Do we need staff?

Please Delete

This post is deleted!

Ganymede

WoD is kind of the perfect storm of being shitty for this, though. It's high conflict but generally can't be automated because it's a fundamentally exception-based rules system with tons of separate moving parts. It risks a lot of thematic drift because while it has source material, the abundance of crazy power shit perfectly well lets someone play out their RapeOtter fantasies as if it was FurryMUCK.

As I've pointed out before, and as RDC has done, that doesn't mean a World of Darkness game cannot run just fine without a massive staff population.

The great thing about World of Darkness games is that they are based on books. The great thing about those books is that they are pretty easy to get through (with some exceptions, like Mage). And the system, for the most part, is easy to figure out: (1) gather dice; (2) roll dice; and (3) see what happens.

The big problem is the player base the games attract, and how the handful of foul, power-gaming, goal-oriented, fun-sucking, must-be-dominating players really take the piss out of the fun that others have.

Tat

@bored said in Do we need staff?:

It obviously really depends on the game. People have given single parameters in some case (size, genre, level of conflict, etc) but it's really going to be a mix of all of these, sometimes.

The traditional Pern games had massive player counts in their heyday and ran 99% on player faction leaders. Some of these were naturally wizard alts but on those games, the wizbits were really there for code reasons and nothing else. This included the dragon-getting process which was ridiculously drama-filled. Still, all handled at a PC level. Everyone kept to (an albeit thin) theme, but they were also low-conflict close to nearly full-social games.

I mean, you're right, but as someone who did faction heading and staffing on one of those games in its hey day, I'll tell you that 'PC level' is misleading. Faction staff WAS staff. I did as much (probably more) staff work in those positions as I have on games I've run as actual staff. Plots, player-conflict, even misc 'paperwork' like helpfiles and hitting code to add people to factions.

Those games were often pretty much wiz-free, but they absolutely had staff doing staff things.

Thenomain

@ganymede

The main problem with WoD is that it started as an antagonistic system. Look at Vampire from day one and we see that even the PCs have dramatic tension based on bloodline.

We largely had okay success on the original multi-sphere game, MasqueradeMUSH, where our overall staff philosophy was "work it out yourself". There was a '+judge' command when people couldn't, but my personal rule was when I had to get involved you agreed to live with it.

And of course people couldn't live with it. GOMOs (Gold/Game Of My Own) popped up as people demanded their way was better, and "their way" was either:

Be fair
Their way was the right way
An abusive combination of both

Nowadays we know better, but that culture plagues us. The one WoD game I know that tried to solve this, The Reach, had its well-meaning creator pretty much hammered by friends and others until he shrugged and went off to have a more reasonable life away from mushing.

My takeaway from that, from seeing it happen over and over, is that we who stay are not reasonable people.

This makes it hard to attract and keep reasonable people.

I'm glad that people are asking the hard questions, but unless a game has a PHB on staff (psycho hose-beast) to play the unreasonable viper, I feel that no game will be able to maintain reasonableness when just one player decides to piss in the apple cart, or however that phrase goes.

Oh it can be done otherwise, with all staff willing to stand firm against the unreasonable players, but that's just as tricky.

Do games need staff? Yes.

Do they need a lot of staff? Up to them.

They need the right staff.

Arkandel

@thenomain said in Do we need staff?:

Do games need staff? Yes.

Do they need a lot of staff? Up to them.

They need the right staff.

True, but there's no way to systematize right.

That's one of the reasons the idea of games with little or no staff is attractive; if feasible it would take the factor of tracking down those (let's face it, rare) people at the right time in their lives that they happen to be active and available to do the job out of the equation.

Thenomain

@arkandel said in Do we need staff?:

@thenomain said in Do we need staff?:

Do games need staff? Yes.

Do they need a lot of staff? Up to them.

They need the right staff.

True, but there's no way to systematize right.

Nor should there be. "Let's systemize a social system" is a good way to fail at social systems.

Arkandel

@thenomain said in Do we need staff?:

Nor should there be. "Let's systemize a social system" is a good way to fail at social systems.

Staff is not necessarily part of a social system - but I'd like your thoughts on why it must be if you disagree.

It's simply that so far it has had to be, to a smaller or larger degree. In traditional MU* some things just have to done by hand or rely on someone's judgment, thus the social element was mandatory.

This thread discusses whether that's still true. It's fine to argue that it does, but it's not self-evident.

Thenomain

@arkandel said in Do we need staff?:

@thenomain said in Do we need staff?:

Nor should there be. "Let's systemize a social system" is a good way to fail at social systems.

Staff is not necessarily part of a social system - but I'd like your thoughts on why it must be if you disagree.

Because with the (usual) exception of code staff—including wiki coders et al.—and (sometimes) exception of build staff, staff interact with the player base to keep the wheels moving. They interpret the rules that players cannot agree upon, they do the primary job of MU* staff and that is to Facilitate. This is a social construct.

Even MMOs do this. They might not all be paid staff, but there are people whose role it is to keep the social systems running smoothly. When I was aware of how MUDs worked on a larger scale, I could argue that even MUD staff involve themselves socially in the running of the game.

So yeah, I find it to be a forgone conclusion.

ThatOneDude

I just want to play a fucking game where I can wreck shit and potential die doing it. I don't want it to be real life, I've lived one of those and I want to play at being supernatural. We don't have to fuck but if you're down and we like each other then I guess it could work. But it's not a requirement of the game. If staff can assist in this then it's great.

bored

@ganymede said in Do we need staff?:

The big problem is the player base the games attract, and how the handful of foul, power-gaming, goal-oriented, fun-sucking, must-be-dominating players really take the piss out of the fun that others have.

I don't buy that at all. Where are the magical positive, happy games where no one is a dick? Which genres are those? What systems attract that unicorn of a playerbase, rather than the eeeevil terrible one WoD draws in?

If you want to talk strictly about staff size, I think RDC's comment may have some merit (mostly illustrating that on many games, 80% of their bloated staff doesn't actually do any work, and that those are just cronyism spots). But the game still requires a degree of staff input that is demonstrably greater than, say, FS3 BSG games need.

Without it, you get raped by otter furries. And I don't want to get raped by otter furries.

Arkandel

@bored said in Do we need staff?:

@ganymede said in Do we need staff?:

The big problem is the player base the games attract, and how the handful of foul, power-gaming, goal-oriented, fun-sucking, must-be-dominating players really take the piss out of the fun that others have.

I don't buy that at all. Where are the magical positive, happy games where no one is a dick? Which genres are those? What systems attract that unicorn of a playerbase, rather than the eeeevil terrible one WoD draws in?

I don't see why protesting there is usually a handful (as quoted above) of bad apples in certain kinds of games making a mess of them for everyone else if left unchecked suggests every other game is a happy-go-lucky paradise of unbridled positivity.

The WoD gaming culture isn't great. It's not a secret, but no one's claiming it to be a unique trait either.

Ganymede

@bored said in Do we need staff?:

Without it, you get raped by otter furries. And I don't want to get raped by otter furries.

You know why you're bored? The absence of otter furry rape, I reckon.

When I played on Eldritch, you know who were conspicuously absent from the game? The handful of foul, power-gaming, goal-oriented, fun-sucking, must-be-dominating players. I'm guessing it is because the game was set up in such a fashion that you really couldn't do any of that.

I also didn't notice the same thing on Fallen World because, I suppose, I either didn't see much behind the curtain or that staff team, again, kept a tight ship.

People can say, "but, Gany, those places petered out within 24 months." This is true. And maybe we can hypothesize the absence of shitheads makes a game boring to play on. Maybe that says a little bit about what World of Darkness gamers are like.

But, like you, I don't buy it at all.

I buy into what Thenomain is saying, for the most part, but not entirely. I am of the opinion that every game needs not a PHB but a Hammer: the person that will come down and without hesitation intervene when a player comes off the rails. Too often, there's no such staff member; everyone believes that if we all just play nice, everyone will play nice.

That's bullshit.

Otherwise, yeah, you need the right staff. That's hard to find. I know who I trust out there to run these sorts of games, though, so --

faraday

@bored said in Do we need staff?:

I don't buy that at all. Where are the magical positive, happy games where no one is a dick? Which genres are those? What systems attract that unicorn of a playerbase, rather than the eeeevil terrible one WoD draws in?

I've never played on WoD games, but I have to say that the degree of toxicity attributed to them, described on these boards on a regular basis, simply has not existed on the range of games I've played on (not just my own, but any I've played).

Does that mean that the other games have been magical bastions of unicorn players singing kumbaya? Of course not. People are jerks sometimes, no matter the game. But I do think that "light Hollywoodized historical fiction" or "PvE combat vs evil robots" attracts a different playstyle than "PvP dark supernatural horror". It just does. That doesn't mean the players are inherently better or worse - it just means that type of environment comes with a different set of issues.

@ganymede said in Do we need staff?:

I am of the opinion that every game needs not a PHB but a Hammer: the person that will come down and without hesitation intervene when a player comes off the rails. Too often, there's no such staff member; everyone believes that if we all just play nice, everyone will play nice.

Sometimes you need a Hammer, but in my experience what's even more important is for staff to play Mediator.

The number of times where someone's being a rampant, unrepentant a-hole are rare. Far more common are the times when players disagree, feelings get hurt, tempers flare, or misunderstandings are had. In those situations, a cool-headed authority figure can often (but not always) help sort out the mess.

Taika

@Ganymede - Except I know for a fact Rex/Ashur/Sovereign was on Eldritch playing as a demon.

Arkandel

@taika said in Do we need staff?:

@Ganymede - Except I know for a fact Rex/Ashur/Sovereign was on Eldritch playing as a demon.

How much did he get away with?

That's what matters. No one can guarantee bad people won't even be able to log on - especially before anyone knows who they are.

ThatOneDude

@faraday said in Do we need staff?:

@bored said in Do we need staff?:

I don't buy that at all. Where are the magical positive, happy games where no one is a dick? Which genres are those? What systems attract that unicorn of a playerbase, rather than the eeeevil terrible one WoD draws in?

I've never played on WoD games, but I have to say that the degree of toxicity attributed to them, described on these boards on a regular basis, simply has not existed on the range of games I've played on (not just my own, but any I've played).

Does that mean that the other games have been magical bastions of unicorn players singing kumbaya? Of course not. People are jerks sometimes, no matter the game. But I do think that "light Hollywoodized historical fiction" or "PvE combat vs evil robots" attracts a different playstyle than "PvP dark supernatural horror". It just does. That doesn't mean the players are inherently better or worse - it just means that type of environment comes with a different set of issues.

@ganymede said in Do we need staff?:

I am of the opinion that every game needs not a PHB but a Hammer: the person that will come down and without hesitation intervene when a player comes off the rails. Too often, there's no such staff member; everyone believes that if we all just play nice, everyone will play nice.

Sometimes you need a Hammer, but in my experience what's even more important is for staff to play Mediator.

The number of times where someone's being a rampant, unrepentant a-hole are rare. Far more common are the times when players disagree, feelings get hurt, tempers flare, or misunderstandings are had. In those situations, a cool-headed authority figure can often (but not always) help sort out the mess.

From reading this board and the SF one I am now thinking it's less about WoD players as a whole vs the same players holding grudges and/or falling into the same behavior patterns.

SF bans Spider in an attempt to keep her crazy from spiraling out into the game. Then we see "staffer rants", the type that make most people uncomfortable as players. This is followed by banning situations where people come on here and claim innocence and it was their past bad behavior that made them banned.

All in all you have this /feel/ of just /meh/. I never knew it until reading these boards here on musoapbox.

The question is how do we get over it? As for pvp I've not seen a real pvp wod game in a while. Idk maybe SF is different or one of the other games.

faraday

@thatonedude said in Do we need staff?:

As for pvp I've not seen a real pvp wod game in a while.

It depends on what you count as PVP though. It doesn't necessarily mean people running around telenuking each other. There are lots of ways to put players into direct conflict with each other. I'm not saying that's bad, but I think history shows that it brings out a lot of competitiveness and drama.

Ganymede

@taika said in Do we need staff?:

Except I know for a fact Rex/Ashur/Sovereign was on Eldritch playing as a demon.

I don't mean to belittle those who have been victimized by him, but unless someone makes him staff he hasn't caused an entire game to fall. Obvious cat is obvious.

There are others out there -- no, not Spider -- who fall into the category I have in mind.

Arkandel

@thatonedude said in Do we need staff?:

SF bans Spider in an attempt to keep her crazy from spiraling out into the game. Then we see "staffer rants", the type that make most people uncomfortable as players. This is followed by banning situations where people come on here and claim innocence and it was their past bad behavior that made them banned.

That's why I dislike people focusing on VS as much as we do here. It carries the implication Spider is the WORST and since I'm not Spider how bad can I be, really?

The answer is: Pretty fucking bad.

Thenomain

@arkandel

You could be Magnus/Ink@Reach. Much worse than Spider.

(edit: This doesn’t mean that Spider isn’t pretty fucking bad.)