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

[whitt]

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.

I'd vote for there's a lack of ownership of the character. 
If you pour blood, sweat, and tears into getting your character up to, say, Lieutenant in the Byn?  You're sure gonna be committed to playing it out and have IG years of contacts, history, experience to base your play off of.
When you app into a role you don't have any of that, so I think it would be pretty easy to become discouraged and just step away from what was a much large staff investment than personal investment.

[Ath]

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.

I'd vote for there's a lack of ownership of the character. 
If you pour blood, sweat, and tears into getting your character up to, say, Lieutenant in the Byn?  You're sure gonna be committed to playing it out and have IG years of contacts, history, experience to base your play off of.
When you app into a role you don't have any of that, so I think it would be pretty easy to become discouraged and just step away from what was a much large staff investment than personal investment.

This is actually something I've been working on with the GMH team for the GMHs clans.  We're going to be making some big efforts to make the Merchant role better, but I do agree.  At the same point though, some roles are not for everyone.  We actually haven't had a very high storage rate as of late, so that to me shows we're making strides.

[650Booger]

I'm starting to feel a little discouraged about some of the stuff I'm reading.  Trying not to take it personally though.

What I feel like I'm seeing alot of:

"I've never played a sponsored role, BUT..."

and

"What have sponsored characters done for me lately?"

I should stop reading this thread.

[Reiloth]

I'm starting to feel a little discouraged about some of the stuff I'm reading.  Trying not to take it personally though.

What I feel like I'm seeing alot of:

"I've never played a sponsored role, BUT..."

and

"What have sponsored characters done for me lately?"

I should stop reading this thread.

Indeed, you should. I find that it's easy to cast stones, glass houses, etc. Safe to say everyone and their mother should be grateful for the time that you (and other Leaders) put into the role. It is a thankless job. Many people will critique you, or think they could 'do better'. But it reminds me of what my old boss told me when I left my last job...

"Everyone around here thinks they can do a better job than me, but they haven't owned a business for a single day in their life." Similarly, people who aren't playing sponsored roles may have a lot to say about the role, but don't have the time or commitment to pull it off themselves. You do! So kudos.

Keep in mind you were chosen for the role(s) you are playing because Staff appreciates you, and thinks you will do a good job with the role, and are likely themselves grateful that you are stepping up to the plate, for however long you can. People waffle on storing their Leadership roles because they think...What will they do without me? I'll be putting Staff in a tough spot. Everyone's depending on me. While that may be true in the tiniest sense, the game will go on. The BEST thing you can do is keep honest lines of communication open with Staff. Be up front if you are having struggles with the role, what's going on, if you need a break, and when you are taking breaks. I think this goes a long way in keeping things cool.

[Kalden]

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.

Do we all see eye to eye? It sounds to me like the staff and the players are talking past each other a bit. The players seem interested in seeing engaging plotlines (perhaps thinking outside the box) out of the sponsored roles, while it sounds like the staff are focused on making sure that their roles color within the lines of the box. It seems like these two priorities could even be at odds with each other.

[Reiloth]

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.

Do we all see eye to eye? It sounds to me like the staff and the players are talking past each other a bit. The players seem interested in seeing engaging plotlines (perhaps thinking outside the box) out of the sponsored roles, while it sounds like the staff are focused on making sure that their roles color within the lines of the box. It seems like these two priorities could even be at odds with each other.

Not at all. I think Staff is giving their perspective, and Players are giving theirs. Of course they aren't going to match up perfectly, but that's what a conversation like this is all about. Figuring out what's not being communicated, and communicating it.

[Jingo]

As to the 'Just app in another <insert role here>' it almost invariably ends up with the longer lived PC who has:

1 - All the contacts
2 - All the Templars in their pocket
3 - All the Indies in their pocket
4 - All the criminals in their pocket

Saying 'newp' to most of your ideas, and basically running over everything you try to start, even if they aren't up to much.

You are truly fucked if you try to fuck with them or do anything besides 'yessir' their whims. It gets boring to app in someone who is so incredibly disadvantaged, and most 'new' apps seem to store pretty quickly, probably due to something along these lines.

A web of influence like that requires maintenance.  I can't imagine a PC who wields that much power being considered "under-performing".


Anyway, staff, not sure what you're looking for here.  You ask is it fair to store under-performing nobles?  Some suggest maybe it isn't necessary.  You reply no, it is necessary.  You seem to have answered your own question.  (Or at least Nergal seems to have answered it for you.)

I don't think it requires far to much in the way of maintenance. In fact I think it's the lowest state of entropy in Armageddon politics. Everybody is allies with everybody. Anyone not inside has their days numbered.

[Lizzie]

I've read all the posts after mine, and it looks like a lot of other thoughtful input. I'm still stuck on what I feel is the #1 two-fold primary "need" for sponsored roles: 1) active availability and 2) actively involving your own "people" in your characters' plotlines.

These two points can be broken down further, but all other points seem to turn right back to these two points.

So - if you're not playing during certain hours and you happen to have a day off and show up during those certain hours - don't hire anyone during that time frame. That person will be stuck dealing with a boss who THEY can't ever get in touch with. Seriously profoundly frustrating and annoying. Hire people to work for you when you know YOU are around for them to report news, and get assignments, and even just chitchat.

And - when you do hire people, hire them for reasons. Not just because you're a boss now and have to have employees. Your employees need to serve some kind of main overall function, with smaller tasks supporting it.

----------

On the attrition situation for "replacement" sponsored roles: Personal experience with this. Many years ago. Got accepted to play a GMH family member. There were already a couple who'd come and gone in fairly rapid succession, another had been placed fairly recently (within the past couple of RL months). Staff says "you'll be responsible for this that and the other, and your current main plot-sticker is to get the Senate to agree with this idea. One, two, three, GO."

So I show up to find that the other guy had hired a bunch of hunters who spent most of their time putzing around in the crafter warehouse, sexing up, and complaining that the weather was too bad to go out hunting.

I fire the bunch of them - and start working to strengthen the core of employees who were actually going out and doing stuff.

Meanwhile - my first day's entry into politics, I learn that the other guy had already secured the "favor" of all the people of influence I wanted to secure, and they weren't interested in doing business with the new kid on the block. So I had to set out to destroy the other guy so he'd be out of my way to fame and fortune.

Sadly - this was really frustrating, because that was really the only thing I could do that had anything to do with the actual running of the house. I couldn't do anything with regards to the Senate, because the other guy had blocked me from meaningful interaction with the other PCs before I even showed up out of chargen. This was frustrating on an OOC level. I can't stand having my "needs" narrowed down to just one very myopic goal and not being able to do much else til that goal succeeded. Especially when there was a good chance of failure.

I ended up having to work with the staff on this - thankfully I witnessed the other guy do something the House forbade, and had him "transferred" elsewhere.

But that was the first few RL weeks of play. It consisted of nothing more than getting rid of the other guy, and I hated that. I was going into the role hoping to work WITH someone to get things done. Or possibly working alone to do it. Or starting out alone, and having to build up my own people without having to dump people who'd already been there.

I wish I had been informed by staff prior to chargen, that I'd have strong competition from an existing PC, and there was already an existing crew that I'd have to sort out. At least then I would've known what to expect before accepting the role. My character presumably had existed virtually in the compound for years, surely she would've observed at least SOME of this stuff in her daily walk around the grounds.

So - transparency of IC situations is a third primary need for sponsored roles. I have had sponsored roles since then and the staff has improved IMMENSELY since then. So there's no complaint here - just a reminder to staff that the preliminary information is crucial, and that I would love to see them maintain it, and not let it go lax.

[Ath]

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.

Do we all see eye to eye? It sounds to me like the staff and the players are talking past each other a bit. The players seem interested in seeing engaging plotlines (perhaps thinking outside the box) out of the sponsored roles, while it sounds like the staff are focused on making sure that their roles color within the lines of the box. It seems like these two priorities could even be at odds with each other.

I honestly have no issue with going outside the box, it adds flavor and interest to a character and role.  I have issue with the box is ignored entirely, that is more what this topic is about.

[Reiloth]

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.

Do we all see eye to eye? It sounds to me like the staff and the players are talking past each other a bit. The players seem interested in seeing engaging plotlines (perhaps thinking outside the box) out of the sponsored roles, while it sounds like the staff are focused on making sure that their roles color within the lines of the box. It seems like these two priorities could even be at odds with each other.

I honestly have no issue with going outside the box, it adds flavor and interest to a character and role.  I have issue with the box is ignored entirely, that is more what this topic is about.

Yeah, I think we are getting loosey goosey talking about Sponsored Roles in general, but the main crux of it is...What does Staff do when a Borsail becomes obsessed with magick and wants to use Magick to solve their goals? (Borsail is incredibly anti-magick), or an Oashi wants to spend their time making a Fart Plantation next to the Ocotillo Farm (Frivilous building project)?

The thing I hate seeing from a leader i'm playing with is the blame game -- I'd do this if 'my superiors' didn't say no. There's a lot of thinly veiled 'Staff told me no' that gets passed around IG in weird ways, and i'd just say...Get over it! Try something else, don't wallow in how your superiors told you sorry, no. It seems to be infectious too, among leaders, where they all start having a Secret Society meeting to complain about 'their superiors'.

Honestly, I think Staff should be more exacting with the scalpel. If someone isn't fitting in with the guidelines you were very clear about up front (and to be certain, these should be more clear up front) then tap them on the shoulder and have a conversation about it. Get their POV, match it with your POV, and come to a conclusion, letting them know that you'd really like to see them moving in a certain direction. If they continue to ignore you and your advice, store them, move on to the next cantidate. This should be included in the Sponsored Role helpfile, so it isn't a personal assassination or surprise to the player in question.

I know i've been asked many times to adjust my goals -- Lantry, my Byn Sergeant, had some longwinded plot to take over Luir's Outpost for Allanak. I posted a long explaination in a request to Nyr, and let him know that it was all OOC conjecture. I had talked with Drydek the Blue about it, and he had interest in pursuing it, but Lantry hadn't brought it ICly to his command.

Nyr explained that if they caught wind of it IG, it'd probably not end well for Lantry, and here's the reasons why, and OOCly they didn't really want to pursue that plot how I presented it. I said no problem, and dropped it. Because really at the end of the day -- If Staff is transmitting to you that they aren't interested in something and don't want to spend the time on it, you will be -wasting- your time banging your head against a wall trying to fit the square peg in the round hole. Working -with- Staff on shared mutual interests is what gets things done in this game.

In essence, there's a difference of approach. Some Leaders have lofty goals from the outset, and they want to implement them almost immediately or as soon as possible. Other Leaders come in as a tabla rosa, and sort of react to what's going on around them and come up with stuff as they go. I think asking Leaders 'What sort of plots would you do?' in the application is a bit of a catch 22. Asking them what they want to do, and then accepting the application, sort of gives them approval to do the things they wanted to do in the application. But i've found that there's a disconnect here -- Sometimes Staff like 1 or 2 things in the application, but not #3 and definitely not #4, but they don't mention that when the application is accepted. That should likely change.

[Rokal]

Personally, Ive never done sponsored roles much because i am uncertain if I would live up to the expectations required, and I'd do my damned best to work with staff and learn what  can, that said, IRL makes it very hard to also live up to things like character reports for me and other thngs like that, I couldnt manage to keep them up weekly. To me, a sponsored role would be something I take extremely seriously in the sense of fun for everyone that character could get involved with.

I also feel I don't have the experience yet to properly play many of such characters.

THat said, If i -was- in a position of a sponsored role, and despite all my efforts, it just didnt work out? I would take a force storing to let someone else take a shot at it, and perhaps take the experience and prepare it for the next chance I get.

I think fi you give a player countless chances, try to work with them, and they still don't remedy the issue, well..that is on the palyer, fi you've reached out to them and they aren't working with you guys on staff, then ..you tired? the only thing you can do is cut them loose.

Its a game, its supposed to be fun, but at the same time, I see sponsored roles as a key thing to the game that adds to the worlds atmosphere, and i've seen some really jarring behavior from sponsored roles before.

You, as staff selected the person - if they don't pan out ,I don't see whats wrong with politely cutting them loose, or even allowing them some sort of IC closure to the character.

I don't want to sound insensitive, but if someone quits over being force stored over their sponsored role after not co-operating with staff, but that isn't someone I want to play the game with because I believe such behavior isn't constructive.

Sometimes, you just gotta be a bit tough on people.

(And I think you guys have been too easy on me)

[Lutagar]

The thing I hate seeing from a leader i'm playing with is the blame game -- I'd do this if 'my superiors' didn't say no. There's a lot of thinly veiled 'Staff told me no' that gets passed around IG in weird ways, and i'd just say...Get over it! Try something else, don't wallow in how your superiors told you sorry, no. It seems to be infectious too, among leaders, where they all start having a Secret Society meeting to complain about 'their superiors'.

I've always seen this as a problem with the lore more than anything. There's a lack of reasons for big clans to get into conflict and peace is almost always more pragmatic.

Every aspect of life in Zalanthas has some unassailable, too big to fall clan monopolizing it and lack anything that could be considered serious competition.

If a character tries to upset that, then at best they can expect to be told 'No.' It makes sense ICly, but you can't create plots from nothing.

[Riev]

The thing I hate seeing from a leader i'm playing with is the blame game -- I'd do this if 'my superiors' didn't say no. There's a lot of thinly veiled 'Staff told me no' that gets passed around IG in weird ways, and i'd just say...Get over it! Try something else, don't wallow in how your superiors told you sorry, no. It seems to be infectious too, among leaders, where they all start having a Secret Society meeting to complain about 'their superiors'.

I've always seen this as a problem with the lore more than anything. There's a lack of reasons for big clans to get into conflict and peace is almost always more pragmatic.

Every aspect of life in Zalanthas has some unassailable, too big to fall clan monopolizing it and lack anything that could be considered serious competition.

If a character tries to upset that, then at best they can expect to be told 'No.' It makes sense ICly, but you can't create plots from nothing.

This. You basically are given the choice "Do what the gameworld would suggest" or "Go against the gameworld and do something your character probably wouldn't, but it'd be fun!".

Its hard to choose between being a "good player because they are surrounded by action and intrigue" and "good player because they follow the gameworld"

[Jingo]

So, looking at this thread, I'm seeing these as the problem with sponsored roles.

They're engaging in actions that don't make ic sense.

They're playing the game in a low-effort, low-energy manner.

They actively stifle conflict instead of relishing in it.

I don't think this is an issue with sponsored roles as much as it's a symptom of a larger problem. There is a powerful incentive for players to reduce conflict in the game. This takes the form of players playing in a conflict-minimal way. It also takes a form in which the pc-centric apparatuses will violently crush even mild cases of interpersonal tension.

Consider the differences between the players that live forever and don't live long at all. I don't need to run the stats to know that the more agreeable a character is (towards elves and other outgroups notwithstanding), the more likely they'll survive the political arena.

Why does this incentive exist? Because players hate losing their characters, their character's friends (and mudsex buddies if you want to be extra cynical). Conflict is chaotic, it destabilizes player-player alliances and puts the survival of all those long-livers into question. So, even minor conflict needs to be quelled. A city with stepford smilers seems normal in light of this dynamic.

I view this as a self-reinforcing cycle that's been perpetrated without check for a while now. But I think it can be countered if staff actively support characters that are likely to engage in conflict, supporting low-level tensions and low-level actions as much as violent high-level conflict and reminding leaders that that they can't be friends with everyone.

Edit: I have one more suggestion that I know is going to be controversial. Sanction player characters that escalate conflicts with the intention of simply "winning" them. Getting killed because you had rude conversation at the bar isn't fun. Dying to a clan leader because of interpersonal tensions isn't fun. Getting killed by a templar because that templar is buddies with a rival isn't fun.

Second edit: We used to do this. I don't know why we don't anymore.

[LauraMars]

So, looking at this thread, I'm seeing these as the problem with sponsored roles.

They're engaging in actions that don't make ic sense.

They're playing the game in a low-effort, low-energy manner.

They actively stifle conflict instead of relishing in it.

I don't think this is an issue with sponsored roles as much as it's a symptom of a larger problem. There is a powerful incentive for players to reduce conflict in the game. This takes the form of players playing in a conflict-minimal way. It also takes a form in which the pc-centric apparatuses with violently crush even mild cases of interpersonal tension.

Consider the differences between the players that live forever and don't live long at all. I don't need to run the stats to know that the more agreeable a character is (towards elves and other outgroups notwithstanding), the more likely they'll survive the political arena.

Why does this incentive exist? Because players hate losing their characters, their character's friends (and mudsex buddies if you want to be extra cynical). Conflict is chaotic, it destabilizes player-player alliances and puts the survival of all those long-livers into question. So, even minor conflict needs to be quelled. Even a city of stepford smilers seems normal in light of this dynamic.

I view this as a self-reinforcing cycle that's been perpetrated without check for a while now. But I think it can be countered if staff actively support characters that are likely to engage in conflict, supporting low-level tensions and low-level actions as much as violent high-level conflict and reminding leaders that that they can't be friends with everyone.

I cannot agree with this enough.

Staff need to be supporting conflict and encouraging it. If there is no conflict, they need to be creating some themselves instead of maintaining and celebrating the status quo.

[Dunetrade55]

I think a pre-hire interview would work wonders for quality control, a dialogue between clan staff and the player as far as tweaking the background a little to be optimal for the purposes which their PC is meant to achieve, and when staff has made up their mind, shipping a document as far as "IC things your PC would know about", so you don't come in blind.

In Lizzie's scenario, it may have been difficult to get the other character to roleplay constructively with their PC because she hadn't known how their PC would react to a firing spree of those PCs they hired... realistically she would have known "X, Y, and Z are all important considerations", and known a comprimise would possibly be in order to achieve the higher goal of influencing the senate, without wrecking house as far as what was already present. I know personally it's always disconcerting when I'm working on building something up and a single player swoops in and undoes everything I'm working on without so much as trying to look at what other factors may be present. It would make most of my PCs belligerent and unwilling to cooperate. Then again, I could have misread her vague post.

But yeah, leaders coming in not entirely clueless to the current and recently past IC reality would be ideal, both for the leadership role, and for those who suddenly find themselves at the leader PC's mercy. I understand it's natural to resist handing out IC info, but they're stepping into a position of power where they'd already know these things. If you're going to trust them with the power, it's not even as much of a leap to trust them with a "What you know" document.

[BadSkeelz]

First,

I cannot agree with this enough.

Staff need to be supporting conflict and encouraging it. If there is no conflict, they need to be creating some themselves instead of maintaining and celebrating the status quo.

Following from that,

Second edit: We used to do this. I don't know why we don't anymore.

I wager it's two reasons:

1) Staff grow protective of their charges just as players do of their own PCs. If Staff like working with a particular set of players, they're less likely to push back when the players commit the offenses you've outlined.

2) Staff are held hostage by the fear that any attempt to hold players to a standard is going to cause the players of Sponsored Roles to to quit. Role calls only ever get a few applications (I'd wager less than four on average) so the well is perceived as shallow. Staff are afraid of poisoning it.

[Armaddict]

Edit: I have one more suggestion that I know is going to be controversial. Sanction player characters that escalate conflicts with the intention of simply "winning" them. Getting killed because you had rude conversation at the bar isn't fun. Dying to a clan leader because of interpersonal tensions isn't fun. Getting killed by a templar because that templar is buddies with a rival isn't fun.

Second edit: We used to do this. I don't know why we don't anymore.

TL;DR:
Sometimes escalation that seems senseless is only senseless because of a difference in interpretation of the game world, but there is plenty of escalation that is indeed senseless.  However, in cases of difference in interpretation or gleaning bad information about the game world, interaction between staff and players in the game itself is more effective than punishment, in my opinion.  I think punishments of any sort should be reserved for clear, outright broken rules.  A lot of conflict in the game isn't meaningless at all, but it being meaningful and sensible and necessary doesn't mean you'll enjoy every bit of it or agree with it from your end, and that deserves no punishment or sanction.

------

In short, dying isn't fun, and I don't disagree with that.  Escalation over silly things is indeed very harmful towards things, but sometimes, escalation is sensible, just not very well understood by the other side.  I have problems with when it comes to assertion of poor play based solely off of a difference in interpretation of a situation. (example: An elf gets a casual threat-joke from a known 'bad-guy' regarding bad things happening to his family.  Elf kills bad-guy.  Bad-guy says it's a poor escalation because it was based off a casual comment made for conflict purposes, but he really did just give an elf a reason to suspect that said guy could possibly be wanting to hurt his family; such is priority number one for all elves). I agree on senseless escalation, but not all escalation is senseless and it's hard to monitor constantly, even with reports.

In regards to the second edit, though, it was -a lot- more common for storytellers in the 'used to' era to casually watch over the state of the game.  Oh, there's a guy alone in the alleys?  What's he doing?  Let's check that out.  Oh, he's idling.  Oh, this other guy is killing things, but he isn't twinking; that's his job.  Let's make this react more fun without getting in his way.  Oh, this guy is breaking into houses.  Etc.  Etc.  Etc.  Careless escalation and thoughtless killing wasn't -prevented-...but it was reacted to.  I, over the course of several characters (perhaps even a dozen), had staff members watching me kill things in the labyrinth and making them react well to it, sometimes killing me, sometimes not, that I get -intensely uncomfortable- being on the side where someone is presenting mismatched IC justification for OOC'ly motivated training or fun factor.  That was created through staff interaction, not through a punishment or sanction.  So I'm more in favor of that approach.

If they're breaking rules, punish or sanction.  If they're interpreting things differently than you, present more information and life in the presentation.  The latter is part of why I'm on this code-binge, is because it's been made painfully clear in the last year or two just how differently two people can interpret the same room, the same game world, the same in-game culture, the same action...it's just terribly unreliable, and from the staff side, forces an arbitrary appearance on matters (because of shifting and changing in approach or interpretation) and forces setting precedence on matters that are not exactly good to set a precedence on in one direction or another.

[Jingo]

Semi-serious:

Selected sponsor roles get a Tyranny style CYOA that determines their background.

[BadSkeelz]

Semi-serious:

Selected sponsor roles get a Tyranny style CYOA that determines their background.

I would rather sponsored roles be filled via a means closer to how Fatebinders are selected in their background: be a normal PC, do something noticeable, get uplifted.

[nauta]

Re: Jingo's post)

The tension I'm seeing is between 'dumb' conflict and 'smart' conflict.  Dumb conflict is the PK (see point #4 below).  Smart conflict is more nuanced: being rude to someone at the bar, disliking someone for who they work for/are, being an asshole, being a criminal, etc.  Often what happens, if I'm reading Jingo right, is that once you engage in even an iota of smart conflict, you will find yourself faced with dumb conflict as a consequence.

So how can we encourage more smart conflict and discourage dumb conflict?

This is something that we as players can also help on.  How?

1. Well, obviously, don't put a hit out on someone who was rude (in line with documentation) to your gick/breed/gemmed.  Don't escalate -- let the conflict grow.

1.a. Be mindful of the virtual world and what the majority of people are doing.  So this PC showed some distrust towards you for being a gemmed and doesn't want to be your friend.  Guess what?  99.9% of the bar is doing the exact same thing.

2. If you are playing a hired killer, perform some due diligence.  Obviously, the rinthi assassin isn't going to ask two questions if their Guild boss tells them to kill Bob.  But you -could- send a quick request to staff to make sure everything's kosher here, and the hit wasn't just Sue who is kanking a gick being mad at someone at the bar giving them bug eyes for making out.  Or whatever.

3. (2) probably goes for soldiers -- kudos to all those soldiers who turn blind eyes or fail to chase down an elf thief.  If you're playing a Soh, though: no due diligence.  Kill 'em all. :-)

4. For the most part, it's actually pretty hard to kill people around here unless they do something really stupid.  Exceptions are poisons, locked apartments, desert elves/gicks/muls, and compounds -- and the last two either require karma or come with virtual world reactions.

5. So, in light of (4), we really shouldn't feel too afraid to shake shit up and engage in conflict on multiple levels (i.e., disliking someone at the bar, being racist to an elf, being afraid of a gemmed).

Hmm, I'm feeling this is shifting off topic.  Hard.

[BadSkeelz]

6. Kill more sponsored roles, and characters in general. Break the attachment players have for their characters, which is the #1 driver for "dumb" conflict. Let the vacancies be filled by recruited-in-game PCs who are granted the benefits and responsibilities of traditional app-in sponsored roles. Let them persist until they fail in their job (i.e. spend 80% of their time in the compound mudsexing) or someone better than them comes along and ousts them.

[Dunetrade55]

Most of the conflict I've seen from powerful, too big to fail institutions, have been with indies who are just minding their own business and powerless to defend themselves from an onslaught. Even if they do manage, you get the problem of, well, now you've just angered the higher-ups. The sponsored roles have little to lose their. Going against other too big to fail entities could have things spiraling out of hand given particular behavior patterns of escalation, thus causing plans and building operations on both sides to utterly fail due to sabotage of logistics and assassinations of assets critical to the goals. Something as simple as constructing a fireplace could be sniffed out by the opposition and thus snuffed out in retaliation for the death of a favored hunter etc.

While this kind of mutual conflict is desirable, the rates of escalation I've observed in the past would make me, as a player, reluctant to approach the situation at all. I'm perfectly content with my meaningless goals, petty squables, and trying to twink my skills to a usable level. What upsets me more as a player, however, are squables within the clan. I'd prefer an outsider enemy as opposed to one I'm forced to be near every IG day constantly up my arse about anything they can find mildly wrong, or any possibilities their paranoid minds may devise.

And as someone else mentioned, too quick escalation, and a pattern of such previously, will inspire players to hide out in their compounds, unwilling to interact with the rest of the gameworld, which is kind of disheartening for some of our more social players. It causes one to think, "Why did I, against my better reasoning, join this clan to begin with? Now I'm trapped and there's nothing I can do about it."

Seen it happen before... too many times. I'm a fan of conflict but I like slow tension, such that you can feel the cables snap, one by one. Not just like, we're in ur base killin ur dudes. It makes it all the more impactful when it finally gives, and one doesn't sit there feeling cheapened or wondering what happened, just feels like, yep, I saw that coming a mile away. I'd be more a fan of corrupting the opposition to get an in, instead of simply eliminating their resources. That's easier with leverage, whether blackmail, or fear of the tension that may give at any moment. Then you get to fuck with the enemy because you can pretend to trust them with sensitive information you know they'll report, because obviously they're a double agent.

Worst thing to do is act on the info you get. Spies may report false or misleading info to test in order to see if you're savvy enough to be trusted with the real deal without blowing their cover... and if they give you the real deal then you can act on it, but you'd have to do so knowing you'd be tipping your hand. Double agents are expendable resources, but resources none the less, only to be expended when you know it will toss the enemy into disarray. I much prefer this to assassination of resources or enemies, toying with their perceptions and having them chasing their tales in an effort to undermine your goals is inconviencing enough to be almost crippling to their true aim of crippling you instead.

Even a liar and a spy in your midst is usable. I'm of the opinion a confirmed spy should never be outright eliminated, and their are ways to observe and confirm. I don't take too much offense at a breech of trust like that, simply note it, know the enemy trusts the spy, don't tip your hand, and act like you trust them and share all sorts of false tidbits you know the opposition will react to with a good deal of cognitive dissonance. This will keep them from discovering the really important things by which they might most harm you.

It's like setting up clay soldiers outside a fortress, or lighting extra fires in the night to give the impression massive reinforcements have arrived and a surrender would be advisable before the inevitable attack at dawn. There's more than one way to skin a quirri. In my opinion, it's much more fun to win without having to back up the shit you talk.

[Jingo]

6. Kill more sponsored roles, and characters in general. Break the attachment players have for their characters, which is the #1 driver for "dumb" conflict. Let the vacancies be filled by recruited-in-game PCs who are granted the benefits and responsibilities of traditional app-in sponsored roles. Let them persist until they fail in their job (i.e. spend 80% of their time in the compound mudsexing) or someone better than them comes along and ousts them.

Dialing up the violence just reinforces the problem. Nobody is going to break their attachment to their character. Instead they'll just take extra pains to protect their character.

And worst of all, people just quit the game when they're on the receiving end of play like that.

[LauraMars]

Templars (and to a lesser degree, other sponsored roles) used to have pretty high turnover. Why? Because they died a lot going on staff sponsored missions and doing crazy memorable shit.