@Faraday Doesn’t ares have a report feature of sorts, that would allow a person to send relevant things like pages or the scene itself to staff if they feel it should go that far too?

@MisterBoring Not sure how close it was to what you’re saying, but ye olde Horror Mu* had players come up with a general concept (like strong character, academic character) and they played non-related arcs, but the same concept? I never played and could be off base, but that was my understanding.

Champions games have used the staff builders to help players get what they wanted out of the mechanics, which is sort of close I believe.

As an aside, I like the idea of collaboration between player/staff to get what both want mutually.

Thanks for these responses they’ve been very helpful.

I was curious about roster, I’ve never taken time to build one properly for some of the reasons listed.

When I play, I go the route @Faraday has sometimes, further from FC - commoners, non-important staff on a ship, etc. I did try a prior played roster for the first time on Concordia and was surprised with the results.

I imagine staff focus and allowing folks to app outside of the focus would indeed be its own conversation.

Mixed route may be best with equal focus on the roster and OC as both being applicable FC with equity in staff attentinon.

@Faraday Thanks, this is very helpful.

I do recall the day of star wars and jedi by app.

That is a good distinction you made between FC and OC.

I’m curious if the roster and OCs were both FC, had plot, missions, info, events equally distributed.

@ all - the concept of bandwith/allowing only what staff will focus on is good. The only times I’ve seen it sort of work has been on WoD games, make PCs for the spheres with staff, but they allow mundane humans to play at own risk and on their own (ie, show up for monster de jour event and get splatted at ones own risk). I think Faraday was closer to my thoughts, ‘this is what we’re playing, adventurers, make the barmaid with no skills and you’re proverbially on your own’.

@Roz That makes sense. I’m curious in the context of rosters, what considerations should be made or what are some good ways to go about incorporating this if one chooses this route. Sorry if the consensus isn’t a good tool to collect the correct data.

ETA: Slightly seeing: Mixed can work, depending on implementation, including fairness of staff for including non-roster chars.

@Ashkuri Thanks for the very fair response. I am curious then, if all chars are roster in this or said system and all are equally allotted/given staff attention, does that opinion change?

As noted the response implies a negative view of a potential mixed roster/OC system versus constructive criticism (what would be better or could work versus how it was written) and only trying to further conversation and discussion by asking this follow-up.

As an aside, I’m guessing this is one reason there has been a really popular roster only comic mu in recent years.

A mystical lurker, I am curious about this topic and wasn’t finding any good conversation about it either way.

Context: Some games have done quite will with roster only (thinking of some Comic Mu* in the last five years and such), others bomb going this route (and this is probably due to something else other than a strict roster).

Question/Concern: What is the consensus or what would you as a player look for/appreciate when looking at a new place?

Focus of potential place: upper echelon would receive more staff attention (events/missions) and considering Roster for this level; lower echelon might receive directive/TPs/RP from the upper (a team under a roster). Specifically Houses Major/nobles and families defined, but room for lesser OC houses. Only curious during development.