Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SauroGrenom 09-29-07, 09:25 PM	This is a thread to serve as a central location for discussions about the two major community add-ons that are in the air right now. I think we need such a thread, so that we can have an organized central place to hold the discussions. Right now there's a Community of Gladius thread, but MWB doesn't want us to post there. As a consequence posts about the community are scattered around in the tavern, and I haven't been able to follow the discussion. Similarly there isn't a dedicated place to talk about the guild system, what it should be, how it should work and so on. Index: Community of Gladius Guidhall of Gladius Community Items Under Discussion This is a list of the major elements of the Community Add-On which are currently being discussed. Place holder Guild Items Under Discussion This is a list of the major elements of the Guild system which are currently being discussed. Place holder
SauroGrenom 09-29-07, 10:31 PM	Ok, this first post is likely to be a bit rambling. I'm reading over the community stuff, and I'm trying to synthesize what's going on in that scaffold of rules. My impression of the rules in the current form is as follows: Basically the history of the character determines one of the major "resources" ie Fame. Then you choose a "home district" and there's a set of bonuses/modifiers that go along with that. Next you decide how to spend your resource, ie what to do with the Fame. So you can divide that among three types of Fame, and get various stuff with it. The end goal is that you either personally participate or have agents participate in challenges. The challenges win Prominence for your district. So the end goal is to basically "level" your district by gaining Prominence or Permanent Effects. These things feed back as bonuses or penalties on the things you do with Fame. OK, so far I can understand that characters will basically "team up" and similar types of characters will colonize the same district. It's "possible" for a group of characters to usurp a district, but that's probably not going to happen considering that there are lots of districts and you can just get a new one w/o competition unless we manage to fill all the districts with different groups of characters. So team Naestitya will be similar people who are going to work together, basically like a party, to "improve" the Fame bonuses they get for their district. It's a team work, positive feedback system. The interesting stuff is the challenges. What's not clear is how the help you. If you win a challenge, what do you win? Likewise what's on the line to loose? Say team Naestitya challenges Gorthium? What's to stop Gorthium from saying Naestitya can win this one, we've got better things to do, like questing. I'd think that you should be able to win/loose Prominence. So if you loose a contest, then that can be a problem. Right now that's my best contribution, it also looks like there are a few blanks to fill in, but that's not a major problem.
MindWandererB 09-30-07, 12:19 AM	Sauro is right on the money with what I'd intended (including the things I hadn't figured out yet), with one exception: I had figured that the guild game was where our "competitive" RP would be centered, and the community game would be more "cooperative." Think of it being like the PvP and PvE servers on World of Warcraft. There would be some overlap, of course.
whitebaron 09-30-07, 07:22 AM	i might be the only one here, but as the whole world of gladius, guilds etc, is based around the arena, i'd like to have it an impact on the normal arena fights as well. ideas ecl4+: *) if two chars from the same guild meet each other in the arena, make the fight an interleague vs an unknown monster, as they usually don't like to fight against each other. *) allow players to spend something for their guild, where they get something different in return for it. i think the original guild game has proved, that it's not a good idea to have guilds with an entirely different game which is only affected minorly by the rest of the arena. *) make monthly guild events. guild vs. guild battle. let them send e.g. ECL6 char or team, for one fight. do the pairing as usual, but those characters are only paired against other guild teams/chars. *) give guilds the ability to level. they should have only one resource, with which they can build/expand or level or acquire new members. i really like the idea of classes with skill packages for guilds. *) income tracking: this is one of the most difficult things about this - if it is competitive play, you need to do this. can be simplified, yes. but will always be there. i'd propose three types of income: a) regular income based on 1-3 guild skills. b) from fights/missions/quests. let the players share a certain amount of xp/gp with their guild. this has to be converted to guild "ressource" of course, but the factor should be easy to calculate. + Require Pitlords or players to post those results in a fixed thread after the fight, so you only need to check this thread for accounting.
Callix 09-30-07, 08:29 AM	i might be the only one here, but as the whole world of gladius, guilds etc, is based around the arena, i'd like to have it an impact on the normal arena fights as well. We're actually trying to avoid exactly this for two reasons: 1. Workload. The work of maintaining the Coliseum is done by a very few people, and we're implementing the system down two elders. New ideas that involve large amounts of bookkeeping, or ideas that increase Pitlord workload (both MWB's doing the pairing and the people who run the fights), which, in an ideal world, we would love to implement, just aren't possible when this is all being run in people's spare time. 2. New Players. New players are the lifeblood of the CoCo. We've recently lost a couple of people, and while there's a few new people around, the community of people has to grow if the Community of Gladius is to thrive. If we make the Community features give people advantages in arena fights, then new players will essentially need to put in all the extra effort, and some people who might've joined up and moved into the Community eventually are scared away. And that's a loss for everyone. They're good ideas, but they're not the direction CoCo is trying to go, as far as I can tell.
whitebaron 09-30-07, 08:49 AM	1. Workload. while i can understand that the workload is an issue, i don't understand how you can so colletively dismiss the option, that you can implement such a thing, without it resulting in major workloads. The system has to be designed to be quite self-sufficient, but this is nothing that changes the original intention of me. If you want it to be competitive, you'll have to track at least some numbers. Else its pure RPG, which would be ok too. 2. New Players. i'm a new player. i'd never go into a guild or community unless it somehow is mired with the arena. i don'T want to start two games, i want to be in one. if the guildgame is something different, then it's not worth joining my arena characters just for little rp... and: getting benefits from being in a community/guild must be nothing gamebreaking. it can be as simple as allowing only off-arena actions (like fast crafting..) or being only allowed against other guild members. or make it ecl5+ - so no new member will have any dealings with this.
Rauul 09-30-07, 03:30 PM	Guilds Are almost mostly Roleplay..And thats a good thing.. People of like minds gather and come to the defense of each other.. Right now the Guild system is totally separate game and is confusing as hell.. It definitely needs to be simplified.. and made so when Like minded individuals want to form a guild they can and play in the guild game.. Community Now this is totally new.. and i Love the idea.. Each distric having it's own advantages and Disadvantages (balanced) Players earning titles, property, Fame and Fortune * Own property and earn titles [done] * Contribute to the development of the city (although ideas of what "development" means can differ...) [done] * Cooperate and compete with other characters for rewards other than XP and GP [this one needs work still] * Participate in arena-based challenges other than duels to the death [this one needs work still] * Select and train "agents" (low-level characters and monsters) to act on the character's behalf[this one needs work still] * Help transform Gladius into a living place, rather than just a venue for arena combat [ongoing effect] Things i would Like to see: Guild missions, Community Missions I love the Idea of different types of Fights.. Like Capture the Flag, King of the Hill, Monster Hunt.. Would actually like to see some of these tested.. I would even offer all my characters to Test these types of fights..
MindWandererB 09-30-07, 05:59 PM	2. New Players. New players are the lifeblood of the CoCo. We've recently lost a couple of people, and while there's a few new people around, the community of people has to grow if the Community of Gladius is to thrive. If we make the Community features give people advantages in arena fights, then new players will essentially need to put in all the extra effort, and some people who might've joined up and moved into the Community eventually are scared away. And that's a loss for everyone.You downplayed perhaps the most important reason: not everyone is interested in these sub-games. Many players that we've had in the past have just not opted to participate in the guild game, and the same wil be true for the Community. They need to be able to do so without penalty or prejudice. Granting arena benefits forces everyone to learn the rules and participate, or else be at a handicap (if even a small one).i'm a new player. i'd never go into a guild or community unless it somehow is mired with the arena. i don'T want to start two games, i want to be in one. if the guildgame is something different, then it's not worth joining my arena characters just for little rp... and: getting benefits from being in a community/guild must be nothing gamebreaking. it can be as simple as allowing only off-arena actions (like fast crafting..) or being only allowed against other guild members. or make it ecl5+ - so no new member will have any dealings with this.You're not really that new anymore.... but if gaining arena benefits is the only reason why you'd do the Community, then it's the wrong reason. You'd be doing it because it's an optimizing decision, not an RP decision. Even if the arena options were restricted to other Community players only, you're still putting pressure on. I don't want people to feel stressed about their Community performance because it will hurt their arena performance... and worse, the optimizer's choice would be to drop out of the Community if you were doing worse at it compared to the others. Now, the Community system as currently proposed does allow you to gain benefits in the arena, but only within the context of Community-based battles. That way, you know what you're getting into, and the random pairings are never an issue. ------ @Rauul: The guild rules as they stand are going to be completely nixed. They're far too complicated. I don't want to have to give credits to guildmasters anymore--they should do it because it's fun, not because it's a duty. I think I posted this elsewhere, but now that we have a thread for it, here's my rough idea for the new system. It's all negotiable, of course, and it's very vague. Level: Each guild has a level, much like a PC. They gain experience through succeeding at operations against other guilds (including on the defense) and through missions. Experience: It costs 500 XP to go up a level, the same at every level. Beating an opposing guild at an operation earns you 100 XP + 25*(their level - your level), with a maximum gain of 175 (reasoning: otherwise, a level 5 guild could attack a level 9 guild, and the level 9 guild would earn no XP if they won). Succeeding at a mission earns a flat 100 XP. Traits: Each guild will have a rating on 5-7 different traits. Each guild chooses two strong traits and two weak traits. Their bonus on checks that involve a strong trait is 2 + 3/4 their level; for a moderate trait, just 1/2 their level; for a weak trait, 1/3 their level, -2. I believe these values make the differences significant but not impossible at all levels (poor vs. weak: +2 vs. -2 at level 1, +17 vs. +4 at level 20), unless the game starts to get into "epic" levels (which would take at least two years or so). The traits I have so far are Violence, Espionage, Negotiation (lifted blatantly from PHB II), and Wealth (lifted from d20 Modern). I have a couple other random ideas, but I think it would be better to come up with abilities first and then come up with traits that match them later. Missions: much as they are now; however, missions must include at least 2 PCs. Each guild gets one Character Action per week, but none are needed for defense. Inter-guild missions still cost the whole action from each guild, but there's an additional benefit (TBA). Operations: There are several options, and we can use some, all, or none of them. They could involve a trait check, a PC's skill check, an arena fight, a monster fight, a trait check plus a skill check, or a check plus a fight. Objectives... not sure about those yet, other than guild XP, but they could involve structures: Structures: These can function like magic items. Each guild will have a vertain number of "structure points" that function like GP in the normal D&D game, and we'll have a wealth-by-level formula so that a guild of a certain level will have structures of a certain total value. Districts would be the equivalent of item slots: the more districts you control, the more efficiently you can "stack" your structure effects (like a naga with an amulet of natural armor +1: you can get an additional AC bonus of +1 for 6000 GP, but if you manage to grow a finger you can get it for 2000 GP via a ring of protection +1). Structures can give trait bonuses (within limits; I don't want to have any check be impossible at any time), special abilities, additional operation options, etc. Districts: Since the idea of competing for space was very popular the last time I raised this issue, we'll continue it. But to keep the large guilds from dominating, two guilds can share the same district without penalty if they're four or more levels apart. The effect of competing for space will depend on what the structures' functions are.
whitebaron 09-30-07, 06:12 PM	You downplayed perhaps the most important reason: not everyone is interested in these sub-games. Many players that we've had in the past have just not opted to participate in the guild game, and the same wil be true for the Community. They need to be able to do so without penalty or prejudice. Granting arena benefits forces everyone to learn the rules and participate, or else be at a handicap (if even a small one).You're not really that new anymore.... but if gaining arena benefits is the only reason why you'd do the Community, then it's the wrong reason. You'd be doing it because it's an optimizing decision, not an RP decision. well, for RP, there's much different places to do so, and that's why i'd search for an arena connection as well. if there are special battles for community, that's fine. btw: for me, around 6 weeks is new, don't you think so? as for the guild-game: i dislike the idea of having multiple ressources, as guilds are really (RP-wise too) only about money. make xp and gp one resource, makes accounting way easier. let them guilds decide if they want to level more, or get more items=buildings and whatsoever. about traits make 2 out of wealth: -wealth (general income + bonus on buying) -productivity (mission income) which either give little income if you don't go on a mission (should be little to nothing) or a certain bonus to the xp earned.
Rauul 09-30-07, 06:57 PM	MwB.. something just came over me... so thought i would mention it.. Guilds = 3+ Characters (1 per player) of similar interests in a District.. these 3 combine recourses to make a guild.. Level of the Guild would be the Average of the 3+ Characters This would do a Few things.. Make guilds be in the Community.. and Have the Guilds effected by the Community.. Example.. The Arcane order is formed from 3 level 10's. making the guild it's self Level 10.. Lets say Shadow and Balthazar are active in the same district as TAO.. (2 ECL 6's) and we challenge TAO to a King of the Kill battle for Influence in the community.. winner gains community resources looses looses some... Guilds would be a separate being within the community system.. Guild leaders Desided between the guild membership.. Guilds could split off from each other if for some reason the players don't get along.. Guilds could even combine to make a new guild.. Maybe i am Rambling.. but they would all work off the same System of rules.. Simplified and easier to understand.. Guild missions could be to Obtain money, resources, Structures, trade routes, NPC's all for the Guild.. all would be used to Increase the Guild not the individual members (but they would also gain things like reputation for personnel.. that could be added to the Community system.. (GL+ECL=+repuatation?))
MindWandererB 10-01-07, 03:44 AM	as for the guild-game: i dislike the idea of having multiple ressources, as guilds are really (RP-wise too) only about money. make xp and gp one resource, makes accounting way easier. let them guilds decide if they want to level more, or get more items=buildings and whatsoever. about traits make 2 out of wealth: -wealth (general income + bonus on buying) -productivity (mission income) which either give little income if you don't go on a mission (should be little to nothing) or a certain bonus to the xp earned.The problem with having only gold is that all guilds are basically the same. Besides, the traits I proposed aren't resources, they're stats. They only change when a guild goes up in level, and then only according to a formula. Next to no bookkeeping needed. Oh... just noticed, I misunderstood you. I don't think a guild should be able to choose not to level up, it would make balance complicated. However, we could make it so that your XP dictates both your level and the maximum value of your structures (so a guild could have 2100/2300 XP, indicating that they've built 2100 points' worth of buildings but have earned 2300 XP total). @Rauul: I would like to make the guild game and the community game dovetail into each other, but once again I don't want to penalize a character or guild that's involved in one but not the other. They should be able to intersect at certain events, and perhaps a character might be able to use a guild affiliation as one option of many to spend their Fame. I also don't want characters to have to move to the same district if they want to form a guild. Too restricting. The level of the guild absolutely must not be related to the level of the characters. That's the way CEF worked when it was the juggernaut. Lots of high-level, high-rating characters (mostly Cat's) made the guild unstoppable in battle, and their success in battle helped them become unstoppable in every other respect.
Macbrea 10-01-07, 09:15 AM	If you made guild's level like characters levels with the amount of experience gained based of 10% of those gained through missions, campaigns and Arena fights. With no loss of experience to the guild for loss of membership. This means that the guilds will progress without any real complex thought. A guild would look as follows: East Harabi Trading Company Criminal 3/Econonmy 2/Military 1 [ECL 6] Experience: 15,029/21,000 If Yorick were to go on a mission and gain 2,100 xp for the mission. Then EHTC would simply gain 210xp. This tells us quickly what the level of the guilds are based off general activity of the characters. And giving special abilities to a guild is really quick: Make 6 NPC classes that can be taken each level such as Military, Economy, Religion, Criminal, Entertainment, Scholar. This way you can allow anyone to start a guild if they want. Just have x number of characters and Start a guild at level 1. You can then build it up at your leasure.
whitebaron 10-01-07, 10:02 AM	@mwb: i think, you still misunderstood. i'd like it to be like that: a guild earns xp via fights missions etc. you can use this XP for leveling, or a similar mechanism as real dnd crafting - you pay XP for structures, addons etc. this has nothing to do with the traits, which are like class features/skills/feats. so its not at all about gold, but you have only one ressource instead of two. @macbrea: 1) i think you are basically proposing the same as mwb, just with another way to level the stats. mwb would just allow you to chose good, bad, medium skill levels yourself, you would prescribe them via guild-classes. 2) 10% before or after political career? :) 3) and i'd do a lvl cap on the xp income via fights etc. like guild-level*100 ? else a high level character in the guild can level the guild pretty fast, which would be unfair to new guilds/players. 4) 10% seems a bit slow to go. in your example, it would take 30 missions for yorick to lvl the guild up one level. (if there is only one mission possible at any given time.) alternates are: *) count the normal arena fights also to the guild xp. then, there should be two rates. one for missions, one for ordinary fights, which occur much more often, and one for missions. (like 5% fight, 20% mission) *) give them regular income as well. (hard for accounting) *) do a factor between guild and char. this is probably hard to do for pitlords that are not accustomed to it, but could be noted in the fights/missions. proposed: ECL*10/GL = percentage. as a guild grows, it needs stronger members to grow that fast further. maybe this should only be applied to missions and keep like 5% for each fight. ECL GL FACTOR MAX GAIN per mission(due to gl) 3 1 30% 100 3 2 15% 200 3 3 10% 300 3 4 7.5% 400 4 1 40% 100 4 2 20% 200 4 3 16.6% 300 4 4 10% 400 10 5 20% 500
Macbrea 10-01-07, 11:28 AM	4) 10% seems a bit slow to go. in your example, it would take 30 missions for yorick to lvl the guild up one level. (if there is only one mission possible at any given time.) 10% isn't that bad considering that there are 5+ people adding to the amounts. If an active guild had 5 different fighters in the arena in the same week. Then the guild should go up in rank fairly fast. High level characters will advance a guild faster to bring it up more in line with their level. That is the nature of having high level characters in a guild. But it also means that the level 4 character isn't doing nothing useful for a guild. Long ago, the characters actually had an impact on the guilds. The problem was that once one guild got ahead by too much they could dominate the rest of the guilds. So, CEF became this huge dominating economic monster that didn't seem to have the right feel to it. Under the current system we are using they are there just as extras. No real effect on the guild. You could get a guild up and running then defend it with it's own army and kick all the characters out as unnecessary. Why bother, it then becomes an accounting game for the guildmaster. This probably isn't a huge amount of fun. My suggestion is very much in line with MWBs. The concept for advancement is 'characters' determine the health of the guild. We understand how to advance a character. If a Guild is nothing more then a big NPC character/organization. Then we understand the most basic principles of it. The basic principles of it could be intergrated easily with a community system. Here is a perfect example of what a non-guild would look like: ------------------------------------------------------- The Black Star (EHTC trade ship) Economics 1/Criminal 1 [ECL 2] Experience: 2,137/3,000 Members: Captain Marcus Tallfellow Abilities: Economics 1(.....), Criminal 1 (....) Feats: ..... Group: The Black star is a gnomish/halfling trading vessel that belongs to an assassin for East Harabi trade company (East division). ------------------------------------------------------ Pretty quick blurb to describe an organization. With very basic rules. Those bonuses for Abilities and feats can be used during missions/quests. They have a slight effect on the players overall ability to do stuff but this doesn't get overly complex. It is actually far more effective for the character to be in a large organization then to be 'Soloing', as their guild will go forward much faster. You will notice that at anytime we can go back and figure out the level of the guild. It is equal to 10% of the exp value of the characters.
whitebaron 10-01-07, 12:22 PM	oh, well. i missed the point with "arena fights" - while for a mission, 10% is slow, for arena fights i consider this a bit fast. - but that's just my opinion, and should be only an issue when this system is chosen...
Rauul 10-01-07, 12:55 PM	Mwb.. i didn't mean have the Players have to live in the same District as their guild is located in... Infact Just the Opposite.. to get Influence in a district.. the Guild would or should have people living in a district outside their guild district.. I don't know maybe District points.. (Sorry if i am Rambling) I like Macbrea's Idea with the Guilds gaining exp to level like a Character.. I am thinking a Different scale may be needed... 5% per Arena fight 5% Per Miniquest 10% per Mission/Quest 15% for a campaign Guilds should Probably start at level 3-4 and grow from there (maybe 1 level per active character?) This would leave the option of new guilds coming in and being able to compete, unlike now.. Each level of the Guild would be an Influence: East Harabi Trading Company Criminal 2/Economy 1/Military 1 [ECL 4] Experience: 6000/10000 Each Active Character in the guild would also (if they don't live in the guild) provide some influence in the districts they live in (gives the guild some RP and political pull in districts... Could lead to some nice RP when EHTC has a Fallen paladin living in a District where Paladins and Lawful clerics live.. Somehow i am picturing Political miniquests and Quests for an area like that.. till one or the other gained the upper hand and either Corrupted or Drove out the Evil :)
Macbrea 10-01-07, 01:45 PM	10% of the value of it's members ends up being the easiest and quickest way to do the accounting. There isn't a huge amount of thought to figure out where your sitting. Here is one of our biggest guilds: --------------------------------------------------------- Warfare Alliance Military 6/Economics 2 [ECL 8] Abilities: Military (......), Economics (....) Feats: ...... Exp: 31,541/36,000 Members: Sdentch (5930), Kracknol (6330), Featylec (4768), Monsieur Hood (4266), Ceilia Durrol (4227), Gakhnalak Strongjaw (1825), Graashnak Vruuurk (1478), Gradak Tumblebelly (590), Ralein Dreamstriker (940), Kykal Aiba (590), Gortek ChaoSlayer (597) --------------------------------------------------------- And no.. 1 level per member is extreme. War would start at level 11 because it has some low level characters in it. Weighing it on their value makes more sense. And only granting the guild bonus during missions and quests means it doesn't have an arena based effect. This means that you don't have to ever encounter the guild game if you don't want to. It also has a benefit in the form of things like '1 free reroll per mission' type guild benefits.
Macbrea 10-01-07, 02:09 PM	And if your wondering... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Celestial Expeditionary Force Religion 3/ Military 3/Economics 2 [ECL 8] Experience: 30,867/36,000 Abilities Religion(....), Military (...), Economics (...) Feats: ... Members: Telveran Trueblade (4663), Leif Goldeneye (5319), Ignatius (5283), Sir Valkin (4894), Lady Ephraim (4872), Erithmu Darkmane (2508), Valanthe Valassar (1746), Berri the Friendly (530), Korwald Barandar (432), Rennae Longhollow (620) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Living Tree Religion 6/Military 3 [ECL 9] Experience: 36,670/45,000 Abilities: Religion (...), Military (...) Feats: .... Members: Loddick (5986), Aerryl (5529), Besthirah (5613), Kervan (4664), Torel (4179), Kitty (3848), Antalya (3224), Treetall (2245), Sarai (517), Dianna (545), Pander (320) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Macbrea 10-01-07, 02:25 PM	The classes I am talking about are kind of simplistic in appearance: Religion 3 cure light wounds potions 1 free reroll on saves per mission 10% reduction of spell caster services costs for missions 3 cure moderate wounds potions 1 automatic save on saves per mission 3 free men-at arms for mission (Warrior ECL/2) 3 cure serious wound potions ... ... ... ... ... ... 1 resurrection during mission ... ... ... ... ... ... Note: items given out for mission are to be returned if unused at end of mission.
MindWandererB 10-01-07, 03:44 PM	If you made guild's level like characters levels with the amount of experience gained based of 10% of those gained through missions, campaigns and Arena fights. With no loss of experience to the guild for loss of membership. This means that the guilds will progress without any real complex thought. ... Long ago, the characters actually had an impact on the guilds. The problem was that once one guild got ahead by too much they could dominate the rest of the guilds. So, CEF became this huge dominating economic monster that didn't seem to have the right feel to it. ... Under the current system we are using they are there just as extras. No real effect on the guild. You could get a guild up and running then defend it with it's own army and kick all the characters out as unnecessary. Why bother, it then becomes an accounting game for the guildmaster. This probably isn't a huge amount of fun.That's the problem that your proposal doesn't solve. The original guild system resulted in CEF being a mighty god because its power was dictated by the arena successes of its members. Having more, higher-level, successful members resulted directly in having a powerful guild. I maintain that that's not the point. The guild game is supposed to be, at least in part, a strategy game. If character success -> guild success, then guilds end up being no more than 1) a scorekeeping club, and 2) a way for successful characters to lord it over less successful ones by bullying them in RP. Even in the revision, CEF started off dominating because CAPs were based on the total ECLs of the guild. Again, more high-level characters were the key to success (although having successful characters was only a bonus). I think for this to work, there needs to be more of an equalizing factor. If it ends up in PC-vs-PC battle, fine, the one with the best PC wins. But guilds should be able to compete in other areas (espionage, military, etc.) that has nothing to do with PC success, and if their potential in those areas is also dictated by PC success, then things become very lopsided. On the other hand, you do have a point: the characters need to still be important. They are, in the current game, up to a point: you need them for missions and operations, just not for the military stuff (although with guardians, you can get away without having them at all). So they need to be more involved than that, but I think it's important that their influence not be proportional to their level. If missions and operations are the ways to earn XP, then PCs should be required for those--we can eliminate the possibility of an operation involving just a trait check and nothing else.i'd like it to be like that: a guild earns xp via fights missions etc. you can use this XP for leveling, or a similar mechanism as real dnd crafting - you pay XP for structures, addons etc. this has nothing to do with the traits, which are like class features/skills/feats. so its not at all about gold, but you have only one ressource instead of two.That's what I understood (after I noticed that I had misunderstood). The problem is that an "appropriate" challenge will be based on guild level. A guild shouldn't have any incentive to pick on a guild too far behind it in level. But if XP is a spendable resource that doesn't necessarily result in levelling, then you can have a level 1 guild with the structure equivalent of +5 full plate and a vorpal weapon, considered by level to be on par with a brand-new guild. That needs to be avoided. The idea that Sauro originally came up with was primarily intended to allow guilds to develop at their own pace, and be formed after the start of the game, and still be viable. Similar to the way the arena works--by the time an ECL 3 character reaches ECL 10, they're on par with the characters that have been there for a year.This tells us quickly what the level of the guilds are based off general activity of the characters. And giving special abilities to a guild is really quick: Make 6 NPC classes that can be taken each level such as Military, Economy, Religion, Criminal, Entertainment, Scholar.I'm not sure designing classes would be the way to go. Mostly, we won't be able to playtest the balance, and unbalanced classes kill. The class features idea is interesting, but I think we can capture that with the structures--and with a table like the one you proposed, "multiclassing" is strongly discouraged. I also don't see the benefit of restricting the "class skills," when we can just allow guilds to choose their good and bad traits freely (allowing for more variety).
Macbrea 10-01-07, 04:14 PM	The reason for multiclassing would be to get benefits in more then one area. It's the same reason we multiclass characters in game now. What would you say is more powerful Fighter 4/Ranger 4 or Fighter 8? They both give benefits that are different from each other. They both have reasons to take them up. But what really decided the flavor of the character that you took? Personal choice.
Macbrea 10-01-07, 04:16 PM	And personally, I think they community/guild system should be very compatible with each other and should be ruled by the players actions. Yes, it is a score keeping method but my suggestion also gives benefits to actually being in a guild for a character for missions and quests but not for arena combats.
whitebaron 10-02-07, 04:09 AM	[1] I think for this to work, there needs to be more of an equalizing factor. If it ends up in PC-vs-PC battle, fine, the one with the best PC wins. But guilds should be able to compete in other areas (espionage, military, etc.) that has nothing to do with PC success, and if their potential in those areas is also dictated by PC success, then things become very lopsided. [2] But if XP is a spendable resource that doesn't necessarily result in levelling, then you can have a level 1 guild with the structure equivalent of +5 full plate and a vorpal weapon, considered by level to be on par with a brand-new guild. That needs to be avoided. [3]I also don't see the benefit of restricting the "class skills," when we can just allow guilds to choose their good and bad traits freely (allowing for more variety). 1) that's why i'd propose a general "income" to guilds based on a single trait. you could always use that instead of other traits to generate more "money" 2) just limit the options. a lvl 1 character cannot craft a vorpal sword, even if he has the money for it. if you make it like crafting, you can even do minimal trait-values for specialised items, like military 1 for a barracks, or military 5 for a heavily defended dwarven stronghold. or economy 1 for a simple marketplace, economy 5 for some medieval super-store. 3) i don't see that either. considering it again, i'd just award trait-points to the guilds for each level, maybe with a bonus for certain factors. (which i can think of nothing balanced right now - first idea would be a trait, but this obviously doesn't work. second idea would be to make each guild choose one "feat" in addition, that gives a single bonus to wealth/income, more trait points or ....)
hogarth 10-02-07, 06:54 AM	Here's a question I'd like to toss out there: How many people are actually interested in having a (fairly) complex guild strategy game to play? If the answer is "less than six" (say), then it might not be worth spending a whole lot of time and effort on.
Macbrea 10-02-07, 08:44 AM	I am for a simple one. I don't need to build armies and conquer the world. I want organizations that assist slightly during missions and quests. But don't effect the arena game in any descernable fashion.
whitebaron 10-02-07, 08:48 AM	Here's a question I'd like to toss out there: How many people are actually interested in having a (fairly) complex guild strategy game to play? If the answer is "less than six" (say), then it might not be worth spending a whole lot of time and effort on. guild game should support rpg. the strategy game is only a minor part of this, and should be reduced or cut entirely. strategy is always about 1-2 players. not more. so, if guilds are still mostly about troops and buildings etc, with guild actions etc. -> this will most likely result in the same thing as the old guild system - only the most interested will participate in the guild game, the rest are just nominal members or even outside the system. as i already said, i am interested in the aspect of guilds as such, for rp reasons maybe, for different styles of arena play via guilds - but not for yet another online game with different rulesets, which is only delicately linked to the original (=arena) game. @mcbrea: the unrelated arena play, no. but things like dent interceptions , inter-guild fights etc are ok, right?
hogarth 10-02-07, 09:00 AM	I am for a simple one. I don't need to build armies and conquer the world. I want organizations that assist slightly during missions and quests. But don't effect the arena game in any descernable fashion. I was thinking more along the lines of what MWB said: The guild game is supposed to be, at least in part, a strategy game. I tend to agree with whitebaron: another strategy game almost completely unrelated to D&D doesn't really interest me. The things from the previous system that I'd like to see are: a way to participate in (RP-only) quests/missions (maybe even campaigns?) without paying credits a thread or threads devoted to in-character interaction a way to permanently affect the storyline of the World of Gladius (such as it is) through world events (like the artifact quest and the Denth attacks -- both of which kind of died with a whimper, unfortunately) That's all I really care about. As long as I would be able to ignore everything else about the guilds, I would be happy.
MindWandererB 10-02-07, 04:13 PM	I think it's clear that it has to be a compromise. It needs to be simple enough that it can be run without any huge kind of investment, but it also has to be more than just a way to do RP (that was tried once and failed). Guilds have to have some kind of overarching success/failure, which means they have to have objectives, a system for determining whether they succeed or fail at those objectives, and some sort of reward for succeeding. And at that point, we have a strategy game. Adding to that, the last time I polled, most folks expressed the fact that they liked that the guilds competed against one another, and that really hammers it down. So my objective is to keep it as simple as it possibly can be while retaining all the aspects that folks indicated that they liked (here). Those were: Having an economic system based on at least one resource (e.g. gold) Having a system where previous successes and setbacks affect future potential Using territory and expansion (limited space) Using multi-player (mini)quests Using intentional/unintentional direct combat between rival guild members Using skill-based conflicts between guild members (i.e. Contests, Covert Ops) Using conflicts that are neither normal combat nor opposed rolls (e.g. obstacle courses, PvM contests, Capture the Flag, etc.) Having the guild begin with different strengths/weaknesses based on theme Random events that are minimally helpful or harmful, or that don't necessarily benefit or harm any particular guild Now, some of those (e.g. nontraditional challenges) I've incorporated into the Community system, so we don't necessarily have to include those in the Guilds--although we can. Some Challenges could even be "mixed-media," and allow both Community districts and Guilds to enter. (BTW, there were very few elements that people absolutely wanted to avoid: Troop combat (regiments), Having a "Winner" at the "end", and Being able to completely eliminate an enemy guild.)
Rauul 10-02-07, 06:03 PM	1. Having an economic system based on at least one resource (e.g. gold) 2. Having a system where previous successes and setbacks affect future potential 3. Using territory and expansion (limited space) 4. Using multi-player (mini)quests 5. Using intentional/unintentional direct combat between rival guild members 6. Using skill-based conflicts between guild members (i.e. Contests, Covert Ops) 7. Using conflicts that are neither normal combat nor opposed rolls (e.g. obstacle courses, PvM contests, Capture the Flag, etc.) 8. Having the guild begin with different strengths/weaknesses based on theme 9. Random events that are minimally helpful or harmful, or that don't necessarily benefit or harm any particular guild MwB.. i thought you wanted to keep it Simple.. I am looking at these 9 items and am lost.. again.. I understand the Level a Guild Like a Player concept.. I understand Guild levels concept.. I basicly understand 2,4,5,6,7,8,9.. (what does 1 and 3 come into play..) If a Guild is built Like a Character.. with levels then Guilds could use the the same Rules for Community as a regular player does.. Fame (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13259021&postcount=10), Reputation, Resources (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13259027&postcount=11), Finance.. ect..