Being a Leader IG Means Being a Role-Model OOG

Traceroo

Traceroo

Prodigy
Hey Guys,

Really interesting new policy announcement from Alliance Seattle provides some tasty food for thought:

http://alliancelarp.com/forum/threads/alliance-seattle-pc-leadership-agreement.27684/#post-234940

Personally, I'm a big believer that holding a position of leadership within the game (of any type -- not just Acarthian noble titles) obligates those players to be good role-models at the least, and contributors out-of-character. Players will take their cues of behavior from the in-game leaders -- not just following the Code of Chivalry or whatever -- but with the really important stuff in the game: good sportsmanship, inclusiveness of more players, welcoming our new players, giving others a hand up, and making this a supportive environment and amazing gaming experience for us all.

In short, "With great power comes great responsibility." :)

What do you guys think of this?

Trace Moriarty
 
Trace and I were talking about this in gchat.

It mirrors the Vampire style larps too. Taking a position, like a Primogen (Clan Head), Prince or Bishop (City Head), is a level of responsibility. You need to show up to games, and you need to take care of your local group. For good or for ill the idea is to get people involved, and have an eye on taking care of making the game good overall. I've seen for years, people with that in mind make a game VERY good, and people who don't give a (Bleep) cause games (or clans, groups) to fail and not be good for game.

Seattle is requiring this, and I've required this before for vampire games I've run. Mostly unwritten rule. But even unspoken, it's the right thing to do for the health of a game in my mind. It's really rewarding too as a player to see the game flourish due to taking an active role like this.

Excellent food for thought for sure.

*Caveat: In the vampire games, PVP is encouraged throughout all of this - while keeping people involved, so this can even work in a PVP-Red-Flagged envrionment.
 
Last edited:
A couple of the points are alright- be responsible to the people you lead, be a good example, be present etc etc- but I dont at all like the tone of the article, it seems condescending.
 
I have taken an interest in your taking an interest! :D

I appreciate the sentiments expressed. We don't want to seem condescending, though. We were going for "official and codified, but fluid and open to change as required". Do you have any ideas on how we could improve the post to not seem condescending?
 
I dont think I really have a helpful answer to that.

The problem with Codified standards of conduct is that's their nature inherently I guess- 'You will behave this way because it is best and someone decided this. ' And I think part of the impression also stems from the fact that its ascribeing this ooc code, to people in particular IC circumstances, in a broad stroke manner, wich seems inherently wrong to me. The two should remain separate as possible for multple reasons. From the get-go though, one would hope that noone ends up in a position of power for long, if at all, if they're not healthy for the game (as per the favorable points of the article) rather than haveing these things needing to be laid down and said... wich invites its own inherent problems when people go looking for loopholes, or getting defensive when they think they are following said code, but others someday call them on not doing so... will people whiteknight them regardless or will the system stand? Thats dependant on a lot of things we cant predict.

But I think its mostly ascribeing an ooc code of contduct to IC positions. How are they even getting there as players if they are unhealthy for the game? How are they even staying there if they are behaving in a way In-character incondusive to their rank? (<-- this is why pvp is not automatically toxic as the article infers. In character freedom to remove problem characters should be a realizable part of the game. Always... though really any single character doing anything that impacts another character in a way they dont like is technically pvp... weather its actually illegal, or immoral, you are caught as the source, the favor is returned and what kind of escalation there is, is something else...). This in mind, it seems like a writtein code is uncessary
 
Last edited:
Whereas I'm a believer that, "Good neighbors make good fences." When you establish upfront what the expectations are, clearly and explicitly, there's no confusion later... Of course, I work in contract law for a living, so there's that.

Trace
 
Now I did glance at the article earlier this morning. I'm of the mindset that we don't all follow it to the letter. We add a community help Jesse the best we can in his absence for the betterment of the chapter. As we all have our own strengths when it comes to Con support we aren't asked to put on a face that we naturally don't have. So with that we as a chapter follow a different set on codes.
 
Over all I do like the message and I feel to a large extent we already do much of that in this chapter. Our IG leaders tend to step up for the good of the game and be concerned with inclusion and participation.
 
Maybe it's the culture of where I come from, but I actually don't agree with tying IG and OOG service. I think if your character wants to be an IG leader then be a leader. That should have little to no baring to them OOG.

As for OOG, I hope that our culture is good enough that everyone steps up and helps out in whatever way they can to make it better. This goes for people with IG titles and those that don't have them.
 
I have mixed feelings on this post.
Every club I have ever participated in has had some kind of Code of Conduct outlined so as to explain the expected and desired interactions out of game between players and players to staff. These are generally established and codified to give them weight and make them enforceable should there be breaches of etiquette and decorum. But these were base expectations for all members.

Not all players are great members. Not all members make great players. To place a greater onus of responsibility on a member, who through the course of paying their fees and attend game have acquired a position of responsibility or title in the game, I feel is unfair. If you wish to promote a culture of openness, respect and support among the player base, then set it as the expectation for all players, not just those who hold an IG (in game) position or title, because at any point any member has the potential of attaining an IG position or title. If someone with an IG title is being abusive in game and it falls outside the scope of their character portrayal or is a detriment to game, Plot should speak to that player about adjusting their IG interactions to reflect the desired tenor of the game and the perception of the title. If a player with an IG position or title is being abusive OG (out of game), then it would fall to Plot or their designated representative to discuss the base level of expectations for all players and how they need to adjust their behaviors in order to not create OG drama and conflict.

Take it a step further, if a player with an IG position or title, who due to conflicts with real life, no longer has the time or ability to participate at the desired level expected by Plot, then an OG conversation should be had with the player about either stepping down from the title (if possible) to make it accessible for a more active player or create a viable alternative so that it does not become a detriment to the tenor of the game. But, if Plot has a desired or expected level of participation for those attaining or claiming an IG position or title, then it should really be stated up front so that there are no surprises down the road for a player who has stepped into this aspect of game play. But this is a matter of active participation IG and at events, not OG and between events.

One set of expectations and requirements for all players.

Now that said, as I started this response, I have mixed feelings. Every game I play, it is my desire to promote the game and my fellow players not only through my individual game play but also by being supportive behind the scenes. It should be the desire of all players, through their course of their own experience and participation to look for how they can contribute to the success of the game they are investing in and how they may support their fellow players. This doesn't mean that in general players have to go out of their way to sacrifice their own enjoyment, but be mindful of how they play and the impact it may have on another player or the group as a whole. This doesn't require an IG title. It just falls to the principles of good sportsmanship and community fellowship.

Okay, I think I need to get back to work. Namaste.
 
Well said :)
I agree with the statement wholeheartedly :)

Related but slight tangent...the portion of the statement quoted below is specifically why Clan Ironbeard stepped down from the Warchester Barony; due to circumstances outside the game we simply were not going to be able to participate at a level needed to maintain a presence for a Baron and his court so we spoke with Jesse and mutually agreed upon how we wanted to handle that situation :) Anyway, off to catch up on some more posts :)

perdition.bound said:
Take it a step further, if a player with an IG position or title, who due to conflicts with real life, no longer has the time or ability to participate at the desired level expected by Plot, then an OG conversation should be had with the player about either stepping down from the title (if possible) to make it accessible for a more active player or create a viable alternative so that it does not become a detriment to the tenor of the game. But, if Plot has a desired or expected level of participation for those attaining or claiming an IG position or title, then it should really be stated up front so that there are no surprises down the road for a player who has stepped into this aspect of game play. But this is a matter of active participation IG and at events, not OG and between events.
Click to expand...
 
I really can't support tying in-game service to out-of-game service. Currently, OOG service is rewarded with Goblin Stamps, which is an appropriate incentive. It allows characters with all sorts of ambitions to advance their agendas through OOG service, without singling out those whose ambitions are political. It also prevents metagaming, which is really important, PARTICULARLY in matters of great in-game power.

If you say that people who have political power in game should be active out of game, whether you mean to or not, you're also creating an atmosphere where people who are active out of game are stronger candidates for political power in. A=B, B=A. I could spend 20 hours a week helping out, and that wouldn't make Peat suitable for a Barony. :) Players aren't suited to roles within game; characters are. I think it's really important to maintain the integrity of that.
 
I strongly believe that IG leaders need to create an environment that is welcoming to the other players, but especially new players. A position of leadership should be used to help get people involved in the game and facilitate fun. Even if a character hates another character you can have things that happen which are negative or dangerous for the character, but for the player are fun and awesome. For example, if a new player mouths off to a Baron and is disrespectful, the Baron could send the character on a "dangerous mission" to pay penance. This allows the PLAYER to have fun and be included in the game, while the character has consequences for their actions. Team building, inclusiveness, and fair-play are the hallmarks of a good PC leader in my opinion.

I agree with the other commentators that the absolute minimum for a leader PC is to attend game regularly, in that regard it is a responsibility. I also agree that OOG support for the organization should be rewarded with Goblin or Dragon Stamps, and even more than that is rewarded through the respect of your fellow players for building something that we all love. The way characters are portrayed in game should be the primary determination for a leadership position, but at the same time those players should have the responsibility to engage in "positive metagaming" to allow the game to be welcoming.
 
I'd vote for Peat taking political office. Then again, I think she'd back Lagarde's agenda. Just sayin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top