Giving up on the Quest

[Tonguez]

I agree with everyone else and add the proviso that player driven campaigns ironically means even more work for the DM!

1 Common Purpose - as Gizmo said without a common focus the PCs can start drifting off. So make sure to give the PCs a common purpose before the game starts (imc I told the players all the PCs are attached to the Church in various capacities, not necesarily as clergy, some might be guards, others former orphans who still visit etc; in another the PCs were junior leaders of the village community)

2 Relationships Let the players define how the PCs are related to each other and also have them create their own set of NPC friends and family. I also get them to create a Patron (higher level classed individual who might give the PC stuff) - this might be a former teacher or a grandmother who was a famous scorceress before she became old and infirm etc etc.

3 Background Hooks What Maddman refered to as Kickers. Tie this to the Purpose and/or to one or more of the Players NPCs.

Maddmans Flags are a kewl idea too

4 Random events You still need a list of random events and encounters to keep things going and act as 'Bangs'. Keep combat events to a minimum and think instead of environmental, social and political events that might have an effect. Events should be designed to link to the Purpose and PC goals

(I started one game with the village chieftain announcing the upcoming wedding of his son (an NPC friend of the one of the PCs, who also had a secret crush on the chiefs daughter). The game then went from there with the PCs deciding they wanted to get the best wedding gift they could - which had to be made by collecting feathers from a neighbouring island and pearls from the lagoon where the Sahuagin had a lair etc etc)

 

[maddman75]

One further comment - some may get the idea that these kinds of games won't have much combat. They'll have less than spending all your time hacking through dungeons, but eventually it will come down to brass tacks. At that time, you'll see that the players will be heavily invested in the outcome, they'll throw everything they have at it, because they'll not just be hunting XP and gold. They'll care about what is going on.

 

[Aegir]

So my questions:

Do you ever feel this way?
What have you done about it?

I've not only felt this way, I'm running the exact game you just described right now (in premise, at least). Basically, the world is millennia removed from a major cataclysm, so long ago that the general populace knows little about the world from "before" then the fact that theres ruins of it scattered about (that have for the most part long since been looted of anything of value/knowledge).

Basically, the PCs are the first "heroes" the world has seen in all that time. In rules terms, the world is about 99% populated by NPC classes, and they all cap out at Lv 5. There are a handfull of exceptions (even I don't know the exact number, but its roughly two dozen), but basically, when the PCs his mid levels (9-11 range), they'll be more powerful then most anything thats lived in the world since before the fall.

Its a game of exploration: while there are some hooks to get the group moving, its mostly a sandbox game, they're free to go where they wish and interact with the world in any way.

How would you run a game that encourages players to be proactive, and how do you teach them to be that way if they say they want to be but do not know how?

Thats a very good question, cause I've had the same problems. players nowadays seem almost overwhelmed when offered unlimited choices; when I came in saying, "okay, heres the world... what do you want to do?" the response was, basically, "Um... what can we do?"

That said, I actually asked this exact question of Gary Gygax in his thread not but a couple hours ago, and while I've yet to try his suggestion, it makes sense: take the crunch out of the equation, wherever possible (from the PC perspective). Basically, ask your players, "What does your character do?" and have them respond from an IC perspective; discourage responses like, "I take 20 on my search check," and encourage immersion in the world. Tell them, "I'll worry about the numbers, just tell me what you want to do."

 

[maddman75]

Thats a very good question, cause I've had the same problems. players nowadays seem almost overwhelmed when offered unlimited choices; when I came in saying, "okay, heres the world... what do you want to do?" the response was, basically, "Um... what can we do?"

When all else fails, ninjas attack. Seriously, doesn't matter who they are or why they're attacking, come up with a reason later. If they don't want to act on the world, have the world act on them and see what they do. They could pay it no attention, they could try to interrogate one, they could investigate these ninjae, they could follow their backtrail, etc. And it get the game out of dead air.

 

[Aegir]

When all else fails, ninjas attack.

In my case, pirates attacked.

 

[Aeric]

The last campaign I ran had no "Quest." The party belonged to an adventurer's guild in town and went on adventure after unrelated adventure with no central purpose or theme other than "visit exotic locales, meet interesting creatures...and kill them and take their stuff." It seemed to work well and everyone was having fun, but I felt less satisfied than I would have if I had run a campaign with an overarching plot thread. I also ran out of ideas towards the end of the game, when the players hit about 18th level. Part of the problem was that we were playing in Eberron, and the characters had outgrown the setting. If they were the type to get into politics or other non-combat type challenges, this wouldn't have been a problem. When the party took out one of the biggest bads of the setting (Vol) virtually in one round, I knew it was time to call it quits.

 

[Gwaihir]

My last campaign worked similar to this, basically letting the PCs do whatever they liked and I reacted to them. I've discovered through all this that the vast majority of my players need to have a clear end goal in mind. Otherwise they just sit and do very little.

Very much a ready ready ready, aim aim aim aim fire group.

I've recently had a fire ready aim type join, wow he really ruffled some style feathers.

 

[Quartz]

Wasn't there a series of articles in Dragon or Dungeon about this? THere was running the campaign as a soap opera, running an episodic campaign, running a campaign like a season of a TV series, etc? "Krusk's Creek" comes to mind. Introducion episodes, spotlight episodes, group episodes, plot episodes etc.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

The challenge IME with an open-ended game is that, without a quest to focus the players, they can wander off on various tangents and in multiple different directions. Since, especially later in my life, I have only a limited amount of time spent on gaming, it helps make things more interesting if the group has a goal. It doesn't matter to me so much as a DM if the players define the goal or if the DM does. Also, much like real life, without some extraordinary event occuring to the character, there's really no reason that the PC(s) shouldn't sit around and watch TV all day (or drink ale and watch the party bard make perform checks all day). Extremely ambitious and aggressive PCs could always turn to a life of crime. Bottom line IMO is that DnD is an adventure game, and while one could make it a "Medieval Sim City" type thing, I think the game works best when events are of a greater than normal significance, and a quest is such an event.

As a player I prefer not to be railroaded, so I like to pick my own quest. But it's still a quest - even if it's just to see what's over the next hill.

I'm not sure, but from the way I read the OP, I don't think Stormborn is against quests altogether, I think the idea is that there isn't a large, overarching Quest that continues to lead the PCs to the next adventure.

From the little bit of experience I had trying to be more player driven, when I had players who helped by writing decent backgrounds or had their characters have personalities with some depth, I found adventures tied to the characters were just sitting there waiting for me to do something with them. The trick was to try and prevent one character from being the focus for too long.

 

[LostSoul]

How would you run a game that encourages players to be proactive, and how do you teach them to be that way if they say they want to be but do not know how?

I would probably run Burning Wheel or something, but D&D is cool too.

Step 1: What is going on? What's the conflict?

Sit down with the players and create create characters together in broad strokes - what kind of PC do you want to play, what is he about, what does he want, what is he going to fight for? Have the players write these things down on top of the character sheet.

Whatever the characters want, that's what the conflict is - direct opposition to this.

Step 2: Make some NPCs. Their only purpose is to stand in opposition to the PCs. Challenge them.

Step 3: Start playing. Play the NPCs to the hilt, force the players to make difficult choices. "You said you wanted this thing, but are you willing to kill your brother to get it?" (Cheesy yeah, but you get the point.)

Step 4: When you're done each session, talk about how the characters have changed. Do they still want the same things? If not, what do they want now? Write that down.

[I would consider handing out some action points or something here. Did you work towards your goal? Take 1. Did you work against your goal? Take 1. Did you accomplish your goal? Take 2! Or whatever works for you.]

Keep playing until the characters are done.