Player-Driven Is the New Black: But How to Wear It?

[Gimfalisette]

DISCUSSION BACKGROUND

Back in February 2009, staff made a significant policy change:

Staff will no longer be animating the 'big boss' and senior NPCs of the clans for report ins and general catch ups. When a player needs information from the higher ranks of the house this will, in general, be given via email.

Staff instead will be concentrating on facilitating the stories that players are creating. The overall goal is that gameplay happens at a level that is accessible to players, allowing them to feel a very real part of the action.

...

This change does not mean that the House structure, ranks and goals go away. The npcs can still come out, if needed, what we don't want is staff tied up for 2 hours listening to a report that they read all about in email. This type of interaction, while often appreciated by staff and players, could be better replaced by more active animations – those boss npcs might still turn up to give you a promotion, bitch you out or just surprise you by having a drink at the bar.

How will players know what they can do, if we don't have the NPCs to tell them?

This is an area for us to work on. One thing that has been suggested is making up 'job descriptions', or guides, for the different types of sponsored or leader roles. For example your Merchant might be told that he has the right to:
- Hire crafters
- Hire an assistant
- Arrange for hunters to seek out specialist resources to make goods
- Hire the byn to assist in expeditions
- Work on trade partnerships with fellow merchants in other houses
- Work with enterprising independents to 'incorporate' their goods into the house lines
- Research new product lines

And so on. By giving you guys a better idea of what you have authority over we hope that you'll then have more confidence to do these (and other) things.

...

If staff are only facilitating what the players do what happens to all their cool ideas?

The idea here is to move away from large, preplanned plots for clans towards plots that are based on what the players are doing or interested in. We already do a good deal of this, by freeing ourselves up from some of the 'overhead' of administrative animating for clans we're hoping to give staff more time to do these stories.

What this doesn't mean is that we never get to come up with plot ideas or stories, instead we take the ideas, or the impetus, from the players and work from there.

Does that mean there's no big plots, only small stories? I like the huge stuff!

While we want to focus our attentions on making the game more player driven as staff we still need to share a vision for the game. There will always be a need for oversight and direction at the macro level, what we want to make sure is that most of the action plays out at the micro level, where the players are, rather than up high where you are more observer than participant.

There was some discussion immediately upon implementation and up through May, here: http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,34249.50.html

Players were having a variety of experiences; there were many random animations at first, then not many. Some players felt that the change was having a good effect for them, others were not seeing any change.

I perceive that this uneasiness and uncertainty with the new system has persisted amongst players:

Some players get a lot of attention, but some get very little staff support or attention.

Just out of pure curiosity ... has anyone seen this?

My one gripe with the situation is that facilitation seems to have been replaced with 'stopping at all cost'. 'Realistic response' has become 'failure'.

This is how I feel.  Additionally...

50% of the reason that I don't play Arm anymore is that feels so stagnant and in many cases doesn't live up to its promise.  It's supposed to be open-ended but a majority of players ultimately aren't able to do what they want to do.  We're bound by the code and we can't interact with the world on the level we want to.

Um. I have never experienced the inability to push things through... at all. As long as a thing made sense, and was possible, it was okay to go for it.

I've had the complete opposite problem. I feel like I'm not doing as much as the staff and game world are making me capable of doing!

Having just come off about 8 months of staffing independents, the Byn, Bards, and the Guild I can pretty honestly say never once was a plot idea e-mailed to us that we said "no" to.

I don't mean to presume, but from conversations I have had with people about these sorts of feelings out of the game, it seems that a lot set their expectations too high.

I can't say that staff has ever said no to me, but they've never hesitated in being 'realistic' about any negative retaliation that my character would suffer. Which is fine. But never once, not once, have I ever experienced a 'realistic' positive retaliation from the staff as a result of my plans.

And that's the problem, really.

My expectations were running way too high recently, so I took a step back and lowered them. That isn't to say you shouldn't have expectations and goals, they just have to be realistic. Shoot for the stars, and if you're -very- lucky, you might just reach the moon.

DISCUSSION

Based on what the players have been saying, and my own experiences, I believe that collectively, we players have not fully adjusted to this change yet. I believe it is also possible that staff has not fully adjusted to the change, but that is just speculation. We are together moving from a mindset where staff presents all the important plots, to one where the impetus for important plots primarily comes from the players; and that is a huge change indeed.

I would like to discuss and share our strategies, tips, tricks for navigating this change and taking the fullest advantage of what is available to us now, as players and leaders.

What strategies have you used for creating and moving plots that have been successful in this new environment? What have you tried that has not been successful? What level of plot (personal, organizational, inter-organizational, world) have you felt most successful in moving? As always, please keep IC information out of your sharing.

How have you changed as a player, for good or ill, with these changes? Do you see further opportunities for growth for yourself, and how do you plan to achieve that?

How has your relationship to staff changed, and how do you feel about that?

What advice would you give to a newbie leader now in ARM? How is that different from what you might have said a year ago?

Please keep this thread civil and free of staff- or player-bashing. That is not the purpose here; I am looking to improve my own play and adjust to these changes, and other players may need help as well.

[UnderSeven]

Personally this change meant little to me, I am one of the players who tended to avoid staff interaction.  

To me armageddon is a game about interaction between people and staff are there to maintain a game world, not be a regular part of that interaction.  I have always molded my role play around interacting with other characters and only speaking to staff when I specifically needed or wanted something that only they could provide.  

To me the new system just evens the playing field a little, because some pcs were seeing a lot more staff attention than others (certainly I wasn't seeing much and in no small part because I tried so hard to avoid it).  

Maybe this isn't what everyone likes, but my advice to you is look at the game as a relationship between pcs.  Like a character (pc) driven plot rather than plot (staff) driven plot.  

That's my two cents.

also, I'm happy for you and I'mma let you finish, but Gimf is the meaniest and scariest player ever in the history of armageddon.

[Timetwister]

Old player here. This tends to come up every so often. I think the problem has always been in the "clan" code basically. Clans get everything. They get NPC guards for their extra hot compounds. They get staff support in just about anything that they do. You never really ever see any conflict between clan-based players. Everybody gets along. Everybody works toward furthering their own loot or money, or the glory of house whatever. A long long time ago players used to be able to make a lot more change to the world. They didn't have to be in clan but that's still the problem. If I gather together a certain amount of PCs and I start building a base, it's likely that it won't get any staff attention. You have to e-mail staff constantly and go Out-of-character to get any support which is really a pain in the ass for people who just like keeping everything IC. Like myself for example:

I don't like forums. I don't like the idea that clans get their own forums. Back in the day you had all communication go through the rumor boards and that was it. The clan forums are really jarring to anybody who embraces their indie characters. I can't get anything done because all the PCs I interact with is completely IC and I don't know any of them in any OOC manner. Which is the way I like it. Nobody here knows who I am and good riddance, I don't want people to know who I play. So in that sense there is a real problem with the way clans work. Clans become this "OOC" drive. Everybody is working together. Everybody posts on their own clan forum to say who they are, and to say when they can play, and this and that. Instead of not knowing what a character might do to you, all of a sudden you're this huge OOC team that is working together.

So basically that's the problem with anything player-driven. You can't say the world is player driven when 99% of players have a coded clan that have vNPCs and NPCs guarding their camps and all that. It's just not fair to those who decide to actually go out and do their own thing. The world has a huge vNPC presence. It has armies that never get utilized. A lot of questions pop up about certain things. Questions that we certainly can't answer.

[musashi]

Really good point Gimf. After thinking about it, I realize that I'm not adjusted to this change at all. Up until now I've always felt like an imm animation automatically equaled a major plot point or something important that my character should be focusing on and devoting a lot of his time to trying to understand and react to.

But with these changes, it could just as easily be a casual, everyday unimportant nuiance that the staff wanted to bring to life for me to make the world seem a bit more real.

Likewise, sometimes when being the recipient of an animation, I'm usually waiting for some kind of "quest" to be handed down by the NPC, and the NPC seems to often be ... annoyed that I'm stalling or wasting their time.

I was starting to feel pretty stalled but, from the viewpoint of the policy change, now it seems like we were both waiting for the other person to make the first move, so we could react.

I think this is going to severely alter my play style from here on out.

[Cutthroat]

What strategies have you used for creating and moving plots that have been successful in this new environment? What have you tried that has not been successful? What level of plot (personal, organizational, inter-organizational, world) have you felt most successful in moving? As always, please keep IC information out of your sharing.

To be successful at moving a plot along in the light of the recent policy change, it needs some ingredients:

• You need at least a little support from staff. You tell them what you plan on doing, and they say okay. If your plot will eventually require some sort of change to the game world, this is important.
• You need player support. Nothing big can be done alone, and organizations often have to work together to complete something. Even if something -can- be done alone, it's often more favorable to include someone in your efforts, to hasten the process. Also, some PCs might disapprove of the plot... you will have to appease them or otherwise take care of them in some way.
• You need something reasonable to do. Most likely, staffers aren't going to let your templar declare war on the opposite city-state, or your Salarri family member to add a tavern to one of the cities. Think of what the game world needs or doesn't need, and what makes sense for your character to consider in his station.

I think it's that third point that is the most important, and the least obvious. Players may get discouraged if their plans don't fit in. They might have to settle for something different, or something lesser.

All that said, however, inter-organizational plots are by far the easiest to start. All the noble houses have specializations, as do the merchant houses, the templarate, and the Byn. They all potentially play important roles in what a plot needs. Worldwide plots are likely the hardest, since you'll need a good reason to affect the whole world by doing something. Also, some plot might make sense ICly, but there is simply no coded support to add it in, in which case it either has to be coded or the plan has to be abandoned, or made "virtual". That could potentially hurt plots.

How have you changed as a player, for good or ill, with these changes? Do you see further opportunities for growth for yourself, and how do you plan to achieve that?

How has your relationship to staff changed, and how do you feel about that?

For me, playing the role of a leader is a lot less intimidating and more relaxing than it once was. I also think I communicate with staff better about what my PC's plans are, and that they are extremely helpful in explaining what is/isn't possible, and in giving advice - but there is no "backseat driving", where staff would directly give your PC things to do or tell you things not to do, whereas that might have existed before the change. Now there are suggestions and advice from staff, but never a definite demand.

What advice would you give to a newbie leader now in ARM? How is that different from what you might have said a year ago?

Start off slow. Think of something you can start right away, preferably something small. Assess what you have, and what you don't have. Out of the latter, figure out what you need. Try to obtain that, and then start your plans. Let staff know how you're doing as you go along. Write detailed reports and ask for advice.

[Gimfalisette]

I am going to offer some of my own experience, in a variety of role types, with moving plots. Note that this experience all happened prior to the official change.

In 2006 I played a Dasari noble when the changes to Tuluk were made. In part, I think I got that role because I put a lot of plot ideas in my application, so the staff knew I would have stuff to work on. (That is a guess, though.) Plots I started: Building the Dasari stall in the Old Quarter to offer stuff for purchase that hadn't been purchasable in Tuluk previously; running some bardic RPTs; a marriage / political alliance; developing some farmland; efforts to frame, assassinate, steal from, or otherwise manipulate other nobles; trading with various tribal organizations. Plots I had a major part in: The Tuluki political crisis and setup of the qynar system; breeding sunlons; curing a noble's health issue so he could get promoted.

Most of this was not easy to do. For about half the time I played that PC, I did not have an active staff member assigned; I couldn't even get regularly paid my stipend, nor could I get the Dasari stall fully implemented. (Another player eventually did that, thank you WWYD ) Another issue was information and confusion about plots; especially when it came to the Tuluki crisis plot, it was just very convoluted and started basically the same week we started our PCs, so no one knew what the crap was happening. In hindsight, that made it incredibly fun and exciting! But at the time I felt like a failure, OOCly and ICly. Also, this was immediately post-2.ARM announcement, and the playerbase had fallen by about 20%, so there were very few minions available in Tuluk, which added extra difficulty to everything. But overall, I got a ton done with this PC and had a blast.

Later, I played an AoD Sergeant who was involved in many plots. However, because the staff philosophy at the time was that only sponsored leaders would get significant staff time, I felt unable to pursue any plots myself. I depended on my PC leadership for plot-starting, and that was quite unsatisfying. There were a lot of high-level magick plots happening, which I don't really tend to enjoy OOCly simply due to my personal preferences; but they were interesting and the RPTs involved were thrilling. I almost never had much communication with my clan staff, which was really the mutual fault of me and staff; I'd send reports and get no reply, so I stopped sending reports, which of course means I didn't hear anything from staff. Overall, I accomplished very little plot-wise in a constructive sense; though I did "start" a plot by killing a clanned minion PC, which was...heh, fun! for many.

Still later, I played a tribal PC who was involved in some plots and also initiated some. There was very good staff support for our pursuits of these plots, and I think that I and the other players were also pretty reasonable about what we wanted to pursue; nothing huge or world-changing, but stuff that would be important to the clan and our PCs. We got the immteraction and email support that we needed, partly because (I believe) of the staffer's personal inclination toward that style of player-initiation.

Since those PCs, I have not attempted to start many plots, but that is mostly my own fault. Sometimes I'm just not good at thinking up plots for the particular PC I am playing, and/or the plots I can think up do not thrill me personally. I generally hate romance plots, and I'm not really into vengeance plots, rather I want to do things that are interesting and lasting in the game; and sometimes a particular PC is just not well-suited to that kind of thing. I don't blame staff for my lack of awesome in this area, it's just something I am still figuring out--how to craft a PC that I will be able to really enjoy playing and who can pursue the types of plots I prefer.

[X-D]

To me armageddon is a game about interaction between people and staff are there to maintain a game world, not be a regular part of that interaction.  I have always molded my role play around interacting with other characters and only speaking to staff when I specifically needed or wanted something that only they could provide. 

To me the new system just evens the playing field a little, because some pcs were seeing a lot more staff attention than others (certainly I wasn't seeing much and in no small part because I tried so hard to avoid it). 

Maybe this isn't what everyone likes, but my advice to you is look at the game as a relationship between pcs.  Like a character (pc) driven plot rather than plot (staff) driven plot. 

The bolded part is also me in a nutshell.

I also dislike the clan GDB forums and use them as little as possible.

And to be honest, I've never, ever had a problem with starting/running plots. So I've not noticed the change at all. Other then a -seeming- apathy staffside when there are things that you simply have to ask/interact with clan senior npcs.

[Gimfalisette]

I am going to say that I would also like to see this from staff:

One thing that has been suggested is making up 'job descriptions', or guides, for the different types of sponsored or leader roles. For example your Merchant might be told that he has the right to:
- Hire crafters
- Hire an assistant
- Arrange for hunters to seek out specialist resources to make goods
- Hire the byn to assist in expeditions
- Work on trade partnerships with fellow merchants in other houses
- Work with enterprising independents to 'incorporate' their goods into the house lines
- Research new product lines

And so on. By giving you guys a better idea of what you have authority over we hope that you'll then have more confidence to do these (and other) things.

Perhaps staff could consider putting a job description of this sort into each of the sponsored-role recruitment announcements they make. That way players know a little bit about what they are getting into, if they haven't played that type of role previously, and they know how to visualize the character they would like to play. This would especially help out newbie leader wannabes. Or, staff could provide a job description after the role is offered/accepted. (Unless that is already happening?)

OR:

Players, perhaps we could collectively write "job descriptions and basic plot suggestions" for Agent, Merchant, Sergeant, Noble, Templar roles? (And any other sponsored or ground-up leadership roles that are commonly seen in game and would benefit from a very general list.)

[Gunnerblaster]

I also dislike the clan GDB forums and use them as little as possible.

It's necessary.

[Nyr]

What I have found to be useful in recent sponsored roles:

I will post as much information about what we are looking for in particular.  We will wait for the apps to roll in.  We agree on an app or two to go with.
At this point, I send out an e-mail telling them they have been accepted, and then detail a bunch of information--basically, a "What You Would Know" if you were X role for your whole life.  This covers the gamut from roleplaying, a bit of recent history, how the qynar/etc. stuff works, all the way to staff expectation (which I admit could be more in-depth as is demonstrated elsewhere).

This has helped tremendously on our side at least.  I think it helps players who are initially hopping into the role to get a good feel for what to expect.

I think it would be a good idea to post job descriptions, and as we have a role opening up within the next couple of days, I will take this advice and put it in the announcement, and maybe throw in some general expectations for staff announced roles in the future.

[LoD]

I haven't really experienced as much of the "new" focus on player-driven plots, but I've always been a player-driven type and believe that many of the practices I employed are still applicable today, even more so under this new environment:

Involve as many people as possible.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

I don't mean to imply that you should divulge your master plan to every single PC with whom your character interacts, but take steps to involve as many other characters and organizations as possible. When the Staff are trying to help players accomplish their tasks, they will invariably drift toward plot lines that involve a large amount of people, because they get more "bang for their buck".  In my experience, people want to be where the action is -- and that includes the Staff.  They will likely choose to spend three hours supporting a plot line that has woven between several characters and organizations than spend the same amount of time assisting a character trying to pursue a plot that affects or impacts only themselves.

The individuals may be:

• Informants
• Spies
• Insurgents
• Explorers
• Messengers
• Rumormongers
• Servants
• Friends

One of the earliest lessons I learned was that clans tended to receive a lot more Staff attention than single characters.  Instead of lamenting this fact, use it to your advantage.  The best way to accomplish this is to make your success -- their success.  Find allies in the ranks of these clans, so that they can lobby internally to the Staff supporting them to support your agenda.  If you can branch out to multiple clans and convince them to follow suit, you will have a much easier time getting your projects approved because, again, it will have several spotlights bringing it to the attention of the swirling galaxy overhead.

The organizations (i.e. clans) may serve you as:

• Financial backing
• Political protection
• Military support
• Real estate negotiators
• Resource suppliers
• Business partners
• Decoys or smoke screens

Think big, but step small.

There's nothing wrong with "big ideas" that may have world-changing results, but it's unrealistic to believe you will accomplish any of those things quickly, which is why you need to focus on making small steps.  The larger the idea, the longer it's going to take for you to achieve it.  Many people are far too impatient and incorrectly assume this is a "glass ceiling" designed to artificially limits what players can achieve in-game, when the reality is that they may not have the time, energy, or resources to realistically achieve what they want.  Wanting it to happen is not enough.

Consider the big picture.

Whether any of us like it or not, some ideas are better suited for the game than others.  Some of our ideas are easier to implement, more convenient to support, and more accessible to the player base.  When considering the type of plots you would like to run, it will benefit you greatly to consider how your ideas will mesh with the broader world. 

• How many people will be impacted negatively or positively?
• How much work is involved to achieve your end goal from the Staff side of things?
• Can you integrate other clans and/or peoples into your plans?
• What obstacles will you have to overcome to achieve your goal, and how many of them will need to be represented by the Staff?

Even with the change in focus upon player-driven plots, many of the same factors will contribute to the success and failure of your idea.  And many of these concepts can help you be successful, as they've helped me be successful in the past.

For what it's worth.

-LoD

[Gunnerblaster]

Crap, LoD - Whenever you post, you shut my face up.

[Gimfalisette]

Players/leaders, how do you generate your plot ideas? Do you come up with a PC you want to play, then decide what plots that PC might be able to pursue? Do you come up with plot ideas that you'd like to pursue and then figure out what PC to create based on that? Do you just make stuff up as you go?

Some information on that process might help players who are struggling to come up with ideas.

Also, what do you think about constructive versus destructive plots? As in, building something is mostly constructive; pursuing a war is generally destructive. Which is easier to pursue? What are the obstacles to pursuing either type? Which do you find more success with? Do you have any tips for those wanting to pursue either type?

[ibusoe]

I like this thread.

+1

[Cutthroat]

Players/leaders, how do you generate your plot ideas? Do you come up with a PC you want to play, then decide what plots that PC might be able to pursue? Do you come up with plot ideas that you'd like to pursue and then figure out what PC to create based on that? Do you just make stuff up as you go?

Some information on that process might help players who are struggling to come up with ideas.

A little from column A, a little from column B.

It's nice to have a wide-spanning goal in mind when you app, but it's a lot easier to start and finish little things that pop up. So when I create a PC, they have some plot(s) they are pursuing right from the start, but as I play, there will be other things the PC wants to do - and rightly so, because the needs of the character, other characters, and the game world are ever-changing.

Also, what do you think about constructive versus destructive plots? As in, building something is mostly constructive; pursuing a war is generally destructive. Which is easier to pursue? What are the obstacles to pursuing either type? Which do you find more success with? Do you have any tips for those wanting to pursue either type?

Person A builds a line of dominoes. It is difficult; it requires intense concentration and patience. Person B flicks the first domino to knock them all down, and it is ridiculously simple.

I apply that train of thought when I say constructive plots are more difficult than destructive ones. However I feel they are more fulfilling as well, and generally get more approval than destructive plots. Destructive ones are alright too, but you will probably find less support to carry them out. The only tip I have is to keep in mind that you won't be able to build a new city, or destroy one, on your own. Reasonable expectations are very, very important.

[LauraMars]

Also, what do you think about constructive versus destructive plots? As in, building something is mostly constructive; pursuing a war is generally destructive. Which is easier to pursue? What are the obstacles to pursuing either type? Which do you find more success with? Do you have any tips for those wanting to pursue either type?

One might think that destruction is an easier path than creation in this game, and in some sense that's true.  It's easier to start a bar brawl than build a brand new bar.  It's easier to kill someone (destroy them) than kidnap them (and create plots).  However, once destruction becomes large-scale, it's basically the same as creation, since staff will need to get involved, and probably build new rooms and/or items in either case. 

To build a new tavern, you will need resources, tools, minions, money, and staff support.
To destroy a tavern, you will need resources, tools, minions, money, and staff support.
To build a new tavern, you will need the approval of your chosen city-state's law enforcement.
To destroy a tavern, you will either need the approval of your chosen city-state's law enforcement, or you will need to avoid your chosen city-state's law enforcement at all costs.

Yes, it can cause psychological feelings of dismay and fear for others when something is destroyed in the game.  But trying to create things can cause psychological feelings of dismay and fear for others as well as stress and frustration for yourself when things don't go your way.

To sum up - does your character have a passion for destruction, or creation?  Either path will be fairly difficult, if you go into it deciding you want to pursue it not just for yourself, but for the rest of the playerbase as well. 

[Zoltan]

I've only played one sponsored leadership role, but I've got some advice, and hopefully it complements the good stuff said so far.

When I applied for the role, I had absolutely no ideas for plots or goals. I think I was given the role because of my sheer cheese-tastic enthusiasm for the role itself. Sometimes, it's just fun to play the boss. I had a character concept in mind and that was it. It's been said before, but leaders, play a character first. Being in a leader role can feel like an OOC burden -- don't let it. The key to that is having fun as you normally would. Everyone has the power to move some sort of plot, sponsored roles just have more IC and sometimes coded power.

Anyway, from day one, I just let things roll along naturally. Some players and staff may get frustrated by an easy-going pace, but most leadership roles aren't meant to be "flash in the pan" type roles. You're typically playing and representing a part of the game world. Just because you have the power to sometimes make bigger things happen doesn't mean that you should, or that you ought to. Let your character's motivations guide you over time. If you go in with a set idea OOCly of what -exactly- you want to accomplish, you will likely become frustrated.

I think the key to "making things happen" with this current staffing policy is to just keep them informed. Even if you have no plan, let them know what's going on anyway. The more they know, the more likely that they'll confidently support you when they're needed. I know that if I were a staffer, the last thing I'd want to do is swoop in and do something completely retarded and ICly nonsensical. Also, have low -expectations-. What I mean by that is that you shouldn't expect to be entitled to anything because of the role. The role itself is really all you need except in certain situations. That doesn't mean that you should just ignore the staff and consider their role ineffectual, it's just that you should toss any feelings of entitlement out the window.


EDIT: I just wanted to add something. I know this may be an unpopular view point, but I say that when you're IG, don't give a fuck about the playerbase as a whole. Please, please, please don't let "what's good for the game" and "what's good for our playerbase" influence the actions of your character too much. Everyone's going to have different ideas of what those things are, and if you try to OOCly please everyone through the game, you will probably grow frustrated. Now, it is -very- good to be considerate and polite and even friendly OOCly to your fellow players. But you don't owe anyone anything. The strength of this game is the separation of the IC and OOC world. If you play realistically and true to your character, you can do no wrong.

[a strange shadow]

EDIT: I just wanted to add something. I know this may be an unpopular view point, but I say that when you're IG, don't give a fuck about the playerbase as a whole. Please, please, please don't let "what's good for the game" and "what's good for our playerbase" influence the actions of your character too much. Everyone's going to have different ideas of what those things are, and if you try to OOCly please everyone through the game, you will probably grow frustrated. Now, it is -very- good to be considerate and polite and even friendly OOCly to your fellow players. But you don't owe anyone anything. The strength of this game is the separation of the IC and OOC world. If you play realistically and true to your character, you can do no wrong.

Quoted and bolded for the motherfucking truth.

If you succeed, people will talk shit about you. If you fail, people will talk shit about you.

The trick is to stop giving a shit.

[Aleksandr]

I have no idea how to make plots or enact them. I've only ever had one character (That's getting pretty damned old, somehow), never been a leader, and lately tend to play off-peak more than anything.

Only real staff interaction i've had (or tried!) was for various requests with the tool.

[Medena]

Being in a leader role can feel like an OOC burden -- don't let it. The key to that is having fun as you normally would. Everyone has the power to move some sort of plot, sponsored roles just have more IC and sometimes coded power.

Anyway, from day one, I just let things roll along naturally. Some players and staff may get frustrated by an easy-going pace, but most leadership roles aren't meant to be "flash in the pan" type roles. You're typically playing and representing a part of the game world. Just because you have the power to sometimes make bigger things happen doesn't mean that you should, or that you ought to. Let your character's motivations guide you over time. If you go in with a set idea OOCly of what -exactly- you want to accomplish, you will likely become frustrated.

This pretty much expresses my own approach to sponsored leadership roles.  I used to experience a lot of stress as a leader because I totally suck at creating plots. Totally.  But that's not to say that I have not driven many along or, in some cases, been instrumental in their starting. It's just that I prefer to have plots emerge organically rather than dreaming them up.  The key thing, as Zoltan pointed out, is being part of the game world and then ensuring that you are responsive to what is going on around you.  As a leader I do think you have a responsibility (moreso than as an Amos Q. Noboby) to be involving other people in plots but this can usually be accomplished quite simply -- while you are playing your character's motivations and responding as they would, just keep a bit of OOC thinking going on about how you can bring other PC's into things.

[Pale Horse]

I'll have to chime in with the crowd that feels far more comfortable with letting plots grow organically.  I've only had two "leadership" roles, if you want to call them that, and both I had no intention of falling into, when they came upon my characters.  Circumstances and the natural ebb and flow of the game world put them into those positions, and I found it far easier to let plots come into form by just letting my character be themselves, and acting and reacting to the world and events as their personalities dictate.

I prefer plots that spring up from multiple minds, than those where I would have to start everything from scratch.  "Good" plots, to me, are those that involve others.  Good "accomplishments" are those things that my character can achieve largely on their own.

[Akoto]

I also approach my leadership roles by allowing things to grow. While such positions (particularly sponsored) should encourage and foster RP, trying to 'force' plots into being has always left me burnt out. My experience has been that, given a little time, the world will typically present logical opportunities to explore.

What has ruined leadership roles for me in the past was the fact that I struggled to be too leaderly. There was nothing else to the persona, and if my subordinates weren't around, my character didn't function. I now realize that it's fine for a leader to also have goals and pursuits, and for such PCs to take time away from their sphere to do personal RP. It's okay to not be in Clan HQ 24/7, and to occasionally shoo off the recruits so that you can have a scene of your own. If you don't find time to play your character outside of keeping everyone else busy, you'll quickly tire and store.

When I am formally organizing a plot, I try to involve as many people as I can within the clan that I lead. However, they are also occasions where only certain people make sense. That's the tough part about leading plots -- there will inevitably come an event where someone is left out. I plan my plots, set a time, and hope that the people who show up have fun. Trying to please everyone is a futile effort, whether you're a player leader or staff.

Having said all of that, I have found staff to be very supportive whenever I've wanted to organize a project or RPT. Nothing has been handed to me, but so long as my aims were sensible, they more often than not provided the means. In my opinion, submitting things like regular reports helps, as it shows them that you're active and contributing to the community. They may, in return, be more inclined to lend a hand in stuff you stir up. Just a guess.

[Gimfalisette]

I am enjoying all the input, but to note, I don't want this to turn into a "how to lead" thread. That is not what this is; this is a "how, as a player (leader or not), to drive plots in the newly player-driven environment."

[Akoto]

Sorry, Gimf. I was trying to get at that from a leader PC's perspective, but I guess it came out as a guide to leadership.

I do stand by my 'letting it grow' statement! Most of the plots I've created/participated in have been in reaction to stuff which has simply happened. I see a change in the environment, a threat from a tribe, some magickal mystery, etc. I then ponder, "Hmm, how can we make a plot of this?" The material is often not at all related to my PC personally, but I can nevertheless get him (and others) involved with it, provided there's some sensible reason to do so.

Our game world has an abundant supply of such opportunities. More often than not, they're are produced by the actions of other players, just as the results of my plots may help them to develop their own ideas.

[Medena]

I am enjoying all the input, but to note, I don't want this to turn into a "how to lead" thread. That is not what this is; this is a "how, as a player (leader or not), to drive plots in the newly player-driven environment."

Though my comments might have seemed more focussed on leading, they were equally about how to drive plots -- be a real character in the game world, respond to your environment, and think of ways to bring in others.  This applies to whether staff are starting plots or whether they are emerging organically.

Personally, I have very little experience of the whole model where as a leader you met with an NPC higher-up once a week to make reports and get instructions or approvals. In fact, the only time I really worked with that was back in 2003 as a high-ranked advisor (commoner) with Borsail.  So, really, I don't feel much difference in how things work.  Then again, maybe I'm not a mover and shaker plot-wise.