Quote from: Levi KornelsenIt can.  But it's still their responsibility.  In cases like the one you're talking about, the responsibility reinforces the natural desire to play to character.   In places where playing the character completely correctly would ruin the game for others, they can, but doing so never removes their responsibility for their actions.

The way you stated the point made it seem pretty clear that you considered it a negative.  It follows from the assumption that people use the concept of doing what their characters would do as an excuse for ruining the game, which you used as an example.  Nobody demands that people take responsiblity to making the game fun.  For example, do you also demand that GM's take responsibility when everyone has a fun time?  My point is simply that the thing you are demanding people take responsibility for is not necessarily a bad thing.

If anything, I've had problems with the reverse problem -- people appologizing for doing things in character that they are worried might ruin the game.

Quote from: John MorrowHowever, if a single player or the GM does say things and take initiative, there can be a game.  In fact, there can be a game that everyone in the table enjoys.  Just as a sadist and a masochist can make each other very happy, an agressive and guiding GM can be very happy with passive players and they can be very happy with the GM.

If the group can handle the player and the game is fun, then why must they have a responsibility to do more?

Okay, John, you think it needs to change?

The original advice was written based on people relating their experiences of actual play.

I invite you to back up your point by sharing some.

:Bookmarks thread, adds "convert thread to drupal page" to his list of things to do.:

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe original advice was written based on people relating their experiences of actual play.

I invite you to back up your point by sharing some.

Fair enough.  I do have actual people in mind.

Among the people I've role-played with, people have been described as "wolves" and "sheep".  The "wolves" are the active players and the "sheep" are the passive players.  And, by the way, that distinction was made to be critical of the "wolves" who can step all over the "sheep".  In any event, the sheep are quite happy to play characters that would just go along with what the rest of the group is doing or whatever plot the GM tosses at them, and they do have fun doing it.  Now specific enough?

One of the GMs in my group has created several groups of role-players from among his co-workers.  He basically talked about role-playing with people who had an interest in genre fiction and seemed to have the right temperment and would run games for him.  In many cases, they didn't really have an interest in how the rules worked.  They'd tell the GM what their character did when asked, would roll dice when asked, and then ask the GM what happened.  I played with one of those gropus becaues the GM knew I could avoid being a "wolf" because a "wolf" would have eaten the group alive.  Basically, they were incredibly passive and would largely go along via prompting from the GM.  Yet they had a great deal of fun playing and he had a lot of fun running the game.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI invite you to back up your point by sharing some.

My wife is also a reasonably passive role-player.  She's been incredibly frustrated when, for example, an SCA-member GM asked her to describe exactly how her character was hitting a monster with a sword (because he used a combat system where it mattered).  She didn't know and didn't care and played magic users in his games from then on.  She was more interested in engaging the game at a very high level and letting the GM move things along.

Okay, now we're on solid ground.  

I agree that the advice I've given here thus far doesn't support such players well.

I also feel that altering these items to fit players of that type as well might dilute the advice - it's already very general, and there's a danger of becoming so broad as to be useless.

What this leads me to believe is that what should be done is to add further items that speak to that style; all of the same advice applies, I think, but vastly toned-down in some ways, and vastly toned-up in others.

Do you see what I mean?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI agree that the advice I've given here thus far doesn't support such players well.

Then it's not really general always true advice, is it?  

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI also feel that altering these items to fit players of that type as well might dilute the advice - it's already very general, and there's a danger of becoming so broad as to be useless.

It can be handled through qualifications that take play styles into account.  The generic advice would be to encourage people to cater to the preferences of the group and that "I like playing this way" (the real issue) doesn't excuse ruining the game for everyone else at the table.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenWhat this leads me to believe is that what should be done is to add further items that speak to that style; all of the same advice applies, I think, but vastly toned-down in some ways, and vastly toned-up in others.

Do you see what I mean?

That could work, too.

Utlimately, it's all about expectations and what people consider enjoyable.  The first rule always has to be, if you are having fun, you are doing it right.  If you aren't having fun, you need to figure out why and try to fix it.  If a group is having fun with a group of passive players being railroaded through a story by a GM, they aren't doing aything wrong.  In fact, you might ruin their fun by trying to change that dynamic.