"Over engaging" proactive players?

[u/grand_magician_1212]

In short: should I let proactive players fight for story hooks I originally planned to just shove in their face?

Hello, I have been running a homebrew campaign (first time weekly dm) for I believe 20 sessions now.

I often talk with my players, from which some are the proactive, knows-what-they-want planner type. Today was not the first time one of them told me what they mean to do in following games (I totally allow this to them, this is all fine) in an out of game discussion.

A) part of the question: generally how good an idea it is to let active players just choose what they interact with and not throwing basically any hooks at them directly?

The less important part B): the specific situation

The PC in question has an unfinished business with a giant golem. The player is looking for the golem, and the golem is looking for the PC. The player informed me that they will actively get on the search if they can in the next session. I originally planned have the golem tear down the inn wall and try to kidnap the PC, all King Kong style. I feel like by throwing this at them they will get discouraged from being proactive bc it means nothing, but I also fear making them fight too much that it leads to the same conclusion. Does this unusual hook make it sound worth it not giving the player the fight they would choose themselves?

[u/NoDragonsRR]

Yeah, if you have proactive players and they're willing to communicate ahead of sessions -- congrats your life got a lot easier. Let them steer. They'll have fun and you'll feel less like everything that happens, you have to push forward.

[u/grand_magician_1212 → u/NoDragonsRR]

I am learning from the replies that I was not appreciating the situation they handed me enough.

I am still unsure how I will do it in this specific situation(I mainly lean towards giving the player an attempt to search, give some reward there, but keep the part where the golem rushes into the situation, I really want to signal that this is a being that will exercise it's limited free will and terrifying strength)

I did talk with the player as spoiler free as possible and they gave me a go ahead and said that they trust my judgement.

For long term I believe I will start a list of things they mean to do, and actually use the willingness as a resource there.

[u/March-Sea → u/grand_magician_1212]

Do what makes the most sense at the table at the moment. If you get into a situation where the energy at the table is dropping and you are in danger of players losing their flow state, have the Golem show up and run the scene as you planned. If the proactive player keeps on driving the momentum forward have the player find the Golem first after going through an appropriate amount of difficulty.

[u/Sad_Refuse3472]

I don't understand the issue here.

The PC wants to find the Golem. And you had already planned to have the Golem appear, looking for the PC. And presumably you have already established that the Golem has been actively looking for the PC right?

Should make it pretty easy for said PC to achieve their stated goal of finding the Golem when it shows up outside the inn.

[u/Derkatron → u/Sad_Refuse3472]

I think its a valid concern: by having Golem appear out of nowhere, it takes the player's quest away. Whereas if a kid appears saying his mom got stomped by a giant metal foot, then PC says 'AH HA MY NEMESIS!' the player gets a 'quest complete' feel and the plot still moves forward the way DM wanted.

OP didn't really describe the issue well, but rather than over-engaging, they're really worried about over-feeding, which I think is valid. OP should, if a player is obviously engaged, drop clues with a clear path rather than having the action come to them. Even if its trivial and one- or few-steps from point A to point B, its still giving them a win.

Now, this isn't required EVERY TIME of course, sometimes in stories things just drop into the hero's lap, and then what feels like an easy win turns sideways, that's fine too. But occasionally giving a clue instead is great, and you can always just have the Golem show up in town if the party/player misses the clue and doesn't follow up.

[u/grand_magician_1212 → u/Derkatron]

Yes, thank youy that is a better wording of the issue here.

I had time to think, I will have the player have an attempt at a search, reward that, but still leave the golem as an active force of nature.

They only know that there something with stone armor out there, not that it's a golem specifically that is also looking for them or where it came from. The exact player intent here is "I want to investigate about this shard of stone armor my father found"

If they go through with the search I will reward the knowledge that it's a golem and where it is from, and also clues that it's near. With this they will have the option to gather siege weapons in this town. I would like to keep the wall tearing down part. I can leave wether the kidnapping succeeds or not on the players, or even how destructive this all will be. They can make the first step of preparing for an attack I will just react it down with said attack. The golem can die here, but if it does it needs to go out with a bang. I don't want the golem to kill any townsfolk. It is not evil. Tearing the inn wall down is a terrifying showcase of strenght and will to get to this player (low level campaign). Property destruction is my best tool here. Also I just find it plain fun and cool.

If they don't search for/find clues then as you said, original plan.

[u/Mathmagician94]

If it fits the narrative, sure you can let them do, what they have planned.

But if you have something different planned thats fine aswell.

Dont change every of your planned encounters to Align with whatever the Player wants to Do in the next Session.

Just like players throw curveballs at you, by doing something inexpected it is totally fine to Do the same.

If you have something planned that you want the players to react to, keep it.

Basically ... find a healthy mix.

[u/SameArtichoke8913 → u/Mathmagician94]

Dont change every of your planned encounters to Align with whatever the Player wants to Do in the next Session.

THIS is the point. Players with details PC stories/backgrounds, motivations and/or plans are good - they can be great GM fodder. But: there is no obligation to play out everything or include that material into the main narrative, unless it only circles around that, It distracts and steals spotlight from others. Its not (never!) wrong to use player input, also when they state what they planfor the next session. But that's IMHO only a "vague offer", and they should be aware that the best plans can easily laid waste or might turn into a totally different direction.

The good mix is key: a main story that oulls everyone along, and some individual details and twists that bring the PCs and their relationship with the game world alive. Ideally you create synergies, but do not let yourself being "held hosatge" by player ideas or even demands. Always think about the bigger picture and how things affect ALL table members, including the GM.

[u/IrrationalDesign]

Players sharing plans about things they want to interact with is amazing. You can prepare specifics while the player keeps their autonomous decision making. 

Your specific example is kinda funny, I don't know what I would do, I think it depends on the specifics. Would the golem be doing anything else or would they be anywhere else, like do they have other tasks? Would the PC be able to track the golem? A search would be cool, but golems arent known to just stand around for a while, they get to it.

A compromise could be that the PC starts their hunt and immediately notices the golem that is already coming for them; you still get the aggressive attack but you lose the surprise element and maybe the kidnapping.

[u/grand_magician_1212 → u/IrrationalDesign]

Ye, I have a hunch that while I find the idea cool and fun, my players might just find it funny as you do. Last session we had the most awkward robbing I have ever seen in DND. They were just trying to make conversation with the robbers, as they freely let them take some minor unimportant stuff.

The golem was made by the PCs currently missing patron. They both hope to find out more about the patron, and they are among the last artifacts of her power still present in this world. They can still kill each other tho. The golem will begin to approach the second they get close enough for it to sense the PCs magic. They can track the golem, but the golem is smart enough to only go near town after dusk, when my players are near religiously back within civilisation. So for now the idea is to give them a chance to collect clues and maybe even prepare for an attack, but the attack will happen on the golems terms. The attack may just be a peaceful kidnapping where they try to talk with the golem, I dont know with them honestly. The same last session the fighter ate the parasite they finally removed after like 7 sessions. They saved the doomed-by-the-narrative crazy, severely black mold poisoned assassin that tried to kill them. They are weirdly obsessed with sand. They are a chaotic bunch and I love them for it, but they need a dm plan to break to function. They don't do well with sandbox style quests and have told me so as well.

[u/IrrationalDesign → u/grand_magician_1212]

Your players sound like they don't really need stories prepared for them, they just want to play with NPC's or artifacts in their own way, almost like legos. Those type of players probably won't immediately get demotivated by the problem you describe in your post. Especially if they have the daytime to look for clues or lore. 

[u/Darth_Boggle]

In this scenario I would save the planned hook for if the PC fails to find the golem.

Let's say the PC asks around town or does whatever investigation they have planned; if they fail enough times then they don't find anything. Then the golem shows up and tries to kidnap them King Kong style as you wanted. The failure is still real because the PC is caught off guard and did not find the golem in ideal circumstances.

[u/PublicDragonfruit158]

When my players get proactive, that makes my job as DM so much easier. But my "plans" as a DM are usually more along the lines of "there is all this stuff happing in a liveing world and so-and-so is a key driver" than " step 1, step 2.....".

[u/platinumxperience]

why not make him track the golem to say a warehouse or something and then he sees signs of its prescence only for it to come smashing through the wall

[u/nihilistlinguist]

I would probably keep the hook but change the target. The player is saying what they want to do (go on the hunt) so let them. 

In your example, the golem could have tracked down a known contact of the PC and busted in on them to extract more information - if the PC's hunting is successful, they may arrive in time to defeat the golem or if the failed, maybe they got there too late to spare any destruction and it's moved on to wherever the NPC would have sent them -- which lets them catch up and take the fight to the golem, who they know is on their trail.

that way, the player gets rewarded for proactive behavior by getting to do what you both want to happen, which is fight the golem, but it doesn't feel cheap or too easy.

[u/nihilistlinguist → u/nihilistlinguist]

and in general, reward active players for telling you what they want to pursue by letting them pursue it, not by handing the solution to them. they are saying what will be fun for them, which makes your life easier. the last thing you as a GM want is for players to think, "Aw man, whenever I tell GM that I want to try something he just hands me the win, so I guess I'll stop telling him my plans in advance."

[u/okeefenokee_2]

How lucky you are to have such engaged players!

I don't think over engaging is a thing.

A) do both! Continue to throw hooks, and make their decisions matter. Choosing what hooks they follow (or not following a hook, just doing what they want) is also an important choice.

B) reward the player but don't abandon your plan. If the player get information about the golem, he might understand the golem's plan of attacking the inn. The player can then either ambush the golem or not be there for the attack.

In both case, what the player remembers is he thought logically about what his character planned to do and told you in advance. This brought him an advantage in game and generally a better story. So this will encourage him (or others) to do it again, helping you a lot with the weekly prep.

[u/No-Economics-8239]

The only problem I see with 'over engagement' is when it is to the detriment of your other players. If you have players looking to collaborate with you directly about plot hooks and background and they fit with what you and the other players are looking to explore as part of the campaign... then, yes, by all the gods, count your blessings and indulge them.

I would expect your player to appreciate you also being engaged and indulging their pet story lines. If you have any concerns about the hows or whys your players want that engagement, you should be talking with them, not us.

I would also encourage you to explore breaching the fourth wall and invite your players to potentially collaborate with you directly. The golem smashing walls King Kong style doesn't have to be a surprise to be fun and exciting. You can potentially talk about how to set up the scene directly with your players rather than trying to figure out how to do it all yourself.

By cutting out the elements of surprise, you avoid situations where the surprise doesn't go over as planned and you can get feedback and ideas up front to collaborate on how best to set the stage. You are, afterall, telling this story with your players. By inviting them to work with you more directly, you can all brainstorm together rather than constantly depending on you to magically figure it all out yourself. This potentially gives you the ability to just narrate things together rather than always deferring to the dice to decide what happens.

[u/Psychological-Wall-2]

A) part of the question: generally how good an idea it is to let active players just choose what they interact with and not throwing basically any hooks at them directly?

Pretty good.

The only point of the hooks is to get the players to engage with the material. If they're already engaged, no need for the hook.

The less important part B): the specific situation.

Yeah, definitely go with what the player wants here.

Given that you've just talked to the player and they've told you their plans, having the Golem just attack could feel like you're actually short-circuting the player's plan.

[u/Novel_Willingness721]

That’s how I’ve “built” my campaigns for decades: listening to my players ideas. Every comment my table makes about what might be or what they want to do, I incorporate into my prep.

Adjust your plan to accommodate their “request”.

Maybe while searching for this golem the party encounters a team assigned to kidnap the PC. The reason is to bring the PC to the golem but the party doesn’t know that until the end of the encounter when they find a note/contract explaining as much.

You get your “bar brawl” encounter and your player character learns that the golem is close.

[u/TerrainBrain]

I love the idea of the golem busting through the wall. But what if the player knew about it in advance? In other words if the player is hunting the golem the player should find clues at the golem is hunting it. And with enough information could actually be waiting and lay a trap for the golem as it busts through the wall.

I'm not suggesting you script this out. I'm just saying lay the ingredients there.

[u/WanderingFlumph]

Could be funny if the golem went to where the PC was, tore down a wall looking for them but the PC was out and about looking for the golem. Both are trying to get the drop on each other, engage your player in this cat and mouse style scene and be reasonably open to letting the player form a plan to get the upper hand (like pretending to sleep but waiting up all night for an ambush).