How different PC motivations support sandbox and campaign play

[Lanefan]

Well, in the Gygaxian playstyle there isn't a distinction because there's no such thing as PC motivation. The players want to win by beating the dungeon and they use their PCs as tools to achieve that aim.

I disagree that there's no PC motivation present in old-school play, and that disagreement comes from what I see (usually) twice per weekend: once when I play, and once when I DM. And by PC motivation I mean situations where to play properly in character the player has to abandon what might be her own motives in order to adhere to those of her PC. (example: a player whose usual motivation is sheer greed playing a very generous and charitable PC)

In modern play, the players engage with the GM's content because they've turned up to play a roleplaying game, they want the session to be entertaining, and they don't want to be impolite to the GM. Those motivations seem quite different from PC motivations, though maybe there's a parallel with the 'thrillseeker' motivation I mentioned in the OP.

I don't think there's an old-modern distinction to be made here, as this has also been about as true since day 1 as it is now...which is to say, sometimes true but not always.

 

[Lanefan]

I think part of what needs to be defined is what's a campaign? Wikipedia states that for an RPG campaign, it's a connected series of battles, adventures, or scenarios played by the same character. In the body it states "usually played by the same set of characters."

By this definition, in order for the campaign to continue, the characters need to remain involved. So yes, their motivations matter in that regard.

Partly. See below.

However, I think the term "campaign" came from the wargaming hobby that preceded D&D. And a military campaign is a large scale, long term series of interrelated conflicts that involve many squads and platoons.

Regardless of it's origination, I've always approached the term "campaign" with the idea that it incorporates the adventures of many different characters and parties over a period of time in the same setting. Hence the term, campaign setting. That is, a campaign is much more than a single character or group of characters, it encompasses whatever happens within the setting, although usually loosely connected. This is often through PCs, NPCs, a location and a long-running series of events (such as a war), etc. that ties things together. In my case in the Forgotten Realms, even though I've made the 4e 100-year-jump, and the players that were around in 1358 DR are no longer even living in the area, their characters and activities still factor into the group today. There are a few connecting points as well, as new players have come in and old ones have moved on.

So for me, by that definition, all character motivations help build the campaign, because new stories start when old stories end (or move in a non-adventuring direction). The setting grows, and grows more familiar, because NPCs are now ex-PCs that the players already know. Ex-PCs can become PCs again when a new motivation arises during the course of the campaign.

While I don't think a game has to be quite as broad-based as you paint here in order to be called a campaign, I agree that a campaign should probably be defined as something bigger than a single party with all (or nearly all) the same characters all the way through.

By this I mean that a game consisting of a single party that sees considerable character turnover during its existence more or less qualifies as a campaign; while a game with multiple parties running concurrently in game-world time is certainly a campaign. And, as you note, a game with multiple parties running at different times is also a campaign, but in my view could also be defined as several maybe-connected campaigns.

Put another way, I think you can say that a campaign involves the adventures of many* different characters and stop there, leaving out the bit about many different parties.

Each character is going to bring its own motivations with it as it comes in, and those motivations - whether acted on or not in the meantime - are going to leave with it when it dies or retires or splits off.

The party - always a bigger and more important entity than the sum of its current membership in any case - will go on regardless, doing what it does as motivated by the collective motivations of its in-game members and, sometimes, by its at-the-table players.

* - defined here as considerably more than the number of players at the table; and note that any significant player turnover in a continuing game pushes it further toward "campaign" status by default.

Lan-"running or playing in a never-changing party gets boring anyway - turnover is good"-efan

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Partly. See below.

While I don't think a game has to be quite as broad-based as you paint here in order to be called a campaign, I agree that a campaign should probably be defined as something bigger than a single party with all (or nearly all) the same characters all the way through.

By this I mean that a game consisting of a single party that sees considerable character turnover during its existence more or less qualifies as a campaign; while a game with multiple parties running concurrently in game-world time is certainly a campaign. And, as you note, a game with multiple parties running at different times is also a campaign, but in my view could also be defined as several maybe-connected campaigns.

Put another way, I think you can say that a campaign involves the adventures of many* different characters and stop there, leaving out the bit about many different parties.

Each character is going to bring its own motivations with it as it comes in, and those motivations - whether acted on or not in the meantime - are going to leave with it when it dies or retires or splits off.

The party - always a bigger and more important entity than the sum of its current membership in any case - will go on regardless, doing what it does as motivated by the collective motivations of its in-game members and, sometimes, by its at-the-table players.

* - defined here as considerably more than the number of players at the table; and note that any significant player turnover in a continuing game pushes it further toward "campaign" status by default.

Lan-"running or playing in a never-changing party gets boring anyway - turnover is good"-efan

Yeah, it doesn't have to be that big.

I think that for me it has to do with being bigger than a single group (even one with different characters or even players), but also has to do with multiple stories that form part of the greater whole. That there are multiple characters (possibly players), and multiple story arcs that are tied together by a common setting. So one group that goes on a series of unrelated adventures and following different story arcs in the same setting would be. So would several groups of PCs that are involved in different stories within the same setting.

I don't really see the APs as a campaign by themselves, because they are basically telling one primary story arc, usually with largely the same characters. But they could easily be expanded into what I'd consider a campaign.

In AD&D days, prior to the AP, it wouldn't be uncommon for a different group of characters to work through Against the Giants and Descent into the Depths of the Earth. They might be related, they might not. Lord of the Rings is a good example. The fellowship is only together for part of the journey, and then it splits up to several different stories, all interrelated. One might call that an AP, and maybe leaning toward a campaign. But throw in the adventures of Bilbo Baggins, it definitely feels more like a campaign. I think the intention of the group of approaching it as a bigger whole is what actually defines it as being a campaign once you've got multiple characters and multiple story arcs.

In the end, an exact definition of a campaign is less important than the idea that multiple characters/players can be part of the greater story. So in relation to the OP, if a character achieves their goals and doesn't want to keep adventuring, then they don't. Bring in new PCs. I guess a campaign approach lets you have more freedom as a player to really role-play the character. Instead of the idea that your character has to follow the DM's lead, and "force" a motivation or reason to be there, you let the character be the character. That might mean that a particular story arc is never "completed" because none of the onscreen actors (PCs) choose to follow that story any longer. Or it might be completed by somebody else.

 

[Legatus Legionis]

.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

I was going to expand on your list...but upon further reflection, most of the examples I had in mind could be framed in one of those you already posted. Good list.

One I think could but shouldn’t is survival. Someone who is running away from something may gravitate towards adventuring because it makes them harder to find while providing a living and possibly tools & opportunities to end the chase. And often, it does so without endangering those who are important to them. Think Kung Fu or The Incredible Hulk TV shows.

 

[Jhaelen]

I never had a campaign were the players got tired of accumulating wealth.

Purchasing magical items/weapons was very expensive on the open market.

Also, we used the "Castle Guide" from AD&D 2e.

Building your dream castle IS expensive.

Well, if you play in a campaign without any way to buy magic items and the players aren't interested in building castles (which none of my players ever was), then accumulating wealth is indeed rather futile and doesn't work as an incentive.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, if you play in a campaign without any way to buy magic items and the players aren't interested in building castles (which none of my players ever was), then accumulating wealth is indeed rather futile and doesn't work as an incentive.

I’m curious, how does one run a campaign without any way to buy magic items? To paraphrase Dr. Ian Malcom, “Commerce...uh...finds a way.”

 

[Sunseeker]

I’m curious, how does one run a campaign without any way to buy magic items? To paraphrase Dr. Ian Malcom, “Commerce...uh...finds a way.”

You just don't make them available for sale. Sure, it might be a bit contrived, but it's not like there's a real economy going on in the game. The stuff that's for sale is for sale because the DM said it was. So there's no magic items for sale because the DM said there aren't.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That is SUPER contrived and defies human nature. It’s akin to saying gravity doesn’t exist.

If a supply exists and it is desirable, there IS a market for it. The only question is price. There’s a huge difference between a particular extant item not being available for sale here and now, and nothing of its kind being available for sale anytime, anywhere, including on the black market.

I have to say, that’s the kind of DM’s fiat that drives me from the table.

 

[Lanefan]

That is SUPER contrived and defies human nature. It’s akin to saying gravity doesn’t exist.

If a supply exists and it is desirable, there IS a market for it. The only question is price. There’s a huge difference between a particular extant item not being available for sale here and now, and nothing of its kind being available for sale anytime, anywhere, including on the black market.

Though I 100% agree with your stance here, in fairness there is one way a DM could legitimately pull off a plausible in-game situation where magic items could not be purchased by the PCs:

The PCs are the only adventurers in the setting (alternative: they're based here but do all their adventuring in another, deserted, world/plane), and thus are the only people finding any magic items - which otherwise don't exist in the setting other than in legend, kind of like real-world Earth.

Which means they can sell 'em if they want, and for some princely sums too; but they can't buy anything they haven't previously sold/lost/had stolen because in the end they are the only primary supplier.

Now IMO a game like that would be severely lacking in a bunch of ways. I'm just trying to point out that it can, in theory, be done.

Lanefan