Proactive Players in a Reactive Campaign

[The_Universe]

I want proactive players.....

Move to the DC/Baltimore metro area. I'll be proactive!

I've often told other GMs - I'm so proactive you don't need to write anything. Just give me a basic framework, and I'll make more enemies and allies in 1 game session than you'd know what do with!

 

[Crothian]

Move to the DC/Baltimore metro area. I'll be proactive!

Hey, it's your all's job to move here!!

 

[Balok the Strange]

I've been doing this silly game now for over 20 years, being behind the screen for most of that time. For many years, I had the joy of a fairly stable and consistent group of players who were all willing to run the RP like nobody's business. About 7 or so years ago, the group began to disperse and eventually it finally fell apart as most of them moved to different areas of the state.

If been through three different groups since then, and each and every one of them is vastly different in game play. I even managed to get back together with a good portion of the original group for about a year in a traveling game that met every 6-8 weeks in one city or the other for a weekend of play.

It's been rough, lemme tell you.

The three new groups (two of which I ran games for) were all vastly different from what I had been used to. The first was full of newbies who were either stuck with anime and video game influences, or were completely unaware of how the rules actually worked. I seeded it with one of my old players who was still in town, but it was tough.
Roleplay from some of the players was non-existent, and one of them we had to wake up to roll his dice ("Hey! WAke up and roll initiative!"). The campaign reached its conclusion, but it was rushed as the one long-time friend was moving away and I needed him for the finale.

The second group was part of my Warhammer 40,000 club, and I ran some and played some for them. Problem was that the other guy doing the running is famous for never really completing anything, and after a few sessions over the span of about 8 months, that "Wierd Wars" game came to a grinding halt.

The third group was run by another friend, and it was a Vampire game. It was my first experience with the World of Darkness, and the GM set me up as a Hunter, a little spoiler for the rest of the party. I had a blast, but I was only one of two people actually doing anything worthwhile (the other was Deb (Cathix)), and the way things went, my character's goal was to kill all of the other characters. The GM was good at storytelling, but we were sort of railroaded as his plot continued on with very little input from us. I ended up derailing the campaign (with his blessing) by killing the rest of the party by blowing up their hideout at noon. That was the end of that one.

My current group is fairly good. I've got some experienced people who are willing to roleplay even the most mundane of things if it will advance their character's growth as well as serve the plot in some way. I'm very happy with them. At the moment, we are taking a hiatus from my game to playtest a setting designed by one of the other players. It's been the first time I've been able to role-play for an extended period of time, and I have found it most enjoyable.

The old group I had gotton back with was a slight dissappointment. It seems that their play is all rote. They all do the same things, their characters are only recreatons of themselves with different faces, they get done with a fight and they say to the GM "Well, we're on auto-loot" as they routinely search the bodies and take absolutely anything of remote value (including arms and armor!). I could never get into the world in which they play (a homebrew) and I really could not get a grip on my character or his motivations. I eventually had to give up on that game.

I've had a fairly mixed bag, and these are really just the highlights. I can't say that I have any good advice to give you except that it might be time to find greener pastures. When the game someone else is running doesn't work for you, it might be best to try elsewhere. If your own game isn't working as planned, you can always change it a bit to suite your audience.

After every session of my games I have a "Torches and Pitchforks" session to find out if there was anything the players really liked or really hated. In this way I can finetune the game for that particular group of players. If I have people who like puzzles, I can provide them with ones to solve while the stick-jocks are off killing helpless non-human populations and stealing their goods and cash, as is their wont.

You can always change the way that you play or that you run the game; you will rarely succeed at changing the way others play.

 

[Cathix]

I ended up derailing the campaign (with his blessing) by killing the rest of the party by blowing up their hideout at noon. That was the end of that one.

Hey - your character did not kill my character! My lovely tzimisce latin-asian psycho basement surgeon whooped your fat, cigar-smoking crass, rude Hunter's arse! And lived!

HAH.

(er. sorry....back to your post. )

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

First things first, get over the idea that the proactive approach is the "right way" and the reactive the "wrong way" - not saying you have this outlook, but it's fairly common amongst experienced RPers.

Players who are more interested in the tactical or interactive-novel aspects of the game (sometimes raised on console RPGs, old WoD or 2e AD&D) want the GM to present them with goals, challenges and a compelling plot, see their job as to meet goals, overcome challenges and discover that plot - and are playing a perfectly valid way. "Railroading" makes their sessions more fun, and it's not a matter of "teaching" them that their way of playing is incorrect or inferior.

Second...

Well, I don't know what to do second. I enjoy playing both ways. :\

My suggestion would probably be to either play and assume a leadership role, GM and encourage your wife to assume a leadership role, or play and encourage your wife to GM. Generally, players who like preset plotlines and a GM-driven game don't subscribe to other aspects of the pen-and-paper credo, such as "no party leaders."

 

[jdrakeh]

I feel you, brother. I'm a proactive player and GM who has little love for the campaign railroad, but I've come to find that despite claims to the contrary, a lot of people really do love that old tried and true style of campaign. Nothing wrong with that, just not my style.

I recently had the opportunity to join a Victorian Age Vampire chronicle, but opted out when I told the Stoyteller that I didn't care for chronicles wherein a character's sire was used as a deus-ex device to drive PCs down a pre-determined path... and the Storyteller replied that I might not enjoy their group then (at least she was honest).

I got into playing RPGs to create epics, not be guided through a pre-defined story that my actions as a player or character do not change.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Boy, I know how that feels. I've been though 6 campaigns worth of knowing how that feels, from both sides of the DM's screen.

As a player, here are some of the problems I've noticed with being proactive:

You need to have some idea of what's going on in order to have a plan. When all I have is a suspicion that someone somewhere is trying to attack the party, I'm not going to have any idea what I can do about it. Often, information is scarse, sometimes there's a ton that the DM knows, but very little managed to filter its way to the players in a meaningful light. Other times, the information that I recieved was just flat out wrong--It turns out father Sarumon the guy giving us info this whole time was evil. I know I've been quite guilty of this as a DM.

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.

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 typically don't have the allies or resources I need. It's usually a friendless cold world out there. The only people who care are the ones that I'm buying a round from, and that's only as long as I tip well. Combine that with NPC's who generally feel that "You're not all that" and wonder "Why should I help you?"

Here's what I've discovered as a DM:

One of my players explained what he wanted out of a game very well. "I want to feel strong and kill things with my axe. I want to feel important. I want to be a part of a good story, but I don't want to have to role-play because I suck at it. Oh, and treasure is good too."

Mentors/allies seems to help. If the players are unsure, they can always check in with the old-folks, who'll probably have a few ideas as to what can be done. Sure, it's not as good as setting it out fully themselves, but when you have guys from lawful-good to chaotic-neutral giving advice, mixtures of good ideas can produce something new.

I try to make things 2 to 3 times as obvious as I think it needs to be. I'm beginning to think that this might not be obvious enough though.

Have an overriding theme like a security blanket. In my current game, one of the themes boils down to "act like a hero, and I won't screw you over." They've been acting more heroic this game. In my last game, one of the themes was that "You're better than regular people" and so they were puttting ones over the normal folks quite often. This was also the game where they discovered that the simple plans are the best ones.

In terms of your situation, I'd say to ditch the guy who complains that the RP is boring. He's not worth the effort and is probably dragging everyone else down. If you're nice, you can talk to him about it.

Otherwise, look for a few key people you can either shift towards your preferred style of play, or ask to leave. If the dynamic shifts a little bit, everyone else may learn.

In terms of what you can do to make things more enjoyable, I'd say that you need to keep up with those intracasies that you like. Otherwise you will start to lose interest, and that's a bad thing. I'd reccomend taking it a little simpler and seeing ways you can have the mystery unfold that your players can get. This may turn out to be something really simple.

Best of luck

 

[Terwox]

I've played and ran both proactive and reactive games. I've enjoyed playing proactive, but my reactive DM I had stunk and stunk bad. I've had my best fun running proactive, but I've had consistent fun when I ran reactive games. "Beat the dungeon" is fun, fun, fun.

And honestly, I mean no offense here Ralts, but I would probably get a little bored myself while waiting on other people to fight duels and muck about around town to settle up guild ownership. I've played in a game like that, a town-based game, and when other people are taking hours of playtime doing solo gaming stuff about something I'm not into, I get bored and bored fast. I've gamed with people who took hours to roleplay shopping for stuff, and other people there are just looking at the clock.

However -- are the people who are INTO playing that way willing to split? The people who are bored might be ok... and you might be able to grab a couple people to play with you and your wife, without any whining, which would be great. The best groups I've played with have eventually been sections of other groups that didn't get along because their playstyles were very, very different. Some want to muck around town and deal with property ownership and intrigue, others wanted to bust some skulls and deal with dangerous manuevering. Get the people who play the way you like to play with you, and let the others play the way they want to, without bothering each other.

That's what I'd recommend. When you consistently have to wake some people up... don't bother.

 

[Baron Opal]

I, personally, would love some proactive players. What part of Oregon are you in? I happen to have a couple of openings at my table right now. My play style is a little railroady right at the moment be cause the players are learning the world. But, I've told them they can pick a direction and start walking, 'cause I'm prepared.

If you are near Salem, drop me a line at Baron Opal at earthlink dot net and we'll chat.

As to means of solving your problem, perhaps offering some concrete options would help. Such as a) Go thwack the Teamster president who is extorting your business, or dig up some dirt on him, b) go across town to purchase the strange green metal key that the mage found out about, which just might fit the lock of the strange green metal door under the narthex in your chapel, and strangely other teams want it too, or c) find out which gang is terrorizing your masons and go kick some major bootie. What do you want to do tonight? That might be a comprimise between your proactives, who find out needed info, and the reactives, who then can destoy targets along thier pre-set course.

If part of your party simply wants missions to fulfill, have the rest of the team discover them so that the whole team can solve them.

 

[Steverooo]

Talk to the players. Ask them why they play that way. Is it because they want to? Because they have a "failure of imagination", and can't think of what else to do? Once you know why, you can react to that.