I saw this essay on John Kim's site
http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/plot/proactivity.html

And got to thinking, currently I think my play is mostly alternating proactive in his terminology or proactive with the occasional prod.

So, let's brainstorm, what kind of games suit themselves to proactive player characters and what kind of things can the GM best do to help the players get there?

What does all this mean you may be wondering, well, I'm channelling my inner Forge-ite tonight - go read the essay

Edit:  Oh, let's tie this to actual game prep, I don't want a theoretical discussion, I'm interested in directly applying this to the next game I run or at least the one after that.

Fuckin' "proactive"! "Active" is the word you want. It doesn't become more active by being pro!

Anyway, that rant aside... how do you encourage PCs to be active rather than reactive? Well, first I think that basically it's a personality thing for the player, like extroverted or introverted, calm or lively, etc. Of course no-one is entirely one or the other, so you can bring out their active side a bit... still, it's well to bear in mind that in the end, people are what they are, you're not going to change them.

How to encourage activity rather than reactivity? As I've said before - give them choices to make, or an important NPC choices to make, and a reason for them to care about the choices made. Make them difficult choices - dilemmas. "Do I save the drowning baby?" is not really a choice, of course you do it. "Do I save the drowning baby or my drowning husband?" is a dilemma. Love vs duty, fear vs revenge, etc - these are dilemmas.

When PCs make decisions about their dilemmas, things happen, and more dilemmas pop up naturally. The players then feel that what they've decided has created the campaign, they feel invested in it - their activity is rewarded.

That's how I do it, anyway

I've written some GMing advice that comes close to this. Someone (in my examples, the GM--but it can be a player) puts out a basic foundational idea ("We're all bank robbers") and then the players make characters and the GM preps off of them (so if the characters have stuff going on, that winds up in the prep-work).

Is it suitably proactive? I think so--although the phased campaign construction does allow the GM more leeway in prep than I think John's article suggests.

This method is part of the GM's section for JAGS Revised.

-Marco

Here's what I did for my OtE campaign , The Day of Living Dangerously. Here's a rough background of the campaign :

http://therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=46788&postcount=1

Now, normally I do all the research for the campaign. But this time, because of the massive amount of work involved, I told my players that if they were really...REALLY..interested in this, they would have to do some work themselves.

Boy, they really dug, this idea, because they really did their homework. Because the campaign is heavy on verisimillitude, a lot of background research on Thailand and it's politics had to be done. Add to that because the campaign, is based on a more action orientated take on Crisis Is Our Brand, research also had to be done on the reality of political consultants.

The latter also was to give the players some ideas as to what their characters were supposed/could do in the campiagn. I had a rough overview of both Thailand and political consultants, but the players dug a a little deeper.

This digging led to some interesting discoveries which they used to as fodder for their character motivations. Furthermore, mundane stuff like maps of the city, rumoured real life power brokers, maps of the country side etc had to be researched. I did most of this stuff but they also came up with some interesting tidbits which they incorporated into the campaign.

The good thing about players doing some reasearch, is that it really gets them under the skin of the campaign. They know as much of the setting as I do, and this perspective enables them to create characters who they can inject into the setting without much hassle.

Thus, characters creation was not done after the setting was created but rather during the period the setting was being created. They set down roots in the setting.

The players also set the scene for the opening of the campaign. What does this mean ? Before the campaign begun - 8 am game time - the players and I briefly discussed what exactly their characters were doing. For instance one character the night before had spent the night with someone (she did not tell the other pcs who) from the Chinese embassy. She was on her way, to their unoffical HQ, and was stopping to meet a "freindly" from the student union movement.

Another character, decided that he was checking the security arrangements for one of the main polling stations. And yet another character was at his apartment with his wife (another pc) in the midst of a domestic crisis...

So, the campaign begun with all this stuff going on, and I had yet to introduce any of the main story threads, which I had come up with, and which I intend to weave into the stuff they had given me.

So, not sure, this is an example of proactive play, but it's the way how I sometimes do things

Regards,
David R

If you want proactive players then make the things they do into the important things ... whether they're responding to a choice you presented them, or whether they're just suddenly haring off after an idea of their own that you'd never have anticipated.

There are a lot of tools that can support proactive play, but I don't think any of the tools will do it if you aren't keeping your broader goal in mind:  the broader goal being that the players can reach out and grab the reins of the story on their own, rather than waiting to have those reins handed to them.

I have, for instance, worked with the tool of handing the players charged choices:  Do you grab the invaluable ruby, or run and save your comrade?  Sometimes it's worked well, sometimes it's worked poorly.

It works well when I use those choices just to jazz the pacing a little bit ... the choices aren't important, per se, they're just a way to give the story a little kick when it slows down.  What's important is what the players do when the story has revved up again ... the big choices that they think to make that I didn't even realize were there to be made.

It works poorly when I use make those choices the centerpiece of events, with stuff leading up to them and denouement trailing away from them.  The players aren't stupid ... they can tell that my attention is focussed on what they do in that one moment of choice, and that the other stuff they might do at other times is going to get short shrift.  They become reactive again ... waiting for me to provide them with their opportunity to shine.

The restore vs. change the status quo criterion is very good. I like the openness it entails: Here's a static situation with lots of as yet loose threads lying about--now go forth and do some knotting. Sounds like the Wilderlands to me.

And, God, I hate "proactive." Action and reaction is what makes the world go round. Just read The Will to Power.

(I commented on John's article on my LJ a while ago; the following is an edited version of what I wrote.)

John lists three criteria or preconditions for proactivity:

   1. PC motivation to break status quo.
   2. PC ability to break status quo.
   3. Well-enough defined background to support.

However, John also points to pitfalls of proactivity:

   1. It depends on proactive players. If the players aren't committed and creative, not only formulating their characters' goals but developing plots to realize those goals, nothing will happen.
   2. As noted above, it requires a well-defined background, which can put a severe strain on the GMs ability to prepare or improvise.

Some comments on John's ideas follow.

Motivation

In describing motivation, John suggests that characters have "ambition" to break the "status quo". They must have "lofty or open-ended" goals. I don't think this is entirely necessary. I would suggest instead that it's enough for characters to have needs and interests. And rather than talking about the status quo, it's enough to say that the setting will automatically penalize inertia and reward action. Time must have a role in interaction between setting and character. (The Forge equation of setting + character = situation strikes as a useful way of thinking of things here.) A simple example would be a thief who has to develop capers in order to put food on the table. If the player proposes that the character will get a "decent" job, then that might be construed as a bid to either put the character into retirement or advance the time scale of the campaign. Perhaps with the proper character mechanics, such a move might be only temporary: the thief's self-respect will only allow him to be a wage-slave for so long. However, the hiatus might allow the balancing of other goals, such as taking care of personal issues or "lying low while the heat dies down".

Ability to break status quo

Ability is a straightforward requirement--just as a prepared module is useless if it's outside the capacity of the PCs, proactive player-characters must have the resources to at least attempt to reach their self-defined goals. As I've suggested, the "status quo" can be thought of not as a static situation, but as a dynamic environment which interacts with the player-character's needs and interests. So I would rewrite this requirement as "ability to pursue self-initiated courses of action". I would note that "ability" is more than "raw personal power as reflected on the character sheet". To meaningfully pursue his or her interests, the player-character must have access to information. Generally, this means that there must be a way of (roughly) evaluating the probability distribution of potential outcomes for any proposed action. For our thief, he should ideally have the ability to "discover" potential jobs through his contacts, observation, knowledge of the city, etc.

Well-defined background

A well-defined background is required because self-defined plans could take player-characters in literally any direction or focus within the campaign. But not only that--because the ability to pursue self-defined goals depends on information, a PC can't even attempt proactivity without a well-defined background. As noted above, the GM can provide a "well-defined background" either through preparation or through improvisation. Prep work for our thief's GM might consist of defining a number of significant businesses and presenting him with a "menu". Improvisation could consist of making up tips on the fly until the thief expressed interest in one of them. In some groups, though, it may even be possible for background to be developed (at least partially) by the very player who will interact with it. One way I could imagine implementing this would be through a very high-level conflict resolution system, where the thief's player simply declares the stakes and the odds--rather like placing a bet in roulette--and then resolves the caper in abstract terms. It would then be up to someone (normally the GM, maybe a sub-table) to fill in the details of anything "interesting" that happens as a consequence. E.g., an average level of success just generates some gold; a critical result generates a unique and valuable item; a failure allows the GM to introduce a chase scene, and so on.

Guys, the point is not giving the PCs meaningful choices, I already do that, the point is games where the PCs generate the plot in a direct sense.  Where the PCs actively initiate what happens in game, not where the GM hands them a hook but leaves them the freedom for how to respond to it.

Elliot gets this, in part as he clearly has read the essay I linked to, but I'm not sure everyone else did.  Giving PCs meaningful choices I view as GM 101, to be frank.  

I'm seeing lots of folk talking about handing the PCs choices, but that really isn't the point and to be honest is something I find very easy.  Right now I don't have plots the PCs follow.

What I'm interested in is not having predesigned hooks at all, in having games where the PCs choose their own priorities, decide what they want to do and do it.  Games where the GM has a world prepared, but no preconceived idea at all of what the PCs will choose to do in it.


I will look at David's link, which looks cool, but presenting dilemmas and dynamic situations is what I do now.  This is about something different.

Quote from: BalbinusGuys, the point is not giving the PCs meaningful choices, I already do that, the point is games where the PCs generate the plot in a direct sense.  Where the PCs actively initiate what happens in game, not where the GM hands them a hook but leaves them the freedom for how to respond to it.

I'm still working on a write-up of some AP from yesterday and then I'll tie it in directly to this thread with how it applies to this subject. I did a totally no-prep by anyone, with most of the players not even cracking open the rules before, and none of them having ever played a single session of the game, session. The setting and adventure was conceived of  and fleshed out jointly on the fly.

So, uh, hang in there...I'm kinda busy at the moment with the kids right now so the SO can have a mental health moment (out doing some drawing at a coffee shop) to prepare for looking after them alone while I go out to play SR tonight.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWell-defined background

A well-defined background is required because self-defined plans could take player-characters in literally any direction or focus within the campaign. But not only that--because the ability to pursue self-defined goals depends on information, a PC can't even attempt proactivity without a well-defined background. As noted above, the GM can provide a "well-defined background" either through preparation or through improvisation. Prep work for our thief's GM might consist of defining a number of significant businesses and presenting him with a "menu". Improvisation could consist of making up tips on the fly until the thief expressed interest in one of them. In some groups, though, it may even be possible for background to be developed (at least partially) by the very player who will interact with it.

The game requires not only a well-defined background but it also needs to be accessible to the players and their characters and not just the GM.

There is a scene in The Princess Bride that illustrates both the importance of of background as well as the problem I have with improvisation during proactive play pretty well:

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Fezzik:  With the albino, I think.

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?

Basically, for the players to make proactive plans, they either need to know what their "assets" are or they you wind up with things like, "What I wouldn't give for a holocaust cloak," (or, as a real example, "Does this planet have a zoo?") as players grasp for something they could do.  While, "What I wouldn't give for a holocaust cloak," is funny and could work in a light game, for a serious game, I much prefer not to get into games of "20 questions" with the GM.  And while creating logical details on the fly sometimes works, they often involve more out-of-character thinking than I'd prefer to engage in.

One other thing I'd like to add is that I think many GMs and writers design scenarios that are purposely designed to discourage proactive play, because it's easier to run an adventure when the players aren't doing unexpected things.  Why do I say that?  Because the whole structure of many adventures is to put the PCs into an unfamiliar environment that they know little about.  Whether it's a dungeon or a journey to a far off land, the less the players know about the background and setting, the harder it is for them to proactively play their characters.

Quote from: JimBobOzFuckin' "proactive"! "Active" is the word you want. It doesn't become more active by being pro!

Proactive is used as an antonym of reactive. Both are active styles of play.

Ned

There´s a reason why reactive tactical decision making (frex current D&D) is the big fish:

Most people don´t (want to or are capable to) think strategically. Also a reason why there´s a lot of RTS and FPS computer games, but awful few turn based ones.

There´s only so many people that dig Europa Universalis, Empires in Arms or non-"small starship crew"-Traveller.

It´s an intellectual pursuit that lost (or never had) it´s mainstream audience.

Quote from: SettembriniThere´s a reason why reactive tactical decision making (frex current D&D) is the big fish:

Most people don´t (want to or are capable to) think strategically. Also a reason why there´s a lot of RTS and FPS computer games, but awful few turn based ones.

There´s only so many people that dig Europa Universalis, Empires in Arms or non-"small starship crew"-Traveller.

It´s an intellectual pursuit that lost (or never had) it´s mainstream audience.

All true, but I'm not marketing a game so I don't need to worry about the mainstream and what it wants, I just have to worry about what I and my group may enjoy.

The mainstream don't like historical gaming, but that doesn't stop me.

If you ever manage to run a proactive game, you should post an actual play. I'd be interested in knowing how exactly proactive play differs from the stuff I'm doing. And also it may add another dimension to the games I'm currently running.

Regards,
David R

Once you have interested & capable players, it´sall about preparation and thinking it through.

You´ll need a very good view about:

Factions & their Forces & Assetts
Of course, you´ll need their objectives.

Then you formulate their plans.

Set them in motion, model their interaction, their conflicts. Games that let´s you use it´s models are preferrable. For your historical gaming, that might mean you´d have to fight out sea battles with wooden ships & iron man. Oftentimes a coarser model will suffice, say the EiA naval combat rules for far away battles. A play partner comes in handy, because the group might not be at all involved. Take notes during the resolution of said conflicts, and think about how the real conflict outcome is translated to in-universe dispatches.
Have decision maker personalities ready, so you can model their reactions to the dispatches. Keep in mind the time-lag involved.

A good structuring tool is the so called "story engine" which is like a graph. It has the factions, their relationships, conflicts and influences as well as abstract ressources in it (It´s from signs & portents issue one, IIRC.)

Take a look at this pdf, there are pictures of it. It´s in german though, but you´ll get the idea (pdf):

http://hofrat.rollenspiel-berlin.de/The%20PrussianGamersSoundAdvice.pdf