"This scrying exacts a heavy toll"

[gatorized]

Except that the op did put in a way to find something with near zero effort after the fact. They were asking if the cost was appropriate.

After being nagged into it by his players. So he didn't want to put it in the game. Which is why I asked why he put something he didn't want them to find in the game.

[Satinavian]

Also a great chunk I missed: talking to him. We talked. Talked again. Talked as a group. Guy (passively) agrees with things, accepts them and just returns to his old tracks in two weeks time.

Then you have only three options :

1.) Continue as is and accept the bahvior.

2.) Kick him.

3.) Switch to another activity like boardgames.


Nothing else will work. If he is just not invested in the stuff you all care about, no amount of pressure will make him invested.

[Reversefigure4]

Then you have only three options :

1.) Continue as is and accept the behaviour.

2.) Kick him.

3.) Switch to another activity like boardgames.

Or 4 (or 1A, really): Pitch his part of the game to fit his level of disinterest. Knowing that the player basically just wants to show up and hang out with his friends, make a character that fits that both mechanically and backstory-wise.

So you have something like Joe the Neutral Fighter, a character with the Weapon Focus string of feats (Focus:Axe, Specialisation:Axe, greater focus: Axe, etc). Joe has almost no during-game mechanical decisions to make beyond "where to move" and "what enemy to hit with Axe". Mechanically, the most choiceless character possible (so not a wizard or cleric)

Joe's backstory is that he is the Squire for Player B's character. He wants to help B with whatever B's character wants. Or he's B's bodyguard. Or employee. Or that he and B serve the same god and B is the chosen one. Just make a backstory that's "go along with what the party wants". Not a leader, not a Paladin, not a chosen one. Just Some Guy.

People might find this boring - and it is to most - but that's ok. This guy doesn't want to make decisions, or get invested, or have plots about him. He just wants to show up and roll some dice. Make the character that lets him do it the most easily.

Certainly it's better to cater to his disinterest than build a character that requires interest then punish him - and the group(!) - for not doing it right.

[Lemmy]

As someone who often is, as someone here put it, "in the passenger seat of the group", I can say that it may very well be the case that your player just wants to chill, hang out with his friends and experience the campaign's development without putting much thought into it.

If he's not disrupting the game or lessening the fun of other players, I say: Just let him be and enjoy the time you spend together.

[gatorized]

As someone who often is, as someone here put it, "in the passenger seat of the group", I can say that it may very well be the case that your player just wants to chill, hang out with his friends and experience the campaign's development without putting much thought into it.

If he's not disrupting the game or lessening the fun of other players, I say: Just let him be and enjoy the time you spend together.

Roleplaying games are not passive activities. If you don't want to participate, don't attend.

[Lemmy]

Roleplaying games are not passive activities. If you don't want to participate, don't attend.

Who says not making decisions for the group is the same as "not participating"??

Not everyone wants to be a protagonist with story plots focused on them. Someone else can be Aragorn... Sometimes I just want to bring my axe/bow/whatever along for the ride and talk to my friends.

Well... It's your prerogative to kick anyone out of your group for whatever reason. So, you do you.

[gatorized]

Who says not making decisions for the group is the same as "not participating"??

Not everyone wants to be a protagonist with story plots focused on them. Someone else can be Aragorn... Sometimes I just want to bring my axe/bow/whatever along for the ride and talk to my friends.

Well... It's your prerogative to kick anyone out of your group for whatever reason. So, you do you.

Why did you change your assertion from "not putting thought into it" to "not making decisions for the group"?

[False God]

Roleplaying games are not passive activities. If you don't want to participate, don't attend.

"Not participating" is not the same as passive engagement.

[gbaji]

Why did you change your assertion from "not putting thought into it" to "not making decisions for the group"?

I'm not sure it matters. Those two statements are similar enough in this context.

The real question, which was previously asked, and which you did not answer was:

How does that equate to "not participating"? Heck. We can substitute either "not putting much thought into it" or "not making decisions for that group", and the same question arises. Neither are equivalent to "not participating".

I can show up to game night, hang out with my friends, munch on snacks, and just have my character follow the party leader and help out with whatever the party wants to do. All without making any significant decision beyond "I'll move over here and attack the orc" (ie: "not putting much thought into it"), and still "participate" in the game.

I have zero problem at all with a player who makes no strategic decisions for the group at all. Just moves their character on the board when a combat occurs, and rolls their dice. They are absolutely participating. And, if that's what they enjoy doing, then who the heck am I to force something different on them? At the very least, that's one fewer player to get involved in an argument whenever the party is divided on what to do (which is a thing that happens sometimes).


Let's not lose sight of the case in the OP where the GM has literally thrust a leadership role on a player who does not seem interested in it. I thiink there's a significant middle ground in between "your paladin must decide to go out of his way to deal with something he's heard about or will be punished" and "you're not particpating in the game". If the player just wants to run a character who travels with the other party members and helps them out with whatever they are doing, what the heck is wrong with that?

[Lemmy]

Why did you change your assertion from "not putting thought into it" to "not making decisions for the group"?

you might notice that in my first post I said "...without putting MUCH thought into it".

That's very different from "putting no thoughts at all", and even more different from "not participating'.

[Rynjin]

Roleplaying games are not passive activities. If you don't want to participate, don't attend.

Speak for yourself, I'm madder that he didn't attend the last couple of games.

[Lemmy]

Speak for yourself, I'm madder that he didn't attend the last couple of games.

In my defense... I had 2 birthdays and 1 wedding to attend.

[FabulousFizban]

When searching for a needle in a haystack, it is useful to have a magnet.