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

[Mort]

I certainly get the idea that some want success to be a near-constant and failure to be just a speed bump rather than a hard loss.

Note I say failure rather than consequences. They're different. Failure happens here and now and has to be dealt with here and now; consequences happen later and thus can sometimes be mitigated or avoided.

I've certainly found that both success and failure have to be present for true enjoyment.

If success is constant with failure never an occurrence then the success doesn't actually mean anything - it's a given. Players will likely have less fun when there is no true challenge to overcome.

Conversely, if failure is constant - no matter what the players do they never seem to get even a small scale win condition - that too, is a huge fun dampener as players will likely stop putting any sort of effort in.

The key is to ensure that success is possible but failure is also possible. And ideally success is more possible than failure and happens more often but that failure never ceases to be a possibility and still occurs enough for the players to not take success for, in any way, granted.

The above seems obvious, but I've seen way to many campaigns (not just D&D) where even small scale success is so fleeting that players get bogged down and just lose interest.

 

[jayoungr]

Isn't this a convoluted way of saying that one doesn't like fear as a motivator (not a conclusive argument even, all opinion) and suggests finding alternatives? But yet the OP has not really described what "fear" is in that sense, just that it is not liked. As I noted elsewhere, fear is a super event and not a constant in any game I have ever played. Anxiety and doubt are. So is the OP actually objecting to fear or is he posing and oppositional viewpoint to style which he sees as a constraint to his and his group's style? I am tending to see the latter.

I'll let the OP speak for himself about what he meant. For myself, it means I need to find things that my group enjoys betting on the whims of the dice for--whether that's treasure, prestige, honor, or yes, their characters' lives--and put those things at stake. But I want to do it in a way that makes the players feel like they can engage with the situation, have an idea of where the risks are, and can use the tools at their disposal in pursuit of the things they want--with the understanding that they may not succeed and that something logical will happen if they don't.

If that is what some on this thread call fear, then we're just arguing semantics. I might call it concern. To me, fear means the players are starting from a place of worry and timidity, and they avoid engaging because their highest priority is avoiding failure. I'd rather see players whose highest priority is trying for success because the consequences of failure are not something they'd do absolutely anything to avoid. This is not the same as the DM guaranteeing that they will succeed, or that nothing at all will happen if they fail.

(Vaalingrade's post about horror movies also seems applicable here, with the note that some people who dislike jump-scares may be fine with more sustained or street-level horror. I have a friend who'll lap up creepy or gory movies but was deeply disturbed by Trainspotting, saying it was "too real.")

 

[jmartkdr2]

In Diplomacy if you're knocked out of the game as any country (which is the purpose), you are out. Same in Monopoly, the Game of Life, etc.

It's probably worth noting that in board game circles, this is considered bad game design.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

It's probably worth noting that in board game circles, this is considered bad game design.

Haha!! Diplomacy is considered one of the most innovative games ever invented. So was Monopoly. Citations please. I know Michael Gray personally and he would laugh at this. Having won a Charles Robert's Award for BG design myself I really doubt that anyone of any worth would suggest this. Hahhahaha! Best laugh I've had in years! Thank you!!!!

 

[jayoungr]

I don’t see how you missed my point about motivations.

Clearly, we're mutually not getting each other's points, then. I feel like if I were making myself clear enough, you wouldn't feel the need to put in that bit about how you wouldn't enjoy success being a given. That is no part of what I aim for when I DM.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Haha!! Diplomacy is considered one of the most innovative games ever invented. So was Monopoly. Citations please. I know Michael Gray personally and he would laugh at this. Having won a Charles Robert's Award for BG design myself I really doubt that anyone of any worth would suggest this. Hahhahaha! Best laugh I've had in years! Thank you!!!!

Well, Monopoly is rank 20,535 out of 20,542 ranked games on BoardGameGeek, so calling that a paragon of good design doesn't seem like a strong argument. It's better than The Game of Life (rank 20,536), so I guess it's not the worst.

Browse Board Games | BoardGameGeek

boardgamegeek.com

But I'll abstain on Diplomacy. I've never played it and it's ranked 614 (top 3% of all games), so either the mechanic is used well or the game's so good one flaw isn't worth mentioning.

(Although the most recent review I could find notes that "You need 7 players who are simultaneously ruthless and congenial, are willing to sacrifice half a day and are okay with practically guaranteed player elimination." Not an endorsement of the mechanic.)

Diplomacy

Powers of post-Victorian Europe cooperate and clash to become master of the Continent

boardgamegeek.com

 

[Umbran]

This smacks as a "badwrongfun" type thread.

Then it's a badwrongfun reaction to a different thread which is also a badwrongfun reaction? We on the two wrongs make a right road now?

Mod note:
If that's all you have to offer the thread, it is time for you to leave it.

It is perfectly reasonable to discuss and critique the effectiveness of a game aspect or technique at achieving some particular end.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Haha!! Diplomacy is considered one of the most innovative games ever invented. So was Monopoly. Citations please. I know Michael Gray personally and he would laugh at this. Having won a Charles Robert's Award for BG design myself I really doubt that anyone of any worth would suggest this. Hahhahaha! Best laugh I've had in years! Thank you!!!!

Anyways, before I derail the thread even worse:

Player elimination on boardgames isn't really comparable to character death in DnD. For DnD the real question is "how long before you can get back into the game?" which varies a lot between games - even within a single edition.

The conventional wisdom here is: the longer it takes to get back into the game, the more it sucks to be removed from play. And since character death =/= character loss, it can be shorter than making a new character. And there are other variables (ie how stupid <-> satisfying you felt the death was) which can vary a lot as well.

 

[Umbran]

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.

I return... AGAIN.. to the OP. This is about fear of death as motivation.

As you reach the top of the first hill of a roller coaster, and go over that drop, yes there's a thrill. Nobody's saying that isn't there, or isn't fun.

That's separate from what it actually gets people to do, if anything.

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

So... time and time again, it has been noted that death is not the only possible consequence.

If what you are here to do is to beat the same old strawman drum, and say, "BUT I LIKE DEATH!!!" I really think you should go find a thread in which you can take some constructive part.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

Well, Monopoly is rank 20,535 out of 20,542 ranked games on BoardGameGeek, so calling that a paragon of good design doesn't seem like a strong argument. It's better than The Game of Life (rank 20,536), so I guess it's not the worst.

Browse Board Games | BoardGameGeek

boardgamegeek.com

But I'll abstain on Diplomacy. I've never played it and it's ranked 614 (top 3% of all games), so either the mechanic is used well or the game's so good one flaw isn't worth mentioning.

(Although the most recent review I could find notes that "You need 7 players who are simultaneously ruthless and congenial, are willing to sacrifice half a day and are okay with practically guaranteed player elimination." Not an endorsement of the mechanic.)

Diplomacy

Powers of post-Victorian Europe cooperate and clash to become master of the Continent

boardgamegeek.com

Monopoly is old, yes, but ranking is not a sign of drowning out its innovation. For its time, every board game designer would agree, it could not be touched and indeed revealed the path of how to innovate for future games. Putting it in a proper design perspective is important; and most modern day players, just like then, play their own games and gravitate away from the "old" and to the new as part of the socialization aspect among peers (thus, even, OLD and NEW School in our Hobby which I do not concur with for good reasons, a total other subject). It is, however, I believe, still the best-selling game of all time.

You'd have to play Diplomacy to understand and appreciate it.