FCs on Comic MUs
-
@thatguythere said in FCs on Comic MUs:
No meeting the minimum standards is still sufficient because there is a minimum activity level where you would not boot someone (there has to be or you would boot everyone) it is just that the rule does not actually state what the rule is.
=To clarify on the minimum standard thing, if for example you have someone playing the Dane Whitman version of Black Knight and he gets a scene every 19 days and staff doesn't notice, than he starts going 20 with out a scene and staff notices and talk with him, that clearly establishes the minimum is 19. What the actually written rule states is meaningless because what staff enforces on the game becomes the actual rule.
The rule might say 30, but in reality it is 25 or 13 or some other number that is just under what would actually draw staff attention.
I an not picking on any game in specific with this, never been on the one @Ixokai staffs (never played there and have honestly heard nothing bad about it) just using that as an example of the similar rules I have seen on most comics games.This would be true if staff and the system only ever looked at the 'current period' and was blind entirely to the past. I admit most games, I believe, do things this way-- or do things entirely subjectively/manually (I heard one game which every quarter looks over log activity manually for each character to make a determination, the idea of doing so making me want to pluck my own eyes out).
However, in our situation, every night a program queries the wiki and grabs a link to all new logs. It determines who is in each log and writes all this data into a SQLite database. Now we can look at this data in an automated way with more sophistication: we don't need to 'only' look at someone's activity for the 'current period', we can look at their overall history for the last...however long we want to (currently: 3 months) We can see that though the rule is 30, they're only RP'n every 29, and that deserves a warning. Right now its still semi-manual cuz I've been to work-busy to code the analysis tools, but they aren't hard to do.
@tempest said in FCs on Comic MUs:
You don't have to omfg read every single log word for word to know what is going on on your game. The claim that you would, is just well...daft.
On the other hand, if posting logs is the thing you're going to use to judge activity...
Maybe you should be reading them.
I don't have time to skim 12 logs a day
Or, idk, write a policy you'll actually take the time to enforce.
We did. Works well for us. Thanks.
@faraday said in FCs on Comic MUs:
I don't see though why you can't just read the log summaries. That takes 5 minutes, and it's pretty easy to tell from a summary: "Oh, it's just Batman having coffee again" versus "Oh, look, Batman foiled a bank robbery, cool."
Now, I have to somehow tally, note, keep in my head or in some database somewhere, the "activity" of 94 FC's according to some subjective determination of which RP "matters" (+2 Foiled Bank Robbery; -0 Coffee; +1 Team Building Exercise; -1 Romantic entanglement) and which doesn't, and determine from this who is making good use of their FC's and gets to keep them and who isn't.
Sure, someone could do that, and if that's how they wanted to run their game, I've no problem with it.
I have neither the time nor inclination, and neither does anyone else on our staff.
I mean, if you don't want to make a qualitative assessment part of your idle policy, that's your business. I don't care. But the idea that it's somehow impossible for staff to gauge a player's activity through logs doesn't fly with me. I do it. Granted my games are smaller, but I'm also only one staffer. It scales.
I didn't say impossible, I said I don't have the time to do it. That's me making a value judgement of my time verses the benefit of my time spent doing that verses doing something else for the game.
I mean I'd actually like to devote at least half my time in the game to actually playing it.
-
@ixokai said in FCs on Comic MUs:
Now, I have to somehow tally, note, keep in my head or in some database somewhere, the "activity" of 94 FC's according to some subjective determination of which RP "matters" (+2 Foiled Bank Robbery; -0 Coffee; +1 Team Building Exercise; -1 Romantic entanglement) and which doesn't, and determine from this who is making good use of their FC's and gets to keep them and who isn't.
You could ask your players to help you.
On WoD games, these metrics are generally not used to monitor the activity of PCs in important positions. When those position-PCs are not coming online, though, the players are expected to communicate this to staff.
Can't this also be done on Comic MUs?
For an FC like Iron Man, for example, if none of the Avengers raise a complaint about the character not being involved in meaningful RP I don't see the need for staff to intervene.
Maybe, if the onus is on the players to advise staff when certain FCs aren't really engaged, the matter of metrics will be obviated.
-
@ixokai said in FCs on Comic MUs:
@thatguythere said in FCs on Comic MUs:
No meeting the minimum standards is still sufficient because there is a minimum activity level where you would not boot someone (there has to be or you would boot everyone) it is just that the rule does not actually state what the rule is.
=To clarify on the minimum standard thing, if for example you have someone playing the Dane Whitman version of Black Knight and he gets a scene every 19 days and staff doesn't notice, than he starts going 20 with out a scene and staff notices and talk with him, that clearly establishes the minimum is 19. What the actually written rule states is meaningless because what staff enforces on the game becomes the actual rule.
The rule might say 30, but in reality it is 25 or 13 or some other number that is just under what would actually draw staff attention.
I an not picking on any game in specific with this, never been on the one @Ixokai staffs (never played there and have honestly heard nothing bad about it) just using that as an example of the similar rules I have seen on most comics games.This would be true if staff and the system only ever looked at the 'current period' and was blind entirely to the past. I admit most games, I believe, do things this way-- or do things entirely subjectively/manually (I heard one game which every quarter looks over log activity manually for each character to make a determination, the idea of doing so making me want to pluck my own eyes out).
However, in our situation, every night a program queries the wiki and grabs a link to all new logs. It determines who is in each log and writes all this data into a SQLite database. Now we can look at this data in an automated way with more sophistication: we don't need to 'only' look at someone's activity for the 'current period', we can look at their overall history for the last...however long we want to (currently: 3 months) We can see that though the rule is 30, they're only RP'n every 29, and that deserves a warning. Right now its still semi-manual cuz I've been to work-busy to code the analysis tools, but they aren't hard to do.
Awesome use of tech, but that still means there is a minimum, Ok 29 deserves a warning, what about someone scening every 12? I would guess no which means the real warning level is somewhere between 12 and 29, if yes the real number is somewhere under 12.
Either way my point is there is still a real minimum number that players are left to guess at. I would very much prefer this real number be listed somewhere rather than the 30 that is. -
@ixokai said in FCs on Comic MUs:
I didn't say impossible, I said I don't have the time to do it. That's me making a value judgement of my time verses the benefit of my time spent doing that verses doing something else for the game.
As I said - your game / your policy. I am not criticizing your value judgment, I was responding to your "completely crazy/snickering/this is completely unreasonable" comment to @Tempest when they suggested using logs to monitor activity. It can be done. It can even be done quasi-objectively if you want to assign more weight to "event" logs than to "social" logs (an easy thing to automate and tally code-wise). But if you don't want to do it, that's your business.
-
On activity, I think you basically need two standards. You can have a basic one for FCs that's fairly... standard MU whatever, lose the character if you're idle for X amount of time without Y votes/logs, whatever. That works for 90% of characters that exist.
But I'd also put all of the iconic roster (ie, basically anyone who's in the main cast of a movie or TV show) in another tier. Most games only do this with the absolutely top characters (Superman, Cap, whatever). Those people are expected to keep up public activity etc. It's in the job description and sorry, if you're not willing to be a PRP runner, you don't get to play the current hotness characters.
With that setup, staff doesn't have to review every log or monitor everyone's RP. But they do keep an eye on what the stars of the game are doing, and push them along.
-
@thatguythere said in FCs on Comic MUs:
@ixokai said in FCs on Comic MUs:
@thatguythere said in FCs on Comic MUs:
No meeting the minimum standards is still sufficient because there is a minimum activity level where you would not boot someone (there has to be or you would boot everyone) it is just that the rule does not actually state what the rule is.
=To clarify on the minimum standard thing, if for example you have someone playing the Dane Whitman version of Black Knight and he gets a scene every 19 days and staff doesn't notice, than he starts going 20 with out a scene and staff notices and talk with him, that clearly establishes the minimum is 19. What the actually written rule states is meaningless because what staff enforces on the game becomes the actual rule.
The rule might say 30, but in reality it is 25 or 13 or some other number that is just under what would actually draw staff attention.
I an not picking on any game in specific with this, never been on the one @Ixokai staffs (never played there and have honestly heard nothing bad about it) just using that as an example of the similar rules I have seen on most comics games.This would be true if staff and the system only ever looked at the 'current period' and was blind entirely to the past. I admit most games, I believe, do things this way-- or do things entirely subjectively/manually (I heard one game which every quarter looks over log activity manually for each character to make a determination, the idea of doing so making me want to pluck my own eyes out).
However, in our situation, every night a program queries the wiki and grabs a link to all new logs. It determines who is in each log and writes all this data into a SQLite database. Now we can look at this data in an automated way with more sophistication: we don't need to 'only' look at someone's activity for the 'current period', we can look at their overall history for the last...however long we want to (currently: 3 months) We can see that though the rule is 30, they're only RP'n every 29, and that deserves a warning. Right now its still semi-manual cuz I've been to work-busy to code the analysis tools, but they aren't hard to do.
Awesome use of tech, but that still means there is a minimum, Ok 29 deserves a warning, what about someone scening every 12? I would guess no which means the real warning level is somewhere between 12 and 29, if yes the real number is somewhere under 12.
Either way my point is there is still a real minimum number that players are left to guess at. I would very much prefer this real number be listed somewhere rather than the 30 that is.30 is the real number. Beyond that its not "x/day", its not day-oriented. You could have a log on day 28 and 29, or a log on day 12 and 29. For part 1 of activity ('minimum'), its 30. For part 2 ('sufficient'), its amount of RP over a period, with amount of days between logs not actually mattering.
@bored said in FCs on Comic MUs:
On activity, I think you basically need two standards. You can have a basic one for FCs that's fairly... standard MU whatever, lose the character if you're idle for X amount of time without Y votes/logs, whatever. That works for 90% of characters that exist.
But I'd also put all of the iconic roster (ie, basically anyone who's in the main cast of a movie or TV show) in another tier. Most games only do this with the absolutely top characters (Superman, Cap, whatever). Those people are expected to keep up public activity etc. It's in the job description and sorry, if you're not willing to be a PRP runner, you don't get to play the current hotness characters.
With that setup, staff doesn't have to review every log or monitor everyone's RP. But they do keep an eye on what the stars of the game are doing, and push them along.
I find this a reasonable approach -- but you have to be very careful with it. Its already really hard, for example, to fill a Charles Xavier position, and he's so important for the X-Men. The bigger the burden we put on it, the even harder it will be, I think. There's a delicate balance you have to find between them being the "job" and them playing.
Also this "PRP Runner" thing is very a concern. If Superman has to run PRP's to play, then there's a very ripe opportunity for him to basically be the center of all the plots. And that's boring. Just by being himself he is apt to solve most problems if he shows up to a plot. Who wants to show up to a plot where Superman saves the day again and again?
For characters like Cap, or Xavier, who may be iconic but themselves can't usually solve all things, that's not so bad, but for some of your iconics they're heavy hitters in their own right.
@faraday said in FCs on Comic MUs:
It can be done.
I know it can be done; but I do find it pretty out there a suggestion for 94 FC's. The time it'd take to do it would have to come from somewhere, which probably means cut my playing time in half. Which means burn out. But if as @bored suggested it was only for certain iconic/key FC's, that'd be doable.
-
@ixokai said in FCs on Comic MUs:
I know it can be done; but I do find it pretty out there a suggestion for 94 FC's
I'm seriously not trying to beat a dead horse but just to be helpful...
I know you guys have some sort of automated scene code right? Just have the players flag the type of log. For example: social/plot-related/event. Participating in an event scene is worth 3 points, plot-related 2, social 1 (or however you want to weight them). Then the idle policy could be X minimum logs, Y minimum points... or tiered by FC type... or whatever.
Sure, it's imperfect. There's some subjectiveness about what people consider "plot related". But it's also 100% automated with no staff intervention beyond some casual oversight of "Hey wait that log looks like it's mis-tagged". And as @Ganymede said, the players can help flag those kind of things.
Again, I'm not saying you should do this. That's your business. I just don't think it needs to be some kind of crazy burden.
-
@faraday said in FCs on Comic MUs:
@ixokai said in FCs on Comic MUs:
I know it can be done; but I do find it pretty out there a suggestion for 94 FC's
I'm seriously not trying to beat a dead horse but just to be helpful...
I know you guys have some sort of automated scene code right? Just have the players flag the type of log. Just for example: social/plot-related/event. Participating in an event scene is worth 3 points, plot-related 2, social 1.
We actually already do that; the scene/posting code lets you specify tags to include, with every scene requiring either a social or a plot tag at least. (Additional tags can be added so the log gets marked for faction or for a specific running plot-arc)
Sure, it's imperfect. There's some subjectiveness about what people consider "plot related". But it's also 100% automated with no staff intervention beyond some casual oversight of "Hey wait that log looks like it's mis-tagged". And as @Ganymede said, the players can help flag those kind of things.
Again, I'm not saying you should do this. That's your business. I just don't think it needs to be some kind of crazy burden.
If @tangent wanted to do that I'd have no problem turning to a point based activity system based on scene type. I don't make policy
But sure, we could do that.The log-per-month policy was designed when the game opened before they had a coder that could do cool stuff (err, no offense, I know you provided the initial code. I mean before they had a coder who had the time to commit to be a full codewiz), back when it was largely being enforced by manually eyeballing from time to time, I believe. The code has automated existing policy, but sure, it could inform new policy based on code's capabilities.
-
@ixokai said in FCs on Comic MUs:
The log-per-month policy was designed when the game opened before they had a coder that could do cool stuff (err, no offense, I know you provided the initial code. I mean before they had a coder who had the time to commit to be a full codewiz)
None taken
I was never their coder - I just spent an hour setting up my starter database for them. I'm glad they've got someone to build what they need now. -
@ixokai said in FCs on Comic MUs:
30 is the real number. Beyond that its not "x/day", its not day-oriented. You could have a log on day 28 and 29, or a log on day 12 and 29. For part 1 of activity ('minimum'), its 30. For part 2 ('sufficient'), its amount of RP over a period, with amount of days between logs not actually mattering.
But it is not ,you said up thread that if someone only has one log every month for a few months they would be talked to.
So instead of days being an issue, how many logs per month over an extended period would be enough to never get a chat with staff about activity? That is the real minimum requirement.
That should also be the stated requirement in my opinion, that is pretty much the entirety of my argument.
There is no right or wrong answer to how much activity is enough that can vary from staff wishes from game to game I just would like to see the actual number known in advance. -
@thatguythere said in FCs on Comic MUs:
@ixokai said in FCs on Comic MUs:
30 is the real number. Beyond that its not "x/day", its not day-oriented. You could have a log on day 28 and 29, or a log on day 12 and 29. For part 1 of activity ('minimum'), its 30. For part 2 ('sufficient'), its amount of RP over a period, with amount of days between logs not actually mattering.
But it is not ,you said up thread that if someone only has one log every month for a few months they would be talked to.
So instead of days being an issue, how many logs per month over an extended period would be enough to never get a chat with staff about activity? That is the real minimum requirement.
That should also be the stated requirement in my opinion, that is pretty much the entirety of my argument.
There is no right or wrong answer to how much activity is enough that can vary from staff wishes from game to game I just would like to see the actual number known in advance.Alright, man, like. I'm not getting why this isn't clear.
Minimum is 1. That's the line: minimum. What's more then 1? 2. If you do 2 a month you're no longer doing the minimum.
We might be annoyed if say, Iron Man is only out twice a month regularly, but for good or ill we've chosen a two-tier activity system and his tier has the policy it has. He'll never get a chat from staff if he shows up twice a month.
(The other tier is OC's. OC's have the onerous activity requirement of logging on at least once a month)
-
@ixokai said in FCs on Comic MUs:
Minimum is 1. That's the line: minimum.
I thought you said the minimum was:
Meeting only minimum over time is not sufficient. Like, its fine if it happens one month, everyone has trouble from time to time. But if you've had 1/mo for three months you're not active.
So is it 1/mo with a 1-time pass if I miss a month? Is it 1/mo with a grace period if I tell you my cat got sick and my house is broke and I need some time off? Is it 1/mo unless I'm Squirrel Girl and nobody cares that I'm missing? Or is it entirely at staff's whim? That's the part that I think isn't clear from your comments in this thread. Maybe it's clear from your policies. I'm too lazy to go and look for myself.
Instead of harping on one game's policy though, I think the overall theme (not directed at ixokai specifically, but the generic game-runner "you") is:
-
Make sure your idle policy is clear - whether it's subjective or objective is less important than everyone being on the same page.
-
Make sure it achieves your desired goals. A minimum log/login threshold is very easy to 'camp'. If you're cool with that, it's your game.
-
-
@faraday Yeah if you're reading "Meeting only minimum over time is not sufficient" and interpreting, that as what "the minimum was", we're not successfully agreeing on the fundamental meaning of the words we're using.
I'm checkin' out of this conversation now
-
@ixokai said in FCs on Comic MUs:
@faraday Yeah if you're reading "Meeting only minimum over time is not sufficient" and interpreting, that as what "the minimum was", we're not successfully agreeing on the fundamental meaning of the words we're using.
I'm not quibbling over the definition of 'minimum/sufficient'. What I meant was that it seems to an impartial observer here that there is 1) a minimum log posting requirement and 2) some additional minimum activity requirement because doing "just the minimum #1" is not sufficient. You asked what was unclear - I'm saying #2 is unclear based on your comments in this thread. #2 doesn't have to be a hard formula if it's just based on staff's discretion. That's fine. It's just not clearly stated.
-
@ixokai said in FCs on Comic MUs:
I find this a reasonable approach -- but you have to be very careful with it. Its already really hard, for example, to fill a Charles Xavier position, and he's so important for the X-Men. The bigger the burden we put on it, the even harder it will be, I think. There's a delicate balance you have to find between them being the "job" and them playing.
For characters like Cap, or Xavier, who may be iconic but themselves can't usually solve all things, that's not so bad, but for some of your iconics they're heavy hitters in their own right.FWIW, I usually see Cap played and he's fairly straightforward and popular, so I don't think he's in a similar position to Xavier at all.
For Charles, if an individual character doesn't attract characters, that's more of a reason to look at them than to change your overall policies. I think with Xavier, there's various issues (the physical handicap, the 'mission command' position where he's not necessarily going out and fighting, his age, etc) that maybe suggest he should just be NPCed. That also pre-emptively avoids the UH drama where you have staffers suddenly putting a character in charge of the school as Xavier's come and go. There's nothing wrong with a backup NPC in the shadows, and if someone really wants to play him, they can talk to you about it etc and he returns to NPC status if they drop him later.
Also this "PRP Runner" thing is very a concern. If Superman has to run PRP's to play, then there's a very ripe opportunity for him to basically be the center of all the plots. And that's boring. Just by being himself he is apt to solve most problems if he shows up to a plot. Who wants to show up to a plot where Superman saves the day again and again?
In the words of my recently abandoned UH EFC, I say thee 'meh.'
If you want to be a star of the show character, you have to be willing to do things for others. If in attempting to do things for others you only end up doing things for yourself and people complain about it? Then you shouldn't have that character. It really isn't hard, and staff can afford to be a little stricter with the big guns if they're a little looser with everyone else. That's why I suggest a fairly loose standard for everyone else paired with the strict standard for the iconics. If a player literally cannot bring themselves to play anyone but, say, Rogue, but also won't run anything that isn't about themselves (gee, we've not seen that happen recently, have we?) then you probably don't actually need that player. Be firm, and they'll probably content themselves finding another high-power bombshell to TS on. If they leave, no loss.
-
@bored said in FCs on Comic MUs:
In the words of my recently abandoned UH EFC, I say thee 'meh.'
If you want to be a star of the show character, you have to be willing to do things for others. If in attempting to do things for others you only end up doing things for yourself and people complain about it? Then you shouldn't have that character. It really isn't hard, and staff can afford to be a little stricter with the big guns if they're a little looser with everyone else. That's why I suggest a fairly loose standard for everyone else paired with the strict standard for the iconics. If a player literally cannot bring themselves to play anyone but, say, Rogue, but also won't run anything that isn't about themselves (gee, we've not seen that happen recently, have we?) then you probably don't actually need that player. Be firm, and they'll probably content themselves finding another high-power bombshell to TS on. If they leave, no loss.
I don't find this attitude productive, personally.
It takes a certain mindset to run plot. It takes certain mindset to run plot your character is in and not consume it yourself. These mindsets aren't exclusively what I think a good iconic character should be played as.
To tie, "plays iconic character" to "able to run good plot" together is something I don't feel comfortable with.
I agree, if you want a certain type of character that tends to be the center of attention, you need to be willing to encourage and allow others to shine in their moments.
But I don't agree this means that they need to run plot.
-
@ixokai said in FCs on Comic MUs:
To tie, "plays iconic character" to "able to run good plot" together is something I don't feel comfortable with.
Yeah there are a ton of I guess "iconic" characters that I don't necessarily see as necessarily the starting point of stuff? If that makes any sense
Like if you wanna play Flash I don't think you should be required to run stuff where Weather Wizard robs a diamond exchange (tho tbh i'd kind of hope you'd want to?)
But with... like Nick Fury or somebody like that, I do think that's a char you shouldn't take unless you WANT to run spy stuff
Xavier specifically should probably be a plot char/npc/whatever, but I also think people tend to forget how many periods in the books he wasn't around/wasn't even connected to the X-Men
You need him as a background point as why there are X-Men but you don't need him for there to actually be X-Men
-
I think there's a pretty big difference between "running PRPs" and "being a good faction leader or approachable PC who makes active efforts to facilitate the stories of others instead of just their own." You don't have to run PRPs to be a good fachead.
-
@ixokai said in FCs on Comic MUs:
To tie, "plays iconic character" to "able to run good plot" together is something I don't feel comfortable with.
It's... a different kind of plot-running. I've done it and it was very satisfactory sometimes but I also had to be very careful the rest of the time since if you are playing certain characters - be that because of their individual power levels or just their significance to the narrative - it's easy to bulldoze over others or to render them a bit... unnecessary if you're not conscious of what you're doing.
But it does put you in a position where you can generate stories for others. It even allows you to enhance other plots, which is something traditional storytelling finds hard to do - two STs running things in parallel tend to ignore each other just because the number of moving pieces makes it hard to coordinate, and communication becomes an extra complexity.
Just for starters, with a thematically important character you can enact that most precious of all storytelling commodities - you can hand out motivation like it's Halloween and you have a bag full of candy. You can talk characters into going on these wild goose chases who are normally sceptical or reserved (but whose players would like to go), act as a quest giver, be inspirational or plain order them to do so.
That's a plot device so handy to have around I've often had to invent to kick PrPs off or lure newcomers in. If someone else was just able to provide this service I'd take it in a heartbeat.
-
I think part of the problem here is people have tied iconic FC's with 'running plots' when really it should just be 'generates RP' and 'is involved with others'.
The bar is not very high, yet how many times do we see <insert FC here> just off having sexy times somewhere?
Hello! Long time listener, first time caller...
