Clan promotions - eliminate time requirements

[Pariah]

Rule 1 expanded upon an earlier rule. Previously, staff characters could be promoted to leadership roles through gameplay but could not start in sponsored positions. This approach generally worked well, as it necessitated staff characters to be recruited and promoted by a likely non-staff leader, ensuring they genuinely earned their status. The current rule, however, removes this pathway.

So in another thread Usiku talked about how staff used to be able to "earn" their way to leadership positions, this got me thinking about why I normally don't fuck with clans.  Mandatory time limits.

I've had many times when I've played a character for a long time as an indy, some clan literally begs me to join them, I fall into the same trap that many long time bf/gf couples have, "What's gonna change if I commit?" and the answer is EVERYTHING.

You join say Kadius after they've basically begged and dropped hints for years that they would love to have you as X position, be it crafter or hunter etc.

Then you're at the bottom rung and you are this super skilled, super soldier compared to Amos the newb off the block who got hired day one in game.  Yet you're saddled with some crazy timeline of one IC Year or two IC years to get promoted fro Scrub recruit to full whatever.

I haven't looked at clan docs in a while, but I remember this usually stemmed from the docs MAKING people do it.

I think we should just allow our leaders to make positions based on Merit.

Say I play a Bynner for two IC years, make it to Trooper on the first year, do a full year as Trooper after that, no complaints, no issues, the Byn loves me.  I then join the Arm or the Legion, there is no way in shit that my "I can kill you in two combat rounds" skilled Bynner should have to be a recruit for a year.

I think if these mandatory timeframes were lifted, we would have more people eager to jump into the meat and potatoes roles of the game.

I think this is why all my characters tend to play adjacent to so many orgs, because I don't wanna be their bitchboy for a year before I get to the good stuff.

Thoughts?

[zealus]

In my experience, if you have a good case for it, the time requirements are less hard coded than they once were.
My AoD Sergeant would put it as "You have a year to impress me. Earn that promotion before that, or leave".
I do agree that time-gating is meh. However, sometimes you do need to feel someone out a little.

[Pariah]

Not to mention that /most/ clan docs and rules are meant around green ass characters.

Don't go outside the gates by yourself. etc.

So if you join a clan and follow those rules, you will actually harm your training in certain classes.

(Yes I'm aware you can break all the rules, but it gets tiresome.)

[Kavrick]

Not being able to go outside and the afternoon chores is the worst part of joining the byn, afternoon chores are the most repetitive, unenjoyable thing ever and takes up 30 minutes of your time multiple times a day for a month. It doesn't take much for a sergeant to just spam contact to see who's breaking the rules either, and even then, sometimes I've somehow been caught even after taking every single precaution to break the rules without being caught.

[mansa]

Every time I've played a leader, I use the "clan rules" as more of a "guideline" than a rule.



...And I use the rules if my character doesn't want you to be promoted.  My character would break guidelines if my character wanted you promoted sooner.


Impress my toon and you get perks.  Meritocracy doesn't exist, only populism.

[Riev]

There is documentation to enforce the idea that your well respected and combat-capable Bynner isn't joining the AoD as a Private with full credentials and crim-code immunity of day one.

The periods are usually restricted to an IC year in order to at least show your leader that you're not a complete fuckstick who is only joining the clan for a free elf-beating or a Salarri discount.

Almost every leader I've played who was confronted with this situation has shaven off about 2 RL weeks for someone who has shown actual promise. That means you have to spend a RL month with me as your leader, confirming you aren't just screwing off.


From an IC standpoint, its to prevent clanhopping spies who are only coming in for "full access" to something only to sabotage. Spend a year NOT sabotaging.

[Krath]

I can only speak from my experience when I played leader PCs.

I do what Mansa and Riev said. If someone deserves a promotion after a month? I promote them. If they need longer than a  year, then they wait longer.

The rules are a guideline. Just make sure you explain your WHY in the leader report.

[Lizzie]

I always considered the probation period as just that. A probation period. If you earn a promotion during that period, you cease to be on probation.  But in order to earn it, you have to prove to me that you're willing to endure some drudgery.

You will obey orders. You won't question authority unless explicitly invited to question it. You won't get an ally killed, you won't make friends with an enemy. It gives me time to assess your ability to work in a group situation - even if I'm the only other member of that group. It gives you time to assess whether or not my group is the one you want to work with.

In order to accomplish these things, you need some TIME to learn the ins and outs of that specific crew. So - maybe a RL month, showing me that you will log in a few times when I'm around and report anything of interest, show that you aren't just a spar-junkie or spam-crafter, because I don't need to hire those - that's what NPCs and VNPCs are for. You need to prove you can keep my secrets, but tell me everyone else's secrets. And yes - you'll be tested.

You think you can prove yourself able to do all that in 2 RL weeks? Then go ahead and do so, and if you did, then you get an early promotion.  Being promoted before the year is up should give the PC a sense of accomplishment, achievement. It should never be expected and frankly, I wouldn't want to hire someone who has the expectation of promoting early - unless I specifically inform them when I hire them that I plan on promoting them early.

In short, I think the recommended guideline of 1 game-year probation is suitable, appropriate, and appreciated. It allows a leader to fudge the timeline, while giving the recruit a medium-term goal to achieve. Full employment is a privilege, not an entitlement.

[Trevalyan]

Yet you're saddled with some crazy timeline of one IC Year or two IC years to get promoted fro Scrub recruit to full whatever.

How about four years to get promoted out from the bottom tier?

Because I can definitely see some negatives to the idea of promoting purely on merit.

[CirclelessBard]

I think the time requirement (more like guidelines, in practice) serve an important purpose for the leaders, in that they're basically a CYA measure to prevent damage from being inflicted on the organization from within.

I do think that it is important to minimize the delay between entry into a clan and fun times, though, so I think it would be nice to expand the advanced start system to more than just the Byn and city military clans, and maybe introduce that same spirit to other clans that do IC recruitment.

[Pariah]

Again, I havne't really peeked at documentation recently because I tend not to play clanned because of this exact bullshit right here.  But if it's changed from hard and fast rule to guideline, then at least shit is moving in the right direction.

[Fredd]

This could also be fixed by normalizing the hiring of people above recruit positions.

If Amos Von Badass is known for soloing a whole Gith warband with his worst weapon, and you talk him into joining Kurac as a Hunter. You'de think he would be the senior hunter or something. Not a recruit, then a regular hunter.

If Amy Von Mastertailor has made custom master quality fuzzy slippers for lord templar tor's pajamas. She probably doesn't need to start at Recruit.

[Pariah]

I've been hired and totally skipped recruit all together in various hunter positions before.  But it always felt like a leader pc just going YOLO more than an accepted practice.

While I'm all for take the ball and run it in leaders and live with the fallout I know that there are players who don't have that type of "ballsiness" to do that.

[Riev]

"Documentation" carries a heavy weight to it, because some feel that it is there to be obeyed to the very letter, while others feel it is there to be guidelines for play.

Staff, player, builder and more ... each person has a different take on it. Its less about balls, and more about being told that "by the docs, you should do <x>" and "If you are friendly with a gemmed you aren't playing to the Docs and should be chastised".

In some cases, the Clan Documentation could be downgraded to "Clan Guidelines" to allow some wiggle room, but there are also Leader PCs who will take the "lack of firm rules" to do whatever they want and then get pissed when staff rein them in.

[Lizzie]

I think the time requirement (more like guidelines, in practice) serve an important purpose for the leaders, in that they're basically a CYA measure to prevent damage from being inflicted on the organization from within.

I do think that it is important to minimize the delay between entry into a clan and fun times, though, so I think it would be nice to expand the advanced start system to more than just the Byn and city military clans, and maybe introduce that same spirit to other clans that do IC recruitment.

And if I was a Kadian Merchant and logged in one morning to someone spam-crafting their way through all my raw materials because they got an advanced start, I'd fine them, strip them, and fire them on the spot.

[CirclelessBard]

I would imagine the currently-existing advanced starts also have guidelines on how a player should comport themselves before their PC meets their new employer, and the fact that these are 1-karma roles that rely on a limited resource like special apps would be more than enough to deter abusive behavior.

[Pariah]

I think the time requirement (more like guidelines, in practice) serve an important purpose for the leaders, in that they're basically a CYA measure to prevent damage from being inflicted on the organization from within.

I do think that it is important to minimize the delay between entry into a clan and fun times, though, so I think it would be nice to expand the advanced start system to more than just the Byn and city military clans, and maybe introduce that same spirit to other clans that do IC recruitment.

And if I was a Kadian Merchant and logged in one morning to someone spam-crafting their way through all my raw materials because they got an advanced start, I'd fine them, strip them, and fire them on the spot.

Slight derail here, but merchant houses shouldn't be so critical of random ingredients, sure if they are blowing through your top tier horror shell, yeah, but when they use all your chalton bones, who cares, pay a hunter to get you more?

I've noticed that recently (Last year or so) that merchant houses tend to stockpile shit and not work through it at nearly the pace they used to.  I've offered top tier shit to merchant houses on hunters and been told, "We have thirty of those." WHAT?

And you just gave me a thought for another topic...

[Riev]

If a GMH has 30, its not top tier.
If they don't WANT top tier items, they're not selling, which means the item that part goes in to has fallen out of favor.


On topic:
If you and your new employee seem to share a majority of your playtimes, and after 2 RL weeks (barely an IC month) you think they're a rad employee and promote them ... what kind of pushback is expected from staff? Would staff demote the new employee for not meeting minimum guidelines? Would staff chastise the leadership PC for not following docs?

Would a new staffer follow the same procedures?

[Lizzie]

If a GMH has 30, its not top tier.
If they don't WANT top tier items, they're not selling, which means the item that part goes in to has fallen out of favor.


On topic:
If you and your new employee seem to share a majority of your playtimes, and after 2 RL weeks (barely an IC month) you think they're a rad employee and promote them ... what kind of pushback is expected from staff? Would staff demote the new employee for not meeting minimum guidelines? Would staff chastise the leadership PC for not following docs?

Would a new staffer follow the same procedures?

I've fast-tracked employees and never got any push back for it. I'd have to assume it really depends on the employer and the employee and the situation.  If a recruit shows up and is clearly competent, not over-eager, helpful, useful, doesn't get in the way of business and doesn't show any signs of obvious side-lining, is able to enjoy time on his own and isn't dependent on the leader for his own contentment, and the clan clearly needs a next-rank PC to serve as a right hand for the leader PC, then I don't think staff would have a problem with promoting after a couple of RL weeks.

If, on the other hand, the leader has a habit of making poor choices, gets a new recruit who has already been arrested and fined, has annoyed his co-workers, was fired from his last job "for cause," and is suspected of being a [insert bad guy concept here] - well - maybe staff /should/ push back on a 2-RL-week promotion.  Or perhaps stand back and let the players play and just say "noted" in the character report the leader sends to tell them he's promoted this guy.

Depends on the health of the clan and whether or not the game needs that clan to succeed at the moment (plotlines) of if it can fail for awhile.

[dumbstruck]

But in order to earn it, you have to prove to me that you're willing to endure some drudgery.

This would work great in a game without permadeath where we play the same character long term.

In this game where 20% of pcs die each week, I have to ask:

How many times do we have to prove this to how many people before we can just fucking enjoy a role? How many 'rl months' do we have to spend to show we can 'endure a little drudgery'.

How many months go in before it goes from 'a little drudgery' to literal IRL YEARS of drudgery? Just 24. How many of us have had more than 24 pcs?

[Pariah]

But in order to earn it, you have to prove to me that you're willing to endure some drudgery.

This would work great in a game without permadeath where we play the same character long term.

In this game where 20% of pcs die each week, I have to ask:

How many times do we have to prove this to how many people before we can just fucking enjoy a role? How many 'rl months' do we have to spend to show we can 'endure a little drudgery'.

How many months go in before it goes from 'a little drudgery' to literal IRL YEARS of drudgery? Just 24. How many of us have had more than 24 pcs?

Slight detail if that many people are dying a week, they are doing it wrong.

[LidlessEye]

Rule 1 expanded upon an earlier rule. Previously, staff characters could be promoted to leadership roles through gameplay but could not start in sponsored positions. This approach generally worked well, as it necessitated staff characters to be recruited and promoted by a likely non-staff leader, ensuring they genuinely earned their status. The current rule, however, removes this pathway.

So in another thread Usiku talked about how staff used to be able to "earn" their way to leadership positions, this got me thinking about why I normally don't fuck with clans.  Mandatory time limits.

I've had many times when I've played a character for a long time as an indy, some clan literally begs me to join them, I fall into the same trap that many long time bf/gf couples have, "What's gonna change if I commit?" and the answer is EVERYTHING.

You join say Kadius after they've basically begged and dropped hints for years that they would love to have you as X position, be it crafter or hunter etc.

Then you're at the bottom rung and you are this super skilled, super soldier compared to Amos the newb off the block who got hired day one in game.  Yet you're saddled with some crazy timeline of one IC Year or two IC years to get promoted fro Scrub recruit to full whatever.

I haven't looked at clan docs in a while, but I remember this usually stemmed from the docs MAKING people do it.

I think we should just allow our leaders to make positions based on Merit.

Say I play a Bynner for two IC years, make it to Trooper on the first year, do a full year as Trooper after that, no complaints, no issues, the Byn loves me.  I then join the Arm or the Legion, there is no way in shit that my "I can kill you in two combat rounds" skilled Bynner should have to be a recruit for a year.

I think if these mandatory timeframes were lifted, we would have more people eager to jump into the meat and potatoes roles of the game.

I think this is why all my characters tend to play adjacent to so many orgs, because I don't wanna be their bitchboy for a year before I get to the good stuff.

Thoughts?

When I was leading a Byn Unit, I promoted a person to full trooper after a week because they were experienced and good. That week was merely a formality.

[Inks]

When playing a sponsored clan leader, I personally almost never promote anyone until they have at least done half or more likely two-thirds of their year, unless they rejoined and were once in the same organisation, then unless they are a total shit I would fasttrack them.

You don't know who is going to be trouble or not at first, and being able to stick at a task and do their work is part of the test of new employees, and who is going to contribute to missions/chores/ group activities etc.

You can always app a full soldier/Bynner nowadays if you want to start with an experienced fighter as your concept too.

Or just play an indy that is totally fine too.