Character Motivation in RPGs

This article presents a thought exercise that likely goes too far down a very specific rabbit hole. It was originally motivated by my frustration with the lack of a good mechanic for social interaction in the Traveller table top role playing game (TTRPG). From there it took on a life of its own and developed into a more general critique of social mechanics in TTRPGs using Dungeons and Dragons and Traveller as examples.

The real meat of this article is the presentation of a new social interactions system for Traveller called the Motivations System. It is a reworking of the SOC, or Social Standing, mechanic in Traveller that promotes better role playing and storytelling. It is more geared towards character and non-player character (NPC) interaction and has no bearing on the more crunchy parts of the game such as combat.

The article starts by reviewing how Charisma works in Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition and how Social Standing currently works in the Mongoose 2nd Edition of Traveller. It then introduces the new Motivations System, describes how it works, how my players reacted to it, and ends with some general discussion of mechanics and role playing games.

Dungeons and Dragons

Charisma

The Dungeons and Dragons (DnD) 5th Edition Player’s Handbook has this to say about Charisma.

“Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality.”

Charisma in DnD is an ability. A high score in Charisma means a character is better at getting what they want from NPCs and others, while a low score means they’re not as good at getting what they want. It doesn’t tell us why a character might take some action instead of another action, and in that respect, is not intended as a guide for the player on how their character should behave.

Charisma is also an important ability for some other uses in DnD. For example, some spell casting classes such as Warlock rely on Charisma as their primary spell casting ability.

Alignment

DnD gives us alignment as a guide for player and NPC behavior. DnD alignment is a two axis system where every character in the game has a place on both axes. The first axis is Good versus Evil and the second axis is Lawful versus Chaotic, with Neutral sitting in the middle of both. Each character must take a value from both axes. Thus a character can be Neutral/Lawful, or Good/Chaotic.

The first axis is purely manichaen while the second axis estimates the character’s desired interaction with society, how feral they are, or their level of reverence for society’s institutions. The system assumes not only rational thought, but that all characters generally agree on the definitions of good versus evil.

“Most creatures that lack the capacity for rational thought do not have alignments – they are unaligned. Such a creature is incapable of making a moral or ethical choice and acts according to its bestial nature.” ¹

Many creatures in DnD come with an alignment and the system tells you their alignment. For example, the Giant Eagle is neutral good, while the Imp is lawful evil. ² Many other creatures are unaligned due to their low intelligence. They are presumably incapable of rational thought and therefore cannot be aligned.

Social Standing in Traveller

SOC in Traveller Mongoose 2nd Edition stands for Social Standing, and that’s about as deep as it goes. It represent class and is mostly set during character creation similar to the birth lottery.³

“Social Standing (SOC): A Traveller’s place in society.” ⁴

“Travellers with a high SOC are the cream of their civilisations and may be very well known on their world and possibly across vast swathes of Charted Space. However, while the Third Imperium maintains a system of nobility recognised across most of its worlds, not everyone with a high SOC necessarily has a noble title – or is even a noble at all.“ ⁵

In a manner similar to Charisma in DnD, SOC in Traveller is an attempt at quantifying how likely a character is to get what they want from an NPC. It’s more material in its implementation and less focused on the actual character. The concept of social class in Traveller is actually rather complex, since world’s can have vastly different forms of governance, societies, sophonts, etc. After all, what does class mean to a collective species unable to distinguish the self from the whole of society? Ants don’t need Marx.

Regardless, to be a Traveller means to interlope through vast numbers of societies throughout the Traveller universe. Most Sophonts in the Traveller universe are not Travellers. Instead they live out their lives in their own respective societies and, because of the difficulties of time and distance associated with space travel, these societies evolve and remain to a large extent distinct from one another. It’s the job of the referee in Traveller to adapt SOC to any given society the Travellers encounter. This can be difficult to imagine; because why should an NPC on some far planet care who the father was of the Traveller making a SOC + Persuasion check?

It doesn’t really make sense unless we assume SOC as a characteristic manifests as a persistent affectation of the character, distinct from their upbringing, lineage, or bank account. It’s not like Charisma in DnD where NPCs are expected to notice it when the character enters the room. Social class is not projected subconsciously all the time. It can be, and certainly people who have a SOC would expect it to be. Just like entitled people in the real world expect everyone around them to recognise the grandeur of their entitlement, but as a referee, unless I’m willing to recognise the power of Space Karens it’s not actually a useful mechanism for modeling character interactions.⁶

Most importantly SOC doesn’t lead to good story telling. Characters getting what they want because of their social class is simply boring. Put simply, the mechanic does not promote fun role playing.

The Motivations System

I didn’t sign up to referee boring games. I want compelling stories and I want my players to think about why they are behaving certain ways. I want them to have to work at persuading and deceiving NPCs beyond just a dice roll. In short, I want a cooperative story telling game with fully fleshed out characters.

Combat is fun, but it can’t be everything. Traveller is a dangerous game where combat is realistically deadly, so smart players will avoid it if at all possible. I like that about Traveller, but it does mean that most game time is spent exploring locations and interacting with NPCs. The referee’s job is to place obstacles in front of the players, and the players’ job is to overcome those obstacles. Thus, if combat is deadly, then players will naturally seek to overcome obstacles by manipulating NPCs. The Motivations System provides a more nuanced and fleshed out manner for PCs to interact with NPCs.

There are five Motivations; Ethos, Eros, Logos, Mythos, and Pathos.⁷ Each describes a different kind of motivation or demotivation a character might have. A character can have a score between -3 and +3 in each Motivation. A high score signals that a character is highly motivated in this manner, while a low score indicates a character is highly demotivated in this manner. Zero represents indifference.

To utilize the Motivations System, Traveller characters are created normally. Then, at the end of character creation their Social modifier is used to determine their available Motivation Points. A character receives 3 + SOC DM of Motivation Points and half that number (rounded down) of Demotivation Points.

For example, a character with a SOC of 10 (DM +1) will have 4 Motivations Points and 2 Demotivation Points to distribute. The player then uses these Motivation Points to increase Motivations, and uses the Demotivation Points to decrease Motivations. All Motivations begin at 0 and a player may add to their character’s Motivations up to a maximum of 3. Motivation Points and Demotivation Points cannot be placed into the same Motivation. In other words, a given Motivation cannot be both increased and decreased. All Motivation Points must be used.⁸

Example

Clem is creating his character Flugworts who concluded normal character creation with a SOC of 5 (DM -1). This gives Clem 2 Motivation Points and 1 Demotivation Point to assign to Flugworts. Flugworts receives a 1 in Eros, a 1 in Mythos, and a -1 in Logos.

Ethos

Characters motivated by Ethos are motivated by acts of moral good. A +3 in Ethos might indicate a manichean outlook on life, in which the character can only experience the world through the lens of good and evil. A character highly motivated in Ethos may find themselves set apart from others in society. Few sophonts in any society respect those whose moral compass never wiggles.

No one is motivated by evil regardless of what Gary Gygax thinks. A -3 in Ethos indicates extreme amorality, in which the character has no moral compass whatsoever and believes sophonts who do things for moral reasons are suckers.

Eros

Characters motivated by Eros are motivated by love for other sophonts. This could be romantic love, love for a family member, or even the love of a good friend. A +3 in Eros indicates strong attachment and loyalty to another sophont, or sophonts. They form strong bonds with others and would do anything for them. A -3 in Eros indicates a character that has trouble connecting with others. Their relationships with others do not motivate them in the least and they believe people who are tricked into doing things for love or family are dupes.

Logos

Characters motivated by Logos are motivated by logic and reason. They think things through intellectually to determine the right course of action. Star Trek Vulcans are a great example of this. A character with a +3 in Logos would behave like a Vulcan from Star Trek, while a character with -3 would cringe and complain everytime a companion applied logic to a problem.

Mythos

Characters motivated by Mythos are motivated to please or displease an entity, or idea, greater than themselves. We could use the term religion here, but that would be too restrictive. Religion, or a God, or a Pantheon, is not the only type of higher devotion a character might have. Characters could also be devoted to upholding the tenets of an ideology, or text, that requires them to behave a certain way. Rama from the Ramayana is the quintesstial example of a character highly motivated by Mythos, as is any other character in Hindu mythology driven by their dharma.

Characters with a +3 in Mythos are strongly motivated by faith, while characters with a -3 find companions motivated by faith detestable. If a character chooses to have a +3 in Mythos the referee should require that player to describe their faith and how it motivates the character.

Pathos

Characters motivated by Pathos are pathological. Their behavior is typically driven by habit. A character with a +3 in Pathos might be a hardcore hedonist, or maybe someone who just goes with the flow. They might be susceptible to addiction or other bad habits, or maybe they chose their outlook and habits years ago and simply never changed. Consider Amos from The Expanse.⁹

A character with a -3 in Pathos is not motivated by immediately feeling good or through their own intelligent reasoning. They passed the marshmallow test because they considered the consequences.¹⁰ They think things through, and treat those who succumb to the desires of the flesh, or to spontaneity, with contempt.

Persuasion and Deception

Anytime a character needs to persuade or deceive another character, NPC, enemy, or other sophont the Motivations System comes into effect.

Persuasion and Deception are two approaches a character can make to get what they want without engaging in violence. Though if the character performs badly enough on the check, at the referee’s discretion, they may both result in violence. A persuasion check is made when a character is being mostly truthful and attempting to develop a shared understanding with another sophont. A deception check is made when a character is outright lying to another sophont. What counts as Persuasion and what counts as Deception is situational, and some amount of discretion is left to the referee to determine which is which.

Players will probably not immediately know what motivates the NPCs and other sophonts they encounter throughout an adventure. The referee should leak hints to the players as they spend more time with sophonts. Some NPCs might be very guarded about what their real motivations are, while others might metaphorically wear them on their sleeve. Not everyone has a good pokerface, and it’s up to the referee to decide how much of an NPC’s real motivations get revealed through interactions with characters.

Persuasion and Deception are normal skills in Traveller, and the normal rules for skills in Traveller still apply when using the Motivations System. The Motivations System replaces the SOC part of the dice modifier, not the skill part. If a player is attempting a Deception check their dice modifier will be their Deception skill +/- their Motivations System modifier. A player must first declare which Motivation they are using when attempting a check, and their Motivations System modifier is then equal to their value in that Motivation and the other sophont’s score. The player must then role play their pitch to the other sophont along the lines of their chosen Motivation.

Persuasion

A character attempting to persuade another sophont must declare which Motivation score will be used for the Persuasion check. Then the character receives a bonus to their Persuasion check equal to their skill in Persuasion, plus the sum of their character’s and the other sophont’s score in the same Motivation.¹¹

Example

Stardust has a 0 in Persuasion and is attempting to seduce a bartender. Stardust needs to find the location of an enemy’s base and she’s certain this bartender knows it. Stardust declares they will use Eros and Stardust has a +1 in Eros. However, our grizzled bartender is of the untrustworthy cynical sort who doesn’t trust relationships. The bartender has a -2 in Eros. Therefore, Stardust receives a -1 modifier on their seduction attempt.

0 + 1 + -2 = -1

Because this is Persuasion, Stardust must communicate that they would like to know the location of the enemy’s base. They may still talk around it, or lead up to the question with fluttering puppy eyes, but the bartender is well aware that Stardust wants to know the location of the enemy’s base.

Stardust could have used Pathos instead of Eros. It’s the responsibility of the player to convince the referee that their choice is legitimate, and the player must role play their chosen Motivation. Perhaps when choosing Pathos, Stardust could push their boobs up and drink seductively from a straw. What kind of Persuasion do you think would work best on a cynical bartender?

Deception

Deception works similarly to Persuasion, only it’s the difference in Motivation that provides the bonus.

A character attempting to deceive another sophont must declare which Motivation will be used for the Deception check. Then the character receives a bonus to their Deception check equal to their Deception skill, plus the inverse of their Motivation score, plus the sophonts score in the same Motivation. The player must then role play their pitch to the other sophont along the lines of their chosen Motivation.

Example

Toog is attempting to deceive a guard into letting them pass and enter the armoury. Toog declares he will use Pathos. Toog has a 1 in Deception and a -1 in Pathos. The Guard has a +1 in Pathos. Therefore Toog receives a +3 modifier in his attempt to deceive the Guard.

1 + (-1 * -1) + 1 = 3

Toog lies and says that the Captain of the Guard has ordered himself (Toog) to relieve the Guard at the armoury. This guard is to immediately report to the bridge. Toog further lies and says that the last time someone betrayed this particular Captain they were beaten severely, He further states he would hate to see the Guard receive a whipping for disobeying the Captain.

Discussion

Role Playing

Role playing and storytelling are where the Motivations System really shines. Characters are expected to follow their motivations and think about how their motivations will affect their behavior in game. A character not motivated by Mythos should consider why they are going on a holy crusade. This does not forbid them from going on the crusade, but players should consider why their characters are engaging in certain behaviors if it contradicts with their Motivations.

Opposites

None of the Motivations are direct opposites of another. Perhaps Logos and Pathos are close to being direct opposites. As it is hard to imagine a character that could have high scores in both. However, as long as the player has a good explanation for having positive scores in both the referee should allow it. Low scores in both is easily understandable.

Free Will and Following Orders

The Motivations System assumes a certain amount of free will and sophont agency. If sophonts lack free will then they lack Motivations. Note how this supercedes any discussion of rationality. A sophont is not required to be rational, or think rationally, but they are required to entertain decision making of their own accord. One can argue whether or not free will exists in the universe, or whether we are instead pre-programmed beings with a pre-ordained destiny. However, one cannot argue that sophonts lacking in free will make for interesting stories. We’re not trying to model the sophont condition. We’re playing a game and that game should be fun.

This promotes certain consequences for sophonts, even artificial intelligence sophonts (e.g., robots). Traditionally, a being is considered a sophont in Traveller if it is capable of making meaning and has some kind of language. This implies a minimum level of intelligence. The Motivations System requires that a sophont be capable of free will as well. Thus, while traditional Traveller might recognise a machine as being a sophont if it can make meaning, have language, and has a certain intelligence, the Motivations System also requires that it possess some level of agency.

A character who blindly follows orders is not a character, they’re a tool. No one is motivated simply to follow orders. If they follow orders as a go-along-to-get-along approach to life they are motivated by Pathos. If they follow orders because they are in love with the person giving the orders they are motivated by Eros. If they follow orders because their God told them to they are motivated by Mythos. If they follow orders for the greater good they are motivated by Ethos. And if they follow orders because it is the logical thing to do in a situation they are motivated by Logos.

Empathy

Persuasion and Deception checks involving Motivations provide a mechanism to model empathy in game. If a character and an NPC share similar Motivations it should be easier for the character to persuade them, while more difficult for the character to lie to them.

The difficulty in lying to an NPC that shares similar Motivations as the character comes not from something external to the character, but from within. One can imagine it as a form of stress. If a character is truly motivated to do good in this world, and has a high Ethos, it will pain them to activate another sophont’s morality for selfish gain. Likewise, if a highly logical player must persuade someone through pathological perturbations they are not going to enjoy it.

This encourages players to use Motivations that they share with NPCs for persuasion, and Motivations that they do not share with NPCs for deception, thereby modelling empathy and its consequences on the self.

Self-Interest, Cynicism, and Power

A popular contemporary belief in western society is that humans are primarily cynical.¹² Its promotion probably has its roots in the neo-classical economic belief that rational humans are intrinsically trying to maximize their own personal utility.¹³ Nevermind that contemporary economic theory cannot explain the existence of charity, a phenomenon as deeply a part of the human experience as greed.

Personally, I think humans are much more complex than this, but more importantly, greedy, cynical, self-interested characters make for boring story telling. We can have a few of them scattered throughout our story. We can have a greedy merchant here, or a narcissistic leader there, but players want more from their RPGs than just the tired traditional loop of dungeon crawling.

While Not Dead:
    Enter Dungeon
    Get Loot
    Get Better Gear
    Level Up

I, as a referee and a player, bore of power levelling. It’s fine for the occasional video game, but what is the point of playing a TTRPG if we cannot imagine more interesting gameplay. If I were reading a book and the only character growth running through it was an ever increasing power arc I would bore with the book. My players want to save the world. They’re not interested in simply getting rich, or getting better equipment, or bigger guns. That’s the world we’re trapped in, now, in reality, and it sucks. That’s part of why we play games: to escape the ever present depressing shit show that is contemporary reality.

The Motivations System does not have a dedicated Motivation for self-interest. If it did we would call it Cynos and a +3 in Cynos would be an asshole, while a -3 in Cynos would be someone who perpetually thought of others before themselves. I don’t think having Cynos would make for interesting game play, so it is not a part of the Motivations System.

Presenting it to My Players

I have been running a Traveller group of roughly six players for almost two years. We play about once a month and not everyone can join every month, so we usually end up with 4-5 players each session. We just had our 22nd session. Not everyone in the group has been playing since the beginning and a couple people have joined and left. Our emphasis is on having fun and engaging in creative, collective story telling. In TTRPG terms we practice theatre of the mind gameplay without miniatures or much focus on tactical, or map based gameplay.

When I presented the idea of Motivations to my players they we’re not exactly thrilled about the idea. While aligning with my frustrations regarding SOC in Traveller, they were not interested in the additional complexity the Motivations systems required. In the lingo of TTRPG’s it was too crunchy. In other words, it was overly complex and required too much book keeping. However, I still think the thought exercise was useful because it allowed us to discuss our various frustrations with SOC and how we role play PC interactions with NPCs. Sometimes it can be useful to design something and then throw away the design. It gets our intellectual juices flowing and gives space for new ideas to form.

We had reached a point in our campaign that presented a natural stopping point and I decided to have one-on-ones with each player to ask what they liked, and what they disliked, about the campaign. My players were unanimous in saying they wanted less crunch. They wanted less spreadsheets in space, less tracking of finances, and less focus on trade. They didn’t like how Traveller emphaszed money as the main reward their characters received and they didn’t like how the skills progression system required rolling dice everytime they jumped between systems.

Their favorite parts of the game, when everyone had the most fun, were when they were on planet engaging in the story. One person really enjoyed ship-to-ship combat, but most didn’t. Everyone enjoyed personal combat and everyone thought the stories I wove together allowed for significant player freedom. As far as PC to NPC interactions went, my players were adamant that they did not want any additional complexity.

Conclusion

Game masters, talk to your players. After you’ve had a few sessions ask them what they like and what they don’t like. Also, design game mechanics and throw them away if you determine they suck after you talk to your players. Maybe someone will find this article and design a game about complex social interactions using the Motivations System. If you’re that person I encourage you to go for it.

Every group is different and I respect those groups that like a crunchy game. But I’m reminded of a quote I heard a long time ago: “A good game master should spend less time crafting mechanics and more time making judgments.” Effective storytelling requires decisions be made in the present based on immediate circumstances. Consistency across play sessions is important, but much less important than having fun.

It’s often easier to create mechanics than it is to maintain and use them consistently. As far as myself and my players are concerned, we don’t play games to engage with clever mechanics. We play games to have fun together. If mechanics don’t lead to fun gameplay then they should probably be changed, or discarded all together.