[MUD-Dev2] [DGN] Multiple Guild Membership

[Matt Chatterley]

2008/5/22 Jon Wright <jon at wright.org>:

> Just a quick introduction:  I've been a long-time lurker on the
> MUD-Dev forums (since about 2002 - ok, so not _that_ long) but this is
> my first post.  I've searched through the old archives and can't find
> this topic discussed in any depth so figured I would punt it out there
> and see if anyone is interested...
>

Happy de-lurkage! :)

>
> Does anyone know of a MMO which allows membership to more than one
> guild at a time?  Where the guilds become little more than group with
> it's own invitation only chat-room?
>

I don't really know of one, but then, I don't actively play the things at
present - curse you, real life!

>
> I'm considering the benefits:
> Players are not forced to choose between social networks and therefore
> potentially lose touch with friends in old guild.
> Players can have more than form of social grouping (the raid guild,
> the pvp guild, the roleplay guild).
> Guilds can be more specialized and only exist to serve one of the
> goals above (is that a good thing?)
>
>
> However, I'm sure there must be disadvantages, for example:
> You don't feel like you really BELONG somewhere
> The bonds between members of the guilds are weaker
> If the bonds are weaker, then there is a reduced sense of duty between
> guild members (less assured reciprocation of aid)
>

[Snip]

I'm going to tackle this from my personal opinion - in those games I have
worked on, I have always wanted the guilds to resemble groupings of
craftsmen - hence making membership essentially exclusive (no carpenters in
the blacksmiths guild - and noone with time to do both).

However, I don't see why you couldn't approach this another way which might
seem less jarring - through inter-guild alliances - essentially trying to
introduce some crude politics into matters.

Permit guilds to form overlying political groups, for instance:

The Organization of Master Craftsmen might have as its members the
Carpenters and Blacksmiths.
The Tradespersons Alliance might incorporate Shopkeeps, Merchants and
Farriers.

Or to mix it up a bit more, you could permit membership to one Guild and any
number of political organisations (so rival carpenters might join rival
associations).

However, this takes us back to a point I always stumble over with guilds.

This sort of "enforcement" is daft. If we use a different example - Bubba.
He's a right old sort and likes hitting stuff with his sword, but quite
enjoys robbing grannies too. Should we constraint him to being a warrior OR
a thief by his association?

Of course not, he should be able to ally himself with both. There might be
downsides to that (the rest of the folks in the Warriors Guild might not
like it very much if they found out about it, and the thieves might consider
him a spy in their midst), but, why not?

So, assuming we keep guilds separate from classes (or don't have the latter
- don't really want to go into that territory too deeply), lets say that
guilds are purely political/social associations.

As you say, they give you a bunch of people to chat with and hang out with.
So why not make them a far more open playing field.

Allow any player to start a guild. Attach a cost to this - they must have
somewhere to use as a headquarters, and enough money to pay some sort of
tithe to start things off. Come up with some mechanism to get rid of unused
ones too.

Permit the game world to allow some benefits (or disadvantages) to guild
membership - for instance, if a player owns a shop, and belongs to the
"Black Eyed Badgers", their hired muscle might throw out any known members
of the "Slightly Purple Pygmy Monkies" guild who wander in.

Or a player might start his shop within the guild headquarters - keeping it
exclusive to members.

Those who start a guild should be able to set up their own membership
constraints/requirements (and then either manage admissions themselves - or
via a mob).

Of course, this will probably cause cliques to form, if it works - but to my
mind at least, that's kinda the point!


Cheers,

Matt