Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers
-
I have very cheerfully and happily involved as a spectator, also. I am almost always happy to play support or even background for other people's starring moments, when asked, and where it makes sense. (I've been asked to do so inappropriately as well, and declined, which did.not go over well). The key is disclosure.
And in the case of staff, there is the added layer of perceived focus. If mush wide and open things are lacking/going unanswered, but people see wiki spam of many your-alt-centric scenes, they'll get resentful. If you gleefully constantly talk about your excitement over your new shiny, or special trip, or awesome adventure on public while they are still waiting and/or excluded, it looks pretty craptacular.
Is it fair? Nope. But it is what it is. You can do what you want and accept the ooc consequences, or modify your behavior to preserve some ooc perceptions, but it's pretty unrealistic to do what you want and then be surprised or mad at people reacting to the perception you cultivated, you know?
-
@mietze said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
You can do what you want and accept the ooc consequences, or modify your behavior to preserve some ooc perceptions, but it's pretty unrealistic to do what you want and then be surprised or mad at people reacting to the perception you cultivated, you know?
This.
You might not like it, but it's reality. You can do what you want, but to then be surprised when it blows up in your face? Acting surprised and/or hurt? Nope. Nope, nope, nope.
-
@Ghost said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
Also, constructively, this all gets harder when StaffPCs are in the majority of power positions on a game, make the IC decisions, write then implement plot. In a way, staff having StaffPCs in charge of everything becomes a CoI fucking nightmare.
I think this gets back to the generally agreed upon notion that PCs of Staffers should not be in the power positions of the game, be the one making IC decisions concerning the metaplot, or be the sole focus of a plot meant to directly change (small or big) the facet of the game as a whole.
It is more rewarding when PCs move into those positions, make those decisions, and share that focus -- for Staff and player-base alike.
The more staffbits are in control positions, the NPCs, various PC positions, IC leadership, the bad guys, etc, it's far more likely that when you pass that ball, you're passing to yourselves.
We have in the past disagreed on the purpose of Staff-controlled NPCs, and I'm sure we will continue to do so. I will say that it is my opinion that the purposes of Staff NPCs should only be there as quest givers, providers of major story hooks, ways to share new canon information with the players, and to be archetypes for canon. I know we disagree on that point, which is fine.
@mietze said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
But if you sell or promote something as a plot, then IMO it is unethical, staff or not, to make it all about your PC and your desires for them but you want other people to spectate without disclosing to them. If you want to do that, write it up as a short story and share it with them later. Other unwitting players are not your captive audience.
Transparency is very, very important in everything Staff does, to be honest. I have run into this pitfall in the past.
To @Auspice and @Sunny's points. I think it is unfortunate that, that is the perspective. I think it speaks to the distrust we have as a community that we can't trust someone to be responsible with their own character's story. But, I respect your perspective and understand what you're saying.
I would like to think that the whole point of this hobby is because we enjoy the cooperative storytelling, where my character is the main character of her own story, but your character is the main character of his/her own story, and together we can be characters within a shared world. Excuse me while I adjust my rose-tinted glasses.
@mietze said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
And in the case of staff, there is the added layer of perceived focus. If mush wide and open things are lacking/going unanswered, but people see wiki spam of many your-alt-centric scenes, they'll get resentful. If you gleefully constantly talk about your excitement over your new shiny, or special trip, or awesome adventure on public while they are still waiting and/or excluded, it looks pretty craptacular.
And that doesn't just look pretty craptacular, it is pretty craptacular.
-
@GirlCalledBlu said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
To @Auspice and @Sunny's points. I think it is unfortunate that, that is the perspective. I think it speaks to the distrust we have as a community that we can't trust someone to be responsible with their own character's story. But, I respect your perspective and understand what you're saying.
I do not think that you do understand my point, actually, because this has nothing to do with distrust. This has nothing to do with being responsible or not responsible. Your character can still be the main character in their own story, absolutely. You can still have storytelling time. You can still have a growth, and an arc, and get to do cool things.
You just don't get to run them for yourself. You don't run something in which your character is the star, because that reduces the other people in the scene to spectators. It is bad staffing. It is bad storytelling. You are not writing a short story. You are not writing a novel. You are storytelling in a cooperative environment. People don't ref games AND play in them in the meat world. It's not because we can't trust the ref. It's because as a plot/story runner, you have OTHER things to PAY ATTENTION to.
-
As a staffer who loves playing on the game I staff on, I find myself playing the alt less and less so as not to interfere with the decisions of storyline and I don't want to feel as if I ever spotlight my character. More importantly, I don't want the playerbase to feel as if I spotlight my character in any way. It ends up with me leaving myself with such a small amount of character development that I lose interest in the character. I agree there is a fine line to balance between personal plot and group plots to increase rp within the game and I always err on the side of caution and keep my role in plots minimal.
As someone said earlier and I completely agree, having staff repeatedly run plots for single character development shouldn't be abused/taken for granted either. I've come across that recently and I truly think if the player wants that lengthy of a plot for their own character, they should do it as a PrP. Otherwise, I've noticed that there is the misinterpretation that there is staff favoritism towards one person or a small group when in reality the player asked staff to run different plots for them.
For a game to grow, I believe it needs input from more than one or two staffers, I've just recently come to that conclusion. Fresh ideas are brought in from others and also, like was mentioned before, bring the opportunity for staff alts to get involved in plot that they do not run themselves and thus leave them the opportunity to shine as well.
-
@Sunny Oh, then yes. I missed your point a bit.
-
@GirlCalledBlu said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
@Sunny Oh, then yes. I missed your point a bit.
I have also been advised (by the people that offered) that there were people involved in your most recent project that specifically offered to run things for you. So there's that.
-
@Sunny As I said, very rarely... not never. There were people on The 100 who tried to help me out with my character, even if she might have been a total failed concept.
@Misfortune said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
For a game to grow, I believe it needs input from more than one or two staffers, I've just recently come to that conclusion. Fresh ideas are brought in from others and also, like was mentioned before, bring the opportunity for staff alts to get involved in plot that they do not run themselves and thus leave them the opportunity to shine as well.
Hey, I came to that conclusion recently, too.
I've also found it helpful to find good players who like running stuff to be given the job that @Auspice had mentioned earlier. They are in charge of running character development for people in their sphere/org/what-have-you. But they tend to get forgotten about at times. That sort of thing does require a lot of checks and balances, and it sucks when someone gets forgotten.
-
Honestly, it's part of why I think keeping a tiny staffing team (esp. if the two of you are in the same house) isn't always the best plan.
Things go missed. If something happens IRL, it's likely going to affect both of you. And it's harder to keep up with running plot, keeping up to date on jobs, and trying to do things for those players that have contributed.
Saying the quiet parts out loud since 1996.
-
@Sunny said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
You just don't get to run them for yourself.
Why?
That may sound flippant or even dismissive, but it's really not intended to be. I'm genuinely curious why you think that a player (whether they are a Staffer or not) should not be allowed to run scenes that further their own character's personal story without impacting metaplot or providing them with benefits beyond some time in the spotlight.
I have my own reasons why I wouldn't want some players to do so, but they all relate to a distrust that the player would follow the criteria laid out above (or would break with theme), and it makes me sad that I have this distrust.
Sidenote, I think that it's a fantastic policy to always let people know that you're inviting them to participate in your character's story, rather than a "plot" scene, and I think the idea of a Storyteller's Storyteller (or more ideally, two, so they can help each other occasionally too) to tell stories for those who are always telling stories for other is a great one.
@Misfortune I think it's really unfortunate that having to be so excruciatingly careful of any hint, whiff, or suggestion of impropriety is ruining your enjoyment of your own game (or at least the character(s) you play on it). That's a great way to end up with people not running games.
-
@Auspice said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
Honestly, it's part of why I think keeping a tiny staffing team (esp. if the two of you are in the same house) isn't always the best plan.
As someone who has actually had a rather large staffing team in the same house, size doesn't always matter. XD But, I digress...
I like the idea of two Storyteller's Storytellers.
I think the biggest issue I have had when running stories for another character is feeling like I don't know the character very well, because you ALWAYS know your character better than anyone else because you share headspace. Maybe have a way for people to list out things they hope for their character beyond power leveling, or reputation gains? I dunno. Would you have that be more of a request thing? Going back to my arm loss scenario, I would put in a +request I want my character to lose a limb?
-
I think if you have a Storyteller's Storyteller, you may not even need 2 (unless it's a larger game). Another Staffer could easily step in and run for them (running for 1 person vs. running for an entire game is much easier, after all).
And I don't think it'd be out of hand or weird to approach that person and go 'Hey, which character do you want a plot for and what did you have in mind?'
It'd also be relatively easy to code a system in which STs can file preferences, story seeds, etc., that other STs can then view.
Saying the quiet parts out loud since 1996.
-
@Seraphim73 said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
@Sunny said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
You just don't get to run them for yourself.
Why?
This is why. Italics added for emphasis.
@Sunny said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
You don't run something in which your character is the star, because that reduces the other people in the scene to spectators. It is bad staffing. It is bad storytelling. You are not writing a short story. You are not writing a novel. You are storytelling in a cooperative environment. People don't ref games AND play in them in the meat world. It's not because we can't trust the ref. It's because as a plot/story runner, you have OTHER things to PAY ATTENTION to. -
@Auspice said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
I think if you have a Storyteller's Storyteller, you may not even need 2 (unless it's a larger game). Another Staffer could easily step in and run for them (running for 1 person vs. running for an entire game is much easier, after all).
And I don't think it'd be out of hand or weird to approach that person and go 'Hey, which character do you want a plot for and what did you have in mind?'
It'd also be relatively easy to code a system in which STs can file preferences, story seeds, etc., that other STs can then view.I'll suggest this to someone I know is working on a game and about at playtesting mode. I think that it would be an interesting thing to add.
-
@GirlCalledBlu said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
I think the biggest issue I have had when running stories for another character is feeling like I don't know the character very well, because you ALWAYS know your character better than anyone else because you share headspace. Maybe have a way for people to list out things they hope for their character beyond power leveling, or reputation gains? I dunno. Would you have that be more of a request thing? Going back to my arm loss scenario, I would put in a +request I want my character to lose a limb?
Or a +bbpost. Fallcoast and a couple other places I have played have a board dedicated for PrP requests. You put up what you want to have run for you, and I have seen some very detailed and some fairly vague and if that strikes someones fancy as a thing to run, then you contact the poster and something gets set up.
I am sure it could be done with +request as well but in this case I think the wider the audience the better since the goal would be to get more things run. -
This is always an interesting topic.
I run scenes on a constant, consistent basis because I enjoy RP and my timezone makes it very difficult to attend scenes I like the look of (they start at, say, 4:00am my time, for example). So, I run scenes to remain active in the communities I join. However, because of the spotlight thing, my own characters are relegated to background positions which means these characters that I create and/or have to put in applications or be approved inevitably don't end up really doing much.
It sometimes gets to the point where I'd rather just be given a GM bit and let to go wild with NPCs and setting stuff because then I wouldn't feel like my own character is being kept under the stairs, so to speak.
The other thing about the idea that you can't run things for yourself, which is a good rule, is that it runs into issues. Let's say you're on a WoD game and you're playing a mortal detective. You'd like to do some journalism but no one is willing to run it - everyone wants to run Elysium things about the Clan and Covenant political maneuvering. So, what do you do? Do you just sort of ignore your character? Do you run a scene about investigating a spooky murder which is really just for your benefit? Do you page and @mail and +bbpost things until someone bites to run it for you, basically making them give up their time for your development? It's tough. Ideally, staff would be running things like this.
It's a huge problem when people just start running things for themselves because, soon enough, everyone is doing it. But I think it's also a problem when players have to rely on other players to run things for their own characters. I think it's also a problem when all charbits are expected to be Schrodinger's GMs - if I'm a detective, I might not want to also be the entire police department.
-
@Sunny Again, just so that everyone is on the same page, I'm not talking about metaplot scenes. I'm not even talking about PrPs with tangible benefits, I'm talking about gathering some friends together (who you have warned previously of the type of scene you're planning) to run a scene that furthers your character's storyline.
I think that folks have signed on for "reducing their characters to supporting characters" (tweak mine, because reducing characters to spectators is bad GMing no matter if you're in the scene or not) in this case. Anyhow, what's wrong with being a supporting character sometimes (as long as you get your own time in the spotlight too, by your own doing or someone else's)? Hell, some of the most fun characters I've ever played are Stormtroopers, or Children of the Light, or Warders, or Rhodey Rhodes. They're all supporting characters, even if they see the spotlight every now and then.
And in pro and rec leagues, there are definitely refs who aren't playing, absolutely. I would equate those to metaplot scenes and PrPs with benefits. But in pick-up games? Call your own fouls, man. No one wants to sit out and ref, players want to play.
If you don't like that argument anymore, how about this one: if you were getting together with friends to play a boardgame, or Magic: The Gathering, would you have someone sit aside to officiate? Sure, it might be a good idea with a complex game like anything Fantasy Flight has ever put out, to make sure that everyone follows all the rules, but isn't it more fun for everyone involved if everyone plays, even if it means you miss a little rule or two somewhere along the way?
Edited to add: Why do we have refs in pro sports/rec leagues? Because something is on the line, so we can't trust the players to call their own fouls. If you could trust players to call their own fouls, you don't need refs.
-
@Gilette said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
This is always an interesting topic.
I run scenes on a constant, consistent basis because I enjoy RP and my timezone makes it very difficult to attend scenes I like the look of (they start at, say, 4:00am my time, for example). So, I run scenes to remain active in the communities I join. However, because of the spotlight thing, my own characters are relegated to background positions which means these characters that I create and/or have to put in applications or be approved inevitably don't end up really doing much.
It sometimes gets to the point where I'd rather just be given a GM bit and let to go wild with NPCs and setting stuff because then I wouldn't feel like my own character is being kept under the stairs, so to speak.
The other thing about the idea that you can't run things for yourself, which is a good rule, is that it runs into issues. Let's say you're on a WoD game and you're playing a mortal detective. You'd like to do some journalism but no one is willing to run it - everyone wants to run Elysium things about the Clan and Covenant political maneuvering. So, what do you do? Do you just sort of ignore your character? Do you run a scene about investigating a spooky murder which is really just for your benefit? Do you page and @mail and +bbpost things until someone bites to run it for you, basically making them give up their time for your development? It's tough. Ideally, staff would be running things like this.
It's a huge problem when people just start running things for themselves because, soon enough, everyone is doing it. But I think it's also a problem when players have to rely on other players to run things for their own characters. I think it's also a problem when all charbits are expected to be Schrodinger's GMs - if I'm a detective, I might not want to also be the entire police department.
I think this hits a lot of what I've been wrestling with on the nose.
The word balance comes up in response. My philosophy has been that putting something in motion that helps your character grow and develop isn't a bad thing, and if you can hook other people into it along the way, it might become fun for everyone even if the heart of it is about your character developing. As @mietze said, that's where the transparency comes in: "Hey, I'm trying to get this thing for my character off the ground, I'd love for you to participate." Then they know that you're trying to accomplish something that takes your character down a new path, and it won't be a huge PRP/Event thing.
I would say your example here of being a detective is a better scenario than what I have come up with, because it is more in line with things I have done in the past. I would say you could set the whole thing in motion-- be at a cop bar, talking about this grizzly/spooky murder looking into, poking around for clues, and maybe see if others are interested in going along with the "adventure." Ideally, if there are people, then you are kind of running a scene that involves your character and others, and it gives you something to do while all the vamps are chillin' it up in Elysium.
-
If you're more interested in the argument than you are in the discussion, I'm out. Input was asked for, input was given. If you don't like my perspective, that's fine. You do you.
I still think it's a bad idea.
Edited to add: Proof is in the pudding.
-
It's true that it doesn't feel terribly constructive when this thread starts clearly along the lines of "We've accepted that we're having recurring issues with X that is bothering players, how do people think the best way to navigate X is" and people respond and there's a lot of "Okay but just to be clear, I'm not really doing X" replies of varying levels of defensiveness. (Some fairly light, I will certainly give you that.)
I understand that it's not the most pleasant to be told you have a recurring problem in your staffing style, but it doesn't really help when it feels like you have to slip in justifications even as you're saying, "Yeah you're probably right." It's like, "Yeah you're probably right, BUT this thing I was doing wasn't so bad because..." It's not that you need to sit down and take abuse if people were to fling it out, but between this thread and the 100 thread, it never quite feels like you guys are fully listening, because it's like you've always got one part of your brain working to defend yourself.
Back to the actual topic of the thread, one of the things that you'll find that's clearly come up here is just: the community at large doesn't even agree on this. Most people will generally agree on certain, more obvious points: don't run big metaplot things to spotlight your character. But there's been distinct disagreement on things like whether or not staff PCs should ever have authority, whether or not players should ever run a PRP or scene centered on their character, etc. Which is why I've also kind of brought up the point where, if you've identified having trouble balancing, you should probably err on the side of caution here, if only to build up habits of being aware and working to build goodwill and reputation with your players.
