i wanted to make sure it wasn't MY pack of wolves (who were family), he misinterpreted it as just your regular group of druid-animal-buddies. You should have seen how shocked he was when, after the session, i explained to him just WHY she had reacted so violently to the event :smalleek:

There was lack of communciation in that area, but neither party could've thought about commmunciating that specific bit of information. I've experienced it before, but it was a romantic relationship (an in-game one, fortunately).

Not necessarily about the adventure itself, it could be relationships between the characters, or between NPC and PC.

[sktarq]

I once played in a campaign where the "quest-giver" showed up and basically assigned the plot to the PCs, scarcely five minutes after the PCs had been thrown together by coincidence by an encounter with some bandits. My own character hadn't even spoken to or otherwise directly interacted with the others yet, and my first though was, "Why would I want to go on a long and dangerous journey with a bunch of strangers, to accomplish a goal that has nothing to do with me?" I didn't want to be "That Guy," so I went along with it anyway, but it still felt contrived and unsatisfying.


Had this happen more than a few times over the years. Since working with my character motivation, history, etc and how that interacts with the other characters and the world the DM set up is my main motivation to play RPG's I would often just drop out of the game as not one for me.
So yeah I second a game zero type meet up or email. Really a one sentence idea of the party mission can often provide both the reason that the party risks their lives on adventures and also why they stick together.

[The Fury]

It is the obligation of the players to find reasons to go on adventures, not be jerk bags that waste your time under the guise of being "in character".


I'll just preface my own remark that I have a reputation of being a disruptive player, which like a reputation of being a killer DM is one that can never be lived down. That player that acts like a jerk because it's "in character?" Yeah, I've been that player. I've been trying to be better though.

I tried asking the DM questions about the plot of the campaign at character creation so I could try to figure out a motivation that would actually make sense with the story. What I came up with was actually fairly simple-- My character's family is in danger and she's trying to save them. Though I found this character a lot more memorable and engaging than so many others I made previously. Not that I didn't have fun with previous characters with weaker motivation, so I guess solid character motivation is something I really like but I can have fun without it.

[Fri]

In my opinion motivation is more important than character background (though they are not mutually exclusive).

Basically, everyone must have enough motivation to do the campaign/adventure at the very least. And as people said above me, it doesn't need to be something deep or complex. Depending on the campaign, something as simple as "wanting loot" or "want to kill monsters" is enough.

[JAL_1138]

I actually don't like to have long-term character goals, because I always keep thinking "how, exactly, does this adventure fit with that goal?" If my goal is to go kill the six-fingered man, so to speak, why do I give a crap if there are bugbears in the old ruined fort or goblins have been seen in the mountain pass?

I prefer to play characters with Chronic Hero Syndrome, or if there's an overarching plot, who are invested in that plot particularly with no ulterior motives. Why save the city from the dragon? "I live there!" Why go investigate the rumors of goblins in the mountain pass, even if I'm just passing through the town and not even going toward the mountains? Because I'm one of the only schmucks in this two-bit town with a weapon I can use worth a darn, the town guard isn't gonna do it because there's like two of them, one of those guards makes Barney Fife look like Sam Vimes and he's the competent one of the pair, and I won't be able to look myself in the mirror if I just say it's somebody else's problem and leave.

I've played characters who actively hated adventuring and really just wanted to kick back on a beach somewhere, but were pretty much incapable of not trying to help when they heard about a problem. "Someone needs help, I can help, therefore I'll help, whether I like it or not." They would hem, haw, and occasionally try to get more money out of the quest-giver, but didn't need to be "dragged along" like another poster's 'reluctant hero' player--the character's conscience wouldn't let them back out of going along, no other reason necessary, but they might not be happy about it.

Some of the most enduring superheroes have no long term goals past that. Superman's long term goal is "keep helping people." Captain America joins the army because he wants to serve. Spider-Man keeps helping people because "with great power comes great responsibility" (and guilt over Uncle Ben, but still).

Volunteer firefighters usually fight fires because somebody has to, and to save lives and property, to do something good and meaningful, not to get rich or get revenge or become king or uncover the secrets of their past or whatever. Not saying there aren't any firefighters who lost someone or something in a fire and are motivated by that, but it's probably a lot less common than general do-goodery.

[Eisenheim]

So, some people have touched on this, but I think it's useful to have it made explicit. For immersive RP, motivation is very important for many players. The way to have compelling motivations is collaboration between players and GM during the session 0/gamebuilding and after. Everyone should agree on the kind of game and the issues that will be important, and then the players can make characters that are strongly invested in the game the GM has planned. As the PCs evolve and become interested in or concerned with new parts of the world, the GM should give them a chance to explore those things as well.

[Thrudd]

I'll just preface my own remark that I have a reputation of being a disruptive player, which like a reputation of being a killer DM is one that can never be lived down. That player that acts like a jerk because it's "in character?" Yeah, I've been that player. I've been trying to be better though.

I tried asking the DM questions about the plot of the campaign at character creation so I could try to figure out a motivation that would actually make sense with the story. What I came up with was actually fairly simple-- My character's family is in danger and she's trying to save them. Though I found this character a lot more memorable and engaging than so many others I made previously. Not that I didn't have fun with previous characters with weaker motivation, so I guess solid character motivation is something I really like but I can have fun without it.

It's usually helpful to have more general goals and motivations. A character that wants to save their family is good for one adventure, basically, while their family is in danger. Once that threat is dealt with, then what? You will need to evolve their motives and personality so the character will abandon their family and continue going on adventures, or else let the character retire to the farm.
Of course any character will want to save their family, but making that the only motivation means the DM has to threaten the family every time they want you to do something, and it feels unbelievable.

D&D characters should have motives and personalities that support them regularly going on long journeys into unknown lands, risking their lives either for promise of reward or the benefit of strangers, and desiring to increase their powers and skill for whatever reason. This is what I tell my players. Your characters need to want to do these things, and they need to be able to work together on a long term basis. You decide the why's and how's.

[HidesHisEyes]

So, some people have touched on this, but I think it's useful to have it made explicit. For immersive RP, motivation is very important for many players. The way to have compelling motivations is collaboration between players and GM during the session 0/gamebuilding and after. Everyone should agree on the kind of game and the issues that will be important, and then the players can make characters that are strongly invested in the game the GM has planned. As the PCs evolve and become interested in or concerned with new parts of the world, the GM should give them a chance to explore those things as well.

I agree, although I think this is something for long campaigns in stable groups. For one-off sessions, short series or an ad-hoc setup where DMs and players meet up as and when they can, a session zero generally isn't going to work. I think maybe the problem I've been talking about comes down to players assuming that "good RP" always entails detailed and unique motivations like the kind you would work out with the rest of a group in advance of a campaign, and that's just not the case. If you don't know when the group will next meet or if it will be entirely the same group, you just need to give your character a sign reading "will kill orcs for food" and get on with it.

On the other hand, you can (and should, as far as I'm concerned) still be inventive. You just can't be too specific. There are some great suggestions on this thread.

Another good one would be an adventurer whose father/mother was a famous adventurer, and the kid is striving to live up to the name.

Or someone obsessed with testing their skills in ever more dangerous situations.

Or the archetypal bard, obviously, who latches onto the party in search of cool stories to tell.

Fun, fun, fun!

[Knaight]

Character motivation is important, but it's worth understanding as one aspect of a bigger thing - namely, player buy in. You pretty much have to get the players on board with the general campaign concept for a game to go anywhere, and the best way to do that is to present it ahead of time, get them to build characters for that, and get character goals in particular aligned. A big portion of this is just getting a party makeup that is cohesive. "Four random people that met in a tavern" is generally not as promising a start as "four members of the Alhabri alchemist's guild, invested in its fortune during its time of great peril" or "the members of the mercenary warship Schrodinger's Hummingbird", or "four people united by their respective curses, and looking to break them", to use three recent examples from games I'm in and/or running.

[BWR]

Character motivation is not important.

Any knee-jerk reactions?
Lemme rephrase that: character motivation is not necessary, player motivation is.
Character motivation can be important, and I very much like games where my characters have some goal beyond doing whatever the plot demands because reasons but it is perfectly possible to play enjoyable games with enjoyable characters where character motivation can be summed up as 'go where the plot demands and do stuff' with nary a thought to anything outside that. Not to mention the vast majority of my characters start out as mostly blank slates with little personality or motivation and develop these things through play. Giving characters some reason to do something beyond 'make up a reason for your being here' is generally a good and useful thing but ultimately unnecessary.

Player motivation, on the other hand, is absolutely necessary to having a fun game. If you as a player don't enjoy the game for whatever reason everything suffers. You don't have fun, you are most likely a wet blanket and even worse you may end up being disruptive and actively bad in an attempt to liven things up for yourself. If you cannot feel excitement about the game, cannot feel up to the effort of playing your character well or taking an active, constructive part in the game and setting, then everything falls apart.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'll just preface my own remark that I have a reputation of being a disruptive player, which like a reputation of being a killer DM is one that can never be lived down. That player that acts like a jerk because it's "in character?" Yeah, I've been that player. I've been trying to be better though.

I tried asking the DM questions about the plot of the campaign at character creation so I could try to figure out a motivation that would actually make sense with the story. What I came up with was actually fairly simple-- My character's family is in danger and she's trying to save them. Though I found this character a lot more memorable and engaging than so many others I made previously. Not that I didn't have fun with previous characters with weaker motivation, so I guess solid character motivation is something I really like but I can have fun without it.

Quoting this because I have done this in the past. Except in my case...I really cannot get invested in a character if I don't feel as if they have a motivation. It doesn't have to be a great one (there's magic scrolls to study in that dungeon! Go get it!), but I need something.

If you want me to nibble a particular hook, TELL ME. I always try to know and understand a DM's campaign world so the character fits in, and I can make a character with a goal that fits. I don't need a lot of information, either, just something.

It would also help if there was a session 0 so players can make compatible characters. Nothing ruins immersion quite like thinking of my character and realizing that they believe they are in a group of mysteriously quiet strangers who may or may not be murderers and they are all alone with this crazy group of people. It also helps if my character is friends with another and THEY have a good reason to drag my character around when I cannot possibly come up with one of my own (happens, I am sorry to say).

Also, keep in mind the idea of making the characters keep wanting to pursue something in character. I was once in a game where my character was reluctantly a part of an organization. Perhaps a mistake on my part, but I thought the DM would work that in and make the relatively altruistic character want to continue. But in the end, most of the other members of the organization were dead or possibly unstable individuals.

Given that my character didn't join for the best of reasons, he felt no reason to revive this organization as the DM had planned because he only cared about two people in it at all, and the others didn't help much and died before he got to know or care about them. I think he got the impression that reviving an organization that ended so badly was overall a very poor decision. I didn't feel invested and honestly, I could not come up with a reason my character would ever bother to revive it. I had no personal connection to work with. It wasn't as if there was a lot of opportunities, as my PC only met with two people from it in game that were not in the party and one disliked my character (which was fair, but didn't help my character much).

I think the players should endeavor to get themselves involved, but do make sure hooks are appealing. I'm not going to camp out in Castle Murderdeath just because it is there!

Also, make sure your players understand the situation. I fear they might think the game is a sandbox and might not realize the pressure and irritation they are causing. They might think it is just one hook out of many to pursue.

[mephnick]

Angry DM had a good article about this recently.

http://theangrygm.com/how-to-motivate-a-bunch-of-lying-liars/

It basically says people lie/ignore/forget about their motivations at the beginning and character and player motivation only reveal themselves through play, which the DM can't really predict immediately.



Lemme rephrase that: character motivation is not necessary, player motivation is.

Also this, basically.

[The Fury]

It's usually helpful to have more general goals and motivations. A character that wants to save their family is good for one adventure, basically, while their family is in danger. Once that threat is dealt with, then what? You will need to evolve their motives and personality so the character will abandon their family and continue going on adventures, or else let the character retire to the farm.
Of course any character will want to save their family, but making that the only motivation means the DM has to threaten the family every time they want you to do something, and it feels unbelievable.

D&D characters should have motives and personalities that support them regularly going on long journeys into unknown lands, risking their lives either for promise of reward or the benefit of strangers, and desiring to increase their powers and skill for whatever reason. This is what I tell my players. Your characters need to want to do these things, and they need to be able to work together on a long term basis. You decide the why's and how's.

I disagree. To get into better specifics with this character, her hometown was subject to orc raids and was located in what the kingdom considered expendable territory. The plot of the campaign actually was repelling an invasion force far too large for the town's regular fortifications and guard to deal with. Long story short, my character did save her family but she was left asking herself, "How long before this happens again?" Also, she ended up owing debts to people that she was able to convince to help and learned she had other siblings she had never met. And that's not even getting into the unresolved plot threads of other people's character arcs. So actually, she still has a lot of reasons to continue her adventuring career if the DM actually ever feels like starting up that setting with those characters again.


Quoting this because I have done this in the past.

Which one? Made a character start adventuring to protect their family? Or acted like a jerk because it was "in character?"

If the former, cool! If the latter, oh... oh no. No, don't make the same mistakes as me!

[HidesHisEyes]

I disagree. To get into better specifics with this character, her hometown was subject to orc raids and was located in what the kingdom considered expendable territory. The plot of the campaign actually was repelling an invasion force far too large for the town's regular fortifications and guard to deal with. Long story short, my character did save her family but she was left asking herself, "How long before this happens again?" Also, she ended up owing debts to people that she was able to convince to help and learned she had other siblings she had never met. And that's not even getting into the unresolved plot threads of other people's character arcs. So actually, she still has a lot of reasons to continue her adventuring career if the DM actually ever feels like starting up that setting with those characters

I don't think you and Thrudd are at odds actually. What you're describing sounds like just what Thrudd was getting at: you can start with a motivation specific to your first adventure (like "I want to keep my family safe") but that has to go somewhere once the first adventure is over. If the experience of the adventure changes something or lights a spark in your character and they get from that a new motivation along the lines of "I must keep all families safe" or even just "kill all the monsters", then mission accomplished. It's reminiscent of classical story structure like the kind used in Hollywood films, which should be no surprise.

[Thrudd]

I don't think you and Thrudd are at odds actually. What you're describing sounds like just what Thrudd was getting at: you can start with a motivation specific to your first adventure (like "I want to keep my family safe") but that has to go somewhere once the first adventure is over. If the experience of the adventure changes something or lights a spark in your character and they get from that a new motivation along the lines of "I must keep all families safe" or even just "kill all the monsters", then mission accomplished. It's reminiscent of classical story structure like the kind used in Hollywood films, which should be no surprise.

Yes, my point was: if you find yourself as a player having trouble resolving your character's motives with participation in the adventures, this means your character needs to change. Hopefully you can find a way to do this organically. Also, hopefully you designed your character in consideration of the type of game you are playing in. The responsibility lies both on the GM to give adequate instruction prior to the game, and players to follow that instruction.

In a situation where no specific guidelines are given prior to the game, it would be smart to assume the game will follow the basic format the system presents and create a character appropriate to that in a general sense. This is when having only a very specific motive is inappropriate, when you don't know whether the game will even touch the specific thing you are writing into your character's background. You should not assume the GM is looking to have plots dictated to them by the player's backgrpund stories.

[The Fury]

Yes, my point was: if you find yourself as a player having trouble resolving your character's motives with participation in the adventures, this means your character needs to change. Hopefully you can find a way to do this organically. Also, hopefully you designed your character in consideration of the type of game you are playing in. The responsibility lies both on the GM to give adequate instruction prior to the game, and players to follow that instruction.

Ah. I misunderstood then, I apologize.



In a situation where no specific guidelines are given prior to the game, it would be smart to assume the game will follow the basic format the system presents and create a character appropriate to that in a general sense. This is when having only a very specific motive is inappropriate, when you don't know whether the game will even touch the specific thing you are writing into your character's background. You should not assume the GM is looking to have plots dictated to them by the player's backgrpund stories.

Sure, if the DM isn't being specific about what the plot is it's not really possible to come up with a specific personal motivation for adventuring. In cases like this though, I'll usually skip coming up with a backstory at character creation and even when I do come up with one, it'd be fairly bare-bones. This is not to say the character never gets a backstory or motivation, I just decide it on the fly. I always figure it's best to hash out details on backstory and motivation after the details of the campaign world are better understood.

[Lorsa]

I think character motivation is crucial to any adventure. That may be because I find roleplaying a certain personality to be important, and not just having a statblock that faces challenges. So if an adventure is contradictory to a character's personality, I wouldn't (and shouldn't) persue it.

However, when constructing a personality for my character, it would go against my interests as a player to have a character which does not fit into the campaign. Therefore, it is imperative that the GM provides some general guidelines for the type of game they will be running, and what sort of characters that might fit into it. If the GM does not give any guidelines at all, I can only assume they will be working with whatever motivations I *do* come up with for my character.

For example, when I want to run a very generic D&D campaign, and not be overly specific as to what adventures there will be, I usually ask my players to make characters that are good aligned. That way, they will have a general motivation to help people in trouble, and I can thus freely design adventures where people need help!

[dps]

D&D characters should have motives and personalities that support them regularly going on long journeys into unknown lands, risking their lives either for promise of reward or the benefit of strangers, and desiring to increase their powers and skill for whatever reason. This is what I tell my players. Your characters need to want to do these things, and they need to be able to work together on a long term basis. You decide the why's and how's.

Yes. In theory, if you are playing a character who doesn't want to participate in a particular adventure, then you should be reluctant to take part. In practice, the key thing is, don't make such characters. This does require some pre-game communication/co-operation between the players and the DM. If the overall theme of a campaign is that the PCs are a group of mercenaries who will take any job if the money is right and will do a lot of looting, a player shouldn't create a Paladin, probably not any LG character, and quite possibly not any Good-aligned character. This is a job for LN, TN, and NE types. OTOH, if the theme is "classic heroic types saving the day", then a Paladin would be an excellent choice, and all the characters should probably be Good-aligned. (Of course, characters with alignments that are "inappropriate" by the standards I'm suggesting can still be made to work. For it to work, the players have to want to make it work, and come up with reasons why the "inappropriately"-aligned character stays with the party. For example, one of the mercenaries mentioned earlier is CG, but sticks around because he has been friends since childhood with the leader of the mercenary company. That's a bit clichéd, but it works.)

[LadyFoxfire]

I'm one of those players that needs a few sessions to get a handle on my character's personality and motivation, so my character's motivation for the first session or two is "wants to be an adventurer". That's enough to take the first plot hook, and it's open ended enough that you can fit just about any kind of personality into it; you like money, you like killing things, you need to grow in power (whether to better protect the innocent, gain ultimate arcane power, or get high level enough that you stand a chance against the 6-fingered man), or you need to make powerful friends so they can help you with your real goal.

[Jay R]

Any goal that requires more power, money, or influence than the character currently has can justify joining pretty much any quest.

Wish to take over a kingdom? OK, join the quest for the monkey idol so you can get more practice fighting, more money for hiring an army.

Desire to rescue the dwarves from slavery by the Frost Giants? Go join the fleet sailing to the new world so you can get enough power and experience.

Lust after the local tavern wench but afraid because you're just a gardener? Accompany a party to destroy the One Ring into the Cracks of Doom, and come back with enough self-confidence to talk to her.

Want to kill the six-fingered man but can't find him? Go help Vizzini capture and kill the princess to start a war just to pay the bills.

[StealthyRobot]

I've played D&D for four years now, and have recently DM'd my first two sessions. I just revealed the main plot hook, but one character doesn't feel his monk would want to do this, and instead pursue his own goals. So, to answer your question, player motivation is very important, especially in a story driven campaign. The player is thinking about rolling a new character if he doesn't find motivation for his monk next session. Coming up with that motivation can be difficult.

[goto124]

Why did the player create his monk without knowing the main plot hook?

[StealthyRobot]

Why did the player create his monk without knowing the main plot hook?
I didn't want to restrict the players on character backstory. I wanted them to feel like they discover the story, so I gave the players basic world info and my only restriction was that they had to be in a certain city. Kinda a mistake, as I assumed they would want to work together, so i had to improv some stuff to make them get grouped up for a quest. Also hard when two members are slow to trust others and one is very untalkative and shy. They also didn't feel like they flund the quest, but thats okay. Its ony my second session DM'ing, I'll get better over time.

[goto124]

So... there. Let the players know early on the plot hook, and the premise of the campaign. Otherwise, you'll end up with PCs who don't fit into the game, or have character motivations that have little to do with the plot.

Like the earlier-mentioned Dragon Hunter in a game with no dragons. Sure you could try adjusting goals to somehow fit, but by then it's hackneyed.

Also, make sure the players are not creating their characters independantly of others. Drow and drow-hater, or pacifist and murderhobo in the same group? You could give excuses to make them go together, but that requires even more planning amongst the players, things go wrong more easily as the story progresses in-game, and all it takes is a Session 0 anyway.

I saw your other thread. Best of luck.

[NovenFromTheSun]

In any medium I'm generally more interested in characters trying to avoid a loss than acquire a gain. If I flat out tell this to a GM, what kind of reaction should I expect?

EDIT: I'm willing to make a concession and make a character who can do some mercenary work to get funds to protect themselves from loss. And I general I want to make a character loyal to the party.

[Thrudd]

I didn't want to restrict the players on character backstory. I wanted them to feel like they discover the story, so I gave the players basic world info and my only restriction was that they had to be in a certain city. Kinda a mistake, as I assumed they would want to work together, so i had to improv some stuff to make them get grouped up for a quest. Also hard when two members are slow to trust others and one is very untalkative and shy. They also didn't feel like they flund the quest, but thats okay. Its ony my second session DM'ing, I'll get better over time.

Yes, I think everyone has done this. It just takes experience to anticipate these things and stop them before they happen.

[Thrudd]

In any medium I'm generally more interested in characters trying to avoid a loss than acquire a gain. If I flat out tell this to a GM, what kind of reaction should I expect?

EDIT: I'm willing to make a concession and make a character who can do some mercenary work to get funds to protect themselves from loss. And I general I want to make a character loyal to the party.

It depends on the game you're playing. "Avoiding loss" has a passive connotation, like your character would wait for something to happen to them before they would want to join an adventure. In a sandbox style open world, your character needs to have proactive motives, not waiting for some threat to attack their home or the apocalypse to start. In the course of the campaign, maybe there will eventually be such threats, but the character needs to be self-motivated to start with.

If I said "this is a game about adventurers seeking their fortunes in the ruins of lost civilizations", your character needs to want to do that. Why your character wants to do that is up to you. If the character has a limited goal revolving around avoiding some loss, like buying his sister back out of slavery or paying the debts on his family's estates before they get repossessed or whatever, you need to ask yourself what you will do when you are able to achieve that goal after a few successful expeditions.

"Avoiding" motives tend to be limited, unless it's "avoiding" the threats to civilization by defeating monsters wherever you find them, or "avoiding" being someone else's servant by gaining enough wealth to become ruler of your own kingdom.

[goto124]

In any medium I'm generally more interested in characters trying to avoid a loss than acquire a gain. If I flat out tell this to a GM, what kind of reaction should I expect?

'I'm running away from my debts. I need money and distance from those loan sharks I was stupid enough to borrow from.'

Seems simple enough :smalltongue:

[The Fury]

If I said "this is a game about adventurers seeking their fortunes in the ruins of lost civilizations", your character needs to want to do that. Why your character wants to do that is up to you. If the character has a limited goal revolving around avoiding some loss, like buying his sister back out of slavery or paying the debts on his family's estates before they get repossessed or whatever, you need to ask yourself what you will do when you are able to achieve that goal after a few successful expeditions.

I know you didn't ask me, but if I were playing a character with a motivation like that here's how I'd handle it. Assuming that all the character wants to do is pay off some robber baron or buy his sister out of slavery and they could manage it after a few successful expeditions, I'd probably just retire the character and make a new one after that's been fulfilled. After all, that character's story is essentially wrapped up at that point. But the way RPG campaigns tend to go, things are rarely that cut and dry. Maybe this hypothetical PC learned that his sister's been sold to a noble family on some remote island, or maybe his family's been sent to debtor's prison or something. Also, characters can grow and change too-- maybe this PC joined an adventuring party to pay off his gambling debts but stuck around because he came to like the people in his party and wanted to help see their endeavors through.



"Avoiding" motives tend to be limited, unless it's "avoiding" the threats to civilization by defeating monsters wherever you find them, or "avoiding" being someone else's servant by gaining enough wealth to become ruler of your own kingdom.

Something like "I'm avoiding the evil lich that's been pursuing me for reasons I don't understand!" seems pretty solid to me.


'I'm running away from my debts. I need money and distance from those loan sharks I was stupid enough to borrow from.'

Seems simple enough :smalltongue:

Or that. Yeah, that's actually a lot better.

[Lorsa]

In any medium I'm generally more interested in characters trying to avoid a loss than acquire a gain. If I flat out tell this to a GM, what kind of reaction should I expect?

EDIT: I'm willing to make a concession and make a character who can do some mercenary work to get funds to protect themselves from loss. And I general I want to make a character loyal to the party.

Avoid a loss is enough. Your standard "it's the end of the world!" scenario usually involves trying to avoid a loss (the world).

[Thrudd]

I know you didn't ask me, but if I were playing a character with a motivation like that here's how I'd handle it. Assuming that all the character wants to do is pay off some robber baron or buy his sister out of slavery and they could manage it after a few successful expeditions, I'd probably just retire the character and make a new one after that's been fulfilled. After all, that character's story is essentially wrapped up at that point. But the way RPG campaigns tend to go, things are rarely that cut and dry. Maybe this hypothetical PC learned that his sister's been sold to a noble family on some remote island, or maybe his family's been sent to debtor's prison or something. Also, characters can grow and change too-- maybe this PC joined an adventuring party to pay off his gambling debts but stuck around because he came to like the people in his party and wanted to help see their endeavors through.

Something like "I'm avoiding the evil lich that's been pursuing me for reasons I don't understand!" seems pretty solid to me.


If your level 1 character is being pursued by a lich, things do not bode well for you or anyone else in the vicinity when it finds you. You've sort of written in a limited shelf life for that guy lol.

The PC retiring or changing and deciding to keep adventuring is fine. It's just something the player will need to consider as their initial backstory is resolved.

End of the world scenarios are something I'd avoid, at least until the characters are all quite high level and we're getting towards wanting to start a new campaign. So that doesn't really work as a motive for level 1 adventurers.

[Jay R]

The point is this. It's fairly easy for a PC or a DM to set up a situation in which the plot and the character cannot coexist.

Don't. Just don't.

[Garimeth]

I know you didn't ask me, but if I were playing a character with a motivation like that here's how I'd handle it. Assuming that all the character wants to do is pay off some robber baron or buy his sister out of slavery and they could manage it after a few successful expeditions, I'd probably just retire the character and make a new one after that's been fulfilled. After all, that character's story is essentially wrapped up at that point.

So much this. I don't feel like I need to play the same character through the whole campaign, in stories many characters come and go, they accomplish their goal, and go live their lives. I am perfectly fine with retiring my PCs when they don't fit anymore, and will not be upset by it at all. BUT if I did have a problem with it, I would just make sure I built into a back story easy enough motivation for my character.


Any goal that requires more power, money, or influence than the character currently has can justify joining pretty much any quest.

Wish to take over a kingdom? OK, join the quest for the monkey idol so you can get more practice fighting, more money for hiring an army.

Desire to rescue the dwarves from slavery by the Frost Giants? Go join the fleet sailing to the new world so you can get enough power and experience.

Lust after the local tavern wench but afraid because you're just a gardener? Accompany a party to destroy the One Ring into the Cracks of Doom, and come back with enough self-confidence to talk to her.

Want to kill the six-fingered man but can't find him? Go help Vizzini capture and kill the princess to start a war just to pay the bills.

All great examples!

[The Fury]

If your level 1 character is being pursued by a lich, things do not bode well for you or anyone else in the vicinity when it finds you. You've sort of written in a limited shelf life for that guy lol.

Ha! Oh yeah, definitely a limited shelf life! Maybe the rest of the party too. This is why I got to admit that goto1234's suggestion of running from debt collectors is much better-- waay less disruptive.



The PC retiring or changing and deciding to keep adventuring is fine. It's just something the player will need to consider as their initial backstory is resolved.


With characters I make, I notice that they tend to get interested in accomplishing things other than their starting goal. Especially in really detailed settings, secondary and tertiary motivations tend to sort of crop up organically, Maybe this is just how I as a player keep myself interested.



End of the world scenarios are something I'd avoid, at least until the characters are all quite high level and we're getting towards wanting to start a new campaign. So that doesn't really work as a motive for level 1 adventurers.

Averting the apocalypse is always a weird scenario for early in the adventure. Realistically speaking, any character I make would have some stake in saving the world-- I mean... well, it's the world! Character levels aside, early in the adventure it's never been a plot that I could get into. As a player, I mean. I think it's because early in a campaign I never have that great of a grasp of the setting or my character's place in it.

[dps]

In any medium I'm generally more interested in characters trying to avoid a loss than acquire a gain. If I flat out tell this to a GM, what kind of reaction should I expect?

EDIT: I'm willing to make a concession and make a character who can do some mercenary work to get funds to protect themselves from loss. And I general I want to make a character loyal to the party.

Play a cleric/healer/medic type. Your focus is on keeping the party alive and healthy (avoiding them losing their lives). As Malack said, "A perpetual struggle to maintain the hit point totals of four or five nigh-suicidal tomb robbers determined to deplete them at all costs".

[Jay R]

In any medium I'm generally more interested in characters trying to avoid a loss than acquire a gain. If I flat out tell this to a GM, what kind of reaction should I expect?

A poor DM will get annoyed. A good DM will thank you for the information, and send a death squad debt collections agent after you that you can only avoid by hiding in the Dark Tunnels of Curiously CR-Appropriate Encounters.

[Quertus]

So, let's say you want to run your epic "slay the dragon" quest, and one of the players wants to run a stay-at-home type.

You can try to take responsibility for making him come along - have the dragon burn down his house, kill his next of kin. Have him abducted by slavers and have the party rescue him and hope that, in gratitude, he agrees to help on their quest. Or concoct some other reason for him to be along.

You can wash your hands, and leave it to the player to figure out why Mr. couch potato bothers to dust off the chips and join your story. Perhaps some of the other players will even take responsibility for forcing him to come along.

You can share responsibility with the player - or, in a good group, with all the players - and work together to make it work.

You can discuss with the party (in my experience, any one of the people involved may start the discussion) about just how this character will work, or even discuss the meta of who has responsibility (in general, or this time in particular).

Or you can throw up you hands, and say that this character is disruptive to your story, and force the player to make a new character. (The player can, of course, come to the same conclusion and make a new character on his own.)

But saying that Bilbo Baggins is a detriment to the Hobbit just seems wrong. I'd say the story wouldn't have been near as classic if his player had just brought an "appropriate" Murder Hobo.

In my opinion, the best stories are the ones that have conflict - even if that is the apparent conflict between the character and the quest - and a group - whether as a whole, or just one person with the appropriate skills - to resolve those conflicts successfully.

To try to answer your question, as to whose responsibility is it to make the character and the adventure fit, in my opinion it is everyone's shared responsibility. Finding the way(s) that works best for your particular group can be the difference between internal conflict and creating a truly memorable story.

[NovenFromTheSun]

Sorry that it's been a while since last time. I thank you all for your thoughtful, and often humorous, responses. :smallsmile:

I don't need to play someone like that all the time, but I would like it if I could every so often. Variety's good.

[Raimun]

Yeah, I can totally just go down to the dungeon and start beating up monsters until the case is closed.

However, sometimes the issue of character motivation bugs me. For example, one time a GM threw a clear (out of character) but vague (in character) plot hook about a guy who wasn't at home at the beginning of the adventure, even though he should totally be there. After it was sure he wasn't opening the door and he most likely wasn't at home, my character decided basically that normal people like himself wouldn't go investigate something like that. You just don't barge inside the house of some acquaintance, would you? So we all went to have a brew.

Now, this isn't such a big deal in one shots but sometimes it's kind of weird in longer campaigns. If we compare this to video game/computer-RPGs, ideally the level of character motivation should be like in a Final Fantasy-game (or in OotS). All the characters are clearly tied to world. However, many campaigns I've played in have been kind of like western RPGs. You make your character in a kind of vacuum with no ties to the world. Then it's thrust to the world as a kind of blank slate, which is clad in a suit of armor with a sword and some spells.

I've even tried writing backstories for my characters, all of them with some plothook ideas but I'm always a bit surprised when any of it is translated to a game.

How could this be fixed? Perhaps campaigns should be written with more player input? First there would be the world. Then players would create characters with backstories. Only after that the GM would write the campaign, NPCs and the rough lines of the adventures. This might be more work for everyone but if I'm ever being a GM in a long campaign, I just might try it.

Campaign 2.0: This Time It's Personal! :smallcool:

[goto124]

Or... a Session 0.

The GM should give out at least an outline of the world, as well as character generation guidelines (Is this high-magic or low-magic? How dungeon-y or social-y or political-y? Is the Evil alignment allowed?). Things that the players can use to create backstories that tie in with the rest of the world.

The players should also work with one another, to tie the characters together, and give them some reason to work as a team. They could be friends, schoolmates, working in the same mercenary company, whatever.

[Raimun]

Or... a Session 0.

The GM should give out at least an outline of the world, as well as character generation guidelines (Is this high-magic or low-magic? How dungeon-y or social-y or political-y? Is the Evil alignment allowed?). Things that the players can use to create backstories that tie in with the rest of the world.

The players should also work with one another, to tie the characters together, and give them some reason to work as a team. They could be friends, schoolmates, working in the same mercenary company, whatever.

Yeah, but outside of that? How do the players relate to the world and the NPCs? Is that relation tied to the story and plot at all? How many movies do you know where the main character was just like a western computer RPG-character?

My point is: It's very common that the players listen to what the GM has to say about the world and the setting but how often does the GM listen to what the players have to say about their characters?

I mean, no main villain has ever been the father of one of the heroes... :smalltongue: