Posts made by Sunny

@bored said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:

@lordbelh I think it rises above 'possibly being discomforted' to nearly baiting people to get into fights on pub about religion/politics and I really don't think that's something any game really needs. And I say this being far from the sort to worry about offending/triggering/etc as a general matter of policy. I don't think these topics should be off limits (and I presume an alt-earth version would still have religious violence, all the horrors implied by war, etc), but from a pure 'I want my game to succeed' level I think it's probably a landmine @Lotherio would be better off not setting for himself to step on.

This. Exactly this.

@Miss-Demeanor said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

@surreality I'm not suggesting its universal. Obviously it does happen at some games, @Ganymede just related a story where it was allowed. I'm saying that it is a rule on games that currently exist, and those games aren't losing anything by leaving that rule in place. Nowhere in my statement did I say all people or all games.

This entire thread came out of a topic of discussion regarding a game that didn't have the rule, and the staff in question trying to understand where the line is for what's acceptable / not.

I agree that it should be circumstantial, that it shouldn't be a hard/fast rule, that there ought to be room for exceptions. Pick-up-scenes, running something small with a few friends that are fully consenting, and so on. I do think that the rules surrounding the topic, rather than being an absolute 'don't do this' should, in general, spell out the types and circumstances in which there are exceptions, and leave a good amount of wiggle room.

I believe VERY strongly in 'the rules are the rules and you (even you, and me too) don't get to break them'. I refuse to make a rule that I can think of easy scenarios in which I would either break it or allow someone else to break it. I refuse to make a rule that I will not enforce. If I am planning on there being exceptions to a rule, I bloody write it in. Because the rules/policies are our foundation. They are the things on which trust is built. They are the things on which expectations are based. If, as I go along, I find that a rule is getting in my way -- I publicly change it. Because it's OK to change the rules, though I don't think it's okay to break them.

My problem with 'it's okay sometimes' as advice in this situation is that the people in question are seemingly pretty terrible at figuring out what's OK and what isn't and finding that line seems to be impossible. In this particular circumstance, I think it is safest and the best advice that can be given, to say 'don't do it. just don't. not ever. not even if you think it's the best idea ever and nobody minds.' There are things that because of my own reputation and history that I cannot do that others might get away with (though that list of things is, admittedly, dwindling fairly rapidly). It is what it is.

Edited to add: Also, I said this before, and I cannot stress it enough. If you are a staffer on a game, and you have requirements for scenes (XP spending, whatever), and you CANNOT find a player / different staffer to run it for you, your game has a problem. If you as a staffer cannot do it, how easy of a time are your players having? Either the requirement needs to go for EVERYONE, or you need to address storytelling problems. Same goes for character development/whatever. If you can't do it, how are they doing it?

@Lotherio

Current issues crop up in our acts of creating, and roleplay is an act of creation. It's going to get brought in for no reason beyond 'this is a current world issue' and roleplay being an easier way for people to explore how they think and feel about something. Beyond that, given that our world is in the current situation that it is, it's a conflict that could be very personal to some of your players.

Edited to add: The public channel conversations / arguments / drama that would crop up, alone! Good lord.

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

@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.

Hmm. You're right. It's not as absolute as I present it, and I don't in general think it ought to be. I do think in the context of this particular situation, or really even as more general advice, that's the rule folks ought to be sticking to. Particularly when there's demonstrated difficulties in the arena.

@Ganymede

No no, you're fine. I was just saying I wasn't going into that for why, though I do agree with you. 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. You know?

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

@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.

Yeah. I agree with you 100%, actually. There are people I would trust with it, too. I actually do it, but the key here is NOT ON A PUBLIC GAME.

But I'm not going to give advice that is 'Well, if you were ME, do this, and if you're not me, do this other thing'. There's already an issue here with this topic, confusing it isn't helpful. ^^

Edited to add:

For more fun, I believe firmly that staff should be able to play leadership roles alongside other players, and that they should be able to be involved in the metaplot as PCs, too! It really is a very wide range of opinions that exist on the topic, and wider even than that pool is the pool of 'how important is this issue actually to me as a player on any given game'. 'You may not play in a scene that you are running' does not need to be a rule for me to play on a game. It's not even in the the top tier of my criteria. But when you're running into a problem again and again with people really unhappy with a particular way that you're doing things...this IS something I would take into consideration for playing on a game that these folks did. Lack of that rule may not turn me away, but you can bet I'd be paying very close attention, and the moment I saw the pattern, I'd be out.

@Seraphim73

If you're more interested in the argument than you are in the discussion, I'm out. Input was asked for, input was given. If you don't like my perspective, that's fine. You do you.

I still think it's a bad idea.

Edited to add: Proof is in the pudding.

@Seraphim73 said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

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

You just don't get to run them for yourself.

Why?

This is why. Italics added for emphasis.

@Sunny said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
You don't run something in which your character is the star, because that reduces the other people in the scene to spectators. It is bad staffing. It is bad storytelling. You are not writing a short story. You are not writing a novel. You are storytelling in a cooperative environment. People don't ref games AND play in them in the meat world. It's not because we can't trust the ref. It's because as a plot/story runner, you have OTHER things to PAY ATTENTION to.

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

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

I have also been advised (by the people that offered) that there were people involved in your most recent project that specifically offered to run things for you. So there's that.

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

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 do not think that you do understand my point, actually, because this has nothing to do with distrust. This has nothing to do with being responsible or not responsible. Your character can still be the main character in their own story, absolutely. You can still have storytelling time. You can still have a growth, and an arc, and get to do cool things.

You just don't get to run them for yourself. You don't run something in which your character is the star, because that reduces the other people in the scene to spectators. It is bad staffing. It is bad storytelling. You are not writing a short story. You are not writing a novel. You are storytelling in a cooperative environment. People don't ref games AND play in them in the meat world. It's not because we can't trust the ref. It's because as a plot/story runner, you have OTHER things to PAY ATTENTION to.

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

You can do what you want and accept the ooc consequences, or modify your behavior to preserve some ooc perceptions, but it's pretty unrealistic to do what you want and then be surprised or mad at people reacting to the perception you cultivated, you know?

This.

You might not like it, but it's reality. You can do what you want, but to then be surprised when it blows up in your face? Acting surprised and/or hurt? Nope. Nope, nope, nope.

@Auspice

Yes. Yes, yes. I would LOVE to see a 'storyteller's storyteller' sort of position on a game, in which their focus is primarily on running things for the folks who run things. As long as you had somebody looking out for that person, too. But really, that sort of thing would be ideal.

I've run things in which my PC was mentioned or they made a background appearance (particularly becomings and the like) because I was running for a friend. There's a wide margin between 'hey, X is here in the background' or 'X is doing this other thing off screen' and 'X is the star/focus of the plot'. If you're going to do it anyway, yeah, full disclosure is a must -- but I really do believe that if you're running a thing for other people, your own character doesn't need to be taking part. It's SUPER EASY to write a PC out for a completely believable reason. 'Oh, I'd love to go hunt the monster that attacked my little brother with you, but I have to take my sister to the hospital' or something else, whatever. If you can arrange for the events in the story to happen, that's just one more arrangement as an ST that you have to make. It's not hard. It's super easy. If you have to actively participate in a scene, for whatever reason, just find someone else to run it!

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

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?

I'm going to voice what other folks aren't saying here and say yes. You wait around. If the only way you can go forward with your character is by running a plot for yourself, then you should be going in a different direction. You can still have agency over your PC, you can still have your PC grow. As a staff storyteller, you simply should. not. run. something. in which your character is the star. Ever. If that means you don't get to be a star, then you need to look at what problems your game has that even staff cannot get personal storytelling attention.

1. Do you have enough STs?
2. Are people being rewarded in the right way for running plots?
3. Are you behaving in a fashion that discourages people from running for you, personally?
4. Are you creating an environment where people feel free and comfortable storytelling for each other?
5. Do you have a venue on the game in which everyone can ask for someone to run something?

If your game is set up so that nobody can get personal attention from ANY Storyteller, that's a problem. If you, as a staffer, cannot get someone to volunteer to run something for you? You. Have. A. Problem. Because if you, as a STAFFER, cannot find someone to run a plot arc that helps your PC grow, how much luck do you think your PLAYERS are having with the same thing?

Even when "just" a player, I don't run scenes / plot that involve my own character. In the example of Yolo, I would never approve that for anyone in the first place. If Fred wants to run it for Yolo, great, that's fine. If Yolo wants to run a plot where Fred's NPC family member is murdered, fine. Yolo running an actual plot about his own NPC family member isn't acceptable in the first place.

Edited to add: As a staffer OR as a player.

ETA again: Now, if Yolo is a HoH / faction head and it's a situation where while yes, the family member is their family member, and they're running the plot for OTHERS in the House and/or faction, and the entirety of the actual character's involvement in the storyline is 'investigate this, please, other family members' -- that's fine. Things on that level are fine.

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

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

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

Yolo is a Staffer on a game, and he also has a character. He is good about not having his character in scenes he runs, and he tries to make sure someone is always his back-up in major metaplot scenes where his character shows up so there's someone to GM his actions if necessary. He is also, while on his character, telling a pretty intense story about an NPC family member being murdered, and there's a handful of other characters participating. It's dynamic, has lots of character building stuff going on, and there's quite a few logs about it. Some other players think that Yolo is making it so his character is in the spotlight because his character is a pretty important character to this plot about the murdered family member.
Is he?

I think this goes back to what @Roz was saying about balance. If Yolo is trying to make sure his character isn't a major lynchpin in the metaplot, but has decided to run this story for his own character's development, is he balancing his role as a Staff with his role as a Player? Or should he have not run this story, because he is the main character of that particular storyline even if it he's running/telling the story as a Player and not a Staffer?

I've been give the impression that the example above is an example of a Staffer putting the spotlight on his character despite the story not having much or anything to do with the metaplot, and the story is being entirely run/told from the Player of the Character not the Staffer of the Game.

Additionally, is Yolo being an irresponsible Staffer because he decided to take his character and others through this story arc (about a murder in the family) instead of running this the story arc as a Staffer for someone else?

Is he running this story as a player-style storyteller, or is this part of the larger plot? I lean towards never being GM/storyteller in a story I'm also trying to be a player in. They're really two entirely different mindsets.

Player-style storyteller is my vision for this scenario. So the way any PC would run a storyline.

I do not think anyone should be part of a plot that they themselves are running, staff or player.

@GirlCalledBlu said in The 100: The Mush:

I adore being part of this community, but the impression I am getting here is that I am not a good Staffer, so there's that. I'm not going to turn into that person that people don't RP with or interact with because I made poor decisions, or thought I was doing a good job and I wasn't.

Hold up. Let me say something here very clearly, because I have put forth firmly worded negative opinions. You are not a bad staffer. You are an incredible storyteller, you have good intentions, you treat people with respect, and you're reasonable. I could probably think of a dozen other things that you excel at, where staffing is concerned.

As a headstaffer you have problems and issues and things to work on to get better, and some of them are pretty significant. They're things you can overcome, work through, and find solutions for. I would rather have a listening, learning person with a good soul than a competent person that is corrupt, by far. The concerns/issues/etc that are being brought up? There is absolutely nothing here that isn't a- normal, b- human, and important to you, I think, c- FIXABLE.

Don't stop doing projects because you weren't as good as you could be -- just get better. That's all. I think the reason people get so AUGH RAWR MUTTER ROAR in your case is that you are so, so close to being exactly what people are hoping to see in their game leads. So close. But the ways in which you are off are lessons that gotta be learned, they're not things a lot of folks are willing to compromise on.

@Seraphim73

What you say, no matter how many times you say it, no matter how loudly you say it, will never be as important as what you do.

@Miss-Demeanor

I second this. This is precisely the type of behavior that is problematic, that I think some outside oversight would help curb. This behavior is a problem, and it did happen precisely like that. Protesting that there was no desire for a leadership position WHILE TAKING ONE...actions are much louder than words.

@GirlCalledBlu said in The 100: The Mush:

@Sunny said in The 100: The Mush:

I think you're a lovely person, your husband as well, but I don't think either of you should ever, ever run a public game with just the two of you. You have no balancing factors, no one to reality check you, no one to bounce stuff off of. You provide an echo chamber for one another. Not always a problem with everyone who does these things by themselves in a pair, but in the case of the 100, you shut out and shut down a portion of your playerbase because of it, and y'all made some really, really bad decisions.

Fair enough, @Sunny.

You're right-- we do, do that.

Thank you for the constructive feedback.

You're welcome. I truly do hope you guys go on to do new projects -- just pull in a third / fourth person to play with you (ideally, someone good at administration) and you'd probably be golden. You tell great stories! And you really are nice people that I like.