Dust to Dust (Formerly the nWoD grenade thread)
-
You haven't missed my answer; I don't think I gave one. No, my plan is not. I will be giving an incentive (not XP) to players who run PRPs. Staff are players as well; they are welcome to run player run plots as a player as much as anyone else. But only staff is able to run game level plot. It cannot be done by players, for a reward or otherwise.
Edited to add a little clarity.
-
@Sunny Alright, thank you.
-
Essentially, everyone can do X and get the reward for it. Only staff can do Y, and there's no virtual-material reward for that.
Edited to add: I know, I know, correlation != causation, but I'm just going to throw this out there anyway. I've had more offers to assist with Storytelling on the staff level in the last day or two than I have in the months leading up to it. People are excited about the whole thing. It's nowhere near the disaster people seem to think it is. If I were having a shortage of volunteers that would be one thing, but I'm absolutely not.
-
@Thenomain said:
@Sunny said:
Ultimately, it boils down to the fact that I refuse to reward staff with advantages over other players. They're there to facilitate RP, not benefit themselves.
On the other hand, we as a group demand so much of them—especially on bigger games—that we are having problems finding people willing to staff under these conditions.
The answer is to change the conditions, but that merely sounds easy. Gaining acceptance to it may prove troublesome and even then we can't be sure it will work. We can either try without knowing our chance of success, or not and continue the status-quo, waiting for someone else to do the hard work of effort/success/failure.
Oh dang, I think I missed answering this one (thank you all, btw, you did save what was otherwise going to be a shitty afternoon; this talk has been fantastic). I am attempting to change the conditions on my game to ask less of staff because I agree -- we demand way, way, way too much of staff, and we burn people out faster than we can attract new people. The particular aspect of the conditions that I'm working on targeting right now is the expectations I have of staff, to translate out into the expectations they have of themselves.
-
@Ganymede said:
@Miss-Demeanor said:
Are you going to start giving your Admins and TL's xp for doing jobs?
Of course not. But if you are going to award players with XP for running plots, then why should staff not be able to gain XP for running plots?
I concur with Sunny's sentiment that staff should not enjoy rewards that players can't or don't.
Because your player run plots aren't advancing sphere plots or (hopefully) metaplots. STAFF should be running those things, not players. Staff should have that inside information, not players. That should be a Staff ST's entire job, handling the plots that cannot or should not be handled by players. You want to run a Monster-of-the-Week on your player bit? Fine, go ahead, that's what PRP's are for. You want to run the sphere plot on the player bit that you absolutely should not be adjudicating from as a staffer just so you can get an extra couple xp for your character? No, fuck that, run it on your staff bit and use the MotW and other low level stuff to pad your character sheet with.
-
I just don't see having inside information or more things to mine for plots as a reason why they shouldn't get XP. It just don't work that way in my head. But hey, if it works, good!
-
@Coin said:
I just don't see having inside information or more things to mine for plots as a reason why they shouldn't get XP. It just don't work that way in my head. But hey, if it works, good!
It isn't even completely about the XP. I wouldn't want staff running the -major plots- for the sphere/game from the character bit that they absolutely should -never- attempt to make staff-level decisions from. Separation of church and state, man. Use your character bit for YOU, use your staff bit for the GAME.
Edit: Though I still feel giving a staff storyteller xp for running a plot, the thing that is what they signed on to DO, is jank. If you aren't going to hand out xp to all staff for doing their job, then don't make staff storytellers an exception. They signed on to do something specific, just like every other staffer. Why should they be special in getting xp for doing their job when no other staffer gets the same bonus? Every staffer accepts the responsibility of taking time away from their character(s) to help the game as a whole. Whether by running a sphere, doing jobs, mediating between players, storytelling, whatever. If every other staffer that is taking time away from their character to help the game as a whole isn't getting xp for their character bits, Staff ST's should be no different. Players CHOOSE to run plot. They aren't required to. They never accepted storytelling as one of their responsibilities by joining the game as a player. THAT is why they originally got xp for it. As a way of saying 'thank you for taking time to fill up the space between huge sphere/game plots to keep everyone interested while we cook up the next round of insanity'. Staff ST's accept that as a responsibility, a requirement of their position. Not a choice, not a perk, a -requirement-. That is their sole responsibility as Staff. They can still CHOOSE to run other things from their player bit to get xp. But they are by no means -required to do it-. And if they choose to take that time away from their character? They get xp for it, same as every other player.
-
@Miss-Demeanor said:
I just don't see having inside information or more things to mine for plots as a reason why they shouldn't get XP. It just don't work that way in my head. But hey, if it works, good!
That makes no sense to me. When I run plot as a player my character isn't present. Whether I have 'insider knowledge' or not is quite irrelevant.
It's not so much the rewards I care about here - as mentioned, even on games which offer it they add up to ... not that much. You could make that much or more far easier using Conditions and Aspirations.
No, it's the idea that player-ran plots are somehow unwanted that gets me. That somehow players actively participating in storytelling is a bad thing because it leads to staff not wanting to do the same thing - as if the two groups are at odds rather than just people on the same game wearing slightly different hats at different times.
It's an approach outside my realm of experience. It places a divide between things that needn't be divided and devalues PrPs by implying (in fact, stating) they are worth less. I don't see my plots as 'monster of the week' scenarios and I wouldn't want to run any if that was what I was permitted to.
-
@Arkandel said:
No, it's the idea that player-ran plots are somehow unwanted that gets me. That somehow players actively participating in storytelling is a bad thing because it leads to staff not wanting to do the same thing - as if the two groups are at odds rather than just people on the same game wearing slightly different hats at different times.
What? How do you get that?
Player run Plots are plenty wanted. In fact, they're incentivized.
@Arkandel said:
It's an approach outside my realm of experience. It places a divide between things that needn't be divided and devalues PrPs by implying (in fact, stating) they are worth less. I don't see my plots as 'monster of the week' scenarios and I wouldn't want to run any if that was what I was permitted to.
Since Player run Plots are the only ones that get a incentive, how exactly do you think they're worth less?
Staff don't get XP for running Staff plots. That doesn't say "Staff Plot is better and worth more". Staff don't get rewards for doing their job.
The difference between Staff and Player plots is one of scale and scope, not of importance or value. Staff don't get rewards for any of their volunteer Staff duties. That's that. Players do get rewards for going above and beyond what's expected of Players and running things for people.
I can see the argument that this devalues Staff participation/time, though I fundamentally disagree with it (and I do think its a question of ethics: Staff should not benefit from their position). But the argument that it somehow is saying PRP are unwanted or not valued is bizarre and backwards IMHO.
-
@Arkandel You misquoted. I didn't say that. I'm -against- Staff ST's gaining xp for doing their staffly duties.
And player-run plots are JUST as important as staff plots, in their own way. It can take weeks or months to build up a really good sphere/meta plot arc. In that interim, player run plots help to fill that void while staff work up the next round of Dire Threat to Everything. PRP's helped to keep people active and interested in plot stuffs between large arcs. And that is why it was originally decided that players would get xp for running such things. Where it fell through was when Staff ST's started running staff plot through their player bits so they too could get xp (i.e. they gamed the system). Rather than put a stop to it, ALL plot ended up in player hands and the Staff ST position all but disappeared from existence. Which was a terrible thing, since staff plot then largely disappeared as well. Nobody wanted to be a Staff ST and take the time away from their character to run a plot as a perk-less job when they could run multiple smaller plots from their character bits and get xp from it.
-
@Miss-Demeanor said:
Where it fell through was when Staff ST's started running staff plot through their player bits so they too could get xp (i.e. they gamed the system). Rather than put a stop to it, ALL plot ended up in player hands and the Staff ST position all but disappeared from existence. Which was a terrible thing, since staff plot then largely disappeared as well. Nobody wanted to be a Staff ST and take the time away from their character to run a plot as a perk-less job when they could run multiple smaller plots from their character bits and get xp from it.
Since @Coin explained why a narrow fragmentation of 'staff' and 'non-staff' plot (and equivalent rewards) isn't a good idea I won't go over it; but the situation there sounds like a natural result of that. Staff gaming the system isn't mutually exclusive with the fact the system was bad.
There was an artificial restriction on who can run what which made no sense (what do people care if their story is being served by a player-bit or a staff-bit if it's the same story?) which made no sense. Who did it serve? How did the game benefit from it?
As for the rest, the idea that PrPs are important 'in their own way' or 'to help fill that void' while staff work out the next round of their own plot is what I'm talking about in how they're valued less.
-
This is an edited version of one of my working drafts; these are some storytelling definitions we're using, and perhaps they will help with shared understanding.
Type of plots:
Metaplot -> Chapter -> Multiple Global Factions -> Local Faction(s)/Global Faction -> PersonalMetaplot: Background plot of the game, created, maintained, and run by Blue Rose. At this level are things that include the greater world outside of our area, the big bad background story which will offer hooks for the chapter plots. There are no rewards for running this plot level.
Chapter/Season: This would be the 'main' plot of the game; run only by staff, these are the major plot arcs that carry the game's metaplot forward. These will be formal, and typically should last between 3 and 4 months. All storytelling staff's chapter plots will be related to the metaplot, and they must involve two or more global factions. There are no rewards for running this plot level.
Multiple Global Factions (2+): All plots of this level require staff approval. They may or may not be connected to the chapter plots; their duration is not tied to the seasonal system. Most of these will be staff run plots; it is unlikely that Blue Rose will approve a player run plot that falls into this category due to the inclusion of different racial factions (much more likely with several global factions that are not racially divided). These are plots that cross factions; crime and vampire, immortal and mummy, werewolf and hunter, crime and high society, and so on. The scope of these plots is very large, and they should be designed with a beginning, middle, and at least two potential end conditions. There are no rewards for running this plot level, though in special cases it may be treated as a series of lower level plots.
Local Faction(s)/Global Faction: These plots may or may not require approval (see below list); many should be review-only, so long as they don't include an item that requires approval instead. Anyone can run a 'crime' plot, or a 'vampire' plot, or a plot for their pack or coterie. Single global faction or multiple local faction plots can be run by anyone. Running these plots earns 1 player point per scene; max of 2/week earned this way.
Personal: Almost always review; few things run for a single player require prior approval.
And these are helpful too, likely:
Story/Plot: Any plotline that has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It can be anything from one scene up through as many as needed
Set: The location roleplay is happening, or the condition of that location; establishment of what's around, what people are around and what they're doing, what time it is, and other factors that might need to be established.
Scene: Any roleplay between two or more characters with a set, a beginning, a middle, and an end.
Session: One month real life time
Faction: Any group of 3 or more characters with a significant IC connection either through who or what they are, or through their relationships with other characters
Global Faction: Game-wide faction, such as high society, law enforcement, or vampire
Local Faction: Character created factions, such as households, businesses, coteries, packs, freeholds, and so on.
-
Now.
One of the basic approaches we're coming to the table with on Dust is to limit the stuff that staff actually has to actively do as well as lowering the barriers to play. We're going to be using a review based system, rather than an approval based system. Experience spends, character approvals, personal plots, all of these things are things that are submitted, they go somewhere they can be looked at. If there's no problem, clear it off the list, yay done. The simple stuff (recommendations for roleplay, experience spending, pool stuff, weekly goal stuff) just posts to a bboard. Everyones' is handled the exact same way. It posts, we glance at it as we read all of the relevant bboards, and if nobody sees a problem it was a post that took you 2 seconds to read. All eyes on everything.
Characters go through chargen, make themselves, and go out into basically soft RP; they can participate in any roleplay that does not involve the use of dice (without the presence of staff) until they've been reviewed. Once they've been reviewed, we clear them out of the queue and wipe the flag and let them know, but we will be doing our best to avoid keeping anyone out of RP to wait for staff to look at them. That should take some of the pressure off, too.
Buildings are going to be handled with a softcoded system, much like temp room code save the things aren't temporary. It'll check if the person has permission to build from the room they're in, and then dig them a room. Once they say +done in any given room, again it goes up for review. If people want to have rooms that are not reviewed that's perfectly fine, but dice may not be rolled in them as the location is not yet an active part of the game's setting.
This is going to create some hiccups, and I'm building justifications for those hiccups right into the game's plot. It's all being designed together from the ground up with consistent purpose and intent: reduce the work for staff and reduce the barriers to play and plot-running for everyone.
-
@Miss-Demeanor said:
@Coin said:
I just don't see having inside information or more things to mine for plots as a reason why they shouldn't get XP. It just don't work that way in my head. But hey, if it works, good!
It isn't even completely about the XP. I wouldn't want staff running the -major plots- for the sphere/game from the character bit that they absolutely should -never- attempt to make staff-level decisions from. Separation of church and state, man. Use your character bit for YOU, use your staff bit for the GAME.
Edit: Though I still feel giving a staff storyteller xp for running a plot, the thing that is what they signed on to DO, is jank. If you aren't going to hand out xp to all staff for doing their job, then don't make staff storytellers an exception. They signed on to do something specific, just like every other staffer. Why should they be special in getting xp for doing their job when no other staffer gets the same bonus? Every staffer accepts the responsibility of taking time away from their character(s) to help the game as a whole. Whether by running a sphere, doing jobs, mediating between players, storytelling, whatever. If every other staffer that is taking time away from their character to help the game as a whole isn't getting xp for their character bits, Staff ST's should be no different. Players CHOOSE to run plot. They aren't required to. They never accepted storytelling as one of their responsibilities by joining the game as a player. THAT is why they originally got xp for it. As a way of saying 'thank you for taking time to fill up the space between huge sphere/game plots to keep everyone interested while we cook up the next round of insanity'. Staff ST's accept that as a responsibility, a requirement of their position. Not a choice, not a perk, a -requirement-. That is their sole responsibility as Staff. They can still CHOOSE to run other things from their player bit to get xp. But they are by no means -required to do it-. And if they choose to take that time away from their character? They get xp for it, same as every other player.
Separation of church and state is a bad comparison to make; it's not the same thing thing at all, even a little. But further, I find it dumb to drive storytelling on a game down into bureaucratic "which bit are you running this scene from" nonsense; it's irrelevant. Also, the idea that players "choose" to run plots and storytelling staff don't is bullshit, because no one is forcing anyone to do anything here, and storytelling staff chose to sign up for plot running, and separating these two as if one is different from the other in any sense other than which or what type of plot the person gets to run is pretty silly. Converting a choice into a requirement and changing its meaning just because of when the choice was made doesn't lend credence to your argument.
Honestly, maybe it's just the roleplaying culture I originally come from, and the one I moved on to afterwards that shaped the way I storytell. Before I came to MUs, I played in places where it was perfectly fine to have your character in plots you ran, use them as plot hooks, ways to further the story along, and hell, I played entire families before, posing siblings, parents, etc., some of which were fully fleshed characters in their own right. And everything was copacetic, because there was enough trust that it wasn't an issue. I understand why it's an issue in MUs, but that doesn't change the fact that skewing hard in the opposite direction to the point of saying "staff storytellers can't get xp for staff plots because they're staff and staff is staff" sounds like utter crock to me. And it's what it essentially boils down to. Staff having access to metaplot information doesn't actually give them an advantage, it gives them added responsibilities, and if you take away a reward or incentive when someone takes up added responsibilities, you're doing the opposite of what common sense dictates.
In any case, like I said, there's a values difference here that I'm perfectly happy to accept, because I'm for doing it my way, but not against doing it the way @Sunny wants to, because on her game, she does it her way and that's perfectly fine. But that's not the sensation I'm getting from the other side of this debate. I'm getting a little tired of the topic being treated like doing it any other way is ethically problematic. It's not. At most, it needles at some people's ideas of what's "fair" because they've been knee-deep in abusive staff before and are easily riled about that shit. Not everyone's experiences, desires, and enjoyment of the game are the same, which I think we all know, so why we can't have a discussion keeping that in mind boggles my brain.
-
One: No one should ever make decisions as staff from their character bit. EVER. I cannot stress this enough. And no, ST's don't get to be 'special' in that regard. Its entirely unethical to make staff-level decisions from your player bit. There's a -reason- you have a staff bit. Even as a Staff ST, you have a designated Staff bit. So you can separate what you do as a player from what you do as a Staffer. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Two: Coin, I expect you to start giving every staffer the rewards you intend to give your Staff ST's, then. They aren't taking any less time and effort away from their own characters to help out a game as any ST, staff or player alike. So why do they get fucked out of the xp and not the ST's? I can toss down a standard 'damsel in distress' scenario for a group of people in five minutes flat, and I can get xp for that because I'm 'taking time and effort away from my own character for others' enjoyment'. Why should I not be getting that xp for doing the exact same thing in the form of approving others' xp spends and build requests? You're putting ST's on a pedestal for their efforts while telling other staffers 'sorry, you aren't special enough to get this reward that they do even though you're putting in no less time and effort'.
Three: I started out in this thread trying to help clarify something that @Sunny said. I kept going because @Ganymede was asking questions, so I answered. You and Ark continued commentary, so I responded. These are my beliefs about staffing and ST'ing, so what's the problem? Its a discussion that revolves around who believes what when it comes to player vs staff run plot, and that includes ethics. You are welcome to your beliefs about staffing and STing, that doesn't mean I won't think you strange or wrong for having them when they fly directly in the face of my own.
Also... doing it any other way isn't ethically problematic FOR YOU. MY experience has shown it to be extremely problematic. Try taking your own medicine there, sweetie.
-
@Miss-Demeanor said:
One: No one should ever make decisions as staff from their character bit. EVER. I cannot stress this enough. And no, ST's don't get to be 'special' in that regard. Its entirely unethical to make staff-level decisions from your player bit. There's a -reason- you have a staff bit. Even as a Staff ST, you have a designated Staff bit. So you can separate what you do as a player from what you do as a Staffer. No ifs, ands, or buts.
The person making the decision is the same one. I mean I understand your concern, but I find your phrasing extreme. I'm gonna make the same decision when I hop over to my staff bit. It's academic at best.
Two: Coin, I expect you to start giving every staffer the rewards you intend to give your Staff ST's, then. They aren't taking any less time and effort away from their own characters to help out a game as any ST, staff or player alike. So why do they get fucked out of the xp and not the ST's? I can toss down a standard 'damsel in distress' scenario for a group of people in five minutes flat, and I can get xp for that because I'm 'taking time and effort away from my own character for others' enjoyment'. Why should I not be getting that xp for doing the exact same thing in the form of approving others' xp spends and build requests? You're putting ST's on a pedestal for their efforts while telling other staffers 'sorry, you aren't special enough to get this reward that they do even though you're putting in no less time and effort'.
I actually considered it. I ultimately didn't. That said, I disagree that it's the same effort. This doesn't mean I find administrative stuff to be easy or simple or anything of the like; but it's not the same. There's a reason it's relatively easy to find people to volunteer for admin work, but finding reliable, consistent storytellers can be a hassle.
Three: I started out in this thread trying to help clarify something that @Sunny said. I kept going because @Ganymede was asking questions, so I answered. You and Ark continued commentary, so I responded. These are my beliefs about staffing and ST'ing, so what's the problem? Its a discussion that revolves around who believes what when it comes to player vs staff run plot, and that includes ethics. You are welcome to your beliefs about staffing and STing, that doesn't mean I won't think you strange or wrong for having them when they fly directly in the face of my own.
Also... doing it any other way isn't ethically problematic FOR YOU. MY experience has shown it to be extremely problematic. Try taking your own medicine there, sweetie.
See, the thing is, one way makes the other person out to be unethical over a simple disagreement of strategy; the other doesn't. But okay.
I'm actually gonna cut out here, since the debate is pretty moot at this point. I'm okay agreeing to disagree, I just don't really like being called unethical because of it. It's a pretty strong term to toss around, as @Three-Eyed-Crow said before. That's all.
-
So tell me, then. Why do you still keep a Staff bit on your own game? If you feel SO strongly that it makes no difference whether it comes from a staff or player bit... why do you have one? Why not do away with them entirely and just use your player bit for everything?
-
@Miss-Demeanor said:
So tell me, then. Why do you still keep a Staff bit on your own game? If you feel SO strongly that it makes no difference whether it comes from a staff or player bit... why do you have one? Why not do away with them entirely and just use your player bit for everything?
Well, for one, tradition and cultural expectations. I've run other games on other mediums and people just used my real name when they wanted to talk to me OOC and stuff. MUs go about it a certain way, and I'm fine with conforming to those norms. It also has to do with things like job spam, and being able to be in a scene while still available to talk to people in a staff capacity on channels or the OOC Lounge, which I do regularly. It gives people an immediate, visible representation of my duties. I guess I just find your phrasing off. My decisions are always going to be the same; I would probably not post about them or expouse them from my player bit, because people would expect it from my staff bit, and I respect that. It's convenient and is good for allowing me to multitask, which I do a lot. I also like the shiny name. It makes me feel like a pretty pretty princess. But I can guarantee you that my opinion and decisions don't change depending on which screen I'm reading something on.
-
See, you say that... but I have no reason to believe or trust you in that. See where the difference is? You can 'guarantee' all you like... my experience has shown me that when allowed, its ends in abuse of power, and you've given me no hard evidence to support that you would be different. Why -should- I trust you, in other words.
-
@Miss-Demeanor said:
See, you say that... but I have no reason to believe or trust you in that. See where the difference is? You can 'guarantee' all you like... my experience has shown me that when allowed, its ends in abuse of power, and you've given me no hard evidence to support that you would be different. Why -should- I trust you, in other words.
This isn't about trust, though. It's a fact. I am one person, I will make the same decision regardless of which screen I am looking at.
Now, whether you want to trust me in that that decision will be a good one or one you agree with, sure, that's about trust, and maybe I should have to prove it or maybe not. But that's a separate issue.
If you're asking do I let my being a player affect the decisions I make as staff, that's a different question, which you didn't ask, but to which the reply is: absolutely. Just like I let being a staffer affect the decisions I make for the game. I sit there and ask myself, "Would I, as a player, mind doing A, or B? Would it feel shitty if I had to do C, or if D happened?" etc. Now, do I make decisions that I wouldn't otherwise make because it favors my character bits? No, but whether you trust me with that or not is up to you, and there's no quantifiable proof for it other than playing on the game and deciding for yourself.
You should trust me because, uh, otherwise it's a really shitty relationship and why are you playing in a game I run if you think I'm going to fuck you over? And if you don't trust me and still want to play there, that's fine and it's your prerogative and I'm sure you have your reasons and I'm happy to have you. You, specifically, because even if you don't trust me, you haven't proven to allow that to make my running a game miserable. Other people in the past have.
That said: trust is a little like faith at first; the only difference is that after a while, the former either justifies itself... or it doesn't.
ETA: I think it's impossible to be entirely objective about something when you're knee-deep in it, which is why I try to get opinions from people whenever I am going to make a decision like that. Hell, there are entire threads here (at least one) in which we asked for input about policy decisions. The decisions were ours in the end, but we asked for opinions to get different viewpoints.