@Runescryer said in Modiphius Games:
@GamerNGeek Player running the scene acts as the GM for spending the negative points to preserve the mechanical flow.
Though this doesn't work for scenes that aren't "run".
@Runescryer said in Modiphius Games:
@GamerNGeek Player running the scene acts as the GM for spending the negative points to preserve the mechanical flow.
Though this doesn't work for scenes that aren't "run".
@Tinuviel said in How To Treat Your Players Right:
@Thenomain There is one remaining thing that bothers me regarding this conversation, however.
"Right Wing"? Really?
I was wondering when you'd comment on that.
I saw you saying, "Tell me what I'm saying so I can take the high ground telling you that you're wrong and make you look like an idiot." Total Right-Wing Playbook stuff right now, tho it's not limited to any one group.
Sorry. ... Kind of.
@Tinuviel said in How To Treat Your Players Right:
I am, perhaps, too used to dealing with inept staff that just outright ignore complaints (on the rare occasions I make them). So I apologise for my... less than professional approach.
I empathize, which is why I'm focusing more than I usually would. Expecting shitty staff has made me paranoid when staff has behaved like shitty staff does. It's a false analogy, just because staff says they don't care about my problems doesn't mean they don't want to solve problems. Just not those problems.
Too many WoD games have pissed in the soup, and it makes people like us touchy, but to be trusted you must also trust.
"if we don't see problems stopping at all when complaints are made, why should we complain?"
This is an actual Begging The Question. You've given 'we must see the problems stopping' (and all of your examples have been them stopping right away) as the solution to the question of "why should we ask?"
Faraday's Answer: Ask staff. Also, not my problem.
Ganymede's Answer: Ask staff. Also, Dadaism.
Thenomain's Answer: Be more patient. Also possibly, ask staff.
If people don't trust staff enough to ask, that's a problem that has no real solution. I've been thanked by players for not publicizing a problem.
But it comes down to: You cannot expect anyone to be psychic. Even I, with my unusual belief that I should try harder to know what's going on in my own game, have to rely on people to approach me if they want my help.
If this isn't good enough for you, I personally don't see why it's not good enough for you.
@Tinuviel said in How To Treat Your Players Right:
@Thenomain said in How To Treat Your Players Right:
@Tinuviel said in How To Treat Your Players Right:
@Thenomain said in How To Treat Your Players Right:
I do not think your concept of "appropriate" is appropriate. Neither does Ganymede or Faraday.
Then what is my concept of appropriate?
I'm not interested in playing this game. Defend your thesis or not, but I won't respond to this Right-Wing Playbook nonsense.
What's so difficult to understand about the concept "we want to see that our complaints are actually listened to and the problem to stop" followed by "if we don't see problems stopping at all when complaints are made, why should we complain?"
The problem isn't the understanding. It's not difficult to understand. All three of us have shown that we understand. What we don't is agree with the conclusion as a solution to the problem.
@Tinuviel said in How To Treat Your Players Right:
@Thenomain said in How To Treat Your Players Right:
I do not think your concept of "appropriate" is appropriate. Neither does Ganymede or Faraday.
Then what is my concept of appropriate?
I'm not interested in playing this game. Defend your thesis or not, but I won't respond to this Right-Wing Playbook nonsense.
@faraday said in How To Treat Your Players Right:
If everyone is going to throw up their hands and say "Well he wasn't banned after one complaint, why even bother?" That is not my problem.
Some of the best players are the least tolerant toward bullshit, and if you're losing the players you want to keep then you better damn well pay attention even if people aren't coming to you.
That is, sometimes you have to make things your problem. It's like any code that even if it works does not work the way you want. That's why you write unit tests. That's why you listen to user experiences.
--
@Tinuviel said in How To Treat Your Players Right:
@Thenomain My thesis, to borrow your term, is that some assurance needs to be obviously made that complaints will be handled appropriately.
I do not think your concept of "appropriate" is appropriate. Neither does Ganymede or Faraday. So how do you deal with the universe when it does not work the way you want?
@Tinuviel said in How To Treat Your Players Right:
I was talking primarily about appearances
And you appear to be argumentative for no reason.
Or it would be better to say: You appear to me to be argumentative for no reason.
If your thesis is that staff is responsible for the court of public opinion, I counter that people are going to believe what they want even when it's not reasonable to do so.
There is no 100% responsibility here. Because there is no clear answer. Looking for one is exacerbating the problem by putting up unreasonable expectations.
@Tinuviel said in How To Treat Your Players Right:
@Ganymede That's cute, but doesn't at all relate to what I said.
I disagree with you.
You disagree on Ganymede's style, fine, but I don't think players have the inalienable right to complete transparency. You can't make anyone do anything except not log in. And sometimes that's a game of whack-a-mole.
Sometimes I wonder if you've even tried to run a game, dude.
--
edit: The conceit of Gany's example was someone not involved in the complaint paging staff asking about it.
@faraday said in How To Treat Your Players Right:
@Tinuviel said in How To Treat Your Players Right:
"Hey dude, apparently you're being a dick. Stop being a dick." It's not difficult.
Uh huh. And when they say, "What, me? I'm not being a dick. What are you even talking about?" Then what?
You inform them that they are on your radar and hope for the best. What else can you do but hope for the best? Even banning is hoping for the best that you did the right thing.
And then if it happens a second time, you've gone from "suspicion" to "pattern". Addressed earlier:
@Thenomain said in How To Treat Your Players Right:
People who are that devious will eventually cause a pattern
At this point you can press them harder. Sure you can press them harder earlier, but at a much higher risk of being outright wrong.
Sometimes it's worth the risk. Sometimes it's not. You have your style. I have mine. About the only people I trust to get it right the first time almost every time are @Ganymede and @EmmahSue.
@Tinuviel said in How To Treat Your Players Right:
@faraday said in How To Treat Your Players Right:
If all I'm getting is vague reports of "Bob is harassing Susie and Janey" and Susie won't tell me anything's wrong and Janey isn't even on the game any more, I'm not going to take action.
"Hey dude, apparently you're being a dick. Stop being a dick." It's not difficult.
Me: "Are you being a dick to Susie and Janey? Because I heard you were and I don't like the sound of it if it's true."
Bob: "But! But!"
Me: "If it's not true, I apologize for stressing you out, but I have to look into this. I hope you understand."
@faraday said in How To Treat Your Players Right:
if you need to resort to page-blocking someone, there's a problem and I would prefer to know about it as staff
Except that in the human condition, the word "need" in social situations is highly subjective. If we all had the same understanding of what actions are actionable, we...wouldn't be humans, really.
I'm not being pedantic, either. This is not an infamous "It Depends". The fact that people will pagelock/gag/shun Susie for What Susie Said About Bob is a challenge that absolutely ties into this topic.
@Ganymede said in Modiphius Games:
@Thenomain said in Modiphius Games:
You have a problem.
I have many problems. I don't suppose you'd be more specific?
We can add "inability to understand concepts through context" to that list.
News continues to trickle out about Good Omens.
Who's excited?
Smaller list: Who's not excited?
@Ganymede said in Modiphius Games:
In your collective opinion, how well would the Modiphius system work on a MUSH?
You have a problem.
A lot of posters are going into minutiae as if people are generally that devious. They are not. If you talk to someone about what they did, they generally will be honest about it, even if it’s because what they feel they did is not bad and they’re defending it. This makes it easy to tackle the problem head-on.
People who are that devious will eventually cause a pattern, especially if people keep reporting them to staff. I was once stuck in a situation where I had to say “we know and are keeping an eye on things” which does not inspire confidence but once we did act, people were quite grateful.
There was a time when I was headstaffing The Reach when someone told me that people he knew were being severely harassed. I asked him to let them know to come to me and none of them would.
I felt like shit about it. I would've taken the slightest clue, the least amount of information, and maybe I should have on pure rumor alone but it's hard to come to someone and say, "I hear you're being a dick to some people." Because if I'm asked what I mean, I couldn't say. In retrospect I could've ended with "I have my eye on you", but I was too desperate to give this ass the boot.
Hell, @EmmahSue and I came up with a pretty conclusive list of what we would do, but it wasn't enough. We weren't enough. We didn't have the time to be there all the time, and so we had to trust our staff.
And if you, the reader, didn't already know, most Reach staff wasn't trustworthy.
I still feel like shit about it because I've always believed that if you don't treat your good players well, if you don't foster trust, you will never get it or them back.