@Auspice said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:
Something I have also been considering throughout this thread whenever the 'Staff are volunteers!' comes up: volunteer work is still work. If you volunteer for an organization IRL, you are expected to comport yourself as a professional and you don't really get to pick and choose (generally) what you do. You might get to choose a department or request a 'top 3,' but then you're handed work. You do that work.
There's some merit to this, yes.
But I feel like this isn't "you are a volunteer at a business".
This is "you volunteered to host a tabletop game for local gamers, whether or not you know them", and then being told by someone else, "Cool. Here's the code of ethics and professionalism which all GMs are expected to abide by."
Yes, if you are GM'ing for a specific organization—if you're running games at a convention for WotC or Paizo—you do have a set of rules you're expected to adhere to, and which you agree to when you sign up to do that for them. But if you are running a game in your house, you are not running it on behalf of anyone else. You do not have to sign anything before you sit down to run a game, not even if you post an open invite on the board at the gaming shop and allow people you don't even know to come.
Generally, MU*s are not run on behalf of another group. If you are running an official D&D MU* for WotC? Yeah, then WotC is going to probably set certain rules and guidelines for you, because you are doing this for them. But most of us who choose to run a game are doing that on our own behalf.
If you are not the headwiz on a game, you absolutely have to adhere to the rules the headwiz makes; you are volunteering on that game. If I ever lose my mind and actually make/run a game as headwiz ever again, I definitely have a sort of 'professional code' as to some guidelines to aim for when GM'ing—to try to spread around RP fairly equally, to make sure NPCs are never in the spotlight, etc.—and I would expect my staffers to try to adhere to them.
But I don't think we get to draft a set of standards and then demand that every headwiz who opens a game is expected to hold to that list. Especially not if we're including things like "you are obligated to GM for every player when they ask, even those who make you miserable or bore you to tears or even creep you out on some level you cannot articulate, as though you were staring into the cold, dead eyes of a killer; you are also forbidden from GM'ing any more for the people who actually make your job a joy than you do for the ones who make you miserable".
If that makes sense? I dunno. I may be talking in circles here. I just feel like we're no longer just saying "what's do you feel is the difference between an NPC and a normal PC played by a staffer" but now trying to define actual codified standards of behavior for those NPCs—and for how to GM in general—which we have no ability or authority to enforce. And it feels like we're prepared, as a community, to be indignant and point fingers if people who never even pledged to use those standards on their game violate them in any way.