Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers

[GirlCalledBlu]

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

"I want to explore this story for my character but I don't know anyone who would run it,"

I think this is a key thought. I know I have struggled on countless games to find someone who wants to run a plot for my character's development. My experiences as a Player has often been that Staff will happily run events/plots that impact/effect a multitude of characters, but don't seem keen on putting in the effort to run something that is more character-centric and less metaplot-centric.

I'm not saying that's the case everywhere, just on games where I have been a player.

[Roz]

@GirlCalledBlu That's not surprising -- staff has a lot to do on any game, and their time generally isn't best-spent on running a plot spotlighting a single character.

On games I've staffed, we've been a lot more proactive over the past several years in actually having players send us hooks, things they'd want to explore with their characters, etc., and using that in our metaplot planning. Figuring out where we can stick specific character items in larger plots that let PCs get some of that love and attention and development they're looking for while still moving things forward for everyone.

Also, a good way to find a player enthusiastic about running something for you is to run PRPs for other people.

[GirlCalledBlu]

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

Also, a good way to find a player enthusiastic about running something for you is to run PRPs for other people.

I think we're now getting into a territory where my experiences don't mesh with the suggestions being given...

I have run plots for people, and rarely ever received a plot in return. So, I come to the point where I'm left with: do I wait around for someone to run something for me (even after I've suggested I could use a GM to help me out) or do I just get it done so I can keep moving forward with my character? Can't a player have a little agency in their own character's story, as long as they are not avoiding the sanctity of ICA=ICC, and not writing in monstrous successes, failures, power grabs, or reputation gains?

And I know I've used murdered family member and limb loss as examples, but I've been whacked on the nose for even just having a one-off adventure where my character was present rather than RPing yet-another-social-tavern-scene. I'm told that's spotlighting, and thus problematic.

Now, please keep in mind, I'm engaging in this exercise because I feel my definition of a Player's role and a Staffer's role do not seem to fit with others, so I'm trying to gain some clarity. I'm not necessarily dismissing anyone's perspectives, but attempting to see if my definitions need to go through some evolution.

[ThatGuyThere]

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

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

"I want to explore this story for my character but I don't know anyone who would run it,"

I think this is a key thought. I know I have struggled on countless games to find someone who wants to run a plot for my character's development. My experiences as a Player has often been that Staff will happily run events/plots that impact/effect a multitude of characters, but don't seem keen on putting in the effort to run something that is more character-centric and less metaplot-centric.

I'm not saying that's the case everywhere, just on games where I have been a player.

This is a definite issue one that is common a lot of places, the best way I have found to counter that is by finding a few or even one person you gel with and enjoy RPing with and run plots for each other in that small group.
I probably would not say something as specific as I want my character to lose and arm can you run something like that? But I have asked, hey I want my char to suffer a traumatic loss if you happen to have any ideas for that plot wise I would really appreciate you running something along those lines.
Or as i have been asked recently and ran a short PrP, hey I am really wanting an adventure can you run something.
On any game there far more plot need then staff can provide so finding a good group to toss little plots back and forth for each other is a great thing.
Also on the topic of having your PC in the plot you are running, acting as a quest giver is awesome, but other then that it should be minimized.
For example Once I was running a plot where the PCs were stuck. they decided to go to my PC in character to ask for advice. Now I could have just said I think you should do x, but that would make my character looks smarter then the rest and is likely a bad call, what i did, and think was a better call was instead of having my PC recommend anything I had him ask questions to get the players thinking along some lines of progress they had overlooked. That caused things to get moving again. the end result was the same after talking to my PC they went about the rest of the plot but the impact my character had was greatly reduced compared ot if he had told them an answer.

[Kanye Qwest]

@GirlCalledBlu If the character development you want is losing an arm, of course you can "GM" a scene where that happens. What you might not want to do is put on a scene where your character loses an arm in a duel with the God of the Land Beyond the Seas, but convinces Him to abdicate to her and sets herself up to become Princess of Everything.

Yes, those are extreme examples, but come on. This isn't a question of whether or not staff played PCs should be able to have fun or do scenes for themselves, it's a question of whether or not staff are being reasonable. I'd say you can even use your own PC as the 'set' for a plot. Make it about a murder in your char's family, sure. Just set it up so the players are the ones making choices and reaping rewards.

[ThatGuyThere]

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

And I know I've used murdered family member and limb loss as examples, but I've been whacked on the nose for even just having a one-off adventure where my character was present rather than RPing yet-another-social-tavern-scene. I'm told that's spotlighting, and thus problematic.

Double post because this really to me is a separate issue. I see a large difference between a plot and a one off hey lets do something action-y rather then social.
There I think it is perfectly alright to have your character present and participating as long as you do not show favoritism to your PC over anyone else.
Honestly if I ever got groused to about something like that i would just stop running anything in that location if it was someone in authority doing the grousing.
I really do not see any problem with running a one off scene where your character participate but does not gain anything besides the standard benefit from being in such a scene.

[Roz]

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

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

Also, a good way to find a player enthusiastic about running something for you is to run PRPs for other people.

I think we're now getting into a territory where my experiences don't mesh with the suggestions being given...

I have run plots for people, and rarely ever received a plot in return. So, I come to the point where I'm left with: do I wait around for someone to run something for me (even after I've suggested I could use a GM to help me out) or do I just get it done so I can keep moving forward with my character?

Have you asked? Like, not just suggested generally you could use a GM, have you gone to people whose storytelling you admire that you're on good terms with and said, "Hey, I'm really interested in exploring X about my character's history/secrets/whatever, would you be interested in running something?"

I think the real thing to keep in mind is this: if you invite others to participate in a plot you're running and then they find out that it's really going to be focused on putting your PC through some trauma, that's going to feel like a bait and switch. It's a lot easier for a different GM to take a particular thing you want to do with your character and place it in a larger narrative to include more people in the story. It's simpler a whole lot harder to do that for yourself, because it's hard to pull back from the thing you're excited about doing with your own character so you can plan out something that is also exciting for others to play in.

But like I said earlier, I do think there's a big difference between an ongoing plot and a one-off thing.

[Ghost]

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

So, if I'm reading these responses right...

A Player -- Staff or not -- should never "GM" (because I can't think of a better word) a story that leads to the development of their character, large or small, significant or insignificant. That a character's development is dependent on someone else running plot for them, and that the player of that character can't put a plot in motion for their character that may or may not have significant impact on their character.

Not a fan of your tone here. Can't put my finger on it.

There's nothing wrong with a GM running scenes that could develop their own characters. In theory, every scene should help develop characters regardless of who is running it. Developing characters isn't the same as making staff-run characters the forefront players in a scene/plot. Also, just because a staff character doesn't gain power/xp/wealth IC (in a scene run by their own staffer) does not mean that said StaffPC hasn't gained. Sure, the staffbit didnt get xp/wealth/equip/power on their sheets through the staff scene, but the bit/staffer gained other things: attention, focus, the final word on the decisions that govern the scene, options for future rp, etc.

Not all benefits from Coi come out on the charsheets. Some of these benefits include never ever having to want for RP while non-staff players are flubbing thru scenes because their chars are unimportant, because the plots are focused on the staffPCs. On some of these games, especially FS3, sheet development is slow and the bumps to the sheet aren't very crunchy. So it's easy for staff to say "I'm not gaining!" but through constantly being the focus of plot, making all the decisions, writing all of the plot, holding the playbook, always having scenes where staffbit chars get stuff done, etc...gain is definitely happening.

There's also nothing wrong with scenes here or there being about the staffbit, or the staffbit having their own shit going on. That's fine. No one is suggesting staffbits cannot develop without someone else running the scene. The suggestion I'm reading here is more that the general metaplot, plots, etc shouldn't be an element of FUBU by the staff.

[Auspice]

This goes back to what I'd said in the other thread. A Staffer shouldn't run vital plot/metaplot through their charbit (because even if the character isn't in the center / lead, many players will act like they are to 'play it safe').

Run your own char-centric plots. Hell, it could actually be GOOD to do so, since it can inspire people to do it for themselves. Just don't also tie that char-centric personal plot (PRP) into metaplot.

Good Example:
Bob (StaffAlt) decides to run a PRP in which Bob gets injured and has to seek out medical aid from the opposing camp. He seeks out PCs to do this, thereby involving them. It's a plot for Bob's development, but it encourages involvement from other PCs and has no meta-plot gain for Bob.

Bad Example:
Bob (StaffAlt) runs a plot line in which Bob is injured behind enemy lines. The NPC Leader of the enemy camp (also run by Bob) swoops in and declares Bob Worthy Of Them and declares that all PCs in said enemy camp must aid and support Bob.

It's an extreme of a Bad Example, but it's a case in which it would be very clear to the players that the Staffer is abusing their power for their own character's gain. Sure, it may push some other plotline forward, but a plotline should never require a Staff PC to be pushed forward.

[ThatGuyThere]

An addition to what I earlier wrote. If you do run a one off action scene that your PC participates in, it is also on you to insure that later your participation does not become a benefit.
For example lets say I am playing on a Wild West game me and Bubba are about to RP, Bubba doesn't feel like Saloon RP so I say hey lets go for a ride and get attacked by bandits. I run the scene my PC and Bubba fight off some bandits fun was had by all. I don't think any sane person would have an issue with this.
But lets say a month down the line there is an opening for county sheriff for the setting. It would be fine for Bubba to point at cleaning out that group of bandits as a reason he should be sheriff because he did not run the scene. If my PC tried to used it as a reason to be sheriff I should be slapped down because that would be using a scene I ran for a benefit.
I think this is true weather I am staff on the game or not.

[GirlCalledBlu]

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

@GirlCalledBlu If the character development you want is losing an arm, of course you can "GM" a scene where that happens. What you might not want to do is put on a scene where your character loses an arm in a duel with the God of the Land Beyond the Seas, but convinces Him to abdicate to her and sets herself up to become Princess of Everything.

Well now I have to go back and rewrite that entire story arc. Thanks, @Kanye-Qwest.

In all seriousness, I agree with you.

The concept of the "spotlight" is interesting as I sit here and think about it (when I should be grading papers, I hate you for ruining my productivity today :D). I think there's a sense that players should be invited into the spotlight by someone else, rather than there being mutual respect that it is okay that today you step into the spotlight and tell a story about you character, and tomorrow, I'll step into the spotlight and tell a story about my character, and we're both there together to be each other's supporting characters when we aren't in the spotlight.

The idea that players have to stand around an empty spotlight, wondering if someone is going to invite them to step into the spotlight sounds like every social scene I've been in since, well, 2009. We all sit around, drinking our undoubtedly awesome lagers/wines/spiced ciders, waiting for someone (Staff or Player GM) to direct the spotlight onto our character.

My guess is that this changed because there have been players who are known for being total spotlight hogs, and don't know how to be someone else's supporting character. Run into that enough, and you will grow a bitter taste for anyone who directs a spotlight to their character.

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

There's also nothing wrong with scenes here or there being about the staffbit, or the staffbit having their own shit going on. That's fine. No one is suggesting staffbits cannot develop without someone else running the scene. The suggestion I'm reading here is more that the general metaplot, plots, etc shouldn't be an element of FUBU by the staff.

I'm not talking about metaplot, though. I'm talking primarily about conducting RP that leads to character development, whether it to be about physical, emotional, or psychological change in the PC in question. Could be a one-off scene, could be a plot (which I define as a collection of scenes that are threaded together with the same story arc). I tend to agree that PCs of Staffers should not be the Heroes of the Metaplot, for the reasons shared here.

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

So it's easy for staff to say "I'm not gaining!" but through constantly being the focus of plot, making all the decisions, writing all of the plot, holding the playbook, always having scenes where staffbit chars get stuff done, etc...gain is definitely happening.

I also agree that this shouldn't happen. But in my mind, that's still gaining, so that would go against my previous list of faux-pas. While a Staffer is certainly allowed to write the plots for the metaplot, and such, the Staffer should put that information out to the rest of the players and they should be the ones who do something with that information. The best GM is the reactive GM, who sets the stage and then has the NPCs react to what the PCs decide to do on that stage.

I think that it is okay for a PC of a Staffer to have some interaction within the metaplot, but they should be supporting PCs, not star PCs. If they are there, someone else is in charge and they are merely a participant, not an arm of the plot. It happens sometimes, and sometimes without the awareness of the Staffer. Or, even worse, people can believe everything a PC of a Staffer says ICly as gospel, when the Staffer is playing an ignorant character who has no idea what they are doing or saying. I've seen that happen a few times, too. "Please, stop listening to my character... he's an idiot."

[GangOfDolls]

I have run plots for people, and rarely ever received a plot in return. So, I come to the point where I'm left with: do I wait around for someone to run something for me (even after I've suggested I could use a GM to help me out) or do I just get it done so I can keep moving forward with my character? Can't a player have a little agency in their own character's story, as long as they are not avoiding the sanctity of ICA=ICC, and not writing in monstrous successes, failures, power grabs, or reputation gains?

I think you're conflating 2 separate concepts.

As a good citizen of a game- any game and staff or not- you should have agency as a player. I would say that agency is a requirement of any player in order to be a productive, non-black hole on the landscape of a game.

But agency is not given from other players or staff. And you give it yourself with the understanding that agency requires taking responsibility for your character. That means that yes, you don't behave as a player or a character that makes everyone's experience a little worse by doing things that are ridiculous, immature, and damaging towards other players, plot, or the game in general. But part of that responsibility is also creating a character that isn't a wholly dependent concept on staff or other players or characters to amuse you or bestow character growth on your PC. You are solely responsible for enabling that growth and that includes being proactive about seeking out opportunities to do that.

I have run plots for people, and rarely ever received a plot in return. So, I come to the point where I'm left with: do I wait around for someone to run something for me (even after I've suggested I could use a GM to help me out) or do I just get it done so I can keep moving forward with my character?

This is not an either/or thing. It has nothing to do with reciprocation. Reciprocation in personal plot is a nice to have. It is not an obligation or requirement in a game unless staff sets up the game from the start that personal plot is 1:1 = to get one you must run one for someone else.

I would be careful in possessing this sentiment. It savors a lot of having entitlement about what other players are required to do for your PC. The fact is, you run plot for other people because you want to, you enjoy doing it, and you like telling stories with no expectation that you'll ever be paid back in kind.

Now, you can require personally as a player that if you're going to run personal plot that other players return this in kind and hopefully, if the player getting the plot is a stand-up sort, they'll agree in good faith or they will be up front that they don't want to/can't for whatever reason. But to have an unarticulated expectation will only lead to future interpersonal conflict and you feeling like you've been let down by something the other player didn't know was their obligation.

ETA: Yoking or burdening other players to a sense of obligation or reciprocity is never, ever a good idea.

[GirlCalledBlu]

@GangOfDolls Oh, no. I think you misunderstood. I don't have this perspective or sentiment. I enjoy running things for other people. But the suggestion here is that the more things I run for people, the more likely they will run something for me. I haven't experienced that personally.

Still, I would like my characters to be more than inert, reactive objects, so if there is no one who is interested in running something for me, I'll move the story along myself.

I'm sorry if the way I wrote the above post suggested that I had the sentiment of "you owe me, I ran something for you!"

[Ghost]

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.

Plot: Battlefield combat to capture an alien bad guy.

Staffer A: Writes the plot, plays the leader of the good guy assault, plays the UberLeader who will make decisions on what to do with the captive, and will run the scene/combat where said alien has been predetermined to be captured, though the players do not know this.

Staffer B: Plays warband leader, roleplays as the bad enemy force, has a PC in the goodguy effort to capture the alien, likely involved with GoodLeaderGuyStaffPC, plays captive Alien StaffNPC, etc

Players: Show up. Rolls dice. Watches it happen?

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.

In the end, staff needs to decide if they are telling a story and want to unveil that story without much deviation from their vision, or if they are opening a storytelling game where their players are allowed to let their decisions, or dice, affect the outcome.

[mietze]

If you want to make a plot that revolves solely around your PC for your pc's development as its primary purpose, keep it strictly to your friends/explicitly notified people that your PC will be the hub and star, and they will be primarily there to support your development and hopefully get some of their own but you will be the focus. To that end, it will have /no impact/ on metaplot or world changing events. It will be like social rp which can and does lead to massive character development, if it's good.

Do not ever sell a plot to general invites as a thing that they get to affect, and then spring it on people that they will instead be pretty much reactors in your personal development story. If you have a very specific outcome in mind (the child that is kidnapped will be killed/permanently gone, your arm will be irrevocably be severed, no matter how well people roll with their medical powers or intercepting the combat, ect.). They deserve to know your intent. It is not wrong to run these things it it absolutely is wrong to not disclose so that you can use others as an audience/group rp when they are expecting plot that they will have a chance at affecting. Yes, railroading happens even when an st's PC is not involved but when they are, and worse, are the centerpiece, it is my experience that fair or intended or whatever or not--resentment goes into hyperdrive.

Disclose. Over disclose rather than under.

[Sunny]

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

I have run plots for people, and rarely ever received a plot in return. So, I come to the point where I'm left with: do I wait around for someone to run something for me (even after I've suggested I could use a GM to help me out) or do I just get it done so I can keep moving forward with my character?

I'm going to voice what other folks aren't saying here and say yes. You wait around. If the only way you can go forward with your character is by running a plot for yourself, then you should be going in a different direction. You can still have agency over your PC, you can still have your PC grow. As a staff storyteller, you simply should. not. run. something. in which your character is the star. Ever. If that means you don't get to be a star, then you need to look at what problems your game has that even staff cannot get personal storytelling attention.

1. Do you have enough STs?
2. Are people being rewarded in the right way for running plots?
3. Are you behaving in a fashion that discourages people from running for you, personally?
4. Are you creating an environment where people feel free and comfortable storytelling for each other?
5. Do you have a venue on the game in which everyone can ask for someone to run something?

If your game is set up so that nobody can get personal attention from ANY Storyteller, that's a problem. If you, as a staffer, cannot get someone to volunteer to run something for you? You. Have. A. Problem. Because if you, as a STAFFER, cannot find someone to run a plot arc that helps your PC grow, how much luck do you think your PLAYERS are having with the same thing?

[mietze]

I personally have run many becomings for a variety of spheres and editions. As well as fixed ending scenes (PC death, removal of merit, ect). Sometimes my PC was a part of it, because of their relationship to the becomer. And everyone who showed up when invited understood that while there would be some things they could effect but that this was not a regular plot but a specific outcome/PC focused plot. If a player tried to fuck it up for the focused PC ( it happens unfortunately) I booted their ass out. If someone whined about it, I would ask them to stop (or they'd be booted, because what part of "X would like you to be part of his becoming scene" do you not understand, I have no patience for people trying to skew every scene towards themselves and getting butthurt or fretful if they don't.

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.

[Sunny]

I've run things in which my PC was mentioned or they made a background appearance (particularly becomings and the like) because I was running for a friend. There's a wide margin between 'hey, X is here in the background' or 'X is doing this other thing off screen' and 'X is the star/focus of the plot'. If you're going to do it anyway, yeah, full disclosure is a must -- but I really do believe that if you're running a thing for other people, your own character doesn't need to be taking part. It's SUPER EASY to write a PC out for a completely believable reason. 'Oh, I'd love to go hunt the monster that attacked my little brother with you, but I have to take my sister to the hospital' or something else, whatever. If you can arrange for the events in the story to happen, that's just one more arrangement as an ST that you have to make. It's not hard. It's super easy. If you have to actively participate in a scene, for whatever reason, just find someone else to run it!

[Auspice]

The sad truth of MU*s these days is that a lot of us who are willing to run plot never receive plot in return. There's become a rather massive divide in people who run and people who don't. There are very few of the 'I'll run sometimes' or 'I'll run for my friends' types left.

And sadly, the 'never ever run' ones tend to also be the spotlight hogs. The ones who won't even organize a 'meetup' type RP (where the most they'd have to do is schedule the event and write a scene set), but who also expect to be The Star of every single ST'd event they're in.

All to say... I think, @GirlCalledBlu, most of us know exactly the feeling of 'always a bridesmaid, never a bride' in regards to plot. And when you're Staff? It's just one of those things you have to swallow and muddle through. One solution I can think of is to hire a ST and part of their duties be to keep an eye out for people who run things, but don't receive plot in return (not just you, because I can guarantee any MU* has players in the same boat).

[Sunny]

@Auspice

Yes. Yes, yes. I would LOVE to see a 'storyteller's storyteller' sort of position on a game, in which their focus is primarily on running things for the folks who run things. As long as you had somebody looking out for that person, too. But really, that sort of thing would be ideal.