Proactive Players in a Reactive Campaign

[The Shaman]

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."

That would be about the time I would shoot myself with a hammer.

I believe Altalazar is correct: talk it over with the players and decide if you should really be playing together or not.

 

[grodog]

I'd definitely open a dialogue with your players, and try to stimulate some discussion about what does and doesn't motivate them (vs. their PCs), and what they find fun.

You might consider using someting like Chris Kubasik's "Interactive Toolkit" as a springboard for starting the discussion, in terms of what does/doesn't work for them, in reaction to his writing: http://www.rpg.net/oracle/authors/chrisk.html

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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!

Well, you know the GM has to write up those guys, their stats, etc.

I had a minor problem with my group along those lines. I ran one adventure that was mostly reactive, but the PCs weren't hired to do things. They got lost, then got proactive - but also went evil. Grrr...

I ran another proactive adventure (Khorforjan Gambit) and the players had little trouble adapting to it. Sometimes they were asked to do things, but they frequently struck out on their own.

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.

Maybe they wanted to buy the old church and then move on.

 

[el-remmen]

Maybe they wanted to buy the old church and then move on.

Then they should have just moved on. . .and then came back weeks or months later to find the results of the consequences - that can be fun, too. . .

 

[Timeron Malachi]

When I first started playing D&D, I wanted to do all kinds of crazy stuff, but people were like, "Wow...that's out of left field...we're going to rescue the princess" So, I started making characters who are more organized, more lawful, more inclined to just "go with the flow".

Then, in my new game group, suddenly the DM was asking me "So, what does your character like to do? Why are you an adventurer?" I was floored...

After that, he would work with each character a little bit individually to have something that's happening to just them...it doesn't totally take your character away from the campaign, but it's something that's developing on the side, and you can include or exclude the other PCs as you will.

End result, I'm more "go get 'em" with my characters now, and my DM is totally willing to work with that.

I'd suggest this: Talk with each person a little bit seperately. They might have something in mind, or a personality trait that could be fleshed out into something on the side, but they might be sort of hesitant to take the reins. When my DM was doing sidebar stuff with me, I almost thought I was taking away from everyone else's fun by having only me playing for a while...but, it works out.

It's like the Star Wars movies...the hero's aren't always nessecarily in the exact same place, or doing the exact same things. They might all be working towards the ultimate goal of overthrowing the evil Emporer, but they might have different methods.