Page 1 of 4
Issue with the new persistant storage system
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 2:03 pm
by Boddynock
Having the storage access for BG located in a PC controlled faction building is a bit of an oversight, as the faction could restrict PC access. There are other options within the city, such as the counting house, that are NPC operated and therefore more suitable.
Re: Issue with the new persistant storage system
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 2:22 pm
by Moltrazahn
With no offence towards the faction in question, I am going to have to agree on this one. Giving an NPC of this importance to a pc-controlled location is a potential for player abuse (ei. "I don't like you anymore. The guards would no longer allow your character access in here"). Granted DMS could say otherwise, but rather avoid having to bring it up in the first place.
Rather place it outside the building in a booth or something. For the most part I (personally) am fine with the NPC have ties with pc-factions, but as long as it's services are open to all.
Re: Issue with the new persistant storage system
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 2:24 pm
by AlwaysSummer Day
Everyone knows this is the admin/staff member guild but still it seems improper. I really hope they move it somewhere neutral.
Re: Issue with the new persistant storage system
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 2:24 pm
by Tsidkenu
BG is big enough for two locations. Put one in the Merchant's League (Elad) or even the completely unused Lord's Alliance building thing. Leave the Bank alone. It was RPed for years, added and now it has a purpose.
Re: Issue with the new persistant storage system
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 2:26 pm
by LISA100595
I'm going to have to agree with you guys as well. It should have its own small location or stall or something open to all.
Re: Issue with the new persistant storage system
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 2:39 pm
by Charraj
I agree with the OP, with no disrespect to staff.
Re: Issue with the new persistant storage system
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 2:44 pm
by matelener
In my opinion storage should be OOC - a druid might want to RP storing things in a forest hut, a wizard - heavily warded hideout within ruins etc. etc.
So, an access point could be placed also in an OOC area, in addition to wherever else it is now.
Re: Issue with the new persistant storage system
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 2:49 pm
by AlwaysSummer Day
matelener wrote:In my opinion storage should be OOC - a druid might want to RP storing things in a forest hut, a wizard - heavily warded hideout within ruins etc. etc.
So, an access point could be placed also in an OOC area, in addition to wherever else it is now.
An OOC storage system in the Nexus that can transfer between characters to help out with muling and allow us to RP dimensional pockets and hiding places. I could agree with that but it is a bit of a tangent to this thread.
Re: Issue with the new persistant storage system
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 3:05 pm
by Endelyon
Tsidkenu wrote:BG is big enough for two locations. Put one in the Merchant's League (Elad) or even the completely unused Lord's Alliance building thing. Leave the Bank alone. It was RPed for years, added and now it has a purpose.
We can probably add it to the merchant league, as well, but the SCCE is an NPC owned faction just the same. The PCs that run it are going into retirement and there's plenty of other places that you can access the storage as already mentioned. No one said a peep about any of the other guilds who have mechanical incentives to get people to show up. EDE, Doron Amarillo, Candlekeep all have vendors, and the Thayans will soon. The WMT even has a player Quest. Why isn't anyone concerned that the WMT staff might not let them speak to Carl the janitor?
I once had a PC that was completely banned from the grounds of Candlekeep by other PCs, so admittedly this kind of thing does happen, but given that there are no more active PC members of decision-making capacity it shouldn't be an issue here.
Of course the merchants league has PC members as well, so maybe we had better put it in the middle of the woods on a random nameless NPC for no reason except to make sure that it has no chance of having player affiliation.

Re: Issue with the new persistant storage system
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 3:08 pm
by mrm3ntalist
// removed, irelevant
Re: Issue with the new persistant storage system
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 3:21 pm
by AlwaysSummer Day
What is the WMT? When I asked about getting a quest for Kraak Helzak I was told a flat "not allowed ever" because it would not be fair. Of course I was also told guild halls were not allowed to have wards. Also there is significant difference between an NPC merchant in a town that a guild is present in and a bank in a building that is owned by a guild. These guilds cannot ban people from entering a town ever only a DM may. A guild may freely administer it's own building though.
It should be removed from the guild and replaced with one of the private guild storage banks when they come out as you mention in the other thread.
Re: Issue with the new persistant storage system
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 3:25 pm
by Endelyon
AlwaysSummer Day wrote:What is the WMT? When I asked about getting a quest for Kraak Helzak I was told a flat "not allowed ever" because it would not be fair. Of course I was also told guild halls were not allowed to have wards. Also there is significant difference between an NPC merchant in a town that a guild is present in and a bank in a building that is owned by a guild. These guilds cannot ban people from entering a town ever only a DM may. A guild may freely administer it's own building though.
It should be removed from the guild and replaced with one of the private guild storage banks when they come out as you mention in the other thread.
It's a public business. What in the world would it be doing just offering private vault services to its employees? Again, though, if there is a point of access added at the merchants league that's not an issue, is it? People will have other options as to where they can do their banking business and the problem is solved.
Re: Issue with the new persistant storage system
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 3:27 pm
by Rhifox
It's funny how averse people are to roleplay. The SCCE is finally able to actually function as the bank it is (because that's, you know, the whole point of the guild), and players think the bank should be moved "because players run it."
Frankly, the less things taken out of player hands, the better. There's no immersion to be found in dealing with mindless, inactive NPCs. I'd go so far to say that the only bank should be the SCCE one... until another player group decides to take the initiative to create an alternative.
Re: Issue with the new persistant storage system
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 3:31 pm
by AlwaysSummer Day
So will other guilds get full banks? Will the other bank in BG be as accessable? I am sorry if I am annoying but I just do not like when one guild gets something special and it just so happens to be the staff/admin guild. I have seen what things that can do to a server first hand and I really do not want favoritism, bias, and (as another put it) power cliques to form here.
Re: Issue with the new persistant storage system
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 3:35 pm
by Rhifox
AlwaysSummer Day wrote:So will other guilds get full banks?
If they put in the IC efforts to get one, sure! I know I've discussed among the Red Wizards in a previous meeting (before persistent storage was a possibility) to creating a banking alternative to the SCCE. Now that storage is in, this becomes a much more beneficial pursuit.
Will the other bank in BG be as accessable? I am sorry if I am annoying but I just do not like when one guild gets something special and it just so happens to be the staff/admin guild.
The bank guild gets a bank. How dare they!