The elusive yes-first game.
-
@Sovereign said:
At this point, I treat it a lot like folks who say "I hate drama" - baby, you make more drama than a playwright.
I keep the following linked and on hand for just that reason:
And so many more. It's amazIng how a brief scan of that image collection can un-bleak the worldview.
-
Haha. Those make me laugh. I love drama, myself- so long as I'm an uninvolved third party. Watching people's meltdowns and seeing them bring the thunder is great. But I'm also the sort of person who would marathon Jerry Springer and love every second.
-
In all seriousness, the group I'm puttering with on something has a pinterest board for ideas/visuals/concepts. Enough serious, there's also:
...a 'group therapy' board full of stuff like that.
We have, sadly, decided against communicating with the playerbase exclusively in image macros in times of stress -- which is really no less absurd than a lot of things that go on on any given game -- and would probably be a lot more honest much of the time!
We did consider it, without a hint of seriousness at all, for a fair five minutes or so, though.
-
I find the best way to communicate with a player base depends entirely on your function within the staff. The person in charge, who handles punishments, dictates policy, and is the End of the Line, so to speak, should have minimal contact. They should engage primarily in imperatives, not conversations, and be polite, firm, and concise.
On the other hand, a lot of games can benefit from someone whose job is entirely to mediate and manage PR. This should never be the same person as the first, as "authority figure who dishes out punishment and is the one to tell people No" conflicts immensely with "friendly person I like and trust and can confide in". To many, authority is inherently intimidating. A person who exists to connect authority and player in a more comfortable and removed fashion is handy.
This person could use image macros! It wouldn't be the worst thing. They're inherently lighthearted and that's comfortably disarming.
-
Having looked back over the first post, I have these comments:
-
( 3, 4, 5 ) Being staff is a role, not a privilege. All staff must contribute and their number should be small. Since the importance of handling +jobs is minimized the main duty is handling interpersonal issues, auditing potential cases of system abuse, but mainly running and coordinating running plot. Staff never decides on character positions or non-mechanical eligibility for ability or power purchases.
-
( 3, 6, 8 ) Characters decide their own groups' composition. Status-weighted votes determine ranks, positions and membership. To facilitate early game launches NPCs are set in place who can be voted out or competed with as normal by PCs. Conversely that means there are no protections for IC actions; highly ranked characters are bigger targets who may be eliminated in the same way as NPCs. Staff only audits this process to ensure OOC behavior remains civil and, to the extent it is possible for them to establish, that no OOC means or information were employed.
These two alone are going to hamstring your game in short order. All it will take is one charismatic or manipulative individual to gather to themselves enough willing accomplices to keep voting for them so they can get and maintain power for themselves. See: Communism. People CAN vote for sane leaders who are active but never underestimate those who can fake sanity. When power is available for anyone to grab, the people who probably shouldn't have it are going to be first in line. This is the same reason why having people volunteer themselves to be your staff is a bad idea, as most are going to stab you in the back later.
- ( 3, 6 ) There are no feature characters, restricted features or application-only concepts. Anything up for grabs is available to all players. Characters are elevated based on the merit of their own ability to roleplay.
Be prepared to see an overabundance of whatever race is the equivalent of a Super Saiyan. If you are running sheets and XP, and you are not going to step in and tell someone they can or cannot have a concept or buy a certain thing, you are going to end up with system exploits and munchkins faster than you can reboot a server.
- ( 4, 5 ) Cut down on building delays; in most MU* this is time consuming, requiring checks on behalf of staff, setting exit/entrance messages, etc. It's cool to see 'Bob gets in from the street' but it doesn't provide enough to the game - "Bob has arrived" is sufficient if it cuts down on time. Let players make their own rooms on the grid, even businesses, and simply have a periodic auditing process to make sure they comply with writing regulations (tabs, linefeeds between paragraphs) so the game maintains a consistent style.
Welcome to this week's Porn Hut. When it's destroyed or caught, we'll make new ones until another audit comes around.
...
Whenever I create a rule or policy I refine it by potential for abuse: Can it be abused by players? Can staff use it to abuse players? While it's impossible to make a perfect policy that eliminates both, devoting thinking time to closing loopholes and exploits in policies, rules or system saves a lot of headache later. You can't catch them all, but that's what policy "bug fixes" are for.
The only way power of any kind over others or the capacity of others to have fun in a game should be handed out is on the basis of whether or not the person is responsible, skilled and available to use that power. Trust of that kind can not simply be assumed or given; it has to be earned.
-
-
@Nein said:
- ( 3, 6, 8 ) Characters decide their own groups' composition. Status-weighted votes determine ranks, positions and membership. To facilitate early game launches NPCs are set in place who can be voted out or competed with as normal by PCs. Conversely that means there are no protections for IC actions; highly ranked characters are bigger targets who may be eliminated in the same way as NPCs. Staff only audits this process to ensure OOC behavior remains civil and, to the extent it is possible for them to establish, that no OOC means or information were employed.
These two alone are going to hamstring your game in short order. All it will take is one charismatic or manipulative individual to gather to themselves enough willing accomplices to keep voting for them so they can get and maintain power for themselves. See: Communism. People CAN vote for sane leaders who are active but never underestimate those who can fake sanity. When power is available for anyone to grab, the people who probably shouldn't have it are going to be first in line. This is the same reason why having people volunteer themselves to be your staff is a bad idea, as most are going to stab you in the back later.
If a player/character manages to convince the other players/characters that he should be in charge, I don't see much of a problem with letting that player/character be in charge. What's important when it comes to an IC leader isn't sanity, it's that they generate RP for everyone in their relevant sphere.
What is obvious to you may not be obvious to me and vice versa.
-
@Sovereign said:
I find the best way to communicate with a player base depends entirely on your function within the staff. The person in charge, who handles punishments, dictates policy, and is the End of the Line, so to speak, should have minimal contact. They should engage primarily in imperatives, not conversations, and be polite, firm, and concise.
There is a reason why people dislike judges, and prefer talking to mediators.
In my opinion, the person in charge -- who handles punishments, dictates policy, and assumes ultimate responsibility for staff actions -- should have as much contact as possible with players. That's the best way to get players to trust staff as a whole.
You don't need to be a stranger to be an impartial robot. If anything, being a stranger impedes one's ability to judge reasonably.
-
And there's a reason we have judges despite people liking mediators more. We're unlikely to ever agree on this matter; I know my position will not change. I don't believe I can change yours.
-
@Sovereign said:
I find the best way to communicate with a player base depends entirely on your function within the staff. The person in charge, who handles punishments, dictates policy, and is the End of the Line, so to speak, should have minimal contact. They should engage primarily in imperatives, not conversations, and be polite, firm, and concise.
On the other hand, a lot of games can benefit from someone whose job is entirely to mediate and manage PR. This should never be the same person as the first, as "authority figure who dishes out punishment and is the one to tell people No" conflicts immensely with "friendly person I like and trust and can confide in". To many, authority is inherently intimidating. A person who exists to connect authority and player in a more comfortable and removed fashion is handy.
This person could use image macros! It wouldn't be the worst thing. They're inherently lighthearted and that's comfortably disarming.
I'm more or less the opposite of this.
I'm pretty decent at policy-crafting (though shit at policy-wording at times) and tend to be fairly approachable and willing to listen to people on both sides of an issue, and even at making hard calls.
I require a 'You are not listening to the boss, so let me make this more clear if you need to hear it from someone who doesn't have ovaries' staffer. Because sadly, unless you're willing to be a PHB from hell, the whole chick thing has been relevant more than I care to mention.
-
What does PHB mean? Google calls it a Dilbert reference.
I don't think it matters if you're male or female, provided you're willing to exercise the power you have. If someone disrespects you for having ovaries, that disrespect lasts only so long as you'll tolerate it; I'm sure after the first temp-ban people would get the message. It's about boundaries more than genders. Indeed, calling in another Staffer, to me, sends the message that you won't establish hard boundaries and can be pushed, and this encourages certain types to push. You'll always have a subset of people who, out of deviant curiosity or impulse, see how far they can go and don't know how to quit while ahead.
As for policy-wording, my experience is that the wording is almost entirely unimportant. While a legal system has (double-edged) requirements that encourage especially legalistic writing, a game can get by with more open-ended policies. "Don't be a dick" is a bad law; too nebulous. But it's a fine game rule, because these are small, purpose-driven communities. And, yes, while you'll still get people who will argue about what constitutes being a dick..
.. those people are usually dicks. People know what's appropriate and what's not. They use ignorance as an excuse or simply assume they won't be called out. They're correct with disappointing frequency.
-
Psycho Hose-Beast.
I, er, can't describe it in a way that gives it the justice it means except perhaps by imagining what a game would be like if a Drama Llama were in charge.
-
@Sovereign said:
What does PHB mean?
Psycho Hose Beast. Urban Dictionary Definition.
Never thought that would make me feel old.
-
Oh, okay. Psycho Hose Beast, not Pointy Haired Boss. You let me down, Google. I haven't heard the term before but I have a pretty good idea what that type of person is like.
-
Actually I think Don't be a Dick is a horrible game policy. No two people have the same idea of what being a dick constitutes. Therefore if you have more then one staffer it will by unevenly applied.
For reference see the Reach with it's policy of Be Excellent to Each Other. In theory this a a great way to be. However with out a guideline on what that means in practice with in the first six months on the game it had faded into being a meaningless buzz phrase. And on channels was used in multiple cases to end discussions by uninvolved third parties.
I think Don't be a Dick and Be Excellent To Each Other are great philosphies and hte starting point for policies but not really policies themselves. -
No two people have the same idea of what being a dick constitutes.
See, I don't think that's true. Rather, I think it's more untrue than it is true. All my experience tells me that, barring a great cultural gulf (say, Americans vs Syrians), everyone has an approximation of what's rude, assholish, acceptable, etc., etc., that's close enough. Is it perfectly identical? No. But their individual outlooks are far more similar than different.
Now, people often say they didn't think they were being a dick! Those people are lying. They knew. But playing dumb can get people to let you off.
-
@ThatGuyThere said:
Actually I think Don't be a Dick is a horrible game policy. No two people have the same idea of what being a dick constitutes. Therefore if you have more then one staffer it will by unevenly applied.
So? All policies have the potential to be unevenly applied. Everything comes down to staff judgement, from approvals to determining whether to nuke an idle player, and people are rarely - if ever - on the exact same page. That doesn't make the policies themselves inherently bad.
And what's the alternative? To try and enumerate all possible ways someone can be a jerk? That's even less practical.
-
@Sovereign said:
What does PHB mean? Google calls it a Dilbert reference.
I don't think it matters if you're male or female, provided you're willing to exercise the power you have. If someone disrespects you for having ovaries, that disrespect lasts only so long as you'll tolerate it; I'm sure after the first temp-ban people would get the message. It's about boundaries more than genders.
Respectfully, while I have no idea of your gender, or how it may impact your experience, 20 years in the hobby informs mine and, uh, I'll not really go into how clear I am about boundaries, but it's safe to say I'm almost a joke around here at times in regard to how stringent I am on that particular front.
It's unfortunate, but true, that there are some folks who simply will not listen to a woman's call on something without engaging in some pretty sexist asshattery. In some cases, these are dudes who played in tabletop games for years that never had women in them so they're not used to the idea of a woman involved in an RPG period, and then there are others who are convinced female staff don't know the rules as well as the male staff, and then there are just some jackasses that whip out the no woman tells me what to do! card.
Each of these types is distinct, all of them actually exist out there, and each one is something to handle differently.
The first lot generally clue in pretty quickly and chill with demonstrated competence; it's a culture change, something outside their experience and therefore sometimes on the border of a comfort zone, but once they figure out everybody's there for the same 'having fun playing this RPG reason', it ceases to be an issue. This type generally surfaces based on game rule calls more than policy matters, too.
The second lot are a split. Some have lingering beliefs about female gamers that are inaccurate similar to the above, and others are just trying to push someone they perceive to be weaker in some fashion around to see if they can get away with it. First step is to figure out which you're dealing with and it isn't usually hard.
Like the folks from the first example, the people in the first half of this group generally chill the hell out once they realize you're competent. Sometimes, this means having someone with testicles tell them the same thing once or twice to get them to clue in. Is this profoundly stupid? Yup, it is. Doesn't make it any less the actual reality of things. Again, these folks usually surface over game rules more than they do over policy matters.
The second half of this type? Yes, they are testing boundaries. RPG rule or game policy, they're going to push it, because they're dumb enough to think they can get away with it. It... tends not to go well for these people. Like the last type, which I will just lump in here because the solution is the same, they get handed off to someone else because personally, I'm very nice until I'm not. (There are probably folks out there who think they've seen the 'not' from me staff-side, but they haven't, and there's a reason for that.) That gets handed off to someone else.
"Don't be a dick" is a bad law; too nebulous. But it's a fine game rule, because these are small, purpose-driven communities. And, yes, while you'll still get people who will argue about what constitutes being a dick..
.. those people are usually dicks. People know what's appropriate and what's not. They use ignorance as an excuse or simply assume they won't be called out. They're correct with disappointing frequency.
Essentially, yes. That's not the kind of policy I'm talking about, for precisely those reasons.
All the same, it's very likely we have an entirely different style and approach to things, despite points of agreement here and there. Really not keen on the number of assumptions being flung about nor the rush to conclusions, though, to be frank. One of those boundaries of mine involves avoiding condescension, so... yeah.
Oh fucking well.
-
Systems should not be responsible for the people who use them. I've found that's a good guideline for political or even religious groups iRL and it certainly applies to MU*.
The traditional models including CGen background checks and justification-limited spends are not to blame for the butthurt petty dictators with a finger on the ban button if anyone so much as agree less than enthusiastically with them, who cannot admit to making mistakes and who are fueled by their own ego than the desire to see their own game prosper.
More liberal models allowing players more leeway are not to blame for the happy-go-lucky staff who create a less than glorified sandbox and sink into a spiral of depression and drama when they encounter the occasional bad player because they're incapable of saying 'no' in case they aren't as loved any more.
Yes, as many have noticed some of the examples in this thread are stretching a good bit. "What if almost every player is a walking nightmare?" isn't a common scenario but it's a good exercise to theorycraft the system a little bit. What's more realistic to happen is that, indeed, a charismatic player takes over a sphere with their cronies. It is, it can happen. We've seen it. We've also seen staff alts taking over spheres, we've seen a lot. No system is immune from bad people, both in the game's administration or the playerbase. You can't fix incompetence, real-world companies have been trying to come up with rulesets and guidelines to do that for years.
What this all comes down to is what game we like to play or run. Some of you have made the very legitimate claim that well, you wouldn't like a game like this. You have your reasons for doing so - it's fine! I think though we should examine its principles under the assumption it's not meant to be ran badly, since then of course it'd all devolve into sighs and an MSB 'what were they THINKING?' thread.
-
@Groth said:
If a player/character manages to convince the other players/characters that he should be in charge, I don't see much of a problem with letting that player/character be in charge. What's important when it comes to an IC leader isn't sanity, it's that they generate RP for everyone in their relevant sphere.
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.
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.
- take care of yourself, kid. 'cause someone really cares about you.
-
@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?
What is obvious to you may not be obvious to me and vice versa.
