Posts made by Ghost

@Pandora said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

I'll TS anyone my character finds interesting enough to fuck, I don't care what they're doing on their side of the screen & I have never really understood the desire for trust or OOC communication in roleplay but I do understand it's a prevalent thing in this community, so I don't dispute it. I do think it'd all be that much more fun if we didn't open ourselves up to the weirdness by inviting false familiarity with unknowns only to be let down when they're fucking creepers, especially when they're so often fucking creepers. Live, learn, and keep it entirely IC?

Agreed.

I'm not on some crusade right now. I just prefer a pretty cut and dry honest approach like you do. Fuck it. I'll role play anything with anyone so long as they don't get weird on me. Part of that involves me being pretty clear about boundaries and being willing to nope out when I feel it's time to do so.

But I dont think the community as a whole buys this "it's all IC" thing as well as they do declare. I think it's a mantra, goal, or even a practice, but I don't think many of us actually believe that it's entirely IC.

@saosmash said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

@Ghost Oh, no, it's not purely about writing capability. It is also about 'person I have assessed to be trustworthy enough to write this with without them getting all weird and sexual about it'.

Why would they get weird/sexual about it if it's just text?

And if someone CAN get weird/sexual about it, then does that mean that these scenes could involve OOC titillation? And if the prior two statements are true, then...

...could establishing an Oocly titilating line of roleplay with a staffer result in preferential treatment than others don't have access to?

KABOOM. BOMBSHELL. REDUX

TS: also known as that "thing that we like that we want to always be entirely IC because it's fun to write hot stuff, but is always a crazy-ass minefield of people's ooc emotions, expectations, fantasy fulfillment, and potentially RL issues, so we try to only do it with people who won't get all attachy and try to fuck with my ACTUAL RL relationship."

Devil's Advocate Question.

While I'm sure many of you have TSed with people things that you felt were entirely hot, if it's 100% about the story, then why are people so careful about who they TS with? Why aren't people just TSing with random people for the better of the story?

Not looking for an answer. I just wanted to float this little seed of destruction.

Because I don't believe the bias about who people choose to TS with is purely about writing capability. It also has to do with words like connection, trust, and these kinds of scenes wouldn't be nearly as prevalent as they are if they weren't stimulating. I'm not here to judge, but I simply think it's fair to say that if you need any of these words (trust, connection, sync) to TS with someone or don't feel comfortable posting them on the wiki as any other given log, then...

...they're special scenes, and if they include personal kinks of your own then...

BOOM. BOMBSHELL

...doing this with staff can foster bias for benefit.

Or I could totally be wrong, and if I ever come back to mushing I anticipate some of you people who don't like me to TOTALLY be okay with TS with me if the writing is good.

WOW (spelled backwards)

@Sunny said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

@Wretched said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

@Sunny So you don't think that having a sexual relationship with a person in power over the community that you are invested in is a detriment to the rest of the community? That it doesn't undermine trust as an impartial staffer?

Nope, because it's not actually a sexual relationship. No sex is happening.

ETA: GM's girlfriend is a thing because the girlfriend is ACTUALLY FUCKING the GM.

Perhaps I should ask Wretch's question (which I feel is fair play) in a different way:

So you don't think that having a sexual relationship engaging in the creation of sexual/OOCly stimulating content that could compromise the bias of a person in power over the community that you are invested in is a detriment to the rest of the community? That it doesn't undermine trust as an impartial staffer?

To put it bluntly, no one accuses staff who has scenes where they play catch with a football as a scene that might compromise staff bias, because (in most cases?) scenes where people throw a football around probably don't result in boners, fantasy fulfillment, or masturbation.

(IMO) On even a chemical level, the stimulation of the brain works differently in these cases, and absolutely could be used as a vehicle to getting bias benefits.

@Caryatid said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

The shape of the interaction with the NPCs doesn't matter to me. What matters is the atmosphere created by those interactions, if it feels like a level playing ground. When it doesn't (and I acknowledge there will be times it doesn't feel level without there being actual staff misconduct), no amount of railing by the players is going to change staff's approach to it (because people on any side of an argument will find justifications to shore up their side of things). Your option then is to vote with your feet.

It isn't a matter of knowing it when I see it. For me, I know it when I feel it, and when I do feel it I'm generally not long for that game.

I think there's a lot of poignant stuff in your post. I'm a huge fan of "voting with your feet" because nothing is worse than fighting a losing battle and night after night logging into some place that "drives you fucking crazy, but you've put so much work into". I wouldn't wish that unconfortable feeling (of putting effort into something you know isn't going yo reward you, but you feel required to) on anyone. That's just...depressing.

I think that when it comes to the concept of "Staff NPCs" and the potential risks for corruption, conflict of interest, and favoritism, it's important to note that many people reaping those benefits are usually in one of three mindsets.

1. "I get these benefits because I don't suck, and if you want these benefits, just get on board with staff and ride the USS FRIEND NETWORK." (We know it's corrupt. We are on the winning team).

2. "Isn't this just how things work? I have a good working relationship with staff, submit jobs, and do RP that gets rewards. I dont know why you aren't getting your bennies." (I may or may not know I'm on staff's good side, but am receiving benefits for it and am not aware of any corruption. Staff just seems to like playing with me! BUT STAFF IS TOTALLY REWARDING THEM FOR BEING A VIP OR THEY'RE SAYING THIS BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO PUT THEIR CHEATING ON THE RADAR AS ACTUAL CHEATING.)

3. Same as #2, but the player is simply unaware that anything corrupt is going on at all, because staff has never imparted any suggestion that their rewards are corrupt. They may not even be corrupt. They could be 100% legitimate. Since they are not you, they can't tell why you may not be getting similar results.

My point: You can't always assume WHY someone is getting rewards without more proof/information. The risk of misfire and accusing (or mistreating) a player who has no idea whatsoever if they're getting special bennies is very high. Don't be a dick. Be mindful of this.

I've learned that the best approach is to admit that everyone has bias. Everyone likes playing with people who are fun to write with or have low drama. It's how they handle thesr biases that explain whether or not the behavior is corrupt. It's hard to diagnose, and even harder to prove.

...which is why I'm going to reiterate that I think the best option is that when a staffer plays, they *shouldn't be allowed to provide rewards to themselves or others. When a GM plays, that GM hat gets hung up.

Quick shout out. @Wretched is good about this. I appreciated his desire to separate himself between PLAYER and STAFFER. 10/10. Would ride again.

@Roz said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

In the end? He didn't actually get the weapon from her

But I bet she got the gun from him.

Booyah!!!! BaDumPumC-

-DED.

Ahem. Sorry.

Agreed.

There's a difference between paging me on my alt for a quick thing like "Hey, are we still on for tomorrow? KThxBai." and pestering me through my alt with cleverly worded pressure.

@Sparks Thank you.

@Sunny said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

Honest to god, I refuse to play on games any more where I think the site/server owner is unethical.

This is a good sanity policy. If you don't feel comfortable, then why bother investing the time? I support this.

@Sunny said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

I completely agree. I just have a different perspective than the community on it; I'd rather fire the unethical staffer every single time than make a particular plot element off limits.

Lookbat us agreeing with each other.

That's an honest smiley, by the way. This feels nice.

Yes, I WHOLLY agree that the unethical staffer needs to be let go, and that closing the door to story option isn't the answer. One major issue in the hobby is that sometimes this happens on games where the site/server owner is unethical and/or the unethical staff are their friends.

It is the nature of the player to want to grow, obtain things, and succeed. GMs need to be strong willed to avoid quid-pro-quo arrangements.

@Sunny Ahhhh. I get that. In fact, I agree.

It's a dangerous line to balance on, but I think that you're absolurely correct that if there's a sexual element to something a staffer is running, it's wrong to just assume someone is whoring and needs to be shamed for it. There are elements of story where it makes sense, and if people are going to be ugly and spread rumors just because NPC/PC plot involving booty happens? Fuck that. That's mean and one step (or perhaps no steps) removed from spreading a rumor around the high school that the "only reason Tiffany McCheerleader made Captain is because she blew Coach Stevens."

That shit is mean.

However, conversely, history has shown in many cases that staffers involving in that stuff has led to weak-willed staffers plying staff bias to certain players. Sometimes it's because TS/Cybersex, sometimes because of ACTUAL sex (Skype, in person), and other times just because staff wants to be baller and seed the posse who backs them up with bennies.

So I think it's totally valid that people worry about this and want to avoid it, but ultimately how they behave when concerned about that defines who the bag of dicks is in the situation.

It's totally legit to ask: "Hey, X player got a super Xwing and lightsaber through plot with staff. How can I get the same kind of gear through role play?" The player who got that stuff, that story may have involved some romance. However, if the staffer balks and tells you that it was specific to X player and then proceeds to have romance-based storylines that result in sweet swag, then I think it's fair to cry staff bias.

Worse yet, it's an old argument: If a 20 year old aids a 45 year old man in cheating on his wife, gets them divorced, and ends up the luxurious trophy wife...who is at fault? ((OMFG PLEASE DONT ANSWER THIS. THIS IS RHETORICAL))

@Sunny Then I misunderstood. Could you rephrase?

@Sunny said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

@krmbm said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

@Sunny said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

The? No. It shows that it is A way to get story.

That's your opinion as a person that thinks inter-personal RP via staff NPCs is fine.

Mine (as someone who does not think it's fine) is that I just saw Sue get a cool new weapon because she went 18-holes with StafferBob, and I did not get anything because I don't enjoy that particular flavor of RP and didn't jump on StafferBob's putter.

I may be completely wrong and pettily jealous, but now I'm completely wrong and jealous over here, on a game where I'm more comfortable with how staff uses their NPCs.

Why is this being presented as if it's a problem? If someone is going to be completely wrong and pettily jealous -- and behave in accordance with those feelings -- I don't want them on my game anyway, so it sounds to ME like in this scenario, literally everyone is winning.

Just wanting to understand, so I'm asking to clarify.

Are you saying that if Bob is upset and jealous that Steve got a shiny cool weapon with great stats after 18 sessions of TS with a staffer (and that Bob has not had this opportunity made available to him), that Bob's behavior is petty and that if he is removed from the game everyone wins?

If that is what you are saying, then I disagree.

ETA: Realistically, I get that me working 365 a year to afford a sports car is the slow standard, but if some 20 year old dude fucks a cougar and gets gifted a Ferrari for it, I'm still gonna be like: "Yeah, fuck those guys".

@Thenomain said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

firelizard

I know a guy who got that once in Thailand.

BA-DUMP...

...MURDERED.

Back to topic.

POINT #1

The ultimate question is: "If staff can have PCs and there are dozens of non-staff PCs to play with, why would anyone focus deep, meaningful RP towards an NPC? Why not get a player to app this NPC as a PC?"

I think the answer ultimately lies in the assumption that if a player creates an NPC and requests staff to RP as the NPC, then the player may have some element of control of how the NPC behaves.

"I created this NPC to be my character's bodyguard and sometimes lover. Can I get staff to run a scene with me involving this character?"

TEN MINUTES LATER

"The NPC I created would never do that!"

In this scenario, you literally get to tell people that they're playing the character wrong, and may be able to leverage not only the IC behavior of the NPC, but also predetermine the outcome.

POINT #2

If you've been in this hobby for a while, you all know the benefits of RPing with staff, staff alts, and in staff scenes. There are benefits, including immediate benefits(xp, equipment...) to role-playing with the person who can literally type in the commands to reward you for the scene or fulfill content requests without the player having to submit a job and wait.

So, I think it's fair to say that when everyone knows the point of these games is to create a PC and mingle with the other PCs, that the real trick to getting quick and preferable responses from staff is to put yourself at the head of the pack by investing one or more staffers in your content. I think this concept goes against the spirit of these games and promotes favoritism under the guise of it being "just an NPC scene", and given the weirdly personal implications of TS that MSB never really talks about, TS with a specific staffer playing sockepuppet of said NPC is shaky territory.

The preferable approach is to role play your own NPCs as puppets who don't affect plot and if the NPC deserves a bigger role, try to find someone to play them.

And once again I'll reiterate that my opinion is that the difference between a STAFF NPC and an NPC should be no difference at all. When a staffer plays, they are off the clock. It's a level of "conflict of interest" that deserves more attention, IMO.

@Tinuviel I think Derp is saying that it's creepy to demand that the other player staffer focus solely on you, regardless of whether or not they're multitasking.

The demand ("You are doing wrong by paying attention to other players while playing with me") is creepy; not the expectation of focus ("I'm annoyed if your multitasking affects our scene").

@Auspice said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

There is a teeny tiny part of me wondering how much plot I've missed out on over the years because I've never flirted with / tried to bang an NPC.

I think we are onto something. See, you can't do social rolls against PCs, but social rolls are largely acceptable with NPCs. So if you go with the sex with NPC option, then technically you could make a manipulation+persuasion roll to convince the NPC to have sex with you "the birthday way".

I joke, but it does bring up an interesting line of questioning regarding who controls the NPC and does this bypass typical role play rules?

I might try to put an end to the "IC Relationship with NPC" argument, here.

Here we go.

I think that a player character (key word) having a relationship with a staff-run NPC is absolutely fine so long as the following requirements are met.

1. Players must submit a +job to staff to arrange scenes with NPC. Must state purpose of scene and if they want TS

2. Staff may assign whichever GM is available at the time to role play as the NPC. The player does not get to choose who roleplays as their "NPC lover", as all GMs have the same expectations of fairness. Theyre all deputized.

3. Head Staff are comfortable telling their GMs that they may be required to TS with people as a means of +job fulfillment.

Otherwise...itsafuckingPC.

A good bit of GM advice I got a while back was: "A player only gets one character, the GM gets everyone else in the universe". Another bit of advice I got (and followed) is to "remember that the GM isn't a player, but a narrator who helps sell the story."

These 2 pieces of advice stuck with me, and I think they apply to the topic at hand.

My outlook is that NPCs are a vehicle and nothing more. In a game, the PCs are the "main cast members" and NPCs are "supporting cast/extras". So with that in mind, I think it's easy to forget to focus on the players if a GM is heavily investing in an NPC as if it's a PC. There's a difficult boundary there.

IMO, GMs should take off their GM cap when playing, and take off their player cap when GMing. While a GM may get "everyone else in the universe", you've got to let NPCs be NPCs. Sometimes theyre some kind of "mission giver" with an exclamation point above their head, an assistance with backstory, but IMO they should always be 2nd place to the PCs. Otherwise you end up with bored PCs and NPCs who fix all pf the problems.

I don't want to dig much into the concept of "NPCs as romantic partners", but I will say this: I don't think it's a good idea, at least in a mushing sense, for a few reasons.

1. Staff/GM are there to guide the plot and game process. IC attachments of that kind are preferable between PCs. You want the story to be there.
2. NPCs are a commodity to be used, but in a mushing sense, a staff NPC in a deep relationship with a PC can very quickly become a lot of demand on a GM to give highly individualized RP sessions. This can lead to weird things like cries of favoritism, increased strain on staff availability, and TECHNICALLY if it's a staff NPC, then it should be able to be RPed by any staffer/GM. If someone isn't okay with any available GM roleplaying an NPC romantic interest, then it's not an NPC.

Anyway, tl;dr: I believe in keeping a very clear dividing line between PCs and NPCs. You can switch between the two, but can should only fill one role at a time.