Building a Guild or just belittling the World?

[RageMcCloud]

yes... something in the database that would record actions... <would have to be a resetting cache as it would become HUGE after a while...> could help because it could be programmed to search out OOC things and warn the guild after like 10 or 50 or something OOC actions and then warn a GM... because every guild has OOC moments... but like one that is PURE OOC would be detected easily... just the programming part isnt...

[Verrliit]

RP cannot be enforced.

Not really.

Not without turning the world into a prison camp stalked by style police.


If someonei is disruptively OOC, then explain to them what is wrong with it.

If they do not respond, or become OOCly abusive, hit /report <abuser's name>, /tell a GM, and ask for help.

Sometimes that does not work, but usually it does.


If the OOC behavior is not disruptive, consider it background noise, like a loud cicada on a hot night, and ignore it.

It is not worth the trouble.

Most importantly, do as much RP in /say, in front of others, as possible.

To increase the amount and quality of RP, you must be shining examples, that others will emulate.

Making RP look like more fun that what the OOC players are doing, will have a greater effect than any rule possibly could.

[zhai]

I agree. Forcing RP and controlling guild "contents" is just going too far. There are unlimited ways and styles to roleplay and who's to say which one is above the others. The thing is not about how to control but how to help those who want to create/join a guild integrate RP in their planning. Yes, there will always be someone who would only want their guild to be about powerleveling but once their members are all maxed out they'll have to think of something else or get bored to death. And RP oriented guilds should also know how to innovate so they don't go stale. So, instead of creating a guild police there should be guild development advisors (it could be sticky and a message in-game when you click on the button to create your guild that refers to the forums).

[Zan]

I'm wondering if I'm the only one who wants to make the guild creation harder, not only to try and prevent OOC guilds from popping up but simply to drastically reduce the number of guilds?

Looking at the big picture only, without taking individual guilds and their differences into account, I feel that there just should be less guilds existing. Let me try and explain why first. Well I see guilds not as the game-thing everyone knows, but as the medieval organisations they originally were outside the cyber world. Number two in the dictionary explanation ...

guild also gild:

         1. An association of persons of the same trade or pursuits, formed to protect mutual interests and maintain standards.
         2. A similar association, as of merchants or artisans, in medieval times.

Now what is the difference you might ask .. well to me the main difference is that a medieval guild, one with a known name and not just a self proclaimed band of peasants, would be a whole lot tougher to create than just gather some money, a random bunch of people and there you go. Those guilds were also not created because a group of people decided it would be more fun to group together. They were generally created for economical purposes, they had a common goal and a good organisation. On top of that they generally had one or a few very wealthy members who provided the fundings and also a wellknown person with some form of authority. I doubt that in medieval times you could simply travel to a new city, spend a few days there and already have the influence to start a guild. Maybe after a few months, very maybe but even then I doubt you could do it without the support of a respected townsperson.

Guilds in those times were something elite, when you belonged to a guild it usually meant you were good at what you did and it gave you the support of others. Not every wannabee blacksmith could get into a smithing guild, only those who have proven to handle the craft could. There also weren't five crafting guilds in one city, more like one settled guild who did anything it could to remove its direct competition. Of course people didn't really think about creating a different guild with the same purpose, instead they'd try to join the existing guild because creating one was a long-term and intensive engagement while joining was easier. (That mentality is completely the other way around in PS.) These things made that there were only a handful of guilds in a city and only the more skilled artisans, crafters and workers were in a guild. The majority of people weren't. (Walk around in PS and tell me what you see the most? People with guild labels or people without them?)

So when you see a guild in that same light as me, most of the methods to restrict the guild creation suggested in here actually make a lot of sense.

[Josellis]

I think that the newbies should simply not be able to create guild. Making in it too harsh so that only the people who find SW weapons everyday and who win 100K/day is just rdiculous. If you need to have been playing X hours on the game, that would be a bit better (maybe 50). The money I find reasonnable (20k ...). I find the fact of recruiting 10 people in the next X minutes is silly. This is one reason why people are recruited into guilds just for the sake of being in a guild.

The main thing I would like to see is to have a group is GDMs (GuilD Masters). The GDMs would be chosen by the GMs after an interview. A GDM needs to be a good RPer and have a good sense of what PlaneShift is and isn't. GDMs would (maybe) get some money for how muchz work they do. This would be a reason why you would pay money, to pay the GDM and fees for the creation in the registery ...

[Anne Ominous]

Umm I'm only a 'waylander' only been active on forums in recent times. but I KNOW i already saw a post somewhere making note of, at the least, the weight it carries when a person is approached by representatives of several guilds rather than one big one...

I think while making it a TEENSY bit harder would be ok for now. But until there is the oppertunity to create 'commitees' 'unions' 'assemblies' 'cults' 'sects' 'gangs' 'fellowships' 'clubs' etc of more permanent and visible nature than a 'group', it seems lame to exclude in such a way that unless you're elite at the trade you don't belong in the guild --in my head that leads to PLing in that skill and talk of ranks..  not to mention how does a person rank one's elitism in "helping others"? or should there not be guilds like that because things like that didn't exist realistically?

Besides, how much conflict could occur between guilds with only a couple per city? And if they have to be upported by the community would all real conflicts be intercity? Cool as that may sound in theory between spawn points & what's available in each city, (unless tomorrows update changes everything) it just seems to hinder enjoyable gameplay more than help it..

If  mentioning the "couple of months" time before you would be able to form one in medieval times was a way of suggesting players only be allowed to create one after waiting period of such time I'm also sure i already saw that in this or another thread....but can't recall what was said...

[But upon seeing the 50hour suggestion i recall something like how i could only have 2hrs a night 5 days a week to play, thus taking me over a month--where a person who can play all day can make a guild in a weekend or so...]



..having given further thought tho: making guild restrictions as close to the RL medieval description makes perfect sense; if the game were complete... I think as it stands it would be a tad early to impose on people that level of rigidity... JUST my opinions tho.

And the GDM sounds bordering on the suggestion in this or another thread regarding an approval process for principles of a guild--which got replies mentioning all the rp fun dwarvesbane led to & how it would never have existed if such approval was needed...

What Josellis said about neexing X recruits in Y time; while i agree with the reasoning for thinking it's silly, i don't think it silly. I think it as so silly it's beyond silly....

[Zan]

Please note that I described how guilds probably functioned in our medieval past, I also know it's not possible to recreate this exactly .. hence I never said that guilds in PS should only recruit 'elite' members of their kind. However I do feel that it would be nice to see that guild label under your name actually have some value. Right now it means nothing because everyone who has been playing for a few days can make a guild. Everyone can gather 20.000 trias and make 4 alts.

Don't see any problems with only a handful of guilds in each town, keep in mind that the world of Planeshift will be many many times larger than the two measly cities on a tiny portion of the first level we have now. Intercity conflicts were also more common than intracity ones in medieval times. People in the same city had to stick together to survive and florish. It's also much easier to have a long lasting conflict when you don't live in the same town. This I experienced myself when my guild and a competing guild both wanted to 'be boss' in Akkaio. Things like that end up in: run into eachother - fight - die - go back 'home' - repeat. A very poor roleplaying construct if you ask me.

I do see the problems with time restrictions so I have a different idea. Many games use some sort of fame rating and I know it has been suggested for PS. If something like that is implemented it could be used to allow the creation of guilds. When you're famous and known by many you could start a guild of your own, in combination with some hefty fundings of course. This makes sense since someone who is known somewhere, generally has a decent influence and could serve to unite likeminded people.

[Lolitra, Celorrim Purrty Twins]

Wow...

Firstly, Thank you ALL so far for a fantastic debate so far!

There are many points and ideas here, and hopefully many many more...

Now here is a suggestion.

A form of limit - whether it remain the same as it is now with cost, or change to a combination of cost and a time limit and cost - or what ever the populus agree best...

A new guild created will start with its name tag in the standard name colour GREEN.  This not only denotes that it is a new guild, it may be that it is not achieving the next level which is granted by GM's who can see their RP activity.

The guild who RP's for a substantial percentage of its time in game then would be awarded a YELLOW name tag,  This may be withdrawn if the RP activity is proven to have stopped.  (How this can be monitored is up for debate?)

And eventually, a long standing and constant RP based Guild would gain a BLUE name tag.

Now, the colours of RP - YELLOW and BLUE will then become a beacon for the Role Players who join the game, to continue to hold on to their status they will have to maintain a high standard of Role Play, and encourage it not only with their members - but with all they interact with.

We await your comments with baited breath - and know that you will disect and deliberate over this with great intellect as you have done so well so far...

[Zan]

I was thinking of that very same thing, separation between new and established guilds, while writing one of my previous posts on here. It is definitely a very good alternative for making guild creation harder. This wouldn't remove anyone's freedom to make a guild but still give more value to some guilds.

I'd do it a tiny bit different though. I'd have new/normal guilds - guilds with a history/goals written out on their website and which abided by the guild creation rules posted on these forums. - Well established guilds who have the previous and are also known to be quality roleplayers in-game. Course that's just me ...

[zhai]

I think that having different "guild levels" would work fine because it doesn't cut you off from the possibility of enjoying the game your way but makes it clear that the priority is to RP over PLing. that way those "green" guilds will have to work on their RP to gain more "renown". Now, how does a guild move up? Sounds to me that having GMs oversee and assess guilds makes it a bit too open (not to mention GMs have a lot in their plates right now). I think there should be an automated way to move up, like in the forums where the number of your posts gives you a certain "position". If we do the same with, let's say organizing events or having a sort of checklist that would automatically give the guild certain points that would add up for it to level up (for instance: time passed since its formation, average number of active members, events organized -wars, competitions, etc.- and so on).

I feel that way we don't impose our "experience" by eliminating or controlling guild creation, using what imho are biased restrictions (since again, everyone plays the game with their own style of rp). it's better to acknowledge those guilds that work withing the game's settings and objectives. A guild should also contribute to the game in terms of giving opportunities to players beyond npc quests and GM events. All these guild activities should be valued and the lable color system suggested makes it clear. I insist that we should not think about discouraging people from playing by banning their guilds but encouraging those attitudes that are consistent to PS objectives, which are clearly stated.

[Lolitra, Celorrim Purrty Twins]

one problem with automation...  A guild can be RP based, but not arrange big events, or go to war...

[zhai]

by announcing an event, a GM could be present to observe. organizing a number of supervised events would give you a certain amount of guild points. other categories could be automated (like the average number of members online, or the time passed since its creation).

[Zan]

Hmm .. I don't really see how that'd reduce the workload of the GM's. They'd be asked to supervise tons of events. I think it would be less work to leave it up to them to observe guilds and check out guild when they have the time. Though I agree that with their current numbers they'd all be hard pressed to take that task up as well. I'm still waiting for more GM organised events

[Anne Ominous]

I like the color idea a lot assuming feasability...
As far as automation I'd hav to join nay-sayers...
Far as Events, some need supervision etc to work it seems at this stage in development; but generally 'planned' rps for scheduled events aren't ideal, as has been disussed in the form of a dead horse corpse which was beaten in at least one other thread... So public events a prereq for advancement of a guild may or may not be wise at this juncture--especially depending on unique goals/values of guilds & how publicly available events can relate to them or not.

[zhai]

I don't think this is about reorganizing the GMs' time but how to encourage guild roleplay and allow "the stronger guilds" to be those that are the best at it (not the ones with the most members or the fastest recruiting rate). But since we're talking about it, having "appointments" (aka dates/times for events) makes it easier for at least one GM to be present when an event takes place. Note that it doesn't have to be a huge event (just something slightly organized and that will bring a good number of players together for a while, obviously worth the GM taking a look at). But being required to put these together in order to get past the green/starting guild lable will definitely help go beyond PLing or OOC. Of course there will still be room for lots of improvised rp and I don't think rewarding events would compromise the quality of either one.