The limits of IC/OOC responsibility
-
@faraday said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:
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.
A big part of this, too? It isn't just that leader that gets saddled with the additional overhead -- it's everyone under them, too. They just have less agency, really, when it comes down to it, since the decision-making power is in the hands of someone they have to track down and ask, and plenty of games require this to be through some IC method, which means arranging for a scene or using some other IC communication method.
If there's not someone who has to give a 'yes/no' to most things, you have a basic policy, instead: "here is the list of stuff that's totally OK, go ahead and do it, here's the stuff you should check with staff about first, here is the list of stuff we simply do not do here" -- and you're more or less done. Bonus points if the latter lists are extremely short and straightforward.
-
@surreality said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:
They just have less agency, really, when it comes down to it, since the decision-making power is in the hands of someone they have to track down and ask
Yes. Players seem to be far more willing to beg forgiveness than ask permission when it's a NPC leader. Putting NPCs over them can actually give them more autonomy. This is true even for middle-tier leaders, which @Arkandel mentioned. A squad leader isn't the CO, but they are The Authority for their squad with all the baggage that entails.
I don't want to cry Wrongfun here if games choose to allow PC leaders at whatever tiers they want to. That's their choice, of course. My experience simply has been that the cons far outweigh the pros.
-
@surreality said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:
If there's not someone who has to give a 'yes/no' to most things, you have a basic policy, instead: "here is the list of stuff that's totally OK, go ahead and do it, here's the stuff you should check with staff about first, here is the list of stuff we simply do not do here" -- and you're more or less done. Bonus points if the latter lists are extremely short and straightforward.
This is an issue with the Mass Effect game I'm planning out. Should there be anyone that says yes or no to plans? Who makes those decisions? And this is an important issue because there is a communal set of resources to draw from, and a communal direction set by staff as to what missions are available, what tasks need to be done, and so on.
But I want there to be some sort of personal, individual ambition as well because that's what (in my belief) tends to spur players to being more active. It's all well and good if the kingdom isn't overrun by barbarians are the result of player actions, but players are more likely to act if there is some personal gain for their PCs.
-
There is also the cases where PC leaders aren't just gatekeepers to playing in general, but to plot involvement. They may be given plot fu nuggets with the assumption that they are actually going to lead and disseminate the nuggets to the rest of their faction. Summon the knights to the round table, delegate, etc. Often enough it instead ends up as a group of PC leaders disappearing to Quest for McGuffin using their combined nugget stockpiles while everyone under them is left doing Bar RP.
-
@ganymede I think that breakdown might be helpful anyway, even if it's just for your planning.
Make a list of things you want players to be able to do with complete autonomy.
Make a list of things you don't ever want to see happen on the game, period.
See how much of what's left can go into the first category after you take a few deep breaths, then figure out mechanisms to handle the remainder.
-
@wildbaboons said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:
Often enough it instead ends up as a group of PC leaders disappearing to Quest for McGuffin using their combined nugget stockpiles while everyone under them is left doing Bar RP.
This will never happen on my ME game, mostly because everyone's supposed to be on the same team. The Company announces missions, tasks, and objectives, and folks can go about resolving them on their own. Success means a bump in status, which may eventually build up to promotions. With promotions may come an expectation of greater involvement, but that doesn't mean others are shut out from involvement.
-
One of the perhaps less discussed parts of leadership issues are the closed room scenes. In my opinion it's often a misplaced peeve, but it definitely exists.
We've all seen it; plot is happening and The Glorious Leaders convene together to discuss it. Outsiders sometimes begrudge this because important IC things are being discussed to which they can't be part of or even privy to.
What's less obvious perhaps is that, for one reason or the other, ranging from roleplaying ability, IC relations or even OOC socialization skills (and typically I'd argue, a combination of such factors) such exclusive meetings are inevitable. There can be town-hall get-togethers where eeeeverybody gets a say but those tend to be chaotic as hell and devolve into walls of text and people getting butthurt because they aren't being listened to.
And yet that's the part where I think things go wrong - such players are simply not going to be listened to regardless because they lack some of the factors above... yet the only difference here is they get to blame it on not having the right rank. After all if they were Prince or a major House Head they would be, right?
It's kind of an awkward situation all around.
-
The most key thing I've found over time, as far as enjoying being a fachead, is "being backed up/supported by staff." Whether for plot or disciplinary purposes.
I currently am, and it's great. Lots of fun. When I haven't been, it's a nightmare.
Also I generally think "what you find fun in RP" will inform your happiness/success as a leader. It's helpful to actually enjoy the kind of RP you get playing a leader: delegating, guiding, etc. If you RP to solve plots and use all your cool powers, don't be a leader. A lot of leadership is giving up the ability to do that so that your group people can.
I find a lot of people who make this mistake wind up being unhappy in the job, or make their group unhappy, or both.
-
Kind of.
I liked how Haunted Memories in the Changeling sphere was set up. It was wildly sycophantic, but with few exceptions we had only moderately okay leaders.
But here’s the thing: This was expected. Our leaders didn’t have to do much, and we were set up more like a democracy, the sort where the majority served the whole. A new leader every 3 months meant that we could exist with the typical Mush character turnover, and that we could see who the new Staff Friend was more often.
-
@quixotic said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:
Also I generally think "what you find fun in RP" will inform your happiness/success as a leader. It's helpful to actually enjoy the kind of RP you get playing a leader: delegating, guiding, etc. If you RP to solve plots and use all your cool powers, don't be a leader. A lot of leadership is giving up the ability to do that so that your group people can.
^ This. To me, one of the top three leadership qualifications someone must have -- in any capacity -- is 'creates opportunities for others (to do more than oooooh and ahhh at you)'.
It is stunning how few people grok that one, when it just seems... obvious.
-
@ganymede When we ran our Mass Effect game, we had staff npcs in charge of our mercenary company for a long time (although one of them eventually turned out to be the Shadow Broker, spoilers). It worked pretty well although I always wanted players to feel more free to go out and just do things than they were.
-
Double post: the best way I can think of to describe the 'you are not leadership material' crowd?
They want to be James Bond and M at the same time.
There are reasons that does not work.
-
Give the example that @bored gave about Star Crusade earlier in the thread this is something I have been thinking about a lot for any new Fading Suns game, also keep in mind stuff that I observed on Arx.
To start with I am looking at having a much flatter structure for feudal/whatever power holders. On Arx a baron gets pretty much the same ways to interact with the economy/systems as a duke but with smaller numbers, all dukes report to a head of house whilst having marquis level nobles reporting to them, etc. This is both not very interesting and pretty weird if trying to emulate any kind of actual feudal hierarchy and its snakepit messiness. Playing a duke I ran into a fair bit of griping from say, counts about how poor and unimportant they were, let alone barons. Anyone not a landed noble was basically not on the scale at all outside of the head of church guy, who was an NPC who then politically shot the faction in the head before being replaced. It was all very dependent upon having a head of 'faction' (High Lord tier) who was active and you got along with and people were almost inevitably super in lockstep with said person as a result.
So my plan is basically two 'tiers' of IC power holder. You can have a 'minor benefice', which means you spend points in character generation to get a small income of abstracted strategic resources (Cash, Manpower, Industry, Influence, Technology, etc). At this point you are very much not a 'power player' but could be a landed knight, a rich priest, a guilder with investments, or perhaps somebody with offworld assets who has diverted significant resources to their benefit whilst they do stuff 'here'.
Or you have control of a full on 'Benefice', which could be controlling a barony or county, being a bishop, controlling a major business, being a mayor, etc. These are all pretty much on the same tier with the richest perhaps 2.5 times the income of the poorest and the things bought using character generation points. There are also ICly a lot of people at this level, a few hundred, meaning that the vast majority will be NPCs presumed to exist and able to be persuaded to actually help or hinder using Influence.
A count is only really different from a baron in that they have a benefice giving (most of the time) more income and also a half dozen baronies loosely affiliated with them, these baron tier people nominally owe them a certain degree of military service but in turn a count has a higher military obligation to their liege. Not all barons report to a count rather than a duke, hell, not all feudal benefices are owned by a baron, you can be a knight and have one if your title is rich but not titled, a landless count, or an abbot with feudal obligations for your monasteries' land grant.
So, effectively, no 'hard' factions. The bishop of Ramlah, the Count of Ramlah, the various guild leaders of Ramlah and the landed nobility of the county? They are not at all assumed to be working together. If the Count turns out to be useless then one of the barons or baronesses can step up easily enough, or perhaps the Bishop gets things done, or perhaps everyone raids each other, goes into debt and ends up owned by the Reeve Director.
All Hawkwoods? Definitely not assumed to be working together. Any positions above 'I have a benefice that is particularly rich' would come down to ducal positions, being a general or admiral, treasurer, etc. The intent is very much for these to be appointed or voted on, temporary and volatile.
Top level leadership being mostly NPC at least to start with, in the form of two (Well, three counting offworld) ducal titles and the archbishop but the most relevant duke being largely incapable. Plus a city council running the capital/main play area, which would likely be PC dominated.
So essentially not putting some people at the top out of character generation because they applied for an empty slot and trying to avoid any character becoming a 'bottleneck' unless they can be easily ICly replaced. If some knight manages to wangle a position of 'Lord High Admiral' then fails to keep their peers happy about it? Then they can and will be replaced.
-
I think it’s important to point out that it’s possible to be “not leadership material” as a player and be perfectly lovely and an awesome RPer with great intentions.
It’s just that perhaps they get overly stressed/avoidant with ooc unhappiness with others or overly involved.
Or they have a mental or physical illness that requires unpredictable and/or sudden and/or lengthy downtimes.
Or they take stuff very personally even when it’s low volume, and feel like they must/should please everyone all the time, and when they can’t do that they will become reactionary.
Or they are not very organized and/or aren’t good at building a support team of others.
It’s possible to not be a bad or selfish player
but still be a poor choice for a fachead. And there are many great rpers who are much better support than leadership not because of personal failings, but RL time commitments or personality. -
Everything Mietze said. Being a great leader does not mean you're a great RPer and vice versa.
Part of the OOC responsibility of taking on IC leadership is recognizing your limitations and wants out of a position and not taking it if you aren't able to meet its requirements.
Though it actually reminds me of a game when a great RPer took on a position of leadership just to be a terrible leader. It was actually pretty fun and awesome all around. They OOCly knew they were a terrible leader and inept as a ruler.. and ICly blissfully unaware of their incompetence. We had to scramble to fix the problems they created and worked to depose them for the good of the kingdom.
-
As was mentioned earlier there is this idea that being 'in charge' is some carrot, some goal, that people should strive for.
It's /really/ not.
I cannot stress that enough, but so many people seem to think it is, that it's the ultimate expression of PC power, well no, not really. It's not something everyone should try to be, most people /can't/ even try to be it, because they would fail.
As was said before also (by someone else I think) if you are silly enough to have PC leadership all over, don't be afraid to remove them one way or the other.
It's not a carrot, it's a bullseye on your back.
-
@packrat said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:
Give the example that @bored gave about Star Crusade earlier in the thread this is something I have been thinking about a lot for any new Fading Suns game, also keep in mind stuff that I observed on Arx.
To start with I am looking at having a much flatter structure for feudal/whatever power holders. On Arx a baron gets pretty much the same ways to interact with the economy/systems as a duke but with smaller numbers, all dukes report to a head of house whilst having marquis level nobles reporting to them, etc. This is both not very interesting and pretty weird if trying to emulate any kind of actual feudal hierarchy and its snakepit messiness. Playing a duke I ran into a fair bit of griping from say, counts about how poor and unimportant they were, let alone barons. Anyone not a landed noble was basically not on the scale at all outside of the head of church guy, who was an NPC who then politically shot the faction in the head before being replaced.
Although I like the ideas you've brought up, I'm going to quibble with this characterization - and that's speaking as the player of the PC who was one of the ones leading the charge to replace the NPC. The PCs playing the heads of the great houses mostly voted to commit human sacrifice, in an /extremely public setting/, and in return, the NPC excommunicated them, since the religion in question is unambigiously against human sacrifice. This wasn't 'shooting the faction in the head' it was IC actions leading to IC consequences. Did the NPC do it, in part, to further his own political ambitions? Absolutely. Was the human sacrificed justified? Most likely. But if the heads of several Catholic nations all got together and decided to sacrifice people to Satan on public TV, the Pope is gonna excommunicate them, no matter that they claim that the public sacrifice is necessary to avert the apocalypse.
What actually led to the fantasy Pope being replaced was the possible murder of a High Lady, which never went to trial due to Sudden And Mysterious Disappearance.
While it was a bit frustrating in the moment to have your head NPC seem to be determined to turn the entire PC population against you, once I sat back and thought about it, it led to fun RP and it reinforced the theme and the consequences that SHOULD be involved in things like...publicly deciding to sacrifice human beings because of magical things no one outside the PCs actually believe in.
Which is, coming back to the topic, also a part of leadership play that NPCs are better for than PCs. It /sucks/ to be the PC everyone loves to hate because you're having your character enforce the less cuddly parts of theme, or telling someone that no, your character is never going to approve of what they see as an insult to the org they're leading, no matter /how/ popular the character (or player) doing the insult is. NPCs don't necessarily need to give a crap about the fact that PCs are always going to interpret things through a very 'PCs are the center of the world and the exception to every rule' lens. (And I'm even in /favor/ of that lens, within reason.)
-
@Pyrephox Ooh, the excommunication thing made perfect sense, it was the not-pope throwing somebody off a bridge that was the 'shot in the head'. Before that I know my character was frankly pretty much in agreement with the church. I mean believing the word of demonstratively asshole elves that the human sacrifice was necessary or useful to anyone other than elf assholes always struck him as pretty deeply suspect.
-
@packrat I've railed against the 'standard L&L hierarchical feudalism' a few times. It's a structure that seemingly gets repeated on every game, and it's idiotic on every game. High tier nobles absolutely make the low tier nobles pointless. Staff will always claim that they're not, that they can agitate or band together and cause problems, but I've seen that happen organically precisely zero times ever.
Blame lazy staff, the ever present corrupt/just stupid need to give people feature characters, etc.
-
@bored said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:
Blame lazy staff, the ever present corrupt/just stupid need to give people feature characters, etc.
Although I agree we (as a whole) tend to copy things other games did without thinking through them too much, malevolence not necessarily the case here. Sometimes it's the source material that's responsible (cue all the Kushiel L&L games here) and other times the emphasis is elsewhere - I've criticized Arx at times but no one in their right minds would blame those people for being lazy or corrupt, you know?
I do agree that making the higher tiers of ranks both much more powerful and accessible cuts other roleplay right at the knees because if I can go to Jane Supernoble directly to get what I want, why would I bother bugging May Kindanoble about it? In a realistic world I probably wouldn't be able to get an audience as easily, or I wouldn't have enough to offer to be worth their effort, but on a MU* both Jane and May's players need to roleplay as much as I do so generally speaking the path of least resistance goes over May's head.
Once again I will mention resource management. It's the real missing piece from politics on MU*; without it granting favors, making meaningful political decisions and maintaining friends (or creating enemies) due to the cost of your choices bears a lot less weight. If you have such a system then it opens a lot more venues for alliances and out-maneuvering others.