I've got a nice little D&D game that has been running for 4 sessions now and I'm relatively pleased with how it is going. The majority of my players are complete novices to role-playing and therein lies my only real frustration with the game. They don't seem to want to take any proactive action in the game.

Knowing that newbies sometimes need a little more focus, I've tried to keep the plot pretty tight, so that the game isn't too confusing with 13 different things going on at once. The plan has been to slowly add more complication and conflict as the game progressed and they become more comfortable with the game. The problem is that if I don't force the issue, as a group they don't do anything. This puts a rather large burden on me if I have to be the source of every single conflict and I have to drive every single plotline single-handedly.

I've got a bunch of NPCs and built-in conflicts and I've been waiting to see which direction they would like to pursue but they don't seem to pursue anything or do anything unless I drop some hostile monsters on top of them. Then they just beat the monsters up and go back to doing nothing. ("Monsters" as I'm using it here is meant to be any antagonist. They aren't all literal monsters.)

Anyone have an practical advice and leading the players to be more proactive in developing the plotline? It isn't that people are having fun but it'd be a lot less stress on me and a lot MORE fun if everyone participated in the game a bit more.

Can you give us an example of a specific type of proactive thing you want them to do?

Sometimes players just will themselves into a spectator role, but far more often what happens is that they don't see the opportunities that they're being offered as attractive (or even as opportunities). If we know what sort of behavior you want to encourage, we can be much more helpful about how to encourage it.

BTW, I think it's great that you're running for a completely novice group. It's a community service is what it is, and not in the celebrity dodging jail-time sense either.

Sounds to me like they have a bit of "Guy in Black Cloak" syndrome, waiting for the next plot hook to be dropped that they can bite on.

They key will be to try and ween them from this as soon as possible. One approach might be to reign in some of cast of NPC's, have "adventure" dry up in their current location, and ask them point blank what their characters are interested in.

Also, have events move and happen "Off-Camera" so that they realise the world does move on without them and if they do not become involved, then they may very well be run over.

There often times can be a fine line between a Dynamic / Responsive World and a chaotic one where its hard to keep up.


Hope this helps some


Sean

Gaerik,

TonyLB is on to something.

Can you also tell us if the people playing have any idea that they are supposed to be more proactive (in the way you would like them to be)?

I can speak from hard experience that most "traditional" gamers really are not prepared or programmed for play beyond and outside what you're experiencing. And some of them like it that way. I know of one player who sees the sort of pro-active engagement (that I think you are getting at) as work, and not at all interesting to him.

Sean said:

Also, have events move and happen "Off-Camera" so that they realise the world does move on without them and if they do not become involved, then they may very well be run over.

James,

1. Adversity, adversity, adversity. Can you provide crises, risks, challenges, choices, and danger without also providing what they're "supposed to do" to deal with it?

I often advise GMs to provide adversity without having a "save the characters" back-door available to keep them from dying or whatever. Nope. Give them the problem, period, without either battening down the hatches to keep them from escaping or providing the One Solution that they're supposed to "find."

2. I urge you to distinguish between hooking characters and engaging players. These are two fundamentally different phenomena - the first is actually an illusion, and a very feeble foundation for play; the second is crucial and will carry all the desired positive features of the first into play anyway.

Best,
Ron

Gaerik wrote: The problem is that if I don't force the issue, as a group they don't do anything. This puts a rather large burden on me if I have to be the source of every single conflict and I have to drive every single plotline single-handedly.

Thanks for the responses so far.

Ron, could you elaborate more on "hooking characters" vs "engaging players"? I think I understand what you mean but I'm not certain. I think by engaging players that I need to know what it is that they find kewl and interesting. That's what I've been trying to do, to some extent. I've left the options in the game open ended hoping to see which way they would go. Then that's the direction I would take things. Unfortunately what seems to be happening is after they beat up a bunch of orcs (or whatever) they then rest up and sit around waiting for the next group of bad guys to show up. I'd like to break that cycle.

greyorm, I'm not sure I like the "let them be bored" approach. They are newbies and they aren't doing this on purpose, I don't think.

TonyLB, I guess an example of what I'm wanting is like this. Currently, the party is (was) trapped underground in a series of caves with a tribe of orcs between them and the way out. They've got no food or water, just a few weapons and essentials. The typical sequence of events here was; they would run into a group of orcs, beat them up, go rest up, wait for me to send either more orcs or something else. I'd like to get rid of that last "waiting on me" part. I'd like them to say "Hey, we need food... let's figure out how to get some." or "Let's scout out the orcs!" or "To hell with this, let's just charge em and break through!" or "Let's lay some ambushes." or .... hell, anything.

Well, that information really changes the way I look at the problem. I suspect the players are not so much being passive as defensive. You didn't say what the threat level of the situation is (orcs are a lot bigger threat to a bunch of 1st level punks than more experienced characters), but I'll assume the orcs are a real threat.

I think the players are probably feeling very inhibited, because they're in a very constrained situation (trapped in a cave), they have few resources, and they are faced with Total-Party-Kill and the loss of their game if they "screw this up."

If you look at the situation from their perspective, their behavior is pretty rational: skulk around, defend themselves from orcs, and hope that something more appealing comes along.

My lame suggestion for a way to get these guys motivated again: let them find the remains of a previous party of adventurers who starved to death in the same situation, along with some journal entries about the caves and the orcs, maybe even a sketch map. Steal liberally from the Mines of Moria bit in Lord of the Rings, if you like. Oh, and put a healing potion or two in one of the corpse's packs.

With some added information, an increased feeling of safety, and a very clear example that inactivity leads to death, maybe they'll get off their duffs.

Ron wrote:

James,

1. Adversity, adversity, adversity. [SNIP]

Give them the problem, period, without either battening down the hatches to keep them from escaping or providing the One Solution that they're supposed to "find."

The players, trapped in a cave, don't perceive a reasonable choice. Their characters have two choices: Action against the orcs (stealth, combat, etc) or inaction and starvation.

That boils down to one short term choice: Do we attack the orcs or not? This doesn't offer much in the way of continuing the game's flow. Try putting the players in a situation where even deciding not to act forces an action. This isn't railroading, but rather providing an engaging situation.



• A gnoll (or other intelligent monster) sneaks past the orcs (magically or otherwise) and informs the party that they are going to attack the orcs tomorrow. If the player's help, the gnolls will reward them. Now you have the players forced to make a decision, do they help the gnolls? Warn the orcs? Hope they weaken each other and the PCs can kill them both? Alternately, a subterranean monster comes up from below and provides the same encounter (only the PCs will inevitably be in the middle of the battle).
• The cave is in a volcanic area, and a few tremors are the precursor to the next scene: The cave begins to fill with lava. Now the PCs and the orcs have to flee. On the way up, they may see helpless orc children or wounded. Do the PCs help them? Or do they save themselves?
• The cave is an entrance to some deeper ruins or current civilization. This gives them an option to either keep fighting the orcs or continue exploring. Especially if the new area offers food and rest and an alternate way to the surface. Make standing still unbearable with some new orc tactic, like noxious gas.
• Have the orcs make a last feeble attack, then offer a truce. Tell the players that the orcs are obviously on their last legs. Do they take advantage of this? Or do they honor a truce?



(edit: Added fourth example, changed third example a bit)

Are they console RPGers? At all?
This is the standard method of interaction in video games. If they are, it may be carried over from there, where you wait for the computer to throw something at you.

Gaerik wrote: I'd like them to say "Hey, we need food... let's figure out how to get some." or "Let's scout out the orcs!" or "To hell with this, let's just charge em and break through!" or "Let's lay some ambushes." or .... hell, anything.

Looking on page 90 of Sorcerer and Sword:

Involving the characters. ... What matters is getting the real people, players and GM, into shared-author mode about those characters. The traditional modes might be summarized as (1) simply informaing a player that the character is to go to a certain place and investigate a certain phenomena, and (2) engineering a series of coincidiences which place a character into danger. These methods rely on character-hooking, expecting that player commitment will follow, but in practice they tend to have the opposite effect.

...

What other approach might work better? It's all about authorhship, again, and focusing on the issue at stake that interests the player about the character in the first place.

Hi Andrew,

Just as players have to be guided and conditioned into the "response-only" mode, they also need a steady hand to learn how to be proactive. A useful tool is to make each player state a long term goal for their characters, be it to win over the hand of a maiden to becoming king or what have you.

When things get slow, you say, "Ok, so, you want to marry the girl, what would be your next big step? What do you need to do to get her? How can you impress her?" etc. Open with some suggestions, but leave it undefinite.

Though the goal gives them something to aim for, leaving a completely open discussion of HOW they get there can jog them into more and more proactive action. Especially when they start figuring out as players how to weave their goals together("Hey, help me impress her, and we can also see about getting you knighted!")

Chris

Hello,
Perhaps they are used to being passive.

I once played in a campaign where the GM created a huge elaborate plot (he used flowcharts to figure it out!) in a huge world.
He then sat back and waited for us to "do something."
Nothing happened.
Several game sessions went by and finally someone decided to do something.
We eventually started figuring it out, but the game never had a decent pace.
It wasn't a very fun game.

I've found that when you create a story, with a list of scenes that advance the plot, the players have a lot more fun and everything works out better.

The obvious question then arises:
How to keep from railroading them?
After all (90% of GMs say) if you try to force a story on the players, they will invariably rebel, go in another direction, and then all your preparation is worthless.

However, you can tell a story, use a list of scenes and have a very structured game without forcing it or making the players feel like they are being railroaded.

Heres how:

You will need:
1. Heros (and their NPC friends).
2. The villain.
3. A clear, definite Goal.
4. A list of scenes that rise toward the story end.
5. The final battle.

1. Heros
Keep in mind who the characters are and where they came from. This will give you ammunition for creating the story, and will help you get them interested.
NPCs are extremely important.
Have them go along with the players, and when you need to, the NPC can comment on whats going on. You can have the NPC remind the players of the goal, or make comments on what the players are doing.
For instance, "Hey, aren't we going to do anything? Let's go scout out the orc's camp!"

2. Villain
You need a single villain for them to concentrate on. A group of orcs is ok, but it would work better if it was a single antagonist. Try a mage that is in charge of the orcs. Have him drop by, take a few shots at the players, and escape! That will piss them off and they will want to go get him! By providing a single villain to concentrate on, they players can clearly imagine where they are going.

3. Goal
The players need a goal to concentrate on. There are many kinds of goals, but the important thing is that it needs to be clear, and definite.
If they need to escape from a cavern they are trapped in, then make it obvious they are going to die if they stay where they are. Have the villain do something that forces they players to take action. Perhpas hes working on something that is causing earthquakes. The caverns will start to collapse and the players will have to go someplace of sit there and die.
Most people never set goals. So they aren't used to it.
However, in a story you need to create a goal.
Without a clear goal, they won't know what to do.

4. List of Scenes
Scenes are used to create a sense of movement and action in a story.
They start at one place and they move toward the final climax of the story.
The scenes should all introduce the players to more conflict and danger, each rising in intensity, until they reach the final battle, and the climax of the story.
Each scene will have a goal, opposition, a setting, and a tie-in to the next scene. Write it out.

Heres how to create a list of scenes:
Scene Format
1. Scene 1
....Title of Scene
....Scene Goal (acquire x or discover y)
....Scene Opposition (monster, villain, etc.)
....Scene Location (pick a place like a castle, village, roadway, etc).
....Tie In to Next Scene

2. Scene 2 -5
....Same as above.

Example:
A single line is used to describe each scene element (not 10 pages of text).
For instance, a scene could look like this:

Scene 3: The Sacrifice
Scene Goal: Defeat the orcs torturing the victim & learn about the mage's master plan.
Scene Opposition: A dozen orcs.
Scene Location: The orc temple inside the caves.
Tie In: Victim tells players about the mage and how to defeat him.
They will first need to go get x (scene 4)....

Each scene will lead to the next scene. Sometimes thy players will want to go out of order, and I'll just go with it.
A simple way to think of it is that the players need to do something, or get something to defeat the villain. Each scene will have a goal.

Ok, so how to make it look like your aren't forcing the players?

Each scene has a goal. The players will discover it when the scene occurs.
Each scene will have whats called an "Inciting Incident" which is something that happens.
For instance, a scene could open with an event that the players witness. An exectution, a murder, a robbery, a disaster, etc.
The players must want to pursue the story goal.
So have the villain appear and take a few pot shots at players and then escape! They will definitely want to go get him. They may think "he's way out of our league." So then have a guy show up and tell them that the villain has a weakness..... Go find it.
Goals are stated within the story.
Often I'll open up a story with a stated goal.
"Ok, so you guys are on your way to find the holy sword of St. John, who was runored to have dissappeared in the lost city. You found the map in the last game. Here it is."

The tie-in t the next scene.
Scenes usually can go in only one direction. Towards the climax.
All of the scenes are connected to the story goal.
At the end of a scene, after the players accomplish the scene goal, they will have the item that will naturally lead to the next step on their journey towards the final gaol.

Ok, so how would it work here?
Why did the ground collapse, plunging the players into the caves?
That was a great inciting incident, but you must connect it to a goal.
Not just to escape, but more.

How about introducing a main villain, like an evil mage in league with the king of the orcs?

Perhaps the mage is using thermal vents inside the caves to create an item of destruction that will devastate the kingdom if it is completed.

The mage has magical guardians that protect him.

So the players must first find a magic item that will allow them to defeat the mage's guardian, and then they will need to acquire another item to allow them to sneak into the mages laboratory....

Perhaps the mage has used a magic amulet to charm the king of the orcs.
The orcs found the mage, and they brought him to their king, and the king took the amulet and put it on.... He was charmed.

See how it works?

Don't push them, pull them.
If you try to force it, they will hate it. They will rebel against you and everything will come to a halt.
If you give them a reason to go along, they will want to pursue the story goals.

Use NPC's to prompt players to do things. Don't always have them give good advice. Just use them to provide options for the players. If they have lots of options, they will feel like they are making the decisions.

5. The Final Battle
This is where the players take on the main villain in a final battle.
Hopefully, they will have acquired whatever they needed to win, and they will stop the villain from doing whatever he's up to and the story will end.

One secret to keeping players from feeling railroaded, is to know your setting. If you know all about the place where the story takes place, then if players come up with something to do, you can easily work it into the story.

Some scenes are events.
Perhaps a person does something that will force the players into immediate action.
These types of scenes can be played whenever you like.

I usually start off a game session by looking the one page plot from last the last game session, where the scenes have been checked off, and then take a look at what the characters are doing.
I then think about how the villain would react to the situation.
I then write out a list of scenes for the game.

Don't think the final battle has to take place several game sessions away.
If you do this, the players will lose sight of the story goal, and it will dissolve away.

So write short stories.
I write a list of 5 or 6 scenes for each game and run them all.
It takes about an hour or so to write them out and I'll run most of them in an entire night of gaming.



Anyway, I hope that helps.

Hi Mark,

I think that's wonderful advice for playing a style we call Illusionism. It may also be off mark for what Andrew is asking for.

That particular style of play is great for a coherent set of events, but also tends to get players into a reactionary mode, where they're constantly looking for prodding and cues from the GM... which is exactly what what Andrew is NOT enjoying about his current game.

Chris

"off mark"...hehe :)

hmmm..

Well, its only advice.

The trick is, how to run a scripted story while still allowing the players total freedom of action?

hmmm..

Perhaps you could just introduce an NPC and have him ask them what they want to do?

This is sort of like prompting them to set their character goals...

btw, how many styles are there? I'd love to read about them. Is it part of the GNS theory?

Hi Mark,

I think the point being brought up is that Andrew isn't running with a prescripted plot. You'll notice that many of the older(and a few of the newer) D&D modules had no plot whatsoever. You had a world with stuff going on for folks to explore and do things, like take sides in a conflict, get into trouble, look for riches, etc.

The key point for those modules was that the players were supposed to figure out what they were interested in and wander over and check it out. It was not in the GM's hands to embroil the player characters into things, but it was up to them.

In regards to the fact that these are new players, I find giving them overarcing goals gives them momentum in play, but it hinges on them being aware that "stuff happens" is a responsibility of the entire group, not just the GM.

Chris

I think you just need to provoke imagination and offer a reward for proactiveness.

Eg: Describe everything, with many interesting things as well as one obvious hook (some monsters to fight).

Then say 'Now, the monsters would seem a good choice, but there's something else you could do that'd be far more effective and whoever figures it out gets 100XP (or whatever amount).'

The trick is you have absolutely nothing else figured out, but when/if they think of something you'll say 'YES, thats' IT! 100XP for you!' and then you'll run with it.

And as said by another poster, go even with stupid stuff they suggest (without punishing it for its stupidness). The idea of their being proactive is that it isn't something you yourself would go for...its what they go for.

As things move along, I think one of the most important things is going to be rewards, by which I really mean social rewards. You say your players are new to gaming, right? OK, so as yet they don't know entirely what there is to like about gaming, or where the fun lies for them. They also don't know if they're "doing it right."

The one thing you want, apparently, is for them to take the initiative and go out and do things. Fine. So using any or all the various techniques mentioned, you're going to provoke them to try things. Right?

Now here's the trick: whatever they do, however tentatively, seize on it and have it be a cool, clever thing. Let them run with it. You may think it's stupid, but you mustn't let on. If they decide to parlay with the orcs, for example, forget any notions that orcs don't parlay, or don't speak the language, or whatever; make the parlay happen, and make it interesting. Let them get out of the situation by talking their way out.

This is especially true when and if someone comes up with something you haven't thought of at all. Let the players see that you are a little thrown; you want them to feel that they have challenged you, and that this isn't entirely a one-way street. And make damn sure that, having been gob-smacked, you let the wacky idea be useful.

What you're doing here is saying, through actions rather than words, "Guys, if you come up with something and go out and act on it, I will not punish you, and the game will be more fun than if you just wait for me to throw stuff at you." The more you do this, and the more effectively, the more they will strain their brains to come up with clever plans and be proactive. Furthermore, they will start to compete with each other, in a friendly sense, about who can come up with the coolest thing. Once you get there, your problems are pretty much solved.

This is a common problem, which I have only ever seen truly succesfully solved in two ways:

1) a new, proactive character

Ever notice that in every adventure movie there's always the annoying sidekick who gets himself in trouble? You need that character. Even one such character in a group will usually do wonders to the whole. And I do mean character. Most characters, as most people, are pretty passive. You need a character who always wants to know what's behind doors number one AND two, who always goes to check out what's that noise, and who wants to try and find out who those guys were, even if they have absolutely no clues.

Never underestimate what an effect a change of character can have on the way a player plays.

2) A new, proactive player

This is almost as good, but usually not as, since this tend to lead to a situation where the active player leads and the others follow. This is bad in itself, but doesn't suit everybody.

3) Take it up with the players.

Now, this could lead to either 1 or 2 happening. It could mean that some players start playing their characters in a more proactive way, or it could mean that maybe one of them will state that he'd like a new character. It could also mean that the players will change the way they play those characters they already have, but honestly, it's very unlikely. Same players, same characters, same system, same gameworld, same GM... I don't see how that will add up to a different way of gameplay.

Other people here have mostly tried to suggest that it's something that you are doing. That might be it, but I've yet to one single case where a GM can change the way he plays in a way which truly changes the way the game flows. This is quite natural really. You can't change the world, you can't change yourself, and you can't change the rules, assuming that you want to keep playing the same game.

In most cases, changing a character or adding a very active player is the fastest, easiest and least painful way to activate the group. Also, as I've said before, it's the only way I've yet to see that works.

Bottom line: you can't just change the way you play. You have to change something in that affects it.