Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

I have no reason to doubt these numbers, but 24 dms sounds like a lot. Would it be fair to say 12 are active at a time? 6? 3? Whatever percent you would use for the dm activity would likely be usable for guild activity. Anyway a 3 to one guild to dm ratio should keep them pretty active. With the others filling requests and whatever. It has to be more fun for the dms to be dming. Even 4 to 1.

If we could get 135 DMs to keep a 3 DMs to 1 guild ratio, that would be nice. But we'd have to be a much, much bigger community for that. And if we were a bigger community, I suppose that would probably just mean more guilds, not fewer (unless we made starting a guild much, much harder).

How many DMs are active at a time really depends on one's definition of active. If you mean in game every single day for 2+ hours, and therefore able to give guilds support each evening, then very few are ever that active. And when we do get a DM who (for whatever reason) treats this game like it's their part-time -- or sometimes, even, full-time -- job, they don't last long before they burn out. They tend to get used up by the player base (which isn't a jab at the players, I mean why wouldn't you want to work with a super active, energetic DM?), and just lose their drive.

aaron22 wrote:I have no reason to doubt these numbers, but 24 dms sounds like a lot. Would it be fair to say 12 are active at a time? 6? 3? Whatever percent you would use for the dm activity would likely be usable for guild activity. Anyway a 3 to one guild to dm ratio should keep them pretty active. With the others filling requests and whatever. It has to be more fun for the dms to be dming. Even 4 to 1.

The biggest ammount of DMs I have seen at the same time is 3. Usually it is 0-1. Morover, there is a time range approximately from 4 am to 19 pm (GMT +0) with a chance of meeting a DM nearly equal to 0. Just some facts.

IMO, starting new guilds shouldn't be as easy as it is now. We don't have such big community to support more than 15-20 guilds, even that. Players should be motivated to join existing guilds and be the change from within. Maybe assign an ADM to the focal guilds which would help generate RP and attention.

And yes, the guild in the end dies or lives by their leader(s). I had great time several years ago with EDE when both Laisren and Mendel were involved.

Now Steve and the others are doing lots of good stuff for the dwarves, and KH was practically dead before they stepped up. Those players need to be supported and helped because they make the server alive and drive the RP forward. We need to recognize this.

Time for Hawke's 2 cents on this post.

First, we are talking about the canon guilds, which in my mind are the "official" Guilds.

We have a LOT of private guilds and that is fine.

DMs are thin as is, and has been discussed in full all over the forums on the limited capability based on requirements and tasks needing to be completed.

In my opinion, if the DM team has time to support a request from a private guild, all great it is. If they do not, *shrugs* They do not.

This is what is listed in the guild forum on the official guilds, supported by the DM team.

The Hellstorm Crew, The Elder Circle and Kraak Helzak are not lore-based guilds. Long standing, definitely, but all are player-made.

If we are to differentiate them like this (which honestly, im not a fan of.. some of our best, most active, guilds have been player created) then we shouldn't be picking winners and losers of player-made guilds.

EDIT: My point is not to say these guilds don't deserve DM attention or aren't 'legit' (they do and are), just pointing out that they aren't any more official than the others.

Focal Guilds/non-Focal Guilds has gone the way of the dinosaur, so says Maecius (and as recent Forum organization has reflected). Get it?!? Dinosaur, Maecius, Barney....?!!?!?

Geez...what do I have to do for this crowd?!?

Anyway...should we have Official Guilds even? I mean, a Guild would be an established organization with a base of operations (Guild Hall) and some official recognition by the regional government (or, if they WERE a government, like the Zhentarim are within Castle Darkhold). All other organizations of PCs are and should be considered Factions.

Guilds & Factions...that is a distinction but by no means by itself says one is better than the other, especially since both are made by Players and thus either is great by that fact alone.

Should DMs focus their support to Guilds, or Factions, or both? A personal preference would be to see DMs focus on: Campaign(s) > Guilds > Factions. Thus, the energy of the DM Team and its abilities goes to the Campaign, the Campaign is really setup to provide agency to the Guilds...AND, provide agency to Factions, considering that...wait for it...multiple Guilds could be a Faction!

That all said, I also have a personal preference to Canon Guilds, because I appreciate BGTSCC as a Server that follows, caters to and upholds the Forgotten Realms Lore. As much as possible. Obviously, the BGTSCC Server is just as rooted in custom Lore and thus, non-Canon Guilds. That's cool. But I still think Canon and Lore should always be given first dibs on development.

In the long run, and by looking into the past, there really should not be any division of DM attention to one "way" or another, as in just cater to Guilds, or just cater to whatever group is most active, or just cater to...X, Y, Z. That way of doing business probably is the least desired because it is far too easy to say "that's a type of Favoritism!" *yawn*

But I'm really now pushing an agenda of making DM Team effort be about making Campaigns (in the grand honor of the Amn/Gate war for example) where Guilds + Factions + Individuals are invited to join within the organization of their Guild/Faction or solo, and CAN join into the Campaign under their Guild/Facton or Solo (in grand honor oth the Amn/Gate War for example! ), and with the resources that each of those types would provide to effecting the Campaign. DMs juggle the requests as they relate to the Guilds/factions/soloists attempts at RPing the Campaign. And...the Campaigns don't have to just be 1-year Campaigns, they could be much more complex and long-term than that!

Maybe I'm off-track here, and DMs just prefer to run little events with not much Server consequence. And in general, I think all Players can appreciate it when DM is around just making the more static parts of the Server (mobs, NPCs, quests) come alive "in the moment" with a bit of interaction. Actually...I think we all love that!

But it seems that if you have a Server Campaign, and individual DM campaigns, and then 45 Guild "campaigns," and non-consequential DM Events, and Guild/Faction mini-requests, and solo PC requests, and backstory requests, and this and that and this...

...you hopefully get the picture. It's impossible. It's a nightmare, really. That is NO FUN. Game = fun, right? Right?!?

Maecius wrote:If we could get 135 DMs to keep a 3 DMs to 1 guild ratio, that would be nice

perhaps a misunderstanding and perhaps an exaggeration to make a point. i do not know, but my...

aaron22 wrote: Anyway a 3 to one guild to dm ratio should keep them pretty active. With the others filling requests and whatever. It has to be more fun for the dms to be dming. Even 4 to 1.

punctuation and sentence structure FAIL
that is 3 to 1, guild to dm ratio. 3 guilds for each dm. not 3 dms for each guild LOL. an event every couple weeks or so. that is a pretty active amount. still gives the dm time to work on single events and paperwork or whatever.

then again, perhaps i am talking straight out my A$$. that is quite possible. never been a DM. seen a few.

Ah, I misunderstood. Having led several guilds myself, I can safely say that even as a player leader, managing a single guild can easily feel like a full time job. I don't think it'd be realistic to expect a single DM to manage three at once. At least not in a sustained, deeply involved fashion.

There is a differentiation being developed between "guild" and "faction" though. For example, with the reputation system. There may come a time when, for example, a player character is popular with the Zhentarim faction but everyone in the Zhentarim guild hates their guts, and so on and so forth. Where player guilds represent a vested interest or major part of an organization, but not the whole of the organization's NPCs. Still a lot of rough edges here, however; devs are only just beginning to look at the reputation system idea.

I liked your joke Steve.

I don't think we'll go back to "official"/"unofficial" guilds. I don't want to artificially prop up certain guilds. I feel the DMs should be focusing on where the player focus is. Even if it's not one of the big name guilds.

Maecius wrote:At least not in a sustained, deeply involved fashion.

Yeah... True that.

Having three guilds per dungeon master could work, if each guild has one day per week put down for their events. Once per week, at the same time, same meeting place. Now, the guild members and the enemies alike need to come up with new ideas for events to present. The more information given, the easier it should be for the DM to host an event. At least in theory, since being a DM can be more like herding cats in both good and bad.

Alright, lets take the Thieves Guild for example. There could be a 'DM spawned group adventurers' talking about raiding a lair of a dragon in one of the inns and taverns of the server, this party could be speaking about how they have scouted the outkirts of the lair, mapped out entrances in and out, and then discuss how they should approach the great beast by luring it out to a trap laid for it. Dialogue could be pre-written for something like that. Thus, someone with a pair of keen eyes and ears and the right set of friends might start to think of a heist unimaginable. While this group of adventurers battle the beast outside the lair, the Thieves Guild could sneak in and steal everything in the lair.

It sounds like a simple thing to do, but everything can still go so much wrong. Perhaps other adventurers join the DM's group of adventurers and they take out the beast faster. Perhaps someone can track the group of thieves on their get-a-way. Perhaps the lair has its share of eggs ready to hatch. Perhaps it is a silver or bronze dragon, and some people wish to aid the beast instead.

Who knows how it will end up going... the whole situation could spiral out of control! Thus you kind of need to have another DM around to give a hand just in case. Especially if outside people get involved with the event, and outside people need to be able to get involved one way or another to avoid just or unjust accusations of DM favoritism.

Maecius wrote:I don't think we'll go back to "official"/"unofficial" guilds. I don't want to artificially prop up certain guilds. I feel the DMs should be focusing on where the player focus is. Even if it's not one of the big name guilds

i dont disagree with your decision on that. but it does create a rich get richer and could further evolve the "favoritism" idea that is tossed around. i dont have much else to say about that.

readdressing the three to one idea. i think that with a two week interval between quests, there would be a lot less behind the scene work needed. most of the work being done will be done in game. skill checks, rolls, story, convo. it all can be done in game during the ionteraction with the DM.

ex.
DM: so leader bob, what have you done to decipher the rune.
bob: our finest scholar, cindi the scholar, is using her vast knowledge to see what she can figure out. while mike the masher went to the lich cave and looked at the many symbols to match them up.
DM: cindi roll lore history. mike roll d20 with int mod.
etc etc etc.

kind of feels like a tabletrop game then. everything flows in the game. not a bunch of input from satellite sources.

every other week or even week to week eventing (not a word. don't care) is kind of a different animal. things would not be the same as what we have now.

personally. i think the thing we should really focus on is making the DM team more reliable. the players(as a whole) are already very unreliable. having the DM team be that way too makes being a guild leader very frustrating. more so if your expectations do not prepare you for such.

i dont want this criticism to be taken as a slight. i hope it is something that can be taken as an opportunity to improve. i value the DM team and the efforts that so many do to make this all work.

just want to help. help make it work better.

Steve wrote:

chad878262 wrote:It's kinda frustrating in general when I see these statements that you should not be in a guild because it's only for dwarves or ...

Did someone actually say that, Chad?

If I wasn't clear in my last post, KH is more about Allegiance, than just being a Stout (though Race is a big issue, well, isn't it always?!?).

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=65314

Other Members/Citizens of Kraak Helzak

Other members of the Kraak Helzak are considered ordinary citizens of the kingdom, those that have not taken the oath of Allegiance but reside within Kraak Helzak (mostly on a permanent basis). These Characters are fully able to cut out a niche within the guild as they see fit: Lore Keepers, Traders, Craftsmen, Scouts and regular army recruits, or any other unique role depending on how you play the character. Ordinary members only follow one single rule: they need to be either a Gold Dwarf, Shield Dwarf, Rock Gnome or an Earth Genasi. In addition, all such members get:

Any chance that be be modified to allow for other races steve?

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=27002&p=730828&hil ... rk#p730828

Darkcloud, what is your point and why are you asking it in this thread?

because you posted on this thread that you would not set limitations. I posted why if you follow the links. I believe you mentioned having a rp reason to join?