• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Shoot for the Goal

Your character undoubtedly has some hopes, some dreams, some aspirations. Maybe they’d like to kill that rampaging dragon. Maybe they’d like to live in a castle. Maybe they want to unlock ultimate cosmic power, or simply slay the orcs that ravaged their town. But any of those things gives your character a goal – a concrete thing that they want to change about the world they live in. Goals...

Your character undoubtedly has some hopes, some dreams, some aspirations. Maybe they’d like to kill that rampaging dragon. Maybe they’d like to live in a castle. Maybe they want to unlock ultimate cosmic power, or simply slay the orcs that ravaged their town.

But any of those things gives your character a goal – a concrete thing that they want to change about the world they live in.

Goals are fabulously useful things. They drive the action and the plotline. In a book or a movie, the goals the characters have funnel them toward, keep them moving, and prevent the action from getting dull. Every scene is about what a character wants, and the steps they need to take to get it, what obstacles they must overcome.

goals+eventual+lawyer.jpg

Ah, progress!

But in D&D, specific character goals have largely been an area left wide open to interpretation. Pick your race and your class, sure, but your goals can be whatever gets you into the dungeon – as far as the rules are concerned, the end point isn’t half as important as the fact that you need to fight myconids and drow (or whatever) to get there.

This ambiguity also makes it hard for a DM to deliver satisfyingly on this goal. If your character wants to slay the dragon, but seeking the item to slay the dragon is what keeps them delving into dungeons, the DM is encouraged not to ever let you actually slay that dragon – what would you do after that? And if your character wants fabulous wealth, and the DM is worried about Monty Haul, it’s not something you ever have a realistic chance of achieving, because the DM doesn’t want to give you the one thing your character actually wants. It can be a recipe for frustration: nothing you ever do is getting you what you actually want out of the world, you can’t accomplish any of your goals. Sure, you can murder all the triaphegs in a 60-yeard radius of the village, but securing a castle is beyond your capabilities?

So let us improve on what has come before.

Goals As A Character Option
The central idea here is that, in addition to race, class, skills, proficiencies, feats, etc., when you make your character, you pick a goal.

Like with race and class, the DM may provide you with a list of goals particular to the campaign. Such a list might look like this:

  • Wealth
  • Authority
  • Vengeance
  • Peace
  • Truth
  • Mastery

Each player picks a goal for their character that represents what they seek. So, our character above who wants to take out the orcs that leveled her village would probably pick Vengeance as her character’s goal. A character who wanted to learn high-level magic might choose Mastery as his character’s goal, reflecting a complete dominance in the field. Our dragon-slayer might pick Peace: she just wants to live her life without having her friends and family burninated.

A DM could customize this list to the flavor of the campaign, and a player could also volunteer new goals. Note that the goals are big and significant – “kill one particular orc” isn’t a goal, but Vengeance is. This is intentional: a goal should be nebulous and big enough that there are multiple ways and paths to interpret it. It is not a discrete event, it is a concept.

Origins
So, you’ve got a (fairly abstract) goal for your character. So what? I could say my character wants peace and truth and love, but that doesn’t necessarily help the DM figure out how to organically make my character want to wail on some adherers out in the forest, or how to reward my character for doing so.

The first wrinkle in the plan is this: your goal helps describe your character’s background.

Call this the “origin.” If your character’s goal describes where they want to end up, then their origin needs to be where they are now…and the farther away they are from their goal, the more heroic that rise to meet it will be.

So, the goals help define where your character is when the campaign starts.

  • Wealth (Poverty)
  • Authority (Subservience)
  • Vengeance (Injustice)
  • Peace (Strife)
  • Truth (Deceit)
  • Mastery (Incompetence)

So, for example, your character who wants to become wealthy should start out poor – quite poor. Dirt poor. A humble moisture farmer or a beggar on the streets or deep in debt to the dire corby mafia. You have no money. Meanwhile, our spellcaster begins as a clumsy oaf who can barely string together two syllables of moderate potency, let alone intone words of power.

This creates an interesting dynamic instantly: you lack X, and you want to get X, because lacking X is causing you a lot of problems.

D&D characters have a tendency not to have these interesting arcs because they tend to begin as largely flawless characters with remarkable skill that then simply become more powerful and rich as the game goes on. It’s sometimes hard to make them want something, because they don’t lack anything – they’re heroes who have it better than everyone else and always have. Having your ultimate goal inform your character’s origins gives your character something to struggle against, some reason to pursue that lofty goal. If your character was defined by strife – say, raised with a refugee family – it becomes all the more clear why they crave peace, why this is a goal you cling to even when the war rages around you.
You can also use this origin point as backstory – perhaps hidden backstory – for your character. Even if your character was once a humble moisture farmer, that might have been years ago. Now they’re a grimdark mercenary with a necklace of maezel ears to show their might. But they pursue wealth still, still motivated by that place they came from, which was poor and simple, even if the PC’s never really see it.

This has a lot of potential to link a PC directly to the campaign world too. Questions naturally arise as you consider a character who came from the opposite of your goal. Who are the poor? Where do the wars occur? What elite organizations exist? How can that help you choose a race or a class?

Legacies
If origins are an origin point in the formation of a character goal, then legacies are the end point, the flip side. Origins are back-story, and legacies are denouement, the mark you leave in the world after you accomplish your goal.

Legacies affect the world after your passing, after your character retires or dies or fades into legend. In fact, they help define how your character fades into legend.

  • Wealth (Poverty); you leave behind great wealth yourself, to your heirs or to the public.
  • Authority (Subservience); you leave behind people who still treat your words and actions as important traditions, long after you’ve gone.
  • Vengeance (Injustice); you leave the people near your target fearful of committing that injustice again.
  • Peace (Strife); you leave a populace free of wars and violence for a long time to come.
  • Truth (Deceit); you leave a fact known to all, accepted as reality.
  • Mastery (Incompetence); you leave behind a reputation as the greatest, and others aspire to be half the master you were.

Legacies are there to ensure that your deeds affect the world after they’re completed. No sense in going on all these adventures to pursue your goal if, the moment you stop killing gambodo, your goal is counter-acted, right? This also keeps you going after you accomplish a part of your goal. If what you want is wealth, why don’t you stop once you’re happily comfortable? Because you can change the world so that no one you know ever has to suffer from poverty again. Your goal is more than yours, it bleeds out into the world you inhabit, and makes it a better place.

That’s what heroes do, after all, even after they’ve departed.

How To DM With Goals
With codified goals like this, it becomes quite easy to hook the PC’s, to keep them interested, and to ensure that they have an effect on the world. The goals of your characters are effectively rewards, as important to the characters as treasure and magic items. Like any other reward, it should be parsed out in parts over the course of the campaign, and to facilitate this, you can think of the goal as having five main parts: The Origin, the Legacy, and three steps in the middle.

Your job, over the course of however long that character is in your campaign, is to bring them through those three middle steps. Think of three things that a hero in your world might be able to accomplish to bring them from that origin to that legacy, or three steps in that process. These three steps (four, including the legacy) are going to be rewards for that character, given when they complete some mission or some portion of the story.

Because the distance covered from origin to legacy is so large, it shouldn’t be hard to arrive at three distinct points in it. If the character is interested in getting rich, but starts off deep in debt, you might plan that Step 1 means cancelling the debt, Step 2 means never needing to take out a loan like it again (effective financial solvency!), and Step 3 means finally becoming wealthy. If the character is interested in vengeance, Step 1 means overcoming the injustice, Step 2 means getting the target of your vengeance to flee, and Step 3 means finally getting an opportunity to reap that vengeance. You’ve got some time to think of later steps, but breaking it down in general terms can help you get an idea of the PC’s character arc: how they go from their initial position, to their end-point.

Because these points are “rewards” for your PC’s, you can easily structure an adventure around achieving that reward – it’s a great carrot to hold out there. Not only can you make those three points significant, you can also work smaller rewards into any given adventure: perhaps the wealth-seeking character explores the forgotten tomb because of rumors of fabulous riches. Maybe those rumors are overblown. The benefit of making these goals broad is that you can lure a character toward the adventure material you’ve actually prepared by putting something that may relate to the goal behind it.

The three points should change how the PC lives in the world dramatically and noticeably. A man avoiding debt collectors won’t live the same kind of lifestyle as a guy who just landed a great haul of gold, after all. This change in behavior can breed stories and hooks out of themselves, too: what might risk that character’s newly acquired gold? Who might come looking for that character while they’re on an adventure?

Now You
So, that’s the basic idea of codified goals. The design is intended to make the DM’s job of hooking the PC’s and producing adventures a little easier, while simultaneously helping players to feel more empowered to change the world themselves, and to take on challenges eagerly. What do you think? What might be some of the goals, origins, legacies, and steps for characters that you’ve had or DMed? Let me know down in the comments!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Quickleaf

Legend
Great article! Love how you've used some rules of story writing and applied them to gaming :)

I think there are 2 forces fighting this sort of character-driven play. You identified one: the power fantasy of flawless heroes. The other is more complex...

It's the whole adventuring party model. You have 5 (or so) characters with dramatically different motives and backgrounds. If you don't want characters just "going along for the ride" sometimes, it will take an extremely skilled groups of players to balance the competing goals of their party OR a ruleset designed to account for inter-party disputes (eg. something along to Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits).

I just don't think it's feasible for a DM to include all character goals all the time.

So for a group of pro-players or with the right system, I think this could work really really well. Otherwise, it could lead to inter-party confusion/paralysis/conflict.
 


Janx

Hero
It's the whole adventuring party model. You have 5 (or so) characters with dramatically different motives and backgrounds. If you don't want characters just "going along for the ride" sometimes, it will take an extremely skilled groups of players to balance the competing goals of their party OR a ruleset designed to account for inter-party disputes (eg. something along to Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits).

I think D&D parties have been struggling with that problem for 40 years, BECAUSE players don't know each others goals to effectively cooperate with each other.

I think there will still be players who suck at cooperating, but putting goals into the character sheet is a start toward helping players accomodate each other.

I also like how you demonstrate taking a broad goal and breaking it down into a model for telling the story of the PC's rise to presumed success. Nobody wants a Rigid Railroad or a Boring Sandbox. The story should be based on what the player does. But to get to there, it helps if the PC has a goal that he pursues, and the GM has some guidelines on the barriers to set in his way. The 3 major stages (the stuff between Origin and Legacy) are a good way to illustrate that. If the GM envisioned reaching the Legacy stage by Level 10, then barring gross failures on the PC's part, it because obvious when to shift gears for throwing debt collectors at the 3rd level PC all the time, to finally letting them score the big haul that they get to keep so the PC moves to Stage 2 (Solvency).


Note, I use the phrase "let them". I don't think any GM should be under the illusion that PCs get what they choose to do and succeed at. A GM can throw reasonable setback after setback to hold and counter the success of a PC if he chooses, and may not even be aware that he is doing so. The PCs get rich because the GM chose to have the treasure horde actually be real and not a lie, and to not have NPCs steal it out from under them, and to not have a zillion expenses suddenly show up to eat their windfall.

Part of good storytelling (and probably GMing) is knowing when to change the state of the world to accomodate the growth of the characters.
 

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
Quickleaf said:
It's the whole adventuring party model. You have 5 (or so) characters with dramatically different motives and backgrounds. If you don't want characters just "going along for the ride" sometimes, it will take an extremely skilled groups of players to balance the competing goals of their party OR a ruleset designed to account for inter-party disputes (eg. something along to Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits).

I just don't think it's feasible for a DM to include all character goals all the time.

Well, the easy way to solve this is to have the whole party take a goal instead of or in addition to an individual goal. This happens in ensemble ragtag-adventurers-save-the-world-style works all the time. :)

Though part of why I broke it down to three big events per PC is to help DMs space out the events or cycle around to various PC's. It does help if you have players (even if not characters) who are "team players," but there's also ways to help encourage that, too (relationships!).

Another way to work on it is to cram several characters' stages together. If you've got a 4 person party, and they want Wealth, Vengeance, Knowledge, and Peace, you can create a pretty compelling antagonist if you have the orc that once slaughtered one character's parents causing violence in a nearby town while sitting in a pile of plunder, including rare scrolls from a city of scholars she sacked. Suddenly, that one adventure to go stop her becomes really compelling! (as an aside, this is often how villains get constructed in creative works: as antithesis to the heroes).

Janx said:
Note, I use the phrase "let them". I don't think any GM should be under the illusion that PCs get what they choose to do and succeed at. A GM can throw reasonable setback after setback to hold and counter the success of a PC if he chooses, and may not even be aware that he is doing so.

This can depend on the level of loss aversion in the players. Personally, I like the idea that I may fail to accomplish my characters' goal if I'm not smart or lucky enough to survive or complete the adventure in which I have a chance to achieve it. But I'm kind of into more dramatic and emotional gameplay, which means I like the stakes to be high and real.

But a more loss-averse game would likely embrace the idea of a "fail forward" toward your PC's goals, and I think that can be a lot of fun, too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Janx

Hero
This can depend on the level of loss aversion in the players. Personally, I like the idea that I may fail to accomplish my characters' goal if I'm not smart or lucky enough to survive or complete the adventure in which I have a chance to achieve it. But I'm kind of into more dramatic and emotional gameplay, which means I like the stakes to be high and real.

This part of the conversation (my fault) is more of a tangent to when you start planning stages of story progression and character advancement toward their goal.

Let's stick to the example of a PC who's goal is Wealth. And for the sake of argument, let's say the GM has set the time lime to get him to the Legacy stage by level 10. Partly, because as the other part of your response, there's other player's goals being pursued as well.

Let's also assume that the GM certainly will let the PCs fail if the player screws up, to cover those who think we're deliberately talking about railroading the player through this rags to riches storyline. if the PC dies, or does stupid things, or has bad luck, then he will not get the happy ending. let's call that part of the discussion settled, as it bogs the conversation down.

What I'm therefore talking about is that the GM can assume that if there's 5 stages (origin, in debt, solvent, wealthy, legacy) for this PC to experience, that he can therefore bring in continous problems in the in-debt stage to keep the player down, until such time as he sees fit to ALLOW the player's latest mission to be unsullied. When the PC breaks into the vault, is the money there? All the best intel in the world can still be defeated by an NPC adversary who got there first. And that kind of "bad luck" can only happen because the GM decided to invent an NPC who would thwart the PC's latest haul in order to keep him down.

To my eye, your PC is nothing, without some assistance from the GM. That's not because he's gracious or malicious. it simply is a factor of the game that the GM is making up what happens next, which can invalidate or neutralize the best efforts of the PC.

So here's what I like about your 5 stages to reach Legacy for a Goal. Good storytelling inherently has obstacles for the PC to overcome. By defining the 5 stages (and my suggestion that the GM view it as an approximate time table on the level progression) is that it reminds the GM when to stop jacking with the PC and let their next success move them to the next stage.

This is the kernel of adapting storytelling techniques to GMing a D&D campaign, as CR was a metric for the GM to know how tough his encounter was relative to the PCs.

Again, I don't think KM is confusing having a plan for what the successful path of a PC pursuing his chosen goal looks like with deliberately letting them succeed regardless. But somebody else will, because that's where this part of the discussion tends to lead when we talk about story telling.
 

Janx

Hero
Getting back to the goal side of the conversation (by the way, I like the topic and article):

In my own group, we have a basic social contract rule to always bite the plot hook. This speeds along game play so the GM can write one hook and the party will identify it as soon as we can and agree to go rescue the princess. This simplifies how much material the GM must write. There is a requirement that the plot hook be something that would make sense and appeal to the party and NOT be a total screw job.

That last is important because the GM could introduce the shady Mr. Johnson with a job that totally smells like a setup, and we're forced to go do the mission because of the social contract rule, even though we are all saavy enough to see that our PC would really avoid the mission. Three Days to Kill was one of those crappy-arsed adventures that played on our social contract and screwed us, so we added the corollary for the GM side of things.

Here's how this ties into Goals as invented by KM: In our group, the GM is required to do a plot hook that appeals to the party. If we have mandatory Goals, then the GM has a better idea of how to shape that plot hook. Which in turn means we effectively have a happy matchup of plot hook to player interests. Our social contract doesn't feel arbitrary or constraining when the GM makes adventures that are tailored for our goals.

One thing I do that's related, is between sessions, I get my players to specify very immediate short term goals. basically, what are you trying to do next. Then I write my material for the next session based on that. So if the PCs say they plan on breaking into the bank to steal the records from the safe deposit box of the old man, then I go write up material to support that (including the interesting complications to the heist), as well as all the information they'd get if they scout the place first.

So it's valuable to have a Macro-scale Goal as well as a Micro-scale goal identified for each PC.
 

Quickleaf

Legend
It does remind me a bit of "Keys" from The Shadow of Yesterday, which are player-selected goals broken down into smaller XP granting tasks (it's the player-defined/chosen XP mechanic).
 

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
One thing I didn't really explore here is using this as an XP source, but it strikes me that a lot of tables use XP more as a measure of timekeeping than a measure of reward or advancement. Still, if you're failing forward in your narrative and it's all just a matter of the interesting things that happen between origin and legacy, the two are not incompatible!

I like putting the steps in place at big level events, though. Helps them to be quite memorable.
 

Janx

Hero
Could you explain more by what you mean in the phrase "failing forward"?

I don't think it has a good connotation. I think some folks would assume it means the GM is ignoring the player's failures to allow them to move forward.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top