Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers

[Ganymede]

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

You seem to be coming from a place of 'people trust me so I should be treated differently'. But I don't. I don't know you. I don't know anything about you other than what you've posted on these forums. So why should I trust you enough to bend rules for you?

You shouldn't. I didn't ask you to.

My original comment was in response to @Sunny, who professed that she eschewed putting her PC, as a player, in plots that she ran. I pointed out that if all of the players involved were okay with it and the consequences were non-existent, I would have no objection to her PC being in the plot she ran. Important point: she was talking about being a player, not a staffer.

Going back to where the comment has led us, if no one involved gives a shit about Staff X having her PC in a scene that's she's running where there's no material benefit for the PC's involvement, why does it matter that it runs contrary to a rule? Your reasoning is analogous to: RULES ARE RULES. That's fine and dandy, but one shouldn't be surprised that the staffing pool is rather shallow at the end of the day.

[Miss Demeanor]

Given that the staffing pool is already shallow, I don't think anyone is surprised.

[Ganymede]

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

Given that the staffing pool is already shallow, I don't think anyone is surprised.

And blind, rigid adherence helps this situation how?

[Miss Demeanor]

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

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

Given that the staffing pool is already shallow, I don't think anyone is surprised.

And blind, rigid adherence helps this situation how?

A. Not blind. Just because I choose to adhere to the rules doesn't mean I don't see the other side of it. I've just seen what happens when the pebble kicked down the hill starts a rockslide. I choose to avoid that altogether by saying 'no' to people have more than one character in a scene, whether NPC or PC, staff or player.

B. Rigidly adhering to the rules sets a good precedent for other rules to be rigidly adhered to. Given how big a deal perception is in this hobby, I prefer to err on the side of caution rather than open myself to the endless bullshit of assholes wanting to get away with stupid shit.

C. People are already staffing under the inability to have their PC in scenes that they're running. People are already playing under the inability to have their PC in scenes they're running. We're not losing anything by continuing to disallow it, and I seriously doubt we would be gaining enough by allowing it that would be worth the bullshit that would have to be dealt with.

[Ganymede]

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

We're not losing anything by continuing to disallow it, and I seriously doubt we would be gaining enough by allowing it that would be worth the bullshit that would have to be dealt with.

Just want to hook on this because I otherwise agree with the remainder, or am confused why you would raise a particular example here; i.e., having two alts in one scene, since that is demonstrably unrelated.

The issue here, I think, is whether one should harshly censure a staffer from doing this. I don't think so. For smaller games, this sort of thing may be unavoidable.

For example, on Reno, I used my PC as a sacrifice in a scene I ran as staff. I used him as the victim of a plague that was infecting everyone in the city. He thereafter became virtually unplayable, save as an NPC. I clearly didn't gain anything, and neither did the PC; further, pretty much everyone there knew that Oz was the PC I played before becoming staff. However, by your rules, what I did was forbidden, even though the scene was a launching event to try and get some activity going.

On retrospect, I would have done nothing different. But, again, I was a staff member using my PC in a scene I was running. Would you have censured me?

[lordbelh]

@Kanye-Qwest said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

My real ? is this: aren't staffers usually chosen from players who have risen to/performed well in leadership positions? The one time I was elevated to staff, that's how it happened. I already played an 'important' character before I was made staff,

While this is certainly a thing, its mostly a thing because faction leaders have more visibility and deal more with staffers, thus become more visible and familiar. And ultimately how staff are chosen most places are through familiarity rather than because of any actual qualities.

And of course staffing pools are so shallow that at the moment a lot of the time staff seem to be chosen simply through being willing to be staff for a bit. Last couple of times I ended up staff it was pretty much just because staff was completely overwhelmed and put up a staff request, and I volunteered mostly because I figured I could pitch in for a little bit.

Anyway, I have to say I question the idea of plucking the well performing players of your faction leaders up to staff, anyway. They're probably central to a lot of rp, and pulling them out of it is going to cause a lot of problems and possibly lay waste to one of your factions. If you don't pull them out of their position of leadership, then you'll very soon end up with that incestuous situation in which staff is tossing the ball to themselves. Which will rightly cause all manner of resentment because that is a shitty situation.

And lastly while one of the good qualities of well performing faction leaders tend to be they can deal with people (on average anyway), they're also players who have actively sought out power, often by crushing opposing players. In my experience its pretty much a coin flip whether they make decent staffers.

If they volunteer, that's one thing. Otherwise owners might want to reconsider trying to actively tapping those players.

[Miss Demeanor]

@Ganymede I would have told you to use an NPC as the victim. I get that you didn't gain anything from it, I understand that. But you opened the door for others to use their own PC's in plots they're running by doing so. And the next person may not be as self-sacrificing as you were there. So yes, I would rather censure you over your one little thing than let it go and wait for the little things to snowball into a big thing.

[surreality]

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

C. People are already staffing under the inability to have their PC in scenes that they're running. People are already playing under the inability to have their PC in scenes they're running. We're not losing anything by continuing to disallow it, and I seriously doubt we would be gaining enough by allowing it that would be worth the bullshit that would have to be dealt with.

Except this isn't a universal constant. Yes, some places have this rule and people follow it -- but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the only set of conditions under which any given game is run or could be run, or that it's necessarily the ideal.

[Miss Demeanor]

@surreality I'm not suggesting its universal. Obviously it does happen at some games, @Ganymede just related a story where it was allowed. I'm saying that it is a rule on games that currently exist, and those games aren't losing anything by leaving that rule in place. Nowhere in my statement did I say all people or all games.

[Ganymede]

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

I get that you didn't gain anything from it, I understand that. But you opened the door for others to use their own PC's in plots they're running by doing so.

There is where you and I differ.

Just because one person gets a pass doesn't mean everyone does or should. Everything is circumstantial.

This is also the crux of our disagreement, since I concur, generally, that a rule prohibiting alt-use in a scene is a good thing to have.

[Miss Demeanor]

@Ganymede I can agree to disagree. I honestly don't think you, or most of the people commenting on this thread, are the ones that anyone would have to worry about abusing the situation. But there are people that would, and I would just rather nip as much of it in the bud as possible before it becomes an issue.

Edit to add: This particular issue isn't even necessarily a deal-breaker to me. I would still play on a game where the rule didn't exist, or was more flexible. I just wouldn't likely staff on such a game to save myself the headache of dealing with the inevitable jackasses.

[surreality]

I'm keen on the basic rule being more along the line of some of the limits mentioned throughout the thread -- major plots, no; pick-up scenes where everyone consents to it OOC, sure why not; personal plots labeled as such, run it by staff for approval involves some kind of gain and make sure anyone participating knows what's what going in.

Clarification on the last one there: this is more for what I'd think of for the kind of scene some games require to buy X or Y stat. I do not really care if the player wants to run through this themselves if they have a specific means that's legit to acquire the thing, rather than leaving it up to the random chance of 'whatever the ST comes up with'. Granted, I also believe that players should be allowed to use cutscenes (on a bb or wiki) for this kind of 'justification' PrP/etc. for something they are going to be paying XP for anyway. Since those scenes -- be they prose or interactive RP with or without an external ST involved -- generally have to be reviewed (and would have to be in such a case) before they're approved as qualifying for whatever it is, there's a means of catching any problems there that's easily built-in as standard, but it also makes progression a little easier and lighter on workload while giving players more options for means of pursuing their personal stories.

[lordbelh]

@surreality Justification scenes for stats generally makes me want to shoot myself. I hate my RP turning into a joyless chore just for some numbers on a sheet. And I know from experience that Staff barely glance at the stuff anyway, and feel the same way. Might as well just handwave it for everybody's benefit. Ultimately I generally tend to just.. not get those stats, and avoid playing concepts where they're essential.

[surreality]

@lordbelh Ditto that. I am a non-fan of hoop-jumping.

Some people really enjoy writing these or incorporating them, though, even when they're not required, because they like exploring/firming up/detailing that aspect of whatever it was their character learned/acquired.

While not the same thing as a required justification... it's still technically a gain.

If somebody was going to run a scene like this for themselves, well... fuck, I see zero reason to ever disallow that, especially if it's 'I could totally skip this part and spend the points I'm going to spend anyway, I just think the RP of it could give me and a few buddies something to do that we'd find fun' as the only difference.

[lordbelh]

@surreality Sure. I can even see the appeal in the occasional scene based around one's stat purchases. I like to justify all my buys anyway, even if only to myself, and I've on more than one occasion woven that kind of thing into my scenes. But once its a requirement, where I have to find someone to run it and then churn out logs and what the hell, then it just kills all my enjoyment.

[Thenomain]

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

Everything is circumstantial.

I'm not sure this point has been adequately made. Let me try this.

Everything

is circumstantial.

The problem I see with statements like this is that people read it as meaning "I can do whatever I want as long as I can justify it." Not the way it should probably be read, and I think is a fairer interpretation, "Each situation calls for interpreting the rules in light of that situation." Similar situations are judged similarly. Situations are compared not only on their similarities, but also on their differences. It's not something you get to argue, because the similarities and differences are a matter of record

What's not a matter of record is which differences lead to what changes in the outcome. Most of us are lazy creatures doing make-believe for fun. We don't want to have to exercise the logic muscles to train ourselves for that level of objective thinking. Objective thinking isn't exactly "fun", a subjective term, but it certainly seems to make the fantastic staffers stand heads and shoulders above the crowd.

But what about the crowd? What tools can you give to the crowd to make up for the more subjective thinking that we do when we're lazy or don't want to deal with it?

I got nothin'.

[Sunny]

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

@surreality I'm not suggesting its universal. Obviously it does happen at some games, @Ganymede just related a story where it was allowed. I'm saying that it is a rule on games that currently exist, and those games aren't losing anything by leaving that rule in place. Nowhere in my statement did I say all people or all games.

This entire thread came out of a topic of discussion regarding a game that didn't have the rule, and the staff in question trying to understand where the line is for what's acceptable / not.

---

I agree that it should be circumstantial, that it shouldn't be a hard/fast rule, that there ought to be room for exceptions. Pick-up-scenes, running something small with a few friends that are fully consenting, and so on. I do think that the rules surrounding the topic, rather than being an absolute 'don't do this' should, in general, spell out the types and circumstances in which there are exceptions, and leave a good amount of wiggle room.

I believe VERY strongly in 'the rules are the rules and you (even you, and me too) don't get to break them'. I refuse to make a rule that I can think of easy scenarios in which I would either break it or allow someone else to break it. I refuse to make a rule that I will not enforce. If I am planning on there being exceptions to a rule, I bloody write it in. Because the rules/policies are our foundation. They are the things on which trust is built. They are the things on which expectations are based. If, as I go along, I find that a rule is getting in my way -- I publicly change it. Because it's OK to change the rules, though I don't think it's okay to break them.

---

My problem with 'it's okay sometimes' as advice in this situation is that the people in question are seemingly pretty terrible at figuring out what's OK and what isn't and finding that line seems to be impossible. In this particular circumstance, I think it is safest and the best advice that can be given, to say 'don't do it. just don't. not ever. not even if you think it's the best idea ever and nobody minds.' There are things that because of my own reputation and history that I cannot do that others might get away with (though that list of things is, admittedly, dwindling fairly rapidly). It is what it is.

Edited to add: Also, I said this before, and I cannot stress it enough. If you are a staffer on a game, and you have requirements for scenes (XP spending, whatever), and you CANNOT find a player / different staffer to run it for you, your game has a problem. If you as a staffer cannot do it, how easy of a time are your players having? Either the requirement needs to go for EVERYONE, or you need to address storytelling problems. Same goes for character development/whatever. If you can't do it, how are they doing it?

[Groth]

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

For example, on Reno, I used my PC as a sacrifice in a scene I ran as staff. I used him as the victim of a plague that was infecting everyone in the city. He thereafter became virtually unplayable, save as an NPC. I clearly didn't gain anything, and neither did the PC; further, pretty much everyone there knew that Oz was the PC I played before becoming staff. However, by your rules, what I did was forbidden, even though the scene was a launching event to try and get some activity going.

On retrospect, I would have done nothing different. But, again, I was a staff member using my PC in a scene I was running. Would you have censured me?

One way to handle such things is to officially convert the Staff PC to an NPC before the plot is run. That way you're perfectly transparent in regards to what is going on.

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

@surreality Justification scenes for stats generally makes me want to shoot myself. I hate my RP turning into a joyless chore just for some numbers on a sheet. And I know from experience that Staff barely glance at the stuff anyway, and feel the same way. Might as well just handwave it for everybody's benefit. Ultimately I generally tend to just.. not get those stats, and avoid playing concepts where they're essential.

Overall I think justifications do more harm then good. Most of the time the players know what their own characters development is supposed to be like and if anyone tries to build their character in a way that makes no sense, it makes more sense to talk with them directly then force everyone to jump through hoops. I've also found that the players that want to build crazy characters are often more then willing to jump through any hoops you put before them either way.

@Kanye-Qwest said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

My real ? is this: aren't staffers usually chosen from players who have risen to/performed well in leadership positions? The one time I was elevated to staff, that's how it happened. I already played an 'important' character before I was made staff, and while my experience is limited to one big game - in that game, that's how a lot of people were made staff.

So, what's the solution there, if you feel staff should not hold positions of IC power?

Players in leadership positions generally do not want to be staff since they want to play the game. In the end finding qualified staffers who are willing to step aside from IC responsibility is hard, there are no easy solutions. The problem with Staff PC's in position of power is that my experience is that the game tends to revolve around those PC's in rather unhealthy ways and if the game has PvP, there's no expectation you can fairly compete against those PCs.

[Ominous]

We may need to recognize that what we have is a clash between two mutually exclusive outlooks in roleplaying. There is the old-school game master style, such as in D&D, where the DM is the final arbiter of all, and there are the newer storgames with very limited GM power (Mouse Guard Tabletop) or no GM at all (Microscope, Mystic Empyrean). The first doesn't really allow for the GM to be a player in his own game world: someone else's sure, but not his own. It's hard to run a dungeon crawl where the person who made the dungeon is a player. They're going to know where all the traps, treasure, and secret doors are.

The only tabletop RPG that managed to pull it off somewhat was Ars Magica with its troupe style play; however it works, because everyone that plays eventually gets to GM. In essence everyone is staff and the rules are built around the setting so there aren't too mane secret bits that only the GM knows, except for what is secret in the self-contained adventure they are running. The overall metaplot and development of the convent is steered by all players, so it is more akin to the no GM style.

Perhaps the solution is that, if you wish to play and experience character development and staff, then your server needs to run with a system geared towards joint GMing by all players. If you want one where a select number of the players are staff and serve as final arbiter, a la White Wolf, D&D, etc, then you have to accept that choosing to be staff means you don't get to enjoy the perks of being a player.

[Derp]

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

Perhaps the solution is that, if you wish to play and experience character development and staff, then your server needs to run with a system geared towards joint GMing by all players. If you want one where a select number of the players are staff and serve as final arbiter, a la White Wolf, D&D, etc, then you have to accept that choosing to be staff means you don't get to enjoy the perks of being a player.

But the problem there is that, if this is the only way that people will accept it, your staffing pool will forever be those few who choose to do it, and they'll get easily burnt out.

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.