Leaders and inactivity

[flurry]

This is a topic I've been wondering about for a long time, and I'd be interested to hear other perspectives and opinions.

One thing I've noticed, both on this MUD and elsewhere, is this phenomenon that characters will ascend to a position of leadership, and then become much less active in playing.

Of course, this doesn't always happen, and I'm not sure there is a cause-and-effect there.   Maybe it doesn't even happen more for leaders than for anyone else, but it just seems that way because a leader's absence is more noticeable.  

I have seen it happen often enough, though, to wonder why it happens.

Maybe the obvious answer is that leadership roles begin to feel like work, and become less fun.  (But in that case, why not retire?  Or find ways to change that?)  Another thought is that players who would gravitate to leadership in-game may do so in real life too, and hence be busier people.

What do you think?  Am I totally off-base in this observation?  If it happens, why?  And how do we prevent it or deal with it?

Let me just note, also, that I'm not complaining or suggesting those leaders are irresponsible.  It's just something I've noticed several times over a period of years.

[LoD]

I'm sure it's a combination of many different factors.

Leaders might be promoted only to find that the number of people who want/need a piece of their time has expanded significantly.  Logging in as a PC leader for me was almost a guaranteed 30 minutes - 1 hour, simply dealing with the contacts that I received from the moment I entered the game.

Leaders might find that they enjoyed the struggle to become leader more than actually being a leader themselves.  Now that they are there, it seems a lot more like work and a lot less like play.  

Leaders might simply develop some coincidental OOC RL obligations, like starting to play another game heavily, work hours increasing, getting a new job, geting a new significant other, etc...

I know that I've experienced a few of these myself in different leadership positions.  I imagine others have as well.  If you really want the leaders to be more available if they're suffering from #1 or #2, then my suggestion is to become a better underling.  Take some initiative, handle things without constant supervision, be creative in making opportunities for you and the rest of the players when the leader isn't around.

Good men/women are hard to find.  Good right hand men/women that can function independantly of your guidance and not get themselves killed or in trouble are an absolute godsend.  They make a leader's playtime more enjoyable because that's one less thing they have to worry about doing.

-LoD

[Dakkon Black]

I've been in a few leadership roles, or close too, and the best I can think on is thusly:

1) Most people do want to just have some fun. Exploring a cave, is a rush when you do it off the fly. When things are scheduled, it seems to be more taxing. Solo, or on the fly stuff, happens. Schedules conflict, and leaders sometimes feel compelled to drop or put aside RL stuff that crops up, because they've scheduled.

2) Responsibility. Perhaps you don't like that feeling that people just died because you sent them into battle. I know I dont.

3) Nobility. These are the hardest to play for me. In one hand, you haven't really worked for anything, but you've got it all. Secondly, you don't get to have the fun, you get to help other pc's have it.

You could spend a rl week setting up a wicked tresure/creature hunting expidition, and then all you get to do is wave them off as they leave the gates.

4) Continual input. Lets face it, we're all pretty damn inventive and creative people if we love this place and play here. Id pretty much stake any of our players against 90% of the world for creativity. But even so, sometimes you just run out of ideas. Sometimes you need someone else to take the reins for a bit, and lead you on a chase. We hope imms will do it, but the same goes for them, I think sometimes they just run out of steam as well.

5) Repitition. Your byn Sargeant is on his 8th contract to kill a massive doodle beast. All the recruits are excited, but you aren't. You've done this 8 times.

6) Expectation. Fits with most of the above. Sometimes you feel lazy. But you know those two new noob recruits are on alot and are watching your play. So you don't log in because you don't feel like setting that higher standard today, in fact, you sorta just want to go and emotlessly fuck up some gith.

Included in that is staff expectation. You are in a leadership role, you know they will be watching you, and you want to be at your best when you do, so those days that you feel like a casual stroll around, you don't.

7) Strain. You've had a long rp session, fight, whatever, and you're tired and ready to log off, when at the last moment bob the recruit walks into the room. He's been asking you for pay for a month, and it's just been bad luck that you missed him. Now you have to take another 20 min, walk to nenyuk, get the coins and hand them over. It's something that your char would do, but at the moment, you just don't want to.

These are some of the reasons I found leadership challenging, but at the same time, it's also very rewarding when you do take a group of pc's out, and have an absolute blast with them.

-Dakkon

[Dresan]

I can't disagree with everything that has been said so far, they pretty much hit the mark i think. I made that recruit thread a while back but other then that, what would be possible solutions to prevent PC leaders from becoming inactive or what should be done when they do become inactive? More leaders? Demotions? Staff asking for leader apps? Make it easier for PC to become leaders?

I do believe that apped leadership should be held at higher standards when it comes to login activity at least.  Not running great plots daily or weekly but still be accessable to hire poeple.

[Lizzie]

Preface: My experience is from another game since I'm still only on my 2nd character here

I would enter or accept an "authority" position with caution, because I have experience of those positions. That isn't to say I wouldn't ever enjoy them, or wouldn't ever want to try one. But I'd be careful and take my time thinking about it. Even if it was just a promotion and not a sponsored role.

Roles of authority are hard work. Hardest mostly because other people are relying on you. If you're just a lowly assistant, or independant, or recruit, it doesn't matter if you're not around for a few RL days. It doesn't matter to the rest of the player base if you just don't feel like logging in, or have a headache, or there's a show on TV you want to watch, or if you started a new class during your usual play time.

But if you're in a role of authority it matters a great deal, because your hirelings need someone to report -to- when they have something to report. They need someone to pay them. They need someone to advise them. They need someone to tell them they're doing a lousy job, or a great job, or punish or reward them. That's your "job" as a character of authority, and if you're not around, you let down all those characters serving yours, and the players relying on yours for that bit of interaction.

All of the above and be a lot of fun. It's work, but it's working at playing. Just like any creative hobby, you get out of it what you put into it. But the problem with this hobby, is that it isn't like remote-control model airplane flying, where you can go out on your own -or- with others and have an equally wonderful time. In a position of authority, those others need to maintain some sort of regular contact with you, or their function - which is to be your employee, doesn't really matter anymore. So, I would approach opportunities to RP a character with authority over others with a lot of thought and care, decide if I -have- the time to dedicate to interactive RP. Decide if I -want- to spend that time primarily interacting (as opposed to solo RP which is relaxing as well as fun). Decide if I have what it takes to RP that leader, whether it's a good leader or a bad one (being a bad leader on purpose is a talent I don't think I have; if I'm not good, it's because it's natural, heh). Lots of other "little" things that go into deciding, plus deciding if I'm even interested in the nature of the specific role itself.

I do know that if I was getting really burnt out, or my play times had to be reduced by a lot for whatever reason, I would definitely retire the character and let someone who has time/energy for the role take it.

L. Stanson

[Cale_Knight]

I think the biggest reason leadership burnout is so prevalant is the inability to step away from the character without also stepping away from the game.

On my last MUD, if I got into a leadership position and began to burn out, I'd take a hiatus and mess around on another character for awhile. Invariably, I'd come back with a fresh perspective and a new desire to play my leader.

Can't do that on Arm. Getting characters moved out of storage is very rare, and burnout isn't one of the valid reasons for unstoring. You can either retire or you can take a break from the MUD entirely. With just those two choices, I can understand why a lot of leaders simply store.

[spawnloser]

I know that an actual or perceived lack of support from staff has been the cause of player petering out in the play of a leader and then eventual retirement.  Just thought I'd add that.

[Fnord]

Being a good leader on Arm is akin to having a job. Payment comes in the form of rewarding RP. If you're not getting paid...

[daedroug]

I know that an actual or perceived lack of support from staff has been the cause of player petering out in the play of a leader and then eventual retirement.  Just thought I'd add that.

I've actually heard this complaint too.

[jstorrie]

I find that if you are not having fun being a leader, it is very easy to spice things up by being a bad leader.

The dreadlocked, sandy-haired woman says, in sihirish, "Hey, shitcloaks! SHITCLOAKS! Fucking listen to me when I'm talking at you."

The dreadlocked, sandy-haired woman says, in sihirish, levelling a blade at the tall, muscular man's throat, "AMOS here has been scoping me out every time we go to the latrines. So we're going to throw him off the Shield Wall. MOUNT UP, RUNNERS!"

The dreadlocked, sandy-haired woman subdues the tall, muscular man, despite his attempts to struggle away.

Idly straightening his blue robes, the towering, flame-scarred templar says, in sihirish, "You! Advisor Shitface Commoner Who I Hate! Go buy me some fucking thodeliv."

[zanthalandreams]

I know that an actual or perceived lack of support from staff has been the cause of player petering out in the play of a leader and then eventual retirement.  Just thought I'd add that.

I've actually heard this complaint too.

Ditto.  That can kill the buzz pretty quick.

[corona]

I find that if you are not having fun being a leader, it is very easy to spice things up by being a bad leader.

The dreadlocked, sandy-haired woman says, in sihirish, "Hey, shitcloaks! SHITCLOAKS! Fucking listen to me when I'm talking at you."

The dreadlocked, sandy-haired woman says, in sihirish, levelling a blade at the tall, muscular man's throat, "AMOS here has been scoping me out every time we go to the latrines. So we're going to throw him off the Shield Wall. MOUNT UP, RUNNERS!"

The dreadlocked, sandy-haired woman subdues the tall, muscular man, despite his attempts to struggle away.

Idly straightening his blue robes, the towering, flame-scarred templar says, in sihirish, "You! Advisor Shitface Commoner Who I Hate! Go buy me some fucking thodeliv."

Lol! Ooohhh the things we resort to. And yes, indeed.. I start off wanting to be good.. the best.. and then some things will drag me down.. so I go to the other spectrum of things so I can be happy again. Hehe.. yaaaay for being baaad. And.. yes, staff support is a big part of being a leader.. and we understand that sometimes they've got real life stuff and can be tied down with other things. It's all good, we improvise..  :twisted:  .. though.. they might not always like what we do.. *shrug*  :shock:

[Arabian Nights]

I know that an actual or perceived lack of support from staff has been the cause of player petering out in the play of a leader and then eventual retirement.  Just thought I'd add that.

I've actually heard this complaint too.

Ditto.  That can kill the buzz pretty quick.

I've experienced both situations. On one hand where you are in a leader postion and the clan imms are more than happy to help out. On the other hand, you might get in a situation were (either in reality or your perception) it appears that  no matter what you do you own clan imms are working against you or not doing anything at all. That feeling, whether real or just your perception of it, has the same end result. You begin to ask yourself each time you log into the pc: "Meh, what's the point?"

[Sir Diealot]

I find that if you are not having fun being a leader, it is very easy to spice things up by being a bad leader.

So very true.

[Maybe42or54]

A good leader is a slave. A slave to his followers and a slave to his bosses.

[Red Sunrise]

Being a leader requires a certain amount of professionalism, and a certain amount of independence. The staff can't spend time handholding leader PCs and directing their every decision, they're expected to be able to do at least some things themselves. Not everyone can hold up to this for a long period of time - it does get stressful.

However, while it might be fun to play the "bad leader", I would really like to see more players maintain a professional attitude and try to do their best in the role rather than just deciding to start screwing off for whatever reason. Lapses in staff support, stressful times, or PC screwups shouldn't be a reason just to throw everything out the window and start doing whatever you feel like to keep having fun.

High level leader roles (nobles and especially templars) can be severely damaging to the game if played poorly or abusively, whether on purpose or not. I wouldn't want to see people going down that route just to spice things up or make themselves happy. I would much rather see an inactive leader than a leader who is actively driving people away and making the game LESS fun for those around them.

[spawnloser]

Just to clarify, I don't think anyone is asking for handholding.  I think it is usually made very clear that leader PCs have to be self-motivators.  There is, however, a certain amount of support that is sometimes necessary.  (shrug)

[FightClub]

*is a bad leader*

[Esquillax]

Being a leader requires a certain amount of professionalism, and a certain amount of independence. The staff can't spend time handholding leader PCs and directing their every decision, they're expected to be able to do at least some things themselves. Not everyone can hold up to this for a long period of time - it does get stressful.

While this is true, it is also true that there are some things that a leader absolutely needs IMM support for.  Marriages, for example, among other things, require the intervention of an IMM because it must be negotiated and arranged by the PC's superiors.  When a person playing in a sponsored role is promised support for such things and does not get it, it stifles progress of plots and makes the role turn frustrating.  This often leads to decreased desire to log in.

[zanthalandreams]

There is a certain degree of difference between support and hand-holding.  

But you knew this when you posted.  

Things that require support:

1.  Permission - leaders are reminded that they are but one small cog in a huge machine.  Nearly everything less mundane than logging in requires permission or at least the good graces of your clan Imm.

2.  Keys/Access to secured items - Anything from clan resources to storerooms to insignia equipment.  

3.  Access to clan funds.

4.  Access to clan NPCs - especially since you will always, always have an NPC in charge of you.

5.  Feedback - when you are expected to keep your bosses notified of your activity, then reasonably prompt and helpful feedback is needed from the clan imm.

Should I go on?  An active, interested, and objective clan Imm is critical to a PC leader's success.  You can cope without any of those five, and sometimes you have to.  But "cope" and "have to" are not usually associated with fun.  Low fun leads to leaders losing interest and daydreaming of playing that ranger they wrote up as a safety.  

Hand-holding indeed.

[Rhyden]

This is definitely something I've seen and experienced first hand in the past. And I strongly agree with Larrath when he said that in a strong leadership position, you can't log in without being around for 30 mins to an hour. That's just how much work and responsibility leaders have.

Leadership roles can get to the point where there's so much work to be done, so many people to deal with and so little time to do it in, yes, it feels like you're logging in to Armageddon as your second job.

I feel a huge part for this happening is that the underlings don't tend to think about what it's like to be their leader. There's so many IC tasks leaders have to face...

- Recruiting new people
- Managing every single recruit and sorting out everyone's problems
- Training
- Usually having things for the clan to do
- Mingling with other clans

...and even more OOC things that most peons don't even consider like...

- Emailing staff -constantly- about -everything-
- Setting up RPT dates
- Helping newer players in the clan

Part of being a leader is giving a lot of your time to other people. This can often be misplaced with just extra work so it's understandable that some leaders would just get sick and tired of it all and disappear/retire.

I find the best leaders are the ones that are active, but not too much so. One week, they'll have RPTs all over the board, the next week is a bit more casual and the week after that is a bit of both.

To be honest, I really hate the kind of leaders who just sort of stop playing altogether and log once in a blue moon. You can't interact with their character, report to them, kill them. But, it's totally an OOC matter too. It's hard to argue over. Sometimes real life affects IC characters. What can you do?

[Agent_137]

one solution is to never have a single leader, and or to limit the number of active underlings per leader.

This goes a long way to preventing a leader from being overhelmed, and preventing a clan from going down the tubes if one leader dies or even takes a month or so off from the game.

I've NEVER seen any clan in this game have too many leaders. It's always been way too many underlings and no chiefs. Sometimes it's balanced. Most of the time it isn't.

Which is sad, because it's an easy fix, too. I mean, those extra sergeants don't even have to be good sergeants. Bad sergeants (icly) are just as great as good ones. Now, of course, OOCly they have to be trustworthy, but it's not -that- hard to find people in any given clan OOCly trustworthy.

At heart, it's the old issue of mutual responsibility. The Immortals need to keep the leaders powerful and in good supply, the leaders need to keep the underlings busy and in good supply, and the underlings need to keep themselves busy and in good supply.

[spawnloser]

Idle PC leaders in public places annoy the piss out of me just as much as PC leaders that are never around.

[Maybe42or54]

Another problem I havn't seen posted about is coddling.
In my semi-brief stays with PCs in leadership positions, I found it incredibly fun and easy to do the role when they let me be the boss.
Such as the T'zai Byn, my PC was told stories, told the direction that they wanted to carry the bynn and my overall goals in life. Then they said, "Get the fuck out of my office."

As a leader in some other clans though, I was treated as a middle man. I had a list of things to accomplish and most of the time, I couldn't accomplish them with anything less than 4-5 PCs. Topped with being in a city-state that was on a shortage of PCs in my playing time at the time, it was difficult and annoying to be a leader. They told me how to accomplish every task assigned to me. It didn't feel like I was the leader, I was just the piece of paper the staff controlled NPC wrote on for the PC hunters and common crafters/merchants.

Over-coddling really kills me.

Then, another bad thing I've seen and some people have said that it is good. Over-working.

Sending an email once a week is fine. However, I've been in a clan where I emailed my clan imms 3-4 a day about various topics and it got to the point where I would have to ignore my pc so I could write emails after emails, and go over ideas and read emails. All these emails were for my Pc and it was too much.