Last time, I explored some common personality frameworks (Enneagrams, Myers-Briggs, and the Big Five), in order to find one that fit what I had in mind for Nobody Poops on TV.
In the end, I believe the Big Five is the framework I want to use, structuring Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism as the five axes that I'm going to place my paired sets of ten Motivations on.
Oh yeah--that's what I'm calling them now. Forget "Attributes". These are Motivations.
The goal is to not be too weird, to exist in the middle ground between the two extremes of your personality. However, it won't be possible to be perfect; there's going to be a give-and-take that will ensure you always have some quirk, somewhere in your personality.
These Motivations will be (subject to change):
- Reckless vs. Stubborn
- Selfish vs. Obsessive
- Misanthrope vs. Awkward
- Paranoid vs. Phony
Now, right off the bat you'll see these are not simply opposites of each other. A person with 0 Selfish might realistically be 30 Selfless, but that's not useful to me--why would I have two stats when they're both telling me the same thing? One stat with a sliding scale would suffice. The problem with that, however, is that there's no pushback. If you have a low stat, there's nothing to disincentivise you against that. Using paired stats means that if one is low, the other must be high, which means you're not ALWAYS going to be the best there is at everything you do.
Pobody's nerfect, after all.
Instead, these paired stats are about different interpretations of the word. Take "Conscientiousness". Conscientiousness is about thought. You can think about yourself and think about other people (this would be Selfish vs Selfless) or you can think about your actions and the consequences of those actions (Obsessive vs. for example, Carefree).
Likewise, Extraversion is about relationships, and how you form them. Do you have difficulty striking up a conversation or do you have zero filter at all (Anxious vs. Awkward), or do you just straight-up hate people or love everybody equally (Misanthrope vs. Humanitarian)?
Openness to Experience is all about impulse control--do you throw caution to the wind and do whatever strikes your fancy when it strikes (Reckless vs. Reserved), or do you do so because you believe in your heart of hearts that your choices and opinions are the correct ones (Stubborn vs. Unsure).
Agreeableness is about trust. Do you trust anybody or nobody (Paranoid vs Naïve) or does everybody trust YOU (Genuine vs. Phony)?
My goal in structuring Motivations in this way, is that players will--hopefully--be able to think about their character's goals and actions in multiple ways. Are you always thinking about others when you roll Selfish/Obsessive? No! Sometimes you're just thinking about the finish line and how you can achieve your goals.
This means that different axes of the same Motivation pair might be used in different situations. If you're thinking solely about your own needs, you roll Selfish. If you're thinking about the needs of others, you still roll Selfish, but if you're roleplaying in a way that is backed up by your character sheet then you likely have a low value in that stat. But if you're thinking instead about how your actions will play out and the consequences of those actions, you roll Obsessive. If you're not thinking about the consequences of your actions at all, roll Obsessive again (and ideally have a low stat).
To use a D&D example, it's like how Charisma in skill checks is about how strong your personality is, but when you use it as a saving throw, suddenly it's about willpower. Or, how Wisdom is about your physical senses, but somehow it's also about your intuition. I want to extend that to all stats--why can't I use Strength to determine strength of character? Why can't Dexterity be about mental resilience?
Hell, look at animal statblocks.
The 5th Edition (2014) Ape statblock, via D&D Beyond.
Six Intelligence? Six? You're telling me the difference between walking upright and using spoken language is the difference between a 6 INT and a 7?
Apes are highly intelligent animals. A chimpanzee has Theory of Mind, just like we do, which typically develops in humans between ages 3 and 5. Chimps just can't talk and they value different things to humans--they're not unintelligent, their brains just work differently to ours.
In Nobody Poops on TV, the equivalent of Intelligence would be able to be interpreted in multiple ways, instead of only in terms of raw logic. Emotional intelligence, for example. Or even different ways of using logic! It's still logic, yes, but not everybody has the same logic as you or I. It doesn't make them necessarily wrong, they just come at things from a different angle and reach different conclusions.
Enough of that--let's figure out how to use Motivations!
Openness to Experience: Reckless vs. Stubborn
Let's take Openness to New Experiences as the middle ground. What is the extreme lack of Openness, or of Curiosity? Cautiousness. Or even Close-Mindedness. Though I'm partial to "Stubbornness". What's the extreme presence of it? How about Recklessness?
In Community, Britta (Gillian Jacobs) is somebody I'd describe as reckless, and Shirley (Yvette Nicole Brown) as someone who's most definitely close-minded.
In 30 Rock, you'd have Tracy Jordan (Tracy Morgan) and Liz Lemon (Tina Fey) on opposite ends of this same spectrum; Tracy, who once tried to stab Conan O'Brien mid-interview just because he needs to constantly maintain his "crazy movie star" reputation, and Liz, whose best friends once hatched a vast conspiracy just to help her get over a rough breakup with Carol (Matt Damon). Liz Lemon is so cautious she never would have gone home with Anders if it wasn't for the entire evening being masterminded in such a way to appeal to every one of her interests!
"It's Never Too Late For Now", season 5, episode 15.
Both "Close-Mindedness" and "Cautiousness" call to mind very different things, though--whereas I feel "Stubbornness" covers both bases quite nicely.
A 0 in Stubborn equals a 30 of Reckless. A 30 in Stubborn equals a 0 in Reckless. A 15 on Stubborn equals a 15 in Reckless; they're equal, making you reasonably open. You'll try most anything once, though you will soon learn what you like and what you don't like--doesn't matter, at least you tried.
As Motivations in Nobody Poops on TV aren't about your inherent talent at doing something, but rather about your character's motivation, Stubborn would be the Motivation you roll when your character is convinced they're doing the right thing above all else.
A Stubborn character is single-minded in their belief, be it that all your friends are going to Hell because of their secular holiday traditions and that you and you alone are capable of saving them, but somebody is trying to convince you to come to their aid in their time of need--sinners though they might be (as Shirley in Community might use the stat), or that you're being lied to and are enveloped in a vast conspiracy designed to ensure your personal happiness, and you're trying to uncover the truth, damn the consequences (as Liz Lemon in 30 Rock might use it).
Conversely, Reckless might be the stat you roll when you have to decide whether to have sex with that jackass in your friend group in the middle of a paintball game (as Britta in Community might use it), or when you have to control your urge to ditch a party early to go to a better one (as Tracy Jordan in 30 Rock might).
Conscientiousness: Selfish vs. Obsessive
The extreme lack of Conscientiousness would be Selfishness; not thinking about your actions, not thinking about the consequences of those actions, not thinking about others, only thinking about yourself. A character with too little Conscientiousness would be pure id...
Troy Barnes (Donald Glover) from Community.
...while a character with too much Conscientiousness would be needlessly methodical or Obsessive, a control freak; your quintessential "Type A" personality, for whom everything must be carefully thought out and perfect.
Conscientiousness isn't about whether or not they think solely about people, it's about whether they think at all. And an Obsessive character thinks. A LOT.
Leslie Knope (Amy Poehler) from Parks and Rec, and Amy Santiago (Melissa Fumero) from Brooklyn Nine-Nine.
An Obsessive character might very well think about others to a degree that a Selfish character doesn't, but, again, it's not who or what they think about that matters here, it's whether any thought has gone into their actions at all.
How would you use these stats?
Selfish could definitely work in the Shirley example I used for Stubborn. But the difference is, what if somebody isn't trying to convince you, but you're trying to convince yourself?
You need to overcome your own selfish desires to feel self-righteous and superior. You need to realise that you should be the bigger person. It's not about other people, it's about your desires. It's. All. About. You.
Remember, it's not about overcoming a Persuasion check, like in D&D. It's about why you overcome that Persuasion check.
Motivations are the why you perform. Techniques are the how you perform. Talents are the what you perform.
Imagine Jeff Winger (Joel McHale), in Community. In season one, and especially the pilot, his Motivation was to use other people to get what he wants. Which was, specifically, to sleep with Britta. But by the end of season six, his motivation had changed. He saw the value in others. Britta, in fact, had become one of his best friends!
This could represent a lowering of his Selfish and an increase in his Obsessive; not inverting them, he's not pursuing friendships at the expense of all his other needs the way, say, Leslie Knope might do in Parks and Rec, but instead both Motivations are reaching 15; the mental equilibrium of a well-rounded, conscientious human being.
He hasn't maxed out his Obsession, he's increased it to a healthy degree, where he cares about the people around him. Likewise, he's not entirely selfless, he's still Jeff, he's just a Jeff that is willing to acknowledge his flaws.
Season one Jeff to Abed: "I see your value now" (to get what I want).
Season six Jeff to Abed: "I see your value now" (you are my friend and I'm going to miss you).
Obsessive, on the other hand, would be used in situations where you have a clear goal you want to achieve, or when you're being analytical. You're studying intensely because want to pass a stressful exam, because if you don't, it'll disrupt the entire trajectory of your life (as Amy in Brooklyn Nine-Nine might use it).
Extraversion: Misanthrope vs. Awkward
When I think of the extreme lack of extraversion, my mind goes back to one man, and one man only: Doctor Gregory House, M.D. (Hugh Laurie, in House).
It's not about being necessarily introverted, it's about hating people and how they waste your time.
You honestly don't see a lot of Misanthrope characters on TV, but when you do, they're almost always doctors. Something about a lack of bedside manner that seems to call to screenwriters like a shark to chum.
Dr. Bob Kelso (Ken Jenkins) and Dr. Perry Cox (John C. McGinley), both from Scrubs.
Dr. Leonard McCoy (DeForest Kelley) from Star Trek.
And who can forget the man, the myth, the legend, Dr. John "Helps Himself to Cigarettes Behind the Counter, Once Won a Child's Bicycle and Kept It For Himself" Becker (Ted Danson):
Both of these Motivations would be used largely in social situations--is your Motivation that you want somebody to go away, are you trying to get it through their thick skull that you have their best interests at heart? Think of Misanthrope like D&D's Persuasion skill. It's not Intimidation, you're not necessarily being threatening (though you can be), maybe you just want to convince somebody of something, and you believe bluntness will get your message across more concisely than if you were to waste time trading niceties?
Meanwhile, Awkward would be used when you have information you want to share, and you're excited to share it to anybody who'll listen. You're still persuading someone, but your motivation has changed. You're doing it because you're enthusiastic, instead of doing it because you want the interaction to end as soon as possible--remember, it's why you want to persuade someone, not how you're doing it or what you're convincing them of!
In between these two extremes is your standard Extroversion; your ability to filter your bluntness or enthusiasm, and comfortably interact with people to a socially-acceptable degree.
Now, Awkward is an interesting Motivation. What if you want to keep a secret but you can't help but blurt out the first thing that comes to mind?
Or what if a situation calls for tact and sensitivity, but you just don't get it?
You know, like Michael Kelso (Ashton Kutcher) in That 70s Show?
Titus Andromedon (Titus Burgess) from Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt.
Or, what if you know a situation calls for tact, but you simply don't care because tact is stupid? Like Cordy in Buffy?
Cordelia Chase (Charisma Carpenter) in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Agreeableness: Paranoid vs. Phony
On its face, "Agreeableness" is used to mean "kindness". But an agreeable person is also a trusting person, and a genuine one. They agree to things because they believe the other person is just as reasonable as they are, and won't do anything untoward. Because they're agreeable, they think other people are agreeable, too.
Or, they think nobody is agreeable, while they unabashedly let everybody see their true colours--because they're not like you, they're HONEST.
I can see "Paranoid" as the "investigator" Motivation. The Wisdom stat in D&D, when you're rolling for Insight or Perception. And "Phony" is a good counterbalance to that--instead of believing everybody is a big faker, YOU'RE the big faker. Getting in the middle of that is where you're generally considered likeable and easy to talk to.
It's the Columbo Motivation.
Columbo (Peter Falk) from the show of the same name.
Now, obviously Columbo wasn't Paranoid; he didn't have a 30 in the stat, but nor did he have a 0. He was always watching the people involved with his cases, noticing inconsistencies, catching them in lies... but he came across as bumbling enough that people lowered their guards around him. He had enough Phoniness that people thought he was overly friendly, and overly trusting. He wasn't trusting at all; he was constantly on guard, but he didn't go around suspecting anybody and everybody.
A split, of, say, 20 Paranoid and 10 Phony works here; untrusting enough to be wary of everybody (and requiring a bit of detective work--i.e. Talents--to uncover the truth), but able to mask his true intentions enough that he was able to get on people's good sides relatively easily with few social graces (Talents) needed to succeed.
Lower their guard with some (genuine) compliments about their garden, an anecdote about your wife, and suddenly you seem like a nice guy who couldn't possibly track down the real murderer!
Neuroticism: Do I Even Need It?
Neuroticism is an interesting one. Pretty much every possible extreme of personality I've discussed is a form of neuroticism; you go 0 or 30 in any stat, and you've effectively made Larry David in Curb Your Enthusiasm.
That's most definitely a high Misanthrope score.
Low Reckless, high Obsessive. And let's be honest, high Phony as well.
I've been working on this blog post for a few days, and I've had some time to think about these Motivations. I think they're not perfect by a LONG SHOT, but this is something I can continue to iterate. Next time, I'd like to talk about how other RPGs use their Attributes to quickly and concisely communicate what their game is about, because this is something where my Motivations--as of right now--simply aren't succeeding.
Comments
Post a Comment