Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?

[Sparks]

Okay, so. I think I've finally managed to actually figure out why this topic is bothering me.

I enjoy GM'ing. I enjoy GM'ing as a bodiless omnipotent narrator who sets the scene, and I enjoy GM'ing with a recurrent NPC. But not all enjoyment is equal.

Maybe I find that GM'ing for Susan is absolutely wonderful. Susan always is engaging. She actively throws out things for the NPC to respond to in the scene; she talks about topics other than just whatever favor she wants from the NPC in question. In short, she makes the scene really enjoyable for me as a GM. I look forward to GM'ing for Susan.

Now let's look at Fred. Fred's a nice guy! I don't dislike Fred. Maybe he's even fun to talk with on channels! But Fred... RP'ing with Fred on an NPC is excruciating. Fred is single-minded. When we get into the scene, Fred sits listlessly, poking the NPC with questions and waiting for an answer to fall out, then poking the NPC with another question. RP'ing with Fred is not fun for me. RP'ing with Fred makes me think of the many, many other things I could be doing at that moment. Writing a story. RP'ing with someone else. Cleaning my bathroom.

I, personally, as a GM will run scenes for both of them. I, personally, as a GM like to try to spread plot and RP around. But make no mistake: in this scenario, RP'ing with Fred is not fun, it is an obligation. It is an obligation I have set myself, but an obligation nonetheless.

I want to point out we've also just had a whole different thread where various people spent time expounding on the belief that the joy and pleasure derived from staffing should be reward enough for staff. And now people are saying that staff should be scrupulously fair and give equal access to NPCs to everyone, regardless of considerations.

That if I do not RP with both Susan and Fred precisely equal amounts, I am being a bad staffer and doing it wrong.

You know what you're doing by that logic? You're telling me that if I do my job 'right', my pay gets docked. If my pay is the joy derived from staffing, then RP'ing with Fred is actively reducing my metaphorical paycheck, because I do not derive joy from it. It is anti-joy. It not only does not bring joy, it kills joy that already exists.

Would it be a better hobby for players in aggregate if everyone got equal plot access everywhere? Sure! Is it something we can aspire to? Absolutely. Do I think games would benefit if people held to the guidelines I've put out in this thread earlier? (I.e., pretty much every interaction with an NPC should try to advance story—or at least offer the potential for advancement—whether on a personal or game level, NPCs should never get to be the protagonist of a plot, etc.) Yes. Have I, in the ungodly long amount of time I've been in this hobby, seen behavior on NPCs that I would not personally have felt comfortable doing? Also yes.

But do I get to dictate or demand that rules be imposed on staff? Sure, if it's my game. Otherwise? The more I think about it... no.

The more I think about this more I'm realizing, what's bothering me isn't with the scope of the rules. I think some of what's suggested is maybe overly broad, but there's plenty of rules I think are beneficial. But what's been bothering me on some level is the implication of these rules: that staff are inherently obligated to do certain things, whether or not staff themselves have pledged to do so.

Because it feels manifestly unfair to say "the joy you take from doing this is your reward and payment", then also demand "and also you should do things this way which we have decided is Universally Correct and are guidelines for everyone, regardless of whether it makes you personally miserable to do." That part sits wrong with me, no matter how much we can claim those demands are For The Greater Good.

[bear_necessities]

@Sparks I'm sorry, but you're missing the point. It isn't saying sue and fred should have a 1:1 ratio of scenes and theres some kind of magical # that is the correct # of times that you have to rp with sue and fred. It is that fred and sue should have the same opportunity for staff npc time. For example, if you are running a scene to get the mcguffin that sue and fred are both capable of getting, you shouldn't immediately go "nah" to fred because hes boring or leap on the opprotunity to give it to sue because she isn't.

I get it. I get you have people you enjoy GMing for. But those people shouldn't get all of your attention. Maybe fred just needs a different plot to come alive in. Or maybe fred is just super boring forever but he still plays your game and deserves the chance to be apart of it.

[Auspice]

@Sparks said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

I want to point out we've also just had a whole different thread where various people spent time expounding on the belief that the joy and pleasure derived from staffing should be reward enough for staff.

I just want to say that while I didn't post in that thread, I do not agree with that concept.
I totally think Staff should receive some sort of benefit for the work that they do. Should it be a HUGE benefit? Nah. But there ought to be something.

IMO, re: that idea, yes Staff should totally get something out of it. I'm guessing other people believed the same. So, personally my point still stands. It's a volunteer gig, yes. You're earning (IMO since I fully believe and wouldn't staff anywhere that pulled some sort of 'THE TRUE JOY IS IN STAFFING ITSELF HEE HEE' bs) benefits (just like, say, I help out at a Con and my BENEFIT is getting a pass to the Con to enjoy myself whenever I'm not doing volunteer work!) so you need to balance it out by doing, y'know, the things I outlined.

..if you're staffing on so draconian a place that they're saying THOU CANNOT HAVE ANY BENEFITS EVEN SUCH AS A PLAYER MIGHT HAVE mebbe it's time to not staff there,

[Sunny]

@bear_necessities said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

I get it. I get you have people you enjoy GMing for. But those people shouldn't get all of your attention. Maybe fred just needs a different plot to come alive in. Or maybe fred is just super boring forever but he still plays your game and deserves the chance to be apart of it.

So is the logical consequences of this is I kick Fred off my game, then? If he's enough of a bore that I don't want to engage with him the same way that I engage with Sue, then it sounds like the fair thing to do is just to ask him to leave.

[bear_necessities]

@Sunny if that is the kind of game you want to run, sure. Your game, your rules.

[Sunny]

@bear_necessities said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

@Sunny if that is the kind of game you want to run, sure. Your game, your rules.

I'm asking what you would recommend. If someone is so boring that playing with them is like watching paint dry, would you suggest that they be asked to leave, or would you recommend that the staffer quit themselves? Or something else?

[bear_necessities]

@Sunny I gave my recommendation. Engage them in rp. Ensure they have the same opportunities as other players in the same sphere or whatever.

[Groth]

I don't think theres anything wrong with the idea that the reward for staffing is the joy of staffing. If I vollonteer to Staff for a game its because I really like the game and I want to help it do well and not because I want to earn something.

However I also don't think much good comes from forcing people to do things they dont enjoy without compensation. I think its unreasonable to expect Fred to recieve the same attention as Susan unless youre going to start paying in a harder currency then joy. Thats not to say Fred should be ignored, but if he bores the GM to tears, only misery will come from some kind of enforced equal time shenanigans.

[bear_necessities]

So I mean what is the alternative there? Fred is a boring Rper but still wants to play my game and be involved. Does he never get access to plot, does he only get limited involvement? Etc. Etc.

[saosmash]

@bear_necessities OK, but once you've done that, what then? Like, what does equality of access mean in this context? If anyone can request a NPC scene, and both players do, and both get one NPC scene, and one player's NPC scene is stultifyingly boring for the staffer and ends up dead ending because the player lacks initiative or doesn't know how to RP in an engaging way, while the other player's NPC scene results in developing story and plot hooks that the player runs with and ultimately ends up leading to something expanded with future NPC contact because the story goes somewhere -- is the NPCer doing something wrong at that point?

Like, I've NPCed for years. If a character engages with my NPC, and develops that connection, they're ... going to have more access to that NPC in future because they have put in the work to develop that connection. I've had a player do this with a NPC who then had a larger NPC role in the ongoing story because of the connection that developed, and it shaped the future shape of the story in a way that neither I nor the players expected initially.

Or, like, I used to have a staff NPC who I would put out on the RP channel on a game and say, "Hello would anyone like to have an interaction with this NPC!" and mostly the players ignored this but one player took me up on it a couple of times and that led to that player having more scenes with that NPC. Does that mean that that player was a staff favorite? Nah. I mean, it was fine RP. Did those scenes go anywhere? No, not really, I was just trying to be accessible.

Like, what exactly are you expecting from your STs?

[juke]

@Sparks said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

Okay, so. I think I've finally managed to actually figure out why this topic is bothering me.

Bless this post.

There are middle grounds between the two, too.

I fall in the 'I don't want to share my NPCs and don't feel that I'm obligated to lend them out for people not in my timezone who can't engage with my plot, but I'll work with them in @mail or a gdoc/Areslog scene, or via legwork, or in some other way that acknowledges their interest without murdering something important to my enjoyment of storytelling' camp. I also fall in the 'I find TSing players on an NPC pretty weird and wouldn't want it happening on a game I ran' camp. For me, the apparent benefits do not outweigh the apparent drawbacks. And in spite of that, I'm admittedly in the 'yeah, staffers are going to have favorite players to run plot for and that's not an ethical issue' camp because, I run stuff, and of course I have favorites. They make my life easier instead of harder. They aren't entitled. They contribute. They share plot points with fellow players. They do cool shit with story.

@bear_necessities said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

It is that fred and sue should have the same opportunity for staff npc time. For example, if you are running a scene to get the mcguffin that sue and fred are both capable of getting, you shouldn't immediately go "nah" to fred because hes boring or leap on the opprotunity to give it to sue because she isn't.

I get it. I get you have people you enjoy GMing for. But those people shouldn't get all of your attention. Maybe fred just needs a different plot to come alive in. Or maybe fred is just super boring forever but he still plays your game and deserves the chance to be apart of it.

The trouble with this is, players don't all pursue plot to the same extent, and there are only so many effing hours in the day. If Fred and Sue are both in my scene and they both engage and they're both making choices, taking actions, contributing, then they're both going to get traction from me because as a storyteller that shit is my favorite thing. But if Fred is sending me legwork, showing up to scenes. RPing about the plot with other players, giving them opportunities at the spotlight, etc., and Sue doesn't really contribute but thinks she ought to be included in every plot development regardless of the fact that there might be 10 other players like Fred that want my time and attention...

This happens all the time. All the time. I once had a player send me an @mail on a game to tell me she felt 'sidelined' in a plot I was running as a player, non-staff ST, because she had a magic-oriented character -- but that @mail was the first time she had even spoken to me. I know it sounds far-fetched, but it's constant entitlement.

I have limited time and energy. I spend it doing what I enjoy as an ST, which is usually in large part about making players excited about the story I'm telling -- but also because it's exciting to tell that story. You seek a balance between the two. You have to.

My solution to the problem of 'who gets my time and attention' as a staffer is usually to run periodic public event scenes that literally anyone can go to, provided they're around, and in between these, motivated players who continue to engage with the plot get my priority.

[Doozer]

@bear_necessities said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

So I mean what is the alternative there? Fred is a boring Rper but still wants to play my game and be involved. Does he never get access to plot, does he only get limited involvement? Etc. Etc.

I've always liked the idea of some type of currency accumulated to buy storytime from staff depending on a players involvement with the game.

[Sparks]

@Auspice said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

Something I have also been considering throughout this thread whenever the 'Staff are volunteers!' comes up: volunteer work is still work. If you volunteer for an organization IRL, you are expected to comport yourself as a professional and you don't really get to pick and choose (generally) what you do. You might get to choose a department or request a 'top 3,' but then you're handed work. You do that work.

There's some merit to this, yes.

But I feel like this isn't "you are a volunteer at a business".

This is "you volunteered to host a tabletop game for local gamers, whether or not you know them", and then being told by someone else, "Cool. Here's the code of ethics and professionalism which all GMs are expected to abide by."

Yes, if you are GM'ing for a specific organization—if you're running games at a convention for WotC or Paizo—you do have a set of rules you're expected to adhere to, and which you agree to when you sign up to do that for them. But if you are running a game in your house, you are not running it on behalf of anyone else. You do not have to sign anything before you sit down to run a game, not even if you post an open invite on the board at the gaming shop and allow people you don't even know to come.

Generally, MU*s are not run on behalf of another group. If you are running an official D&D MU* for WotC? Yeah, then WotC is going to probably set certain rules and guidelines for you, because you are doing this for them. But most of us who choose to run a game are doing that on our own behalf.

If you are not the headwiz on a game, you absolutely have to adhere to the rules the headwiz makes; you are volunteering on that game. If I ever lose my mind and actually make/run a game as headwiz ever again, I definitely have a sort of 'professional code' as to some guidelines to aim for when GM'ing—to try to spread around RP fairly equally, to make sure NPCs are never in the spotlight, etc.—and I would expect my staffers to try to adhere to them.

But I don't think we get to draft a set of standards and then demand that every headwiz who opens a game is expected to hold to that list. Especially not if we're including things like "you are obligated to GM for every player when they ask, even those who make you miserable or bore you to tears or even creep you out on some level you cannot articulate, as though you were staring into the cold, dead eyes of a killer; you are also forbidden from GM'ing any more for the people who actually make your job a joy than you do for the ones who make you miserable".

If that makes sense? I dunno. I may be talking in circles here. I just feel like we're no longer just saying "what's do you feel is the difference between an NPC and a normal PC played by a staffer" but now trying to define actual codified standards of behavior for those NPCs—and for how to GM in general—which we have no ability or authority to enforce. And it feels like we're prepared, as a community, to be indignant and point fingers if people who never even pledged to use those standards on their game violate them in any way.

[Auspice]

@Sparks said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

But if you are running a game in your house, you are not running it on behalf of anyone else. You do not have to sign anything before you sit down to run a game, not even if you post an open invite on the board at the gaming shop and allow people you don't even know to come.

But this isn't running a game in your house. I'd liken that to being a player and running a PRP for your friends.

This is a game full of people, many of which you don't know. It is more like being DM for D&D Adventures. Because there's a whole host of people and when you put up that +event, you might get 4 people you don't know and 1 you do.

We want it to be like a Friday night with our buddies, but when we Staff, that ain't it. When we Staff, we are Staffing for the entire game and the bigger the game, the better the chances that we are doing so for people we don't know.

Fred, the unengaging boring guy who just treats an NPC like a quarter gumball machine of plot might be new enough to the hobby that he doesn't really know how it works and if you just avoid him, how is he to ever know better? Only by playing with him and taking the time to feel out whether he's 'just that way' or maybe still green enough to just need a guiding hand will you know.

Maybe Sally who fusses over feeling like she's always left out between the first +event and the resolution (while you think 'Well, Sally, maybe if you'd actually move your butt!') doesn't know she can put in +requests to do legwork or reach out and ask questions. Maybe she thought every single step of the way was gonna be another public +event and felt like she must have missed some along the way (I've seen this happen! People new to genres or transferring over from MUD to MUSH or MOO to MUSH etc).

MU is unique. Yes it has similarities to TT but it is not TT. TT is a very small, controlled environment. It is just a handful of people and most often the same handful of people week to week. MU is anywhere from a dozen to maybe hundreds (on certain games) of people. You can't know them all, but when you have ones who want to interact with NPCs or plots or spheres you control you can try rather than this tendency that exists to just write them off because they're 'annoying' in some way.

[surreality]

There is also a lot more leeway to do whatever with an NPC from a player bit in a player-run PrP. Yep, even as a staff member, you should be able to do this, too, within the limits allowed for any other player on the game to do the same.

That's where 'run things for your buddies' is probably better handled.

[Ghost]

I'm gonna step in with "Oh come the fuck on, really?" voice, but before I so so, I want to make it clear this isn't an attack, nor am I trying to shame anybody. Please read this like Tarantino over beers. If you actually knew me, you'd get my language. But...

Oh come the fuck on, really?

When you're a staffer, you may have your favorites, but you've got to remain mostly impartial when it comes to keeping the game going. Sure, some people might be way more boring than others, but they're all coming yo your game for fun. For all you know they LOVE your game, are ESL, have trouble getting out of their shell, and your game might help them.

There's nothing wrong with thinking someone is boring, but in all fairness when it comes to the myriad of creepers, snobby assholes, and people who try to cheat the system, I'm suggesting that no one ever suggests nixing boring people who are nice people.

Maybe this is better at the absolutism thread, but over the last decade I've heard a lot of "this guy is boring" and "I hate how this person poses" and "they say YOU instead of HER". I, myself, was guilty of avoiding people who didn't meet some invisible bar I'd set for what was considered good writing, but I think many of us do/have done this.

What ever happened to "Hey <insert name of boring player>, I had an idea to make this RP more exciting, are you interested?" or "Hosting an OOC event on how to write or make interesting poses"?

I just...feel on a human level that there's so much quick judgment about players that we have often forgotten that we might actually be able go build each other up instead of break each other down, or at the very least be more welcoming to boring players because maybe with some effort they could be really great, or great friends, or decent code people.

I know it wasn't what was said (or said as an actual suggestion), but my empathy brain read "boring people deserve staff time less than exciting people, so should we ask boring people to leave?" and some part of me thought: "Fuck, that is one thing that is SO wrong about some people in this hobby: its either ON or OFF, YES or NO, COOL or SHIT, and it seems that it's just rare to hear: how can we support these people, especially if they're NICE people?"

Back before I hung up the hobby, I outright roleplayed with people I had bad OOC history/communication with because I realized that everyone is coming to these games for the same reason: to be creative. I don't have to be everyone's bestie to do that, but I can be supportive of the effort as a whole and if someone and I don't get along great Oocly? That's fine. We can still do stories and keep the pages to a minimum.

Anyway.

I don't mean to derail from the OP's topic, but this just kinda struck a nerve in me and I wanted to type it out before I lost it. I don't mean to get all Hippie about it, but fuuuuuuuuck, yanno? So much breaking people down, and not enough building people up.

I hope one day to see this. I really do.

[Auspice]

@Ghost said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

Back before I hung up the hobby, I outright roleplayed with people I had bad OOC history/communication with because I realized that everyone is coming to these games for the same reason: to be creative.

I mean, at the time you and I weren't doing so great and you were RPing with me just fine. I remember being kinda like 'huh this is weird' but I also just rooooooll with shit a lot and the game was hella fun at the time. You done did good.

[juke]

TBH, I can't say I've seen this thing under discussion personally, though.

Like, I've seen staff favoritism become problematic. I've seen staff manipulate player behaviors and loyalties with the promise of more attention or rewards. Even more than that, I've seen staff PCs treat whole games like their personal playground, and all of the players around them as props.

Maybe it's just that I don't frequent the games in question, but I cannot for the life of me remember a staffer just straight-up refusing to run plot for boring people who make an effort and aren't also in some way total assholes.

[Caryatid]

I hate the extremes we fall into in discussions here. I hate that the distinction becomes "those who get NPC time and plot shenanigans are more fun to play with!" and "those who don't are boring and if they complain they're jealous".

Ugh. This thread. U g h.

[Ghost]

@Auspice I appreciate it.

I believe that sometimes people are in sync, and sometimes they're not. I believe that even though you and I had a falling out that we could still write scenes together and help each other get what we came for: A not fucking boring night.

At some point I felt like it was the OOC contact that made this hobby more difficult than it needed to be, and I wanted to just...try it without YOU being Auspice and ME being Ghost.

I think it was a good experiment before I gave up the hobby. I'm glad we reconnected. I just wanted to find some way of going: "Yanno what? Shit gets stupid. People spread rumors, get these theories, there's drama between people, but maybe if there was a way to minimize that then myself and the people I RP with might have more fun (or at the very least less worry about each other)"