http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YfrqbRG1ss&feature=player_detailpage#t=806s


edit: Sigh, the forums won't let me link to a specific time it's about 13:20.

Well this came up and I feel we should probably do a bit of a "What do you think?" topic. But can't find an option for polls :'(

I can't really agree that we identify with our communes/cities more than our guilds simply because the guild can determine so much about our character, if it weren't for guild skills having org-power requirements you could leave your commune/city and the only mechanical detriment that comes to mind is just ease of getting power.

The ease of hunting across various areas, how quickly I can access them, even in some cases how I can interact with the world, they are determined firstly by my guild because the Hartstone are druids with access to the skills connected to that archetype and guild, it is being a druid that lets me meld a location to return to later, it is being a druid that lets me chose shamanism to play with the weather or ecology to increase my defence against certain damage types. It is being a Hartstone that determines how I can fight, when I attempt to, such as the reliance on the demesne. So much that is inseparable from the choice of guild.

I think there was a misunderstanding in the ustream, divorcing skills from guilds doesn't sound like "get rid of guilds" to me it sounds more like shift the skills to the commune and make the guilds something else.

So, somewhere in serenwilde there might be trainers for

Druids of the Stag
Wiccans of the Moon
Warriors of the Wilde
Monks of the Shofangi
Bards of the Wildarrane

Then there would be a series of guilds within Serenwilde, but because they aren't tied to a specific set of skills they can become literal factions or as I have heard mentioned before "tribes".


There are some rather notable benefits of this model.

• Less pressure on guilds
  
• Ability to chose the guild you want with a skill set you like to play with
  
• Ability to try something different without giving up all your progress in your guild
  
• Opens up new possibilities for development
  
• Allows for guilds to cease/be created
  

For the first, right now with the low members in certain guilds the only real options for some people are to stay around almost 24/7 trying to engage every last newbie that comes around and every transfer hoping that they will stay in the guild, and when they leave or just don't return it can feel like a failure, especially I think for druid guilds where there is increased pressure because there are things they needed for (i.e totemcarving)



But some people just don't like skills where others may not enjoy the guild itself which leads into the second point. It has been blamed before for some of the nearly dead guilds, it's also why there are so many guilds right now. Because guilds and skills are inseparable right now, if you hate melds you can't be in a melder guild, it doesn't matter how much you like their rp, you can't be in that guild. And similarly if you love melds but you love say... institute rp more then it's simply too bad.
Which has lead to the need to create more guilds to tie to skills and in turn has caused this dilution of the player base.

Similarly, some times you get bored with your skills, you just want to try out something different and your only options are to alt or switch guilds. Which kinda sucks cause both are pretty much starting you again. I know I'd probably have at least one full set of skills for each of the five Serenwilde archetypes on Saran if I could actually use them while a Hartstone, and probably some level of artefact on each of the weapons at least.

The last point I made was just about opening up possibilities, my first thought was along the lines of making literal guild abilities, abilities that you only have by being a member of the guild itself and divorced from your archetype (so totemcarving might move from druidry to a guild priv of the hartstone or their future incarnation)

Then random thoughts came about possibilities such as a Moon Druid, or a Mage that walked the line between their cosmic and elemental planes, or a question I saw on the newbie channel recently about a priest class that seemed to be Celestines with hammers.
Of course, I am not suggesting we be able to just mix and match skills as we desire, but that maybe in the future your commune/city would determine your primary options, which determine your archetype and then you have options for secondaries based on your org rather than just the one.

The final, less cool, part of this is that guilds could cease but also, more cool, be created. Those guilds that struggle to maintain their existence might not actually need to exist but do because they are needed to provide the archetype where other guilds might pop up that fill a gap somewhere in the rp of the greater org but can't because a matching archetype doesn't exist or is already taken.


Anyone else feel like sharing thoughts?

I agree, bring on multiclass.

There are a few questions that 'divorcing' skills from guilds raise in my mind, mechanical/RP/et cetera.

For one, in the absence of the formal guilds == skills how would Envoys be handled? These skillsets are designed to work in specific configurations and need to be constantly tweaked, refined, whatever to keep what passes for mechanical balance. Would these positions be carried over into the new guilds if the skills that they'd be dealing with could flux? Would new envoys be attached to the individual archetypes? Skills? City?

Second, how would one charter these guilds? Would they become like clans or families? Would anyone actually be willing to keep spending the funds to create new guilds if old guilds fail? Would there be some type of limit for the number of factions within a Org or are we looking at a country of ones? What would this mean for City Leaders/Councils/positions? Extend this out to... guildhalls, guild privs... everything that a guild is now, what happens to it?

Third, would condensing guilds/divorcing skills make RP better or worse. Are we going to see those interesting iterations you suggested or are we going to see cluttered messes. I do like to have faith in our player base, but there is already a contingent of min-max esque thought processes that I can't quite shake the fear of occurring, particularly at the cost of coherent guilds. Admittedly, I'd imagine the guild identities as they are now would persist, even if their player bases are 'small'.
--

It should be noted I do actually like this ideal, I generally prefer systems that give skill choice up to the players over archetypal ties . But whether a suggestion like this would solve the stated problem of empty guilds -or- if the cost in new problems would swamp out any benefits - both mechanically and RP-wise - I'm not sure.

Also I'm not sure how coherent any of the above questions really are, but c'est la vie. >.=,<

I was worried for a second that the video was going to say that Estarra & co were planning to get rid of guilds. That would be a super bad idea, since that basically mean a giant mess as Maellio described.

Maellio:

There are a few questions that 'divorcing' skills from guilds raise in my mind, mechanical/RP/et cetera.

For one, in the absence of the formal guilds == skills how would Envoys be handled? These skillsets are designed to work in specific configurations and need to be constantly tweaked, refined, whatever to keep what passes for mechanical balance. Would these positions be carried over into the new guilds if the skills that they'd be dealing with could flux? Would new envoys be attached to the individual archetypes? Skills? City?

There seems like there are two things here, the specific configurations would still be maintained (Magnagoran Guardian would still mean Cosmic->Nihilism, Rituals->Necromancy, Hexes/Tarot/Astrology) but if the admin allowed, there might be other combinations that don't seem like they would fit, as in the example Druidry and Moon/Night could be a Serenwilde combination but it's not really a Hartstone/Blacktalon combination (ignoring mechanics here, just ideas).

Envoys could be a team on the commune/city, it makes the most sense and would potentially open up multiple slots for one class when needed. Hallifax might envoy two or three changes for their guardians because their warriors and mages do not need theirs as urgently for example.

Second, how would one charter these guilds? Would they become like clans or families? Would anyone actually be willing to keep spending the funds to create new guilds if old guilds fail? Would there be some type of limit for the number of factions within a Org or are we looking at a country of ones? What would this mean for City Leaders/Councils/positions? Extend this out to... guildhalls, guild privs... everything that a guild is now, what happens to it?

There seem to be a few things in here too.

One, I don't particularly like that guild leader == org leader, I think they should be divorced and if they are meant to be factions this could mean playing the political game to get someone from your guild onto the council to represent your interests.

I would expect they would be formed in some process involving consent from the admin and city/commune, with founders needing to convince both parties that the guild they wish to form is a worth while investment. Likely with a minimum number of people agreeing to found the guild, resources, work that has already been done. You could potentially tie clans into it by having an exclusive upgrade for a clan that makes it a "potential guild" that lets you set variables and work on things, but also prevents membership in another guild but doesn't have all the benefits until it is accepted by the commune/city and admin.

Third, would condensing guilds/divorcing skills make RP better or worse. Are we going to see those interesting iterations you suggested or are we going to see cluttered messes. I do like to have faith in our player base, but there is already a contingent of min-max esque thought processes that I can't quite shake the fear of occurring, particularly at the cost of coherent guilds. Admittedly, I'd imagine the guild identities as they are now would persist, even if their player bases are 'small'.
--

I guess you have to ask what is a "coherent guild"?

For example, if you have a guild of scholars/mystics, the more typically rp centric places where combat is perhaps downplayed somewhat and you have someone whose entire character is about "rwar i are fightar", with the divorce that person can go to a more combat centric guild. There could be a guild that has dedicated its existence to training up the best fighters that their city/commune has ever seen. An example perhaps could be hallifax, The institute and aeromancers might serve as scholar castes, while the symphonium serve as the artists, and the sentinels the warrior caste. It doesn't matter if you're using guardian, mage, bard, or warrior skills you chose the guild that matches your character. The institute would probably retain control over their labs and continuum so guardians from other guilds in hallifax would still need to be going to them for those needs. There could even be a merchant caste guild if there was a desire for one, dedicating their lives to crafting or the like perhaps.

I guess the mindset I have is more that the guilds would transform over time, if skills were completely divorced, the institute for example could choose to not accept anyone until they had a scientific publication. Adding to the exclusivity that Estarra mentioned some might enjoy.

It should be noted I do actually like this ideal, I generally prefer systems that give skill choice up to the players over archetypal ties . But whether a suggestion like this would solve the stated problem of empty guilds -or- if the cost in new problems would swamp out any benefits - both mechanically and RP-wise - I'm not sure.

Also I'm not sure how coherent any of the above questions really are, but c'est la vie. >.=,<

I feel that I need to point out that we're the only iron realms game now that hasn't divorced skills from guilds to any level.
Achaea has the system where your house accepts only specific classes but I believe that is set by the leadership, Aetolia and Imperian let you multiclass while retaining guild I think you can just learn your guilds class easier while a new class you need to learn from other players, and Midkemia you get your class then you choose a guild if you choose a tert that matches up with your guild then woo you get a bonus to certain abilities in that skill.

What I would also like to point out is that they all still have guilds(even renamed ones), so I am not sure why anyone in their right mind would immediately go to "Divorcing skills from guilds would mean no guilds".

I don't see the reason why this is needed. I am also particularly opposed to this:

Saran:

• Ability to chose the guild you want with a skill set you like to play with
  

Our guilds have a very specific history and purpose. You can't be a Moondancer with Druid skills because Moondancers are specifically wiccan. Wiccans deal with the spiritual side of nature, while druids are more tuned to deal with the physical aspects of it. It reflects on their skills - wiccans manifest nature spirits (fae), and druids make use of forests. It's true for most of the guilds in Lusternia (see exceptions: some of the bard/monk guilds).

Wouldn't doing this be really similar to the House system in Achaea? Which is so confusing and kinda dumb?

I don't see the reason why this is needed. I am also particularly opposed to this:


Our guilds have a very specific history and purpose. You can't be a Moondancer with Druid skills because Moondancers are specifically wiccan. Wiccans deal with the spiritual side of nature, while druids are more tuned to deal with the physical aspects of it. It reflects on their skills - wiccans manifest nature spirits (fae), and druids make use of forests. It's true for most of the guilds in Lusternia (see exceptions: some of the bard/monk guilds).


This is true, in the Imperian and Aetolian implementations this seems to be addressed somewhat by making a guild have a primary though I think that only makes it easier for you to learn them. The MKO method of granting bonuses to is also an interesting route.

My main concern is that, realistically, I've gone through six guilds on Saran(eleven guild changes in total) and I've only really changed them for rp like once, maybe twice, the rest of the times I've been "I'm really bored with x skill set" or "I can't stand these skills any more". Aeromancers, I was there because there was literally no other option at the time.

Now this may just be me, but maybe it's not, maybe there are other people out there that have a favourite guild for their character and then separately skill sets that they like to use, maybe for some people they get both in one while others don't.

Now from memory dilution of the player base has been raised as an issue since monks came around, if not bards. Collegiums were there to help this and they may help in the first few hours, but after you get past those you're in the hands of the guild and the dilution becomes a player retention issue again. I guess the questions are still, who feels this is an issue? and what other things could we do?

Noola:

Wouldn't doing this be really similar to the House system in Achaea? Which is so confusing and kinda dumb?

There are... three to four ways we've seen it done. (Aetolia and Imperian implemented really similar methods)

The Achaean way - Guilds get destroyed, replaced with houses, different methods for getting class. Guilds can restrict what classes can join.
The Aetolian way - Everything stays much the same, but added benefits to learning your guilds skills plus a requirement of "master status" in primary guild skills before being able to multiclass. Must learn from a master, master must being in the guild that offers that class with an average play time of 20 hours per week and can only apprentice two people per game year.
The Imperian way - Everything stays much the same, but you can learn a new class from a master of that class who can only teach one person per year. A master is trans in all three skills.
The Midkemian way - Guilds weren't actually tied to class. you get class, then you join a guild. Multiclassing seems to be similar to our skillflexing with a recovery timer. The plan seems to be to add more terts and they will be tied to a guild or order potentially, either exclusively or through additional benefits to that guild. Examples, Thanatology is only available to priests of Lims-Kragma, swordmastery is heavily reliant on the guilds of Elvandar so not being friends with them makes it difficult, and thievery was actually released to all rouges to prevent it revealing members of the mockers but some abilities within the skill are enhanced for them.


The Midkemian way is likely out of reach for us without something amazing being pulled off, but it seems to work rather well even though it has the least connection between guild and skill of all of them. It also allows for a guild like the Mockers to exist which I think is all kinds of awesome, in Lusternia, a guild like that could not exist.

I've played all of the multiclassing systems except for Midkemia and it's not as glorious as you might think. Imperian's is probably the worst because of a complete divorce from any kind of RP, with guilds being useless social clubs without any relevance. They could just delete guilds on Imperian and not much would change.

Aetolia's implementation doesn't work out nearly as badly, but that could also be due to the difference in the playerbases. You can really tell how it wasn't planned from the outset, which makes it all very incongruent. You can have Vampires/Consanguine with dark classes, but there is still a base class, Praenomen. To me that just speaks of bad planning, even though they started down that path with Bloodborn.

In my experience, every time the playerbase asks for something big like this and the Admin caves, the result is rarely good. Lusternia's system has a lot more planning in it than Imperian and Aetolia had. I think the problem isn't so much that the playerbase is spread than you are already dealing with the people willing to invest large amounts of money in Lusternia. I think we would all like to have 10-20 people in each guild online at all times, but I think we have to recognize what the reality is going to be: some guilds are going to be more popular and others not.

For that reason, I think Estarra's position is the better one. Trying to solve the population problem with multiclassing is just going to result in temporarily high lesson/credit sales while those with the interest invest their characters the way they want and become similar to the omni-trans trademasters selling from the Aetherplex like Faragan. If you really want to improve Lusternia's population, it would be better to encourage the Admin to do something like finishing the newbie IG healer.

A lot of people hated Imperian's autohealer, but that's something else that could be considered. It resulted in a dramatic increase in participation in Imperian. Lusternia combat is even more complex than Imperian combat, so it could do that much more. The downside would be that the speed might force out other options, while something on the level of Aetolia's would make it useless. Ultimately, it depends on if Estarra wants to go that far and it looks like they've already taken some steps toward that reality.

The core change of something like this would be that you choose a guild based on that guild's philosophy and their RP rather than their skills. You choose to align yourself with a roleplaying archetype rather than a mechanical/skills-based archetype.

That isn't to say that some guilds may elect to only extend membership to those within a mechanical archetype with few or no exceptions, but that not all guilds would necessarily do so. Similarly, it does not mean that the 'home guild' of a mechanical archetype would countenance the taking of their skill-secrets to the other affiliated guilds.

I'm not sure how the mechanics for this would play out, but I feel like changing the relationship between skills and guilds would create a game in which guild-based RP is more alive, as everyone in your guild will have elected to be there to be a part of that guild atmosphere, instead of just being there for the skills.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with multiclassing, or extending any sort of multiclassing abilities beyond what we already have in skillflexing.

Just want to chime in that there is no plan to change the guild/politics in Lusternia. I understand that some people want guilds to represent a philosophy that anyone can join, which is fine, but I don't see that as Lusternia's future. Guilds and skills in Lusternia will continue to be tied together, guild leaders will continue to be on the ruling council, and I have no desire to change how it currently works. It was well planned out before Lusternia opened in design phase. I specifically structured and designed the guild system to avoid certain pitfalls that I saw in other guild systems, and I think it works.

That said, if you are wholly dissatisfied with RP of guilds, I challenge you to form your own group/clan with its own purpose and philosophy, open to members of your commune/city outside the current guild system. If it takes off, we can see of incorporating something formal into city/communes (a 'supra guild' organization?). However, trying to convince me to untie guilds from skills and changing how politics work is really a dead end.

Let me expand on the 'supra guild' idea that I threw out. Let's call them 'factions' or 'parties'. You can name them whatever you want, i.e., the Federation of the Tree of Trees, the Union of Tainted Scholars, the Fellowship of the Wyrd, etc. You'd develop a philosophy or purpose for the group. It would start as a clan, open only members of the city/commune. At a certain point, there would be a tipping point (number of active members? time? validation by the ruling council?) where the clan turns into an official 'faction' of the commune/city where they'd perhaps get their own seat on the ruling council and some mechanical incorporation into the city/commune. Guilds would be where you go to get your skills and initial training but in terms of RP, you may identify more with your faction in terms of RP.

Again, this is an off the cuff idea. I have no idea if there is any real attraction to the idea from enough players to make it worthwhile but it would address what appears to be the main complaint of guilds, i.e., to choose an RP organization regardless of skills.

"Guilds as orgs of unified philosophy", rather than being defined by skills, was a resounding failure in Achaea, when guilds became Houses and began allowing multiple classes. Most guilds did not have a strong enough identity to carry it off. Most fell back to the loosest of defining traits, like "scholasticism", "performance", or "subterfuge". Some began rallying under empty, neutral terms like "unity" or "respect".

You may dismiss this as Achaea lacking Lusternia's strong construction and well-conceived organisational roles, but I suspect the same problems would occur here as well.

Absolutely don't underestimate the power that comes from skills. In an RPG, what you do is who you are, in large part - thief, fighter, mage, cleric - and what you do comes from skills. Organisational history and themes are usually tied to skills, and habits and roleplay grow from those. When you remove skills from the equation, history is negated, themes erode, habits are changed, and roleplay flounders.

Estarra:

Just want to chime in that there is no plan to change the guild/politics in Lusternia. I understand that some people want guilds to represent a philosophy that anyone can join, which is fine, but I don't see that as Lusternia's future. Guilds and skills in Lusternia will continue to be tied together, guild leaders will continue to be on the ruling council, and I have no desire to change how it currently works. It was well planned out before Lusternia opened in design phase. I specifically structured and designed the guild system to avoid certain pitfalls that I saw in other guild systems, and I think it works.

That said, if you are wholly dissatisfied with RP of guilds, I challenge you to form your own group/clan with its own purpose and philosophy, open to members of your commune/city outside the current guild system. If it takes off, we can see of incorporating something formal into city/communes (a 'supra guild' organization?). However, trying to convince me to untie guilds from skills and changing how politics work is really a dead end.

Estarra:

Let me expand on the 'supra guild' idea that I threw out. Let's call them 'factions' or 'parties'. You can name them whatever you want, i.e., the Federation of the Tree of Trees, the Union of Tainted Scholars, the Fellowship of the Wyrd, etc. You'd develop a philosophy or purpose for the group. It would start as a clan, open only members of the city/commune. At a certain point, there would be a tipping point (number of active members? time? validation by the ruling council?) where the clan turns into an official 'faction' of the commune/city where they'd perhaps get their own seat on the ruling council and some mechanical incorporation into the city/commune. Guilds would be where you go to get your skills and initial training but in terms of RP, you may identify more with your faction in terms of RP.

Again, this is an off the cuff idea. I have no idea if there is any real attraction to the idea from enough players to make it worthwhile but it would address what appears to be the main complaint of guilds, i.e., to choose an RP organization regardless of skills.

I like this idea, it sounds like a good compromise and interesting. Much better than multi-classing or getting rid of guilds. Guilds based on skills, factions based on philosophies. Sounds cool to me.

It's a good idea, but I don't think it'll be used much. You can always just get a clan.

I still would like a way to multiclass though, but I understand that it dilutes RP a bit.

EDIT: tl;dr: A change like this wouldn't require absolute free reign, with people totally mixed together willy-nilly. It would, however, place more power in the player's hands to shape their guild lore, and more significant options to guilds to define their mechanical identity. Target the ability to switch guilds to established/experienced characters, to enforce it being more of an RP thing.


I'm not sure what the discussion on multiclassing is about, would divorcing skills from guild RP make it easier to multiclass? Right now if someone wants to multiclass, they just guildhop. Only a relatively small amount of the population is tied down with elected positions, and (afaict) as long as it's within the same org, most players who are capable of transing more than one class appear to not care too much about the ramifications of guildhopping. I'd rather get rid of guildhopping altogether by making it so that you don't have to uproot to have different skills. Restrict the crud out of multiclassing so that it doesn't exist, I'm okay with that.

Make it so that people who (for instance,) get tired of warrior skills can stay in the HoneyGuard and participate in the entire "I'm a fighter of Ackleberry, who gives his sap/blood to the honeysap when battles come, so that the forest thrives" RP, without having to do that as a warrior. If he decides to become a wiccan, he goes to the Lakedancers and asks them to teach him the outer mysteries. They believe that there is a stronger tie between their skills and guildlore than exists in the HoneyGuard, and they say no. He decides that he doesn't want to leave the tribe, and returns to being a warrior until he can convince the leading council of the Lakedancers to teach him the ways of the wiccans.

Or, in another scenario: Pinky Flufflekins, the generic Ackleberry Druid, is tired of the atmosphere in her guild. The GM is bitchy and no one will rally together to vote her out. The guild RP is decidedly not what she signed up for, she's not one for all of the ritual and pomp that has been integrated into guild life. She goes and receives the blessing of her guild administrator, who is all around a great guy. In exchange for her blood oath and undying promise to never divulge the deep secrets of the guild, she is given permission by the GA to leave the guild with her skills intact. Nothing about leaving the guild has severed her ties to the forests, or erased from her memory the words of power and binding used to meld the forests. She decides that the simple life of the forest monk is more her taste, and joins the Shaflaniasdasa guild, the monks of Ackleberry. She will never be able to quite understand the exact path her monk-classed bretheren take, but she provides a new take on their teachings and is a valuable part of the guild in no time.

I really see no issues with either scenario. I'm also not entirely sure where the assertion is that skills will become an insignificant or irrelevant part of guild RP if they aren't integrally tied together. All that will happen is that guilds will suddenly have the opportunity to (of their own volition) allow or deny members that have other skillsets.

It can even be made so that you can only do so within your own org. You can't be a Hartstone druid in Celest, for instance. You could also make it so that when you chose a guild at the introduction, you are automatically put into that guild. It would be the home base and the main concentration of that skillset, as it is now, without being its ONLY home. Leave it up to each guild to extend or restrict its rules as it sees fit.

I can see the Hartstone only allowing in Serenguard warriors, for instance. They could easily be integrated into a unique RP role within the guild, functioning as guardians of the Druid ritualists and servants of the forest, in a different way. I think it would make for wonderfully interesting RP to see how a warrior would come to terms with not being a member of the guild in the same way as a confirmed druid, and the interactions between the standard druid members and this 'inside outsider' in their midst.

It's just that the other IRE MUDs have done this and it's not the ideal situation you have posted. Rather, people go to like one big guild and the other guilds wither to almost nothing even more than before. It cripples guilds in order to let a few people have more than one class. I've done multiclassing myself, but I still prefer the old system that Imperian and Aetolia discarded.

We already have some of that going on, with some guilds languishing. Sometimes because of the very problem of skill-guild integration. If, for whatever reason, the skillsets are undesirable or become less desirable, you see a mass exodus from the guild.

If there is nothing in a guild holding people there except the skillsets, there is something wrong with the guild that needs attention. If a change like that will highlight such guilds, all the better. Guilds that suddenly become vacant once the people who were only there for the skillsets are gone need help/attention/intervention.

Just make it require that you have all your archetype skills transed before you can move guilds, and make it so that you need more than one guild leader to let you in. Heck, make it so that you need agreement on both sides of the transfer, your original guild and the new guild.

EDIT: In other words, if the guild has been using the skillsets as a crutch to hide underlying RP problems, with the crutch gone we could see the extent of the issue and work to resolve it directly.

If the concern is that some guilds are too small, maybe guilds could get shared communication channels. We could call these Unions and they could use UT to talk.

So for example, the Nihilists and the Geomancers are both concerned with planar pursuits and have the ability to transverse from the nexus. They could share a channel, making a union based on Magnagora's planes.

Meanwhile, the ur'Guard, Ninjakari and Cacophony are more concerned with the prime plane and they don't have the ability to transverse from the nexus. They could share a channel based upon dominating prime.

Organizations could name their union channels and would gain more levels of identity to socialize through.