6 hours ago, Vorzakk said:

This is true, and I must also advise you that it can sometimes take quite a bit of time to build that trust; especially if the player has had a long history with adversarial GM's. I had one player who was at my table for 2 or 3 years before it finally sank in that I wasn't out to get him.

Ugh really? That's a very long time.

2 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

There's a fine line in some players' perceptions between "the GM is trying to kill us" and "the Empire (or other setting appropriate adversary) is trying to kill us" especially when the latter is very likely true. Some level of caution can be fun to role play, but too much is just as much of a fun killer as players fearlessly charging against overwhelming odds at all opportunities believing that "the GM won't kill us."

Yeah Happy they were clearly metagaming. I see what you mean and I believe you are correct, but these guys were pulling out everything they could (can I have two blues for trying to anticipate bad guys showing up? We check every piece of equipment to make sure no one can track us here. Hey Bob make sure that you don't go there because there will be enemies there, oh and I don't go there either but I want to know what's in that area) , especially in the first two sessions before I really came down on them out of game, to avoid any little bit of risk. It was clear that what they were expecting was me attempting to outsmart them at every turn, or for me to use overwhelming force on them if they engaged the enemy. This wasn't in a "We're rebels so we should run and fight another day," it was more like hey that's a fight, let's get the **** out of here and make sure where we are going there won't be a fight there either.

I was frustrated and bored to tears. It wasn't that I had designed a non-combat game either, as I had encounters peppered throughout the lines of advancement in each hook in what I thought was right for this game. It was dungeon crawl frequency, but to me it was a Star Wars level of encounter frequency and intensity.

7 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

There's a fine line in some players' perceptions between "the GM is trying to kill us" and "the Empire (or other setting appropriate adversary) is trying to kill us" especially when the latter is very likely true. Some level of caution can be fun to role play, but too much is just as much of a fun killer as players fearlessly charging against overwhelming odds at all opportunities believing that "the GM won't kill us."

True, but that doesnt sound like the players we are talking about here.

I have to wonder why these players are even at the table. What is the point?

Anyway, having dealt with some of this with my over-50 crowd (who all grew up playing antagonistically because "that's how it was done"), I agree with a couple points above.

First is patience. One of my never-used-but-available lines is "You know, I've set this up with the expectation that you succeed". It's better to show than tell, so you just have to take the time to prove it. But at some point it may require breaking the fourth wall in order to clarify that, as the GM, you can do anything you want. If they don't go down the hall because "enemies might be there", you shift those enemies to be "right behind them right now", and then ask for a Vigilance roll. I'd also make it clear that no risk = no reward, whether that's XP, goods, or Duty scores. If they aren't going to act like heroes, and instead act members of an accountant's convention stuck in a horror film, then they aren't going to get anything out of it.

Second is rails. Some players need more guidance in this regard, but the trick is to make the rails seem like natural consequences of their actions. If they don't get their stuff together and start performing, the Alliance is going to start thinking they might be double agents. So restrictions like "be back by 0400 with the goods" is a test...and as we've seen in Rogue One, not everyone in the Alliance is motivated by ideals like "forgiveness"... Really, any game that has consequences based on NPC behaviour or reaction is "on rails", so you should feel free to leverage that any way you see fit. They should give just as much, or more, thought to the consequences of inaction as they do to action.

In addition to NPC-based "rails", my other favourite "rail" is a clock. Never let the PCs just sit there or even go shopping*, that's for downtime between sessions. The PCs should be worried they aren't going to arrive in time, or negotiate a treaty in time, or deal with the bomb in time, or search the facility in time, or ...whatever.

* I realize some people like to have sessions for bookkeeping and equipment shopping. Personally I find this intensely boring, and my session time is too precious to devote to such mundane pursuits. If the PCs need some equipment for a specific purpose, I either built it into the session, or just hand-wave it...and I almost always say "yes", so my players don't complain...

23 minutes ago, whafrog said:

* I realize some people like to have sessions for bookkeeping and equipment shopping. Personally I find this intensely boring, and my session time is too precious to devote to such mundane pursuits. If the PCs need some equipment for a specific purpose, I either built it into the session, or just hand-wave it...and I almost always say "yes", so my players don't complain...

First, kudos to the notion of using a ticking clock as a rail. It's something I do, but not something I've ever consciously quantified.

Second, I tend to run focused sessions of approximately four hours in length. Major sessions "finale style" often run longer.

We usually have a relaxed bookkeeping-planning-recap session over snacks after the shorter sessions.

41 minutes ago, Vondy said:

First, kudos to the notion of using a ticking clock as a rail. It's something I do, but not something I've ever consciously quantified.

Second, I tend to run focused sessions of approximately four hours in length. Major sessions "finale style" often run longer.

We usually have a relaxed bookkeeping-planning-recap session over snacks after the shorter sessions.

The bookkeeping=planning-recap session is one of the overlooked things in a GMs arsenal. Roleplaying buying a couple clips may be fun to some, but it can be intensely boring to a GM, so getting it out of the way off camera, so to speak, is useful. Planning and recap is really helpful tho. Recap should be done so that the GM can ask about why certain characters did certain things in the adventure, so that the GM can nail down how a character and its player think in the game. Planning is important so that the GM can prep to the plan, instead of trying to cover an infinite series of possibilities.

1 hour ago, whafrog said:

I have to wonder why these players are even at the table. What is the point?

Anyway, having dealt with some of this with my over-50 crowd (who all grew up playing antagonistically because "that's how it was done"), I agree with a couple points above.

First is patience. One of my never-used-but-available lines is "You know, I've set this up with the expectation that you succeed". It's better to show than tell, so you just have to take the time to prove it. But at some point it may require breaking the fourth wall in order to clarify that, as the GM, you can do anything you want. If they don't go down the hall because "enemies might be there", you shift those enemies to be "right behind them right now", and then ask for a Vigilance roll. I'd also make it clear that no risk = no reward, whether that's XP, goods, or Duty scores. If they aren't going to act like heroes, and instead act members of an accountant's convention stuck in a horror film, then they aren't going to get anything out of it.

Second is rails. Some players need more guidance in this regard, but the trick is to make the rails seem like natural consequences of their actions. If they don't get their stuff together and start performing, the Alliance is going to start thinking they might be double agents. So restrictions like "be back by 0400 with the goods" is a test...and as we've seen in Rogue One, not everyone in the Alliance is motivated by ideals like "forgiveness"... Really, any game that has consequences based on NPC behaviour or reaction is "on rails", so you should feel free to leverage that any way you see fit. They should give just as much, or more, thought to the consequences of inaction as they do to action.

In addition to NPC-based "rails", my other favourite "rail" is a clock. Never let the PCs just sit there or even go shopping*, that's for downtime between sessions. The PCs should be worried they aren't going to arrive in time, or negotiate a treaty in time, or deal with the bomb in time, or search the facility in time, or ...whatever.

* I realize some people like to have sessions for bookkeeping and equipment shopping. Personally I find this intensely boring, and my session time is too precious to devote to such mundane pursuits. If the PCs need some equipment for a specific purpose, I either built it into the session, or just hand-wave it...and I almost always say "yes", so my players don't complain...

A bit of amplification on this one. If you are getting annoyed as a GM, break the heck out of that fourth wall. Especially when they just want to hide in a dark spot shivering in fear. Demand an explanation of why they are wasting your time.

Wow some great stuff here guys thank you. Yeah this is a new group to me and while I am from the generation of the DM vs. Players Gary Gygax style, they very much are not. They had a GM who sounded like a bit of a lunatic, even to the point of having some legal troubles and harassing female players to the point of having them quit the hobby according to what they told me. So I didn't want to be too rough on them but they pissed me off within a few sessions. I kicked out the worst of them like I said when he took his caution into aggression toward me for injecting adversity. After that one of them took over as party leader but they still seemed to be reluctant to really do anything and they would happily spend a session essentially building bases and shopping.

At one point I told them that these were perfectly valid things to do in a video game but not in a TTRPG. I stopped the game and asked nicely a few times, then I tried to explain to them that if the movie characters had acted like they do the Empire would not have to fear the Rebels.

I think they just don't get this concept that risk is the way to adventure, to excitement.

On the positive side, I will use the clock and the other tools you mentioned Whafrog, as those are excellent suggestions. I will also try to get one of my other players to play and model these things for them. I will use rails somewhat, but I am really not the guy for Theme Park. There is a difference though between being controlled incessantly and just situationally being "in the chute," where logically there is really only one way to go.

4 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

So I didn't want to be too rough on them but they pissed me off within a few sessions. I kicked out the worst of them like I said when he took his caution into aggression toward me for injecting adversity. After that one of them took over as party leader but they still seemed to be reluctant to really do anything and they would happily spend a session essentially building bases and shopping.

At one point I told them that these were perfectly valid things to do in a video game but not in a TTRPG. I stopped the game and asked nicely a few times, then I tried to explain to them that if the movie characters had acted like they do the Empire would not have to fear the Rebels.

Actually, the rebel characters did exactly this. Remember Yavin IV? Remember Hoth? Remember Cloud City? The a lot of the movie characters were perfectly content with building up their strength and bases. That kind of play style is perfectly valid for a p&p table, though it leans towards a sandbox game approach instead of a rail-roading adventure one.

If your players want to build up their bases that really is the best thing you can hope for. Only if they abandon everything they build up at the slightest sign of trouble without even trying to protect it is when trouble arises. It is the perfect chance for you to pamper your group instead of being mean to them. All you have to do is create minor threats to their bases after you let them build them up and see what happens. It is as well the perfect opportunity to build trust as you can build those encounters around the idea that failure will not immediately punished either and have rather minor consequences.

To be honest: The attitude of a GM who gets pissed about players and/or characters who actually do what they want is pissing me off. Your only job as a GM is to make sure that your group is having a good time. If their approach is base building and not action orientated than this is still a valid roleplay choice, all you have to do is to make that time interesting, cutting things short when they get boring and expanding on the stuff the group enjoys. For example can you resolve shopping in single rolls and determine based on the qualify of rolls when the stuff they ordered arrives finally if you are not up to the task to make a shopping day an interesting RP opportunity or just are not interested yourself in it much. This leaves plenty of stuff around that can get interesting, from solving trouble with NPCs in the base, to helping with logistics, to making successful business deals, diplomatic relations, romance, whatever …

Do you think that Lando managing cloud city was a boring task? Imho it was quite the opposite, it was a new challenge for Lando and something he really enjoyed. And it was one of his reason to fight the empire who took it from him.

7 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Ugh really? That's a very long time.

It doesn't always take that long. I've had paranoids settle in and loosen up after 3-4 months.

1 hour ago, SEApocalypse said:

Actually, the rebel characters did exactly this. Remember Yavin IV? Remember Hoth? Remember Cloud City? The a lot of the movie characters were perfectly content with building up their strength and bases. That kind of play style is perfectly valid for a p&p table, though it leans towards a sandbox game approach instead of a rail-roading adventure one.

If your players want to build up their bases that really is the best thing you can hope for. Only if they abandon everything they build up at the slightest sign of trouble without even trying to protect it is when trouble arises. It is the perfect chance for you to pamper your group instead of being mean to them. All you have to do is create minor threats to their bases after you let them build them up and see what happens. It is as well the perfect opportunity to build trust as you can build those encounters around the idea that failure will not immediately punished either and have rather minor consequences.

All of this is good, however...

If you build it they will come.

In all of those places, the rebels build it and the Empire came and trashed it.

Taking it to the enemy via hit and run / raid and fade makes you less of a sitting duck.

Most gamers don't like being sitting ducks.

Quote

To be honest: The attitude of a GM who gets pissed about players and/or characters who actually do what they want is pissing me off. Your only job as a GM is to make sure that your group is having a good time.

/snip

I am going to dissent: the game-master is also a member of the group in good standing and is also supposed to be having a good time. And, since the game master has to do most of the heavy lifting, the players need to make sure the person running the game is also enjoying themself. If they aren't, there will be no game. It's a two way street that requires communication and compromise. The gamemaster, contrary to the increasingly prevant conceit in modern gaming circles, is not the player's servant. Everyone at the table has to communicate, compromise, and contribute to one-another's fun. Th

That said, I agree with the part I snipped. All of those kinds of scenes, approaches, and themes can be fun if that's what the group is into.

Quote

Do you think that Lando managing cloud city was a boring task? Imho it was quite the opposite, it was a new challenge for Lando and something he really enjoyed. And it was one of his reason to fight the empire who took it from him.

It may have been interesting to do, but it would have been boring to watch , which is why it didn't appear on screen. Also, the Empire taking what he had built from him was where is arc in the films began. His process of building it amounted to a few lines of exposition. The game-master is forever watching what the players are doing . The players are the actors on stage and the game-master isn't just the director, but the audience as well. To that end, the players should put on a show that is more interesting than Andy Warhol's Empire . In fact, fighting (the) Empire is what it's all about.

Building the Cloud City could be an interesting campaign for a certain kind of group. But, to me, its the kind of thing interlude sessions were made for.

44 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

To be honest: The attitude of a GM who gets pissed about players and/or characters who actually do what they want is pissing me off. Your only job as a GM is to make sure that your group is having a good time. If their approach is base building and not action orientated than this is still a valid roleplay choice, all you have to do is to make that time interesting, cutting things short when they get boring and expanding on the stuff the group enjoys.

I don't think this is a fair point. It *is* my job to make sure the group is having a good time, but there has to be a contract between GM and players on what a "good time" is. If I want an action+drama-oriented game, and the players want to play tiddlywinks with their credits, we're going to part ways (amicably of course). They can find another GM and I can find another group.

So I guess that is the first question that needs to be resolved...

I see coaches in sports get pissed at their players all the time when they expect them to score points and instead it's a gaggle of idiots having a tea party on the field.

It's called Star Wars, not Sissy Pants Run n Hide.....

20 hours ago, whafrog said:

I don't think this is a fair point. It *is* my job to make sure the group is having a good time, but there has to be a contract between GM and players on what a "good time" is. If I want an action+drama-oriented game, and the players want to play tiddlywinks with their credits, we're going to part ways (amicably of course). They can find another GM and I can find another group.

So I guess that is the first question that needs to be resolved...

Agreed.

Still imho compromising the GM experience is always better than compromising the player's experience. The needs of the many vs the needs of the few. Furthermore imho the main fun part for a GM should be player enjoyment in the first place and not a specific game style.

Parting ways is still the best option in general when incompatible game styles collide, because having fun is the goal, if compromising reduces the fun part to zero for anyone in the group than there is no point in staying in a group. This applies to players and GMs alike.

1 hour ago, Vondy said:

The gamemaster, contrary to the increasingly prevant conceit in modern gaming circles, is not the player's servant.

What!? My players keep telling me that I am.

3 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

Actually, the rebel characters did exactly this. Remember Yavin IV? Remember Hoth? Remember Cloud City? The a lot of the movie characters were perfectly content with building up their strength and bases. That kind of play style is perfectly valid for a p&p table, though it leans towards a sandbox game approach instead of a rail-roading adventure one.

If your players want to build up their bases that really is the best thing you can hope for. Only if they abandon everything they build up at the slightest sign of trouble without even trying to protect it is when trouble arises. It is the perfect chance for you to pamper your group instead of being mean to them. All you have to do is create minor threats to their bases after you let them build them up and see what happens. It is as well the perfect opportunity to build trust as you can build those encounters around the idea that failure will not immediately punished either and have rather minor consequences.

To be honest: The attitude of a GM who gets pissed about players and/or characters who actually do what they want is pissing me off. Your only job as a GM is to make sure that your group is having a good time. If their approach is base building and not action orientated than this is still a valid roleplay choice, all you have to do is to make that time interesting, cutting things short when they get boring and expanding on the stuff the group enjoys. For example can you resolve shopping in single rolls and determine based on the qualify of rolls when the stuff they ordered arrives finally if you are not up to the task to make a shopping day an interesting RP opportunity or just are not interested yourself in it much. This leaves plenty of stuff around that can get interesting, from solving trouble with NPCs in the base, to helping with logistics, to making successful business deals, diplomatic relations, romance, whatever …

Do you think that Lando managing cloud city was a boring task? Imho it was quite the opposite, it was a new challenge for Lando and something he really enjoyed. And it was one of his reason to fight the empire who took it from him.

Your only job as a GM is to make sure that your group is having a good time <-- I see this a lot, but there is no Law Book for TTRPGs where everyone has to follow some code.

I check my Gandhi hat at the door when I come home from work. And I really don't think that when you start a game of Age of Rebellion that it's wrong for the expectation to be there for it to not be the Accountants and Safety Monitors of the Rebellion. This is especially so because I described the rough theme for what was happening at start of play and really tried to give them as much heads up as possible. As the guy running the game you are a player too, and you're responsible for everybody's fun, to include your own. If I'm not having fun, I'm not going to run it, and if I just want to watch people have fun while I'm not... there are vacation videos or YouTube or thousands of other ways to punch myself in the **** for other people's enjoyment.

2 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

Agreed.

Still imho compromising the GM experience is always better than compromising the player's experience. The needs of the many vs the needs of the few. Furthermore imho the main fun part for a GM should be player enjoyment in the first place and not a specific game style.

Parting ways is still the best option in general when incompatible gamestyles collidge, because having fun is the goal, if compromising reduces the fun part to zero for anyone in the group than there is no point in staying in a group. This applies to players and GMs alike.

Not only no, but oh **** no. It isnt the GMs job to suffer so that the players can have fun any more than one of the players should be designated group gimp and not be allowed to have fun.

THE GM IS A PLAYER. His role may be different, but he is there to have fun.

3 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

Actually, the rebel characters did exactly this. Remember Yavin IV? Remember Hoth? Remember Cloud City? The a lot of the movie characters were perfectly content with building up their strength and bases. That kind of play style is perfectly valid for a p&p table, though it leans towards a sandbox game approach instead of a rail-roading adventure one.

If your players want to build up their bases that really is the best thing you can hope for. Only if they abandon everything they build up at the slightest sign of trouble without even trying to protect it is when trouble arises. It is the perfect chance for you to pamper your group instead of being mean to them. All you have to do is create minor threats to their bases after you let them build them up and see what happens. It is as well the perfect opportunity to build trust as you can build those encounters around the idea that failure will not immediately punished either and have rather minor consequences.

To be honest: The attitude of a GM who gets pissed about players and/or characters who actually do what they want is pissing me off. Your only job as a GM is to make sure that your group is having a good time. If their approach is base building and not action orientated than this is still a valid roleplay choice, all you have to do is to make that time interesting, cutting things short when they get boring and expanding on the stuff the group enjoys. For example can you resolve shopping in single rolls and determine based on the qualify of rolls when the stuff they ordered arrives finally if you are not up to the task to make a shopping day an interesting RP opportunity or just are not interested yourself in it much. This leaves plenty of stuff around that can get interesting, from solving trouble with NPCs in the base, to helping with logistics, to making successful business deals, diplomatic relations, romance, whatever …

Do you think that Lando managing cloud city was a boring task? Imho it was quite the opposite, it was a new challenge for Lando and something he really enjoyed. And it was one of his reason to fight the empire who took it from him.

Yeah I remember all those things. I dont remember the movie that shows them setting up those facilities tho.

Also, Lando was an NPC, and an antagonist NPC at that, in Empire.

14 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Wow some great stuff here guys thank you. Yeah this is a new group to me and while I am from the generation of the DM vs. Players Gary Gygax style, they very much are not. They had a GM who sounded like a bit of a lunatic, even to the point of having some legal troubles and harassing female players to the point of having them quit the hobby according to what they told me. So I didn't want to be too rough on them but they pissed me off within a few sessions. I kicked out the worst of them like I said when he took his caution into aggression toward me for injecting adversity. After that one of them took over as party leader but they still seemed to be reluctant to really do anything and they would happily spend a session essentially building bases and shopping.

At one point I told them that these were perfectly valid things to do in a video game but not in a TTRPG. I stopped the game and asked nicely a few times, then I tried to explain to them that if the movie characters had acted like they do the Empire would not have to fear the Rebels.

I think they just don't get this concept that risk is the way to adventure, to excitement.

On the positive side, I will use the clock and the other tools you mentioned Whafrog, as those are excellent suggestions. I will also try to get one of my other players to play and model these things for them. I will use rails somewhat, but I am really not the guy for Theme Park. There is a difference though between being controlled incessantly and just situationally being "in the chute," where logically there is really only one way to go.

You may want to consider putting them on the rails, literally. Stick them on a train. Make it clear heavy combat isn't allowed, because big weapons all had to be checked. Then run a murder mystery, one bad guy, no combat until the end, unless they go murder hobo on the entire train. Maybe the Rebels want them to meet a contact to pick up a datacard, at the meet, the contact is dead, no card in evidence. But since they are on a train that hasn't stopped, the killer, and card are still on board. Small area to look, limited time duration. They might be paranoid at first, but unless they pick a fight, they should only need to fight an ISB agent and his thugs at the end. And then maybe run from the local cops instead of killing a bunch of innocents.

20 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

Agreed.

Still imho compromising the GM experience is always better than compromising the player's experience. The needs of the many vs the needs of the few. Furthermore imho the main fun part for a GM should be player enjoyment in the first place and not a specific game style.

Parting ways is still the best option in general when incompatible gamestyles collidge, because having fun is the goal, if compromising reduces the fun part to zero for anyone in the group than there is no point in staying in a group. This applies to players and GMs alike.

I haven't done this in my Star Wars games because the narrative system gives enough wiggle-room to avoid most horrible outcomes (if so desired), but in my long-running AD&D game (yes, I'm a grognard) that stars some very venerable and beloved PCs we have a fairly explicit understanding that most combats won't result in death or dismemberment, etc. My GM style is not even remotely Gygaxian. However, if I say "It's on" everyone understands that, while I am trying to appropriately and fairly scale the challenge, and will give them every reasonable break I can, that the dice will fall where they fall. The players have come to refer to it as "the red zone."

Players don't want to engage in the story and instead look at you, the GM, to provide entertainment in your sandbox? Well, okay!

I'll again reference my idea of a "clockwork sandbox" where I create, populate, and manage a setting and its inhabitants. I cook up stories for those inhabitants. Those provide hooks for the PCs. How they interact informs how the sandbox changes - they use their agency to play in a world that constantly changes with or without them. Is my world built from their backgrounds? Oh you'd better believe it. Obligations? Yup. Duties? Yup! So if the players want to go off to find the best porridge in all of Manadalore, sure, I'll entertain that. But that dog doesn't hunt for more than a few minutes, and that's when it's time to have the world interact with them...in a thematically appropriate way. I won't rob them of their agency, but I will dangle some action in front of them to break them from the reverie. However, if everyone's having fun, me included, then I just let it roll. That's rule zero after all.

If they sit up, the Empire comes calling. You do not need to go out and put yourself in the way of trouble voluntarily (han Solo comlains all the time about the crap he is in because he is with a bunch of idiots). However, the fFUN is when trouble finds YOU anyway. yavin? Yup. Hoth? Yup. endor? Indeed, even if in that case the rebels were taking an active approach.

1 minute ago, MonCal said:

trouble finds YOU anyway.

This is the key thing - the PCs are notorious, they're protagonists. A little time to breathe is okay, now and then, but there's always someone looking to settle a score with them, unless the characters were created to be totally boring.

9 minutes ago, themensch said:

This is the key thing - the PCs are notorious, they're protagonists. A little time to breathe is okay, now and then, but there's always someone looking to settle a score with them, unless the characters were created to be totally boring.

Yeah and they did a few things to cause this sort of retribution and interaction from hostile forces, but when it occurred they howled, and were it not for the look I know I had on my face I know they would have called it unfair. Then they saw the connection between what they did and what had happened and promptly started trying to sanitize their interactions to prevent further incidents. I'm not kidding man they actually endeavored to avoid adventures. I do understand that it could seem that maybe this was me not handling the sandbox elements right or maybe not having characters who are suitable for such adventures, but really it was about players trying to avoid reasonable danger. If they would have told me that they wanted to play The Remains of the Day we could have set that up, but this thing where they attempt to just turtle up and avoid/resent action was driving me nuts.

29 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Yeah and they did a few things to cause this sort of retribution and interaction from hostile forces, but when it occurred they howled, and were it not for the look I know I had on my face I know they would have called it unfair. Then they saw the connection between what they did and what had happened and promptly started trying to sanitize their interactions to prevent further incidents. I'm not kidding man they actually endeavored to avoid adventures. I do understand that it could seem that maybe this was me not handling the sandbox elements right or maybe not having characters who are suitable for such adventures, but really it was about players trying to avoid reasonable danger. If they would have told me that they wanted to play The Remains of the Day we could have set that up, but this thing where they attempt to just turtle up and avoid/resent action was driving me nuts.

It definitely sounds like you need to put some rails in place. Maybe even have some of the adventures start "in media res". Check out some of the old WEG modules on d6Holocron. The have a short script at the beginning which is the players talking about how they got into this situation, then it starts with the action, whatever it is. And if they really don't want to play through a module, ask them what they want to do. Maybe they don't want an RPG, and just want a boardgame.