@admiral You mean like pretty much every codified alignment system in any RPG ever? 'Act this way or you are not good', aka crazy aka blah blah bad.
ETA: Literally. If you have to put good / evil (bad / good) into a rule system, you have to define 'good'. Any time you define good you are making a value judgment. Nature of the beast.
@thenomain I heard it was Disney's doing, as Disney is launching their own streaming service this year/next year, and they had to go this route for licensing purposes to be able to launch it with the new service. IDK if it's true or not, but those are the rumors I've heard.
@Misadventure said:
@sunny You got it all in one.
If you're hurt, you're hurt. I dunno any details of that, or the policies you think are bad news. Share and elaborate.
Right. Thus my initial post to say I was sad. Which got me a token 'well you're invited now' which is offensive, considering. As far as the policies and such go, there's a thread here with all the arguments hashed out very well, and the staff there's justification for those policies.
I used to care about grammar and spelling and 'pretty poses'. I don't, any more. If I can understand what somebody is trying to say and I'm engaged, I have somehow gotten to a point where it just doesn't bother me.
Same with pose length, or 3pr vs round robin, or...any of it. A lot of this stuff I used to care about, like a whole lot.
These days, if I can engage with the other character in any sort of meaningful way, the rest of everything I just don't care about any more. Too many variances in style have turned out to hide really fun people that I'd have missed out on if I was anywhere near as picky as I used to be.
@Arkandel said:
@Sunny said:
Staff will not gain experience for their characters from running plots on the staff level
Care to explain what that means (and what the reasoning behind the decision was) ?
Why would I, as a player, gain XP from running a plot but BobStaffer who runs the plot isn't eligible? What happens when a staff member runs plot as their character? Etc.
Part of this is, I admit, holdover from ye olden days. I cannot conceive of a system in which staff are virtual-materially rewarded for being staff and doing their jobs. It is, to me, abhorrently unethical, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Earning a reward for doing your job as staff, to me, is on the same level as taking care of your own experience spends/jnotes or judging your own scene. I feel very strongly about this. I understand and recognize that the community has progressed to where this is not actually the case, but in my opinion that's not something we should have let go, or something that should have even been tolerated when it first began.
That said. there is a distinct structure / framework for storytelling on Dust, and nobody is getting a direct XP reward for running things (players are being rewarded, just with player points, something still under development). To try and make it simple, there is one category that players can run with review but not needing approval (that means they submit what they're doing and just go do it, and if we need to we chat after the fact), and the other player-level category which requires approval.
If one of my staff members chose to run something at either of those plot levels, I would counsel them to run it from the player side, not the staff side. The approval level plot stuff is actually not as limited in scope as people might imagine, either -- primarily, the distinction between whether players can run it or not is the makeup of the factions the plot is intended for. It's a rule, though -- there are some things that are off limits for players to run, because they do not have and will not get access to staff information.
There are also multiple levels of staff plot; all of them involve the game's forward story progress directly. This is the "perk" of being a staffer. You get to peek behind the screen and ruin everything for yourself, but you also get to help craft and execute the story of the game. There are people that enjoy that, and with the structure we're building in for staff, I might even be able to keep them for more than a few weeks.
tl;dr: If my staff are running player level plots from their staff bit, they're goofballs and should be swatted lightly to remember they earn points if they do it from their player bit.
Edited to add: After some consideration, I realized, I did lie up above. With the system we're using on Dust, I actually would allow staff to handle their own XP spends and jnotes WAY before I'd conceive of rewarding them for staffing.
That has got to be the funniest thing I've read all day. Now I want to go ask my teenager and see what he does. o.o
@Cobaltasaurus said:
The biggest flaw in your logic is that staffing is not a job. It is a volunteered activity.
It's a volunteer job. It isn't serving at a soup kitchen and that's not a great example, but it is absolutely a job. We fundamentally disagree on this level. If they're not doing it for the love of the game, I don't really want them.
@Coin said:
Except from what I understand, she's doing exactly that: if you storytell from your staff bit, you get no XP; if you do it from your PC bit, you do. So it's going to generate exactly that dynamic, as per the HM example.
There's a layered plot system in place. Player level plots should be run by players; staff should generally be focusing on staff plots. There are very distinct differences.
@somasatori: I'll take you up on that.
Congratulations!!!!!! Fingers are crossed for you, but yay good feedback!
@Coin You're right. I'm not sure how to express it. I do feel like it's unethical, but I recognize that according to other value systems it is not unethical and I have accepted your value system as just as valid as my own, so I don't think you're behaving unethically precisely.
Everyone else:
Time spent reading applications, processing jobs, chatting with players about concepts: all of these things require staff time and attention that they could use for their characters' advancement. They could be doing things to earn themselves XP, too.
The reason that I feel it is unethical is that someone would be benefiting from staffing in a virtual-material fashion. On this game, there is a line between staff run story and player run story. Players do not have access to the staff material and will not, because while I do believe that the OOC masquerade is stupid, I do not think everyone should be privy to the game's story for the benefit of the people playing it.
Staff will be given pieces of the plot to run. They will have access to my metaplot and tons of hooks / ideas that the rest of the playerbase does not. Therefore, staff have a potentially easier time running plots than the rest of the game. They are now getting a virtual-material benefit from staffing that is not available for other people.
What I hope to accomplish with this system is reducing the advantage staff players have over other players. I want the game itself to have a distinctive story/plot that even our player storytellers can participate in and have fun with. The game needs to be about something, which means that there is a chunk of the plot that staff has to run.
As well, again, there is a not-insignificant difference between what players run and what staff runs. If you run a PRP do it from your character. It's a PRP. If you're running game story, there isn't going to be a reward for that. If the only thing someone is interested in is running player-level story, they don't need to be staff to do that. I would encourage them to re-evaluate why they want to be on the team, because they're just shooting themselves in the foot with it.
@Arkandel
1: I am aware. This is why I am overstaffing on storytelling. Most of the people I currently have working with me are not people I have to worry about bailing on me. I've got a group of people I've been online tabletopping with for a while.
2: I appreciate the sentiment behind it, but I know what I'm signing up for. I ran a beast of a game myself for several years: Ashes to Ashes. I'm the one responsible for having approved the toe-ring of doom. I've learned a ton since those days, and I'm ready to implement it. My staff structure is going to be different than the traditional model, and I hope to solve a lot of the RL-exploding burnout-inducing-overwork issues with it.
I addressed my goal up above.
Fair enough, but I'm curious as to your reasoning. Did people think "oh, I'm going to get XP for this crap? No way - I'm done here!" and stop running plot?
No. Staff teams essentially said 'whew, the players have mostly taken over storytelling' and stopped.
People who know the art of makeup are wizards I swear. Magical. I'm glad you found somebody helpful.
I am so blowing up a volcano at some point, I guarantee it. Unless one goes off around here for real. Then it will probably be too soon.
I think there's a pretty significant difference between social sites / sites set to support a particular codebase, and actual whole-community hubs. Beyond that, ACTIVE is important, SUPPORTED is important, and OUTREACH is important. All of these things need to be happening/need to happen regularly, content needs to be getting created, etc. There has to be a significant community buy in hobby wide. OGR was a ridiculous amount of work for the time I was involved as staff there; when Siobhan retired, nobody really realized just how MUCH work was involved. It is not for the faint of heart.
ETA: Honestly. It was as much work if not more than Ashes was, because it was a TON more moderation required than an RP game ever thought of needing. our hobby is kind of snarky, and it takes something special to keep people from going there and yet still coming back
ETA2: A site devoted to the support of a particular codebase is not a community hub. A social site is not a community hub. These are apples and oranges. Yes, it's all fruit, but that's where the comparison ends. I am not talking about a social site, nor am I talking about a site to support a particular codebase. I said community hub, and I meant community hub.
I can completely understand that. Imposter syndrome is rough. I still deal with it on the regular. So does my team's database admin. So does my boss, who is the CIO. Regularly. I know this cos we talk about it. Part of me suspects it has something to do with being women in tech for so long, but idk.
All that aside, lady, I would send my kid to you. You have a huge heart. That is (to me at least) the most important thing. I have mad respect for all the teachers around here, y'all give me hope. You got this.
@Arkandel said:
@Miss-Demeanor I find the idea of hard separation between staff and players to be a regression.
I haven't staffed ever since I was on TR; that's partially because I dislike the limitations that poses me (suddenly all my characters are 'staff alts') and because I don't need to be in order to help the games I've been playing.
It is. However, TR rewarded staff players for running staff plot, and was one of the two games that really sent the trend for it to work that way, so to compare the policy to TR is an odd comparison. I straight up quit the day the post went up on the staff bboard saying that as a staffer, I was no longer allowed to participate in the metaplot on my characters. Some of what I'm doing is to actively make sure that staff get to participate.
However by bringing it to these radiant forums it's all going to get debated anyway, which is what (I hope) we're doing bringing our own ideas, points of view and methods to the table.
Believe me, I'm loving the discussion and getting the input. I disagree, but that doesn't mean I don't love talking the damn thing into the ground with y'all. It's been a really productive discussion.
My method is this: Define a goal then figure out the most efficient system that achieves it.
Mine, as well. There are just some hard limits that any game that I run has to have. I genuinely cannot personally abide rewarding staff for doing their job, and I do view this as a reward for doing their job. People have moved the goalpost; I'm putting it back to where I am comfortable with it being.
it sounds a lot like players would need to jump through hoops to run plot with a potential sphere-wide impact
Exactly the opposite. While we aren't running spheres as such, if someone wants to run a plot that impacts a single global faction (vampires, werewolves, etc), it's a review plot. Which means they put in a notification to let us know what they're doing in general, and then do it. They never actually have to discuss it with staff unless it hits one of the points that knocks it to approval, which means before it gets run, someone has to sign off on it. I have a little template for folks to fill out. It doesn't ask for a lot of information, just enough to know if I need to address anything with the player before they go forth and conquer.
arbitrary divides between staff and players
No. It's not an arbitrary divide. Staff stuff goes on staff bit. Player stuff goes on player bit. Start, stop.
staff-alts run plot to get the same rewards as players is viewed as a problem
No! No, no, no. It's not a problem at all. If they're running a PRP though, they need to be doing it as a player. It's a player-run-plot. Staff stuff goes on staff bit, player stuff goes on player bit.
To justify it, we're invoking arbitrary definitions of staff ethics.
This was basic shit prior to the new big games. I ran a huge game in the early 2000s; it's hardly an arbitrary definition. It's internally consistent with the rest of our system. Is it reverting to ye olden days in this respect? Yep.
Staff are not rewarded for doing their job. It is out there very very clearly I hope (see the above definitions) as to what goes on a player bit and what goes on a staff bit; if your ideas don't ever require a staff bit I would not want you on staff! There's absolutely no reason for you to be spoiled; the stuff you've run it sounds like would be something I'd sit down with you and have a conversation about, then just send you forth.
Running the game's plot is part of game maintenance. It is a staff duty, and it needs to be limited, and for everyone to reach maximum enjoyment some information must stay behind the staff wall.
This has absolutely nothing at all to do with trust. If folks aren't willing to start from a position of trust, they need to not be on my game. I'm in firm agreement with @Coin on that point. It's a lot more like separating the personal and the professional aspects of the game. Business goes in X spot, pleasure and personal stuff goes in Y spot.
Discussing the playing whole families thing and all of that...is a different story entirely. I've already had a couple of very fun discussions with my team about how liberal my alt policies are. 
@cobaltasaurus said in Let's talk about TS.:
Thanks, @Carex you're during this thread into #WhyI'mDoneWithWoD.
I like this hashtag. You should start a thread so I can link that to that hashtag in my sig. Yep.