Character-driven or Reactive?

[Steverooo]

I'm currently in a game which I would call character-driven. The GM throws us into a set-up situation, then waits to see what we do. It isn't working so well, as most of the players seem to be "Reactive", waiting until something happens to them, before they respond...

In my group, we are on the docks, hear a howl, then a scream and "slurping sound". The scream quickly ends, but the slurping continues. My PC moves in to investigate, apparently fumbles every roll possible, and gets attacked by seven (or more) opponents. One PC is sitting back, watching and listening. The other has drawn his swords, and is contemplating...

In the other group, in a non-threatening environment, one PC has gotten bored and started drumming on his chest, another two have looked at an NPC, and the fourth done absolutely nothing...

It seems to me that our group is pretty much entirely "Reactive", waiting for the GM to involve them, instead of involving themselves. What's your experience with groups like this? Is this more common than "Character-driven" storylines? I have seen several groups like this, where PCs tell the GM that "maybe some NPCs should wander by and drop us some hints", etc.

How do you deal with such a group (as a player)?

 

[DragonOfIntellect]

Create a character with strong motivations and goals in the world. Preferably, such a character should have a forceful personality and be able to lead the rest of the party. If the GM will not lead them by the nose, you may have to take the initiative and do it yourself. Figure out what your character desires, and aggressively seek to accomplish the tasks neccessary for the attainment of those desires. With such reactive players at your side, it should be a simple matter to lead them along on such quests.

 

[I'm A Banana]

1) Hook 'em. Give 'em something they can do if they'd like
2) Watch 'em. See what they do, where they're going, what they'd like to do.
3) React to 'em. Put something in their path, wherever they're heading.
4) Hook 'em again. Whereever they're heading, put something in their way.

So it's a combo. When they've got goals, they go for 'em, and I roll with it. When they don't, I give them something to do.

 

[Pynchon]

I largely agree with the hook react hook cycle. If the game master watches the players they should be able to tell when the players need a little more plot pushing. However I don't think a game is character driven just because the GM dosen't interfer with the players. It seems to me that 'character driven' should mean the game master centers to plot on the characters and provides plot elements that relate directly to the characters.

 

[rushlight]

I ran a 3-year campaign, successfully, that was very plot-driven. The players knew about the idea of the campaign going into it, and everyone loved it. But at the conclusion of the campaign, I started asking for feedback about what they would like in the next one, and what they didn't really like about the first one.

One thing they all mentioned is that the first campaign was that they felt "pushed" along by the events of the world. Basically, things were going on around them, and they had to actively work to prevent them. There wasn't alot of "down-time" for them to spend 3 months making magic items and whatnot.

So, for the next campaign, I decided to take a different tack. I asked each player for a list of what his character would like to accomplish - both long and short term goals. Once the game started, everyone just sat around... No one had any motivation to accomplish anything. They made no progress toward anything, and the game was too stale. So, I ended up re-working the whole thing, and bringing back the forces of the world with which to drive them.

Now, it's not really a "forced plot" campaign, but it's sort of character independent. Country "A" is planning to go to war with Country "B" over whatever. Country "A" has a definate timetable with which they will exectute their plans. If the players intend to stop this war, then they better get crackin' - the world will not wait for them to research every war-spell known to man and make 30 Rings of Protection +5 for their elite guard. Of course, they have the option of *not* attempting to stop the war (and going about doing something else - there's alot going on in the world!) or even helping to start the war and win it. So they aren't forced down any path, but they need to make decisions much quicker. Also, they still have some larger goals, broad in scope, that they are also working toward...

I guess in short, unless you've got players who know what they want and are willing to work to get it, then you should tell them what they want and then they'll work to get it.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Create a character with strong motivations and goals in the world. Preferably, such a character should have a forceful personality and be able to lead the rest of the party. If the GM will not lead them by the nose, you may have to take the initiative and do it yourself. Figure out what your character desires, and aggressively seek to accomplish the tasks neccessary for the attainment of those desires. With such reactive players at your side, it should be a simple matter to lead them along on such quests.

I agree, mostly. For instance, always having to play a "forceful personality" and being the default party leader can get monotonous... I'd be more inclined to just play a character that actually does something and leaves everyone else sitting with their thumbs up their...

Ehr, well, I think you get my point.

Sure, a player can lead by motivation, but one can also lead by example.

 

[Altalazar]

I think you need a bit of both, sometimes. Some of the more interesting adventures I've seen were character driven adventures. Perhaps in the beginning, to jump start the campaign, there can be more forceful hooks, but once players have figured out what their character's want, sometimes, even in the midst of active hooks, one can ask them what they want to accomplish and give some hints that there are some ways they might be able to do so. If they pursue them, then you can expand on it, if not, well, advance the plot, and drop more possibilities later on.

It is a two-way street. It really is up to the players, not the DM, if such a thing will work. (Assuming the DM makes it available).

 

[Nifft]

So far, it's been largely plot-driven -- PCs reacting to stuff. As they get higher level (they're 11th level now), they'll start being the targets of plots rather than mere participants, so they'll have to rebel against the plot(s) sooner or later.

-- N

 

[Shallown]

With my present group I am running an epic (in scope not level, save the world campaign. I am doing this becuase the last campaign I ran for most the same group was extremely reactive. They did things and had motivations but if the plot didn't come smack them on the head they didn't worry about it or give it a second thought. Basically in that game the town the had all congregated to kept being attacked. they would go out kill off what attacked the town then not even try to figure out why the town was attacked or who was behind it etc. They just didn't seem to care. Now they enjoyed interacting with the town and forming relationships but even though they seemed to care about the town the didn't ever really try to figure out why t hey were being attacked. Eventually the BBEG started attacking the characters since they kept shutting him down. The had several night time raids of their house and still the did nothing to investigate why. Finally another player joined and started investigating things and solved the problem, practically single handedly.

My present campaign came with a little railroading and plot hooking to get the motivated. Even now while half the players/characters have a firm grasp on the plot the others are rather ambivalent about it. You can asking them why are you going after this magical knife and they may not know why, other than becuase they have too...maybe. Problem is the characters/players who do care and know what's up are resisted as being the party leaders. They have to almost lead by manipulation and reverse psychology sometimes.

It drives me nuts I like purely character driven with an occasionaly GM wrench to keep it interesting but hey that's life.

Well I didn't intend for this to be a Rant but it turned out that way.

Later

 

[Kyramus]

In my present campaign, I use both.

I allow the players leeway to do whatever they want, but I also have events in the world that will wait for no man.

My Pcs for the most part look at the world events and know that they have to do something about it. They are actively trying to get more powerful (level wise) at the same time running diplomatic missions to make a solidified front for the upcoming invasion.

(background: after reading stuff about the bloodwar ending, I decided to yank that and use it. so the world at large has rifts forming in the sky and in a years time since their appearance, the invasion of Demons and devils is suppose to happen. The PC's are trying to get the world together to face the coming invasion.)