Spotlight.

[Apos]

@three-eyed-crow said in Spotlight.:

I feel like a lot of this comes down to the old issue of getting enough GMs/STs to support your players. You can try to mitigate some of this with encouraging player GMs and automating some stuff, but STs are always going to be the attraction to a story game, and demanding they do 100 things in 1 day is neither fair nor reasonable.

Yes and no. It certainly helps, but keep in mind we're talking about recognition and a spotlight, and not the ability to entertain people. Like you take gigantic sandboxes with a few hundred people that feel like it's actually 80 games of 4 people each that all happen to share the same grid. And the reason is that there's no person over PRP runners grabbing someone and making the entire game aware of them, and forcing recognition upon them.

What people care about is that it feels special and exceptional, more often than not. And the more it happens, the less a lot of them care about it. So say like we added 30 staffers, and gemits were a flood. People would no longer care about that, but then anytime I did a special vox hit or something, that people would go apeshit over.

[faraday]

@pyrephox said in Spotlight.:

So, the only thing I say is - ask. Someone can always turn it down, if they're happy as they are, but it never hurts to find out if someone wants an IC direction or boost, but just isn't sure how to do it.

And the only thing I say is -- ask If you're playing a support character and want to get involved in more, talk to the game staff. Be proactive. See if there are plot hooks you can follow up on. As @Roz said - maybe you become the crazy cook who ends up in some kind of secret society. I just put the onus on the players rather than the staff. If you want to get involved, then get involved. Don't expect fun - or spotlight - to be handed to you on a silver platter.

[Roz]

I've actually staffed on games that very explicitly tried to set up expectations as far as metaplot involvement vs character type. X-Men Movieverse: X-Factor, Mass Effect: Alpha & Omega, and X-Factor NYC all had a main faction that the game focused on. (Mutant secret agent group, a specific mercenary company, and a mutant investigative group, respectively.) For XMM, we specifically had a different character type for people to app support characters that were outside of the main secret agent group, they had different activity requirements, etc. I think for A&O and XF:NYC we mostly were just really explicit that "Hey, these core groups are going to be the ones involved in the metaplot, you are totally welcome to make a PC outside of that, but just be aware!" These were also small games, we had small staffs, and we had a specific focus we wanted to tell stories in.

So yeah, I think that just being clear is hugely important. If you have a broad setting and no real indication that "really it's just this one area of the setting that interacts with the metaplot," then the metaplot should be accessible across character types.

[Arkandel]

Without getting into pseudo-sociology here, why is spotlight wanted - and in some cases, needed?

What I mean is, we're not really talking about entertainment at this point, or even giving people stuff to do. The issue isn't that a bartender has nothing to do - in fact in many cases it's easier for one to participate in plots, because they wouldn't need to answer questions such as "why would my High Lady be on a rowboat to catch a special rare fish" before they sign up. On a day to day basis a bartender can find scenes easier - they are already at a bar!

So what gives? Why are (some, and not just a few) folks driven to stand out by being assigned prominent positions?

[Layla]

I do not want spotlight. I think I picked a good character for that in Arx. Most of what I do won't ever come to light, and that's the way I prefer it. Knowing that you're making a difference in the world, even if nobody else knows about it, is fun too. So I'm glad that I see some of that kind of thing available in this setting.

[Apos]

@arkandel said in Spotlight.:

Without getting into pseudo-sociology here, why is spotlight wanted - and in some cases, needed?

What I mean is, we're not really talking about entertainment at this point, or even giving people stuff to do. The issue isn't that a bartender has nothing to do - in fact in many cases it's easier for one to participate in plots, because they wouldn't need to answer questions such as "why would my High Lady be on a rowboat to catch a special rare fish" before they sign up. On a day to day basis a bartender can find scenes easier - they are already at a bar!

So what gives? Why are (some, and not just a few) folks driven to stand out by being assigned prominent positions?

For a lot of people it shows that the effort they put into the game actually mattered. It justifies the work they did, it's the pay off for everything they built towards. Other people are just as happy with numbers going up on a sheet, or numbers going up in some communal thing they are working on, whether that's a spaceship their character lives in, the amount of farms their noble lord has under their control, or the amount of ghouls under their vampire's control. It's about seeing dynamic change in a world that otherwise would be static, and that people -cannot do- in other RP environments.

Think about it. Players in MMOs roleplaying cannot show dynamic change in an environment, and for a tabletop, there's no way that dudes playing a different tabletop would ever know or care what you do. This is basically the only RP format that can essentially create IC celebrities. That's powerful.

[faraday]

@arkandel said in Spotlight.:

So what gives? Why are (some, and not just a few) folks driven to stand out by being assigned prominent positions?

Escapism. For a lot of people, MU*s are about wish-fulfilment fantasy. They want to feel special, which means they want their character to be special. It goes back to the whole issue of IC/OOC separation. It's not enough to be one of the many X-Wing pilots taking part in the assault on the Death Star (which, when you think about it, really already makes them kinda special), they want to be like Luke (making the shot) or Han (taking out Darth Vader so Luke can do it).

Not everybody's like this, of course. Some folks are content just to tell their own story - whatever that may be - in the game's environment. But it's certainly prevalent.

[Roz]

@arkandel said in Spotlight.:

Without getting into pseudo-sociology here, why is spotlight wanted - and in some cases, needed?

What I mean is, we're not really talking about entertainment at this point, or even giving people stuff to do. The issue isn't that a bartender has nothing to do - in fact in many cases it's easier for one to participate in plots, because they wouldn't need to answer questions such as "why would my High Lady be on a rowboat to catch a special rare fish" before they sign up. On a day to day basis a bartender can find scenes easier - they are already at a bar!

So what gives? Why are (some, and not just a few) folks driven to stand out by being assigned prominent positions?

I mean, idk how you get into that without getting into sociology or psychology. Some people like recognition and spotlight in their lives. Some people don't. Is it important to gauge the reasons why, or is it more important to just accept the varied ways in which people have fun and find value in a game and try to make room for those varied ways (as far as makes sense/is reasonable)?

[Arkandel]

@faraday This may have had an interesting effect over the years.

When I started playing most if not all really important positions were NPC only, same as in the table-top game where you don't play the Prince, you play the underdog. Then games became more open and allowed players to achieve any goal... only to eventually face the reality of toxicity among their playerbase since there were only so many such 'special' ranks that only a fraction of it could ever achieve them. There was even a time new MU* opened, clones of the last one in all but name, just so the disenfranchised could get to be the ones on top this time around.

Now with some exceptions the trend is for new MU* to revert to the old model, this time out of experience rather than naivety.

It's not just ranks, mind you. I've mentioned this before but I had at least one player specifically drop out of a plot of mine because she no longer had as prominent a part in it since others were getting involved; not because the scenes were larger - I made sure to split people up into manageable groups - but the pie remained the same but in her mind the slices were smaller.

The game had become a zero-sum one to her. I suspect this might be more widespread.

[Three-Eyed Crow]

@arkandel
Yeah, the term GOMO/Gold of My Own comes from the Pern phenomena of players upset they didn't get the recognition (in gold dragon form) they wanted going off to form a game where they did. It's a thing in this hobby.

[Ganymede]

@arkandel said in Spotlight.:

Do all players deserve the same access to the spotlight?

"Access" is an erroneous word, I think. In this sentence, no, I don't think so; however, if you mean "opportunity," then, yes.

That is, if you are putting in a lot of your time building up a successful House which your character leads, run plots for its players, recruit others to it, making yourself available as someone in a leadership position and integrating yourself thematically into current politics, then should I as a casual player who's there an hour here and there get to have equal access to metaplot?

Equal opportunity, yes. How you get involved that quickly is another story. If this is a game with a roster, I can see it happening. If it is your average WoD game, I don't think that's even possible.

Even more so, does it make sense for me to?

I don't know. It depends on the setting.

Decisions are often made among high-powered or important figureheads, so do I bring my sailor guy to the inner council meetings?

I don't know. It depends on the setting.

Should metaplot be geared so that there are no closed door meetings in the first place?

I don't know how you can feasibly prevent PCs from having closed door meetings without being unnecessarily or unreasonably obtrusive.

[faraday]

@arkandel said in Spotlight.:

The game had become a zero-sum one to her. I suspect this might be more widespread.

Yes, I think it is.

You can see it in a number of venues. Attention, like you said - if someone else is getting more RP, then I'm less special.

You can see it with skills. If you let everyone start with "Amazing" then my Amazing rating isn't as Amazing any more.

You can even see it with things as ephemeral as in-game scoreboard, like pilots or warriors tracking kills. There's absolutely zero practical benefit to being higher on the leaderboard, but ZOMG the OOC drama. Players paging each other "You stole my kill!" or "Back off - I want this one!" (IC drama? Sure! Play out Top Gun as much as you want. But why does counting virtual bad-guys need to become a zero-sum fun experience?)

[bored]

@arkandel said in Spotlight.:

Without getting into pseudo-sociology here, why is spotlight wanted - and in some cases, needed?

You can't, because the player psychology is essential. I am going to do my Bartle-types bit now I guess. It really hits each of them:

Killers - Assuming an environment that frowns upon outright PK (which is most MUs since Dark Metal), their ultimate win is being the one to kill the Big Bad. Obviously, being that guy is about as big of a star role as is possible.

Achievers - Almost the same as above. Big Bad still counts, as does basically every plot milestone you can think of. Now, some have made points about public recognition (which is different, it's IC spotlight vs OOC spotlight), which may not be necessary, but GM focus is required. You can't achieve much of anything unless the GMs take your actions and say 'these matter.'

Socializers - I think this one really interesting. They want the spotlight because it forces people to RP with them. This type is commonly associated with support players, who we think of as cooperative, yet really they're no less catty (and in some cases more) when it comes to squabbling over this kind of stuff, because it's often very limited. By getting a piece of info, key mcguffin, whatever, and becoming a gatekeeper to other people being involved, you can enforce a social circle around you. By contrast, being out of the spotlight means being ignored. It's basically the worst case result.

Explorers - Exploring in MU basically means uncovering the setting, because physical exploration is rarely possible (and where it is, it's going to be a Very Special kind of TP). Finding out the secrets, the details of the metaplot, being the person in the know. As with the Achiever stuff, this is really only something the GMs can bestow upon you by putting you in the most focused roles and stories.

Per above, spotlight itself is often either kind of a byproduct or a means. Some players might really have a diva attitude and actually thrive on the spotlight itself, but even then, aside from with Socializers, this is mostly about acknowledging the achievement of their own goals. 'You may have heard of me, I killed the thing/solved the puzzle/etc.'

[Three-Eyed Crow]

@faraday
My CAG character on BS Cerberus nixed the killboard specifically because I did not want to deal with the OOC drama that comes with it.

This made IC sense for a handful of character reasons, but...that was the major impetus, not going to deny it.

This is what's frustrating to me about this stuff, because these complaints are incredibly burn-out inducing when they're about the little things. Oh, there were complaints that a person took part in a game at my party? Whelp, I don't terribly want to run parties anymore, because clearly doing ANYTHING gets you flack. Yeah, this stuff is silly, but so much of it's ABOUT the silly stuff that it takes away from legitimate complaints about game balance and favoritism.

[Apos]

@three-eyed-crow said in Spotlight.:

This is what's frustrating to me about this stuff, because these complaints are incredibly burn-out inducing when they're about the little things. Oh, there were complaints that a person took part in a game at my party? Whelp, I don't terribly want to run parties anymore, because clearly doing ANYTHING gets you flack. Yeah, this stuff is silly, but so much of it's ABOUT the silly stuff that it takes away from legitimate complaints about game balance and favoritism.

100% the main cause of cliquishness in the hobby is people wanting to limit their exposure to microaggressions and griping like that. This hobby imo is powered entirely by enthusiasm of participants. It is incredibly easy for just a few persistently negative people to pretty much gut a game faster than a Custodius could ever dream of doing so.

[Roz]

@apos said in Spotlight.:

@three-eyed-crow said in Spotlight.:

This is what's frustrating to me about this stuff, because these complaints are incredibly burn-out inducing when they're about the little things. Oh, there were complaints that a person took part in a game at my party? Whelp, I don't terribly want to run parties anymore, because clearly doing ANYTHING gets you flack. Yeah, this stuff is silly, but so much of it's ABOUT the silly stuff that it takes away from legitimate complaints about game balance and favoritism.

100% the main cause of cliquishness in the hobby is people wanting to limit their exposure to microaggressions and griping like that. This hobby imo is powered entirely by enthusiasm of participants. It is incredibly easy for just a few persistently negative people to pretty much gut a game faster than a Custodius could ever dream of doing so.

I can get accused of spotlight hogging for doing little more than breathing. It's pretty remarkable.

[Arkandel]

@roz

[Roz]

@arkandel I'm sorry I'm the worst

[Three-Eyed Crow]

@apos said in Spotlight.:

100% the main cause of cliquishness in the hobby is people wanting to limit their exposure to microaggressions and griping like that. This hobby imo is powered entirely by enthusiasm of participants. It is incredibly easy for just a few persistently negative people to pretty much gut a game faster than a Custodius could ever dream of doing so.

Yeah, I'll admit this BS is the primary thing that makes me jaded about the hobby. I think the cheaters and harassers and true bad actors are anomalies. They're terrible, but you ban them and, problem done. But you're going to have to deal with jealousy every day, even from players who are mostly OK a lot of the time. You're going to have to deal with pettiness every day. This stuff is human but it also just really wears me down. I do this for fun, why am I bothering with these people? I tend not to bother when I know what BS awaits me and I'll confess it's changed the way I approach playing, even though I still enjoy it.

[faraday]

@three-eyed-crow said in Spotlight.:

Yeah, I'll admit this BS is the primary thing that makes me jaded about the hobby. I think the cheaters and harassers and true bad actors are anomalies. They're terrible, but you ban them and, problem done. But you're going to have to deal with jealousy every day, even from players who are mostly OK a lot of the time.

Yep, same. It's bad enough as a player, but doubly so as a game-runner because you get a constant barrage of "why did so-and-so get more <whatever> than me" and cries of favoritism, etc. It's just exhausting.