ti-legacy.com

I voted for the entry level roles, but I think what we really need is a flexible paradigm that can incorporate a lot of these different ideas depending on the specific setup of the guild. So maybe something like...

* Entry-level roles in the game are opened up for 'purchase', but not higher roles except on rare occasion.
* You initiate seeking. It begins a one-week period of time during which people CAN anti-sponsor or sponsor you with reasons clearly provided in the command to give the GL some information/context.
* At the end of that period, the GL is able to make a final decision.

We worry about GLs only letting in their friends, but absolutely nothing keeps them from doing that now, if we're honest. It's not like people who are GLs' friends are getting turned away by sponsor interviews; probably what, 90% of seeker interviews end with a yes, if not more? Seeking really is a rubber stamp. And I personally prefer it that way to let newer players or PCs who are a bit Out There still get their chance. And on the converse, it's not like people who are well-loved are getting rejected by GLs right now - GLs tend to be super happy to get bodies in their guilds, especially competent ones.

I'm not a lazy person, and I'm pretty dang proactive in RP when I've got a goal to pursue, but I've had some horrible experiences trying to seek guilds, and I've had a lot of RP around seeking I didn't enjoy. I don't RP for the XP - I RP for the story. So, yes, I do prefer to be a little more selective about the kind of RP I get. There's not much story to be had in seeking interviews - especially not when they interrupt more meaningful RP, and not when you do them again and again and again for people who disappear. There's this big asymmetry where people join guilds expecting to be taught tons of lessons and given tons of time by their higher-ups, and then after you've invested that time and energy they don't even stick around to give back to the next generation. Doing anything to lessen that burden would really make me a lot happier.

I'm not a fan of purchasing into guilds, but making the seeking process easier would definitely be nice.

Kinaed wrote:Are people prepared to have people purchasing into roles? If yes, under what circumstances?

While I want to say yes, I have no way of knowing for certain, nor am I in any leadership position, so I don't really have a strong opinion either way.

Kinaed wrote:To what degree is guilding essential for a character's identity? How much does it affect people not to be guilded, etc? Is guilding very central to the game, and what role do guilds play? Is this the role that they ought to?

Guilding is pinnacle to a character that was set up to join a guild, and is very central to the game, simply because of guild-specific skills. If I set up a character to join a guild and it doesn't happen, the character concept is ruined because I can't fly it solo. There's no room to even try. The only exception would be to find a teacher for the specific skills I am trying to pursue, but in my experience that would be even more unlikely than joining the guild I wanted in the first place, especially after failing to make it in.

Personally, I would unlock all skills for all characters, with the understanding that if you try to fly it solo, you will most likely be met with severe opposition from the related guild. I think it would give characters more avenues of approach, and create conflict between individual guilds and characters for players to pursue.

Kinaed wrote:Do we want GLs to be solely responsible? On the forum post we linked to above, a GL said they didn't want to have sole responsibility, but also we had a problem back in the day with GLs guilding and promoting their buddies whilst everyone else in the guild languished.

Give individual GLs the ability to decide. Do they hoard the power and shape the guild themselves? Or are they more lax, willing to at least partially pass off the responsibility to others? It will be different from guild to guild and from GL to GL, so let's set up some mechanics that let GLs toggle what they want.

Kinaed wrote:Is the seeking RP at all beneficial? A lot of people seem to not enjoy it at all, particularly guild members who vette people that just disappear (and probably disappear because it can be too hard to get into a guild to play a character they want to), but equally we have seen people say it helps them get established and they love the system.

I have no strong feelings about the RP itself. It seems to be personal preference how much enjoyment is derived from it. Personally, I keep my interviews two or three emotes long, maybe an extra or two for clarification purposes. Short and sweet. Then again, I've not played any kind of leadership role in a long, long time.

Kinaed wrote:Should seeking be partly OOC or can the sponsorship approvals be partly OOC? We get the sense that for some people, the whole seeking process has been hijacked by an OOC philosophy that everyone who wants to join a guild has a right to play that kind of character, so why are we bothering with sponsorships at all if it's just a rubber stamp that Joe Bloggs doesn't have an issue with Jane Doe?

This goes back to individual GL preference, I think, and should probably be incorporated into their list of options.

Kinaed wrote:Should we flip seeking to rather be a vote to keep someone out that's thrown up to a GL to be vetted rather than a consensus approach to getting someone in?

Personally, no. But again, this could be an option GLs could toggle.

Kinaed wrote:If we get rid of seeking because the bulk of players believe RP is 95% a crappy speedbump to becoming established, what do we have in its place?

I don't think we should. But again, GL options.

Kinaed wrote:Can guilds get too big and should controls be put into place regarding how large they are? Or maybe cleansing out inactives? What ought to be done then?

I don't think there's been a problem with that, has there? GLs can already remove people if they desire.

So far, I really like Dice's proposition the best!

Really like Dice's idea.