Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7372572" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, and I think there were a couple of iterations of answer to that and some follow-on comments by others, which amounted to: I can usually elicit a usable agenda fairly quickly from most players with some leading questions. Then there was the observation that players don't REALLY have 'no agenda', they want to do SOMETHING interesting and when the point was pressed then I stated that I thought it was unrealistic to posit entirely passive players that won't rise to ANY bait. Then I got told I was misrepresenting what had been posted. I didn't think I was misrepresenting anything, just that there were several slightly different iterations of positing this sort of 'no agenda' situation.To be clear, as stated originally, I don't think players are likely to remain without agenda for very long. Its possible that some options need to be provided, or suggestions, or elicitation of more character backstory to draw out an agenda, etc. No doubt it is easiest for a GM when the players come all loaded for bear and dive right into generating a story. It is still possible for things to work if they aren't that proactive. I just don't think its realistic to posit players that will reject ANY attempt to draw them in. I don't know what someone like that is doing, why do they play? Even so, given the party has other players I stated its still workable as long as SOME of them will help get the ball rolling. There can always be a 'freeloader' or two, they generally evolve as sort of 'sidekicks', but often they eventually take on their own goals. This is likely to be a newer player.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 7372572, member: 82106"] Yeah, and I think there were a couple of iterations of answer to that and some follow-on comments by others, which amounted to: I can usually elicit a usable agenda fairly quickly from most players with some leading questions. Then there was the observation that players don't REALLY have 'no agenda', they want to do SOMETHING interesting and when the point was pressed then I stated that I thought it was unrealistic to posit entirely passive players that won't rise to ANY bait. Then I got told I was misrepresenting what had been posted. I didn't think I was misrepresenting anything, just that there were several slightly different iterations of positing this sort of 'no agenda' situation. To be clear, as stated originally, I don't think players are likely to remain without agenda for very long. Its possible that some options need to be provided, or suggestions, or elicitation of more character backstory to draw out an agenda, etc. No doubt it is easiest for a GM when the players come all loaded for bear and dive right into generating a story. It is still possible for things to work if they aren't that proactive. I just don't think its realistic to posit players that will reject ANY attempt to draw them in. I don't know what someone like that is doing, why do they play? Even so, given the party has other players I stated its still workable as long as SOME of them will help get the ball rolling. There can always be a 'freeloader' or two, they generally evolve as sort of 'sidekicks', but often they eventually take on their own goals. This is likely to be a newer player. [/QUOTE]

Verification