I actually don't think it's a Rorschach test, because I don't think it is an ambiguous or amorphous image onto which the reader is invited to project a pattern. It's more like a boundary marker: if you read it and see it as a recipe for GM control, then that tells us something about where you draw the line between what counts as GM or as player control in a RPG.
I mean, let's go through it (and, just for completeness in this post, all quoted text is from p 99 of the 3E DMG):
Motivation is what drives the adventure - it's what gets the PCs involved in whatever you have designed for them to do. If the PCs aren't motivated, they won't do what you want them to do. . . .
Tailored motivations are ones that you have specifically designed with your group's PCs in mind. . . . a tailored motivation is good for ensuring that the PCs end up in the adventure you have designed and for letting the players feel like their characters have a real place in the world . . .
The second-person pronoun here is addressing the (prospective) GM of the 3E D&D game. The quoted text clearly presupposes that the GM
has designed something for the PCs to do - namely, an
adventure that they will
end up in - and that
this is what the GM wants the PCs to do. We are not told, in this passage, what the actual design principles are for these adventures. The text does seem to imply that
design comes first, and
motivation second, but that could just be poor writing.
The word "motivation" is itself ambiguous. It seems that the same word is being used to describe both
a property of the PCs - an inner state, that is, their wants, hopes, expectations etc that move them to action (early on, the passage reminds us that "Greed, fear, revenge, need, morality, anger, and curiosity are all powerful motivators" - these are all examples of inner states) - and also
a property of the situation the GM has designed - a feature of the situation that is external to the PCs but will motivate them by inviting or inciting them into action.
We might conclude that this passage is saying something a bit like (what I understand to be) Kevin Crawford's advice in the "Without Number" RPGs - about prepping between sessions based on the evinced desires of the players for what they would like to do next time. (I've seen
@Campbell post about this, and hopefully he can confirm whether or not what I've said in this paragraph is reasonable.)
That is, it could be that the GM is prepping for the next session, and wants that prepped content to be something the players will cheerfully have their PCs engage with, and hence builds elements into their prep that will invite or incite the players to do things with their PCs, given what the players have said they would like their PCs to do next.
What pushes a little bit against that is the reference to "the adventure" and the related reference to "what you [the GM] want them [the PCs] to do". My understanding of Crawford's advice is that it is mostly oriented to the prep of places and perhaps situations; whereas this DMG text seems to be talking about how sequences of situations ("the adventure") which the players will take their PCs through (by doing the things the GM "wants them to do").
Let's turn to the examples, and see if they help:
The PCs are a hardened group of mercenaries, not interested in [other-regarding concerns]. However, they are quite interested in gold . . .
the . . . PCs seek a means to raise [their companion Mialee from the dead]. . . . you mention that they have heard of a good hearted cleric . . . [who] is willing to raise Mialee, but only if the PCs help him [against] wererats . . .
the party has finished clearing out a wizard's tower and has lots of treasure. Therefore, you don't lure them into the next adventure using the promise of gold, but instead with the rumor that the wizard isn't dead . . . and has sworn revenge . . .
[the] brother [of the Dwarven PC] comes to the PCs, explains that a terrible tragedy has befallen [a Dwarven city], and asks for their help.
The first two examples posit the simplest possible motivations - gold that the PCs want, and a service that the PCs want but cannot simply purchase - and then use those as entry points into a situation, or a whole series of situations, that seem to have nothing at all to do with any player-authored motivations. The good-hearted cleric seems to be purely an invention of the GM's, and the wererats seem likewise to be a purely GM-conceived and introduced element.
In the actual play of these two examples, as presented, the motivations generate a "hook" for the GM to "lure" the PCs into the planned adventure. But the adventure itself seems not to speak to those motivations at all. This seems absolutely to be a case of "design first, motivation second". There is no player-driven RPGing evident here. It is 100% GM control.
The third example is under-specified for my purposes. What is the significance of the tower? Why were the PCs clearing it out? Who is the wizard? How did the PCs' dealings with the wizard end up in the previous session? From the detail provided, this could be a total railroad, or could be something much more player-driven. That said, the use of the word "lure" is not promising - it suggests that whatever it is that the GM has prepared doesn't speak to the players simply on its own terms, but rather needs this "hook" or "lure" of the wizard's revenge to be built onto it. . . .
The fourth example is also under-specified. Who authored the brother? The city? What is the nature of the tragedy, and how does that relate to player-authored concerns? Without that information, we can't tell who is in control here.
I agree with respect to the first two examples. I also think that this is the general tenor of the repeated references to "the adventure", and to the GM undertaking "design" of adventures and of motivations; and also of the use of the world "lure".
But with the third and fourth examples it is not clear. They are under-specified. It's possible that the author didn't notice this, or didn't think it mattered. Given the first two examples, and the overall tenor, I don't regard those latter two examples as showing us in any clear fashion how a GM might undertake prep in a way that would lead to player-driven RPGing. Read with the rest of the passage, they do seem to indicate an easy on-ramp to a railroad.
