Quote from: tenbones;1024388Not that they're bad people, not that they mean to screw everyone else, but that they do not want to engage with the game in any meaningful sense or do things that benefit themselves or the party. The problem is that they become dangerous when the party needs to depend on them for their assumed role.

I'm fairly tolerant of that kind of thing, but not infinitely so.  When someone manages to push my buttons in that way, they've taken passive to a new depth.  But what I do demand is:

A. If you are gonna be passive, then go along with the people that aren't.

B. If you are active, spend some of that activity encouraging and including the passive players, instead of leaving all of that up to me.

Since I enjoy a game that can slip in and out of proactive/reactive mode almost on a whim, that's a good, relaxing mix for a semi-casual game.  Sitting around doing nothing won't cut it.  Active PC says, "I'm going to talk to the city council, you two guys come back me up."  Passive PC 1:  "Sure, I'll put in my 2 coppers, as long as you'll drive the conversation."  Passive PC 2:  "I'll stand in the back and look stern."  That's enough to get by,  And then sometimes, one or both passive guys get caught up in the scene, relax, and just start playing--not least because they know if they don't feel like it next time, we won't demand it.

Quote from: Azraele;1024391Now THAT is signature-worthy

Your taste is impeccable.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1024394I'm fairly tolerant of that kind of thing, but not infinitely so.  When someone manages to push my buttons in that way, they've taken passive to a new depth.  But what I do demand is:

A. If you are gonna be passive, then go along with the people that aren't.

B. If you are active, spend some of that activity encouraging and including the passive players, instead of leaving all of that up to me.

Since I enjoy a game that can slip in and out of proactive/reactive mode almost on a whim, that's a good, relaxing mix for a semi-casual game.  Sitting around doing nothing won't cut it.  Active PC says, "I'm going to talk to the city council, you two guys come back me up."  Passive PC 1:  "Sure, I'll put in my 2 coppers, as long as you'll drive the conversation."  Passive PC 2:  "I'll stand in the back and look stern."  That's enough to get by,  And then sometimes, one or both passive guys get caught up in the scene, relax, and just start playing--not least because they know if they don't feel like it next time, we won't demand it.

Yeah I'm that way too. But there are times when I've run games where the tension of the game made demands of the PC's that they really needed to count on one another in a degree higher than the casual adventure. Especially in D&D at high levels where each party member is command of some greater element of the overall campaign. Or something more intimate where the party is doing things like spec-ops etc. where team-play matters for all the marbles.

As a GM I like getting my campaign to that level where everyone has earned their spot at the highest levels of play and they have brought the campaign to that level - and when conflict comes at that stage, everything is in jeopardy. And you realize, deep down the party has been carrying a lot of dead-weight and it's going to fall through the floor because those passive players aren't even trying to go along with things. They would rather sit pat having done little, but enjoying the view owning a nice Inn in the village rather than kicking off the revolution to overthrow their despotic overlord...

I need players that want to game at that level. But can equally find joy in playing at lower-stakes too. Not the other way around.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1024312I think it's less a short attention span or anything of that sort of thing -- though it might be -- and more that people today want to feel like they're in a story that has themes and a greater purpose instead of just randomly shooting around in the dark and hoping something comes of it. (as they would see it)

What's that got to do with passivity?

I still remember a response I got from a player who was feeling overwhelmed by all that was happening around her: "I don't know what you want me to do. I don't know what is the right answer you want."

And then I realized there is an advantage to the dungeon crawl structure. It has an obvious goal with just enough decisions to keep it from being mindless. And it seems that people need that nowadays, the obvious structure telling them what they need to do.

For me, that sort of obvious structure always bored me. But I guess I was already an active player wanting another level of play with the GM. That said, nowadays there is much less self-motivation, a tentative fear that they'll "answer the GM wrong," which I presume comes from years of video game training.

There are different levels of Pro-Active, you know.  Some players like a Hook to be presented for them to grab hold and run with.  Until they get that, they don't do anything, but once they got a grip, the ain't stoppin'!

This is a not an All or Nothing situation, which I think some of you may be falling into the trap of believing it is.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1024435For me, that sort of obvious structure always bored me. But I guess I was already an active player wanting another level of play with the GM. That said, nowadays there is much less self-motivation, a tentative fear that they'll "answer the GM wrong," which I presume comes from years of video game training.

Here is me not dragging this thread out of gaming into other areas by posting alternatives to video games as explanations for this behavior. I'm thinking it, but I'm not doing it.  Kind of passive-aggressive like.  Please carry on.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1024439There are different levels of Pro-Active, you know.  Some players like a Hook to be presented for them to grab hold and run with.  Until they get that, they don't do anything, but once they got a grip, the ain't stoppin'!

This is a not an All or Nothing situation, which I think some of you may be falling into the trap of believing it is.

How much bait on that hook, though? I can understand new players getting that deer in the headlights look when faced with so many possibilities at the game table, but with someone who has been playing for decades? When literally EVERYTHING in the game is an adventure possibility, the players themselves have to shoulder some of the effort.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024241Why do you suppose that is?  The default used to be "this game is about having adventures, so go have adventures."  After three or four dungeon crawls, we started wondering "hey, what's outside the dungeon and town?"

In my experience proactive players weren't rare 35 to 40 years ago.  They seem to be now.

Why?

I am not sure they are not rare now either. But theres alot of different styles and some players like some defined roadmarks or direction.

And even that varies wildly from "Legends say there used to be a great kingdom to the north that fell to ruin." to "Did you hear about the caravan that vanished up north a week ago?" to "We are mounting an expedition to investigate the ruins of the north. Any adventurers up for the challenge?" to "You! Yes you there. GEAS! Go the fuck north and explore!" to "You have been mysteriously teleported to the ruined kingdom of the north."

Others will effectively make their own adventures. Or something in between.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024408What's that got to do with passivity?

Well, let me put it this way. I've seen players express a preference for themes and story that have *meaning* directed by the GM, with the coherence that comes with it, rather than things that just bubble up organically since those could be anything.

For instance, a game that is about tackling a certain dilemma and the sacrifice needed to do it, structured in such a way that the players have to engage with that specific dilemma. The story then becomes more about the character's reactions and morals in response to this crisis.

A hypothetical would be a king that is dying of a magic curse, and the curse can only be broken through various unsavory means. The implicit theme of the game might be "you have to accept you can't save everything and prioritize the one thing you'll sacrifice everything for, or risk loosing everything anyway by trying to do the impossible," and this is then revealed through the actual playing, even though the GM seeded the world to produce this theme.

So, not really sandbox, more like an adventure with a set topic but the players can choose how they tackle it.

Quote from: jeff37923;1024445How much bait on that hook, though? I can understand new players getting that deer in the headlights look when faced with so many possibilities at the game table, but with someone who has been playing for decades? When literally EVERYTHING in the game is an adventure possibility, the players themselves have to shoulder some of the effort.

It depends on the group.  And I'd assume that people who have been playing together for decades would know how much hook and bait to use, if any.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1024508It depends on the group.  And I'd assume that people who have been playing together for decades would know how much hook and bait to use, if any.

Just because someone has been playing for decades, does not mean that they have been playing in one of my groups for decades. Rein in your assumptions, please.


EDIT: Edited to prevent the Grammar Nazi from Down Under having a stroke.

Quote from: jeff37923;1024510Just because someone has been playing for decades, does not mean that they have been playing in one of my groups for decades. Reign in your assumptions, please.

He said, "playing together." At least read the bits you quote before trying to refute them.

And it's rein. A reign is the rule of a monarch; a rein controls a horse. To rein in a horse means to slow it down. This is the problem with using old tired metaphors, as Orwell told us. The purpose of a metaphor is to call up a mental image to make vivid the person's point; but an old metaphor that everyone's forgotten the meaning of doesn't do this. It's just lazy writing.

On topic: a competent DM needs a good command of language, to well-express their ideas and the setting. That's the way it is under the reiGn of the Viking Hat DM.

Quote from: jeff37923;1024445How much bait on that hook, though? I can understand new players getting that deer in the headlights look when faced with so many possibilities at the game table, but with someone who has been playing for decades? When literally EVERYTHING in the game is an adventure possibility, the players themselves have to shoulder some of the effort.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1024514He said, "playing together." At least read the bits you quote before trying to refute them.

I will if you will.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1024514And it's rein. A reign is the rule of a monarch; a rein controls a horse. To rein in a horse means to slow it down. This is the problem with using old tired metaphors, as Orwell told us. The purpose of a metaphor is to call up a mental image to make vivid the person's point; but an old metaphor that everyone's forgotten the meaning of doesn't do this. It's just lazy writing.

On topic: a competent DM needs a good command of language, to well-express their ideas and the setting. That's the way it is under the reiGn of the Viking Hat DM.

Thank you, Grammer Nazi from Down Under.

Quote from: jeff37923;1024445How much bait on that hook, though? I can understand new players getting that deer in the headlights look when faced with so many possibilities at the game table, but with someone who has been playing for decades? When literally EVERYTHING in the game is an adventure possibility, the players themselves have to shoulder some of the effort.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1024508It depends on the group.  And I'd assume that people who have been playing together for decades would know how much hook and bait to use, if any.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1024514He said, "playing together." At least read the bits you quote before trying to refute them.

I will if you will.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1024514And it's rein. A reign is the rule of a monarch; a rein controls a horse. To rein in a horse means to slow it down. This is the problem with using old tired metaphors, as Orwell told us. The purpose of a metaphor is to call up a mental image to make vivid the person's point; but an old metaphor that everyone's forgotten the meaning of doesn't do this. It's just lazy writing.

On topic: a competent DM needs a good command of language, to well-express their ideas and the setting. That's the way it is under the reiGn of the Viking Hat DM.

Thank you, Grammar Nazi from Down Under.