That makes staffing sound like a chore. I much prefer DMing D&D than playing it. I get a lot of joy from drawing maps, creating new cultures and lands, watching my players puzzle things out, develop clever solution, etc. Is staffing a MU* different from this, other than the obvious coding?
Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
@Ominous Yes. In your DND campaign, you know those people. They are somewhat accountable.
in the MU* world, that is not the case. People will take honest, simple mistakes or oversights by volunteer staffers, and blow them way out of proportion - beyond all sense. Beyond all civility.
Not everyone behaves that way, by any means (I think the vast majority of players are mostly cool and appreciative), but I would say I believe every staffer has run into this. So, for all you gun-shy players talking about how you can't trust staff because you've been burned before, I'm sitting here wondering how many staffers have interactions with you in their 'horrible experiences' pile.
@Derp said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
It sounds to me like we, as a culture, just need to accept that staff are players too, and should enjoy all the benefits that other players do. Because they do a hard job, and deserve to at least have as much fun as any other player. Stop asking staffers to be selfless masochistic martyrs for your fun if you aren't willing to appreciate their need for the same.
I don't think that it's a cultural expectation that staff should be selfless, masochistic martyrs. @Ominous has said that she/he doesn't think that those staff (in those circumstances) should get the perks of being a player, but I don't believe anyone else is advocating such an extreme stance (or if they are, it's all blurred together, sorry). Hopefully folks are sensible enough to not be this ridiculously extreme about these issues. 'Playing in a scene that you're storytelling', rule wise, is (or at least should be) something that applies to both staff and players equally.
I find no fault, not even a little one, with the premise that staff should enjoy the same benefits/perks/etc. that players do. I firmly believe that this should be the case. I just also happen to believe that they should be held to the same standards and the same rules, and that the policies, rules, standards, etc should be developed with the thought that they should be applying to everyone involved equally. I do not think that anyone should get EXTRA perks for being staff, beyond those that are simply impossible to remove due to the human condition and things. I do also think that in some cases, a bit more oversight ought to be applied to staff where the rules/standards are concerned. Not different rules, just more supervision. Perhaps even stricter interpretation, where warranted. But not different rules. Not to their benefit, not to their detriment.
There are, of course, also rules that only apply to staff (because, say for example that your average player does not have the ability to look at someone else's sheet), but those are onlyappropriate (to me) in the cases where they don't apply to your general playerbase because they don't have the tools/access/need, rather than just because they're players. So rules that govern when you should +sheet someone would be appropriate; rules regarding what you can play (above and beyond the limits applied to the playerbase) would not be.
@Ominous said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
Is staffing a MU* different from this, other than the obvious coding?
Yes in one very significant way. When I run a table top, which I do often it is for friends. Or at worst friends of friends I am OK hanging out with.
When you staff on a mush you spend a lot of your effort on strangers and even people you actively dislike.
I have to say, I don't understand the desire to hold staffers to such strict and rigorous standards while players are generally allowed to be shits whenever they choose to be and continue to have as much fun as possible. It seems like there will be more people who don't run games and don't staff places just for not wanting to deal with the drama that such strict standards inevitably creates.
We're all bouncing around on the same games with the same people, pretending they are something new, when the reality is that we've done it all before and we'll do it all again. The same drama of cliquish, teenage whisper campaigns I dealt with 6 years ago, I'm dealing with on the place I play now. I wouldn't even be surprised if the people behind it were the same people from 6 years ago using the same tactics to alienate people. And that's insane.
Maybe it would be better for everyone to stop making different rules for staff and players as though they were two different species and instead hold people accountable for being people. Maybe then more people would be willing to donate time to places and actually be able to have fun, instead of being told that if you volunteer for a position to help all the other players, the rules in place are going to make it as difficult as possible for you to have your own fun. Maybe then we would get new stories and new ideas and less stress and less burn out and more people enjoying more of their time in this hobby.
@Warma-Sheen said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
Maybe it would be better for everyone to stop making different rules for staff and players as though they were two different species and instead hold people accountable for being people.
@Ganymede, this is what I've always meant when I said "Staff are just Players with extra responsibilities." This, above, is pretty much what I meant.
Er, tangent for us Dinos.
@Warma Sheen I don't think any (or at least many) of us are saying that players should be allowed to be shits. That's a problem with staffing at the top level, however. If the players are being allowed to be shits, that's because nobody is tossing their shitty ass out the door. Staff should still be held to the standards set for the game... but so should the players. If the players are being given too much leeway, look to the top.
Clearly, the obvious solution is that staff shouldn't be allowed to have their own alts.
Then again, maybe no one should have a character.
What a strange game. The only winning move is to not play.
MUSH-free since 02/2017
This may or may not change in the future.
Meanwhile, over in reality land...
@Sunny Hey sorry. I guess there's no accounting for levity in the midst of serious matters.
@Monogram said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
@Sunny Hey sorry. I guess there's no accounting for levity in the midst of serious matters.
It's a tricky thing, and I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous or unaware, here.
Humor is all well and good, but if people are trying to discuss seriously and /actually get somewhere in their discussion/ and you keep jabbing elbows and telling people to lighten up, it can get annoying real fast. You are, by definition, making light of their topic of conversation, after all.
Food for thought.
@Sunny said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
I don't think that it's a cultural expectation that staff should be selfless, masochistic martyrs. @Ominous has said that she/he doesn't think that those staff (in those circumstances) should get the perks of being a player, but I don't believe anyone else is advocating such an extreme stance (or if they are, it's all blurred together, sorry). Hopefully folks are sensible enough to not be this ridiculously extreme about these issues. 'Playing in a scene that you're storytelling', rule wise, is (or at least should be) something that applies to both staff and players equally.
Not quite. I said that perhaps we need to consider our GMing approach towards these games. Instead of trying to utilize the D&D method, maybe servers should experiment with systems developed by storygames that allow for shared GMing.
Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
@Ominous said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
@Sunny said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
I don't think that it's a cultural expectation that staff should be selfless, masochistic martyrs. @Ominous has said that she/he doesn't think that those staff (in those circumstances) should get the perks of being a player, but I don't believe anyone else is advocating such an extreme stance (or if they are, it's all blurred together, sorry). Hopefully folks are sensible enough to not be this ridiculously extreme about these issues. 'Playing in a scene that you're storytelling', rule wise, is (or at least should be) something that applies to both staff and players equally.
Not quite. I said that perhaps we need to consider our GMing approach towards these games. Instead of trying to utilize the D&D method, maybe servers should experiment with systems developed by storygames that allow for shared GMing.
The actual words you wrote aren't but a handful of posts back. They're right there. Your point may have been as you have stated here, but you certainly did express that if you're going to run a D&D/WoD-type game, then staff ought not get the perks of being a player. Beyond that, I was responding to someone else's damn words, acknowledging their reading of your statement and addressing their reaction, not your words.
Context is important.
I'm not quite sure I understand why it's so difficult to set some random rules for staff that allows them to have fun without ruining it for everyone.
If in a multi-sphere MU*, they can't have a PC in their own sphere. If they have a PC, it can't be higher than second in command of the other sphere. If they want to run a plot centered around their character, it can only be one arc/plot per whatever (so maybe every 5th/10th/nth plot run, staffers can run a plot for other staffers' PC.) Staff duties should never be done on PC-bit, and PC-shit should never be taken to Staffbit.
I always believed transparency is the key to keeping people happy. Have the plots recorded and maybe starred to show which ones are 'plots' or stories ran specifically for the Staffer's PC so people can keep them accountable. Keep detailed logs of meetings or even problem situations with players. Meetings should be posted on the website (unless discussing plots for players) and problem player logs should be saved and used when/if accused of misbehavior.
Staffers do deserve fun,. but they are also in the position of power on a game, and no matter what they will be held to a higher standard than normal PCs, that is what being in a position of power entails (with great power comes great responsibilities.)
On single sphere MUSHes, they should never app someone in power unless its second in command or it is an NPC, and NPCs should be stated clearly on the character (+Finger and Website). All NPC rp should be logged and displayed. The reason I allow for second in command is because a lot of players are flakes, Staffers tend to be less flakes - so if the guy in command is indisposed the game doesn't have to stop. Second in command can give temporary orders for a week at most but their main job would be to find a replacement for that position of power (if they want to be second in command I mean, this is just the highest they can go - not that they HAVE to do this!)
These are just some ideas I've been brewing up. I don't think its bad to set strict guidelines and numbers to enforce rules. I also believe Players should police staff as much as staff police players.
All these rules can be dismissed in a sandbox - for those games do whatever the hell you want.
Me being constructive again.
I was talking a lot off chan with @Auspice about this:
I don't think there's a always whole lot of malevolence to this. I think a lot of this staff putting their chars in the drivers seat and railroading everything chalks up to a difference in viewpoint in GM styles:
GM runs games like games. Lets the dice decide, will let characters die, will let characters decide their own fate. Is okay with this. Enjoys rping all of the NPCs and is comfortable letting the game be its own monster.
GM has a story they wrote, with beginning, middle, and end written up. They're running the game to tell a story and don't logically associate the players as people who want to make their own decisions, but as players that want to play the GMs story. So, naturally, GM's NPCs running the show, all of the combats and scenes are on a railroad, etc doesn't lightbulb as being annoying to the player because OMG THE STORY I WROTE and I CANT LET THE PLAYERS AFFECT THE STORY OTHERWISE MY BEGINNING, MIDDLE, AND END WONT BE ACHIEVED!!!. The PCs will, potentially, make choices that will derail this grand story idea, but in the end, the players may be left feeling as if they were just there to watch it all happen, whether they were involved or not.
I do believe there have been many mushes that fit GM2's model, and I do believe that some of those railroading GMs aren't malevolent, but they do tend to put their characters front and center because that is what's fun for them, and that they're somewhat blind to the concept that any other given player may want to feel important because... omg i wrote this whole story and...
I have played in plenty of TT games where the GM is like GM2 and cant figure out how to write up a game setting without writing up the beginning, middle, and end, and shoehorning the game and chars to fit that vision.
Delete the Hog Pit. It'll be fun.
I really don't understand He-Man
@Ominous said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
That makes staffing sound like a chore. I much prefer DMing D&D than playing it. I get a lot of joy from drawing maps, creating new cultures and lands, watching my players puzzle things out, develop clever solution, etc. Is staffing a MU* different from this, other than the obvious coding?
Very much so.
@Ghost said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
I don't think there's a always whole lot of malevolence to this. I think a lot of this staff putting their chars in the drivers seat and railroading everything chalks up to a difference in viewpoint in GM styles:
I don't think the original line of conversation had to do with railroading at all.
My position is that hard-and-fast rules are not always good things, and that staff and players should be flexible to circumstances while still operating under a general modus operandi.
Railroading is an entirely separate, disdainful beast.
I was going to start a thread, but I noticed this post here, and it seems to be a good thread to put down my thoughts on the matter. As I've said in a previous post, a long time ago I played on a game where non-staff players apped into leadership roles (Faction Leaders/Team Leaders/Major FCs) were also staffers on RP staff, and as such, a liaison between the players and staff in a defacto sense of the word. I recently decided to dust off my old hobby and give it a go as a way to take a break from dealing with teens for a little while. This is what I discovered.
Both games I tried were apocalypse themed, but that's about all they had in common. Both games also have very good staffs, so any criticism to be made is purely from the constructive front.
Game A is a zombie survival game. Having come from the ashes of another zombie game that had died, the staff was trying hard to make sure to drive home the dangers and lack of supplies. There was a +scavenge code in place, but it was quickly determined to be broken and was taken off-line. Then scavenging scenes became staff only plots, then it was left to the player base to determine the path the game was going to take - convoy on or hunker down. Hunker down won, so RP quickly became limited to social and building things up - which was to roll on a project. The other catch was when the staff ran scavenge scenes, it quickly took on what I call the 'Monty Hall Complex'. The players win the scene, they get all these fabulous prizes. The headwiz has been ill, so the game has entered a stalled and stale period where it's the same dredge day in and day out. I've logged in my character to make a roll on a project he's on - one that I tried really hard to RP doing, but eventually just burned out since there was no direction on it. Only the staff alts can vet new people into the complex, and when they're not around, new PCs have had to sit for days to wait for the interview to get into the game play and RP outside of someone bringing them a meal.
Game B is a post-apocalypse sci-fi game. Supplies are thin and there's a war going on on multiple fronts. There /is/ a metaplot that is tightly controlled by the staff, but there are so many other side plots that players can ask to run and do that the main plot can sometimes be overlooked - but most of time, the two blend in perfect harmony. The headwiz does control the major character, but outside of that, the main characters are non-staff bitted PCs, including the main pilot, doctor, and sciences division. The main deck person was only just recently made a staffer, but her job is mainly code. You're allowed to submit ideas, and while you're encouraged not to make them too dangerous, you can also affect the way the whole game goes. It was a player that decided to ask to switch the game from a defensive 'watch our own asses' theme to a 'lets punch them in the face and see how they like it' theme. I feel I have more freedoms here, and that the game would flourish if it had a larger player base, which is my lone complaint about it - they don't want much in the way of advertising, so there's no ad. Most MUD connector sites list it as dead. If I had not stumbled across the wiki when I was searching for the /show/ it's based on, I'd not found it. Isolationism may be the one thing that kills what really is a gem of a game.
I guess what it comes down to, is if you're going to be staff and play your cards close to your chest, at least allow side plots related to the theme to be ran freely, and don't limit the plots to 'if staff's running it, it's the only important one'.
@Ghost said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
I don't think there's a always whole lot of malevolence to this. I think a lot of this staff putting their chars in the drivers seat and railroading everything chalks up to a difference in viewpoint in GM styles:
GM runs games like games. Lets the dice decide, will let characters die, will let characters decide their own fate. Is okay with this. Enjoys rping all of the NPCs and is comfortable letting the game be its own monster.
GM has a story they wrote, with beginning, middle, and end written up. They're running the game to tell a story and don't logically associate the players as people who want to make their own decisions, but as players that want to play the GMs story.
Agreed, as a GM, I've always ran my TT as games, the dice decide, the character decide to take a plot hook or go in a random direction. I don't prepare episodic events that happen no matter what, instead I have some NPCs that could be interesting (either prepared for a campaign or drawn from past NPCs from years of being a GM), I have some other groups (leaders, hidden groups, etc) that have their own agendas going on, if they run into them or mess with something to get attention, the groups respond.
I've had to go to the game store in the past, play a few games to invite others in with natural player attrition (moving out of city/state) and I have seen the playing the story GMs doing just that, even some completely diceless where the GM would decide if the action succeeds or fails, I assume based on it meshing with the story they are telling or not. The players that found this campaign, even if I viewed it as unfun or railroading, had a good time. If they enjoyed it, more power to them.
But I am in the boat, you open a Mu* to the public, the players want some say in what happens or what direction things go at some point. If its going to be a GM story, or detailed metaplot they want to get out in sequential order, they need to know it up front, otherwise more players seem to assume its #1, they can affect things and make change in the game.
See, I actually fall somewhere between the two types, as a tabletop GM. The story I plan is a situation. There are NPCs, they have goals and plans. There is the world, which will react to those NPCs and to the PCs based on actions. There are Things that Happen that are not in the purview of the PCs, that they often can't do anything but react to. The stage gets set, and then game on. I do fudge dice rolls sometimes ( and they know it ) to ensure not that the story goes the way I want ( the goes part is what we're playing ), but so that everyone gets to participate, do something, and generally have a good time. If there's something they need to notice, for example, I might have a target number in mind as 19, but nobody rolls higher than a 15, I might change the target number I had in mind. It's fluid.
@Ominous said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
That makes staffing sound like a chore. I much prefer DMing D&D than playing it. I get a lot of joy from drawing maps, creating new cultures and lands, watching my players puzzle things out, develop clever solution, etc. Is staffing a MU* different from this, other than the obvious coding?
Very much so.
