Player proactivity

[Hogsy]

I've just started DMing a campaign for a group of newbies, who all come from videogame backgrounds, and I was wondering how to get them to understand that the world is dynamic. That they must step forward to keep the story going. One player in particular was overly proactive, so that was awesome. Any tips on how to get the others to go looking for hooks, not wait for them? Not only does it make my job easier, by in my experience as a player, it makes the game more fun. Surely there are many ways to play D&D, but in my campaigns I like to insert various hooks and have my players find them. It makes the experience more suspensful and the hook more attractive.

It was just the first session, so time will surely do the job if nothing else is done. I was just wondering how I could get them to realize this sooner, because I'm not sure yet that they feel their actions have consequences. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a problem or anything, just curious as to how you have managed this particular part of starting a new campaign with newbies. Feel free to share any ideas, tips or past experiences.

[weckar]

I always experienced video game players to be mostly the opposite. They think nothing will happen UNLESS they act. :smallconfused:

[Larrx]

I have never found a way to accomplish this other than time. That being said, I do have a few tricks to speed the process along.

1) Provide space for player initiated scenes. This is very easy to over-do. A little goes a long way. You want to avoid "You're hanging out at the Tavern, what do you do? . . . No one? Eventually you guys get bored and go to sleep." What you're looking for is "You're hanging out at the tavern," then a short beat, a few seconds of silence. Take a drink or something. Then "Something explodes!" You want there to be a space where a player can interject with their own ideas, but you don't want them to feel like they'll be punished if they don't, and you don't want the game to grind to a halt. Much of the time players don't take the reins because they lack confidence, and piling on pressure is the worst thing you can do in that case.

2) Recognize what your players are invested in. It may be something trivial. In my experience it usually is. I might have painstakingly designed several adventure paths full of plot, cosmic importance, and deeply understood NPCs. Regardless, a player will fixate on a barfly who absentmindedly brushed their hair during a conversation (she was just supposed to be flavor text!), or an enemy captured (he was never expected to survive longer than it took to dryerase the battle grid!), or the unusual date of a holiday (I literally made that up when you asked me!).

Those are all real examples that happened to me.

The point is that you can't force it. You can't layer your game with interesting mysteries and opportunities and expect your players to step up to the plate. You can pepper your game with a variety of experiences and see what sticks. I'm not sure I'm explaining the difference well, but there is a difference.

3) Once one player takes the bait, and the other players see that happen, you can provide (what to you seems like too obviously similar and inorganic) opportunities for the other players. Remember that they've probably never done this thing before and let them, if the want to, ape the first example they witness. It's not great storytelling, but you know, training wheels.

[exelsisxax]

Don't craft your campaign from a PC point of view. That leads to video-gamey "checklisting" where your players will go to the place to do the thing to get the thing for the next place to do the thing.... until they get to the guy who tells them the thing... see where this is going? I've heard people throw around "villain-centric" a bit, but it's not entirely accurate.

Murder mystery? Don't put clues for the players. Walk yourself through, in excrutiating detail, how the murder went down. THEN make notes of everything that might be evident to scrutiny. This makes sure you can answer every possible question a PC will have and make it more realistic at the same time.

Dungeon raid? Don't turn it into a rails shooter. Map the dungeon, draw patrol routes, make sure the bad guys have a kitchen(everybody needs to eat!) and be prepared for that one guy to insist everyone turns into spiders and sneaks all the way through. The scenario can survive anything if you don't assume what the PCs will do.

Maybe part of the problem is hooks. You say you're using them, but they're railroad bait. Let players invent their own plot, internal motivations always trump external ones.

[D.M.Hentchel]

I personally have found a handul of tricks for this

-Allow any personal path they come up with, even offer tips in the early stages. If they want to run a brothel, let them do it, put complications and make them work for it, but let them do it and encourage them.

-Offer small EXP awards for doing things; this will encourage your players to be active. Never underestimate the power of the words "Bonus Experience Points"

-Explain this game is more like WoW than Diablo in that there are a lot of quests, side quests, and activities they can do. Go on to explain they can do anything they want because you can design between sessions, but of course their characters actions (and inactions) will have consequences.

-Casual bring up cool rewards the characters can get out of character. "You can actually tame Owlbear", "There's actually a cool artifact in that order of mages that has four elementals bound to it" ,"If you guys played your cards right you might actually be able to take over the kingdom.", etc. Hints at just how much they can do will get some players going.

I could offer more specific approaches if you like

[SangoProduction]

Maybe part of the problem is hooks. You say you're using them, but they're railroad bait. Let players invent their own plot, internal motivations always trump external ones.

It's a popular misconception in the gaming community that "railroading is bad" and "sandbox is the only way to play". Without any direction, a campaign is rather meaningless, and without a driving storyline, there's not a bunch your DM can plan for, which means lower quality adventures all around. There must be freedom and direction in equal measure.

Then comes the part about it being new players. "Do what you want." Well...I don't know what I want, give me a game to play.

[Larrx]

It's a popular misconception in the gaming community that "railroading is bad" and "sandbox is the only way to play". Without any direction, a campaign is rather meaningless, and without a driving storyline, there's not a bunch your DM can plan for, which means lower quality adventures all around. There must be freedom and direction in equal measure.

Then comes the part about it being new players. "Do what you want." Well...I don't know what I want, give me a game to play.

All of this is right, but what I understood from the OP (and I might be wrong) was that he wanted the PCs to do the unexpected, to experiment, to explore. As a DM myself I love it when the players make me scramble, put me on the spot, give me the chance to 'play' during the session rather than in between.

I would never argue against carefully curated content, but when the players buck the rails it's super fun.

Your last point is very important however. No matter what kind of game you're trying to run, simply sitting there silently demanding that the players provide the impetus is a huge (and easy to make) mistake.

Putting yourself on the spot is super fun though.

[John Longarrow]

Five things that have worked for me...
1) Make sure each character has a unique background that fits with the campaign world. Let them interact with things/people their character knows.
2) Easily identified places to go to get plot hooks.
3) Plot elements that come looking for the players.
4) Obvious activities that the players can interact with, if they choose. Think (You see a group of wagons up ahead being attacked by horsemen)
5) Non-hostile NPC interactions that are part of or in place of combat encounters. Last time I did this two giants were chasing a giantess. Players wound up doing a "Save the damsel" with a 10' tall girl!

[Segev]

"What would your character like to achieve? What is his plan to achieve it?"

It doesn't have to be "big." Just "something." If he wants to live a quiet life as a carpenter, great. His plan might include finding a place to settle, or simply following a routine that he's already set up. In cases like this, disrupt his routine with a problem he has to solve in order to regain the routine.

If it's something already inherently dramatic or pro-active, provide him a starting point that has him partially immersed in the action already. The guy who wants to become a noble should have given you at least a rough plan; start him on one of the early steps of it, or with one of the steps halfway to completion. He's made contact with somebody and is building connections...and now his contact needs a favor.

If the player really, truly hasn't got a goal beyond "play in this adventure," then drop a hook in his lap for the adventure.

In all cases, watch for them to try to turn things to their advantage. Give them chances to make things "their own," and at least some of your players will rise to them.

[flappeercraft]

I've just started DMing a campaign for a group of newbies, who all come from videogame backgrounds, and I was wondering how to get them to understand that the world is dynamic. That they must step forward to keep the story going. One player in particular was overly proactive, so that was awesome. Any tips on how to get the others go looking for hooks, not wait for them? Not only does it make my job easier, by in my experience as a playe, it makes the game more fun. Surely there are many ways to play D&D, but in my campaigns I like insert various hooks and have my players find them. It makes the experience more suspensful and the hook more attractive.

It was just the first session, so time will surely do the job if nothing else is done. I was just wondering how I could get them to realize this sooner, because I'm not sure yet that they feel their actions have consequences. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a problem or anything, just curious as to how you have managed this particular part of starting a new campaign with newbies. Feel free to share any ideas, tips or past experiences.

I would make something so that they HAVE to act and do it for a while so they get used to doing so. I did so with a newbie friend when he was starting up by DMing his first play which was a solo game by making his character waking up in the shore of a river and with no gear, he was in the border of a forest and had to navigate, make camp, do deals with thieves, hunt people down, get assistance, etc. After that whoever he plays with he starts to think about what to do and if nothing happens for a while he just becomes suspiscious of it and keeps acting with precautions or just rushing in through convenient places and stuff like that.

[Darth Ultron]

Maybe part of the problem is hooks. You say you're using them, but they're railroad bait. Let players invent their own plot, internal motivations always trump external ones.

This is often said, but how does it work?

In a normal game a DM makes up and adventure and the players run through it. In this other game, the DM does nothing and the players do ''something'' and ''somehow'' pick what they want to do. Ok? So then the DM makes up and adventure and the players run through it. And this is different from the normal game how?

[John Longarrow]

Talk to the players, see what they want their characters to achieve.

One game I had one of the PCs desired to regain his rightful throne. Rest of the players were happy to go along. Since the player came up with the concept I just had to toss in hooks for ally/resource/fight bad guys forces/deal with Ally issue stuff. Made it really easy for me as DM since the players were telling me what kind of adventures they wanted. Main thing is talk to the players about what they want to do.

[Troacctid]

I've found it helps to signpost whenever you're putting a decision point in front of the players, to help them understand that that's what's happening.

For example, just last week, I was running my players through the second part of "A Great Upheaval" (the introductory adventure for this season of the Adventurer's League), and a group of Zhentarim mercenaries showed up in Nightstone to try and take over the town to use as a Zhentarim stronghold. So I said to the players, hey, take note, you actually have a choice here—you can fight these guys, or you can side with them, and depending on what you do, it will affect the story going forward. They ended up skirmishing with the mercenaries, and when the leader dropped the party barbarian, our paladin laid his arms down and surrendered, while our ranger said "Hell no!" and ran away to try to look for reinforcements to help retake the town (which segued well into the next encounter with the Ear Seekers). Anyway, I think clearly establishing that there was a decision to be made helped the players comprehend the situation and moved the session forward more quickly—especially since most of these players were accustomed to more linear adventures than Storm King's Thunder, which actually gives a lot of agency to the PCs.

[Grand Poobah]

1) Talk to your players about what sort of game they want. You may end up with differing wants but you at least know what they’re looking for and can tailor your adventures in ways that satisfy them.
2) Get them to write up their character backgrounds and see if there’s ways to incorporate those into your stories.
3) Set the scene (perhaps a few times) for their characters to act in but don’t give them their lines

So, for example, a few players like a mystery/role play type scenario and one of their background mentions they spent a lot of time at the Laughing Gnome Inn or had relations with the barmaid Deloris. You write up an adventure where the players investigate the disappearance of the landlord of The Gnome (as the locals call it).

When they next visit the inn describe the scene but mention an absence of cooking smells coming from the kitchen, which is unusual as the place is renowned for its roast chicken and a few patrons are grumbling they could only buy cured sausage, bread and butter. Perhaps the PCs will think to ask Deloris the barmaid why there’s no chicken but perhaps not. If not then Deloris bursts out of the kitchen with trays full of drinks obviously rushed off her feet and the PCs struggle to get her attention. Perhaps the PCs ask her why she’s so busy. If not, the usually affable Deloris snaps when a customer complains his tankard isn’t quite full as Deloris has spilt some of it in her haste.

The players can of course ignore all the entries to your adventure which is fine. You can give the PCs other chances to enter the adventure e.g. someone asks the well to do party if they’re going to bid for The Gnome when it goes to auction etc. If you’ve got a few plots/adventures written out, which you should, you can react better to any curve balls that PCs throw at you and you can layer entry points to these adventures in a subtler way than saying, “Roll gather information... 20? OK, you heard the landlord of the Laughing Gnome has gone missing. What do you do?”

[exelsisxax]

This is often said, but how does it work?

In a normal game a DM makes up and adventure and the players run through it. In this other game, the DM does nothing and the players do ''something'' and ''somehow'' pick what they want to do. Ok? So then the DM makes up and adventure and the players run through it. And this is different from the normal game how?

If you want players to be more proactive, having a map for the entire campaign is counterproductive and produces a railroad. If you've decided that there's going to be a final boss battle with a particular enemy at a particular place, player decisions really don't matter and encouraging proactivity will be very difficult and entirely pointless.

Cliche start for a 'sanboxy' campaign: bandits have taken a bunch of prisoners, some of which the party will form around. Intro sequence is essentially escaping. In an adventure path, Wise Old Man captive tells you to go somewhere or find a thing(cryptically, of course). And the whole thing probably doesn't come up again.

If the players have and are supported to make decisions:
a party that was pre-determined to be evil may instead take control of the bandit group during escape
A lawful stupid paladin might want the party to arrest the bandits and hold them for the 'proper authorities'
Personal vengance could have someone want to hunt down bandits that fled, possibly because they killed people or betrayed that PC to abduct them in the first place
Super neutral PCs would possibly need to be convinced to form up with the party, rather than just walking off into the sunset

All of these could combine in weird ways depending on your players, PCs, and how the RP works with them. "plot" becomes a lot looser, and might consist of nothing but a few facts (PC A was sold to get rid of him/her, PC B got captured on purpose to find person W, etc) Players can do what they want with them. Once they learn that the campaign isn't a straight corridor that they blindly flail around in until they get to the next scene, they'll actively push it. Hooks are for dragging your PCs somewhere, and the OP's issue is PCs expecting to get dragged, so they are an issue.

[Segev]

This is often said, but how does it work?

In a normal game a DM makes up and adventure and the players run through it. In this other game, the DM does nothing and the players do ''something'' and ''somehow'' pick what they want to do. Ok? So then the DM makes up and adventure and the players run through it. And this is different from the normal game how?

Just because the DM doesn't have a defined plot-threaded list of events the PCs will encounter doesn't mean the DM doesn't have plans.

A sandbox game of the sort you're decrying, when done properly, has things the DM has planned as what will happen if the PCs don't do anything. The same hooks used to draw PCs into the kind of plots you advocate, Darth Ultron, can be used to draw PC attention to "what's going on that might be interesting." You can even lay out several, at least one for each of several concurrent plots. The PCs will then act, and the DM's plan for what "will" happen changes based on their actions.

[Hogsy]

Once they learn that the campaign isn't a straight corridor that they blindly flail around in until they get to the next scene, they'll actively push it. Hooks are for dragging your PCs somewhere, and the OP's issue is PCs expecting to get dragged, so they are an issue.

You've worded what I felt perfectly. :smallredface:

Anyhow, I generally run sandbox games, but I don't hesitate to subtly force scenarios upon my players to react if the game has drawn to a halt. After almost a year of DMing one campaign I have realized that I've got a talent for organically and realistically pulling **** out of my ass. The whole campaign is basically just that, and they all thought I have been planning it for almost a year. Sometimes, it makes for badly-made decisions and sessions, but out of the 23, that's only happened like twice. Anyway, all input has been greatly appreciated.

[Crake]

It's a popular misconception in the gaming community that "railroading is bad" and "sandbox is the only way to play". Without any direction, a campaign is rather meaningless, and without a driving storyline, there's not a bunch your DM can plan for, which means lower quality adventures all around. There must be freedom and direction in equal measure.

Then comes the part about it being new players. "Do what you want." Well...I don't know what I want, give me a game to play.

Well, there is a distinction between "guided gameplay" and "railroading". Generally railroading is used to refer to times when the DM has the game's script so set in stone that the players have practically no agency in the unfolding events, no matter what they do to try and change things, or make things go in a different direction, the story keeps going down the "rails", hence the term. Honestly, if you've never experienced such a thing before, I can understand why you might not be able to distinguish between the two, but one's like the DM telling a story and the players sit and listen, while the other is like running a module.

[Kel'Tarusk]

I tend to require a backstory, even a simple one, to help drive the character.

That and I'll reward RP Points and count those as extra experience that gathers slowly so that they're more inclined to move things along by acting towards a goal while following their character profile.

Another way to do it is to just throw random hints at them out of game, mention something about taking shape as a Beholder, or mention that they can build a town/keep if they really wanted to.

They rely on you as a DM to not only let them play on their own accord but to also lead them into things a little bit.

Plus, if they're new they most likely just don't know what they want or how to do what they want.

They'll get the hang of it OP.

[Segev]

I have realized that I've got a talent for organically and realistically pulling **** out of my ass.

I would hope that's an organic process. Can you imagine how uncomfortable mechanical assistance with it would be? :smalleek:

[Quertus]

I've found having a number of obvious decision points, with a good mix of both ones with clear options and others which are more open ended can help.


Five things that have worked for me...
1) Make sure each character has a unique background that fits with the campaign world. Let them interact with things/people their character knows.


"What would your character like to achieve? What is his plan to achieve it?"

It doesn't have to be "big." Just "something." If he wants to live a quiet life as a carpenter, great. His plan might include finding a place to settle, or simply following a routine that he's already set up. In cases like this, disrupt his routine with a problem he has to solve in order to regain the routine.

Oddly enough, I've found that, for me, the more connected to the setting I make a character, and the larger their role / goals, the less interested in the setting they are. Because if whatever's going on doesn't tie in directly to who they are, what they do, and what they're trying to accomplish, well, they've got more important things to worry about than the DMs campaign.

But give me a character who isn't from around here, with his own little side projects, and I'll be much more engaged. For example, my signature wizard has written countless books on the strange creatures, spells, items, cultures, and even magic systems that he has encountered in his adventures on various worlds and planes. But he has no real connection to any of those worlds. And that has worked out much better for me than being connected to the world, or having huge driving goals.


This is often said, but how does it work?

In a normal game a DM makes up and adventure and the players run through it. In this other game, the DM does nothing and the players do ''something'' and ''somehow'' pick what they want to do. Ok? So then the DM makes up and adventure and the players run through it. And this is different from the normal game how?

I've never been able to figure out which piece of the puzzle you're missing, so I'm never sure how helpful it is to tell you about the rope, the snake, the tree, etc, when trying to help you see the elephant. But, why not, I'll try again.

First off, there's not a lot of difference between the gameplay in the various scenarios. This might be part of why it's hard to explain the difference, because, at a certain level, you're right, there isn't any.

However, one kind of railroading involves the DM effectively writing the characters' story ahead of time. If the characters attempt to deviate from the script, bad things happen.

Imagine a train enthusiast who has laid tracks through his entire house, and then an eager toddler decides to play with the train.

In my version of a sandbox, sure, maybe I've written the world ahead of time, and, if I had no players, I could probably write out the story. But the PCs are specifically not part of that story. And the hope, perhaps almost the goal, is that the PCs will change that story. I want them to make the train jump off the rails. Where they take it, and how, is up to them (give or take the rules of "reality", of course).

But that doesn't explain it well enough. So let me expand further.

Really, there's at least a half a dozen trains running on their tracks. And, as the PCs explore the world in more detail, I'll lay new track for that part of the setting. Which trains, if any, they choose to interfere with / safeguard / help along / profit from / whatever is entirely up to them. And, if they ignore the trains, and the whole train yard is simply the backdrop for them to set up a taco stand or bus depot, that's cool, too.

So, to stress the difference from the bolded part of your description, the DM sets up the world, and the players interact with it / make of it what they will. They come into my house, with trains already running. And I show them where I keep the track, trees, spare cars, etc, and am happy when they've brought their own action figures.

[Segev]

It does depend on the game being run. If you're running a sandbox, the PC with more important things to do will provide the GM with plenty of plot to drive his game. Where he PC's goals intersect or conflict with plans of others, he becomes enmeshed in them.

[Quertus]

It does depend on the game being run. If you're running a sandbox, the PC with more important things to do will provide the GM with plenty of plot to drive his game. Where he PC's goals intersect or conflict with plans of others, he becomes enmeshed in them.

And this is why I like talking to other people. You're absolutely right. I've never tried building a character who is integrated into the world, or who has larger goals, in a sandbox game. I can definitely see how that could make a huge difference.

I still don't like being "that guy", who forces the game to be all about them, but otherwise it makes perfect sense.

[Segev]

And this is why I like talking to other people. You're absolutely right. I've never tried building a character who is integrated into the world, or who has larger goals, in a sandbox game. I can definitely see how that could make a huge difference.

I still don't like being "that guy", who forces the game to be all about them, but otherwise it makes perfect sense.

Yeah, it's most helpful when the game relies on proactive PCs to get things rolling. It's most problematic when the game has a narrow focus from which distractions can cause problems.

(Please note that I am not saying a narrow focus is a bad thing. It's just a different style of game.)

The narrowly-focused game will tend to benefit from a PC whose goals are ill-defined or flexible enough to fit the focus, or who is tailor-made for that focus. The challenge is making sure players are invested in saying, "Yes, I will make my PC be interested in that plot hook."