Dual Guilding

[Kinaed]

By "not easy", I mean "impossible to be accurate to a necessary degree to automate the decision".

Requiring a lot of things to be a GL or member, whilst reasonable in my mind, is probably not going to be beneficial for the game environment from the prospect of retaining enough players to continually generate enough plot and content for everyone to have fun.

The best outcome would be if GLs actually took a stance on these issues and enforced them, but I think that will be hit and miss dependent on the GL, and isn't something staff should be wading in to enforce. So, GLs who have read this thread, please consider how your guild is viewed and remember that you have the right to cull people if you don't feel their dedication. Overall, it appears you'd have the pbase's support and even desire that you do so.

[Leech]

Requiring a lot of things to be a GL or member, whilst reasonable in my mind, is probably not going to be beneficial for the game environment from the prospect of retaining enough players to continually generate enough plot and content for everyone to have fun.

I'm sorry Kin, it's a little late on my end and I'm having to read over these new posts a few times, but I just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding. So you wouldn't be for GLs requiring a report from their members, and GLs keeping track of this type of stuff? As a GL (covert) I made it a habit to know everything about my member's lives and what they were doing (ICly of course) and reports were a big part of that. Not only were they easy to organize (I literally just wrote down a few words in a word document to describe what each member was doing/working on, and secrets about them that might come in handy - things that can be done using the remember code or desc notes) but they helped me keep things MOVING.

In short, I really like Argider's suggestions, and I think it's something all GLs should look into doing. If we have a problem getting GLs, we shouldn't restrain the way we play, we should be looking at getting more players. Personally having challenges and interaction with guilds, from what I've seen, attracts more players. Excuse me for mentioning other MUDs, but Iron Realms Entertainment (horrible pay for perks, don't try it) runs four MUDs, each with more than 100 active players, and their guilds have 12 different ranks each with varying tasks, both for IC and OOC knowledge. If a hundred people don't think their guilds are too challenging, I see no problem upping the ante for our's. This is, after all, a game - a sandbox game, admittedly, but even more sandbox games encourage a wide variety of goals. In MUDs, the draw is that you can make your own - but aside from that it's nice to have some hit you in the face. Member reports, more challenging requirements, something. And if the going gets tough for the GLs, delegate.

Sorry, kind of went off topic. But I honestly believe the idea to be connected. Sort of a 'if you build it, they will come, and then everything will get fixed' kind of thing.

[Temi]

I don't mean to speak for Kinaed, but I believe what she was talking about is not what players do, but from the actual staff requirements standpoint. While we would love to see guildleaders doing these types of things and getting reports from players, etc, if it comes down from on high that they have to do it, rather than coming up with something that works for their guild culture and leadership style, it will be more likely to hurt than to help.

[Annalesa]

Frankly, a lot of the stuff I'm seeing about guildleaders doing more and guild members being more active is a nice idea, but in reality, we have to remember that this is just a game, and people have life balances that they have to tend to. I think they're good ideas as long as they are not overly taxing or the bar is set too high.

I frankly feel that it should be completely up to the guildleaders as to how they handle things, and I'm not really sure how I feel about some of the talk in here. I see what I take as a lot of people advocating that this way or that way, usually their way, is best, and I'm not really sure how I feel about the arrogance of actually suggesting that the prevailing policy should be one's own little pet preference because it is the best way.

Mostly, I'm not really sure how I feel about it because I genuinely am hoping that I am misinterpreting what I'm reading in some of these posts.

As for myself, I'm against restricting dualguilding, but I will say that if it's decided that a different alternative would be best, then I'll go with it. I'm against putting the onus of having to run mini-plots and all this other stuff on guildleaders, but it looks like I'm outnumbered on that opinion, so I'm going to suggest that perhaps we at least keep it to a level that is halfway reasonable and allows for the RL issues that will sometimes come up.

I guess my main argument against making things too incredibly strict or time consuming is that, well, this is, in the end, just a game, but I can also understand the want to make the world a bit more immersive. Finding the right balance of that, though, could prove difficult, and I like the fact that there seems to be some discussion around it at least.

[Leech]

With the right amount of delegation and staff help, keeping track of your guild, keeping them challenged and entertained, shouldn't be something that would take more than an hour out of the week to send letters off. Preferably, the whole system should be automated, accessible, and something players can do on their own. This is why I'm pushing for hard-set requirements for each position inside each guild - and I'm sure a lot of guilds actually already work this way. At least I hope so. I've only ever been inside three guilds:

Here's a list of things you need to accomplish before you advance.

Here's who can advance you. Once you accomplish said things, seek an interview with them ICly. (These interviews shouldn't feel like work. RP never should.)

Here's a list of questions for the interviewer's reference.

Interviewer, please mail a small concise report to the GL.

Done, delegated. Yes, this is how I want it to be. Everything I've said so far has been pretty much clear, and how I feel. If I had my way, it'd be so and so and so. Yes, I'm arrogant, but are we all not trying to bend the game to our best ideas, ideas we feel should be implemented? That's the whole point of suggestions, right? To suggest ways we feel the game should be, so that staff know what their consumers want.

Radically off course of the conversation, but I believe that if you make guilds more... inclusive? Challenging? A bigger part, ICly, of a player's life it will cut down on the 'problem' of dual-guilding 'just cause'.

So, in retrospect, maybe staff should encourage and work with the guild leaders about the set up and organization of their guilds. Organization does wonders.

[Annalesa]

Done, delegated. Yes, this is how I want it to be. Everything I've said so far has been pretty much clear, and how I feel. If I had my way, it'd be so and so and so. Yes, I'm arrogant, but are we all not trying to bend the game to our best ideas, ideas we feel should be implemented? That's the whole point of suggestions, right? To suggest ways we feel the game should be, so that staff know what their consumers want.

I don't really feel like it's unreasonable to take issue with the idea that everybody, regardless of their personal styles, the varying situations within the guilds, or extenuating circumstances, should have to do things your way with no flexibility.

And, since you volunteered yourself, I'll go ahead and say that, in this particular thread, I find that the overall tone of your ideas is fairly good and something that I can agree with. It's the lack of flexibility and the extreme rigidness that concerns me, that hard coding every little detail of the requirements would severely restrict the fluidity of RP and force Guildleaders into situations that wouldn't necessarily always work for everybody or be realistic for most people within the player base.

[Cellan]

I should preface what I say next by qualifying that I'm not what could be considered a perfect guild leader 100% of the time; like any well-balanced person, I'm sometimes too busy to construct quests and events, respond to mail within a day or two, or to have the time to meet with every person who needs a scene. I do think that I strike the mark in 95% of cases, but life happens, and looming work deadlines, responsibilities to loved ones, and going out and getting smashed on a Friday night is sometimes a priority over the game.

Without lingering on my successes or failings as a GL, though, my opinion falls somewhere in-between Leech and Anna's: while i think that it's certainly the task of the GL to provide RP opportunities for her guild members, I think that guild members need to equally show initiative, and think about how they might utilise their role in a guild to create a lively RP environment for others. I think that Casimir is a very good example of a character whose player has a talent for creating plots for others, even despite not being the leader of a guild. In short, I think that we need to look at guild leaders as facilitators as much as drivers for RP: that, as leaders, they need to be helping to enable their guildies to create RP scenarios and plots as well as generating them themselves. I think that putting the onus entirely on GLs is a little unfair, to be honest (even though I don't think you intend to do so, Leech); that, taken to an extreme, it promotes laziness in other players who don't hold GL positions. In short, "GLs are responsible for giving their guildies RP" doesn't quite work for me.

There are also times when people simply don't respond to GL efforts to generate RP plots. This happened very recently with Gavin and I, and frankly, it's a little deflating at times when you do make the effort, but get very little interest or response in return.

I also agree with Anna: at the end of the day, it's important that we keep perspective. TI:L IS a game, and guild leadership should not be considered a job as important as the careers that we conduct within the real world. We need to measure our expectations of ourselves and others more realistically, I think, and stack it all up against how much we can reliably do without putting our every day lives on a back burner.

[Argider]

I frankly feel that it should be completely up to the guildleaders as to how they handle things, and I'm not really sure how I feel about some of the talk in here. I see what I take as a lot of people advocating that this way or that way, usually their way, is best, and I'm not really sure how I feel about the arrogance of actually suggesting that the prevailing policy should be one's own little pet preference because it is the best way.

Y'know, I may have disagreed pretty strongly with some of the viewpoints and arguments in this thread so far, but until this comment, I was never offended. The playerbase was asked for its opinions and feedback, and feedback has been given. I respect every person here who has offered their views and suggestions, supported their arguments, and/or played devil's advocate in a constructive (if pointed) manner. To throw around the word "arrogance" and suggest that people have only shared their opinions for selfish, "little pet preference" reasons is, to me, a little bit insulting.

Regarding time commitments:

I agree that the work of managing the members of one's guild should not be a terribly time consuming process. No one, including myself, wants TI to feel like a crappy internship with no pay. When I suggested one report a month, I meant one OOC month. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't it policy that guild members be reviewed for promotion each OOC month anyway? How does a GL review a member for promotion (or just plain membership) without utilizing -some- method of keeping track of their activity?

And here I want to point out the benefits of the new gnote system for keeping persistent records across shifts in leadership. We no longer have to worry about progress reports being lost should a GL happen to suddenly go inactive. (Big thanks to Az and whoever suggested gnotes in the first place!)

Ultimately, I'm of the opinion that if something requires at least minimal effort, people will tend to value and appreciate the end result more. Right now, the bar is set pretty extremely low for most of the guilds in terms of requirements. I'm not really a fan of instituting policies that would force GLs to do things strictly in a certain way, but I'd like to think that setting well-defined goals and occasionally reviewing members' progress would actually cause people to value, and enjoy, the entire system more... and might even deal with the "hobbyists" issue. It wouldn't be as easy to take things for granted.

But, I could very well be wrong about that.

Leech said that RP should never feel like work, but unfortunately, it sometimes does. I have more than once felt like my seeking out a mentor's advice ICly or obtaining interviews with potential sponsors was actually perceived as burdensome "work," rather than as an opportunity to have fun or meaningful RP. Unfortunately, I think there's a tendency to assume that interviews and reports are merely a means to an end for people, rather than a chance for character development or interaction.

I'd hate for progress reports, additional goals/requirements, or other IC solutions to be seen in the same way.

[wimple]

So, I was the smartass that said, "GLs should be giving people more to do." I'm not advocating that GLs need to start running large story teller plots and unless if I'm reading Leech wrong, I don't think Leech is, either. But there's a big difference between entering a guild and having NO direction whatsoever and entering a guild and having tasks to accomplish.

For example: New priest arrives. A task could be as simple a completing X number of masses or bringing X number of people in for confession or doing charity work of their choosing in game (perhaps the player will try to teach something to a commoner, give food away, whatever they want).

Is that massively intensive for the GL? No. In fact, they could probably spend ten minutes of time, come up with a list of possibilities, then just assign them either randomly or tailored to the player's character.

Should players be coming up with RP plots? YES. ABSOLUTELY. Everyone should be doing so. But guilds live or die by their GLs. If there are active GLs that are engaging people in the game, then the guild's numbers grow and people start rolling characters to join. When the character gets killed off or drops inactive, then the entire guild goes dark. I've seen this happen with several guilds as I've played. I've been in guilds where no direction was given to players at all, and it was boring, and the guild was largely inactive - there weren't very many members, because people knew how it was, and didn't join up. I've also been in guilds where I was given an easy assignment, "Start doing X", and appreciated it tremendously. As a former 1st and 2nd GL, if I was assigning tasks to people, and they didn't follow through with them for IC reasons, then there'd be IC consequences for it. That follow-up promotes RP just as much as the task itself.

[Rabek]

I am 100% passionately for restricting dual-guilding in some way or another. I'll go ahead and say I agree with pretty much all of Marisa's points in her first post.

I also find it utterly laughable that people are saying that having only one guild makes your character flat and two-dimensional. Most people throughout most of history had exactly one job that they spent their whole life mastering. They did not have fifteen hobbies, each of which was a full-time job in its own right. Or are you saying most people throughout history were flat and two-dimensional? It's a ridiculous insinuation. If you cannot be interesting without two guilds, maybe you should revisit your character concept, because they are lacking something else that isn't a second guild.

Honestly, that you can master every single craft skill in the Merchants annoys me enough. Nothing like going to a shop and having the shopkeeper go on about how she or he is a master of half a dozen crafts. Reality doesn't work that way, and it does, indeed, take away from my enjoyment of the game, because it damages the immersion factor.

It's even worse when one of these six-way masters is also the member of some other ICly work-heavy guild.

My personal opinion would be to restrict dual-guilding to the Court and covert guilds. Mostly because Court doesn't do anything.

Note: I am a very angry person. Do not take any of the above personally.