Threads of Damocles Leadership White Paper
Word (.doc) Version of the Leadership White Paper
Contents
I -
Introduction.
II -
Background – How Things Have Been and Are Now
Structural
Facts – How Threads is Organize
Executive
Producer.
VIA – Our
Servicing Agent
Continuity –
the current and “old” model for Leadership
Founders –
the People who Started or Inherited Threads
Our
Volunteer Base
Understanding
Why People Volunteer for Threads
The Modular
Structure and some Pros and Cons
Despotism in
LARP
The Origins
of the Modular Structure
The Advent
of the modern Modular Style
The Theory
Of Boxes – a key concept
III - The
Challenges we Face
Pushing the
Limits of the Current System
Pros and
Cons of the Modular System
The Pros
The Cons
Artistic
Issues
Challenges
our Leadership will Face
Advocacy or
“Championing”
Information
Leakage
Redundancy/Scene
Spread
Factionalism
and Cliquishness
He who is
loudest
Fair
Division of Resources
Challenges
in Managing our Volunteers
Training our
Leaders to Act Like Leaders
Problem
Volunteers
The Negative
Helper
The
Specialist
The Climber
The Sprinter
The Sidewalk
Superintendant
IV – Guiding
Principles – Ideas that are Important to Our Group
The Concept
of Group Play
Artistic
Needs in “Group Play”
Leadership
Structure and Principles
Division of
Leadership - Logistics and Creative Content
Valuable
Principles of Leadership
Principle 1:
Do Not Subordinate The Talent to The Management
Principle
2: Pull Your Own Weight, Carry Your Own Water
Chiefs and
Indians and the definition of Work
When is
Writing “work” and when is it fun?
Useless
Writing
A Group
Production Model – the “Free Market of Ideas”
The Free
Market of Ideas
Controlled
Elements
Administration
by Czar
Administration
by Committee
Administration
by Custodian
Uncontrolled
Elements
Marketing/standard
setting – using the system and making your ideas stand out
Roofus
Doofus
Service
Models for the “Marketplace of Ideas”
DIY model
Customer
Service model
The Closed
Model
A Bad Model
V - Action
Steps
Gordon –
some personal notes
Reorganizing
a LARP
My
Commitments and Limitations
Using my
Time
How to Be a
Leader
Commitment
to the “look and feel” of our leadership style
Self
Restraint
Self
Policing
Seeing the
“Big Picture” - Acting like a Writer
Take
Ownership of Threads
Thinking
about the concerns of others
Thinking
about What your Players Want - Understanding how to Entertain
Noblesse
Oblige
An Example
of Responsible Writers – Proposing a Scene
Structures
for Change
The Weighted
Committee
Structure
Weighting
Function
Participation
Keeping
Everyone Honest
Competitive
Bids
Competitive
Bid Models – Intercon
Competitive
Bid Models - Runoff
Standard
Interfaces
Writing
Groups
Definitions
and Boundaries for Working Writers Groups
Association
and Vouching
SPEM and
Thread Classification
Entry of new
Major Players and Powers
Creation of
"A" and "B" Threads - Thread size and IP Points
Jumps and
Econ Cost in Trade
Handling
Allocation of Resources
Allocation
of Money for “high value” projects
Allocation
of Time/Scenes
Allocation
of transportation space in delivering props to site from our general storage
Allocation
of cast
Allocation
of Admin time for maintaining supplementary systems (SPEM, etc.)
Major Admin
Tasks
Eminent
Domain
Living by
Our Deals
Housekeeping
Elements
Size of
scenes/Length of Scenes
Magic/Tech
items, Granting abilities
Modular
Rules
Other
Physical Rules
Secrecy
The
"shall not" rules
Writer Profile
Voting and
Changes
This White Paper is intended to kick off a planned discussion on the future of leadership in Threads. It is long. I have tried not to repeat myself or use too many big words, but this is a big subject. If it seems I’m writing too much about it, consider the hours that many groups have spent miserable because of failed choices about leadership and ask…”is it too much to spend an hour reading to avoid weeks of misery and a failed campaign?” I figure it will take about two hours to read through the 45 pages of this discussion.
It isn't just a blueprint of leadership. It is a detailed discussion of every challenge and problem facing us. It presents a new model for production based on a "Free Market of Ideas."
Despite jokes that are made at my expense and which I may indulge because I'm good natured. I do not write or talk because I like to hear my own voice. This has been hard work, and I have put a great deal of thought into it. I collected and in some cases invented the ideas and principles here because I think that the players and volunteers of this group deserve well thought out and reasoned leadership. I could have done many of these things unilaterally, but I chose to write them down for two reasons.
First I think that our group is made up of intelligent, educated, people who can easily read fifty pages, and understand it. The ideas in it are an attempt to crystalize much of what I have learned and observed into a form that others can benefit from.
And that leads to the second reason. I think the ideas and concepts presented in this document could benefit many campaigns and many writers, and as much as I want these ideas to benefit our group, I want our group to serve more than it already does as a model for other worthwhile endeavors in the future.
Our group is fortunate enough to have an influx of younger LARPers who are active, and have the interest and background to do significant work. It is not necessary for them to spend twenty years learning the same lessons I have learned when I can write them down in summary so they can spend the next twenty years learning new things. LARP has too much "reinventing the wheel" because no-one has any impetus to write down lessons learned.
I've said jokingly that when people begin bitching at about Threads in the coming year I am going to ask if they have read this paper, and that if they have not I think they should be limited to two and a half hours of bitching, cumulative, for the year.
Joking aside, how much time do we waste reading flame wars or bitching when a group's leadership slowly fails, or we grapple with problems.? More than two hours. Much more. Some people are not interested in the leadership of the group. They pay their money and play and accept what comes. This is fine. Just remember that this was your chance to learn, respond, discuss and have input, so if you don’t like the leadership you get, don’t complain about it. I have no doubt there will be “summaries” of this information posted. Remember that when you read the summary, you lose the detail.
We are not at a crisis point of leadership. We do not need to have this discussion now. But right now we can have it at a time when we
are not in crisis. If we wait for a crisis, emotions will be high and
endurance stretched to the breaking point, and some of us will be approaching
the table with a list of grievances and a will to do harm. We have the luxury
of being affable and relatively detached now. So this is the best time to have
this discussion.
This is also not a coup, or an attempt to overturn the
existing leadership. I have said that the current leadership is “broken” but
that is not because the people leading, including myself, have done badly. It
is because our group has grown both in size and knowledge. To risk a
historical analogy, we have had the Articles of Confederation, and it is now
time to have the Constitution. But this is a constructive change brought
about by growth, not a negative one brought about by bad management.
Finally I want to point out that the group is not in anarchy
and does not lack leadership. The model that we currently have has served
well. We have an Executive Producer (myself) who handles money and overall
direction, and we have the Continuity Staff (Kate Bunting, Adrienne Gammons,
Eric Johnson, John Kammer, Lawrence Lee, Stephanie Olmstead-Dean, Colin Sandel)
who either as writers or Administrators have worked very hard to produce this
campaign. None of those people will be excluded or marginalized under this
plan…but we will bring more new voices into the mix.
We can’t move forward without a good grip on where we are
now. Some things about our current state are obvious. Some others are known
only to a few people who deal with them, or are “principles” which get enforced
only because I enforce them.
Most people see only a little of the organization of the
game. Even many writers do not deal with it in much detail, preferring to ask
me for “yes” or “no” answers. To act as leaders, we need to know why we do
certain things, and how our structure is set up.
As Executive Producer, my job is to assume all financial
risks associated with the game. If, for example, we had paid nearly all the
costs associated with the game – food insurance, etc., and hurricane Fay had
slammed through our area causing a cancellation, it would be up to me to absorb
the losses. The same with a winter game being cancelled or very unprofitable because
of snow. I also accept the hazards of loss of the physical plant, etc. If I
cannot cover a cost, which happens only rarely (the generator four years ago,
the GP, a few other items), it is up to me to go hat in hand and get the money
together. That’s what Producers do. Alongside that, I set overarcing policy
and general goals. In setting direction and goals, I work closely with Eric
Johnson, and several other members of the Continuity Staff, and some of the
more experienced writers.
Virtual Interactive Arts is a Delaware based LLC that exists
as a service provider for LARP. This is my personal “production arm.” VIA
acts as the insurer for Threads events, limiting the liability that can
accrue to the senior volunteers. VIA also keeps me or someone else from having
to pay income taxes on the $12,000 - $14,000 a year of traceable “income” Threads
generates. In reality most of this money is rolled directly into the event.
In the future it is possible we will move to a 501 ( C) (7) “Social” Non-Profit
model for Threads. VIA is also important because those viewed as
“officers” of the event could be sued directly by anyone injured at a Threads
Event. Because VIA exists it is likely that a legal action could be directed
against the LLC not one of our volunteers. This may be more important than you
think. You may think you’d never sue Threads. But do you belong to an
HMO, or have other Group Insurance? Read your service agreement carefully.
You probably signed away your right to sue in the event of a major injury to
your insurer. Your HMO would probably sue Threads, even if you didn’t
want to.
The term “Continuity” is a little confusing. In most games,
“Continuity” is the staff of copy editors that make sure that one scene agrees
with another. In our group Continuity picked up the meaning of “the leadership
group.” This makes sense if you think about the usage as being similar to
“Editor.” An “editor” is technically a person who looks at copy and changes
it. However an “Editorial Staff” is the management branch of a Magazine or Newspaper,
and the “Editor” is the manager.
The concept behind Continuity was to avoid terms like
“leadership” that tended to breed the sort of hellish small-stakes envy and bad
behavior so common to volunteer groups where the lowest of stakes seem to spur
the most bitter of fights. Our goal was to be a functional group that got
things done, not to have titles to lord over others. This is important because
our experience teaches us that LARP groups are often perceived as small and
flaky and tend to be targets for ne’er-do-wells with the need do “climb to the
top” looking for a suitably small hill they might actually be able to be king
of. Often these people aren’t very socially adapted, and may not care how messy
or unpleasant their climb is. We don’t want to be attractive to that sort of
person, and not offering a lot of “titles without jobs attached” is an
important part of that.
Continuity is currently the decisionmaking body. I
cannot unilaterally change anything about this group that lies outside the
direct sphere of the Executive Producer. The process must be that these
people accept what changes are put forward, and agree to move forward, or that
we must vote. I think that it is the case that we’d all prefer to accept
changes with acclamation. But for that to happen these people have to feel
they have been respected and included.
The Continuity Staff is not synonymous with the founders of
the game. Hank Kuhfeldt was a founder but no longer sits on Continuity, and
Colin Sandel was not a founder but does sit on Continuity. Various founders
became involved at various times. In many groups being a “founder” has sparked
bitter acrimony. We have seen groups torn apart as an original founder decided
to “take their marbles and go home,” or threw their weight around to demand
changes that were of interest to them and a few supporters but not in keeping
with the overall direction of the group. Since none of the original founders
wanted this, we agreed to a Creative Commons license for the game, so that
there would never be any question that any individual, including myself, had
the right to suspend or derail the campaign for everyone else.
That said, I think it’s realistic to suggest that these people
are owed some respect.
I’d also like to note that the other person who has a
special relationship with the group is Adrienne Gammons. Just as I bring a
great deal of the infrastructure to the table (not only the actual physical infrastructure,
but the cumulative costs to store and transport it), Adrienne brings our summer
site to the table. This suggests that particularly in regards to the summer
games, she has an important position and is someone we need to respect and
listen to. She also has the ability to mandate certain things about the site
which brook no argument.
The core of our group is made up of volunteers. Even
players who mostly pay Money do some volunteer work cleaning up the camp and
undertaking other tasks. We are a community based group, of and for,
volunteers. Some people volunteer more time, others are contributors who
provide more money. We use the TERM system to describe this. If you aren’t
familiar with the Time/Expertise/Resources/Money model, you may want to catch
up by reading: http://wiki.Threadsofdamocles.org/index.php?title=TERM.
It is not very fun to do paperwork or hard labor for Threads.
But people do it. It is easy to assume that people do the hard jobs because
they “want to,” and assume they’ll just keep doing them. But that’s not the
case. Everyone must get some gratification or payoff. To retain our
volunteers we need to understand what they get out of working for the Group.
- The right to “sit at the table.” People who are not
writers get the right through work to act as Chiefs instead of Indians.
Getting to sit in, kibbitz, and have a hand in the creative process is a
reward they get for being one of the “doers.”
- Friendship. Many of the people who do work for us do it
out of personal friendship with one of the principals. These people
probably wouldn’t work with the group or support it nearly as much if
their friendship changed. Their reward is the reward of their friend
feeling they have supported them. This is not something to discount.
Probably more service to Threads is motivated by direct personal
friendship than any other category. When we “dis” or penalize on person,
we may alienate their friends who support the group.
The privilege to “do it right” and “be my own boss.” Many
of our volunteers do work for Threads similar to that they do at the
office, but are frustrated with superiors in day to day life. In working for Threads
there is a chance to do things “my way” and get to be the one who sets
processes and makes plans. That’s very gratifying to a lot of volunteers.
During most of the 1990s it was put forward that LARP only worked
as a Dictatorship. The theory was that in order for a LARP to run well there
had to be one tyrant who controlled everything with an iron fist. While this
isn’t true, it is a product of perception. Small political entities are
Despotisms (Primitive Dictatorships). People familiar with the political model
of Sid Meier’s Civilization will recognize this concept. Civ players
will also remember that as society gets larger, Despotism is less and less
efficient. The capability emerges to support more complex models, and the
Despot is a drag, not a help. In a small group a Despot gets things moving
quickly. It could be argued that the Continuity Staff is a Despotic Oligarchy,
but the effect is the same. In a large group Despotism slows things down
because a few people have to oversee everything directly. Civ players could
humorously argue whether we are moving to Monarchy or Republicanism but the
truth is we have some elements of both. The Production-Company model and the
“Marketplace of Ideas” model below aim to keep some of the elements of
Despotism that work well. Having someone willing to take responsibility and
say “the buck stops here.” But it aims to eliminate the drag of all decisions
having to be approved by or blessed by a small cadre of oligarchs.
The advent of the modular structure made it possible to
consider a stronger move away from Despotism. Modular. The real origin of the
concept is the 1988 LARP event The Arabian Nights. The designers of
that original event, including but not limited to Russell Almond,
conceptualized a structure which could support 120 players and dozens of GM
writers who had little time or inclination to closely coordinate writing efforts.
Like the Pyramids of the ancient Egyptians, the architecture
of, The Arabian Nights, was vastly ahead of its time and would not be
repeated for some time. In LARP terms it would be a decade and a half before the
Arabian Nights model was fully appreciated. One reason for this is that
it takes a fairly large Event to need a modular style, and games had tended to
stay in the 40-50 range with only a few large events reaching larger sizes.
By 2003 we were seriously looking for models that would
support multiple writers as anything but assistants. . 1936: Atlantic
Clipper (2002) was our first attempt to heavily integrate writers who were
not the core founders into production, and it showed us that there was much to
learn. Modules of sorts had existed in TS/Adventure crossover from the time
of Dark Summonings, where the DS: Dreamlands game
presented a modular model. The first two experiments of the current group (1936/1948/Threads)
with the serious modern module structure began in 2004. In September 2005 with
1948: Washington and then in January 2006 with 1948: Shanghai we
fully debuted the modular structure similar to that of Threads.
It is interesting to consider that the enormously evolved
“bid and grid” system we have in October 2008 was developed in only four
years. We have to bear this in mind when we want the system to suddenly change
or expect to fix all its problems overnight.
It can be argued that like “Monarchy” and “Republic” in Civilization,
“Bid and Grid” is a stopgap between the ideal (Democracy) and the realizable
(Despotism). It is not the best possible system. It has shortcomings.
However it is the best possible system we can operate within our
resources. If we are to move beyond, or at least build on top of “Bid
and Grid” our core staff needs to reach a higher level of training and personal
discipline so that we have a model that not only supports our model, but is
capable of training and drawing in new authors without alienating them. Below under
“Pros and Cons of the Modular System,” we will explore shortcomings and what we
can do to improve the current system.
In the modular system we talk about each Writer’s Box or
Boxes. The things that are in the Box are things that the Writer has
complete control over. A Writer’s Box may be his own personal creations (where
they do not interface with others) or tasks he is a Czar, or Custodian of
(concepts we’ll explore more below in “A Free Market of Ideas”)
Connectors extend out of the Box. A Writer does not
control the connectors coming out of his box. Some connectors are automatic.
A Thread may have any internal politics a Writer designs, but its SPEM ratings
and gate outlets are connectors that must be checked with others.
Most of us have some ideas or insight into the shortcomings
of our current system. Put simply the problem is that it was a good system
when there are 3-4 principal writers and a few auxiliaries who are definitely
subordinate.
The Current System is characterized by a situation where some
writers have the “right” to make major or sweeping decisions that affect
everyone else. The rough reason for this is that they do not play characters
and are theoretically therefore more dedicated to the “game overall.” But in
practice every writer, player or not, has their enthusiasms.
It is not proving to be an adequate leadership structure or
system for administering a dozen co-equal writers.
In general our system handles logistical government fairly
well, to the extent that it is a small enough job it can largely be done by
fiat. Eric Johnson and I have handled most of the logistical government (me
more on the “physical” side and Johnson more on the “electronic” side), and
have tried to do it by encouraging volunteers willing to undertake a system or
area of responsibility (Stephanie, Kate, Anna, Merry, Jennifer, Rita) to make
their own systems. In general I have tried to support them where their plans
did not conflict with anyone else’s and negotiate where they did.
This may seem “non leadership,” but in practice it is a good
method. Modern business theory suggests that most change comes from below.
Frontline personnel have good ideas, and they percolate up. Eventually the
best ideas are adopted by management and passed back down.
Many of the strengths of a Modular system are obvious. By
building isolated boxes and allowing writers to do mostly what they want in
those, policing them only when they come “out of the box” we cut down on the
review load of the Admin Staff.
Review load leads to burnout and breakdown. If a
Administrator has to review 10-20 plotlines, all on deadline, they will begin
to lose control of the workload. Reflexively they begin to “sit on” material
and slow it down, focusing on the things they think are “most important.” The
writers get first impatient, then disgruntled.
On the other hand if an Administrator simply begins to
“rubber stamp” all material without review, authors quickly run into conflicts
which they expect the Administrator to resolve. This becomes an even more time
consumptive process.
By reducing review load, and giving Authors the tools to self
police “keep it in the box,” the Administrators can allow more ongoing
plotlines, and more writer freedom.
The biggest weakness of the modular system is limited
continuity. This is something that both writers and players complain
about…they want a greater feeling of overall “connection.”
The remedy we hear proposed most often is “more review by
high level writers.” The problem is that doesn’t work well, because “more
review” also equates to “more control” and few writers really want that.
It is also the case that creative, intelligent people with a
spark for good production do not want to spend huge amounts of time reviewing
and vetting the work of others. This leaves those who do not have this spark,
but are good with details and are willing to do “copy editing.” The problem is
that by definition those people are not good at having the vision to say if a
given plot or idea will be able to catch fire with an audience. So the people
who should review work don’t want to, and the people who want to often
shouldn’t make directorial decisions.
What authors often mean when they say they want more “active
oversight” is “more continuity writers willing to champion my materials and
force them down other people’s throats.” Of course if everyone wants this,
we’re back to the same battle of wills that occurs if the Administrators rubber
stamp everything and allow the writers to “slug it out.”
But at the same time we want to build more continuity.
Players feel scenes are “disjointed” and Writers feel that some Writers get to
control all the “important” plotlines, leaving few for other people to
participate in.
We need the stable framework of “Bid and Grid” before we can
begin to explore the remedies
Below, in “Action Steps” we’ll talk about the things that
can be done to support higher continuity and step beyond the simple modular
structure, without losing the strength and resilience it gives us.
Our system resolves artistic issues very badly. This is
probably our worst failing and one which will sooner or later cause the group
to fail if we do not look it squarely in the eye and address it. The problem is
fairly simple. Despite being very forward thinking in most regards, Threads
inherited a model from 1948 that set up an arbitrary group of writers to
maintain “continuity.”
Conceptually the system is fair. A group of writers choose
not to play characters. This theoretically makes them impartial, since they
don’t have an “attachment” in game. They sacrifice the fun of getting to play
characters and be enmeshed in the game in return for the authority to make all
the “big picture” decisions.
It’s a wonderful idyll and it’s transparently broken. I’d
maintain that the only Continuity Member of whom this is largely true at this
point is Lawrence Lee.
Let’s take me for example. I run the Empire of New York and
personify several of its ranking officials. Do I consider myself a “partisan”
to ENY? No. I have a sophisticated multi-year story arc revolving around
issues of political power, stability, and instability. But I cannot pretend
for a moment that my greater familiarity with ENY does not make me
ENY-centric. And I work very hard to try and recognize biases, create
balance, etc.
And in the end there is the fact that I’ve been able to
impose my high level arcs on the game. Other authors with ideas for high level
arcs have had to “vette” them, and may have met with resistance.
This would all be fine if we were really a production shop
with a team of Continuity people in constant conference working out “the big
picture.” But in practice Continuity staff play characters, engage in advocacy
and are often ignorant about other priorities and plotlines. Most Continuity
Staff don’t participate heavily in “big picture” discussions of where the
campaign is going, but focus on their individual Threads and plots.
Including me. Not because we’re bad people, but because we’re mostly focused
on doing our own work well.
Just to give an example of how outmoded the “Continuity”
concept is. Historically at the Winter/hotel site, First Floor Suite Rooms
were offered to Continuity staff on a priority basis, on the presumption they
needed better access and ran more scenes. This resulted for Manhattan
in one of the people running the most scenes not being able to get a suite on
the first floor because only a single room was ever offered on the general
Writer’s list. The point here is that the system is designed based on
suppositions that aren’t true anymore.
If the solution is to broaden the leadership, we must be
realistic about the pitfalls involved. We cannot walk along humming and
pretending not to notice the contradictions and conflicts. We need to address
them head on and be brutally realistic about them, or they will bite us in the
ass.
I think we can all recognize the concept of Advocacy. Bob
Smith writes the “Mongolia” Thread. Thereafter he sees everything in terms of
Mongols. If a political scene is proposed, he is concerned about the Mongol
presence. If a war breaks out he wants the Mongols to be a big factor. If he
writes a scene set in some distant thread where nobody else is from, he may add
Mongol references.
Bob is being neither good nor bad per se. On one hand he is
responsible for writing and promoting his Thread, the moreso if there are
Mongol players. Perhaps his real intention is a “fight the Mongol Horde” plot,
but to do this he needs to make players aware of the Mongols and even
sympathetic to them.
But you can see there is an immediate problem here. In
Bob’s mind the Mongols are awfully tough. In order to make them credible he
sees them beating other people up and winning a lot. Maybe because culturally
that’s how he feels Mongols should be, and it’s a “realistic” depiction or
maybe because he wants to make them a more feared adversary for his “Mongol
Horde” plot.
But other Writers have powers they think are equally cool.
Bruce is certain that “Spartan Warriors” are cool enough to defeat any number
of Mongols. Joan is just sick of everything being about Mongols.
The situation is not as simple as it seems. We can’t
just tell Joe “Dude, lay off on Mongols for chrissakes…” We could, but we’d be
hypocrites. Don’t we have our own enthusiasms. Sure, but ours are much cooler
and more reasonable than Mongols….to us.
The situation is more complicated if Joe designed the Mongol
thread because he really loves Mongols, and is fascinated by them, and plays
either a Mongol PC, or has a frequently occurring GM-NCC that is a powerful
Mongol leader.
Many of the keys to policing this lie in making sure Joe is
on board with behaving like a Writer as discussed below under “How to be a
Leader.” If he is, it doesn’t matter whether he’s a player, a powerful NCC, etc.
He will behave courteously and cooperatively and benefit the campaign. If he
is not, no matter how “reasonable” Mongols are, Joe will be much less of an
asset.
We are all blind to our failings. The current system has
given carte blanche to writers like myself to consider what we are doing
“central” and “Important” and then judge other writers with a jaundiced eye.
As we move forward we must stop this behavior.
That said…we cannot have players who use Writing as a “bully
club” to beat the other players, and make their place/race/spell/artifacts/etc.
“cooler” than everything else.
A good start is for Writers to come clean about their
motives. A writer planning a villain arc in which a major villain threatens
everyone credibly then is overcome and defeated, should get more leeway for
being grandiose than a player who is simply “playing this cool leader who can
help the CCs if they accept his help.”
But the arc needs to be sincere. Often we see the
development even of villains as characters that are destined to rub players
noses in it for many games, without much avenue for success, then be overcome
almost as an afterthought after the writer has worked his aggression out.
There needs to be less secrecy and more high level
willingness to come clean about general arcs, at least among the senior
authors. Likewise, there needs to be some discretion. Authors who choose to
be “read in” on those issues in order to provide a reasonable “sounding board”
need to work not to leak information that will damage an author’s plot.
And reviewing an author’s motives to get a feel for how far
it is reasonable for them to go should not be an excuse for a “court of
inquiry” in which they are forced to defend their actions and plots before all
comers. In general the assurance of a few senior writers (people with many
production credits and good current ratings) should be taken as a reasonable
voucher that an author is on target. The last thing we want is a plot
inquisition.
We want a game with some “cool” high level story arcs. Nobody
knows exactly what is going to happen with the Empire of New York in December
of Season 2, or with the L.A. Elections, or with making time start moving
forward again, and that is cool.
Problem is, the more people who know a secret, the less of a
secret it is. Right now, what is going to happen with the Empire of New York
is a secret because it exists nowhere but in my head. But if I wrote it down,
other people would read it on the BGA grid and talk about it.
The effect of information leakage is to create a tier of
people who are privileged because they know, date, table game with, or hang out
with writers who know a lot about what is going on. On some levels that’s not
a bad thing. I actually tend to drive my plots by passing information off to
people that I know “talk” a lot. And to some extent being a member of the
information underclass is a choice. Most of us can choose to talk to other
people who play Threads in e-mail, in IM, or during the week and ask
them about things going on with the game.
One typical remedy to “information leakage” is to say “well
we should all keep secrets.” This leads to a problem. Someone invariably
violates the rule. It’s easy to say ‘we should keep secrets.” But what
happens when Joan tells her boyfriend Joe who then blabs at a party to Bobby
who plays the game. At that point we must decide. Are we Skull and Bones? Do
we dress in black robes, and ceremonially turn our back on Joan and snuff out
our candles signifying that she is dead to us and never speak with her again?
Probably not. So then what do we do? Do we give her a rap on
the wrist or a firm scolding? Who decides that? Joan’s ex may feel she needs
to be really read the riot act, while her best friend may feel it’s perfectly
understandable. So in fact the issue becomes a personality contest.
The problem is that a volunteer group cannot really punish
information leakage. The stakes are low, and generally severity of punishment,
or even determining if there is an offense will be based on unfair issues of
who likes who, and who is annoyed at who, rather than any rational basis.
And pretending to secrecy without an enforcement mechanism
is an “ostrich head in the sand” approach. Pretending the problem doesn’t
exist doesn’t make it go away, it only makes us stupid and defensive about
dealing with it.
The bottom line is that we cannot realistically rectify our
group mechanism with more than localized secrecy. If I have a secret it is as
good as my personal trust in the people I share it with. And information
committed to writing is going to be well known, or at least known to an
overclass of players who follow the wikis and are involved in information
processing. So we have to consider that our group basis is “secrecy as far as
it goes” and that isn’t very far.
There are remedies that help the problem, if they don’t cure
it. One is presented under “Association and Vouching” below.
It is natural in a big game that there will be some duplication.
Niches typically can occupy 4-8 players so having two similar niches in a game
with 40-50 PCs is quite reasonable.
As an example, Manhattan which was originally sold as
steampunk, now has a bit more of the gothic fantasy/horror overtones of original
New Orleans. Post game-1 when it became clear that virtually no players had
chosen to be heavily steampunk and the few that had even peripheral ties to
Manhattan had gothic fantasy/horror elements, it seemed useful in that
direction. As I talked to Hank Kuhfeldt, the original NOLA author, in Season
1, and he disclosed his desire to destroy NOLA at the end of the season, I
began to retool Manhattan as the “new NOLA,” the focal point for gothic
fantasy/horror elements.
The problem comes when Writer after Writer creates the same
“cool thing” so they can have one too. Especially if that creation supports
championship and advocacy. We do not want to get into a situation where the
creation of a Hive or Rising Sun “mind control” plot brings about three other
mind control plots because every writer has to do the same thing to be cool.
We want originality.
There is a benefit to homogenity. It makes plots
recognizable and identifiable. For example, in Los Angeles, UFP makes
bioroids. So far we’ve been very resistant to other sources for Androids,
though there are some drifting into game. An early plot would have made it
useful for ParaCentury corp to produce its own androids. But in the end we
went with consistency, giving a recognizable single-source to something unique
to make it more recognizable.
Obviously there are two remedies to scene spread
The first is originality and personal responsibility. We
need to choke down on our desire to duplicate every element of the game we
think is cool so we have one to play with. The second, as we’ll investigate
further, is “marketing.” If we want our cool thing to become the standard, we
need to “market” it to other writers in a form that they can easily use.
Factionalism is a bane of all Volunteer organizations, and
affects both “Chiefs” and “Indians.” Every volunteer organization deplores the
existence of factions and cliques, yet they do exist. The best thing to do is
acknowledge them, but understand they cannot be allowed to dominate the
politics of the group. If one faction or clique is pushing an agenda, it still
has to answer to the whole group. In a moderate-sized group “taking over” is
usually not an option.
A larger problem than factionalism is the tendency of the
group’s directions to be dictated by “he who is loudest.” Many participants in
small groups feel that by posting the most, shouting others down, and pounding
their points across again and again they can control the agenda. This is why
the element of voting is so important. Voting destroys the ability of the very
loud to dictate the agenda of the very reasonable. Where voting is unusual, or
considered a “last resort” noise tends to win. Even very experienced leaders
can be driven by a few noisy voices. It is important that the group
structure be conducive to frequent and early voting and polling in order to
minimize the degree to which the agenda can be controlled by “those who just
post a lot.” Voting should be an easy recourse if there is not obvious
unanimity not a last resort after weeks of bitter argument. “Hmm…I see not
everybody agrees on this, so we’ll take a vote.”
One role I see as Executive Producer is not to enforce my
own will in any situation, but rather to quickly recognize when not everyone is
in agreement and call a vote before there is time for a long bitter argument.
Another issue is the fair division of resources. Right now
we are doing fairly well. Because Swing Cast has been one of the most
successful programs ever, we have more cast than we need in each slot, and can
afford to be somewhat generous about cast allotments.
In terms of slots, we are not doing badly. In general we
have about as many scene bids as we do slots. We also have enough players that
we can probably move to five tracks, opening up more slots in each time frame.
Currently our use of properties is very poor. The complete
collapse of tracking and storage at the manse has meant that most props are in
unknown locations and are not being retrieved for events. There is no master
listing. There is a plan in place to fix this, and despite very low support
from the group for a fall work weekend this will move ahead, though not as
quickly as planned.
Likewise, 2008 has been a year of financial retreat. My
personal financial difficulties with my mother’s estate have prevented me from
heavily capitalizing the game, and indeed led me to claim some losses that
would normally pass without comment. Again, 2009 should see Threads,
for the first time, well capitalized with an independent bank account, and the
ability to pay all its expenses well before a game is run. I want to make it
clear that I am not “giving money” to Threads. But VIA will have its
own accounts and capitalization which will mean Threads can buy more
cheaply and aggressively by anticipating needs.
But there are questions. Doing “big projects” of any kind
that require budget or focus has been largely off the table during a year of
financial hardship. I see five major areas of Resources that need to be
considered
- Allocation of Money for “high value” projects
- Allocation of Time/Scenes
- Allocation of transportation space in delivering props to
site from our general storage
- request more props than we can reasonably handle, they can
be given access.
- Allocation of cast
- Allocation of Admin time for maintaining systems outside
of the basic game framework projects
- Decision on Admin Resources for Major Projects
We’ll discuss these all under “Handling Allocation of
Resources” below.
Most of our volunteers are very good and very solid people.
This is largely because Threads has crossed the “credibility threshold”
for a small group. In very small groups, any volunteer, no matter how substandard,
must be accepted. This tends to “poison the well” driving away more competent
volunteers who don’t feel like having their time wasted. Good management can
help maximize the use of volunteers, and that attracts more competent
volunteers.
In short, competent people prefer to work with other
competent people.
Our two challenges with Volunteers arise from three sources
- Our inexperience with volunteer management
- Failure of our leaders to recognize that they are
volunteer managers
- The fact that we are still a fairly small, rather
eccentric volunteer entity, and that we may from time to time attract
“unhealthy” volunteers whose habits and attitudes do not benefit the rest
of the Group.
We don’t want to make our Writers subordinate to Managers.
The problem is that for that to be possible we have to make our Writers
Managers. We can start by trying to set a good example. But in the end we
need writers who want to act as Leaders – to really “move and shake” to understand
that makes them managers of volunteers. And to learn the techniques they need
to do a good job.
In the 1990s, I took the then fairly popular Zenger-Miller
(now AchieveGlobal) management training offered by the U.S. Government. I also
read various management theory, including MBO, and various work on handling
volunteers.
We can’t expect each of our Writers to go out and take
training or become a high quality volunteer manager. But we can create a
culture that rewards and encourages maturity, cooperation, and good behavior
and condemns difficulty, tantrums, and narcissistic “me first” behavior.
Under “How to be a Leader” below, we’ll discuss some of the
action steps that can make us better leaders, more worthy of respect in the
community.
While we need to improve our maturity and leadership skills,
we also have to recognize that sometimes we will get volunteers who don’t work
out well. In the next paragraphs we’ll look at behaviors of some “problem
types” that we need to be aware of.
The “solution”
for Problem Behaviors in volunteers is for our Leadership base to be
established, well organized, and work well together. If we have good competent
Leadership, we can recognize and contain or re-route these behaviors.
The negative helper knows his or her limitations. But they
also know that you are having problems and you need help. Often they will in
fact use guilt to call attention to your faults to prove that you need help.
Of course, they know their limits and are not as overcommitted as you. So you
will have to work to help them help you. In fact the amount of work you end up
doing will just slightly outweigh the benefits of their help. In ILF days we
collated Metagame magazine every month, about a three hour task. We had
one volunteer who noisily insisted on being included in helping. But he had no
car. He saw no problem with asking us to drive forty minutes each way to pick
him up and drop him off so he could save us about an hour of time. Often this
person enjoys one sort of work, such as “building things out of popsicle
sticks,” but does not enjoy buying popsicle sticks, painting popsicle sticks,
or designing popsicle stick structures. So they are very offended if their
offer to sit and build things (provided they are presented with a neat desk
with all supplies ready to go like in grade school) is rejected. Often their
reason for not buying popsicle sticks is that they “can’t.” Oddly when asked
to sweep out the barn, or some other unskilled task, they are indignant, even
if they disqualify themselves repeatedly from more complex tasks by saying they
aren’t bright enough.
The specialist can actually be helpful, but it relies on you
wanting what they have to offer. And often they can be world-class pushy about
making you accept it. Most of all they guilt you if you don’t accept it. On
one LARP project for another group years ago, we were told that there had to be
a big bad monster at the end of the game. We didn’t have a big bad monster in
mind and wanted to know why. The answer was that they had a really good latex
guy, but we were at least told (never confirmed) that he wanted to do a piece
for every game, so it wasn’t okay not to have a big latex monster. That’s on
the positive side though. Probably we could usually think of a latex project.
F or another LARP some years back, we had a fellow who was supposedly a “folk
musician” offer to play. He was, in fact, actually bad enough to largely clear
our room every time he performed. And he did three full sets. We finally
pulled him off, but not in time to save the event. It was a lesson in saying
“no!”
The Climber has some competence, but they are also
ruthless. They can do a good job, but the job that they want to do is yours.
They target someone in the organization, usually someone who is weak or falling
down a little on the job. They offer to “help” by which they mean
embarrassingly show this person up by making a big show of doing the job better
and quietly explaining all their past and present faults, while doing nothing
to actually support them. This sort of person can be an asset, if they are
willing to move into new territory and merely want a “way in.” Often, though,
they are either substandard themselves (they may let the person they are
replacing do the majority of grunt work, while focusing on a few high profile
tasks that show them up) or “sprinters” who work feverishly for a new position,
then slack off and do not follow through on the job.
The sprinter is a world of energy, and hits a new task great
guns. You wonder how anybody can put forth that much effort, but you don’t
care because they get so much done. Unfortunately they will fail and flag,
often being cyclically depressive, and leave a task unfinished. In a perfect
world this would at least be a “good start,” and some self-analytic sprinters
are good contributory volunteers by undertaking complex one time tasks. But
most are using their energy to get recognition and a “position” within the
community and hang with determination onto a role or project long after their
energy to do it passed away, leaving the task undone and the embarrassing task
of “firing” them to someone who is willing to be “mean” to someone who has put
forth such good effort in the past – a task nobody wants or enjoys.
The sidewalk superintendant does not want to do the job at
hand. But he or she understands it better than whoever is doing it. In a few
cases this is useful. Occasional expert advice from someone who really doesn’t
have time to do the job is great “I can’t come do makeup for you, but I’ll show
you how to break down and clean an airbrush.” But the great weakness of this
person is that in not actually doing the job, they don’t have to take any of
the constraints into account. A conversation with them usually becomes a
litany of “we can’t do that because we don’t have X….we can’t do this because Y
doesn’t allow for it.” They will give idealized instructions without thoughts
of time, resource limitations, etc. Often they are dismissive of resource or
procedural considerations. The point is that since they never actually have
to produce, they aren’t held responsible for the failures or problems their
methods might cause, and don’t have to think practically about what they are
doing. A warning sign. Real experts first ask about all the
constraints of a situation, then start giving advice. They work with you and
accept that you may have to do the most with the resources you have.
At first thought, it would seem logical that the best
writers would make all the decisions about plot and story and the rest of us
would accept them. A second thought shows a great flaw in this concept – our
writers all want to write and produce material and are not all the very best
writers. A writer supports the group because we want to produce things, and
even if the event is really great because Joe did all the writing, that’s not
satisfying to Susan if her material was ignored or left out.
We are not out to produce the greatest dramatic work of all
time. If I set out to create “art” LARP that always looked sharp, was
beautiful and cutting edge, I’d do what the Finns do. I’d restrict it to
invitation only and screen out all but the people who were the best, most
dynamic, roleplayers, as well as hand-picking who I worked with.
That’s not what Threads is for. We’re here to
produce a good piece of work that everyone in our
community feels welcome in and enjoys. That’s our basic goal.
Now I don’t know about you, but if I spend all day sweeping
out the barn, and then that evening I want to suggest a plot idea or concept
and the lead GM tells me that I’m not very bright and should stick to sweeping
barns, I am going to be insulted. And I am not going to have a
good time.
At the very far ends of the spectrum are people whose ideas
are so good that we often defer to them. And people who just don’t seem to
“get it” and so no matter how much sweeping they do we are not going to run
their psychosexually disturbing plot. But those are rare exceptions. Most of
us fall in between. We may not be George Lucas in 1977, but thankfully we
aren’t George Lucas in 1999 either. And we want our say and our
participation. Even if we are not the best writers ever, there is very little
evidence that most of our peers are strikingly more brilliant than we are.
So we acknowledge that Threads is driven by a desire
for “group play” not a desire for peak artistic brilliance. We balance good
content with allowing a wide variety of people to learn the art of LARP by
creating stories.
Our individual scenes may be great, and I hope they are. I
try to make my artistic scenes brilliant. But my need to be brilliant in my
scenes does not drive Threads. I have no right to subordinate other
writers agendas to my supposed “brilliance” especially since they might or
might not really agree I’m very brilliant at all.
Most of us had rather write for people who appreciate our
work. Eric Johnson put this well when he said: - “about target audience. I
prefer, both as a writer and a programmer, to work for an ‘enlightened
audience’ and dislike having to pander to an audience…Which, I realize, makes
me an elitist snob, but is an interesting thought anyway, I think.”
For years this just didn’t mesh with the concept of “Group
Play.” I remember the experience of being roped into producing a game for a
regional boffer LARP about nine years ago. Despite presenting a “dumbed down” version
of the original idea the project was a constant cycle of being told to “include
more parts where we hit things with plumbing supplies.” While I find boffer
combat admirable in many ways it wasn’t what I wanted to be producing. I felt
very much like Mozart in Peter Shaffer’s “Amadeus” when the icon of artistic
mediocrity, Salieri, advises him “I think you overestimate our dear Viennese,
my friend. Do you know you didn't even give them a good bang at the end of
songs so they knew when to clap?”
But let’s be fair. There are other authors who have
complained about “elitist, artsy” scenes, or scenes which push a strong
psychosexual element. Everyone has different taste.
So we write in modules, and compartments, so that authors
can develop the work they want, while still being part of the “Group Play”
experience. The tradeoff is that we must each agree to keep our scenes “in the
box.” That is how we share the Group Play environment.
These two areas require pro-active “government”
Logistics - a logistics issue is one like “where
shall we have the game” or “where people may park”
Creative Content - a creative issue is one like “how
does time work” or “where do vampires come from.”
We tend to immediately want to separate these two areas. After
all, what do logistics people know about vampires and what do vampire-writers
know about parking cars? The problem is that most of us are gamer-geeks, who
pride ourselves on intelligence and flexibility. We do not take kindly to
being told we know nothing about parking and we do not take kindly to being
told we have no good ideas or that our input on creative matters isn’t
important.
There are some people who say “I am only interested in
parking and paperwork, I do not want to write.” And there are some people who
say “I only will write, do not ask me about parking.” But by and large the
bottom line here is that we are not Disney. We do not face logistical issues
like “staging a shoot in South Africa,” we face logistical issues that most
high school graduates can readily comprehend and take some interest in. So
everyone wants to be involved.
I’m going to suggest that as we discuss leadership we keep a
few things strongly in mind
Things go badly in an arts group when the talent does not
have ultimate control over the project. At Disney, financial managers and
planners control most operations. Because Disney is so big and so lucrative,
and because people work for it to get the best possible salary, it is alright
that people who are not the talent make decisions.
In Threads however, there is no paycheck. The only
reason people work for Threads is to have fun doing something creative.
If we create staff who seem to be ‘bureaucrats’ and those staff make demands on
the writers, they will soon bristle and be unhappy. Even if the demands are
the same that I would make the difference is that I am also a writer, and that
I make the same demands on myself. The moment demands are made by someone who
is not a writer, then they will be called into question. The first time that
the demands are unreasonable or badly designed, they will be called further
into question.
So we need to have management, but need to keep the Writers
– the talent – involved in the process.
This is shorthand for the idea that if you want to have a
say you do some work. At Disney if I am a good writer, I don’t have to sweep
up the offices. Disney has “people” for that. The only people Threads
has is you.
Threads is not a multi-million dollar corporation.
Look around you. How many of your friends do you see who are actually such
brilliant talents that you feel you ought to take up a broom and sweep so they
can have more time to produce fantastic art? Now, how many do you think should
clean up their own damn rooms?
If we don’t want to sweep up after other people, we can
assume they don’t much want to sweep up after us either. And bless the people
who like sweeping.
We are a volunteer arts group. Just as it is bad when
Managers are disconnected from the Talent and start giving orders and making
plans without regards to the art we are producing, it is bad when Writers are
allowed to sit in an ivory tower and think great thoughts without having to get
their hands dirty.
The presumption in Threads is that we all do our
share of the work. Now some may do different kinds of work or be suitable for
different kinds of work. But nobody gets to sit on their ass and tell other
people what to do.
I try to make myself a case in point. It is true I often am
the one who gives the orders, and I am the one who makes many decisions. I am
also the one in the barn at 10pm Tuesday night when everybody else has gone
home. In the coming year I hope to cut down the amount of work I am doing.
But along with passing off work to larger groups of people, I also hope to pass
off much of the authority in the group to larger groups of people. The two
need to go hand in hand.
I think that’s true for all of us. We’ll be bitter and
resentful if we are doing work and not getting any say in how things go. The
amount of say we have should be commensurate with the amount of work we’re
doing.
It is the natural tendency of people to prefer to play ‘Chiefs’
over ‘Indians.’ If you don’t believe me, count the number of cast who say they
“strongly prefer soldier no. 2 roles.” There are a few, but not many. In Threads,
everyone has to be both a Chief and an Indian. The person who makes the rules
has to try to live by them or answer for why not.
The only time we tolerate Chiefs who are not writers is if
we see they are also staunch Indians. That they work as Tech, make food, do
paperwork, or do some other set of hard, undesirable work that makes us say
“they are Indians too, so if they are acting as a Chief they’ve earned the
right to.”
It is possible that our group would be best managed if we
found someone who had consummate management skills but no willingness to work
at any task other than telling people what to do, and simply asked them what to
do, and had them dictate it to someone who was willing to write it down. But I
do not think we would be a happy group, no matter how well things worked.
I’m going to go a step further though. I believe we are too
heavily invested in the idea that “all writers are Indians and all players are
not.” Let us be fair. Many people who write a few scenes are not doing all
that much work. Now, many distinguish themselves by doing other “Indian work”
like coming to work weekend, undertaking tasks like setting up Sharepoint or
maintaining the wiki, or handling other things for the group. But writing in
itself is not Indian work. Writing is a thing to itself, its own reward.
You can even break writing down into categories.
a)> Creative
writing – writing that someone wants to do because they have a cool idea and
want to bring it alive in a scene that entertains people and gets them a pat on
the back and gratification of having done something cool.
b) Maintenance
writing – writing that gets done because it must be done. A scene written to
fill two hours for four players who weren’t in anything else. Extra characters
written for cast that weren’t taken by anyone else. “bridge” scenes that exist
because the game structure or plot dictates that they must, not because someone
deeply loves and cares about them.
I think that “maintenance writing” is Indian Work, and
“Creative writing” is something that is its own fulfillment. When I write
scenes I can easily tell which kind of writing I am doing, and I bet most other
people can to. As good writers we try and turn our creative skills to
“maintenance writing,” but this does not make it the same. Maintenance writing
is “work.”
If we are honest with ourselves, most of us mentally put
some writing into another category: “Useless writing.” Writing that we’d
just as soon not have been written. If we don’t like comedy and think it
breaks up the game, then “10 Bad French Threads,” or “Mr Tiki God” is
useless writing. If we don’t like politics and think that it’s an annoying
thing that we keep getting clubbed with while trying to write cool personal
plot it’s high level intrigue in Rising Sun, or the latest plans of the Emperor
of New York. If we write politics and are annoyed when players “supposed” to
be heavily invested in a political plot blow it off to pursue some “stupid
romance” it’s the latest love plot between Tom and Josie. The point is that
to all of us, there is writing we see as valueless because it’s not something
we really want.
This makes determining what is (a) and what is (b) hard.
Bob writes the “Triffids attack Manchuria” plot. We decide that Triffids are
stupid, and Manchuria is a scene stealing thread that Bob only wrote to compete
with our cool Kung-Fu China thread. So when Bob says that his scene for game
IV is (b) “work” because he “has” to write a scene in which the Triffid King
confronts the players because they insisted we want to say “no it’s…(c) you
supporting your own candy-ass idea”
On the other hand we all readily recognize that if nobody
ran candy ass ideas Threads would have no plot. We just all wish they’d
write cool stuff like us. Though we’re not sure what would happen to the
players who don’t like the cool stuff we write.
The point is that we have to rise above personal preferences
and be realistically critical. But most writing in the end is (a). The problem
is that we need more (b). We need more writers who are not writing to advance
their personal stories, but instead are picking up slack and writing to address
needs of the group. We’ll talk about this more in the “blue tracks”
discussion, but it’s an important concept and I wanted to address it.
One of the solutions to Advocacy and Championship is a
Marketing Model, which I am going to call the “Free Market of Ideas.”
Currently we have a very bad system for deciding on new
ideas. Let’s say someone has an idea that they realize is bigger than just
their writing module. A new Thread that will interact with others, or a new
rule, invention, organization, group, item, etc. that will affect several other
Threads. The way this is currently handled is that they come to me (or
rarely some other Continuity staffer) and make an appeal. Wisely if I think
there’s any serious debate, I usually pass it around for comments to the whole
Continuity Staff and any interest writers who tend to give me their comments
privately. Then I give a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down.”
But that’s not really the way it should work.
The alternative to “centralized planning” is a free market
of ideas, where any member of the group (or any member who fulfills certain basic
requirements for participation) can come forward and “sell” an idea.
The function of the leadership becomes to act as regulators
in a free-market economy rather than as controllers and despots in a
centralized economy
In the“free market” approach we see two elements.
“Controlled elements” and “uncontrolled elements.”
Are things that we all recognize need to be centrally
managed. Even in a complete free market, some things (police, fire, sewers,
electricity, roads) need central planning and direction. In these cases we
must administer them one of three ways. Using our “box” analogy above,
controlled elements are generally things that stick “out of the box.”
In this model one person is chosen to be in charge of that
element. Everyone who needs something about it comes to that person, and they
make all the decisions about it.
In this model, all questions are referred to a specific
group (usually for us all the active writers, or sometimes the writers and
taskholders or administrators).
In this model one person has “custody” of an element but
does not have “ownership”. This person does most of the day to day work on the
task, but refers it “upstairs” to a Committee when there is a question that
exceeds their authority. This is probably the best model, but requires
volunteers that a) have good sense in determining where their authority stops
and b) requires a fairly detailed definition of when a decision does or does
not need to be referred upwards.
Not everything needs to be coordinated. In our situation
“module size” and “allowable locations” for scenarios might be controlled. But
the majority of what is written into a module does not need to be controlled.
There does not need to be a control on creating characters that can be
expressed normally within the system or creating a place nobody will ever be
able to get back to again once they have visited it.
We need to define what uncontrolled elements there are, and
then stick to those descriptions, periodically reviewing them.
In the marketplace of ideas, the idea that wins is the one
which is coolest and most flexible. Let’s say that Roofus proposes that all
Sorcerers of any capability belong to the International Sorcerer’s Union
(ISU). Doofus on the other hand has been writing feverishly on a similar
organization the International Union of Sorcerers (IUS). After giving both
ideas a once over, the general consensus of the writers is that there is no
particular reason that there “can be only one” organization of Sorcerers, so
they decide that is an uncontrolled element.
- writes a good wiki page for the ISU, outlining several key
NPCs, and explains who plays them. ISU scenes can run with any one of
the three present, and they are good roleplayers who have been well
briefed on “what is going on.” The writeup isn’t much more than a page.
- Puts most of the “secret ISU backstory” out. The
backstory makes it clear one of the key NPCs is an evil wizard trying to
destroy the group, but doesn’t give away which one, since some writers may
be playing in the plot and don’t want to know. Everything but the name is
there, and Roofus is willing to answer questions about the group.
- Makes it clear that the ISU is a large, diverse,
organization that has a straightforward three point code. This makes it
easy to include very divergent plots in the ISU structure
- Answers e-mail about the ISU promptly and pleasantly.
When someone requests to use an ISU NPC, he pro-actively figures out a
reason they would be involved. He is very reluctant to turn away
requests.
- Does not post much information about the IUS online. What
information does get posted is extrapolated and posted by a third party.
Doofus doesn’t look at it, so it may or may not be accurate. The IUS
exists in his head in huge detail and it is waaaay too much work to write
it down. A few key NPCs exist and are played by Doofus or a close
friend. Nobody but Doofus’ NPC seems to know very much.
- Does not tell anyone the “secrets” of the IUS. If players
knew that one of the key NPCs was an evil wizard it would keep the cool
reveal he has in mind where the evil wizard suddenly crushes the players
from being effective.
- Makes it clear that the IUS is a huge, powerful
organization that is in charge of everything. All power is centralized.
Doofus’ NPC makes most of the rules, and nobody can speak for or do
anything with the organization without his approval.
- Checks his e-mail once in a while. He’s often online
talking to friends, but Threads e-mail is work and he gets around
to it when he gets around to it. His time is valuable! Doofus says that
it is easy to be involved with IUS and everyone should be, but when people
suggest plots or connections they are usually “wrong.”
Both writers are within their “rights.” But in a free
marketplace of ideas which organization with flourish. Doofus is within his
rights right up until he begins to complain about people “ignoring” the IUS,
and favoring the ISU. Doofus loses in the free market because his idea is
unattractive and he sells it poorly. And there is no “Continuity Staff” to
force other writer’s to accept Doofus’ stupid ideas. He cannot closet his one
or two friends and lean on them to make the IUS “Official” and force everyone
to go through it. This is frustrating to Doofus, but we’re okay with a system
that frustrates bad writers who want to use political force to get otherwise
lame ideas made “official.”
There are three basic models for the free marketplace of
ideas.
The “Do it Yourself” model places a template with a set of
requirements. “Open Source Angels and Demons – OASD” http://writers.Threadsofdamocles.org/index.php?title=Angels_and_Demons
is a DIY model. This means that the initial author does not act as a gatekeeper
or traffic director, but puts out a set of instructions on how to use the
element and then makes it open to everyone. The advantage is that this can be
a very good low maintenance model. The disadvantage is that this is
counterintuitive for writers who have been trained to retain “creative control”
of plotlines. In many ways the DIY model is best for Threads, but it
falls down in a situation where much cross referencing or technical continuity
is necessary. A DIY model will typically have:
- A good introduction
- Compelling positives – reasons to use the element rather
than starting from scratch (good NPCs, cool feel and setting, heavy
support by another author)
- Strong support on the Wiki
The DIY model can be abused. It is not carte blanche to take
an author’s idea and rip it to shreds or dramatically alter it. And an author
can make legitimate objections about use of a DIY element. But it’s rarer and
authors should be prepared to see things done in a way that is “not what they
would have done.”
An author may object privately about abuses with a DIY
model, but their only real recourse is to go before the group and ask for an
opinion, and potentially if the other writer does not back down, ask for a
vote. In general you are going to “lose control” of the fine details of DIY.
On the other hand, if the DIY description says “the leader of the group is
Grond who never loses fights and uses a silver hammer” and another writer wants
Grond to be a pushover who fights with a toothpick, generally the group will
back you up on it.
Very long DIY write-ups that have huge numbers of “thou
shalt not” caveats are going to be turn-offs. Accept that you are creating
material for others to use and don’t be upset when they do.
The “Customer Service” model offers up a set of connections,
but requires input from the original author. The Service model author sets up
an element and says “tell me what you want and I will give you what you need.” A
typical service model might be “I’d like people to reference my cool NPC power
faction and in return they can run stories with these two NPCs, and I will
write connections to other plots for them.”
- Compelling positives – reasons to use the element rather
than starting from scratch (good NPCs, cool feel and setting, heavy
support by another author)
- Strong e-mail support
- A willingness on the part of the author to really work
with others and modify his or her original ideas to suit the needs of
others.
The Closed model is where one Writer or a Group of Writers
decides to produce an element by themselves, and does not intend to allow
anyone else access to it, or access only if it meets certain criteria.
Oftentimes, because writers are very picky people, writers will act is they are
presenting a Service model when they are really presenting a closed model.
Know the difference. If the answer is “ask and I’ll think about it, and maybe
I’ll say yes” it’s a closed model not a service model.
There is nothing wrong with a Closed Model. But being up
front about it saves time and effort. You also have to be reasonable. People
will not be as enthusiastic about supporting or incorporating a closed model
A Bad Model is one where an author wants to have the
responsibilities of a DIY model, and the control of a service model. That’s a
bad model and seldom works well. We do not need to make rules against it
because it does not prosper in the free marketplace of ideas. But it is
frustrating, and most authors will not enjoy working with it.
I have seen several occasions in the past where individuals
who created, ran or were integral in organizing a LARP attempted to hand the
leadership over to others. In every case but one this was a failure, because
the original organizer was not realistic, believing either that they could
simply announce elections and suddenly the LARP would run itself, or remaining
tightly in control until they provoked revolt and a belief they were not sincere
in their commitment to open the leadership of the group.
The existence of Continuity is a strong indicator that I
have a strong commitment, shared by the other original members and organizers
of the group, to an open process that includes others. Continuity has grown
and we have sought to include other members.
But that isn’t enough now, and we need to do more.
In talking about my personal commitments, I do not mean to
be self-aggrandizing or imply that the other members of Continuity and other
volunteers are not also working hard and doing useful things. More people work
for Threads than ever before. But we need to be realistic – I am still
the primary and often only major setup and teardown lead, all transportation,
much of the props base, and the money.
I think that it is important that I personally draw some
lines about what I will and won’t do in the coming two or three years. On one
hand, I feel it’s vain to include personal limits in a discussion of group theory.
But the theory must have practical basis, and I do not want to raise false
hopes, or end up being told that I violated my own “rules” a year down the
road.
I will make every reasonable effort to cooperate with the
group in being an agent for change. I will empower and support. As I am
required to do less of the overall work, I will also work to diminish my
overall authority. It is important that as new people are brought on board and
Threads becomes more autonomous, I do not remain as an autocrat who does
not pull his own weight.
However, over the years I have had my share of abuse. Many
times up through the 1948 campaign I was faced with excited, less experienced,
staff who said “we want to do X”
I would respond “X is impractical…let’s do Y which is not
quite as good but will take a lot less effort.”
They would say (not in so many words, but effectively) “no
I am just sure we can do X…you just are too lazy or don’t want to. Or you are
afraid I am a younger, better author with bold new ideas, and you are just
limiting me to keep me down so people won’t see I am better than you.”
So, shamed or guilted, I would agree to do X. Now I would
like to make the moral of the story that X was a flatulent failure, but that
was seldom the case. First it is a point of honor with me, that having agreed
to do something I give it a reasonably diligent effort. And often X was a
howling success.
With the slight problem that it often required
dramatically more effort than Y. So the newbie author glows and tells me
how foolish I was to think that X wouldn’t work. Never mind that instead of
four hours it took forty and I worked 36 of them.
I have reached a point where I will not do this. I do not
feel obligated to win pyrrhic victories by “proving” that something is a worse
method through doing it badly and wasting a huge amount of my personal time and
energy. I have been supportive enough of new writers and new techniques I do
not need to “prove” that I am not jealous by handing new writers more assets,
leeway, and resources than they actually warrant just to prove I’m not
jealously hoarding them so I am not shown up by some new wunderkind. In
fact I feel that the fact I can no longer be “led” in this way is essential to
the maturity required to make this a success.
I will try within reason to support alternate methods of
doing things. But the “rules” do not require any author, producer, or leader
to sacrifice vast amounts of personal time and energy because someone else has
an enthusiasm and refuses to back down, and I am not surrendering my right to
choose how much time I will invest , and in what. That does not mean others
cannot make those choices. Money in the end will likely come to a vote of the
group, to the extent of the funds directly available to the game.
I will work to protect the interests of all the members of
the group, and that includes my interests as Producer. I must give a
gentleman’s agreement not to use the role of VIA as a servicing agent or myself
as a Producer to throw my weight around unfairly and stifle others freedom of
expression. Conversely, I cannot let fear of “looking bad” because I have that
weight keep me from protecting everyone’s interests even when it upsets a
specific individual.
Now that I’ve been fair and given my limits, let’s talk
about what others must do if they wish to step up to the plate as Leaders.
The first and biggest thing we must do as an action step is
promote an attitude of responsibility toward leadership. This does not mean
behaving like we have poles crammed up our asses, or being “corporate” and
acting like a twelve thousand dollar a year amateur entertainment is a major
corporation. We do not need pretense, or self-importance.
In our ethics for writers, at http://wiki.Threadsofdamocles.org/index.php?title=Group_Writing_Ethics,
we talk about the values of our writing group.
- Pragmatism
- Reserve
- Professionalism
- A "Can Do" "Will Accommodate" Attitude
- A tendency not to be argumentative
- A laid back, chilled out, approach that does not
accelerate confrontation or conflict
We have all seen LARP leadership that was an “oligarchy of
the needy.” Where the group functioned not for the benefit of the players but
to kowtow to the egos and issues of a group of high strung “artistes“ who lead
by tantrum. Often that kind of group is built on a layer of tolerant and
competent seconds-in-command who do the work.
Threads has made toughness a virtue, and intolerance
for whining and special privilege a baseline. We have a functionalist attitude
that does not tolerate drama queens, or those who cannot drop their personal
issues to run and play a game. If we want Threads to continue to be an
open, welcoming, community project, rather than a refuge for subscribers to
every one of the geek social fallacies, we will continue to be tough on this
stance, and as long as I am a central administrator of this group it is my
intention that we will not be tolerant of this sort of behavior. Inability of
the staff to separate their personal needs from their roles in running the
event and tolerance for high-maintenance participants is, in my opinion, the
single largest cause of failures among LARP groups, period.
I want to add a few more core “overarching” concepts that
expand on what is required to be not just a good participant but a leader.
Most of what we describe above embraces the concept of “Self
Restraint.” We also tend to characterize this as “not being an asshole.” Self
Restraint means figuring out in advance if we are going to piss people off, and
then not doing it. Acting like adults, not children.
When we are children we often do whatever we want and count
on mom or dad or a teacher to stop us if they don’t like what we are doing.
In order for Threads to be less and less run like a dictatorship, we
need our Writers and Volunteers thinking of themselves as mom/dad/teacher, in
the positive sense. Not constantly correcting others, but correcting
themselves.
The core remedy is “Acting like a Writer” because this is a
prerequisite for all other remedies. We must have a solid core of
contributors working from the mature standpoint. If all of us who wish to
leave do not work to form these personal skills, we will not be very
successful.
This means that we think about the overall structure of the
game first and our particular contributions second. This means thinking of
yourself as “the establishment” rather than thinking of yourself in an
environment where you play “student” and rely on me, or the Continuity staff to
play “teacher.”
This links to self-policing. But it goes beyond that. It
requires thinking of yourself as being Threads. Of the game as
reflecting on you. Of the Community as being yours.
Someone who sees themselves as just a lackey says “they won’t
let me run the cool scene I want to at Game 3.” Someone who takes ownership
of the game says “I don’t think this scene is right for Game 3 – it
requires too many resources that are going to be hard to work out in that
setting, with two other important plots breaking.”
Us v. Them
How can you tell if you are putting the game first? There
is an easy test. Is Threads “us” or “they” to you. If you think in
terms of the big picture your inner voice says things like “We’re going to have
a very strong game this month.” If you think in terms of the small picture and
yourself first your inner voice tends to use terms like “they” as in “they are
giving me trouble about my scene.”
When you think in terms of the “big picture” then every
other writer’s concerns become yours. You don’t think in terms of “my scene”
but in terms of the overall picture. That means that if another author needs
resources or time, or is staging a lot of scenes, you balance that in your mind
with what you want to do.
We don’t always pander to our audience. But we also have to
consider what they want and who we are writing for. Some players want a very
aggressive challenge that pushes their roleplaying envelope. Others want to
walk over glassy plains admiring the remains of the enemies they have
effortlessly slaughtered. We don’t have to give them that, but we do have to
be aware that overall the game needs to entertain most of those player
extremes. That means being supportive of material that is not what we value
most.
This is such a huge concept and so central to us that I
think it bears some citation. It is a concept that unites us as writers, and
for me goes back to the roots of my original work with Ken Brown, though I
think Eric Johnson has been one of the loudest champions of the concept.
Wikipedia tells us:
According to the French Wiktionary, the Dictionnaire de
l’Académie Française defines it thus:
- Whoever claims to be noble must conduct himself nobly.
- (Figuratively) One must act in a fashion that conforms
with one's position, and with the reputation that one has earned.
"Noblesse oblige" is generally used to imply
that with wealth, power and prestige come responsibilities…. In American
English especially, the term has also been applied more broadly to those who
are capable of simple acts to help another, usually one who is less fortunate.
In ethical discussion, it is sometimes used to
summarize a moral economy wherein privilege must be balanced by duty towards
those who lack such privilege or who cannot perform such duty.
In Le Lys dans la vallée, (1836) Balzac exhorts that a
noble person performs services for others not for gain or recognition, but
simply because it was the right thing to do.
Threads is, by reputation, a pre-eminent LARP
campaign. To be among its writers is an honor and a privilege. I consider
myself to be honored to work with all of the talent this campaign has
assembled. But to be a part of it also brings responsibility, and to be
considered a leader or first among peers in this group carries a weight of noblesse
oblige.
How does that play out in game terms? It may mean giving
resources or favors to others. Doing extra volunteer work, going the extra
mile to help someone out, backing down from a fight when all that is at stake
is a minor issue. It may mean swallowing pride on occasion. It may mean doing
extra work, cutting it short, or swallowing something we aren’t happy about.
And we expect that the guy at the top does that more than anyone else.
Doofus has a scene for Threads. It’s going to
really rule because it is his scene. It’s about Mongols. It isn’t the most
important Mongol scene he has ever produced, but it’s the one he’s producing
this game, and dude everything Doofus produces rocks!
Doofus gets obsessive about Mongol footwear. Everyone
knows that if you don’t have footwear right the scene is totally ruined. He
sends six e-mails to see if what is onhand is *just* right. On the other hand
he doesn’t describe Mongol costuming at all, but just enters “Mongol
costumes.” Any simpleton should already know how Mongols dress and if not they
can look it up. Jeez, staff wasting his valuable time. He already has Mongol
hats, but doesn’t mention that, because maybe there will be some extras…he
needs a lot. And if the staff is going to buy Mongol hats at great expense
they ought to ask him what he has. He’s pretty sure the staff person doing
props even saw his Mongol hat at that game two years ago.
Doofus wants to simulate the Great Horde. Everyone knows
Hordes are big so he is going to need a lot of cast. He will write a generic
Mongol sheet and needs every available cast. Twelve or fourteen at least.
Doofus will play the Great Khan himself.
The scene needs to be in full daylight because that’s how
he pictured it. Nighttime slots, representing half the available slots are
right out.
Of course the scene is boffer. There isn’t actually a
lot of fighting but if some does break out, how are you going to simulate it
without boffers. Mongols are violent. They may kick the player’s asses,
that’s one reason he needs a lot of cast. An ass-kicking would be cool
Doofus writes a vague and mysterious blurb for his scene
that reads like an ad. After all, people should know what to expect and he
wants to be mysterious. He doesn’t mention that it’s mostly a negotiation
scene. After all if the fighter types get violent he has endless recycling
cast to kill them.
Doofus bids his scene three days late. He doesn’t know
who the staff person who has to turn the grid around is, but he told Gordon
about his scene at a party and Gordon should know it’s coming. Really it’s a
pain he has to do a “bid” at all. He’s a great author and of course it’s going
to be accepted. He is always vaguely insulted at having to bid and fill out
questions. Dude the scene rocks.
Anything in Doofus’ mind about the scene is as good as
gold. If anybody needs to know more about it, he can explain it. If anybody
in the process feels they don’t know enough about his cool scene to schedule or
cast it, he will answer any questions they have.
Doofus seldom reads e-mail. It’s only a game, and he’s
busy.
Doofus pays little attention to deadlines or the Writer’s
Group. After all, if something is important enough to come to his attention,
somebody will e-mail him about it personally and nag him until he responds.
Roofus Scene
Rufus has a scene for Threads. It isn’t his favorite
topic, but he knows that it needs to be written as a linking piece to tie the
“Asian Threads” plot together. It’s about Mongols.
Roofus realizes this is a medium value “talky” scene that
mostly exists to frame an upcoming season-long conflict. He wants decent costuming,
but puts down he’ll take whatever is in stock. Roofus realizes that the props
staff may only vaguely know how Mongols dress, so includes a couple of URLs for
quick reference. He mentions that they are similar to Vikings (furs, earth
tones) because he knows that there was a big Viking game in 1936, and he lists
“Mongol Hat” on the props list but notes that he is providing it. That way if
it’s lost in the cast area after the scene, props can easily get it back to
him.
Roofus wants to simulate the Great Horde. Everyone knows
Hordes are big, but he realizes in a talky scene they’ll have nothing to do.
He decides to start the scene with the players being show into the tent of the
Great Khan. He asks for a “loud army in camp” sound effect and boombox for
outside, but notes this is just window dressing. It would make the scene “pop”
but it’s hardly a priority.
Roofus looks over the Cast list to see who to cast as the
Great Khan. Since this was a connecting scene that is mostly maintenance
writing, he isn’t casting it first. He waits a day or two to see who is left.
He notices that Joe Blow who doesn’t get picked for lead roles very often is
free. Joe isn’t a bad roleplayer just not very imaginative. He should do find
at playing the Great Khan. Roofus will Cast the scene as his advisor in case
Joe hits any really rough questions. Roofus does think it over carefully…if
the role of the Khan were more subtle he might need to play it himself because
he can’t expect a Cast member to read ten pages of political background and
know all the details of the last four games.
Roofus thinks about whether the scene can be staged in
light or dark and sees no reason to put a preference. He thinks carefully
through the scene to see if there is anything else he really cares about and
decides that he really would like to have some snacks because hospitality is so
important. He makes a note of that on the scene bid.
Boffer cast is always short and there really won’t be
much fighting. Roofus bids the scene as “Theatrical.” Besides bidding it as
boffer might attract the wrong players…giving him mostly fighter types who will
hate the scene because there is nothing to fight. Or worse derail it, forcing
a lot of SP expenditure over a pro-forma linking scene.
Roofus writes a blurb that mentions the “Asian Threads”
plot by name, and focuses on the scene being talk and negotiations with some
color and roleplay elements. That should get the right players.
Roofus bids his scene a few days before the deadline. He
doesn’t love bidding scenes, but he understands that the data is needed to make
up the various grids. He tries to balance brevity with telling staff
everything they need to know, since he knows they seldom have time to ask
questions of writers in e-mail when they are making up the schedule.
Roofus does a quick mental run through of the scene. He
realizes instinctively that he may be taking things about the props are staging
for granted, and tries to make a quick list to make sure he’s not missing
information that somebody else needs to understand the scene. He checks for
potential problems by trying to picture the scene actually being run. If he
doesn’t instinctively remember the old tables with mnemonics for the elements
of scenes, he refers to them.
Roofus is busy but tries to skim at least the subject
line of any writer’s group mail. Even if he can’t get to something he tries to
dash off a “read it, will respond ASAP” reply. If someone is asking a time
sensitive question he doesn’t want to stop the whole show by keeping them
waiting.
A centerpiece of my vision for modernizing Threads
leadership is to drop the current “Continuity” Structure and move to a Weighted
Committee.
The committee would consist of everyone who worked as a
writer, or volunteer on Threads. The problem with this would appear to
be that not everyone is equally invested. In many previous groups that were
theoretically made up of “equals,” one opinionated or argumentative person would
often hold up the works, even though in the end they were only doing a small
fraction of the work of others.
In order to avoid this, we use “weighting.” Our use of
surveymonkey and data analysis makes figuring out weighted votes largely
effortless
Everyone is weighted for every vote by function and participation.
While we may quibble over the system, and may fine tune it for permanent use,
this gets across the basic idea. We have a rough idea and can work out the
final weighting over the next few months.
If you participated in the Date Survey, you have already
seen a simplified version of this. We asked everyone:
- I plan to act as staff for 2009 (1 point)
- I plan to act as a major site volunteer in 2009 (1 point)
- I will write many scenes in 2009 (2 points – exclusive of
“a few scenes”)
- I will write a few scenes in 2009 (1 point)
- I will Cast in 2009 (2 points)
- I will Play/Swing Cast in 2009 (1 point)
Everyone has different functions in the game. Weighting
should depend on Function. We weighted the decision about date and location
towards staff and volunteers, because we need them to run the event. But Cast
were weighted as heavily as Writers…after all…we can run with writers offsite,
but not without Cast to produce scenes. Generally we’ll weight
General behavior = one man one vote (i.e. “Will smoking be
allowed in X area.”)
Logistics Issues = weighted towards Admin staff with a bow
to the people who have to use any system being proposed
Plot Issues = Weighted towards Writing Staff
“Big Plot Issues” = i.e. where the game is going overall –
Weighted between players and Writing Staff
Everyone has different participation levels. We can all see
that it is not fair if Wendy brought her friend George to one game last year
and he got on the mailing list that he has the same vote as Bob the author who
spends hundreds of hours working for Threads. We’ll ask people to
self-rate their participation levels.
So how do we keep everyone honest? How do we keep George
the delusional guy who once bid a scene that never got accepted from declaring
himself a “Major Writer.”
First let’s consider that peer pressure eliminates 90% of
the problems. We keep the categories simple and unambiguous. Then we post the
poll results publicly. If somebody rated themselves higher than seems
warranted, that’s embarrassing. Most of us won’t do that because we
don’t want to look like idiots.
Let’s also bear in mind this isn’t the Threads BGA
system where weighting is infinite. One deluded person voting a 5 rather than
a 3 is not going to overturn a popular decision. Overall decisions still
require broad support.
That leaves the occasional person who you get on every staff
who is a flake or delusional, or simply has no shame. Once postings are
public, they can be challenged. Rather than making the decisions, I will take
responsibility for acting as Parliamentarian and being the first line of
policing on the challenge. Going to the person, asking for an explanation,
passing it back, and if there is still disagreement, asking for a “show cause”
statement.
Obviously we should handle the first steps of this in
private to avoid misunderstandings, though in the end the matter could become
public. It is my belief that as painful as this may be, it is better than the
alternative. On several occasions in the past, difficult writers have wreaked
a great deal of havoc in the group. I have had to learn to put my foot down,
but there needs to be a structure for making a difficult writer the problem of
the entire staff. I can act as the “hatchet man” if I have to, but someone has
to review the use of the hatchet.
In the past, we have been in a situation where the
difficult writer refused to believe that anyone else found them difficult.
While many people asked me privately to “do something” few offered support in
public when I did. It is not fun to play the “bad guy” all the time and
without any support.
With increased freedom goes increased responsibility. I am
willing to be the first line of defense, but ultimately conflicts are going to
have to come to the attention of the group. It is possible that they might
“tear us apart” but I doubt they will do that anymore than they would have in
the past where things were resolved by Despotism.
Not every scene needs to run. For years we have wrestled
with the problem of how to get bad writers out of the writing loop without
forcing catastrophic internecine fights. The answer is reasonably clear. Do
not mandate that every scene must run.
If a scene cannot garner enough enthusiasm that players
prioritize it, then there is a strong possibility it is a scene we are better
off not producing, or that should be deprecated to a run-in with minimal
support. Up until now there has been a tacit assumption that we would force a
scene full of players.
The best model for Competitive Bids is Intercon. Writers
declare both a minimum and a maximum for scenes. If a scene does not make the
minimum it is dropped, and the players passed into their second choice scenes.
The one downside to this is questionable authors setting very low minimums, and
players being trapped in a scene with only one bad writer and, say, one other
player. Generally this should resolve after one experience. The player who
does not enjoy this will likely not return. Alternately, it allows for very
small scenes to run if there is ardent, but limited, interest.
I will add that I think we can open the possibility of
scenes with lower Max than 6-7, under some circumstances.
a) Writers
must support their popularity. If a writer has fanned the “Mongol Horde” plot
for months, he or she should not restrict the “meet the Great Khan” scene to
three players. Popular scenes should at least support the current declared
average.
b) Scenes
that have a low max, need to have low resource requirements. They should be
structured to run in “random space” at the property (i.e. “in the woods” or “in
a tent”) or in a hotel room at the indoor site, and should use a proportionate
amount of cast.
Currently we show the (projected final) tracks for scenes
when we allow players to do signup, because players like to know roughly what
they are getting into. If things become dicier and competition becomes more
fierce we may need to go to a Runoff system where players rate scenes without
regard to track. In that case, if we had 20 slots we’d select the scenes with
the 20 highest totals and run those. We’re conducting a trial with this for Threads:
Manhattan Christmas (December 2008)
We can also try to cull the number of scenes in advance by
requesting some authors that said they don’t feel strongly about the scene drop
them. On the other hand we want scenes that are good not scenes that writers
say “must” be run.
In “Pros and Cons of the Modular System,” above we talked
about the lack of continuity and tracking scene to scene. It is hard to have
major continuity because few writers have the extra time to read everything in
the game, laboriously send out e-mails with feelers about crossovers, and then
not be too disappointed when it turns out more than half the feelers they sent
out went to authors where it would not ultimately work, or the author just isn’t
very supportive of the crossover.
One major step to solve that problem is to build standard
interfaces for exchanging information. This means coming up with locations,
and formats where we can store information about possible plot hooks and
openness to crossovers so that it can be used easily and quickly. More than
that it means coming up with elements that we “build in” to modules so they
will easily connect to others. This has been a plan for years, but we have
never had the organization to master it. Still, short of having the leisure to
quit our day jobs it is the only likely way to add much continuity to the game.
Once we have begun to work like mature leaders, we can begin
building and supporting Standard Interfaces. This cannot happen without mature
leadership, because only mature leaders can see the interfaces as a “benefit”
(to the richness of the genre) rather than an “obligation” ( a stupid thing
they have to do because somebody in charge said so).
Let’s say all the elements of the game were boards, with a
peg on one end and a hole on the other end and each side so they could connect
to other boards. Bob doesn’t bother to put holes on the sides of his boards
because he only does projects that need end pieces. Sue doesn’t glue pegs on because
she is pretty sure only Bob will use her boards and he makes ones with pegs.
Tom drills oversized holes so his are stronger, which is great, but they don’t
work with anyone else’s.
Now let’s say we want to build something with all those
boards. None of them work well together. It takes ten or twelve times as long
to build anything and a lot of the planning is “well we have extra boards from
Sue without holes, maybe we can make it longer?” It requires some extra time
from Bob and Sue, and Tom needs to be willing to give up his personal
preference for the greater good of the group. That’s standardization.
In the Threads world standard interfaces aren’t pegs
and holes. They are things like the Scenario Bid Form, the optional scenario
interface form, and the various tracking and plot lists on the main wiki and
writer’s wiki.
None of those tools are perfect. Many of them may be little
more than flint chisels compared to the tools that we *could* have and even in
some cases have envisioned. But to begin to invest in building those tools we
need to have staff squarely behind the concept. We can’t afford to spend days
building powerful and elaborate mechanisms to coordinate if people won’t use
them. Another local campaign designed a data engine which worked fairly well
along these lines. But it had poor buy in from many of the writers, and there
were complaints about the design and interface.
Before we build complex tools, we need to get buy in on the
basic tools, and many people need to be involved in the process
of building our second-generation coordination tools.
Human beings form “associations.” Used in this context an
“association” is any group of people who tend to associate together with each
other. In a large sense Threads is an “association” but within Threads
there are sub-groups and combinations.
These are a double-edged sword. On one hand they have the
capacity to be a powerful positive. People like to hang out together in small
groups, plot, plan and have cool ideas. Very few people really warm to the
idea of doing plotting or writing in a room of 25 people. But most get excited
about sitting with three or four friends and coming up with “cool ideas.”
But associations are also the source of much we consider
negative. Cliques, power blocks, plot hoarding, “just writing for your
friends” etc. are all elements of associations.
This goes a step further to writing groups. Clearly Threads
of Damocles cannot bring its writing staff together in one place at one
time. The few times that might be workable (Intercons, games themselves) we
are busy entertaining and being sociable, and do not want to have lengthy and
possibly contentious meetings. Asking the staff to travel to special meetings
means three things.
a) Those
who have to drive long distances resent those who don’t. This creates a bad
atmosphere where smalltalk is considered banal “you brought us here to say
something that unimportant!” and big questions are discussed with jaundice
“well if you dragged us all this way, I hope you’re prepared to listen to what
we have to say!”
b) Some
staff comply and make meetings. Others don’t. In many cases those who don’t
feel “cut off” or “excluded” even if there was no overt intention. They may
feel bitter, resentful, or just as if their contribution doesn’t mean as much.
On the other hand, many of our authors don’t like to work by
e-mail or in a pure e-mail environment. Some are very sensitive to e-mail
discussion, and it is hard for them to work when they can’t judge tone of
comments from body language and intonation.
How do we rectify this? On one hand, nobody wants to see
small groups meeting that suddenly make a lot of plans/changes/decisions that
affect everyone else. On the other hand we don’t want to discourage Writers
from meeting and working in productive small groups.
The proposal is that like the modular system, Writers
Groups need definitions and boundaries.
- Anyone can put together a working group of writers,
formally or informally
Informal Groups
- The “box” for a working group of writers is “all the
things that they have in their collective boxes”
- Anything that would substantially affect anything else in
the game needs to be brought back to the table (the e-mail group) and
discussed.
- Informal Groups do not gain the power to make decisions.
Individual authors may make decisions about things in their control based
on the Group’s input but the responsibility for the decision is theirs.
If Joe is responsible for the Mongol Thread, he may make any sort of
decision he wants to within that Thread based on a group discussion. But
if he shares responsibility with Sue, and she isn’t present, the Group’s
opinion does not outweigh her input.
Formal Groups
- Formal Groups are started when a Writer says “I want to
gather people to talk about X” If the Writer wishes the group to have
more authority than just the boxes he has direct control over, he has to
say that explicitly. “I want this group to decide the fate of the ‘Great
Wall of China’ plot which involves many authors.”
- Formal Groups require an APPROVAL. The Approval can be
“deemed consent.” “If nobody objects I will…” Objections should be taken
politely and seriously. The point is to cut out extra transactions “let’s
all vote on this” not to ramrod the opinions of a few activists by making
it bad manners to question any proposal. Discussion will be short and a
move to voting will be immediate. The format should be roughly…
“I propose that we get together at
Ed’s Bar and Grill on Saturday the 19th to talk about the Great Wall
of China Plot [gives the date, and location]. I think that Mindy, John, and
Peter can all make it. [gives an easy overview of who is expected to be
involved.] If anyone else feels they have a vested interest in the GWOC plot,
please let me know, otherwise, I think we’re better off focusing on the people
who have a stake in this plot. Our recommendations will be based on the
opinions of the Writers concerned with this plot. [politely encourages gawkers
and “helpful” seconds to stay away] If anyone has a problem with this or can’t
make that date, please let me know and I can set up a poll to vote on the date,
or discuss your inclusion. [states that silence is deemed consent while
politely allowing objection] If nobody objects, then we feel this will be the
final word on the GWOC Plot. [states that this will be a “Czar” level decision]
- A writer cannot and should not launch a “face meeting”
group for a matter that excludes some of the participants. It is fine to
informally discuss the ‘Great Wall of China’ Plot and even come to the
list with recommendations. But if the primary GM on the GWOC plot lives
in Boston, and the people meeting are in Washington, he is just as
entitled to dissent from the group recommendation as not. Groups should
not exist to “force” the hand of a distant writer by expecting him to
rubberstamp decisions.
- Formal Groups may act as a Custodian, Czar or Committee
A final element of informal writing groups is Vouching by
Assocation. As we noted above this addresses much of the issue of
“information leakage.” As a group we can generally determine who produces work
well and on schedule (they run scenes repeatedly, or do other work) and who
does not. This is an important cornerstone when it comes to dealing with the
issue of secrecy.
Since the only practical way to keep secrets is to “keep it
under your hat” there are going to be times that authors refuse to disclose
part of their plans. Why? Because they know that no matter what policies are
enacted, or promises made, in the end if they spill things on the Writer’s
List, or Wiki, they are going to be known to half a dozen “game gossips” who
will circulate the information, leading to second-guessing, loss of suspense,
etc.
They may even fear that other Writers are going to “jump on
them” to change details.
The solution is vouching by Association. Let’s say Joe says
“I’d rather not discuss that on the list.” Sue says “oh but I really think we
all need to know that.” Joe says “Well, I’ve talked to Tom and Chuck and
Sarah, and they all think it’s pretty sound.” These three people post notes
upholding this position. Presuming that this represents at least a decent
handful of credible writers with some weight of experience, we choose to let
the situation rest, and assume that Joe knows what he’s doing.
It is true that someone with a “clique” can typically
support their position. A weighted vote remains an option if there is real
dissent, but someone with several supporters can usually uphold their position
in a group and this merely formalizes and legitimizes a dynamic which would
exist in any case. A clique of “straw men” will quickly fall to a weighted
vote, and anyone with several friends is going to be able to beat off all but
the most bitter challenge, so we might as well admit that and go on. If the
stakes are high, voting is an equalizer and remains an option.
I have launched the initial Socio-Political Economic and
Military Sheet. I will run this sheet as Czar through Game 3 of 2009. By that
point I hope to have trained several other people to run the sheet, and have
confidence in their impartiality and move to Custodian. By Game 1 of 2010, I
expect and hope to turn management of the SPEM system over to a Committee for
decisionmaking and a Custodian for operation.
Currently there is some focus in the Threads
Universe’s “major villains” and “major plots.” Obviously we do not want every
new scene to introduce a new major villain or plot. At the same time we do
not want authors who feel invalidated because they do not have any “big”
storylines people “care” about.
Introducing “Major new Elements” is something that needs to
be run onto the Writer’s List as a “if nobody objects” item. However people in
general should be supportive unless an author is showing signs of being the
sort who constantly spawns new plots but never follows through on them.
Currently I’m completing the introduction of the last of a
core set of NCC powers I’d conceived from Season 1, introducing Napoleonic
France as a powerful low TL Force linked to the Pope. But what if other
players want to introduce NCC powers that rival India, Malaysia, and the USSR
in their hemisphere? Rising Sun was already created by players in that
capacity.
Obviously it should be possible for that to happen. But it
should also not be the case that twenty new major powers are created. This is
a situation for “bids.” I plan to start the process by bidding the only major
power I conceived of as an afterthought as a bid rather than a fiat. From this
point on I intend to introduce no new major political powers without an open
bid including a description, etc.
Along these lines, we are going to need to improve tracking
of the Creation of Threads. I’ve already opened a new tracking sheet on
the Wiki that makes it easier to enter details about them, and give writers the
information they need to know to be able to work with a Thread.
I am planning to “reclassify” Threads into A/B/C/D
(like any other system this one is subject to general agreement – I am not
particular about the terms or specifics, just the overall need).
A – Major – this thread has a SPEM entry for purposes
other than minor support of other Threads. It has important
plot/destiny/weight/resources
B – Minor – this thread is not very important but may
be a resource element in SPEM
C – Peripheral – this thread is theoretically around
but will never get used again. It may be arbitrarily hard to get to.
D –Inaccessible – this thread is not ever accessible
again.
We have largely been ignoring “jump distance” in terms of
Econ costs. This is problematic, because it is the thing that keeps every
resource pool from being open to every other resource pool. I am working on a
simplified system of tracking jumps, but right now we need to check whether a
given thread is within X jumps of a resource partner, or has a direct path.
Note that since we can be liberal about direct gate paths
through maritime Threads, it is possible to have a direct path to a
location that is too expensive to cost gate to.
We may also look at changes to the cost-gating system, but I
want to make sure everyone understands it before we begin to tinker with
changes. The gating system was designed to protect “boxes” and if it is much
tampered with they will begin to break in very unexpected ways.
Above under “Fair Division of Resources” we discussed some
of the issues with Resource Division. Now let’s look at some of the breakdown
on Resources and how we handle their allocation.
Currently determined by the Executive Producer. I advocate
adding a system whereby high value requests are sent to a committee roughly
analogous to the current “Writer’s List” with some prioritization for
activity. The Executive Producer would retain veto power, but realistically is
not going to veto anything approved by a sound majority without significant
justification.
Currently fixed, with special allocations determined by
“Continuity,” including myself, on no particularly rational basis. I want to
remove “Continuity” from this equation and move special allocations to a
petition/vote model in a weighted committee.
Currently determined by the Executive Producer. The one
area of control I am not looking to move to the group in general is
properties. However it should be possible to allow for limited public access
to the Threads Storage area at my house (it can be keyed separately from
the main house) and I’m willing to allow individuals who are property vetted to
access that Storage Area independently so if they choose to request more props
than we can reasonably handle, they can be given access.
Currently liberal and allowed on a “first come, first
served” basis, with resolution by the Executive Producer. The current system
works well, and I see little reason to change it unless clashes become
significantly more common.
No real system. To the extent this is administered at all I
administer it. One serious concern for us is to be careful about the emergence
of ad-hoc structures that ride on one person’s back. If the reason that the
Candy Economics system works is only that Linda does 40+ hours of extra work
between games maintaining it…that system is at risk if Linda leaves or her
priorities change. We want to allow individual entrepreneurship in building
systems and frameworks. I think that this is something that should be
discussed on list, and ultimately decided by a weighted committee.
Some tasks are too large for an individual to wildcat, or
have to be shared by everyone. We do not want to spend the next five years tied
to a bad web utility because Bob wrote it and insisted we use it and because we
didn’t want to disappoint Bob we said yes. We do not want to be in the
position of having fights over major Admin Tasks. I am proposing a “bid and
describe” principle where someone wanting to assume ownership of a new system
must do these three things.
Establish there is any demand for the current system to
change. The fact that Joe can envision a vast new system for tracking Plots
does not mean anyone actually wants such a system
Propose what they intend to do, how they intend to do it,
and roughly how long it will take
Based on that the group can come to one of three conclusions
·
We definitely want to do this and will commit to using it
·
We have reservations. If you choose to go ahead and it looks
good we’ll accept it, but we aren’t making any promises and won’t be
disappointed if you don’t choose to undertake that much work without any
promise of acceptance.
·
We don’t think this is a good idea. If you develop it, we are not
going to feel obligated to accept it. This may be especially true in one of
those systems where Bob wants to improve this or that utility largely because
he doesn’t like the utility Joe has.
Note the lack of an option to say “We definitely want this
and want you to do the work, but we won’t commit to using it.” We must give
the volunteer a sense of how likely it is…we cannot ask people to do hours of
work so we can sit like epicurean cats and say “mmm…no…I don’t think I like
that….”
Some writers control large “wells” of game material – areas,
ideas, or subjects they annexed early on – but aren’t well trained in how to
let go of them and give other players access. They are deemed to be Czars in
these matters. In some cases that may be a good idea. In other cases, they
may need to become custodians, or possibly even let go of the matter
altogether.
As writers we will want to approach this with respect but
insistence. “I wanna do this instead of Joe” is not a good reason to dislodge
something from Joe’s box. But “Joe is unresponsive and has all this plot
material locked up” is a good reason.
The Group has the right to control anything, even if it
someone’s Czarship. But if we do this unpredictably or without good cause we
will be seen as capricious and nobody will volunteer to work with us.
The procedure for exercising “Eminent Domain” is
a) Somebody
or some group raises a complaint
b) I
will approach the person whose Domain is being questioned and get their
feelings or comments
c) We
will open a moderated discussion on the issue
d) If a
quorum of parties feels the issue needs a vote at that point we will hold one
It may be that we broker some specific deals in moving to
the new structure to “grandfather” certain elements for limited or unlimited
periods of time. It is not enough for the majority of writers to favor new
plans for leadership. The majority of the original Continuity Staff must agree
to them. They are still “in charge.” It is my belief that in some cases in
order to protect ongoing plans and material it will be expedient to grandfather
certain areas for certain periods of time. When this plan is moved forward I
will present a clear accounting of those times.
As writers and people of honor we have to live by the deals
we make on all sides. If we don’t honor and respect each other, who can we
expect to respect us.
Housekeeping elements are those things that we are typically
already doing, or simply need to track and keep better. Some are integral to
Writer Responsibilities, others are simply ongoing systems which we must
maintain or improve.
Typically the size of scenes has been set by dividing our
player base into the amount of available space, or pushing for scenes of around
7. Our standard slot is two hours. We could allow larger or smaller scenes,
or longer scenes, while understanding that…
A) Larger
scenes mean that there are fewer players available. This means either fewer
players available for other tracks, or to keep tracks at a plausible size, we
run fewer tracks, meaning fewer slots. Either way, larger tracks demand more
of something.
B) Smaller
scenes demand some resources. Smaller scenes that require less cast and run in
smaller space (hotel room, a random area of outdoors) are more of a positive.
Smaller scenes that require either higher levels of cast or prep, or run in
major areas (Upper Barn, Gatehouse, Presidential Room), are more of a negative.
C) Longer
(four hour) scenes simply mean less slots other Writers can bid. In addition
they create a logistical problem unique to themselves. The same characters
follow through two scenes. This means they are unavailable to other authors
either as players or swing cast, for two full scenes. Often they also wrap up
cast, sometimes very coveted cast, for two full scenes. This can create a real
logistical issue when scheduling. Obviously scenes that are both long, and
have a requirement for a number of specific players or cast, are exceptionally
problematic.
D) In an
ideal world, we would match Large Scene Bids with Small Scene bids. Remember
though that each scene has a dozen other criteria. We don’t want to run
Airsoft v. Airsoft, light requirements, space, cast, author etc. Adding one
more stressor, particularly one where a scene can only be run in one other slot
(large scene MUST go against small scene) is a big limitation. It is also an
extra planning headache for our Admin staff which must make all the square pegs
fit in the round holes to schedule the game.
As we move to an “Intercon” model for bids, we need to be
aware of the issue of fairness. It is possible for an author to put forward
the statement that “my bids will always fill to 14 because my scenes are
popular.” This author may not care if they are taking up resources or limiting
the chances of a new author to have time and audience for scenes. But in the
long run the question becomes “Can this writer produce the whole game
themselves?” If not then they have to remember that the structure exists to
encourage new writers, and if they want there to be new writers they must limit
themselves.
This is not to say we cannot allow for some oversize or
undersize scenes, or longer scenes. But we need to consider strongly that
opening the Pandora’s Box of allowing this is going to cause many writers to
desire it. The first thing novice writers who do not have the discipline to
write to two hours say is “That’s not long enough,” quickly followed by “I need
more cast.” We must be very careful or we will have numerous novice bids for
longer slots by writers who are simply producing inefficiently in four hours
what they could produce crisply in two. And that erodes resources that we all
need and want.
That said, I think the Writer’s group a whole can decide
whether or not overlength, or oversize scenes are going to be allowed. We just
need to all understand we live with the consequences.
Even though we have a very modular rules system, ultimately
we need to be able to give people items or abilities that work outside our
scenes. These are profound connectors, since everything of this sort that
enters the game should have the ability to affect every other scene.
Obviously in an emergency we can “just say no” to another
Writer’s item or ability. But let’s face it. That’s sloppy and poor
continuity.
Instead, we need to be very careful about tracking these
abilities and setting limits on what Writers can give out in scenes or as BGA
results, without asking on list. We may even need Item Custodians that watch
these systems, and report to the group if there is a problem.
I think the most successful implementation we already have
of the Free Marketplace of Ideas is the rules system. If I had told people two
years ago that Threads would be running fine under no particular rules
system, hardly ever honor it’s theoretical “Primary” rules system (strict RTLB)
in actual combat and action scenes, and have developed eight or nine other
rules systems…and that frankly nobody much would care other than authors who
are generally happy about it because it means they can do their own
thing…people would have lynched me. But it’s true.
I’ve said Threads will have a new rules system.
What I really mean by that is that I intend to begin using a new Rules System
for my scenes, and believe that in a fairly short period of time most other
Writers will choose to use it as a default rather than Loose RTLB, which is the
current most popular choice.
One thing we will have to police ourselves on as writers in
a freer environment is BGAs or settings that break physical rules. I think one
thing which would help this is “go to” people for issues like resources and
trade. Currently we tend to play “fast and loose” over Boundaries and
Barriers of all kinds between Threads. We need to be more consistent as
we construct storylines and if the barriers prevent good storylines we need to
brainstorm options that allow good storylines without opening “Pandora’s Box.”
It is my belief that most any good storyline can be supported with a little
foresight and planning.
One element that we have to deal with is secrecy. Some plot
elements are best kept secret, but our mechanisms do not support that well. If
writers wish to keep material secret, we can’t really stop them, but we can
insist on a few things:
a) They
meet the standards for information getting to Cast, and not act routinely to
subvert the standard mechanisms (i.e. e-mailing sheets to cast specially when
other Staff don’t have time, training cast not to look at Sharepoint)
b) They
don’t create roadblocks and problems that slow up the system. It is fine to
say “this element that is closed anyway is secret.” It is not okay to say “the
secret in this box affects many connections, and I cannot say what they all
are…if you happen to hit one, I will complain, but I am not listing them
anywhere.”
So a plot can be listed as “Secret” but must still have a
description. For example I have listed the outcome of various ENY politics
plots as “Secret” but I have also posted to Writers describing what does and
does not need to be run by me.
One simple tool that we need is a good list of the “thou
shalt nots.” Things that no Writer may do before asking on list. This would
go a long way towards setting clear rules for what is “in the box” and “outside
the box.” Rules may be limitations, but they are also permission.
I’m constructing a place on the Wiki for detailed Writer
Profiles. As we become more “free agents” we need to be able to let people see
what it is that we are about. Do we like to work as part of a group or prefer
to work alone? What stories are special to us? What do we like to support.
Do we like to communicate by IM or e-mail.
I am proposing the following schedule for voting on this
proposal:
a) Discussion
and Debate – through Manhattan Christmas. At the end of this period
I’ll note issues that I think needed to be addressed in changing the plan.
b) Straw
Poll – this is a poll among the Writers and players showing general support.
It will run after Manhattan Christmas, through the game review.
c) Continuity
Negotiations – if the Straw Poll indicates support, I will begin working with
the Continuity Staff to work out hurdles to implementation
d) Continuity
Vote – if there is not Acclamation, Continuity will vote on the plan
Note that a further vote isn’t necessary. The plan will be
in place and allows for modification by a weighted vote of the staff.