So I have two related problems.

I'm running a game with two very active posters and two rather relaxed ones. By active it's not just post frequency but engagement with the game environment, and NPCs.

I want to reward this kind of behavior, but it seems to discourage on of the more relaxed posters.

I've done two things so far as rewards.

1. I've been a bit more attentive of their powers. For instance, an active poster has a sort of danger sense. So I've detailed discovery for that active poster, basically having them be the one to first know "okay, there's something evil looming and you know there's some ravenous beasts coming your way". Something with an equivalent delivery could be done for someone with the power of incredible luck.
   
2. I've given small rewards. In this case an extra draw once or twice. It's a custom game system, so instead of explaining the whole system, I'll say it's based on a card game with certain intervals of being able to draw more cards. Every encounter a character gets a single draw.

This allows the active poster to take a more focal point in the game, and it seems to drive the game, not necessarily the story, but just keeping it from going stagnant.

So a couple questions:
Is this favoritism?
How would you feel about this sort of individual reward, and what is your rationale for feeling this way?

---

This seems to engage the more passive posters even less. I've tried to say "Hey, are you still interested in this game?" to which I just got the one word; "Yes".

I post, and wait for a response from the more passive poster only to find out they had nothing to add. So I started including "please post somewhere (even OOC) to let me know you saw this and have nothing add." They logged in, but still no post several hours later. I have post availability thread, basically for vacation/illness but also to say "here's when I'm active." So I know this when they're more likely to post.

So I have two choices.

1. Just move the game forward, including combat (which is done in one to three RL days right now) with the passive players posting as they want and otherwise...
   
   1. taking control of their character
      
   2. having them be idle, even in combat
   
   
2. Slow down until they can post something, anything, and having the more active players wait.
   
   • and possibly lose interest

A few additional notes

• We've had a problem with activity before and it resulted in two players dropping, one even before the game started.
• It's a niche. It's a homebrew system based on a defunct card game. In hindsight I should have posted an interest thread and let that percolate. RTJs I get are about one every two advertisements.
  
  • Character compatibility is difficult with such a small RTJ group.
  • With more than four players in a group it makes combat a bit too unbalanced in terms of difficulty and speed.

So, what suggestions do you have for making this game more successful and as a result being much more fun? The same is true in reverse. The more fun it is the more successful it will be.

I think I've included all the pertinent information without being excessive. If not, I'll add to this as it is pointed out.

Thanks for the advice. I will probably check this on Monday, so if you have a question before you can help just know I might not be back on until then.
This message was undeleted by the user at 07:07, Sat 30 Apr 2016.

Have you asked the players directly what they want, and what would engage them more? Maybe they're simply not seeing what interests them in the game. You're working toward this a little by trying to engage their characters, but really talk to the players. If you're up for it, give them some creative input. Ask them for details about what they see. If something blows up, let them describe how. Ask them for NPC names and quirks. Stuff like that. If they express a desire do your best to say "yes" to it, and avoid saying "no."

I would not do the reward thing. It seems too indirect to me.

While the above post is very valid, I have my own different take on that.

Rewarding good behavior (in this case, engaging posts from the players) is generally encouraged.

A pessimistic player will tend to see those rewards as the norm and see themselves as penalized, while an optimistic one will see them as rewards they can obtain.

If your more relaxed players are pessimistic, there isn't much you can do about it (aside from asking them what would engage/motivate them), just as long as you reward each player according to how they improve on themselves, as opposed to how they are better than the other players.
This message was last edited by the user at 03:28, Thu 28 Apr 2016.

Let your active players drive the game. That said, always give your less-active players a response whenever they get inspired.

The extra draws probably don't do any harm and help the active players be active. But treat all equivalent skills/abilities equally. Don't let their greater engagement make you actually play favorites.

I have asked the players, as a whole and also individually to let me know if they have aspirations, both in terms of goals and also wishlists of powers. I intend to repeat this notion, but the game has only be around for a little over a month (maybe closer to two if you count a RL pause), so I don't want to be a broken record.

When the more passive players post, I make a point of including their actions into the post. I'll have my NPCs react, or declare how their actions impacted the environment.

I just feel the quiet players are going to get left behind. I don't know how to say that and not make it sound threatening or pointed. Just the fact they log in and don't post, even "Sorry, can't post right now" when all they have is time to read. If they don't post, I need to move on anyway. Stagnant games, many of which are mine, are rarely good. So I'd like to keep the game going.

So engine says to do things that I am doing to the best of my knoweldge. So it's good advice I adhere to. Then he says special rewards are too indirect.

Cappadocius echoes my own intuition with as much as he/she has said. Which means that right nor wrong, I'm not the only one seeing it this way. Rewarding a player on a quota is bad. It isn't a matter of keeping up with anyone in terms of total engagement, just individual contribution. Total post count is largely ignored by me. A quiet character with a spectacular few words or actions demands as much someone who consistently becomes more involved and develops nicely.

Gaffer says let the active players steer and row the ship, but don't let the quiet players go unnoticed, or unrewarded, for their own contribution.

Then Gaffer says something that I find particularly useful. I take an implication from Gaffer's post, that powers should be equivalent, to mean when I said something about the danger sense versus luck,that both should be allowed to prevail individually, and not to the exclusion of one another. Luck is tricky though. So I'm standing with my initial decision, but it is worth noting.

I really feel like anyone, who is not disruptive, should eb allowed to play if I have time to devote to them. I have D&D games that I have long list waiting lists because I just can't give that many players the attention. In this game, I have very few interested players, which is all the more reason to cherish each one I have.

I am still very curious to see what else anyone has to add to this.

From what I'm reading, you're not doing what I'm saying.

Now, it's possible that these people wouldn't be active and engaged with any game they played. But it's also possible that they aren't enjoying your game enough to be active and engaged. Perhaps they're currently bored but are hoping it will get interesting so they don't want to drop, like people who listlessly watch the dull first season of a show in anticipation of a better second season.

So, what I'm saying is not to engage them on the level of their characters, but on the level of co-creators. Find out from them what interests them about games and get their help figuring out how to incorporate that into your game.

That might change the game you're running, which might be uncomfortable for you. The question is whether you'd rather run a game that's slightly different from what you want to play, or lose the players, because if they want something you have no intention of providing you're all better off parting ways.

No. As far as I can tell, I am. I just didn't think I needed to reiterate.

Every character has both knacks and flaws. The flaws are more quirks than debilitating. One character has bad memory, another is physically unfit. I had them write short background with important people and event. I haven't point blank asked for NPC names, because in my experience if someone like that sort of thing, they'll volunteer. In my experience, which I've had a lot of people outright say this to me, being a player and having to come up with NPC names and personalities is a chore and a let down. Some people like that, I'm sure, but if they do they'll usually say this much. If a player if going to make them fleshed out, the player should play them as accessories. They're assistant PCs, not NPCs. If someone says "I'm rich and have a loyal butler" I might ask "Do you know his name?" and then play butler with personality that is loyal but otherwise of my own.

I guess it boils down to what kind of questions would you ask, engine?

The number one question, which I've asked, and that I took for it being granted I've asked, is "What do you want from this game?". I also asked every player for motivation of what drives their character. One of the quiet players said "helping people" so I've put NPCs in there to help. Both those whom are capable but need assistance in their endeavor to be successful, and those that are quiet frankly helpless to their circumstances without aid.

Another player wants romance. So I've arranged another player, that is keen on that idea, to play a type of woman I think this player would enjoy (the player seems to enjoy a variety). That part is fine I think I figured out something from this extrapolation. It seems like one player might just want the two great vices of man, sex and violence. They're motivation did imply they wanted to fruit and fight. So I guess I'll just keep the fights coming, and put in plenty of chances for romance.

As far as them being bored, I do feel the two players are somewhat bored, but I'm getting next to no input from them. Which is fine. I'm okay with that if that's the case. It's the fact I don't want them to feel alienated. If they want to coast along as a fair weather player, they deserve to be somewhat put on the back burner until they put forth some effort. Unlike watching a T.V show, this is interactive. It would be more like an actor in an improv scene being more of an extra even though he's part of the main cast. You get what you put in. Again, though, the player may be unsure, sort of uncomfortable with posting, not sure how he can get a position in a scene. That's a different story. I want to play to their strengths to begin with, and give them a chance to feel focal, rather than passengers on a train.

It may be possible the players just aren't engaged in any game they play. If that's the case there is nothing I can do. They'll probably grow bored as their silence prolongs and they feel more detached.

I think part of the problem is just the newness of the game. In my experience it's the opposite. You get a flurry of posts early on, and then it dies down. Does it ever go in reverse?

Have you considered that they're telling the truth when they say they're engaged and enjoying the game, and they just don't write/RP to the standards of your other players?
In which case you're essentially penalising them for not being as 'good' (where 'good' is defined as 'what you want from a player')
I'm not saying that's the case here, but it may be worth considering?

As to them logging on but not always posting, well, that happens. Maybe they had three minutes free at work, long enough to log on and look eagerly at their next post on their slow mobile device, but not long enough to post. Not even 'I've read it. Will respond soon'.
I don't know what their playing speed is, or if your more active players are racing ahead, but maybe they read before work, at work, and when they come home, and every time there's new posts. The more posts between their last post and the new one, the longer it takes them to write a response because there's more to consider, and the less rewarding it is because the awesome action they've been planning since their lunch break is now moot.
You mentioned them not posting in the 'keep me updated about your availability' thread. I view those threads as a place to say I'll be away for a week. Or a weekend. Not a place to say 'going to work. Will post at 8.00pm when I return' because I don't share like that online, and posting my day to day availability would make a game feel like an intrusive chore.

Just some alternate view points.
I do not want to know if you think I'm right or wrong or why.
But while reading this thread all I've been able to think is 'what if those players are doing their best, putting up with being left behind because the GM clearly likes the other half of the group better, and are now being publically humiliated as unengaged, uninspired players in their favorite game they're trying really hard at'.
GM feedback suggests I'm usually the fast, rapid posting, keep things moving, interact with the world type player. So I have no hurt feelings by proxy here. Just an awareness that not everyone plays the same, or wants the same from a game.

What Low Key said is very true.

That's why I said to reward players according to how they improve on themselves, as opposed to who is best among them.

for me, status quo is rewarding engaging play.

As a GM I often times log in at work to review what has gone on during my lunch breaks. Since it is usually through my phone I do nothing to advance or reply if possible.

That being said, as a GM I've usually walked hand in hand with my players to help develop their character within my world. That being said, I tend to have at least a slight grasp of how "vocal" the character might be. Not everyone can post every 3 days, heck there are times I can not even do that.

As long as the character is attempting to be part of the group, no matter how small the contribution is at that point, I reward in line with the rest of the group. Who knows what is going on in RL? They may be having an off month when it comes to posting.

Then again I run a leveless system so the race for exp is never there.