I didn't pick up any "bias" or "salt" in this video. The video struck me as sort of a "nature exposé" of the more passive players -- with sort of an air of "I don't quite understand how these people work, but here's what I've observed about them, and what's worked for me in my time interacting with them". Although admittedly I'm also rather dumb, so I might have just missed a very long, scarcastic lambasting of passive players. In which case -- bravo, sir! You totally put one over on me! But what I'm actually here to comment on is... well, the comments. I'm seeing a lot of comments that seem to have a rather militant view of spectator players. More than one of the commenters seem to think that because they're not in the forefront of everything that they should be asked to leave. At a social gathering, one generally doesn't walk up to someone who's more or less keeping to themselves, not causing a single bit of trouble, and go "right, you're not meeting the required social conversation quota, you need to leave". I believe spectator players should be the same -- as long as they're not causing trouble for other players, then their contributions are just as valid as the Paladin who leaps into the forefront of every single conversation. In fact, sometimes they're MORE valid; said Paladin is invariably going to piss someone off sooner or later if he keeps asking every NPC if they have a moment to talk about "our lord and savior Helm". Speaking as a player who leans towards "spectator" myself, I can confirm most of this. I help out where I can, but I just don't see the need to drive the story in ways that more active players do. I'm perfectly happy to support the more active players with buffs, heals, enemy debuffs, distraction tactics, and whatever else is needed. I gravitate towards healer, rogue, and mage roles specifically for this purpose. But to be told that I'm not wanted because I'm not grabbing the GM by the throat and forcing him to acknowledge my presence -- isn't that a little too far? I think a game needs a good balance of passive and active players. Sure, if all the players are spectators, the story won't go anywhere. But if they're all those obnoxious sort of active players (mind you I am not saying ALL active players are obnoxious, just that there's a specific type that are), they'll be fighting for the GM's attention, and will end up causing the GM more problems than they'll be helping the story. If EVERYONE wants to drive, nobody's going anywhere. People are also forgetting that not all spectator type players are COMPLETELY passive. I lean towards passive, but if I have an idea, have a specific question that I want an answer to, or have some specific REASON to be at the forefront, I will act. I will step up, ask my question/give my idea, and then step back. Much like introverts and extroverts, the active players are always active; a more passive player needs a REASON to be active. Don't THROW the bone at them. Make the bone available; if we think it's particularly juicy, we'll come after it ourselves. *OMNOM!* Great googly moogly that was long. Sorry. x_X Anyway, there's my two cents.
In my most recent campaign I had a spectator player, she was playing a barbarian, and for the majority of the game she was exactly like it's describes here, she came to the session, she actively participated (and really enjoyed) combat, though she tended to be unsure of her decisions and would usually defer to other players before doing anything. She was always happy to help, but there were very few moments where she was lit up and animated. After the first few sessions I was worried she wasn't having fun but she assured me she was having a great time so I let her be, figuring if it ain't broke don't fix it. About six months into the campaign she started to get really into it when her character, (who was essentially the adoptive daughter of Santa Claus) found a lost puppy in city. She had asked me if her character could have a dog and I was happy to let her find one as it was the first thing she ever really asked for in the campaign. After that she started being more engaged, and I would start being more direct with her in social Encounter (side note, this lead to a very funny moment were she helped convince a bunch of guards her PC friend was royalty when she accidentally called him "your Majesty"). By the end of the campaign she was still a passive player, but some of the best moments from the latter half of the campaign she was directly involved in. A spectator player may be there to watch and help initially, but if you are patient with them they will start to take a more active role in the game. It only takes a DM who is willing to be patient, and occasionally prod them towards taking an active roll by giving them opportunities to be active, not forcing them to be active. She once took everyone by surprise when after a gruelling 3 hour long boss fight (which was started near the 4 hour mark of our session already) she took the NPC who had been helping them and giving him a dip and kiss, which was not only unexpected for the character but the player.
Definitely not, as a resident of the midwest, I can say with 100% certainty I've never heard someone local to the midwest that sounds remotely like that.
I've always viewed spectators and acters as...Alfred and Batman kind of deal. While Bats-for-brains is always the one out doing things, crippling thugs and stomping on civil rig- i mean justicing, Alfred is always ready and willing to back up brucey boy however he can, but he (almost) never takes the initiative to suckerpunch the Joker himself. Yet, even with Alfred playing a tertiary role at best, I always felt something was missing when he was absent from the Wayne manor. Yes, the story will be told without him, but it owuldn't be the same story.
I like to be a spectator sometimes, usually when there are other players at the table who I know aren't as confident about taking the lead but who are really engaging with the game and love being given space to become the active player. I like to play support roles (read: Treantmonk-style god wizards) so I'm more than happy to be standing at the back rather than in the thick of the fighting, with the occasional word of advice or observation in social situations. But honestly I think it's really rewarding to be able to facilitate the engagement of other players at the table, or else give them space to do their own thing; especially if it's totally in character. I once spent an entire one-off adventure basically ignoring the plot and just interacting with NPCs because I'd inadvertently created a character who would do that, but also because the other two players at the table fell into the 'like to take the lead but don't always get to because they either get shy or are the GM themselves' category. I happily sat back and spent the session working with the village blacksmith and having drinks while the others ran around on a murder investigation, and I had a great time. I certainly *can* be an active player if given the opportunity or if I'm playing the right character for it, but honestly there's a lot of fun to be had in taking on a supporting role too.
this is something I've been bad at, im gonna be more accepting of my spectator player... last time we played I tried to push him more into the spotlight but I think I was in the wrong ! Thanks for the video :)
Oh thankyou. I'm normally an active player but I recently found myself in a party with three active players that had a very entertaining relationship. So I assumed a passive role in the party, I wasn't a recluse, and I suppose I could barely qualify as a spectator as I often gave my opinion and added little insights to the game, but the GM and the other players were so insistent on my being an active player. I had just finished a chapter of a kingmaker game where I was the king, and in a party of what amounts to cohorts. I was making the decisions, I was leading from the front, I was doing the RP and all that jazz. Now it was incredible fun as I am fortunately not a glory hog and can quite handily manage being the 'party leader' without being overbearing or commandeering the game. But by the gods I needed a break from it. I'm sharing this video to that GM.
I started off as more of a spectator player because I was new and shy and I'm not very charismatic in real life. The more I played though the more I came out of my shell. I'm a DM now for my own group and now I've changed and grown so much. I absolutely love crafting a story, and giving glory to my players.
This was perfect timing! I'm actually running a game in 30 minutes and I have a passive player and was thinking about this exact question. This was so helpful. Thanks for making amazing content and keep it up.
I love it when you have text titles on your screen so I can more quickly follow along, remember what you had in lists, and quickly scrub to the same parts of my favorite videos. You don't always have that :/
Thank you so much for this video. Me last gm left me under the impression that being a spectator player was inherently a bad thing. I like to be an active player, but depending on circumstances I can be a passive player as well. In that last campain that was very much the case. I was happy to help, my character didn't really have any goals but was making friends with the other characters. I participated in ingame social interactions, was always happy to help, but just didn't have the mental energy to be more active. The campain fell apart because the gm pushed me into the spotlight and I didn't have the energy to deal with it. The last session ended in a fight between the two of us where he accused me of ruining the game by not taking the initiative. After that we just didn't pick up the game again. That was a couple of years ago. Now that I am trying to get back into it, it's actually a big insecurity of mine that I can't always be an active player. It helps a lot to know that it wasn’t my fault, I just need to find a group that's not bothered by spectator players.
I am a DM for two players. I have always feared that I give one of them the spotlight way too much and don't engage the other player enough. It wasn't untill recently I realished he enjoyed the game just as much as the other player despite not really doing a lot in it. He make smaller decisions like "Okay I will go and try to figure out how exactly this town in controlled!" or "I will get my new set of nice clothing fixed up again!" Minor information/very specific smaller task that benefit his character alone. I seriously thought I was failing as a DM since he never really got too much into the game and only followed a few strict rules that he had made for his character but truth be told he seems to enjoy it a hell of a lot just from the game story of it and the fun. Whenever the other play and I (We are really great friends from before we started playing) start making some fun for a bit too long he will go "Well anyway!" to try and get us back into the game like someone watching a movie and pausing it untill his friends can shut up for a moment. It actually makes the game flow pretty well.
I think a great way to get them to be more engaged is by getting an active player (Or being one like me) To get their character to be great friends with the passive player. For example, I play an orc named Ak, he is extremely stupid. He's a beast in combat, bold (possibly because he doesn't know what fear is, yay 2 intelligence) but I always use the passive player as a crutch for him. Even if it is just asking what a big word dragon means (My character just calls them big green birdies) or asking for help counting out money to a shopkeeper. This may be a specific example but I've found it really helps him roleplay and now in the new campaign he actively roleplays. Let me know if this works for any of you guys :)
I enjoy having a spectator player at my table. I have had several over the course of my storytelling and they can be a lot of fun to watch. Because in the end they really do make decisions and they really do impact the game, just not on the same scale as the active players.
So helpful: thanks! Especially since one of my best players is sometimes an active and sometimes a passive/spectator player. Especially helpful with my quite-extreme spectator player. I'd had no idea about how to include them, and the other players are getting quite frustrated. This gives me some tools to build the spectator player into the game so that they are automatically interesting & important without making demands of them or pressuring them. I bet everybody'll be happier.
One of my players does do this and i have tried to encourage him to do things. But i find the people who haven't heard about DnD or Pathfinder or whatever, that they will spectate the game until they are comfortable with the group and the game.
This video actually made me feel so much more comfortable in learning to play the game, im very self consiouse and social inept, but i like the idea of just watching it all unfold
Once again a very usefull video. Just adding some obvious thought to fellow gm´s or people who like to become one: Don´t confuse a passive player with someone who is not involved. Like said in the video, the passive player is interested and likes your storry, he simply does not want to influence it on a major degree. I once had a fellow player who was supposed to be the heir of a barony, but was overthrown by his evil aunt. Our gm did make the mistake, not to ask the player, if it´s okay with him. The player was very uneasy having this huge story arround him, cause he did not like to be the centre of attention. In the end he just did something very stupid, just to get the character killed, so he could start over fresh. The game was ruined for everyone, just because our gm wanted to force this spectator player to be an active one.
Dispossessed heir can go two ways - they can be center of ongoing drama, or they can be largely anonymous and completely ignored. Doubly so if it turns out that the usurper is actually doing a good job of running the place (which may not be the same as being popular or nice). The trick as GM is to know when to drop a story thread quietly and let someone fade into obscurity...
I've found the couple of spectator players I have florish in very tiny groups, they're both better paired with only one active ally, or an engaging npc. I've used familiars for this quite effectively, making the player keep up with a constant companion who is enthused by the plot or a random element. With 3 or more at the table my spectator players kinda disappear till triggered by an event.
Basically, some players are soft kittens and the big happy puppies should leave them alone. Occasionally the kitten will rub itself against the puppy, but the pup mustn't try to play with the kitten, for the kitten doesn't play like the puppy does.
Hey Guy! Let me start by thanking you for your commendable contribution to the community! This channel provides the best gming and pcing tips there are imo, and i think should be referred to in every rpg game printed from now on. I know i've been recommending it to all of my players. Now that i have your attention, let me ask you: How do you keep efficient notes? What do you write down? I'm struggling very hard to remember what the pcs knew about particular npcs, locations or events, and i find that without consistent taking of notes i end up assuming they know stuff they don't, or setting up clever puzzles for them to find information that they already had, which, as you can tell by now, sort of ruins the experience. When i do take notes however, i'm often caught in a scene that looks alot like this: PC: Hey, is that guy over here? Me:Oh ****! *furiously shuffles through notes* I'm sure there's a better way to do this!
I do it like this: I keep my campaign/adventure notes in a separate notebook, everything I won't remember, It's there. My DM screen has 4 pages/walls 1, is for general cheat sheet, price of beer, how to kill a trash can with a magnum etc 2, is for this session notes, like monster stats, that they're gonna encounter, npc notes, 3, is for campaign/adventure/party status. day, month, year in game, player names and character names, their PP, the location of each chaos emerald, whatever suits your campaign. 4, is the tablet, for music, soundboards and generators. Hope it helps :)
Axewus Draconir Aghandor it sure does! I'm trying something similar myself, but my troupe is on the theatrical side (i.e. we move around a lot ) so i don't have the luxury of a DM screen. I considered going full electronic with my notes, but i found that the time my players tend to instinctively grab their phones when i grab my tablet, as opposed to staying mildy engaged when i search my physical notes
Luca, I can really understand your concern. Not a very experienced GM, I'm overwhelmed with vast amounts of information juggling during session. I already have a big lever arch file with dividers for different game info sections. Thus I write (or print) everything and put into proper section. And the number of sections tend to grow. And even with that it's a headache. I believe it was DawnForgedCast that I was watching one day. And the guy wanted to quote from some book. He reached back to shelves which were visible behind him (with 100+ books there), picked a book without hesitating a split second, opened the exact page in about 3-4 seconds, and started reading. For me it would have been five minutes... Have you found the info organization way that works best for you?
I've been listening to so many videos lately I've decided to become a patron. Thank you for all the tips and tricks you've given so far, I always look forward to what you have for us next
Great idea!!! Spectator can use "Followers" or "Henchmen" in combat moments, like using a simple pikeman, archer, sorcerer appendices, knight squire or a lower member of a Paladin Order or Barbarian Tribe, etc. Because some of them they would like to get involved only in action moments, like background characters.
Thanks so much for your channel! I recently started DMing D and D for some 1st time players. I have never played either! We're having some laughs and always look forward to the next session so something is working! Your videos have been a great help!
The accent was a valiant effort! I can hear your inflections creeping through though. I always like to see people put on an American accent because it makes me realize exactly how unique and nuanced and weird we all sound here in the states! Great video also :)
Cassandra Vaupel there is no such thing as an American accent which is part of the problem. Since you often end up with some wierd bastardization of the various accents.
Done well this is true in part. There are American *accents*. Just as there are multiple British accents. It all depends where u come from. Just to add here, the standard American accent is usually considered to be the Midwestern accent. This is coincidentally the one that I speak. Seeing as our South African friend here was doing a more southern accent(one that I grew up around) It's fair to say that any bastardization is probably appropriate xD
I played a Cleric , and I ended up becoming a spectator player. Was bored as heck. Until basically the guys where on the edge of a cliff and it slid off and I was still above when a guy came out of the bushes for a one on one challenge while the guys bellow fought a big monster without their healer who was fighting solo.
At the end of the day different people will approach the game I'm different ways. It's all good. Know your players and know yourself.... that's the key to having fun.
Wish you’d talk more about this issue with regard to online gaming. As I gently told a new player in my group that is extremely spectator: « I understand that to enjoy observing the story more than been in the center of it, bit with 6 players and online which most of you don’t have camera on, if you don’t tak and participate, you simply don’t exist in the game. » It is also very tedious to have to reacknowledge that character into the game all the time because even others players forget that they are there…
At my session, the Observer went crazy and loved it. She sees pink unicorns, eat crayons and is a combination of PC and player. Because of this, the character does not bother others and introduces a bit of confusion as the rest of the players like it.
I once had a spectator player, to whom I assigned the role of an escorted rescued npc basically. She just wanted to stay back and say something every now and then, perfect. What the players DIDN'T know however, was that her character wasn't rescued - she was "rescued". She volunteered to prepare the players meals, and was slowly poisoning them for 6 months straight, every weekend, on behalf of the main antagonist of the campaign, against whom they had a second go at after destroying his plans in previous game. The player, an EXTREMELY shy person had almost as much fun doing it as me playing the campaign. And you should have seen the players wondering why are they losing stats, thinking they were cursed, and eventually going on a crusade to reach a healer who could identify the disease - and their faces when they were being told that the tiny woman they're dragging along with them was their demise the whole time. Good times.
Reminds me of my Knowledge/Linguist Investigator in Pathfinder A master translate whose craft allows him to read and write a multitude of languages, whose goal it is to learn everything and anything he can about the world and its culture(s). Granted, he is slightly designed to be the face for the party (with 7 Charisma, lol), but he is more about standing back and giving off Bardic Performance, Knowledge Checks, and helping the other players rather than be the center of attention himself. (The build is a Investigator VMC Bard).
In my first actual participation of a campaign, I was a spectator player because I had no idea what I was supposed to do. I’d just see what I was good at (I was a rogue and focused on stealing stuff and lock picking stuff) and I’d kind of help with my expertise in what I was good at. Eventually, I became an active player, engaging with npc characters but it took a few sessions
This kinda really helped my anxiety a bit. I'm in two p&p groups (dnd & numenera) and i've discovered that i'm quite an active player. I always want to talk to npc and i love making plans and arguing with other players if i don't like their actions (in good sport naturely it's a game after all) and i discovered that in both groups we have two ppl (different ones) who are really, really passive. So passive that sometimes when the gm says "okay XY do you stay in this room or do you follow the party" i only just remember that XY is in the game. And i always felt as if i was taking too much spotlight (though there are always at least two other players who are just as interested in being centerfront as me) and realizing that passive players who just interject social comments and jokes and as good as no narrative have just as much fun is quite a relief. Lately i was quite stressed out during sessions trying to interact with the passive pc's or maybe getting the player to do something while trying to hold myself back and stop taking up so much of our gm's attention. But yes, thank you for talking about this. It's been relieving to hear that that's not something that only happens in games i play in but a whole seperate type of player 😅
I used to be a spectator player. (Literally I played a character who was mute because I was scared of talking to others.) I've felt like I've grown out of that habit as most player do. Some stay a spectator but I feel like there are a majority of people who develop into a more active player. Not to say spectators are bad and should grow out of it though. There is always the possibility of being both too active and too passive.
I'm totally a spectator type player. I like to support the party with spells and abilities both in and out of combat and if given the chance will narrate a bit of what my character is doing while the others negotiate with the king or whatever. Just don't expect me to be the driving force behind story.
I have been playing with a group of friends for many years and all but one of them are spectator players. Lately my one Active player has expressed frustration at always having to be the one to make choices, talk to NPCs, to pretty much be the party leader. This player always role plays well and goes above and beyond when devoloping their character and I would like to reward them for being so active, but how do I do that without making it seem like favoritism? How would you deal with a group of players where the usual party leader is frustrated at always having to be such and wants to become a more spectator player?
I would say it's not favoritism, like this npc has a magic item why would they give it to a person that they've never spoken to? Why would you have found this cool loot if you weren't looking for it? If they truly are passive and not just lazy they probably won't complain.
omega3anubis As a DM who has had his fair share of spectator players, I find that the best way is to reward the active players with "in character" rewards. Titles, lands, celebrity status within your world--reward these folks for getting involved in your world by showing them the impact they've made in it. Meanwhile, give the spectator the levels and items. Obviously the active player will receive these as well so balance accordingly. Usually the spectator will not mind or even notice this, honestly. Show the table as often as you can, "you get what you give."
omega3anubis I mean it sortof goes against the video but maybe give the active player a bit of a 'break' ...put a curse on them that makes them mute/incapacitated somehow so the other players have to pick up the slack. Might make everything worse if the other players don't step up but worst case it's just one lame session.
Actually, this sounds like you might have the perfect group to play a Birthright-esque game with. Have the active guy be the king, the rest of the party be his support. That will give them plenty of stuff to do, but ultimately they will be advising, defending, or enforcing for the crown, and the major decisions will still be on him. The others might go for that, because maybe they're afraid of making bigger decisions, but wouldn't mind giving their .02 to the big guy. And you can do this with whatever setting or backdrop. Cyberpunk, he's the gang leader, Call of Cthluhu, he's the lead Investigator, the rest are forensics ( depending on time period ), patrolmen etc, in some crime setting he'd be the mob boss. Etc. It works pretty much no matter what. I have had good results setting up games like this with such groups, sometimes "spectator" players will just naturally open up more in a more defined "secondary" role. Some people just need some structure to work in. If that sounds neat to you, I'd definitely look into it and see how it plays out, if that game doesn't work, you can always move on to something else.
Man I really struggle with this. I'm a player at a table of four where myself and another are active players, and the other two are spectators. One of the spectators seems to want to engage more, but it's with a very specific sort of casual roleplay. She gets very into passive activities like cooking, but doesn't actually make decisions. I once sat and listened for over an hour to them describing and trying fictional beer. But without any of the RP and character conflicts that might come from being drunk. If your character enjoys drinking and you can RP letting go of your inhibitions gradually, and maybe a secret or two can slip out, that's worth my time! But an hour+ long back and forth with one player and the DM saying "how much is it?" "What color is it?" And the DM saying it's strong, viscous or sweet, is boring. Getting the two more passive players to engage in anything else is like pulling teeth, and while I am an active player, I want grand moments, cool combat and intrigue, I hate sitting there and feeling like if I don't make the decision nobody will. I don't want to dominate the table, I want everyone to be having fun and getting shining moments for their characters. I try really hard to play fair and not spotlight hog. But often when I do that the table falls silent because half the people there won't engage. The other active player is experienced and friendly and seems to be much on the same page as me. I don't think he wants to be 'the leader' either. D&D is a collaborative game after all.
Many spectators are simply introverts as many who play table top rpgs are. YOU as the GM need to help them come out of there shell via baby steps. Don't just throw them in the deep end but keep feeding them a little more over time. Hopefully you will engage them. On top of that you can have a discussion with said person outside of the game and ask them what they want out of the game or offer things to see if any of them would entice or engage them more or if something would make them feel more emboldened. Pushing them into the supporting role further will just make them more of an introvert.
I used to be a spectator, until recently (maybe the last year to year-and-a-half of my 12 year roleplaying history). I had been afraid of making a mistake and screwing things up for everyone else (which is part of a catch 22 with my lack of skill at ad-libbing), but I also thought I was genuinely happy just being a supporting character. I didn't write character backstories, because I wanted the events of the game to show me who my character was. At a certain point, I realized that even though I would say that I didn't want anything special done for me, it would bother me when the DM didn't consider my character, like when I'm the only one in the party without a relevant magic item. I'm still not a great roleplayer, but I'm getting better. Like Guy says, don't force people; but some of us could use a little prodding to try doing things another way.
Hmm, I usually like your videos, but this one could basically be done in two minutes, the one and only advise you give, is let spectators be spectators and concentrate on the active players, everyone will be happy that way. While I do agree with that advice provided that the person is actually a happy spectator, I think if you don't know the player well yet you have to throw him some bones to make sure that he isn't only shy or is only motivated by special themes that the gamemaster doesn't provide. Especially an inexperienced player might appear as a spectator while he really is just to shy to speak up and grab the initiative from those experienced spotlight hoggers in the group.
I really enjoyed this. In the group I'm in we have a newbie to D&D. He is passive by this and the 2 from the group the GM and other main player said this is the guy to a t. Yes, he does some of this. It has been 2 months of playing now and I'm at wits end with him. I still think he is just plan lazy about the game. He doesn't know his characters. He has a monk and a war priest. The priest doesn't like going into battle, forgets he can heal and just waits for the other players to go to work sort of speak. He is a discipline of Hercules and told us he wants to duel class as a rogue. What for is our question to him. Answer it is cool. All of answered in a no. You don't know how the cleric works how do you think you are going to do with another class. Monk is the same way. Not saying I don't forget things. I understand new, but 2 months later and we are still having to go over your character is a bit much. Doesn't want to read up or do any sort of research into them. He doesn't like reading so it is hard for him. I made this suggestion along with RU-vid for some great insight on the basics, characters and such of the game. He watched people playing and commented on how hot one of the females were. We have play sheets that do a lot for us. He wants it to do everything, including math for your hit points. He can't do math (Just so you know I'm dyslexic so math and reading are difficult but I find ways around it.) and we simply pointed out there are calculators on your phone and laptop. oh, paper and pencil are good to for not being able to do math in your head. He was shocked about that. He worries about the role playing (seen him going over a sheet of quotes to pick the right one for his character to say, than pay attention to the GM) and we are consistently reminding him what to roll (getting a bit better), where to look, he even let himself go unconscious (almost died 1 hit away) because he didn't know when to heal himself and for that matter us. I've talked to the GM about changing to duel class from Paladin to sorcerer to get more spells to make up for him. I even volunteered to stop playing my kobold paladin to take a cleric so we have more heals. The GM for that game doesn't want me to do that because he likes my character too much. He doesn't want to make decisions, want the rewards and pats on the back. Follows one player around like a puppy. We have to carry him through everything. To me he has done nothing to help himself along, only wants to be carried. We have given he advise and references to go over. Now the guys are; no watch this and you'll see he is just passive. Yes, ok some of it applies but not all of it. What do I do or am I being to hard.
A table full of actives is definitely significantly more interesting than a table full of spectators (for obvious reasons). I'll definitely say that having more actives than spectators is a healthy balance to have. What is your opinion on making character quests for the spectator players? I'm often tempted to try to draw my spectator players in by basically building an adventure around them (a quirk, an illness, a twist of fate whatever) that the party participates in. But frankly I don't know if that is a good idea or not.
i am a rather passive player myself. how ever i am one that has alot of ideas and concepts that i like. if you can work in something that draws their intrest they may get involved possibly some small decisions but decisions that defiantly falls into their field. my characters are brother and sister and the brother runs the tavern that the party frequents. he was also involved in mediating a deal involving his orc clan and the kingdom involving the use of land. i only went to playing the sister so that the party had an active healer in the party.
I have this player in my campaign which is pretty passive, however he came up with the coolest of the backgrounds involving being the apprentice of some powerful witch. So I decided to make this witch a powerful piece for the story, and said she has been kidnaped and would be burn down. Perfect for this player to be engaged right? Nope... When I asked what he was going to do about he just said “idk man im gonna go after her i guess” and in any npc encounter he just couldn’t talk or role play. In combats all he would do is say “I’m gonna cast a fireball” and don’t do any other type of actions. Thankfully I managed to mix the other PC’s backstories with the witch thing and make the whole plot more around them, and this other guy is still there, but not doing anything relevant. So yeah, my advice would not to make this guy a protagonist, cause he just won’t act like one, I might be wrong but that’s my experience. (Sorry for my bad english)
how long has this person been playing, if they have not been playing long or are generally not confidant then they may not want to get as engaged. talk to the player atleast and see what his mindset is. you may be able to work out ways between you that you can have him contribute even if the player is lacking in initiative during play. my group has started another campaign and i am playing a psychic ape that has an arm amputated. i have essentially made the back story an explanation of the gimmick for my character but other players have helped flush out a combined backstory that are intertwined with each other. another player playing a psychic raven is the one that came to my aid by calling for help when my character was first hurt. we still have to work out with a third player how his character's backstory fits in with ours as the three of us have been traveling together.
I’m a spectator player by virtue of trying to learn the game, and getting along with other players. I think I can grow out of that phase and become active.
I have a player that is exactly like that. He keep asking us to do roleplay EVERY DAY, and when we actually play he spends the game saying "I agree" or "I follow", or "I don't know, so I'll agree". Luckily, our group has an immense troublemaker to compensate.
I think as long as you check in with passive players as much as everyone else, and give them equal opportunities to do things, they'll be fine. You can only do so much to involve a player. And who knows? They might appear passive, but their imagination might be having a blast while they're sitting quietly. Also, if they're not ruining the fun for your other players or the game, then everything's fine. More than anything, you can always ask your players how they enjoy playing the game, and try to accommodate that as best you can. If it's not a good match, that's okay, too. Different people enjoy the game differently, and not everyone is going to enjoy playing together. Here's some personal experience: in the store where I run most of my games, I have a player in my Thursday night game who is very passive during the game and doesn't really speak up until it's his turn in combat. As the party is exploring and adventuring, I go around the table asking each person what they're doing, and I always include this passive player. I also try to watch my other players to get a measure of whether or not this player's passivity is bringing them down, and so far it doesn't seem like it. If it ever becomes an issue, I'll talk to my players and try to work it out.
The most successful game here in Germany, "the dark eye", has a history of spectator-only adventures as official campaigns. It basically uses important NPCs as actors and expects a group of onlookers. That's all well and good, but when I got into a group of spectators as an actor, I almost went mad when I simply couldn't do anything but watch.
4:45 - Yes, but do give them a pure random decision such that they are comfortable and you know will turn out well. "You arrive to a fork in the road. Neither path has a difference you can see. Left or right, that's all you know. Choose one."
my brother is just like this. he gets so grumpy and bored whenever we're not in battle. every character he plays basically identifies as LG despite actually being TN. we could hand him an explicitly mute character and it wouldn't make any difference.
nearly all of the spectators i played with were oracles. their backstory revolved around some prophecy they made and wanted to see realized. Nothing special, but was a good way to use them to railroad the story when needed
Well, spectator, can be a very intresting character, by being so pasive. You dont know nearly anything about him, and when he decide to join game more active, he may turn out to be a decent wild card. He can even talk with MG about making something sneaky with his character so game will be more intresting(maybe it turns out he is wanted fugitive or somethig like this, and now whole party is in a ponch because smthg).
I think it's possible for an active player to become a spectator if they feel that their plans and objectives aren't being recognized which says a bit more about the DM. I've had games before where my character had a direction and a goal and the DM pushed those aside to tell "his story". Eventually, I stopped being as active and just went with what the group was doing.
It is also important to keep in mind to not confuse a "spectator" player with an uninterested player. They can appear very similar on the surface, but while the former is harmless; the latter could indicate that something is seriously wrong with the current game and player setup. If a player becomes disillusioned, stops caring or even becomes passive-aggressive about the game, there's an underlying issue that has to be dealt with, lest their behavior might cause the entire group to deteriorate. As a personal note: while I don't have anything against spectator players, from my own personal experiences; groups consisting mostly or even entirely of active players have been my best groups. It just feels better when everyone's in it. So when I set up a new game, I usually invite people I know based on how enthusiastic or active they were. Spectators just bring with them an awkward mood no matter what the GM does, and often feel like a hole in the group.
Identifying them is by no means a straightforward task, and that is where the challenge lies, especially in groups with people you just recently got to know.
SinerAthin hum, if you play in person, look at their eyes. The spectators will be focused while the uninterested one will look... uninterested... But I agree that online it is far more difficult to access and see the difference between the two.
Sometimes some of my players rag on others for not getting too into the rp or too into setting up a backstory, and they feel like those players aren’t paying attention or aren’t having as much fun, but they need to stop worrying about it because they are still enjoying and participating somewhat and it’s up to them to participate more. I think actors worry that they are acting too much and taking up the spotlight from other players which is why they feel uncomfortable with spectator players, because it makes them worry they are acting up too much.
I'm the guide kind, with the annomaly that I don't mind taking the lead, consulting all other players and coming with a mid-point with their guiding them toward the path that support most such wishes
There are games where there's just no room for passivity: Fiasco, for instance. But, yeah--people are different and want different things. If someone's not disrupting the story or making the other players uncomfortable, then fine. "Quiet" is a perfectly legitimate personality.
This talk is more a frontier of psychology than roleplaying. The question being what in personality keeps people from pretending well. Fear of judgement might be the biggest issue for them. I believe it helps when they can RP familiar personal traits, so as a cleric or Druid, rather than put them in an unnatural role. As their personality grows they can try new characters. Some people no matter what you do want repetitive labor. It's confusing as hell to creative types. Astrology can play a big role. Have the character pick a star sign like their persona and RP that. If they are still stubborn give them a cursed item that acts for them and let them figure that out. RP can provide a way for people to grow but sometimes they need gentle prodding in the right directions. Make some sort of Shepard crook element to herd them in.
Thanks I am new to gming and this is a problem I get often today i had a campaign all about haggaling with realestate and everyone but one fighter were having fun making deals
For most of my roleplaying time I was more of a spectator player. The first gm that got me to do more was probably the best I’ve played with and like u described I played a animal character lol. My last one was a little good in that I improved my roleplaying ability, it was brought about by bullying. Repeatedly I got yelled at for ‘wasting game time’ when I got stressed or stuck. Sometimes even I would give multiple answers only to have them mocked, disregarded, or argued with. I was constantly being condescended too and judged. When he was mad at me out or in game my characters always got put in embarrassing situations. When I joined I was guilted tripped about all the players that he had created epic stories about that had left and wasted his time. I ultimately got kicked out for expressing my concerns when I was suddenly forced to play a extremely crude sexual womanizing gross character.
I like to put a passive player on the spot once in a great while, just to make sure they remember that they are playing a character, who is like a real person in the story, not a piece of cardboard. I won't make a whole adventre out of badgering them, but once in a while, I like to make em' sweat just a little bit. You can see they're not terribly comfortable with it, but it is a change of pace and does require them to think just a little bit more, now and again. Also, as a GM, I am not very afraid of such a sitaution going badly and having someone's PC put in serious geopardy as a result of such a player making a poor decision or making a non-decision. Overall, I feel like the game is a bit better for it.
as a player, its extremely frustrating to play with spectator types. right now i have two people who dont really do much one of them even will just skip turns in combat and just sit and watch others do the encounter or the other will often just avoid situations by just walking off even when another characters asks for them specifically and will try to not contribute anything makes me want to just call it quits somedays
I have Asperger so I tend to be a spectator player albeit I probably sit more halfway in both houses I like to make decision and push certain direction and you bring me to a combat I'm excited to participate actively albeit not so much narratively but I always had many trouble whenever a dm would call on me to interact with ther world and heck they even would be upset with me that I wasn't an active part but one thing about passive players there probably passive for a reason unless they were forced to play they probably wanna be there there just unable or unwilling to show off/actively push forward as an active player would like I said I have Asperger and that heavily impact my ability to emote/simulate a social situation especially in front of more then a few people my rule of thumb usaully is 2 after that i begin to shut down socially and normal roleplay groups usaully consist of 4-5 other people not including yourself I get forced into a spectator role but I do love to roleplay and be part of a group his advise of mixing active with inactive players is proubally one of the better solution to the problem I was in a group with mostly half passive players so it was almost require I participate more then I was willing also as if you a spectator player some advise avoid high perception or charisma they tend to be thing the dm will use you for to either be the face of the party or communicate information to everybody also dont be afraid to openly communicate to the dm that you want to be somewhat passive and why if you can share that information (also maybe tell them what you will activally participate in or think you will participate in) it helps them figure out who they should pull on and when they should pull on them
I understand about the existence of spectator players. And even if I give them theyr space it leaves me unsure, let me explain: In my usual rolplay group we have a friend who is very silent, he dosen't talks a lot (and I mean in general, not in the game), but he wants to hang out, we go get drinks, organize weekends of fun, etc... In rolplay, I just love when the players get in character and even if they get a bit crazy I don't mind, love to see them act and play and invest, and even when I know that he is a very quiet person, seeing him not talking a lot makes me worried allways; Is he not having fun? Should I give him a different circunstance? Is he getting bored?. I look other DM's youtube channel too and they all say the same, " leave the quiet player alone, if he is coming to game and he says he wants to game, he is having fun, don't pressure him or put him in the spotlight ". I have been following this tip, and I mean, he still seems to want to join rolplaying games. But it allways has me doubting when I see him not as active as the others, but anyways, I respect his space. As a final note: there where a few, few instances when he had to take a decision (not for the entire party, just when they were split, as a loner) and he actually did a surprising and fantastic job, but as soon as he rejoined the party he stayed quiet again, but kept playing, so I take it as a signal that he does that because he wants too. And sorry for my bad english.
Small thing I forgot to mention that also leaves me uncertain even if I respect it and don't say anything. We all created characters and he just kept a pregenerated character. I insisted I would help him but he says he is ok, so I again leave him with his space. So I guess if he says it is ok, it is ok.
I have to disagree slightly. Good passive players usually have a very solid concept they wish to explore in peace (If you please). They don't have an enormous interest for everything (combat is just combat for example), but if you manage to key into what interests them and cater to them (on occasion, they don't want to get exhausted) they can become extremely animated and with it. Granted bad passive players are going to be as stagnant as a houseplant but bad active players has a very similar, if opposing problem. I think patient players might be a better term for it? Seph Dragoon used it somewhere down here. Oh, also I once knew a decently active player that was terrified of making decisions. That wasn't really a great combo for him.
When a spectator player becomes entirely passive, it shows they are no longer invested and at that point, why be there? Admittedly if I'm making the effort to be active and involve myself and actually display an investment in the story, seeing someone just not even trying makes me wonder why they're even present. A spectator player who stays involved and invested is fine, just be sure to make a real effort.
I wouldn't say I'm a passive player I'll do things when I get the chance just the other players are competing. Also my rolls are pretty bad in combat I think I hit once after 3 sessions
Sometimes my group struggles. The "puppet master" offen tells the passive player what to do. And the Passive has not the courage to say "no" to the puppet master. The Passive told me in private that he is unhappy with this situation. And the puppet master was not aware of the problem, when I told him about this issue afterwards. As GM, what could I do?
I don't know. I've been both. I always try to be true to my character so I've played characters that always try and have their say in decision making, occasionally even try to push their agenda counter to other PCs suggestions when I feel that it would truly matter to them. Go off and find quest avenues when we reach new pockets of civilization. BUT I've played character's that were more in-between, they can be very active when they feel they NEED to contribute and fill their role in the party, both in and out of combat, but are also happy, when everything aligns with what they would believe to be the right course of action anyway, to ease back and go with the flow. I have also once made a terrible Monk character who I could never get involved in anything because as much as I wanted sometimes to say something, I knew it wouldn't be in character, so I ended up saying very little most of the time.
I have a player who has a tendency to only be an active player when there is combat. He has a mental disability but is still an intelligent and creative person. But he doesn't participate in puzzles, thinking sections or long roleplayed conversations. And I believe it's because he thinks he can't be smart enough to solve the mystery or whatever is going on. And so he doesn't try to enjoy it. What would you suggest?
So, this part is hard for me to balance. Not entirely cause I can't take action but because the character I am currently playing is the opposite of myself in real life. I am charismatic and high energy. I also think too much about things. Analysis paralysis. So, I wanted my character to be more silent but deliberate. Only speaks when he feels it is necessary for him to do so and does not much care for "small talk". He is perceptive and aware. More often than not opting to watch, listen and observe his surroundings rather than directly engage unless deemed necessary. Cloak n dagger kinda character but Ranger-Rogue. More like when were introduced to "Strider" in LotR. So, I start to feel like Im not engaging enough and dont know how to adjust
i had a player in my rifts game like this. he didn't say a single word in character for the longest time, then one day the lead of our party left the game and sure enough silent pc dude wanted to take up the role. his character was so obscure that i had mistaken him for another player that had left the game weeks beforehand. like idk what would even drive that sort of player/character to opt up for such a role.
I've been a "spectator" player, but only because I never got a chance to speak without trampling someone who was always ON TOP of everything immediately. No thinking required.
Scomae that may work but if they're more introverted you may just piss them off. Maybe just talk to them and ask what they want out of the experience. They may just enjoy going through your story and doing less story impactful things.
Another thing about "spectators". Some people, like me, actually enjoy more watching people having fun than actually participating in the fun. Maybe they are having a blast by simply watching the game unfold. And they might think that if they join, things are going to be less interesting as they won't be able to look at it from an outside perspective.
John Quadeyes lol its sad when you can't understand the difference between human interaction and watching people over the Internet... Just because you're passive doesn't mean you never contribute. Elitism doesn't serve you when your talking about pretending to be an elf dude...
spectator vs active player is a bit of a over generalization. it's more of a gray scale. sure there are players who are very spectator like but some players are just quiet or maybe a little new. when I started out roleplaying the first thing I did was just spectate an roll only really doing the whole character thing when prodded or poked about it. in time I found my voice an learned to contribute a bit more but when you have a spectator player you have to consider "how new is this player?" maybe their character isn't clearly defined so they don't know what they'd say in character. sometimes it only takes a specific situation an suddenly a spectator can come alive an start engaging more. just stuff to consider.
One point you havent made that i think is important is that sometimes a player would be passive due to being new or otherwise not confidant in their abillity to be active, how would you recommand dealing with that kind of situation?
For me, the issue for my party that makes the spectator player even more difficult to play with is that he absolutely REFUSES to even do the most minor form of RP. Hell, if he tries to relay information to the rest of the party, no one knows how to go about receiving the information because they have no RP to go off of. I really need some advice on how to manage an RP-Free Spectator.
I am Piccolo, I am not Goku. You can give me my cool moments, but I do not crave the spotlight. I will take on solo missions, but I do not lead the team. I will offer advice to the hero, but I am not the hero. I am prepared even to play the villain, for I know it is the hero's job to defeat me. Think that about sums it up.
