Players: How do you take initiative in spurring plot/action, when DM does not?

[candidus_cogitens]

I have found that even pretty good DMs often are not able to craft plots that automatically "hook" the PCs into the action. As a player, have you ever heard your PC saying to himself, "So . . . what does this strange newcomer in the Inn have to do with me? I could care less"? Or maybe . . . "I see no reason to risk my life to save this village. I just want to pick people's pockets and seek treasure!" Or . . . "Why shouldn't we leave these kobolds alone to mind their own business?" Or maybe your DM just doesn't supply you with much of a plot at all, and you are left to your own devices.

Sometimes character motivations just do not jibe with the DM's plans. I sympathize with the DM too, but as a player, I don't want to try to force my character into taking some action that would be out-of-character for him.

So my question is this: Are there ways--appropriate ways--for the players to take initiative in determining what will happen? Is it sometimes necessary to make the DM react to your initiatives, rather than waiting for him to provide the perfect hook?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

HOW TO TAKE ACTION IN FOUR EASY STEPS:

Boot the door.

Break the statues.

Whizz on the altars.

Kill any NPC that has a name in the module.

 

[shadowlight]

When I've been in this situation, I've just thrown the DM a bone and gone along with his plan and then talked to him about it afterward... It seemed to work pretty well.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

HOW TO TAKE ACTION IN FOUR EASY STEPS:

Boot the door.

Break the statues.

Whizz on the altars.

Kill any NPC that has a name in the module.

I guess destruction sends a message, at least.

This reminds me of the reality of the fact that players who do not go along with the DM's plans often end up dead. Booting the door is a great way to meet that end. And of course, going solo in a different direction from the rest of the party is a tried and true method as well.

 

[kengar]

If you haven't already, give your DM some backstory on your character. A couple paragraphs about who they are, where they come from & why they became an adventurer will often give him material for "personalized" hooks that make it easier for your character(s) to be engaged into the plot.

 

[Desdichado]

1) During character creation, make sure that the party is "compatible" -- the characters all have a reason to stick around together with each other, at least.

2) Also, during creation, make sure (and this requires some DM help) that the characters are compatible with the premise of the campaign. If the DM wants to have you saving the kingdom, you can't very well have characters who are secretly plotting to destroy it, for instance.

3) After doing the above, then I think it's OK to act in character. If you've done all that and you still aren't finding logical ways to involve your character in the campaign, then it's probably a DM failing.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

When I've been in this situation, I've just thrown the DM a bone and gone along with his plan and then talked to him about it afterward... It seemed to work pretty well.

I have taken this approach too, but often with some kind of in-game negotiation as well. For example, one time our party was recruited (in an Inn, of course) to deliver an important message. The DM expected us to just go along with this out of the goodness of our character's hearts. But my CN character asked him to pay us. In the end, I settled for a mere 2 silver pieces per day--but it was at least a token incentive.

In another campaign, different character, same DM, the party was asked to investigate a ruin for remains that may have historical or commercial interest, and we were offered 50 gp each, up front, on the condition that we give the NPC the option to buy anything we find from us. Everybody else in the party wanted to immediately accept the offer, but my character decided it would be better to decline the offer, and then go ahead and explore the ruin on our own, without any obligation to the wealthy stranger.

So, in both of these cases, the DM got what he wanted, and my character got to stay true, more or less, to his motivations.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

1) During character creation, make sure that the party is "compatible" -- the characters all have a reason to stick around together with each other, at least.

I have always thought this to be a good idea. However, it is difficult to achieve. Just because you have a group that has neutralish-good alignments doesn't necessarily mean that the characters have compatible goals.

Furthermore, it can be difficult to determine exactly what your character's goals are, without some action to provide a context. I mean, you might say your character is motivated to help the poor, for example, but that might end up being pretty irrelevant if the DM basically has in mind a dungeon-crawl type of campaign. Even if the DM tells you a little bit about what to expect, it is still tricky, in my experience.

 

[mearls]

As a DM, there are two things I love to see:

* Goals
* Action

I love it when a player says "My character wants to form a mercenary army and overthrow the viscount," and then starts raising money, hiring warriors, and building siege engines. That's really cool stuff. I've found that when the players choose a goal for their characters, instead of letting me dictate it, the game always turns out better.

The problem is, it's hard to get all the players to agree on something. Player A might want to start conquering the land while player B wants to visit the outer planes.

Generally, my campaigns all start with an event that gives the players all reason to join together. My Mutants & Masterminds game started with the PCs in town to receive a reward for heroism when an earthquake struck and they were pressed into service to help put out fires, rescue people, and so on.

Then, the robots attacked.

Anyway, it gave the characters a pretty convenient excuse to work together while still giving them room to pursue their own plans. The thing is, 99% of the time players are too cautious to try and do anything off the wall.

 

[Desdichado]

I have always thought this to be a good idea. However, it is difficult to achieve. Just because you have a group that has neutralish-good alignments doesn't necessarily mean that the characters have compatible goals.

I didn't say having the same alignment makes characters compatible. Alignment is a very shallow description of a characters motivations and goals, if it ends up being a description of that at all -- many players don't play their alignment well anyway. What I actually said was :

During character creation, make sure that the party is "compatible" -- the characters all have a reason to stick around together with each other, at least.

That's still true. Sure, it involves a little bit of dialogue during character creation: the old "character creation session" before play that few seem to do anymore, but it still works.

Furthermore, it can be difficult to determine exactly what your character's goals are, without some action to provide a context. I mean, you might say your character is motivated to help the poor, for example, but that might end up being pretty irrelevant if the DM basically has in mind a dungeon-crawl type of campaign. Even if the DM tells you a little bit about what to expect, it is still tricky, in my experience.

Well, you've addressed my first point as if it was the sum total of my argument, while conveniently ignoring my second point. I'll restate it, since it still addresses your concerns as written:

Also, during creation, make sure (and this requires some DM help) that the characters are compatible with the premise of the campaign. If the DM wants to have you saving the kingdom, you can't very well have characters who are secretly plotting to destroy it, for instance.

I suppose for clarity, I could change my example to match yours: if the DM wants to have you dungeoncrawling, you can't very well have characters who are trying to set up soup kitchens, since they two don't ever really intersect.