The elusive yes-first game.

Arkandel

I've been in factions (spheres, I guess?) where a friend circlejerk was in charge, voted themselves into positions of power and faction leadership/sphere admin, and used it to benefit themselves. Oh sure, they generated RP - mainly for each other. Everyone else was invited to participate as handclapping peasants to observe their greatness, or have the privilege of being beaten or downdressed by their characters. OOCly, they dangled rank, XP and advancements over the heads of everyone else in the faction and if they didn't like you or you questioned their behavior, you either had to allow yourself to be publicly humiliated ICly and OOCly across the game, self-flagellate or be content to be a low-ranking peon cut out of most scenes.

Unless brought up, there is no system to perfectly mitigate the risk of unfairness. For each clique like you describe - which I don't deny is A Thing - there is a story about staff alts running a sphere, or favoring their friends, or being completely rudderless because no one cares to be in charge so they just... float up there where nothing ever happens.

Also let's not neglect to mention that it's extremely difficult to sufficiently discount partiality in such issues. Is it a clique that's taken over the Carthians or is it a very good group of players, generating a ton of roleplay? That often depends on whether you are yourself included or you're watching this from the outside in - or, in some cases, even if you like those people (or their leader) which can paint your perception. So from a game-runner's point of view what would you rather have, a group of say ten players enjoying themselves immensely or a handful of dissatisfied stragglers finding reasons to feel miserable?

I am by no means saying charismatic assholes haven't ran spheres to the ground like this! Not at all. Only that even if you do have staff authority to act on this, as administrators in traditional games do, it's not easy to know who to listen to or what the best course of action is.

I insist this system does it better though for a simple reason: that by empowering and coopting factions to the players, they are given the incentive to do something there. It's for them to do with as they will. The Carthians aren't a staff-controlled thing As Described In The Wiki where they're squattering, it's theirs. They can do whatever the fuck they want within the sphere and game's greater context. Try to run it as a democratic utopia (and fail utterly because you're all bloodsucking fiends pretending to be fair) or a fascist regime (and clash with the Prince's cronies who're worried this might be a hotbed of insurrection). Whatever it is, creativity usually flows better when it's the least restricted and characters do what they should do best; pose, and let things grow from there.

Maybe. In theory. But that's the intention.

Thenomain

@Groth said:

@Nein said:

I've never felt that generating RP and being ICly active should be the yardstick by which leadership value is measured. Is it imporant? Absolutely. Should an egocentric petty tyrant and his lackeys remain in control of a group just because they produce RP? Hell no.

What would you use as the criteria for leadership positions?

Pon farr.

Misadventure

Ummm, Pon Farr suggests at the end someone is getting laid, and uh ...

Thenomain

At the very least, somebody is getting screwed no matter what.

Cirno

As for me, I will extend $1,000 dollars to purchase my leader position.

I've spent more money at Atlantic City.

Alzie

I did not expect that from a thread about a yes-first game we would delve into such philosophical questions as:

Is man born with a set of universal understandings
Is human nature evil by design
What is winning?
The sociopolitical ramifications of not being a hard ass
How humans react to authority
Is trust innate or earned
Learning the phrase 'Pon Farr'

I am glad to know that I subscribe to this forum, just so that I might see these conversations pan out. I suggest that @Glitch change the name of this topic to 'Deep Philosophical Ramblings' post haste, we're sorting out mad fucking truths in here.

Cirno

And I just introduced Macroeconomics.

We're going places.

Arkandel

You're welcome.

Nein

@Groth said:

What would you use as the criteria for leadership positions?

An attitude of service. They have outgoing concern for others instead of concern only for "gettin' mine".
Emotional maturity.
A backbone of forged steel.
A strong sense of ethics.
Creativity.
People management skills.
Availability.

Obviously these unicorns are rarely seen in the wild. When it comes down to it, the first criteria is the most important. It's always good to have healthy self-interest and not be a people pleaser, but taking into consideration the fun and activity of others should be a higher priority for people in leadership positions. A good leader looks to try and include everyone in the fun and should be able to help tend sphere/faction morale.

@Arkandel said:

Unless brought up, there is no system to perfectly mitigate the risk of unfairness. For each clique like you describe - which I don't deny is A Thing - there is a story about staff alts running a sphere, or favoring their friends, or being completely rudderless because no one cares to be in charge so they just... float up there where nothing ever happens.

Agreed. All I'm doing is pointing out potential loopholes and abuse to watch for. A lot of whether or not these situations depends on how many staff have eyes on the playground and will actually break up the fights over who gets a turn on the swings.

Another thing that could mitigate the above situation of RP feast or famine is inculcating within your playerbase the notion of being an RP self-starter. I come from a radically different MU* gaming background, I suppose; it has always floored me to see players kvetching about boredom because they need a storyteller/gms/staff to function as their own on-demand personal entertainer, and can't seem to think up anything to do on their own.

Also let's not neglect to mention that it's extremely difficult to sufficiently discount partiality in such issues. Is it a clique that's taken over the Carthians or is it a very good group of players, generating a ton of roleplay? That often depends on whether you are yourself included or you're watching this from the outside in - or, in some cases, even if you like those people (or their leader) which can paint your perception. So from a game-runner's point of view what would you rather have, a group of say ten players enjoying themselves immensely or a handful of dissatisfied stragglers finding reasons to feel miserable?

I've been faced with this situation. Impartiality is a goal that is never perfectly achieved but should be striven for. I've been on games in which impartial staff were the rule, not the exception. If you can't fire your friend or your sphere leader when they unequivocally deserve to be fired, you should not be staff. You don't have the spine for it. (I am by no means suggesting you personally do not. I'm speaking to the collective "you".)

From a game runner's perspective, ten people having fun is ideal. Ten people having fun mobbing someone else warrants action. If you have a group of dissatisfied stragglers, you take the time to investigate the problem, and either make some culls from the playerbase (there are some crabs who are only happy when they are preventing others from crawling out of the bucket) or find a means of creating activity. A live game is rarely an either-or situation like this. It's case by case.

I'm not sure if this is part of the point you're making or question you're asking, but ten players enjoying themselves immensely probably shouldn't be an "ends justify the means" goal.

I am by no means saying charismatic assholes haven't ran spheres to the ground like this! Not at all. Only that even if you do have staff authority to act on this, as administrators in traditional games do, it's not easy to know who to listen to or what the best course of action is.

Having staff you trust to act as wise counsel and different perspective helps tremendously. You gather the evidence as best you can, analyze the situation, take advice and then make the best call you can. Sometimes you'll make the wrong call, but if you're willing to admit fault and fix mistakes, you'll earn the trust you need to administrate.

I insist this system does it better though for a simple reason: that by empowering and coopting factions to the players, they are given the incentive to do something there. It's for them to do with as they will. The Carthians aren't a staff-controlled thing As Described In The Wiki where they're squattering, it's theirs. They can do whatever the fuck they want within the sphere and game's greater context. Try to run it as a democratic utopia (and fail utterly because you're all bloodsucking fiends pretending to be fair) or a fascist regime (and clash with the Prince's cronies who're worried this might be a hotbed of insurrection). Whatever it is, creativity usually flows better when it's the least restricted and characters do what they should do best; pose, and let things grow from there.

Maybe. In theory. But that's the intention.

Road to hell yada yada. But in all seriousness, your suggestions have been pretty much the sort of thing I've done, tried to do, and have the best potential for yes-only. The success of the yes-only game will lie strictly on staff and players.

Thenomain

Define "time"; be 100% accurate.

This is how this and every discussion about impartiality and fairness feels to me.

Alzie

@Nein said:

@Groth said:

What would you use as the criteria for leadership positions?

An attitude of service. They have outgoing concern for others instead of concern only for "gettin' mine".

Emotional maturity.

A backbone of forged steel.

A strong sense of ethics.

Creativity.

People management skills.

Availability.

Soooo, all the things you'd need to be elected by the majority of a group of players that have no reason to be invested in you?`

Nein

@Alzie said:

I did not expect that from a thread about a yes-first game we would delve into such philosophical questions as:

Is man born with a set of universal understandings

Is human nature evil by design

What is winning?

The sociopolitical ramifications of not being a hard ass

How humans react to authority

Is trust innate or earned

Learning the phrase 'Pon Farr'

I am glad to know that I subscribe to this forum, just so that I might see these conversations pan out. I suggest that @Glitch change the name of this topic to 'Deep Philosophical Ramblings' post haste, we're sorting out mad fucking truths in here.

Well, when you ask the question of how to run a mush, you're effectively asking the question "How do I best rule the tiny nation of Roleplayistan". Philosophers have been chasing the governing question for millennia.

EDIT:
Groth asked what I consider qualifications for leadership, and that's what I answered. I'm not quite grokking what you're asking for some reason. Derp.

Arkandel

@Nein said:

The success of the ~~yes-only~~ game will lie strictly on staff and players.

I took the liberty of fixing that for you.

There's no such thing as an autopilot for anything which involves people who need to be managed. If only! No matter what we conceive of here absolutely depends on having good people on both sides of the 'table' for its success.

Nein

Hah! Kudos for that one Arkandel. You're absolutely right.