So I was having a discussing with another staff member, which I'll invite to this thread if they choose to comment also, but it was an interesting conversation. So we are a Role Playing mud, though I have a few people trying to argue that we're more code based... i'm sorry, we roleplay here. I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the role playing. I love the fact I can play D&D pretty much in a living world.
Anyhow... so we were talking on the topic of Sponsored Roles and also the topic of our Rules on several areas of the game. We're trying to really revamp the rules to make them more clear, less grey areas, and then we look at Sponsored Roles. Sponsored Roles by their definition of this doc (http://armageddon.org/help/view/Sponsored%20Roles) is "a role request from staff to play something in the game". To be honest, the rest of the doc doesn't really help improve upon this definition.
Lots of you want to play a sponsored role, we see it all the time, and honestly, I'd love to give everyone a chance. The issue though is that some roles sit, they stagnate, or well... the role play doesn't really fit with documentation or expectations of the staff sponsoring it. A Sponsored Role to me is a role that staff has created that a player can play in, with the expectations that some guidelines from the staff sponsoring it will be followed. Quality of Role playing in this role is important in my eyes.
What is Quality though? Well, being realistic to the docs... keeping in mind the virtual world and the clan you're apart of. You don't have to be fancy with your emotes to be a good role player, but reacting realistically to a situation and role playing appropriately is more so quality in my eyes. Anyone can do this... and if they run into a problem, they can always ask staff.
Now, why is this coming up? Why is this even a problem? Well... because sometimes there are circumstances where a player may not really be playing a sponsored role to the exceptions of staff. We've likely tried to voice the issues to the PC, but well... we really have no rules to clearly work with a person in a sponsored role. In some cases we'd like to free up this role for someone else that may be willing to work with staff and play the role to the expectation. None of these roles have high expectations, if we do... we'll warn prior. If anything, I think the roles that have the high exceptions (in my opinion) are the Templar roles, because of the power they wield.
So what do we do? Well, we remove the person from the role and then try to get someone else. This may not seem fair, but if the person is not provided a good experience to those around them, and they are not meeting the expectations of staff, then I see it as necessary. Now, we did talk about improving upon these rules, so I would like feedback. 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.
Give me your feedbacks!
As an out-of-the-box thought exercise:
If someone is in a sponsored role but isn't really adding anything to the game through it, is there any harm to simply bringing in another PC to fill that function while leaving the other player around to do whatever it is they do want to do? Is an inert lump of a tavern-sitting noble not still at least marginally better than a player who quits the game after being force-stored?
(And to preempt the slippery slope argument, if this became a truly rampant problem with more than a few noble/gmh/whatever useless tavern idlers, of course then you start considering a crack-down.)
My view on the point of sponsored roles is to allow the player take on the responsibilities of playing an role that has some aspect that is difficult to get right and is really bad if they get it wrong. Maybe that's because they have political power to shake things up (like templars and nobles) or perhaps they have strict roleplay requirements (like mul slaves).
It would be a pity if we never had these wonderful sorts of characters because they add a lot to the game world, but the player that takes up that mantle has to be willing to play along with what is expected. To sum up my perspective, playing a sponsored role is a service to the game, not just an opportunity for a player to tinker with a powerful character. Surely the player needs to have fun with the role or else they won't be in it for long, but it has to be a sacrifice first of all.
So yeah, I think if a player isn't up to par with the sponsored role they are in, they should be removed. This should not be done capriciously, though. There ought to be an opportunity to grow as a player in these challenging roles. I think it's good to let new players have a chance at it because they are a lot of fun. They are also a lot of work and we need younger players with more time on their hands to fill them as veterans get older and don't have as much time for the game as they used it.
I think it's good to have well-written expectations. The most important thing to make to work is good communication on both sides. The player needs to be flexible and willing to compromise, and staff need to be patient and wise before they forcibly remove someone from a role.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on November 21, 2016, 04:55:51 PM
As an out-of-the-box thought exercise:
If someone is in a sponsored role but isn't really adding anything to the game through it, is there any harm to simply bringing in another PC to fill that function while leaving the other player around to do whatever it is they do want to do? Is an inert lump of a tavern-sitting noble not still at least marginally better than a player who quits the game after being force-stored?
(And to preempt the slippery slope argument, if this became a truly rampant problem with more than a few noble/gmh/whatever useless tavern idlers, of course then you start considering a crack-down.)
I was going to write something just like this. If a player is violating a rule -- ignoring the virtual world being one of them, although I'm not sure that's stated anywhere, and maybe should be -- then sure, go to them with the worry you have, allow them to explain what they were doing, and establish a three strikes policy.
But if the player isn't actually violating a rule, but not discharging the preconceived function of a sponsored role, then maybe just draw up a new sponsored role call. (For instance, if the role was meant to train a number of PCs to be gladiators, but the player wanted to play a drunk who failed to do this, sure have the IC world react, but there's no need to store them or punish them OOCly.)
Quote from: Drayab on November 21, 2016, 05:01:00 PM
To sum up my perspective, playing a sponsored role is a service to the game, not just an opportunity for a player to tinker with a powerful character.
I share this point of view as well.
I can't say if I'm any good at being in a sponsored role (it's been a few years), but the mindset of "what can I give to the game" instead of "what can I get from the game" is a good one.
If they're useless, let them continue to be useless and bring in another player to fulfill the purpose that one was supposed to.
If they're detrimental, store them or use their corpse as fodder for an RP event.
One of staff's many projects includes updating guidelines as needed, and one of the guideline sets under the spotlight is the sponsored roles helpfile. We would definitely like to stress the viewpoint that playing a sponsored role is a service to the game - however, playing a game in and of itself is an activity people undertake to have fun. So, our desire for sponsored roles is twofold:
- Define a sponsored role as someone who enforces the themes and cultural norms of the game world, in order for that impression to rub off on other players, particularly newer ones, so that they're doing their "job" for the game world
- Allow ways for players of sponsored roles to put their own twist on the way they play their role, so that they're having fun
Keeping around underperforming players contributes to the game's stagnancy and lowers the overall quality of roleplay. A "shape up or ship out" approach helps maintain quality, but being too harsh is inappropriate for a game. As for an approach to this, we're looking at a process that emphasizes staff-provided feedback before anything even remotely disciplinary occurs. Players in sponsored roles would be given ample time to adjust their play if it's far outside the defined themes and culture of the game world.
I have many thoughts on this, having played many sponsored roles over the years. But I can sum it up with 'Set Them Up For Success'.
The roles i've played where the Staff member really sat me down and gave me the 'lay of the land' and really told me what was going on, what my predecessors were up to, what the House is up to and some minor goals they have in mind...It not only gave me a lot to work with and bring to the table, it gave me a great outline for what was acceptable with the Role, and what wasn't. Adding to this -- "This is what we hope to see, more or less, from a role such as this" and "this is what we hope to not see from a role such as this" would be incredibly helpful, up front, or even along the process (a month into playing).
The roles i've played where Staff basically said "Go for it, have fun!" ended up being much more nebulous. I don't blame Staff for doing this -- In effect, they were saying do what you want within the confines of the role. We don't want to dictate your fun or tell you what to do. However! There's a fine balance here. I think Players want some outlines, some direction, because it makes it feel like a two-way street.
Just as well, there should be an obligation between Staff and Players to do due diligence with leadership requests (even if they are Indie leaders, say the Guild). There is nothing more disheartening than putting time into a request, only to have a 'Thanks, got your request!' response. I think there should be a commitment from both a Leadership PC, and their Staff, to do due diligence with requests. Spend the extra 10 minutes to make it a conversation rather than a sounding board. I think this conversational quality makes the roles more intriguing, because you feel that you are being heard.
There's a fine line there of course -- When the Templates were rolled out, I think Nyr was saying Players should be playing the game, not the request tool. But I know my leadership requests (at least) were cut in half if not more by using the Template. I imagine the times of 18 page long requests that are freeform poems are now a thing of the past.
Building into the Sponsored Role helpfile that Staff will give you unsolicited feedback, and you will need to not take it personally and view it as an assassination of your character. Again, if requests are kept conversational (equal responses from Staff and Player) it will not appear to be as out of the blue.
Anyways, some food for thought. I don't perceive this as a slight towards players of current Leadership PCs, or even the stagnant ones. It's a good conversation to have -- When is enough enough? I don't think every PC should be around for 2 RL years just because they aren't in mortal danger. It's a sticky pickle!
In essence -- Set them up for success, and make it a conversation.
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.)
Well, it's more that we're looking for a balance between two extremes (allowing underperforming sponsored role characters to continue vs. discipline and storage when sponsored roles fail to maintain basic game themes) and wondering whether players have any feedback on what the ideal balance would be, or how they would prefer to be treated if they were in a sponsored role themselves.
Quote from: Nergal on November 21, 2016, 05:41:33 PM
- Define a sponsored role as someone who enforces the themes and cultural norms of the game world, in order for that impression to rub off on other players, particularly newer ones, so that they're doing their "job" for the game world
- Allow ways for players of sponsored roles to put their own twist on the way they play their role, so that they're having fun
That's a great start. I think you're spot on that the trick is to make the 'job' fun. I think a sponsored role ought to come with a basic job description so they know what kind of framework they are working within, and that first point above can be applied to all of them, I bet. For me, having fun in a sponsored role meant being able to make meaningful progress on my goals while having time to nurture long term relationships with other characters. One of the more obvious differences in playing a sponsored role was in the kind of goals my character had. With my sponsored role, I was willing to set aside certain fun things I usually like to do with my characters (combat stuff) because I was able to find new kinds of fun that aren't even possibilities with normal characters. That's a really fun thing for a player to explore, especially if they haven't played a sponsored role before.
To me the most important part of roleplay in a text medium is characterization. Things that a PC does that make them stand out. Things that define them in even small ways.
How do they walk? What's their posture like? Why?
How do they talk? What words do they use? Why?
How do they dress? How are they trying to appear? Why?
My ideal I guess is that if you could take away my PC's name, their sdesc, whatever else until you just see what they're doing and how they're doing it, or even just what they were wearing, you could still tell who they were. People are like that in real life, with their mannerisms, with their phrasing, with their posture, their style, their overall "swagger".
I think if a roleplayer really has characterization down at the roots, it seeps into everything else they do no matter how long and pretty their emotes are or how exactly they wind up expressing it. They'll get better over time the more familiar they get within the skin of that particular character.
So, I'd say, the most important part of quality is just that: characterization.
I know that has nothing to do necessarily with a role being sponsored or the leadership aspect, but if our most visible, prominent PCs aren't well-characterized, they won't have the magnetic effect that well-RPed PCs just do. They won't draw in RP or inspire others to be their best. If a PC is there to lead and enhance their world, it's absolutely important that their player is able to simply make a PC that's compelling to begin with, without the weight of authority, influence or power. No amount of authority, influence or power piled on a PC that interests no one does anything positive for the game world.
There have been several occasions over the years where I was strongly of the opinion that it was needed.
You should attempt to calmly explain the issue in an effort to remedy it beforehand. If this fails to produce results, storage is the next step. I'd personally prefer this sort of approach were I the subject of disapproval.
As for letting people continue on and just sliding in another player? Stockpiling those who don't know what they're doing and placing them in positions of power greatly diminishes the atmosphere.
So I if I were playing a noble or something and was burnt out on plots/leadership/whatever but still enjoyed logging in and hanging out, I would not want to be force-stored. Who would?
As long as I wasn't draining staff attention or monopolizing clan resources, I don't think it would feel fair.
I don't think I'd be upset if IC superiors encouraged more action and/or threatened to revoke stipends. I don't think I'd mind a note from staff along the lines of "It looks like you may not be enjoying your role to the fullest. Are you considering storage? Is there anything we can do to help make things more interesting?" Maybe I'd snap out of it and get back into things. Maybe I'd consider how stagnant the role has become and voluntarily store. Or maybe I just want to play an atmospheric flavor role for a while.
I suppose my views on what sponsored roles should be attempting differ from others. There's room for breaks, but there's a finite number of these positions in the game. I'd prefer people not openly cling to them.
Edit: If they expand these numbers to accommodate more atmospheric roles, I'd likely be more open to it.
QuoteSo we are a Role Playing mud, though I have a few people trying to argue that we're more code based... i'm sorry, we roleplay here. I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the role playing. I love the fact I can play D&D pretty much in a living world.
I think that's kind of a mischaracterization unless you're talking about someone else. But no one has ever talked about ceasing roleplay in the name of code, only in keeping in mind that we're a code-based mud to allow it to augment roleplay and allow you to do things without endless argument about grey areas that are literally completely unnecessary and usually inconsistent from event to event. No one comes here to not roleplay, that would be incredibly counter-intuitive. But the 'playing D&D in a living world' is exactly what I say that reliable code and what it delivers allows; a persistent world with rules of behavior that do not require a constant DM.
For the actual question, though:
QuoteIf 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.
I've been in the position of having a leadership PC force stored, but I kind of agree with it at this point even though I was upset at the time. Simply put, I was trying to do things with the role that simply weren't being allowed, and it was frustrating, which I think is akin to the point you're making about not fulfilling staff expectations. For me, it pretty much turned me into a layabout noble with no real goal in mind.
I didn't really get much a warning on the matter, which from what you say is already an improvement, but what I would say is that if you've made your expectations clear, I'm not sure what else you can do with it. That comes with a couple of 'if' statements, though:
a) Are they providing content, just not the kind of content you wanted? Because removing that may not be the best course of action, particularly if it's over a conceptual idea of what's wanted. If you have a sponsored Byn Sergeant who suddenly starts hunting contracts and trips all the time, that's against the long-standing theme of the Byn. But if you have a Byn Sergeant that's being more cutthroat than you intended but therefore engaged in a lot of political intrigue...I think that's why there was the whole shift towards more player control in the first place.
b) Are they trying, but just disagreeing with you on a direction? If so, it's worth examining whether or not they're just being completely disconnected from the previous status of that role, or whether you're shifting things in a direction unconsciously towards your own goals for the clan and thus making that player just your tool. That's not a very fun position to be in as a leader; even when plots were staff-guided via NPC's, it never got to that point. I imagine it can feel like the player is essentially a staff-run npc played by a player.
As long as those previous two things aren't true, as in if they're just genuinely burned out and not contributing or are outright hostile to a working relationship, go ahead and remove them without mercy. But if they're just having trouble finding something to guide the clan towards that fits your criteria, it would be really good to have ideas for them to run in its stead that provides meaningful content. When I have having trouble coming up with things for my Scorpions to do, and I pitched ideas and got a lot of 'nope', it would have been really helpful to get twists or ideas in return instead of flat denials.
I will also say that if you do have to force them out of the role, unless their behavior is very purposely offensive (I mean where they're being outright disrespectful, not just trying to argue a point of contention with you), I don't think they should necessarily suffer a -negative- note as much as 'I disagreed with their direction for the clan and we couldn't really come together on it. Might be able to lead elsewhere.' I don't think not working out once should disqualify you from the future opportunity.
I'd like to get away from the idea that there's any other reason to play this game other than to enjoy yourself (and make it enjoyable for others). Sponsored roles are there because they fill a role in the world that can't (and shouldn't) be played from creation. If they aren't running the clan into the ground, the guidelines should be a middle ground between the player and the staffer, and their respective visions of the role itself. If they are running the clan into the ground, well, there's some basis in reality for that, too.
I'm of the mindset that you should only be storing people if they're breaking rules, though. I have stored all three of my leadership roles, and each one was because I was no longer available to play the role as needed. That was my choice, and while there was some nudging for me to play more, I thought the suggestions were fair, and ultimately, the decision was left up to me. I appreciated the trust from on high to do the right thing.
Edit: to qualify my opening statement, sponsored roles very often feel like a second job, and maybe even more important than setting guidelines is figuring out how to make these roles less demanding while still contributing to the world.
As someone who actually enjoys the "subordinate" role of a minion/employee/aide - I can't tell you how frustrating it is to play in a role where your character's boss is either a) never around when you are, b) disinterested in your place in his clan, c) takes weeks-long sabbaticals and leaves the subordinate without the authority (coded or otherwise) to make decisions as/when needed in the boss's absence.
I get people need to take vacations, and don't want to play while they're on the beach being served pina coladas by half-naked cabana boys. I totally get that. But if you're going to go on vacation, then come home for a day, and then spend the next month "in the process of moving," and then come back for a couple of days, then be "scarce for at least the next two months" while you study for your doctorate - just please store, before you go on vacation.
That's what bothers me most about sponsored roles; the availability, or lack thereof, and hiring people who they already know in advance won't be playing around the same time they do. How are we supposed to tell our boss about what's going on, if our boss is never around when we are? If we ARE the person people pass messages to, to get word to our boss, then saying "find someone to pass messages to" is frustrating at best. Annoying at worst.
Don't hire me if I tell you I'm around this time of day, and you know you're about to change your schedule so that you are never around this time of day. I'm okay with you going OOC to tell me, the player, so that you don't have to RP around what is essentially an OOC scheduling conflict.
+1 on the availability issue and also on the service to the game, in terms (to me) of leadership and stewardship to newbies and veterans alike.
What I found out from my first and only sponsored role for at least the Merchant Houses, is that I had a hard(er) time settling myself into the existing system of the sale of the crafted items crafted by PC crafters to NPC shops. But this might be just me or certain things need to be maintained constant throughout the lifetime of that clan AND documented, so there is a same page for all leadership PC's, sponsored or not.
The words 'forced storage' are a red rag to me by now, and I probably shouldn't comment on why.
However, I feel it should only be a last resort after everything else has been tried and failed, and only in severe cases. For instance, if a player exploited a bug to kill a PC they couldn't defeat otherwise. Or if they played a sponsored role but vanished for 3 months with no indication of when they'll be back. If a player has never exploited any bugs, never acted on OOC information, reliably communicates with staff, is active and roleplays well, then I don't see how storing their character helps anyone. In the worst case, the active player count goes down by one. And we all want more active players.
I've been in situations (in clans, not necessarily sponsored roles) where I wanted to do much more for the clan but wasn't given the opportunity to do so. For instance in the last case, I had 0 clue what was going on because my IC superior didn't log in during my times and the underlings I groomed for mutual information exchange and plotting died / became inactive / stopped logging in during my times, too. The clan PCs who often sat down with me to discuss ideas and exchange information died, and no one replaced them. Instead of pursuing my personal entertainment, I idled on the clan compound so I would be available to recruits. Bottom line: I did absolutely nothing but train recruits. It was such a waste of a highly skilled, fiercely loyal and motivated PC who earned badges of merit during the ratsucker RPT. Did I mention highly skilled? She kicked her Lieutenant's ass in training. I would have liked a bit more support from staff to fill the gap until I could connect with other clannies during my offpeak times again. If communication with staff had been different, I believe I could have contributed a lot more to that clan. And I would have been less frustrated.
If a player doesn't fulfill your expectations, show them how to do better. Throw them some breadcrumbs. Give examples of how they can contribute to the clan in a way that that's productive to everyone. If they're temporarily out of the clan loop due to playtime mismatch, an NPC or even some pointers in email could help a great deal.
Edit to add: a bit of praise for the things they DO get right would go a long way, too. ;) I sometimes feel the amount of negative feedback for relatively minor, honest IC mistakes was hugely disproportionate to the amount of effort the player put in to make good things happen. Even if effort doesn't bear fruit due to IC / OOC circumstances, it should still be acknowledged in some fashion.
Given the clarification made by staff, I would re-iterate: yes, put them on a performance plan, and if they fail with the plan, force store. But only put them on that plan if they're detrimental (to the setting) -- if it's a role that needs filled for technical reasons (Byn Sergeant, templar) just add another. It stands to reason that there would be lazy, do-nothing templars in the world, after all (even if that is not 'helpful' to the characters in-game).
As a proposal for how to fix this from being an issue in the first place, I feel Reiloth touched on what I'm about to say a little bit, in that it's difficult for many people to find success with a role where they're just told to go at it and have fun.
I think we've been seeing more stagnant sponsored roles in recent years as a result of there not being any staff-fueled 'stuff' going on -- it takes a fair bit of time and work staffside to get something going, but it takes at LEAST something like five times as much (with the accompanying slowed pace) to do it player-side, and consequently you have nobles, templars, and other leaders just languishing about while gears very, very, very slowly grind to try and accomplish something.
Even having the occasional semi-weekly tarantula-nest hunt for the AoD to go on, or the old sewer crawls, or other just active *stuff* gives a springboard from which to act upon, and I think we'd see more active and lively action from these roles were there foils to coax it out. Out of the two roles that I used to consider more or less 'mini-staff', we lost one -- sorcerers -- and I would wager that the percentage of players who can successfully get a psionicist off the ground (and happen to be playing one, of course) is a pretty small percentage indeed.
We have things like the recent festival, and those are nice and I think the effort is appreciated by most, but if there aren't PCs shaking something up to give these sponsored roles something to act against, I think there is some real merit in just creating something, however off-the-cuff, to provide them with something to act upon. It doesn't always have to be Game of Thrones intrigue. People (and by extension, characters) come alive when they're tested, and when you're at it on your own, it's hard to test yourself. Burgle someone's estate. Send out an assassin. Stick some monsters in the sewer. More broad existential threats (gith activity is up/the weather is getting steadily hotter/someone burnt the crop fields) are nice and a valuable part of the game, but characters in Armageddon truly shine when confronted with direct ones.
If we're concerned about fairness, allow players to set a non-consent flag like the review flag that only staff can see that acknowledges their willingness to have bad things visited upon them by staff. I think you'd see a surprisingly massive amount of people with it on (and this, perhaps, can be spun to its own thread to discuss if there's real interest).
People falter in leadership roles because there's honestly not a lot to do the vast majority of the time -- I know I'm not good with them for that reason specifically. Give 'em stuff.
Here is my opinion: If the player of the sponsored role is not living up to the desires of staff, have them killed ICly in a visible and setting-appropriate way, as a punishment for the perceived flaw.
For example, a GMH sponsored dealer PC who refuses to deal? Have them publicly confronted by NPC seniors, and if that doesn't do the trick, have them publicly executed.
This seems like it would be much less upsetting than a forced-store.
Quote from: 650Booger on November 21, 2016, 08:51:46 PM
Here is my opinion: If the player of the sponsored role is not living up to the desires of staff, have them killed ICly in a visible and setting-appropriate way, as a punishment for the perceived flaw.
For example, a GMH sponsored dealer PC who refuses to deal? Have them publicly confronted by NPC seniors, and if that doesn't do the trick, have them publicly executed.
This seems like it would be much less upsetting than a forced-store.
That's an IC solution for IC transgressions.
Maybe I misunderstood, but I was under the impression that this was about OOC behavior with the role.
Quote from: Armaddict on November 21, 2016, 09:03:03 PM
That's an IC solution for IC transgressions.
Maybe I misunderstood, but I was under the impression that this was about OOC behavior with the role.
I think we've talked about both, poor RP ICly and also just not bothering to show up (which I guess is OOC behavior)
AT LAST.
emote takes off her diplomacy hat and sets it carefully to one side.
Players of leadership roles: To the sponsored roles who are reading this message: you might not know this (somehow), but you are often a new player's first impression of this harsh and unpredictable gameworld which is supposed to be made harsh and unpredictable by YOU. YOU set the example of what Zalanthas should be like, and everyone else will FOLLOW YOUR LEAD. Because you're a LEADER. If you're not LEADING, if you're not making your role pop, if you're not engaging people and scaring them and making them love you and making them hate you and employing them and driving plots, you're not just doing nothing, you're actively harming the game. Stop clinging to power because you like having power. Stop logging in just because it's a habit and you can't stand the idea of losing the RW Sirihish ability. You had your chance. Go back to playing dwarf rangers who spam forage salt alone at 3am. Let people who are excited and exciting have a turn instead of sitting blandly in your Senior Whatever role for multiple years.
Staff who let this continue: I don't know when this sort of blank ambivalence became normalized, but stop it. Stop rewarding apathy. Stop handing out "well, I guess you're still alive" promotions and "7779th barstool sat on" medals. Start expecting excellence, attitude, and depth of character. Start rewarding excellent roleplay and excellent writing in your sponsored roles, not just excellent longevity. Bake engagement and drama into the requirements. Don't just be happy that players "aren't causing trouble" and "communicate well" and "don't argue." That's not enough. Yes, it's a game, and yes, players should be able to play the characters they want, but when that character is functionally identical to a 3am salt forager despite having the coded power of life and death over half the city you need to start stepping in and putting your foot down. You don't owe sponsored roles anything if they're not giving back to the community. Armageddon deserves better. Armageddon deserves GREAT CHARACTERS leading and shaping the world, not just GREAT REPORT FILERS filing great reports. Don't be afraid to start shutting down boredom. And by the way, support your players who do stir things up. Don't be annoyed by them. Be proud of them. Don't be scared of them. Enable them. They are forging a better crapsack world for you and everyone else.
If I sound harsh it's because I've taken off my diplomacy hat. Armageddon deserves the best leaders it can get and sometimes that involves speaking hard truths.
I think, first and foremost, when you take on a sponsored role, you are not doing it for your own fun, or your own murder rageboner made of hatred for all things purple. You are doing it for the sake of an ongoing story, and are temporarily needed to step in and fill a gap. You are there to make a clan fun, and real, for the people who join it. It's a delicate balance there, sometimes, you find yourself in a position where you have to do something no one is having fun with in order to fulfill your given profession... that's just how it is, some people give you no choice.
As someone else said, it's a sacrifice. On the balance of fun for others/realism, my personal preference would be to lean slightly toward fun. It can't all be sunshine and rainbows, but I try to leave wiggle room in my background to accomodate for it when I feel the need to. I've played, one sponsored role, and it seemed like people were having fun but then the anti-maverick thing kicked in, which I fully understand. It's not something I'd do anytime soon even if I were allowed to. It's a lot of power, and balancing a desire to "do well" with a desire to "do awesome", or even "do shitty", is difficult... it's kind of left up in the air, and if, as someone said, staff were more communicative of what they WANT to see, it would be easier to accomodate those preferences. Otherwise it's like shooting a screeching noises in the dark.
I gotta say, there are few places where noble characters are allowed to mingle, and they are almost all taverns. so take that into consideration when berating the stool sitters.
For example, staff could be like, these are your priorities in this role in a list:
1) Enforce realistic clan-life
2) Engage in ongoing adversarial plots as your character, not to actually overcome them
3) Follow clan rules as would be expected of your position.
4) Generate fun for your minions and give them things to do
5) Represent your clan in the gameworld as it is described in the documentation
This is just like, a sample idea, and priorities may be quite different. It's just, not a lot is spelled out for anyone. Expecting someone to just, instantly get what you expect by reading your mind is kind of difficult, and once the background and established characters are set in stone, it's a bit difficult to do a 180 on what you've been doing. You could even add bits of helpful stuff like, "We want you to lose here, how can we help you with achieving this?" or, "We want you to accomplish this at all costs, what do you need?"
Instead we get, this looks interesting, let's see where it goes, oh shit, that's NOT where we want it to go... fuck, what do we do now?
If you have a clear goal, then please prioritize what you want, and give the player of the role more than a vague hint of what you want, open lines of communication more freely. "We want you to murder every newbie that joins X" would be a good way to get me to yank my app and say, maybe someone else would be better suited for this job, and get the results you want, just for example. Or, "We want you to make Y great again!"... but keep in mind that staff controls part of the plot, and realize that when shit goes tits-up, it's possible something staff-side, where all the power lies, could have prevented it, rather than putting the entire burden on a player that has little way of knowing what you're looking for. It might be conducive to explain to someone before they embark on the next RPT that, "If you do this thing, your PC would possibly know that X might happen, that might be contrary to what kind of thing we're trying to achieve here.".
If you want to steer the story, then here are many various reigns to choose from.
EDIT: In short, try to look at sponsored roles more as team players, more as a mediator between clan-members and staff, than leave them in the dark. They got the role, let them know what they should be doing. And if a mistake is made despite clear communication, maybe communication wasn't so clear to begin with. Regardless, any decision a sponsored role makes reflects directly on what staff envisioned for the role in question, since everyone is in the dark and isn't able to read minds. Sometimes a hands-off approach, then an over-reaction later leaves both the sponsored role, and the people they were responsible for (for better or worse), all with a bitter taste in their mouth about something. I can only assume what staff has told other sponsored roles they should be doing, it's not what I would pick, but eh, I'm neither staff nor them and their method of play must be approved of if it's allowed to continue.
Quote from: LauraMars on November 21, 2016, 10:47:00 PM
*good stuff*
You could basically close the thread with this post.
It's the fact that there are a lot of people who don't step down that this is even a discussion. I can't stress the mantra of not clinging to these roles enough.
Quote from: LauraMars on November 21, 2016, 10:47:00 PM
AT LAST.
emote takes off her diplomacy hat and sets it carefully to one side.
Players of leadership roles: To the sponsored roles who are reading this message: you might not know this (somehow), but you are often a new player's first impression of this harsh and unpredictable gameworld which is supposed to be made harsh and unpredictable by YOU. YOU set the example of what Zalanthas should be like, and everyone else will FOLLOW YOUR LEAD. Because you're a LEADER. If you're not LEADING, if you're not making your role pop, if you're not engaging people and scaring them and making them love you and making them hate you and employing them and driving plots, you're not just doing nothing, you're actively harming the game. Stop clinging to power because you like having power. Stop logging in just because it's a habit and you can't stand the idea of losing the RW Sirihish ability. You had your chance. Go back to playing dwarf rangers who spam forage salt alone at 3am. Let people who are excited and exciting have a turn instead of sitting blandly in your Senior Whatever role for multiple years.
Staff who let this continue: I don't know when this sort of blank ambivalence became normalized, but stop it. Stop rewarding apathy. Stop handing out "well, I guess you're still alive" promotions and "7779th barstool sat on" medals. Start expecting excellence, attitude, and depth of character. Start rewarding excellent roleplay and excellent writing in your sponsored roles, not just excellent longevity. Bake engagement and drama into the requirements. Don't just be happy that players "aren't causing trouble" and "communicate well" and "don't argue." That's not enough. Yes, it's a game, and yes, players should be able to play the characters they want, but when that character is functionally identical to a 3am salt forager despite having the coded power of life and death over half the city you need to start stepping in and putting your foot down. You don't owe sponsored roles anything if they're not giving back to the community. Armageddon deserves better. Armageddon deserves GREAT CHARACTERS leading and shaping the world, not just GREAT REPORT FILERS filing great reports. Don't be afraid to start shutting down boredom. And by the way, support your players who do stir things up. Don't be annoyed by them. Be proud of them. Don't be scared of them. Enable them. They are forging a better crapsack world for you and everyone else.
If I sound harsh it's because I've taken off my diplomacy hat. Armageddon deserves the best leaders it can get and sometimes that involves speaking hard truths.
Everything... this. And Samoa's post as well.
Quote from: TheWanderer on November 22, 2016, 12:17:55 AM
Quote from: LauraMars on November 21, 2016, 10:47:00 PM
*good stuff*
You could basically close the thread with this post.
It's the fact that there are a lot of people who don't step down that this is even a discussion. I can't stress the mantra of not clinging to these roles enough.
I respect Laura's opinion, but I don't think your interpretation works in all applications. I don't think you should equate leadership with availability. It's certainly a nice function of the role, but the impact a character has on the gameworld should be considered first. The key and relative term here is impact. Are you having an impact on the game that reinforces the culture you're representing? Because it's all about the theme.
I understand this breaks down on the meta level when you're operating a clan like the Byn. Been there, done that. I believe I had something like forty days played over nine months, and in my opinion, that obligated my duty, yet there were times when it was rare to see me. The staffer offered me a chance to continue playing the character as a lifesworn Bynner, and take a demotion to Trooper, which I did take the offer. I never had any designs of leaving the Byn. It's something I didn't regret, because I was able to come back and have some good times with the Byn. It ended up being some of the most fun I've had playing Armageddon.
I feel in the case of nobles and Templars, though, this is less important. It is actually more interesting as one of these power roles to delegate authority. Without a doubt, as a facilitator, your best look is to dish it out and see what happens. With this in mind, I think we should also take a look at the type of role when we're writing guidelines. Oranges don't taste like apples, and so forth.
That's absolutely correct. Impact is more important than raw hours sunk in the game. If you can make things happen with a few hours spent, then you're worth keeping around. That doesn't work in just any role, though. I think a Byn Sergeant absolutely needs to have abundant face time, but for some roles, if you are a good organizer and do a good job setting up meetings to delegate responsibility, you can get a lot done in a little bit of time. I don't think I'm the very best roleplayer in terms of writing great emotes on the fly and such as that, but I think my sponsored role was successful because I was a good organizer. I also had some fucking awesome ideas so there. 8)
Problems as I see them
Staff Expectations
These go undocumented. We get lots of pictures along with some humor and the name of the clan and role in the clan. We don't get:
* The minimum hours staff expect on average.
* Expected login time windows.
* The type of character staff are expecting.
* What plots staff are going to encourage the character to pursue.
* What plots the staff will be steering away from.
* What degree and type of support the player can expect.
A big problem at the moment is staff say "Hey. House X is looking for a Y! Send in your app now!" A player gets really excited. Puts together all their ideas and sends through the best selection. And then staff sift through the best. Now I'm sure if a trusted player perfectly matches what the staff want then that player gets selected. However what I expect happens most times is staff get a selection of "apps that seem close" and choose one. However the problem here is I expect most times the player doesn't communicate:
* Their expectations of pre-existing PCs.
* The primary plot that will make or break the role.
* What type and level of support they expect from staff and how much effort they have to put forward to get that support.
* What expectations they have of the playerbase at large.
Now ideally staff communicate some of the expectations they have. However by this stage the player has quite possibly emotionally invested a great deal into that character and when they discover their expectations don't match staff they may just "go with it" anyway and then either due to being disheartened by the realities of the role or real life popping up they store, stop logging in, or just go through the motions and "sit it out" hoping if they keep going things will get better.
So how can the likelihood of the above be minimized? They can provide their side of expectations. Some of the above can be included in the advert directly. Staff could invite expressions of interest to find out the rest BEFORE they apply for the role. This minimizes emotional investment by the player before finding out what the deal is with the role. The Role Application form could also prompt for some of the above expectations from players as well so less of the expectations from both sides remains unspoken. I think this would result in less bad sponsored roles as I see the bad behavior in many cases to be a symptom (after all, presumably this player has been monitored and proven to be a capable player, otherwise why were they selected in the first place?).
Quote from: John on November 22, 2016, 02:15:58 AM
Problems as I see them
Staff Expectations
These go undocumented. We get lots of pictures along with some humor and the name of the clan and role in the clan. We don't get:
* The minimum hours staff expect on average.
* Expected login time windows.
* The type of character staff are expecting.
* What plots staff are going to encourage the character to pursue.
* What plots the staff will be steering away from.
* What degree and type of support the player can expect.
A big problem at the moment is staff say "Hey. House X is looking for a Y! Send in your app now!" A player gets really excited. Puts together all their ideas and sends through the best selection. And then staff sift through the best. Now I'm sure if a trusted player perfectly matches what the staff want then that player gets selected. However what I expect happens most times is staff get a selection of "apps that seem close" and choose one. However the problem here is I expect most times the player doesn't communicate:
* Their expectations of pre-existing PCs.
* The primary plot that will make or break the role.
* What type and level of support they expect from staff and how much effort they have to put forward to get that support.
* What expectations they have of the playerbase at large.
Now ideally staff communicate some of the expectations they have. However by this stage the player has quite possibly emotionally invested a great deal into that character and when they discover their expectations don't match staff they may just "go with it" anyway and then either due to being disheartened by the realities of the role or real life popping up they store, stop logging in, or just go through the motions and "sit it out" hoping if they keep going things will get better.
So how can the likelihood of the above be minimized? They can provide their side of expectations. Some of the above can be included in the advert directly. Staff could invite expressions of interest to find out the rest BEFORE they apply for the role. This minimizes emotional investment by the player before finding out what the deal is with the role. The Role Application form could also prompt for some of the above expectations from players as well so less of the expectations from both sides remains unspoken. I think this would result in less bad sponsored roles as I see the bad behavior in many cases to be a symptom (after all, presumably this player has been monitored and proven to be a capable player, otherwise why were they selected in the first place?).
Keep in mind, they can sift through the best and open a dialogue through the request tool to poke and prod at the matter, and, if need be, reveal the intent, in an effort to move things the way they want long before things are set in stone. My personal preference is that anyone who voices a desire to murder any PC who gets slightly in their way be cut out of the process, but, that could be what staff wants to happen, I can't say. If they work more with a sponsored role before they step on stage, at least everyone has the vague semblance of a script and can react accordingly.
last time i apped for any sponsored role there were questions related to what i wanted to do and how i wanted to do it, and some slight prodding one way or the other to make sure i knew the line.
maybe i got lucky and i had akariel as my staff and not tEmmIE.
Quote from: Dunetrade55 on November 22, 2016, 02:33:24 AMKeep in mind, they can sift through the best and open a dialogue through the request tool to poke and prod at the matter, and, if need be, reveal the intent, in an effort to move things the way they want long before things are set in stone.
Sure. But there's problems with that if you do it after the player has already invested quite a bit of energy into the character. If
Quote from: John on November 22, 2016, 02:15:58 AMa trusted player perfectly matches what the staff want
Then the staff have an easy choice, no problem whatsoever. However if
Quote from: John on November 22, 2016, 02:15:58 AMstaff get a selection of "apps that seem close" and choose one.
we're at a less than ideal situation. And while staff can detail what their expectations are and ask probing questions of the player to find out what the player's expectations are, doing it at this stage means that
Quote from: John on November 22, 2016, 02:15:58 AMthe player has quite possibly emotionally invested a great deal into that character and when they discover their expectations don't match staff they may just "go with it" anyway
Quote from: Dunetrade55 on November 22, 2016, 02:33:24 AMat least everyone has the vague semblance of a script and can react accordingly.
Maybe those who've had recent sponsored roles can speak up, but I expect most of the time there is a vague semblance of a script. But the problem is that the vague semblance can result in wildly diverging play from what the staff expected and the player can point to that vague script and say "but I'm on script!" and feel harshly done by when the staff react quite strongly to "fix the problem".
I kind of feel that no sponsored role should be allowed to exist for more than a RL year.
I also think that we should get rid of nobles entirely and give their plot-generating impetus to aides. That's a thread I've been wanting to start for a few days not but just haven't had the energy. Maybe I will later.
I know there are rolecalls sometimes where staff have a specific plot in mind that they want to support with a special character, but in my case it was more open-ended. My application was all about the thing I wanted to do. Staff liked the idea but required some changes to improve thematic adherence. I agreed to the changes. I got IG, did the thing, fun was had by all. There was never a script, but there was definitely a plan. The plan had to be modified as things went along, which was done collaboratively with other players ICly and also through communication with staff OOCly. I had a lot of fun and would do it again. I think it was all made awesome by the collaborative atmosphere. Good communication really is the key.
I really like a lot of the feedback here and I appreciate the viewpoints, it helps more than you realize.
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.
We want to see players succeed with a Sponsored Role, and yes... maybe we can do better on staff to support these Sponsored Roles and those that are playing under them. In most cases of those that are playing underlings, we typically want to see things go through the Leadership PCs first rather than bypassing it, but I can see in circumstances where that individual isn't around. I've seen it myself and how it can suck. I think with some updated expectations and guidelines for Sponsored Roles, this will help.
Now I have an idea... what do you think if we did Interviews for Sponsored Roles? Allowing for us to get our concept across and make sure both staff and the player are aligned in the idea so that staff can make a better decision. What if a player is selected for a Sponsored Role was given a Primer on the role prior to entering play so that they had something to work with right off the start?
Slightly tangential, but I do want to offer the viewpoint of making sure a nice balance is struck.
If you completely overwhelm someone with plots from the get-go before they have a chance to settle into their character, it could backfire into burning them out. I think this depends on the player, too... some like that, some are self-starters.
Point being, not every case is going to be the same, so any guidelines should be loose enough to realize that.
I think interviews would be the way to go. Surprised you're not doing that already.
That would give you a real time communication channel to go back and forth and explain what you want out of the role and see if the player wants to deliver that or not. If they go stale later on you could have another face to face and ask them why, or if they even consider that they're being stale (they might not).
Of the few Leadership/Sponsored roles I've played in, the vast majority are the Byn/Guild "You lived! Congrats!" roles. I find in these situations, there is a bit less from staff saying "here are some ideas to get you going" and more of a "learn on your own" (Not with this current one. Current Staffer: You get a thumbs up).
I applied, once, for a sponsored role, officially. It was a Northern Templar. I had played enough in the North, and long enough in the Legions to watch Templars come and go while providing very little at the time. The idea would be that he was a white version of Mace Windu, thinking he could feel important 'breaks' and that it was his job to correct mistakes in Commoners. He sat around the taverns, drinking juice from a keg and reading books. He trained his Legionnaires at times, gave them a few things to do, even hired some indie Mercenaries to cause a scene in a tavern just to 'test' the resolve of a Recruit.
But, I remember quite clearly that the expectations for the role weren't defined at all. My job was to "be a Templar". Anything I tried to do was Rock-Blocked by the other side of the Templarate, and when he had the (admittedly foolish) idea of making all Recruits look similar so people knew that they were in training, it was "allowed" by the Lirathans thought it stupid, foolish, not worthwhile, and when I eventually left public service THEY reverted it immediately. I now laugh at the bagheads under Lirathan control.
But the point is, the one time I did have a Sponsored Role, it was only with the guidelines "be a Templar". Someone suicide in front of me during a scene, and it was reported to my clan staff via the Lirathans, and my clan staff then came down like a mountain on me, while admittedly not knowing everything about what happened. I think there needs to be, with Sponsored roles, more of a go between. Weekly reports, that take a week+ to resolve, and Leaders not able to call upon their Storyteller resources during scenes really weaken the role.
It would be much better if login expectations were set, on both sides. Nothing gives a Leader role more perceived power than environment echoes going on around them, or the world coming alive from their very presence.
Quote from: Ath on November 22, 2016, 07:38:35 AM
In most cases of those that are playing underlings, we typically want to see things go through the Leadership PCs first rather than bypassing it, but I can see in circumstances where that individual isn't around. I've seen it myself and how it can suck.
As an offpeak player, IC superiors not being around was the single biggest issue for me. I know I'm not the only offpeak player. With my last role, clan staff insisted X and Y MUST go through my IC superior, but it just didn't happen, despite all my PMs and attempts to coordinate playtimes. I wish staff would have been more understanding of my situation and given me a little more freedom / directions.
Quote from: Ath on November 22, 2016, 07:38:35 AMNow I have an idea... what do you think if we did Interviews for Sponsored Roles? Allowing for us to get our concept across and make sure both staff and the player are aligned in the idea so that staff can make a better decision. What if a player is selected for a Sponsored Role was given a Primer on the role prior to entering play so that they had something to work with right off the start?
That sounds like a great idea.
Quote from: SuchDragonWow on November 22, 2016, 01:10:21 AM
I respect Laura's opinion, but I don't think your interpretation works in all applications. I don't think you should equate leadership with availability. It's certainly a nice function of the role, but the impact a character has on the gameworld should be considered first. The key and relative term here is impact. Are you having an impact on the game that reinforces the culture you're representing? Because it's all about the theme.
I'd like to add that the impact should include their own clannies. Impact on 'noble house politics', for instance, is nice, but when there are underlings who don't see the impact and are left out, something's going wrong. And I'd like to stress once again: Include your off-peak clannies. Especially if the off-peak PC is proven to be active, loyal and motivated. If playtimes don't match, find a middle-man. Or ask staff for help.
And if the plotting isn't happening, instead of storing that character get them into trouble IC, with clear indicators of what is expected. Having a scary superior breathe down their character's neck should provide ample motivation. Months of disappointed silence / vagueness and then storage can't be the solution.
Quote from: Ath on November 22, 2016, 07:38:35 AM
Now I have an idea... what do you think if we did Interviews for Sponsored Roles? Allowing for us to get our concept across and make sure both staff and the player are aligned in the idea so that staff can make a better decision. What if a player is selected for a Sponsored Role was given a Primer on the role prior to entering play so that they had something to work with right off the start?
Related; It used to be that if you wanted to app a Templar or Noble, there were docs you could request access to, because "most Oashi look like this" and "Borsail have an inbred temperament of that", and were things you just might not know. These days, you don't get those. There's no primer on "here's the basics of what this character would likely embody".
I'm all for primers. You'll get more, and more quality, when there are base guidelines presented. I understand the need for a Role Call Announcement to not give away all the details, but maybe have the Call open for one week, during which anyone that "applies" or "shows interest" gets access to that Role's Primer. Then keep the application process open for the standard length of time.
QuoteNow I have an idea... what do you think if we did Interviews for Sponsored Roles?
I think this would be a great idea.
Quote from: SuchDragonWow on November 22, 2016, 01:10:21 AM
Quote from: TheWanderer on November 22, 2016, 12:17:55 AM
Quote from: LauraMars on November 21, 2016, 10:47:00 PM
*good stuff*
You could basically close the thread with this post.
It's the fact that there are a lot of people who don't step down that this is even a discussion. I can't stress the mantra of not clinging to these roles enough.
I respect Laura's opinion, but I don't think your interpretation works in all applications. I don't think you should equate leadership with availability. It's certainly a nice function of the role, but the impact a character has on the gameworld should be considered first. The key and relative term here is impact. Are you having an impact on the game that reinforces the culture you're representing? Because it's all about the theme.
I'm not sure I equated great leadership solely with availability in either of my posts (although seeing a clan leader more than once a week certainly helps). If a character has minimal impact, rarely logs in, and does nothing but shoot the breeze during the forty-five minutes he or she makes an appearance, there's an issue.
If you can do more than me in an hour than I can do in three, more power to you. Keep it up! However, if you're of the former example and simply clinging to power, there's a point where somebody else needs to step in.
And to the whole "atmospheric noble/dwelling in taverns/spend everyday erping" thing, sure... I guess. The next issue arises when every one of your nobles is doing this, though. They're just shoving more of the burden onto somebody else's shoulders. Then when you ask Joe why he hasn't done shit in a month and try to prod him along, he hits back, "Well, what's Jane done?" You're merely compounding the issue. Hence my earlier call for expanding the numbers if you want atmospheric bros.
The uninspired, unavailable, and inconsequential don't need to be taking up one of the few valuable slots for that area of the game. There's a reason staff generally tags the announcement with something along the lines of, "Please be a self-starter." It's a gentle reminder of what they're seeking.
Quote from: Riev on November 22, 2016, 09:34:32 AM
I'm all for primers. You'll get more, and more quality, when there are base guidelines presented. I understand the need for a Role Call Announcement to not give away all the details, but maybe have the Call open for one week, during which anyone that "applies" or "shows interest" gets access to that Role's Primer. Then keep the application process open for the standard length of time.
+1
This, too. My second sponsored role (Tan Muark) included a ton of awesome documentation. It was an enjoyable read that helped me ease into the role, and I think I did a pretty good job afterward.
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.
Quote from: Lutagar on November 22, 2016, 01:11:44 PM
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.
Quote from: whitt on November 22, 2016, 05:07:47 PM
Quote from: Lutagar on November 22, 2016, 01:11:44 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: 650Booger on November 22, 2016, 05:57:52 PM
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.
Quote from: AthFor 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.
Quote from: Kalden on November 23, 2016, 12:48:35 AM
Quote from: AthFor 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.
Quote from: Reiloth on November 21, 2016, 05:59:07 PM
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.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on November 21, 2016, 06:13:15 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Kalden on November 23, 2016, 12:48:35 AM
Quote from: AthFor 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.
Quote from: Ath on November 23, 2016, 09:59:39 AM
Quote from: Kalden on November 23, 2016, 12:48:35 AM
Quote from: AthFor 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.
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)
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Lutagar on November 23, 2016, 12:09:49 PM
QuoteThe 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"
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.
Quote from: Jingo on November 23, 2016, 12:46:44 PM
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.
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.
First,
Quote from: LauraMars on November 23, 2016, 01:23:42 PM
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,
Quote from: Jingo on November 23, 2016, 12:46:44 PM
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.
QuoteEdit: 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.
Semi-serious:
Selected sponsor roles get a Tyranny style CYOA that determines their background.
Quote from: Jingo on November 23, 2016, 02:15:11 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on November 23, 2016, 02:27:49 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: LauraMars on November 23, 2016, 02:46:45 PM
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?".
murder, corruption, betrayal. At least 30% of this game should be you trying to kill your enemies.
Quote from: 650Booger on November 23, 2016, 03:27:45 PM
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.
Quote from: LauraMars on November 23, 2016, 02:46:45 PM
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.
Quote from: 650Booger on November 23, 2016, 03:27:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Akaramu on November 23, 2016, 03:37:59 PM
Quote from: 650Booger on November 23, 2016, 03:27:45 PM
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.
Yeah, but,
Quote from: WarriorPoet on February 27, 2009, 09:50:06 AM
I play this game to pretend to chop muthafuckaz up with bone swords.
Sorry, sorta not sorry.
Quote from: Rokal on November 23, 2016, 11:30:08 AM
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?
Quote from: Ath on November 23, 2016, 04:58:40 PM
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.
Quote from: Ath on November 23, 2016, 04:58:40 PM
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. :)
Quote from: Ath on November 23, 2016, 04:58:40 PM
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.
Quote from: Jingo on November 23, 2016, 12:46:44 PM
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.
Quote from: whitt on November 23, 2016, 05:40:19 PM
Quote from: Jingo on November 23, 2016, 12:46:44 PM
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.
Quote from: Jingo on November 23, 2016, 05:35:26 PM
Quote from: Ath on November 23, 2016, 04:58:40 PM
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.
Quote from: Barzalene on November 23, 2016, 06:05:51 PM
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.
Quote from: Barzalene on November 23, 2016, 06:05:51 PM
Quote from: Jingo on November 23, 2016, 05:35:26 PM
Quote from: Ath on November 23, 2016, 04:58:40 PM
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.
Quote from: Miradus on November 23, 2016, 06:24:01 PM
Quote from: Barzalene on November 23, 2016, 06:05:51 PM
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.
Quote from: Barzalene on November 23, 2016, 06:05:51 PM
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."
Quote from: BadSkeelz on November 23, 2016, 06:42:48 PM
Quote from: Barzalene on November 23, 2016, 06:05:51 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Ath on November 23, 2016, 04:58:40 PM
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 :D
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.
QuoteIf 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.
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.
Maybe we need a "Shit-stirrer" category of Karma.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on November 23, 2016, 07:11:51 PM
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.
Quote from: Ath on November 23, 2016, 04:58:40 PMNow 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.
The only time I think OOC intervention is needed is with certain magick guilds.
You know the ones I mean. If someone playing as one of those guilds wants you dead, you're super dead.
Basically everything else can be prevented with enough precaution and care. If you find yourself in a locked room with murderous maxxed warrior, or shot with an arrow out in the salt flats, that's just le harsh armageddon.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on November 23, 2016, 07:11:51 PM
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.
Neither does spewing rhetoric on roleplaying ethic or repeatedly demeaning other interpretations of IC conflict and its place in the game.
The game has survived and thrived with plenty of cutthroat reactions that weren't checked out of a false pretense that killing enemies is bad for the game, and will continue to do so. I like how you can reduce a post of mine about being self-reliant and using code instead of making everything a checklist to whining, but harping on people for killing other PC's somehow comes naturally as something other than an unrealistic expectation to float through the hostile game with the hostile authoritarian culture under constant power struggles unscathed.
The game chews up characters and spits them out, no exceptions, and the stories of individual characters are sometimes shorter, but the overall epic is still unending and the pursuit of contributing to the overall arc in a more meaningful way -is- the competitive 'winning' attitude that is repeatedly presented under false pretense. Everyone is looking to make their mark, not just you, but not everyone gets to unless they play the game as it is. This is not Harry Potter, this is Game of Thrones.
Quote from: Taven on November 23, 2016, 07:25:31 PM
Quote from: Ath on November 23, 2016, 04:58:40 PMNow 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.
Quoting in full because it deserves to be near the top of the page
+1billion
Quote from: Armaddict on November 23, 2016, 07:28:57 PM
Quote from: BadSkeelz on November 23, 2016, 07:11:51 PM
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.
Neither does spewing rhetoric on roleplaying ethic or repeatedly demeaning other interpretations of IC conflict and its place in the game.
The game has survived and thrived with plenty of cutthroat reactions that weren't checked out of a false pretense that killing enemies is bad for the game, and will continue to do so. I like how you can reduce a post of mine about being self-reliant and using code instead of making everything a checklist to whining, but harping on people for killing other PC's somehow comes naturally as something other than an unrealistic expectation to float through the hostile game with the hostile authoritarian culture under constant power struggles unscathed.
The game chews up characters and spits them out, no exceptions, and the stories of individual characters are sometimes shorter, but the overall epic is still unending and the pursuit of contributing to the overall arc in a more meaningful way -is- the competitive 'winning' attitude that is repeatedly presented under false pretense. Everyone is looking to make their mark, not just you, but not everyone gets to unless they play the game as it is. This is not Harry Potter, this is Game of Thrones.
#triggered
I'm all for killing PCs. But there needs to be good reason for it. And a lot of the time the reasoning boils down to "this is a potential threat to my PC." I don't think that's good enough.
Quote from: Armaddict on November 23, 2016, 07:28:57 PM
Quote from: BadSkeelz on November 23, 2016, 07:11:51 PM
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.
Neither does spewing rhetoric on roleplaying ethic or repeatedly demeaning other interpretations of IC conflict and its place in the game.
'Stop talking about sponsored roles in a thread where staff ask about sponsored roles, you bastard!'
Don't act like a forum troll. That's a response, not a trigger.
QuoteIf 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.
This is what I was getting at with staff interaction being better than punishment of the player. Well worded indeed.
QuoteStop talking about sponsored roles in a thread where staff ask about sponsored roles, you bastard!'
Except I was replying to the derail about how conflict 'should' be played in the game.
Quote from: Armaddict on November 23, 2016, 07:08:52 PM
Yay. Another thread degrading into the generic message of 'If you're killing other PCs you're killing RP.'
Killing PCs kills conflict, not roleplay. As in the aggressive tension between player characters.
As a funny illustration, I like to think of an assassin that puts himself out of work because he's too efficient. He's so good a killing that nobody wants to be his enemy. So now he just tavern sits all day. By an objective measure he might be a good assassin and he might be a good role player. But wouldn't his player rather they still had someone to work against?
Quote from: Armaddict on November 23, 2016, 07:08:52 PM
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.
Funny you bring that up. I don't view Armageddon as anything at all analogous to most fictional narrative. I don't think the decision making process people employ when playing are are the same as a book author. I think Armageddon is much closer to real life decision making. Complete with cognitive biases and the subconscious weighting of conflicting opportunities. And I'm afraid to say that I think most IC rationales for an action come into play after the decision has already been made.
I'm not actually sure what you're trying to say in the rest of your paragraph--Warning - while you were typing 9 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on November 23, 2016, 07:31:33 PM
I'm all for killing PCs.
Trust me. This man is crazy. He'll do everything he says he will.
Quote from: Armaddict on November 23, 2016, 07:33:38 PM
Don't act like a forum troll. That's a response, not a trigger.
If I actually acted like a troll I would get moderated a lot more. Instead I simply tell as I see it. Some disagree, others don't.
I think Jingo's right that thinking of Armageddon playstyles like novels is the wrong way to go about it. If Game of Thrones was written like Armageddon, Ned Stark would have been killed in a bedroom, all the kings would have sat in their base until their max assassins/magickers/staff-spawned monsters could be used with absolute chance of success, and Alistair Thorne would be on a forum bitching about how a "Sponsored role mary sue bastard got a fucking staff resurrection and has a doc-breaking giant working for him."
If instead you look at Armageddon playstyle as an extension of real world thinking, it's much easier to explain why leaders don't take risk, why so many murders happen out of sight, and the game can appear to stagnate. Just because an action is reasonable does not mean it is the funnest thing to do.
Quote from: Jingo on November 23, 2016, 07:43:36 PM
Quote from: BadSkeelz on November 23, 2016, 07:31:33 PM
I'm all for killing PCs.
Trust me. This man is crazy. He'll do everything he says he will.
At least 15 confirmed PKs, of which only 2 I regret due to them being overreactions on my part. Most were people suiciding via stupidity ("ooc: this is bullshit I have rights") or stubbornness (IC: "Respect me!!!").
QuoteFunny you bring that up. I don't view Armageddon as anything at all analogous to most fictional narrative. I don't think the decision making process people employ when playing are are the same as a book author. I think Armageddon is much closer to real life decision making. Complete with cognitive biases and the subconscious weighting of conflicting opportunities. And I'm afraid to say that I think most IC rationales for an action come into play after the decision has already been made.
I agree, but I think we were on different wavelengths. My comparison was about the way the narrative plays out in the two stories. In one, heinous things happen to main and beloved characters without remorse, in the name of another character's pursuits and glories and objectives, which I think is what you mean by more close to real life.
The impression I get whenever this topic comes up (which seems often to me) is that people just want the conflict to go on for eight Harry Potter books, and then whichever side was meaner to agree to be the loser. Assuming you mean the rest of the same paragraph, I will try again: People often accuse other players on the GDB of 'playing to win', as if they think there is a way to win the game. But I think everyone acknowledges that the game cannot be won. I -do- think that people are fighting to have their goals and objectives affect the overall story arc of the game more than someone's whose story is counter theirs, or in the way, which is where that conflict occurs. When it ends, that's not a net loss, that's a progression of a character's attempts to influence the arc.
In terms of meaningless conflict, I'm in 100% agreement. Killing just to be a badass is bad. Killing just to be top of the mountain is -usually- bad (room for exceptions). Killing just for progression of skills is bad. But I put not-killing where it makes sense into the same boat, as far as unrealistic influences in the overall story arc. I, however, am on the side where conflict is only there to be resolved, so that the next challenge can be turned to, the next segment can be progressed to, the next chapter can be told.
Just because someone is a short chapter doesn't make them a meaningless one, even to the one who ends their chapter, and sometimes that influence is just large as if they'd survived (or larger), and this is a fluid and natural way to play through the game; have the character be self-interested, as people tend to be, and react to IC events accordingly. That does not mean arguments result in death. That means perceived threats are as real as threats at the time, that means earning respect is a process dictated by decisions made along the path, and so on, and if it results in the decision you gotta die, that's not detracting from the game.
QuoteIf I actually acted like a troll I would get moderated a lot more. Instead I simply tell as I see it.
Quote#triggered
Sorry, I see no point to the latter quote aside from eliciting a negative response from the reader. You may as well as just said 'he mad', likely because once again we're arguing this topic on another unrelated thread. But I didn't like you asserting that Barzalene's disagreement must be (or was likely) because she was feeling guilty over her IC actions.
Perhaps we should take -that- topic to PM, because conflict resolution between the involved parties here has happened in several different threads now because it seems to get brought up so much. As far as the actual topic at hand, I think Taven's post is the last useful one here, and should be where we pick up.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on November 23, 2016, 07:29:14 PM
Quote from: Taven on November 23, 2016, 07:25:31 PM
Quote from: Ath on November 23, 2016, 04:58:40 PMNow 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.
Quoting in full because it deserves to be near the top of the page
+1billion
+2billion
Quote from: Delirium on November 23, 2016, 08:11:15 PM
Quote from: BadSkeelz on November 23, 2016, 07:29:14 PM
Quote from: Taven on November 23, 2016, 07:25:31 PM
Quote from: Ath on November 23, 2016, 04:58:40 PMNow 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.
Quoting in full because it deserves to be near the top of the page
+1billion
+2billion
Isn't this already what we have though?
I like the six month ruler because it does seems like a better accountability system.
I'm jumping on the "Taven's got it exactly right" bandwagon. If it IS what we have right now, I haven't seen it, not even remotely, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened at times.
Taven is exactly right in this.
But, I also don't think it hurts to have a 6 month 'check in'. Instead of it sounding like a review where you might lose your PC or have that threat lingering over a PC's head, if it was just a real-time chat upstairs. Something along the lines of:
"How is everything going?"
"Are you still having fun?"
"What can we (Staff) do to help you more efficiently?"
"This is what Staff thinks you can do to have more fun, or how we want to help you."
"Here's some critique -- Don't take it personally! We had trouble understanding Plot X, and it seems you're bummed about it. Maybe we can clear the air."
"OK, have fun!"
I mean, the fact that we only have conversations with Staff members when we've "DONE SOMETHING BAD" is sort of a scary concept. Keeping conversations light and breezy goes a long way in alleviating misconceptions.
No, I don't think I'd like a 6-month check-in. At all. Even a little. I play the game because it's a fun game. I don't want, or need, to go to the guidance counselor every six months to make sure my feelings place is still happy. I definitely don't think I'd be very happy at all, if I learned that the staff was wasting time having "happy chats" with players who - for some reason - needed someone to pat their back and say "there there, now what can we do for our widdle puddin-cheeks." I wouldn't be very happy with the playerbase for demonstrating a rather significant lack of maturity, and I wouldn't be very happy with the staff for encouraging that lack.
If I'm not happy, I'll either leave, or send a request. I've sent requests to staff "just to vent" in the past, and it was received positively. We're all big boys and girls, we don't need hand-holding. If you have a gripe, send a note. If you just need to vent, send a note. The staff will do exactly what you want them to do: acknowledge that you need to vent, affirm your validity as a human being, and let you go back to playing the game.
Quote from: Lizzie on November 23, 2016, 09:46:04 PM
No, I don't think I'd like a 6-month check-in. At all. Even a little. I play the game because it's a fun game. I don't want, or need, to go to the guidance counselor every six months to make sure my feelings place is still happy. I definitely don't think I'd be very happy at all, if I learned that the staff was wasting time having "happy chats" with players who - for some reason - needed someone to pat their back and say "there there, now what can we do for our widdle puddin-cheeks." I wouldn't be very happy with the playerbase for demonstrating a rather significant lack of maturity, and I wouldn't be very happy with the staff for encouraging that lack.
If I'm not happy, I'll either leave, or send a request. I've sent requests to staff "just to vent" in the past, and it was received positively. We're all big boys and girls, we don't need hand-holding. If you have a gripe, send a note. If you just need to vent, send a note. The staff will do exactly what you want them to do: acknowledge that you need to vent, affirm your validity as a human being, and let you go back to playing the game.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I guess you're the peachy always speaking everything that comes to your mind all the time kind of person?
Most of the time when people don't have an outlet to have a discussion, they keep it to themselves. If they do have an outlet for discussion, they can figure some things out. We were talking about people stagnating in roles -- Not your feelings about, err...Talking about your feelings, I guess.
Checking in with people is the most logical way to figure out if the role is working out. Sticking your head in the sand is the best way to have someone stagnating in a role and being unable to figure out 'why they aren't doing it good'.
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.
I think you're swell, Lizzie, but this conversation is being opened for a reason. Not everyone has big-boy pants, depending on who's been offended in the past, player-side and staff-side alike. The conversation here is how to improve the experience of sponsored roles, their enemies, and their minions, not to see who has the biggest pants. It wouldn't come up if there wasn't a need. If your pants are in outstanding shape, that's great! But also, seemingly, exceptional.
Agreed Dunetrader. The thread is to see how sponsored roles can be improved. I don't think they can be improved by being taken out of the game, into an OOC area once every 6 months, for an OOC conversation about how I'm doing in my role. If it gets to 6 months and there hasn't already been enough communication for staff to know how things are going, then the communication experience has already failed.
Again - it is up to the players to communicate to staff if there is something lacking in their role. And that shouldn't happen "once every 6 months." It should happen when the player is experiencing something lacking.
Quote from: Reiloth on November 23, 2016, 09:35:04 PM
But, I also don't think it hurts to have a 6 month 'check in'. Instead of it sounding like a review where you might lose your PC or have that threat lingering over a PC's head, if it was just a real-time chat upstairs.
Quote from: Reiloth on November 23, 2016, 09:48:02 PM
Checking in with people is the most logical way to figure out if the role is working out. Sticking your head in the sand is the best way to have someone stagnating in a role and being unable to figure out 'why they aren't doing it good'.
If it's not about potentially losing your PC, and about staff checking in to make sure that you're still involved in the role, that's something I could get behind... Provided two things happen.
Both staff and players are polite and approach it courteously.I think both staff and players get daunted by the idea of talking to the other side because they're worried about getting insulted or yelled at. That sort of environment makes everything just feel bad, and I think rudeness happens too often on both sides of the aisle. I'd personally be open to staff and players having guidelines for how to be more polite to each other, although that's a different conversation entirely. Text is a hard medium to communicate effectively in when things are emotional.
Edited to add: I would see the six-month review as something additional to IC accountability, not in lieu of it.
Quote from: Taven on November 23, 2016, 10:01:08 PM
Quote from: Reiloth on November 23, 2016, 09:35:04 PM
But, I also don't think it hurts to have a 6 month 'check in'. Instead of it sounding like a review where you might lose your PC or have that threat lingering over a PC's head, if it was just a real-time chat upstairs.
Quote from: Reiloth on November 23, 2016, 09:48:02 PM
Checking in with people is the most logical way to figure out if the role is working out. Sticking your head in the sand is the best way to have someone stagnating in a role and being unable to figure out 'why they aren't doing it good'.
If it's not about potentially losing your PC, and about staff checking in to make sure that you're still involved in the role, that's something I could get behind... Provided two things happen. Both staff and players are polite and approach it courteously.
I think both staff and players get daunted by the idea of talking to the other side because they're worried about getting insulted or yelled at. That sort of environment makes everything just feel bad, and I think rudeness happens too often on both sides of the aisle. I'd personally be open to staff and players having guidelines for how to be more polite to each other, although that's a different conversation entirely. Text is a hard medium to communicate effectively in when things are emotional.
If it's potentially about losing a PC, or the staff getting an indication that you're no longer involved in your role, then it shouldn't happen at some arbitrarily determined time period. It should happen - when the PC's existence is at risk, or when the staff realize that the player might not be involved any longer. The whole once every 6 months? If it takes them 6 months for them to discover that I'm not involved with my PC anymore, then neither of us have been doing our jobs.
If I'm having trouble getting into my character, I might give it a week. Or two weeks. Maybe even three weeks, or if it's a particularly involved role, a month. At that point - if I'm still having trouble, the staff will get a note from me asking for help/advice/encouragement. The staff is pretty awesome with giving help/advice/encouragement to sponsored role players who are having trouble adjusting or going through a lull.
But if there is no lull, and there are no requests from players, or complaints from other players, or *specific* concerns that need to be addressed, then there's really no reason for the staff to just decide that it's been 6 months so it's time for a chat. Even if there is a lull, and there are requests, and there are specific concerns - you don't wait til the 6 month mark to address it. You address it when/as needed.
Quote from: Jingo on November 23, 2016, 05:35:26 PM
Quote from: Ath on November 23, 2016, 04:58:40 PM
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.
As much as I love taking crazy risks and seeing where it brings me, I agree with this a lot - see, in order for people to want to take risk ,there needs to be a real big reward for it to work.
Any staffer looking at my character list would see a lot of dead. Thats because I took risks.
Losing a character on this game can be losing weeks, or even months of time investment, and that alone makes people hesitant to take risks.
IMO, if there was a way that staff were able to spot these risk takers, see whats going on, i think it'd be rather cool.
Someone who takes a huge risk and dies in the process but creates a ton of RP for others involved should definetly be acknowledged, imo.
EDIT: Deleted because rambling and emotional, not worth anyone's time, but not bad. Agree with Taven is an apt summary.
Quote from: Lizzie on November 23, 2016, 10:17:15 PM
Quote from: Taven on November 23, 2016, 10:01:08 PM
Quote from: Reiloth on November 23, 2016, 09:35:04 PM
But, I also don't think it hurts to have a 6 month 'check in'. Instead of it sounding like a review where you might lose your PC or have that threat lingering over a PC's head, if it was just a real-time chat upstairs.
Quote from: Reiloth on November 23, 2016, 09:48:02 PM
Checking in with people is the most logical way to figure out if the role is working out. Sticking your head in the sand is the best way to have someone stagnating in a role and being unable to figure out 'why they aren't doing it good'.
If it's not about potentially losing your PC, and about staff checking in to make sure that you're still involved in the role, that's something I could get behind... Provided two things happen. Both staff and players are polite and approach it courteously.
I think both staff and players get daunted by the idea of talking to the other side because they're worried about getting insulted or yelled at. That sort of environment makes everything just feel bad, and I think rudeness happens too often on both sides of the aisle. I'd personally be open to staff and players having guidelines for how to be more polite to each other, although that's a different conversation entirely. Text is a hard medium to communicate effectively in when things are emotional.
If it's potentially about losing a PC, or the staff getting an indication that you're no longer involved in your role, then it shouldn't happen at some arbitrarily determined time period. It should happen - when the PC's existence is at risk, or when the staff realize that the player might not be involved any longer. The whole once every 6 months? If it takes them 6 months for them to discover that I'm not involved with my PC anymore, then neither of us have been doing our jobs.
If I'm having trouble getting into my character, I might give it a week. Or two weeks. Maybe even three weeks, or if it's a particularly involved role, a month. At that point - if I'm still having trouble, the staff will get a note from me asking for help/advice/encouragement. The staff is pretty awesome with giving help/advice/encouragement to sponsored role players who are having trouble adjusting or going through a lull.
But if there is no lull, and there are no requests from players, or complaints from other players, or *specific* concerns that need to be addressed, then there's really no reason for the staff to just decide that it's been 6 months so it's time for a chat. Even if there is a lull, and there are requests, and there are specific concerns - you don't wait til the 6 month mark to address it. You address it when/as needed.
Staff aren't mind readers, and you're right -- They aren't there to hold your hand. Some people aren't as forthcoming as you (or overly so) because they're either too busy, or don't care enough to write a long-winded request in monologue format. A conversation, a live back and forth, can go a long way in clearing up misconceptions and not creating new ones.
I imagine Staff is busy enough keeping the ship afloat and steering in a good direction. The easier it can be (and more streamlined) to keep sponsored roles active and fun, the better. Relying on Players to send in requests if they have a problem -- Color me crazy, I doubt that happens often. They probably just stew and do their shit the way they want to do it until someone calls them on it. As you said, it's a game. Most of the time you don't want to rock the boat, let bygones be bygones, and not make a hurricane out of a rainstorm. If you bring up every issue as you perceive it every time you perceive it, I think you make unnecessary paperwork and also just...A confusing amount of need for clarification.
When there's a big enough problem, sure. I'd expect Staff to bring it up with me, or me to bring it up with them. But most of the time, you might just let it slide. It might be a nice thing to mention in a conversation, but not in a diatribe.
I'm glad you speak your mind often and loudly Lizzie (I do too). But i'm trying to address the malaise that Ath is identifying in Sponsored Leaders, and how it might be alleviated. It's great that you speak your mind often and loudly -- Many people don't.
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.
Quote from: Hauwke on November 23, 2016, 10:54:12 PM
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?
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.
Let me clarify myself then Riev:
No one brought up the fact I was a improvising the shit out of every second on play.
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.
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.
Quote from: AthIf 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.
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?
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.
Quote from: Ath on November 23, 2016, 04:58:40 PM
Quote from: Rokal on November 23, 2016, 11:30:08 AM
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.
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.
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.
Two points:
1. Performance Reviews/Interviews.
Quote from: Nergal on November 21, 2016, 05:41:33 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Raptor_Dan on November 24, 2016, 04:31:41 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Delirium on November 24, 2016, 08:40:49 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: SuchDragonWow on November 24, 2016, 02:37:14 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: nauta on November 24, 2016, 07:37:44 AM
Two points:
1. Performance Reviews/Interviews.
Quote from: Nergal on November 21, 2016, 05:41:33 PM
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.
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.
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.
QuoteWe 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.
Quote from: Armaddict on November 24, 2016, 12:36:25 PM
QuoteWe 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.
This is very important and bears repeating.
Communicating effectively via e-mail (request tool) is actually more difficult than it might seem. Miscommunication is going to be rampant. Players expecting more information are left hanging. Players and staff will poorly articulate their points of view, their struggles and what they want to see. This is all actually very common among organizations that communicate solely via e-mail. And no surprise that staff and players are having similar problems.
Using a better method of communication can help quite a bit when it comes to two parties understanding one another. You might have heard that words used only accounts for 7% of communication (7% is a myth, it's probably 40-50%). Being able to communicate via tone, word spacing, verbal non-verbage manner and body language will improve what you want to convey.
Face-to-Face>Skype>Voice/Text Chatroom>E-mail
The more important the communication, the better the method you'll want to employ. Only assholes breakup with you via text. But somehow we think that getting disciplined via e-mail is a good idea.
So I would highly recommend staff get on board with some sort of voice-chat program that will make important communications like disciplinary processes easier.
Eh, I see no loss from a staff chat with a powerful player. Hell, they probably do it via AIM all the time. Formalizing the process is likely the least of our worries. Using voice chat, however, would potentially ruin the image of authority, and the party on the other end may sound either like a snivveling turd. or a snivelling turd with power, best to stick to text. imo. I, myself, want this game to succeed, I do not commend certain ideas with any pre-existing concept of "winning"... but as a game, we are "losing", and we need to own that and overcome it. Staff has communicated that sometimes there's a problem with sponsored roles, and tapped us, the players, those mostly affected, for ideas. To bury your head in the sand and pretend there is no problem is to deny this.
... but voice does help some things, it may not be open to all all the time... actually hearing a person does provide an angle of perception that would otherwise be unavailable... though it shouldn't be a requirement, neither I, nor others, can get the bandwidth needed to perform this sort of thing like clockwork.
Quote from: Nergal on November 24, 2016, 12:19:11 PM
We do want to have casual discussion with players when things could be better. That can be player-initiated or staff-initiated.
This is a good approach, and in my experience, it does happen when it's needed. Whether it's a helpful nudge or a kick in the pants, the conversation should happen when the need arises.
Quote from: Nergal on November 24, 2016, 12:19:11 PM
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.
Puff it or pass it, I agree. This is a scenario where the player in question could be asked if they're feeling burned out or uninspired, and steps can be taken to alleviate the problem, or work out a more permanent solution.
Quote from: Dunetrade55 on November 24, 2016, 01:41:58 PM
Eh, I see no loss from a staff chat with a powerful player. Hell, they probably do it via AIM all the time. Formalizing the process is likely the least of our worries. Using voice chat, however, would potentially ruin the image of authority, and the party on the other end may sound either like a snivveling turd. or a snivelling turd with power, best to stick to text. imo. I, myself, want this game to succeed, I do not commend certain ideas with any pre-existing concept of "winning"... but as a game, we are "losing", and we need to own that and overcome it. Staff has communicated that sometimes there's a problem with sponsored roles, and tapped us, the players, those mostly affected, for ideas. To bury your head in the sand and pretend there is no problem is to deny this.
... but voice does help some things, it may not be open to all all the time... actually hearing a person does provide an angle of perception that would otherwise be unavailable... though it shouldn't be a requirement, neither I, nor others, can get the bandwidth needed to perform this sort of thing like clockwork.
This is true. But do staff want to maintain authority based on good administration or based on maintaining an illusive distance from players?
Quote from: Jingo on November 24, 2016, 01:47:50 PM
Quote from: Dunetrade55 on November 24, 2016, 01:41:58 PM
Eh, I see no loss from a staff chat with a powerful player. Hell, they probably do it via AIM all the time. Formalizing the process is likely the least of our worries. Using voice chat, however, would potentially ruin the image of authority, and the party on the other end may sound either like a snivveling turd. or a snivelling turd with power, best to stick to text. imo. I, myself, want this game to succeed, I do not commend certain ideas with any pre-existing concept of "winning"... but as a game, we are "losing", and we need to own that and overcome it. Staff has communicated that sometimes there's a problem with sponsored roles, and tapped us, the players, those mostly affected, for ideas. To bury your head in the sand and pretend there is no problem is to deny this.
... but voice does help some things, it may not be open to all all the time... actually hearing a person does provide an angle of perception that would otherwise be unavailable... though it shouldn't be a requirement, neither I, nor others, can get the bandwidth needed to perform this sort of thing like clockwork.
This is true. But do staff want to maintain authority based on good administration or based on maintaining an illusive distance from players?
What's to say they can't do both? I'd personally hope for the former, as of now they seem quite distant, unapproachable, and you don't wish up unless you want grief to rain down on you without end. Want to build a fortress? Good news, it's approved except FIRE KANKS! and such. I send in a request, I can gaurante you, almost, it will be met with the maximum level of hostility. I don't care, I'm just trying to play the game, have fun with your sponsored roles, favored players, but honestly, you must be doing something wrong here. I don't send in requests, I just do what I feel is appropriate to my character at the time. Tell me, do you ever send in a report for a big RPT and see everyone, ever, fucked from some game mechanic that is innaccessible to the PCs involved? Ever just straight up cut down for no goddamn discernable reason? Well, jimmies might be rustled but you settle for it because that's how it's always been.
I'm just gonna do what I do with the knowledge that I might be killed or stored on any given day, and have fun while it lasts.
As far as deviating from docs occasionally, can an artist work within any medium without changing it?
Clan wipe clan wipe clan wipe... after a while, you just want to be left alone with your little plots. Such things give little trust in staff, or the clans they're over. It makes a character ask themselves, "I want to live, with such a track record, how would this even be a sane decision?"... realistically, they'd avoid such like the plague. Glory? Well, leave that for better people, just trying to get by here, got no time for that, or dying as regularly as they do. I think one of the primary rules is we don't allow our PCs to act so suicidal that other PCs wonder how they lived to that age.
If more people are dying than breeding, I'd like to see that represented in the gameworld. Echoes of empty taverns and streets, no more "WATER FOR MY BABY!?" outside the old arboretum, just, empty streets and strong winds, to reinforce the going trend.
Here's what I think about things:
- Increase the amount of IC reaction from superiors, I already outlined (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,51958.msg969116.html#msg969116)
- Increase the amount of staff/player discussions (either scheduled or not)
- Consider ways to increase the accessibility and interaction of staff/player discussions
I've already outlined my views on IC reactions, and a little bit on OOC communication. I'll expand on the latter some more in this post.
I think that increasing OOC communication between staff and players is also important. I don't really care if it takes the form of a periodically scheduled review, or the occasional more in-depth check in in response to noticing players wavering in interest or enthusiasm, but I think it would be beneficial to have it in some form. (Note that I
absolutely do not agree with setting sponsored role term limits)
However, there's a pretty big caveat to that, as I've already mentioned. A lot of times talking to staff can be extremely intimidating. Text is an imperfect medium, and if staff responses come across as aggressive or angry, it can make a player highly discouraged. It can make that player feel completely not valued and like they're wasting all of their time.
If we were to increase that conversation, I think it's very important that we look at better ways to communicate with each other.
What do I mean by that? I mean ways that make sure both sides are open, polite, and can have a full discussion, rather then feeling abused on either side of the fence.
I think that the suggestion of having a more immediate text chat method, rather then request responses back and forth, could really help. I think it would make players and/or staff seem less like a block of text, and more like people. It would also be immensely useful in clarifying expectations on both sides of the aisle, and making everybody more effective.
I've played one sponsored role, it was my 3rd PC. It was such an unhappy experience I shy away from the thought of ever playing another. I enjoyed the clan and the in-game play, but I spent most my time feeling utterly confused about what staff expected of me because, despite busting my butt to keep the clan engaged and active, every time I turned around I was in trouble and being threatened and insulted. No matter what I did, I couldn't seem to make that stop. Staff was as frustrated as me, I'm sure.
Looking back, now that I am more familiar with the game, I can see more of what they expected of me. I would like to make a few suggestions, since you asked :)
1. Assume players are doing the best they can. Maybe they don't understand what you want. So talk to them without accusations and threats. Most folks want to do a good job for a good boss. They just have to understand what you need.
2. I think the main job of a leader role is to provide fun for the players of the PCs in the clan. Things for them to do, ways for them to progress. If you have someone in a sponsored leader role that isn't trying to do that, then you have to help them fix it or you will see the clan empty. If for some reason it can't be fixed, you have to store them. But it doesn't have to be a terrible experience for the player if both sides have been talking honestly and respectfully with each other all along about expectations.
3. Anyone who has done it knows how exhausting leadership roles can be if you throw yourself into it. Staffing is exhausting too. Staffing is a sacrifice, it's all about making a game fun for others, but you can't do it all by yourself. Leadership roles are like Staff Lite - you're allowed to have some fun for yourself too, but mostly you're still about making it so your clan players can play their PCs around you. If the sponsored leader is burning out and no longer able to feed into the energy of the clan, it's pretty natural. But they have to go unless you can put another leader in beside them to take up the slack. Again, it doesn't have to be a terrible experience - their time and efforts are appreciated and valued.
(It's been a long time since I had that horrible experience and maybe it doesn't happen anymore. But it's all I have to go on.)
EDIT: Don't want to out who you played, Refugee, I just considered that, it was amazing, and thanks for an experience that really hooked a newb.
Quote from: Dunetrade55 on November 24, 2016, 06:29:44 PM
EDIT: Don't want to out who you played, Refugee, I just considered that, it was amazing, and thanks for an experience that really hooked a newb.
Thank you very much!
Refugee, I hope you mean you were threatened and insulted in-game.
Quote from: Malken on November 24, 2016, 07:42:38 PM
Refugee, I hope you mean you were threatened and insulted in-game.
No, sorry I wasn't clear. That would've been fine. I do a lot of that myself! But no, sadly, it was how my staff at the time chose to handle things. I don't really want to open that can of worms, but I just wanted to point out that when staff is unhappy with a sponsored PC, /how/ it is addressed is very important. A sponsored PC's player is a volunteer too, trying to help staff get a job done, and is to be valued!
I'm a little late to this party because I don't read this forum often, but this is a topic near and dear to my heart so I hope no one minds the late input.
What do I expect from sponsored roles? I expect the characters to, at the very least, follow the rules of the world, their clan, and make the game more fun for other people.
I expect for sponsored roles to not actively work against the interests of their clan. Do we all fuck up sometimes and hurt our clan? Sure. But no one in a sponsored role should be doing it on purpose.
I cannot express how much I dislike sponsored roles that go against clan docs. You have been raised as an X your entire life. If it is entirely anthemic to your existence as an X, then you shouldn't do it. If it actively hurts X clan, there should be serious and harsh repercussions. It often seems as if there are more special snowflake role apps who are clearly outside of clan docs than otherwise. But how does that actually support the role or clan?
I LOVE the idea of actual interviews for sponsored roles.
I LOVE the idea of ooc guidelines for each position as well as clan docs to follow. Including things like having consistent playtimes and the necessity of engaging with other PCs.
I LOVE the idea of a role review 1-3 months into a sponsored role and every six months after that.
I LOVE the idea of people that aren't actively enhancing the game or their clan being given a chance to shape up or stored.
I understand that real life happens to people and that our time availability can change dramatically without warning. And I think after some set amount of time that the player should step away from a sponsored role in that case. Not because they are necessarily doing a bad job, or because they're a less than stellar player, but because they are holding a place that someone else could be in that is more available. It's not a criticism of that player as much as a recognition that sponsored roles need more time devoted to them than their life currently allows.
To address the earlier point of the sponsored PC that becomes a tavern sitter? I think it's fine for a few weeks, but after that it's time to put your RP pants back on or store. You can 100% be a tavern sitter on a non-sponsored PC and have just as much fun. There is no reason to bog down a clan if you're running on empty. Accept that you e lost your mojo for the role and let someone else have a try.
Staff:
I love when communication is two ways instead of one. I like hearing that all of my ideas are good, but I'd like to hear when they're shit, too. I don't expect everything to be fantastic and if I came handle being told no, or that I'm wrong (particularly if done respectfully), then there's a bigger problem. Staff NEED to say no more often.
Leader Players:
Stop going on huge power trips and killing people for the dumbest things. The hardest part about playing a sponsored role is that so many players OOCly fear and avoid sponsored role because they so often exercise their power in ways that undermine good RP. Kill people, torture them, ruin them, sure. But do it well and exercise OOC restraint. It's far more enjoyable to play through the mess than it is to just kill them before anything really fun happens.
Non-Leader Players:
Give new leaders a chance, even if you got totally boned by past nobles/templars/crew leaders/tribal leaders/etc. Yes, it can be intimidating to give up total control of your PC, but that's also a place where a lot of RP magic happens.
I apologize if this post is a bit rambling and long. It's been a hell of a long day (if a very good one!) and I'm on my phone.
Also, I think everyone should read what LauraMars wrote at least 5 more times. It is an exceptionally articulate and accurate post IMHO. I could not agree with her more.
I'll play the devil's advocate here ...
What's WRONG with a sponsored role playing against the documentation if IC consequences for that behavior exist?
If the Head of House Gibblestump wants to suddenly start gathering in rogue gicks to build an army and challenge Tektolnes, and they do it in a proper IC and roleplayed way, why would you want to stomp all over that? It's roleplay. It's a plot. It probably won't succeed, but I bet most people involved would have fun right up to the Mantis head.
There's nothing worse than a game so mired in setting that no change ever happens. You can't take those docs and pour concrete over them or you get what you've got ... people who are generally unsatisfied with plots (as evidenced by the poll also posted recently) would probably like to see a little change.
Frankly, I don't think it's the staff that's doing that. I think it's a small subset of players who want to play the same game they played in 2003 and whose in-game time largely comprises speedwalking to and from their apartments and sitting in the bar making flowery emotes at each other.
I'd like to see less chat-room in my Armageddon and more chances to change the world. Sponsored roles seem a pretty good place to do that and if the person is going to roleplay that well, involve plenty of other people, and communicate their intent fully to staff then I don't think they should get hammered for it.
Sponsored roles exist (in part) to be examples of the documentation. The documentation gives plenty of room for change and creativity in other areas, and even in itself. I've said this in the thread before, but we don't want to stomp all over documentation breaches. We want to express to the player that they are breaching the documentation (in case they don't realize it) and then respond ICly (if they do realize it).
People are confusing DOCUMENTATION and CHARACTER (somewhat understandably, because there is a lack of education on this subject). Documentation has almost nothing to do with character. The only thing documentation is is guidelines. There are two sets of guidelines that EVERY character has to operate within - IC Documentation and OOC Documentation.
CHARACTER: Personality, habits, quirks, thoughts, moods, feelings, preferences.
IC DOCUMENTATION: The culture within which the character operates.
OOC DOCUMENTATION: The rules and guidelines and goals of the game.
- Examples of a character: I'm a member of the Kadian family in charge of overseeing the crafting hall. I spend a lot of time furiously journaling in cavilish about what buttheads my family all are. I'm going to discredit and steal the job of my half sister Jane because I'd rather work in sales. I have a habit of rubbing a worry stone when I'm stressed, I like the color orange, and don't tell anyone but I have a shrine to an obscure tribal god in my closet because I met a tribal once on a trading mission and thought their belief system was really inspiring. I've developed a friendship with two nobles, one of whom I regularly fantasize about in a sexual way. When my employees screw up, I lose my temper to an irrational degree. On my days off, I think about eating babies. I know it's weird (maybe?), but damn. They seem so tender. Maybe stewed with lavender and joylilt. I probably shouldn't want to eat one. But one of these days I'm going to do it. I'm going to eat a baby. Love, Joe Kadius.
- Examples of that character within the IC documentation: Dear diary, my family is rich, templars are corrupt, and spice is illegal in Allanak. These things I will never question, as they are truths that permeate my entire culture! Another day in the life. Love, Joe Kadius.
- Examples of that character within the OOC documentation: Joe is furiously ambitious within his company and would happily climb up a mountain of corpses to get to the top spot (something I know will never happen, so his ambition is more of a conflict generator than an actual OOC goal of mine). His fits of temper are intense and should be interesting for outsiders to observe. His quirky fascination with tribal culture is an obnoxious affectation of the very rich, yet will allow Joe to meet more people. Players may enjoy hating Joe. When he eats the baby, it will generate plots that may lead to his death. I'm ok with that.
That's an important distinction.
I suppose I've seen the ooc documentation described as cultural norms too long.
Because good stories happen when people break cultural norms.
I don't disagree with that. I think the problem becomes that when everyone breaks clan docs because they want to be different, it makes clan docs meaningless because no one follows them. Sponsored roles specifically are meant to reinforce the rules of the world and create fun for other players. Discounting the possibility that fun can be had within cultural norms is both sad and incorrect.
I personally don't care if you want to have a fopish Oash, a Fale who doesn't drink or smoke, a tribal who doesn't like to barter, or a Kadian who dislikes silk or the color purple. But I do think that, for sponsored roles, there are some cultural rules that should never be broken.
Nobles should not knowingly love or kank breeds, gicks, or sharps. It goes against everything they have ever learned and value.
A sponsored role should not be actively involved in working against their clan (for example, a Salarri should not be giving clan-secret armor or weapon secrets to Kurac or indies). If you want to play a GMH spy, play a GMH spy. But that's not the role of a sponsored role. That's the role that you start from the ground up and develop for yourself.
Can't work against the clan? Seems contrary to our tag line.
I think what she means is that you shouldn't go into your Templar role with the agenda to take down Tektolnes and turn Allanak into a fair democracy. Zenith's argument seems to be that you can certainly despise other Templars and actively seek their destruction, but trying to overthrow Tektolnes isn't really what the role is for.
My opinion is that while I agree you (probably) shouldn't start your sponsored role out that way, if your character, by the natural evolution of IC events, ends up wanting to Overthrow Tektolnes then I think that should be fine to pursue. At that point you've become a threat to the system, need to be dealt with, and your inevitable death will serve to reinforce cultural norms anyway. Other players can have a good time taking you out or watching your execution or whatever staff decides to do.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on November 25, 2016, 02:12:52 PM
Can't work against the clan? Seems contrary to our tag line.
It's also a little open to interpretation. Define "working against the clan" versus simply "you suck at being good at your job."
As someone who enjoys creative works, I would say that if your documentation is constantly being bumped up against then you need to either A) loosen the documentation or, B) run the character as a vNPC or staff avatar.
I hope this is a fruitful conversation for those who actually matter and not just being perceived as player bitching. I've never played a sponsored role and I'm not entirely sure I've ever even encountered a sponsored role in-game. I certainly don't have any grounds to say that they're being played well or not well. But I like discussing it.
Quote from: Zenith on November 25, 2016, 02:05:05 PM
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.
Actively working against your clan:
A GMH merchant is speading information of treasonous activities of their own clan to anyone who will listen, leading to certain harm of the clan as a whole.
Sucking at your job:
A GMH merchant has been working on a contract with another GMH or a noble house that should bring in fantastic benefit to their clan. Upon execution you realize that the other PC played you and you have solidly lost a major benefit/amount of money/etc that COULD have benefited your clan.
No one will be perfect 100% of the time. It's fine to fail. But at least start out with the idea of improving your clan. If you are a sponsored Kadian, you (as your PC) were presumably picked for public life because you could be of some benefit to the clan.
You can play an absolutely abhorrent PC who is active in trying to further the interests of the clan. It's been done wonderfully that I've seen and I'm certain many more times besides.
And yes, LauraMars is correct that I meant no sponsored role should begin that way. If RP takes you there over time, go for it. But it shouldn't be your first instinct and you should expect to die horribly for betraying the clan you're leading.
Quote from: Lutagar on November 25, 2016, 02:36:37 PM
Quote from: Zenith on November 25, 2016, 02:05:05 PM
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.
Quote from: Zenith on November 25, 2016, 02:56:33 PM
Quote from: Lutagar on November 25, 2016, 02:36:37 PM
Quote from: Zenith on November 25, 2016, 02:05:05 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Taven on November 23, 2016, 07:25:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Lizzie on November 23, 2016, 09:55:19 PM
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.
Quote from: SuchDragonWow on November 24, 2016, 02:37:14 AM
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.
Quote from: John on November 24, 2016, 03:17:39 AM
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.
What about the Atrium? I think a switch each six months might not be a good idea.
Quote from: Barsook on November 25, 2016, 03:40:22 PM
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?
No, switching the players who play the sponsored role of the Host/Hostess for freshness.
Quote from: Zenith on November 25, 2016, 02:56:33 PM
Quote from: Lutagar on November 25, 2016, 02:36:37 PM
Quote from: Zenith on November 25, 2016, 02:05:05 PM
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)_/¯
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.
Quote from: Dunetrade55 on November 25, 2016, 04:18:36 PM
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.
Quote from: Lutagar on November 25, 2016, 03:51:30 PM
Quote from: Zenith on November 25, 2016, 02:56:33 PM
Quote from: Lutagar on November 25, 2016, 02:36:37 PM
Quote from: Zenith on November 25, 2016, 02:05:05 PM
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.
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'.
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
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.
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.
Quote from: LauraMars on November 25, 2016, 05:38:58 PMThink like writers, not rule lawyers.
What I wanted to say, but failed to do so.
Everything LauraMars said. Also, make catgirls great again.
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.
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!
Quote from: Raptor_Dan on November 25, 2016, 06:17:57 PM
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.
Race: Catgirl
Notes:
Elven agility
Mul rage
Probably magicker
weird emotional echo table
Severely damaged wisdom
Claws instead of fists
Bonus to climb
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.
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.
Laura makes an excellent point (this being my understanding of it): instances of a sponsored role 'not adhering to documentation' can be made into entertaining, conflict-rich examples of the documentation in effect (that may or may not end up with the sponsored role 'losing').
There are several parties involved and they're all responsible for different parts of the equation:
The catalyst: the sponsored role who wants to play counter to documentation.
Their responsibilities:
- understand they are playing counter to documentation
"My noble is having sexual relations with this elf/gemmed/mutant PC. I'm aware that this is abnormal and that my noble would be concerned and secretive about this, and would have a powerful internal response to it."
- develop and present this exceptional aspect of their character in a compelling, coherent way to other players and staff
"I need to render this relationship to anyone participating in or watching the scene, such that they understand it's an exceptional circumstance, and such that my character's unique motives and emotions are informing my RP."
- accept that there may be an IC backlash, and be willing to accept the consequences.
"If my noble gets caught having sex with this elf/gemmed/mutant, I understand that they may be killed, or the House may ensure they can't damage the family's reputation anymore (storage). I accept that staff may have to inflict these consequences on my PC."
or
"I didn't think I was going against documentation, but staff contacted me and we had a discussion about how
this behavior was an example of it. I have to accept that I won't get to play out this storyline exactly how I imagined it before. The virtual world will have a response to it if I continue and I'm discovered."
- remember that you signed up to play the embodiment of an example. When you signed up to play Lord Tor, you signed up to represent documented aspects of House Tor to the game and playerbase. If you didn't mention <documentation-breaking behavior> in your approved application, are you upholding your end of the bargain if the behavior prevents your character from being that example?
Sometimes, maybe it won't. Sometimes, maybe it will. All I'm saying is, honestly ask yourself that question before you proceed.
- give staff the benefit of the doubt, that they're trying to administrate the game in good faith for everyone's benefit
Staff:
- give the player the benefit of the doubt, that they're trying to play the game and their role in good faith
- clearly communicate to the player that their choice is counter to documentation, and that it will have IC consequences if discovered
"Hey, player, we noticed that your noble PC has been having sexual relations with a elf/gemmed/mutant character. <discussion in which both parties talk about the documentation and how this situation relates>"
- once it's determined that the player understands how their choice fits into the documentation, allow the player to make their choice, and then apply a virtual response appropriate for the situation, in a compelling and coherent way
"This player has been informed about the consequences of their noble PC having sexual relations with a elf/gemmed/mutant character. They continued to do it, and were discovered. The House has learned of the sexual relations through IC means.
<staff executes a plot for the players involved, during which the virtual world asserts itself, perhaps to their peril>
Other players, especially those directly involved with the catalyst sponsored role:
- give the player the benefit of the doubt, that they're trying to play the game and their role in good faith
- give staff the benefit of the doubt, that they're trying to administrate the game in good faith for everyone's benefit
- react appropriately for your character, who is likely following documentation on the issue at hand
- be willing to weather the storm of consequences of the sponsored role's choices; if you're standing too close to them, you might get hurt.
If all of the above are followed, nobody feels shafted, and an engaging story has a good chance to result.
However, a caveat: consider how it could become tiresome if every other noble had sex with elf/gemmed/mutant characters, even if all the above were followed in each instance. The dramatic oomph is lessened. It becomes the Same Old Thing.
Further, if there are enough challenges to documentation, it eventually becomes unrepresentative of the game we're playing. This is usually a bad thing. The documentation is our setting.
When you're making the choice to be the exception to documentation, try to ensure it's going to increase the fun of yourself and those around you, and improve the game and our shared story. Which is not to say don't do it; just think about it, and think about how you're going to do it, before you do it.
To be honest when I played a sponsored role I got a lot of positive feedback, until I fucked up somewhere. I think they do, these days, provide a lot of positive reinforcement and encouragement, although, all I have is a single experience.
Quote from: Dunetrade55 on November 25, 2016, 07:25:46 PM
To be honest when I played a sponsored role I got a lot of positive feedback, until I fucked up somewhere. I think they do, these days, provide a lot of positive reinforcement and encouragement, although, all I have is a single experience.
Hmmm. My last sponsored role was like... in 2011 / 2012 or something. If this is more common now, awesome. 8)
Quote from: Akaramu on November 25, 2016, 07:30:29 PM
Quote from: Dunetrade55 on November 25, 2016, 07:25:46 PM
To be honest when I played a sponsored role I got a lot of positive feedback, until I fucked up somewhere. I think they do, these days, provide a lot of positive reinforcement and encouragement, although, all I have is a single experience.
Hmmm. My last sponsored role was like... in 2011 / 2012 or something. If this is more common now, awesome. 8)
It was a totally great experience, the only problem is I'm a royal shit. You should try it again, staff are very different these days to how I remember them.
I know this may be sort of derailing to the topic at hand. If the Armageddon TeamSpeak is still up, and if the player and staff member in question have access to it, some sort of private chatroom could be made for a one on one chat on where said character should go. That way, instead of having to go through several stages of requests/notes/replies (A lot of stuff can get in the way regarding when those sorts of things can come in, and how soon), it could all be handled with a lot more ease and with better communication.
Just my two 'sids.
For what it's worth, we've been pulling people up to talk with them one-on-one in a staff room about various things and we've had a lot of success with situations that would have otherwise had mixed results with just the the request tool. We definitely get the need for a more personal touch and things are swinging that way when it comes to certain things.
Real-time chat in-game, yes, real-time chat out of game, no, video chat, no. Too many opportunities for weirdness with the latter two, not to mention I personally hate video chat (hearing impaired).
That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it.
Yeah, in-game real-time chat is as far as I'd be willing to go as well.
I don't want to have to communicate with any of you outside of the game.
this is a CRAZY suggestion, but maybe staff could just try to accommodate whatever method of communication both parties are the most comfortable with
(in other words, I don't think anyone is going to be forcing players to skype against their will, guys)
If staff are concerned about weirdness such as 'breeds/gemmers and nobles having sex' - well, it seems like the game-world itself doesn't promote the discrimination as acutely as it could. So trying to enforce it through the sponsored roles might not be the lowest-hanging fruit.
For example, in Allanak, there is only one elf bar that I'm aware of - and it's in the Labyrinth, which is fairly dangerous. Granted, it seems like most city elves are 'rinthers.
The breeds, elves, and the gemmers all go to the Gaj, where it's not all that uncommon for normal humans/dwarves/half-giants to be outnumbered by those who are "outcasts".
The Magicker's Quarter kinda feels like the ritziest quarter in the game (outside of the noble and templarate quarter). Gemmed often have prestigious positions. So it's hard to regard them as feared and hated when they are clearly of high status and sort of welcomed in that sense.
The magick-using subguilds will also almost certainly make magick even more normal.
More efforts could be made to make the discrimination more acute by giving outcasts their own areas to hang out in, but that would come at the cost of the interaction, so it's not clear that it's all that worth it...
One idea would be to make all the merchants charge more to outcast types, or maybe even refuse service entirely in some cases? Or maybe some other disadvantages?
Quote from: Kalden on November 26, 2016, 04:38:08 AM
The Magicker's Quarter kinda feels like the ritziest quarter in the game (outside of the noble and templarate quarter). Gemmed often have prestigious positions. So it's hard to regard them as feared and hated when they are clearly of high status and sort of welcomed in that sense.
Is this really still the case? I thought that quarter got a big downgrade after the rioting mob passed through.
The room descriptions sort of portray that there was a lot of damage done, but there's still a number of npc merchants who sell what would appear to the naked eye some ritzy bling.
There's also plants and someone watering them, which the rest of Nak doesn't really have and the absence of beggars and dessicated corpses in the streets makes it FEEL like Manhattan compared to the rest of the city.
I would like to see more echos re-enforcing the documentation in certain key places, e.g., gemmed being feared, elves being discriminated against.
That said: there is an elf bar southside (it's new) and some of the more luxurious things have been (recently) removed from the room descriptions in the Gemmed quarter.
Quote from: Kalden on November 26, 2016, 04:38:08 AM
The breeds, elves, and the gemmers all go to the Gaj, where it's not all that uncommon for normal humans/dwarves/half-giants to be outnumbered by those who are "outcasts".
Don't elves make up like half the virtual population of allanak? I don't see them as outcasts.
There's definitely a sort of Elf Apartheid going on, regardless of their population.
Quote from: Miradus on November 26, 2016, 01:37:48 PM
There's definitely a sort of Elf Apartheid going on, regardless of their population.
for sure. I guess I was quibbling over the word 'outcasts'. they are unequal, yes, but I don't think every elf should automatically be shunned by every human. The races would be doing business together all the time. elves definitely should feel welcome at the gaj, in my opinion.
breeds? they should all be thrown into the nearest bonfire.
Quote from: Kalden on November 26, 2016, 04:38:08 AM
If staff are concerned about weirdness such as 'breeds/gemmers and nobles having sex' -
When I brought this up as an example of 'going against documentation' I was using a quick, cheap, and effective example that might not necessarily hold up to scrutiny, but helped illustrate my point. I don't think this is exactly what staff are saying, and I feel like the other players used it as a "stand in" example too.
Quote from: Raptor_Dan on November 26, 2016, 02:17:32 PM
Quote from: Kalden on November 26, 2016, 04:38:08 AM
If staff are concerned about weirdness such as 'breeds/gemmers and nobles having sex' -
When I brought this up as an example of 'going against documentation' I was using a quick, cheap, and effective example that might not necessarily hold up to scrutiny, but helped illustrate my point. I don't think this is exactly what staff are saying, and I feel like the other players used it as a "stand in" example too.
I don't think my elves or breeds have ever been intimate with a noble... I know one of my elves was just fascinated with a Templar though. He hit on her, she said, thanks, but, it's not going to happen, how about you work for me? So yeah, it was tight after that even if the introduction was awkward. He took her ability to shrug it off as passing an extreme test of trust. He's like, well, if she can deal with this, then she's tougher than most of these roundear scum I meet.
... he actually did get jiggy with several roundears. It was funny because he knew how to pick them out, the most foul-mouthed necker-hater in the room is usually covering for some deep insecurity.
Quote from: 650Booger on November 26, 2016, 01:28:40 PM
Quote from: Kalden on November 26, 2016, 04:38:08 AM
The breeds, elves, and the gemmers all go to the Gaj, where it's not all that uncommon for normal humans/dwarves/half-giants to be outnumbered by those who are "outcasts".
Don't elves make up like half the virtual population of allanak? I don't see them as outcasts.
No, they do not. I think it's around 25% at most, I cannot seem to find the docs we had on it. Humans have the majority, elves are next up on that list though. Half-elves are supposed to be considered rare because both races despise them, and their creation is supposed to also be very rare. Either way, this is getting off topic.
As for the speaking with Staff, we like doing it in the game because all of it is recorded just in case something needs to be verified.
I think we're getting close to wrapping up on this topic. I've been getting some positive feedback outside this thread, so I'm glad to hear you guys are liking these. Thank you to Nergal for also dropping in also. I have a few ideas for a couple more, so I might have a new one here soon.
I'll leave this open for questions along the lines of Sponsored Roles for a bit longer, you're welcome to ask as long as it doesn't got into IC details too heavily.
Wanted to thank staff for being open minded here... I know I have my more emotional moments, but it's absolutely great you all are really weighing this, considering, and tapping the playerbase for perspectives.
*cough*
Quote from: From like over a year ago.http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,31655.25.html
This whole thread is pretty instructive. You want plots? Maybe stop bumping pcs back to chargen? So what if they they arn't 100% polite all the time or are possibly a threat in the extant future.
I see this as a pretty big problem at the moment resulting from a dearth of pc leadership. Nobody seems to know what to do except find players to kill who might sorta-one-day become a threat. And long lived characters seem more intent on maintaining their own sphere in the pc-centric non-virtual world of the game than try to interact with he world as a whole.
*cough*
Quote from: Large Hero on November 25, 2016, 07:07:54 PM
Laura makes an excellent point (this being my understanding of it): instances of a sponsored role 'not adhering to documentation' can be made into entertaining, conflict-rich examples of the documentation in effect (that may or may not end up with the sponsored role 'losing').
There are several parties involved and they're all responsible for different parts of the equation:
The catalyst: the sponsored role who wants to play counter to documentation.
Their responsibilities:
- understand they are playing counter to documentation
"My noble is having sexual relations with this elf/gemmed/mutant PC. I'm aware that this is abnormal and that my noble would be concerned and secretive about this, and would have a powerful internal response to it."
- develop and present this exceptional aspect of their character in a compelling, coherent way to other players and staff
"I need to render this relationship to anyone participating in or watching the scene, such that they understand it's an exceptional circumstance, and such that my character's unique motives and emotions are informing my RP."
- accept that there may be an IC backlash, and be willing to accept the consequences.
"If my noble gets caught having sex with this elf/gemmed/mutant, I understand that they may be killed, or the House may ensure they can't damage the family's reputation anymore (storage). I accept that staff may have to inflict these consequences on my PC."
or
"I didn't think I was going against documentation, but staff contacted me and we had a discussion about how
this behavior was an example of it. I have to accept that I won't get to play out this storyline exactly how I imagined it before. The virtual world will have a response to it if I continue and I'm discovered."
- remember that you signed up to play the embodiment of an example. When you signed up to play Lord Tor, you signed up to represent documented aspects of House Tor to the game and playerbase. If you didn't mention <documentation-breaking behavior> in your approved application, are you upholding your end of the bargain if the behavior prevents your character from being that example?
Sometimes, maybe it won't. Sometimes, maybe it will. All I'm saying is, honestly ask yourself that question before you proceed.
- give staff the benefit of the doubt, that they're trying to administrate the game in good faith for everyone's benefit
Staff:
- give the player the benefit of the doubt, that they're trying to play the game and their role in good faith
- clearly communicate to the player that their choice is counter to documentation, and that it will have IC consequences if discovered
"Hey, player, we noticed that your noble PC has been having sexual relations with a elf/gemmed/mutant character. <discussion in which both parties talk about the documentation and how this situation relates>"
- once it's determined that the player understands how their choice fits into the documentation, allow the player to make their choice, and then apply a virtual response appropriate for the situation, in a compelling and coherent way
"This player has been informed about the consequences of their noble PC having sexual relations with a elf/gemmed/mutant character. They continued to do it, and were discovered. The House has learned of the sexual relations through IC means.
<staff executes a plot for the players involved, during which the virtual world asserts itself, perhaps to their peril>
Other players, especially those directly involved with the catalyst sponsored role:
- give the player the benefit of the doubt, that they're trying to play the game and their role in good faith
- give staff the benefit of the doubt, that they're trying to administrate the game in good faith for everyone's benefit
- react appropriately for your character, who is likely following documentation on the issue at hand
- be willing to weather the storm of consequences of the sponsored role's choices; if you're standing too close to them, you might get hurt.
If all of the above are followed, nobody feels shafted, and an engaging story has a good chance to result.
However, a caveat: consider how it could become tiresome if every other noble had sex with elf/gemmed/mutant characters, even if all the above were followed in each instance. The dramatic oomph is lessened. It becomes the Same Old Thing.
Further, if there are enough challenges to documentation, it eventually becomes unrepresentative of the game we're playing. This is usually a bad thing. The documentation is our setting.
When you're making the choice to be the exception to documentation, try to ensure it's going to increase the fun of yourself and those around you, and improve the game and our shared story. Which is not to say don't do it; just think about it, and think about how you're going to do it, before you do it.
This should be stickied or something. Fantastic post.
I haven't played as many PCs as some people over the years because I've taken a couple breaks and my PCs tend to live for a while, but generally speaking when I communicate with staff in a way that resembles the above example, it's gone well. I played a character several years ago who was a feral child who raised themselves in the wilderness and I was very upfront with staff that she'd have issues with social norms and certain documentation things. She was bad with rules, etc. and overall it was a supremely snowflakey situation from the get-go because hey, someone utterly removed from society would not grok society very well.
But if I did something like that
every character, I could see how that would get old, and as the post above says, become the same ol' same ol'.
One of the things I really loved about that feral character was just how many people went out of their way to try to teach her to be a functional citizen of the world. It was actually a great example of the documentation in action because every time someone would fight with her about "why the hell did you do ___" she got a chance to learn and by RPing it as ignorance rather than insisting I was right, there was an unspoken understanding
between players that we were doing our best by the docs even if our characters weren't.
I think that last bit is the key. You can have a character who, for whatever reason, operates outside the usual social paradigm. If they're ignorant or rebellious that can be great!
When you're deliberately sidestepping the documentation, problems don't arise when characters insist they're right. Problems arise when players insist they're right. As long as players RP this stuff with an awareness that they're being an exception to the rule, it's usually worked out OK in my experience.
On the staff side of things, the post above mine also nails it. As a player (a player who even has some pretty contentious account notes from back in the day!), if a staff member approaches me and asks me questions about stuff in a non-accusatory way, I'm happy to have a dialogue about basically anything.
Quote from: Jingo on November 26, 2016, 04:35:06 PM
*cough*
Quote from: From like over a year ago.http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,31655.25.html
This whole thread is pretty instructive. You want plots? Maybe stop bumping pcs back to chargen? So what if they they arn't 100% polite all the time or are possibly a threat in the extant future.
I see this as a pretty big problem at the moment resulting from a dearth of pc leadership. Nobody seems to know what to do except find players to kill who might sorta-one-day become a threat. And long lived characters seem more intent on maintaining their own sphere in the pc-centric non-virtual world of the game than try to interact with he world as a whole.
*cough*
I've always seen the above as being more of a code limitation. The main problem is most PKs tend to result from an indefensible 'mon fuck you' or OHK backstab/arrow and you have know way of knowing when it's going to escalate to that stage.
He who strikes first wins and no one wants to lose their 10000000's of hours of time investment.
Quote from: Lutagar on November 26, 2016, 04:44:07 PM
Quote from: Jingo on November 26, 2016, 04:35:06 PM
*cough*
Quote from: From like over a year ago.http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,31655.25.html
This whole thread is pretty instructive. You want plots? Maybe stop bumping pcs back to chargen? So what if they they arn't 100% polite all the time or are possibly a threat in the extant future.
I see this as a pretty big problem at the moment resulting from a dearth of pc leadership. Nobody seems to know what to do except find players to kill who might sorta-one-day become a threat. And long lived characters seem more intent on maintaining their own sphere in the pc-centric non-virtual world of the game than try to interact with he world as a whole.
*cough*
I've always seen the above as being more of a code limitation. The main problem is most PKs tend to result from an indefensible 'mon fuck you' or OHK backstab/arrow and you have know way of knowing when it's going to escalate to that stage.
He who strikes first wins and no one wants to lose their 10000000's of hours of time investment.
I salivate over the thought of actually being assassinated. But every time I've been killed was because the player on the other side couldn't handle not winning (and/or not being a greasy twink about it).
Quote from: Jingo on November 26, 2016, 04:35:06 PM
*cough*
Quote from: From like over a year ago.http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,31655.25.html
This whole thread is pretty instructive. You want plots? Maybe stop bumping pcs back to chargen? So what if they they arn't 100% polite all the time or are possibly a threat in the extant future.
I see this as a pretty big problem at the moment resulting from a dearth of pc leadership. Nobody seems to know what to do except find players to kill who might sorta-one-day become a threat. And long lived characters seem more intent on maintaining their own sphere in the pc-centric non-virtual world of the game than try to interact with he world as a whole.
*cough*
Killing people *creates* plots just as much as it ends them. Without naming specific situations or characters:
I have counted four characters in particular, that my PC or people my PC knew wanted to kill. With these particular 4 "enemies" (we'll use that term just to identify who we're talking about), people decided not to kill them for a variety of reasons:
1) they're so stupid they'll end up killing themselves anyway.
2) let the other guy kill them, why risk my own ass when someone else is eager to get the job done?
3) he's not important enough to kill, it won't be any big deal if he lives.
In each of these four particular cases, the enemy in question was not killed when it was easy to kill them. One character "not killed" ended up ruining 5 different plotlines. And went on to become incredibly influential, even though no one could stand them and dozens of people wanted him dead. But everyone kept saying "oh - he's a dipshit, he can't hurt anything" or "yeah everyone else wants him dead, he'll end up dead anyway, don't bother." And then there was the OOC "consideration" to not PK just because you can't stand someone. People went out of their way to come up with reasons to NOT kill this person, until this person systematically ruined several plotlines over the course of over a RL year. Many OTHER characters were killed as either a direct or indirect result of this "enemy" character -
and by the time people finally realized someone had to get off the shitter and DO something about it, this person was considered "hands off" by the "IC powers that be" and was politically untouchable.
This happened with four "enemy" characters I can think of, in the last decade.
So I say - if you think someone should be killed, and you discover other people think this person should be killed, someone should kill them. Because you leave it to everyone else, or dismiss it as unimportant, you'll end up with dead plots instead of a dead PC.
I call bullshit. One person systematically ruined multiple plotlines? Without killing several people in turn? Come on.
Either those plots were more fragile than glass, or you just gave up on them the moment you hit a speedbump.
Jingo has never had death as part of plots explained to him.
Jingo has never experienced a non-run-of-the-mill PK.
Jingo has never insistently pulled unrelated threads back to the idea of 'You guys should kill less.'
Seriously. 3rd time in this thread alone. Stop it.
Quote from: Jingo on November 26, 2016, 05:02:42 PM
I call bullshit. One person systematically ruined multiple plotlines? Without killing several people in turn? Come on.
Either those plots were more fragile than glass, or you just gave up on them the moment you hit a speedbump.
I think you forgot to read the whole post. Here's the part you obviously missed:
Quote
Many OTHER characters were killed as either a direct or indirect result of this "enemy" character -
and by the time people finally realized someone had to get off the shitter and DO something about it, this person was considered "hands off" by the "IC powers that be" and was politically untouchable.
Quote from: Armaddict on November 26, 2016, 05:05:18 PM
Jingo has never had death as part of plots explained to him.
Jingo has never experienced a non-run-of-the-mill PK.
Jingo has never insistently pulled unrelated threads back to the idea of 'You guys should kill less.'
Seriously. 3rd time in this thread alone. Stop it.
Jingo is mostly just sick of playing to lose.
Quote from: Lizzie on November 26, 2016, 05:08:33 PM
Quote from: Jingo on November 26, 2016, 05:02:42 PM
I call bullshit. One person systematically ruined multiple plotlines? Without killing several people in turn? Come on.
Either those plots were more fragile than glass, or you just gave up on them the moment you hit a speedbump.
I think you forgot to read the whole post. Here's the part you obviously missed:
Quote
Many OTHER characters were killed as either a direct or indirect result of this "enemy" character -
and by the time people finally realized someone had to get off the shitter and DO something about it, this person was considered "hands off" by the "IC powers that be" and was politically untouchable.
Okay sure. I'd give you a pass given the situation.
But I know I'd be killed on day 2 if I tried to be that guy.
It's mostly knowing how to pick and choose. If you're a rude asshole to absolutely everyone you meet, then it's going to be bad, the key to being a successful asshole is befriending other assholes and knowing who to not fuck with. Err on the side of caution when possible.
Start small. Like a bynner that picks on weaker half-elven clan mates. It's low hanging fruit.. but it really does work. And other characters will respect yours for it.
aaaaand /thread
Yeah, not even remotely. Picking on elves and breeds is about as meaningless as it gets.
But politely informing a character they are in a place they don't belong? It's enough to put entire settlements under siege and have twinkish bullshit come at you out of the woodwork.
It's a waste of fucking time to even try.
Quote from: Large Hero on November 25, 2016, 07:07:54 PM
Laura makes an excellent point (this being my understanding of it): instances of a sponsored role 'not adhering to documentation' can be made into entertaining, conflict-rich examples of the documentation in effect (that may or may not end up with the sponsored role 'losing').
There are several parties involved and they're all responsible for different parts of the equation:
The catalyst: the sponsored role who wants to play counter to documentation.
Their responsibilities:
- understand they are playing counter to documentation
"My noble is having sexual relations with this elf/gemmed/mutant PC. I'm aware that this is abnormal and that my noble would be concerned and secretive about this, and would have a powerful internal response to it."
- develop and present this exceptional aspect of their character in a compelling, coherent way to other players and staff
"I need to render this relationship to anyone participating in or watching the scene, such that they understand it's an exceptional circumstance, and such that my character's unique motives and emotions are informing my RP."
- accept that there may be an IC backlash, and be willing to accept the consequences.
"If my noble gets caught having sex with this elf/gemmed/mutant, I understand that they may be killed, or the House may ensure they can't damage the family's reputation anymore (storage). I accept that staff may have to inflict these consequences on my PC."
or
"I didn't think I was going against documentation, but staff contacted me and we had a discussion about how
this behavior was an example of it. I have to accept that I won't get to play out this storyline exactly how I imagined it before. The virtual world will have a response to it if I continue and I'm discovered."
- remember that you signed up to play the embodiment of an example. When you signed up to play Lord Tor, you signed up to represent documented aspects of House Tor to the game and playerbase. If you didn't mention <documentation-breaking behavior> in your approved application, are you upholding your end of the bargain if the behavior prevents your character from being that example?
Sometimes, maybe it won't. Sometimes, maybe it will. All I'm saying is, honestly ask yourself that question before you proceed.
- give staff the benefit of the doubt, that they're trying to administrate the game in good faith for everyone's benefit
Staff:
- give the player the benefit of the doubt, that they're trying to play the game and their role in good faith
- clearly communicate to the player that their choice is counter to documentation, and that it will have IC consequences if discovered
"Hey, player, we noticed that your noble PC has been having sexual relations with a elf/gemmed/mutant character. <discussion in which both parties talk about the documentation and how this situation relates>"
- once it's determined that the player understands how their choice fits into the documentation, allow the player to make their choice, and then apply a virtual response appropriate for the situation, in a compelling and coherent way
"This player has been informed about the consequences of their noble PC having sexual relations with a elf/gemmed/mutant character. They continued to do it, and were discovered. The House has learned of the sexual relations through IC means.
<staff executes a plot for the players involved, during which the virtual world asserts itself, perhaps to their peril>
Other players, especially those directly involved with the catalyst sponsored role:
- give the player the benefit of the doubt, that they're trying to play the game and their role in good faith
- give staff the benefit of the doubt, that they're trying to administrate the game in good faith for everyone's benefit
- react appropriately for your character, who is likely following documentation on the issue at hand
- be willing to weather the storm of consequences of the sponsored role's choices; if you're standing too close to them, you might get hurt.
If all of the above are followed, nobody feels shafted, and an engaging story has a good chance to result.
However, a caveat: consider how it could become tiresome if every other noble had sex with elf/gemmed/mutant characters, even if all the above were followed in each instance. The dramatic oomph is lessened. It becomes the Same Old Thing.
Further, if there are enough challenges to documentation, it eventually becomes unrepresentative of the game we're playing. This is usually a bad thing. The documentation is our setting.
When you're making the choice to be the exception to documentation, try to ensure it's going to increase the fun of yourself and those around you, and improve the game and our shared story. Which is not to say don't do it; just think about it, and think about how you're going to do it, before you do it.
Everyone read this.
Quote from: Ath on November 26, 2016, 03:56:05 PM
Quote from: 650Booger on November 26, 2016, 01:28:40 PM
Quote from: Kalden on November 26, 2016, 04:38:08 AM
The breeds, elves, and the gemmers all go to the Gaj, where it's not all that uncommon for normal humans/dwarves/half-giants to be outnumbered by those who are "outcasts".
Don't elves make up like half the virtual population of allanak? I don't see them as outcasts.
No, they do not. I think it's around 25% at most, I cannot seem to find the docs we had on it. Humans have the majority, elves are next up on that list though. Half-elves are supposed to be considered rare because both races despise them, and their creation is supposed to also be very rare. Either way, this is getting off topic.
I gotcha.
QuoteTuluk (350,000)
219,000 humans (50% are slaves) (62.6% of total)
108,500 elves (10% are slaves) (31% of Total)
3,500 dwarves (65% are slaves) (1% of Total)
3,500 half-giants (80% are slaves) (1% of Total)
7,000 half-elves (40% are slaves) (2% of total)
1,500 muls (98% are slaves) (0.4% of total)
7,000 unknown/other/mutant (25% are slaves) (2% of Total)
Allanak (481,880)
310,000 humans (50% are slaves) (150,000 free) (64.3% of total)
150,000 elves (10% are slaves) (135,500 free) (31.1% of total)
7,500 dwarves (65% are slaves) (2,600 free) (1.8% of total)
3,800 half-giants (20% are slaves) (3,150 free) (0.8% of total)
5,800 half-elves (40% are slaves) (3,400 free) (1.3% of total)
1980 muls (99% are slaves) (18 free) (0.4% of total)
2,800 unknown/other/mutant (40% are slaves) (1,400 free) (~0.6% of total)
Given these statistics, Elves are, indeed, not half of Allanak's population. They
are pretty close to half of Allanak's free population, however, being about 40% of that. Things like this post:
Quote from: Kalden on November 26, 2016, 04:38:08 AM
[...]
For example, in Allanak, there is only one elf bar that I'm aware of - and it's in the Labyrinth, which is fairly dangerous. Granted, it seems like most city elves are 'rinthers.
The breeds, elves, and the gemmers all go to the Gaj, where it's not all that uncommon for normal humans/dwarves/half-giants to be outnumbered by those who are "outcasts".
[...]
.. speak of the documentation clearly not being translated well at all in the playerbase proper. There is a veritable
ton of city-elves in Allanak right now, but it's still not very clear to 40%. Additionally, speaking of outcast elves but dwarves/half-giants being somehow 'normal' is an actual case of the world being upside down: both of these are so rare that even the half-elves are more numerous. Notably, dwarves and half-giants both come in at less than a single percent of the population each, making them more uncommon than real-world groups like homosexuals, who fit the outcast bill we're talking about much better.
(Go play a celf, it's the best possible time to do so.)Outcasts are dwarves, half-giants, magickers, foreigners, mutants, and half-elves who can't 'pass', because there's so few of them. Elves, OTOH, are just too numerous.
Where do those population numbers come from? That's really cool.
Well, this is kind of veering off, but I'll try to defend my position on the social status of city elves because I think my perspective is valid and largely correct:
If the metric is population size, African-Americans would have never been outcasts: not when they were slaves and especially not when when they had only nominal rights to vote in many states, and so on. Even now, the place where they have some of the highest population such as the American South is where they face the most discrimination and segregation. And there's plenty of other examples throughout history. Keep in mind that Zalanthas is actually supposedly a wee bit harsher than the real world and especially a place like the United States, which had all these high-minded principles about people's rights and such codified in a constitution.
The social status of elves in the docs is perhaps not super-clear (the City Elf Roleplay only mentions the "problems they cause for the rest of the occupants of the city"), but having played a couple long-lived city elves and many more desert elves, I can't see how such an alien race with a proud culture of thievery wouldn't face widespread discrimination and suspicion. Imagine this: if you grew up in Zalanthas and interacted regularly with elves, you've probably been swindled by them at least once.
And yes, there's always risks to treating people poorly. Same in real-life: when white people refused service to black people in the South, sometimes that came back to haunt them. Except when a discriminated person reacts, the law gets involved. And how many of the Militia are elves? Compare that to how many of the Militia are, say, half-giants, and the policy on accepting other races such as dwarves.
When you think about this and imagine a lifetime growing up in this world, you get a sense for a system which is RIGGED against certain population segments - where you are typically the scapegoat when problems arise. And I think that trying to immerse yourself in that world is FUN, regardless of which side you are on. It's fun to imagine growing up in a world where you are different and the odds are stacked against you, just as it's a different type of fun to imagine the opposite.
I... can't comment on the RPing an asshole thing, other than to say every PC I play is an asshole somehow. I can say Lizzie is spot on in that sometimes when you let shit slide and DON'T kill someone, it kicks you in the butt again, and again, and all you can think is good christ why did i not kill this fucker before?.. sometimes, though, the guy you're wishing was dead isn't actually a shit roleplayer though, you just got the short end of the stick several times.
My body is craving sugar something fierce.... I'm going to down a bottle of pancake syrup at this rate.
Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread. I enjoyed reading it. Lots of great suggestions for an idyllic way to handle staff/player interactions in the case of sponsored roles.
As there was no questions for staff that I could see and we're getting on a slight derail, I'm closing this one up. Thanks for all the great feedback and some excellent posts.
This topic hit the nail on the head with what I was hoping for, so I appreciate it. I'm very glad to see that people are okay with us being strict on Sponsored Roles, but at the same point, keep open communication with the players that are playing in this role. If anything, this will help us look at our current documentation and improve upon it.