My players are no better than NPCs

[kyussopeth]

My players are no better than NPCs

I am in a situation I despise & am unfamiliar with. The players in my Shadow World game are just not invested in the setting or in making meaningful decisions. I have one player who makes all the decisions and the others may as well be his henchmen. To be fair if they were actual henchmen they would do more & act more independently.

I have 4 players at present and a 5th who is on hiatus starting a new irl business. Each one has an entire back story to explore (or not) and there is no endeavor that draws their interest. I can give them challenges or opportunities individualized for their characters & they will just ignore them. If the one active player is missing they're unable to act decisively at all. The only time they explore these hooks is when the active player decides that their challenges & opportunities are more interesting, or easier to accomplish in a timely manner, than the alternative.

When an obstacle comes up they don't think they just wait for the active player to tell them what their plan is & they carry it out, if they can remember what he told them to do. They don't read the rules (despite one player being unemployed & having just massive amounts of time on his hands), they don't have short term goals or long term goals. They don't make plans, seek opportunities, or try new tactics. If they play a spell caster they just cast combat spells. If they play a Fighter they just attack in melee. If they play a burglar they just sneak around until they blunder into a fight.

I'm not used to this at all. My old group is 3000 miles away on the other end of America. I used to have 4 – 8 players & they would have individual objectives, individual interests, & rivalries. Often the campaign was just them creating their own power bases, organizations, & doing research. When they decided on a course of action they would try different tactics, each person at the table having their own style of tackling & overcoming obstacles. They constantly surprised me & though they met with disaster some times it was usually from an overabundance of enthusiasm or a dearth of caution. They took everything seriously the setting politics, the adventuring, the resource management, the system mastery, the role-playing, & the combat. In a word they were invested in the campaign.

Now I have just one player like that. The whole campaign is just me & him invested & the others acting as his flunkies. I'm just going to continue looking for new players who might have a small amount of agency & imagination to compliment my better player, but Rolemaster is so very niche (& it's part of the appeal as it keeps the modish players out, normally) which does make getting warm bodies to the table harder.

[Cory Magel]

A few random thoughts.

1. Are they really more wargamers than roleplayers?  And I don't mean that in a derogatory way.  Most our players strongly prefer a good tactical and strategy fight over roleplaying.  We, only half jokingly, refer to one of our GM's campaigns as a series of fights loosely tied together by a plot.

2. Maybe insert an NPC to lead them around by the nose for a bit?  This might not be all that fun for you depending on how you look a things, but maybe it will teach them to start thinking for themselves after a while.  Maybe even go so far as to have the NPC propose things the PC's probably shouldn't do just to see if it gets them to start thinking about making 'right' choices.  Maybe just play that one players character who makes all the decisions when they are gone if they are good with it.

3. See if any of them have any interest in running a game as a means to potentially get them to see your side of it. I suspect that's unlikely though.

4. This is the hard one.  It's difficult to find a good, smart, solid group that you all get along outside of gaming (which makes getting along inside gaming easier) and share the same desires when it comes to what they want at the gaming table.  Most those I game with I have known for decades, not just years.  Occasionally we've actively poached players from other groups, but they never seem to last as long as that main group.  The only trouble with the main group is... well, life.  Growing up.  Wives, kids, jobs, moving, and so on.  Once we get a really good online solution setup that simulates sitting around a table rather than just online I think we'll all be happier (a really good video conference setup).  Resorting to trying to figure out a solution with your old group might be the best option for YOU.

[pastaav]

Are the passive players enjoying the game? Is that active players satisfied or bothered by the state of the game? The reason I ask is that I have encountered players who love playing henchmen. Gamemaster Law for RMFRP/RMSS had a great breakdown on different player styles that helped me make sense of what to give to different players.

At the end of day, roleplaying is no competition that you must win. Players who ignore their backstory and act like henchmen will be missing out the experience from a more dynamic playstyle, but as long as they playstyle does not ruin the fun for the other players (or you as GM) it is not given that you have something that must be fixed.

[Wolfwood]

Maybe even go so far as to have the NPC propose things the PC's probably shouldn't do just to see if it gets them to start thinking about making 'right' choices.

I'd try this first. At some point they should realise that the NPC doesn't have their best interest in mind and start thinking for themselves (if only to take down the NPC). But, of course, the active player should be away for this to work.

In my teens, our group had one similar player who pretty much just relaxed on a bed until a fight started and then he became active - only to lose interest as soon as the fight was over and roleplaying began... It was easy to handle/ignore when it was only one of the players who was like that, though.

[katastrophe]

I'm not used to this at all. My old group is 3000 miles away on the other end of America. I used to have 4 – 8 players & they would have individual objectives, individual interests, & rivalries. Often the campaign was just them creating their own power bases, organizations, & doing research. When they decided on a course of action they would try different tactics, each person at the table having their own style of tackling & overcoming obstacles. They constantly surprised me & though they met with disaster some times it was usually from an overabundance of enthusiasm or a dearth of caution. They took everything seriously the setting politics, the adventuring, the resource management, the system mastery, the role-playing, & the combat. In a word they were invested in the campaign.

Get on Roll20 and get your old group back together with the one player that is interested in the game.

[kyussopeth]

A few random thoughts.

1. Are they really more wargamers than roleplayers?  And I don't mean that in a derogatory way.  Most our players strongly prefer a good tactical and strategy fight over roleplaying.  We, only half jokingly, refer to one of our GM's campaigns as a series of fights loosely tied together by a plot.

2. Maybe insert an NPC to lead them around by the nose for a bit?  This might not be all that fun for you depending on how you look a things, but maybe it will teach them to start thinking for themselves after a while.  Maybe even go so far as to have the NPC propose things the PC's probably shouldn't do just to see if it gets them to start thinking about making 'right' choices.  Maybe just play that one players character who makes all the decisions when they are gone if they are good with it.

3. See if any of them have any interest in running a game as a means to potentially get them to see your side of it. I suspect that's unlikely though.

4. This is the hard one.  It's difficult to find a good, smart, solid group that you all get along outside of gaming (which makes getting along inside gaming easier) and share the same desires when it comes to what they want at the gaming table.  Most those I game with I have known for decades, not just years.  Occasionally we've actively poached players from other groups, but they never seem to last as long as that main group.  The only trouble with the main group is... well, life.  Growing up.  Wives, kids, jobs, moving, and so on.  Once we get a really good online solution setup that simulates sitting around a table rather than just online I think we'll all be happier (a really good video conference setup).  Resorting to trying to figure out a solution with your old group might be the best option for YOU.

1. No they don't care that much about that. Their tactics are rudimentary at best. The key player even is quite poor at this he's better at everything else.

2. The key player missed last session & that is essentially what happened. The NPCs lead them around their decisions were essentially a series of choose-your-own-adventure style choices given by the NPCs. They liked it, but it was dull for me. Note: one of the NPCs is a servant of Jenkyna/the Circle they really don't have the means to uncover this, but they are excessively trusting even though I've used NPCs to infiltrate the group before.

3. 3 of them are GMs/DMs I never play in their games due to having an exhausting job. However I would love to see what they actually do as GMs.

4. I am considering this "Resorting to trying to figure out a solution with your old group might be the best option". However I hate online gaming it just doesn't feel the same. I am putting up notices on the hobby shop bulletin board (online is dead at least for what I've tried) & calling other people who put up notices of their own.

[kyussopeth]

Are the passive players enjoying the game? Is that active players satisfied or bothered by the state of the game? The reason I ask is that I have encountered players who love playing henchmen. Gamemaster Law for RMFRP/RMSS had a great breakdown on different player styles that helped me make sense of what to give to different players.

At the end of day, roleplaying is no competition that you must win. Players who ignore their backstory and act like henchmen will be missing out the experience from a more dynamic playstyle, but as long as they playstyle does not ruin the fun for the other players (or you as GM) it is not given that you have something that must be fixed.

The active player is very frustrated with the other players passivity. He gets angry about it. The others seem to have fun pushing all the thinking onto him. I'm trying every trick to hook them in.

[kyussopeth]

Maybe even go so far as to have the NPC propose things the PC's probably shouldn't do just to see if it gets them to start thinking about making 'right' choices.

I'd try this first. At some point they should realise that the NPC doesn't have their best interest in mind and start thinking for themselves (if only to take down the NPC). But, of course, the active player should be away for this to work.

In my teens, our group had one similar player who pretty much just relaxed on a bed until a fight started and then he became active - only to lose interest as soon as the fight was over and roleplaying began... It was easy to handle/ignore when it was only one of the players who was like that, though.

They should realize after having dozens of NPCs either make poor decisions or actively work against them, but they don't. Only the key player figures anything out, only he gets suspicious.

They suck at tactics/combat too though.

[kyussopeth]

I'm not used to this at all. My old group is 3000 miles away on the other end of America. I used to have 4 – 8 players & they would have individual objectives, individual interests, & rivalries. Often the campaign was just them creating their own power bases, organizations, & doing research. When they decided on a course of action they would try different tactics, each person at the table having their own style of tackling & overcoming obstacles. They constantly surprised me & though they met with disaster some times it was usually from an overabundance of enthusiasm or a dearth of caution. They took everything seriously the setting politics, the adventuring, the resource management, the system mastery, the role-playing, & the combat. In a word they were invested in the campaign.

Get on Roll20 and get your old group back together with the one player that is interested in the game.

Considering this

[kyussopeth]

Hopefully I don't come across as bitchy here I'm posting this to vent a little.

[katastrophe]

You should have a conversation with the players. If they aren't interested in the game, that should be discussed. Maybe they want to play something else. This sounds like apathy to me and they likely would rather be doing something else with the game time.

[kyussopeth]

Recruited a new player. He came in Saturday night & played in a much more active style than the rest of the players. He had no previous experience with RM, but decided he could do certain things & just asked me how these things were done using the rules. The other players were shocked & began to imitate him. He brought pizza too. Maybe he'll begin breaking them out of their passivity. It was the best session since one of the better players moved away (almost 2 years ago). Next day he came over & created a new character (a Pochanti Animist). I will continue recruiting new players.   

[Wolfwood]

That sounds good! And if the players begin to get passive again, you could start handing out "bottlecaps" for good roleplaying that allow the players to reroll one of their character's rolls etc. It is a metagame trick (which I usually hate), but might awaken the passive players to the requirement of actually _role_play.

[nash]

Can I make a book suggestion:
The Game Masters Guide to Proactive Roleplaying

Boiling the book down to a paragraph; it's tenet is that the best way to create memorable campaign is build your campaign about the PC's goals.  Anyway; seriously good book.

[kyussopeth]

Things have changed. I now have 8 players including the original 4. Two new players are very active & their enthusiasm has made some of the more passive players think more proactively. The old key player has had some of the pressure taken off him. He isn't the sole driving force in the group. Less frustration for him & more thinking, more ideas of what to do, in the room.

Also large parties move more slowly & use up less material requiring less between session prep. The corollary is more work at the table do to disparate interests & goals.