This is sort of a response to Balbinus. This isn't a manifesto. This isn't a list of demands. This isn't even a generalization of all proactive players. It is a list of what to expect and suggested practices based on a generalization of myself and my observations of other players I've come across, written in first person form. It is for information purposes only. I've also found that "monkey see, monkey do" is highly applicable. Once you have one or two players acting proactively and it looks safe to do so other players that you wouldn't expect to do it will follow.


- Keep your initial definition of the world state to a minimum. Less is more!
- Clear, concise, explicit, flexible, and encompassing rules are important. They define how we will communicate about the world and the characters there-in. Keep them "in your head" at your own peril and if you do so expect me to question you extensively.
- Don't dump a bigass world history document on me or some setting history book or something. I didn't show up to learn about what has happened. I didn't even really show up to find out what will happen. I showed up to make something happen.
- If you have a world definition document don't think of it as canon. Think of it as "some crusty old fool in the street handed this to me and even if he was a Scholarly Sage of truely fine repute he might have had his crack-smoking nephew co-author some of the entries in the document". Even if you initially built it partially using my suggestions because I might have been strung out on crack when I gave you those suggestions.
- "It isn't you, it's me." Just because I largely ignore the plot/story/conflict/dungeon/pricesses/dragon you intended the game to be about doesn't mean I think it is trash. It might be, it might not be. It might have even have struck me as mildly interesting on another day. But today I've latched onto some other idea.
- If I'm ignoring your story you certainly aren't going to increase my interest in it by having some high powered NPC(s) try shove it down my throat.
- In fact I probably know the rules as well as or better than you and can scheme deeper than you have time to see due to your commitments to other players. You'll likely have to choose between having the above high powered NPC sent back to you in a baggie or blatantly GM fiating them to safety. Do not press on on this path because you aren't going to like the results as I'm not going to cow to such tactics. In fact you'll just give me something I'm looking for (see below about challenge).
- Don't be intimidated by the above. If I'm actually done listening to you I won't show up anymore. So keep talking and listening. Hopefully eventually we'll sync and make beautiful music together.
- The idea you do put out there are like seeds from a package that's lost its label. You plant them and what pops up is a surprise.
- I crave challenge. For best results I suggest setting the bar a smidgen higher than you expect me to reach.
- I crave a creative outlet, a helping hand on the wheel as it were.
- If you don't make the above readily available I'll find a way to make it available for myself. Your satisfaction with how this is done is not guaranteed.
- Since I probably know the rules as well as or better than you and have a creative bent do not put a single thing into play that you aren't OK with having maimed, killed, stolen, destroyed, fondled, run up a flagpole, humped, shot out a cannon, etc.
- Don't try to "teach me a lesson". I didn't sign up for grade school and you aren't Sister Mittelweibchen, 5th Grade Spiritual Morals teacher.
- Trust my ability to keep character and player information separate.
- Structure situations so my ability to keep character and player information separate is not taxed.
- Metagaming has no inherent morality. It is another tool that can be used for good ends or bad ends. Recognize this and recognize the difference.
- My character might be your character's enemy but at the end of it all I am your friend and hopefully an extremely helpful ally in the Quest For Fun.
- I'm going to pull back from time to time if I think I'm "stomping" on other player's play time. But I won't always notice when it is appropriate to do so. Just say something to me because I know it happens. Or better yet take the iniative to pass the ball to the other players, I bet they've got some cool ideas too and I'd like to hear them.
- Cultivate your first instinct to say 'yes', cultivate to wait to process the idea presented to see if you can give the ultimate answer of 'yeah, but what if....?', and do not fear saying 'no' as the final option. Also see above about actively involving the other players, ask them the question I just asked you.
EDIT: - Having an NPC that is cooler than my PC is like hanging a "Gank Me" sign on him. Making him really hard to kill will be seen as a challenge and I'm likely to take it up. Breaking the agreed upon rules to try protect him will fustrate and anger me....not because he is unkillable but because you have gone back on your word.

Finally, if you have something to say to me just say it. Don't send some NPC to say it because there is a higher chance of error in indirect communication....and the response of the NPC's head getting chopped off can be misunderstood as well.


Jump in, let's go
Lay back, enjoy the show
Everybody gets high, everybody gets low,
These are the days when anything goes - from a pop radio station near you

Cool, you know, I can happily sign up to that entire list, indeed I intend games I run currently to pass all those tests.  Edit:  As in, though I haven't quantified it that way, it's a pretty good list of what I consider to be the key elements of GMing already.

I remember years back I had statted a cool nemesis npc, there was a fight, a PC unexpectedly ignored the mooks descending on them and fired off at the nemesis, rolled a crit and killed them.  It was the introductory scene for that nemesis.

And I thought, should I fudge this, the nemesis is cool and a lucky roll is taking them out, and I thought, nah, fuck it, I can always make another nemesis.

And that was the right decision.


But yeah, wordy mcword as I would say were I sadder than in fact I am.

A few comments about your points, some or all of which may not be applicable to you or the people you play with

Quote from: blakkie- Don't dump a bigass world history document on me or some setting history book or something. I didn't show up to learn about what has happened. I didn't even really show up to find out what will happen. I showed up to make something happen.

There are roughly two different ways to approach a history book of a period like the Late Bronze Age or the Middle Ages, based on the books I've purchased over the years.  You can approach it as a sequence of people and events describing what happened or you can approach it as a description of what the period was like and how people lived.  Thus a history that details how the Normans invaded and conquered England is different than a history that details how the Normans lived in England.  In my experience, the latter is far more important to players trying to live in a setting than the former.  I care more about learning what it feels like to cast a fireball spell than I care about who invented it hundreds of years earlier and why.

Quote from: blakkie- "It isn't you, it's me." Just because I largely ignore the plot/story/conflict/dungeon/pricesses/dragon you intended the game to be about doesn't mean I think it is trash. It might be, it might not be. It might have even have struck me as mildly interesting on another day. But today I've latched onto some other idea.

That's the problem with running a story instead of a setting if the player doesn't want a story.  Some people apparently find the idea that a player might not be looking to play through a story incomprehensible, but it's true that not all players are looking for the GM to make a story happen.

Quote from: blakkie- If I'm ignoring your story you certainly aren't going to increase my interest in it by having some high powered NPC(s) try shove it down my throat.

This, by the way, is why I also don't like mechanics that tell the GM what's important to the character.  If an NPC is important to my character, that doesn't mean that the GM should jerk that NPC around to make my character dance.  If it happens as part of events, that's fine, but I don't need the GM shoving the importance of something like that down my throat.

Quote from: blakkie- Trust my ability to keep character and player information separate.

To be honest, I don't always trust myself to do this.  That's why I'll walk away from the table during important scenes that my character should react to later, rather than watch them.  I want to make sure I get an honest reaction later.  I offended a GM at a game club by dong that once.  Simply put, if I walk away from the table during an important scene where my character isn't involved, that means I care about the game, not that I'm disinterested.

Quote from: blakkie- Metagaming has no inherent morality. It is another tool that can be used for good ends or bad ends. Recognize this and recognize the difference.

While I think that's correct, be aware that if you are using Metagaming to decide how the game plays out, the players can recognize the Metagaming.  Some players may enjoy that but I don't.  If I can find a movie or book written by a total stranger predictable and unsatisfying because I can pick up on the authors deus ex machina, I can certainly pick up on the deus ex machina of a person whom I've role-played with for a year or more.

Quote from: blakkie- Cultivate your first instinct to say 'yes', cultivate to wait to process the idea presented to see if you can give the ultimate answer of 'yeah, but what if....?', and do not fear saying 'no' as the final option. Also see above about actively involving the other players, ask them the question I just asked you.

When I ask the GM a question, I want to hear "no" at least part of the time.  If I know that asking for something is going to always be answered by some variant of "yes" or "yes, but..." I'm going to stop asking questions because I want a GM, not a yes man.

Quote from: blakkieEDIT: - Having an NPC that is cooler than my PC is like hanging a "Gank Me" sign on him. Making him really hard to kill will be seen as a challenge and I'm likely to take it up. Breaking the agreed upon rules to try protect him will fustrate and anger me....not because he is unkillable but because you have gone back on your word.

This is just another way of saying that the GM needs to be willing to let the players fold, spindle, and mutilate their NPCs.  To that, I'd add that if the NPC is a friendly NPC or ally, don't design them to be better at the PCs in what the PCs primarily do and, normally, they should be followers looking to the PCs for guidance, not leaders looking to tell the PCs what to do.

Reward Initiative. At the least extra experience. When the lag-behinds complain about one player being so much better than they, tell them, "That's because he's learned more than you. Start doing more and you'll earn more experience."

Quote from: mythusmageReward Initiative. At the least extra experience. When the lag-behinds complain about one player being so much better than they, tell them, "That's because he's learned more than you. Start doing more and you'll earn more experience."

Good catch, add that one to the list Balbinus. :win:

See this is why I brought up BW in that other thread and why I like it so damn much. Because I'm a proactive player and BW is about proactive playing, start to finish.

It is chock full of rules tailored for and centered around encouraging, facilitating, and rewarding proactive play. The Artha rewards? Entirely based around the player/character making things happen and taking risks (AKA accepting challenges). Advancement of stats and skills? Through use but to advance them the character has to attempt difficult and challenging tasks (quite literally Difficult and Challenging) where to succeed you have to roll nearly as many (Difficult) as many, or more successes (Challenging) on the dice than you have dice. For a few stats you even have to succeed at this attempt to advance.

Quote from: John MorrowWhen I ask the GM a question, I want to hear "no" at least part of the time.  If I know that asking for something is going to always be answered by some variant of "yes" or "yes, but..." I'm going to stop asking questions because I want a GM, not a yes man.

Do I strike you as a Yes Man? Because as a GM I rarely say "no" at the table to a request. I find I really don't need to.

Usually if a "no" situation comes up the player already knows the answer. ((EDIT: Or the rest of the players at the table as a whole)) I just toss the question back to them and they answer "no" themselves.  Actually I do that for a lot of things, ask the other people at the table the question.  Going back to that BW demo they were going to go up the side of the ship. The Elf didn't have a Climb skill so he was going to need to use Beginner's Luck (double Obstacle). Fortunately for him he had rope with him (it's on the character's list of Instincts to aways have rope with him.....incidentally another potential question answered) and he had Rope Cant that's an general purpose rope stuff magic.  He says he wants to make a rope ladder so the Roden can toss it down to him to make climbing easier. He asks me what the Obstacle is to use Rope Chant to fashion a rope ladder. Well he's got the book open to the page, not me. So I ask him. He figures a 2 or 3. I say "well which one do you think?" Out loud he runs through a mental train of though on extrapolating and says "2". By my reconning dead-on. Two hours before this he'd never read the rules. Two minutes ago he had never seen this spell description.

Generally players aren't stupid, they can read and write and reason too. They know the answers. If a player is so out there that they aren't in sync with you, and the two of you just can't seem to find that sync? Go find someone else to play with that is in sync with you.

QuoteThis, by the way, is why I also don't like mechanics that tell the GM what's important to the character. If an NPC is important to my character, that doesn't mean that the GM should jerk that NPC around to make my character dance. If it happens as part of events, that's fine, but I don't need the GM shoving the importance of something like that down my throat.

If the player asked for it? That ain't shoving.  If the player still doesn't want it? Then WTF did they ask for it? Sounds like they need to go back and rethink what they are asking for. They don't like just because the NPC was presented to them in a way that was challenging in a manner they have asked for? Why? Because it was tough? Then WTF are they doing at the table?

Seriously, that's the one thing that you MUST expect from me as a GM. To be challenged by the poison that you have picked. I don't say "no", but I sure as hell don't pass out free rides either.   EDIT: And as a player I don't expect them. Sure I'd like a say in the setting. But I don't expect to write it to my whim nor am I looking to be some charity case.

Blakkie, if I have a different lists about what to expect from me (and players like me) as a proactive player, should that be a different thread or is it on topic for here?

Quote from: blakkieUsually if a "no" situation comes up the player already knows the answer. I just toss the question back to them and they answer "no" themselves.

There are two problems I have with that.  

First, I ask questions when I don't know the answer.  Even as a GM, I often don't have a strong opinion about a lot of things that could go either way, which is why I roll a lot of dice.  Sure, I could put on a GM hat and answer the question myself, but if I wanted to be wearing the GM hat, I'd be asking to run the game.

Second, I ask questions to avoid assumption clash problems.  For example, if you present us with a ship that we need to sneak on to and the only way on board seems to be to scale the hull (assuming there are no convenient and obvious ropes and rope abilities written into the, I assume, pre-generated characters) and I don't think that's possible, I might ask you,  "Can we try to climb up the outside of the ship?"  What I'm asking for, here, is whether you think it's possible.  If you turn the question back to me, I'll say, "No," and that may not be the answer you were expecting or think is right.  

Quote from: blakkie[...] He asks me what the Obstacle is. Well he's got the book open to the page not me. So I ask him. He figures a 2 or 3. I say "well which one do you think?" Out loud he runs through a mental train of though on extrapolating and says "2". By my reconning dead-on. Two hours before this he'd never read the rules. Two minutes ago he had never seen this spell description.

Yes, and that was a very simple and easy example where the character clearly had the ability and the player agreed with you.  What about cases where the character doesn't have an ability or it's a stretch, or cases where the player's assessment of the situation or difficulty doesn't seem "dead-on" to you?  Clear-cut examples, while good for explaining how something works, are often not very good for showing that something isn't a problem or how problems are handled.

Quote from: blakkieGenerally players aren't stupid, they can read and write and reason too. They know the answers. If a player is so out there that they aren't in sync with you? Go find someone else to play with that is in sync with you.

I don't know about you but I role-play with people I've known for decades, I have a family and job, and finding a new group of people I'd like to spend 4 hours with at least once a month, never mind the 12 hours that are normal for our regular sessions, isn't something I have endless free time for.  Why should I have to go out and find someone else to play with that is perfectly in sync with me so, when I GM, I can avoid answering questions by making the players do it for me?  What's wrong with just answering their questions?

Also, just because I can read, write, and reason doesn't mean that I want to be wearing my GM hat when I'm playing.  I approach the game as a GM and a player very differently and there are many things I don't want to do as a player any more than I'd want to be worrying about how to judge whether a pitch was a strike or a ball as a baseball batter or even pitcher.  I can, of course, make such assessments when they are clear and will sometimes toss my assessment of the difficulty to the GM (also to avoid assumption clash), but I'm not always thinking about it.

That's not saying that what you are recommending can't work well for groups.  I am simply pointing out that it's not universally good advice for everyone and may be something that could make the game less fun for some groups.

Quote from: blakkieIf the player asked for it? That ain't shoving.  If the player still doesn't want it? Then they WTF did they ask for it? Sounds like they should go back and rethink what they are asking for. They don't like just because the NPC was presented to them in a way that was challenging in a manner they have asked for? Because it was tough? Then WTF are they doing at the table?

What if the player didn't know they were asking for it?  It has nothing to do with "challenge" or "tough".  Like I said, I have no problem with things like that happening in the natural course of events.  It has to do with with the artificiality and lack of subtlety of the whole thing.

Quote from: blakkieSeriously, that's the one thing that you should MUST expect from me as a GM. To be challenged by the poison that you have picked. I don't say "no", but I sure as hell don't pass out free rides either.

I don't care if you challenge my characters, nor even kill my characters as a part of the natural flow of events in the game.  I'm not looking for a free ride, nor do I want to give the GM one.  

If I need to tell the GM what to make the adventure about and need to tell the GM whether my character can do things or not and whether details of the setting exist or not, I wonder why I'm bothering to have a GM in the first place because, yes, my earliest Traveller games had no GM.  

The "value add" that I get out of having a GM is that they take care of the world that my character inhabit and provide some interesting situations that my character should want to get involved in (as opposed to have to get involved in -- threatening a dependent NPC is about as subtle as a gang of burly men forcing the characters on to a ship -- let me off of the train, thanks).  I take care of my character and what they do.  As a player, I don't want to do GM stuff any more than I want to do player stuff as a GM.

Again, this may not reflect the way you or your groups do things but it reflects the way my groups and I do things.  That doesn't mean your advice is bad, it simply means that I don't find it true for everyone and thus I don't think it's universally good advice.

ADDED:  FYI, I know you clearly said that your advice isn't universal.  I'm trying to illustrate to the peanut gallery why it might not be applicable to other groups.

I think there may be some unspoken assumptions about what it means to be a "proactive players".  From my perspective, that means players that can make their own adventures in the setting and adding details to the setting with GM oversight.  Do others also assume that "proactive players" includes being more proactive about taking charge of the game and what's going on in the setting?  What role does a GM serve in a game with "proactive players"?

To be a "proactive player", I don't want the GM to feed me adventures that I'm supposed to follow.  I'm looking for a GM to create a setting that has interesting things going on, some of which I may follow and others that I might not care about.  But I don't want to have to worry about controlling the setting.  I'm only looking to control my character.  That seems to be a very different definition than what other people are talking about, which seems to focus more on taking charge of things like setting details, task difficulties, and deciding what is or isn't possible.

Quote from: John MorrowI think there may be some unspoken assumptions about what it means to be a "proactive players".  From my perspective, that means players that can make their own adventures in the setting and adding details to the setting with GM oversight.

That's exactly what I mean.

QuoteDo others also assume that "proactive players" includes being more proactive about taking charge of the game and what's going on in the setting?

Same thing....depending on what you mean by "take charge". If you mean "assume some resposibility for" and you mean it in a joint way instead of sole, then yes.  If you mean sole or prime responsibility, and given the context I think you might then I think that falls more under the troupe style umbrella. Swapping one master for another in different portions of the game.

QuoteWhat role does a GM serve in a game with "proactive players"?

Hrmmm, rewriting the above list from the other end of the table? I'll have to give that some thought.  But as far as the setting coordination that still rests with the GM. It just has what I'd call a more egalitarian tone. But something short of GM-less.

QuoteI'm looking for a GM to create a setting that has interesting things going on, some of which I may follow and others that I might not care about.

As the GM I'm looking for the players to tell me what they think is "interesting" in a very real, concrete, and active way.  EDIT: Maybe it is better put that I'm looking for them to show me what they think is interesting?

QuoteBut I don't want to have to worry about controlling the setting. I'm only looking to control my character.

Unless you are on the strictest of steel rails control of the setting is inevitable. A clean setting/character divide is a falicy. Just as is an RPG without metagaming (I didn't really pick up that thread of conversation because I figured it really was a complete board thread onto itself).

Quote from: jhkimBlakkie, if I have a different lists about what to expect from me (and players like me) as a proactive player, should that be a different thread or is it on topic for here?

Here seems as good a place as any. *shrug*  EDIT: I'd like to see it. As mythusmage showed I didn't get into that post everything that is on my list and I've never seen you play. This is just based on my own experiences and observations.

Quote from: John MorrowWhat if the player didn't know they were asking for it?  

"What we've got here is failure to communicate."

That is why it is good to write it down. Then explain what they are asking for.  If they aren't getting what they thought they asked for the player's gotta give that feedback.  Cooperation requires communication.

P.S. No time right now to properly reply to the other parts of that post. But from first glance I think you gave a really good explaination of why asking those questions is part of good communication technique. Another part is that the stuff that matters is identified up front so the questions about things that matter don't pop up very often.  Of course this means you need to understand and set in your mind your priorities.

Quote from: blakkieSame thing....depending on what you mean by "take charge". If you mean "assume some resposibility for" and you mean it in a joint way instead of sole, then yes.  If you mean sole or prime responsibility, and given the context I think you might then I think that falls more under the troupe style umbrella. Swapping one master for another in different portions of the game.

Just as you think "[a] clean setting/character divide is a falicy", I think that the idea of clean joint control is a fallacy.

Quote from: blakkieHrmmm, rewriting the above list from the other end of the table? I'll have to give that some thought.  But as far as the setting coordination that still rests with the GM. It just has what I'd call a more egalitarian tone. But something short of GM-less.

It would be interesting seeing your list from the other end of the table.

I think that if your goal is to be egalitarian, then the more generic form of the advice would be to offer the players more control if they want it, but don't force them to take it if they don't.  Just because a player doesn't want control of setting elements doesn't mean that they can't be plenty pro-active through their character.

Quote from: blakkieAs the GM I'm looking for the players to tell me what they think is "interesting" in a very real, concrete, and active way.

What if the answer isn't very specific?  I can find just about anything in a game interesting so long as it maintains verisimilitude.  Those sessions that consist of nothing but PCs bantering with each other and NPCs?  I love that stuff.  

That's one of my biggest concerns about a GM trying to cater to what they think I overtly find interesting.  It can cause them to gloss over or bypass other things that I might find just as interesting or even more interesting.  And the particular problem with systems that do this mechanically is that they often feel like very blunt tools to find out what I want, because what I want is often more subtle and even when it's not, I'm quite able to play it off of whatever you give me and I'm not always sure that what interests me in one part of the game will be interesting as time goes on.

Quote from: blakkieUnless you are on the strictest of steel rails control of the setting is inevitable. A clean setting/character divide is a falicy. Just as is an RPG without metagaming (I didn't really pick up that thread of conversation because I figured it really was a complete board thread onto itself).

Well, there is an important distinction between how the player controls the setting and when.  For example, controlling the setting through the agency of a character is different than controlling the setting through direct omniscient control.  Similarly, there is a difference between creating setting details at the beginning of a game and creating them on the fly.  You can allow one or the other or both.  

With respect to metagaming, there is a distinct difference between intentionally metagaming and unintentionally metagaming, between embracing it and shunning it.  There is certainly metagaming in the games I play and run, but I consider it an undesirable and unavoidable byproduct of the medium most of the time and a necessary evil at best.  

It's like eating food with peas in it.  I don't really like peas but there are foods that I'll eat that contain peas because some foods that I otherwise like almost inevitably have peas in them.  But just because I'll eat some foods with peas doesn't mean that I want more of them in my food or a big heaping plate of peas.

I'm going to repost the scene from The Princess Bride that  I posted to the other thread because it contains at least four different angles on the pro-active problem is you think of it as a scene between 3 PCs in a role-playing game:

Westley:  Who are you? Are we enemies? Why am I on this wall?  Where's Buttercup?

Inigo:  Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.  Buttercup is marry Humperdinck in little less than half an hour, so all we have to do is get in, break up the wedding, steal the princess, make our escape, after I kill Count Rugen.

Westley:  That doesn't leave much time for dilly-dallying.

(Here we have Westley dropped into a situation cold, so he knows very little about the details.  All he can do is ask questions and rely on the  information he's getting.  He has no base of information to work with.)

Fezzik:  You just wiggled your finger! That's wonderful!

Westley:  I've always been a quick healer. What are our liabilities?

Inigo:  There is but one working castle gate. And it is guarded by... sixty men.

Westley:  And our assets?

Inigo:  Your brains, Fezzik's strength, my steel.

(Here he finds out what he obviously has to work with at hand.  This is the sort of stuff that a GM might draw on a hex map and a character might find on a character sheet.)

Westley:  That's it? Impossible. If I had a month to plan, maybe I could come up with something, but this...< shakes head >

(This is angle one, the player who isn't proactive because they don't have enough information to make a decent plan.)

Fezzik:  You just shook your head! That doesn't make you happy?

Westley:  My brains, your strength, and his steel against sixty men, and you think a little head jiggle is supposed to make me happy? Hmmmm? I mean, if we only had a wheelbarrow, that would be something.

(This is angle two, the player starts thinking up plans and starts asking the GM if certain things are available that are needed for the plan to work.  This is the basic way for a player to be proactive and the easiest for a GM to kill if all they say is "no".)

Inigo:  Where did we put that wheelbarrow the albino had?

Fezzik:  With the albino, I think.

(This is angle three, where the setting and the experience the characters have had with it are rich enough that it's already been established that certain things are available and the players may even know where to find them.  This is my preferred method for being proactive as a player.)

Westley:  Why didn't you list that among our assets in the first place?  What I wouldn't give for a holocaust cloak.

Inigo:  There we cannot help you.

Fezzik:  Would this do?

Inigo:  Where did you get that?

Fezzik:  At Miracle Max's. It fit so nice, he said I could keep it.

(This represents the fourth angle, which is giving players the ability to insert stuff into the setting if they can figure out a way to fit it in.  The humor in that line is that he just happens to have what's needed, and the fact that it's funny is why some players have problems with making up details like that.)

Another option is to roll dice, which is the third option between saying "yes" and saying "no".  It's a way for a GM to say "maybe" and then turn that in to a "yes" or "no".  It's not necessarily about taking responsibility for the decision.  As a GM, I sometimes simply have no preference and defaulting to either "yes" or "no" just doesn't feel satisfying to me.

Quote from: blakkie"What we've got here is failure to communicate."

That is why it is good to write it down. Then explain what they are asking for.  If they aren't getting what they thought they asked for the player's gotta give that feedback.  Cooperation requires communication.

Part of my point here is the way game systems  often ask you to write things down does not necessarily communicate the player's desires and intents accurately to the GM.  For example, the player may create a dependent NPC in a game like Champions but that doesn't necessarily scope out how the GM will involve the dependent NPC in the game or how the players wants things to play out.  Spider Man may very well have Mary Jane and Gwen described as dependent NPCs or a love triangle on the character sheet but that doesn't tell the GM that it's OK to have Gwen tossed off of a bridge and so on.  That's where another (my favorite) line from The Princess Bride comes into play:

Grandson:  You mean he wins? Jesus, Grandpa, what did you read me this thing for?

This isn't just a problem faced by GMs.  It's a problem faced by authors.  And it's a problem inherent in the audience having storylike expectations about what should and shouldn't happen.

Quote from: John MorrowFor example, the player may create a dependent NPC in a game like Champions but that doesn't necessarily scope out how the GM will involve the dependent NPC in the game or how the players wants things to play out.

Hell yes!  Which is why the first time I read the rules for BITs in Burning Wheel it was a "holy shit" moment. Those describe what the player wants their character to be about. But much more importantly they describe what the NPCs are about.

Sure a BW character has entries on their sheet that are NPCs, relationships to NPCs, and NPC organizations that the player has paid for during chargen or game play to have brung into the world.  But the aspects of those NPCs that are important to the player is how they challenge the PC's Beliefs.