@Thenomain said in Footballs!:
MLS (Major League Soccer, aka second-tier football in any other nation) games begin with two key announcements. 1) You can't keep the balls. 2) Don't throw things onto the field.
And they wonder why it isn't as popular in the United States as it is around the world.
@Kanye-Qwest said in Coming Soon: Supernatural: Lost & Found:
I got excited about this until the 1940s thing, too. I don't feel like acting out historical sexism, basically ever again in my entire life.
I'd recommend the '80's. Because Stranger Things was awesome.
@Ghost said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
I don't think there's a always whole lot of malevolence to this. I think a lot of this staff putting their chars in the drivers seat and railroading everything chalks up to a difference in viewpoint in GM styles:
I don't think the original line of conversation had to do with railroading at all.
My position is that hard-and-fast rules are not always good things, and that staff and players should be flexible to circumstances while still operating under a general modus operandi.
Railroading is an entirely separate, disdainful beast.
@dontpanda said in Footballs!:
So, that's why I'm asking. Do they count losing a ball as the "cost of doing business," or can they force a fan to return a ball that went into the stands?
If I'm playing ball with my kid and he makes an errant throw at you, you don't have any legal right to the ball if you happen to catch it.
Does that make more sense?
The Descent is based on an post-Apoc Earth using GMC/nWoD 2.0 rules and races.
@Miss-Demeanor said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
I get that you didn't gain anything from it, I understand that. But you opened the door for others to use their own PC's in plots they're running by doing so.
There is where you and I differ.
Just because one person gets a pass doesn't mean everyone does or should. Everything is circumstantial.
This is also the crux of our disagreement, since I concur, generally, that a rule prohibiting alt-use in a scene is a good thing to have.
@Miss-Demeanor said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
We're not losing anything by continuing to disallow it, and I seriously doubt we would be gaining enough by allowing it that would be worth the bullshit that would have to be dealt with.
Just want to hook on this because I otherwise agree with the remainder, or am confused why you would raise a particular example here; i.e., having two alts in one scene, since that is demonstrably unrelated.
The issue here, I think, is whether one should harshly censure a staffer from doing this. I don't think so. For smaller games, this sort of thing may be unavoidable.
For example, on Reno, I used my PC as a sacrifice in a scene I ran as staff. I used him as the victim of a plague that was infecting everyone in the city. He thereafter became virtually unplayable, save as an NPC. I clearly didn't gain anything, and neither did the PC; further, pretty much everyone there knew that Oz was the PC I played before becoming staff. However, by your rules, what I did was forbidden, even though the scene was a launching event to try and get some activity going.
On retrospect, I would have done nothing different. But, again, I was a staff member using my PC in a scene I was running. Would you have censured me?
@Miss-Demeanor said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
Given that the staffing pool is already shallow, I don't think anyone is surprised.
And blind, rigid adherence helps this situation how?
@Miss-Demeanor said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
You seem to be coming from a place of 'people trust me so I should be treated differently'. But I don't. I don't know you. I don't know anything about you other than what you've posted on these forums. So why should I trust you enough to bend rules for you?
You shouldn't. I didn't ask you to.
My original comment was in response to @Sunny, who professed that she eschewed putting her PC, as a player, in plots that she ran. I pointed out that if all of the players involved were okay with it and the consequences were non-existent, I would have no objection to her PC being in the plot she ran. Important point: she was talking about being a player, not a staffer.
Going back to where the comment has led us, if no one involved gives a shit about Staff X having her PC in a scene that's she's running where there's no material benefit for the PC's involvement, why does it matter that it runs contrary to a rule? Your reasoning is analogous to: RULES ARE RULES. That's fine and dandy, but one shouldn't be surprised that the staffing pool is rather shallow at the end of the day.
@Miss-Demeanor said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
As staff, you would have the authority to not only insist I remove one of the characters from the scene, but to enforce a punishment on me for disobeying. Yet you want to be exempt from that rule yourself when it comes to your own character.
I have the authority, but you're implying I would exercise it. Comparing two situations is comparing apples to oranges, besides.
Here's the main difference: the exemption where from consent of everyone involved and there is no benefit to the staff PC. Frankly, if no one cares that two PCs under one player are in a scene, and that scene isn't of any remarkable consequence, I wouldn't step in to enforce the rule because who the fuck cares?
I realize that people like to live in a world of absolute rules and laws, but blind adherence is foolhardy and unjust.
@Miss-Demeanor said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
How am I supposed to give the leeway for one type of scene but not the other just because X is staff and Y isn't?
Because X and Y are different people in different positions.
With your example, you elected to remove yourself from the situation. That's fine. That's what you chose to do. But, at times, situations will arise when your PC, as a staffer, cannot reasonably be extricated from the situation. Those situations are myriad.
What matters is consent between the involved parties. These situations are also myriad, but they will arise. Adherence to rules without consideration of circumstances is as bad a policy as ignoring them, but the heart of justice -- what is right and reasonable based on facts -- requires some leeway.
@Kanye-Qwest said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
I don't really agree, so NO WE CAN NOT.
@Miss-Demeanor said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
If you are a sphere lead, or headstaff, someone that's a leader even among staff... there's an inherent perception issue with running one's own plots for your character. Namely... if you put in a job to gain approval for a scene that you are running for your character... who is going to tell you no if there's something in that pitched prp that's 'too much'? At that point, you're the one in charge. Who's going to risk angering 'the boss' by telling them they're going too far? Its definitely a bit more sticky of a situation than when 'just a player' is asking for a prp.
I think we can all agree that it's unacceptable for a staff member to run a plot for one of his or her PCs that would benefit him or her in some way.
But there are many kinds of plots. What if the staff's PC makes friends with another player's, and that player's has been harmed or hurt by the NPC? Is it permissible for the staff PC to accompany the player's PC to take care of the NPC, where the staffer essentially runs the NPC as well?
Think about it for just a second. For some, the above situation is barred. The way I see it, the staff member is running a scene for a player that will help that player's PC develop. And if that player is okay with the staffer running it, is there any harm?
That's why I think an absolute rule is not a good thing. It's a good general rule, but it often falls upon the staff and the players to determine what's permissible or not.
@Sunny said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
I also think that part of the reason you would trust me with it is because I don't do it, so if it really really came down to it for whatever reason, you'd know I was doing it for the right reasons.
There's that, which comes from shared history. I trust you. You've earned it.
I think that staff can do the same over time. Adhere to the general rule, but a strict rule means that staff has no reason to foster that kind of trust.
@Cadi said in Somasatori's Playlist.:
I've been around. I dropped out of RPing for a long ass time but I got nostalgic and bitten by the bug so decided to check it out again and be tempted to dip my toe back into nWoD Changeling.
I think Fallcoast is the only game in town, but there's another game that's brewing using a hybrid nWoD-GMC system.
@Sunny said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
There are people I would trust with it, too. I actually do it, but the key here is NOT ON A PUBLIC GAME.
I don't really see the difference. If we can agree that RPing on a MU* is consensual by nature, then anything can happen by consent, public or not.
But, I suppose I'm confusing it. I'll go fly up to my mountain now, and fall asleep around my hoard.
@Sunny said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
I still think it's a bad idea.
The only reason I side with you on this issue is because I agree that it takes a very skilled set of players to make the situation work properly.
I would have zero problems with you running a plot where your PC is involved because I know you won't make him or her the center of it. There are a handful of people that I would trust being in a plot with, and you're one of them.
But, yes. In general, staff or players should not have their PCs involved in a plot you're running.
@GirlCalledBlu said in The 100: The Mush:
L&L games draw players in who want major political power. TFW was a war game with a L&L component, and you're not wrong that L&L games have a certain set-up to them that might not work, but all of them have. I don't have a feasible solution to that, beyond staggering where positions of power open and provide more easily-accessible ladders to those lower on the totem pole.
Starting off a game with NPCs at the top isn't a bad start. It's a problem when it never changes for no explicable reason.
NPCs on top is a great way to start activity in a house. Once one or more houses seems to attract a good number of players that are self-generating RP, then there are ways to transition the NPC out. If it's a matter of internal status, you could implement an IC voting system where, each week or other cycle, players can upvote and downvote PCs in the House, with status changing based on the up-down vote. Whatever floats your boat.
Just remember that NPCs-on-top is a great way to start a game, but it's better if it is not permanent. Let the PCs of invested players eventually take over.
@Ghost said in The 100: The Mush:
I'll back off of this and pipe down; this clearly isn't winning me any popularity contests.
Your lack of popularity does not mean you are incorrect in your conclusions.
No one liked Lorenz Oken either.
@WTFE said in The 100: The Mush:
I don't know the game runners of any of these games from @Ganymede.
Hey. Don't drag me into the dumpster here, would you? I've got kids.