Dust to Dust (Formerly the nWoD grenade thread)

[Arkandel]

@Miss-Demeanor I find the idea of hard separation between staff and players to be a regression.

I haven't staffed ever since I was on TR; that's partially because I dislike the limitations that poses me (suddenly all my characters are 'staff alts') and because I don't need to be in order to help the games I've been playing. If I had been staffing on SHH I wouldn't have ran a different plot arc - I'd have done the exact same one. I wouldn't have spoken to Ruin less or more about it for brainstorming - I'd have done it for the same amount. On Eldritch I'm arguably running a story that's even more drastic in how it affects the overall spheres that it touches than most staff plots, yet I never felt @Eerie whom I ran it by felt it should had its scope limited.

Now, when it comes to systems, everyone can come up with their own. As @Coin says, and I agree, ultimately a game-runner runs the kind of environment they see fit and that's it. However by bringing it to these radiant forums it's all going to get debated anyway, which is what (I hope) we're doing bringing our own ideas, points of view and methods to the table.

My method is this: Define a goal then figure out the most efficient system that achieves it.

If the goal is to generate as many thematic stories of high quality and offer them to players then I don't agree what is being discussed here achieves it. There is too much red tape in the way (it sounds a lot like players would need to jump through hoops to run plot with a potential sphere-wide impact), arbitrary divides between staff and players (which are unwanted in collaborative gaming since they generate an us-versus-them culture), treats symptoms rather than causes (staff-alts run plot to get the same rewards as players is viewed as a problem, rather than than that the restriction is artificial in the first place, but without a benefit towards the system's initial goal), etc.

Now, you can say that this is what you want to do anyway and ... I got nothing. Fine, okay. But if we're still debating it then I must point out that what's being described here essentially comes down to taking TR's failed approach of handling plot, one we've moved on from since in newer games, and over-regulating it in order to patch up its side-effects. It won't work better in doing what it's supposed to do, and arguably it'll do worse.

To justify it, we're invoking arbitrary definitions of staff ethics. It doesn't add up.

[Sunny]

@Arkandel said:

@Miss-Demeanor I find the idea of hard separation between staff and players to be a regression.

I haven't staffed ever since I was on TR; that's partially because I dislike the limitations that poses me (suddenly all my characters are 'staff alts') and because I don't need to be in order to help the games I've been playing.

It is. However, TR rewarded staff players for running staff plot, and was one of the two games that really sent the trend for it to work that way, so to compare the policy to TR is an odd comparison. I straight up quit the day the post went up on the staff bboard saying that as a staffer, I was no longer allowed to participate in the metaplot on my characters. Some of what I'm doing is to actively make sure that staff get to participate.

However by bringing it to these radiant forums it's all going to get debated anyway, which is what (I hope) we're doing bringing our own ideas, points of view and methods to the table.

Believe me, I'm loving the discussion and getting the input. I disagree, but that doesn't mean I don't love talking the damn thing into the ground with y'all. It's been a really productive discussion.

My method is this: Define a goal then figure out the most efficient system that achieves it.

Mine, as well. There are just some hard limits that any game that I run has to have. I genuinely cannot personally abide rewarding staff for doing their job, and I do view this as a reward for doing their job. People have moved the goalpost; I'm putting it back to where I am comfortable with it being.

it sounds a lot like players would need to jump through hoops to run plot with a potential sphere-wide impact

Exactly the opposite. While we aren't running spheres as such, if someone wants to run a plot that impacts a single global faction (vampires, werewolves, etc), it's a review plot. Which means they put in a notification to let us know what they're doing in general, and then do it. They never actually have to discuss it with staff unless it hits one of the points that knocks it to approval, which means before it gets run, someone has to sign off on it. I have a little template for folks to fill out. It doesn't ask for a lot of information, just enough to know if I need to address anything with the player before they go forth and conquer.

arbitrary divides between staff and players

No. It's not an arbitrary divide. Staff stuff goes on staff bit. Player stuff goes on player bit. Start, stop.

staff-alts run plot to get the same rewards as players is viewed as a problem

No! No, no, no. It's not a problem at all. If they're running a PRP though, they need to be doing it as a player. It's a player-run-plot. Staff stuff goes on staff bit, player stuff goes on player bit.

To justify it, we're invoking arbitrary definitions of staff ethics.

This was basic shit prior to the new big games. I ran a huge game in the early 2000s; it's hardly an arbitrary definition. It's internally consistent with the rest of our system. Is it reverting to ye olden days in this respect? Yep.

Staff are not rewarded for doing their job. It is out there very very clearly I hope (see the above definitions) as to what goes on a player bit and what goes on a staff bit; if your ideas don't ever require a staff bit I would not want you on staff! There's absolutely no reason for you to be spoiled; the stuff you've run it sounds like would be something I'd sit down with you and have a conversation about, then just send you forth.

Running the game's plot is part of game maintenance. It is a staff duty, and it needs to be limited, and for everyone to reach maximum enjoyment some information must stay behind the staff wall.

---

This has absolutely nothing at all to do with trust. If folks aren't willing to start from a position of trust, they need to not be on my game. I'm in firm agreement with @Coin on that point. It's a lot more like separating the personal and the professional aspects of the game. Business goes in X spot, pleasure and personal stuff goes in Y spot.

Discussing the playing whole families thing and all of that...is a different story entirely. I've already had a couple of very fun discussions with my team about how liberal my alt policies are.

[ThatOneDude]

Staff and XP - I've always been of a mind that being on staff shouldn't punish you as a PC. So if you are on a game where you need votes, or there is some other mechanism in place that gives XP to PCs, as staff your PC should just get that normal amount of XP every week. Let me explain this: If I'm an active staffer that closes jobs fast and helps players and ALL THE THINGS then I shouldn't be "punished" because I have to be less active on my PC, just give my PC the "average" XP and lets be done with it. Now if I don't perform as staff then either fire me or don't give my PC XP. That should be a given.

Staff and Rewards - I've always felt if it works for the player for a reward give it to staff. But if it hurts the staff function than that staffer needs to be throttled back.

I think a huge problem is staff management and dirtbag staff period. I've staffed on games and would go crazy at how jobs would just go idle because staffers just sit around all day/night and not "staff".

I know, I know... There are some exceptions, we all know this. I'm on vacation or school or whateves, but the point is we all know a dirtbag when we see it and I wish more games managed them better. If that leaves us with no staff then maybe games should fall away so good staffers all staff on the same games. I don't know.

[Arkandel]

@Sunny said:

it sounds a lot like players would need to jump through hoops to run plot with a potential sphere-wide impact

Exactly the opposite. While we aren't running spheres as such, if someone wants to run a plot that impacts a single global faction (vampires, werewolves, etc), it's a review plot. Which means they put in a notification to let us know what they're doing in general, and then do it. They never actually have to discuss it with staff unless it hits one of the points that knocks it to approval, which means before it gets run, someone has to sign off on it. I have a little template for folks to fill out. It doesn't ask for a lot of information, just enough to know if I need to address anything with the player before they go forth and conquer.

Alright, do you care to go over that point? I think the vagueness is caused by this:

@Sunny said:

Staff are players as well; they are welcome to run player run plots as a player as much as anyone else. But only staff is able to run game level plot. It cannot be done by players, for a reward or otherwise.

And then compounded by this:

@MisAdventure said:

You want to run a Monster-of-the-Week on your player bit? Fine, go ahead, that's what PRP's are for.

Or this:

@MisAdventure said:

It can take weeks or months to build up a really good sphere/meta plot arc. In that interim, player run plots help to fill that void while staff work up the next round of Dire Threat to Everything. PRP's helped to keep people active and interested in plot stuffs between large arcs.

The discrepancy there is that, regardless of the presented ethical issue here regarding rewarding staff for running plot (which is a game in which I have no skin) I don't see player-ran stories in this way, as fillers or one-shots to keep players going between long staff-ran arcs. For instance my story on SHH was 13-scene large, the one I'm running on Eldritch just went over that number; they're by no means disposable one-shots.

Nor are (or should) staff-plots always be enormous spectacles with a dozen people fighting to save the galaxy - in fact that's a systemic problem plaguing staff scenes for years, since they're often either overcrowded with everyone struggling to squeeze themselves in this official metaplotty thing (then complaining about the spam and/or amount of impact they can have) or feel excluded since they didn't make it in (then complaining staff only runs plots for their friends, leading to the aforementioned us-versus-them mentality).

Does that mean staff plot is a bad idea? Of course not. It just means it comes with its own logistical challenges and meta-considerations about matters such as plot availability, scene setups and record-keeping for newer players to find it easy (or even possible!) to hop on later on. Just like PrPs have their own difficulties (avoiding red tape, supporting STs with mechanics since not all are good at rules-lawyering, etc).

But neither is inherently superior or even preferable to the other. So alright, you don't want to incentivize it for staff due to ethics, which I disagree but can work with, and you don't want to use XP as an incentive which is an argument that has been made before, since you attribute the decline of staff-ran plot to player-ran stories being rewarded, although that seems like an empirical correlation since it's happened on some games but not on others.

What I'd be interested in here is seeing the alternative you plan to use in order to incentivize plot-running since historically alternatives to XP haven't yielded very good results; for example recognition ("ST of the week!") has produced antipathy or backfired by devolving into a popularity contest for example. XP has its flaws but it requires minimal staff resources, can be quantified and it's easy to keep track of or adjust over time.

[ThatGuyThere]

Messed up the quoting but @Coin said
Staff having access to metaplot information doesn't actually give them an advantage,

Huh Of course it does, they now know exactly how to tailor a pc to be effective,they also know how the people running the meta plot think so how to interact with it better.
In a game that is primarily about social interaction knowing more about the people you are interacting with is a huge advantage. Now most do not use this in a negative way but that does not mean the advantage is not there.

[Arkandel]

@ThatGuyThere said:

Messed up the quoting but @Coin said
Staff having access to metaplot information doesn't actually give them an advantage,

Huh Of course it does, they now know exactly how to tailor a pc to be effective,they also know how the people running the meta plot think so how to interact with it better.
In a game that is primarily about social interaction knowing more about the people you are interacting with is a huge advantage. Now most do not use this in a negative way but that does not mean the advantage is not there.

If you mistrust story-runners so much you think knowing how they think yields an unfair advantage you probably don't want to be playing where they are. That's a really paranoid way of looking at things.

[Coin]

@ThatGuyThere said:

Messed up the quoting but @Coin said
Staff having access to metaplot information doesn't actually give them an advantage,

Huh Of course it does, they now know exactly how to tailor a pc to be effective,they also know how the people running the meta plot think so how to interact with it better.
In a game that is primarily about social interaction knowing more about the people you are interacting with is a huge advantage. Now most do not use this in a negative way but that does not mean the advantage is not there.

And neither of these things have any bearing on them getting XP for running stuff regarding the metaplot, not to mention that by general MU guidelines, if they are running it, they aren't in it, and lastly, as I've said before: if that's a problem, then they shouldn't be staffing.

[Thenomain]

Logical Conclusion: if a decision maker cannot be trusted to make decisions while playing the game, they cannot be trusted to make the same decisions while taking a break from playing.

Nothing to do with rewarding staff for working on the game, but I thought it was an interesting point that was missed.

[ThatGuyThere]

Honestly part of this difference might be my RL background on the separation of player and staff.
In my job I have done things I as a person have been completely against and would rant against the second i was off the clock but while on the job followed procedure.
I have also made decisions as staff that I the player was strongly against because they were what I thought was in the best interest of the game.
I definitely expect people to behave differently on their staff bits then their player bits even though it is the same person. If it is rude to page a player bit about staff matters how can it then be acceptable for that same bit to then do staff things? Either they are separate or why does it matter which one you page?
I would never page a player bit about a staff issue because that is not what they are on to do with that bit, any more then I would think it was normal for staff to make proclamations from that same bit.

[Coin]

First of all: you're conflating your job with staffing, and they are not the same thing. One of them is responsible for you being able to sustain your way of life and, you know, eat (and possibily feed your family), whereas the other has the much less severe responsibility of... processing a few jobs on an online game. So if you're doing something your boss told you to even though you're against it, it's understandable (to an extent), whereas no one can actually force you to do jack on staff and if something is that ethically dubious, you can always say 'no' and not do it. Seriously, this comparison has got to go.

Second of all: The division between a player and a staff bit exists for the reasons I stated above in my earlier post; but to further expound: you shouldn't page me about staff shit on my PC bit because I am going to have to use my staff bit anyway, and you are likely spamming me on my PC bit. Yes, even if I am in the Quiet Room. I page other people while I'm there, and keeping conversations separated on different screens helps me help you. And as stated before, I'm probably going to have to look at a job or something anyway, so I'd have to go to my staff bit. If it's not on, that means I'm not doing staff stuff. It's a clear indicator I am off-duty. Paging my PC bit about it anyway--or following up on Skype or whatever--is rude. Yes. But not because I see some internal division between my staff-persona and my me-persona. It's just a matter of common courtesy.

[ThatGuyThere]

To me staffing is a job granted one taken with out pay and you kinda have to be a little crazy to want to do but a job none the less.
Second you said about decision it was the same person anyway., how is paging different? Either they are different for both or the same for both.
Now I would never follow up on Skype or any out of game channel that is just crazy,

[Three-Eyed Crow]

It's different because it's rude. Not as rude as stalking someone as they play on other games, or via Skype or IM or Facebook (Jesus fucking Christ when did this become behavior that anyone had to tolerate?), but still rude.

[ThatGuyThere]

@Three-Eyed-Crow
Oh I agree and I would never do it but how is posting staff thing form a player bit more acceptable?
the argument in favor of the staff posting form player bit was it is the same person or they less the same person when it comes to pages?

[Coin]

@ThatGuyThere said:

To me staffing is a job granted one taken with out pay and you kinda have to be a little crazy to want to do but a job none the less.
Second you said about decision it was the same person anyway., how is paging different? Either they are different for both or the same for both.
Now I would never follow up on Skype or any out of game channel that is just crazy,

I... just explained how. I'm not sure how much clearer you need it to be, but I'll leave it to someone else to clarify.

[Sunny]

First off I'll say I'm not going to address @Miss-Demeanor's points. Not that I don't agree with her in some areas, but she's not on my staff or my development team, and she's speaking of the topic in general, rather than how it relates to my game specifically. She doesn't speak for me; her conclusions and her input is her own. Now mind, she'd be more than welcome to the team if she wanted to be, but she's not speaking here as a game representative. I am, @ixokai is, and a couple of my other staffers may or may not poke in and participate.

I'd also like to point out that I do not agree with 'if you're running it, your PC can't be there'; it's not one of our rules. That's a separate issue. If I trust you to run it, I trust you to be in it. People aren't going to want to play in a PRP you're running if you run it about yourself, so misbehavior discourages itself. I will probably include this as one of my 'approval' guidelines; if you expect your PC to be involved, I'll need to look the plot over first. That's the extent of what I'd require, though.

@Arkandel said:

@Sunny said:
Alright, do you care to go over that point? I think the vagueness is caused by this:

@Sunny said:

Staff are players as well; they are welcome to run player run plots as a player as much as anyone else. But only staff is able to run game level plot. It cannot be done by players, for a reward or otherwise.

So functionally, there are two types of storytelling. Personal, and game maintenance. Metaplot and game plot arcs (key there: game) being game maintenance; everything else is personal. to some degree or another. Players are not responsible for game maintenance, for functions that are part of staff's baseline duty. If you are running game maintenance, it is part of your job as staff, and you get nothing for it. If you're running non-game-maintenance stuff, it should be run from the player side. If folks want to run a huge plot that impacts everyone / the entire city as a PRP, it's not off the table. It will probably be treated as multiple lower level plots because of the scope, which really ends up being a benefit rather than a drawback.

Game plot is something that advances the game's story itself. It does not belong in the hands of someone who is sitting on the other side of the ST screen.

fillers or one-shots to keep players going between long staff-ran arcs

I do not view player plots this way at all; I view them as not part of game maintenance/running/etc.

Nor are (or should) staff-plots always be enormous spectacles with a dozen people fighting to save the galaxy

One person or twenty two, the line isn't size. It's scope and whether it's advancing the game's story. Story, in my context, does not equal scene. You accomplish your goals as a staffer with game story far far far far far easier by spreading it out between little groups of 2-3 anyway. Then not only do they have the plot for playing about, they now get to get together with all the other little groups of 2-3 to trade peieces.

But neither is inherently superior or even preferable to the other.

Nope. They fill different roles. Different, not greater or lesser.

So alright, you don't want to incentivize it for staff due to ethics, which I disagree but can work with, and you don't want to use XP as an incentive which is an argument that has been made before, since you attribute the decline of staff-ran plot to player-ran stories being rewarded, although that seems like an empirical correlation since it's happened on some games but not on others.

This is not what I said. Or probably more accurately, that's not what I meant. I'm not rewarding anyone's plot stuff directly with XP; we're using a different system for that by design. You can still get XP with what you do get. I do not attribute the decline completely to rewards, at all. It did contribute.

What I'd be interested in here is seeing the alternative you plan to use in order to incentivize plot-running

System is still in basic stages of development, alas. We're using a 'player point' model; these points will be spent on a variety of things, including buying a certain number of beats in any given week. This is for a lot of reasons that have nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand.

since historically alternatives to XP haven't yielded very good results

I can't say I agree with this; games without stats still get PRPs pretty frequently.

XP has its flaws but it requires minimal staff resources, can be quantified and it's easy to keep track of or adjust over time.

Agreed. I have no problem giving people XP for running plots; I think it's a great model. I'm not using it, but it's a great model.

@Thenomain Agreed.

[ThatGuyThere]

@Coin
Oh I understand what you are saying i just reject the basic premise., that staff persona and player persona should not be separate.
As a player you only concern need be following the rules having fun and not being an ass.
As staff you have to concern yourself with a lot of bigger picture things.
To me is is less about trust and proper division of roles.

Also for the record in no way affiliated with the game just commenting in general.

[Coin]

@Sunny said:

since historically alternatives to XP haven't yielded very good results

I can't say I agree with this; games without stats still get PRPs pretty frequently.

There is a key difference in that there not being stats or XP at all creates a different atmosphere regarding plots and running plots than when there is. We can like it or not, but the attitude the players take is different. When no one is getting XP because it's not a thing, then it doesn't become a 'these people get it and these people don't' issue. So it's not really a good comparison.

(Boy, I am with the nitpicking of comparison lately. I apologize only a little.)

[Coin]

@ThatGuyThere said:

@Coin
Oh I understand what you are saying i just reject the basic premise., that staff persona and player persona should not be separate.
As a player you only concern need be following the rules having fun and not being an ass.
As staff you have to concern yourself with a lot of bigger picture things.
To me is is less about trust and proper division of roles.

Also for the record in no way affiliated with the game just commenting in general.

That level of dissociation is painful, even for people in our hobby, and it often leads to greater stress. I run my game and I play in it. Period. I don't--and I can't--turn off my "staff brain" if something comes up and I made aware of it, just because I am on my PC bit, much less switch on the fly when I change windows. It is ridiculous to require, and it's ridiculous to think it's even possible. Like I said before, I think it's not viable to expect complete objectivity. Sorry not sorry!

[ThatGuyThere]

@Coin
I admit true complete objectivity is not likely possible but I do feel it should be the goal.

[Sunny]

@Coin said:

@Sunny said:

since historically alternatives to XP haven't yielded very good results

I can't say I agree with this; games without stats still get PRPs pretty frequently.

There is a key difference in that there not being stats or XP at all creates a different atmosphere regarding plots and running plots than when there is. We can like it or not, but the attitude the players take is different. When no one is getting XP because it's not a thing, then it doesn't become a 'these people get it and these people don't' issue. So it's not really a good comparison.

(Boy, I am with the nitpicking of comparison lately. I apologize only a little.)

Geez, man. Nitpick, nitpick, nitpick. I forgive you, but only because you're right. It is an entirely different ball of wax. But so is TR, and we're making lots of those comparisons.