The Clans and Economy Thread

[Dresan]

I wrote about this already before (here and here). It has been a bit, so we can reassess and see if it is working and then (as some have suggested elsewhere) see if it would be a good idea to export the core ideas (not just copy/paste, but come up with local versions/local flavor) to clans that may need it.

While it would make sense to create those separate discussion threads in the respective clan forums, I'm hoping you'll consider placing them on the general discussion forums instead after reassessing. I do think the other clans need some of the love the legion got, especially in terms schedule changes at the very least. Again just being able to request a day off is huge. However giving each their own flavor is a really good idea, so it would be great to see the entire community participating on what would really make these clans shine and a pleasure to be involved in, instead of the discussion being restricted to the few people who might currently be members of the clan.

[Riev]

My point was not that people should be, automatically, some high-ranking official in a clan just based on time spent in another. My point was that IN MY ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE, the only thing that experienced person gets is the POSSIBILITY of a reduced recruitment (which leader PCs have even said might not happen, and offhandedly mentioned it was a House Rule). And then once you ARE a "full" clannie, there's no "fast track to Officer" or anything, because you still have to spend a requisite amount of time.

I get that the world is full of shady people, but who wouldn't want a 3year Byn Veteran, 5 year Salarr veteran, etc in their ranks? If you can't trust them, kill them. The point is that if you hire someone that has been in the Byn for a while, they have credentials. They have a reputable clan saying "They are good at their job". That was my point. That maybe joining a clan that DOESN'T require life oaths, is a way of building your reputation and if you do a good job, they will give you a recommendation. It was even in the Salarri docs (if it isn't still) that "those employees that fulfill the maximum term contract can leave the House with a full recommendation from their leadership".

[X-D]

Basically how I feel Riev.

To me, hiring an unknown is more risky then hiring a known.

[Riev]

So then perhaps that can be something looked at, insofar as documentation for clans, to help increase the "playability" and "benefits" of joining a clan?

I get that people are shady, and the tagline for the game includes the oft-underused "betrayal". But like X-D said, some Noble isn't going to give a shit that a piddly commoner is being a jerkwad. A commoner is a commoner is a commoner, unless that commoner comes with some MILDLY respectable recommendation. I just feel like credentials should be a thing, not "I want to join Salarr because they have a good Merchant right now" but "I want to join a GMH because after a term of service there, I can get hired ANYWHERE."

This might also stop the "clans hire every PC they see because numbers are low". People would WANT to join a Levy situation, or a GMH, or the Byn because of what it OFFERS. Does anyone remember when people would join the Byn for the SOLE PURPOSE of a year's worth of training? Nobles paying for their employees to go through a year, because 300 coins is a pittance compared to the water, food, and dumbassery they'd have to put up with from an untrained idiot?

[Fujikoma]

So then perhaps that can be something looked at, insofar as documentation for clans, to help increase the "playability" and "benefits" of joining a clan?

I get that people are shady, and the tagline for the game includes the oft-underused "betrayal". But like X-D said, some Noble isn't going to give a shit that a piddly commoner is being a jerkwad. A commoner is a commoner is a commoner, unless that commoner comes with some MILDLY respectable recommendation. I just feel like credentials should be a thing, not "I want to join Salarr because they have a good Merchant right now" but "I want to join a GMH because after a term of service there, I can get hired ANYWHERE."

This might also stop the "clans hire every PC they see because numbers are low". People would WANT to join a Levy situation, or a GMH, or the Byn because of what it OFFERS. Does anyone remember when people would join the Byn for the SOLE PURPOSE of a year's worth of training? Nobles paying for their employees to go through a year, because 300 coins is a pittance compared to the water, food, and dumbassery they'd have to put up with from an untrained idiot?

I remember the Byn used to be completely different than it is now, sure didn't take long. Maybe that has something to do with it... I doubt it, but it may play a small role in the decisions of those who would consider having the Byn train their potential recruit/servant/what have you.

[X-D]

I remember when everybody who wanted to be anybody had to do Byn time and often Tor academy time. At least in the south.

For instance...back around 1999, I had a dwarf, he wanted to join Tor...So he met with Gold, if anybody remembers him. During the interview it came out that my dwarf had no references...So Gold paid for him to join the Byn for a year.
I put in that year, had a good time, then went back to Gold who recruited my dwarf too Tor. My dwarf was in Tor for more then 15 game years, eventually making LT and having his own crew...ALL of which he sent to the Byn. During those years he  met many people. Some you have heard of because often, at the time, to join Oash or Borsail not only did you have to do Byn time, you also had to do Tor academy time. I rather doubt Pearl would have done all the things she did without her Tor time.

Then, Pearl started the Atrium...I suppose her thinking was, Tor should be training guards and other bloody types and not Aides, A good idea I guess.

The odd thing to me is...though I understand why all this went away back when our player numbers were much lower...I really do not understand, with the current almost double player count and half the clans...it has not come back.

[Barsook]

I was wondering the same thoughts about the Atrium.  And also on the sponsorship should be more common for these combat-based clans, even the milliata.

[Ouroboros]

I think part of the problem currently being discussed is that the PC leadership of any clan has gotten too possessive.

Clans that have a lifeoath as an option and not a requirement seem to (ab)use it in order to secure every single member that might have proven useful, instead of only offering it to truly proven and exceptional individuals who themselves have expressed a desire to serve a clan in such a capacity. A lifeoath used to be a momentous occasion in a character's life, and for the clan as well. And while it was often (but not always) a requirement for certain high-level promotions, it was more akin to receiving a medal of honor and less like signing your life over in blood on the dotted line. Today it seems like it's a requirement before even the slightest measure of trust can be offered. And God help you if you seem to even give pause to such an offer from a clan, you can become a potential spy or enemy to be hawked over day and night for the slightest misstep.

In a Noble House the above behavior is a bit more justified, but in a GMH that kind of pressure shouldn't usually exist. In parallel, even clans such as the Byn seem to be more possessive of their membership. Once it was understood that for 99% of cases the Byn was a stepping stone to the next stage of a character's life, akin to honored credentials as others have stated. Instead of taking every half-decent poor sap with coin in their hands, the Byn today seem to give more consideration to the long-term benefits they might receive from someone and less to the fact most of their Runners are simply coin pouches to be had before they fall off the Shield Wall. This could be a result of hiring caps as well, but if that's the case I would hope staff would consider the nature of the Byn and what its meant to serve in the game's ecosystem. At least where the hiring of Runners is concerned, such a cap is detrimental if it exists.

In addressing this, having the option to retire honorably from a lifeoath in just about any clan would likely help the situation. Not only in the sense that such characters could still continue their life's story outside of a clan they've served with dedication, but also in enforcing the idea to current and future PC leaders that a lifeoath in and of itself isn't just a tool to ensure trust or participation. But rather an award for those who've already displayed such.

This is all of course anecdotal opinion, and the treatment of lifeoaths does vary from PC leader to PC leader, but it's a trend that at least I've personally noticed over the past few years. It's also not the sole cause that's led to some of the problems discussed here, but it's one piece of the puzzle in my opinion. The pushing of the idea that prior experience should be taken as a beneficial thing instead of looked at suspiciously is definitely another piece of the puzzle.

[Barsook]

I agree with the honorable retirement and it's already happening in the Legions.

[bcw81]

Exactly how many people have ever had a non-noble PC live longer than the 30 odd years you'd expect to put in a clan before retirement? I see this as so much of a non-issue to everyone who isn't X-D that I guess I'm not properly seeing why its a problem to begin with.

[BadSkeelz]

Exactly how many people have ever had a non-noble PC live longer than the 30 odd years you'd expect to put in a clan before retirement? I see this as so much of a non-issue to everyone who isn't X-D that I guess I'm not properly seeing why its a problem to begin with.

You're assuming that people think 30 years is a reasonable number. I'd be curious to hear what the pro-retirement folks think is a "Reasonable" amount of time to spend in a clan before being let out. From people's examples it sounds like it's less than ten.

[HavokBlue]

If I'm Joe Kadius and First Hunter Amos wants to jump ship because he's tired of working for me I'm going to thank him for his service, and politely tell him to fuck off (figuratively).

Clans don't require you to life swear immediately. Don't life swear if you don't want to commit to that clan.

It's a huge blow to a clan leader a when long-time trusted/skilled PC disappears/leaves/dies/stores/whatever.

[KankWhisperer]

I don't think the 'byn is too possessive. It's just got big numbers and interaction and fun. Built in conflict.

[Barzalene]

But everything true today will be different tomorrow,  when the current leaders are replaced by the next ones, no?

[Ouroboros]

You're assuming that people think 30 years is a reasonable number. I'd be curious to hear what the pro-retirement folks think is a "Reasonable" amount of time to spend in a clan before being let out. From people's examples it sounds like it's less than ten.

I don't think that's something you can put a number to in stone, as it's going to vary between the organization and individuals in question. As far as rule-setting goes, I think simply stating that lifesworn members have the option to honorably retire from their position/clan is enough. Context matters in this situation, and generally speaking the more freedom placed in the hands of PC leadership the better. An AoD or Legion Sergeant retiring after 30 years of service has different implications than a lifesworn Salarri Corporal retiring after 10 years. Especially when the actual years spent lifesworn will vary from character to character.

It's a huge blow to a clan leader a when long-time trusted/skilled PC disappears/leaves/dies/stores/whatever.

I agree that it's a blow, particularly on the OOC end. Because realistically on the IC end that member is just one face in a sea, no matter how talented they are. That said, currently for a lifesworn character who's reached the end of his career in a clan, the only viable options are to die or store. So while I appreciate the sense of loss for a leader, and believe me I've been there as well, I think refusing to let a character move on with their lives comes down to, "If I can't have you, no one can." And that's a fairly negative and "meta" approach to this.

But everything true today will be different tomorrow,  when the current leaders are replaced by the next ones, no?

In some cases, yes. But trends form and can have long-term effects. Someone who's a follower today might be a leader tomorrow, and they're just as likely to emulate what they saw from the leadership above them, as they are to rock the boat. In that sense PC leaders are always responsible for the effect they have on the game.

[Is Friday]

I'd be all about treating employees like faceless minions until they've been around for 6+ years and are super amazing, but that's not the world we play in. It's a leader's prerogative to treat their employees as they see fit to their own and staff's current desires. Leadership PCs are just a cog in the wheel and should theoretically "stay in their lane". Running their own crew is their "lane", so I say a leader can do whatever-the-fuck they want so long as staff is happy with how docs are being represented.

You can't just expect leadership players to want to pour all this effort into folks without an expectation of return in some way. I've gotten to the point with my leadership PCs where I don't hire people that are even "iffy". I just don't have the energy for poor player behavior, dying to scrabs, or whatever's on my pet peeve list for the week. And that's how I run things. If you don't like it, there's other places to go.

[a french mans shirt]

In parallel, even clans such as the Byn seem to be more possessive of their membership. Once it was understood that for 99% of cases the Byn was a stepping stone to the next stage of a character's life, akin to honored credentials as others have stated. Instead of taking every half-decent poor sap with coin in their hands, the Byn today seem to give more consideration to the long-term benefits they might receive from someone and less to the fact most of their Runners are simply coin pouches to be had before they fall off the Shield Wall. This could be a result of hiring caps as well, but if that's the case I would hope staff would consider the nature of the Byn and what its meant to serve in the game's ecosystem. At least where the hiring of Runners is concerned, such a cap is detrimental if it exists.

Here is a letter in reply from staff that I got for expressing this exact or almost exact concern.

The Byn has not been restructured; off-peakers can still become Troopers. For some background, we recently introduced (well, it was around before, but we re-iterated) a regulation that Byn units should not grow larger than about 5 or 6 Troopers and Runners per Sergeant. 300 sid buys your way in to the Byn, but to stay around past that you must prove you will be useful to the Company in some capacity. Typically this means playing actively and attending contracts. We understand for off-peak that can be difficult, but that's why we try to have multiple units/Sarges and make sure some Byn work happens off-peak too. If we had a situation where an off-peak Bynner was playing regularly and just wasn't able to make any contracts or connect with a Sergeant because of playtimes, staff will step in to bridge the gap. So have no fear, if you ever decide to join the Byn again in the future!

I wanted to add in that these were Rahnevyn's words, but I imagine its still the opinion of all the Byn staff.

[Barzalene]

It's a huge blow to a clan leader a when long-time trusted/skilled PC disappears/leaves/dies/stores/whatever.

I agree that it's a blow, particularly on the OOC end. Because realistically on the IC end that member is just one face in a sea, no matter how talented they are.

Where I disagree with you is here. I don't think treating the people with whom your pc works most closely on a daily basis like a face in the crowd sounds like a much fun for either leaders or minions. I think it's a lot more fun to take them as you find them. If they act like a nobody face in the crowd, I don't want them to swear. I'm more than happy to let them move along. The sooner the better. You may feel differently. But I've never enjoyed working with that type of leader. I don't want to be one.

[Ouroboros]

You can't just expect leadership players to want to pour all this effort into folks without an expectation of return in some way.

I think the characters we're discussing already have returned the efforts of their leadership with their own efforts at contribution. Someone isn't (or shouldn't be) lifesworn or given rank in general if they haven't proven themselves valuable contributors. Someone who's invested years and years of IC service to a clan has met and exceeded the expectations of leadership, by sticking around and being valued members of the clan, instead of going off and dying to scrab or exhibiting poor behavior or whatever else might be on the pet peeve list of PC leaders that week. As it stands being lifesworn is rewarding such exceptional players with, "Thanks for all you've done. In fact, you've done such a good job, you can forget about ever leaving. If you ever reach a point where this clan no longer feels right for your character, whatever your reasons, go fall off the Shield Wall or store."

...For some background, we recently introduced (well, it was around before, but we re-iterated) a regulation that Byn units should not grow larger than about 5 or 6 Troopers and Runners per Sergeant.

Well, that definitely sounds like something that could stand being re-examined. I think it's a reasonable policy for Troopers, but far too limiting for Runners. There are periods where there's only one active Sarge, and that policy would effectively block characters who aren't looking to stay on-board as a Trooper but want to serve their year in order to become a more valuable asset to another clan.

Where I disagree with you is here. I don't think treating the people with whom your pc works most closely on a daily basis like a face in the crowd sounds like a much fun for either leaders or minions. I think it's a lot more fun to take them as you find them. If they act like a nobody face in the crowd, I don't want them to swear. I'm more than happy to let them move along. The sooner the better. You may feel differently. But I've never enjoyed working with that type of leader. I don't want to be one.

I don't think we're in disagreement. I wasn't implying you can't or shouldn't treat employees under you as individuals on a day-to-day basis. I was saying that when faced with special circumstances such as the ones we're discussing (a lifesworn retiring), that character is often an OOC staple of the clan and thus their retirement might be painful on an OOC level, but from an IC standpoint they're still one among others. The Sarge of a GMH retiring for example can be painful to the PCs of the clan because they might be the only Sarge, but IC that's just one unit. A high-level PC leader should always try to look at the bigger picture of the clan they're running.

[Barzalene]

Gotcha. Fair enough.

[a french mans shirt]

I think maybe one of the reasons the Byn is like this now is because, during the first war HRPT and for a good while after, the Byn was so fucking packed it was ridiculous. Maybe staff felt like the Byn offered -too- much while other, equally good for combat skilling clans went empty or one-and-twos, its just that everyone's forgotten those clans can offer the skilling and company and safety and danger with how much more relatively and in-your-face available the Byn is. So, they think to themselves, what's a rational way to cut down on numbers that won't cut down by themselves in the near future? And voila.

Course, I'm not a mind-reader, but you know. I'm just sure staff wouldn't make things more restrictive without a good reason.

[Ouroboros]

I imagine that's something easily solved by keeping a cap on Troopers and lifting it from Runners. If the cap has been met, Runners could have the option to either remain in their current rank past their first years until an opening exists, or can graduate and move on from the clan. In the context of something like an HRPT, I imagine the clan's participation would be limited to Troopers if it was found disruptive.

[Harmless]

It's a huge blow to a clan leader a when long-time trusted/skilled PC disappears/leaves/dies/stores/whatever.

PC clan members' being lost is often a huge blow. Threatening your clan members with negative consequences of leaving, to create a feeling of being trapped, often leads to recklessness and not caring. If you let your employees feel like they were the masters of their own fate, and that unless they betrayed their current masters that they won't be unreasonably hunted down, so that they can leave whenever they want, will not make them feel trapped. They'll be more dedicated to their cause, eagerly looking forward to a time that their PC isn't a Salarri, for example, and therefore be more likely to survive to see that day come.

I'm sure this has already been said in effect but I can't state it enough. I know for a fact that some GMH do not allow promotion past a certain point without a life oath. I haven't posted much on this thread but I will say it with certainty, especially based on Ouroboros' posts and my own experiences with GMH: the GMH have got to raise the promotion cap for non-life oath, or change their approach to it as Ouroboros is describing.

[Is Friday]

It strikes me as nonsensical to train someone to be an officer and then let them go take that training to get a job with a Noble House. Not buying it.

[Ouroboros]

It strikes me as nonsensical to train someone to be an officer and then let them go take that training to get a job with a Noble House. Not buying it.

They've probably paid off that training you gave them by spending years training all the other idiots you didn't have to train, either because you delegated to the officers you trained to do just that or died or stored. And I don't mean you personally, of course. Speaking of officers though...

It bears stating that GMH's in particular are the most ambiguous with regards to life-oaths. Every GMH to my recollection has ranks that require a life-oath clearly outlined in documentation, and they tend to be high up on the list. Often a step below or near the point one might be offered a family name. Over time, and between leader to leader and staff to staff, what's considered appropriate for a life-oath has often reached ranks far below those documented as requiring them. Policy in this regard has generally always been to leave a life-oath requirement up to the PC leadership, with guidance from staff as required.

This results in situations where a hunter might be promoted to a Sergeant without an oath required in one regional branch of the clan and at the very same time in the other end of the Known, a hunter might be required to swear just to reach Corporal. While on one hand that leaves room for players to establish their personality as leaders by being as heavy or light handed as they see fit, this could be one of the few areas where freedom has done more harm than good. This freedom has in some cases diminished the meaning of a life-oath, by making it a carrot or stick in the hands of some players.

Further, the concept of a life-oath in a GMH used to have a lot more meaning when specialized units existed. It was a requirement before one could say become a Kadian Falcon or similar role, and it made sense because of the expectations placed on such roles. Eventually, those very expectations in part (arguably a small part) contributed to those roles being deemed inappropriate for players. That left a rather large gap in place on how a life-oath could be utilized, and I think is one of the reasons it begun to be used for less restricted or high-ranking roles.

In contrast, Noble Houses are generally considered "end-game" destinations, and due to the IC implications of working for such a clan I think they're in a better position to rationalize a life-oath being requested. Yet oddly enough, and this is my anecdotal experience, life-oaths become an issue far more frequently in a GMH than in a Noble House. Sometimes because when it's asked of a character it makes perfect sense, but just as often because it simply doesn't have to be asked at all. If you cross a Noble House, a life-oath is the last thing you usually need to worry about.

Before every GMH leader jumps down my throat, I don't know if it's the sole answer to the problem, or even the right one. But perhaps having ranks requiring life-oaths clearly outlined in documentation and limited to just those ranks could at least solve some issues. It might make life-oaths more rare, but will also make them more meaningful.

Just food for thought.