Guild Leadership shouldn't be held by retired players.

[Wolfrayne]

I think with certain factions that have very strong ties to the politics/world of the sword coast should never have player based leadership at all. The actual leaders should all be NPC/DM controlled however players can have "Stewards" in place that are basicly the bridge between DM involvement and player interactions. This would allow other people to take over as stewards if someone was to say dissapear for 3 months without a word.

[krighaur]

Factions lead by NPC (DM) may lead to other problems :

DM may become too involved in their NPC, who they play as DM-PC who create ties with some selected PC (preferably IRL friends). Make two or three guilds like that ... all plots are then shared between these DM-PC and their favored PC. All other players become spectators.

This server seem adult enough to avoid this drifting, but it exists and it is not pleasant to play on such PW.

[Ariexedes]

and servers not already doing that? trust me already at that point.

They tried that already with the guild wolfrayne and nothing happened cuz they won't play important chars like guild heads, deities, or anything that requires moving a plot/guild forward or kept them involved. Hellscream of the roaring shore is a prime example of that as they pretty much gave up. Players are leaving.

alas getting off-topic sort of;

with retired players as thinking about the comment of my own, a lot of players who do run the guilds and factions aren't getting thrown a bone so they tend to go inactive or don't feel like they are doing anything productive. Thinking on it right this second of semi actives groups and or guilds are the Darious boi's (for obvious reasons) , Zhent (sort'a on and off), Eb's (as they are struggling to stay and keep involved with hell steel), morgans house and her northern watch, and possibly a revival of ORH with aarron kicking it into gear.

There are way more ghosted or inactive groups/factions to shake a stick at due to player inactivity or little investment into the server now what sadly adds the nail to the coffin of the rest of their group.

[KOPOJIbPAKOB]

I didn't expect so much support here! It means the problem is actually even more serious and long-existing than I imagined. It's also good to see one of these retired throne-holders in this thread so we may hear another point of view!

Since we have to start solving this problem somewhere:

It is absurd to think the server has two available character classes devoted to a nation who's main base in the region (all canon based) is locked off by a mere player and that the Admin are helpless to do anything about it.

What I suggest you, Tekill, is gathering all the players you know who were interested in RW roleplay in one pm and sending it to the admins. Tell them that you're not alright with the state of things and ask to find a compromise. Or ask to remove the retired guild leader. It would be also an option to include the leader in your pm too so you'll have a chance of an actual dialogue and compromise (which is the best, really).

[Balthomer]

Sometimes it feels certain guilds are top lucky or always right moment right time when deciding how important, how much participation, story agency and narrative they get compared to other players.

This ls too obvious and an elephant in the room.

[Mallore]

From experience,

In the example such as the Red Wizards and all other guilds in reality, players should request stewardship over the guilds forums. Increasing the number of players that can accept people into the guild fixes all these problems.

A group of players should be able to hand out keys and give permission to the forum. Such as in the case of the red wizards, this would be the guild leader and two or three other high ranking characters in the guild. By lore “circle leaders”. If more people can invite others into guilds be it though keys and at minimum limited forum access. Regardless of the current leaders active status the guild can still grow and foster.

As such in the red wizard case. The players interested should contact the DM team making their intention to grow the guild clear. Be granted forum access and receive keys. Among those select players they should be able to accept and grow more. This will not conflict with the DMs current rulings as they are not stripping a player of leadership but instead giving the guilds subordinates the ability to continue forward while leaders are absent.





Final note. From experience. A guild should never ever be lead by a dm npc. It is to open to abuse and I have personally seen the damage it can cause. Truth of the matter is dm interfering in guild matters helped lead to a portion of the lull the server faces today and has driven many good players from the server. The system is open to abuse and I have little to no confidence any lessons was learned from earlier mistakes. DMs need to be fair arbitration and tools for story not hand holding guilds to fit a personal narrative. Even if things where improved, lessons learned or new rules set in place their will always be the view of conflict of interest. One day DM X will rule one way or it’s npc will say something and the player base will wonder if it happen only to benefit the DMs own personal player Character. Right or wrong the perception is key and as such DMs need to always be viewed as fair arbitrators as such they need their hands far away from leadership of guilds or be viewed under the guise of suspicion, do they do this for personal gain or their friends.

Also. Player progress, sense of accomplishment is very limited on the server. Another thing mentioned in the Lull Thread, you can do a ton of stuff and get no where and after years you wonder “did my play do anything in a persistent world?” Guild leadership is one of the few accomplishments the server currently has and even then it’s been weakened. Let’s not take away everything a player can achieve reducing the server to nothing more then a slice of common life.

[Steve]

I think it’s important to make a separation between Guild PC leadership and NPC Leaders of a Guild.

All Guilds and Factions should and probably atm are PC (player) run. There have been some quickly lived examples of a temporary faction lead by DMs via NPCs—Theophanies’ Assembly out of BG/Dukes comes to mind—but in general, Players and thus PCs are player run, thus PCs take a leadership role.

Yet, what I’d offer is best is a NPC “head” of the Guild/Faction, that acts as an IC “conduit” of Players to DMs, in terms of Guild Role-play.

Let’s apply this to the Red Wizards of Baldur’s Gate, to illustrate the idea more clearly.

There has been in the past a PC Kharzak for the Guild. What happens if that player, and thus the PC, goes missing? How does that affect the other members? What recourse do other Guild members have in this situation, or even if other PCs want to IC change the leadership, say mutiny? I think these are all valid concerns.

So imagine if the RW of BG had a NPC Kharzak. Regardless of the PC population of that Guild, there would ALWAYS exist an avenue to forward Guild RP IC because there are always DMs via Player Requests to answer via the NPC.

Continue to imagine that now, with a NPC KHARZAK, each school of Magic in the Guild could have its own PC Leader, and maybe some Schools are more populated than others, and maybe just like back in good ol’ Thay, these PC led schools can bicker and vie for power and, and...all under a watchful eye of the Kharzak. Perhaps even any School of Magic “Head” could vie for favors from the Kharzak against a rival School...based on skills and “work” and quests and all sorts of options only a DM can request and or dish out as is determined by the Server Rules AND mechanics.

And thus, the Heads of the Magic Schools have underlings—other PCs with unique Roles as well— of whom they share power and adventure and RP.

Now imagine all the existing Players retire from BGTSCC, because RL is a bitch. And imagine that some months later, a few Players want to make RWs, and...all they need to do is enter the Guild Hall, state “we’ve been sent from Thay to Serve...,” make allegiance to the STILL IN PLACE ALWAYS EXISTING KHARZAK, and start their RW RP.

Sounds awful, right?!?

The point here isn’t the DMs lead Guilds. The point is that Guilds can maintain openings and possibilities because NPCs last where Players and PCs don’t.

And I understand that it IS DIFFICULT to experience a new DM controlling a NPC in ways that “don’t make sense.” But we have to acknowledge that DMs can do their homework AND we can help them get comfortable in the Role with good guidance (let’s just hope they listen! ).

Here is a fact: DMs control the environment. Our PCs are Characters in that environment. For the environment to live, in the most continuous way, it is populated with NPCs. This is how the Game works. So having Guilds fall into that fundamental setup not only helps ensure Guilds live “in the now,” it also helps ensure Guilds remain open for the future after Player lull and such.

Again, don’t consider this AT ALL a request for DMs to lead Guilds. It is instead, quite clearly I hope, a call to restructure a broken system where Players take a role of responsibility but for one reason or another cannot uphold the responsibility, and thus causes frustration and decline of RP possibilities for other Players.

And PS: keep it in Character!

[Kingmaker]

Public threads like these serve no end. If there is a specific concern, that should be communicated to people involved, or if that failed, to the DM team. This is basically a "+1" bait, because who in their right mind would disagree with this statement? It's like saying "The sky is blue."

The only message this sends, is the one telling guild leaders to have much more scrutiny when recruiting new members, or "purging the ranks", in order to avoid drama.

[SoThereIWas]

Public threads like these serve no end. If there is a specific concern, that should be communicated to people involved, or if that failed, to the DM team. This is basically a "+1" bait, because who in their right mind would disagree with this statement? It's like saying "The sky is blue."

The only message this sends, is the one telling guild leaders to have much more scrutiny when recruiting new members, or "purging the ranks", in order to avoid drama.

In the case of a guild leaders defensively acting upon stuff like this to avoid drama in the example above will actuality increase drama for them, not help their own issues. Much like if a character that makes sense comes forth to be recruited but gets pushed away due to OOC reasons will receive flack. There is no logical sense in the long or short run to do that, just placing that out there for any that think it's a good idea to do from what was said.

So what you said before about this may have no end, is quite possibly right.

Also to note this thread is also (for the most part) fairly constructive at least due to the mod not having to jump in to action.

Anyhow, I'm a bit off topic now from the original post just from quoting your stuff so I'm just going to shut up now.

[chad878262]

It's simple really...a CHARACTER holds a position within a guild. Players on the other hand cooperate together to drive that guild to greater heights. The truly long lived, successful guilds are that way because the players (past and present) hold to the common goal of keeping the best interest of the guild ahead of personal PC aspirations.

For those that want to run a guild (or multiple guilds), really think about how much time you want to dedicate... It may be neat to think about the power your PC wields, but you rarely (if ever) get to use it IC. Meanwhile the amount of time spent communicating with the guild, DMs, allies or enemy guilds to coordinate things for your guild will severely impact your actual play time.

Personally if there is a guild that the guild leader is inactive, but wont give up leadership I'd just look for a different guild even if it means making a new character....anything else is likely more effort than its worth. Just my opinion, but consider that play time is finite. Would you rather fight OOC battles or just play the game?

[Tekill]

Personally if there is a guild that the guild leader is inactive, but wont give up leadership I'd just look for a different guild even if it means making a new character....anything else is likely more effort than its worth. Just my opinion, but consider that play time is finite. Would you rather fight OOC battles or just play the game?

Why does it have to be a fight in the first place?
Besides, fighting can be good clean wholesome fun. Why would I deny myself the pleasure of a good fight?
But, even with a desire to fight, it really doesnt even have to be a fight at all.

If it was a player created non canon guild I would be fine with it dying with its leaders.

But the BG Enclave for example, is part of Forgotten Realms Lore. Red Wizards are super enclusive and dont mix well with outsiders. Having an Enclave gives legitimate reason for them to be here, a way to intereact with each other and I should add, a legit reason to use the two character classes this server uses related to this faction.

One can totally roll a red knight/wizard without the enclave. But there is zero reason why they should have to.

Not being albe to RP the Enclave punches a huge hole in any Red Wizard RP one can do on this server. It doesnt totally end all RW RP, but I think it gimps it for sure.

But hey, if your motto is, 'its to much trouble, why bother', well all the power to you then. Good luck with that.
My personal belief is to discuss it. I think there are multiple solutions available and I think Chad, you draw a little too much of a distiction between the players impact on a faction and on a characters impact.

I think its more important to see what goes on in game, in character.
My motto is: Dont be the change, RP the change!

[AlwaysSummer Day]

I think with certain factions that have very strong ties to the politics/world of the sword coast should never have player based leadership at all. The actual leaders should all be NPC/DM controlled however players can have "Stewards" in place that are basicly the bridge between DM involvement and player interactions. This would allow other people to take over as stewards if someone was to say dissapear for 3 months without a word.

It's been tried and doesn't work. DMs do not have the time/interest in such direct guild control. Imagine having to PM the dm team to find out which one of them want to arbitrate whether a guild wants to join a war or not. Then having to follow up once a week until a month later someone finally replies. They make a decision but leave the team shortly after. A month later another PM is sent asking about what the guild will be doing in the coming war. The dm team replies they didnt know your guild was involved and they will need to discuss it....

[K'yon Oblodra]

I wanted to say something about the npc thing Steve said, for the School of Necromancy it is basically like that, Tsabrak is our NPC leader. There is also players that lead the guild especially BlackmanD has been leading the guild for felt eons and has been doing a great job at keeping it alive

The NPC leader really to my knowledge has not had to do much of anything at all lately but having it in place kind of helps I think with keeping the school intact even if all players were to leave it would still be kind of like Steve described and New players could come in and begin rebuilding.

As long as the NPC guild leader is not looked towards to actually guide the guild ingame I think it can be a good idea to have that anker.

[Ewe]

Yea I agree that guilds shouldn't be held hostage by retired players who only pop on to defend their throne then quit again.

I think the solution should be even harsher, that iconic guilds (e.g. canon guilds) should be ultimately led by an NPC and not any player. I think Candle Keep and some others run this way?

To people saying DM NPC leads to problem... well the Dukes/Fist, etc. all DM NPCs, many others. If players could be the Dukes or Fist themselves it'd be much worse.

[Tekill]

it'd be much worse.

Orrrrrr...with a little faith in our fellow man, some clear rules, and willingness to rp the good bad and the ugly...it could be, much better.

Well...alright.. I can see it turning into a nightmare if one of my toons became a Duke.

But the flip side, to the other extreme is that we play in a rule lawyered, overly politically correct, bureaucratic, flavorless, discouraging, homogenous snoozefest.

Grind, campfire, maybe dm event. Rinse repeat.
There can be a little more and so we should encourage it.