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

[bardlyone]

stuff

Everything Samoa said.

[LauraMars]

AT LAST.

emote takes off her diplomacy hat and sets it carefully to one side.

Players of leadership roles: To the sponsored roles who are reading this message: you might not know this (somehow), but you are often a new player's first impression of this harsh and unpredictable gameworld which is supposed to be made harsh and unpredictable by YOU.  YOU set the example of what Zalanthas should be like, and everyone else will FOLLOW YOUR LEAD. Because you're a LEADER. If you're not LEADING, if you're not making your role pop, if you're not engaging people and scaring them and making them love you and making them hate you and employing them and driving plots, you're not just doing nothing, you're actively harming the game. Stop clinging to power because you like having power. Stop logging in just because it's a habit and you can't stand the idea of losing the RW Sirihish ability. You had your chance. Go back to playing dwarf rangers who spam forage salt alone at 3am. Let people who are excited and exciting have a turn instead of sitting blandly in your Senior Whatever role for multiple years.

Staff who let this continue: I don't know when this sort of blank ambivalence became normalized, but stop it. Stop rewarding apathy. Stop handing out "well, I guess you're still alive" promotions and "7779th barstool sat on" medals. Start expecting excellence, attitude, and depth of character. Start rewarding excellent roleplay and excellent writing in your sponsored roles, not just excellent longevity. Bake engagement and drama into the requirements. Don't just be happy that players "aren't causing trouble" and "communicate well" and "don't argue." That's not enough. Yes, it's a game, and yes, players should be able to play the characters they want, but when that character is functionally identical to a 3am salt forager despite having the coded power of life and death over half the city you need to start stepping in and putting your foot down. You don't owe sponsored roles anything if they're not giving back to the community. Armageddon deserves better. Armageddon deserves GREAT CHARACTERS leading and shaping the world, not just GREAT REPORT FILERS filing great reports. Don't be afraid to start shutting down boredom. And by the way, support your players who do stir things up. Don't be annoyed by them. Be proud of them. Don't be scared of them. Enable them. They are forging a better crapsack world for you and everyone else.

If I sound harsh it's because I've taken off my diplomacy hat. Armageddon deserves the best leaders it can get and sometimes that involves speaking hard truths.

[Dunetrade55]

I think, first and foremost, when you take on a sponsored role, you are not doing it for your own fun, or your own murder rageboner made of hatred for all things purple. You are doing it for the sake of an ongoing story, and are temporarily needed to step in and fill a gap. You are there to make a clan fun, and real, for the people who join it. It's a delicate balance there, sometimes, you find yourself in a position where you have to do something no one is having fun with in order to fulfill your given profession... that's just how it is, some people give you no choice.

As someone else said, it's a sacrifice. On the balance of fun for others/realism, my personal preference would be to lean slightly toward fun. It can't all be sunshine and rainbows, but I try to leave wiggle room in my background to accomodate for it when I feel the need to. I've played, one sponsored role, and it seemed like people were having fun but then the anti-maverick thing kicked in, which I fully understand. It's not something I'd do anytime soon even if I were allowed to. It's a lot of power, and balancing a desire to "do well" with a desire to "do awesome", or even "do shitty", is difficult... it's kind of left up in the air, and if, as someone said, staff were more communicative of what they WANT to see, it would be easier to accomodate those preferences. Otherwise it's like shooting a screeching noises in the dark.

[650Booger]

I gotta say, there are few places where noble characters are allowed to mingle, and they are almost all taverns.  so take that into consideration when berating the stool sitters.

[Dunetrade55]

For example, staff could be like, these are your priorities in this role in a list:

1) Enforce realistic clan-life
2) Engage in ongoing adversarial plots as your character, not to actually overcome them
3) Follow clan rules as would be expected of your position.
4) Generate fun for your minions and give them things to do
5) Represent your clan in the gameworld as it is described in the documentation

This is just like, a sample idea, and priorities may be quite different. It's just, not a lot is spelled out for anyone. Expecting someone to just, instantly get what you expect by reading your mind is kind of difficult, and once the background and established characters are set in stone, it's a bit difficult to do a 180 on what you've been doing. You could even add bits of helpful stuff like, "We want you to lose here, how can we help you with achieving this?" or, "We want you to accomplish this at all costs, what do you need?"

Instead we get, this looks interesting, let's see where it goes, oh shit, that's NOT where we want it to go... fuck, what do we do now?

If you have a clear goal, then please prioritize what you want, and give the player of the role more than a vague hint of what you want, open lines of communication more freely. "We want you to murder every newbie that joins X" would be a good way to get me to yank my app and say, maybe someone else would be better suited for this job, and get the results you want, just for example. Or, "We want you to make Y great again!"... but keep in mind that staff controls part of the plot, and realize that when shit goes tits-up, it's possible something staff-side, where all the power lies, could have prevented it, rather than putting the entire burden on a player that has little way of knowing what you're looking for. It might be conducive to explain to someone before they embark on the next RPT that, "If you do this thing, your PC would possibly know that X might happen, that might be contrary to what kind of thing we're trying to achieve here.".

If you want to steer the story, then here are many various reigns to choose from.

EDIT: In short, try to look at sponsored roles more as team players, more as a mediator between clan-members and staff, than leave them in the dark. They got the role, let them know what they should be doing. And if a mistake is made despite clear communication, maybe communication wasn't so clear to begin with. Regardless, any decision a sponsored role makes reflects directly on what staff envisioned for the role in question, since everyone is in the dark and isn't able to read minds. Sometimes a hands-off approach, then an over-reaction later leaves both the sponsored role, and the people they were responsible for (for better or worse), all with a bitter taste in their mouth about something. I can only assume what staff has told other sponsored roles they should be doing, it's not what I would pick, but eh, I'm neither staff nor them and their method of play must be approved of if it's allowed to continue.

[TheWanderer]

*good stuff*

You could basically close the thread with this post.

It's the fact that there are a lot of people who don't step down that this is even a discussion. I can't stress the mantra of not clinging to these roles enough.

[Delirium]

AT LAST.

emote takes off her diplomacy hat and sets it carefully to one side.

Players of leadership roles: To the sponsored roles who are reading this message: you might not know this (somehow), but you are often a new player's first impression of this harsh and unpredictable gameworld which is supposed to be made harsh and unpredictable by YOU.  YOU set the example of what Zalanthas should be like, and everyone else will FOLLOW YOUR LEAD. Because you're a LEADER. If you're not LEADING, if you're not making your role pop, if you're not engaging people and scaring them and making them love you and making them hate you and employing them and driving plots, you're not just doing nothing, you're actively harming the game. Stop clinging to power because you like having power. Stop logging in just because it's a habit and you can't stand the idea of losing the RW Sirihish ability. You had your chance. Go back to playing dwarf rangers who spam forage salt alone at 3am. Let people who are excited and exciting have a turn instead of sitting blandly in your Senior Whatever role for multiple years.

Staff who let this continue: I don't know when this sort of blank ambivalence became normalized, but stop it. Stop rewarding apathy. Stop handing out "well, I guess you're still alive" promotions and "7779th barstool sat on" medals. Start expecting excellence, attitude, and depth of character. Start rewarding excellent roleplay and excellent writing in your sponsored roles, not just excellent longevity. Bake engagement and drama into the requirements. Don't just be happy that players "aren't causing trouble" and "communicate well" and "don't argue." That's not enough. Yes, it's a game, and yes, players should be able to play the characters they want, but when that character is functionally identical to a 3am salt forager despite having the coded power of life and death over half the city you need to start stepping in and putting your foot down. You don't owe sponsored roles anything if they're not giving back to the community. Armageddon deserves better. Armageddon deserves GREAT CHARACTERS leading and shaping the world, not just GREAT REPORT FILERS filing great reports. Don't be afraid to start shutting down boredom. And by the way, support your players who do stir things up. Don't be annoyed by them. Be proud of them. Don't be scared of them. Enable them. They are forging a better crapsack world for you and everyone else.

If I sound harsh it's because I've taken off my diplomacy hat. Armageddon deserves the best leaders it can get and sometimes that involves speaking hard truths.

Everything... this. And Samoa's post as well.

[SuchDragonWow]

*good stuff*

You could basically close the thread with this post.

It's the fact that there are a lot of people who don't step down that this is even a discussion. I can't stress the mantra of not clinging to these roles enough.

I respect Laura's opinion, but I don't think your interpretation works in all applications.  I don't think you should equate leadership with availability.  It's certainly a nice function of the role, but the impact a character has on the gameworld should be considered first.  The key and relative term here is impact.  Are you having an impact on the game that reinforces the culture you're representing?  Because it's all about the theme. 

I understand this breaks down on the meta level when you're operating a clan like the Byn.  Been there, done that.  I believe I had something like forty days played over nine months, and in my opinion, that obligated my duty, yet there were times when it was rare to see me.  The staffer offered me a chance to continue playing the character as a lifesworn Bynner, and take a demotion to Trooper, which I did take the offer.  I never had any designs  of leaving the Byn.  It's something I didn't regret, because I was able to come back and have some good times with the Byn.  It ended up being some of the most fun I've had playing Armageddon.

I feel in the case of nobles and Templars, though, this is less important.  It is actually more interesting as one of these power roles to delegate authority.  Without a doubt,  as a facilitator, your best look is to dish it out and see what happens.  With this in mind, I think we  should also take a look at the type of role when we're writing guidelines.  Oranges don't taste like apples, and so forth.

[Drayab]

That's absolutely correct. Impact is more important than raw hours sunk in the game. If you can make things happen with a few hours spent, then you're worth keeping around. That doesn't work in just any role, though. I think a Byn Sergeant absolutely needs to have abundant face time, but for some roles, if you are a good organizer and do a good job setting up meetings to delegate responsibility, you can get a lot done in a little bit of time. I don't think I'm the very best roleplayer in terms of writing great emotes on the fly and such as that, but I think my sponsored role was successful because I was a good organizer. I also had some fucking awesome ideas so there. 

[John]

Problems as I see them

Staff Expectations
These go undocumented. We get lots of pictures along with some humor and the name of the clan and role in the clan. We don't get:
* The minimum hours staff expect on average.
* Expected login time windows.
* The type of character staff are expecting.
* What plots staff are going to encourage the character to pursue.
* What plots the staff will be steering away from.
* What degree and type of support the player can expect.

A big problem at the moment is staff say "Hey. House X is looking for a Y! Send in your app now!" A player gets really excited. Puts together all their ideas and sends through the best selection. And then staff sift through the best. Now I'm sure if a trusted player perfectly matches what the staff want then that player gets selected. However what I expect happens most times is staff get a selection of "apps that seem close" and choose one. However the problem here is I expect most times the player doesn't communicate:
* Their expectations of pre-existing PCs.
* The primary plot that will make or break the role.
* What type and level of support they expect from staff and how much effort they have to put forward to get that support.
* What expectations they have of the playerbase at large.

Now ideally staff communicate some of the expectations they have. However by this stage the player has quite possibly emotionally invested a great deal into that character and when they discover their expectations don't match staff they may just "go with it" anyway and then either due to being disheartened by the realities of the role or real life popping up they store, stop logging in, or just go through the motions and "sit it out" hoping if they keep going things will get better.

So how can the likelihood of the above be minimized? They can provide their side of expectations. Some of the above can be included in the advert directly. Staff could invite expressions of interest to find out the rest BEFORE they apply for the role. This minimizes emotional investment by the player before finding out what the deal is with the role. The Role Application form could also prompt for some of the above expectations from players as well so less of the expectations from both sides remains unspoken. I think this would result in less bad sponsored roles as I see the bad behavior in many cases to be a symptom (after all, presumably this player has been monitored and proven to be a capable player, otherwise why were they selected in the first place?).

[Dunetrade55]

Problems as I see them

Staff Expectations
These go undocumented. We get lots of pictures along with some humor and the name of the clan and role in the clan. We don't get:
* The minimum hours staff expect on average.
* Expected login time windows.
* The type of character staff are expecting.
* What plots staff are going to encourage the character to pursue.
* What plots the staff will be steering away from.
* What degree and type of support the player can expect.

A big problem at the moment is staff say "Hey. House X is looking for a Y! Send in your app now!" A player gets really excited. Puts together all their ideas and sends through the best selection. And then staff sift through the best. Now I'm sure if a trusted player perfectly matches what the staff want then that player gets selected. However what I expect happens most times is staff get a selection of "apps that seem close" and choose one. However the problem here is I expect most times the player doesn't communicate:
* Their expectations of pre-existing PCs.
* The primary plot that will make or break the role.
* What type and level of support they expect from staff and how much effort they have to put forward to get that support.
* What expectations they have of the playerbase at large.

Now ideally staff communicate some of the expectations they have. However by this stage the player has quite possibly emotionally invested a great deal into that character and when they discover their expectations don't match staff they may just "go with it" anyway and then either due to being disheartened by the realities of the role or real life popping up they store, stop logging in, or just go through the motions and "sit it out" hoping if they keep going things will get better.

So how can the likelihood of the above be minimized? They can provide their side of expectations. Some of the above can be included in the advert directly. Staff could invite expressions of interest to find out the rest BEFORE they apply for the role. This minimizes emotional investment by the player before finding out what the deal is with the role. The Role Application form could also prompt for some of the above expectations from players as well so less of the expectations from both sides remains unspoken. I think this would result in less bad sponsored roles as I see the bad behavior in many cases to be a symptom (after all, presumably this player has been monitored and proven to be a capable player, otherwise why were they selected in the first place?).

Keep in mind, they can sift through the best and open a dialogue through the request tool to poke and prod at the matter, and, if need be, reveal the intent, in an effort to move things the way they want long before things are set in stone. My personal preference is that anyone who voices a desire to murder any PC who gets slightly in their way be cut out of the process, but, that could be what staff wants to happen, I can't say. If they work more with a sponsored role before they step on stage, at least everyone has the vague semblance of a script and can react accordingly.

[evilcabbage]

last time i apped for any sponsored role there were questions related to what i wanted to do and how i wanted to do it, and some slight prodding one way or the other to make sure i knew the line.

maybe i got lucky and i had akariel as my staff and not tEmmIE.

[John]

Keep in mind, they can sift through the best and open a dialogue through the request tool to poke and prod at the matter, and, if need be, reveal the intent, in an effort to move things the way they want long before things are set in stone.

Sure. But there's problems with that if you do it after the player has already invested quite a bit of energy into the character. If

a trusted player perfectly matches what the staff want

Then the staff have an easy choice, no problem whatsoever. However if

staff get a selection of "apps that seem close" and choose one.

we're at a less than ideal situation. And while staff can detail what their expectations are and ask probing questions of the player to find out what the player's expectations are, doing it at this stage means that

the player has quite possibly emotionally invested a great deal into that character and when they discover their expectations don't match staff they may just "go with it" anyway

at least everyone has the vague semblance of a script and can react accordingly.

Maybe those who've had recent sponsored roles can speak up, but I expect most of the time there is a vague semblance of a script. But the problem is that the vague semblance can result in wildly diverging play from what the staff expected and the player can point to that vague script and say "but I'm on script!" and feel harshly done by when the staff react quite strongly to "fix the problem".

[BadSkeelz]

I kind of feel that no sponsored role should be allowed to exist for more than a RL year.

I also think that we should get rid of nobles entirely and give their plot-generating impetus to aides. That's a thread I've been wanting to start for a few days not but just haven't had the energy. Maybe I will later.

[Drayab]

I know there are rolecalls sometimes where staff have a specific plot in mind that they want to support with a special character, but in my case it was more open-ended. My application was all about the thing I wanted to do. Staff liked the idea but required some changes to improve thematic adherence. I agreed to the changes. I got IG, did the thing, fun was had by all. There was never a script, but there was definitely a plan. The plan had to be modified as things went along, which was done collaboratively with other players ICly and also through communication with staff OOCly. I had a lot of fun and would do it again. I think it was all made awesome by the collaborative atmosphere. Good communication really is the key.

[Ath]

I really like a lot of the feedback here and I appreciate the viewpoints, it helps more than you realize.

For those of you that were like, what if the person doesn't want to do plots and shit, that's fine.  If they want to be the tavern sitting noble, but at least are playing a character that is realistic to the game world, and IF they have clan members and are giving them some attention during good playtimes, I could care less.  I personally have a concept for the laziest fatty of a Fale that I've wanted to play for years.  Now his laziness would make it so that he'd delegate pretty much everything he could, so this gave the other PCs he hired something to do.

So yes, if you're burnt out a bit on the character and just want to relax, there is nothing wrong with that.  Now if you're never around, ignoring your own clan members, and disregarding documentation and realism within the game world, that's what I have a problem with.  I think we all see pretty much eye to eye on this and it makes me happy to see this.

We want to see players succeed with a Sponsored Role, and yes... maybe we can do better on staff to support these Sponsored Roles and those that are playing under them.  In most cases of those that are playing underlings, we typically want to see things go through the Leadership PCs first rather than bypassing it, but I can see in circumstances where that individual isn't around.  I've seen it myself and how it can suck.  I think with some updated expectations and guidelines for Sponsored Roles, this will help.

Now I have an idea... what do you think if we did Interviews for Sponsored Roles?  Allowing for us to get our concept across and make sure both staff and the player are aligned in the idea so that staff can make a better decision.  What if a player is selected for a Sponsored Role was given a Primer on the role prior to entering play so that they had something to work with right off the start?

[Delirium]

Slightly tangential, but I do want to offer the viewpoint of making sure a nice balance is struck.

If you completely overwhelm someone with plots from the get-go before they have a chance to settle into their character, it could backfire into burning them out. I think this depends on the player, too... some like that, some are self-starters.

Point being, not every case is going to be the same, so any guidelines should be loose enough to realize that.

[Miradus]

I think interviews would be the way to go. Surprised you're not doing that already.

That would give you a real time communication channel to go back and forth and explain what you want out of the role and see if the player wants to deliver that or not. If they go stale later on you could have another face to face and ask them why, or if they even consider that they're being stale (they might not).

[Riev]

Of the few Leadership/Sponsored roles I've played in, the vast majority are the Byn/Guild "You lived! Congrats!" roles. I find in these situations, there is a bit less from staff saying "here are some ideas to get you going" and more of a "learn on your own" (Not with this current one. Current Staffer: You get a thumbs up).

I applied, once, for a sponsored role, officially. It was a Northern Templar. I had played enough in the North, and long enough in the Legions to watch Templars come and go while providing very little at the time. The idea would be that he was a white version of Mace Windu, thinking he could feel important 'breaks' and that it was his job to correct mistakes in Commoners. He sat around the taverns, drinking juice from a keg and reading books. He trained his Legionnaires at times, gave them a few things to do, even hired some indie Mercenaries to cause a scene in a tavern just to 'test' the resolve of a Recruit.

But, I remember quite clearly that the expectations for the role weren't defined at all. My job was to "be a Templar". Anything I tried to do was Rock-Blocked by the other side of the Templarate, and when he had the (admittedly foolish) idea of making all Recruits look similar so people knew that they were in training, it was "allowed" by the Lirathans thought it stupid, foolish, not worthwhile, and when I eventually left public service THEY reverted it immediately. I now laugh at the bagheads under Lirathan control.

But the point is, the one time I did have a Sponsored Role, it was only with the guidelines "be a Templar". Someone suicide in front of me during a scene, and it was reported to my clan staff via the Lirathans, and my clan staff then came down like a mountain on me, while admittedly not knowing everything about what happened. I think there needs to be, with Sponsored roles, more of a go between. Weekly reports, that take a week+ to resolve, and Leaders not able to call upon their Storyteller resources during scenes really weaken the role.

It would be much better if login expectations were set, on both sides. Nothing gives a Leader role more perceived power than environment echoes going on around them, or the world coming alive from their very presence.

[Akaramu]

In most cases of those that are playing underlings, we typically want to see things go through the Leadership PCs first rather than bypassing it, but I can see in circumstances where that individual isn't around.  I've seen it myself and how it can suck.

As an offpeak player, IC superiors not being around was the single biggest issue for me. I know I'm not the only offpeak player. With my last role, clan staff insisted X and Y MUST go through my IC superior, but it just didn't happen, despite all my PMs and attempts to coordinate playtimes. I wish staff would have been more understanding of my situation and given me a little more freedom / directions.

Now I have an idea... what do you think if we did Interviews for Sponsored Roles?  Allowing for us to get our concept across and make sure both staff and the player are aligned in the idea so that staff can make a better decision.  What if a player is selected for a Sponsored Role was given a Primer on the role prior to entering play so that they had something to work with right off the start?

That sounds like a great idea.

I respect Laura's opinion, but I don't think your interpretation works in all applications.  I don't think you should equate leadership with availability.  It's certainly a nice function of the role, but the impact a character has on the gameworld should be considered first.  The key and relative term here is impact.  Are you having an impact on the game that reinforces the culture you're representing?  Because it's all about the theme. 

I'd like to add that the impact should include their own clannies. Impact on 'noble house politics', for instance, is nice, but when there are underlings who don't see the impact and are left out, something's going wrong. And I'd like to stress once again: Include your off-peak clannies. Especially if the off-peak PC is proven to be active, loyal and motivated. If playtimes don't match, find a middle-man. Or ask staff for help.

And if the plotting isn't happening, instead of storing that character get them into trouble IC, with clear indicators of what is expected. Having a scary superior breathe down their character's neck should provide ample motivation. Months of disappointed silence / vagueness and then storage can't be the solution.

[Riev]

Now I have an idea... what do you think if we did Interviews for Sponsored Roles?  Allowing for us to get our concept across and make sure both staff and the player are aligned in the idea so that staff can make a better decision.  What if a player is selected for a Sponsored Role was given a Primer on the role prior to entering play so that they had something to work with right off the start?

Related; It used to be that if you wanted to app a Templar or Noble, there were docs you could request access to, because "most Oashi look like this" and "Borsail have an inbred temperament of that", and were things you just might not know. These days, you don't get those. There's no primer on "here's the basics of what this character would likely embody".

I'm all for primers. You'll get more, and more quality, when there are base guidelines presented. I understand the need for a Role Call Announcement to not give away all the details, but maybe have the Call open for one week, during which anyone that "applies" or "shows interest" gets access to that Role's Primer. Then keep the application process open for the standard length of time.

[Armaddict]

Now I have an idea... what do you think if we did Interviews for Sponsored Roles?

I think this would be a great idea.

[TheWanderer]

*good stuff*

You could basically close the thread with this post.

It's the fact that there are a lot of people who don't step down that this is even a discussion. I can't stress the mantra of not clinging to these roles enough.

I respect Laura's opinion, but I don't think your interpretation works in all applications.  I don't think you should equate leadership with availability.  It's certainly a nice function of the role, but the impact a character has on the gameworld should be considered first.  The key and relative term here is impact.  Are you having an impact on the game that reinforces the culture you're representing?  Because it's all about the theme. 

I'm not sure I equated great leadership solely with availability in either of my posts (although seeing a clan leader more than once a week certainly helps). If a character has minimal impact, rarely logs in, and does nothing but shoot the breeze during the forty-five minutes he or she makes an appearance, there's an issue.

If you can do more than me in an hour than I can do in three, more power to you. Keep it up! However, if you're of the former example and simply clinging to power, there's a point where somebody else needs to step in.

And to the whole "atmospheric noble/dwelling in taverns/spend everyday erping" thing, sure... I guess. The next issue arises when every one of your nobles is doing this, though. They're just shoving more of the burden onto somebody else's shoulders. Then when you ask Joe why he hasn't done shit in a month and try to prod him along, he hits back, "Well, what's Jane done?" You're merely compounding the issue. Hence my earlier call for expanding the numbers if you want atmospheric bros.

The uninspired, unavailable, and inconsequential don't need to be taking up one of the few valuable slots for that area of the game. There's a reason staff generally tags the announcement with something along the lines of, "Please be a self-starter." It's a gentle reminder of what they're seeking.

[Akaramu]

I'm all for primers. You'll get more, and more quality, when there are base guidelines presented. I understand the need for a Role Call Announcement to not give away all the details, but maybe have the Call open for one week, during which anyone that "applies" or "shows interest" gets access to that Role's Primer. Then keep the application process open for the standard length of time.

+1

This, too. My second sponsored role (Tan Muark) included a ton of awesome documentation. It was an enjoyable read that helped me ease into the role, and I think I did a pretty good job afterward.

[Lutagar]

I feel like it'd help if we questioned why particular sponsored roles have such a disproportionately huge storage ratio and what could be done to better accommodate them.