Villain Motivations

[JoeGKushner]

Well as a new 'patron' of the Open Design, I get access to design articles. The first one is discussing motivation for villains.

One of my favorite old blue books is (I think) DMR5, The Villain's Handbook. Talks about motivation and other good stuff. One of Wolfgang's notes that struck me was the following:

Monsters without clear motivations aren’t villains; they’re just combat-shaped obstacles in the game.

And what strikes me most about it, is how true the latter part is. It's all about resources after all and some of my most memorable GM events weren't about great impassioned villains, but about powerful monsters whose unique abilities challenged the player's resource management abilities and how, sometimes through luck alone (curse you Blood and Steel Criticals), the palyers were able to overcome.

So what's more important to your key villains? Motivation or interesting cruncy bits?

 

[Dragonbait]

So what's more important to your key villains? Motivation or interesting cruncy bits?

I favor motivation over interesting cruncy bits.

For my players, it depends on the group.

My current group leans towards action and excitement over a well though-out story. They remember the scenes more then stories, and encounters where they survied by sheet luck or skill rather than encounters that relied heavily on character motivation and plot. They still talk about the time they were outnumbered and surrounded by elite bugbear warriors and the slaver sorcerer boss. But when I refer to a plot point, NPC (not minor ones, but named ones that talked to the PCs multiple times), or a city name, I'm lucky if one person can recall anything. Crunchy bits over motivation.

Granted one could say thats because my stoies/villains are just not interesting, but all other groups before that were the opposite. Motivation over crunchy bits.

 

[FalcWP]

I'd have to say motivation. Making an NPC with really cool stats is great and all, but I don't think he'll be memorable, or even logical, unless he has clear motivations for what he's doing. On the other hand, just an average fighter or wizard without any really neat attacks can work if you really flesh out his backstory and find out what motivates him.

And it extends beyond just your key NPCs. Anything that isn't mindless should have *some* motivation. Sure, you fleshed out the leader of a gang of bandits, gave him a nice backstory that explains why he's raiding a town and what he plans to do with the wealth he steals... but what about the average bandit in that gang? What's his motivation? Why does he follow this guy? There should always be more of a reason than "The bandit leader isn't a high enough CR by himself to threaten the PCs, so he needs some followers." That may be your rationale for adding some followers, but you have to consider why those *particular* folks are there.

Part of that is that you never know who the PCs will choose to question. Say they grab a random mook from the aforementioned bandit gang and interrogate him. If he was just there as filler, you don't have a whole lot to go on as far as how he'll react. On the other hand, if we know what motivates him (Greed? Loyalty? Was he shanghai'd into the gang? Is he doing it to protect a loved one?) then we can tailor his responses. The greedy bandit might sell out his comrades for gold; the loyal one is likely to be silent regardless; the one who is forced into service might be willing to betray the bandits for freedom; the one who is protectiong a loved one might betray the bandits if the PCs will save the loved one for him. With just a few complementary NPCs, you can pick a motivation for each; with a bunch of them, you can make a table to roll on. But it really helps to flesh them out, and it makes the world a lot more logical.

Of course, as Dragonbait said, it depends on the group. If the players aren't going to notice motivations and are more focused on killing stuff and taking its loot, then you don't need much for motivation.

 

[Doghead Thirteen]

If you ask me (which you didn't, but I'll say anyway) a bad guy without a motivation isn't a villain..

They're a bodycount waiting to happen.

They're also lame, and pointless. The bad guy's motivation should at least be 'I'm a less-than-wise mugger' or 'I'm a barking mad man-eater and I'm hungry, grr'.
Either becomes susceptible to backing off if they've bitten off more than they can chew, which is more than can be said for your typical hack & slash monster.

Combat without motive is annoying.

 

[Ilium]

Of course, the best answer is "both." At the moment, in my game, the PCs are finally messing with the BBEG. He's a motivated and, I hope, interesting villain that the players all hate. But in the last game session, I threw some pure resource-eating monsters at the party, softening them up for the big confrontation. The combats were fun, the mosters' special abilities memorable, and the consequences in terms of resources spent should be very interesting when the big showdown happens.

 

[JoeGKushner]

If you ask me (which you didn't, but I'll say anyway) a bad guy without a motivation isn't a villain..

They're a bodycount waiting to happen.

They're also lame, and pointless. The bad guy's motivation should at least be 'I'm a less-than-wise mugger' or 'I'm a barking mad man-eater and I'm hungry, grr'.
Either becomes susceptible to backing off if they've bitten off more than they can chew, which is more than can be said for your typical hack & slash monster.

Combat without motive is annoying.

But in most standard D&D combats, aren't the players often the 'invaders' if you will? Motivation isn't a 'necessary' factor in many games.

 

[Doghead Thirteen]

And 'Defend my home from random rampaging PC's' isn't a motivation?

Sorry if that sounds sarcastic, but, dude...

 

[Kae'Yoss]

It's absolutely right: A Villain isn't a Villain without a proper masterplan. They don't need to be able to lay waste to the players personally - they have champions for that. Sometimes, the Villain is both a combat monster and an interesting concept, but sometimes he's just interesting, and I make a champion for him who doesn't need any motivation - just the crunchy bits.

 

[Toben the Many]

The thing is, a villain is most likely to see one combat encounter - the final fight with the PCs. Or maybe two at the most.

So focusing on the crunchiness is sort of a waste of time. The motivations and character are what will stick with the players and their characters.

That being said, because 3.5 D&D is so interesting with all of its options, I try to make villains with interesting crunch to evoke odd situations. For example, I created a cavalier villain, for example, that skewered the PCs with his lance. The players weren't expecting to face a shining knight on a white horse, let me tell you. In another example, I created an large-sized archer villain who skewered people with his over-sized arrows. The players weren't expecting a large-sized creature to start running around and plugging them with arrows.

 

[Kestrel]

If the villian's motivations are in conflict with a PC's motivation, then they will remember it. If not, they are just another obstacle, so you should go for crunch.