Rewarding Proactive Play

[The_Gneech]

I've had success a couple of times getting the party to create an organization...or 'group' during character creation instead of individual characters. This eliminated lone wolf and gonzo types unless they truly brought something to the group. The one time that springs to mind was actually for an Eberron game wherein they were a adventuring group for hire with their own home base, budget, stockpile of equipment, investors, and clients. They started at 5th lvl and had a list of magical items they could spend their budget on during character creation for the group (not individuals) and they elected a leader to make binding decisions during conflict. It worked really well. Thought I should mention it.

That's probably the way to go if I try to go back to the Eberron game; it'd have to be rebooted/converted into 5E anyway, so I could use that as a way to add some structure. The group operates reasonably well in that mode in a Ghostbusters campaign I've got going in Savage Worlds, although again there they sit around the phone waiting for the call to come in (but in GB, that's kinda what you do unless slime is coming up through the sidewalks).

-TG

 

[Piratecat]

> Pinball doesn't like to lead because he wants to be subverting authority, not be the authority.

Interesting. Have you assigned them to work for someone obnoxious and pretentious, who they can then make look bad?

 

[Janx]

Janx, I'd do the same. Choices have consequences, but you don't want to encourage analysis paralysis. You DO want to discourage non-action. I like the idea of consequences in that case.

Stupid question, Gneech. Have you guys had a group meeting where you say, for the love of all that is holy, this is driving me nuts?

I think a group meeting is in order. Gneech has met individually with players, but I don't think that demonstrates the scope of the problem to the individuals as a problem for the group to solve.

Have a non-gaming, non-griping meeting to reveal what Gneech wants from the game and how he's having a hard time figuring out what the players want.

Notice that I worded that to not say "how their inaction is making his job harder". I think the change in phrasing helps keep it from griping to "help me give you guys what you want"

 

[The_Gneech]

> Pinball doesn't like to lead because he wants to be subverting authority, not be the authority.

Interesting. Have you assigned them to work for someone obnoxious and pretentious, who they can then make look bad?

I haven't, but that's a neat idea that I shall play with. Thanks!

-TG

 

[Nytmare]

Not only do I second what Wild Gazebo suggested, but if they're bored, I'd also put some of the onus on them to figure out what kind of story it is that they want to play in.

Monastic explorers mapping uncharted territory. Con-men "dragon slayers" getting more than they bargained for. Paladin bounty hunters on the tail of a murderer.

If all else fails, have them pick a movie or book premise that they'd want to play a part of and run with that.

 

[The_Gneech]

Well, that's actually one of the reasons the blank stares were such a blow this time around– I told them explicitly at the beginning of the campaign in question to come up with a character they've always wanted to play but never had the opportunity to before, on the grounds that "if it's in D&D, there's a place for it in Eberron." Unfortunately, the whole did not make up the sum of its parts, it seems. Everyone wanted to play, but had never had the opportunity before, someone who sat back and let everyone else make all the decisions! XD

-The Gneech

 

[Jhaelen]

What I do is gathering players' ideas and building the situation in game around them.

Yeah, but:

[*]Player Two: Super-shy, flinchy, fearful of everything. Absolutely hates being in the spotlight or being forced to do things like talk to NPCs. When asked what's his character's background, replies, "I don't know, coming up with that is your job."

What would you do with such a player? Frankly, such a comment from any of my players would result in me kicking them.
I've kicked players for less, e.g. refusing to roleplay (well, not actually kicked, but I asked them what their problem was, and we then mutually agreed, they'd be better off playing something else or elsewhere).

Imho, if you want to be a player in a roleplaying game, there's a certain minimum of effort you can be expected to put in. Refusing to talk to an npc? Sorry, that just doesn't work at all. Roleplaying is _not_ just about rolling them dice.

See, the player in question may be an otherwise wonderful person, but she's just not made to play an rpg. Invite her to an evening of board-games instead.

 

[steenan]

I have encountered people who were shy or short on ideas. In general, I neither kicked them out nor forced them into spotlight.

I run the game normally and they usually stay in the background. They don't do much (there is much more talking than fighting in my games typically), but having them in the game hurts nobody.

I ask for feedback quite often and when I see that something caught such person's interest, I pursue this theme. I create opportunities for them to gain something by being proactive. I allude to facts in their backgrounds they never mentioned - either confirming or denying these gives me something to work with.

Some of them decide that RPGs are not for them. And some gradually open up. There are a few players who, when I started playing with them, only rolled dice for combat or were afraid of any spotlight. After a year or so of playing they became main actors in the campaign.


But I definitely agree with [MENTION=46713]Jhaelen[/MENTION] that if a player told me something in the general tone of "It's your job to entertain me; don't expect any effort on my part.", I'd show them the door without thinking twice.

 

[Herobizkit]

[MENTION=6779]The_Gneech[/MENTION], you have successfully described me and my gaming group (I'm player 4). We currently have two games on the go:

Our long-term weekly 4e sandbox-esque game is run by Player 1. He loves creating and being in control of everything.

Our bi-weekly 5e game is run by Player 4 - me. I'm old and lazy and don't have the drive to run a sandbox campaign to the level that is necessary, so I opted to adapt and run Kingmaker.

Truth be told, I am personally tired of sandbox as a gaming model. I _want_ a structured story with a beginning, middle and end. Failing that, I want quick TV-episode style games where reaching the end completes a significant goal, even a small one, that sticks and doesn't require 7-8 more games of more-of-the-same to "clean up the loose threads".

The problem with sandbox-style games is that they're largely player-dependent. THEY need to steer the story, THEY need to invest in the game world, THEY need to push th story forward, or in some direction. Maybe they've realized they're tired of sandboxing and now want something with a clear, decisive goal... or maybe they just wanna kick door-bash monsters-get loot for a bit. Or maybe they even want the results of their sandboxing to have a significant, lasting effect on the game world.

... But if they can't decide what to do or where to go, maybe they need simpler goals.... or at least _A_ goal.

It's not railroading to have a story in place, especially if the events in said story happen with or without the party's involvement. Having a rival adventuring troupe doing the 'quests' the players should be doing may be enough to get them going.

 

[The_Gneech]

Yeah, but:
What would you do with such a player? Frankly, such a comment from any of my players would result in me kicking them.
I've kicked players for less, e.g. refusing to roleplay (well, not actually kicked, but I asked them what their problem was, and we then mutually agreed, they'd be better off playing something else or elsewhere).

Imho, if you want to be a player in a roleplaying game, there's a certain minimum of effort you can be expected to put in. Refusing to talk to an npc? Sorry, that just doesn't work at all. Roleplaying is _not_ just about rolling them dice.

See, the player in question may be an otherwise wonderful person, but she's just not made to play an rpg. Invite her to an evening of board-games instead.

He, actually, but more importantly, he's been one of my closest friends since 1985 and loves to play with the "gamey" part of the game (the tactical aspect), so just casually booting him out isn't really something I'm keen to do. I neither expect Flinchy to be proactive nor worry about it when he isn't (although it's always a pleasant surprise when it is), it's really the other players who I'm concerned about.

The group hasn't always been so passive; something, either that I have done, or that the nature of 3.x/PF adventures have done, or something, seems to have "trained" them this way, which is why I'm looking to "train them back" to another mode of play.

One thing that seems to have helped in the most recent session was me clearly rolling dice at the table and procedurally-generating content as we go (i.e., rolling on encounter tables), shifting me back towards the role of referee and away from "the guy crafting the story." The irony of course is that I'm the guy who generated the encounter tables, so I could load 'em with whatever story elements I want, but the players do still seem to feel more empowered to decide what they want and go after it.

-TG