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

Seriously.

I could go on, but I think you all know what I mean. How about it? What could be done to work this out for BGTSCC?

I support this post, but not sure what's to be done... many of the lore accurate guilds are dead right now. One thing I think would help is if groups of players who had play times which coincided would join guilds together. A big issue that had always existed is the fact that you might have 6 or more members of a guild, but they're only ever online 1 or 2 at a time so eventually lose interest. Having a good core of players committed to the rp of a given guild that are in game together at least once per week on average would be a good way for that guild to thrive.

Separate Guild DMs with less DM responsibilities and rights. They would concentrate only on interacting with guild members: running quests, player driven quests and story lines that are connected to the core guild / guilds. No rights to give item, gold or XP rewards - these would have to go through actual DMs. This would most likely bring more members to the guilds, and that's really what the guilds need to remain active (as Chad already mentioned).

We call that a guild leader?

Though those tend to hand out items and gold along with guild member quests.

Isabella Villame here. Looooong time partaker of the focal guild graces.It's a spastic complex and mess of a world but if anyone has any questions they have for someone who has been involved in the high end of a Focal Guild for years upon years upon years now I would be glad to answer.

Storm Munin wrote:We call that a guild leader?

Though those tend to hand out items and gold along with guild member quests.

If they gave no xp, no gold, and no items they would still boost guild participation I think.

Guild DMs are not going to fix canon guilds. DM attention never fixes a guild. It temporarily inflates participation and when the DM finishes their plot, things die again. What canon guilds need, what any guild needs, is a strong core of active players. 3 or so minimum who are willing to organize the others, set up player run events, and set the direction for the guild.

What DMs could do that is useful is get control of an NPC atop the pyramid so if a player gets stuck in a leadership role that stagnates (they leave, are toxic, whatever), they can be removed or the guild restructured to promote influx of players again.

+1

Who does the wetting of the new guild candidates though?
DMs have given away guild positions to players who were never interested in the guild they claimed they wanted to belong to before.

It would help I believe as well if guildleaders of canon guilds (any guild really) did spend more time at or near their headquarter then they do at FAI.

/M

It would be great to just have canon guilds.

For replacing guild leaders: I think some sort of voting procedure has been done which I think produced the best results, even if its done by DMs OOC then they use the information to make a decision IC.

I am not sure I agree with only having lore guilds as it severely limits people's creativity and I think it is highly relevant that new factions would exist, especially in the wilds of the Western Heartlands / Sword Coast. What I think is important and hopefully something the DMs consider is the extent of resources available to startup guilds compared to lore factions. Lore based factions should have significantly more resources and support compared to startups, meaning they have the potential to be much more influential in DM plots, if such resources are recognized and permitted to be used (responsibly).

Never worked that way before though, DMs have always had their own focus groups and selfinterests afaik.
Canon/focal guilds being booned attention pretty much as often as jim bob's purple doom spoonwalkers guild (3 weeks old).

While that is part of the problem it is also something hard to do anything about without us ending up in less DMs to aid us in making grand stories on the server.

/M

zan5bar wrote:Separate Guild DMs with less DM responsibilities and rights. They would concentrate only on interacting with guild members: running quests, player driven quests and story lines that are connected to the core guild / guilds.

We had something similar in the past, each DM were given a focal guild to take care of, and said guilds was to the antipod of said DM's character (or ex character).

Personally I had both Candlekeep and the Thief guild, and enjoyed it a lot. No clues how it works today.

Storm Munin wrote:It would help I believe as well if guildleaders of canon guilds (any guild really) did spend more time at or near their headquarter then they do at FAI.

I've actually been faulted IC and OOC for doing the exact thing that you've suggested... to the point where I had to add a post in our guild overview page that explains why my PC is in her office so much.

It comes back to the age-old dilemma of asking ten people what's the best way to proceed and getting ten distinctly different answers. Not everyone can be made happy in the end, and guild leaders and DMs are but human.

All for it. I have to say I was unpleasantly surprised by the lack of activity from Dwarven guild, for instance. Completely dead in the water, from what I've seen in September. I believe that guilds should play a bigger role on the server, and generate RP without having to constantly rely on DMs to provide it. While I admire the idea of giving freedom in creating new guilds, I would much prefer for players to join existing, focal guilds instead of having dozen watered down ones.

TarnishedSoul wrote:

Storm Munin wrote: guild leaders and DMs are but human.

False...they're gnomes. Chambordini told me so.