Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

proactive and reactive gameplay

eli

Learned
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
187
what style of gameplay you prefer more. since most probably know what reactive gameplay plays like i will give an example of proactive gameplay, as in classic fallouts you have the ability to see the entire map of the dungeons.
 

Rean

Head Codexian Weeb
Patron
Joined
Nov 14, 2020
Messages
1,910
Strap Yourselves In
I've never heard of these definitions.

why-not-both-animated-gif-7.gif
 

Maxie

Guest
is proactive the same as knowing where shit is beforehand and tailoring an optimal route through the content like an autist
the thing we've been calling metagaming for decades
 

Moaning_Clock

SmokeSomeFrogs
Developer
Joined
Feb 7, 2021
Messages
655
If you design a Dungeon like a puzzle and you carefully need to manage ressources etc. proactive makes more sense but you could loose some enjoyment out of surprise, exploration etc. - if executed well, both is great, I don't have a preference
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
what style of gameplay you prefer more. since most probably know what reactive gameplay plays like
Proactive on part of the player or the gameworld?
Because one on one side means the other on the other.

Anyway, both are popamole brainlet options, obviously:
  • Reactive player (and proactive world) means player is just in for a passive ride* and the game throws content at them. That is obviously fucking braindead, since you just have to react to stuff coming your way without showing any initiative.
  • Proactive player (and reactive world), OTOH, means that the gameworld just sits there passively and lets the player have their way with it. While not as bad, and so obviously as purely reactive, it is still a retard friendly option as player can be absolutely sure they will be able to establish a comfort zone and expand it unchallenged using whatever cheese they can come up with**. This in turd turn leads to such wonders of challenging gameplay as 15' adventuring day where everyone novas their renewables (like spells if vancian), rests, then repeats (meaning characters built around less flashy but more sustained output fall behind, meaning someone comes and tries to balance wizards and warriors yet again with predictable*** consequences). This too is fucking braindead, no matter what mondblut might say. Too proactive gameplay happens to be frequent affliction plaguing open world games.
:dgaider:
:hearnoevil::gumpyhead:
:littlemissfun:
:whatisfun:
:balance:

Now the obvious alternative that produces vastly superior gameplay is...
A mixture of both.

This way player can and should (optimally has to) exercise their initiative, planning and preparation, but they also don't have the luxury of establishing and expanding their comfort zone at their leisure and tackling all challenges from the safety it provides. More so, when engaging in planning and preparation player needs to be more proactive than in "pure" proactive gameplay, because they also need to prepare for times where they will lose initiative and will be forced to react to what game throws their way and they will not have the luxury of knowing what it will be or extra prep time.

If both modes of gameplay are allowed to mix and interpenetrate, the result is much richer, less predictable and overall more challenging and fun to play.

And, thankfully, purely proactive and purely reactive gameplay is rare. Purely reactive gameplay is not gameplay at all. It's watching a fucking movie.
Meanwhile even RPGs that are nearly purely proactive (crawls, open world games) usually put players on reaction once in a while - for example with wandering monsters and random encounters.

Still, most games are too heavily slanted one way or another for their own good.
:obviously:

tl;dr
Thread sucks, OP is a brainlet.
i will give an example of proactive gameplay, as in classic fallouts you have the ability to see the entire map of the dungeons.
:hmmm:
So "proactive" is eli-ese for "I could not program a working automap"?
(And didn't Fallouts actually have working automap?)
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom