What is UP with all of the passive characters/play

[Wolfsbane706]

the fuck is passive play?

Basically, you let the others lead the RP. Passive players aren't the type to take initiative.

 

[Grif ♥]

Because passive players rarely add anything to the plot or world, fail to interact with anything the other players and GM have set up, and generally be boring.

 

[Wolfsbane706]

Because passive players rarely add anything to the plot or world, fail to interact with anything the other players and GM have set up, and generally be boring.

And active players are intrusive, constantly alter the established setting, and are always the first to intervene where they shouldn't.

Not entirely true, yeah, but then, neither is what you said.

 

[Grif ♥]

I'm saying that's the passive player in the most exaggerated sense. Players always fit somewhere in the spectrum between the two extremes. A passive player is exactly what I said, though. That's what a passive roleplayer is, at its most extreme.

Simply put though, being an active player is a good quality and should be something all roleplayers should strive for. A good active roleplayer develops their character and interacts with the established world, whether they do so by exploring a city, interacting with an NPC or another player, or putting a bullet between the eyes of the big bad as he gloats about your inevitable demise. Meanwhile, being a passive player is a bad quality, because an entirely passive player does nothing to progress the roleplay in any sense, and has their character react to every situation by sitting there and letting other players do all the work.

EDIT: A thread in general this post was intended for just got merged into this one, so I'm either repeating points mentioned in the other thread or I'm going to get bullied into changing my mind. Weeeee.

EDIT 2: I should also point out that the difference between a passive character and a passive roleplayer is enormous, and that a passive character is not a bad thing.

 

[Minibit]

Okay people!

There will always be passive players and aggressive players

There will always be people who, for whatever reason, prefer to be or play with one or the other

Neither trait makes a roleplayer bad or good

Neither trait makes a roleplayer more or less "advanced" or "skilled" than the other

Iwaku is a super-inclusive site (or at least, that's the goal >=() that accepts passive players, aggressive players, one-liners and novelists. It is a big site with lots of members, it goes through off spells and heavy seasons, and a fair portion of members come and go as their real lives allow. This means that at times, the members hanging out on Iwaku more may be majority passive, other times they may be majority aggressive, and other times we may have a more even mixture.

Now, if we'd like to discuss WHY some people might enjoy playing passive roles, and WHY some people might enjoy aggressive roles, or why people might enjoy these traits in a partner, carry on!

If we're just gonna hate on other people's styles or imply that one style/way of playing is less skilled or less valuable than another, though, I'mma gonna have to ask all of y'all to shut up before you make me so angry I say "y'all" again"

 

[ElBell]

I'm saying that's the passive player in the most exaggerated sense. Players always fit somewhere in the spectrum between the two extremes. A passive player is exactly what I said, though. That's what a passive roleplayer is, at its most extreme.

Simply put though, being an active player is a good quality and should be something all roleplayers should strive for. A good active roleplayer develops their character and interacts with the established world, whether they do so by exploring a city, interacting with an NPC or another player, or putting a bullet between the eyes of the big bad as he gloats about your inevitable demise. Meanwhile, being a passive player is a bad quality, because an entirely passive player does nothing to progress the roleplay in any sense, and has their character react to every situation by sitting there and letting other players do all the work.

EDIT: A thread in general this post was intended for just got merged into this one, so I'm either repeating points mentioned in the other thread or I'm going to get bullied into changing my mind. Weeeee.

EDIT 2: I should also point out that the difference between a passive character and a passive roleplayer is enormous, and that a passive character is not a bad thing.

I would suggest not lumping the extreme and making it the standard for ALL passive players as you're seemingly doing (at least it's being taken that way. I doubt you're intentionally doing that though)... Besides, passive is important to have as a roleplayers style. It'd be equally disastrous to have two hyper aggressive players constantly butting heads about their own plans.

 

[Darog]

I would suggest not lumping the extreme and making it the standard for ALL passive players as you're seemingly doing (at least it's being taken that way. I doubt you're intentionally doing that though)... Besides, passive is important to have as a roleplayers style. It'd be equally disastrous to have two hyper aggressive players constantly butting heads about their own plans.

It's better for two roleplayers to butt heads, then two roleplayers wait for either to get the actual story rolling.

Just my opinion.

 

[Kagayours]

It's better for two roleplayers to butt heads, then to two roleplayers wait for either to get the actual story rolling.

Just my opinion.

I agree. At least then both RPers have something to do, even if they have to work out where exactly they intend to take things.

 

[ElBell]

It's better for two roleplayers to butt heads, then two roleplayers wait for either to get the actual story rolling.

Just my opinion.

Two roleplayers waiting would be bad yes, my point is submissive players are a needed balance to aggressive players. After all, the user I was quoting was making it seem only aggressive players were 'quality players'. Your point is correct though, and I agree with it!

 

[Grif ♥]

I would suggest not lumping the extreme and making it the standard for ALL passive players as you're seemingly doing (at least it's being taken that way. I doubt you're intentionally doing that though)... Besides, passive is important to have as a roleplayers style. It'd be equally disastrous to have two hyper aggressive players constantly butting heads about their own plans.

As I said, there's a sliding scale, but an entirely passive roleplayer is effectively an MMO NPC who does nothing but what they are ordered to do.

I do consider a roleplayer who is exclusively passive to be a bad roleplayer, because a "passive roleplayer" does not to mean someone who lets others take the lead when appropriate, but instead someone who puts minimal effort into taking part in the roleplay as a whole. On the other side, an active roleplayer is someone who puts in as much effort as they can and gets involved with the plot the world with enthusiasm, even if that means their character is not charging forward and dragging the story along with it. To me it's literally a case of effort, because that's what the difference between a passive and active roleplayer is. The more active a roleplayer, the more effort they put in. A roleplayer can let another character take a central role over their character and still be an active roleplayer. That doesn't mean they're putting in less effort.

I can't stress enough that a roleplayer can be active and not aggressive.

 

[Brovo]

Oh. There's a discussion going on about this thing again. I guess I can ferret out a satisfactory answer for everyone by killing the extremes and making a couple of clear distinctions: Because clarity and concessions tends to resolve things like magic.

I have a guide about post construction you can read in more detail here. It's about the action-reaction wheel and details how posts progress a role play, and the basic components that comprise them. The reason I'm linking this is because it'll clarify precisely why passivity is a bad position to hold as the default.

Actions and reactions are vital to the progression of a story: Without actions and reactions, nothing physically happens in the story. In short, if a person posts without acting in the story, there is nothing to react to, and thus the post has no meaning. Enough of these back to back will make it more difficult for others to post in a coherent fashion, and then kill a role play with due haste.

Active players provide actions which progress a story. Passive players do not provide actions which, after a repeated number of events, results in one player having to carry a massive burden, or kills the story outright. This is especially true of 1x1's: Both players need to contribute and cooperate, or the story will die unless one person is willing to carry the weight of the entire story on their spine.

This, however, is strictly speaking from a black and white point of view: That a player is always active, that a player is always passive, that it does not vary based on situation or characters. It's a false dichotomy, so arguing from the point of pure black and pure white is silly. Where appropriate, passivity can actually be beneficial to a scene, for example: Allowing one person to lead the charge into a room while a couple others watch his back and keep him safe from flanking attacks by following in behind. The active player is leading the scene, the passive players are following up and contributing. Or, as it works out...

Player A commits to an action, Player B reacts to that action and provides a new action, Player A reacts to that action and provides a new action, Player B reacts to that action and provides a new action... In this case, the more passive state is to explicitly wait for another player to act, and then react and follow them up directly with an action of your own.

The default stance a player should hold is the active stance, but if someone else has acted before you, then taking the more passive behaviour of following and supporting them is acceptable as it can still, easily, further the action-reaction wheel. Thus, it keeps the role play going. However, if no player has acted before you, and you choose to contribute no action whatsoever, you are killing the scene. You cannot always remain in the passive state: There will be events where your character needs to have independent motive and actions, such as when they're alone, or if they end up the centre of attention as the result of a plot point. If your character fails to behave in the active state in these instances, regardless of their nature, they're breaking the action-reaction wheel, which then forces added weight on the next person to make up for your failure to progress the scene.

Role plays are interactive by nature. Always waiting for others to push you forward is the antithesis to this core concept, and so even if you are passive by nature (as a result of your character, or by your personal nature) you need to learn how to push scenes forward where necessary. If it would honestly go against your character to lead the way, there are of course other options...

• Use dialogue to ask another player character in the room (perhaps any/all of them) to lead the way instead, with the promise that you'll follow and help them. This provides an action for others to react towards, which starts the cycle and allows you to fall into your more comfortable passive state in the next round of posts.
• Ask the GM to force a scene change. This is referred to as railroading. When the GM forces player progression through numerous possible means, including but not limited to: NPC's, Forcing player characters to move, skipping ahead in the timeline, resetting a scene, et cetera.
• [If a 1x1] Ask your partner for help. Healthy communication from a passive player is key to implying what it is you want to see get done, without having to force the scene yourself if you're not comfortable with that.

At the end of the day, you can summarize it as thus: Passivity, while not inherently a bad quality, is not a desirable default position to hold, due to it forcing the workload of leading explicitly and exclusively on others. It's fine to have passive characters, or even to be passive by nature, so long as you're aware that you need to be able to defy this characteristic when necessary to advance a scene should you be in the best position to do so. Otherwise, you're not doing yourself or anyone else any favours by having to carry you like dead weight across the carrion field.

Grow, learn, achieve greater things, expand your toolbox. Don't be that guy who only makes a single character across every single RP they ever touch, who is a static, unchanging brick.

 

[ElBell]

As I said, there's a sliding scale, but an entirely passive roleplayer is effectively an MMO NPC who does nothing but what they are ordered to do.

I do consider a roleplayer who is exclusively passive to be a bad roleplayer, because a "passive roleplayer" does not to mean someone who lets others take the lead when appropriate, but instead someone who puts minimal effort into taking part in the roleplay as a whole. On the other side, an active roleplayer is someone who puts in as much effort as they can and gets involved with the plot the world with enthusiasm, even if that means their character is not charging forward and dragging the story along with it. To me it's literally a case of effort, because that's what the difference between a passive and active roleplayer is. The more active a roleplayer, the more effort they put in. A roleplayer can let another character take a central role over their character and still be an active roleplayer. That doesn't mean they're putting in less effort.

I can't stress enough that a roleplayer can be active and not aggressive.

Well in that case different definitions are being used to discuss. Plus, we're blending active/inactive and passive/aggressive a ton so I am not even sure what the discussion really is. We need clearer boundaries to go by in here xD

 

[Minibit]

We need clearer boundaries to go by in here xD

Now, if we'd like to discuss WHY some people might enjoy playing passive roles, and WHY some people might enjoy aggressive roles, or why people might enjoy these traits in a partner, carry on!

If we're just gonna hate on other people's styles or imply that one style/way of playing is less skilled or less valuable than another, though, I'mma gonna have to ask all of y'all to shut up before you make me so angry I say "y'all" again"

Passive player is defined in this site as being a player who prefers not to take initiative or lead in terms of story and plot development. A passive player is happy following and complementing the initiatives of others. They may have just as many ideas as an aggressive player, but either struggles to or is hesitant to bring them into play without help or prompting.

 

[Perfect Neglect]

Passive players is not a new thing or unique to Iwaku. O__O It just means your roleplaying skills have grown to a point where you notice the difference now. (YAY!)


I too hate playing with passive players. >< I am an aggressive player myself and I get frustrated when a partner doesn't help me move a scene forward.

I think it's because a lot of people just don't know HOW. They get a cool idea for a character, but they have no clue how to accomplish their ideas. >>

Waaayy late on this reply, but...

It's something I've noticed for a long time -- and on many other sites... Though there just seems to be an epidemic of overly-passive players here. Perhaps it's the way things are organized or whathaveyou that makes me notice it more, but I just keep running into them. (I also feel I should specify that I don't just mean in group RPs.)

Had I known this was going to...explode...like it did, I would've been more specific and detailed. Really, I was just venting a frustration at trying to get something going and constantly being let down by people doing little more than nodding and smiling.

 

[Minibit]

Waaayy late on this reply, but...

It's something I've noticed for a long time -- and on many other sites... Though there just seems to be an epidemic of overly-passive players here. Perhaps it's the way things are organized or whathaveyou that makes me notice it more, but I just keep running into them. (I also feel I should specify that I don't just mean in group RPs.)

Had I known this was going to...explode...like it did, I would've been more specific and detailed. Really, I was just venting a frustration at trying to get something going and constantly being let down by people doing little more than nodding and smiling.

In future, the blogs and counselling forums are better places to vent than general chatting (where this topic started) :/ Posting in the forums invites people to contribute their thoughts on what you say, and getting a group yelling about how much they hate X is never a good thing, especially if X is a person or group of people :(

there is still (and has been) good discussion here about why people want to play passively, and when and why passive play is a good thing though, so don't feel too bad! We just needed to re-rail a little bit :3

 

[Perfect Neglect]

Posting in the forums invites people to contribute their thoughts on what you say, and getting a group yelling about how much they hate X is never a good thing, especially if X is a person or group of people :(

That wasn't my intent.

Apologies.

 

[Minibit]

That wasn't my intent.

Apologies.

I realise that :3 And like I said, good discussion has happened, so don't feel bad!

It's the internet, there is ALWAYS a chance even the lightest, most well-intentioned topic will turn into yelling.

 

[Brovo]

It's the internet, there is ALWAYS a chance even the lightest, most well-intentioned topic will turn into yelling.

Related.

 

[Wolfsbane706]

I realise that :3 And like I said, good discussion has happened, so don't feel bad!

It's the internet, there is ALWAYS a chance even the lightest, most well-intentioned topic will turn into yelling.

It's my fault this thread got resurrected, so here goes.

I'm a passive player. Sorry if that offends, but it's not something to be offended over. I've actually got quite a few different characters of varying types, so the reason I'm a passive isn't that I'm "lazy". I consider running up to characters with some idiot plot rude and intrusive. Especially if you don't arrange it beforehand. So, I play passive, letting the other players come up with the plots and inserting my characters where needed. Often, though, in group RPs, I'll set myself apart from the main group, so that other players have other areas to go to besides the bandwagon. It has a habit of not working, though.

 

[Minibit]

I consider running up to characters with some idiot plot rude and intrusive.

Lets not start hate in the opposite direction :( I am a player who really enjoys when characters "run up with some idiot plot". I love spontaneity in my partners, I don't want to discuss everything before it happens -although with some things it's necessary.

that said, thank you for informatively explaining your position as a passive player! Yay constructive discussion!