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

[Dunetrade55]

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

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

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

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

One of my more memorable experiences was the law being dead set on murdering my Tuluki elf... I was conducting shady deals with gemmers on the end of Hathor's. My crew managed to make a name for themselves stirring up hard to find component bits. In short, my PC was almost universally despised, and was lucky the rinth wasn't stormed to remove him. There was a myth he was a quarter-stump, partly because of his slanted eyes and partly due to the berserk rages he'd fly into.

So one day, bored, he decided to contact a Lady Templar and describe in detail how much he'd like to do vile things to her. For realz I thought this would be then end of my PC, but no, she'd heard of the infamous criminal, and actually expressed being flattered, then offered him unnofficial employment. She had his loyalty from that day forward and even saved his life when he was surrounded by the Fist in a Luir's jail cell and the Sergeant is like, any last words before I do this regrettable thing? *rubs his temple* "Oh... shit... you'll, never believe who just spoke up for you, necker... ok, we're not going to kill you, just stay out of the outpost for a year."

It was a fun little mini plot. Should have seen the grumbling soldiers who wanted nothing better than to kill my PC, except he was bribing their bosses, openly displaying his star-tattooed hands, and playing filthy tunes about killing humans in the middle of the Gaj. Of course it had to end one day, and I have no objections to the staff animated Templar doing what they did. It was a wild ride, the likes of which I rarely experience. I don't think they expected my PC to pay another elf to end their life, but I really wasn't sure how my PC would adapt to life after being tortured on the cuddler, that, and his feelings of uselessness to the Lady Templar he'd sworn his loyalty to... plus he was a tortured soul who was painful to play.

[Miradus]

I remember a cutpurse I played. Wasn't very good at being a cutpurse and thought I'd be killed or imprisoned fairly fast.

What I found instead was that people were very excited to "hire" a cutpurse to spy on everyone else, even though I had neither the coded skills to do so or the game knowledge. Gemmers were approaching me and stuffing coin into my hands. Merchants were doing the same. Even the Arm was in on it, paying me a stipend to report anything to them. It was shaping up pretty well until a climbing failure ended that character. (Approach wall at street level. Type "up". Fall and break neck. Mantis Head.)

Now the game lore would pretty much indicate some young 'rinthi street punk should be treated pretty poorly, but everyone seemed thrilled OOC to have someone to interact with in that manner. Even though it wasn't ENTIRELY in keeping with the setting. Or was it? A bit subjective to tell.

[Ath]

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 to disagree with this one, as they are not the same as everyone else.  A sponsored role character gets a lot of benefits that other characters will never get, or rarely see.  They are accountable for actions IC and OOC, and to staff.  They are there to add flavor and plots to the game.

[Ath]

This is a thread about sponsored roles. If you can be trusted to play a sponsored role, then you can be trusted with *communicating to staff* if you're not satisfied with your role. It's not the staff's job to check in on you. It's your job to check in with them. When I've played a sponsored role and I was bored/frustrated, I sent a note to the staff letting them know. If I needed advice, I sent a note asking for advice. If I needed help getting motivation, or wanted encouragement, or wanted more direction, I sent a note asking for it. That's part of -my- job, as the player of a sponsored role. It's built right into the role application - a reminder that you have to send regular reports and keep communicating with the staff.

If you have no problems, there's no reason for them to come to you and ask if you need anything. If you need something, you ask.

This right here... I always encourage any of my sponsored roles to ask if they need help in any way.  If they need suggestions on something to do, ask... I'd be happy to give ideas.  I have tons of them.

[Ath]

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, but this is why we discuss things.  This is why ideas are tossed around.  Doesn't mean any of this is going to be used, but I do want simple also.  This is, I also want understanding and to have Sponsored Roles meet high quality standards so that others can also have fun being around them.  Sponsored Roles can be a bit of work, but they provide a lot to the game IMO.  Maybe I should say they CAN provide a lot to the game, depending on how they are played.

[Ath]

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.

This actually explains more my idea a lot better.

[Barsook]

What about the Atrium?  I think a switch each six months might not be a good idea.

[Ath]

What about the Atrium?  I think a switch each six months might not be a good idea.

What, like rotating active clans around?  Kinda like what we've done with Tor and some other Nobles houses?

[Barsook]

No, switching the players who play the sponsored role of the Host/Hostess for freshness.

[Lutagar]

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

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

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

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

Well, you're the one that compared kanking breeds as nobility to bestiality in the real world.

Then went on to admit the bestiality does happen RL. So. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Dunetrade55]

I would like to see House Sath better represented in game. It seems like the most badass house ever next to Oash, and I'd love to see someone get into that role.

[Barsook]

I would like to see House Sath better represented in game. It seems like the most badass house ever next to Oash, and I'd love to see someone get into that role.

Yeah, it would be nice to have more knowledge based PC's where that can change the world.

[Large Hero]

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

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

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

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

Well, you're the one that compared kanking breeds as nobility to bestiality in the real world.

Then went on to admit the bestiality does happen RL. So. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You're missing Zenith's point.

Zenith's point is not "bestiality never happens." Zenith's point is "for a noble in Zalanthas, sexual relations with an elf/gemmed/mutant would be anathema on the order of bestiality. This behavior should be incredibly rare amongst nobility; it is reasonable to say that, in the population of sponsored role PCs serving as examples of nobility according to the game's documentation, this behavior (while theoretically a choice a player could make) should in practice never be exhibited, such is its rarity in the population of all nobles."

It's important to make a good faith effort to understand the spirit of the arguments our fellow posters are making, rather than seizing on individual points in a 'gotcha' and then throwing up our hands.

[Delirium]

Sometimes i feel that playing faithfully to the docs happens rarely enough that it's the exception. Everyone wants to be a snowflake. I say let any snowflake happen organically - and even then, if you can find a solid reason to hold to the docs (normally that's possible)... hold to the docs. It's wonderful to be a PC in power and to be truly illuminating the world 'as it is' rather than 'as it backslides into being'.

[650Booger]

in real life, it seems like people in the equivalent of sponsored roles (celebrities, politicians, athletes etc) are MORE likely to exhibit abberant behavior than anyone else. 

Some historical examples:
Caligula
Michael Jackson
Bill Clinton
Adolf Hitler
Shia Labeouf

*EDIT* just pointing out the irony of my post compared to my signature quote

[In Dreams]

Honestly, I feel like almost every real-life person I know has something to them that would be an exception to average behavior or social norms.

I absolutely think literally every PC should adhere to docs in most ways, but if everyone, or even most, were "completely 100% normal" Zalanthans, the game would be much more boring. Every PC needs some varying degree of quirk, extremism, or individuality to them, or they... honestly aren't realistic or interesting people to me. That said, the shame and internal struggles against certain sorts of quirks should very much be represented and pronounced.

[LauraMars]

I feel this tangled farrago of "don't you ever/you must always" from the playerbase (and poor understanding/enforcement of the docs on the part of staff) is part of what has led to the rather robotic, hazily characterized sponsored roles we've been seeing for so many years. I don't like seeing black and white edicts like "don't do X" laid down without further education, because it sets a bad example to newer players who end up being afraid of doing anything at all. 

You can exhibit plenty of "aberrant behavior" and still be a solid example of someone who might realistically show up in an oppressive desert hellscape.

The hypothetical example of fucking a half-elf is being tossed around a lot. There are plenty of scenarios where "noble fucks a half-elf" would turn out badly, be boring, and be bad for the game. I can also think of plenty of scenarios where "noble fucks a half-elf" could be a thrilling bit of harsh, bitter drama for everyone. It all comes down to how it's executed, how it's written, how staff handles the fallout, how aware players are of the norms and how everyone involved characterizes the situation.

More flexibility in characterization is needed, not less. Responses from staff should be carefully considered for maximum story value when someone does something outlandish, harsh, or offensive to western sensibilities. Conflict is good. Nothing is binary. Think like writers, not rule lawyers.

[Miradus]

Think like writers, not rule lawyers.

What I wanted to say, but failed to do so.

[Dunetrade55]

Everything LauraMars said. Also, make catgirls great again.

[LauraMars]

I'm actually not opposed to the idea of a "catgirl" if they were executed on a foundation of excellent writing and excellent characterization. I don't really think they fit the theme though, because the idea of a "mutant with quirri ears" carries so much modern cultural baggage most people won't be able to look past it no matter how well they're written.

[Raptor_Dan]

Give me a catgirl, and I'll change how they're perceive forever.

The quirri-eared humanoid sniffs at a fluffy, leather couch.

The quirri-eared humanoid lifts a leg and begins peeing on the fluffy, leather couch.

The obligatory gruff soldier with a heart of gold scolds ~quirri.

kill soldier

shout (while lunging at %soldier face) Rawwowaarrr!

[Dunetrade55]

Give me a catgirl, and I'll change how they're perceive forever.

The quirri-eared humanoid sniffs at a fluffy, leather couch.

The quirri-eared humanoid lifts a leg and begins peeing on the fluffy, leather couch.

The obligatory gruff soldier with a heart of gold scolds ~quirri.

kill soldier

shout (while lunging at %soldier face) Rawwowaarrr!

... hawt.

[Dunetrade55]

Race: Catgirl

Notes:

Elven agility
Mul rage
Probably magicker
weird emotional echo table
Severely damaged wisdom
Claws instead of fists
Bonus to climb

[LauraMars]

This is becoming a derail.

I think it's safe to assume staff will never allow a catgirl race or catgirl character (nor should they feel obliged to) because there's too many jokers among us, myself included. (Though I might be able to make a good argument for one if I really wanted to [I don't want to.])

Let's go back to talking about making sponsored roles great again.

[Akaramu]

I think it's important to mention that players of sponsored roles will do a better job if they're having fun, too. And they'll probably make an effort to log in more often. Which is why I mentioned positive feedback / reinforcement to balance out negative feedback. Only being told what you did wrong gets depressing after a while.

And maybe, just maybe sometimes a compromise or two could be made to let the leadery person player have their fun. I'm not saying ignore the docs, but... maybe let them get away with [insert unusual thing here] until someone finds out and reports it IC. NPCs don't always have to see and hear everything.