In my journey of professional development (which is how I’m going to put it on my annual review, thank you very much), I’m currently taking a course on “strategic leadership.” It’s not a how-to guide for being a great adventure party leader (though, as I think about it…) and is not even terribly interesting most days, but one lesson caught my attention.

The lesson was on how to motivate people. It borrowed from a psychologist named McClelland’s theory that, when you boil it down, people are motivated by one or some combination of three things:

1. Achievement: These people get a real sense of reward out of accomplishing tasks, particularly meaningful or challenging ones. They like some risk, but not too much, and like to have their achievements recognized. And they love promotions. 

2. Affiliation: These people’s sense of reward comes from the act of working with people. They live for working on teams, building networks, coordinating with diverse groups, and, frankly, herding cats. They’re not a big fan of risk and like to be recognized by people telling them how much impact their work had on the group and the team’s goals. They also like a personal touch when being recognized. 

3. Power: This one just sounds like every evil villain out there, but is a little more nuanced. These people are motivated by the desire to achieve big, strategic goals that can shape the face of your organization (or adventuring party). They do like to be in charge, and they embrace risk. They love praise from people in very senior positions. 

You may look at this list and think that a couple or all of them apply to you, and absolutely, that is the case. But if you are honest with yourself, likely one stands out. If you’re wondering, the way to think about it is, what really gets you excited to work on something? Anyone can do a job and appreciate a reward or recognition, but which of these really turns your job or chore into something you’re eager and fired up about? It’s likely one stands out a bit more than the rest. 

“So, um, Kathleen, what does this have to do with roleplaying games?”

Glad you asked! One of the assignments for the course was to identify our own motivation alignment (yes, yes, I’m power, then achievement, an arch-villain in the making, blah blah) and then to think about someone on our team and their alignment.

The instructor didn’t call it alignment, but I did. Which, of course, made me think of some of my player characters. And I realized that one of my current PCs Maia, who I adore, is absolutely an affiliator. Achievement may be a distant second, but she is incredibly team-oriented. In fact, she’s quietly terrified of the idea of being truly alone. Playing her can be a challenge for me sometimes, and as I think about it, this might be part of why. But a good kind of challenge, because I am somewhat motivated by achievement.

I then started to think over my other PCs. Yeru is definitely power-motivated. Sira is achievement all the way. And then I started to think about the NPCs in various games I’ve encountered. Syares is achievement, Abraxis affiliation, Shepherd most definitely power, Soshe--I don’t know about Soshe yet. Which, in fact, is precisely part of what makes her an enigma that my PC (Yeru, in this case) is trying to piece together.

There are an untold number of things to consider when making a character with the depth and complexity of a person. Some game systems build elements into the mechanics via stats, personality traits, or backgrounds. But there’s also a lot left for the players and GMs to flesh out. And since most of us aren’t professors in psychology, there’s likely a lot we miss.

Motivations, then, add another dimension to consider. Maybe it’s something you think about up front or maybe it’s something you realize about your characters as you go and decide to be a little more explicit about. And on the upside, there are only three options, so it’s not going to require too much thought. 

“How might this even play into roleplaying games, though?”

I love the questions. You’re so great at this. 

Imagine, for a moment, that Maia, Yeru, and Sira are all approached to undertake a quest. A wizened crone says, “If you can do this thing, you will have done a thing most thought impossible, that most would never have dared to dream could be done.”

Sira would already be out the door and on her way, but Yeru would just shrug and walk away, while Maia might shift her weight fitfully. 

However, had the crone said, “The Emperor himself will be watching the outcome of this quest quite closely, as it could change everything about the Empire,” Yeru would jump all over it, butMaia and Sira would be less interested.

Finally, if the crone had said, “There is an entire village of people depending on the success of your quest,” Maia would have hugged the woman and taken off, while the other two rolled their eyes. 

In any of the above cases, the other two may have decided to go in the end, but they wouldn’t be as motivated as in the case that was framed just right to appeal to their alignment.

For players, then, thinking about your PCs’ motivations may help you better understand what they do and why. Which missions really resonate with your character and which don’t? Is it the mission itself or just how it’s framed? How do they behave when they are stuck doing something that doesn’t align with their motivations?

For GMs, this conceptualization of motivation can be even more powerful. Obviously, it’s good to know what motivates your NPCs. But have you ever found yourself stuck coming up with a way to get the PCs out the door or to buy into your amazing plot hooks? Maybe it’s just a matter of describing your quests and adventures in a way that appeals to each type of motivational alignment. It’s likely the same adventure can be reframed to fit any of the motivations, so play around with it and see if it works. 

On top of that, this approach can be doubly useful for GMs, because not only do the PCs and NPCs have their motivational alignments, so do your players (and yourself!!). I once played in a high-emotion game that worked on many levels because the GM understood that to really shake my PC, he had to not just figure out what moved her, but also what moved me. If he could pluck both of those notes at the same time...well, I spent more than a few nights walking home angry, scared, euphoric, and/or sobbing. And those sessions were no less intense for him, because he played to his own emotions, too. The same lesson applies here.

I may play Maia, but if my GM can find a way to make a quest appeal to her love of affiliation AND my love of power, I’m going to be invested in the game on multiple levels, which will likely wind up being more satisfying for everyone. Throw in a little achievement for good measure (because that’s what motivates the GM in this case) and *chef’s kiss*. Perfect.