Proactive Players in a Reactive Campaign

[kigmatzomat]

Plans have a tendancy to fail. It's a wierd thing I've observed. If I tell my GM what I'm going to be doing over more that the short term that plan will fail. Usually, it'll just flat out not work from the beginning, the entire castle is teleport proof/the guard rotation changes/they just don't fall for the opening bluff. It's more frusterating when it seems to work and then turns out not to, the castle shunts us to a trap when we teleport in/the throne room is guarded by an overwhelming force/the opening bluff works but only because they've anticipated our plan. Maybe it's just the DMs down here, but things will never simply work.

That is the DM, mostly. I am prety insightful and can put up decent cost-effective defenses but I make a point to never tweak the defenses to address the players' plans. I prefer to know the players plans in advance mainly so I can more easily run the encounter; if I *know* that the guards are going to be confused by the plan that's great but if *I* am confused by the party's plan I have to decide how the various NPCs will react and many of them will be more competent than I am.

I've had the "prescient" DM where whatever you do is countered. We finally called him on it by going into one game with no plan. Lots of gear, lots of options, no plan. We decided our plan of action 10-30 seconds in advance, no more. It was our most successful adventure with that GM. (He had a helicopter gunship start attacking our homes in retaliation, even though IIRC we didn't kill anyone and only stole a videotape that was being used for blackmail.)

You need a party that's wililng to go along with the plan. One of the groups I was in recently had a dumb fighter. Like, as in, puposefully would not do what you asked them to. She'd often choose moves that made sure the plan wouldn't work at all. Or the archer, that as long as he was directly under your stare would do what you asked, but the instant he was free or there was an enemy nearby would completely drop everything and start shooting at the nearest target.

I dealt with this by setting up plans where if they deviate they die. The archer starts shooting early? He's the most exposed individual. The fighter breaks plan? Guess she's on her own against that troll. I call it "planned darwinism." It requires repeated willful incompetence to reach this point. it doesn't hurt that I tend to play LN or NE characters who see it as a necessary learning/expunging event.

Simple brain-fart moments happen and sometimes the plan is too subtle for everyone to grasp ("When I say now you beat on your shield and attract the wyvern." "Okay." "Now we need to-" BAMBAMBAMBAMBAMBAM! "WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!?!?" "You said now so I'm beating my shield." BAMBAMBAMBAMBAM).

Besides, the simplest plans are best. If it requires more than two sentences to tell each person their part the plan is destined to fail.

 

[werk]

Really? It seems pretty obvious to me - quit the group.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! Hastey much?
Your advice, strait from the gun, is to abandon hope and run without even trying to figure it out? No way! I fail in blazing glory or I haven't failed!

To the OP: It sounds like your players probably haven't been exposed to true roleplaying, and that's what you are doing. They expect standard dungeon crawling hack and slash computer console RPG but you are making them think. Good Job! But just as you feel a bad fit in their campaigns, they are feeling the same. You need to help them to understand their own characters and motivations and lead them into roleplaying. You've exposed them to a whole world of possibilities and they are overwhelmed. They don't know what to do, what is expected, and don't want to 'fail' or look foolish by exposing their ignorance and doing the 'wrong thing' or 'something stupid'.

My advice to you: Baby Steps. You need to gradually introduce them to all the things they are now able to do with their characters. How do you do that? Well, I think it comes down to options. They are used to having problem A with solution A, give them that (even if it hurts you). Think of it like a computer RPG game, start out with one or two options (like they are used to), and eventually you want to get to a point where the list of options is too big and the players have to suggest what they want to do. Transition from multiple choice to fill in the blank.

Also, try to help them to step into character, specifically with regard to motivation and desire and teach them to roleplay. They need to become the character rather than the person controlling the character, as it is now.

I think you have a great opportunity to introduce these players to the bigger-picture roleplaying that you and your wife prefer...you just have to teach them how.

 

[hexgrid]

Here's a perfect example:

In the campaign I'm running, they're all 8-9th level. They bought an old church that was rumored to be haunted, cleared it, got building permits, and hired laborers from a different ward of the city to do the construction work. Pretty soon they started getting thier workers fined for BS stuff, and then a wagon confiscated for not having the proper permits.

They go to get the wagon back, and have to speak to HUGE Jabba-like human, who complains of his people needing work, and how the PC's took food out of the mouths of those people's families by hiring "scabs" to do the work, rather than go to the guilds (Which the mage had warned about, but was ingnored) for thier workers.

So the party agrees to pay 10gp a day to "support those who should have been hired" as well as some bribes for thier carts and laborers.

There's six other ward bosses between the quarry/mills and thier property, and the mage suggests that they go speak to the other ward bosses, intimidating them if necessary, into leaving thier workers alone.

Over half of the party doesn't want to deal with it, calling it boring, etc.

The other half goes and gets involved in several duels, including a magical duel, the rogue is "requested" to eliminate an troublesome mill foreman, etc.

The half that didn't go then complains that the others got XP and "gifts" from some of the grateful ward bosses, and influence from the others. They state that the RP was boring, and they want to do such things as explore, search out forgotten areas, etc.

I reminded them that they wanted a safe place, someplace to put thier trophies, etc.

"But the RP part is booooring."

To me, the RP is ways to get hints at more quests, more jobs.

The other GM does the: "The organization has a job for you to do in XXXXX, and they tell you that [whatever the mission is] and teleport you there."

So, when I'm GMing, I'm kind of bored because there's no use in intricate plots and dynamic bad guys, when I'm playing, I kind of feel like I'm on a train that is heading straight for a wall, with no way to steer it.


The problem is, I don't know what to do.

I don't know- sort of sounds like you tried to railroad the players into your labor dispute plotline, and they weren't buying it.

 

[LostSoul]

I don't know- sort of sounds like you tried to railroad the players into your labor dispute plotline, and they weren't buying it.

I see what you're saying, but I don't know - the PCs decided to buy the old church and get it set up; all the DM is doing is giving them appropriate consequences for their choice.

So my advice is to sit down with the players and tell them what kind of game you are looking for. Have them each come up with a goal that you can work into the game. Everyone should come up with these goals together, so you're all on the same wavelength. These goals can be short-term or long-term, but should generate enough play for at least a handful of adventures.

Give them some ideas on how they can achieve those goals, and then start off from there. If they like this sort of thing, hopefully they will get used to the idea that they can choose their own adventures.

If they don't enjoy it, you'll probably have to quit the group or compromise heavily.

edit: Just thinking... what if you gave the PCs some XP if they are going after their goal? 50 or 100 XP * character level per session might work. That should get them going. Just make sure that you like their goals as well and you can work them into the game.

 

[sniffles]

@Warlord Ralts: I feel your pain. My first thought on noticing your location was to tell you that I know someone who's looking for new players - but unfortunately he tends to GM in a reactive style. It's starting to get a bit old for me after 8 years of playing with him, and having other GMs who run much more proactive campaigns at the same time. And none of the proactive folks have any more room at their tables.

But there's always the future, should our schedule change (and should you be in close enough proximity).

 

[StupidSmurf]

It's a bummer when there's a DM/Players Style Conflict. Sadly, there's no real way out of it except for an abovementioned post that recommended finding a group of like-minded players. If you like strawberry, and six people like chocolate, you're going to have a hard time converting them to liking strawberry, ya know? You may be the DM, but you're the odd person out.

I love my group of pro-active players! In my current campaign, I've been able to have three or four plotlines running parallel, and the players decide which one they'll address that session, knowing full well that all of the stories are advancing, whether they're there for them or not.

 

[Altalazar]

The first step is to voice your concerns and talk about them with the group. If they don't want to do it your way because they have fun the other way, well, then you have a basic incompatibility and you will just have to find another group. In some areas (like mine) that may be hard to do, but if you can never play such that everyone has fun, there really is no other option.

 

[fiddlerjones]

I don't know- sort of sounds like you tried to railroad the players into your labor dispute plotline, and they weren't buying it.

This is not railroading. At all. They bought the church, and he presented them with consequences. Making things happen to PCs is not railroading. Railroading would be if they *had* to solve this problem in order to keep playing. They could just sell the church, ignore the warnings, any number of things. They could just up and leave town. They aren't being forced into this plot.

In other news, I love my players, as they are quite proactive, and I try to present them with a world that works similarly. In our last session they successfully staged a completely impromptu coup of the city, such that one of them is about to take control of the city and start working his agenda.

I agree with the Baby Step theory. Start with two or three options to choose from, and then expand from there. Good luck.

 

[tetsujin28]

It's EXTREMELY frustrating. I'm a proactive player and GM a dynamic campaign world, and I feel.... dissatisfied at times with the two campaigns. I LIKE the players, and have fun as a player paying attention to the story unfolding.

But does my playing/GMing style really make it into a game breaker?

No. But I would recommend finding new players. If they like the way they're playing, there's no reason for you to try to change them.

 

[Steverooo]

Or, you could try looking here:

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2701654&postcount=171

for a whole new way of finding out what DOES motivate your players!