Posts made by GirlCalledBlu

@surreality Thanks! I got it answered via private message, but I'll keep that in mind for next time!

I've actually never participated in this kind of system.

How are things like "story points" earned?

I feel stupid even as I type this, but...

I have a CSS question. I don't think it fits in the MU Code forum, so where should I ask it?

@KDraygo said in Fires of Hope: A Star Wars Story:

I personally enjoy Star Wars games without any FCs that belongs to the players. I wouldn't want one as it would feel like too much responsibility to shoulder. To balance it so that the character remains fair and fun, while making sure I continue to build to the story. Especially a darker character, since Force Powers, it will be much easier to be blamed for bullying and abuse.

As someone who is kind of exhausted by Force-User-concentrated games, this actually sounds super appealing. Granted, Staff would have to be "on it" to make sure that said temporary characters don't become mostly permanent, because then what's the point? So, there should be some tracked timeline (i.e. disappears end of arc, dies end of arc, or something).

I also, personally, miss the Force-is-all-mumbo-jumbo games, where the Force can be used as a way to guide story rather than something gifted (through Staff decision or Player vote) to a character.

@Auspice Do you know how to remove the start-up MUD from your connection list?

@surreality Cool, I'll check it out. I'd upvote your response, but I'm getting an error. So... UPVOTE.

Does anyone have any suggestions for an iPad client?

Thanks!

@lordbelh said in Good TV:

Second episode of Westworld; I remain fascinated by this show.

Heard good things. I'll start watching it tonight, probably, after I get over my case of babyinterruptus.

@Bobotron, I love what you did with the wax seal. That is a real neat idea. I didn't look at the code, but did you use like a div layer?

@Gilette said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

This is always an interesting topic.

I run scenes on a constant, consistent basis because I enjoy RP and my timezone makes it very difficult to attend scenes I like the look of (they start at, say, 4:00am my time, for example). So, I run scenes to remain active in the communities I join. However, because of the spotlight thing, my own characters are relegated to background positions which means these characters that I create and/or have to put in applications or be approved inevitably don't end up really doing much.

It sometimes gets to the point where I'd rather just be given a GM bit and let to go wild with NPCs and setting stuff because then I wouldn't feel like my own character is being kept under the stairs, so to speak.

The other thing about the idea that you can't run things for yourself, which is a good rule, is that it runs into issues. Let's say you're on a WoD game and you're playing a mortal detective. You'd like to do some journalism but no one is willing to run it - everyone wants to run Elysium things about the Clan and Covenant political maneuvering. So, what do you do? Do you just sort of ignore your character? Do you run a scene about investigating a spooky murder which is really just for your benefit? Do you page and @mail and +bbpost things until someone bites to run it for you, basically making them give up their time for your development? It's tough. Ideally, staff would be running things like this.

It's a huge problem when people just start running things for themselves because, soon enough, everyone is doing it. But I think it's also a problem when players have to rely on other players to run things for their own characters. I think it's also a problem when all charbits are expected to be Schrodinger's GMs - if I'm a detective, I might not want to also be the entire police department.

I think this hits a lot of what I've been wrestling with on the nose.

The word balance comes up in response. My philosophy has been that putting something in motion that helps your character grow and develop isn't a bad thing, and if you can hook other people into it along the way, it might become fun for everyone even if the heart of it is about your character developing. As @mietze said, that's where the transparency comes in: "Hey, I'm trying to get this thing for my character off the ground, I'd love for you to participate." Then they know that you're trying to accomplish something that takes your character down a new path, and it won't be a huge PRP/Event thing.

I would say your example here of being a detective is a better scenario than what I have come up with, because it is more in line with things I have done in the past. I would say you could set the whole thing in motion-- be at a cop bar, talking about this grizzly/spooky murder looking into, poking around for clues, and maybe see if others are interested in going along with the "adventure." Ideally, if there are people, then you are kind of running a scene that involves your character and others, and it gives you something to do while all the vamps are chillin' it up in Elysium.

@Auspice said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

I think if you have a Storyteller's Storyteller, you may not even need 2 (unless it's a larger game). Another Staffer could easily step in and run for them (running for 1 person vs. running for an entire game is much easier, after all).
And I don't think it'd be out of hand or weird to approach that person and go 'Hey, which character do you want a plot for and what did you have in mind?'
It'd also be relatively easy to code a system in which STs can file preferences, story seeds, etc., that other STs can then view.

I'll suggest this to someone I know is working on a game and about at playtesting mode. I think that it would be an interesting thing to add.

@Auspice said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

Honestly, it's part of why I think keeping a tiny staffing team (esp. if the two of you are in the same house) isn't always the best plan.

As someone who has actually had a rather large staffing team in the same house, size doesn't always matter. XD But, I digress...

I like the idea of two Storyteller's Storytellers.

I think the biggest issue I have had when running stories for another character is feeling like I don't know the character very well, because you ALWAYS know your character better than anyone else because you share headspace. Maybe have a way for people to list out things they hope for their character beyond power leveling, or reputation gains? I dunno. Would you have that be more of a request thing? Going back to my arm loss scenario, I would put in a +request I want my character to lose a limb?

@Sunny As I said, very rarely... not never. There were people on The 100 who tried to help me out with my character, even if she might have been a total failed concept.

@Misfortune said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

For a game to grow, I believe it needs input from more than one or two staffers, I've just recently come to that conclusion. Fresh ideas are brought in from others and also, like was mentioned before, bring the opportunity for staff alts to get involved in plot that they do not run themselves and thus leave them the opportunity to shine as well.

Hey, I came to that conclusion recently, too.

I've also found it helpful to find good players who like running stuff to be given the job that @Auspice had mentioned earlier. They are in charge of running character development for people in their sphere/org/what-have-you. But they tend to get forgotten about at times. That sort of thing does require a lot of checks and balances, and it sucks when someone gets forgotten.

@Sunny Oh, then yes. I missed your point a bit.

@Ghost said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

Also, constructively, this all gets harder when StaffPCs are in the majority of power positions on a game, make the IC decisions, write then implement plot. In a way, staff having StaffPCs in charge of everything becomes a CoI fucking nightmare.

I think this gets back to the generally agreed upon notion that PCs of Staffers should not be in the power positions of the game, be the one making IC decisions concerning the metaplot, or be the sole focus of a plot meant to directly change (small or big) the facet of the game as a whole.

It is more rewarding when PCs move into those positions, make those decisions, and share that focus -- for Staff and player-base alike.

The more staffbits are in control positions, the NPCs, various PC positions, IC leadership, the bad guys, etc, it's far more likely that when you pass that ball, you're passing to yourselves.

We have in the past disagreed on the purpose of Staff-controlled NPCs, and I'm sure we will continue to do so. I will say that it is my opinion that the purposes of Staff NPCs should only be there as quest givers, providers of major story hooks, ways to share new canon information with the players, and to be archetypes for canon. I know we disagree on that point, which is fine.

@mietze said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

But if you sell or promote something as a plot, then IMO it is unethical, staff or not, to make it all about your PC and your desires for them but you want other people to spectate without disclosing to them. If you want to do that, write it up as a short story and share it with them later. Other unwitting players are not your captive audience.

Transparency is very, very important in everything Staff does, to be honest. I have run into this pitfall in the past.

To @Auspice and @Sunny's points. I think it is unfortunate that, that is the perspective. I think it speaks to the distrust we have as a community that we can't trust someone to be responsible with their own character's story. But, I respect your perspective and understand what you're saying.

I would like to think that the whole point of this hobby is because we enjoy the cooperative storytelling, where my character is the main character of her own story, but your character is the main character of his/her own story, and together we can be characters within a shared world. Excuse me while I adjust my rose-tinted glasses.

@mietze said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

And in the case of staff, there is the added layer of perceived focus. If mush wide and open things are lacking/going unanswered, but people see wiki spam of many your-alt-centric scenes, they'll get resentful. If you gleefully constantly talk about your excitement over your new shiny, or special trip, or awesome adventure on public while they are still waiting and/or excluded, it looks pretty craptacular.

And that doesn't just look pretty craptacular, it is pretty craptacular.

@GangOfDolls Oh, no. I think you misunderstood. I don't have this perspective or sentiment. I enjoy running things for other people. But the suggestion here is that the more things I run for people, the more likely they will run something for me. I haven't experienced that personally.

Still, I would like my characters to be more than inert, reactive objects, so if there is no one who is interested in running something for me, I'll move the story along myself.

I'm sorry if the way I wrote the above post suggested that I had the sentiment of "you owe me, I ran something for you!"

@Kanye-Qwest said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

@GirlCalledBlu If the character development you want is losing an arm, of course you can "GM" a scene where that happens. What you might not want to do is put on a scene where your character loses an arm in a duel with the God of the Land Beyond the Seas, but convinces Him to abdicate to her and sets herself up to become Princess of Everything.

Well now I have to go back and rewrite that entire story arc. Thanks, @Kanye-Qwest.

In all seriousness, I agree with you.

The concept of the "spotlight" is interesting as I sit here and think about it (when I should be grading papers, I hate you for ruining my productivity today :D). I think there's a sense that players should be invited into the spotlight by someone else, rather than there being mutual respect that it is okay that today you step into the spotlight and tell a story about you character, and tomorrow, I'll step into the spotlight and tell a story about my character, and we're both there together to be each other's supporting characters when we aren't in the spotlight.

The idea that players have to stand around an empty spotlight, wondering if someone is going to invite them to step into the spotlight sounds like every social scene I've been in since, well, 2009. We all sit around, drinking our undoubtedly awesome lagers/wines/spiced ciders, waiting for someone (Staff or Player GM) to direct the spotlight onto our character.

My guess is that this changed because there have been players who are known for being total spotlight hogs, and don't know how to be someone else's supporting character. Run into that enough, and you will grow a bitter taste for anyone who directs a spotlight to their character.

@Ghost said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

There's also nothing wrong with scenes here or there being about the staffbit, or the staffbit having their own shit going on. That's fine. No one is suggesting staffbits cannot develop without someone else running the scene. The suggestion I'm reading here is more that the general metaplot, plots, etc shouldn't be an element of FUBU by the staff.

I'm not talking about metaplot, though. I'm talking primarily about conducting RP that leads to character development, whether it to be about physical, emotional, or psychological change in the PC in question. Could be a one-off scene, could be a plot (which I define as a collection of scenes that are threaded together with the same story arc). I tend to agree that PCs of Staffers should not be the Heroes of the Metaplot, for the reasons shared here.

@Ghost said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

So it's easy for staff to say "I'm not gaining!" but through constantly being the focus of plot, making all the decisions, writing all of the plot, holding the playbook, always having scenes where staffbit chars get stuff done, etc...gain is definitely happening.

I also agree that this shouldn't happen. But in my mind, that's still gaining, so that would go against my previous list of faux-pas. While a Staffer is certainly allowed to write the plots for the metaplot, and such, the Staffer should put that information out to the rest of the players and they should be the ones who do something with that information. The best GM is the reactive GM, who sets the stage and then has the NPCs react to what the PCs decide to do on that stage.

I think that it is okay for a PC of a Staffer to have some interaction within the metaplot, but they should be supporting PCs, not star PCs. If they are there, someone else is in charge and they are merely a participant, not an arm of the plot. It happens sometimes, and sometimes without the awareness of the Staffer. Or, even worse, people can believe everything a PC of a Staffer says ICly as gospel, when the Staffer is playing an ignorant character who has no idea what they are doing or saying. I've seen that happen a few times, too. "Please, stop listening to my character... he's an idiot."

@Roz said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

Also, a good way to find a player enthusiastic about running something for you is to run PRPs for other people.

I think we're now getting into a territory where my experiences don't mesh with the suggestions being given...

I have run plots for people, and rarely ever received a plot in return. So, I come to the point where I'm left with: do I wait around for someone to run something for me (even after I've suggested I could use a GM to help me out) or do I just get it done so I can keep moving forward with my character? Can't a player have a little agency in their own character's story, as long as they are not avoiding the sanctity of ICA=ICC, and not writing in monstrous successes, failures, power grabs, or reputation gains?

And I know I've used murdered family member and limb loss as examples, but I've been whacked on the nose for even just having a one-off adventure where my character was present rather than RPing yet-another-social-tavern-scene. I'm told that's spotlighting, and thus problematic.

Now, please keep in mind, I'm engaging in this exercise because I feel my definition of a Player's role and a Staffer's role do not seem to fit with others, so I'm trying to gain some clarity. I'm not necessarily dismissing anyone's perspectives, but attempting to see if my definitions need to go through some evolution.

@Roz said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

"I want to explore this story for my character but I don't know anyone who would run it,"

I think this is a key thought. I know I have struggled on countless games to find someone who wants to run a plot for my character's development. My experiences as a Player has often been that Staff will happily run events/plots that impact/effect a multitude of characters, but don't seem keen on putting in the effort to run something that is more character-centric and less metaplot-centric.

I'm not saying that's the case everywhere, just on games where I have been a player.

So, if I'm reading these responses right...

A Player -- Staff or not -- should never "GM" (because I can't think of a better word) a story that leads to the development of their character, large or small, significant or insignificant. That a character's development is dependent on someone else running plot for them, and that the player of that character can't put a plot in motion for their character that may or may not have significant impact on their character.

For example, I can't decide I want my character to lose an arm, and run the scene where the arm gets lost, but instead should ask someone to run this scene for me?

EDIT: Just for clarification, when I talk about running a plot for my character, I never intend my character to gain anything beyond development as a character (whether it is to expand a characteristic they already have [i.e. being afraid of drowning] or altering their character path because they're not meshing with the overarching story or something about their character needs to change for them to move forward as a character); I agree with you that a player should never run a story for their character where they gain material goods, power, or reputation.