Leadership

Daskalos

I wrote this some time back after someone asked me 'What does being a leader mean to you?' in terms of the game. I wrote this up for that person and then kind of let it sit. I showed it to @Moirean about a month ago and she urged me to post it here, but I refused. I actually asked her to post it instead of me, because I felt that the words would be taken more seriously coming from her. Either way, these are my thoughts on the roles of leadership in the game and in general. Have something to add? Post it in this thread.

----

What does it take to be a great leader? Elections in MUD’s can often be reduced to a popularity contest, a successful mudslinging campaign, or sometimes even a metagamed coup based off of inactivity and a stealthy contention, but what happens once the new players come into power? What are their goals, their aspirations?

Typically, when a player attains a leadership position through a hostile takeover, they are of the belief that everything that was done before is inherently wrong and must therefore be replaced or changed. This is not true.  New leaders should carefully look over every part of an organization to decide what works and what doesn’t. Is your novice system something that a casual gamer can accomplish in their spare time? You’re probably on the right track. Does it require them to read 30 books and write an essay? You should change that. Change for the sake of change often leads to confusion, especially in the casual gamer that plays maybe once or twice a week. It may take them months in the real world to complete a novice program because they only login once in a while and constantly changing through political turmoil leads to confusion and disinterest. Would you like it if you were training for a new job and every time you got close to being certified fit for duty they changed the requirements?

To be a good leader, you must be engaging. Resist the urge to give those who supported you favorable positions and immediately cease hostilities towards those you just beat out in an election. You won, but constantly harassing the loser until they either quit the game or switch sides isn’t just bad manners, it’s bad for the game. For a game to grow and thrive, it must have an active, engaged community. And if you became a city leader, you just signed up for the most thankless job in a MUD environment.

The job requirements of a Guildmaster are to grow your organization by nurturing new players into productive, responsible players.  You are entrusted by your fellow players and the games administration to help new players learn and grow the game, so that more resources can be put back into the realm, so that the realm can expand, and so that a profit can be turned to keep the realm in operation. It’s a big responsibility. Don’t use your position to look down on new players or pawn the newbie off on someone else. Don’t use your position to try and ‘mudsex’ out of new players. Consider your position akin to a manager at any popular business: if it’s illegal to do it in the workplace, don’t do it in the game.

City leaders have a different task, and one that can be a lot more rewarding and yet stressful at the same time. Your job is to gather groups of players (guilds) and have them get along, despite potentially conflicting roleplay elements. Having a guild full of orderly Knights and insane Zealots in one city can be a tough act to juggle, but it’s your job to keep them not only getting along, but fight against negativity between them so that they can do their jobs, which is nurture the new playerbase. You’re also responsible for the broader enjoyment of the game, as city’s often wield greater power to influence happiness than individual guilds. This is perhaps the hardest lesson of all: your job now is to do what is best for the game and the enjoyment of your players, and not necessarily what is best for you or your own personal roleplay.

The last part of leadership is knowing when it’s time to move on. Often, players will hold onto positions for months or even years after they’ve had enough and have lost sight of the goals. If you’re not helping others get enjoyment, or pushing towards organizational goals, but hold onto the position to simply hold the status quo, then it is time to move on.  Even a great leader doesn’t last forever, and the moment you quit moving forward you begin moving backwards.

Last, but not least, if you’re going to contest for a position, don’t do it because you don’t like the person having the position. I don’t like X is never a good enough reason to contest for a position; instead, you should always contest because you can improve the organization. One of the worst things that can happen is for a popular character to remove a bad leader from a position and then sit on the position with absolutely no forward momentum. Elections naturally build momentum, and you should ride it into greater things, even if you lose, because sometimes a contention is all that’s needed to kick a dormant leader into activity.

 

Macavity

@daskalos what are you thoughts on Order and House leaders?  Where do you feel they fit in or are they a cookie cutter to the guild one??

Alexina

I recently contested for Ve'kahi and I've found the following thread immensely helpful: http://forums.aetolia.com/discussion/721/the-guildmaster-s-guide

I just find it extremely hard to create a coherent identity for a house where most people are not considered 'full members', and the ones that are come from three different houses in the first place. I don't want to make sweeping changes because that would alianate people without even necessarily solve the issues I perceive. At the same time, it feels like I am moving this forward at a much slower pace than I would have liked. A lot of weird issues just seem to crop up out of nowhere, not to mention I have to make sure the house follows the laws of the Dominion (a separate entity completely) as well as respecting the 'Blood': I have heard members of my house accuse each others of being blood whores and twats.

Eh. Hopefully, the house is moving towards a better place, even if slowly. At the moment, it feels like there are no traditions in the house, there are no recurring happenings that reinforce the house's image to its members, nothing that truly makes it more than a glorified clan (except that most clans I'm in actually have people talking to each other). @Ezalor has been pretty awesome and encouraging, even though he's not even in the house, which I do appreciate a lot.

I do have some plans so hopefully things will be more interesting and engaging in the future.

Teani

First off, well written, @Daskalos. Being a Leader of any kind in the game should not be taken lightly, and should always be about what one can do to help, be of service, to the players, particularly new ones.

To give my opinion on @Macavity's question, I'd say that if the Guild Leader is the one in charge of making new players understand and enjoy the game by being engaging and promoting general interaction, the Order Leaders are there to help players develop their characters' depth. Orders are an optional path, meaning not all are in them, that kind of RP might not even for everyone. But if the Order Leader manages to make it seem like an interesting place, drawing new players to it by being engaging, it has the potential to bring much more interesting venues to the character.

As for House Leaders, I'd say they're a mix of the two, seeing as they are sort of like guilds, but at the same time they're not.

Daskalos

Macavity said:

@daskalos what are you thoughts on Order and House leaders?  Where do you feel they fit in or are they a cookie cutter to the guild one??

Being an order head is a bit different, to me, but also the same as being a GM. While GM's work with new players and help hook them, I think OH's have the ability to keep more established players hooked. Orders are almost like a second  guild in that it's another community. The advantage of orders is that they are more tightly knit and generally it's more established players within. You also serve at the god's whim, so even if you're OH, at best you're #2 - unless the god goes inactive. You can then try to push the order along, but because of limited powers it can sometimes be difficult (can't order promote, for instance).

As for House Leadership, I've never been -in- a house but I would imagine it's about like being a GM.

Denser

To me, a good leader is a servant leader. If the leader expects the member of the organization to contribute towards the organization, the leader must be the first one to contribute and serve and do that more than what his members are doing. Servant leadership works in many ways. By serving your organization and its people, you are not only showing by example but also motivating your members to contribute. It also helps you build popularity.

A good leader also needs to know how to listen and encourage people to speak up, politely. One is often easily blinded to matters due to the perspective you take from your position and often people who give you comments from a different perspective, although differing, might be useful. You don't have to agree or implement all suggestions given but you have to acknowledge their existence and reply and explain to the people why a certain suggestion is good or not so good. It gives the populace a feeling of being heard and that their views are respected and important. 

A good leader lastly also needs to be able to delegate tasks and groom new leaders. If you see someone with potential, groom him to be a future star. Don't avoid this just because you are worried he will take over your position. If he becomes so good that he can take over, it is for the good of the organization. By delegating tasks, you allow more people to have the chance to feel involved and important. You are then effectively empowering the people which empowers the organization.

Just my two cents worth

Solaria

Figure I'll add in about House leadership. What has been said about the other leadership is true and I have very little I could add - maybe just empahsize. Anyways, house leadership is very much like being a GM. It entirely depends on the house. It's almost a combination of city leader and guildmaster at times, when you might have people who are in various guilds, orders, or even cities. However, because houses are more like 'clans' in some aspects, you get extreme spurts of nothing going on within the house itself. Your goal, as a house leader, should be to try to make this less a fact. You should be looking to try to get your people together as often as you can, even if just to chat and socialize. This way you are giving the house a purpose and motivation to stay in the house, besides a fancy last name and a way to get vampire class. This will look good for new members who will feel sometimes left out. It's good to have people introducing themselves to new players as often as they can in general, but interaction with a group of their housemates will help them want to stay in the house.

I won't touch on much else, since delegation and knowing when to step down have been mentioned. So, just as a general note of something already touched on here - don't change things to change things. I get into that bad habit still, thinking it'll help stir up activity somehow. This is not always the case. If a house has been running successfully as it is for a long time, don't look at changing anything - look at finding people who will make it work as it had been again. Only change something if it is truly needed and will benefit somehow. If it is clearly related to some larger goal you have for the house? Sure, makes sense. If it is just an arbitrary thing that adds nothing to the house? Reconsider why you are really doing it. For yourself, or for the benefit of the others? I've seen too many go into any organization, not just houses, and change things that weren't necessary. It can be frustrating for the people in the organization and may even make them want to do less, especially if they see it as being as arbitrary as it is.

Haven

Daskalos said:

----

What does it take to be a great leader? 

Guildmasters

• Know what works and what doesn’t work in your organization. Change/improve what doesn't work.
  
• Be engaging to ALL members, including former political opponents.
  
• Grow & nurture your organization. (You want a productive & responsible model)
  
• Don’t use your position to abuse/violate/harass other players in your organization.
  

City Leaders

• Mediate between the other organizations.
  
• You’re also responsible for the broader enjoyment of the game, as city’s often wield greater power to influence happiness than individual guilds. This is perhaps the hardest lesson of all: your job now is to do what is best for the game and the enjoyment of your players, and not necessarily what is best for you or your own personal roleplay.
  
• The last part of leadership is knowing when to pass the torch.
  

If I've misunderstood you, please forgive me. While you do bring up some great points and qualities, I cannot say I completely agree with you. I think you're wrong to say that leaders, regardless of quality (bad, good, great leaders), city or otherwise, are responsible for the broader enjoyment of the game. If anything, leaders should be aware going into the position that they can and will influence a greater sphere of players in the game for better or for worse with their actions and thus the consequences will be greater/heavier (and typically the rewards but not always). Regardless of that, the responsibility of "the broader enjoyment of the game" lies elsewhere.

The responsibility of enjoyment within the game rest within the hands of two (I'd dare to even say one) people: the Administration and the individual playing.

[spoiler]

The Admin's responsibility lies in making sure there's engaging content for both new and old players alike that will continuously keep them invested in playing the game. (Ideally they're things the players enjoy.) They are also responsible for the creation and enforcement of policies/standards for the game's content they've created. (Ideally these policies and standards maximize overall game enjoyment and weed out the bad apples for modification/removal that hurt the environment the admin hope to foster.) Plus there's the whole business side of it but I ain't getting into that.

The individual's responsibility (i.e. your responsibility, you the player) is to find and do what they enjoy in the game, provided it is relatively within the confines of the set standard/policies of the game. I say relatively because how far you're allowed to push these boundries and laws depend on the admin and how they wish to enforce said standards/policies. For example, if you're going to undertake the roleplaying aspect of the game (a feat heavily advertised, encouraged, and more or less enforced) then you need to be willing to follow and understand the guidelines set down for it. [See HELP RP, PK, ROLE, INTERACTION, etc] And yes, for those that don't know already, PK is one of the several components of RP, not a separate entity and thus should be included in this understanding.

[/spoiler]

Moirean

I agree with Haven's statement but I'd also like to point out that a well-designed game, a game with smart and strategic design, basically uses the players as a form of crowd-sourcing and will design things in a way so player leaders can easily and naturally end up improving the quality of play for others. If done really well, this should be fairly seamless and engaging, and player leaders will feel proud and excited to help with a role like this, versus feeling it as a heavy yoke of responsibility. 

IRE games are designed with that potential in mind, and there's a lot of power here. Other players are a huge source of content, activity and engagement, and the more of that the admin can facilitate, the less work they have to invest in heavy event planning and huge mechanics. 

I personally think more could be done to harness the interest and enthusiasm of players who enjoying playing the game in leadership roles: improve/expand the functionality of the project system, expand the cityrank/guildrank system, invest more powers into orgs for players to earn and use, create things like player-made miniquest systems, some sort of event calendar or tournament organization system, maybe even consider rewards for well-performing/highly active org leaders, etc, etc. Yes, none of these are show-stopper additions, but they (or ones in a similar vein) could provide sustainable, long-term additions which boost activity, help prevent burnout, make it easier/less stressful to lead, and help keep enthusiasm high. For an example at how giving players tools facilitates things, look at how the building system has changed city stuff - Spinesreach, for example, added an entire new spire and cathedral without having to pester the admin, letting us add some dramatic new content to the city without wasting dev time.

Areka

There are several types of responsibility, and you are addressing one without naming it. 

First, the word!

1. answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management (often followed by to  or for  ): He is responsible to the president for his decisions.

2. involving accountability or responsibility: a responsible position.

3. chargeable with being the author, cause, or occasion of something (usually followed by for  ): Termites were responsible for the damage.

4. having a capacity for moral decisions and therefore accountable; capable of rational thought or action: The defendant is not responsible for his actions

There is the responsibility of having to care-take - IE "I'm responsible for Christmas in our household, therefore I need to make sure I have presents for everyone."

Then there is the responsibility in terms of accountability, IE "I was elected into office and therefore influence these orgs and if I'm a shi-, there are larger repercussions than myself."

There is the Spidey responsibility - you must knowingly be aware of the consequences of your actions, for good or ill, when it comes to having power. 

So, while you can irresponsibly use power in a way that affects your orgs, and try to refuse your personal responsibility in the decisions you have made - you are accountable for your part, and if you're in leadership, you are accountable to what -your decisions- do to the affected/surrounding populace. 

You may not like, agree with, or want all of the responsibility (and types of responsibility), but it doesn't change that it is there. 

Edit: I think the biggest issue with is just awareness - being aware that what you do impacts other people. Choosing to carry on or to stop and reconsider is on you (responsibility of your choice), but many choose to be ignorant of the impacts that their choices can have. 

Moirean

I think Haven's point still stands, though - it's not in IRE's interest to just let the sole responsibility for game enjoyment come from other players. I don't think they do that, and it's going to completely burn you out if you go into leadership thinking "I have to keep people playing; I have to get people buying credits." That's not our job, although it might be a very beneficial and large side-effect if we do the job right, which is why it's good for the game to foster good leadership and help fix orgs that are struggling, be that through mechanics or direct interaction.

Razmael, Iosyne and Severn, in particular, have all been really awesome about this, for my orgs at least, with changes made to help stuff be easier, like the improvements to the newbie experience (the weapons automatically starting with the newbie, the mxp help files), overall org management (stuff like the guild/city channel announces) and the far-too-many additions to the city/guild that I often request. I think I just personally wish I didn't have to bug gods as much, and I feel icky when I do it, but there's only so much you can do as a player, which is why I think it'd be nice if there were more ways we could do stuff on our own (city/guild tasks/quests we could set, for example) or do stuff with less hassle (organizing in-game events, for example, is a headache to get the right IG dates/notify everyone).

Areka

That isn't what I was suggesting. I was more speaking along the line of the difference between:

"I'm going to enter into a leadership position and try to help out" vs "I'm going to enter into a leadership position and use it to fund my credits/personal RP and tell anyone who might not be OK with how I'm doing things to suck it AND act as if they have no validity in not being supportive of my choices, despite the fact that it effects them too."

There's different kinds of responsibility, and responsibility goes in a lot of directions. 

Moirean

Oh, yeah anyone who goes into for the 2nd reason really should be booted quickly. It's not always the case, though, and that can be frustrating, too. The political system can be annoying sometimes.

Areka

Yeah. But that's all I meant, especially in regards to the first post - there's many types of responsibility involved.

- Responsible for your own choices. 

- Responsible (accountable) to how those affect others (whether or not you care - if you do something and someone else is involved, some of that weight's on you, regardless of how they choose to respond).

- Responsible for/accountable to those who depend upon you/look to you

- etc

- Acting responsibly

- MAKING something your responibility

- etc

All of which are magnified by leadership positions and impact upon the game. 

There is a difference between being responsible, and it being your job. It is not a leader's job to save the game's enjoyment, but a leader IS responsible for their impact (within their sphere of influence) upon whether things are fun or if they're making people miserable. 

Daskalos

@Haven - I disagree on the aspect of enjoyment, and it may be that I came up with a different 'generation' of players. I will always credit Covenant on Achaea as being the person who taught me the most about leadership, and a lot of my views came from him. One of the things that has always stuck out to me is how you have to sacrifice your own personal RP to an extent in order to push an organization forward and help it grow. You don't have to change how you are, but if, say, Dask was as zealous as he was in his youth, the Templar and the Ascendril would hate him - as it stands now, he's the Herald they prefer to work with. 

I firmly believe that the goal of leadership is to help the admin grow the game as best they can. Players, especially new players, believe that city and guild leadership have some sort of special 'connection' to the admin (here's a tip, we don't). For instance, last night there was a young player who wanted to join Enorian. He had previously been in a 'life' guild, gone undead, hated it, got cured, wants to join Enorian. This player is young, didn't really understand the Light\Shadow Life\Undeath conflict paradigms, but there were several in Enorian, including some leadership, who initially said 'he betrayed us, we shouldn't let him in' - how does that help the game? Eventually, after much discussion (and some well timed support by Slyphe) the kid was given a shot. 

Could Enorian have stuck to their guns of zealousness and said 'no, he betrayed us?' - sure. And Aetolia might be down one more player as a result. That's the sort of happiness that I believe leadership has to spread, that you have to look beyond what your role is hard defined as. Enorian has this nasty habit lately of 'banning characters for life' because of past transgressions, sometimes for people simply switching sides but never actively fighitng us. Who are we, as players, to tell these other players they cannot play the game how they like? If you want to earn a reputation as a side hopper, go for it. The consequences of your actions is that when you're on my side, I'm most likely never going to give you any responsibility because I don't trust you, but I can always use another foot soldier and all banning someone does is deny us that foot soldier, and worse, makes the player unhappy that they can't play where they want to.

Moirean

I think that's fine and helping the game grow is good - it's a tricky balance to find, though. I know I, personally, have been feeling down a lot lately about leadership because people are upset with the Carnifex skills or systems being requisite or even drama between them and another player or two - ie, things mostly out of my control - and I have gotten bummed out when I see players leave the game or they make it clear they aren't enjoying stuff (and as an org leader, you hear those complaints a lot more than those not in leadership), even if it's over things I have no control over. Just speaking from my personal experience lately, at some point you have to go "This isn't my responsibility to worry about" and just make sympathetic noises, something I'm learning the hard way, otherwise you're going to be really frustrated, feel powerless, and get stressed/upset when there isn't anything you can directly do. (and you might even up whining/raging at admin like an annoying bitch as a result which is reaaaaally not a good thing - learn from my errors!)

Daskalos

I understand that, completely. A lot of my more notorious 'blow ups' on the forums over the years aimed at the administration have been because players came to me, time and again, complaining about the same things and after a while, I would snap. That being said, I'm insanely happy with the current admin overall and haven't had a reason to complain in... oh, say, about a year and change. And you can tell players that, but they don't always accept it. I hate losing good players because of avoidable circumstances.

Haven

@Moirean: Definitely. I'd also remove some of the powers organizations have like class dispensing. That's a power that should never be in the hands of a community but strictly the individual playing the class in my opinion. This in turn would mean we'd have to redesign guilds/clans/houses but I think that'd be a good thing since they're pretty flawed and counter-productive in that aspect at this point.

Areka said:

There are several types of responsibility, and you are addressing one without naming it. 

First, the word!

1. answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management (often followed by to  or for  ): He is responsible to the president for his decisions.

2. involving accountability or responsibility: a responsible position.

3. chargeable with being the author, cause, or occasion of something (usually followed by for  ): Termites were responsible for the damage.

4. having a capacity for moral decisions and therefore accountable; capable of rational thought or action: The defendant is not responsible for his actions

There is the responsibility of having to care-take - IE "I'm responsible for Christmas in our household, therefore I need to make sure I have presents for everyone."

Then there is the responsibility in terms of accountability, IE "I was elected into office and therefore influence these orgs and if I'm a shi-, there are larger repercussions than myself."

There is the Spidey responsibility - you must knowingly be aware of the consequences of your actions, for good or ill, when it comes to having power. 

So, while you can irresponsibly use power in a way that affects your orgs, and try to refuse your personal responsibility in the decisions you have made - you are accountable for your part, and if you're in leadership, you are accountable to what -your decisions- do to the affected/surrounding populace. 

You may not like, agree with, or want all of the responsibility (and types of responsibility), but it doesn't change that it is there. 

Edit: I think the biggest issue with is just awareness - being aware that what you do impacts other people. Choosing to carry on or to stop and reconsider is on you (responsibility of your choice), but many choose to be ignorant of the impacts that their choices can have. 

@Areka: I can see that but my stance/viewpoint isn't so much that that accountability does not exist at all but more against the idea that that "responsibility/accountability" of the leader is somehow greater than the "responsibility/accountability" of the followers. The game is designed in such a way that at any time if someone is causing you displeasure you can remove yourself from and or alter the situation (ignore, utilizing aides/secretaries to deal with someone you might not get along with in your stead, walking way, issuing, contesting so that you're the person in power/authority calling the shot, participating in a coup to get the troublesome out of power, etc) to alleviate said displeasure until a resolution, if applicable, can be found. The responsibility of the follower is equal to the leader's if not greater.

Edit: Oh hey...a bunch of people posted and Areka clarified!

@Daskalos: Mmm...I'd still argue that isn't your problem as a leader though. Based on what you said, I'd say that somewhere along the line something failed that player in informing them of RP and the whole undead/life conflict thing. Hell, he might've just failed himself by ignoring it or something. I dunno enough details to really say. In any case, if you (as a player or maybe just your character) are interested in drawing such assets back to your org despite their history then that's your choice but in no way shape or form is his enjoyment your "duty" to uphold.

Daskalos

I don't agree with removing class from guilds, because right now that is what defines a lot of guilds RP. Look what happened to Achaea when they did that. I look at it a lot like my job. My job is to get the job done and make sure my employees enjoy their job. Does it -have- to be my job? No, I could be a dick to them, but then I'm facing turnover and constant retraining and replacing. In the small niche world that is Aetolia, I don't think we have the luxury of being a dick to people on our own side just because it's in our RP. 

Moirean

The whole guilds/class thing is a whooooole other can of worms. Let's avoid getting into that debate.

Nola

I really want to point out that a large part of the conversation, particularly about people in leadership roles responsible for  ' the PLAYER'S enjoyment of the game' is, to me, flawed.

Aetolia is a game. Specifically, an RPG. A player is not responsible for the same things their character is, and looking at it in that context is an entirely OOC perspective. Now, with the Admin, that is fine- that is apart of their job that they volunteered to do. But you're taking away from the nature of the game by doing so. Your characters are no longer their own, individual person capable of making mistakes and doing great things because you're looking at these 'souls behind the people' they're interacting with. To them these things don't exist and shouldn't exist. Its only what is there before them, the people before them, and the circumstances before them. 

So many routes and opportunities for different stories and revolutions, ectr, is shut down by that, because it is a blurred line between IC and OOC. You, as a player, shouldn't be driving your character's actions in a leadership role based upon the 'overall health of the playerbase'. You're starting to edge away from an fantasy-based RPG by sacrificing your own character's RP. If someone is being a dick in a leadership role, that is when it becomes the mass of followers who elected said individual's responsibility to do something about it. If they prefer said person in leadership, well that is just another path of many that any org can take. That is the kind of thing that allows for diversity and flavor in a game. Conflict, resolution, purpose, ectr.

Edit:

I have some other points in this same wave of thought that I feel are really important to the game but not necessarily helpful to the topic of this thread.

Daskalos

But why can't both go hand in hand? Why can't you, as a leader, do things that both suit your role AND helps the enjoyment of other players?

Areka

Or, if does not help the enjoyment of other players, in turn at least doesn't browbeat/make things worse. It's really easy to forget that you're playing with other people and just storm through and do what you want with no regard to the other people you share the game with, and this is especially damaging when it is leaders doing it (be it trying to get people who don't support you to quit the game - the game, not just the org - or utterly neglect things to the point where people can't progress, or force others to become parents for their orgs to clean up after you've had your fun for the sake of salvaging playing time for others - it's really easy to be inconsiderate, and leadership SHOULD be held to a higher standard - they're the go-to line of what's OK and what isn't, especially when new potential members of the community). 

Nola

I think there is a clear difference between 'making things enjoyable' and 'making everything your responsibility, down to the last player (whether or not they're happy, whether or not they're going to stay because they feel welcomed)'.

There should be a fair exception for newcomers, to a degree, admittedly, in that point.

But I'm shocked that no one has noticed the clear deterioration of Aetolia's overall immersive quality BECAUSE we're so worried about things like that, as players. We're too concerned about whether another player is having fun, to play the game. Its a path that leads to us becoming a giant chatroom - imagine the forums essentially overlapping your gameplay in Aetolia. We're invested OOCly, and ICly, and so we worry about 'each other' and it effects our ability to RP our characters out the way they were intended to be/were.

Character developments happen, but when you're basing everything you do as a leader, or even as a regular player, around other players, you're not really creating a story anymore. ..But thats what RP is supposed to be like - making a story that other people can join in and add to. We focus on how to 'improve' everything, but I remember that some of the best events and stories and conflicts came long before we got all the new, shiny stuff we have. 

And I earnestly believe, that people who really seek out a game for its RP, would appreciate a dedication to a character's role more than an OOC concern for their well-being and enjoyment, because the story they're becoming a part of is the enjoyment.

Ezalor

Yeah, there's always ways to find compromises. @Arbre's latest public post, for example, griefing people out of running/obtaining the cure is lame, so I responded with something that basically tells people to leave her alone for running the cure while also making it sound all cocky and vampire-like.

I'm sure Enorian could have stuff about redemption being the greatest achievement or something. There are lots of way to reconcile a hardcore RP stance with keeping grief out of mechanics.

Irruel

I know that Hadoryu's post on this topic has already been linked to in this thread, but one of the most important points Hado made is one that seems to have been glossed over in this thread. It is something Moirean does, and is in my opinion the biggest factor in her success as a leader.

Have fun.

Being a good leader might be about all the little things - working hard, trusting new people, forgiving old people, engaging everyone, blah blah. That stuff is important, there is no doubt about that.

Being the best leader, the one people still remember five or even ten years down the track? That requires more. It requires memories of really fun/important stuff that happened. And that means you need to get your leadership position to the point where it is easy to run and you can focus on playing the game.

As a leader, you have a lot of influence when it comes to larger scale RP and PVP. So go out and use that. Be controversial and bring your org with you on the ride. Use your position to play the game in ways you never can as just another player, and make sure the players in your guild get to enjoy it with you.

Moirean

Huh, reading it spelled out, that's actually really true. When stuff is tedious and stressful and tiring, it really is harder to be engaged as a leader - that's why I ended up deciding not to do the city points system, for example, as I realized it would end up making things really tiring for me. 

I think most of us who lead tend to have fun in seeing things "successful" and see others happy, but I've found that it's important to kinda give yourself a range of things that can count for that success. People aren't always going to be happy with everything across the board (and almost certainly NEVER will be), but you can set a variety of goals and feel satisfaction from achieving those - engaging a specific guild or player, achieving a certain financial goal for your org, setting a RP or combat goal to achieve, etc.

I know I went into things when I returned naively thinking "I WANT TO MAKE EVERYTHING GREAT AND EVERYONE HAPPY ALWAYS" and I've hit an absolute brick wall lately because not everything can be great and not everyone will be happy - for the past several weeks, I've been reacting to that by thinking, well,  I guess I'm failing at this leadership stuff. Irruel's post is good, and thank you so much for making it - it's reminded me that you have to enjoy what you are doing and have fun with it. To bastardize RuPaul: "If you can't have fun yourself, how in the Pit you gonna give others fun?"

Haven

@Daskalos: As far as I can tell, there's no one in this discussion saying that you cannot do both. Some caution against your idea of thinking because it could potentially burn you out (and possibly quicker than normal) as there are just some things beyond your control regardless of your station. If that's a risk you do not mind then by all means do what you enjoy and think that way. After all that's why we are all playing this game, right? To enjoy ourselves with the tools/concepts the admin provide us.

I was only saying that it is not required of you to do think about the "broader enjoyment" nor should it really be expected of you to do so as a prerequisite to being a leader, regardless of quality. The only people truly responsible for "game happiness" are the two listed above for the reasons I've already stated.

I believe @Moirean is right and said it best when she said "a well-designed game, a game with smart and strategic design, basically uses the players as a form of crowd-sourcing and will design things in a way so player leaders can easily and naturally end up improving the quality of play for others." because if we take a look at what being a leader is, we realize that the collective happiness is already a given and that the job is really two fold:

• be the primary force to direct/push and or at the very least represent (I say and or because your role may be that of the puppet leader) the organization's agenda (i.e., their want/desire/happiness)
  
• nurture, manage, and expand the organization as needed and or desired to meet/maximize said agenda
  

How you handle and do this is entirely up to you. If you don't do this well or to the minimum satisfaction of the people beneath you, the people can attempt to replace you at any time with a simple command. Granted, they don't always do this but the opportunity remains all the same. It's just the nature of the game since there are many opposing views and points of conflict and interest. (Remember, Aetolia is specifically designed so that you clash with others depending on the faction you choose. If you're not interested in said clashes, you do not have to participate as there are other aspects of the game to focus on and play.) So long as you're doing these two things and are a respectful player to others OOCly by at least following the guidelines/policies/standards set by the game/admin then I'd say you're a solid leader/player and your greatness can be measured by how many people support you and by how successful your organization is in attaining its goals.

 

[spoiler]

Consider this hypothetical:

 

Let's say a player, we'll name Desian, decides to want to roleplay a ruthless warmonger to such an extent that the character is absolutely vile and repulsive. He then chooses the Indorani guild because not only do the skills/class interest him but it also best emulates and compliments the roleplay he desires with their Doctrine of Despair and Corruption. Let's also say Desian somehow manages to rise in the ranks and eventually becomes Keeper of Bloodloch (i.e., city leader for those that do not know) and rules as a dictator. The majority in the community of that city, for the most part, enjoys the character's antics and or has no problem with him and thus support him as their leader but the Enorians as a majority do not enjoy the friction for whatever reason. Provided Desian is NOT breaking any game rules or harassing anyone while pursuing his agenda, is Desian all of a sudden a bad or inconsiderate person/roleplayer/leader because Enorian's players do not approve?

 

I would not think so. If anything, I might argue that there is a flaw in the game design that allowed these two forces to meet without the option of one backing out and being able to catch a break or even avoid the altercation altogether. If there -are- ways for Enorian to back out, not participate or whatever then I'm not sure there would even be an issue in the first place. It really depends on the -why- Enorian players disapprove. (Not the characters! Remember, the character conflict is the nature of the game. If they're just sore losers then well...the most they can do is practice and bide their time til they can win the conflict.)

 

If they're not enjoying the friction because it is too frequent then perhaps a longer cooldown should be implemented for the warmongering. If that's not a viable or too extreme an option then perhaps there needs to be more variety implemented in the game that's equally engaging so that Enorian isn't subject to Bloodloch's interests as often. NPC invasion arcs or being able to conquer NPC cities could work for instance.

 

If Enorian's not enjoying the friction because one side has a significant advantage over the other then perhaps the status quo ought to be addressed. Is one side of the game being marketed more than the other to draw newer players? Even it out. Is one side prone to attract aggressive players and the other more submissive/passive or less aggressive players? Find a way to attract some of the heavy aggressors to the other side to even out the status quo.

 

If Enorian's not enjoying the friction because it's just not their cup of tea then I might ask why is it those players in Enorian are participating in that aspect of the game in the first place then proceed from there to seek a resolution. The list of possibilities goes on really but like I said it depends on the why.
[/spoiler]

Haven

@Areka: I see what you're trying to say or at least... I think I understand which is that, "we should ultimately be considerate of the feelings of others as we're sharing the game and we're all here to enjoy ourselves. To that end, leaders should try to act in a manner that reflects that."

While what I think what you're saying isn't in itself wrong or is something I necessarily disagree with, I cannot help but feel that it is being applied to the wrong side of the game; the in-character realm. That line of thinking does not belong there, at least as an expected standard for all characters in leadership roles or otherwise, unless of course that is something you're trying to roleplay as one of the qualities of your character.

Remember that Aetolia is first and foremost a role-playing game, particularly one designed around conflict (not necessarily PK). We pride ourselves in that we roleplay and have a higher standard in comparison to a lot of other games. It is something that is not only advertised for the game but encouraged and enforced within the game by both players and admin alike. If I want to roleplay a very, very obese politician who frequently neglects his duties to the detriment of his peers and organization in favor of pleasurables like eating or what have you, I am perfectly in my right to do so but I should also understand that there will be consequences to those actions. This does not make me an inconsiderate player (although the character would/should be considered such as that's the role I'm gunning for).

Aetolia is specifically designed in such a manner so that you clash with others depending on the faction and roles you choose and the choices you make. If you're not interested in said clashes, you do not have to participate as there are other aspects of the game to focus upon and play. Likewise, if you are interested but just not in that particular person, conflict arc/theme, or what have you, the game does offer a multitude of ways to deal with the situation including the option of opting out entirely. (This is also part of the reason why I'm against guild's being class dispensers because it kind of goes against the option of opting out but that's another can of worms for a different thread.)