Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers
-
@Kanye-Qwest said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
I don't really agree, so NO WE CAN NOT.
-
@Ganymede I'm addressing specifically scenes where a staffer is running a prp for their own character in that post. That said. I've actually had this come up as a staffer, and personally? I declined the accompany them (for reasons), but my character gave them the names of a few others that would be happy to accompany them on that mission. OOCly I explained that I felt uncomfortable with bringing my character along on a scene that I would be running and that I thought it was a good idea for them to bring others along. It gave them a reason to meet and form connections with a few other PC's and removed me from potential CoI.
My overall feeling is this... if you cannot, by rules, have two of your own PC's in the same scene? Then you should not have your PC actively participating in a scene that you are running. Even though the NPC's are NPC's? They're still characters under your control, and it behooves you to adhere to the policies of the game. If you're going to be deeply involved in running the NPC's, then where is the difference between running the NPC's and your own PC, and running two PC's in the same scene? I've seen staff that treated their NPC's like PC's, to the point of protecting them from PC's after blatantly fucking up. How am I supposed to give the leeway for one type of scene but not the other just because X is staff and Y isn't?
-
@Miss-Demeanor said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
I have something that niggles at me about running a scene for your own character and I'm trying to find a way to put it that doesn't sound accusatory, because I don't think anyone here is actively doing this.
If you are a sphere lead, or headstaff, someone that's a leader even among staff... there's an inherent perception issue with running one's own plots for your character. Namely... if you put in a job to gain approval for a scene that you are running for your character... who is going to tell you no if there's something in that pitched prp that's 'too much'? At that point, you're the one in charge. Who's going to risk angering 'the boss' by telling them they're going too far? Its definitely a bit more sticky of a situation than when 'just a player' is asking for a prp.
(Using the empirical you in this case, again, I don't think anyone here is doing this, but I've found it's a relatively common perception when someone in charge is asking for something for their own character.)
I couldn't agree more with this. I'll refrain from using the term passing the ball to yourself too much more, but I think it applies.
I think that running scenes for yourself for character development purposes always seems a little strange to me, but really it all depends on the WHY/PURPOSE behind the scene that details the level of appropriateness.
- Some game systems/MUs have PrP requirements on sheet changes (I.e. to get membership into X special order in WoD you need a tiny plot to join it) I think is reasonable.
- Running a self-taught scene because you suddenly feel like inserting a character arc that they lose an eye in combat because for some reason you like the idea of your character being that one-eyed villain rogue type? I think is reasonable
- Running a scene for yourself that will ICly place your character into a RP position to have authority or opportunities that other players wouldnt have access to...less reasonable.
- Staff running a scene for themselves that places their character in a role of leadership over their players that will, in the end, require players to go their their character to get things done...the problems start to show.
Development is one thing, but seeing the next few steps down the road and the why behind so-called development is tricky. Sometimes, is it really for character development purposes, or is it playing into the politics of the game and calling it development?
Thin line, that.
Edit:
OOCly, we know the game, the players, the system, can predict where the game is going, what players may respond to X action with Y response, but when determining to want a scene for ourselves for development purposes, when playing fair, we have to question if that requested development matches what the character knows/wants, or if it's us using the guise of character development to OOCly influence a game and pre-seed it with IC justification.
-
@Miss-Demeanor said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
How am I supposed to give the leeway for one type of scene but not the other just because X is staff and Y isn't?
Because X and Y are different people in different positions.
With your example, you elected to remove yourself from the situation. That's fine. That's what you chose to do. But, at times, situations will arise when your PC, as a staffer, cannot reasonably be extricated from the situation. Those situations are myriad.
What matters is consent between the involved parties. These situations are also myriad, but they will arise. Adherence to rules without consideration of circumstances is as bad a policy as ignoring them, but the heart of justice -- what is right and reasonable based on facts -- requires some leeway.
-
@Ganymede You're right. As a player, I have no authority to force any particular outcome in a scene, even if I have multiple characters in a given scene. The staffer does. So why should I give the staffer the leeway the player isn't allowed? As staff, you would have the authority to not only insist I remove one of the characters from the scene, but to enforce a punishment on me for disobeying. Yet you want to be exempt from that rule yourself when it comes to your own character. And that 'I can't reasonably extract' reason a load of bullshit. As I have been told many times by staffers when I'm put into a difficult position... sometimes you have to use OOC sense over IC logic. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to extend a trust and courtesy to staff PC's that staff aren't willing to extend to player PC's.
-
@Ganymede Yeah, consent matters. I wouldn't turn a social scene into something more unless everybody was on board. In fact I can't remember doing it where there were more than 1 or 2 people other than me in the room. In that situation the 'game' and power mechanics do not really matter. Its just about telling a bit more interesting a story than three people drinking at a bar, and to have some fun.
-
This is precisely my thought about the difficulty of running scenes sometimes. I'm controlling the NPCs, I really shouldn't have my PC get too involved.
-
@Gilette said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
This is precisely my thought about the difficulty of running scenes sometimes. I'm controlling the NPCs, I really shouldn't have my PC get too involved.
Here's the thing; this isn't 'too involved', this is 'involved at all' -- and the two really are functionally different, and it's a difference that comes up a lot.
This difference eliminates a lot of the examples that have come up in the thread that are pretty helpful -- for instance, having a PC run in to say, "OH MY GOD, SPACE MONKEYS ARE ATTACKING!" and then go hide under the bed. No, maybe that doesn't need to be your PC, and could be an NPC, but when it's a PC the other characters know, there are tangible benefits: they're more likely to care and get involved, and not wonder who that crazy stranger is now hiding in their bedroom... 99% of the time, this is going to be totally harmless use of 'PC is in the scene', because you're right -- their involvement is extremely limited, and, further, it serves to give other people something to do, not something to do themselves, or starring them, etc.
I'm sure there could be a corner case example of someone Doing Bad Things with a scenario like this, but that would be a corner case of what's already a corner case.
It is the difference between 'extremely limited involvement' and 'no involvement', though. For a lot of folks, they are very much not the same, and any hint of presence -- or even mention, like 'somebody should call PC to let them know why our house is a mess, it got invaded by space monkeys once we're done with this fight!' -- would be a gross violation of CoI.
-
Caveat: I have epic amounts of school crap to do, and haven't read all 5 or 6 pages of replies, because a lot of it seems focused on prp's and storytellers and people generally +1'ing at length. So some of this might have already been covered and I missed it in a quick skim. Apologies.
But now, for my (probably not mainstream) opinion on this:
@GirlCalledBlu said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
- Staff should not play characters in positions of IC power; by default, they have OOC power because they are staffers, but abuse is always a concern when a Staffer has both OOC and IC power, and that IC power comes through their PC; if a Staff PC does end up in a leadership position, their character should be the minority (i.e. if they end up on the Senate Security Council, they should be easily outvoted by non-Staff PCs on the same council). In general though, Staff PCs should not hold IC positions of power.
I have the opposite opinion on this. I don't think that PCs should be the ones in positions of absolute authority. There are a variety of reasons for this, but at the end of the day, they really come down to two main points:
-
PCs are not the ones that are, for the most part, determining the game's direction. That's staff's job. Therefore, when you have your Top Tier Dude with a vision, and that vision doesn't jive with what Bob the Prince/HIerarch/Alpha/Whatever has in mind, you end up with tension, where the story/sphere/game as a whole would have been better served by having an NPC in that position that can actively serve to help direct things the way they should be going. Having to wrangle a player with some sort of authority into line with the story, or try and follow the authority-player's logic to the point where essentially staff's story is subservient to the player's desire, creates nightmares and headaches. Especially since everyone seems to insist that these people be elected in some sort of democratic fashion, rather than vetted through staff about who's going to be the actual best to serve in that position for story needs.
-
Staff are often putting in a lot of work on the game. They deserve all the same opportunities to advance their characters that everyone else does. If you don't trust the staffer's character with responsibility, then you don't actually trust the staffer with responsibility, which means... you probably shouldn't be playing there.
- Staff can play characters on their games, and these characters can have their own story arc that is significant to the character's development as long as this story arc does not violate point #1 or take a significant role in the metaplot.
Since I disagree with the first point here, I think that my response on this one is "Staff can play too, full stop."
- Staff can play their characters in metaplot events, as long as they are there to to participate solely as just another PC (i.e. "I'm here to blow shit up" or "I'm here to get pissant drunk and sleep under the table" [or any other variant]).
They should be able to participate as any other PC can, I think. They shouldn't be the one running the scene, of course, but they should have as much opportunity as others. All work and no real, enjoyable play makes for burnt out staffers that leave players without an actual staff.
- When a Staffer is on their PC, they are not operating as a Staffer, but as another PC on the game. There should be a clear boundary, and the PC bits should not be used as an arm of the Staffer. If the Staffer has something to say/do, they should say/do it on their wizbit.
It's the same person. And given the nature of transparency on who plays/does what on most games, this shouldn't really be necessary. I mean, it's not a major deal, but if someone says 'knock it off and stop being a dick', then you shouldn't have to resort to a wizbit to back that up. I mean, you -can-, sure. But either way, the message got sent.
Ultimately, I think the question here is... what role should Staff PCs have on a MUSH, and how does their role differ from the roles of non-Staff PCs?
Staffers are players who stepped up to the plate and are putting in the work to keep things running, for the most part, and as such they shouldn't be penalized for doing so. While whether they should be rewarded for such is a seperate question of gaming philosophy, I don't feel like penalizing the people who try and help make things better is ever going to move us in a positive direction.
-
My real ? is this: aren't staffers usually chosen from players who have risen to/performed well in leadership positions? The one time I was elevated to staff, that's how it happened. I already played an 'important' character before I was made staff, and while my experience is limited to one big game - in that game, that's how a lot of people were made staff.
So, what's the solution there, if you feel staff should not hold positions of IC power?
-
@Kanye-Qwest That's my feeling about it, too.
Now, there is a difference here between 'initial staff that built the place' and 'people brought into staff that were players first', which I could see argued. But that, to me, seems to be a difficult distinction to make specific rules about.
-
@Kanye-Qwest Not really. What you'll find more often these days is people either bringing friends (people they trust) on to staff, or they have people apply for open positions and current staff will talk about the choices and try to determine if any of them are suitable to the position. I've been staff, but I've never held any significant role in any sphere that I've played in. So no, staff isn't always chosen from a pool of 'people the players trust already'.
-
@Kanye-Qwest said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
aren't staffers usually chosen from players who have risen to/performed well in leadership positions?
That seems to have been the general position once upon a time ago, yeah. But of the two places that I've staffed at, I've been chosen staff both times by a process that (paraphrased) went something like this:
Staffer: We need staffers.
Me: Do you not have enough people?
Staffer: None that are willing to do it.
Me: ...I mean, I guess I can do it, if you don't mind? I think I've got enough knowledge to pull this off without too many hiccups.
Staffer: You're hired.Granted, the first time I was hired, it was as a build staffer, and then my positions sort of... blossomed out from there as I saw holes that needed to be filled. But in my experience, staffers are selected because... there's nobody else that wants to do it. I think part of this is because of the sort of philosophy of penalization that the games I'm currently on seem to use. Nobody wants to do the staff work because it's demanding, and unforgiving, and in large part requires you to sacrifice your time, as well as your fun, to try and make it work, or walk the constant tightrope that starts to get headachey after a while.
So merit-based systems only really work if you have people that are still willing to do the job after they've shown they have the skills and the knowledge, which seems to be lacking on some games.
-
@Derp said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
- PCs are not the ones that are, for the most part, determining the game's direction. That's staff's job.
Perhaps the crux of the discussion. Is the game going in a determined direction and is player anonymity/choice an illusion?
I think it depends on the game. Is the setting a city of supernatural entities that really is going to remain status quo for as long as we can all foresee (ie, Miami isn't changing, masquerade/escheat/tribal laws/will remain observed, plot may involve this nearly being broken until human hunters arise, but really, no one plans to change Miami)? I see no problem with Faction Heads being played by staff, or considered staff enough. Its on them to hold meetings, give players things to do, etc. etc. Now if the staff not only play FH, but also do the things that should go to players from FHs, they're taking away from the position of the players.
Is that environment in question, are you playing post apocalypse survivors, is it L&L where you set up the game implying players determine outcome? Then staff playing the one's who make the decisions should be off the table because player choice was offered.
Players need to be part of having some affect on determining resolution, otherwise its just railroading. If there is something at stake - rewards, goodies, XP, levels, new powers, etc. Then it passing the ball as has been pointed out, if its going to staff alts/friends. Folks are saying if a game is setup for the general public, but then the general public is ignored, its not really a game for the general public is it?
-
@Lotherio said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
Folks are saying if a game is setup for the general public, but then the general public is ignored, its not really a game for the general public is it?
Are they really, though? How democratic should games be, really?
You log into a game, read its theme, read its mechanics, and decide to play there based on preconceived notions of what is already there. Someone has already determined a direction for the game, determined the kinds of themes they want to see in it, determined the kind of feel that they want for it, and then they open it up for the general public to enjoy along with them along those specific guidelines.
If a game were truly open for the general public to decide the fate of, then someone would open a mush, take a poll on what people want to play, and then build the game that way. A mush is not a democratic organization, usually. Nor really should it be, if it's going to remain true to the theme of things. Players should have some sway on the storylines being told, yes, but they shouldn't be able to take it completely into the weeds, either.
So when we talk about 'player choice', how much player choice are we talking about, here? And if their choices are so far divergent from what the staff of the game wants in the first place, why not set up a new game? More games are never bad.
-
I feel, in the end of my internal logical debate, that as long as nobody is disenfranchised by the play, then I don't care who does what. Is everyone having fun? Or at least are people having the same fun having opportunities? Then who cares.
The problem is as @Ganymede said earlier, that there are far too few people who can manage both running a game and having an even view of things, or even playing a game and having same. In staff we call them bad staffers, in players we know who shares a scene and who doesn't. One of my biggest peeve about players who are more active than I am is how well they share plot or if they are a black hole of activity.
These are the kinds of rules that I would accept would be a good baseline, but I really don't believe there is an Answer to the questions raised in the initial post.
-
@Derp said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
@Lotherio said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
Folks are saying if a game is setup for the general public, but then the general public is ignored, its not really a game for the general public is it?
Are they really, though? How democratic should games be, really?
You log into a game, read its theme, read its mechanics, and decide to play there based on preconceived notions of what is already there. Someone has already determined a direction for the game, determined the kinds of themes they want to see in it, determined the kind of feel that they want for it, and then they open it up for the general public to enjoy along with them along those specific guidelines.
If a game were truly open for the general public to decide the fate of, then someone would open a mush, take a poll on what people want to play, and then build the game that way. A mush is not a democratic organization, usually. Nor really should it be, if it's going to remain true to the theme of things. Players should have some sway on the storylines being told, yes, but they shouldn't be able to take it completely into the weeds, either.
So when we talk about 'player choice', how much player choice are we talking about, here? And if their choices are so far divergent from what the staff of the game wants in the first place, why not set up a new game? More games are never bad.
They make a decision to open a game, they decide on general meta. But there is never one solution to the problem. If I say, its L&L fantasy, the synopsis is the ancient dragon has awoken, magic is returning to the land, and they must deal with it, I've set a direction yes. I may decide the dragon send orc tribes for the first 4 months, then bigger monsters, to slowly tear down defenses. Its a general plan. Folks may have supernatural lore, they may discover the tribes have been paid to come, someone may realize the dragon is awake. There are hundreds of roads to travel to get to, the big baddie is the dragon - if my staff alt/pc determines the course to get there without letting players play, I've railroaded, or ran a sandbox for my character and friends.
Edit : That's the meta for everyone to play.
If I run a player character and focus on his lineage and family all while dealing with that meta second hand (fighting orcs, listening to others say we need to prepare for the dragon etc), that's perfectly fine in my book. If I form the plan to take on the orcs, send someone to discover the dragon, talk with the orcs to find out they were bribed by McBaddie Wizard, the stool of the Dragon, then I've made it a game about me and my staff alt.
-
@Miss-Demeanor said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
As staff, you would have the authority to not only insist I remove one of the characters from the scene, but to enforce a punishment on me for disobeying. Yet you want to be exempt from that rule yourself when it comes to your own character.
I have the authority, but you're implying I would exercise it. Comparing two situations is comparing apples to oranges, besides.
Here's the main difference: the exemption where from consent of everyone involved and there is no benefit to the staff PC. Frankly, if no one cares that two PCs under one player are in a scene, and that scene isn't of any remarkable consequence, I wouldn't step in to enforce the rule because who the fuck cares?
I realize that people like to live in a world of absolute rules and laws, but blind adherence is foolhardy and unjust.
-
@Ganymede Yeah, as staff you have the authority to make bad, self-serving decisions all the time. That's not at all restricted to something you can do in a scene you are running.
-
@Ganymede I don't know you from a hole in the ground, so yeah, I'm implying that you would. I have no history with you that would suggest you wouldn't, I'm not one of your friends to trust that you wouldn't. Its a rule, and you're a staffer. Without anything else to base it on, I would presume that you as staff would uphold the rules of the game that you're running. Otherwise why would you have the rule in the first place?
You aren't special to me, so why would I treat you special and make an exception for you that I don't make for anyone else? You seem to be coming from a place of 'people trust me so I should be treated differently'. But I don't. I don't know you. I don't know anything about you other than what you've posted on these forums. So why should I trust you enough to bend rules for you? And before you say anything, yes there are people that I do trust enough to do it... and I still don't bend the rules for them. If you feel you're missing out because you chose to staff? Step down. Focus on your character. Be a player. If you want to contribute and staff? Suck it up, buttercup. You chose to staff, accept the give and take that comes with it.