To adventure!

[Quasqueton]

In the "Worst Adventure" thread, it seems most of the bad adventures are bad because they have bad plots or bad plot elements -- non-sensical, railroady, PCs can't win, PCs can't affect the plot, etc.

There are many old adventure modules that had no built-in plot -- Keep on the Borderlands and The Secret of Bone Hill and The Temple of Elemental Evil come to mind. Interestingly, in my experience, even with no plot and no plot hooks, PCs went out and adventured in these sites none the less.

Now a days, it seems that everyone needs a character-specific plot hook. The elven ranger won't bother with an adventure unless there is some link to the disappearance of her brother. The human fighter won't consider an adventure unless he is directly hired and promised good money for the effort. The gnome mage won't listen to a story about an adventure site unless there is specific mention of magic.

I've even mentioned an example from my campaign, where for the very first adventure, I couldn't get the PCs to quickly pick up the adventure hook and "go forth". Several posters responded to tell me my plot hooks just weren't good enough -- they needed to be more personal to the PCs.

Why is it now that all PCs must have a *reason* to go adventuring? Was there a point or event when the paradigm shifted from "adventuring just because the adventure is there" to "adventuring only if the hook specifically motivates my character"?

For the above mentioned classic adventures, what motivated your character(s) to go to the Caves of Chaos or Bone Hill or the Temple? Was there a motivation above/beyond just to adventure? Did the DM insert a plot for the adventure?

Back in the day, I don't remember any PC ever going, "Meh, it doesn't interest or involve me. So I'm not going." Now a days, though, I've seen too many PCs having to be goaded, prodded, and enticed to go adventure. What the heck happened?

Quasqueton

 

[Crothian]

I've always given the PCs a reason to adventure, but it was never always specific to their plot. I hate players that do that. They limit what their character would be interested in and then I'm happy to leave them at the tavern waiting for a plot hook.

Now the reasons to adventure can be to gain loot and kill things. I have no problem with that reason.

 

[ThirdWizard]

When the game is about the dungeon, you don't need a real reason to go there.

When the game is about the characters and plot, why becomes important to the campaign.

 

[shaylon]

I think hooks are nice to build into an adventure, especially a one-shot type. That said my PC is going out to fight, what is the point of making the DM's life difficult, hooks or not? Just go out, get XP, and treasure, and be done with it!

As a player I don't need to be motivated, granted my character might not agree with something every once in a while, or maybe down right against it for whatever reasons (think paladin working for a demon), but if the DM brings you into that, then you need to ask yourself if you want that person as your DM.

My .02

-Shay

 

[Henry]

Now a days, though, I've seen too many PCs having to be goaded, prodded, and enticed to go adventure. What the heck happened?

First of all, having a BAD plot is different from having NO plot. Keep, Horror on the Hill, etc. were site-specific adventures. There were numerous foes there, seemingly next to one another for no reason - but it was left to the DM to inject that reason. If a plot is given, but it's BAD, and the DM uses it anyway, then a lackluster adventure is probably the result. To be fair, you'd have the SAME result if the GM just opened up Keep on the Borderlands and used it as-is. In the older modules, monster and encounter placement made logistical sense, but not necessarily rational sense.

As for requiring a reason, I think it's the difference between people's source for inspiration now versus then. In earlier days, gamers young and old were already inundated with tales of Arthur and Conan (especially the movie and comic book Conan), and similar novels where the heroes adventured for riches and fame because that's what they did. Somewhere between Dragonlance and Dragonball Z, reasons WHY began to take precedence.

There were PLENTY of gamers way back when inserting plot and reasons to adventure in their games -- just ask Diaglo! -- but the majority of us punk kids wanted to imitate Conan or the original GI Joe (check the plot in some of those 1960's and 70's GI-joe mini-comics sometime!) and fight things and win and get rich! (GI Joe never got rich, but he faced the unknown and kicked butt.)

 

[sniffles]

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't find it as satisfying to adventure just for the sake of adventuring. It gets dull. I'm involved in several campaigns with overarching plots, and those are a lot of fun. But I'm also in a "kill monsters and take their stuff" game, and I wouldn't be too upset if it quietly went away. I won't quit as long as the GM continues to run it, but it just doesn't make me look forward to the next session as much as the other campaigns.

Having a reason to be there besides just playing the game keeps me focused. It helps me roleplay my character better, and as I get older I want to play fully rounded characters, not just a bunch of stats and feats on a sheet. Without some other reason than wealth and fame, my character would probably quit adventuring the first time she drops to 0 HP. I guess that's partly just my personality leaking through, but it seems to me that no amount of treasure and recognition is worth dying for. There's got to be something more, like saving the world or finding a lost loved one.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I consider it part of the D&D social contract that the PCs will adventure for the sake of the adventure. Otherwise, what's the point?

As a DM, I am certainly capable of creating good plot hooks and weaving complex plots specific to the PCs. But at some point, the players have to suspend their disbelief and head into the dungeon / wilderness / other plane because that's what adventurers do.

 

[Poster Bard]

It's funny when a player who has chosen to play a roleplaying game, when given the choice between playing a character who willingly adventure and one who needs to be dragged kicking and screaming to do so, will choose the latter.

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

Gads...I wish my players would adventure for the sake of adventure. Some of them come across as prima donna actors; "What's my motivation?" etc. I finally told one of them recently I don't care what their motivation was. They either play or they don't. I'm planning a maritime campaign next, and already one guy is going on about "but I want to play a dwarven fighter! What possible reason for a dwarf have to go on a ship?" I told him it wasn't my problem. If he plays a dwarf, he better take ranks in swim.

 

[LostSoul]

Why is it now that all PCs must have a *reason* to go adventuring? Was there a point or event when the paradigm shifted from "adventuring just because the adventure is there" to "adventuring only if the hook specifically motivates my character"?

Because games can be much more rewarding (to the right type of person) if you have a reason to go adventuring - that is, the game is about the character.

When I play games that don't have any motivation for the PCs - games that are not about the characters - I see it like a board game. There isn't much difference between playing the shoe or the iron; one of your characters dies and you just bring in the next one, with no changes to the game, everything running just as if the new character had been there from the beginning. You just run around the board, trying to do whatever, until you stop having fun.

When the game is about the characters, it is a lot easier to become invested in the game. You care what happens to your PC.

It's not my style of game. I can have fun doing it that way, but I would have more fun playing in a different style.