There's Nothing to Do Here

Swaggot

@Lotherio I completely feel this man. And then they feel the need to 'correct' all of the 'mistakes' of your submission, which really just means watering it down into generic, boring, uninteresting crap because you aren't part of the in-crowd and therefore have zero leeway for any special snowflake shit. Everything you do has to be strictly by-the-book, so to speak.

Lotherio

@Wolfs said in There's Nothing to Do Here:

Enter the problem: a hierarchy that breaks down. There's only so much staff can do, and there's only so much one player can do. Ideally, I think people benefit most from a setup that goes something like this:

@Wolfs, that was a lot of information, and in the end sounds centric to your situation and possibly a mix of on-line time and, in part, the want to make the big splash with some meta versus being able to run own plots that are big enough splash for you. I've been doing this since the 80s (online RP, multiple-user format), and I can have just as much fun looking for someone's lost cat today as I always have, without having to make the big splash. Its the same rinse and repeat, but a big factor for me is interpersonal relationships between characters. It never always plays out the same. Whether cat is found at the nice old ladies house who turns into a plot hook as someone's contact for more adventure, or some monster ate it, or some kid has sort of adopted it, or it was run over by a car. Its the same hook start, but so many ways for it to end and the biggest difference is when its with a different set of people.

Hierarchy by its very nature means it will break down at some point (or has more potential to break down with so many layers). Business analysis, in comparing hierarchy (top down, structure, layers, lots of management) to flat (web passed, few central decision makers, more anonymity), communication alone is a big disadvantage to hierarchy, that and the various departments (spheres/factions) will tend to rival one another (which sounds good on a mush, political rivalry, but I mean on an OOC level, facheads will compete to get things from staff, favoring their faction above the others, a smaller faction will lose out in the long run).

An analysis of the two types as relates to a Mu* would be interesting. Here is a good overview (http://smallbusiness.chron.com/flat-vs-hierarchical-organizational-structure-724.html). Not all advantages are as good as they seem, take hierarchical specialists, they make specialists, the disadvantage to this is if the specialist isn't paid more they leave the organization. Doesn't quite apply to Mu* (unless, RP-staff that specializes goes off to create their own mu*?). I see flat as more advantageous to Mu* though. Flat, folks have the ability to do more, make more decisions.

I do agree staff needs to be active, but the moment total reliance for something to happen rests on staff, the players will end up 'nothing to do here'. I know some people joke about the dead place, that only has three active log ins, in the same loctions. Its dead to them, boring. The funny part is, its usually those three people still running stories and having fun. They are doing something.

Thenomain

@Lotherio

I will be less deeply analytical than almost everyone else here, because we come back to this and nitpick the details and blah blah blah. That's a good way to parade our theories but focus on the basics.

@Sunny is right, because
Staff sets the tone.

If staff don't love playing and running the game, the game will never have a chance. Staff can play the game through NPCs or through events or the love of building interesting things, I don't care, but staff have to participate.

Then it's up to players to step up and join in the fun.

We remember that's what this is for, right? Social fun? Yeah? Cool.

Wolfs

@Lotherio

The main thing I was getting at is that in most cases, it's more complicated than whittling it down to one thing every time. I know there were a lot of words, but I thought it important to set up and describe my own POV related to what others have been talking about.

It's really got very little to do with wanting to run a specific type of thing or what direction that thing goes in, though.

The other part of it is, well, sometimes a person just no longer has that drive, whether it's just them or a combination of factors that end up creating the situation. I don't think anyone is advocating staff being the only ones responsible for RP.

The hierarchy thing in relation to a MU* is something that I think is necessary, though. Some people are fit to staff. Some aren't. Some are fit to run teams. Some aren't. Some are just fit to flesh a place out, take what RP they can get, come up with what they can to help, and have fun overall.

I don't believe you can have a truly successful place without all three of those "groups" working in tandem with each other, though it often ends up that staffers are the ones trying to handle the groups as well. I guess you can't blame them if it's a matter of trust, but that can also lead to the issues of favoritism and cliquishness so many people complain about.

Anyway, consider it a machine if that fits better. Once any of those parts start to falter, it makes it a lot harder for the whole to work as well. At the same time, everyone eventually hits the point where it's time to move on from a place whether it's due to a shift in activity or some other reason. Communication, or the lack of it, is often as big a reason as any.

Lotherio

@Thenomain said in There's Nothing to Do Here:

@Lotherio

@Sunny is right, because

Staff sets the tone.

Players participate (not wait).

Insomnia

Sometimes things don't get run because they aren't allowed to staff in the sphere they enjoy most so they never want to be staff, which can lead to nothing happening because you might have someone who is in a staff position as a stop gap. So that can be staff limiting players in that way.

And I say again, if you can't trust a person to not cheat as staff, you can't trust them to be staff in the first place.