Passive players

Over on the Scrolls of the Platinum Warlock (btw he often has good stuff to say so go follow his blog) he talks about this month's topic, hosted over at Nevermet Press:"Things to Love, Things to Hate"--essentially, what do you (as a GM or as a player) look for in an RPG, an adventure, a system, etc.

So I have to try and make time to get my set down in the blog by months end.

One of his dislikes really stood out for me as its my own number 1 pet peeve

I hate it when players don't give me anything to work with...then complain about it.

• GMing is hard work.  It's a lot of prep, and it's a lot of writing.  If I'm asking you, as a player, for a background, that means that I need your help in contributing to the world and to have an active investment in it.  It means that I want to engage you as both a player and a character.  And, when you reject that?  Yeah...that sends a pretty strong message that you don't really care about playing.

I could not agree more. Furthermore why is it many players;

• Don't read the games background material
• Only will play one meta-character The Ninja, the Barbarian, The Notice-everthing- monster, etc
• Not get with the setting trope - ie Black Magic with a cost in Swords and Sorcery, A Noble not a fighter, as a knight in Pendragon.  

I think in this age its ideal when a player becomes engaged in the game world and want to offer up ideas ...  its a two way street. However if the player does so, then as a GM you need to respond POSITIVELY and work the players ideas into the game or come up with a workable counter proposal "Yes And" or "Yes However". The Player, likewise should not be doing this for game or power-building reasons but for play/story reasons.

I need to try and develop a subsystem which is quick and elegant and handles this... hum already I can see I'll be turning to Leverage rpg and Mistborn maybe even a bit of FATE for some research on how to facilitate this during a session.