Roleplaying Peeves

[Armaddict]

Blatant guild sniffing during clan interviews.

I dunno, I consider this kind of akin to an accounting firm making sure they're hiring an accountant and not a construction worker.

People applying for a job will obviously have a distinct 'skillset' with some variety.  That being said, I like the questions to be vague, and have the interviewee explain how their skillset will help.

[Fathi]

Blatant guild sniffing during clan interviews.

I dunno, I consider this kind of akin to an accounting firm making sure they're hiring an accountant and not a construction worker.

People applying for a job will obviously have a distinct 'skillset' with some variety.  That being said, I like the questions to be vague, and have the interviewee explain how their skillset will help.

Mostly I've seen it in situations where the person is being hired for what constitutes a subguild. It just seems odd to ask whether someone's better at disarming and bashing or climbing and hunting if you're hiring them as a crafter.

Just kinda looked to me like someone was trying to pick out mages or sneaky classes.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I have to agree with the Addict. I do want to know if you are supposed to be a damned fighter or not if I'm hiring you for a military role. I do want to know if you can fling a fireball if I'm hiring you to burn down Tulukies. And I do want to know if you can get into Templar Blackrobe's house unseen.

I really need to know if you have the skill to do what I'm hiring you to do.

Making lanterns doesn't help you kill that damned tribal. And sapping people over the head doesn't help you make lanterns.

[Lizzie]

I'm glad Armaddict and 7Venoms said that. I've been worried about how it's perceived when I do that, but their posts in this thread make me feel like I'm doing fine.

Basically - if I ask someone if they can ride, I'm not asking if they will eventually have that skill on their list (since I understand everyone eventually will). I need to know if I will have to spend time instructing them, helping them out, and NOT bringing them with me when I ride for awhile. I want to know how much effort -I- will have to put into the training process of this new-hire, thus taking me away from the rest of the things that I might need to do. If I know in advance, I can plan for it. If I ask someone if they can scout, it might be that I already have plenty of people in the group who can't scout, and I need a scout. Or, it might be that it's just really important that the people in my group be capable of noticing things. If the character lies and says "oh yeah I hunted with my family and always found the best carrus to kill" and it turns out he doesn't have the hunt or the scan skill, he may wind up dead the very first time I take him out hunting magickers in a blinding storm.

So if I need someone who has specific coded skills, then I'll find a way to ask, in the most IC-appropriate way. But I will ask, because if they don't have certain skills, then ICly, my character simply has no need for them.

[Malken]

There's a huge difference between asking someone if they can ride and asking them afterward to lead your patrol through a sandstorm just to see if they're a ranger or not, or switching to cavilish right after someone mentions that they are a 'trader'.

[LoD]

There's a huge difference between asking someone if they can ride and asking them afterward to lead your patrol through a sandstorm just to see if they're a ranger or not, or switching to cavilish right after someone mentions that they are a 'trader'.

There can be depending on what the player/character does with that information.  There's nothing wrong with an employer who hired someone as a scout/guide asking them to perform a duty only to discover they suck at the job.  Now, that might tell the player they are a ranger guild, but it simultaneously tells the character that they might not be as good as they say they are.

Your character being angry with the non-ranger in this situation would be IC for the character, and not an example of guild sniffing.  Your character grilling the non-ranger on what skills they actually do have and why they are posing as something they aren't based on this one single test is not very IC and is an example of guild sniffing.

The problem that employers have is several players are trying to pass off their character as one thing while being another.  This becomes frustrating and problematic for the employer, because of discussions that go like this:

Employer: So, you want to join the House?
Hire: Yes.
Employer: Well, how do you think you'd be able to serve?
Hire: I can do whatever you want me to do.
Employer: Sure, but what have you done in the past - what are you good at?
Hire: Little bit of this, little bit of that really.
Employer: Well, do you have any experience in a specific area?
Hire: Well, mostly I've just done odd jobs for a few folks here and there.
Employer: What kind of odd jobs?
Hire: Oh, just run of the mill work.

This is infuriating to employers that simply want to know how they can use you in the organization.  It's not too much to ask to at least be realistic when describing your strengths and weaknesses.  You don't have to say, "I'm an assassin!" -- but you should at least indicate whether you know the sharp end of a sword, would be of ANY use standing watch on a caravan, or know how to make a table.  You wouldn't walk into an interview today and expect to get hired with those kinds of dodgy answers to pointed questions, so why would you expect it to work in the game?

The employer in the example above is not guild sniffing, they are simply acting like an employer.  If you want money from someone for giving them a service, you need to accept that the person giving you money will want some assurances they are getting their money's worth.  That doesn't mean divulging your every secret, but it does mean being honest with them as to what basic areas you might be of use.

-LoD

[Alberic]

I would point out that it does suck for players of warriors or assassins who have the subguild hunter when they want work as a hunter, which they have the skills of, when their prospective employer then decides to test how good they are at hunting and scouting by having them lead them through a sandstorm. Not every hunter is a ranger. Someone can be a perfectly good hunter or scout without being a sandstorm guide. Hell, you could even have the subguild caravan guide and actually want to work as a guide but unless you are also a ranger you will have a hard time keeping your job because people OOC expect all guides to have the ability to walk through a sandstorm. A guide is mostly about knowing how to get somewhere, where to find things in an area, what creatures and spots to avoid, etc. It's not all about having the ranger only ability to run through sandstorms.

[Coat of Arms]

True, but on the other hand I can see how someone would want to hire a scout or caravan guide who doesn't get completely fucked over as soon as a sandstorm occurs. Sandstorms are really common, and I imagine any employer would prefer that their employees can overcome everyday obstacles. If I'm going to ride a cab, I sure as hell would like to know that the driver isn't going to crash if it starts to rain.

The problem here is the poor guild structure of Armageddon. The fact that only a single guild isn't completely disabled in the world's most common weather phenomenon is a bit silly. I've always believed that there should at the very least be a subguild that grants the ability to function in sandstorms the way rangers can, but unfortunately there isn't, and since sandstorms can last for RL days I don't think it's completely unfair that Mister Kadius would like most of his hunters to be capable of going into the desert without having to send a rescue party every other time to get them back.

I've never seen it as a huge problem, though. Guild sniffing is annoying, but I've personally never been turned down for a job offer due to not being a ranger or not speaking cavilish. Sure, I might never make it to Senior House Merchant or Hunter Squadroon Lieutenant because my character doesn't have all of the skills to supplement the job, but if you have a crafting subguild then Kadius will probably hire you, and if you're a combat class that has skinning and forage then you should be perfectly capable of finding a job as a hunter. I think most of the time when someone tries to guild-sniff you, they do so because they want to know if you'll become the future super hunter or master merchant, or if you'll just be one of the ordinary employees.

[X-D]

Yup to LoD's post

And to add a bit. My leader PCs have done it, but not always for the same reason.

If you have a byn sarge for instance. Not only do you need to know what somebody can do well to balance your unit for many types of contracts. But you also want to help to tailor the training...after all, thats what you are paid the 300 coins to do. And as a sergeant in a military clan, you should be telling them what, when and how to train. I've seen when they don't and the clan turns into a mess fast believe me.

[Lizzie]

Employer: So, you want to join the House?
Hire: Yes.
Employer: Well, how do you think you'd be able to serve?
Hire: I can do whatever you want me to do.
Employer: Sure, but what have you done in the past - what are you good at?
Hire: Little bit of this, little bit of that really.
Employer: Well, do you have any experience in a specific area?
Hire: Well, mostly I've just done odd jobs for a few folks here and there.
Employer: What kind of odd jobs?
Hire: Oh, just run of the mill work.

Quoted for truthful irony.

That conversation is almost word-for-word what I've experienced, more than once. Because of that, I've learned to be more specific about what I'm asking. If it sounds like guild-sniffing, oh well. But I'd rather get specific information to help me determine if someone at the very LEAST, has the potential to have what it takes, to be in my group. He doesn't need to be good at much. And he doesn't need to have a specific guild. But he does need to be "this-oriented" or "that-oriented" - by that I mean, he would need to have SOME combat skill other than the shield-use that comes with a merchant class. If I was hiring for a combat-oriented group. If I was a merchant and was hiring someone to train to take my place after I get promoted, I would need someone familiar with the types of crafting things my house made - so the appropriate sub-guild, OR the merchant guild..and probably a few of the non-crafting merchanting skills such as value and haggle.

[manonfire]

I've had potential employees pull that shit before.

Needless to say, I didn't hire them.

[Gimfalisette]

Ditto, had that spiel pulled on me by potential recruits, it doesn't go over well.

For myself, I'm not necessarily looking for a particular skillset--my philosophy is more that if you're a good player, I'll make a way to use you, dangit. But I want to know something at minimum about what you can do, or what you'd like to do, or what you think you might be able to do.

[Barzalene]

What if you're a magicker of doom, or a burglar or an assassin who wants a job as an aide. Do you say, "well, I used to kill people for a living but I wan't really good at it?" Do you say, "When I come and wake you up in the morning, I can be very quiet?"

Or do you say, "I worked for someone running their errands?" Sometimes a little of this or that is really what your pc has done. Though, yes, you can work on putting a slightly better spin on things.

[Troicha]

For the people above, getting an honest job should be difficult.

[Barzalene]

Well, the magicker yes. But a mundane non-combat non-crafter is probably what most of the npc world is too.

I love me some warriors, but sometimes you want to do something else. Try something else. See what other guilds are like. If we say it should be hard for a coded burglar to get an honest job are we saying you -are- your skillset? It was always my understanding that your pc is more than a skillset and that sometimes the skillset is beside the point. I always thought that was cool.

[Kennath]

Sometimes I RP that people with poor grammar are actually speaking funny, and make fun of them.

(ok, one time)

-Ken

[Gimfalisette]

I love me some warriors, but sometimes you want to do something else. Try something else. See what other guilds are like. If we say it should be hard for a coded burglar to get an honest job are we saying you -are- your skillset? It was always my understanding that your pc is more than a skillset and that sometimes the skillset is beside the point. I always thought that was cool.

Trying to get a job as an aide is kind of a poor example, just because "aide" requires no actual skills. But I get what you're saying. A better response is something like this:

Employer: So, you want to join the House?
Hire: Yes.
Employer: Well, how do you think you'd be able to serve?
Hire: Well, I'm very good at dealing with people, so I can serve customers well, taking orders and the like.
Employer: Oh, that's good. Do you have any experience making things?
Hire: Crafting? I've dabbled in some work with animal skins, but really I don't know much.
Employer: Do you speak any languages other than common? Sometimes we need to deal with elves, tribals, and such.
Hire: No, but I'm willing to work on learning.
Employer: Well, I think we can put you to good use. The pay is blah blah blah...

So the employee is actually an assassin/armor maker, maybe. But there's been no need to go into that yet, and still the employee has presented some willingness and some non-coded skills that will be important in the job. No character is the sum of his/her skillset, of course.

[Vessol]

When you give a fake name and someone has no reason to suspect you they
You ask a man "Whats your name?"
a man says "My names Amos"
l Amos
There is no amos here.
You say "I think your lying you bastard!"

That drives me up the FUCKING WALLS! This one PC constantly did it I remember and I know that player to this day and I can't take any 'advice' they give seriously.
Stop using the damn system people. Its bad roleplaying.

[Southie]

If you go by a name for any extended period of time you should probably add it as a keyword.

[Maybe42or54]

l amos
No Amos is here.

addkeyword amos

[Armaddict]

The problem being when it's a FAKE NAME you don't GO BY and should not be CONTACTABLE AS or RECOGNIZEABLE AS.

[Southie]

Well sure. That's why I said extended period of time. If you tell one guy you're known as Amos, but don't go by the name Amos, and never plan to see the guy you told again, that's fine. If you tell a dozen people that you go bu Amos and interact with them on multiple occasions, guess what, soon enough you'll be known as Amos whether you want to go by it or not.

[Maybe42or54]

The problem being when it's a FAKE NAME you don't GO BY and should not be CONTACTABLE AS or RECOGNIZEABLE AS.

So, if you give someone a name when they are right in front of you and can see you, then you should add ekyword, because you are now recognizable to someone.

Just to add to that, if you gave someone a name over the way, then I think that is fine if you don't addkeyword. They don't know who you are, what you look like, so it would be impossible to find you again, I think.

[manonfire]

If you go by a name for any extended period of time you should probably add it as a keyword.

I'm a keyword addict. Anytime my PC is called by a different nickname (damn near every day), I addkeyword. I think I'm up to twelve or thirteen.

[NoteworthyFellow]

Well sure. That's why I said extended period of time. If you tell one guy you're known as Amos, but don't go by the name Amos, and never plan to see the guy you told again, that's fine. If you tell a dozen people that you go bu Amos and interact with them on multiple occasions, guess what, soon enough you'll be known as Amos whether you want to go by it or not.

I usually addkeyword immediately before/after giving a fake name to someone, just so they can't use OOC methods to determine that it is, in fact, a fake name.  No matter what.