Sponsored Roles and Role Playing - Quality... what?

[Jingo]

We do want to have casual discussion with players when things could be better. That can be player-initiated or staff-initiated.

I know that this is a really taboo thing to say that may get me jumped on by people, but circa 2003 or 2004, I used to have consistent discussions with my staffers via AIM.  It wasn't socializing or anything like that, it was actually usually very businesslike and tutor-like.  I had them be very patient with my understanding of things, and able to explain other things on very short notice.  Email was still used to make concrete record of things, but AIM was where they got a consistent idea of what I wanted and why.

The request tool is great, but sometimes I think that we've come to lean so heavily on it that it's now an inflated bureaucratic device that depends on itself too much.  If you're looking to have casual real time discussions with players, don't be afraid to make contact over other mediums.  Have discussions, and wrap it up with 'Can you send in a report outlining this all and we'll get the check off?'

I haven't logged into AIM for a long time, haven't really spoken to Arm players on it in longer, but player/staff interaction has become so formalized that discussion of these kinds of meetings comes across as much more impractical/menacing than I think you mean it.

This is very important and bears repeating.

Communicating effectively via e-mail (request tool) is actually more difficult than it might seem. Miscommunication is going to be rampant. Players expecting more information are left hanging. Players and staff will poorly articulate their points of view, their struggles and what they want to see. This is all actually very common among organizations that communicate solely via e-mail. And no surprise that staff and players are having similar problems.

Using a better method of communication can help quite a bit when it comes to two parties understanding one another. You might have heard that words used only accounts for 7% of communication (7% is a myth, it's probably 40-50%). Being able to communicate via tone, word spacing, verbal non-verbage manner and body language will improve what you want to convey.

Face-to-Face>Skype>Voice/Text Chatroom>E-mail

The more important the communication, the better the method you'll want to employ. Only assholes breakup with you via text. But somehow we think that getting disciplined via e-mail is a good idea.

So I would highly recommend staff get on board with some sort of voice-chat program that will make important communications like disciplinary processes easier.

[Dunetrade55]

Eh, I see no loss from a staff chat with a powerful player. Hell, they probably do it via AIM all the time. Formalizing the process is likely the least of our worries. Using voice chat, however, would potentially ruin the image of authority, and the party on the other end may sound either like a snivveling turd. or a snivelling turd with power, best to stick to text. imo. I, myself, want this game to succeed, I do not commend certain ideas with any pre-existing concept of "winning"... but as a game, we are "losing", and we need to own that and overcome it. Staff has communicated that sometimes there's a problem with sponsored roles, and tapped us, the players, those mostly affected, for ideas. To bury your head in the sand and pretend there is no problem is to deny this.

... but voice does help some things, it may not be open to all all the time... actually hearing a person does provide an angle of perception that would otherwise be unavailable... though it shouldn't be a requirement, neither I, nor others, can get the bandwidth needed to perform this sort of thing like clockwork.

[SuchDragonWow]

We do want to have casual discussion with players when things could be better. That can be player-initiated or staff-initiated.

This is a good approach, and in my experience, it does happen when it's needed.  Whether it's a helpful nudge or a kick in the pants, the conversation should happen when the need arises.

There is also the issue of playtime, or more specifically, using whatever time you have to play advantageously. It is perfectly possible to play a sponsored role one hour a day at roughly the same time each day and get a lot done, provided that you delegate things to others. But if you only log in at random times, 2-3 times a week or less, and don't actually do a whole lot while logged in, just to tell staff that you're "active enough" to keep the role, then we're going to call you out on the squatting. This happens the most with some of our rarest roles and it's a severe discourtesy to other players itching for the chance to try the role.

Puff it or pass it, I agree.  This is a scenario where the player in question could be asked if they're feeling burned out or uninspired, and steps can be taken to alleviate the problem, or work out a more permanent solution.

[Jingo]

Eh, I see no loss from a staff chat with a powerful player. Hell, they probably do it via AIM all the time. Formalizing the process is likely the least of our worries. Using voice chat, however, would potentially ruin the image of authority, and the party on the other end may sound either like a snivveling turd. or a snivelling turd with power, best to stick to text. imo. I, myself, want this game to succeed, I do not commend certain ideas with any pre-existing concept of "winning"... but as a game, we are "losing", and we need to own that and overcome it. Staff has communicated that sometimes there's a problem with sponsored roles, and tapped us, the players, those mostly affected, for ideas. To bury your head in the sand and pretend there is no problem is to deny this.

... but voice does help some things, it may not be open to all all the time... actually hearing a person does provide an angle of perception that would otherwise be unavailable... though it shouldn't be a requirement, neither I, nor others, can get the bandwidth needed to perform this sort of thing like clockwork.

This is true. But do staff want to maintain authority based on good administration or based on maintaining an illusive distance from players?

[Dunetrade55]

Eh, I see no loss from a staff chat with a powerful player. Hell, they probably do it via AIM all the time. Formalizing the process is likely the least of our worries. Using voice chat, however, would potentially ruin the image of authority, and the party on the other end may sound either like a snivveling turd. or a snivelling turd with power, best to stick to text. imo. I, myself, want this game to succeed, I do not commend certain ideas with any pre-existing concept of "winning"... but as a game, we are "losing", and we need to own that and overcome it. Staff has communicated that sometimes there's a problem with sponsored roles, and tapped us, the players, those mostly affected, for ideas. To bury your head in the sand and pretend there is no problem is to deny this.

... but voice does help some things, it may not be open to all all the time... actually hearing a person does provide an angle of perception that would otherwise be unavailable... though it shouldn't be a requirement, neither I, nor others, can get the bandwidth needed to perform this sort of thing like clockwork.

This is true. But do staff want to maintain authority based on good administration or based on maintaining an illusive distance from players?

What's to say they can't do both? I'd personally hope for the former, as of now they seem quite distant, unapproachable, and you don't wish up unless you want grief to rain down on you without end. Want to build a fortress? Good news, it's approved except FIRE KANKS! and such. I send in a request, I can gaurante you, almost, it will be met with the maximum level of hostility. I don't care, I'm just trying to play the game, have fun with your sponsored roles, favored players, but honestly, you must be doing something wrong here. I don't send in requests, I just do what I feel is appropriate to my character at the time. Tell me, do you ever send in a report for a big RPT and see everyone, ever, fucked from some game mechanic that is innaccessible to the PCs involved? Ever just straight up cut down for no goddamn discernable reason? Well, jimmies might be rustled but you settle for it because that's how it's always been.

[650Booger]

I'm just gonna do what I do with the knowledge that I might be killed or stored on any given day, and have fun while it lasts.

As far as deviating from docs occasionally, can an artist work within any medium without changing it?

[Dunetrade55]

Clan wipe clan wipe clan wipe... after a while, you just want to be left alone with your little plots. Such things give little trust in staff, or the clans they're over. It makes a character ask themselves, "I want to live, with such a track record, how would this even be a sane decision?"... realistically, they'd avoid such like the plague. Glory? Well, leave that for better people, just trying to get by here, got no time for that, or dying as regularly as they do. I think one of the primary rules is we don't allow our PCs to act so suicidal that other PCs wonder how they lived to that age.

If more people are dying than breeding, I'd like to see that represented in the gameworld. Echoes of empty taverns and streets, no more "WATER FOR MY BABY!?" outside the old arboretum, just, empty streets and strong winds, to reinforce the going trend.

[Taven]

Here's what I think about things:

• Increase the amount of IC reaction from superiors, I already outlined
• Increase the amount of staff/player discussions (either scheduled or not)
• Consider ways to increase the accessibility and interaction of staff/player discussions

I've already outlined my views on IC reactions, and a little bit on OOC communication. I'll expand on the latter some more in this post.

I think that increasing OOC communication between staff and players is also important. I don't really care if it takes the form of a periodically scheduled review, or the occasional more in-depth check in in response to noticing players wavering in interest or enthusiasm, but I think it would be beneficial to have it in some form. (Note that I absolutely do not agree with setting sponsored role term limits)

However, there's a pretty big caveat to that, as I've already mentioned. A lot of times talking to staff can be extremely intimidating. Text is an imperfect medium, and if staff responses come across as aggressive or angry, it can make a player highly discouraged. It can make that player feel completely not valued and like they're wasting all of their time. If we were to increase that conversation, I think it's very important that we look at better ways to communicate with each other.

What do I mean by that? I mean ways that make sure both sides are open, polite, and can have a full discussion, rather then feeling abused on either side of the fence.

I think that the suggestion of having a more immediate text chat method, rather then request responses back and forth, could really help. I think it would make players and/or staff seem less like a block of text, and more like people. It would also be immensely useful in clarifying expectations on both sides of the aisle, and making everybody more effective.

[Refugee]

I've played one sponsored role, it was my 3rd PC.  It was such an unhappy experience I shy away from the thought of ever playing another.  I enjoyed the clan and the in-game play, but I spent most my time feeling utterly confused about what staff expected of me because, despite busting my butt to keep the clan engaged and active, every time I turned around I was in trouble and being threatened and insulted.  No matter what I did, I couldn't seem to make that stop.  Staff was as frustrated as me, I'm sure.

Looking back, now that I am more familiar with the game, I can see more of what they expected of me.  I would like to make a few suggestions, since you asked

1.  Assume players are doing the best they can.  Maybe they don't understand what you want.  So talk to them without accusations and threats.  Most folks want to do a good job for a good boss.  They just have to understand what you need.

2.  I think the main job of a leader role is to provide fun for the players of the PCs in the clan.  Things for them to do, ways for them to progress.  If you have someone in a sponsored leader role that isn't trying to do that, then you have to help them fix it or you will see the clan empty.  If for some reason it can't be fixed, you have to store them.  But it doesn't have to be a terrible experience for the player if both sides have been talking honestly and respectfully with each other all along about expectations.

3.  Anyone who has done it knows how exhausting leadership roles can be if you throw yourself into it.  Staffing is exhausting too.  Staffing is a sacrifice, it's all about making a game fun for others, but you can't do it all by yourself.  Leadership roles are like Staff Lite - you're allowed to have some fun for yourself too, but mostly you're still about making it so your clan players can play their PCs around you.  If the sponsored leader is burning out and no longer able to feed into the energy of the clan, it's pretty natural.  But they have to go unless you can put another leader in beside them to take up the slack.  Again, it doesn't have to be a terrible experience - their time and efforts are appreciated and valued.

(It's been a long time since I had that horrible experience and maybe it doesn't happen anymore.  But it's all I have to go on.)

[Dunetrade55]

EDIT: Don't want to out who you played, Refugee, I just considered that, it was amazing, and thanks for an experience that really hooked a newb.

[Refugee]

EDIT: Don't want to out who you played, Refugee, I just considered that, it was amazing, and thanks for an experience that really hooked a newb.

Thank you very much!

[Malken]

Refugee, I hope you mean you were threatened and insulted in-game.

[Refugee]

Refugee, I hope you mean you were threatened and insulted in-game.

No, sorry I wasn't clear.  That would've been fine.  I do a lot of that myself!  But no, sadly, it was how my staff at the time chose to handle things.  I don't really want to open that can of worms, but I just wanted to point out that when staff is unhappy with a sponsored PC, /how/ it is addressed is very important.  A sponsored PC's player is a volunteer too, trying to help staff get a job done, and is to be valued!

[Zenith]

I'm a little late to this party because I don't read this forum often, but this is a topic near and dear to my heart so I hope no one minds the late input.

What do I expect from sponsored roles? I expect the characters to, at the very least, follow the rules of the world, their clan, and make the game more fun for other people.

I expect for sponsored roles to not actively work against the interests of their clan. Do we all fuck up sometimes and hurt our clan? Sure. But no one in a sponsored role should be doing it on purpose.

I cannot express how much I dislike sponsored roles that go against clan docs. You have been raised as an X your entire life. If it is entirely anthemic to your existence as an X, then you shouldn't do it. If it actively hurts X clan, there should be serious and harsh repercussions. It often seems as if there are more special snowflake role apps who are clearly outside of clan docs than otherwise. But how does that actually support the role or clan?

I LOVE the idea of actual interviews for sponsored roles.

I LOVE the idea of ooc guidelines for each position as well as clan docs to follow. Including things like having consistent playtimes and the necessity of engaging with other PCs.

I LOVE the idea of a role review 1-3 months into a sponsored role and every six months after that.

I LOVE the idea of people that aren't actively enhancing the game or their clan being given a chance to shape up or stored.

I understand that real life happens to people and that our time availability can change dramatically without warning. And I think after some set amount of time that the player should step away from a sponsored role in that case. Not because they are necessarily doing a bad job, or because they're a less than stellar player, but because they are holding a place that someone else could be in that is more available. It's not a criticism of that player as much as a recognition that sponsored roles need more time devoted to them than their life currently allows.

To address the earlier point of the sponsored PC that becomes a tavern sitter? I think it's fine for a few weeks, but after that it's time to put your RP pants back on or store. You can 100% be a tavern sitter on a non-sponsored PC and have just as much fun. There is no reason to bog down a clan if you're running on empty. Accept that you e lost your mojo for the role and let someone else have a try.

Staff:
I love when communication is two ways instead of one. I like hearing that all of my ideas are good, but I'd like to hear when they're shit, too. I don't expect everything to be fantastic and if I came handle being told no, or that I'm wrong (particularly if done respectfully), then there's a bigger problem. Staff NEED to say no more often.

Leader Players:
Stop going on huge power trips and killing people for the dumbest things. The hardest part about playing a sponsored role is that so many players OOCly fear and avoid sponsored role because they so often exercise their power in ways that undermine good RP. Kill people, torture them, ruin them, sure. But do it well and exercise OOC restraint. It's far more enjoyable to play through the mess than it is to just kill them before anything really fun happens.

Non-Leader Players:
Give new leaders a chance, even if you got totally boned by past nobles/templars/crew leaders/tribal leaders/etc. Yes, it can be intimidating to give up total control of your PC, but that's also a place where a lot of RP magic happens.

I apologize if this post is a bit rambling and long. It's been a hell of a long day (if a very good one!) and I'm on my phone.

Also, I think everyone should read what LauraMars wrote at least 5 more times. It is an exceptionally articulate and accurate post IMHO. I could not agree with her more.

[Miradus]

I'll play the devil's advocate here ...

What's WRONG with a sponsored role playing against the documentation if IC consequences for that behavior exist?

If the Head of House Gibblestump wants to suddenly start gathering in rogue gicks to build an army and challenge Tektolnes, and they do it in a proper IC and roleplayed way, why would you want to stomp all over that? It's roleplay. It's a plot. It probably won't succeed, but I bet most people involved would have fun right up to the Mantis head.

There's nothing worse than a game so mired in setting that no change ever happens. You can't take those docs and pour concrete over them or you get what you've got ... people who are generally unsatisfied with plots (as evidenced by the poll also posted recently) would probably like to see a little change.

Frankly, I don't think it's the staff that's doing that. I think it's a small subset of players who want to play the same game they played in 2003 and whose in-game time largely comprises speedwalking to and from their apartments and sitting in the bar making flowery emotes at each other.

I'd like to see less chat-room in my Armageddon and more chances to change the world. Sponsored roles seem a pretty good place to do that and if the person is going to roleplay that well, involve plenty of other people, and communicate their intent fully to staff then I don't think they should get hammered for it.

[Nergal]

Sponsored roles exist (in part) to be examples of the documentation. The documentation gives plenty of room for change and creativity in other areas, and even in itself. I've said this in the thread before, but we don't want to stomp all over documentation breaches. We want to express to the player that they are breaching the documentation (in case they don't realize it) and then respond ICly (if they do realize it).

[LauraMars]

People are confusing DOCUMENTATION and CHARACTER (somewhat understandably, because there is a lack of education on this subject). Documentation has almost nothing to do with character. The only thing documentation is is guidelines. There are two sets of guidelines that EVERY character has to operate within - IC Documentation and OOC Documentation.

CHARACTER: Personality, habits, quirks, thoughts, moods, feelings, preferences.
IC DOCUMENTATION: The culture within which the character operates.
OOC DOCUMENTATION: The rules and guidelines and goals of the game.

- Examples of a character: I'm a member of the Kadian family in charge of overseeing the crafting hall. I spend a lot of time furiously journaling in cavilish about what buttheads my family all are. I'm going to discredit and steal the job of my half sister Jane because I'd rather work in sales. I have a habit of rubbing a worry stone when I'm stressed, I like the color orange, and don't tell anyone but I have a shrine to an obscure tribal god in my closet because I met a tribal once on a trading mission and thought their belief system was really inspiring. I've developed a friendship with two nobles, one of whom I regularly fantasize about in a sexual way. When my employees screw up, I lose my temper to an irrational degree. On my days off, I think about eating babies. I know it's weird (maybe?), but damn. They seem so tender. Maybe stewed with lavender and joylilt. I probably shouldn't want to eat one. But one of these days I'm going to do it. I'm going to eat a baby. Love, Joe Kadius.

- Examples of that character within the IC documentation: Dear diary, my family is rich, templars are corrupt, and spice is illegal in Allanak. These things I will never question, as they are truths that permeate my entire culture! Another day in the life. Love, Joe Kadius.

- Examples of that character within the OOC documentation: Joe is furiously ambitious within his company and would happily climb up a mountain of corpses to get to the top spot (something I know will never happen, so his ambition is more of a conflict generator than an actual OOC goal of mine). His fits of temper are intense and should be interesting for outsiders to observe. His quirky fascination with tribal culture is an obnoxious affectation of the very rich, yet will allow Joe to meet more people. Players may enjoy hating Joe. When he eats the baby, it will generate plots that may lead to his death. I'm ok with that.

[Miradus]

That's an important distinction.

I suppose I've seen the ooc documentation described as cultural norms too long.

Because good stories happen when people break cultural norms.

[Zenith]

I don't disagree with that. I think the problem becomes that when everyone breaks clan docs because they want to be different, it makes clan docs meaningless because no one follows them. Sponsored roles specifically are meant to reinforce the rules of the world and create fun for other players. Discounting the possibility that fun can be had within cultural norms is both sad and incorrect.

I personally don't care if you want to have a fopish Oash, a Fale who doesn't drink or smoke, a tribal who doesn't like to barter, or a Kadian who dislikes silk or the color purple. But I do think that, for sponsored roles, there are some cultural rules that should never be broken.

Nobles should not knowingly love or kank breeds, gicks, or sharps. It goes against everything they have ever learned and value.

A sponsored role should not be actively involved in working against their clan (for example, a Salarri should not be giving clan-secret armor or weapon secrets to Kurac or indies). If you want to play a GMH spy, play a GMH spy. But that's not the role of a sponsored role. That's the role that you start from the ground up and develop for yourself.

[Marauder Moe]

Can't work against the clan? Seems contrary to our tag line.

[LauraMars]

I think what she means is that you shouldn't go into your Templar role with the agenda to take down Tektolnes and turn Allanak into a fair democracy.  Zenith's argument seems to be that you can certainly despise other Templars and actively seek their destruction, but trying to overthrow Tektolnes isn't really what the role is for.

My opinion is that while I agree you (probably) shouldn't start your sponsored role out that way, if your character, by the natural evolution of IC events, ends up wanting to Overthrow Tektolnes then I think that should be fine to pursue.  At that point you've become a threat to the system, need to be dealt with, and your inevitable death will serve to reinforce cultural norms anyway. Other players can have a good time taking you out or watching your execution or whatever staff decides to do.

[Miradus]

Can't work against the clan? Seems contrary to our tag line.

It's also a little open to interpretation. Define "working against the clan" versus simply "you suck at being good at your job."

As someone who enjoys creative works, I would say that if your documentation is constantly being bumped up against then you need to either A) loosen the documentation or, B) run the character as a vNPC or staff avatar.

I hope this is a fruitful conversation for those who actually matter and not just being perceived as player bitching. I've never played a sponsored role and I'm not entirely sure I've ever even encountered a sponsored role in-game. I certainly don't have any grounds to say that they're being played well or not well. But I like discussing it.

[Lutagar]

Nobles should not knowingly love or kank breeds, gicks, or sharps. It goes against everything they have ever learned and value.

Adultery happens in religious communities. People betray their ideals when it's convenient/desirable to do so all the time.

[Zenith]

Actively working against your clan:

A GMH merchant is speading information of treasonous activities of their own clan to anyone who will listen, leading to certain harm of the clan as a whole.

Sucking at your job:

A GMH merchant has been working on a contract with another GMH or a noble house that should bring in fantastic benefit to their clan. Upon execution you realize that the other PC played you and you have solidly lost a major benefit/amount of money/etc that COULD have benefited your clan.

No one will be perfect 100% of the time. It's fine to fail. But at least start out with the idea of improving your clan. If you are a sponsored Kadian, you (as your PC) were presumably picked for public life because you could be of some benefit to the clan.

You can play an absolutely abhorrent PC who is active in trying to further the interests of the clan. It's been done wonderfully that I've seen and I'm certain many more times besides.

And yes, LauraMars is correct that I meant no sponsored role should begin that way. If RP takes you there over time, go for it. But it shouldn't be your first instinct and you should expect to die horribly for betraying the clan you're leading.

[Zenith]

Nobles should not knowingly love or kank breeds, gicks, or sharps. It goes against everything they have ever learned and value.

Adultery happens in religious communities. People betray their ideals when it's convenient/desirable to do so all the time.

Adultry is one thing. Talk to me about beastiality happening within religions often and we can have a discussion. Commoners are already slumming for a highborn. To not think that gicks, breeds or sharps are an even lower life form is utterly against the defining docs of the world.

I really don't see the problem with believing it shouldn't be done. If you really want to play your sponsored role human that loves elves, app a GMH family member. But I think nobility should be far beyond that, especially as their status is their political currency.