Posts made by surreality

@Auspice I can't fit you all in my bathroom, that's why!

(Dorm flashback ahoy.)

Throwing my 'oh, gods, all of this, all of it' into the ring, in a hat. There isn't enough coffee in the world for this day or the reply this deserves.

It's a consistent problem, and one that seems to ebb and flow on any given issue. In some respects, it's not as bad as it has been. In others, it's much worse.

I'll expound on that if at all necessary once there's a respectable level of caffeine in my bloodstream.

Genuine question: does anyone think everyone agrees on who is or isn't an ethical staffer in almost every case? (Depressing to contemplate, but true.) Having seen the way people are picked apart for even potential bias...

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

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

Some of ya'll have never had to answer jobs about players wanting to know their relation ship status with NPC's they were TSing after a staffer quits and it shows.

Gross.

This, for the record, is the only appropriate answer:

@Wretched You are goddamned murder on this keyboard, mister.

@scar That's similar to 'active scene' vs. 'play by post' style scene -- which is something a lot more manageable than 'multiple active scenes'. I can usually handle, say, a scene in a gdoc and an active scene, since doc scenes are often sloooooooooooooooooooooow with the handful of people I've ever written them with. That sort of thing would never worry me, personally.

@Snackness It is worth mention that if you're aware someone is already doing something with a pile of other people... that might not be time to try to start a conversation with them and expect to have their attention focused on you. (I just ranted about this in the ADD thread, for instance.) I'm not saying you do this or ever have, just... this is the other side of that particular coin.

Barring the rarest of corner cases, I can't do multiple scenes at a time. So, uh. Yeah.

If someone I'm playing with is posing two lines every two hours because they're ten times more invested in something they're doing elsewhere, they're sure as shit not showing respect for my time (whether I'm doing other things or not, provided I'm keeping up promptly).

So, if you can keep up with a dozen scenes at once? Go for it! If you can't, know your fucking limits.

One of the most frustrating things for me is getting derailed. More accurately, it's frustrating to not be able to explain this to someone who doesn't experience it themselves.

This is especially problematic in MU, in which there's not always a clear indication[1] that I'm occupied and focused on something.

Over the years, I have often left channels to avoid this. I ask people to page later with a brief explanation why, if it's the first few times it's happening. I'll log out of messengers, go invisible, set do not disturb, etc. I've sometimes set notes about this in RP prefs in +finger, noting that if I'm in a scene, I want to focus on that and am not available for chatter/etc. outside of an emergency.

Interruptions are annoying for anyone[2], but they're pretty awful when you have finally managed to get in the right brain mode to focus and are enjoying yourself, and then... boom, someone's bullshit drama, random ramble, or 'it can wait but I give none fucks about your enjoyment or boundaries even though I know this is an issue for you' question sends the train of thought right off the tracks and into a ditch with no survivors.

Does this also frustrate the shit out of you? (When it's someone you've explained this problem to before, perhaps multiple times?)

How do you handle people who instantly get huffy, no matter how calmly and politely you explain the issue to them?

How do you explain this boundary to someone, and sustain it?

1. And yet, sometimes there is. If I'm in a scene or on grid, especially in a large scene or an event, I feel this is completely fucking obvious. As a simple matter of politeness to anyone, that does not seem like the time to pester someone about random shit.

2. ...and this is entirely aside from the 'nnngh, it's a major peeve when people feel entitled to your time and attention on whatever it is they want simply because they see you are probably not asleep right now'.

@Sparks One of the things with this that I think is quite relevant is that these are scenarios that are easy candidates for FTB.

I suspect that if these things were off-screen, or handled by rolls in an FTB, the issues would be negligible at best.

Where the trouble comes in is when players feel obligated to TS staffers to get ahead, or staffers feel obligated to write out an NPC spreading 'em for a player who asks or makes the right rolls. Both of these scenarios are nightmaretown.

@Auspice ...and omg the day 'staff duties' involve 'TS dispenser'/'efucks on demand', I am fucking something, all right: the hell out of this hobby, with speed.

Bluntly: the primary reason I am against staff-NPCs engaging in TS is not because I think sex and romance can't be important elements of a story.

It's because players should have equal access to the NPC (per whatever generic guidelines are in place, for instance, if it's a faction NPC, anyone in the faction can request a scene with them, etc.) re: whatever services/offers that NPC makes to players of their rank/status/affiliation/whatever.

Not real keen on the notion of people grousing that Joe got laid, so he shouldn't be denied some hawt staff-NPC TS, as Joe's equal whatever. That's a whole world of nope.

@bear_necessities Hey now, don't discount the magic vajayjay! Actually, do. Discount it completely. It doesn't exist.

@bear_necessities I suppose it depends on how good at it you are. <rimshot>

Depends entirely on the game and its various structures (policy, setting, RPG system).

I can only speak for HMu at the moment. I'm wiki staff, but have pitched in with some other things in the past.

1. We don't get much more information as non-headstaff about the story than the players do. Many things are brainstormed openly in the OOC room in front of anyone present, with players contributing ideas as the conversation goes along. (Have indeed seen instances of player input from these random conversations being used, too! Which is awesome.) Chat on staff channel re: story is notably rare, and is often the same things that are mentioned in public areas. (We don't seem to need the channel often at all, truth be told.)

2. Players are all allowed one or more NPCs, statted, per story (thus far; it's possible that we may do something without any at some point, most stories have allowed three) free and default. Every player gets the same options here.

These two elements are not things I'd consider typical of other games I've staffed on over the years, in whatever capacity I've been working. (I've done everything from building to job-monkeying to headwizzing to just wiki to TL stuff, etc. over the ages.)

'Staff NPCs' are typically run by the headwiz only; there's only one case I can think of in which another staffer ran a scene with one to help out with workload, and the rundown of the scene and how it should play out was laid out in general terms for them. These NPCs are either monsters to smite (or run away screaming from), or quest vendor/info dispenser authority figures. They aren't 'my pet NPC', which is great.

The only issue we've really had is that with so many NPCs, we have to keep an eye on what people are making with them to avoid taking roles or positions that players would want to occupy, and this is thankfully rare. Usually, all it takes is a reminder that they are meant to be support characters, and not 'the bestest <jerbtitle> ever', etc. as the more high-profile slots should be offered first to the PCs in play.

Is this a great model? Yes, with the current staff and current playerbase -- which is yet another variable to be considered.

If people weren't reasonable, weren't generally on good terms with one another, and didn't care about the well-being of the game or the fun of others, this would not work. But, then, if and when you have those things, most things will likely work out just fine.

@faraday The sad bit is, many of the folks I have staffed for would consider that a horribly unreasonable perk -- and that staff should instead wait for players to choose what they want before being allowed to choose for themselves, and give the role up to a player if at any point a player expresses interest. We see a lot of folks clamoring for staff to not even be permitted to play on the game at all with some regularity, still, for instance, so this isn't as extreme as it may sound.

I'm not sure where I stand on perks. In a lot of ways, it depends on the perk. Also, I don't inherently agree with the the examples listed. (Example: Only in very few cases have I ever had an ability to run NPCs in a way that players were not also permitted to do so, and I don't recall ever using this permission when I had it.)

Faraday is also spot-on re: entitlement. Odds are high that even if there is a perk I could get, I'd probably turn it down due to the inevitable drama. (Likely, only to get accused of benefiting from it anyway, which leads me to not want them to exist.)

This is because people don't see the work. They don't understand that it's work, or don't grasp how long it takes, etc. Even some fellow staffers don't necessarily recognize it, and think it's some instant magical power rather than the slow, pick-everything-apart line-by-line debugging process it actually is, and that you can't typically just glance at someone and know what's wrong and how to fix it.

I never played on one of your games, or encountered you anywhere but here, for what it's worth, so I can't say "I know how it was".

I can say that if you're sincere, and you're making this change, you really will be much happier for it in the long run, even if it's hard now. Awkward and tense as things may be for a while, that's something worth holding on to.

No snark, good luck to you on this path. Will keep my fingers crossed for you, 'cause this stuff is hard.

This is one of those issues that, I will admit, causes a hint of cringe whenever it comes up. Not because I don't care about where my food comes from, what it does to the environment, or if something lived a horrible life only to have it end on my plate, but because this is such a first world problem sort of conversation, and a number of folks I know (and I've been there myself) are simply not in a financial position to consider anything more than 'how am I going to get food today', with a hope toward it covering their nutritional needs, less worrying about what that food is, and forget about where it came from or its carbon footprint.

While this isn't the thrust of the conversation, it's important to recognize that these choices are frequently a notable privilege. This may be income-based, but also based on location, and that location (not surprisingly) often leaves low-income and/or primarily PoC neighborhoods with precious few options. It's not a joke that bringing fresh produce to neighborhoods that don't have a local grocery that otherwise carries them has had to become a thing (a great thing that people are doing it, but a horrible one that they have to).

We're glad to have a local farmer's market, but it's not year-round, for instance, because we have actual winter here and they source everything not from the immediate area, but from a radius of about 200 miles. (Which counts as 'local' so far as I'm concerned; if we were a larger state this could easily be 'from within the state', but we're a runty state, so it's not.) Make no mistake, though: these are definitely 'splurge' purchases for us, because they're more expensive than the grocery store. The quality is worth it, but the money isn't always there. (There's a reason we have a big happy celebratory day when they open since we can get our fresh breakfast cheese, for instance -- it's a big deal to us, and they're cool enough to let us buy a bulk pack we can nom on through the week, which lets it work out to be a little less ouch.)

We're similarly thrilled to pick up things from the 'right from this very farm'-operated produce stands when we do a daytrip, but again, doing that daytrip is an expense we can't always work into the budget. Again, this is seasonal availability. Those stands are up when they've done their harvest, period, and at no other time.

For people on a very tight budget, Trader Joe's has some decent options. For this area, they're decent on fresh produce, even if the selection is on the small side at our local store (which is tiny, and we just have the one). That selection is somewhat seasonal, too, though.

Anyway... it's important to remember that for some folks, the ability to consider these things at all is a luxury. In a more perfect world, we'd be looking less at fancy meat substitutes that will cost a pile of cash to feel better that a beastie hasn't suffered to get it to the plate, but at safe, healthy, fresh food (of any kind) that is available to all inexpensively, and work from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. If that's a wonder grain, awesome. If it's artificial meat, awesome. If it's a superveggie, awesome. If it's algae, awesome. Don't even care.

There are a lot more people struggling that need a good staple they can rely on than there are people who can fork out (pun not intended) for a $100 burger made from artificial meat.

@Ghost You can't say that and not share the list, man. You know how this works.