|
While I'm reposting old notes...
WHAT MAKES A PLAYER-CHARACTER GROUP "ACTIVE"?
I was asked elsewhere what I meant when I did not consider a player-group "active."
---------
Definition 1: A player-character group is any society in SK of player-characters that call themselves by a group name: cabals, religions, self-organized player groups, etc.
Definition 2: An active PC group is a society of united, invested individuals working towards a common goal, led by a leader with a definitive vision or ambition.
Conclusion: Not all player-character groups are active PC groups.
---------
HALLMARKS OF AN INACTIVE GROUP:
Most other players aren't aware they exist. A sure sign of an inactive cabal is when players start asking, "Hey, is there even a Hammer (or whatever) around anymore, or are they gone for some reason?"
Often, players of such group will cling to the defense of "Well, we're SUPPOSED to be secretive." That's a pretty flimsy excuse, in my eyes. If people KNEW that the Midnight Council were active but they didn't know of anyone who was a member, that's a successful secret. That people aren't even sure such a group exists makes the group an irrelevant secret that grows more irrelevant with each passing day.
While the identity of group members may remain invisible, the fruits of the group's labors shouldn't.
It is worthwhile to note that I've rarely known a group on SK that was both active and completely successful in hiding group membership. If you're active, the information is going to leak out somehow, some way. But it is much better to be an active group than an invisible group.
Your average group member can't articulate the primary vision and specific goals of the group. Is there a plan, a vision--and goals towards implementing that vision? What are the ambitions of the group? How are you going to implement those ambitions? What are you all doing right now towards that vision?
Without a vision, the people will perish.
People outside the group don't know who leads the group--or even worse, people within the group don't know who leads the group. The leader is everything, for better or worse. And leadership is a tough gig. An active leader must be visible, like it or not, to at least some people outside your group.
Without a leader, the vision and the people will perish.
Group leader sees maintaining status quo as his/her primary objective. If your key objective is to rest on the organization's laurels or to simply keep the group together, your group is headed downhill. There is no such thing as standing still. There are only two directions: upwards and downwards. And if your group is not going upwards...
The group hasn't accomplished anything significant, or at least attempted to accomplish anything significant, in the last few months. What has this religion done in the last few months? Have they just gained more members? If that's all they do, why not simply join the Pantheists, the largest religion of all? What mark will you make on this group that will still be evident six months from now?
Your group doesn't interact with other groups, especially other like groups. If you're never in a place where you attempt to contact other organizations or other organizations attempt to contact your organization, ask yourself why.
What does it mean if no other cabal bothers to attempt to contact the Druids (for the sake of example)? It may mean:
a)No other cabal is active besides the Druids.
b)No other cabal feels threatened by the Druids.
c)No other cabal feels the Druids have anything they need or could use.
d)Other cabals don't even realize the Druids exist.
e)The Druids haven't done anything of note to attract attention.
Outside of A, all those reasons should make a Druid member uneasy. If your group is so insignificant, invisible, or irrelevant, what's makes the group worthwhile?
Group members don't interact with those outside the group AS a group member. Because team member B was involved in a high-profile event, it doesn't mean member B was involved as a member of the group. B may have just been there as him/herself, not a representative of the group.
If you're a member of a group, how much you identify yourself in that group tells you something about the strength of the group. If you're in the Dulrik faith but it seems to be to you, oh, the sixth or seventh most important thing about your character, that group certainly holds little relevance, at least to you. If your every waking thought is consumed with the Harlequins, however, that group has a powerful significance--at least to you. And the significance a group has to its members is directly related to the vitality of the group.
The group's primary ambition is just to be a group. If your main purpose for being is being, then you're just a title and a social club. If you never DO anything, why not just hang out in a chat room?
---------
Religions are probably the hardest player-group to lead at the moment, as the role of faiths is muted and membership becomes more restricted. Plus, a player-character who leads a faith has to contend with the fact that there is an imm somewhere who wields considerable control over the religion as well, whether you like it or not.
But that just means a religion leader's job is harder, not impossible. One shouldn't think a religion can't achieve great, worthwhile things.
-----------
Leadership is difficult anywhere, but especially difficult in SK. Why's that? Because it is so hard to truly accomplish anything. You can't kill your enemies because they don't stay dead. You can declare patch of Kingdom A now part of Kingdom B, but without imm support, you're just talking. Almost every great ambition one can think of off the top of one's head either requires cooperation/acquiescence from other players or imm support.
Getting something concrete and worthwhile accomplished as a player group is a struggle. But not impossible.
The best way to ensure a group will fail is to believe it can not succeed.
The best leaders aren't necessarily the most realistic leaders. The best leaders are often those with stupid, impossible goals that can't hope to be accomplished but somehow are. "No Alexander, don't be daft, how could tiny Greece conquer the entire civilized world?"
Which is why negative persons are terrible leaders, in my opinion. It takes some measure of optimistic determination--"Yes, this IS possible, and we're going to do it"--to get something done.
I don't think I was ever a great leader, or even a passable leader, on SK. I don't like taking too many grand risks, and I am too much in the thrall of trying to make others happy. Like I said, leadership is tough, especially in SK, and it takes a determined person to be a great leader.
But it takes leadership to accomplish something worthwhile.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
