Players who go off and "do their own thing"?

[RPGPundit]

How much do you as a GM manipulate situations to bring a player back into the significant events of your campaign, if the player has chosen to go off into shadow and muck around there instead?
Should players be brought kicking and screaming to where the action is?

What about those who want to be a part of the action, but don't seem to know how to do it, always just kind of wandering along without taking real initiative?
Or what about those who want to be central to the action, but want to be doing their own thing at the same time, and don't want you to "force them" to do anything, but seem to have the expectation that you must entertain them and that things "should happen" for them in a game session even if they do nothing to precipitate anything happening?

RPGPundit

[Croaker]

I had a player like this once, in a throne war by email.

The guy just went into shadow, blocking all trump contacts, and hiding. He didn't try to spy, raise forces, just hide.

I tried to get him to do something, but, as I didn't want to actually force him and had no time or inclination to do a solo adventure for him (One of the reason I went with a throne war is that I wanted the PCs to do the action, with me as an arbiter and coordinator), all I could do was throw some signs and portents, and ask him what he wanted to do.
The other players tried to contact him, but lost interest, as he blocked trump contacts.

In the end, he just quit, saying that the game was boring, as nothing happened...

[Rel Fexive]

I knew a player whose character stayed in his room in Amber pretty much all the time.  The GM tried to send plot events or clues his way, even going as far as to have an Elder bang on his door and literally hand him a Big Clue to investigate.

He did nothing with anything he was ever given or shown... and often complained about the lack of important plot coming his way.

Unless you are willing to damage or 'take hostage' the things their character (claim to) consider important to force them to act, there's not much you can do to keep them on the board.

[Lawbag]

Hopefully I would have nailed the character/player out of the game before he turned up. Theres nothing worse that a Lone Wolf character.

It is in the interests of all players to create characters which are dependent on the rest of the group in whatever capacity.

[PaladinCA]

I kill them and let others take their stuff.

[Casey777]

How much do you as a GM manipulate situations to bring a player back into the significant events of your campaign, if the player has chosen to go off into shadow and muck around there instead?
Should players be brought kicking and screaming to where the action is?

Game time is for stuff the group as a whole wants to do (for the most part). Solo actions are for BGAs, Between Game Actions.

Stuff like scouting, personal diplomacy and the like, sometimes ok but with the knowledge that it has an impact on the rest of the group and that I won't hold them back if they decide to up and leave the player character behind, vote them off the company or similar.

Too long or often and the random encounters or other trouble starts piling up on the solo PC.

What about those who want to be a part of the action, but don't seem to know how to do it, always just kind of wandering along without taking real initiative?

Careful grooming. Make sure to give them time to shine and if they need some prodding provide an NPC(s) or situation to help trigger initiative or at least action. Maybe a talk before or after session to see where their interests, player skills and expectations lie. Sometimes tho the player just won't spark.

Or what about those who want to be central to the action, but want to be doing their own thing at the same time, and don't want you to "force them" to do anything, but seem to have the expectation that you must entertain them and that things "should happen" for them in a game session even if they do nothing to precipitate anything happening?

This one puzzles me a bit. One or more of these things really shouldn't be happening with all the rest in my experience. I run games where stuff is set in place and there are background things happening but the setting et al is player driven. Sure sometimes the party needs a little nudge to get the session rolling. If the player's still being a stick in the mud well then they're not central to the action nor doing their own thing, cos they're not doing *anything*.

[Tommy Brownell]

I had one player who was very quite and insecure, and was basically magic artillery in AD&D2E.  So I made him play some solo games and forced him to think for himself, interact with NPCs, etc., until he became comfortable enough to take an active role in group games.

[Nihilistic Mind]

If the Player Character is not ambitious, he is not an Amberite. Having a player sit around in Shadow being paranoid would probably be rewarded with an elaborate reason for him/her to be paranoid in the first place.

If that sort of thing is not enough to involve the Player with his character, I don't see why they're showing up in the first place.

A trick I use often to involve characters that go out on their own is to make something they focus on individually to be part of the bigger picture. If the players have all the pieces but don't get together to put the puzzle together, that's up to them... I think that ensuring there are consequences to the PCs Actions and Inaction is the key here.

[RPGPundit]

Maybe a talk before or after session to see where their interests, player skills and expectations lie.

Now see, this is something that I hadn't done much until this last campaign, but in this campaign I've done it twice with two different players; and the results have been very good. They hadn't played full-blown amber campaigns before, and were really helped by the conversation, which was not me giving them cheats or hints, but sitting down with them and helping them to sort out what their character's real interests and priorities are, and what they actually want to see their character doing, and how they think they could get about going from their current state of inaction into that.

RPGPundit

[Imperator]

How much do you as a GM manipulate situations to bring a player back into the significant events of your campaign, if the player has chosen to go off into shadow and muck around there instead?

Nothing at all. However I have to say that, as I tend to plan things arounf what my players find interesting, that doesn't happen frequently.

Should players be brought kicking and screaming to where the action is?

Action is where they are.

What about those who want to be a part of the action, but don't seem to know how to do it, always just kind of wandering along without taking real initiative?

They should get help from the rest of the group (GM included) to find something that interest them.

Or what about those who want to be central to the action, but want to be doing their own thing at the same time, and don't want you to "force them" to do anything, but seem to have the expectation that you must entertain them and that things "should happen" for them in a game session even if they do nothing to precipitate anything happening?

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't get what you mean here, mate.

[RPGPundit]

Well, some players are just difficult, and beyond help.  I think that if it makes sense, the action might follow them; but if not, if they really act in a way that seems to want to avoid the action, in Amber its not really the GM's job to "bring the action" to them.

RPGPundit

[jibbajibba]

I get the players to set their own goals. These are the stuff they get Experience for. So a player might have 'Establish the most profitable trading firm in Amber' I might decide that there is enough risk in this to make it work 2 points. Kill Caine to get revenge for the death of my mother might be a 6 point. These are experience points just like campaign level stuff.
The advantages of having these is that very few players sit round doing nothing because they have 1 or 2 personal goals they will persue. They might wander off track from my plot, but I ahve no trouble with this and where possible I will have interwoven their personal goals into my plot some how. The current most profitable trading firm in Amber is actually a front run by the followers of the major villain etc etc

[RPGPundit]

That's pretty interesting, Jibbajabba! And it has inspired a new thread.

RPGPundit

[gabriel_ss4u]

Lawbag Quote;
It is in the interests of all players to create characters which are dependent on the rest of the group in whatever capacity.

Umm... you game with Otha?
Yes, in most games it is, but some games, the flavor depends on clicks or alliances... like this game does.
Flashing Blades, that was a great game too.
I've had some Amber games where all players work together for survival, but even then they are delaying the pecking order.

 Originally Posted by Casey777  View Post
Maybe a talk before or after session to see where their interests, player skills and expectations lie.

This is a great idea, and I try to have this talk with all players individually, during the char. creation process, and periodically during advancement time.
It has been a while since I gamed with idiots, and I make it a habit to avoid them in life ingeneral, but it is unavoidable at times.
A great GM will draw their players into the scenario, by reading the player well, you can feel them out and direct the adventure on the fly, hopefully sticking close to what you had in mind with the scenario.
I make it a practice to NEVER shanghai a player, their own inability to be a part of the game will end up with them possibly alone and outnumbered, not to mention untrusted... to a higher degree that is, by the other players.
Also no real advancement points, if nothing is done.
But then again, I tend to game with people that don't act like that without reason, a plot or something up their sleeve.


As usual, I agree with Nihilistic Mind and RPGPundit. And jibbajibba; we park our cars in the same garage, well said.

[warp9]

How much do you as a GM manipulate situations to bring a player back into the significant events of your campaign, if the player has chosen to go off into shadow and muck around there instead?

I don't.

If there is some good reason why a major NPC would manipulate them, that is a different matter. But I'm not going to say artificially force a PC into something.

Should players be brought kicking and screaming to where the action is?

No. Definitely not.

What about those who want to be a part of the action, but don't seem to know how to do it, always just kind of wandering along without taking real initiative?

I'd probably talk to them, as I said above, I don't want to force people into situations, but I'm willing to work with PCs who want guidance. And I'm sure that there are Elder Amberites who would like to have "useful tools" to work with/manipulate, so it shouldn't be hard for a directionless PC to get into the action that way.

Or what about those who want to be central to the action, but want to be doing their own thing at the same time, and don't want you to "force them" to do anything, but seem to have the expectation that you must entertain them and that things "should happen" for them in a game session even if they do nothing to precipitate anything happening?

Do they want ponies too?