|  | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:45 pm |  |
Leadership isn't all just based on rank. It still needs to be earned. So, that actually makes a character coming in with 2 RPP at corporal rank even more awkward.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 2:30 pm | |
Rather than letting the +20/+10 (?) be corporal rank, I think it'd be better for it to just apply to like some artisan level, or something-- like, 'You've spent enough of your life working at <x> to be considered an expert.'
Coded implications for corporal rank are just collecting from the one turf establishment that pays out solid amounts of cash, right-- or can privates do that anyway, I don't remember? Privates can do general turf quests, at any rate.
The RP difference between private and corporal is kind of big, though. Aside from the leader and sergeants, the next step down should be expected to be able to take over in the event the upper ranks are wiped out or indisposed (which is unlikely in this atmosphere, but still). That means people shouldn't mind taking orders or suggestions from them.
I feel that's kind of hard to RP, especially this early on when people are apping into different families than they were previously in after retiring/dying. It's not as good as being able to track your character's progress by earning it in game, and takes up slots if there are limited ones.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
Bangbang
Registered
Sockpuppet
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 3:02 pm | |
Tepes:
The original reply doesn't strike me as helpful, only focusing on a third of what I'm asking about.
Bartleby:
I'd absolutely love to see that, honestly. Something I'd also love to see(that existed in another game) would be a background/research command: You type up a background, and it stays hidden, but anyone can access it if they type up 'research PCname,' thus getting info on you that would be generally ICly available.
Or a wiki might help.
Imany/Rome/Tepes/Starsignal/Bartleby:
There's an issue here: RPP has always been intertwined here with leadership. What I am saying here is that the role--if you read the way it's written--contains in it inherent aspects of leadership within the Family structure.
| Quote: |
You have proven your worth and loyalty several times over and can be trusted with difficult or secretive matters. You are likely authorized to lead hunting and scavenging trips or manage one of the Family's businesses, and the newer members might come to you with their problems, requests and suggestions.
|
What I'm getting from the dialogue, though, is that players don't actually care for that part of the role, or to interact/play with it: Rome/Tepes/Edgeworth -seem- to be saying that this part of the role is difficult and/or unfun to play with, maybe? I'm not certain. I'm trying to open up a dialogue here and understand. Could you three clarify your general opinion/understand?
Bartleby/Imany: could you do likewise? I'm trying to understand how people play generally, because it doesn't -seem- to be in line with how the role's described, both in how players app in and in how people IG accept them apping in.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 3:42 pm | |
I'd really much rather have leadership positions tied to 'live' character accomplishments, I guess.
Probably, one solution would be for corporal to have a cost instead of a minimum RPP, maybe like 1 RPP cost after having at least 2, or the boosts shouldn't come with anything over private rank. Since there's no cost for apping in like that, there's no mechanical reason not to.
I don't know how it is outside the family I play in. Personal experience, though: I have one corporal in mind who my PC basically has no respect for, but says very little about it because of the assumption that corporal earned it doing /something/. I suppose in some families that position may have arisen due to nepotism or some misunderstanding of a deed. And it's certainly RP-able. (And also pretty fun RP, actually. Not complaining.) But maybe not really what I'd personally want multiple versions of.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 3:58 pm | |
Corruption? In my rank structure!?
Honestly, though, the largest problem I have with RPP buying higher ranks is then that I have to pretend that I know the person without really having any knowledge of them. It was mentioned earlier about having some sort of either OOC backgrounds board somewhere or a research command. I'd really get behind that- though I'd suggest instead of having it show your full background that there be a way to set a 'mini background' that might not spill out all of your juicy details. I actually sent something like this into the leader of a clan when I apped, though I was only the 1RPP role.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
HAL
Administrator
Senior RPA
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 4:33 pm | |
Private Background & a Public Background.
research <name> to get the public background.
Would be an interesting feature. Tragically, no coder otherwise that might work rather well.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
HAL
Administrator
Senior RPA
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 4:34 pm | |
Adding, if such things as corporal app-ins become a problem, they can be removed. Considering some of the leadership troubles some clans are having, though, it is handy for someone to app in to fix things.
An NPC "council" could do the same thing, but with more involvement.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 5:37 pm | |
| Bangbang wrote: |
| Bartleby/Imany: could you do likewise? I'm trying to understand how people play generally, because it doesn't -seem- to be in line with how the role's described, both in how players app in and in how people IG accept them apping in. |
The way the question is structured makes it really difficult for me to tell exactly what's being asked. :X If the following isn't what you're looking for, maybe you could rephrase?
My feeling about buying a leadership role with RPP is essentially that it should be given the benefit of the doubt initially with each newly bought PC because it can work brilliantly. It doesn't always, and if people step outside the boundaries of the role, then ICly the top level leadership have plenty of reason and obligation to strip the offending PC of their leadership status.
That said, the ultimate meaning of leadership within the context of Rust and the Family structure (almost regardless of clan) is to be working for the benefit of the Family one belongs to and to be setting an example for other PCs to follow about how a member of that Family should behave. There is potentially a lot that the player of a new Corporal is going to need to know in order to be sufficiently able to play that PC as working for the benefit of their Family, since the ultimate arbiter of "benefit" is the existing clan lead, according to their own preference for how things should get done, and there may be any number of on-going IC issues on which the Family has taken a particular stance.
How to inform/indoctrinate/induct new characters into a clan is always a question that has to be answered by clan leadership. It's awkward, but hopefully we can work out a way to make it less so, here.
My personal interpretation of what "working for the benefit of the Family" means is pretty simple: most PCs (and let's face, it most players) are mostly out for themselves -- a promotion, better gear, sex god rep, whatever. The PCs you trust and give authority to are the ones who seem to actually care about the Family as opposed to just themselves, and this is a viewpoint and behavior that it's completely fair to demand from an RPP app-in, even if the player doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground as far as how things are done in that Family specifically. If they ICly have some reason to not be up to the task, then you deal with their problem ICly.
SOME of the complaints about people apping into ranks higher than one's own PC seem a little bit like personal resentment that their own PC isn't a higher rank than they are, to be honest. Yes, absolutely, it's completely possible that someone can app into a Corporal role and proceed to be a totally OOC douchebag, and it's murder when you're having to play a Private under them, who is obligated to respond ICly to a situation that totally doesn't make sense and isn't fair. I feel for people in that situation, and I think that it's a clan lead's obligation to be accessible for people to express concerns like that.
If you're desperately afraid of being bullied by someone who app'd in with RPP, you should talk to your clan lead about it. If you can't talk to your clan lead about it, either one of two things is true: a) your clan lead doesn't have your back, in which case try talking to the staff or b) your clan lead doesn't agree with your assessment of the situation because you're being paranoid, in which case cool your heels and wait and see how the situation pans out.
It's been my experience that douchebags come and go, sometimes they'll have power over you and sometimes it'll be unfair. But if you're patient, that will clear itself right up, given enough time. Stuff sorts itself out, it really does. Patience is like the most devastatingly powerful virtue on an RPI, because most people don't have it. It can really take you almost anywhere. 
| HAL wrote: |
| Private Background & a Public Background. |
I would be totally for this, provided the staff had oversight, for two reasons. One, to eliminate all the million "JOE IZZ SO BADASS ALL THE LADIES SAY YEAH" public backgrounds, and two, to make sure that the level of detail mentioned in each background roughly corresponds to the level of notoriety of the PC in question.
| HAL wrote: |
| Adding, if such things as corporal app-ins become a problem, they can be removed. Considering some of the leadership troubles some clans are having, though, it is handy for someone to app in to fix things. |
Obviously if they become an actual problem in someone else's neck of the woods I wouldn't explode if they were removed. Restricting RPP roles to Private probably wouldn't be problematic.
But personally my experience with clan leadership started on SOI in a clan that was RPP-restricted, meaning it could only be joined through RP (which did happen, even one particularly memorable time with a completely new player to the game), or through RPP app-in. I'm in favor of 0RPP roles on PRPI because the Families should be accessible to all, given how much more difficult it is to be an indie, and to have somewhere for new players to get their feet wet with a lot of support, BUT I have always felt like 0RPP roles were more troublesome than 2RPP roles.
Even though a 0RPP character has no ostensible authority, a player with no regard for the setting or the clan can whirl around in a torrent of destruction you as their clanmates then have to clean up and explain. It can really upset the balance of clan culture, and relations with other clans, clan rep, etc. And it can be really difficult to know how to treat them, because you can't really expect them to know any better -- for all you know, their player might not.
At least with a 2RPP character, if it all goes horribly wrong, they were bound by a certain level of commitment and promise of responsibility that leaves a clan lead well within their rights to bust heads over. They can't say they didn't know what they were getting into, or what was expected of them.
From the point of view of a clan lead, it's hard because you need a lot more information about what's making them tick than you probably have, and you need to explain to them your expectations before smacking them down, but in the end, you have all the power. You can and should remove their authority if they abuse it.
Really the big problem is how to make the huge exchange of information -- the new Corporal needs to know how the Captain wants the clan run, what the rules are, and what's going on ICly, and the Captain (and everybody else) needs to know who the Corporal is and what they've been doing all this time. That isn't easy, and needs some kind of infrastructure to make it go smoothly.
Everything else, IMO, should be dealt with ICly, up to the point at which behavior is OOCly abusive, at which point it should be put a stop to by clan leads or staff.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| I would prefer not to. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
Bangbang
Registered
Sockpuppet
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 5:56 pm | |
Bartleby: you answered my question, yes. What do players(specifically you, since you're offering up an opinion) want to give/have when it comes to 'leadership' positions apping in.
RE: "I don't like people apping in above me," I think that has been a legitimate concern in the past(see SoI), but isn't one now.
HAL: How about a wiki with PCs on it?
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 5:57 pm | |
Just a bit of advice... I think when threads get to the point where they become continual huge walls of non stop text, many people stop paying attention, or just skim here and there.
You long posters may have a bit more success if you consolidate your points a bit more.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
