[Proposal] A New Approach To Managing Status

[Xyld]

The Status merit has changed in the Chronicles of Darkness rule set. Now, it gives access to a wide variety of items and services in addition to what it granted before. The benefits reaped from Status can also be changed periodically to make sure the character gets what they want when they need it. This is an overall improvement, making the merit significantly better, more versatile and more attractive than it had been before. I would like to propose an alternate way to approach this merit, to modify it to better serve the online community here better, to open up new and overlooked avenues of participation, to accentuate the setting and to advance the ideal of fairness. My proposal may be lengthy, but please bear with me.

The Rule as Written

At the end of the Status Merit, there is a part that is buried after all of the benefits granted - "Drawback: Status requires duties and often regular upkeep. If these duties are not upheld, Status may be lost. The dots will not be accessible until the character re-establishes her standing.

By RAW, all members of a group, even the least-significant, are expected to contribute to the group's larger goals, even if it is in a small way, to reap benefits of being part of that group. Inactivity of players in leadership positions has been recognized as a chronic problem and has been formally addressed by the staff - if a PC is going to invest in Status, the player either has to be involved or inform everyone in advance when they will be unavailable. That ruling is not in dispute, but I think it falls short of fulfilling its potential.

Reflecting the Setting

The region is at war. Other cities and areas are having problems of their own, so the supernatural community of Portland is on its own. As a result, the major factions have been forced to do the unthinkable - swallow their collective pride to work together or face elimination one group at a time.

With whatever (narrative) losses incurred before the game begins AND supply lines to other regions questionable at best, it makes sense from a storytelling perspective that there would be hard limits to what each faction and their sub-groups have available on hand for their members. Simply said - resources are strained when you're at war and even worse when you’re losing. Because of this, PCs should be asked to step up more than ever by actively making tangible, measurable contributions to their factions. Taxing, tithing, earning one’s keep… whatever people want to call it, the goal is clear - everyone contributes somehow because everyone knows the stakes are high and there are very real consequences for failure.

Part 1 - Maintaining Status

To maintain one’s status and to gain access to those assets granted by the merit, PCs must invest some part of their character toward the groups that they belong to. This could be in the form of monetary support, material support, or in the form of services that align with the group’s goals or membership.

Monetary Support - a character devotes one (or more) dot of Resources to help fund the group, lowering his/her dots available for a month for personal use. It doesn’t come any easier than this.

Material Support - a character donates useful items that can normally be bought or traded. This includes a wide variety of things. For sake of argument, almost anything that can be bought with XP yields the same amount of advancement/maintenance - magic items (Artifacts, Grimoires, Relics), real estate (Safe Place, Hallows, etc), Alternate Identities, Libraries, etc. Donated items that have been bought by a PC are covered by the Sanctity of Merits rule; items that have not been paid for with XP are not.

Mundane, mass-produced items yield two dots less than it would normally cost, representing the “wholesale” price of the item. Items that are not in pristine shape subtract an additional dot from value. One-of-a-kind, or highly-modified items (items that are in essence “superior”), yield only one dot less than it would normally cost. Because of a great number of variables that can be argued, ultimately the staff has to have a final say on the true value of material items that don't have XP numbers attached to them.

Training - A player must request training through the group and another member of that group can fill that request by stepping forward to offer his or her expertise in training. By devoting a scene for training in game per month, the teacher earns one credit toward maintaining his/her Status; the pupil earns in game justification for advancement. This is essentially an aspect of the Mentor merit. The teacher has to have at least three levels of a skill, possess the power or the merit being trained. No further cost for training is levied.

Running Missions - PCs can volunteer for missions that come from top leadership. These missions have specific goals that fall outside or go beyond the basic expectations that the character already is supposed to fulfill as part of their Status rank. The mission must also forward the agenda of the group as a whole in some way. These missions can be as simple and low-risk as surveillance with orders not to engage, guard duty, gathering intel through a network of contacts, or a late night call to deal with a member’s medical emergency. On the other extreme, other missions might be downright suicidal with little-to-no room for failure.

The way this works is that narrators put out requests for volunteers belonging to that organization that also have a certain skill-set. They assign a number on a scale of one through five to give an idea of the relative danger and reward for participating - one being a relative cake-walk, five being obviously suicidal. (Considering the amount of work involved on the staff’s part to help everyone be involved and engaged, level one and two commitments could be as simple as a series of rolls and some bookkeeping. More involved requests can be played out in proper scenes or series of scenes.)

Successful completion of a mission grants the reward. Failure does not. Completely botching a scene that it cannot be fixed at a later date would earn distinct infamy from that organization and a Condition that will dog the character until they can repair their reputation.

Part 2 - Advancement

Compensation for these contributions is access to the pooled resources of that group. PCs must stay above a deficit to retain access to Status. A PC can pay in advance or arrange a recurring donation to ensure benefits are not cut off due to inactivity or an oversight.

To be eligible for advancement, the PCs must double their yearly numbers in contributions on top of maintaining their existing duties, resetting after each promotion (1-2 = 12 extra; 2-3 = 48 extra; 3-4 = 72 extra; 4-5 = 96 extra). This means that to advance, one has to tangibly demonstrate support for one's group through sacrifice in one fashion or another and that the higher one wishes to ascend, the more invested they will become. Ultimately, it is not a whim of a storyteller that determines rank but a measurable dedication to the group's goals through action that earns advancement over time.

Part 3 - Making these Contributions Matter in Game

The material things that the players donate are not dumped into a black hole, they become available to members to make the group better. At the beginning of the game, I propose that each group has a set and finite amount of assets at its disposal (let's say 30 dots worth for the sake of this example). Rather than be an open-ended candy shop at the discretion of the STs (a set-up that implies abundance, stability and order), the players' contributions add to the list. Over time, this pool grows with what the PCs bring to their group. This way, the contributions of each and every PC have meaning and importance in game and the group grows as the game progresses.

Again, If the PCs do not want to buy in for their faction, it is their right, but that group will be significantly weaker and have less options than others who actively make sacrifices for their mutual benefit.

The fortunes of each individual group will wax and wane over time as PCs cycle in and out and the coffers are filled and drained as demand dictates, but the dynamics of the game do not have to end there - A group's resources could possibly be attacked and/or lost to NPCs as part of a plot. Likewise, PCs could raid NPCs for resources or try to weaken them too.

Final Thoughts

Hopefully, these suggestions will deal with some chronic problems that chat games struggle with and make the game “better” by - giving Narrators better and more efficient narrative tools to motivate characters to become involved and engaged in their storylines; dramatically lessening the possibility and effects of favoritism by instituting a formal protocol for advancement based on measurable things; a deeper commitment to embracing the realities of site’s current meta-plot; a greater feeling that groups have real leadership and goals; AND a chance for every player to contribute and see their contributions affect the larger storylines.

- Xyld

[Ephsy]

I like the proposal. How do you deal with game-lines that have no inherent need for a status-like merit? Werewolves come to mind. How do you handle social maneuvering the heads into better positions? If the King names me Man-at-Arms, who's gonna argue it? The Chronicles of Darkness isn't a place of perfect fairness.

[ChrisF]

While I like some of the ideas here in theory, the problem is that this both would require a lot more work from the staff, it requires more book keeping for the players, and it's a custom system people would have to learn (something we're trying to avoid too much of where not needed).

[Ephsy]

something we're trying to avoid too much of where not needed.

Looks like it is.

[Wolfpact]

Is there an issue with using RAW in a (for some) brand new engine?

[Xyld]

The easiest answers first ...

If the King names me Man-At Arms, who is going to argue it? The Chronicles of Darkness isn't a place of perfect fairness?

Fairness IC is a VERY different beast than fairness OOC. This proposal is primarily about creating checks and balances to keep OOC tomfoolery from unbalancing the IC game and undermining the credibility of the staff - something that is needed. As is, we have a system that is COMPLETELY arbitrary, where one person can be denied Status for no reason and another can be exalted for no reason whatsoever. If this is, at its core, a Storytelling game, then there must be some rhyme or reason to "why" other than a whim, pettiness and/or nepotism. And while this is also a social game, no player should be at a disadvantage because he/she is not on a closed Skype group, or engages in sex scenes with STs, has a personal connection with a member of the staff or is targeted IC for OOC reasons. There have been a great number of incidences, here and on many other chats, over decades, that demonstrate and reinforce the necessity of checks and balances. Unfortunately, like global warming, it is never a concern.

What about Social Maneuvering?

I did not mention Social Maneuvering because I did not want to over-complicate the pitch and I did not want to write so much that people would stop reading simply because it is too long. Simple as that. If it needs to be worked out more, then by all means do so. I want to forward the conversation.

Trying to avoid too much of where not needed.

Your opinion. The reality of the situation, however, is that this game is not written for this medium (online chat). The checks and balances at a Tabletop game is peer pressure to keep things fair and fun for everyone or else the game falls apart and possibly hurt feelings between people who should be friends. Anonymity and the dehumanizing nature of the internet removes these social safe guards and empowers all sorts of shitty behavior. Those who have been in the community long enough have enough stories to back up what I am saying.

If this place is to grow and thrive, to get more people to step up to staff and volunteer roles, then there should be a concerted effort to provide a healthy and fair environment that works hard to engage and retain players, to give them the best possible experience as possible rather than letting them walk away bored, jaded and/or disenfranchised.

[JillA]

Trying to avoid too much of where not needed.

Your opinion. The reality of the situation, however, is that this game is not written for this medium (online chat). The checks and balances at a Tabletop game is peer pressure to keep things fair and fun for everyone or else the game falls apart and possibly hurt feelings between people who should be friends. Anonymity and the dehumanizing nature of the internet removes these social safe guards and empowers all sorts of shitty behavior. Those who have been in the community long enough have enough stories to back up what I am saying.

If this place is to grow and thrive, to get more people to step up to staff and volunteer roles, then there should be a concerted effort to provide a healthy and fair environment that works hard to engage and retain players, to give them the best possible experience as possible rather than letting them walk away bored, jaded and/or disenfranchised.

Actually, Xyld, this is a design directive for 5.0, and not an opinion.

We, as a site, are asking the majority of our players to acquire new books (that's a financial cost) and learn a brand new system (Yes, some of the books have been out for years, but many of our players weren't playing 2E.) Hand in hand with the new mechanics of how to build and use a character, we're also asking players to learn a new system for gaining XP. On top of that, we're also experimenting with and asking players to work with us while we work through any rough patches that go with a complete restructure of the staff.

So, where we can, we want to keep the game as true to RAW as possible. Even with that directive, we're still finding places to bend and flex to meet the online vs. tabletop issue.

As ChrisF said, your proposal has some interesting ideas, but it isn't a proposal that 'eases' the conversion from tabletop to online, and where it adds enhancements complications isn't in a way that makes it easier for staff to keep an eye on character activity to replicate a tabletop staff member (which is where a lot of our other policies and practices are born from)...it enhances and complicates it primarily to the benefit of the character. That's not a -bad- thing, but for right now, it's also not a good thing for our site. We are currently asking a LOT of players. Once we can see from the majority that they're completely comfortable, then we'll consider adding modifications like this.

[Ephsy]

Actually, Xyld, this is a design directive for 5.0, and not an opinion.

We, as a site, are asking the majority of our players to acquire new books (that's a financial cost) and learn a brand new system (Yes, some of the books have been out for years, but many of our players weren't playing 2E.) Hand in hand with the new mechanics of how to build and use a character, we're also asking players to learn a new system for gaining XP. On top of that, we're also experimenting with and asking players to work with us while we work through any rough patches that go with a complete restructure of the staff.

So, where we can, we want to keep the game as true to RAW as possible. Even with that directive, we're still finding places to bend and flex to meet the online vs. tabletop issue.

As ChrisF said, your proposal has some interesting ideas, but it isn't a proposal that 'eases' the conversion from tabletop to online, and where it adds enhancements complications isn't in a way that makes it easier for staff to keep an eye on character activity to replicate a tabletop staff member (which is where a lot of our other policies and practices are born from)...it enhances and complicates it primarily to the benefit of the character. That's not a -bad- thing, but for right now, it's also not a good thing for our site. We are currently asking a LOT of players. Once we can see from the majority that they're completely comfortable, then we'll consider adding modifications like this.

Playing Devil's advocate here: wouldn't it have more sense to implement this while we're asking a lot out of our players, than shift the board down the line?

The easiest answers first ...
What about Social Maneuvering?

I did not mention Social Maneuvering because I did not want to over-complicate the pitch and I did not want to write so much that people would stop reading simply because it is too long. Simple as that. If it needs to be worked out more, then by all means do so. I want to forward the conversation.

Way I'd handle it? Add it as an option to gain those status ticks (because really, that's what they are*). May be exclusive wheeling and dealing, may be playing the game of thrones, with finagling NPCs like pieces on a chess game against other players and NPCs alike.

*And being status ticks, it's not so different from previous house-rules implementations.

[Xyld]

Playing Devil's advocate here: wouldn't it have more sense to implement this while we're asking a lot out of our players, than shift the board down the line?

Exactly my reasoning for making the proposal in the first place.

How many years before the window opens up once again? When it does, will anyone remember or care?

.
As for Social Maneuvering, E, that seems fair and in line with what I propose.

[Wolfpact]

To be blunt fellas?

If you want to influence how the site is going to be run, and feel passionately enough about it to keep pushing against our word and decisions?

Step up and put in that staff application. We need them.

[BloodyQuill]

In the end what's important for me when it comes to status is that if someone has status and we're both part of the same group I should know who they are and what they do in that group.

If that happens I'll be one happy role player

[Xyld]

No offense, but challenging a point is the only way to change minds. In no way is anyone being offensive or derogatory here. That being said, if open discourse is discouraged by a staff member or as a policy of the site, then that is a problem.

[JillA]

I fail to see where there has been discouragement of open discourse.

Not having interest in adopting a particular proposal does not equate to not being open to any discussion or even other proposals.

[Ephsy]

I fail to see where there has been discouragement of open discourse.

Here.

[JillA]

I fail to see where there has been discouragement of open discourse.

Here.

Pointing out that we need applications to staff is discouraging discourse?

In any case, this has clearly diverged from Xyld's original intention. I think we should keep this proposal on the forums in case we want to adopt it when the game is better established and/or something happens that makes its introduction more applicable.

I'm locking the thread to keep the focus on the proposal itself and its original feedback.