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

[Riev]

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.

It may be a personal feeling, but I remember far more Sponsored Roles for the things they've done with staff support and guidance, than "oh man did you hear Samos haz a basturd?"

I won't name names, but some of them did the 'crazy fun' stuff through sponsored plots, and not "I want to go kill spiders, maybe staff can drop some extra in my way?".

[650Booger]

murder, corruption, betrayal.  At least 30% of this game should be you trying to kill your enemies.

[Jingo]

murder, corruption, betrayal.  At least 30% of this game should be you trying to kill your enemies.

I swear to god that tagline does more harm to the game than good.

[Akaramu]

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.

I remember the days! I remember when northern and southern templars (+a lot of other PCs) clashed due to Halaster coincidence and EVERYONE DIED. Except that one guy who looted all the bodies.

We need more Halaster coincidence.

murder, corruption, betrayal.  At least 30% of this game should be you trying to kill your enemies.

It should be making enemies. Having enemies is more fun than killing them - murder ends plots. Making enemies starts plots.

[Dunetrade55]

murder, corruption, betrayal.  At least 30% of this game should be you trying to kill your enemies.

It should be making enemies. Having enemies is more fun than killing them - murder ends plots. Making enemies starts plots.

My sentiments exactly. If I'm not worried about someone's itchy trigger finger, we're more likely to engage in some meaningful and downright dastardly mutual sabotage. Otherwise just going to have to have you put down like the mad dog you are, and wonder how you ever survived to such an age. It's simply not sustainable, ICly it's kind of suicidal and therefor immersion breaking. OOCly it's kind of irritating on the fiftieth iteration, and strikes me as welp, another notch on the murder belt.

I understand that ending PC lives fits the setting and generates plots. I am of the opinion that this is correct given it is used in moderation and sensible in relation to the cause. If I had the karma, could roll up a krathi assassin and wreak devestation on the taverns because I hate the world. Tell me, does this generate more plots than it ends? Not in my opinion.

EDIT: It's like that bully on the playground who, when you invite them to sit down and play with you, breaks all the toys you've gathered over time. The next time he comes over to play with you, how likely are you to give him an "in"? Or are you more likely to gather your things and wait somewhere else for him to leave? It's basic common sense when it comes to sharing mutual resources. Sure, breaking someone's toys ends the immediate threat of their G.I. Joes storming your sandcastle base, quite effectively. Just, don't expect anyone to want to play with you for long.

[Feco]

Yeah, but,

I play this game to pretend to chop muthafuckaz up with bone swords.

Sorry, sorta not sorry.

[Ath]

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.

So my suggestion to you is to try to play an Aide.  As an Aide you learn the political game of most sponsored roles.  Otherwise, if you've played in the Byn and was a Trooper for a good while, apply for a Sergeant role.  Otherwise the GMHs always have needs and my team is always happy to help our new folks out.

As for the conflict sentiments... then take risks.  I see too many people in general in this game no longer taking risks.  This typically happens in Leadership roles and Sponsored Roles, they end up stagnating and not taking risks, and then the players around them get bored.  Maybe we should go back to where you only earned Karma after your character died, not during the current characters existence.  Either way, people should take risks... playing it super safe in a leadership role can be boring to those around you.

As for Templars.. they have to sit on that fine balance of having a lot of RP power where they can just easily kill someone and not.  It is also why they are typically the most critical of roles.

Now here is an idea... what if we put a time limit on sponsored roles?  (I'm shooting in the dark here, so this is just an idea.)  What if made it so that after a year or 6 months, we review the person in the role and have the choice to ask them to store or continue on?

[650Booger]

Now here is an idea... what if we put a time limit on sponsored roles?  (I'm shooting in the dark here, so this is just an idea.)  What if made it so that after a year or 6 months, we review the person in the role and have the choice to ask them to store or continue on?

*edited* This I like.  Especially if the eval can be done ICly with seniors.  This combined with regular communication in the form of reports should keep everything on track.  I vote yes.

[Akaramu]

Now here is an idea... what if we put a time limit on sponsored roles?  (I'm shooting in the dark here, so this is just an idea.)  What if made it so that after a year or 6 months, we review the person in the role and have the choice to ask them to store or continue on?

Sounds like a good idea. Are you referring to IG time? 6 RL months would seems like a long time for a probation period. 

[Jingo]

As for the conflict sentiments... then take risks.  I see too many people in general in this game no longer taking risks.  This typically happens in Leadership roles and Sponsored Roles, they end up stagnating and not taking risks, and then the players around them get bored. 

You need to understand that this is a systemic problem that can't be reduced to or solved by a simple prescription like "take risks." No. I'm not going to take risks when my trust in the player next to me is at basement levels. I'm barely willing to even interact with other characters at that point.

Edit: Elaborating

The system is heavily skewed against risk taking. Players arn't willing to moderate their conflict and staff arn't willing to moderate for them. So taking risks will tend towards the loss of your character. This has an extremely powerful conditioning effect on players that I can speak to personally.

As I was trying to explain in a previous post, the incentive is to reduce conflict to as low as possible a level. Put another way, the incentive is to reduce risk to your character to such a low level too.

[whitt]

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.

+1

Also the flip side - there is no incentive for players to increase conflict in the game.  You are pretty much deciding to drive against traffic.  In a SmartCar.

[Dunetrade55]

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.

+1

Also the flip side - there is no incentive for players to increase conflict in the game.  You are pretty much deciding to drive against traffic.  In a SmartCar.

Indeed. I mean, look at my efforts to increase conflict in game. Most of the time it turns into a crazed witch-hunt from all directions, which CAN be fun, but it's jst like, punt one dude, kick a wezer nest that stings from all angles. Heck, insult someone at the bar sometimes and it's like, I hear a buzzing noise, here we go again. Make things difficult in the slightest for the wrong PC, and jimmies get rustled irreversibly. Easier just to kill 'em all at that rate, before anyone else can push the button, and that's, a very low-brow solution that I find neither I nor the receiving player enjoy much.

[Barzalene]

As for the conflict sentiments... then take risks.  I see too many people in general in this game no longer taking risks.  This typically happens in Leadership roles and Sponsored Roles, they end up stagnating and not taking risks, and then the players around them get bored. 

You need to understand that this is a systemic problem that can't be reduced to or solved by a simple prescription like "take risks." No. I'm not going to take risks when my trust in the player next to me is at basement levels. I'm barely willing to even interact with other characters at that point.

In another thread you stated that to play this game you have to cheat and only play with your friends. Now you say you can't take risks because we all suck. Ok. You feel that way.  Many of us don't and these posts have a negative impact on our play experience, because you are encouraging other to play badly. Please stop.

For everyone else the good news is that taking risks is fun, there's no prize for oldest pc and if we lose characters we get to make more.

[Miradus]

For everyone else the good news is that taking risks is fun, there's no prize for oldest pc and if we lose characters we get to make more.

I want to take risks, involve others in those risks to build some epic stories, and then die heroic on the Fury Road.

I have died to cliffs, bahamet, mekillot, the silt sea, invisible spiders, and carru. I have died linkless and I have died exhausted.

What I have NEVER done is died when with a group of friends during epic roleplay and had that character's name live on as a epic fixture of the game world.

That's the next achievement I hope to unlock.

[Jingo]

As for the conflict sentiments... then take risks.  I see too many people in general in this game no longer taking risks.  This typically happens in Leadership roles and Sponsored Roles, they end up stagnating and not taking risks, and then the players around them get bored. 

You need to understand that this is a systemic problem that can't be reduced to or solved by a simple prescription like "take risks." No. I'm not going to take risks when my trust in the player next to me is at basement levels. I'm barely willing to even interact with other characters at that point.

In another thread you stated that to play this game you have to cheat and only play with your friends. Now you say you can't take risks because we all suck. Ok. You feel that way.  Many of us don't and these posts have a negative impact on our play experience, because you are encouraging other to play badly. Please stop.

For everyone else the good news is that taking risks is fun, there's no prize for oldest pc and if we lose characters we get to make more.

Hey. I'm not saying I'm right at all times. Nor am I saying that was the right thing for me to say. And I'll admit many of my posts are indefensible.

And no I'm not even saying you all suck. All I'm really saying in this thread is that the problems some of us have with the way game operates can be understood by thinking of it in a certain way.

[Raptor_Dan]

For everyone else the good news is that taking risks is fun, there's no prize for oldest pc and if we lose characters we get to make more.

I want to take risks, involve others in those risks to build some epic stories, and then die heroic on the Fury Road.

I have died to cliffs, bahamet, mekillot, the silt sea, invisible spiders, and carru. I have died linkless and I have died exhausted.

What I have NEVER done is died when with a group of friends during epic roleplay and had that character's name live on as a epic fixture of the game world.

That's the next achievement I hope to unlock.

+1, right there with you. Coming soon, "Raptor Dan Road", complete with NPC brothel, and build a dung doll shop.

[BadSkeelz]

In another thread you stated that to play this game you have to cheat and only play with your friends. Now you say you can't take risks because we all suck. Ok. You feel that way.  Many of us don't and these posts have a negative impact on our play experience, because you are encouraging other to play badly. Please stop.

For everyone else the good news is that taking risks is fun, there's no prize for oldest pc and if we lose characters we get to make more.

If you feel offended by criticism, you might want to examine your own play and ask the question "Have I done anything that might prompt this kind of response?" Chances are what's making you feel bad is guilt.

PVP Conflict does escalate to murder ludicrously fast, at all levels of PCs. Players of sponsored roles are just in a better position to protect their PCs because they have the resources and compounds to easily crush any threat to their PC. It's not behavior unique to them, they're just the most successful.

I recently posted an anecdote about a PC who would come to town and troll my AoD Lieutenant PC with acts of petty thievery. The first time he did this I was 100% dedicated to killing that PC, for little more than insulting mine. Fortunately, when I finally cornered him he parried my first attack; I immediately fled back a room because (went my thinking) "anyone able to parry me is probably super dangerous and might require more a nuanced response."  Instead of killing him we had a conversation, which led to a duel to first blood, which led to a frenemy sitcom rivalry and some fun RP.

So if someone is fucking with your character, try looking for other means of retaliation other than going for the jugular.

Edit: a corollary to the above is "Be tough enough that you can't be PKed easily."

[Dunetrade55]

In another thread you stated that to play this game you have to cheat and only play with your friends. Now you say you can't take risks because we all suck. Ok. You feel that way.  Many of us don't and these posts have a negative impact on our play experience, because you are encouraging other to play badly. Please stop.

For everyone else the good news is that taking risks is fun, there's no prize for oldest pc and if we lose characters we get to make more.

If you feel offended by criticism, you might want to examine your own play and ask the question "Have I done anything that might prompt this kind of response?" Chances are what's making you feel bad is guilt.

PVP Conflict does escalate to murder ludicrously fast, at all levels of PCs. Players of sponsored roles are just in a better position to protect their PCs because they have the resources and compounds to easily crush any threat to their PC. It's not behavior unique to them, they're just the most successful.

I recently posted an anecdote about a PC who would come to town and troll my AoD Lieutenant PC with acts of petty thievery. The first time he did this I was 100% dedicated to killing that PC, for little more than insulting mine. Fortunately, when I finally cornered him he parried my first attack; I immediately fled back a room because (went my thinking) "anyone able to parry me is probably super dangerous and might require more a nuanced response."  Instead of killing him we had a conversation, which led to a duel to first blood, which led to a frenemy sitcom rivalry and some fun RP.

So if someone is fucking with your character, try looking for other means of retaliation other than going for the jugular.

Edit: a corollary to the above is "Be tough enough that you can't be PKed easily."

This exactly. Just this. Anyone can do this. A lot of people are willing to engage at this level, but the times you find a dial murder up to 11 PC, it makes you extremely wary because it's like, you know, I haven't devoted entire days of my life to developing resources and allies in order to just be that guy that got dusted because stealing (nor have my IC allies), or because being insulting, or because following the docs for proper racial RP. If you want to get shut out of every backwater plot and sit grunting and squinting, by all means, dial it up to twelve. People will note where you go to grunt, squint, and scratch your butt, and avoid it until they find out IC that you're dead. Some PCs are so insatiable no matter how much your PC apologizes, or offers gifts, or tries to negotiate, the table is closed the first time you flick a booger at someone. Then people to the ends of the known are in on the witch hunt because everyone everywhere just got an excuse for another notch.

You'll be lucky to find a place to hide from that booger you flicked, if it hits the wrong person.

[Armaddict]

Yay.  Another thread degrading into the generic message of 'If you're killing other PCs you're killing RP.'

Already over that.  Motivation for conflict is there.  Opportunity is not, because there simply aren't enough interests pulling every which way for people to undermine and cut out from under each other.  It makes it so that every remotely decent antagonist gets dogpiled because of what they represent (and are): an opportunity to achieve something non-generic.

As far as the question from Ath, I again say that I personally don't think you guys are doing a bad job with leadership role selection aside from maybe a bit of repetition (which I can't blame on staff, because some people enjoy playing leadership enough that they'll apply for everything and have a working relationship), and from my view, a bit of an expectation that shouldn't be there under our player-run-plot-platform, which is that they essentially serve as an extension of staff will.  I'm not sure how prevalent that latter portion is, but I do know that it exists, or is at least perceived to exist by some of those playing out the role.

I'm not sure what's different about your time limits other than it being a set bureaucracy rather than a casual one; we were already 'reviewed' on our performance, otherwise this topic wouldn't have come up.  We were already stored for not contributing in the way desired or going inactive.  I think there just needs to be more doom and death and destruction in the world as a whole, so that it's not so jarring that people feel gypped in losing their character.  That's kind of the expectation, where being long-lived is more about being lucky than not taking risks.  Taking risks is utterly necessary to the game in a healthy state; it's what achievements and accomplishments are based on.  Provide the opportunities on the other side of the risks, and people will take them, and roles will die in the process of trying to get it.

Anyone who thinks it's a great story to just have an endless conflict doesn't read a lot of literature.  They all have an ending.  The 'petty conflict' is being confused with the real conflict on multiple levels, not just the factor of escalation.  The majority of the time you get politically manipulated, conned, or hunted...that is not usually the result of a 'petty conflict' just because you didn't plan on doing anything about it.  Nor is it a reason to not trust the players playing the game, but it -is- a reason to remember why Zalanthans don't trust each other without safeguards.

[BadSkeelz]

Now here is an idea... what if we put a time limit on sponsored roles?  (I'm shooting in the dark here, so this is just an idea.)  What if made it so that after a year or 6 months, we review the person in the role and have the choice to ask them to store or continue on?

I'm OK with reviews of sponsored roles to make sure the PCs (And the players) are actually doing their "job." In fact I proposed it two pages ago

I also think more scrutiny should be given to PKs and PK reports. If all of a character's competition-plots result in "I locked them in a room and killed them" staff should be asking whether that player is using their power responsibly.

[Armaddict]

If you feel offended by criticism, you might want to examine your own play and ask the question "Have I done anything that might prompt this kind of response?" Chances are what's making you feel bad is guilt.

I'm not sure accusing Barzalene of all people of feeling guilty over poor play exactly builds a strong foundation for the argument presented in the quote.

[BadSkeelz]

We've all played poorly at times, especially those of us who have played powerful roles. Burying your head in the sand about it doesn't accomplish anything.

[BadSkeelz]

Maybe we need a "Shit-stirrer" category of Karma.

[Dunetrade55]

We've all played poorly at times, especially those of us who have played powerful roles. Burying your head in the sand about it doesn't accomplish anything.

I know I've made a few bad moves and straight up set myself up to where murder was the only option before. Regretable (I also turned mercy on because I was like, eh, I don't really want to do this, nor, deep down, would my PC). I know there've been times, also, where others felt the need to continually push my PCs despite warnings and attempts to tip them off that this is not the best option for either of us. Then, well, threats mount up from the other side, people go missing, time to tip the barrel over, because obviously shit's going down.

The don't threaten an elf's family, or allies, I can understand. I'll usually weather one such threat, and explain that this isn't how either of us want shit to go down. Happens again? Especially if it's a vague threat against my PC's direct line? Knives are coming out, baby is getting hidden somewhere, and people will die. I'll give them what chances I can to retract their stance, but in the end, there's a very, very tiny window, best not to miss it if that's not what you want to happen.

[Taven]

Now here is an idea... what if we put a time limit on sponsored roles?  (I'm shooting in the dark here, so this is just an idea.)  What if made it so that after a year or 6 months, we review the person in the role and have the choice to ask them to store or continue on?

A sponsored role is a character the same as anyone else. The threat of losing a PC every six months is something dreadful.

I have an alternative suggestion, for both those sponsored into roles and those promoted into leadership positions: Make them ICly accountable for their actions.

Are they avoiding plots that could enrich the House and prefer to kank everyone and be lazy? Then animate their superiors to speak with them. Threaten demotion. After setting expectations, if the behavior continues, demote them.

Are they actively driving players away from the clan and making it so minions cannot effectively work? Then have a superior notice and react to it. Ask them what their plans are for strengthening the clan in an IC fashion. Tell them ICly that you expect certain things.

Are they claiming they have tried to do certain things but the "Seniors" said no, when you know very well they never asked in any reports about it? Maybe have the Seniors react to that sort of a lie, if ICly appropriate, and get mad.

A lot of the time bad behavior on the part of leadership is enabled because there is no IC reaction to it. Sponsored leaders don't actually have to do anything other then bare minimum. Part of the problem is that it is better in the long run to do nothing then to attempt plots.

Plots present risk, danger, and require a lot of active work. It would be nice to see more rewards for leaders who not only successfully initiated, facilitated, or completed plots, but also for leaders who actively involve their clan members.

If you change the IC reality to where involving minions and making things happen enables leaders to feel successful, instead of likely blowing up in their face and making them worse off, you will see people trying more. If you discourage laziness and poor leadership by making the IC world react negatively, people will be more inclined to do things.