How different PC motivations support sandbox and campaign play

[Simon T. Vesper]

There are two main PC motivations in rpgs. Firstly, the pursuit of personal gain, usually money and/or magic items. Secondly the desire to defeat evil.

I think you're starting from a false premise.

Instead, consider these possible rewards in an RPG as driving factors for player action.

• Wealth
• Toys
• Power
• Status
• Novelty
• Enlightenment
• Purpose

A few comments have touched on these. For example, we might view "purpose" as "fighting evil." To what end? Protecting one's own, saving the world, eliminating the opposition ~ doesn't really matter, so long as we recognize the players' motivation and are able to capitalize on it.

How should we construct a sandbox game to provide for these motivations? By modeling our fantasy world after the real world. The real world has plenty of opportunity for a person to pursue these goals and, given that there are seven billion people in the world today ~ and there have likely been more than ten billion people throughout all human history ~ there are tons of examples of people being motivated by something and rewarded for their efforts, that we can draw upon to create material for our games.

 

[Doug McCrae]

there are seven billion people in the world today ~ and there have likely been more than ten billion people throughout all human history

Yeah but very few of them have gone on a series of adventures from 1st to Name level, starting off with battling orcs in caves, bagging a few vampires and neo-otyughs along the way, and finishing it off with killing Tiamat.

Well, okay maybe Sir Richard Burton did all that, but no one else has.

 

[Simon T. Vesper]

Yeah but very few of them have gone from 1st to Name level, finishing it off with killing Tiamat.

... I mean, sure, because demons and deities and dragons aren't a "thing" in the real world (not as we understand them in RPGs).

Nevermind all the Caesars and Czars and Marco Polos and Alexanders and Napoleons and Yuanjings and Yoshinobus of the world. Those guys certainly never did anything worth learning about...

 

[Ilbranteloth]

There are two main PC motivations in rpgs. Firstly, the pursuit of personal gain, usually money and/or magic items. Secondly the desire to defeat evil.

The first motivation, personal gain, works well with sandbox play because the game world typically contains a great many opportunities to acquire wealth and magic items - there are lots of dungeons. The second motivation, defeat evil, doesn't work so well because the amount of evil beings within easy reach of the PCs and also actively and obviously causing harm will be far fewer.

A third possible motivation is the pursuit of glory, like the heroes of the Iliad or the PCs in Pendragon, but this is unusual in rpgs. A fourth, thrillseeking, is also unusual.

Once the PCs have achieved significant wealth it's hard to justify why they would want more. Or at least, why they would expose themselves to great danger in pursuit of more. So the first motivation, personal gain, doesn't work well for long term campaign play. The second motivation, defeat evil, does as there will always be more evil.

How does one successfully combine sandbox and campaign play? The answer, it seems to me, is PCs who are motivated by personal gain but, if they ever successfully acquire fortunes, immediately lose or quickly squander them, in the manner of Conan.

Well the big thing missing here are the more complex motivations that real people have. I describe my campaign as a living sandbox. That is, there are all sorts of things going on in the background that might come into play. Politics, schemes, romance, along with criminal elements, etc.

The PCs are well grounded in the world, with families, responsibilities, non-adventuring goals, likes, dislikes, etc. in addition, each player has multiple characters that come in and out of play as they desire, and they are often introducing new ones while others retire to normal life, perhaps to return to active adventuring in the future.

The campaign itself often focuses on politics, wars, monstrous threats, evil organization threats, being hired by various individuals such as wizards for rare ingredients, nobles for hunting parties, merchants for traveling, etc.

The style encourages frequent visits home to recover and recuperate, especially at lower levels, and at higher levels their goals are usually centered around things other than the two you mentioned, although it is often closer to the defeat evil thing.

More importantly, I don’t generally do BBEGs. Oh sure there are important and powerful villains, but most have a sizable organization. Powerful villains aren’t powerful because they are good in a dramatic final confrontation with the PCs. No, they are powerful because they have a lot of people willing and able to do their dirty work, and they are very good at not getting caught in situations like a final showdown with the PCs. Think more like the mob, nazis, SPECTRE and similar organizations. Most of the time you’re fooling specific plans and schemes, and occasionally taking down somebody important, but most of the time you’re just staying one step ahead of them.

The sandbox aspect is that the players are in full control of where they go and what they do. The campaign aspect is that there are too many options to choose. While there are dungeons, and lots of them, just getting to the ones far enough from civilization that they haven’t been plundered can be deadly in and if itself, as are the many adventures to find the location itself. And they are deadly when they get there.

The biggest of monsters, such as dragons, are nearly impossible to kill. Even high-level characters are in way over their head against an ancient dragon, beholder, or lich. Our game isn’t about balance, and it’s not about super heroes. The heroes are the ones that survive, and might even prevail, despite the odds.

We totally agree about the wealth thing, and in a small town the first adventure is like winning the lottery. But small towns also have a precarious position in the world, and if the PCs care about their town and the people in it, then they also have other motivations.

Of course, winning the lottery, so to speak, does result in quite a few retired adventurers. That’s ok and part of the reason everybody has multiple characters.

Ultimately, long-term campaign play can be combined with a sandbox very easily. Expand your options and motivations and develop complex characters rather than one-dimensional ones with a single motivation.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Interesting points [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION]. I will happily admit that there is something stale about Conan and other characters that have eternal adventures but never seem to change, such as Sherlock Holmes and most superheroes. Could you say a bit more about how you bring out the higher tiers of the hierarchy of needs in play?

Actually, we deliberately slow level advancement because of the exact opposite. We prefer the campaign to focus on the growth of the characters, that is, the people. The game, however, has continued to be centered more and more about gaining levels and new and better abilities. Like TV dramas, we want the focus to be on the characters themselves, and not necessarily their abilities or achievements. Survival is often the ultimate achievement.

We want to focus on the narrative and the character’s place in the world and their stories. When their goals generally require a stretch in their abilities, resources, and creative planning to overcome significant odds, then the focus shifts to more complex characterizations kind of naturally.

The adventures themselves tend grow more complex, and have a greater meaning to the characters and the world as they grow. And they do still gain levels, but they aren’t typically the core of adventures.

For example, if defeating a problematic dragon requires a magic item that requires other adventures to locate, then specific adventures to gain other things to eventually get the desired item, then the campaign is much more interesting than “we just need to get to 10th level so we have access to these abilities.” The adventures leading up to the dragon could be anything.

Instead, the adventures leading up to it can involve city, dungeon, political, criminal, and any other type of adventure you’d like. There may be many potential options, and there should be more than one way to slay the dragon. The players/characters should be developing their plan.

Another technique is to mix simple adventuring (like a regular episode of a TV drama) with things that directly relate to specific character’s motivations and story, and others that relate to the group motivations and story.

I highly recommend that players have multiple characters so the story can flow with characters coming and going (or dying) without the campaign ending. Also, let the players decide what direction they choose. Motivations of people change over time, the same should be allowed for characters. With a campaign with one character per player, and a relatively linear goal like most of the published APs, the struggle often comes in trying to keep the characters moving in the “right” direction, instead of allowing them to choose what’s important.

And make sure there are consequences to whatever decision they make. Even one as simple as deciding to go treasure hunting has an impact on friends and family for example.

 

[pemerton]

There are two main PC motivations in rpgs. Firstly, the pursuit of personal gain, usually money and/or magic items. Secondly the desire to defeat evil.

I think you're framing these motivations fairly narrowly. Even if we just focus on these two, consider The Hobbit - the goal isn't just get money, but rather get this particular dragon hoard - or LotR - the goal isn't just to defeat evil, but to defeat this particular evil by performing this particular deed.

I tend to find that having some reasonably distinctive character goal(s) makes it easier for me, as GM, to develop ideas for stuff to put in the way of the PCs and those goals.

And once we expand the range of goals - eg help a family member, take revenge on an enemy, prove oneself worthy in the eyes of such-and-such, etc - then the range of possible complications further expands.

Loyalty, to one's family, lover, home, nation, liege lord, religion, or cause is certainly a more real world motivation than "desire to defeat evil". The problem is it won't necessarily support typical rpg gameplay - repeatedly travelling to dangerous locations and getting involved in shenanigans.

I don't think that typical gameplay has to involve travel. The danger can be local - eg a traitor, a rival, a discovery - and the shenanigans local too.

Of the "classic" modules, I think the Saltmarsh ones (U-series) can be run in this spirit - with the PCs being locals who care about Saltmarsh. It's not the most powerful story of homeland of all time, but it's a starting point for thinking about what can be done. I think the PCs as wandering strangers with no local anchors can be a cause of problems in establishing motivations.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think that typical gameplay has to involve travel. The danger can be local - eg a traitor, a rival, a discovery - and the shenanigans local too.

To begin with, sure; but after those are dealt with, then what? Unless you can find a way to keep trouble coming to the PCs' location (which will probably come across as a bit forced after a while) they're going to have to go to where the trouble is...which means travel.

 

[Bruno Carvalho]

Let me try to explain how I've addressed that question in my own free RPG:

The game requires you to do a "Session Zero", where you'll create the "Group". In this process (amongst other things), you'll have to decide 3 Group Traits (taken from a bigger list of 8 traits). These traits have 4 functions: 1) They are motivations/goals; 2) They give abilities; 3) They create conflict at the table; and 4) They are the means to acquire XP.

After that, each character must choose 3 traits for themselves. 2 of those must be picked from the group's list, and the third one must be picked from the general list. This ensures that some motivations are shared between player characters (thus helping with group cohesion), yet there is still room for personal projects/ double agents / self-expression while creating the characters.

The traits are:

1) Monster Hunter (your goal is to kill monsters)
2) (Good/Bad) Reputation (your goal is to be loved/admired - or feared/despised)
3) Relics from the Past (your goal is to uncover secrets from ancient civilizations)
4) People's Hero (your goal is to protect the poor and oppressed from evil)
5) Nemesis (your goal is to defeat a enemy - create that enemy)
6) Sense of Duty (your goal is to follow some organization - government/military/religious/etc)
7) Protégé (your goal is to protect someone, something or someplace that needs protection)
8) Mercenary (your goal is to amass wealth and power)

Of course, you can create more Traits and adapt this idea to any system you want. For example, let me detail the Monster Hunter trait so you can understand its 4 functions:

1) They are motivations/goals: Your character actively wants to get rid of monsters;
2) They give abilities: Your character can know details and tips about the monsters they hunt;
3) They create conflict at the table: Monsters are more hostile to your character;
4) They are the means to acquire XP: You gan XP by kiling/defeating monsters.

 

[Imaculata]

The way I solved it in my sandbox pirate campaign, is by giving the players plenty of gold sinks (such as upgrading their ship, buying new ships, building a base), and multiple villains, along with a compelling story goal. My players don't play just to acquire wealth, but because they want to explore new lands, and see where the story takes them.

There are multiple story goals for the players to pursue, plus in our session zero I clearly defined the end goal of the campaign. So with that group understanding, we all play towards the same big finale.

 

[Simon T. Vesper]

I think you're framing these motivations fairly narrowly. Even if we just focus on these two, consider The Hobbit - the goal isn't just get money, but rather get this particular dragon hoard - or LotR - the goal isn't just to defeat evil, but to defeat this particular evil by performing this particular deed.

Your examples demonstrate the move from a broad (general) motivation to a narrow (specific) one. Did you mean to describe it the other way?

Broad motivation: defeat evil.

Narrow motivation: defeat Sauron by casting the One Ring into the fires of Mount Doom.

The former provides more opportunity for the player to become invested in the game (because he's chosen his goals for himself). The latter provides more material for the DM to work with (secure in the knowledge that that material will be used during the course of the game).