Am I trying to run the wrong type of game for my players?

[supermonkeyjoe]

The current game I'm running is a skillmonkey focused city-based campaign featuring an urban ranger, rogue, beguiler and swashbuckler as the PCs, they are all great characters with a bunch of motivations and such it's just... the players don't seem to have any kind of agency to act upon them.

Some context: I've always tried to run my games with as much freedom as possible for the players, in the last game I ran I gave them a whole load of leads and basically let them choose which way the adventure went. I've played in a couple of games with the same players and they seem to have a solid storyteller mentality, talking about how they already had the story planned out, I didn't mind so much as the games were fun but it was always nagging at me that any solution that I came up with that would negate or shorten the "story" would fail.

What really drove it home to me was after the third session I asked everyone what their characters would do now (they had just cleared their names and avoided the noose and had very little money between them) I got a solid reply from one player which ended up being most of the session while everyone else gave replies like "resting" and "practicing archery". I've told the players several times that if they don't do anything, nothing will happen, and after the end of the third session one of the players said something along the lines of "This downtime stuff is ok but I can't wait to get back to the main plot" to which I replied, "there is no main plot, it's up to you to do what you want" which I think he took as a joke :smallfrown:

The question I'm asking is: Is this something I just need to get the players used to or should I just say here's Don McQuestgiver, he'll be telling you what to do for the rest of the game?

[HighWater]

Some people enjoy mucking about in the sandbox (making up their own goals), others prefer it when people tell them to build a sand castle (so they know the goal and can tell they are doing things right).
Sometimes players want to make their own interactive story (writing, kind of DMing really), and sometimes they want to interact with somebody elses story (playing).

Neither approach is the wrong way to play DnD. But if you're offering them the first half, while they wanna play the second half, things will not progress and the game will be mediocre at best.

The good thing is that they have apparently told you what they want: they want more structure and they rejected your proposal to make their own. What you have left is giving them more structure, or asking somebody else to DM if that's just really not your thing.

Edit: added a few clarifications.

[Adverb]

I find that giving concrete quests/assignments/etc for the first dozenish sessions is usually best. A perfectly open sandbox is hard to deal with for a lot of players until they have some grounding, some people they care about, some places they attach significance to.

[Kamin_Majere]

Are you running a living world or just letting the players do stuff and nothing happens with out their acting first?

The biggest problem with giving the players full run of the world is you have to take into consideration that just because the players aren't doing anything doesn't mean the world isn't turning. Its hard to show this to them with out "feeding" them plots but; a quest giver here and there, some rumors over heard in a tavern about a war, a few fires in the city with no explanation, etc can give multiple plot hooks and see where they lead.

The fun thing is that according to what the players choose the other things they knew about and didnt act on keep going (and even ones they didnt know about build up).
-They decide the war is interesting and go deal with that... well the city is now threatened with mass arson from the culprit, the adventure from the quest giver is given to others who become city famous and rich, multiple kidnappings they didn't know about because they were busy with the warlord has let a necromancer create a plague of undead that threatens the whole area.

The world goes on with out the characters and they will end up with things that get progressively better or worse according to the choices they make. While set adventures tend to show the world as a static thing that only acts on the characters timeline, an open living world (is a LOAD of paperwork) but shows them that the world doesnt revolve around the players even if the story itself does.

[supermonkeyjoe]

Are you running a living world or just letting the players do stuff and nothing happens with out their acting first?

The biggest problem with giving the players full run of the world is you have to take into consideration that just because the players aren't doing anything doesn't mean the world isn't turning. Its hard to show this to them with out "feeding" them plots but; a quest giver here and there, some rumors over heard in a tavern about a war, a few fires in the city with no explanation, etc can give multiple plot hooks and see where they lead.

The fun thing is that according to what the players choose the other things they knew about and didnt act on keep going (and even ones they didnt know about build up).
-They decide the war is interesting and go deal with that... well the city is now threatened with mass arson from the culprit, the adventure from the quest giver is given to others who become city famous and rich, multiple kidnappings they didn't know about because they were busy with the warlord has let a necromancer create a plague of undead that threatens the whole area.

The world goes on with out the characters and they will end up with things that get progressively better or worse according to the choices they make. While set adventures tend to show the world as a static thing that only acts on the characters timeline, an open living world (is a LOAD of paperwork) but shows them that the world doesnt revolve around the players even if the story itself does.

The world is very definitely moving without them, I have a timeline of the next couple of in game months of what various factions have planned and what they are hoping to achieve, whether the players get involved or not is entirely up to them, I think Adverb might be right in that I need to give them a bit more time to get invested and get a feel for what's happening, I'll also have a word with the players to see where they see this game going and how much control they want.

[Sebastrd]

While it's fine to expect the players to choose which parts of the world to interact with, the onus is on the DM to bring the world to the players. Your factions' various plans need to intersect with the players in obvious ways. A few examples might be:


A fight breaks out between rival factions and the PCs are caught in the crossfire. Bonus points if one faction seems to be the good guys and lure the PCs into helping out, while in reality both factions are up to no good.
The PCs witness a murder and/or robbery in broad daylight, committed by one faction impersonating a rival.
It turns out the long-standing local rumor about a nearby buried treasure might actually be true, and treasure hunters now flock to the area hoping to be the first to find it.
There's always the old standby "letter from a relative/acquaintance who is in dire need and only the PCs can help".

[Yawgmoth]

The world is very definitely moving without them, I have a timeline of the next couple of in game months of what various factions have planned and what they are hoping to achieve, whether the players get involved or not is entirely up to them You have to put these organizations in front of them and show them that they are worth getting involved with. It doesn't matter if the dark brotherhood is planning on assassinating the high king if the PCs have never heard of the dark brotherhood and have no attachment to the high king. Drop hints, make a plot. If the PCs don't want to follow it, that's when you say "well do something else then".

[HammeredWharf]

If you want to run a character-driven game, you could ask the players to tell you their characters' goals and motivations and use those as plot hooks. For example, let's say the beguiler wants to become a master illusionist. As it happens, there's an Illusionists' Guild (preferably with a better name than that) in town. The beguiler joins them and soon finds out the leadership of this guild got involved in some shady business and is now at odds with the local crime lords. To advance in ranks, the beguiler must solve this matter in the manner he sees fit. There, a plot hook without an obvious or obnoxious quest giver.

[supermonkeyjoe]

If you want to run a character-driven game, you could ask the players to tell you their characters' goals and motivations and use those as plot hooks. For example, let's say the beguiler wants to become a master illusionist. As it happens, there's an Illusionists' Guild (preferably with a better name than that) in town. The beguiler joins them and soon finds out the leadership of this guild got involved in some shady business and is now at odds with the local crime lords. To advance in ranks, the beguiler must solve this matter in the manner he sees fit. There, a plot hook without an obvious or obnoxious quest giver.

I've done exactly that, the trouble is the players never seem to act on those motivations, they are totally reactive whereas I want them to be a bit more proactive.

[animewatcha]

Ever watched Case Closed / Meitantei Conan / Detective Conan. Hundreds of ways to commit murder for the players to figure out the 5 Ws and How. Adapt it to Dnd. Heck, even atleast one of the main characters was framed for murder several times so you can have the party members framed. The fact that they are skillmonkeys actually be useful as part of the framing.

[HammeredWharf]

I've done exactly that, the trouble is the players never seem to act on those motivations, they are totally reactive whereas I want them to be a bit more proactive.

I don't think you can force them into being proactive. I'd make a more straightforward quest giver NPC to give them an initial quest and go from there. Maybe they'll be more proactive once they have a clear goal. Some people are like that.

That being said, are you sure their reactiveness is the problem here? Maybe they just don't consider rivalry between some groups they don't care about (yet) interesting and want a demon invasion or some other "epic" things? In that case, what you perceive as the draw of your campaign may be something they call downtime stuff.

[SalterisSolaris]

Well... "getting people to be more proactive" is kind of an oxymoron, isn't it?

Anyway, whenever I asked players upfront whether they prefer to be able to improvise the plot by themselves or rather want to work with set pieces provided to them, I always got the "by themselves" answer. The thing is, most people strongly fear feeling railroaded. Which is understandable - it's arguably the worst thing that can happen to a character, because it may mean that the DM is defining what the chara does, not the player. Which would defeat a big part of the purpose of roleplaying.

But here's the catch. Personally, I lean towards the "theatrical" end of the DM'ing spectrum. For worse or for better, I'm the type who spends silly amounts of time preparing many different "routes" that lead to attractive character moments, epic setpieces or surprising twists along the way. It's... railroading with a whole maze of tracks, if you will. And the responses have been overwhelmingly positive, even from groups ostensibly valuing "freedom" a lot more.

What I'm trying to say is... if asked, people will always state they prefer freedom over structure. But when it comes to actually using that freedom... most of them can't be bothered to really do so. Partially because driving a character in a high degree-of-freedom setting is constant, hard, mental work. And more often than not, people are very grateful if you implicitly toss some options their way, as long as you don't force them to choose only among them.

In short: Always point out some doors*. Never stop them from digging tunnels.

*) Point them out hard, if necessary. Best consider painting some of them vermillion, depending on the group...