Comments on: Active vs. Reactive http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/06/active-vs-reactive Game mastering advice, ideas & resources • Dedicated to helping GMs Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:04:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Martin http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/06/active-vs-reactive/comment-page-1#comment-2524 Martin Sat, 17 Jun 2006 20:17:59 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=364#comment-2524 Dan: Very well put, and your approach sounds solid to me. :) Dan: Very well put, and your approach sounds solid to me. :)

]]> By: Dan Howard http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/06/active-vs-reactive/comment-page-1#comment-2518 Dan Howard Fri, 16 Jun 2006 00:40:32 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=364#comment-2518 I know what you're talking about and it's a problem. It's like some players and GMs are out-of-sync with each other such that they can't meld their ideas together enough to create a satisfying game. Players (I think) have to choose ambitions and be active with their PCs, if they so desire. If the GM sees this, he's got to delicately make space in his game to accomodate that player's activeness. As a GM, he's got to be very good at weaving two stories together, the campaign plot and the individual PC's storyline. He's really got to keep the PC's ambition in mind and engineer plots that are both personal but also epic. The player needs to also work at it and realize that he's got to do his part to weave his story into the plot. It's tempting to let his PC break off to pursue the ambition solo but, like you point out, that's the worst thing that can happen. The player has to see the party and the campaign world as the vehicle to his PC's ambitions, not as obstacles. For example, he uses the dungeon to get cash to build the church, not sees it as a distraction from raising cash from the local nobles. Players also have to participate in each other's ambitions and not sit by idly when one PC comes to the forefront. It may sound subtle but it's the difference (I think) between fun and frustration. Fun is being a part of the game. Frustration is being at odds with the game. I know what you’re talking about and it’s a problem. It’s like some players and GMs are out-of-sync with each other such that they can’t meld their ideas together enough to create a satisfying game.

Players (I think) have to choose ambitions and be active with their PCs, if they so desire. If the GM sees this, he’s got to delicately make space in his game to accomodate that player’s activeness. As a GM, he’s got to be very good at weaving two stories together, the campaign plot and the individual PC’s storyline. He’s really got to keep the PC’s ambition in mind and engineer plots that are both personal but also epic.

The player needs to also work at it and realize that he’s got to do his part to weave his story into the plot. It’s tempting to let his PC break off to pursue the ambition solo but, like you point out, that’s the worst thing that can happen. The player has to see the party and the campaign world as the vehicle to his PC’s ambitions, not as obstacles. For example, he uses the dungeon to get cash to build the church, not sees it as a distraction from raising cash from the local nobles. Players also have to participate in each other’s ambitions and not sit by idly when one PC comes to the forefront.

It may sound subtle but it’s the difference (I think) between fun and frustration. Fun is being a part of the game. Frustration is being at odds with the game.

]]> By: Martin http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/06/active-vs-reactive/comment-page-1#comment-2506 Martin Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:06:21 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=364#comment-2506 Dan: It sounds like we've had different experiences with ambitious PCs. IME, PCs in reactive games with well-defined, long-term ambitions often don't get to do much about those ambitions. They get sidelined, and become little more than a bit of background flavor (which kind of defeats the purpose). How to handle a reactive-style game in which every PC has their own big ambition is a tough question, and one I'm not sure how to answer. Even in an active game, how do you handle those separate ambitions without leaving everyone else bored? Dan: It sounds like we’ve had different experiences with ambitious PCs. IME, PCs in reactive games with well-defined, long-term ambitions often don’t get to do much about those ambitions. They get sidelined, and become little more than a bit of background flavor (which kind of defeats the purpose).

How to handle a reactive-style game in which every PC has their own big ambition is a tough question, and one I’m not sure how to answer. Even in an active game, how do you handle those separate ambitions without leaving everyone else bored?

]]> By: Dan Howard http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/06/active-vs-reactive/comment-page-1#comment-2503 Dan Howard Thu, 15 Jun 2006 02:40:05 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=364#comment-2503 I think that being passive is the default; being active is a choice. Being active isn't easy, either, because you've got to blend your "activeness" with the flow of the game. Players choose to be active because they want to work a little harder to give themselves a better game. Good PCs can easily get trapped into reactive roles: they see something bad and then feel obligated to return everything to the (good) status quo. They can easily slip into the role of a policeman, walking the fantasy beat, with nothing to do until something bad happens. As a player, I think that making an ambitious PC helps. A PC with ambition, whether it is personal ambition is to become king or a selfless ambition to build and dedicate the biggest church, has a reason to get up in the morning. He has an agenda, but unlike some other agendas such as revenge, it isn't overpowering. He has the choice to react to some immediate event or, if there is no immediate event, he can actively pursue his ambition that day. Most PCs are reactive so, when I GM, I try to cater to that. I have them react a lot, even if it is about little things such as creepy feelings or distant noises. I think that being passive is the default; being active is a choice. Being active isn’t easy, either, because you’ve got to blend your “activeness” with the flow of the game. Players choose to be active because they want to work a little harder to give themselves a better game.

Good PCs can easily get trapped into reactive roles: they see something bad and then feel obligated to return everything to the (good) status quo. They can easily slip into the role of a policeman, walking the fantasy beat, with nothing to do until something bad happens.

As a player, I think that making an ambitious PC helps. A PC with ambition, whether it is personal ambition is to become king or a selfless ambition to build and dedicate the biggest church, has a reason to get up in the morning. He has an agenda, but unlike some other agendas such as revenge, it isn’t overpowering. He has the choice to react to some immediate event or, if there is no immediate event, he can actively pursue his ambition that day.

Most PCs are reactive so, when I GM, I try to cater to that. I have them react a lot, even if it is about little things such as creepy feelings or distant noises.

]]> By: Augury » Blog Archive » Active and Reactive http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/06/active-vs-reactive/comment-page-1#comment-2438 Augury » Blog Archive » Active and Reactive Sun, 11 Jun 2006 18:52:49 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=364#comment-2438 [...] I found an article via Treasure Tables that discusses Active and Reactive play in RPGs. The article by Stephen Jarvis talks about the author’s troubles in the game he is currently running with regards to incorporating character beliefs in play. One of the reasons we seized upon is that our Beliefs are too big, too long-range. They don’t have much immediacy about them, so it’s hard to play on those beliefs down in the dirt of the actual events of the game when the Beliefs are floating way up in the sky above all the time. We need to bring those Beliefs down to where the game’s being played. … Because our existing Beliefs are sorta large and amorphous, we’re having trouble doing things that seem to focus on the Beliefs. [...] [...] I found an article via Treasure Tables that discusses Active and Reactive play in RPGs. The article by Stephen Jarvis talks about the author’s troubles in the game he is currently running with regards to incorporating character beliefs in play. One of the reasons we seized upon is that our Beliefs are too big, too long-range. They don’t have much immediacy about them, so it’s hard to play on those beliefs down in the dirt of the actual events of the game when the Beliefs are floating way up in the sky above all the time. We need to bring those Beliefs down to where the game’s being played. … Because our existing Beliefs are sorta large and amorphous, we’re having trouble doing things that seem to focus on the Beliefs. [...]

]]> By: Martin http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/06/active-vs-reactive/comment-page-1#comment-2435 Martin Sat, 10 Jun 2006 22:26:46 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=364#comment-2435 For those of you interested in the social contract aspect of active vs. reactive, the <a href="http://www.treasuretables.org/wiki/index.php?title=Social_Contract" rel="nofollow">SC section</a> of our GMing wiki has changed since I wrote this post. It's been updated with a host of other info. On top of that, Chris Chinn (post #12 above) has written a guest post all about social contracts, which will be up on TT next week. :) For those of you interested in the social contract aspect of active vs. reactive, the SC section of our GMing wiki has changed since I wrote this post. It’s been updated with a host of other info.

On top of that, Chris Chinn (post #12 above) has written a guest post all about social contracts, which will be up on TT next week. :)

]]> By: Chris http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/06/active-vs-reactive/comment-page-1#comment-2423 Chris Fri, 09 Jun 2006 13:43:36 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=364#comment-2423 In my experience, D&D only works for reactive play, because there are no tools for player input. There has to be something hard-coded into the system that promotes player input, otherwise it will be reactionary, or entirely dependent on who has the strongest personality, (players vs. each other, and players vs. GM). There's also the inherent difficulty of the Great Impossible Thing...that is, the GM creates the story, but the players can influence it. It is impossible. Impossible. In my experience, D&D only works for reactive play, because there are no tools for player input. There has to be something hard-coded into the system that promotes player input, otherwise it will be reactionary, or entirely dependent on who has the strongest personality, (players vs. each other, and players vs. GM).
There’s also the inherent difficulty of the Great Impossible Thing…that is, the GM creates the story, but the players can influence it. It is impossible. Impossible.

]]> By: Daemon http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/06/active-vs-reactive/comment-page-1#comment-2418 Daemon Fri, 09 Jun 2006 06:04:18 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=364#comment-2418 I tend to like a hybrid of the two, actually. The GM provides "hooks" for things that he'd like to run, and if they seem interesting, we follow them up. If not, we go off and do something else. Though I'm not a tremendously experienced GM, this tends to be how I run things aswell. I have a list of things that are going on in the world, what will happen if they ignore them, etc. but otherwise let them do what they want. The only time I've found, from either side, that structure is required, was the first session in a campaign, where the players generally seem to need a kick of some sort to get things rolling. I tend to like a hybrid of the two, actually. The GM provides “hooks” for things that he’d like to run, and if they seem interesting, we follow them up. If not, we go off and do something else.

Though I’m not a tremendously experienced GM, this tends to be how I run things aswell. I have a list of things that are going on in the world, what will happen if they ignore them, etc. but otherwise let them do what they want.

The only time I’ve found, from either side, that structure is required, was the first session in a campaign, where the players generally seem to need a kick of some sort to get things rolling.

]]> By: Bento http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/06/active-vs-reactive/comment-page-1#comment-2417 Bento Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:39:33 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=364#comment-2417 I'm GMing for mostly newby players, so they often shrink when I expect them to be more active. I think much of this comes from playing electronic games, where you know what the goals are going into most games. I’m GMing for mostly newby players, so they often shrink when I expect them to be more active. I think much of this comes from playing electronic games, where you know what the goals are going into most games.

]]> By: Jeff Rients http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/06/active-vs-reactive/comment-page-1#comment-2416 Jeff Rients Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:19:54 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=364#comment-2416 As a DM, I like reactive play. "Here's tonight's adventure, folks." is the way I tend to put it to my players. I don't care what the players decide to do, as long as the action takes place within the boundary conditions established at the beginning of the session. As a player I can go both ways. My Wednesday campaign is run by a DM who expects active players. This has proven frustrating to the reactive guy who also plays in my campaign, because he "can't find the adventure". Our ad hoc solution is for me to chase whatever crazy idea catches my fancy and for him to treat it as the adventure we're "supposed" to be doing. As a DM, I like reactive play. “Here’s tonight’s adventure, folks.” is the way I tend to put it to my players. I don’t care what the players decide to do, as long as the action takes place within the boundary conditions established at the beginning of the session.

As a player I can go both ways. My Wednesday campaign is run by a DM who expects active players. This has proven frustrating to the reactive guy who also plays in my campaign, because he “can’t find the adventure”. Our ad hoc solution is for me to chase whatever crazy idea catches my fancy and for him to treat it as the adventure we’re “supposed” to be doing.

]]> By: Crazy Jerome http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/06/active-vs-reactive/comment-page-1#comment-2414 Crazy Jerome Thu, 08 Jun 2006 16:34:45 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=364#comment-2414 Scott: I'd add to your d) ", or does the story emerge from the interaction of the characters in the world?" If it does, then I expect the players to make liberal use of active and reactive play. For example, GM throws out hook or situation or whatever that one or more players react to. Then they trump that reaction with active play of their own: "Not only will we stop minor guy X, but we will travel to town ABLE, find out who hired him." Big lord hired him. "We start a rebellion in his domain." Now, I suppose some people would say that's all reactive play. I don't see it that way. If they catch the minor guy's dying words, and immediately go sneak into big buy's castle and fight him--maybe. But at some point, I'd have to say that the players are taking the initiative--which is creating situations that the GM did not anticipate, and must react to himself. (Note that active play in the above situation could also be moving elsewhere or talking to the big guy, if that is what the players would prefer to do.) Scott: I’d add to your d) “, or does the story emerge from the interaction of the characters in the world?”

If it does, then I expect the players to make liberal use of active and reactive play. For example, GM throws out hook or situation or whatever that one or more players react to. Then they trump that reaction with active play of their own: “Not only will we stop minor guy X, but we will travel to town ABLE, find out who hired him.” Big lord hired him. “We start a rebellion in his domain.”

Now, I suppose some people would say that’s all reactive play. I don’t see it that way. If they catch the minor guy’s dying words, and immediately go sneak into big buy’s castle and fight him–maybe. But at some point, I’d have to say that the players are taking the initiative–which is creating situations that the GM did not anticipate, and must react to himself. (Note that active play in the above situation could also be moving elsewhere or talking to the big guy, if that is what the players would prefer to do.)

]]> By: ScottM http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/06/active-vs-reactive/comment-page-1#comment-2413 ScottM Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:38:59 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=364#comment-2413 Rick: Repeat your question on the forums; I'm sure we'll come up with ways to make it happen. While it is a social contract issue, there are factors that strongly influence active vs. reactive stories. a) Party based play encourages reactive stories. If you're busy trying to keep together, you're not going to chase after the hooks that appeal to your character... the hooks that develop into active subplots. If you have to negotiate with all the other players on the game's direction it isn't surprising that the GM, who isn't tied down by committee, will set the direction. b) Power encourages active play. If what you do forces other people to react... you're already in active play. If you're a drop of water in the ocean, then what you can accomplish is usually small and seems arbitrary... why save this orphan, not that one? If you're the Duke, just purchasing supplies could alter the lives of your subjects. c) A strong plot encourages reactive play. If the world will end, but for your efforts... then you'll be on the save the world quest, however much you'd rather delve into the secrets of dragons. d) Does the GM believe that the plot and story is hers to create, or is it her responsibility to follow the <a href="http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2006/02/flag-framing_03.html" rel="nofollow"> flags</a> of the players? Rick: Repeat your question on the forums; I’m sure we’ll come up with ways to make it happen.

While it is a social contract issue, there are factors that strongly influence active vs. reactive stories.

a) Party based play encourages reactive stories. If you’re busy trying to keep together, you’re not going to chase after the hooks that appeal to your character… the hooks that develop into active subplots. If you have to negotiate with all the other players on the game’s direction it isn’t surprising that the GM, who isn’t tied down by committee, will set the direction.

b) Power encourages active play. If what you do forces other people to react… you’re already in active play. If you’re a drop of water in the ocean, then what you can accomplish is usually small and seems arbitrary… why save this orphan, not that one? If you’re the Duke, just purchasing supplies could alter the lives of your subjects.

c) A strong plot encourages reactive play. If the world will end, but for your efforts… then you’ll be on the save the world quest, however much you’d rather delve into the secrets of dragons.

d) Does the GM believe that the plot and story is hers to create, or is it her responsibility to follow the flags of the players?

]]>