Game background: I don't know the players in real life, but I've been playing with them for a long time. I've been running this game for almost as long as I've been reading the forge, so techniques I've learned here often aren't implemented or only recently have been.

Here's a link to the game at its current state: http://rpol.net/display.cgi?gi=1961&gn=Rifts:+Australian+Lightening&threadnum=13&date=1117749353

Currently the PC are underground in a summoning chamber beneath a town. One asked whether they saw vehicles the cultists use and I said yes, in the town above. And that right now, they are in the cultists summoning chambers, which do have dim lighting and lots of debris, but otherwise are swarming with cultists. Atleast suggesting that there is an environment with some exploitable qualties to it, to use to help get out.

Prob 1: The first one is that a player simply says they jump into a dune buggy and start the engine. I feel like I'm not even in the game, for a moment, as my input has to a large part been to establish they are underground.

Prob 2: I made a bit of a complaint post about problem one. The responce is that one player says 'I guess we want to make our way to a vehicle then.'. This doesn't at all read like a player gunning for a goal. The other player says sorry for the confusion and
"IC: Brian looks around the summoning chamber. I think I remember seeing some vehicles in the higher levels, we are bound to meet oposition as we leave this place. Let's go.

Brian will head for the stairs to go up to the top level where he saw the vehicles."

I'd just asked them what methods they were going to use to get out. I think their suggesting a method helps propel the game, in that, if that method manages to fail, then its accepted something bad happens. In other words, trying to avoid something bad happening, authorisies/gives crediblity to anything bad happening should that method fail.

Weve actually done this in a far more explicit form recently, where the player defined what failing would mean, for another recent conflict. They failed the roll and the trouble they described, came about. Are they scared to describe another loosing condition?

I'm sensing a participationist desire, myself, where they do the old 'leave it up to the GM'. This of course, doesn't grant the GM cred for doing anything that might interesting. Instead when it's left up to the GM, he either gives push over encounters (yawn and tiresome to run) or has to play queen bitch.

I've seen the whole 'get out of underground cultist den' as a gamist challenge. I've asked
"Okay, so where are you going? How are you going to get there? What happens if how your going to get their goes and fails you? Edit: To be exact, where do your characters want to be and in what risky situation will they end up if they fail to get there?"

As is, they are...saying they will walk out. And shruggingly noting that conflict will probably happen.

I have the urge to just say they do get out and get in a buggy and go. Anything else, without cred for it, will be flavourless. As is, the traditional behaviour of PBEM gamers to be in five games at a time means they haven't read my guidance posts before.

I want to wrap push this game to where it will wrap up anyway (been going for more than a year). Are they possibly participationist inclined? Will it just fall flat and reflect badly on me if I just let them have what their PC's want, since their players really don't express an interest in conflict?

I think they are, in their own passive-aggressive way, rejecting the particular stakes you are offering them. They don't want there to be any chance that they won't get to the vehicles and go. Perhaps they have somewhere else they'd rather be? Perhaps they feel (perhaps rightly) that their escape is a foregone conclusion because you have no intention of detaining them there if they fail?

Whatever the reason, it seems very clear that they are not engaged in a conflict over whether they get out or not. And you're absolutely right that if they're not engaged then the conflict isn't going to do as good a job of lending credibility to the outcome.

In theory you have three options: (1) Capture them, torture them, and force them into a long-term plot right there in that cave, to prove that you don't make idle threats, or (2) Give in, frame them straight to the vehicles and go from there, or (3) Give in, establish some different stakes to conflict over on the way to the vehicles, and fight for those instead.

If you're wrapping up the game then option #1 isn't worth the effort. You don't need to teach these people how to play with you, you need to get to the end of the game. I'm guessing that at this point #2 feels like abject surrender to you, and would leave a bitter taste in your mouth. So I recommend #3. Here's some options for a different conflict:

• "Yes, you'll get to the vehicles. The question is, can you avoid detection, or when you get on the road will a patrol of cultists be right on your heels trying to chase you down and kill you?"
• "Yes, you'll get to the vehicles. The question is, can you keep your cool and kill a bunch of cultists on your way, or will you be forced to a panicked retreat?"
• "Yes, you'll get to the vehicles. The question is which of you, within the party, gets to take the lead and assert authority over the others during the escape."

Really, you'll know the best stakes for your players. Or you could always ask them: What do they actually want a chance of achieving on their escape, other than escape?

Thanks for your reply, Tony, it really hits some nails on the head.

I just want to make sure I'm coming across right

Perhaps they feel (perhaps rightly) that their escape is a foregone conclusion because you have no intention of detaining them there if they fail?

I'm guessing that at this point #2 feels like abject surrender to you, and would leave a bitter taste in your mouth.

Or you could always ask them: What do they actually want a chance of achieving on their escape, other than escape?