The limits of IC/OOC responsibility

Arkandel

@faraday said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

Related but possibly tangential ... Has anybody ever seen IC PC leadership work out well in general? Sure there are those rare non-staff players who can handle both the OOC and IC demands without flaking out or abusing their authority, but does it happen often enough for people to really continue beating their heads against the wall? I gave up long ago. It seems that a lot of these problems go away if you just don't go there.

Yes, and when it's worked well it was exceptional. The rare combination of a leader PC played by an active, good, reasonable person - people I usually refer to as flagships - can do incredible things for a game. If you're lucky enough to get two of those at the same time in different factions (which is more likely than it sounds since one motivates the other) they will recruit new players, give them things to do organically and generate incredible plot momentum between them.

But it's rare. In fact I don't know that it can be planned for, since the wildcards here are real life availability (which few people can predict) and getting into the characters, which really good roleplayers can't guarantee they will ahead of time.

Lithium

I still stand by the belief that Leadership should be NPC's until a PC who has shown they can lead groups, even if it's just their coven/pack, and generate RP for others steps up and is able to ICly claim it. By that point they've proven that they are a good person for the game and will be a benefit rather than a detriment.

Otherwise...

This whole thing with staff not wanting to do stuff... that is hurting the hobby bad. We can't rely on PrP's and PC's to drive everything, because then they become focused on themselves, and the 'us' vs 'them' mentality becomes PC vs PC rather than continuing the games story.

Which is fine, I guess, for games that want that but to me the best games have active staff that are promoting an overarching story and theme that is part and parcel to the setting.

faraday

@arkandel said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

Yes, and when it's worked well it was exceptional.

Sure, but I asked if anyone had seen it work in general. But the responses so far mirror my experience: It's rare. It's the exception not the rule. When it goes wrong it's a dang train wreck.

We as a hobby spend so much time fussing over activity requirements, tryouts, contingency policies for the inevitable failure... why do we keep torturing ourselves with something that has proven time and time again to fail waaaaaaaaay more often than it ever works? Instead of just embracing the fact that this isn't a very good way to do things and exploring alternatives?

surreality

@faraday Sadly, beating our heads against walls is pretty common.

We all remember 'that one time it was awesome', and most of us try to structure things in such a way as to attempt to enable that to happen again, or foster it happening more often.

Sometimes, it works well enough to make something more frequent, or easier. Those are baby steps that are worthwhile, definitely.

But by the same token, I agree that the 'but but but that one time!'-ism isn't good to expect. (This goes both ways, too; people shouldn't be crafting policy based specifically on bad acts by folks like Spider or Rex, for instance, either.)

It's like trying to replicate a 'happy accident' in art. Sometimes, you find a new technique. Most of the time, though, you just have to be glad it happened once and any attempt to recreate that is going to fail spectacularly.

mietze

I think the problem is that it can be a good way to do things, and most people have seen a good leader they aspire to be. Or think they were.

Also, not to generalize overmuch, but it’s my experience that mushing people are generally pretty cocky and kind of egotistical when it comes to their caliber of RP/should’ves. And they like to complain and bitch about...everything.

I think that is why you often will hear whining of the first order about “what do you mean I could never be <position>?!?! Well what am I supposed to achieve then?!?” Especially when those positions aren’t defined in the first place. I also think frankly people get bored of PvE especially if there is no or minimal accessible staff STing and so they like having a pc leader to beat up on icly and oocly.

I realize this is super uncharitable, but I really can’t explain enough how stressful being a non-staff leader can be because of the boredom nitpicks and beat ups. Including from, again IME, STAFF PCs who don’t lift a finger to help with giving people something to do or to help answer pertinent @mail or whatever but are happily playing along badmouthing icly and sometimes oocly.

I think pc leaders largely are desired as foils. But it doesn’t work out well for anyone concerned and contributes to a really bad, negative atmosphere on a game.

Arkandel

@mietze said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

I think the problem is that it can be a good way to do things, and most people have seen a good leader they aspire to be. Or think they were.

I will be the cynic this time around and point out the obvious; to many people a 'good leader' is one who favors them. Conversely that's the same as staff - who's good? The person who gives me what I want.

The best way to judge both the best and worse among us is perspective, and we can only get that once sufficient time goes by.

mietze

@arkandel yes, and I have seen people humblebrag about what a great leader they are/were when I know for a fact at that time they bragged about how they tried to shut out people they didn’t like from plot stuff or whatnot, or didn’t see how they made people very uncomfortable with their not so well hidden animosity.

But. When it works it works. I just think it’s a hell of a lot more hidden work to get going on both staff and player side than our idealism about player autonomy suggests.

Gingerlily

@darinelle said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

@arkandel - The way we handle it in Arx is Voices/2nds in command, who act with the voice of the faction leader. Spread the love and share the burdens, because it shouldn't and can't always be THAT ONE GUY who stands AT THE NEXUS OF ALL DECISIONS. It's not feasible IRL, and it's certainly not feasible in a game.

I think the responsibility if you have someone dependent directly upon you for their arc is a scene once a week. I also think you should never be in a position where more than 3-4 people are directly dependent upon you for their entire arc, esp. when they're different arcs. At that point, then more people need to be involved organizationally.

I like that Arx thing. The voices thing. Spreading out the authority so that the stories don't bottleneck because Joebob (Duke Joebob, I wanna make him fancy) has been awol for work or finals or something. It makes it easier on Duke Joebob, and also more fun for the pople picked to be Voice for Jobbobland since they get to call the shots too. 10/10 thumbs up.

saosmash

The only downside to the voice thing really is that sometimes it means that when people want to poop on authority for fun they have more players whose fun they can poop on.

insomniac7809

It's always kinda a balancing act. The Voices thing is a really good one on Arx, picking out people who are empowered with all the Head Honcho's authority ad spreading the workload around. But I really don't agree with people who say that faction leadership should always be NPCs. I get that it can be hard to find a player who can step up, but "NPC only" except for antagonists is always a call I'm iffy on. (Easier in a roster game, so the sphere leadership doesn't change every couple weeks.)

IC relationships, that can be another tricky one. I won't try and say there's a hard and fast rule for how much someone should be able to ghost on their IC significant other before the other player decides they're done for OOC reasons. Relationship RP is a big part of the draw for a lot of people, and someone who isn't getting that from their RP partner shouldn't be expected to stick with a ghost for the sake of the PCs.

Dependent PCs... okay, I really, really rarely do those myself. I need a HUGE amount of trust if I'm going to make one of my PCs that intimately tied to another PC, if I'm not planning to ditch the character if the other PC goes. The only thing I can say is to NOT do what one modWoD storyteller did, which was slate a ghoul to be executed because her regnant was gone for so long that she declared him IC absent instead of just away doing stuff.

Arkandel

@insomniac7809 said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

But I really don't agree with people who say that faction leadership should always be NPCs. I get that it can be hard to find a player who can step up, but "NPC only" except for antagonists is always a call I'm iffy on.

Not to derail my own thread but there are several reasons to pick NPCs other than just not being able to find suitable players for them.

There's no 'singing chairs' phenomenon. This is really common in games - they open, and two days after (sometimes two days before) all the leadership positions are already taken.
The very act of replacing a leadership figure has a thematic impact on your game. Has the Prince been switched six times this year? Well, your game's Praxis is now a highly volatile one whether you meant for it or not.
It's easier on staff to regulate and moderate their own roster. Either they can make such NPCs oppressive to showcase the PCs as the story's underdogs, slap a yellow question mark over their heads to turn them into quest givers, assassinate them to hook new plots... all sorts of things that might be awkward - and take time to communicate and coordinate - if they are PCs.
The big one for me... I've never seen as much drama generated by anything, and I mean anything on MU* than chasing ranks and positions. The rat race turns people nuts.

As much as I love a game with leaders played by good folks, the risk is admittedly very high.

surreality

@arkandel Pretty much this.

High-ranking leadership, really? I have come to see as part of the game's setting. They are as much a part of the world as the grid. They are essentially a public utility, and exist for the benefit of everyone.

Using the playground analogy, they aren't costumes to be taken out in the toybox and put on by individuals, they're more like the swingset or the slide that's making the active play space (the grid) more enjoyable for everyone.

Sure, they can get blown to hell once in a while -- but like grid squares, we generally do not do that without good reason these days. There's a reason for that.

Ganymede

@pyrephox said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

I feel like some times people demand too much of others in those positions and forget that the other person is a player, trying to have fun, and not just a dispenser of things your PC needs/wants. If you're wanting/needing something from another PC, take a moment and think about what you are doing to make your needs actively fun for the PC's player.

I feel like sometimes people clamber for positions of power before considering that other players, who are trying to have fun, will require some of their online play time for their PC's needs/wants. If you're going to take on a leadership position, you need to recognize that other PCs are going to need things from you, so take a moment and think about whether you want to compromise your funtime to help others make their time fun.

WildBaboons

@ganymede said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

I feel like sometimes people clamber for positions of power before considering that other players, who are trying to have fun, will require some of their online play time for their PC's needs/wants. If you're going to take on a leadership position, you need to recognize that other PCs are going to need things from you, so take a moment and think about whether you want to compromise your funtime to help others make their time fun.

10/10

It largely depends on how a game is structured but if leadership ends up gatekeepers for plot/other characters being included in the fun.. don't take the position if you aren't willing to do that.

saosmash

I think "some" is the operative word. It is a balance. I recently was elevated ICly to one of those positions and I agreed to it expressly because I wanted to help shoulder the load. Still doesn't mean I want all my RP to be the load.

surreality

I honestly think 'gatekeeping' positions IC are bad news for a game, period.

IC policing is a different animal.

The initial 'is this character a permitted type for this sphere' call is something that should be handled in chargen, so the 'and now we shall have an IC gatekeeping process for this PC that OOC we know is within allowed standards for the game' step seems like it's just far too prone to abuse and bad calls that completely destroy someone's game experience.

Does it require a small measure of handwavium? Yes. But it's of a kind that prevents people from going through character creation again if somebody gets a bug up their ass or decides to power-trip.

Things like this are why I always loathed the very idea of the 'Welcome Wagon' groups in Changeling spheres. Yes, IC, they serve a purpose -- but in the interest of 'we are all players who want to have fun'? They are pure detriment, because the players in question already know the character they're grilling passes muster. It becomes nothing more than a shitty trap, at best, for the unpopular, newbies still learning a bit who kludge something as a player goof that the character wouldn't have made, or people outside the clique if a clique manages to get into this role.

Ganymede

@surreality said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

I honestly think 'gatekeeping' positions IC are bad news for a game, period.

I think that many game developers don't realize this, and create a game where a gatekeeper is a necessary position.

And it's really easy to get around, especially for World of Darkness games where this shit crops up regularly. Just post the following:

It is presumed that, wherever your character is from, he or she has been vetted by the authorities and has been in town for a couple of weeks when he or she hits the Grid. If you're a vampire, you've met the Seneschal; if you're a changeling, you've sworn the appropriate oath of fealty, which, for this game's purposes, will provide no benefit but also not count against your total oath total. We will not accept any concepts that fall outside of this presumption.

There. You're recognized. End of story.

surreality

@ganymede Exactly. If a game is not going to implement such a thing, I am very likely to side-eye them hard.

Policing is different, as 'keeping an eye on what people are doing at any point over the course of their time on the game for inappropriate IC shenanigans' is a different animal, and much more viable. (And it still has pitfalls, but compared to gatekeeping? Still so much more viable.)

faraday

@surreality said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

I honestly think 'gatekeeping' positions IC are bad news for a game, period.

+100 for this. The only reason we're having this discussion about an "appropriate" level of IC/OOC responsibility is because games persist in giving players IC/OOC responsibilities that prevent other players from playing without their permission. This is not at all necessary, and IMHO it's very detrimental to the game.

In a Wild West setting, the sheriff is a gatekeeper. Make them a NPC and let the players be deputies.

In a military setting, the CO is a gatekeeper. Make them a NPC and keep everyone on an even playing field rank-wise. (TGG was the first to do that, and I've done it on BSGU with good results.)

Players in my experience are far more willing to "beg forgiveness rather than ask permission" if they're dealing with a NPC leader rather than a PC one, as long as staff doesn't bash them with a micromanaging hammer.

Yes, it's super dooper amazing when you get a player who's able and willing to be a great IC/OOC leader. But I really think it's time we stopped designing our core game concepts around ideas that only work when you're lucky enough to get a rare unicorn to play them. Then people can just relax and play without worrying about devoting X hours a week to administrivia (IC or OOC). Then this idea of "responsibility" falls away for everyone who's not staff.

(You can't get around the IC relationship issues when people stop playing, but that's a different beast. Unless you're a roster game forcing marriages on people, they chose to be in that situation. They can sort out how to extricate themselves from it.)

Arkandel

The thing about positions of authority is that they really need to be abstracted. We consider them carrots or hooks, in which case they can be placed in their proper context.

So for instance if a position is a carrot - a goal meant to motivate players - then it's no different than a number of things on their sheet; just like there's a reason we don't just cram enough XP on characters to fulfill their every possible purchase since it'd remove the incentive, there's no point in handing out that Prince position in a political MU* to a person right away either, even if they can handle it. What we obtain easily we esteem lightly.

Likewise if the same position is a hook, serving a thematic purpose for the game ("who do I talk to if I want to convince House Poppins to lend us some of their umbrellas?") or to provide players with distinct roles ("you're the keeper of umbrellas!"), then they need to go in understanding their role. Niches are super important in MU* since ultimately there are so few unique roles; we are never the only sailor, healer or swordsman around, so these should be treasured but also, somehow, monitored. That latter part is very tricky.

Probably a good compromise is a mix of the two. I'd consider it a serious issue in most cases if PCs can hold the highest positions right away in a MU*'s lifespan, but a glass ceiling can harm as much as it can help, being a band-aid over a broader issue. There's usually no reason they can't occupy mid-range ranks though, especially since there can be more of those around, maybe with some objective/fair/non-terrible mechanism for advancement once players can prove they can handle it OOC before they move up the ranks.