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

[Hauwke]

So having read the replies:

A leadership role is all about filling a role, (duh) and an important one at that, because it makes you the go between for your minions and your current staffer, During my fairly recent time in a leadership role, I enjoyed the fact that my staffer was open to every random question I had when I began doing the role, seeing as it was my first time doing it and no one showed me how.

Questions ranging from:
Where does this go after *redacted* happens.
Whats the command for *redacted*.
Whats the clans policy on *redacted*.
I have ooc knowledge of a thing that happened to a person I am leading from another character and that knowledge has come to light icly again, what should I do about it.
Pretty sure I even asked how to pronounce some things.

Now thats a fair number of questions and I thankthe staffer who answered them all to their ability but the fact I had to ask them is a bad thing  as well for some of those questions, not bad on the staffer but bad on me. And no one in the clan knew that I had asked these things and was struggling with even rudimentry things at first because Icly my character would know but oocly I didnt. I hid it and I think fairly well.

Point is, a leadership role isnt just about being a leader. Its an ooc responsibility of sorts, you are in charge of your underlings and they by virtue of your position will most likely blindly follow you on things a lot of the time because they believe you know better because your ic position is better.

And there is a huge difference between sponsored and earnt position I would say, I wasnt sponsored I earnt it. (Before I was ready I might add from an ooc standpoint) But that meant I had the advantage of people knowing who I was. It wasnt just a case of I am better than you even though I just showed up, it was a case of you know me and know I am better. And that I think would make a big breakdown of things, in the sense that someone made a point a few pages back abouthaving to get rid of someone to even do their job.

/tangent and random points finished.

[Riev]

And no one in the clan knew that I had asked these things and was struggling with even rudimentry things at first because Icly my character would know but oocly I didnt. I hid it and I think fairly well.

Some of us had an inkling, but questions were never asked ICly, either.


I don't think a "every 6 month interview" should happen, but maybe a semi-regular Staff-initiated topic comes about, rather than just staff responding to weekly reports.

Sometimes staff have a question about one of my reports, or something I could expound on, but the standard protocol is to answer and close. What if every RL month or so, staff opened a request to the Sponsored role with their own sort of report/questions to keep everyone on base?

[Marauder Moe]

Leadership roles in Armageddon can already feel like a second job, and you guys want to add interviews and performance reviews?  This would not encourage me.


But anyway... how about another potentially off-the-wall idea: what if, in addition to sponsored/leadership players owing staff regular character reports, the staff owed those players a feedback report in return?  Maybe not at the same frequency, but at least monthly.

EDIT: Jinx, Riev.

[Hauwke]

Let me clarify myself then Riev:
No one brought up the fact I was a improvising the shit out of every second on play.

[Dunetrade55]

I'm on the side of interviews and performance reviews, provided staff can tolerate some wild chaos from sponsored roles and accomadate it. Some of my favorite leader PCs, I never knew WHAT they were going to do next, and it had nothing to do with the job, it was just constant plot after plot, and getting immersed in my character and their character as my character's leader, and I was like, damn, this is nice, and the tension, without the sudden locked room kill. I felt like a part of something and I was motivated to go out of my way to chase even the most meaningless of goals, I always felt valued, needed, and like I was doing something, whether it was staff aided or not. That kind of white-knuckled tension kept me logged in, chasing dreams.

[ghanima]

Long time player here but I'm in a clan now and want to separate from that account for reasons of anonymity. So here's my post.

I don't know if incorporating rules will have as much long term impact as incorporating new behaviors (on the part of staff and players both) would.

The last time I played a leader a new template for sending reports was implemented. I filled out the form the first time but it just felt overly complicated and unnecessary, so when I went to submit my next report I just deleted the template and wrote my report out the way I always had in the past. And after multiple changes of staff, none of them ever asked me why I wasn't using the template. Whoever created the template may have found it useful for them but the question is will every staff member also feel this way? If you created a six month review policy would it actually happen with every sponsored role in every clan? Or just by the clan staff who care about those things?

Also, though I may be mistaken it seems to me that the greater problem with sponsored roles is them storing super fast rather than languishing and being unproductive for years. Interviewing for the initial position could help alleviate this to some degree but making them undergo a six month review (that could result in their being force stored) would more likely worsen it. It shouldn't matter how long they stay in a given role as long as they are fulfilling its purpose. A time limitation on a role would probably make it less attractive for players to want to consider in the first place. And if it's an issue of letting other people try their hands in one of these sponsored roles, weren't there going to be a larger number opened up due to Tuluk closing anyway? I never see templars any more, for example. Would it be a bad thing if as many as 6 templars were allowed at a given time to help make templars more accessible overall? Though maybe the current player population isn't big enough to support it, I don't know.

If someone isn't meeting up to the expectations of a Sponsored Role, and they have ignored feedback and warnings, is it fair to store them and find someone else that can play the role?  Remember, these are staff sponsored and very much staff supported roles.

If a sponsored role has repeatedly been reminded that they're doing something wrong of course eventually forcing them into storage is reasonable. I don't think some new policy is required as much as a change in the way everyone communicates. As long as the player is communicating with their staff and vice versa, no need to change the way things have always been handled. Perhaps the only thing that might be a useful policy addition is a "final warning" so the player knows full well in advance where they stand and what awaits if they don't change the way they're playing the role. That way there are no surprises and everyone is given a fair chance at redemption.

[SuchDragonWow]

Ath, coming from someone who has fucked up a plethora of roles--  you don't need to overthink this.  There's no need to add layers of difficulty to the situation.  Regular, clear and honest dialogue between staff and player is pretty much all you need to make it work.  Reviews, interviews, etc. is only going to put undue pressure on both parties, and suck the fun out of it.  I mean, is it not working as intended, right now?

[John]

Apparently I've interepreted Ath's suggestion completely different to everyone. Complaints were raised in this thread about leaders who monopolise all the IC contacts with other leaders and then sit around doing nothing but squelching any conflict. The other complaint was also people growing being too attached to their character to risk certain death in order to introduce some conflict and shake things up. Ath's suggestion was putting a term limit of 6 months or 12 months on a leader with the possibility for extension.

I interpreted this as sponsored roles becoming "We want a noble" and then telling the player "this is going to be a 6 month role. Feel free to shake things up and go crazy because after 6 months you'll be playing a different character anyway." The idea of the review isn't "how are you going" but is instead a question of "If we let the player continue for another 6 months, would any meaningful conflict or interesting plots occur? Or has the character run it's course?" Think of it like the gith rolecall. A short-term sponsored role that's designed to shake things up.

Not all leadership roles would be like this though:
* Troopers could still become Byn Sergeants and wouldn't be limited to the six month clause that sponsored roles are.
* Merchant House Agents could also still be attained via IG promotion and those agents would be able to remain in their position indefinitely (only sponsored Agents would be rotated out after 6 months).

The only roles that can't be attained IG are nobles and templars. I could see this as a positive contribution to the game. Not only would it counteract some of the natural tendencies mentioned in this thread, but it would encourage people to seek out IG promotions and would ensure sponsored roles aren't monopolizing the slots for leadership roles. I see that as a win-win. Also, due to the fact staff have the option to extend sponsored role for another term if the player is performing exceptionally AND their continued existence would enhance the game, there is a lot of flexibility for good characters to remain in the game while allowing less stellar characters to be rotated out.

[evilcabbage]

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?

if you did this i would never apply for a single sponsored role ever again.

[Lutagar]

Time caps has a few problems. We'd all like to think these things wouldn't happen, but:

It'd just make the role even harder because everyone knows you're likely to be gone after x amount of time and wouldn't want to bother with you.

It wouldn't promote conflict. It'd stifle it, because people would always side with whomever still has the potential to exist a year from when the conflict started. Conflict needs two or more teams.

[Raptor_Dan]

If I were running things, and I had a sponsored role not fulfilling things, shaking up the game, and basically not taking any risks but just clinging to their power, I'd deal with it IC. There has to be several leftover applications for people who wanted that role, with their own ideas, and potential.

I'd pick one of those people, throw them in the mix, and give them the direction that needed to challenge the other player's char. IC'ly, this could be explained as senior nobles telling the junior noble, (or higher ranked templars explaining to a lower ranked templar), 'We have a position open, and you and this other person were considered for it'. Let the ICly fight it out.

Yes, the first noble could have 'All the contacts/power/employees', but they'd now have motivation to get off that stool and fight to keep it. Or fight to stay alive, pretty much, an injection of conflict.

I know there's some flaws in this, but the whole interview process idea seemed to immediately put people into the fight or flight response, which isn't how staff/player interaction should go. Something's obviously off there, but I DO like the idea of dealing in-game actions ICly, it helps immersion, adds roleplay, and brings the gameworld to life.

Actually, can't we have the six month interview IC. Lord Krunkulous Fale has a meeting periodically with his IG superior, Lord Redonkadonk Fale, and is given direction, orders, criticism and a chance to voice their own concerns and goals, as well as question the wisdom of House conventions on naming children. This gives Ol' Lord Krunk a legit, IG story about how his superiors, who are now actual, real people in the game world, wants this, and doesn't want that. Wouldn't it be better if Lord Krunk was taken to the cuddler and ripped to pieces while his superiors sipped wine and ate cheese, laughing their asses off at the foolish young noble who slept with a half breed, rather than a force store because a player didn't adhere to documentation? It'd leave a lasting story, so the next Fale noble has a more tangible, concrete reason not to sleep with filthy breeds, there's a blemish on the House, a minor, lasting impact because of that players failures AND successes?

It's late and I'm digressing, but somewhere in here, I think, is a really good idea.

[nauta]

Two points:

1. Performance Reviews/Interviews.

Keeping around underperforming players contributes to the game's stagnancy and lowers the overall quality of roleplay.

What exactly is 'underperformance' in a roleplaying/storytelling game like this? 

A simple solution is to view a sponsored role as exactly like a regular role, with the sole exception that sponsored roles are expected to communicate on the regular with staff whereas regular roles are not.  Hence, if a sponsored role stops doing this, then, yes, they should be stored. 

ETA: There might be other OOC expectations:

o Posting absences to staff and others in your clan.
o Posting (and holding) regular hours for others in your clan.

2. Bad Leaders.

Here, I think the onus should be on the players to report bad leaders to staff.  For instance, if a leader hires you and then is not around during your playtime: tell staff.  If a leader is violating some rule (including ignoring the virtual world): tell staff.  If a leader isn't generating any plots for you as a minion: tell staff.

Just like with any player complaint, they can go to the other player and work things out.

[evilcabbage]

i just think that if you sponsor someone, and you get them in game, giving them six months and then opening a blanket review is really stupid. you've had -six months- to see their reports (WEEKLY) and let them know if you didn't like their roleplay or how they handle it.

if you can't decide within the first two or three months whether they're a good fit, or whether they can be steered to be a good fit, then save yourself and the player the trouble - let them know that you don't feel that they're a good fit, apologize, maybe offer a last-minute change they can make, or offer to store them. if they are adamant about not doing as staff wills (within certain limitations, if staff just blanket says "you MUST be this way or else", then i'll just earn my way to the positions tyvm. then i'm not sponsored), then you just store the guy.

if they are BLATANTLY breaking documentation, you really only should give them one chance if they're new to the rules (unless they're reporting it to you weekly, in which case let people find out what they're doing and end them that way), then dump them in the pit or have them tossed into the arena for a spectacle.


at the end of the day, the only time you need to review someone every six months is if they aren't reporting to you at all, in which case they're failing to follow one of the easiest to follow rules of any sponsored or leadership role - report in weekly.


not sure if any of this makes sense to anyone. it does to me. the lines of thought in this thread are extremely dangerous, and i encourage everyone not to go too far into any one extreme in this area.

[Delirium]

Please don't turn sponsored roles into even more of a job. That sounds terrible and if I ever did take one I'd be so anxious about this looming 'review' that I'd be paralyzed by the pressure or far more likely simply never ever consider the role. I play this game to have fun and hopefully provide fun.. not to feel like I've stepped back into the corporate environment I voluntarily left.

[Miradus]

You're playing a game. Staff is playing a game. Just as staff should have an open channel of communication to tell you that you are being boring, you should have an open channel to tell them that you'd like some more stuff to happen.

When the lack of communication is the problem, formalizing communication is never the answer.

I've had problems with the way staff did some stuff in the past. We talked about it. All sides got aired. The problem went away and I'm enjoying the game again. Communication.

I'm assuming a sponsored role is supposed to be fun (never played one). I also think that the people who play UNDER that sponsored role have an obligation to communicate if it's not fun. Everyone plays the game to have fun. Communicate whether or not you're having fun and what you think fun ought to look like.

[Lizzie]

Actually, can't we have the six month interview IC. Lord Krunkulous Fale has a meeting periodically with his IG superior, Lord Redonkadonk Fale, and is given direction, orders, criticism and a chance to voice their own concerns and goals, as well as question the wisdom of House conventions on naming children. This gives Ol' Lord Krunk a legit, IG story about how his superiors, who are now actual, real people in the game world, wants this, and doesn't want that. Wouldn't it be better if Lord Krunk was taken to the cuddler and ripped to pieces while his superiors sipped wine and ate cheese, laughing their asses off at the foolish young noble who slept with a half breed, rather than a force store because a player didn't adhere to documentation? It'd leave a lasting story, so the next Fale noble has a more tangible, concrete reason not to sleep with filthy breeds, there's a blemish on the House, a minor, lasting impact because of that players failures AND successes?

It's late and I'm digressing, but somewhere in here, I think, is a really good idea.

To paraphrase Malifaxis: Yes, yes, and motherfucking yes.

This is how it USED to be, and it was awesome. It was changed back when they implemented the "hands off" approach to staffing clans, and I hated it then. I've hated it ever since. It is the #1 stick in my craw about communication in clan play: the OOCness of it all.

Maybe it looks like favoritism between staff and players when the staff animates a clan *leader* (not some low-ranking grub to pass messages), to meet with the PC leader for an occasional sit-down. And maybe it is favoritism. This is where I get all "big girl pants" on people. Get over it, if you feel that's favoritism. These roles were filled by people the staff hand-picked from among the applicants. They ARE favorites, and that's a good thing.

If the character is being especially boring, unproductive, rage-inspiring - then it should be dealt with IC. At least - once the staff sends a message to the player "Hey - just checking in, your character is being especially boring/unproductive/rage-inspiring. We've noticed it. If you want to communicate, remember we're here. If not, we'll let it play out IC."

See now, that doesn't require any OOC chatroom involvement. A simple note sent, either responded or not, and then handled IC for the duration. The player either makes his role more exciting, less rage-inducing, or more productive, or the Seniors start sending little whispers to the local Guild boss/clan-sponsored assassin/secretly known mul raider out in the desert.

Then, bring in PC sponsored clan leader #2, with IC instructions from the NPC leader to get to know other PCs, but to stay out of the drama that's about to ensue, and the NPC will get back to them within the next (IG) month for further instruction.

And then things BECOME more exciting, less rage-inducing, and more productive.

[WithSprinkles]

Just wanted to briefly step in here and add something:

I think a review is a good idea in the sense that it would give a real time discussion. Weekly reports should have been filed and things should be all on the up and up with that, but I don't think that having a brief chat is a bad thing. So long as it doesn't turn into a huge time sink or something that brings anxiety and dread on both sides. Doesn't even have to be a 'performance review', just 'face time' or something. And it could be seen if both parties want it IC or OOCly. And again, if the reports are being filed properly, it would be all the more brief and to the point. Come in with ideas, leave with answers.

Another thing I want to mention is that no one is perfect.  Unless someone is just neglecting their IG responsibilities and not even logging in, then be a good example for them and you may be surprised. Be proactive. We're a community, after all and while IG we may scheme and such, take a tiny bit of extra time if possible to show someone else in an IG sense how things should be. It actually produces interesting (sometimes hilariously embarrassing) roleplay. Be a mentor. The person may not ICly act like they are absorbing the lessons, but you never know.

Finally, I want to say to people who have played leaders, people who are playing them and to people who will throw their hat in that ring in the future, thank you. Don't get discouraged and keep trying.  To the people who are amazing in supporting them as employees, thank you. You keep what can be a stressful game position from totally sucking. To enemies, friends and that one guy who wants for some reason to play a gurth (teasing comment, I don't know if anyone does), we're here to have fun and shape the game world. So thank you for all you do, too!*

*me being a bit sappy as I cook for the holiday here.

[In Dreams]

Please don't turn sponsored roles into even more of a job. That sounds terrible and if I ever did take one I'd be so anxious about this looming 'review' that I'd be paralyzed by the pressure or far more likely simply never ever consider the role. I play this game to have fun and hopefully provide fun.. not to feel like I've stepped back into the corporate environment I voluntarily left.

This is kind of what I've been thinking for awhile amidst all this stuff. Basically that playing a sponsored role now sounds horrible to me. I've never applied but I don't think I ever would at this point. I actually have so much sympathy for these players right now.

[Feco]

Making sponsored roles more work would make me never apply for them.

Even "interviews" are a level of stress I'd rather not have in my life.  So. Yeah.  I probably wouldn't play them anymore.

I'm not sure what to contribute in terms of positive suggestions, though.

[Drayab]

Ath, coming from someone who has fucked up a plethora of roles--  you don't need to overthink this.  There's no need to add layers of difficulty to the situation.  Regular, clear and honest dialogue between staff and player is pretty much all you need to make it work.  Reviews, interviews, etc. is only going to put undue pressure on both parties, and suck the fun out of it.  I mean, is it not working as intended, right now?

I agree with this.

I would also add that when it comes to dropping tasks in the character's lap, make sure that the player thinks its an interesting project. Something like this goes on staff side, right? There might be lots of ideas floating around, and staff have some choice in what they work on. This is a pretty good way to get things done while making it feel less like a job.

I don't relish the idea of performance reviews, but I think it could be useful to have occasional meetings to talk about possibilities for what plots to pursue/support. Collaboration is the key to success.

[Dunetrade55]

To apply "term limits" to a sponsored role is not a bad thing. To increase anxiety to keep it is not a bad thing. It will keep the cabbages out. Jokes aside, no one has said absolutely force store them, that's the purpose of touching base with them. In normal clans, they sort of inhibit promoting from the ground up simply by existing. In noble houses they have an obscene amount of power and seemingly few responsibilities within their clan. I do not think it unfair that they should be held to a higher standard than other players.

I think one thing to keep in perspective is if they've started any IC problems and it's a plot for a non-sponsored character to seek revenge. Storing them at that point is robbing that character and their allies. Sponsored roles in a position where someone could realisticly take over their job SHOULD be considered temporary, by both the player and staff. If they rock that shit then it should be less than temporary, like Malifaxis or Sefaj, even though I hated Sefaj he was doing something right, and I wish I could have gotten over my butthurt enough to have seen what, on the inside, he was doing well.

Does it seem like a job? It is. It's not supposed to be "give me dah powah" that some view it as. It's, you are here to revitalize a clan that's in desperate need, either perform or we will find someone better suited to the task. Fuck if I care about your anxiety, you're in the way of player-driven plots. Approaching it like a temporary character (like any role, sponsored or no, ultimately is) is for the best. If you get a sponsored role that rocks, by all means, let them continue to rock.

I think some of the anxiety comes down to player/staff communication, which, there's plenty of historical evidence to support that sort of anxiety. Before such a thing were implemented it would be my preference if staff really took the time to analyze what could perhaps be adjusted on that front.

[Nergal]

Two points:

1. Performance Reviews/Interviews.

Keeping around underperforming players contributes to the game's stagnancy and lowers the overall quality of roleplay.

What exactly is 'underperformance' in a roleplaying/storytelling game like this? 

When you don't roleplay or tell stories, or roleplay completely contrarily to documentation without some sort of roleplay or reasoning beforehand as to why your PC is making such a departure.

Playing a sponsored role is not about meeting some vague set of "staff expectations" which are impossible to measure. There are concretely defined docs for sponsored roles because the assumption is that before the sponsored role was a PC, they were a vNPC absorbed into a culture, described by the documentation, as the norm. It would be a complete about-face for the PC's play to fly against that culture abruptly. Some examples of cultural restrictions described or implied in documentation:
- Tuluki nobles are taught not to have sex with commoners.
- Tatlum is spoken only by templars, and the law forbids others to know it (or learn it from templars, or templars to teach it to others).
- Highborn know that they are better than others, that commoners are not equal to them, and to safeguard the secret of literacy.
- Gemmed are hated, mistrusted, and feared. Giving one absolute trust and love is the opposite of that.
- The GMH family can write cavilish, but don't do it in public.
- Many tribes have "stomping grounds" where they or parts of their populations do not stray from without permission, or ever.

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

We don't want to do performance reviews on a schedule. That is RL-job stuff. We do want to have casual discussion with players when things could be better. That can be player-initiated or staff-initiated.

[Is Friday]

Whenever I play a sponsored role I feel like I'm the only sponsored role that is taking risks or doing anything semi interesting. At times it feels like all plots focus on thwarting whatever my PC has going on.

Most sponsored roles are lazy, don't take risks, and uncreative. Please fix, thanks.

[Jingo]

Come on guys, staff have never given me the kids gloves. Why are these players so special?

If they're not listening, just rip the band aid off. The sooner that's done, the sooner the healing can happen.

[Armaddict]

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

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

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

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