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

Please don't copy/paste entire stacks of wikipedia lists haha.
Yeah. But their sheer numbers proves a point, no? No doubt, amongst them all, there are some examples, as well, of non-contest types, such as in some childhood traditional games and parlor games, so these can be referenced to rebut, in part, and thus do better than me just saying "Thousands of games" without proofs.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

loverdrive

Prophet of the profane (She/Her)
OT a bit, but I am not consigning games to the dustbin of history due to some social experiment. This is what (below), in part, is eradicated through the objection of win-lose, contest,competition; and with it goes critical thinking, social and scientific leaps (Game Theory, Play Theory, Economic Theory. et al) progress and learning advantage advances through these that are noted as fact, not feelings. I embrace the past that forwarded us to the present It is part and parcel of over 2,000 years of human endeavor in this area and I will not toss it to a ditch, and its thousands of examples and billions of adherents and designers. Good day.
Bruh, are you okay?

I don't consign anything to a dustbin. You do.
 

Bruh, are you okay?

I don't consign anything to a dustbin. You do.
Well, you know that this is going no where when my ideas, fully supported by historical fact, are referred to as "Super Weird" and when I support them with proofs that my inferred mental state ("are you okay?") is brought into question. FWIW at this point I am not throwing the baby out with the bathwater as I am not refuting or dismissing any part of game history and its many progressions, social, scientific, or otherwise. I have stated this many times that there are many roads in RPGs. BUT they are not bought at the expense of others, just as play and game theory are not oppositional though distinct in their applications to the point of wide differences in many cases. Good day and fair winds to you.. I will not continue participating in defending the negative while circling this off-topic point.
 

nevin

Hero
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?
No the game does not do that. DM s do that. It's easy to throw BbEG when players go off course or DM has no other ideas.
 



Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Mod Note:

Folks are getting personal. And I see instances of "Those who disagree with me have some character flaw" style posting, which does not fly.

Please, folks, keep it clean.
 
Last edited:

As I said, I literally quoted Lanefan, who explicitly used the word "paranoia" to describe the feeling players should have. If that isn't explicitly doing that, I don't know what to tell you.

Lanefan said: "The characters should be somewhat paranoid, thus giving the players a taste of that only makes sense."

You said: "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."

I do not consider that to be "literally quoting".

ZakS, for example, explicitly said that to me on another forum, a long while back.

I don't believe this for two reasons. First, based on your previous "explict" quote from Lanefan. Second, I simply don't believe name dropping ZakS like this can be done for any reason but to intentionally stir up trouble.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
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.

So, there's a point to be found here - games are technology. The fact that a game (or any technology) was "good in its time" is a historical note, but does not mean that anyone later would use it extensively.

The Gutenberg printing press was a truly awesome and transformative technology and design in its time. Its historical impact would be hard to overstate. However, arguing that's how we should print materials today would be a long row to hoe. We have likewise set aside the Model T, and few folks on these boards are reading them on a CRT monitor...

"It is old and formative," is a fine note for the study of history. It is not a support for continuing to do the same things as in yesteryear. Whenever you are looking at an old design, it also pays to note whether today we have better ways to achieve the same thing (for varying values of "the same thing" - which many in this thread seem to fail to recognize.)
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
It's probably worth noting that in board game circles, this is considered bad game design.
Yeah, well, board game circles aren't necessarily right when it comes to bad/good design. They may value keeping players engaged in a game rather than playing to eliminate them because that's the current Euro-game zeitgeist. But that also constrains what's possible in the design of games - and that's not necessarily good either.

Diplomacy is a great and well-designed game. It's just not the type of game everyone is going to enjoy - and that's fair. But disliking an element of the design doesn't mean that it's bad game design.
 

Remove ads

Top