Guild Reform

[MacThorstenson]

12 hours ago, Sorana said:

Why don't we make a mixture. Only people with a active character are allowed to lead the guild, or a squad or whatever. One of their characters has to represent their position. If this character dies, they can't act according to that position anymore, but can create a new one as replacement, maybe need to wait a while with that.

So what you are saying is that if your character dies you don't need to work your way all they way back up, but you can't lead the guild until you have a character in that spot again?

I could get behind this so long as there is a reasonable waiting period from when your character dies till you can create a new one to insert it in. I said that you should have to work your way back up as a waiting period, but if this period is long enough I think that it would accomplish the same thing.

[old man moomba]

So what happens during the waiting period?

[kenod]

I guess someone else will temporarily take over as leader, perhaps someone already designated as second in command. This could actually be interesting, since it might create a bit of inner politics in a guild.

[Karnatheon]

I could see this plan working sometimes, but also backfiring other times. Like, if I had a character that was head of a guild, and someone else had a character that was my second in command, what's to stop the other person from assassinating my character to gain power? I know some guilds probably wouldn't do that, but I also think there are other guilds that would be willing to do that. The fact that this is possible doesn't necessarily make it a bad idea, but just something to think about when making the decision. If Guild leadership gets changed on a regulars basis, it's going to make it really difficult for any stability in that Guild. It's new leader might have different objectives than the past one, and thus nothing might ever get done.

[kenod]

It's mainly the fact that killing someone else's character without permission is considered extremely bad form, so people normally wouldn't do that (or would get a firm talking to from the rest of us). This means that these types of assassinations would normally only be done with permission, and thus would have at least some cooperation between the people involved.

[MetaTerminal]

If it was done with the cooperation of the two people (even assassinations should probably get permission from the person from the outset of the attack), then intra-guild-warfare could become a cool thing. It already sorta happened with the Ghostbloods, although that may have been a ploy. Still not sure. Mraize has refused to explain.

In terms of the leaders having different goals: if the guild goal is agreed democratically at the start of the era, that shouldn’t be too much of a problem. It really depends on the specifics.

[+Ark1002]

19 hours ago, Ookla the Paragon said:

Proposal:

End first-person spying (infiltration of OOC PMs). We still plot the destruction of, and steal secrets from, other guilds, but do it in-character. I think I've got support for this, so any objections?

I should mention Mac's proposal while I'm here. Make guild leadership fully in-character. As part of a renewed focus on doing as much in-character as possible, your character's position is the same as yours. To use myself as an example, Klo would try to recruit people into TUBA. If he gets killed, my next guy would have to work his way back up to that position. (I know people will probably find ways to fast-track the process, but it still works as a way of introducing consequences). 

OOC PMs still exist, and can be used for sketching out plots and stuff (see: increased planning discussion), but the emphasis is on acting as much in-character as possible. 

No. That idea is stupid. Don't care if this is rude, just no.

[MetaTerminal]

Is there a specific reason you are against it? Could you explain your thoughts a little more clearly? There are several ideas in that post - are you disagreeing with all of them?

[+Ark1002]

Yes, actually.

OOC spying is one of my favorite parts of the Alleyverse, and a huge part of the Ghostbloods as a whole.

In character leadership, I'm against it because of all of the reasons against stated, and don't believe the pro's outweigh the con's.

I also disagree with just making things more in-character in general. I strongly dislike it. Guilds need to exist as people as well.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Rawr, just let the smart people make decisions, and don't be a jerkface. Archer appears to know what he's doing most of the time, and I see why that would benefit the Alleyverse as a whole. Doing things in-character would bring people into the RP and allow more planning and conniving.

[+Ark1002]

No, I agree with more RP.

But I also disagree with bringing it out of people into RP.

[Sherlock Holmes]

But I could make an Alleyspy Radiant character! 

Yes, I came up with an order of Radiants specific to the Alleyplanet. 

[Voidus]

Personally I am more in favour of a shift to in-character actions. I mean ultimately any plans, spying, etc. needs to be acted upon by characters to have any meaning, and it justifies those character actions more if they are themselves a spy rather than if a character just one day wakes up with an epiphany of what a rival guild is planning.

[MacThorstenson]

Here's another idea that I had, surrounding the idea of being in multiple guilds but making sure they are active.

We have 2 levels of guilds, great guilds and normal guilds. 

One can only be a part of one great guild at a time, but they can be a member of as many normal guilds as they want. 

The big difference between the 2 is one of power level. The great guilds have a limited ability to magic things up, though they still have to RP them. Like the great guilds have the resources to raise an army, and while they would still RP it being created, they actually could raise it. These guilds would also have to meet whatever requirements we decide on for being active.

Normal guilds would be much smaller and limited in power. Guilds like the thieves guild and the Craftsmen would be in this place. They can't summon Armies of NPC's, and you can be in them no matter what other guilds you are a part of.  

[Sherlock Holmes]

But then spying becomes impossible. I'd be out of a job, on the streets. 

[MetaTerminal]

16 minutes ago, Ookla the [REDACTED] said:

We have 2 levels of guilds, great guilds and normal guilds. 

The possible problem with this is that I can see the big three just become the only ‘great guilds’ and the others being stuck at normal. If that’s what you intend, I disagree; I’d love to see more guilds become major players in the RP.

This also means that characters can’t be in multiple of the big three, like Tena’s GB/TUBA combo. If spying continues (if that happens I would like to see that in-character as it adds a dimension beyond people just learning about subterfuge) then this would make it basically impossible.

But if we made it explicit that normal guilds can become great and remove the restriction on “multiple great guilds”, I support this. It’s probably how power would develop anyway in a city-state anyway - multiple large factions struggle while smaller ones just try to get by. You could see guilds trying to achieve greatness over an entire era instead of being able to just magic up their own army and resources.

[MacThorstenson]

7 minutes ago, Ookla the Cited said:

The possible problem with this is that I can see the big three just become the only ‘great guilds’ and the others being stuck at normal. If that’s what you intend, I disagree; I’d love to see more guilds become major players in the RP.

This also means that characters can’t be in multiple of the big three, like Tena’s GB/TUBA combo. If spying continues (if that happens I would like to see that in-character as it adds a dimension beyond people just learning about subterfuge) then this would make it basically impossible.

But if we made it explicit that normal guilds can become great and remove the restriction on “multiple great guilds”, I support this. It’s probably how power would develop anyway in a city-state anyway - multiple large factions struggle while smaller ones just try to get by. You could see guilds trying to achieve greatness over an entire era instead of being able to just magic up their own army and resources.

True. 

I would definitely say the normal guilds could become great guilds, but that there should be requirements for becoming one. I think that the discussion on what constitutes an active guild could be useful in this regard. But it should definitely be based off of how many of your members consider their first loyalties to be to said guild.

Im not sure about the not being able to join multiple guilds. 

These things are all intertwined. 

If guilds and planning become solely in character, then its only your characters that can spy. Not you. Then the other characters are trying to find out your character. If they have ever become a member of another guild, they aren't going to be trusted. And anyway, its your characters that are part of multiple guilds, not you.

I said the restriction of joining multiple guilds under the assumption that everything was becoming A. More public, and B. you wouldn't be having characters in multiple guilds. 

We need to resolve this more basic issues until we can work on higher level reform.

[xinoehp512]

We need a vote... Do we want to keep in-person spying?

[MetaTerminal]

They are connected - if someone suspects someone, they can just say that they suspect their character. Even if guilds don’t shift towards in-character RP (I’ve thought a little more on this and I’d say that guilds could probably shift to this, with planning and jokes being in quote boxes) you could still play it as the discussion in the guild PM just being a representation of the in-character discussions.

[Voidus]

I'll leave it to @Ookla the Paragon to make any relevant polls on this.

[Darth Woodrack]

53 minutes ago, Ookla the Phoenix said:

We need a vote... Do we want to keep in-person spying?

Small problem with this. How would we do it? Spying is already, not technically allowed, as it is breaking an oath you made to the guild, so stopping it wouldn't really change much. 

43 minutes ago, Ookla the Cited said:

They are connected - if someone suspects someone, they can just say that they suspect their character. Even if guilds don’t shift towards in-character RP (I’ve thought a little more on this and I’d say that guilds could probably shift to this, with planning and jokes being in quote boxes) you could still play it as the discussion in the guild PM just being a representation of the in-character discussions.

I think that some guild could do that, but just forcing all guild to pm a certain way just doesn't seem right.

1 hour ago, Ookla the [REDACTED] said:

Here's another idea that I had, surrounding the idea of being in multiple guilds but making sure they are active.

We have 2 levels of guilds, great guilds and normal guilds. 

One can only be a part of one great guild at a time, but they can be a member of as many normal guilds as they want. 

The big difference between the 2 is one of power level. The great guilds have a limited ability to magic things up, though they still have to RP them. Like the great guilds have the resources to raise an army, and while they would still RP it being created, they actually could raise it. These guilds would also have to meet whatever requirements we decide on for being active.

Normal guilds would be much smaller and limited in power. Guilds like the thieves guild and the Craftsmen would be in this place. They can't summon Armies of NPC's, and you can be in them no matter what other guilds you are a part of.  

Couple thing I don't like about this.

1. It is till a guild membership limit, which I do not believe in, because it would just limit enjoyment, and it seems unfair.
2. Smaller guilds are only relevant because of NPCs, so not letting them use them just makes them die.
3. And finally, it severely limits how new guild can form. You try to make a new guild, and have some massive history for it, like The Precursors will have, but you can't even use it until the guild is already firmly in the lore, and then you can't just say 'Oh, by the way, I've had thiss army of NPC's hiding in another dimension for 1-5 years. Just letting you know'

3 hours ago, Kidpen said:

Yes, actually.

OOC spying is one of my favorite parts of the Alleyverse, and a huge part of the Ghostbloods as a whole.

In character leadership, I'm against it because of all of the reasons against stated, and don't believe the pro's outweigh the con's.

I also disagree with just making things more in-character in general. I strongly dislike it. Guilds need to exist as people as well.

For once we agree on something. Seriously, why do incharacter leadership? The right hand is their to take over of the leader goes inactive not if their character dies. If that happens, then their next character takes over, or they make up an heir/protege, but if the right hand takes over in that case, how do you make them give it back? You would have to kill the right hands character to.

I'm just going to say this: If a guid wants to follow these rules, or do this stuff, let them, but what you shouldn't do is force a guild to function a certain way. All the guilds are unique, and function in severely different ways. Trying to make them uniformal, is just not something we should be doing. The Alleyverse exists to be fun, and if what your doing will subracact more enjoyment then it will add, you shouldn't be doing that. Finally, this is the Alleyverse! Why are you trying to stop the chaos! Chaos is literally what the entire Alleyverse has been circled around since it was made! OUR GOD IS A SLOBRO!

[Voidus]

13 minutes ago, Darth Woodrack said:

And finally, it severely limits how new guild can form. You try to make a new guild, and have some massive history for it, like The Precursors will have, but you can't even use it until the guild is already firmly in the lore, and then you can't just say 'Oh, by the way, I've had thiss army of NPC's hiding in another dimension for 1-5 years. Just letting you know'

I think this is kind of a good thing, you shouldn't be able to retcon in a bunch of history that no one else can change or object to.

15 minutes ago, Darth Woodrack said:

For once we agree on something. Seriously, why do incharacter leadership? The right hand is their to take over of the leader goes inactive not if their character dies. If that happens, then their next character takes over, or they make up an heir/protege, but if the right hand takes over in that case, how do you make them give it back? You would have to kill the right hands character to.

This sounds like an amazing character arc... just saying.

[MetaTerminal]

I think you're misinterpreting a lot of what we're trying to do, and you've failed to respond to some of our rebuttals.

Just now, Darth Woodrack said:

Spying is already, not technically allowed, as it is breaking an oath you made to the guild, so stopping it wouldn't really change much. 

I agree with you on this one. Spying should continue to exist, but I think we need to build up the guild framework more to allow this to be more pertinent. As it stands not a lot of guilds are doing much of anything.

Just now, Darth Woodrack said:

forcing all guild to pm a certain way just doesn't seem right.

Yes, it depends on the guilds. But I would encourage most to at least try it, even if they decide to change back. Rejecting it out of hand would be somewhat closed-minded.

Just now, Darth Woodrack said:

It is till a guild membership limit, which I do not believe in, because it would just limit enjoyment, and it seems unfair.

I outlined a while back why I think affiliation limits (I wouldn't call it membership limits, that could be misconstrued) would improve the RP as a whole. Could you respond to those ideas before rejecting the proposal?

2 minutes ago, Darth Woodrack said:

Smaller guilds are only relevant because of NPCs, so not letting them use them just makes them die.

3 minutes ago, Darth Woodrack said:

And finally, it severely limits how new guild can form. You try to make a new guild, and have some massive history for it, like The Precursors will have, but you can't even use it until the guild is already firmly in the lore, and then you can't just say 'Oh, by the way, I've had thiss army of NPC's hiding in another dimension for 1-5 years. Just letting you know

The problem is that smaller guilds are waltzing in and making massive armies (ahem). We already have massive armies - see any of the big three, the forces in SDW and the Great Game, GUESS, and the Sentinels. You shouldn't need to make more - I've said repeatedly that hiring people would actually be a lot more fun and sets up some RP. Yes, you can have smaller guilds have a small number of NPC's to fill out the numbers. I don't think anyone would object to that. But these restrictions exist because we're trying to prevent Disingenuous-Size-Syndrome, and decrease power level. In addition, I've seen a number of guilds that were poorly thought out and subsequently floundered because nobody joined. Remember, every significant guild today started with only one member. You shouldn't need a powerful army to keep it going if the idea is good enough. (The Thieve's Guild is an excellent example of this.)

7 minutes ago, Darth Woodrack said:

Seriously, why do incharacter leadership? The right hand is their to take over of the leader goes inactive not if their character dies. If that happens, then their next character takes over, or they make up an heir/protege, but if the right hand takes over in that case, how do you make them give it back? You would have to kill the right hands character to.

I think you severely misunderstand how leadership works. There is such a thing as 'handing over a position', even if it is temporary. I'm not even sure this already happens - I think Storm is still in charge of TUBA. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

Also, Voidus is correct. That would be an amazing character arc.

8 minutes ago, Darth Woodrack said:

I'm just going to say this: If a guid wants to follow these rules, or do this stuff, let them, but what you shouldn't do is force a guild to function a certain way. All the guilds are unique, and function in severely different ways. Trying to make them uniformal, is just not something we should be doing. The Alleyverse exists to be fun, and if what your doing will subracact more enjoyment then it will add, you shouldn't be doing that. Finally, this is the Alleyverse! Why are you trying to stop the chaos! Chaos is literally what the entire Alleyverse has been circled around since it was made! OUR GOD IS A SLOBRO!

You're trying to paint a bogeyman out of rules. Give me a second to compile my thoughts on this.

Modern historians agree that Era 1 began with the creation of rules. Specifically, the Rules for Combat, which outlined how combat works in the Alleyverse. This was in response to a major duel between two OP characters which ended up dissolving into an unfun mess. Why? Because there was no structure. No framework to create effective, enjoyable stories out of an emergent narrative. Now that the combat rules are in place, it holds a special place in the history of the Alleyverse and remains one of our most-used assets. Did it limit our enjoyment? No. It enhanced it.

Similarly, we have identified a problem: the way guilds work currently has broken. It worked during Era 1, but it didn't during Era 2. We're trying to find out why. If we don't, it's very likely that they will break even further. We implement rules so that we can structure our narrative, and thus allow us to have more fun. 

Yes, if you disagree with individual points, then I invite you to rebut why, and offer alternative solutions. But we're doing this not because we want to 'subracact [sic] enjoyment', but because we want to solve the problems that unstructured chaos has created. Yes, our god is a slowbro. That doesn't mean that he can solve every problem because he wants to, and dictate the actions of every single character. There are rules. The rules, and the narrative we create in those rules, are what make it fun. Limitations > powers.

[Voidus]

8 minutes ago, Ookla the Cited said:

Modern historians agree that Era 1 began with the creation of rules.

I know it's a little tongue in cheek but this sentence still makes me happy.
Also that should be historian singular, we all know that @Ookla the Cited is the Alleyverse historian

Also, that was an amazingly well-articulated post and I'd like to pretend that that was also my reasoning. (It kind of was, but you put that to words so well)

[MacThorstenson]

35 minutes ago, Ookla the Cited said:

Modern historians agree that Era 1 began with the creation of rules. Specifically, the Rules for Combat, which outlined how combat works in the Alleyverse. This was in response to a major duel between two OP characters which ended up dissolving into an unfun mess. Why? Because there was no structure. No framework to create effective, enjoyable stories out of an emergent narrative. Now that the combat rules are in place, it holds a special place in the history of the Alleyverse and remains one of our most-used assets. Did it limit our enjoyment? No. It enhanced it.

Similarly, we have identified a problem: the way guilds work currently has broken. It worked during Era 1, but it didn't during Era 2. We're trying to find out why. If we don't, it's very likely that they will break even further. We implement rules so that we can structure our narrative, and thus allow us to have more fun. 

Yes, if you disagree with individual points, then I invite you to rebut why, and offer alternative solutions. But we're doing this not because we want to 'subracact [sic] enjoyment', but because we want to solve the problems that unstructured chaos has created. Yes, our god is a slowbro. That doesn't mean that he can solve every problem because he wants to, and dictate the actions of every single character. There are rules. The rules, and the narrative we create in those rules, are what make it fun. Limitations > powers.

I want to completely second this. 

The thing is, the no rules kind of methods worked pre-era 1, because there was nothing going on. There was no plot, nothing to keep the RP going.  As soon as we had to do anything in RP, we had to make rules so that it would function. 

In the rules of warfare thread I tried to push it to become much more free form. Little to no regulation on characters. I looked at past guild wars and the reckoners RP and thought about how they appeared to function. I thought that they were able to be completely free formed with no planning. But when I looked into it, the past guild wars had PM's planning stuff out. The Reckoners RP plans loads of stuff out before it starts. You can't have neither planning nor rules. 

Particularly the planning thing. The Reckoner's RP plans stuff ahead of time and makes sure that people like it and support it. They create a setting and give people time to come up with things to do. They don't just post stuff out of the blue and expect people to jump in. It must have taken weeks to restart it, because they had to plan everything. They don't necessarily plan every plot point out, but when they were creating their setting for the restart, they made sure that there were things that people could RP off of. 

We can't get by without planning things and laying down rules.

You can either make it up as you go along, in that case you need rules to guide your actions so its a fun experience for all, or you need to put a lot of effort into making sure that whats going to happen is fun for everyone and planning things out. You can have one or the other. The best experiance includes a little of both.

Its possible to do away with both planning and rules, but you need a special group of people who are really good FFRP'ers and who trust each other a lot. Neither of which we have.

Very simply I reject your premise. The idea that 

58 minutes ago, Darth Woodrack said:

Chaos is literally what the entire Alleyverse has been circled around since it was made!

is false. The world building behind the alleyverse may have been based off of it. But no quality large scale RP came off out of complete chaos.

 

58 minutes ago, Darth Woodrack said:

1. And finally, it severely limits how new guild can form. You try to make a new guild, and have some massive history for it, like The Precursors will have, but you can't even use it until the guild is already firmly in the lore, and then you can't just say 'Oh, by the way, I've had thiss army of NPC's hiding in another dimension for 1-5 years. Just letting you know'

I also second Meta's response to this point. With a little addition.

I am of the firm belief that if a guild has to be supported by NPC's to keep it going, it shouldn't be allowed to affect the plot as much as those that rely on actual people. The craftsmen should be allowed to start a war if they have like one person. The Ghostbloods, sure. They have people who RP behind them. Active guilds that are backed by people are what we should be trying to promote. Not crappily thought out guilds like the Craftsmen.

Edited December 10, 2018 by Ookla the [REDACTED]