Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers

[Ganymede]

@Sunny said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

I still think it's a bad idea.

The only reason I side with you on this issue is because I agree that it takes a very skilled set of players to make the situation work properly.

I would have zero problems with you running a plot where your PC is involved because I know you won't make him or her the center of it. There are a handful of people that I would trust being in a plot with, and you're one of them.

But, yes. In general, staff or players should not have their PCs involved in a plot you're running.

[Sunny]

@Ganymede said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

@Sunny said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

I still think it's a bad idea.

The only reason I side with you on this issue is because I agree that it takes a very skilled set of players to make the situation work properly.

I would have zero problems with you running a plot where your PC is involved because I know you won't make him or her the center of it. There are a handful of people that I would trust being in a plot with, and you're one of them.

But, yes. In general, staff or players should not have their PCs involved in a plot you're running.

Yeah. I agree with you 100%, actually. There are people I would trust with it, too. I actually do it, but the key here is NOT ON A PUBLIC GAME.

But I'm not going to give advice that is 'Well, if you were ME, do this, and if you're not me, do this other thing'. There's already an issue here with this topic, confusing it isn't helpful. ^^

Edited to add:

For more fun, I believe firmly that staff should be able to play leadership roles alongside other players, and that they should be able to be involved in the metaplot as PCs, too! It really is a very wide range of opinions that exist on the topic, and wider even than that pool is the pool of 'how important is this issue actually to me as a player on any given game'. 'You may not play in a scene that you are running' does not need to be a rule for me to play on a game. It's not even in the the top tier of my criteria. But when you're running into a problem again and again with people really unhappy with a particular way that you're doing things...this IS something I would take into consideration for playing on a game that these folks did. Lack of that rule may not turn me away, but you can bet I'd be paying very close attention, and the moment I saw the pattern, I'd be out.

[Ganymede]

@Sunny said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

There are people I would trust with it, too. I actually do it, but the key here is NOT ON A PUBLIC GAME.

I don't really see the difference. If we can agree that RPing on a MU* is consensual by nature, then anything can happen by consent, public or not.

But, I suppose I'm confusing it. I'll go fly up to my mountain now, and fall asleep around my hoard.

[Sunny]

@Ganymede

No no, you're fine. I was just saying I wasn't going into that for why, though I do agree with you. I also think that part of the reason you would trust me with it is because I don't do it, so if it really really came down to it for whatever reason, you'd know I was doing it for the right reasons. You know?

[Ganymede]

@Sunny said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

I also think that part of the reason you would trust me with it is because I don't do it, so if it really really came down to it for whatever reason, you'd know I was doing it for the right reasons.

There's that, which comes from shared history. I trust you. You've earned it.

I think that staff can do the same over time. Adhere to the general rule, but a strict rule means that staff has no reason to foster that kind of trust.

[lordbelh]

The only times I run things that include my character is if it's an impromptu bit of plottage that only's come about because we were bored with a social scene and decided to do something more with it. Occasionally that'll span over a few more scenes, and involve the kind of character centered progression that are usually lacking in regular PRPs.

I would separate those sort of 'prps', as well as in general any kind of private character development 'prps', from the public 'affect the world at large' style prps or staff run plots. The latter types shouldn't involve your own character, especially if you're a staffer. As for the former.. if its all about you anyway, you might as well tell it any way you like.

[Sunny]

@Ganymede said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

@Sunny said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

I also think that part of the reason you would trust me with it is because I don't do it, so if it really really came down to it for whatever reason, you'd know I was doing it for the right reasons.

There's that, which comes from shared history. I trust you. You've earned it.

I think that staff can do the same over time. Adhere to the general rule, but a strict rule means that staff has no reason to foster that kind of trust.

Hmm. You're right. It's not as absolute as I present it, and I don't in general think it ought to be. I do think in the context of this particular situation, or really even as more general advice, that's the rule folks ought to be sticking to. Particularly when there's demonstrated difficulties in the arena.

[surreality]

@lordbelh said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

The only times I run things that include my character is if it's an impromptu bit of plottage that only's come about because we were bored with a social scene and decided to do something more with it. Occasionally that'll span over a few more scenes, and involve the kind of character centered progression that are usually lacking in regular PRPs.

I would separate those sort of 'prps', as well as in general any kind of private character development 'prps', from the public 'affect the world at large' style prps or staff run plots. The latter types shouldn't involve your own character, especially if you're a staffer. As for the former.. if its all about you anyway, you might as well tell it any way you like.

^ This kind of thing I have never had any issue with, and think it would be a shame to lose if people get too antsy about the subject.

I've done this, too.

<OOC> surreality's alt says, "Hey, anyone mind if I have an injured dude stumble into the bar to start some kind of random chaos?"

<OOC> surreality's alt says, "...anyone up for a random bar fight breaking out in the corner?"

<OOC> surreality's alt says, "I have a one-shot monster-of-the-week plot with bigfoot I'm going to run in a couple of days that's public and posted to +events and will be set here, anyone mind if I throw in a sighting of the mysterious beast on the other side of the park and some people running up to freak out about what they just saw? Was thinking of asking on channel to see if anybody else wants to join the scene, if that sounds like it could be fun, and it might get a few more folks involved or signing up."

...etc. I have zero issue with these kinds of things, but I think one of the key things here is to ask first. (And in the last case, make a genuine effort to be inclusive.)

[ThatGuyThere]

@Seraphim73 said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

@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.

Yes you can absolutely do this but that removes any defense about what the game is truly about. Whether it is against stated rules or not if the main reason you are running a scene if to further your characters story, then despite all protests to the contrary then your highest concern is your character's story. It is no longer at attempt at collaboration it is a desire for an interactive audience.
If you are good at it yes you can find that audience but then don't be surprised in matter that are open to the public when people so signed on to play a game then complain that they were relegated to audience member.

[surreality]

@ThatGuyThere See, I don't agree with that entirely. If you're running a personal scene, and explicitly state: "this is a personal scene for me, and if others want to join in, they are welcome to do so," that isn't really indicative of someone's over all goals for the game at large. It means that, for the space of one scene, yes, you're focusing on your own character.

If that's the only kind of scene you run, or you run more of those than anything else, or even a large number of scenes like that, yes, you may have an issue -- but simply the act of running a scene for yourself and saying so up front in itself isn't really a fair indicator of the ST having a typical or problematic disinterest in collaboration, or only wanting to attention hog/just find an audience.

[ThatGuyThere]

@surreality
If it is a one scene thing then it less of a deal still a scene i will avoid no matter how much I might like or trust the person running it, if it starts to become a regular thing I will start to suspect the goal of the game is to provide an audience for those types of scenes.

[Miss Demeanor]

I have something that niggles at me about running a scene for your own character and I'm trying to find a way to put it that doesn't sound accusatory, because I don't think anyone here is actively doing this.

If you are a sphere lead, or headstaff, someone that's a leader even among staff... there's an inherent perception issue with running one's own plots for your character. Namely... if you put in a job to gain approval for a scene that you are running for your character... who is going to tell you no if there's something in that pitched prp that's 'too much'? At that point, you're the one in charge. Who's going to risk angering 'the boss' by telling them they're going too far? Its definitely a bit more sticky of a situation than when 'just a player' is asking for a prp.

(Using the empirical you in this case, again, I don't think anyone here is doing this, but I've found it's a relatively common perception when someone in charge is asking for something for their own character.)

[surreality]

@ThatGuyThere See, I think people should be willing to be proactive in creating their own fun.

Staff are not only there to be the servants of others at all times.

They should be allowed their own fun, too. If they're making that fun for themselves, and it isn't giving them any advantages, and is not associated with any grand, sweeping game plot, they are doing precisely what I wish more players would also do: create their own fun, and not rely on others to spoonfeed them fun. Bonus points if they (read: people staff or non-staff who are creating their own fun) invite others to join in, provided everything's properly labeled from the start.

If, for whatever reasons, players are not permitted to run their own scenes in the same fashion, obviously, that's going to be different. But if everyone is allowed to run things like this, staff should be allowed to do the same without people flipping their shit, provided they're doing so within the same restrictions and parameters that players are.

[ThatGuyThere]

@surreality
I am fine with staff having their own fun, I am definitely in favor of players running scenes for each other. To me it is a far different thing between making your own fun a.k.a. running a pick up scene and choosing to run a preplanned scheduled scene where your character is the focus. I don't want to be in that preplanned scene whether run my staff alt or joe player.
And I believe motivations are shown through actions, so if staff alts run a lot of scenes to focus on their PCs (yes I know a lot is a undefined quantity but again this in practice is more of a feel thing) then I will conclude that providing an audience for those scenes is the main goal of the game, because that is what the evidence available to me shows. I am willing to reassess my view when new evidence becomes available of course.
Conversely if a Player run a much of scene just to focus on their PC I would also conclude that that person's main goal for the game would be to have an audience for their story and would avoid RPing with that person.
I do not see this as a staff vs player issue, the only difference in my mind is the scope they effect. I can still RP and find fun on a game while avoiding Joe Player, where if it is Joe Staffer it is usually best to right off the game and move on.

[surreality]

@ThatGuyThere The example that actually comes to mind about what I mean was one you mentioned about RP growing organically from something that happens in scene -- I don't recall the specifics, but it was something about an injury? That's the scale of scene I'm talking about, if it helps clarify.

[ThatGuyThere]

@surreality
That started as a one off scene that my PC participated and I ran. Which is something we both agree everyone should be able to run in and participate in.
Then when people took it to the plot level I wrote out my PC by playing up the injury he received in the one off scene. (I know it did not end up being a one off scene but it was intended to be at the time) The injury became the excuse for why he did not join the rest of the motley for the PRP end of things. So my PC slides from active participant to quest giver, again I have no issues with people using their PCs as quest givers in PRPs they run.
To me the issue would come up if I had my character healed (another of the PCs involved could have done this, after all supernatural healing is not rare in WoD) and then lead the charge for his own vengeance. That would be what I am against people doing becoming an active part of the plot they run.

[surreality]

@ThatGuyThere That kind of initial one-off is what I'm talking about. I can't see anybody having an issue with anyone running a scene like that once in a while -- and a lot of what's being said in this thread makes it sound like that is just so not remotely OK ever for somebody to run. Which... would be bad, IMHO.

[ThatGuyThere]

@surreality
I agree there. I think terminology might be where I lot of contention comes from.
To me a "Plot" implies planned in advance and going for multiple scenes. Sometimes the planned in advance part gets pretty loose but still the multiple scenes aspect is what makes something a plot.
The pick up game style hey lets run something quick to me are "One Shots" not "Plot" and I totally agree that everyone Staff, Player etc should be able to run those while playing in them. They are a good thing and those type of scenes are very much what hooked me on MUSHing a long time ago and a big part of what keeps bringing me back.

[Ganymede]

@Miss-Demeanor said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

If you are a sphere lead, or headstaff, someone that's a leader even among staff... there's an inherent perception issue with running one's own plots for your character. Namely... if you put in a job to gain approval for a scene that you are running for your character... who is going to tell you no if there's something in that pitched prp that's 'too much'? At that point, you're the one in charge. Who's going to risk angering 'the boss' by telling them they're going too far? Its definitely a bit more sticky of a situation than when 'just a player' is asking for a prp.

I think we can all agree that it's unacceptable for a staff member to run a plot for one of his or her PCs that would benefit him or her in some way.

But there are many kinds of plots. What if the staff's PC makes friends with another player's, and that player's has been harmed or hurt by the NPC? Is it permissible for the staff PC to accompany the player's PC to take care of the NPC, where the staffer essentially runs the NPC as well?

Think about it for just a second. For some, the above situation is barred. The way I see it, the staff member is running a scene for a player that will help that player's PC develop. And if that player is okay with the staffer running it, is there any harm?

That's why I think an absolute rule is not a good thing. It's a good general rule, but it often falls upon the staff and the players to determine what's permissible or not.

[Kanye Qwest]

@Ganymede said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

@Miss-Demeanor said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

If you are a sphere lead, or headstaff, someone that's a leader even among staff... there's an inherent perception issue with running one's own plots for your character. Namely... if you put in a job to gain approval for a scene that you are running for your character... who is going to tell you no if there's something in that pitched prp that's 'too much'? At that point, you're the one in charge. Who's going to risk angering 'the boss' by telling them they're going too far? Its definitely a bit more sticky of a situation than when 'just a player' is asking for a prp.

I think we can all agree that it's unacceptable for a staff member to run a plot for one of his or her PCs that would benefit him or her in some way.

I don't really agree, so NO WE CAN NOT.