Player Created Clans/Groups/Staff Support Etc...

[Desertman]

We're going to have to disagree, because I think you're wrong.

That works.

[Desertman]

They had a Senior Borsail noble backing them.

This is a fair assessment. Still, if a group can get a Senior Noble of any House to fund their operation now it equates to, "Staff gifted it to them.". Anything is easy when staff gifts it to you.

My only point was that you would have a very difficult time doing it the -same- way now as they did then.

That point remains.

The only reason I'm making that distinction is this is a conversation about, "The process involved with becoming a MMH.". Their process was entirely different, so I don't feel it is comparable and possibly not applicable entirely to the situation.  *

*Though some things they did would still translate well.

[Inks]

Another thing I am curious about, are players allowed to lead the clan they created after their death? This would create a sort of "save room" for that player, compared to current coded clans which take a long time to rise to a leadership position. I have always thought about that since mmh began and I couldnt find anything in the docs. I do think the current staff are excellent for supporting plots to be honest, these last two years have been the best ever for arm, for my personal experience.

[Inks]

I agree that generic items should be able to be sold in a shop at the mmh set price, and that they should be able to patent their own mastercrafts.

[Desertman]

Another thing I am curious about, are players allowed to lead the clan they created after their death? This would create a sort of "save room" for that player, compared to current coded clans which take a long time to rise to a leadership position. I have always thought about that since mmh began and I couldnt find anything in the docs. I do think the current staff are excellent for supporting plots to be honest, these last two years have been the best ever for arm, for my personal experience.

No. You are not allowed to come back and lead the groups that you previously created. (At least not for a very long time.)

[Inks]

Ah good to know.

[Inks]

Was always assuming that was staff policy but worth asking. I am glad.

[Desertman]

One issue I know is a concern is the concept that groups working to create MMH's, even when they are still in their fledgling stages are pressured to, "Focus on one thing.".

The problem with this is that there isn't "one thing", in the world that will afford a budding organization enough profit in order to actually be successful.

Why is there a pressure to try and force your organization to focus on a single type of craft, product, or service? Well, quiet simply, because all of the already established major Houses and organizations, for the most part, follow this recipe.

House Salarr - Weapons and Armor.
Kadius - Luxury Goods.
Kurac - Spice (with a side-business of desert clothing etc.)

MMH Aldebaar - Pottery.
MMH Laramir - Interior decorators.
MMH Rauch - Low-value Ale.

So on and so forth.

Basically, the reason fledgling MMH's are pressured to focus on a "single thing" is because all of the established Houses in place follow this premade script.

In my opinion this isn't a feasible option AT LEAST until the group in question reaches the stage of Trade Company and can start establishing virtual contracts to supplement their income. Until that point, in order to make enough money to actually function in the process you are required to work in multiple markets, and why not? You aren't a House. You aren't anyone with a brand name that is supposed to be associated with a product or a good. IN FACT, you would be pretty stupid to try and associate your name with a specific product or good until you are much more powerful than a fledgling group working to climb the ladder.

There are very few, IF ANY markets in the game that aren't already monopolized by a power that would completely destroy you if you tried to step in at the beginning and put your name on a specific trade.

Here is a good example:

Weapons and Armor - This is arguably one of THE MOST profitable trades in the game for PC's. Even if you could focus on this and ONLY this, you would have an extremely hard time making enough money to actually fund your operation, pay your employees, and save enough funds to progress to the next "rank" in the MMH process. Even if you had multiple merchants working under you/with you to produce said goods, it would still probably not be possible.

The fact is, you can't. If you try to establish yourself as "The Weapons and Armor MMH", you will get crushed by Salarr, and for very good reason. It would be suicide.

So, even if there WAS a product that MIGHT let you make enough money to actually exist marketing only that product....which there really isn't....it is already monopolized by a group that would crush you for attempting it. (And they should.)


Going back a bit. As previously stated I believe these groups should not be pressured to actually start focusing on a specific single craft/market/service UNTIL they reach at least the level of Trade Company and can start establishing virtual contracts.

Why? Because in reality this follows the premade script and recipes already working with the other great Houses MORE than not. Those great Houses only make enough money to actually exist because MOST of their money is made virtually.

The already established Houses DID NOT have to go through the MMH process in order to exist. They were more or less granted existence and their income stream has always been for the most part largely virtual and not subject to realistic accounting.

A fledgling group trying to grow into an MMH IS subject to realistic accounting and the actual real PC to PC/NPC economy of the gameworld.

I can tell you, it is an infinitely more complex and entirely different in every regard ballgame when compared to an already established House. They aren't even in the same book.

Once a fledgling MMH reaches the level of Trade Company, THAT is when they should start being pressured to try and focus on a single "thing". At this point they can start pulling potential virtual contracts for a virtual revenue stream (just like the established Houses use to exist) to supplement the fact that realistically the economy would not support them on a "single thing plan" with real accounting.

ALSO, at the point of Trade Company, they are expected to establish a relationship with a much more powerful entity to more or less "help them" along the way. In the documentation all of this is noted.

It's a great process, I just think we should actually stick MORE to the process and remember the limitations of the actual player economy AND the reason the different levels of the system exist to begin with.

They aren't a MMH yet. Holding them to the same rules as if they are already an established MMH isn't only NOT feasible, it's frustrating, and borderline sabotage to the group in question.

I once brought this up with staff and staff agreed with me that waiting until Trade Company to more directly "filter down" your focus into more of a "single thing system" was a good idea. It was agreed then that virtual contracts and patronage to a larger entity should be the vehicles that allow you to financially begin narrowing down your focus.

What I think NEEDS to happen is this specific point needs to be more readily described in both the player-side documentation and staff-side documentation.

A) It will make players who "can't come up with an idea for a thing that will work", realize they don't have to from square one. It will encourage people to start businesses and do fun things. I can't think of a single thing myself sitting here that isn't monopolized that would actually work from square one focusing on just that. I can't blame them.

B) It would ensure staff ALSO realizes the error in trying to push this from square one, since from square one, it's not realistic.


(I think it is absolutely fine to tell the players who are creating these businesses to "Keep in mind at some point you are going to have to narrow down your scope of trade/services to be more in line with the Houses already in place, and you should plan for that.". However, beyond that, I don't think they should face any pressure or derision for basically playing within the reality of the IC player economy. This may have also already been changed and looked at since I was last part of the system. I just know the documentation hasn't changed to reflect it player-side, so it seemed like a good point to bring up.)

[wizturbo]

They had a Senior Borsail noble backing them.

This is a fair assessment. Still, if a group can get a Senior Noble of any House to fund their operation now it equates to, "Staff gifted it to them.". Anything is easy when staff gifts it to you.

My only point was that you would have a very difficult time doing it the -same- way now as they did then.

*Though some things they did would still translate well.

It's all about how you perceive staffs involvement.  Newsflash,  staff "gift" every single character in the game with their existence when they approve the app.  They "gift" every special application or sponsored role with their specialized station, powers,wealth, etc.

It's a nonstarter to say staff will have to be involved in starting a MMH.  With that said, getting a Senior noble to back your business is very much achievable.  Either take a junior noble and help elevate them to Senior (be it a PC or NPC) or do lots of very useful things for a House and hope it catches the attention of their Senior nobility.  If the new system were in place many years ago, having played with Pearl I feel it likely she could have made Terash happen.  She also didn't start trying to make the Atrium.  That came later, after amassing a huge amount of support from Borsail.

[Desertman]

They had a Senior Borsail noble backing them.

This is a fair assessment. Still, if a group can get a Senior Noble of any House to fund their operation now it equates to, "Staff gifted it to them.". Anything is easy when staff gifts it to you.

My only point was that you would have a very difficult time doing it the -same- way now as they did then.

*Though some things they did would still translate well.

It's all about how you perceive staffs involvement.  Newsflash,  staff "gift" every single character in the game with their existence when they approve the app.  They "gift" every special application or sponsored role with their specialized station, powers,wealth, etc.

It's a nonstarter to say staff will have to be involved in starting a MMH.  With that said, getting a Senior noble to back your business is very much achievable.  Either take a junior noble and help elevate them to Senior (be it a PC or NPC) or do lots of very useful things for a House and hope it catches the attention of their Senior nobility.  If the new system were in place many years ago, having played with Pearl I feel it likely she could have made Terash happen.  She also didn't start trying to make the Atrium.  That came later, after amassing a huge amount of support from Borsail.

I'm sure she could have, but the fact is, she didn't.

[wizturbo]

Desertman,  profit isn't what you need to get MMH off the ground.  You need backing.  Far, far more then coin.

Backing lowers the costs (less or no bribes).

Backing can supply all the fees you need.

Backing can protect you and your employees.

The way to get ahead in Allanak is nepotism.  Trying to get ahead on sheer hard work is very much hardmode.

[Desertman]

Desertman,  profit isn't what you need to get MMH off the ground.  You need backing.  Far, far more then coin.

Backing lowers the costs (less or no bribes).

Backing can supply all the fees you need.

Backing can protect you and your employees.

The way to get ahead in Allanak is nepotism.  Trying to get ahead on sheer hard work is very much hardmode.

No, you need profit, and backing.

How you plan to get that profit is the question.

If you can convince someone to basically give you the money, good for you.

However, that's not the process I'm talking about. I agree it is a potential solution to the process, but not the one I'm focusing on since it doesn't really need discussion.

If you can get someone to give you the money instead of actually earn it (though I agree, if you can convince them to back you/give it to you, you have earned it politically), well, jackpot for you. Well done. Enjoy your MMH.

[Armaddict]

Desertman,  profit isn't what you need to get MMH off the ground.  You need backing.  Far, far more then coin.

Backing lowers the costs (less or no bribes).

Backing can supply all the fees you need.

Backing can protect you and your employees.

The way to get ahead in Allanak is nepotism.  Trying to get ahead on sheer hard work is very much hardmode.

Yeaaaah, while all this is accurate, stating that this is the way of going about things is basically the equivalent of calling the process created, and the steps defined in it, as a smokescreen for 'Pretend you can get it, but what you actually need is for staff to want you there.'

We can agree on that if you like, but I don't think that's the sort of position you actually want to take in a discussion about the process that was created and steps defined in it, as a manner of feedback.

[Suhuy]

If you have a look at the history page you'll see some powerful examples of what the merchant houses are capable of. They don't need to have a seat on the Allanaki senate to be powerful, influential, and even political (though in the instance of the latter, it's usually done covertly to maintain the notion of neutrality).

Remember who Kadius sided with during the time of Allanak's occupation in the North. Remember who Kurac sided with when liberating their outpost of Allanaki occupiers. These are not small matters and they show just how deep the political motives of a merchant house can go, regardless of how neutral they pretend to be.

[wizturbo]

Yeaaaah, while all this is accurate, stating that this is the way of going about things is basically the equivalent of calling the process created, and the steps defined in it, as a smokescreen for 'Pretend you can get it, but what you actually need is for staff to want you there.'

Absolutely they have to want you there.  Of course they have to want to support you.  In order to play this game at all, staff have to want you there, or they won't even approve your character application.

What would the alternative be?  That by performing some coded actions in game, or getting enough PC's to support you, you can force staff to codedly build your clan into the game?   "Hey storyteller, I know you really wanted to work on that new spell, but since Wizturbo completed his 10th monthly installment of taxes you have to spend your weekend building House Wonka, his candy-selling MMH."  

Why would staff create a path towards clan creation, if they didn't want players to do it?  Why create a smokescreen, when the status quo was not to allow it for the last ten years?  

I realize you're not actually making this argument Armaddict, but the tone and content of some posts on this thread seem to suggest it.

We can agree on that if you like, but I don't think that's the sort of position you actually want to take in a discussion about the process that was created and steps defined in it, as a manner of feedback.

That isn't the argument I'm trying to make.  I'm saying that ICly, in order to advance to the level of MMH, getting the backing of a significant political power is absolutely essential.  It is far, far more important than profit.  Theoretically your business could make 0 sid, and still advance to MMH if someone big enough decided to back you.  The reverse is impossible.

Another thing to consider is this little tidbit "May work with staff and IC organizations to pursue reasonable virtual contracts. "  You can get money coming in virtually, if you can get the backing of some organization to agree to these contracts.

The key is getting strong political support so you can get those contracts, as well as to protect you from getting robbed by the corruption that's rampant in Allanak.  It's going to be very hard to do that as an elf, half-breed, northerner, gemmed-kanker, or any other socially stigmatized individual in Allanak.  That doesn't mean it's impossible, it just means that player is choosing to play this already difficult game on Ironman Nightmare mode.  If I desperately wanted to try and create a MMH the "easy way", I would probably start by applying as a bastard noble.

[Armaddict]

Absolutely they have to want you there.  Of course they have to want to support you.  In order to play this game at all, staff have to want you there, or they won't even approve your character application.

What would the alternative be?  That by performing some coded actions in game, or getting enough PC's to support you, you can force staff to codedly build your clan into the game?   "Hey storyteller, I know you really wanted to work on that new spell, but since Wizturbo completed his 10th monthly installment of taxes you have to spend your weekend building House Wonka, his candy-selling MMH."  

Why would staff create a path towards clan creation, if they didn't want players to do it?  Why create a smokescreen, when the status quo was not to allow it for the last ten years?  

I realize you're not actually making this argument Armaddict, but the tone and content of some posts on this thread seem to suggest it.

Very well worded.  There are indeed other ways to see it, but the way you've defined mine definitely puts it on a tone other than the one I have, which is more along the lines that there is an inferrance when you create a clearly defined progression of achievements towards a goal, that you actually maintaining those achievements means that you are moving along that path of progression.  So the idea that it is actually still just an arbitrary 'we feel like it or we don't' isn't that compatible with the defined system itself being the required criteria instead of you happening to be in the good graces of the powers who put the system in place for you to have the chance in the first place.

If that makes any sense.
Edit for clarity.  I hope.

[Patuk]

Yeaaaah, while all this is accurate, stating that this is the way of going about things is basically the equivalent of calling the process created, and the steps defined in it, as a smokescreen for 'Pretend you can get it, but what you actually need is for staff to want you there.'

What would the alternative be?  That by performing some coded actions in game, or getting enough PC's to support you, you can force staff to codedly build your clan into the game?

Yes.

Oh, I'm sorry, you didn't expect people to call you on your being crass? Others can do that too.

Now, I know the problems with this position. Taken to its extreme, it means bugging staff about every little tent camp and scribbled wall and whatever the hell else a random person might want in the game. Staff time and skill are very finite resources, and those are better allocated in important places that are more likely to see use than the random figments of one person's imagination. I know, that's not a good idea.

But, the thing is, that's not the game world we're playing in. It's not even close. The state of the game is one where I can draft up a number of documents that'd befit a proper clan in a few days, and have to wait three freaking months for me to even be allowed to play a small celf tribe with three other people knowing full well it'd have no staff backing at all. Staff aren't in danger of players 'forcing' them to do anything in any comparable regard to the reverse, as this thread is already full of people saying they often feel stonewalled by NPCs telling them off for [REDACTED]. Your horror scenario of a poor, poor staffer wanting to work on a spell but aw shucks someone paid his taxes is such a vanishingly small part of the game that it's not even there.

The reverse, OTOH, happens all the time. It's not even bad that it does; if staff want to see something happen in the game, and it's not completely outlandish, it's a good thing that it should happen. This sort of thing culminates in the first ever MMH to pop up after the change is one that staff decided to load up in Red Storm, because obviously players can't get it done themselves, or something. Very, very little in game seems to happen without staff having been on board with it before it happened anyway, which is the sorts of thing this thread also gets at.

A coded guideline/threshold changes that. At minimum, there has to be some point where a player should expect staff to have the game world take notice of them. If, for example, I hadn't completely messed up with my elven tribe and by this point been responsible for the assassination of seven templars under the orders of several high level nobles and red robed templars, which I very well know is hyperbole, it'd be a tad silly for it to still be written off as a bunch of thugs nobody would know. The MMH is a good step in that direction: it gives people a clear point at which they can tell staff they ought to be taken seriously. This position isn't a very radical one, or staff wouldn't have endorsed it; whether or not it is enough, needs tweaking, needs more freedom to either side is something up for debate, but that's okay, this thread has had some suggestions so far, and staff have taken a whole bunch of gdb suggestions in consideration. Arguing there should be no way for the playerbase to ever be able to have a real claim on power is outright silly, though.

[wizturbo]

It isn't arbitrary though.  Overly ambiguous?  Perhaps.  But not arbitrary.

When the staff decided to permit players to pursue creating their own clans, they had some model in their head of what a successful attempt would look like.  The guidelines they wrote on the website are an attempt at communicating that model.  It isn't whimsy or random when they consider what projects they'll be interested in supporting.  The fact that they wrote down some guidelines at all proves there is something non-arbitrary driving which projects they want to support.  

I can speculate on what those things might be.  Here are several that came to mind:

• Does the concept reinforce the setting?
• Does the concept drive deeper player engagement?
• How much work will the concept require to build?  How much will it require to maintain?  Do we have staff that are able to work on this right now?
• Does this concept cannibalize players from existing supported clans?
• Is this concept different enough from existing clans to make it worth the effort of building?
• Is the player driving this concept trustworthy?  
• Is this player easy to communicate with?  
• Is this player reliable?
• How do we handle IC forces that are trying to oppose this concept?  Especially virtual ones.

All of this stuff probably comes into play somewhere.  Does it really make sense to outline all of this stuff for players in the public guidelines?  A lot of this touches on private issues.  If a MMH aspiring player isn't trustworthy, and that's why the staff don't want to work with them, what are they supposed to do in that case?  Tell the player that?  Give them a few tests to see if they can show they really are trustworthy?  

None of this stuff is cut and dry and simple.  None of this stuff is easily indexed into some clear charter that players can follow.  It would be -a lot- of work to try and document all this, come up with policies for each situation, and maintain those policies as things inevitable change.  And what would we all get in exchange for this herculean effort?  The feeling that this process isn't arbitrary...  Not very much juice for all the squeezing needed to get it if you ask me.

[wizturbo]

Arguing there should be no way for the playerbase to ever be able to have a real claim on power is outright silly, though.

I'm not arguing that there should be no way for the playerbase to ever be able to have a real claim on power.  I'm arguing that there should be no way for the playerbase to ever be able to claim ownership of another person's free time and effort.

If no staff members like your elf clan, and they don't want to do the work required to support it, then you're shit out of luck until someone does.  Some MUDs handle this by charging real money for staff support.  Armageddon handles this by letting staff work on stuff that interests them.  One method stings the wallet (and generally has pretty shoddy quality), the other method has the sting of rejection when you don't get what you want and don't really have any recourse on how you can go about getting it.   

And ultimately that is the core problem with this entire issue if you ask me.  Armageddon heavily pushes "Player driven plots" as a core tenet, but what happens when one player's idea of a cool plot doesn't resonate with staff?   Unsurprisingly, the plot doesn't get much love, and the player gets disappointed because they had some expectation that their ideas are what staff are supposed to work on.  Maybe that's why I've personally always cheered for staff driven plots.  It takes away any opportunity for 'rejection' when there's no expectation that the player is supposed to do anything besides play their own role.

[Patuk]

Arguing there should be no way for the playerbase to ever be able to have a real claim on power is outright silly, though.

I'm not arguing that there should be no way for the playerbase to ever be able to have a real claim on power.  I'm arguing that there should be no way for the playerbase to ever be able to claim ownership of another person's free time and effort.

If no staff members like your elf clan, and they don't want to do the work required to support it, then you're shit out of luck until someone does.  Some MUDs handle this by charging real money for staff support.  Armageddon handles this by letting staff work on stuff that interests them.  One method stings the wallet (and generally has pretty shoddy quality), the other method has the sting of rejection when you don't get what you want and don't really have any recourse on how you can go about getting it.   

And ultimately that is the core problem with this entire issue if you ask me.  Armageddon heavily pushes "Player driven plots" as a core tenet, but what happens when one player's idea of a cool plot doesn't resonate with staff?   Unsurprisingly, the plot doesn't get much love, and the player gets disappointed because they had some expectation that their ideas are what staff are supposed to work on.  Maybe that's why I've personally always cheered for staff driven plots.  It takes away any opportunity for 'rejection' when there's no expectation that the player is supposed to do anything besides play their own role.

And that's a perfectly reasonable position to take. If you want to argue that players shouldn't ever get the final word in deciding where staff time gets spent, and therefor player-made plots should be secondary to staff-initiated ones, that's very consistent and probably not wrong to say the least. It certainly is better than having player-run plots be what's nominally happening in game but such things never really getting off the ground much because players don't actually get to add or modify stuff as they will.

[Armaddict]

It isn't arbitrary though.  Overly ambiguous?  Perhaps.  But not arbitrary.

When the staff decided to permit players to pursue creating their own clans, they had some model in their head of what a successful attempt would look like.  The guidelines they wrote on the website are an attempt at communicating that model.  It isn't whimsy or random when they consider what projects they'll be interested in supporting.  The fact that they wrote down some guidelines at all proves there is something non-arbitrary driving which projects they want to support.  

I can speculate on what those things might be.  Here are several that came to mind:

• Does the concept reinforce the setting?
• Does the concept drive deeper player engagement?
• How much work will the concept require to build?  How much will it require to maintain?  Do we have staff that are able to work on this right now?
• Does this concept cannibalize players from existing supported clans?
• Is this concept different enough from existing clans to make it worth the effort of building?
• Is the player driving this concept trustworthy?  
• Is this player easy to communicate with?  
• Is this player reliable?
• How do we handle IC forces that are trying to oppose this concept?  Especially virtual ones.

All of this stuff probably comes into play somewhere.  Does it really make sense to outline all of this stuff for players in the public guidelines?  A lot of this touches on private issues.  If a MMH aspiring player isn't trustworthy, and that's why the staff don't want to work with them, what are they supposed to do in that case?  Tell the player that?  Give them a few tests to see if they can show they really are trustworthy?  

None of this stuff is cut and dry and simple.  None of this stuff is easily indexed into some clear charter that players can follow.  It would be -a lot- of work to try and document all this, come up with policies for each situation, and maintain those policies as things inevitable change.  And what would we all get in exchange for this herculean effort?  The feeling that this process isn't arbitrary...  Not very much juice for all the squeezing needed to get it if you ask me.

At this point I'm not really arguing your point; yours is a perspective that I adopt on other fronts of the game.  I think this post focuses in a little too hard on the use of the word arbitrary and thus kind of avoids the actual purpose of the use of the word, or the 'spirit' of the message at large, if you will.

Again, that's not to say I'm arguing your point.  I accept that point of view, but disagree with it on the basis that I think more people on the path of MMH at any given time is better for the game, and that it was greatly appreciated for what it was outlined as: a systemic, reliable, and challenging way to have your character leave something lasting, and the realization of the -long- time request for PC's to be able to start, from the ground up, an in-game organization.

There was a lot of demand for these things.  People asked for something like this for years.  I've seen a few attempts come and go, seen the warehouses used now and again...but there really isn't that feeling of prevalence that I was expecting, considering all the time that people wanted it.  Maybe the interest just waned when it was attainable, but I was kind of expecting to see a lot more of these attempted, and rivalries growing, and basically more content to the game as a result.  I could never say that's not happening at all, but it's not to the degree that I expected, and so having the ins and outs discussed, the hardships and things that are -possible- to tweak to make it better?  I like that stuff.  I think changes to make things more fitting around it are a good thing, if it gets more involvement in the game out of it.

If that kind of thing has a hard time rallying staff support (Edit: I'm not saying none of them receive help or staff aren't doing things, I'm responding to wizturbo's description of staff support, i.e. they have to want it to exist), then I'd say it's affirmed that the system in place doesn't really work that well, and we may as well do it the way Terash did it, rather than drape it in the appearance of being attainable as long as you follow (and succeed in) the steps.  It was known when presented that it would require both changes in the future and a workload from the players and staff involved.  Hearing resistance against addressing the concerns as well as the idea that one side just doesn't want to do that work and shouldn't be forced to is a pretty bleak thing to hear for what came out with so much enthusiasm.  I'm not sure if the Dust Runners were started as a staff-run effort as some people have said, but if that's the only case of this system actually working...I'd say there's some things to be examined more closely in the set up, or make it clearer that Players shouldn't count on it succeeding even if they manage to fulfill the needs listed.  It's just not a very encouraging feeling, over all.

[Jihelu]

I'd like to see ways for clans to be created outside of cities.

[nauta]

I'd like to see ways for clans to be created outside of cities.

This broadly falls into the theme of the topic.  Here are some ideas on facilitating more small groups outside the cities (or even inside, e.g., gangs in the rinth).  First, here's what we currently have:

o Family Role Calls.
o C-elf Tribe Role Calls.
o MMH (which, broadly understood, could also support a mercenary company -- it isn't all mercantile, but it does seem to be designed with more mercantile groups in mind).

What I'd like is something to allow for dynamic groups that sprout up now and then on the fly -- skimmer crews, raider bands, non-Guild gangs, a group of farmers or herders, refugees, etc.

1. OOC Communication/Coordination of Playtimes.  Perhaps make it easier to generate on-the-fly clan boards where you can manage RPTs, playtimes, away, small rumours, etc.  Staff can monitor these, approve them, and so on.  You'd have to have, say, three PCs at minimum to make it worth the while, and maybe wait at least an IG year.

2. Save Room Request.  If the group survives for 3 IG years, you can submit a request for a 'save' room at a spot, or maybe a room description change -- depending on what the coded stuff about save rooms is.  Perhaps there could be 10 save rooms reserved for this purpose (i.e., a dynamo-clan could request just one and there could be 10 dynamo clans).  No doors or locks or NPCs or anything like that, just a place you can MUSH around with 'arrange' and have it preserve, e.g., a campsite, a dingy bakery in the rinth, a hovel in Storm.

3. vNPC request.  I don't know the coded reality, but one big frustration with establishing a space of your own outside the city is the random PC grab-and-run while you are logged off (in addition to crashes).  Perhaps a script could be added after 5 IG years that would have vNPCs report thieves to you, or a room echo like "A lot of refugees mill around here." 

If it were set-up to be dynamic, then when all the PCs have died in that dynamo-clan, everything (save room, board, etc.) just goes away.

[Suhuy]

The Atrium is a bad parallel for how to start up your own clan. The players involved were in the right place, at the right time, with the right staffer involved.

There is no formula for success in this day and age, nor should there be (as there isn't in life). The formula back then was have someone on staff like you. I choose to believe that in this day and age, things are different. No one expects a staffer to drop their projects just because your lone hunter in the desert has been dumping rocks in some room for months on end in hopes of one day having a cairn coded into existence. But if you keep plugging away at your goals, surely you'll earn at least a blip on the staff's radar and gain the mere chance for success. And that's all most people posting here are asking for. For a chance alone.

The main issue in my view is that most ideas won't add anything to the game, so why bother giving them attention each time someone new comes along hoping to make one? You want to start up your own clan of hunters? That pretty much already exists, in multiple clans. Crafters? Done. Spice dealers? Done. Weapons? Done. Hunting gear? Done. Etc.

This is why I advocate destruction as the best source for creation. Some clans should be seen as a foundation of the MUD, either untouchable or nearly so. But there are a lot of fossils of the game just sitting around that could easily be either destroyed or taken down a peg. Why was Borsail allowed back in when it would have been so much more fun to have sent them into exile? There are plenty of PC noble houses, and NPC ones who could have filled that void, allowing change for the first time in decades worth of real time.

My part in this discussion is not to point the finger at players or staff. Maybe players could have done more of this, or staff more of that. Fine, whatever. But if even one single clan were suddenly placed in a precarious situation, it would give players a chance to rise to the occasion and take part in knocking them down a peg. Maybe over time they take them over completely, and after a considerable length of time multiple players will have provided docs and other material to help flesh out a new clan into existence. For almost every clan that's out there, I think they're pretty cool. But it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if any one of them were displaced, or replaced. The devolution of a clan could lead to the evolution of something new, with a new set of allies and enemies and culture all its own.

Just take something, anything, and tear it apart. Even if you establish the game in such a way that now there's an exact formula for creating your own clan, players won't really enjoy it in the long term unless it's filling the void of something actually, truly needed. And you can't really have that without destroying something first. Even with Tuluk currently on hiatus, there are still so many clans out there that taking one down specifically for the purpose of having it replaced would detract nothing. It would, in fact, add a great deal. Just do it!

[Taven]

I'd like to see ways for clans to be created outside of cities.

This broadly falls into the theme of the topic.  Here are some ideas on facilitating more small groups outside the cities (or even inside, e.g., gangs in the rinth).  First, here's what we currently have:

o Family Role Calls.
o C-elf Tribe Role Calls.
o MMH (which, broadly understood, could also support a mercenary company -- it isn't all mercantile, but it does seem to be designed with more mercantile groups in mind).

What I'd like is something to allow for dynamic groups that sprout up now and then on the fly -- skimmer crews, raider bands, non-Guild gangs, a group of farmers or herders, refugees, etc.

I agree. Right now the MMH option is the only option to make a long-term clan, and the only place you can do it is Allanak.

It would be nice to see options in other areas in the Known, as well as other clan options that aren't based solely on selling something.

1. OOC Communication/Coordination of Playtimes.  Perhaps make it easier to generate on-the-fly clan boards where you can manage RPTs, playtimes, away, small rumours, etc.  Staff can monitor these, approve them, and so on.  You'd have to have, say, three PCs at minimum to make it worth the while, and maybe wait at least an IG year.

2. Save Room Request.  If the group survives for 3 IG years, you can submit a request for a 'save' room at a spot, or maybe a room description change -- depending on what the coded stuff about save rooms is.  Perhaps there could be 10 save rooms reserved for this purpose (i.e., a dynamo-clan could request just one and there could be 10 dynamo clans).  No doors or locks or NPCs or anything like that, just a place you can MUSH around with 'arrange' and have it preserve, e.g., a campsite, a dingy bakery in the rinth, a hovel in Storm.

3. vNPC request.  I don't know the coded reality, but one big frustration with establishing a space of your own outside the city is the random PC grab-and-run while you are logged off (in addition to crashes).  Perhaps a script could be added after 5 IG years that would have vNPCs report thieves to you, or a room echo like "A lot of refugees mill around here." 

If it were set-up to be dynamic, then when all the PCs have died in that dynamo-clan, everything (save room, board, etc.) just goes away.

The above ideas are definitely things that would be useful to more dynamic group types, but I think we would need outlines to what would make it possible to earn this and other things.

Here's what I'd like to see:

• Official support and guidelines for making a wilds-based antagonist group - Including solid and lasting structures
• Official support and guidelines for making a lasting tribe as a clan
• Official support and guidelines for making a clan in civilized areas that aren't Allanak (Red Storm, Luirs, Morin's)
• Official suppose and guidelines for clans within cities that may not be primarily merchant focused