Earning stuff

faraday

'Nobody gets enough to evolve through advancement' can hamstring things a bit too much and can readily get in the way of these story arcs.

I think there's an important distinction between IC advancement as a natural progression of the character and OOC advancement as something you "earn" through whatever rewards system the game creates.

For example - say that the Captain gets killed and somebody needs to be promoted to take their place. IC advancement would be based on some logical IC criteria - time in rank, political achievements, whatever. That's a very different metric than you'd find on a game that values OOC advancement more, which might make the decision more based on OOC factors of who could handle the role better or who had been around longer.

Same goes for XP. Even FS3 has an XP system because people do learn new things during the course of RP. When your civilian doctor is suddenly dumped into a war zone and forced to pick up a rifle - then yeah, they're going to need to get pretty competent at shooting reasonably quickly to survive. That's a logical IC progression. But that's different than saying your already-expert pilot needs to have a carrot of getting even-more-awesome just to keep the player engaged.

Again, neither is right or wrong. Just clarifying that even a "laser story focused" system needs to provide some mechanism for advancement as part of the story. It's just the motivations for the advancement that are different. Is that still "earning" them? I dunno.

surreality

@faraday FS3's learning curve was a little slow for me, but I'm not into the free-for-all 'do whatever' from things like TR, either.

I'm with you on the 'sometimes you need to pick up something quick' skills, definitely, and I do think FS3 accounts for this. Some systems cut that off entirely, as in... 'what you built is what you've got and it's never going to change even a little'.

I'm also wary of anything that'd put someone in a coded position of 'by the time you learn to fire that gun you would be shot dead twenty times over'. For instance, if the system requires that the very basics of learning to fire a gun at a novice level take longer than the entire length of basic training for a branch of the US military (in which someone learns that and a whole bunch else), there's probably a problem.

magee101

@surreality WH40K systems are kinda like that but half their fun is the brutality. They are more gearprogression focused than skill progression focused tho

Seraphim73

@surreality said in Earning stuff:

@faraday FS3's learning curve was a little slow for me, but I'm not into the free-for-all 'do whatever' from things like TR, either.

This can absolutely be tweaked by game staff to be as fast or as slow as they want. You could have every step take 1 XP and the cooldown by 1 day, or you could have every step take dozens of XP, and the cooldown by a year (this would be insane and foolish, but the other extreme would probably be pretty unfun too, as everyone maxed out Action Skills and started making up more BG Skills very quickly).

Beyond that note and getting back to the original question, I believe that everyone should start in a place where they have access to the general story (this is why I like slowly increasing "starting level," whatever that means for the game, as the average level increases), but that past performance should provide additional opportunities. Basically, everyone should have the same opportunity to earn their shinies, but those who put the effort in (however the game's Staff defines effort), should get the shiniest shinies.

To be clear, I don't mean "put in the effort" as in "is online 24/7 and joins every GMed scene," I mean it more like "provides input that moves the story along and/or changes the world in interesting ways." This could be a single bbpost that sparks a whirlwind of RP, or it could be the cumulative result of two dozen GMed scenes.

Killer Klown

My general take on it is, and has always been, it's your XP - once you have it you can do with it what you will.
There are a couple of caveats to this, of course - the primary one being that 'what you will' has to be within the rules or theme of the game you're playing. Mostly this comes down to non-favored, out of clan/tribe/whatever stuff. If you're trying to get something that is allowable to your splat but is not something a character of your particular type or alignment would normally be able to get? Yeah, that requires justification of some form. If you're sticking to mold and buying favored or 'general' type stuff, though? Have at it.
In my mind, this doesn't constitute 'not earning'. You 'earn' what you have by virtue of the xp - even if it's auto-gain. In a realistic sense, people don't 'learn' by amassing a pool of free brain cells then deciding to devote them to a certain task every couple of weeks; there's no such thing as 'experience points' in real life - it's a mechanic within a game designed to represent the normal progression of improvement. You 'earn' the xp - how you spend it, within the above guidelines, is up to you.

Arkandel

@faraday said in Earning stuff:

Side note - it's FS3 not FS. Faraday's Simple Skill System.

Oops, my bad. Someone called it FS and I guess I went along with it.

@faraday said in Earning stuff:

For example - say that the Captain gets killed and somebody needs to be promoted to take their place. IC advancement would be based on some logical IC criteria - time in rank, political achievements, whatever. That's a very different metric than you'd find on a game that values OOC advancement more, which might make the decision more based on OOC factors of who could handle the role better or who had been around longer.

Let's put a twist on that though.

There's are some IC candidates for the position, none of them a clear forerunner but there's interest in the vacancy. Then a new person, OOC friend of the Captain's and known by staff creates a new character and voila, that PC is handed the keys to the Captaincy.

It's where the allegations of 'earning it' usually come in. Do you (as staff) want a non-ideal but already IC positioned person who has taken some steps in taking up a role, or someone who hasn't done anything for it yet but who you expect will be a better fit? And should it matter what 'you' want or should it come down to actions and decisions made in-game?

magee101

@arkandel said in Earning stuff:

@faraday said in Earning stuff:

Side note - it's FS3 not FS. Faraday's Simple Skill System.

Oops, my bad. Someone called it FS and I guess I went along with it.

@faraday said in Earning stuff:

For example - say that the Captain gets killed and somebody needs to be promoted to take their place. IC advancement would be based on some logical IC criteria - time in rank, political achievements, whatever. That's a very different metric than you'd find on a game that values OOC advancement more, which might make the decision more based on OOC factors of who could handle the role better or who had been around longer.

Let's put a twist on that though.

There's are some IC candidates for the position, none of them a clear forerunner but there's interest in the vacancy. Then a new person, OOC friend of the Captain's and known by staff creates a new character and voila, that PC is handed the keys to the Captaincy.

It's where the allegations of 'earning it' usually come in. Do you (as staff) want a non-ideal but already IC positioned person who has taken some steps in taking up a role, or someone who hasn't done anything for it yet but who you expect will be a better fit? And should it matter what 'you' want or should it come down to actions and decisions made in-game?

Unrelated to the thought experiment, those guys are dicks.

Related to the thought experiment, I rhink it on the role. If captin dude is an RP gateway, you have to look at it from both sides IC and OOC and make your decisions there. Non-rp gateway, just ler it be IC

Ganymede

@arkandel said in Earning stuff:

There's are some IC candidates for the position, none of them a clear forerunner but there's interest in the vacancy. Then a new person, OOC friend of the Captain's and known by staff creates a new character and voila, that PC is handed the keys to the Captaincy.

Poe was really angry when Vice Admiral Amilyn Holdo took over the Resistance. Sure, she was a friend of Leia's and had some success in the field, but she didn't earn the command of the Raddus. But that tension is an important part of The Last Jedi, and plays itself out well.

Staff should always give the keys to someone they trust. This is much, much more important than someone earning the keys. In a military game, it should surprise no one that someone comes in to take command of a unit that was not part of that unit to begin with. But if the new PC is a trusted someone, then staff really needs to trust them to step into a game and take over where resistance is to be expected.

I'm over the idea of "earning" something IC, and everyone else ought to be as well. Play the damn game.

faraday

@arkandel said in Earning stuff:

It's where the allegations of 'earning it' usually come in. Do you (as staff) want a non-ideal but already IC positioned person who has taken some steps in taking up a role, or someone who hasn't done anything for it yet but who you expect will be a better fit?

Personally? I, as staff, want neither. It's basically a lose-lose proposition so I just don't do that any more. Leadership positions are all staff-run NPCs. This has pros and cons. Like I said - it's all a game of tradeoffs.

For the purposes of your thought experiment, if you're going the IC route, I think you have to look at what's best for the story. Even if there's no clear frontrunner, there has to be some way of deciding between the candidates. If you're going the OOC route, then sure - bring in whoever you feel "earned it" by whatever metric you're using. Just be prepared to deal with a lot of disgruntled players.

magee101

@faraday I mostly agree here. I have very very very rarely seen good results out of leadership position PCs personally. As long as Staff are actually willing to use their leadership NPCs I loce it, but again personally, I have very very very rarely seen this case so as a player I just tend to not really get invovled in anything besides player ST'ed stuff

Seraphim73

@ganymede said in Earning stuff:

Poe was really angry when Vice Admiral Amilyn Holdo took over the Resistance. Sure, she was a friend of Leia's and had some success in the field, but she didn't earn the command of the Raddus. But that tension is an important part of The Last Jedi, and plays itself out well.

Then maybe Poe should have put some points into Leadership and Command instead of Pilot, Gunnery, and Charm.

(Yes, that's a joke. Interesting example, and I completely agree with you on the need for trust in IC (and OOC) positions of responsibility).

I also agree with @faraday about top-level leadership positions being Staff-run NPCs. I do, however, like to have some mid-level roles available to players/characters who step up and earn trust, both of staff as players and of their superiors as characters.

Roz

@ganymede said in Earning stuff:

@arkandel said in Earning stuff:

There's are some IC candidates for the position, none of them a clear forerunner but there's interest in the vacancy. Then a new person, OOC friend of the Captain's and known by staff creates a new character and voila, that PC is handed the keys to the Captaincy.

Poe was really angry when Vice Admiral Amilyn Holdo took over the Resistance. Sure, she was a friend of Leia's and had some success in the field, but she didn't earn the command of the Raddus.

She didn't??

Thenomain

@arkandel said in Earning stuff:

TL;DR: This is a discussion trying to answer a simple question - should players have to earn their stuff?

In the sense of "does the player deserve this", yes. 100%.

It's what "deserve" means. You logged on and RPd: Here's XP. You've shown that you can organize 3 people with a common ideology: Have a faction. You've shown that you uphold the ideology of the game in your particular area: Have a larger faction leadership position.

None of this is a right, mind you. These come from social constructs, laid down by and lead by administration. What actions lead to what rewards are both set down by news files and the unwritten rules implied by the actions of staff. We can only hope that they are fair or at least consistent. We can certainly debate it, which we should and do.

surreality

@thenomain said in Earning stuff:

What actions lead to what rewards are both set down by news files and the unwritten rules implied by the actions of staff.

Another thing we should do is endeavor to write the rules down, not leave them unwritten. Especially when it comes to what is expected from staff.

Thenomain

@surreality said in Earning stuff:

@thenomain said in Earning stuff:

What actions lead to what rewards are both set down by news files and the unwritten rules implied by the actions of staff.

Another thing we should do is endeavor to write the rules down, not leave them unwritten. Especially when it comes to what is expected from staff.

Do we? Because there are many rules that once written down become shackles and are used to argue against us, which distracts us from the importance of play.

surreality

@thenomain Having nothing but a black hole when it comes to the most frequent issues doesn't inspire confidence in players (who should be able to see this rule information also) or give them any idea of how things will be handled, or what is even appropriate to approach staff about.

People need to know what they can report.
People need to know what they can ask for.
People need to know what they have to ask for if they want it.
People need to know what's off the table, period.
People need to know how their problems or questions will be handled.

Sure, some people will try to game that. That in itself isn't outside the scope of something that can be written down, like the classic: "If we have to make a rule based on something incredibly awful that (generic) you did, it doesn't just apply to those that come after you, 'cause (generic) you done fucked up hard."

Thenomain

@surreality said in Earning stuff:

People need to know what they can report.
People need to know what they can ask for.
People need to know what they have to ask for if they want it.
People need to know what's off the table, period.
People need to know how their problems or questions will be handled.

And I know that your interpretation of these comes down to a very fine level that I personally think is overbearing and I would completely ignore, making me a problem on your games.

People need to know that they have agency and to accept when they ask for too much.

Staff needs to know how to communicate this without coming off as jerks.

faraday

@surreality said in Earning stuff:

People need to know what they can report.

Yeah I'm gonna have to go with @Thenomain here and fall back to: "Adults need to adult." I'm not going to give somebody a laundry list of what they can/can't talk to me about or can/can't ask for. If they have a concern or a request, my door is always open. Is it a perfect system? No, no system is perfect. But it's worked pretty well for me.

@roz said in Earning stuff:

@ganymede said in Earning stuff:

Poe was really angry when Vice Admiral Amilyn Holdo took over the Resistance. Sure, she was a friend of Leia's and had some success in the field, but she didn't earn the command of the Raddus.

She didn't??

There's every reason to believe she did, in fact, based on the whole discussion about her being next-senior and "Wait, that's Admiral Holdo from the Battle of Whatever?" But I agree with @Ganymede's general point that IC resistance toward the incoming leader can make for good storytelling, so long as the players can keep it IC and not get their noses out of joint over who they think "deserved" it more -- or heaven forbid staff giving a position to somebody they're friends with just because that's somebody they can trust not to flake out or be a jerk.

@seraphim73 said in Earning stuff:

I do, however, like to have some mid-level roles available to players/characters who step up and earn trust, both of staff as players and of their superiors as characters.

I'm not horribly opposed to that in principle, but on my games it's just too much of a headache. I've just had too many people in that position go idle or just never do their duties. It's annoying. I'm over dealing with that.

Ganymede

@roz said in Earning stuff:

She didn't??

Poe didn't think so, and neither did a number of the command crew. They mutinied awfully fast against her.

But that's kind of my point. Most PCs who don't "earn" the position are like Poe. They'll make their own conclusions. The tension of the question "did she earn it?" may also lead to excellent RP, provided that the players play the game.

All their lives have players looked away -- to the future, to the horizon -- never their minds on where they were, what they were doing.

surreality

@Thenomain I think you're making a lot of assumptions here.

Beyond that, I think you're forgetting the 'some people are new' problem.

Someone new to the hobby may genuinely not know that they can approach staff with anything that involves harassment/stalking/creepy pages/etc., and only with questions about the mechanics of the game and how the game works. Plenty of game communities function in precisely that way -- including some of the ones I started out on. Someone cheating the code? Report OK! Someone harassing you with racial slurs and creepy come-ons every time you log in? "Sorry, we don't get involved in that."

So you can call it 'too fine grained' that I think it's worthwhile to tell people: "Hey, if you have a problem with somebody, whether it has to do with the game system or not, you can come to staff about it" is overbearing, but then I guess it's just a good thing I gave up dev, then, huh?