Trying to Encourage Player Proactivity

[Ozymandias]

Alright, I've been reading these boards for quite some time now, and now I've finally gotten around to registering and posting in the hopes that I might be able to get a bit help with the main problem I'm facing in running games at the moment.

First, the Problem:

How can I encourage my players to be more proactive? Specifically, how can I get them to break out of purely using sim-based Actor stance and become more comfortable with a more Narrativist style utilizing both Author and Director stances?

And Now Some Background...

I started playing RPGs about 11 years ago, starting with Champions 4th Ed and then moving into Cyberpunk 2020. Then, about four years into playing I hooked up with a group that played pretty much exclusively Worlds of Darkness games. I stayed with that group for a number of years, but slowly got burned out on what began to feel to me like heavily railroaded games. This combined with a number of social issues that cropped up between me and a couple of members of the group caused me to part way with them after about three years. I went back to running Champions for bit but couldn't really seem to hold a steady group together, and while I would have some good sessions I just wasn't really enjoying gaming overall, so I just kinda gave up and took a two year hiatus.

Now, about 18 months or so ago, I began to try to get back into the hobby. The first year of that time, I spent trying to find either new players or a new group to join. For the most part this was an abysmal failure. The vast majority of the people I encounter were complete social misfits, and of the minority who weren't most seemed to play in exactly the style as the last group I left. Now after 18 months, I have 3 players that I actually want to run a game for.

I should also note that during this time I first started to encounter the concepts behind G/N/S, and while skeptical at first as they have been further fleshed out I've begun to place more stock in their validity.

So, now let me try to bring this back to the topic at hand. I have three players. All three of these players are socially functional, creative people. They all show up on time, and they're all generally enthusiastic about playing. But with all three of them I am encountering basically the same problem, which I've stated above, but for three separate reasons:

Player 1, my wife, is the least experienced player and lacks confidence when playing. In her case she refrains from being proactive for fear of "doing something wrong".

Player 2, the new guy, is a moderately experienced gamer. (He's been playing for a number of years on and off.) I've had conversation about this issue with him on a couple of occasions and while he seems receptive and even enthusiastic about taking more initiative it doesn't translate into any actual changes in his style of play. My observation of why I think is occurring is that it seems that the WW-esque "Storytelling" style of play has been so drilled into him by some past GMs that he has a hard time breaking out of that style of play. (Clarification: The style of play I'm referring to is a combination of immersive simulationist decision making, where any break from the Actor stance would be considered "wrong" or "bad" or "not real role-playing". In it's worst form it is usually accompanied by heavy doses of railroading on the part of the GM.)

Player 3, the old friend, is also a moderately experienced gamer. He actually played in the first games I ran way back in high school, but we didn't see each other much for a number of the intervening years due to college and such. Of the three he's actually the most proactive, but isn't consistent about it. In this case I feel it's largely because he doesn't want to feel like he's dominating the game and if he begins to feel like he's taking too much of the spotlight he'll drop back and wait for one of the players to start doing something.

I have attempted to run 2 different games with these players, and both have been pretty abysmal failures after a handful of sessions. (In the first of those games there were other players involved with whom we've parted ways.) The reason these games failed was that I expected the players to take initiative in response to an initial "bang" that I provided them and then proceed to move the story forward themselves, unfortunately in both cases they just sort of sat there and expected me to lead them around.

For the first game, I chalked it up to the fact that I hadn't clearly communicated my expectations to them. So after we as group decided that we weren't enjoying the game, I took time to explain my concerns to each of them individually and in all three cases received a positive response. But after a second game in which there was no significant change in behavior I'm at a little bit of a loss as to what to do.

The main solution that I have begun to consider on my own is attempting run a game that actually mechanically encourages the style of play I want, but I am thus far having a difficult time finding many games that fit this criterion. I had considered Sorcerer, but two of the members of the group said they weren't really interested in the basic premise of the game.

But past that I'm kinda at a loss as to what to do.

Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to read my ramblings here, and hopefully someone can help me find a solution to this problem.

[Jake Norwood]

This is going to sound like a shameless plug (and maybe it is one), but if they're into any kind of fantasy or medieval thing look into the Riddle of Steel. It really is a kind of "gateway" game to get people into a more narrativist style of play (or so they tell me). It's got a lot of familiar ground, so it'll draw them in without them noticing.

I also highly reccomend running a series of one-shots where there are no long-term consequences and where half the party dies every time, so they can see how much fun creating a dramatic story can be. Check out the thread on the Driftwood Mini-mini Con from earlier this week here in Actual Play.

Jake

[Andrew Martin]

How can I encourage my players to be more proactive? Specifically, how can I get them to break out of purely using sim-based Actor stance and become more comfortable with a more Narrativist style utilizing both Author and Director stances?

It's easy. Simply use a system that rewards this method of play, and with in minutes, your players will be playing that way. It's worked for me with my Star Odyssey (SF) and S (fantasy) games, with power gamers, novices, negative players (plays to loose!), disabled players, rules lawyers and roleplayers.

I hope that helps!

[Michael S. Miller]

The reason these games failed was that I expected the players to take initiative in response to an initial ?bang? that I provided them and then proceed to move the story forward themselves,

It seems to me that you're starting off on the wrong foot. If you provide the intial Bang, you are demonstrating to your players "I'm going to be coming up with the story material here."

Try using Kickers instead. It took me quite a while to understand this, but the most important aspect of the Kicker is that it is created by the player, not the GM. Any GM can come up with subplots that involve the character, but for a Kicker to really draw the players in, it must be created by them.

Then, just keep twisting their Kickers in new and interesting ways.

[Mike Holmes]

Good advice Mr. Miller.

What is it that your players enjoy about playing, Ozzy? It may turn out that they are just not interested in the style of play that you are trying out. That said, Jake also makes a good point about his game being a good one for moving slowly to this style of play.

It's good that you discussed the idea of the players taking control during play with them. But did you discuss it during play as well? What I mean to say is, there are overt and covert verbal cues that you can give that indicate that the player should take control. The easiest one is to just ask questions about what happens. Don't provide them with anything. This forces them to create something (or just sit there). The other thing is to ensure that they are aware of what the Premise is about. Otherwise how can they address it? They'll naturally fall back on making decisions based solely on character biases.

Possibly a less jarring way to display this form of play is to play a game like SOAP or InSpectres. I recommend doing this all the time to people with this problem. After playing such a game (assuming it's played correctly), the players will have a much better frame of reference for the sort of stances that are potentially available. The nifty thing about them is that they are both games suited to one-shots, they are really fun, and take no time to prepare. SOAP is so short you can run it before a normal session, or you can stop a session short, and play a complete game (and it's free). Takes only an hour or so. InSpectres is worth the buy and time to play, however. Consider checking it out.

In InSpectres, after the players roll, mostly you just stare at them and perhaps prompt with "Well, what happens?" In SOAP if they ask you what happens, you say, "I don't know, it's not my turn. What happens?" It's cool to watch players suddenly get it. Once they do get it, then you can discuss whether or not they want to assume these sorts of stances in other games. Not necessarily to the extent that one does in these games, but just occasionally enough to become proactive in terms of the story.

Any help?

Mike

[hardcoremoose]

Mike stole my response.

I think InSpectres is just the ticket.  The subject matter is familiar enough that most people grasp it quickly.  It's got wonky supernatural things going on, which is always good for the WW crowd.  Its intentionally light tone makes it easy to swallow...it's so innocuous that players probably won't be afraid of goofing up.  I've been able to use InSpectres (well, okay, NightWatch, but it's all the same) with my simulationist friends, and it works like a charm.

- Scott

[Clay]

Ozzy,

You're dead right that you have to use a mechanics system that supports what you're doing. Something about White Wolf's mechanics don't sit right, so I suspect that you won't want to go there.  Similarly, a d20 game will discourage the sort of play you want.

Sorcerer could be dressed up to look a lot like Vampire, but without the broken mechanics of White Wolf. While I'm sure that the game is perfectly playable "straight" everything about it encourages creating your own setting and world conventions.  A vampire, with powers, looks a lot like a parasite or possessing demon. My advice is to spend the time to make Sorcerer look like a world that your friends want to play in. Then run a quick demo, so they can see the new mechanics. My group did astounding things with a quick combat set piece.

[Ozymandias]

First, let me start off by saying thanks to everyone for the quick replies.

Now, for some more specific replies:

This is going to sound like a shameless plug (and maybe it is one), but if they're into any kind of fantasy or medieval thing look into the Riddle of Steel. It really is a kind of "gateway" game to get people into a more narrativist style of play (or so they tell me). It's got a lot of familiar ground, so it'll draw them in without them noticing.

I actually considered picking this up at my FLGS last weekend, and now after going through and reading some of the material on your website I think I may have to go ahead and do so. As I read through the section on character progression that might just be the kind of impetus I'm looking for.

It seems to me that you're starting off on the wrong foot. If you provide the intial Bang, you are demonstrating to your players "I'm going to be coming up with the story material here."

Try using Kickers instead. It took me quite a while to understand this, but the most important aspect of the Kicker is that it is created by the player, not the GM. Any GM can come up with subplots that involve the character, but for a Kicker to really draw the players in, it must be created by them.

Excellent point. I can definitly see now where this might be sending out the wrong sort of cues to the players right off the bat, and I'm going to keep it mind when I'm working on our next game.

What is it that your players enjoy about playing, Ozzy? It may turn out that they are just not interested in the style of play that you are trying out.

That's an excellent but somewhat difficult question. When I talk to the players it's easier to get definitive answers to what they don't want than it is to figure out they do. In the case of the two more experienced players, they're both state they are burned out on the style of play they've been accustomed. I can ask them about games they've enjoyed in the past, but when I follow that up with "Would you still enjoy that type of game?" the answer is generally "no". As their backgrounds are filled exclusively with more Gamist and Sim style play, Narritivist style seems to me to be the logical next step if they're burned out on the other two. Of course, there could be additional options I'm not considering and additional questions I need to be asking.

Possibly a less jarring way to display this form of play is to play a game like SOAP or InSpectres. I recommend doing this all the time to people with this problem. After playing such a game (assuming it's played correctly), the players will have a much better frame of reference for the sort of stances that are potentially available. The nifty thing about them is that they are both games suited to one-shots, they are really fun, and take no time to prepare. SOAP is so short you can run it before a normal session, or you can stop a session short, and play a complete game (and it's free). Takes only an hour or so. InSpectres is worth the buy and time to play, however. Consider checking it out.

I downloaded the free version of InSpectres and I'm going to read through it later today. Where can I find a link to SOAP?

Thomas

[Ozymandias]

Ozzy,
Sorcerer could be dressed up to look a lot like Vampire, but without the broken mechanics of White Wolf. While I'm sure that the game is perfectly playable "straight" everything about it encourages creating your own setting and world conventions.  A vampire, with powers, looks a lot like a parasite or possessing demon. My advice is to spend the time to make Sorcerer look like a world that your friends want to play in. Then run a quick demo, so they can see the new mechanics. My group did astounding things with a quick combat set piece.

Hmmm...Now I'm curious. I was under the impression, from reading the Sorcerer website, that Sorcerer was a fairly tightly focused game where the PCs are Sorcerers who summon and bind demons. (I understand there's more going on in terms of Premise and theme and such, but that was the primary sticking point in terms of getting the players interested in the game.) Is the game actually more flexible than that?

[Clay]

I was under the impression, from reading the Sorcerer website, that Sorcerer was a fairly tightly focused game where the PCs are Sorcerers who summon and bind demons. (I understand there's more going on in terms of Premise and theme and such, but that was the primary sticking point in terms of getting the players interested in the game.) Is the game actually more flexible than that?

First, I'm not proposing that the core premise be changed. The character most certainly did something intentional to become a vampire. The literature does not support the idea of an unwilling vampire. Even Anne Rice's Louis, who complains about how miserable he is as a vampire, was a pretty active participant in his own seduction and conversion.

The game is about as flexible as you want to make it. The rules don't specify the details of the rituals, only that there will be something which fills the role of those rituals. So, for a vampirish story, you might try something like this:

Humanity represents your degree of control over the ravening beast within you. Checks are required for transgressions of human empathy.

Contact and summoning occur when the person to be converted meets the vampire and convinces it to make them a member of the legion of the damned.

Binding occurs when the person is sucked dry and refilled with the blood of their attacker.  Additional binding occurs over the next few days as the person attempts to establish an accord with their new drives and their own desire not to loose control.

In this case most sorcery will be occuring off screen, before play begins. Players could either be new vampires, more experienced vampires that have the whole vamp thing down pretty well, or even progenitors of some other vampires in the party.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

This is going back to the questions from the initial post of the thread. So far, everyone's offered some good advice. My angle, though, is not to question or examine the players, but yourself.

Bang-driven play is always going to be unsettling to people, and many of them will not believe that they are being given the power to shape the story. In one of the groups I'm in, at least one player refused to believe it for over a solid year of play, including games like Extreme Vengeance and Soap. It took sixteen months of Hero Wars to change his mind.

To clarify, actually, "belief" isn't really the issue - it's a matter of familiarity and a sense of ownership over more than just "my character."

All the above seems to be discussing players, but my real point is to say that such perspectives do not change quickly. They do not even change when the player insists that he is, too, story-oriented. So again, the key is not, "How do I change them," but rather, "What are my ingrained habits that need revising," and, "How do I present information during play in an empowering way?"

Some thoughts ...

1) A Bang which does not prompt emotionally-committed action is not actually a Bang.

2) Emotional commitment to the in-game scenario is best generated through (a) character-based player input (e.g. the Kicker) and (b) developed NPC relationships.

3) "What do you do" cannot occur in a vacuum, but in the context of other (in-game) characters' priorities and actions.

4) The GM's role is to play bass - that is, to signal, drive, situate (via chords), and pace the rest of the "instruments," which provide melody. These are very active, visible things during role-playing; the Narrativist GM does not just sit there and go "Uh-huh," and "Hmm" like an old-school psychiatrist.

Hope that helps! I believe some other threads are wanderin' around the Forge with similar questions that prompted a lot of discussion. If anyone notices any, link to'em here.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

SOAP can be found via the Resource Library here at the Forge. A link is at the top of each forum page.

Mike