Nepotism versus restricted concepts
-
What I would do would let everyone have free access to what was allowed. If there was something i thought was rare enough or overpowered enough to not allow into general population i would simply disallow it as a PC option.
For cases where you must have something higher powered keep it as an NPC; sept elders NPCs, Prince and Primogen NPCs. As far as IC leadership among the PCs I am a firm believer in let the PCs sort it out, don't give anyone extra stats or more OOC authority. If they use said IC position in ways detrimental to the game give them a slap on the wrist on the first instances and a boot in the ass on the second.
Of course I have never really seen IC or OOC faction leadership as a big thing, for the most part IC factions tend to be reasons you get stuck in boring ass meeting scenes and then rarely actually come up in the course of rp. -
An iPad response:
Favoritism has a negative connotation that harms our ability to use it powerfully. Nepotism as a form of favoritism should be handled with more care, but not ruled out altogether. Some of the longest lasting Mu*s survive because friends are excited about the same thing, and the excitement is a positive feedback spiral.
Force of will can ignite involvement as well. How many games have we played with shitty staff but we play them because that's where the action is? A lot.
So if it's good for the game, reward everyone who is engaged and excited and exciting. Who cares if they're your friend? We are hypocrites; we just want to play.
-
@Arkandel said:
@Roz said:
I feel like we might have very different application processes generally. I'm not sure! The idea of giving application feedback being out of the norm is strange to me, because it's been totally common on games I've staffed on to send a first draft of an application back with things that need some adjustment or clarification.
And it's not really like "your writing wasn't good enough." It's "this thing doesn't really make sense" or "this thing really isn't clear" or "this thing doesn't work in the canon because this reason." Not really a critique of actual writing style.
I think the difference comes from how we view the perspective application processes for a feature character and for a normal but perhaps more important one.
What you may be talking about and correct me if I'm wrong is a character concept such as say, a potential Carthian leader. No extra power other than perhaps allowed more dots in Carthian Status, that sort of thing. So with that come more stringent background requirements - everything has to make a lot of sense and be appropriate and there can't be any weird points that would have caused them to not be elevated to that level of high regard by their peers. However since nothing says other Carthian PCs have to obey or become a bottleneck if they aren't active it's a normal character in every other regard, and staff need not worry if the player turns out to be a bit of a weirdo or stops logging on they'll have a bigger than expected mess in their hands.
What I was talking about is more along the lines of "a five centuries old Lasombra priest rose from torpor and was sent to be the Bishop". That character has significantly more powerful than average and if played badly has the potential to derail a lot of PCs; care has to be taken in picking them than merely going through the background to make sure the t's are properly crossed, as it's much better to have no one playing him than someone who'll be bad at it. It's just that the pay-off if you do make the right choice for a player is high since they could rejuvenate the game with their mere presence - and by requiring them to run plot and distribute RP around that potential just increases.
That's how I look at it, at least.
Lol the real problem is probably that I've never played WoD (which I think is what your examples are from). I do have more thoughts that I will maybe put down later to explicate how I've run into this on the game I've played on!
-
@Roz said:
Lol the real problem is probably that I've never played WoD
Some might call that a feature instead of a problem.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
-
My philosophy is that CG should be CG and everyone should use the same one, with the same systems and points.
If your setting has need of special positions, rare concepts or abilities, etc etc, you can address those things by making some kind of tradeoff in CG. Pay some points, get access to whatever thing.
'Some people just get more XP/all the cool toys/whatever because they're special' (which nearly always means they're staff's buddies or just got to the game first) is a fundamentally retarded idea and everyone who supports it (so, I dunno, most people who make WoD games) is wrong and should feel bad. The end.
-
Feel bad? They're simply wrong. I agree with your viewpoint though. Either you can apply for ANY concepts or these concepts should be restricted to everybody. This way, it's fair across the board. It's far worse to prohibit or impose artificial limitations to certain concepts to some and not to others.
-
What if the fair approach is you have to convince me you get the key element that makes this restricted concept restricted?
-
@deadculture said:
It's far worse to prohibit or impose artificial limitations to certain concepts to some and not to others.
No, it's really not. There are some people who should never play an Elder. There are some who should never play an Alpha. There are some who should never play Superman. Sometimes it's because they're dicks. Sometimes it's because they're just not good leaders. Sometimes it's because they're perpetually unreliable even if they're stellar when they are around.
It's staff's job to make a game run well so that the most people possible enjoy it who are on it. That includes weeding out players who aren't suitable for certain things.
It is also ten times - a hundred times - A THOUSAND TIMES - worse to get rid of someone unsuitable than it is to just make sure it never happens in the first place.
There's got to be at least one of the geek social fallacies at play here.
-
-
@bored
The pay some points thing is one of the things I'm a fan of. For example, in the new MET:VtM, everything unique and cool is controlled as a Merit. And Merits are limited to a total of 7, ever. In general, no weird things are completely banned. But how much of your 'unique and cool thing' factor do you want to wrap up in being, say, a Tzimisce or an Assamite Sorcerer or have Thaumaturgy if you're not a Tremere, or whatever. It works out really well in my experience with it. -
@ThatGuyThere said:
What I would do would let everyone have free access to what was allowed. If there was something i thought was rare enough or overpowered enough to not allow into general population i would simply disallow it as a PC option.
While that's certainly an option, it also leads to lots and lots of 'same shit, different day'. Games need those rare and interesting things, sometimes. While vanilla characters using standard options are certainly a thing, and can be done well, sometimes that's not the feel you want at a specific time.
In general, though, this once again comes down to how much you trust the staff, and by extension their judgment. If you don't trust them, then this is the least of your worries. But it's also up to those staffers to scrutinize things more closely, watch for those deviations, make sure that things are playing out how they were intended to play out in the first place and not go off the rails. If things start to go there, yank it back. Staff has to be above board on lots of things in order to garner that trust.
So we can call it lots of different things. Selection processes, intuition. Personally, I prefer 'gut check'. There is no formulaic version to make it impartial. There just isn't. If there is, then it's probably not doing what it should be doing. Some human at a keyboard has to make a decision at some point. Some people will be cool with that. Others won't. But is that reason enough to refrain? Because if that's all that's needed, nothing would ever get done.
-
Fairness should not be the mark you're shooting for. 'Fun' should be the mark shot for. The people who insist on it being 'fair' are naive AND responsible for all sorts of total bullshit on games. Not everybody is capable of playing a (insert any difficult concept here) and why the fuck should we be forced to let them try?
-
@Sunny said:
Fairness should not be the mark you're shooting for. 'Fun' should be the mark shot for. The people who insist on it being 'fair' are naive AND responsible for all sorts of total bullshit on games. Not everybody is capable of playing a (insert any difficult concept here) and why the fuck should we be forced to let them try?
I like how I try and make mine PC and get downvoted, but you are here to come along and say the things I wanted to say in the first place.
Perhaps I should rethink this 'trying to be polite' thing. Your way seems like so much more fun.Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
-
@Derp said:
@Sunny said:
Fairness should not be the mark you're shooting for. 'Fun' should be the mark shot for. The people who insist on it being 'fair' are naive AND responsible for all sorts of total bullshit on games. Not everybody is capable of playing a (insert any difficult concept here) and why the fuck should we be forced to let them try?
I like how I try and make mine PC and get downvoted, but you are here to come along and say the things I wanted to say in the first place.
Perhaps I should rethink this 'trying to be polite' thing. Your way seems like so much more fun.I'll get squawked at and downvoted for it too, never fear. I just think we need to call a spade a spade in this particular discussion. Not everybody is cut out for the same things. It's really, really okay to treat different people with different skills...differently.
-
I think the main concern is not that everyone should have an equal chance to try so much as the pitfalls of staff considering primarily people they know in RL/their circle.
I am 90 percent sure we all agree that has been problematic at times, within our witnessing (if WORA is any indication).
I think it's human nature to have some blinders on in regard to friends. It's why I generally prefer to ask another person for a gutcheck if I have a close association with them. I've relieved valuable input enough times that I think it's an easy thing to do that has no drawbacks.
And I have often asked others for their input on who /they/ think might be capable, ect--because while as staff the buck ultimately stops with staff, different people see different things, and I'd have missed out on a great many people just because they weren't in my circles.
-
@Sunny said:
Not everybody is capable of playing a (insert any difficult concept here) and why the fuck should we be forced to let them try?
@Roz made a good point about theatre here.
Directors in community theatre have their favorites. It's not because of "favoritism" or "nepotism"; it's because some people have the reputation of working hard, being on-time, taking direction well, paying attention to notes, and not fucking around. They've earned their good reputation, and it makes them more likely to be cast in quality plays.
I have long, long made analogies between online gaming and theatre, especially improv. The fact is, if I'm staff, I'm a director responsible for putting on a good show. I need to trust others, and will pick the people I know I can count on over complete strangers with no references for important roles.
Fair? In a way, yes. Earn a good reputation, and doors will open. Don't expect to waltz into a game and be made Prince.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@Ganymede said:
@Sunny said:
Not everybody is capable of playing a (insert any difficult concept here) and why the fuck should we be forced to let them try?
@Roz made a good point about theatre here.
Directors in community theatre have their favorites. It's not because of "favoritism" or "nepotism";
(well, to be fair, sometimes it is)
-
@Roz said:
(well, to be fair, sometimes it is)
I'll amend. It's not always because of "favoritism" or "nepotism."
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@Ganymede said:
@Roz said:
(well, to be fair, sometimes it is)
I'll amend. It's not always because of "favoritism" or "nepotism."
I think the original point I was trying to make, all the way back in the other thread, is that there is always going to be the appearance of (insert noun of choice-ism) even when you've done your best to try and ensure quality. Nepotism and favoritism have this negative implication that unqualified people get those positions, and really, that's not always the case at all. In my case, it almost never is.
I trust the people I trust because I have long exposure to them. I've seen them in action. And yes, I think that qualifies me to make judgment calls about them in those scenarios. But even more importantly, those people are the ones who are always going to be on my radar anyway, even -after- such a decision is made. Because they've earned that amount of my attention prior, and now that my own reputation is riding on their good behavior, I have extra incentive to try and ensure that they continue to meet those standards.
I meant it as a hypothetical scenario. I don't actually make any such calls in my current position. But I at least think that this discussion is an interesting one, and one that should absolutely be had. There are too many 'vibes' in this hobby, and too many things that people see as set in stone based on whatever sort of negative vibe people have about it -- and really, appearances can be deceiving. For every well-reasoned decision, someone is going to see tyranny and favoritism. For every strategic move, someone is going to see incompetence and disconnection.
Sometimes they're well founded, and philosophically they might be sound, but even in some of those cases they're simply not practical. And practicality is important, too. Sometimes, you just have to make a call.
