Jedi Knights

I wouldn't mind having an "interested in" check-box that could help give storytellers a guide, or at least help them consider players they might want to get the Jedi thinking about recruiting over the long haul. It would be kind of neat to have some of the Jedi (NPC or PC) watching some of the most heroic, keeping tabs on their progress, as in the first announcement Jedi thread post.

Then again, I think moral choices will be important for many characters, not just potential Jedi/Sith. The Jedi are a "particularly good" subset of the "good people" (though there will be equally good people who would turn down teachings in the ways of the Force if they were offered).

Would also be nice for people to have the opt out if they just didn't want to enter that region of the game

Exactly, it lets staff know exactly who is interested in what.

And I don't think it's a guarantee of being Jedi by any means. It's merely an alert to keep your eyes open as staff. I think that might be a good route.

That would be easy enough if players could set a flag on themselves only viewable by staff:

1. Not interested.
2. Indifferent (default).
3. Interested.

I think that would work well enough.

It might be best, however, if fellow players couldn't see it.

Talking to newer players who went the force-sensitive route, I've heard, more than once, "Well, when I decided to be force-sensitive, it was because I was hoping to become a Jedi/Sith eventually. I didn't anticipate being asked to choose sides in week one."

The only problem with indifferent being in there is that you then get people perhaps applying the 'anyone who wants the job isn't suitable' criteria or people trying to second guess that the staff would want that. Yes/No in chargen just seems like an easier way to go about it. Absolutes baby! Black/White! Good/Evil! Monkey/Non-Monkey!

To answer one concern: I dont run TPs only targeting FS types. I, frankly, despise that sort of TP and will do my best to discourage it in the future. These TPs will be for everyone, it just so happens that they can be considered in Jedi-Sith selection.

The closest I have ever come to writing an FS-type TP was the first Dark Matter Munitions TP over Ord Mantell (Bo ran the event itself) but we made sure the content was for everyone.

------------------------------
Back to the other line of discussion with paradox:

That is why you don't choose based on a single plot or a single choice. It isn't a "points" system either because, as Gulp said, some personalities just don't work and there are other things to consider. And, hey, if we get seven players actually willing to make the very hard choices and act like heroes? That would be incredible.

I've found that the majority of our DH1 "heroes" have been unwilling to make the difficult choices despite the high potential of rewards. I used Kuat as an example because it is the hardest choice I have forced players to make so far. It is also the only one that more than one player has stepped up for (most seem to have 0 takers).

But this is something I would (and possibly will be) looking at if I'm asked about Jedi and Sith roles. I would also be looking for characters that are proactive and decent leaders. If a player cant do one or both of these things well? I wouldnt even consider them. A strong candidate should be a good leader and very proactive.

A Jedi that just sits around the retreat all day is a waste of space on DH1. On DH2? It is a waste of space that hurts a lot of other players. A Jedi that is out training an apprentice, mentoring, leading, investigating, negotiating, or doing any one of a long list of other -ing's (list does not include BSing, loitering, lazing, or similar words) is worth my time and worth one of the limited slots.

If you asked me what I would think of Jedi Selection as a fellow player and not as a wizard? I would be -royally- pissed off to get passed up for a slot just to see someone get a Jedi or Sith slot and then do nothing with it. I know that at some point I will be pissed off to see a person get the slot and do nothing with it even if I wasn't in the running. I've seen enough of that for one lifetime and you can bet I will be hard on people who get the role and waste it.

I will -probably- be the guy pushing for staff rulings that AWOL force users die in a random accident. Vacation, sickness, and computer problems are fine but let us know ASAP or else I will try to give that role away.

Sorry for making this reply a borderline rant but I think everyone can see where I am coming from.

Sorry for the double post.

I agree with the reasoning that a simple "yes/no" would be best.

Hidden from players is the way to go in my thinking.

I don't want to know if someone is FS or wanting to go the FS route by some indicator, it is better to learn it through RP.

I agree Gulp, keep it secret. I would even submit that the JEDI STAFF don't know about the flags, but rather storytellers do so the storytellers can open those avenues. They might make sure to frame those moments so the Jedi Staff are aware but not make it blatant.

I would suggest that it be kept hidden, in the case of a setting an indicator on a player as suggested, till well after the fact. That only the upper levels of staff know about it.

For example....run the TP, the hero's get identified, let the Wiz staff see that player A who was the big hero of the TP was either interested or not in the FS role and then the FS selection be made or not. This then would help stop the issue that during the TP the events roll in favor of the Jedi/Sith wanting type.

Good idea, Stalker1. I like that.

I love the rant T because it hits so many things dead on. Here's one thing I'll say as a player that's been in plots and I'm going to hope everyone reads it.

Just because something is obvious to you the storyteller doesnt' mean it is obvious to us the player. You have the map, we are merely driving the car, we don't have the same prespective.


That's why I think it's good to have the staff watching the interested PCs in quiet because they'll catch the ins and outs more often. They see the large picture. Just always bear in mind that if I see someone running from a building and stop them to make sure they are ok and then they go off, then I get old they had just murdered 20 people, that's not going to reflect wrongly. Again those are potential pitfalls with the system, very avoidable with being intentional about doing it.

FU's should not sit. I don't think it's really a limited slot type of thing, I believe we just don't want an oversaturated system. But if people are sitting and not doing, they need to be going. Generating RP, generating story, helping to create for others has always been the ideal behind FS characters no matter where you go. They're expected to spur things on. The problem is often they place themselves, or get placed as the focal point, just like Striker pointed out. That needs to be avoided too. There's a lot of stuff wrapped into this conversation but the brunt of addressing T's post, yes I agree and would support that push that if people get lazy, inactive, vanish, sit OOC, idle around, don't try to create, that maybe they should be encouraged to step down from the spot because others might be interseted in using those opportunities to drive storyline.

Yeah, this thread is hitting on a lot of stuff that will be in the Storyteller Guidebook. A lot of important points of "don't do TPs like this" and "Do do this!" type of stuff.

It's not posted yet, but it will be and people can review and comment on the specifics.

What you said, Paradox, about people going idle, etc... what if it went a step forward and applied a bit of "expectations" of activity, etc. While any such decision of "please step down" would be a subjective one, having a list of objective reasons could also help everyone understand WHY.

If a person became a Jedi Knight, then only RPed 1 hour a week, and was asked to step down... without a list they might go "WHAT??" but with a list of "expectations" they could be shown (ahead of time) "RP regularly, at least ## hours a week." and then if they only do 1 hour a week, they'll know they did something wrong.

Of course, nothing like "First week on and you failed! GOODBYE!" type of stuff. But just a general list of expectations so everyone (both staff and players) are on the same page? Good idea? Bad idea? Thoughts?

On another game in Restricted roles, players were expected to Rp so much per month. If a player failed to do that with no reason (vacations, RL issues, what have you) then a warning was issued. If, after the second month or valid reasons not provided then the player was asked to step down.

RL happens, that is a fact. A player shouldn't be punished because of outside issues and I dont' think that this is being proposed, I am just stressing it to keep it in mind.

But to gain a role of importance and then "retire" in it and only bring it out now and then hurts the game and the players that need to interact with that role. It is also not fair to do the same when there are others waiting in the wings to step up and bring fresh ideas and enthusiasm to the role.

So it sounds like expectations that are published is a good idea?

Definitely.

When it is laid out in the open what those expectations are and this is known to all then there can be no surprise to anyone.

If I am offered the role of Master of (fill in the blank) and the expectations are already defined, it is up to me to then ask myself if I can meet those before accepting the role. By accepting the role then I am also accepting the expectations.

But yes, publish and make it known to all what those expectations are.

Do you think all expectations can/have to be objective?

Because what if a player brings their character up to Jedi Knight... but their actions are not in line with staff vision? IC-consequences from the IC Jedi Master?

I can see positives and negatives to this. The positive is that it creates a more uniform setting, the negative being people not happy with staff-interference.

Now, just for clarification, I don't mean like... one staffer deciding whether the theme is ok or not. But it'd be like... Dooku being a Jedi, while ordering people to do bad stuff, etc.

Compared to Mace Windu. Mace Windu is kinda badass and not strictly a "good actions only" Jedi, but he's still a Jedi.

Thoughts on subjective expectations?

Hrm...seems that you are getting into the critque of the RP and not the subject that I was speaking on.

I was talking on getting a role of game importance, a role that is designed to help the game along in a big way, and then retiring in it and only acting in that role now and then and when it suits you (as in "I don't want to deal with newbies any more so just gonna idle here).

As for judging the quality of RP...that is as has been stated on other threads a subjective issue. I know what I like and what I like in RP is not the same as what others like in RP. This doesn't make either one right or wrong, it is just different.

But if you have the head of the Jedi role...the actions are determined by the Theme. If the head of the Jedi are telling the students to go kill orphans...yea time to move his alignment to Sith and boot him out of the role but that should be handled ICly. A strong Theme plan lays the ground work.

I think that kind of thing can be dealt with by the staff NPCs. Drift far from the code of your order, they fall on you like a brick from a great height. Rather han having OOC recourse for IC action when the IC recourse exists (Namely the masters et al)

Right, one of the biggest issues that befell DH1 was that it was constant OOC-IC Issues. Stuff from IC being drug OOC, muddled, and then drug back IC.

We need to minimize that and be very intentional about minimizing it. I would say let IC handle IC as much as possible. Now, if you have those OOC expectations of time commitment and participation, then the OOC punishment is losing the character. The IC issues of beating a puppy to death with a sack full of kittens, is the IC Consequence of Masters drop kicking you into the nearest Deathstar.

I do think having a guideline for expectations on an OOC level is important, not just for FS but also for other leadership roles. We wouldn't expect the fleet admiral to log on once a month to mail check then vanish. RL does come up. Schedules change, activities change. If someone is makign a genuine effort, awesome. If someone is burned out and needs a little break and communicates that, awesome. If someone just doesnt' care anymore, time to make a change. Burnout happens, we all suffer it. I know for myself every once in awhile I need just a week or so of minimal time to catch my breath after a big plot or big push. But then I'm right back in the mix. I think a lot of people fall into that venue. So the rules should be hard and fast but also reasonable.

Yeah, I kinda jumped to another subject a bit unexpectedly. But I think everyone thinks the "published OOC expectations" is a good thing and I'm sure we'll do it.

How much help do you think it will be to have theme published regularly?

Do you think people do "bad" things... or let's say "off theme" things accidentally because they don't KNOW exactly what theme is?

Like the question of "If your Boss tells you to do something bad... are you supposed to refuse the order or what?"

I can see players becoming frustrated if, for example, they refused the Republic's order to bomb a town, and then they get a court martial for it. Because the basic assumption is the Republic is "good" and bombing a town is "bad" but theme had changed or something without being published to all (it was, say, an RP the boss had with someone else.)

Do you think theme and attitudes must be kept up to date? So, at least, if you do something wrong ICly, you knew about it and aren't surprised by a "gotcha" theme twist?

I don't know if I made sense. But I'm trying to ask how much theme-related stuff should be published or if theme should be more... "RP with others" to find out.

Or another idea?

Edit: And this relates to the "IC expectations" because I think both the player in the role would like to have the idea of what is good or bad and the characters under him want to know whether or not such action is good or not in their bosses.

Like posting about changes from plots and giving updates on things giong on at a regular basis? Part of the reason I suggested the staff disclosure of stuff on a regular basis was for these reasons. So people know of changes that happen not just on the OOC front but the IC Front as well.

If you regulate to much, you close the door to a lot of possible fun. I am not nor want to be FS, but I can imagine the turmoil and the RP of that student in the Jedi that is waffling between the good and the bad. That can spur a lot of good RP. But if the rules were such that you can't have a character like that a lot of good is missed.

Now, with that said the other side of the coin needs to be considered. Kicking back and hang'n with the homies in the Jedi Retreat this week and then killing orphans with the Sith the next week and then helpling little old Duro's across the street while stealing from them the next is way way to much.

How would that work best?

Would it be good like "News updates" that are IC updates about IC stuff? Or should it be more OOC with some OOC explanation about a change. Like... "Byss has rejected the Jedi completely following the failed rescue of their headman's son... OOC: This means that Jedi on Byss will often get dirty looks at the best and thrown-objects maybe even mugged in the bad parts of town." or strictly IC like "Tragedy has struck the Byss Headman's family as the attempt by the Jedi to negotiate the release of his son has ended in failure and the murder of the poor lad! The people of Byss mourn the loss and put blame heavily on the Jedi Order for their failure!"