ti-legacy.com

I was curious so I checked- there's currently 5 characters who are publicly dual-guilded, out of 46 publicly listed characters (from the guildlist command).

Dual guilding might not be as common as many of us assumed.

I've given some time and thought to this matter — I appologize that I haven't had the time nor the inclination to read over all of these responses, or even a meaningful number of them, so sorries if I'm just reitterating what somebody else has said. I am trying to approach this from both the aspects of being a Guild Leader of a "prominent" Guild — the Holy Order — and as someone who would never have been able to be as involved with the Troubadours as I was if not for dual guilding being an option.

Ultimately, I agree with the nature of the change.

But I do not agree with abruptness, the communication, or the scope of the change. I'll try to touch on those parts below.

1. Removing Dual Guilding.

I've seen dual guilding not work a lot more than I've seen it work. I think that people joining guilds for a peripheral gain and not taking the time to establish being part of the guild as a meaningful part of their character is a problem. Guild Skills are reserved for a reason, and I've been quietly frustrated seeing people linger at the peripheral of a guild without any involvement.

I feel like being part of a guild is supposed to be a very important piece of who a character is. A guilded Merchant should, I think, be a Merchant during most of their time not spent logged on on-grid. Being both a Knight and a Merchant doesn't make much sense -- there is more, I think, to being part of a Guild than what one does while on-grid or in managing a shop. It is expected that Knights are on patrol, are meditating; that Priests are performing Mass, taking confession; that Bards are performing, practicing; that Reeves are handling cases; that Physicians are tending the sick; and that Merchants are doing the very time-consuming work of running a store, handling external contacts/suppliers, training and tending their help, etc.



2. The Scope

However, I don't find myself satisfied with the heavy-handed, all-encompassing approach of simply gutting dual guilding entirely. There are and have been a lot of great examples of how dual guilding has deepened character concepts in the past and with the present playerbase. While people have, on this topic, mentioned the ability to create faux dual-guilding through the use of "pass" items and a well-laid out Guild Hall, I find that an inadequate solution: pass items can be given to others, enabling access to areas that would and should be restricted without proper permission. Also, I frankly don't have the time to consider how I could change the Order's Guild Hall to help allow for this. Forcing Guild Leaders into even more work isn't a solution in my book, and I'll probably not be able to settle on a means to allow it effectively with the Order, certainly not for the extended future.

There are times when Dual-Guilding is thematic and rewarding: mostly, these involve a character being part of a guild in a supportive situation, such as a Knight being part of the Physicians, a Priest being part of the Troubadours -- a member of the Brotherhood being part of any Guild.

Why not create a 'Rank 0' for Guilds -- a Rank the Code understands to be a Supportive Role, clarified through the use of Subranks -- as a replacement for Dual Guilding. This rank could be coded to not allow the advancement of Guild Skills but would allow access into the Guild Hall and use of the Guild Channel. People in this rank could be set to show up on the Guildlist so that people with business of the guild understand that there is an affiliation there. They could be given the ability to sponsor Seekers at the Guild Leader's discretion, or by the code looking at the number of active fully-guilding members. They would not count for the Guild's silver income for metrics, but could count against the guild's inactive list.

While I understand that code does not simply come out of nowhere, I also don't think that any of those changes would be terribly difficult to manage. The rank could replace the 'Retired' rank by name, with 'Retired' moved to a Subrank (which I think it already is). As an example, an ICly retired Knight might appear as 'Support [Retired]', while a member of the Merchants Guild who also goes an helps cook meals for the Knights might appear as 'Support [Knights]'.

Other players have also mentioned that grandfathering existing dual-guildees in seems like an inappropriate compromise. I begrudgingly agree. For something as important as guilds, I think it's only fair that everyone, including current players, be held to the same rules.

3. The Communication and Abruptness.

I'm well-estbalished on the record that I think Staff on this game is, moreso than most any other RPI I've played, fair and does a good job. They are by no means perfect, and I disagree with a lot of the nuances of changes, but I've found from personal experience that admin like Kinaed are not easy to find elsewhere in the RPI world, nor are communities like TLI's the standard -- except in the fact that I think we can be held as a standard to others, generally-speaking, for how welcoming we are of other people and how generally respectful the core playerbase is to other people.

But changes like this cause confusion and ill-tempers when they come out of nowhere. That a decision is unpopular doesn't mean that it shouldn't be communicated -- in fact, I'd argue that this means it should only be communicated even further out. Something as short as -- "Hi players. Due to several factors, including X Y and Z, Staff is heavily considering restricting or removing Dual Guilding in the near future. While we expect this will be a general unpopular decision, it is one that Staff feels is necessary for the health of the game. We encourage players to give feedback as no decision we make is ever set in stone, but as it currently stands I think the negatives of the current system far outweigh the benefits." -- could have allowed a lot of this discussion to take place ahead of time, given a chance for alternative discussions and the expectations of the impact to be discussed and those who disagree with the change the chance to vet their opinions and understand that they have been heard, even if ultimately ignored.

My one concern with this (and I realize I have no direct stake in it) is that it will create situations where code is dictating RP rather than the other way around - ie a Reeve seeking Manus being forced to resign from the Reeves, or a Thief seeking the Bards, etc.

Which is already something coming up in play as the Tenebrae position was vacant for a month or so, so folks who arguably would have been "eligible" to be grandfathered into Brotherhood dual concepts couldn't and thus no longer can.

Also, there seems to be a lot of contradictory information in and out of character about what IC crafts/jobs do or do not require Merchant Guild membership. Whether or not coded Guild membership is the same as "having a license" or otherwise. Can one be a Master in a craft the Merchants don't oversee?

I am not proposing what the answers should be, but I do think that the website/helpfiles/IC info need to be all on the same page. So that folks who want to help new players can give them the right info. As to my understanding, the reason some skills like fishing/farming/foraging etc are not Guilded is because they do not require Guilding to do.

If the idea is that folks can and should be able to be hobbyist crafters (IE below 36) and take roles in other Guilds or what not, I think that requires some meta clarification possibly as a staff directive.

Starstarfish wrote:Which is already something coming up in play as the Tenebrae position was vacant for a month or so, so folks who arguably would have been "eligible" to be grandfathered into Brotherhood dual concepts couldn't and thus no longer can.

Also, there seems to be a lot of contradictory information in and out of character about what IC crafts/jobs do or do not require Merchant Guild membership. Whether or not coded Guild membership is the same as "having a license" or otherwise. Can one be a Master in a craft the Merchants don't oversee?

I am not proposing what the answers should be, but I do think that the website/helpfiles/IC info need to be all on the same page. So that folks who want to help new players can give them the right info. As to my understanding, the reason some skills like fishing/farming/foraging etc are not Guilded is because they do not require Guilding to do.

If the idea is that folks can and should be able to be hobbyist crafters (IE below 36) and take roles in other Guilds or what not, I think that requires some meta clarification possibly as a staff directive.

The information on what is and isn't a Merchant-controlled craft is the same as the last time it came up. If it's a Merchant guildskill, it's theirs. If it's not, it's not.

Can also check here for a quick future reminder on what is and isn't a Merchant guildskill:
https://ti-legacy.com/crafting-guide/

Looks like there isn't a helpfile that explicitly reiterates them. It wouldn't be difficult to set up. Would it be helpful to have one?

The Tenebrae position was empty for about 24 hours, and it had nothing to do with dual guilding. The GL went inactive and stayed inactive. When the system booted him, someone took the mantle within a day. I think it would be best to avoid misinformation if we can. It's how weird rumors get going and useful topics get derailed into not-as-useful topics.

I'm not sure what's meant by looking for meta clarification on whether or not people are allowed to take guildskills below 36. That's always been the case, yeah?

Niamh wrote:Looks like there isn't a helpfile that explicitly reiterates them. It wouldn't be difficult to set up. Would it be helpful to have one?

I think it would be incredibly helpful if there was a pair of helpfiles that, in one, listed all mundane skills, including guild skills and hidden skills and labeling those appropriately, and another listing all magical skills. Some skills you can gain in chargen only if you know to look for them, which seems a bit .. wrong ...

There's a command, "skills list" that does this instead of a help file.

Kinaed wrote:There's a command, "skills list" that does this instead of a help file.

I did not know this! While I see that the helpfile 'help skill list' links from 'help purchase skill', could a mention of it maybe be added to purchase skill? — or added to the room discussing skills, if it's not already there?

Niamh wrote:The Tenebrae position was empty for about 24 hours, and it had nothing to do with dual guilding. The GL went inactive and stayed inactive. When the system booted him, someone took the mantle within a day. I think it would be best to avoid misinformation if we can. It's how weird rumors get going and useful topics get derailed into not-as-useful topics.

I think the point is more than an inactive Tenebrae is effectively a vacant Tenebrae, meaning that people ready to be guilded weren't.

Geras wrote:

Niamh wrote:The Tenebrae position was empty for about 24 hours, and it had nothing to do with dual guilding. The GL went inactive and stayed inactive. When the system booted him, someone took the mantle within a day. I think it would be best to avoid misinformation if we can. It's how weird rumors get going and useful topics get derailed into not-as-useful topics.

I think the point is more than an inactive Tenebrae is effectively a vacant Tenebrae, meaning that people ready to be guilded weren't.

Wasn't the case, though, thankfully. I was curious why they didn't gambit the inactive, however. Maybe he was popular before the big vanish?