D&D General "Hot Take": Fear is a bad motivator

[EzekielRaiden]

With that provocative title to grab your attention, let me explain what I mean. Please, as with all things of this type, keep in mind a giant neon sign that says, "OBVIOUSLY NOT APPLICABLE TO 100% OF PEOPLE."

In D&D of even a somewhat "old school" bent, it has always seemed to me that the game outright encourages inducing paranoia in your players. Making them distrust every offer of allegiance, every kind gesture, every calm scene, every peaceful town. Making them rightfully believe that they're in constant danger of losing their ability to participate in play, aka, in constant danger of character permadeath, for light and transient causes. I've even been told, just recently and on this very forum, that such paranoia absolutely is how play should work.

To that, I say bollocks.

Yes, fear is an "effective" motivator, in the narrow sense that it usually succeeds at producing some kind of response. But being effective at producing some kind of response at all is not the same as being effective at producing an enjoyable experience.

Fear alone is, in all honesty, kind of boring. I mean, it's "exciting" in a certain sense, but at least for me, only because I want it to go away. It is "exciting" in the way that a nasty, dramatic, but temporary illness is "exciting": it disrupts, confuses, and invites rash action. And the consequences of death for the player experience are...not getting to play anymore. Instead of creating new stakes, new costs, new challenges, character death just...ends everything. That can of course mean loss for the other players, but for the individual directly affected, it just means "you LOSE. Good DAY, sir!"

Again, I do not mean to rail against the use of fear as ONE tool in the toolbox. But for me it is best used sparingly, a pungent spice to be added as needed, not a core ingredient. Instead, for my part, the main motivators should be enthusiasm and affection.

Enthusiasm typically manifests as the player bringing something to the table. A personal story idea they like. A race they want to play. An open-ended mysterious backstory, or maybe a unique trait or quirk that sets something in motion. Feeding and supporting genuine player enthusiasm--that is, rooted in simple joy about something, and not a desire to exploit or coerce--is much more effective as a base motivator in my experience. It gives the player a feeling of belonging, even ownership; the game is, in at least some small part, "theirs," and that motivates them to see it flourish and change. As long as the player understands that supporting their enthusiasm does not mean guaranteeing success (failure is a vital part of most stories worth telling!), I see few ways that genuine enthusiasm produces perverse incentives.

Affection, meanwhile, tends to be more reactive. It's the player's response to things, characters, and events as they unfold. That silly NPC the DM threw in as a joke, who became a beloved friend and whose noble sacrifice to save the party was both tragic and triumphant in turns. The way an offhand remark about family grows into a whole adventure to save them. These bits of affection, when nurtured, become key parts of the game the players will remember fondly, long after play ends. And they motivate players, not out of fear of losing these things like some miser hoarding his coin, but out of the desire to help and support them, to see them grow and improve rather than decline or lose. Unless it's directed toward those enemies you just love to hate! But I'd lump that in with affection too, even if it's an affection for rubbing the smug snake's face in the dirt. Righteous indignation!

Again: fear shouldn't be removed. It is too fundamental, too core to human experience. But its unquestioned central position, its absolute dominance of the player motivation field, is a disservice to the game. Embracing and encouraging these more positive, intrinsic motives rather than the imposed, extrinsic motive of fear...just produces better games, IMO, whether you prefer Zero to Hero or High Adventure type journeys.

If you do everything you can to have genuinely enthusiastic players who find and express affection for the game they play, fear need be only a sometimes food. Instead of paranoia and anxiety, they'll be full of passion, curiosity, indignation, maybe even pride and hope! Failure, not a dreaded menace, but an accepted difficulty on the journey.

So. How about it? Does "don't fear the reaper roller" sound like blasphemy or beatitude? Would it "not be D&D" if fear weren't the fundamental motivator of your games?

 

[prabe]

I don't know that I'd say fear is the primary motivator in my campaigns--certainly less fear of PC permadeath than fear of PC failure. Failure to save a person, or a town, or a world; fear of those failures definitely plays a role. So does anger. So does altruism. So does grief. So does hope. Affection and enthusiasm (as you define/describe them) as well.

 

[AOieiosle]

In a game almost entirely about combat, I would argue that fear is more important than 'good vibes'. If players want 'affection' as a prime motivator, they usually find themselves moving towards story games or newer style TTRPGs where combat isn't baked into the experience. There are even games where you don't fight at all.

So I would disagree. While the world of RPGs has exploded into a varied rainbow of experiences, DnD is still a game of play violence and looting (and sometimes talking too).

Out of the game/gameworld, I will agree that the camaraderie around the table (oh man do I miss actual in-person gaming) is what brings me back (even with clunky systems or weird campaigns).

 

[prabe]

In a game almost entirely about combat, I would argue that fear is more important than 'good vibes'. If players want 'affection' as a prime motivator, they usually find themselves moving towards story games or newer style TTRPGs where combat isn't baked into the experience. There are even games where you don't fight at all.

So I would disagree. While the world of RPGs has exploded into a varied rainbow of experiences, DnD is still a game of play violence and looting (and sometimes talking too).

I have done entire sessions--sometimes multiple sessions in a row--entirely without combat. Your D&D games might well be lots of fights with occasional instances of talking to set up other fights and maybe some other skill checks to throw the fights into relief; that's not everyone's D&D games.

 

[AOieiosle]

I have done entire sessions--sometimes multiple sessions in a row--entirely without combat. Your D&D games might well be lots of fights with occasional instances of talking to set up other fights and maybe some other skill checks to throw the fights into relief; that's not everyone's D&D games.

No, you're absolutely right. What I was trying to get at was that there are games now that cater to that specific playstyle and DnD (which I rarely play now because of those new systems) is built around 3 pillars, one of which is combat.

DnD can be used for many types of games, but there are systems dedicated to a non-combative experience.

 

[Mort]

In a game almost entirely about combat, I would argue that fear is more important than 'good vibes'. If players want 'affection' as a prime motivator, they usually find themselves moving towards story games or newer style TTRPGs where combat isn't baked into the experience. There are even games where you don't fight at all.

So I would disagree. While the world of RPGs has exploded into a varied rainbow of experiences, DnD is still a game of play violence and looting (and sometimes talking too).

Even in a game with lots of fights, it doesn't have to be about paranoia and fear.

Greed is a very common D&D motivator.

Ambition is also a huge one.

More in line with the OP - Compassion and protection is also huge. I ran a long campaign where the PCs were part of the Church of the Silver Flame - bringing protection and compassion to the downtrodden and afraid - it was a blast.

I think the OPs point is don't have only one arrow in your quiver (as motivation) it gets old and people get bored.

 

[prabe]

No, you're absolutely right. What I was trying to get at was that there are games now that cater to that specific playstyle and DnD (which I rarely play now because of those new systems) is built around 3 pillars, one of which is combat.

DnD can be used for many types of games, but there are systems dedicated to a non-combative experience.

Fair enough. And for the record, I don't disagree with you (and even 5E has so many class features that are combat-focused that I make a point of making sure people get opportunities to try new things while they're new (before giving them an opportunity to level further).

 

[Stormonu]

Back at Coastcon a few years ago - at least during the 3E era, I got into a game with others playing an OD&D game. Most of the other players at the table were fairly newcomers to D&D, and in at least one case, had never played D&D before. The two exceptions were me and another lady who was perhaps ten years my senior.

The DM certainly knew his stuff and was a great guy, who encouraged most of the player's bungling efforts to do thing. Which pissed the lady off. She kept complaining that if we "didn't straighten up", we'd all get ourselves killed. After fifteen minutes of our initial exploration to find an entrance to the dungeon (I suspect it was the Caverns of Thracia, but I'm not familiar enough to be sure), I got really, really tired of it. So we purposely started ignoring her cries and in the end we had a fabulous, heroic time and not once was the ten-foot pole pulled out and neither did we hemmed and hawwed at each doorway.

At the end of the game, she haughtly invited us to play at her table, and she would show us "how the (2E) game was supposed to be done." Me nor any of the other players took her up on the offer, and later I would see her sitting at a lone table, her wall of a DM screen erected with a sign "looking for players" and a capricious smile on her face - you could just tell she was waiting to torture whatever poor players sat at her table and give them a quick death. I think the module she even had behind her screen was the Tomb of Horrors.

Anyways, the fun in the game is from discovery, storymaking and a bit of tension. To have fun you don't have to have the characters looking over their shoulder for the spectre of death at every corner, with NPCs ready to betray their patrons at the drop of a hat, prodding ahead at a 5 foot pace on their hands and knees so some hidden blade doesn't decapitate half the party and drop the other half in a pit.

Relax. Have some fun. Maybe let the PCs stomp a few heads and run across the occassional enemy that can match them, or maybe once in a while make them decide to turn tail. But don't challenge them maliciously. Don't turn them into cowards in some game of Cube. Have fun with them and revel in their triumphs as well as cosole them in their failures. You and your game will be better for it.

 

[Krachek]

a player should not feel fear during DnD, more than during thrilling movie.
There is absolutely no risk of injuries, losing money, loosing reputation during a DnD game.
At worst you will be bored during some time, waiting for healing or a new character.

on the other hand it is very cool to play silly fearless or paranoid coward characters.

but paranoid players stuck in front of an unusual door is a lame.

 

[Flamestrike]

Moff Tarkin dislikes this.