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

[jayoungr]

For my players, it's about there being a risk of losing the character. They invest in their characters and want to feel like they can lose it all if they screw up or things go very badly for them. Without that risk, they feel like the game is too easy and that reduces their enjoyment.

And that's great, for your group. A problem arises when people try to make this a universal rule that "should" be applied to all tables. I can't tell you how many "advice to the DM" videos and columns I've seen that say, as an absolute principle, that the DM should always make sure players fear for their characters' lives, because it will make the game better. That's simply not true for every group, mine being exhibit A to the contrary.

 

[Maxperson]

And that's great, for your group. A problem arises when people try to make this a universal rule that "should" be applied to all tables.

The only universal rule that should be applied to all tables is "Everyone should be having fun." Everything else can be changed to meet that one rule.

I can't tell you how many "advice to the DM" videos and columns I've seen that say, as an absolute principle, that the DM should always make sure players fear for their characters' lives, because it will make the game better. That's simply not true for every group, mine being exhibit A to the contrary.

Yeah. Lots of DMs think their way is the best/only way, because that's what they and their group like.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Wow: I dunno. Sunshine and rainbows are great but if I am playing D&D much of the thrill is the fear of and avoidance of some sort of loss.

If you know you can win every fight without a consequence does the fight matter?

the gaining of levels and treasure can be fun especially if they are not guaranteed. The possibility of rewards and the fear of loss go hand in hand. One without the other is not so cool for me.

I like 5e a lot but only if there is fear of losing at some points or even dying. I don’t like the narrative approach much and prefer some level of emergent play.

the oh s**t moments are memorable. In the days level drains were watched things but we also usually had a chance to adventure and find a cleric to help which of itself was fun derived from loss.

 

[Maxperson]

Wow: I dunno. Sunshine and rainbows are great but if I am playing D&D much of the thrill is the fear of and avoidance of some sort of loss.

If you know you can win every fight without a consequence does the fight matter?

That's how my group and I view it. However, not everyone has the same goal out of D&D. Some people want to explore character. Others something different. Depending on what you want out of the game, death and fear of loss might be irrelevant. Some people enjoy railroads, because they don't have to think so much and it makes for a more relaxing game. Others want a Sandbox where the world is their oyster. Yet others want something in-between.

 

[payn]

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.

I love enthusiasm, however its something I feel game and adventure design has been very hit and miss on. I love the various character options out there such as; traits, backgrounds, archetypes, prestige classes, etc. Often, these options are not well balanced amongst themselves, which makes some options much more stronger than others. It also leads to homogeneity in the gaming community as folks come to consensus on the best options to take. The Paizo adventure paths do a good job on both the character options and adventure campaigns. Its great to not only see options tailored to the campaign, but also included in the modules to assist the GM. I say a good job, but not a great one. I think this is a space that is ripe for the next gaming design breakout. Or, maybe that's just where my hopes lay.

At the table, the GM often has a lot of responsibility to make sure the enthusiasm comes alive. It's great if a player hits the table with a cool background, and gaming options to fit. However, if the character never encounters the chance to explore these endeavors, it kills enthusiasm dead. For decades that large burden rested on the GMs shoulders, but I hope adventure design can help bring up the average GM in this area.

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!

Affection is reactive for sure. It can be a very difficult element to cultivate at the table for both GM and players. I've seen GMs put a lot of love into a cute cuddly NPC only to have the players take a giant dook on it. A GM has to understand that the players wont bite on every hook, and sometimes you have to follow their lead. This can take you to really fun places and its memorable for sure, but it can also kill a GMs enthusiasm dead if the players hate their ideas.

I think the enthusiasm is a lot stronger of a motivating element than affection. Affection is just so difficult to think about in a tangible way like enthusiasm or even fear. Fear has long held its position as a motivator because its so tangible. It's baked right into the rules and its conditions are clearly spelled out. Every adventure module hits the fear factors, not so much the enthusiasm or affection points. Though, as adventure design grows and changes, maybe these intangible items can become a stronger motivation factor as folks learn to utilize them better at their tables?

 

[jayoungr]

If you know you can win every fight without a consequence does the fight matter?

No character death =/= no consequences.

Also, this is straying from the topic of motivators again.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

Yeah, some of the old school modules had very arbitrary deaths.

To the point where the only way I'd enjoy playing them is if the DM allowed the Robilar method (as in a heard of stampeding sheep to clear the traps; @Rob Kuntz was that actually done, or is that apocryphal?)

Heh. Not into thread-stealing so the short answer is no. Robilar used 5 orcs to clear the ToH playtest. I was suspicious of the entrance and ordered an orc forward to check it out, t refused so I killed it on the spot, then ordered the others -- now all very cooperative! -- to do the same, one at a time. They triggered all of the entry corridor's pit traps and died. Funny how "fish stories" grow.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

No character death =/= no consequences.

Also, this is straying from the topic of motivators again.

?

I think I mentioned treasure and level gain tempered by fear of loss as a motivator.

also retaining what you have gained is not just a punishment. The satisfaction of getting out of the dungeon is a reward and motivator.

however if it’s a given, it’s Not for me.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

Wow: I dunno. Sunshine and rainbows are great but if I am playing D&D much of the thrill is the fear of and avoidance of some sort of loss.

If you know you can win every fight without a consequence does the fight matter?

the gaining of levels and treasure can be fun especially if they are not guaranteed. The possibility of rewards and the fear of loss go hand in hand. One without the other is not so cool for me.

I like 5e a lot but only if there is fear of losing at some points or even dying. I don’t like the narrative approach much and prefer some level of emergent play.

the oh s**t moments are memorable. In the days level drains were watched things but we also usually had a chance to adventure and find a cleric to help which of itself was fun derived from loss.

Well reasoned points and I concur. Emergent play defines stories as building whereas narrative is concluding that "this will happen". Appears related to another topic afoot on these boards today.

Level drain, as an aside, was Gary's big move to play balance. the latter which he was overly, IMO, obsessed with. I tried to avoid it whenever possible in my games and was more into the incremental whittling effects rather than outright death or instant loss which is chaotically haphazard (IMO as a designer/DM). I believe many DMs (especially 1E DMs) get nervous about advancement of characters even under the fairest of circumstances, but I was never like that. I see the act of handling advancement as a positive one.

 

[Deset Gled]

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.

... Would it "not be D&D" if fear weren't the fundamental motivator of your games?

I've seen flimsier strawmen in my day, but not many.

• What you describe as "outright encouraging paranoia" is not D&D. It's, well, Paranoia.
• Describing character death as "losing their ability to participate" is a false equivalency of epic proportions. Does your DM kick you out of the group if your PC dies? I doubt it.
• I simply do not believe that you have been told, recently, on this very forum, that either of the above are true.
• Is "Hot Take" new internet speak for "I'm trolling, but want to be taken seriously anyway". Because can't think of any other way to describe the question "Would it "not be D&D" if fear weren't the fundamental motivator of your games?" Dress it up with as many disclaimers as you like.

There's lots of interesting and intelligent discussion to be had about fear vs. reward based behavior at the game design level, DM level, and adventure level. But I can't imagine any of that discussion happening in a thread that starts like this.