Suggestion on how to keep the harsh without going too harsh

[jhunter]

So, wait a minute. You're saying that they should take something OOC into consideration and have it influence how their pc behaves ICly? Otherwise, they're being OOC mean? That doesn't sound right.  By acting IC, which is what we are all supposed to be striving to do at all times, they're being mean to you out of character. Sounds like you're putting the other person in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Yes, they should. Acting IC should not reach the point where you make people not want to play. There are always different ways of handling things ICly, including options that are OOCly considerate towards other players, even if they suck for the PC. Every other leader I ever had above me, even some fairly bad ones, did not base their like or dislike of an underling on the player's timezone and hours logged in per day. They would treat offline time as time spent on virtual clan duties, not time spent slacking and failing. They also would not give players with limited time impossible to achieve tasks that would force them to either skip work, or else be a failure IC.

Offline time is something completely OOC. If someone is not capable of taking this into consideration, then I don't know what to say. There are other completely OOC aspects about the game that I don't feel should be used against characters, but I won't go into those.

So Ironic, with all the 'Keep it IC', 'Find out IC', 'Do not spread IC info OOC', so on and so forth, that people still think 'Take OOC feelings that cannot be clearly conveyed into account.'

Yeah, because I pay close attention to the playing times of other people and take into consideration what they might possibly be thinking OOC into account when I'm making decisions for how my character is going to react IC in every little situation. Truthfully, the only time I pay any attention whatsoever to another pcs playing times is when I'm planning an RPT, in the attempt to make it something that -most- of the pcs that would possibly be directly involved can OOCly be a part of. One cannot realistically be expected to take into account every single little aspect of OOC for every other player involved, all of the time in the hopes that someone is not going to think them an asshole because of it.

Straight up, that's kinda fucking bullshit.
If the situation were otherwise, people would be bitching because someone took OOC reasoning into account for -not- giving them opportunities over others. "Oh, well I know that they don't play as much, so I won't give them the opportunity to try and do "this" and I'll give it to someone else who I know plays more."

"FOUL!"

"They're making decisions not to let my pc try and do something purely based off of the amount of time I have to play, that's -unfair-!" "They're being allowed to progress more quickly in the clan compared to me simply because I don't have the time to play as much."

That line of thinking is putting the other player in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation and that's every bit as asshole as what they are being accused of.
Don't take this personally anyone speaking the other side of the coin, but I don't think you are looking at it from both sides. It's gonna happen both for -and- against your character by nature of the game. I've played with you before and I enjoyed playing with you but I think you're being pretty selfish and one-sided about this subject.

[jhunter]

Also, to add: There's a big difference between "using it against" characters and the cards simply falling into place that way.

[Akaramu]

Funny, you weren't a horrible leader when I played below you, jhunter. So I don't think my example applies to you at all.

No one asked to be given opportunities over others despite scarce playing times. No one asked to progress in the clan as quickly as others. In my example, I would have been happy if the leader simply didn't task me at all, and gave all the love to the 12 hours peak time player. I would have loved to be -ignored- by that leader, or given different kinds of tasks. If I keep on failing at something, and someone else does much better, it would be IC to stop giving me those kinds of tasks, right? But being harassed IC for not manageing to pull off things like another player with much more time and peak time access? Come on. It just creates OOC pressure, and makes people not want to play.

I really don't know what you are ranting about, my example has not been an issue since several years, so apparently most leader players agree with me. Yourself included, as I enjoyed playing your underling.

[Booya]

What did the staff say when you told them about the problem Akaramu?


Back on track (and not directed at anyone in particular) - Murder, Corruption, Betrayal, but not to meee! (runs away screaming).

[Barzalene]

Two things can be true at the same time.
Your pc can be a dick and you can be a considerate player. That doesn't mean you don't find reasons to pick on your minions and make their lives hell. That doesn't mean you don't brutalize them, chop off their heads and have them raped by your half giant guards (I still don't see why staff won't animate them for this!) It does mean you  grief them over what they do with the time that they're logged in, or what annoys you about them while they're there, not what annoys you about their not being there.
It means that unless they blew smoke in your face on Caravan Way or pissed on the Statue of Muk or tried to fuck your secret lover, you figure out what price you can be bribed for , or what phrase they can utter to melt your heart and give them a 15-20% chance of walking out on their own two feet with all the body parts they walked in with.
It means that you do exactly what jhunter said, and don't think at all about the player, just think about the pc. But it also means that you bear in mind that it doesn't matter who the player is,but that there is a player attached to that pc.

[Nyr]

If I keep on failing at something, and someone else does much better, it would be IC to stop giving me those kinds of tasks, right? But being harassed IC for not manageing to pull off things like another player with much more time and peak time access? Come on. It just creates OOC pressure, and makes people not want to play.

If a PC leader is unhappy with the work an underling is doing, they can fire them.  If a PC underling is unhappy with the opportunities their PC leader is or is not giving them, they can deal with it IC or store.

I'm not sure how to respond to the OOC time played issue.  One can be cognizant of that, but if one does not have the time to do a task involving other PCs or really anything in-game, I'm not sure how this is the leader PC's fault for assigning that person a task they could not complete.  There is too much assumption here and too much blame assigned to the part of the leader.  Some (if not the majority) of the responsibility must fall onto the shoulders of the employee player.  One cannot virtually meet with other clans to get non-virtual results (at least not on a regular basis).  One cannot virtually hunt down deals for one's non-virtual PC templar at the non-virtual bazaar.

Hypothetical situation:   Player A and Player B both have characters working for noble C in Tuluk.  Player A plays about 12 or more hours per day because they have this free time to do so (maybe they're a student and it's summer).  Player B plays about 2 to 3 hours per day, because they do not have much more time than that.  Noble C plays about 4 to 5 hours per day.  All of the players post on the clan forum with their playtimes.  Noble C needs some contacts made to other clans and assigns the task to characters A and B.  After about a week, character A has made more contacts than character B, but character B has still made a few (though they were the same contacts as character A).

Fast forward about a month or two.  Character A has consistently been around and doing IC work with other PCs more often than Character B.  Character B has done some work but actually has failed at a few tasks, not getting some of them done at all.  Noble C continues to give the same tasks to both characters.

This could be your situation as described so far, but here's what else might be happening behind the scenes:

Player A is happily plugging away at tasks with Character A, doing stuff for Noble C.
Player B is ticked that Noble C keeps giving them the same tasks as player B.
Noble C IS thinking about playtimes:  hers.  She only has 4-5 hours per day (sometimes less than that, sometimes not on weekends) to be a leader PC and an influence in the game, so she gives the tasks to both of her PC underlings at the same time, hoping one of them gets it done.  More often than not, Character A is getting them done.  Character B gets punished for not doing tasks every now and then (or maybe often), whatever punishment means.

Even though this situation has not happened to you for years, I would still say that it is your job to figure out what you can and can't do with the time you have online, and seek out roles that suit that.  Such a situation as you have described is likely untenable for you as a player and likely annoying for your character.  Deal with it IC.  If it can't be dealt with, talk to your staff.  They may suggest (as I would in such a situation) trying another clan out (if feasible) or storing.  Regardless of why one finds their role to be unsatisfying, the burden of dealing with this dissatisfaction falls upon the player, not the player's IC leader.

Back to harshness in general:

I think it's possible to be a good leader and be a douche.

[jhunter]

Yeah, so anyway...as far as harshness in general, so long as it's all IC, it's all good. IMO.

[Me]

I was going to write an essay about the whole OOC vs IC playtime/leadership/task thing but I think I'll just boil it all down to one short paragraph:

As a player who has played both leadership and underling roles, here's a tip for you to enjoy the game a bit more: Be proactive. Sure Leader SuperJoe could assign you some kick ass task which is virtually impossible for you to complete due to either ooc or ic restrictions, but surely you could as an underling find other plots and goals to complete, or even just simply expand on plots given to you by other people using your own way? I'm sure nobody enjoys being micro managed and as leaders, I'm sure nobody wants to hold the hands of every single one of their underlings.

.......anyway it's late, and I don't usually post on the GDB much so excuse the lack of eloquence in my meager two sids

PS: How to make the game harsh without going too harsh..hmmm...hard, it's not easy to achieve that fine balance yet on the other hand, victims need to remember to shed that RL dignity we have. I've seen PCs who are really not affiliated with any powerful ig (GMHs, noble houses, shady clans etc) acting as though they are the Highlord himself when being addressed by people of a higher social rank. Kindness should be scarce, charity even rarer.

[Akaramu]

Even though this situation has not happened to you for years, I would still say that it is your job to figure out what you can and can't do with the time you have online, and seek out roles that suit that.  Such a situation as you have described is likely untenable for you as a player and likely annoying for your character.  Deal with it IC.  If it can't be dealt with, talk to your staff.  They may suggest (as I would in such a situation) trying another clan out (if feasible) or storing.  Regardless of why one finds their role to be unsatisfying, the burden of dealing with this dissatisfaction falls upon the player, not the player's IC leader.

Sometimes playtimes change. People can't play for a few weeks, or get additional work hours for awhile. Should players be punished IC because their work shift changes for 2 months? Or because they were ill? Would it help anyone, especially their leader if they simply did not log in at all for those 2 months? Staying offline should never be the preferable option, in my opinion. Chosing one IC option that causes nothing but frustration over other, also perfectly IC options isn't worth it.

[Fnord]

Sometimes playtimes change. People can't play for a few weeks, or get additional work hours for awhile. Should players be punished IC because their work shift changes for 2 months? Or because they were ill? Would it help anyone, especially their leader if they simply did not log in at all for those 2 months? Staying offline should never be the preferable option, in my opinion. Chosing one IC option that causes nothing but frustration over other, also perfectly IC options isn't worth it.

To the best of my knowledge a leader's only OOC concern is coordinating play times for RPTs.

If you feel like your character is being abused IC for OOC reasons, you should email logs to your clan staff.

I think this is derailing the thread though...

[Kankfly]

I've never had an occasion where you had to go deal with IRL stuff for a few weeks and your IG boss griefs on you. If it does happen to you, you should mail a player complaint and let the staff handle it. They get both side of the story, so I say just let them deal with it.

[Nyr]

I think that the section that you quoted answers the hypothetical questions below it.  I could be misinterpreting your words, though.  I'll reverse the order.

Sometimes playtimes change. People can't play for a few weeks, or get additional work hours for awhile. Should players be punished IC because their work shift changes for 2 months? Or because they were ill? Would it help anyone, especially their leader if they simply did not log in at all for those 2 months? Staying offline should never be the preferable option, in my opinion. Chosing one IC option that causes nothing but frustration over other, also perfectly IC options isn't worth it.

I would still say that it is your job to figure out what you can and can't do with the time you have online, and seek out roles that suit that.  Such a situation as you have described is likely untenable for you as a player and likely annoying for your character.  Deal with it IC.  If it can't be dealt with, talk to your staff.  They may suggest (as I would in such a situation) trying another clan out (if feasible) or storing.  Regardless of why one finds their role to be unsatisfying, the burden of dealing with this dissatisfaction falls upon the player, not the player's IC leader.

Everyone's definition of harshness probably differs.  As long as there are clear reasons for someone to do something in-character (and it doesn't go against their documentation), there usually is little to be concerned with, in the long run.  As always, you can check with staff.

[Akaramu]

I've never had an occasion where you had to go deal with IRL stuff for a few weeks and your IG boss griefs on you. If it does happen to you, you should mail a player complaint and let the staff handle it. They get both side of the story, so I say just let them deal with it.

Yes, considering how very rare this is, I'm sure almost everyone actually agrees. We have tons of great leader players here - who do much better than I did on my first try.

Sometimes staff is overwhelmed with RL workload as well, but the request tool has improved communication a great deal since 2005.

[Marauder Moe]

While I certainly have seen PCs of mine slip in terms of clan/leader favor due to low playtimes, I've never had a leader outright punish a character for it.

My suggestion is to make your situation very clear to your leader(s) through heavy use of virtual duties.  Most clans have a lot of virtual work for characters to do offline.  If one gets assigned a task that they don't think they'll have the time to complete, just say tell your boss you've been assigned <virtual duties> for the next few weeks and won't have the time.  If you've just logged on after a busy day at RL work and just want to relax vicariously through your character too, make it IC.  Tell your leader that you just spent all day doing <virtual duties> and really need a drink, but you promise to take care of the task in a few days.

I think most leaders will get the hint and back off when you explain your time restrictions this way.

[caellyndria]

Hm. I kinda read one part of Akamaru's situation as X leader telling her to find Y person that plays in, say, a Euro or Aussie timezone when it had been posted that she can't play in that timezone. Then she got in trouble IG for it. Which would be dickish of the player if they kept trying to force it on Akamaru's PC when the inability to get it done was pretty much unavoidable because of OOC junk and all that was in the open. I could have read wrong though.

That being said, though, do I think players in a clan should be punished for losing a lot of game time because of OOC developments or time constraints? No, certainly not. Especially if you're communicative about it with leader PCs. After a prolonged amount of time with spotty or absent play, though, a player should evaluate their IG situation and make a decision about whether or not they can actually be a solidly contributing person in a clan they are part of. If not, it's time to find another role for that PC.

For instance, some clans have limited positions for hire, and there's a big trickle-down effect of problems when the players aren't logging in with any kind of regularity after a period of time. It starts to hinder the function of the clan and the active PCs can't help but get disgruntled after a while. For instance, crafter positions-- they're pretty easy to play casually, if you think about it. You can get away with logging on an hour or two every other day, honestly, and still be considered a fairly active contributor if you're making what needs to be made and checking in. You can even take a week or two break when junk comes up and it's not the end of the world, by any means. However, when the breaks start coming more and more, and the limited playtime turns into a total lack of production, guess who's picking up the slack? And because you're filling up that employee slot, they can't even hire more help, even if they're lucky enough to find someone to want to play a crafter. Then the hunters start getting restless because supplies aren't being moved through fast enough. And um. In my experience, restless hunter PCs = very soon to be dead PCs!  

So IMO, while it's a player's duty as a leader PC to be considerate about stated OOC time constraints, it's also the player's duty as an employee to keep from clogging up the gumworks of a clan.

[boog]

Hm. I kinda read one part of Akamaru's situation as X leader telling her to find Y person that plays in, say, a Euro or Aussie timezone when it had been posted that she can't play in that timezone. Then she got in trouble IG for it. Which would be dickish of the player if they kept trying to force it on Akamaru's PC when the inability to get it done was pretty much unavoidable because of OOC junk and all that was in the open. I could have read wrong though.

That being said, though, do I think players in a clan should be punished for losing a lot of game time because of OOC developments or time constraints? No, certainly not. Especially if you're communicative about it with leader PCs. After a prolonged amount of time with spotty or absent play, though, a player should evaluate their IG situation and make a decision about whether or not they can actually be a solidly contributing person in a clan they are part of. If not, it's time to find another role for that PC.

For instance, some clans have limited positions for hire, and there's a big trickle-down effect of problems when the players aren't logging in with any kind of regularity after a period of time. It starts to hinder the function of the clan and the active PCs can't help but get disgruntled after a while. For instance, crafter positions-- they're pretty easy to play casually, if you think about it. You can get away with logging on an hour or two every other day, honestly, and still be considered a fairly active contributor if you're making what needs to be made and checking in. You can even take a week or two break when junk comes up and it's not the end of the world, by any means. However, when the breaks start coming more and more, and the limited playtime turns into a total lack of production, guess who's picking up the slack? And because you're filling up that employee slot, they can't even hire more help, even if they're lucky enough to find someone to want to play a crafter. Then the hunters start getting restless because supplies aren't being moved through fast enough. And um. In my experience, restless hunter PCs = very soon to be dead PCs!  

So IMO, while it's a player's duty as a leader PC to be considerate about stated OOC time constraints, it's also the player's duty as an employee to keep from clogging up the gumworks of a clan.

Quoted for truth. Everyone needs to be OOCly considerate and understanding of OOC situations. But if you aren't around IC, something needs to happen ICly about it, especially if you are absent and unable.

[jriley]

That being said, though, do I think players in a clan should be punished for losing a lot of game time because of OOC developments or time constraints? No, certainly not.

...

For instance, some clans have limited positions for hire, and there's a big trickle-down effect of problems when the players aren't logging in with any kind of regularity after a period of time.

note:  edited for length

Yeah, I agree.  Further, I'd say that it should be a lot easier to get no-fault divorces from sponsored game clans if there is a clear OOG conflict between players.

Let's say, for example that the situation above transpires?  What is the most likely result?  Either the player of the clan officer will manufacture an IG reason to trump out the junior character, or the player of the clan officer will make sure to grief the other player, or else the player of the clan officer will just grit their teeth and put up with this?

But why?  We seem to go so far out of our way to avoid admitting the fact that we're a group of adults playing an imaginary game, and that the situation could be adjusted slightly to make everyone much more happy.

For that sketch reference to be accurate, we'd have to be growing less harsh over time.  I'm not entirely convinced we've been doing that.

I wanted to draw everyone's attention to what Nyr said.  I think the game has actually gotten more harsh, fairly consistently, over the past four years.

[jhunter]

I would say it's gotten a little less harsh over the last five or six years.

[Mudder]

I would say it's gotten a little less harsh over the last five or six years.

I agree. I used to be scared to be around Templars. Then after a while, I wasn't so scared
any more.

[brytta.leofa]

I would say it's gotten a little less harsh over the last five or six years.

I agree. I used to be scared to be around Templars. Then after a while, I wasn't so scared
any more.

I used to be scared of southside alleys, but...well, I stopped being quite such a noob.

Nevertheless, Samos and Troicha (and a few other excellent ones, I'm sure) spoiled us.

[Barzalene]

I think that might be function of experience more than a change in climate.

[Armaddict]

I think that might be function of experience more than a change in climate.

I dunno, I remember when seeing anyone else in the desert meant I was about to be attacked, and not getting attacked was a holy shit moment.

Edited to add:  Then again...at that point, trying to be an independent was easier.  Water is -expensive- and you need a -lot- of it now.  And I remember when you never got thirsty in the city.

[Is Friday]

Former leader's perspective:

If you're inactive and taking up a spot that someone else can be filling productively, then I am going to be annoyed. If you communicate that you'll be gone for a short period of time (1 month or less,) then that is fine. I understand people have lives. Then again, if your absence is causing myself headaches because I cannot hire enough hunters/crafters/aides to see that my own leader'y obligations are fulfilled... I will definitely fire your ass and hire someone else to fix the problem. Especially since the staff seem to be discouraging (in my experience) leaders from doing the grunt work of running a clan/group/whatever.

Sorry dudes.

[Wolfsong]

I dunno, I remember when seeing anyone else in the desert meant I was about to be attacked, and not getting attacked was a holy shit moment.

I still have those moments. I had one last night.

[Gunnerblaster]

My views on this are somewhat... Flexible. There is IG Harsh and then there is OOC harsh. There isn't a limit, for me, on how harsh it can become IG - The harsher, the better. But with OOC harsh, I would view things that would be out-right ridiculous, like basically sentencing a player to death for some very small ICly inconsequential action. To me, the worst that can happen that I would consider harsh is to have your pc killed and/or maimed to the point of being unplayable. Otherwise - bring on the hardship.