Read on Twitter
I had a bit of a realization about tabletop RPGs recently, and I wanna float it by all ya'll in an overly long thread, because I think it's an interesting problem that stretches to both the culture and design within TTRPGs.
Player characters are way too reactive.
Player characters are way too reactive.
By reactive, I specifically mean that the stories tend to skew towards "Things happen to them, and then they react." Literally every campaign I've ever played or listened to has opened with something similar to "You've been hired to ____" or "Where are you when ___ happens?"
This is fine to get the snowball of the story running, but the issue is that a vast vast majority of sessions start with the GM explaining "here's why you're here and what you're doing," even once the characters and their goals are well-established.
TTRPGs are supposed to be driven by the characters, and their decisions are the big things that change the world, but very rarely do they get a say on the biggest decision - what the they're even doing in each session.
It makes the characters feel... passive, no matter what their backstory or how dire the situation, they will always wait on the call from their boss or their friend, pulling them into trouble. Even when they're the sort of person who WOULD throw themselves into shit.
To be fair, reactive characters aren't inherently bad. Yakuza Zero is a story about people being thrown into shitty situations, and it's an amazing game. My favorite anime of 2020, Akudama Drive, could be largely summarized as "Swindler is, unfortunately, there at the time"
But even in my own examples, they eventually take things into their own hands. Majima decides to protect Makoto, Kiryu leaves his brother in the woods and goes to protect the people he cares about, Swindler kills three men and gets a very attractive haircut.
These are moments that DEFINE these characters, that shift who they are and our understandings of them, and that force the narrative to start moving in a new direction, decided by the character's personality, motives, and drives.
And TTRPGs... don't usually have these.
I think of a Tendencies game I played where I was a deposed pirate queen, trying to get her throne back, but it was only once the campaign ended that I realized that I did that by waiting for someone to try to kill me, then killing them
I think of a Tendencies game I played where I was a deposed pirate queen, trying to get her throne back, but it was only once the campaign ended that I realized that I did that by waiting for someone to try to kill me, then killing them
And this is not a dunk on Tendancies or a dunk on the GM, that was the most fun I've had playing a TTRPG in years, and Velvet is the best character I've ever played, it's a great game and the GM was a great fucking GM. But in retrospect, it felt... out of character for Velvet.
For some games, this is extremely appropriate. In Beam Saber, you're a soldier. You get your orders, and you do them. That's how things are. If you get a moment like that, it'll be a moment of freedom WITHIN those orders, or a moment of explicit rebellion.
But some games, it doesn't make ANY sense. Every Blades in the Dark game I've ever been in had NUMEROUS occasions where we were hired to, told to, or stumbled into our mission, which... is wild? Ocean's Eleven didn't open with Danny Ocean getting hired to rob a casino.
So, what can we do about this, I hear you ask?
I have no idea!
No, like, really, I don't. I have... individual ideas, but no grand sweeping solution.
I have no idea!
No, like, really, I don't. I have... individual ideas, but no grand sweeping solution.
I think on GM-side, we should consider the game we're playing. Think about what the tone is, and the characters, and talk about it with your group. Ask them directly and talk to them about their characters taking initiative, once things have started to get going.
On the designer side, this is actually more interesting than just "make a note about it in the Principles section or whatever", there's actually possibility for design here, and to make your approach to player reactivity be flavorful and cool!
One idea I've been throwing around for an Arknights-inspired game is the idea of Orders, where you can get Deployment Orders from the commander (GM), or you can request a specific deployment from them, too.
But, to make it mechanical and cooler than just that, the commander can *deny* your request. Which doesn't mean you CAN'T go, it just means that Command had better not find out you left.
This isn't a perfect idea (and would need a LOT of discussion of the line between Command and GM), but the basic bones are there. Let the players know they CAN decide what the mission is, adds a narrative wrapper, and lets the Commander be ever-present.
Basically, I don't think this inherantly a problem, and I think it's an interesting space to design in potentially. It's only a problem when it's not something you think about~
(also this obviously skews more towards campaign play fiction-first games but that's what i know best and what i make so fight me)
15 hours later - I’m seeing a lot of folks say in response that you just need to make sure their characters have drives and goals, and that’s definitely a first step, but I want to express - that is not always a solution
A character, no matter how driven, can still feel reactive. This isn’t about “the characters don’t have goals” this is about “the characters are not deciding what the core thrust of the sessions are.” Drives alone can’t fix it, you need to work and plan alongside those drives.
