Motivating the players to take the game "off-piste"

[Benicus]

So I've had a few problems with D&D lately. These minor annoyances will be voiced here for your approval, dissmisal, or criticism.

Another thing is that the PC's have no motivation to do anything ambitious by themselves in a game. They just wait for random peasent #33 to come by and give them a quest. Nobody wants to go out and be Bandit Lords or start a wizarding guild or just do something by themselves that benefit's themselves. I think I may run a game like this where the pc's move the plot, I'd just provide the setting and NPC's in the future.

[BigRedRod]

Right, I've moved and split the thread Benicus. Feel free to rename it, I've only just crawled out of my pit and I'm still fuzzy.

This is not a D&D problem, it is a problem with roleplaying and roleplayers. By the nature of any roleplaying game when somebody offers to start DMing you know full well that they have a plot in mind (if not then you most likely hope they do and become very angry when the lack of preparation becomes clear and the game collapses). The problem in my mind is that the plot over takes the world. So that rather than having an exciting world to interact with, they have an exciting plot instead. The aspirations of the player characters which aren't directly in line with the path of the plot tend to quickly get left by the wayside and after a few months of play the player will most likely forget anything about the character which has been extraneous.

I'm not sure that the medium allows for player characters which are as independent as those in something less interactive (film/book/computer game/play/etc.). A game of D&D typically revolves around a group of heroes from all walks of life being flung together to thwart a great evil, this is what most people expect and, assuming that the game pitch didn't mention something explicitly different, it is what they get. One player deciding that he really wants to go off the beaten track and do something unrelated to anything the DM has mentioned is difficult and possibly a real spanner in the works. Most roleplaying systems just don't have flexible enough rules to sudden change the game to a wizard guild simulator.

I've been on both sides of this one and it's a fact which really annoys me. I think it comes down to DM-Player communication, really start chattering away in that OOC thread and get the PMs flying. Make sure that the DM knows what the players want to do. It is his job to run the game so it'd be helpful if he knows a player is likely to go off at a tangent (or if they aren't but really want to, so the DM can craft circumstance).

What you have mentioned is something which I know I've debated doing (in fact you can see it preserved in the seldom used game ideas thread (http://online-roleplaying.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1910), entitled The one that I think most have in the back of their heads)

[nightinverse]

Fated Meetings is a demonstration of precisely why such a game is difficult to run, Benicus. That was my original scheme, but the lack of player motivation combined with other factors made it impossible to really run with. The game lurches on occassionally, but it has become a sandbox. To achieve the flexibility I desired, by the by, I stripped out all of the concrete rules from the system - it is freeform under an arbiter, disguised as a system based roleplay.

Indeed, some of the people have stats from the Prince Valiant game somewhere...

You need fluid communication with all involved, you need reliability... these are seldom achieved for anything, let alone a peripheral game online. Still, don't let that discourage you.

[The Hive Custodian]

Partly to play devil's advocate, I'm going to argue that this is indeed partially a D&D problem, and that this medium does allow for fairly independent characters.

Regarding the former: The flavor of D&D, as BigRedRod said, is that of a band of heroes getting together and working toward a common objective. This is by and large the dominant way of doing things presented in the core rulebooks. While it is not technically the only way supported by the rules, it is the suggested way. Naturally, this isn't compatable with a whole lot of independence. So in this respect, it is somewhat a D&D problem.

But let's also take a closer look at the rules themselves. Character advancement is expressed through the gaining of XP and treasure, and the standard way of gaining these is by killing monsters. Sure, there are "story awards", but the mention of them in the DMG is rather brief, and it seems that the major source of XP and treasure is intended to be the killing of monsters, judging from the relative suggested amounts of XP awarded for story awards and for defeating monsters, and by WoTC's published adventures. While the advancement system doesn't really interfere with character motivations, I think it could have done a lot more to tie itself to character motivations, and thus encourage them. For example, consider what would happen if no XP was awarded for killing monsters, but instead, XP was awarded for following one's motivations. Then, perhaps, players would have more of an incentive to come up with motivations and follow them, instead of relying on the DM to provide monsters to kill. This is the idea behind The Riddle of Steel's Spiritual Attributes (http://www.theriddleofsteel.net/whatis/SA.htm), and my own implementation of this idea, Crossroads. Granted, I'm not satisfied with the latter, and have only seen the former in passing, but I believe a good implementation of the idea could do a lot to help the situation.

As for the medium not allowing much independence: I certainly agree that this is true in face-to-face gaming. After all, a FtF game is essentially a conversation between the DM and the players, and it's difficult for anybody to have a conversation with more than one group at once without ignoring at least one of the groups for long periods of time. But by the same token, I think the PbP format alleviates this problem. Given that nobody expects an answer instantly, the DM can consider and respond to multiple groups without unreasonable delays for anybody.

Now I do agree that much of the problem and solution lies with the roleplayers. Although my experience isn't the most extensive, what I tend to see is what BigRedRod said: DM creates a game, players make characters and expect the DM to come up with a plot, game starts. (And then the new-game smell wears off and the game dies, but that's a topic for another time.) The unspoken rule that the DM is in control of a plot really needs to be changed; DMs need to allow, and make it clear that it is allowed, players to have a hand in plot construction, and players need to actually go ahead and contribute to plot construction.

[LuneMoonshadow]

What you have mentioned is something which I know I've debated doing (in fact you can see it preserved in the seldom used game ideas thread (http://online-roleplaying.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1910), entitled The one that I think most have in the back of their heads)

I quite like the idea. Perhaps an adequate DM could come out of the woodwork for it. I'd be very interested to see its direction.

And to also stimulate some conversation, what is really to blame for the number 1 cause of player boredom? Is it truly the DM not placing the correct goals in front of players? Or are the players really stuck in that video game grind concept of quest-kill-xp/loot?

Perhaps it is a bit of both, but more along the lines of players signing up for the wrong games? GMs advertise games but you never really know what it will be like until you're in the thick of it all with your character. Does the GM like dice rolling or storytelling? Does he use moral ambiguity to test character will? Diplomacy over combat? Religion as a way to question the workings of the world?

Not trying to name the "good" or "bad" qualities here, just that GMs have very different styles of play. I prefer to be story oriented with very little dice rolling. I will change if a player of mine doesn't seem to be 100% in line with that concept, but I will only change so much. Perhaps players just can't tell what game is right for them and their playstyle and hence they lose interest?

[hedgeknight]

DM's need to be up front and honest about what type of game they are going to run so that players know what they are getting into. Is it primarily role-playing or combat? Is it player driven or DM driven? Is it typical fantasy or atypical fantasy?
My quick post scenarios began as just that - fast paced combat with five players (first come, first served) that put the characters in a scenario where they had to act. Simple. I shopped this idea around a bit, got some interest, and launched it last summer. We are currently in scenario 7 which is turning into more than just a quick post adventure. BUT...the regular players and I discussed the possibility of moving these scenarios (which were somewhat connected) into a full campaign. 100% of the players agreed on it and so we are moving in that direction. The players have turned in backgrounds for their characters and I am incorporating as much of that as possible into the game - they have goals and I want to set up opportunities to meet those, all within the context of what MY goals are for the game too. It's a win-win situation.

My game aside, as a player, I get bored easily. And my biggest complaint is to be in a game and wait 4-5 days for the DM to post and then when he finally does post, I get two lines of text. :mad: If the game is set up to post frequently, then by God post frequently! Barring real-life tragedy or sickness or a vacation in the Bahamas, stick with the advertised game set up. Else, you have players (like me) who bitch and moan about it and eventually drop out of your game. :nod:
-g-

[nightinverse]

I would contend that it is necessary to allow the game to develop from your original outline on the basis of how the players interact with the setting and yourself. I have never run a game as I intended, and seldom maintained one as advertised because people change, and ultimately few people can deal with the layers of complexity I would incorporate if I followed my desires without being a co-GM in their own right.

[-J-]

I would argue that characters in stories are LESS free than characters in a RPG (one writer versus many writers) but that is neither here nor there. Motivation is a hard thing to deal with - but here's my 2 cents.

Buy in - players are all basically selfish little prima-donnas. So to keep them happy you need to give them something. Integrate something from their background into the game, a recurring NPC that brings the focus completely onto a player even if only for a scene. Even bad attention is attention. A villian whose only goal is to give one of your players the smack down still makes that character feel special (even if its in a dysfunctional sort of way)

Causality - Actions have consequences. If the PC's want to be passive, let them. Just because the players aren't doing anything that doesn't mean that the PTB should stand still. Don't feel like rescuing little Timmy from the well, fine. Little Timmy dies and comes back from the dead as a restless spirit that is now eating the face of your PC's favorite bartender. Want to wait to take on the big bad Necromancer in order to get your custom fitted +1gajillion Suit of Godly Plate, fine. Have him finish his spell of town destruction, killing off all the hot waitresses, and hookers, and when the local noble comes in and seizes all resources for the reconstruction of said town, guess whose armor gets sacrificed for the greater good (if you raise them all as hot zombies then you get double angst!).

Make it heroic - players want to tap into the monomyth (joseph cambell - but it read it). That doesn't mean that they have to win. A character who dies a heroic death still dies, its just the tale that lives forever.

[Grognard]

Play C & S sometime.When your wizard gets more xp sitting at home doing spell research or enchanting than trailing around after the fighters,you do get wizard guilds.The inclusion of full social status also motivates the fighters to be proactive.Fair warning tho-it is a pain for the ST.

[Wired*Nun]

I think the story should be the motivation, never character advancement. I think character advancement is an adolescent crutch some of us never give up. If you have good players who want to be there and help tell the story, it doesn't matter whether the character gains anything, other than memories. Real people don't usually act like PCs; that's because, to many people, PCs are just adventure machines, they are not real people. Real people pursue their goals in accordance with their values. For example, generally I don't exercise, except as a side-effect of recreation. I like to hike, therefore I hike. I like to play games, therefore I play games. I've been in and out of martial arts all my life, but not because I want to cover that weakness and make sure I'm ready to deal with hand-to-hand combat. I just like to do it. I'd never live my life like some people play their PCs. Those people who do exercise a lot almost always do it because they like to do it, or they crave the results, not out of some objective assessment of its positive effects.

[Grognard]

Agreed.But even,especially when playing a game,people are reward-motivated.If the rewards are "killa monster grabba loot" then that is what they will do.This is why I do enjoy those few games like (shameless tout) C&S which reward,in game-in character,other activities.

[hedgeknight]

I think the story should be the motivation, never character advancement. I think character advancement is an adolescent crutch some of us never give up. If you have good players who want to be there and help tell the story, it doesn't matter whether the character gains anything, other than memories.

I agree - the story is the motivation to keep the players juiced and wanting to give their best in their characters. And it's up to the DM to make sure he/she is telling a story that is compelling and vibrant - one that keeps the players wanting more...wanting to see what's next...wanting their characters to be a part of it.
I give my players a sense of ownership in our game; I have an overall goal of where I want the campaign to end up but the journey to that end is determined to some extent by the players. I have three solid players right now (and have had a couple of others who had to bail for RL reasons) who help me write the story - it's a large scale event and they are very good at giving me inspiration.
What I'm saying is, your game is only as good as your players - if you are gaming with a bunch of teenagers who have the attention span of a TV commercial, then your plans for a deep plot with a lot of free thinking ain't gonna work.
Same goes if your players can't "think outside the box" and instead expects you to spoonfeed them everything they need to know.

Choose...your...players...carefully. :nod:
-g-

[Palanthias]

I think that a proper prologue helps as well. You get a sense for that character both as GM and as Player. The prologue should establish for the character why the F. they are risking life, limb and property for the Cause. You know? Each character is a person with a life to live. But what are they living for? I used to have a little questionaire almost like a personallity quiz for the player to fill out on their characters behalf. It made it easier for both character and GM when you know the characters likes, loves, and fears. The seeds for motivation.