[UA] Re: Reactive vs Proactive Players

[Dario]

I've had a few reactive players in my campaigns, but they were mostly newbies in a group of experienced and proactive players, so basically it just took them some time to get used to the different style, and after a while they started liking it (they had only played with GMs who gave them very clear and obvious objectives and tended to restrict the PCs' freedom of action). 
  In my experience, the process of "becoming proactive" tends to be a little odd, with the player slowly trying to propose new courses of action, clearly expecting the GM to veto them, and becoming bolder and bolder as he/she finds out that it is in fact possible to play a more active role in the story.
   
  And yes, they always look for a "mentor" figure, anyway.
   
  Giving the PCs a superior who hands them missions is an easy way out, when you have a whole group of reactive players. I personally don't like this kind of campaign, anyway, and I prefer - if I expect a group to be completely reactive - to start the campaign by putting the characters in a dangerous situation.
   
  The way I see it, if PCs are reactive then for the first few sessions they won't have something to look for, but something to run away from... While running for their lives (and being forced to take action), they'll start meeting NPCs, learning something about the whole setting, and hopefully by the time they are "safe" and have time to pursue their own objective, they will feel comfortable enough to start taking some initiatives on their own.
   
  D.
   

 			
---------------------------------
Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.unknown-armies.com/pipermail/ua/attachments/20060915/fc8785b4/attachment.html