Player-created clans aka Minor Merchant Houses (MMH): Reflections

[nauta]

MMH have been in the game for a couple years now.  For review:

http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Minor%20Merchant%20House

http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Player-Created%20Clans

I wanted to open up a discussion on them, based primarily on having played a couple other MUDs in the meanwhile which had similar player-created clans.  I'm also curious:

1. Has this system been working out?  From what I can tell, nobody has achieved an MMH, or if they have it hasn't been one that the average Allanaki citizen would recognize.

2. What areas in the process could change? 

3. What areas in the process work really well?

So, some observations from other MUDs: There are a lot of players who really want to play house and make their own shop.  A lot of these MUDs don't have much by way of rules: they operate more like MUSHes, so you make your own room description, set up a shop NPC with a list, and hope people come to your shop.  This results in a lot of shops!

Problems:

(a) You occasionally get really silly or half-assed shops.
(b) You get a lot of abandoned shops.  I think (b) is more a function of a low playerbase on these MUds and a lack of other things to do.  Once you have a shop, then what?  How does it contribute to the game world?  Why would a PC want to visit your shop?

The question that sort of puzzles me, though, is that Armageddon seems really an ideal place for such players to thrive.  There's a large enough playerbase that could support people going around making up little pop-up shops, like cheese mongers, tailors, etc.  There's plenty of other things going on in the world, so you could have an entire little sub-game of shopkeepers and the like in tandem with the usual goings on of Zalanthas.  So why aren't we seeing a lot more of these?

I have a couple of thoughts:

1) Money. Perhaps it is because making the money in Arm is kind of a coded chore (if you are a city-based independent).  Perhaps you could select as a sub-guild something like 'modest income' which would give you a bit of an income each month through virtual sales and the like.  On one MUD, you can spend chargen points for wealth as a stat and you get a small income.  This would reflect virtual sales, and likely could be implemented in a variety of ways.

2) Competition.  Yes, we want competition because we want MCB, but perhaps small shopkeepers aren't able to survive because of the way the great merchant houses are documented (or played in the game).  I don't know about this one, since there are independent tailors who aren't being destroyed by Kadius in the markets, and so on.

Anyway, perhaps it is something else entirely.  Maybe it's a lack of interest from players in the end: nobody really wants to play shopkeeper when they could be out killing things with bone clubs.

Thoughts?  Ideas?  (Also, please use this as an opportunity to offer constructive criticism or ideas, and not destructive snark.)

[Riev]

I can think of only two "clans" to get their own shops.

One was a Player Run clan and it took legit 4+ RL years to get there (which is patently ridiculous).
The other was a staff-only clan that rolled out a change few people have engaged with.

I think there needs to be allowances for faster "get to the warehouse stage" part of things. Currently, you need to pay in to a PC who may not be around for "some time", and then hope you can get to a warehouse. I'm not even talking the novelty of SHOPS, just to the point of having a "large" storage space. On a recent PC, I attempted this and found that even with a semi-focus on certain wares, space issues were a real concern.

[Armaddict]

With just a vague idea of what I want to talk about, the most important things are what Riev said (i.e. Entry steps easier, though perhaps with a larger spread to becoming an actual merchant house to keep that difficult and out of reach for most attempts, and thus a constant goal), but also...

For god's sake, have them not only allowed, but promoted to compete against established clans.  Player run mercenary groups can be a refreshing change for people instead of having to do the Byn for the umpteenth time.  Player run crafting can create diversity in gear selection between groups.  None of them are large enough in most stages to truly compete and be of concern to the 'big picture' of profit, but are filled with potential for variety of available game options.

[Vex]

It seems, to me, like this is the kind of game that should support small pop-up clan, that live only as long as players are interested in joining. Basics of support would be, really, the ability to rent a clan hall of some kind, with basic services, like a storage room and a quit room. Apartment code exists, so it should be trivial to setup. Let players take the reins, and I bet, you have a lot less complaints of boredom.

Also, nothing in a game like this, should take FOUR YEARS of someones life to do. Humans only live, on average, 70-80 years. If four years isn't an exaggeration, the game must be run by people with no concept at all, of how valuable time actually is. Its an insane amount of time, for something like a clan, or a shop, or anything, really.

[nauta]

One was a Player Run clan and it took legit 4+ RL years to get there (which is patently ridiculous).

MMHs were first announced November 2014 (three years ago to the day almost), and only went live in December of that year:

http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,48319.0.html


They were then modified June 2016:

http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,51315.0.html
http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,51316.0.html

[Riev]

Announced as a coded possibility, yes, but unless I'm off base (which I admit is possible) the one clan I'm thinking of was in existence well before that change was announced.

[Veselka]

The fact that there have only been a couple player-run groups that made it past the 'Warehouse Phase', and got nowhere near the MMH phase, tells me the system is a little too mired in being a system. It has a lot of points that need to be hit, time that needs to pass, but what it doesn't account for is Templar A taking the money and never reporting it, storing, and then needing to start over with Templar B, and so on. It creates an artificial time sink that doesn't seem necessary.

Other games handle this pretty elegantly (HarshlandsRPI comes to mind) where you purchase deeds, and can plant the deed for X Living Space in a 'residential area'. It comes with a lock and a key. When your PC dies, it gets reabsorbed into the virtual world after a time, though it sticks around to kind of show 'people populate this area'.

I don't think it's an issue for people to make PC clans if they want to make PC clans. Opposition would (in my mind) be more easily achieved between groups if these groups could easier exist and get their start without heavy-duty red tape.

I suppose i'm curious how an upstart PC-run group that has no virtual support/clan behind it is more of a threat than House Salarr or Kadius or Kurac, or any of the Noble Houses, that all have visible Staff support that can squash a PC clan in a second if they get out of line. With a system as complex as this, i'm curious -- What is the intention? To make player-run groups appear possible, but incredibly difficult to achieve?

There is a running theme with ArmageddonMUD that is 'more obstacles = more reward'. This is true when it is one of many tools at your disposal. But sometimes it appears to be one of only a few tools utilized to create fun for the playerbase. Player Run Clans would be a good example, in my mind, of a system that could be simplified both to alleviate Staff burden and Player burden/excessive reporting/playing the request tool and not the game.

[Lizzie]

Sounds like you're wanting everyone to have their own shop. Why would you want that? I mean - what is the point, how would that improve the game? It doesn't sound realistic OR believable. It sounds more like a Barbies Shopping Spree PlayHouse where everyone has a shop, and visits everyone else's shops to buy stuff, then goes back to their shop to sell stuff, and that's pretty much all anyone ever does.

I think that's why we don't see "a lot more of these" in the game. Who'd want to spend most of their gaming time sitting around in a shop hoping someone will show up wanting to buy a slice of cheese?

[Veselka]

To offer some ideas, rather than just appear to complain, I would say:

1 - Make it easier for players to achieve a shopkeeper status, or present multiple routes to the 'Warehouse Level'. Have the need for vouches from blooded members of the Merchant Houses, for instance, or simply make it based around money (it appears to be based around money and time, currently). Present ways to fast track, for those with ingenuity.

2 - Make it easier for players to create clans. In my mind, the insurmountable groups of the game (Salarr, Kadius, even Dust Runners) present an odd challenge, because of their invulnerability to ultimate change and destruction. Allowing for more player groups to spring up, and be chopped down, could present a new avenue for dynamism. However, we likely don't have the playerbase any more to handle this sort of thing.

3 - Keep the difficulty high for getting a warehouse space and MMH status. This obviously shouldn't be easy to get, and it seems like it's at about the right level currently. I'd vote for making the warehouse space a bit easier to get, or offering smaller options that are easier to get (and to get into for thieves). It'd be nice, too, if Warehouses weren't just one impregnable room, but perhaps a few smaller rooms with smaller capacities. One of the rooms could be under a heavy duty lock, but perhaps it can't fit everything under the sun. Other rooms might have lesser locks, or windows to climb into, but can fit more stuff.

Just some thoughts.

[Veselka]

Sounds like you're wanting everyone to have their own shop. Why would you want that? I mean - what is the point, how would that improve the game? It doesn't sound realistic OR believable. It sounds more like a Barbies Shopping Spree PlayHouse where everyone has a shop, and visits everyone else's shops to buy stuff, then goes back to their shop to sell stuff, and that's pretty much all anyone ever does.

I think that's why we don't see "a lot more of these" in the game. Who'd want to spend most of their gaming time sitting around in a shop hoping someone will show up wanting to buy a slice of cheese?

Who's 'You' in this scenario? I don't particularly want 'everyone to have their own shop', but I certainly want more than 3 people to have a shop. There's a difference between 'make it easier' and 'make it so everyone can have their own shop'.

When I say make it easier, I mean -- Make it months between, rather than RL years, to achieve some of these status points.

[Riev]

Sounds like you're wanting everyone to have their own shop. Why would you want that? I mean - what is the point, how would that improve the game? It doesn't sound realistic OR believable. It sounds more like a Barbies Shopping Spree PlayHouse where everyone has a shop, and visits everyone else's shops to buy stuff, then goes back to their shop to sell stuff, and that's pretty much all anyone ever does.

I think that's why we don't see "a lot more of these" in the game. Who'd want to spend most of their gaming time sitting around in a shop hoping someone will show up wanting to buy a slice of cheese?

Sounds like you particularly have to unbunch your panties a bit. The conversation so far is "Maybe make it a little easier?" and not "GIVE ALL OF US SHOPS". Chill the absolute fuck out and let a discussion take place on the Discussion Boards without trying to shut it down immediately.

I think the fact that in 3 RL years, only one group (and lets be fair, it was one PERSON) has gotten to add their own shop to the game. 3 RL years. Someone had numerous college hookups, experimented with drugs, got clean and is now married with a child before someone in a goddamned video game was allowed the privilege to have a shopkeeper added.

Maybe make it a little easier, or broaden the steps a bit more. Find out where people are stalling out, and see if it needs a tweak, not "OMG EVERYONE WANTS TO WIN ARMAGEDDON" or "THIS IS AN RPI AND U R BREAKING MAH IMMERSIONZ"

[Molten Heart]

.

[Mercy]

I'd rather just have my own tavern where I can hang with my flunkies and dine on tasty vitals and drink cheap booze, all the while telling each other "Damn it feels good to be a gangster" Also, how else will people burn down my tavern if there isn't one to burn down.

I'll be honest, my interest level was pretty mediocre till I read that last line. If we can burn down player establishments, can we let players establish things please.

[Hauwke]

em grabs his torch and pitchfork.


On a more serious note, I agree that it seems maybe a touch too difficult to get your way through the ranks of this, the fact only one person has done it, isnt great. Maybe tone it down to three quarters of what it is, I dont want to see ten stores pop up, but I would like three or four of them.

[Brokkr]

There won't be stores unless players choose to pursue stores.

[Lizzie]

Sounds like you're wanting everyone to have their own shop. Why would you want that? I mean - what is the point, how would that improve the game? It doesn't sound realistic OR believable. It sounds more like a Barbies Shopping Spree PlayHouse where everyone has a shop, and visits everyone else's shops to buy stuff, then goes back to their shop to sell stuff, and that's pretty much all anyone ever does.

I think that's why we don't see "a lot more of these" in the game. Who'd want to spend most of their gaming time sitting around in a shop hoping someone will show up wanting to buy a slice of cheese?

Who's 'You' in this scenario? I don't particularly want 'everyone to have their own shop', but I certainly want more than 3 people to have a shop. There's a difference between 'make it easier' and 'make it so everyone can have their own shop'.

When I say make it easier, I mean -- Make it months between, rather than RL years, to achieve some of these status points.

I was responding to the OP (Nauta), who asked why there aren't a lot more of these shops.  I even quoted that phrase. The question was: Why aren't there a lot more of these? My post was my answer. But to reiterate: Why would anyone WANT a lot more of these?

[WithSprinkles]

Speaking from my own experience, the process could be streamlined some. It isn't from lack of interest.

[nauta]

Sounds like you're wanting everyone to have their own shop. Why would you want that? I mean - what is the point, how would that improve the game? It doesn't sound realistic OR believable. It sounds more like a Barbies Shopping Spree PlayHouse where everyone has a shop, and visits everyone else's shops to buy stuff, then goes back to their shop to sell stuff, and that's pretty much all anyone ever does.

I think that's why we don't see "a lot more of these" in the game. Who'd want to spend most of their gaming time sitting around in a shop hoping someone will show up wanting to buy a slice of cheese?

Who's 'You' in this scenario? I don't particularly want 'everyone to have their own shop', but I certainly want more than 3 people to have a shop. There's a difference between 'make it easier' and 'make it so everyone can have their own shop'.

When I say make it easier, I mean -- Make it months between, rather than RL years, to achieve some of these status points.

I was responding to the OP (Nauta), who asked why there aren't a lot more of these shops.  I even quoted that phrase. The question was: Why aren't there a lot more of these? My post was my answer. But to reiterate: Why would anyone WANT a lot more of these?

Your response is not very constructive, Lizzie, but I appreciate the insight.  Do you see anything particularly good about the process?  Do you see anything particularly wrong with it?  Where can we improve it?

[Lizzie]

Sounds like you're wanting everyone to have their own shop. Why would you want that? I mean - what is the point, how would that improve the game? It doesn't sound realistic OR believable. It sounds more like a Barbies Shopping Spree PlayHouse where everyone has a shop, and visits everyone else's shops to buy stuff, then goes back to their shop to sell stuff, and that's pretty much all anyone ever does.

I think that's why we don't see "a lot more of these" in the game. Who'd want to spend most of their gaming time sitting around in a shop hoping someone will show up wanting to buy a slice of cheese?

Who's 'You' in this scenario? I don't particularly want 'everyone to have their own shop', but I certainly want more than 3 people to have a shop. There's a difference between 'make it easier' and 'make it so everyone can have their own shop'.

When I say make it easier, I mean -- Make it months between, rather than RL years, to achieve some of these status points.

I was responding to the OP (Nauta), who asked why there aren't a lot more of these shops.  I even quoted that phrase. The question was: Why aren't there a lot more of these? My post was my answer. But to reiterate: Why would anyone WANT a lot more of these?

Your response is not very constructive, Lizzie, but I appreciate the insight.  Do you see anything particularly good about the process?  Do you see anything particularly wrong with it?  Where can we improve it?

I think the process is a bit overcomplicated. But I also don't see any need for more shops. We have tons of shops operated by NPCs that most people never buy anything from. My personal preference would be for storytellers to animate shopkeeps on the regular - instead of being closed one night, have them go to the bar and interact with the PCs. Maybe strike up some friendships - and some enemies. Maybe get their shop burned down or blown up. Of course that would require flash powder which no longer exists. I'd rather see existing shops replaced, rather than more shops added. But I'd like to see it happen organically, rather than through some long, drawn-out "system."

[chrisdcoulombe]

Eats popcorn

[Aruven]

How many players have tried to start a player made clan since this went live?

Is it actually a problem that we haven't seen this boom into established clans yet?

What are the parameters actually playing into this, are people disgruntled in some fashion or did everyone try it, die, and just not roll a new character who's ambition is to start his own clan.

I haven't even tried to do this, since it was implemented, for the record. Does it need to be shorter, the stipulations for success, those who have tried?

[Veselka]

I personally don't have an interest because I take a look at the requirements and methods and go



So sure, people might not pursue making a shop, because it appears on the surface to be nearly impossible. Why put a PC through that?

If the system were more easily engaged in, in the game, and not in the request tool, I think I would be more interested in giving it a shot, personally.

[Aruven]

I was under the impression you could have many sorts of businesses, or something akin to get sponsored by a noble to start a gladiator school that eventually became relevant because of the wealth it amassed from public games its fighters competed in, and other nobles were just eventually forced to let sit at the table.

Something like that could happen over that timeline they stipulated if you made it work the right way.

Is it just some linear: You've been selling shit for 2 years and paying taxes good to go here's your shop and room desc thanks bye ?

I'm seeing a lot of shop talk...

[seidhr]

Off the top of my head I can think of four - wait, make it five (and there may be more) player created clans since this went live, that have gotten to the point where they had like their own space to operate in.  Most of these didn't get a shop because they weren't merchant outfits and that shouldn't be held against them or the system.

I feel like player to player trade, crafting, etc is a lot more interesting than setting up NPC vendor robots that will largely get ignored, personally.

[Lizzie]

Off the top of my head I can think of four - wait, make it five (and there may be more) player created clans since this went live, that have gotten to the point where they had like their own space to operate in.  Most of these didn't get a shop because they weren't merchant outfits and that shouldn't be held against them or the system.

I feel like player to player trade, crafting, etc is a lot more interesting than setting up NPC vendor robots that will largely get ignored, personally.

Seidr gets me.

[Akaramu]

As someone who actively tried to get a tavern running at some point, I found it incredibly hard (and frustrating) to have my IC efforts recognized and credited. I wasn't the one who started the player clan in question, but I ended up doing most of the work (months and months of solo RP, for the most part). I reported what I was doing in the usual character reports.

Things were moving forward, a staffer built the NPCs we'd been promised for ages. The NPCs were ready to go.

Then staff rotated, and the new staff wasn't aware of my months, and months, and months of solo RP and what I had done. The response to my reports was 'tell (insert player who started the clan) to send a request. Nevermind my months, and months of effort. I felt it was all for nothing because staff rotated and apparently no one had left notes on where the project was standing, and that the promised NPCs were ready to be implemented. I needed those NPCs so I could stop solo RPing / AFK idling and focus on more fun things away from the tavern.

I quit over this, more or less. This and the elementalist changes.

[Feco]

My relatively brief experience with the system was overwhelmingly positive -- in particular, the early stages (1-3) seem pretty well put together, and I think have a good pace to them.  This is especially true after the most recent set of changes to them (which are actually a bit tough to find, but they're on the forum).  This system facilitated a style of play that would have otherwise been awkward (working out of apartments, having to rely on stock NPCs all the time, etc).

I suspect my success was due to reporting.  I find that regular, detailed, and most importantly, on topic, reports make it 1000000% easier to do anything with staff.  It keys them in to what I'm thinking and wanting, and they can help me set expectations and facilitate my needs.

I had some criticisms/thoughts about the upper levels, but it was a lot of stuff best not discussed on the forum.  I passed my thoughts on to staff.  I encourage everyone who has used to system to do the same.

Just thought I'd share that, seeing as some people had negative experiences.

[Riev]

I had some criticisms/thoughts about the upper levels, but it was a lot of stuff best not discussed on the forum.  I passed my thoughts on to staff.  I encourage everyone who has used to system to do the same.

Just thought I'd share that, seeing as some people had negative experiences.

Normally a great idea, but for those who have not had a positive experience with the system, going to the staff members who may have been a part of the negative experience is a poor method of handling it.

I don't know Akaramu's exact experience by any means, but I don't see how her sending in more requests for 3-4 faceless staff members to mull over would be any different than having sent in the requests she has.

This thread is for the discussion of an initiative that has been in place for a while now, consequent to the implementation of warehouses. Staff have said a few people have gotten up to the point of being allowed to use warehouses, but maybe two have gotten use of vendors, and none have become an MMH in their own right. So the discussion is: Does this seem to be as intended? Is there too much work and time investment required on behalf of players? Should there be more?

If left to "just staff" to review these questions, things will not change. It is on us to have our own input to the system, and my personal opinion based anecdotally on the number of "successful integrations" of this new change is that it is only affecting less than 5% of the playerbase, if we have 200 players a week and only 2 have gotten past Stage 3.

[Brokkr]

Most stages in the PC clan progression are highly, highly dependent on the founder.  As originally designed, they were wholly dependent on the founder.  Since then, we have allowed highly involved seconds to take over PC clans, with fairly harsh penalties, when a founder is permanently out of the picture.  There are not multiple leaders of a PC clan until the MMH stage.

If the founder falters, the clan falters.

[Riev]

Most stages in the PC clan progression are highly, highly dependent on the founder.  As originally designed, they were wholly dependent on the founder.  Since then, we have allowed highly involved seconds to take over PC clans, with fairly harsh penalties, when a founder is permanently out of the picture.  There are not multiple leaders of a PC clan until the MMH stage.

If the founder falters, the clan falters.

This is actually super informative. It makes a little more sense why things fail, if they were so focused on one player "going the distance" with all the work that needed to happen. I think its a good start that they were loosened to at least a heavily involved Second.

[Is Friday]

That sounds like an arbitrary rule. What's the reasoning for enforcing a rule like that?

[Jihelu]

That sounds like an arbitrary rule. What's the reasoning for enforcing a rule like that?

I guess to ruin the fun of a clan because someone lawl assassinated the leader.

Or maybe it's a pain in the butt to keep information updated and staff thinks that clan leadership would just pass hands all willy nilly when a leader dies...
Kinda like how...you know, the other clans currently work.

I don't see why you can't just "Here's the one thousand coin registration fee to have my buddy here added to the list of 'he can take over when I die" If I recall at a certain level someone can pay the fee to make the clan a clan...
But it's like, something stupid like 5-10k and you've still gotta pay more fines.

In a game where coin means basically nothing there seems to be a lot of it being required for clans.

[TheGoose]

Most stages in the PC clan progression are highly, highly dependent on the founder.  As originally designed, they were wholly dependent on the founder.  Since then, we have allowed highly involved seconds to take over PC clans, with fairly harsh penalties, when a founder is permanently out of the picture.  There are not multiple leaders of a PC clan until the MMH stage.

If the founder falters, the clan falters.

Well, that's depressing.

[Riev]

That sounds like an arbitrary rule. What's the reasoning for enforcing a rule like that?

I think to enforce the fact that the GMHs are built on family... and since nobody has put out a Family Role Call specifically designed to set up a family based MMH... then a Clan is only as strong as its leader. Clearly, without the reputation that leader has, the clan is doomed to fail.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's the angle I can see staff coming from to enforce.

[Brokkr]

From help Player-Created Clans:

Contract is specific to the founder.

Clans developed through this process are not immune to the results of their members' machinations. In other words, player and staff investment into a clan do not necessarily mean that the clan will be durable or extend beyond the life of the PC. IC and even OOC factors can lead to setbacks or even clan dissolution.

It is surprising to me that this is a surprise.

[Riev]

I don't know that its a "surprise", at least in the manner that IsFriday put it. It sounded more like he was saying "that is an arbitrary rule". Because that's what he said. Exactly.

He didn't say it was "surprising". Even my comment was geared specifically toward the loosening of allowing it to possibly live on under Secondaries, because that WASN'T the case before.

So. Which one of us said it was a surprise, that ended up surprising you?

[Brokkr]

• Trading company is the first time a player clan is officially recognized as an organization.  Before that, the warehouse, shopkeepers, etc. are hired directly by the founder.  It isn't arbitrary that if the founder flounders,
  or dies, that the clan fails IC'ly because of this.
• It is important to have mechanisms for other folks to attempt to make a player clan fail.  That is alluded to in the helpfile.  It is not arbitrary that there is a mechanism allowing for them to do so.
• A clan where there are several members who could ensure its survival would be extremely durable.

It seemed to me that what I stated was unexpected, by use of words like "arbitrary", "depressing" and "super informative", which indicate deviations from expectations.  It was unexpected that folks would find this unexpected, given a logical interpretation of what is in the helpfile, and withholding personal bias for what they would like to see happen.

[Riev]

What you stated was that "Originally, only the one PC mattered". It was surprising to me that there was a Second allowed, and furthermore that there were "harsh penalities" for the use of a Second.

It is unexpected (to you) that folks (players) would find the staff's adherence to helpfiles "unexpected". Is that what you're saying?

My interpretation of what you said, and the helpfiles, is that there is NO SECONDARY ALLOWED because multiple leaders are not allowed until the full MMH stage. So what you said? Informative. As in, not in the helpfiles. Could not be logically concluded based on the information given.

What it sounds like others are saying? "Sounds like you put this rule into place for an arbitrary reason. What is the reason behind it?". I say that, because that's exactly what was said.

That sounds like an arbitrary rule. What's the reasoning for enforcing a rule like that?

So. The reason for enforcing that rule, is because its a rule. A rule that was made, but we don't know why. The only information we're given is:

Code Select Expand

*  Clans developed through this process are not immune to the results
of their members' machinations.  In other words, player and staff
investment into a clan do not necessarily mean that the clan will be
durable or extend beyond the life of the PC.  IC and even OOC factors
can lead to setbacks or even clan dissolution.

This seems to be a caveat pre-empting complaints that a clan died out because someone assassinated the head of the clan, or because the leader suddenly stopped playing (ooc factors). Has this been the case for a significant number of applicants? have most been "content" at staying at the Warehouse level/

[Eluin]

What's wrong with a clan being durable though? If it has the interest and passion to succeed even after the death of its founder that seems to me to be a good reason to let it keep going.

That doesn't disallow people to make it fail, and if anything it seems like it would make for a more interesting story to try to do so than an arbitrary single death. It becomes less "kill this one person and you win." And more "kill this one person, and their successor too, and/or demoralize and sabatoge them till the clan is actually dead."

Waiting till the very last stage to allow that at all is a bit unusual. From a RP perspective. Even the argument that the founder hired things on directly falls a little flat to me considering there shouldn't really be anything to stop 2-3 people all going into a venture as equal partners doing everything together from the start  (other than lack of trust and possible backstabbing of course.)

One person died all is lost is very much arbitrary. There are situations where it makes sense, but there are also situations where it doesn't really make sense at all. Beyond just a particularly dedicated second in command taking over, is there any flexibility for situations like that?

[Molten Heart]

.

[Feco]

I had some criticisms/thoughts about the upper levels, but it was a lot of stuff best not discussed on the forum.  I passed my thoughts on to staff.  I encourage everyone who has used to system to do the same.

Just thought I'd share that, seeing as some people had negative experiences.

Normally a great idea, but for those who have not had a positive experience with the system, going to the staff members who may have been a part of the negative experience is a poor method of handling it.

I don't know Akaramu's exact experience by any means, but I don't see how her sending in more requests for 3-4 faceless staff members to mull over would be any different than having sent in the requests she has.

This thread is for the discussion of an initiative that has been in place for a while now, consequent to the implementation of warehouses. Staff have said a few people have gotten up to the point of being allowed to use warehouses, but maybe two have gotten use of vendors, and none have become an MMH in their own right. So the discussion is: Does this seem to be as intended? Is there too much work and time investment required on behalf of players? Should there be more?

If left to "just staff" to review these questions, things will not change. It is on us to have our own input to the system, and my personal opinion based anecdotally on the number of "successful integrations" of this new change is that it is only affecting less than 5% of the playerbase, if we have 200 players a week and only 2 have gotten past Stage 3.

I didn't say there's anything wrong with a public discussion.

It's just that you can be more specific with a staff-side communication, and you don't have to wait a year to discuss potentially sensitive information.  The more real-time the feedback, the better, I think.

Go HAM with both.

[BadSkeelz]

That doesn't disallow people to make it fail, and if anything it seems like it would make for a more interesting story to try to do so than an arbitrary single death. It becomes less "kill this one person and you win." And more "kill this one person, and their successor too, and/or demoralize and sabatoge them till the clan is actually dead."

If you flip it around it also doesn't make a lot of sense: Rules that discourage the use of Seconds and ensure that the clan is effectively with the dead with the death of the Founder sound like something that would discourage inner-clan machinations. What Second is going to want to usurp the Leader if it leads to the clan-application being deleted by Staff?

[Vex]

That sounds like an arbitrary rule. What's the reasoning for enforcing a rule like that?

It sounds more and more like, resentment.

[Is Friday]

I've never run a MMH myself. I've just seen a dozen come and go failing to make any lasting impact. Some of which struggled for RL years to get one knick knack or store front. I don't really like the system as it is from my viewpoint (the outside looking in.) I don't want to invest that much of my life as a clan lead or as a member of a MMH with the hopes that it will actually cause real change or have some impact on the static game world.

I understand that you don't want everyone to own their special slice of the Known and be Kings in their own right. But this feels too far on the other end of the spectrum, to me.

And with arbitrary rules like "When your clan lead dies, so does the clan"--that to me really just reinforces that it's rather pointless to try unless you're willing to devote years of your life for a 1% chance of success.

[Akariel]

In the last two and a half years two player clan leaders have died due to political machinations. One clan had it's leader killed, and then was systematically killed until they stopped calling themselves that clan - this was completely player on player violence.

The second had it's leader killed, and continued to exist normally with the second.

The other ~10 or so player clans that have tried to get started since then generally don't make it for reasons unrelated to a situation like is being talked about here. (Maybe the leader didn't hire anyone and ran into a beetle, or decided they were done with the clan and were stepping down to not run a player clan any more, ect.)

Suffice it to say, staff are more than happy to try and keep player clans going if possible - and active communication between leaders of a player clan and staff only bolsters that. If we know what you're thinking or what you're doing, we have a lot more to work with if you finally kick the bucket and Talia comes to us saying she wants to take all your hard work and ruin... Err... Run it.

[Lizzie]

1. I saw a school started in Tuluk that died due to lack of interest after its founder was gone. Some folks tried to perk it back up but failed, part of it was transformed into a museum that no one ever visited.

2. I saw a guy start a clan in Allanak that still has a shop there with an NPC vendor, and it's less than a few years since it was founded and its founder is gone, and so are all its original members, save perhaps one. At the present time I'm not aware of a single PC member of it, save that one - though I'm sure it's possible more than one exists.

3. I was a member of a group that has had various incarnations of itself over the years, but was never able to solidify because people kept dying or storing. The group still exists, it is likely to always exist, with a different name and different members, but the same purpose and function and general concept of leadership.

Personally I'm a fan of #3, above. I like the fluidity, it is much more representative of Zalanthas, in my opinion. The GMHs will always be there but always with different leadership. The noble houses and templarates will always be there, but always with different leadership and even contributors to their existence. Same with the tribes. The fact that these non-established, non-"official" groups come and go fits the theme perfectly, on a more playable level.

[Armaddict]

3. I was a member of a group that has had various incarnations of itself over the years, but was never able to solidify because people kept dying or storing. The group still exists, it is likely to always exist, with a different name and different members, but the same purpose and function and general concept of leadership.

This is the ideal for me, as well, but you have to accept it with the caveat that this was all put into place to make a 'concrete' way of receiving coded IC boons for your clan, rather than just working towards things and hoping staff would work with you.  I think this also relieved some of the staff burden of the appearance of favoritism, as well, though arguably that's backfiring with some of the testimonials above.  Not that they're showing favoritism, but that the bar is so high that those goals are not attainable for most players of the game.

Me, I'm really happy with just people being able to get a space to share, and that's that.  But I'm notoriously not-craft-based or mercantile or anything.  A gang with a hideout is all I need, even if that gang dies out.

[Veselka]

I've never run a MMH myself. I've just seen a dozen come and go failing to make any lasting impact. Some of which struggled for RL years to get one knick knack or store front. I don't really like the system as it is from my viewpoint (the outside looking in.) I don't want to invest that much of my life as a clan lead or as a member of a MMH with the hopes that it will actually cause real change or have some impact on the static game world.

I understand that you don't want everyone to own their special slice of the Known and be Kings in their own right. But this feels too far on the other end of the spectrum, to me.

And with arbitrary rules like "When your clan lead dies, so does the clan"--that to me really just reinforces that it's rather pointless to try unless you're willing to devote years of your life for a 1% chance of success.

Quite true. While Akariel cites reasons like:

The other ~10 or so player clans that have tried to get started since then generally don't make it for reasons unrelated to a situation like is being talked about here. (Maybe the leader didn't hire anyone and ran into a beetle, or decided they were done with the clan and were stepping down to not run a player clan any more, ect.)

I can only think that while Staff has a kind of omnipotent oversight in that they can review Runlogs and poof-in and out of places at will, they don't quite have a grasp on the motivation behind Players (not PCs) pursuing something like a player-made clan.

From what I can posit, the motivation a player has behind creating a player-run clan is making a lasting impact on the world in some fashion or another. To create something new that may last. While this may or may not actually be the result, or the case with every person, I can only imagine the reason they didn't join House Salarr or Kurac or the Byn is they decided the particular PC would be motivated to create their own thing.

The conflicting things i'm seeing from Staff's presentation of the helpfiles and language choice is that this policy was enacted before current Staff came on Staff, and they are now stuck towing the party line. There were updates to the system by Xalle (and presumably other Staff had input there as well). But as we have seen with Tuluk, endless revisions do not necessarily mean the system is non-functional.

In my opinion, the lack of participation by the Playerbase should indicate that the system is simply not fun to engage with. It appears at once top-heavy and not centered around the game, but around the request tool. The fact that Feco can claim having a positive interaction, whereas most players agree the system is clunky and needs modification to run smoothly, indicates that he had active Staff members to interact with who were on board with his vision/concepts. This to me is the essence of bias and favoritism (no offense, Feco).

If the system cannot run on its own, with Staff oversight and guidance but not direct intervention, it will suffer from consequences such as favoritism (one PC getting more attention/success than the next PC with similar circumstances), bias (one PC having more obstacles placed before them than other PCs due to Staff perception/likes/dislikes), and non-participation (real/perceived obstacles too difficult to overcome, risk vs. reward and time-sink ratio too large a leap to justify).

I don't think the system is terrible as it stands -- I think having obstacles and time-based requirements makes sense for multiple tracks within a 'player clan system'. I would challenge Staff to examine the system objectively if possible, and see if it's worth having a player-clan system at all, and if this experiment would be considered successful or not. I think it might be worth Staff interviewing the people who attempted to use the system, and find out what they liked/didn't like, and what their experience was like. Speculation and guess-work yields often skewed perceptions. This could be alleviated from taking player opinions seriously, rather than with a grain of salt and superior-sounding assertions.

Along the lines of what Lizzie is saying (and I don't think is unfair to posit) -- Creating a lasting impact on the game world does not seem to fit in with the Setting, intrinsically. From what I gather, players stories are meant to be ephemeral. To be remembered at all is a feat in itself, and for years after your PCs death, a legend. But to create player clans in this kind of environment seems to work against what Staff presents as the 'World View' of life on Zalanthas. Perhaps creating player clans shouldn't even be a possibility.

[Lizzie]

I think your entire argument falls short, because of just these two things:

In my opinion, the lack of participation by the Playerbase should indicate that the system is simply not fun to engage with.

and this:

Perhaps creating player clans shouldn't even be a possibility.

In the first, you're judging 1) that there's a lack of participation.

What constitutes "enough" participation? Quantify it. I challenge you to that, because there are extremes on either side. On the one hand - none, or maybe just one failed attempt, might be indicative of something significant. On the other hand, if everyone was doing it, it would cease to be a special thing, and by extension, no one would bother anymore.

You're also judging that 2) the lack of "fun" is the reason why there is some non-quantified lack of participation.

I posit that 1) there is no such lack, and 2) the reason it's not MORE popular, is because most people simply aren't interested in creating their own player clan. Some want to be a mage, and do magey things. Some want to be independent. Some want to be in an established clan. Some want to be members of someone else's clan, and not run or create their own. Some just want to kill stuff with bone swords. Some want to adventure. There are as many reasons for people to not want to create a player clan, as there are people not trying to create a player clan.

The second thing - that perhaps player clans shouldn't even be a possibility - seems to be cutting your nose off to spite your face. Especially considering that several clans that exist currently, do so because players created them. House Terash and the Atrium comes to mind.

[Veselka]

I think your entire argument falls short, because of just these two things:

In my opinion, the lack of participation by the Playerbase should indicate that the system is simply not fun to engage with.

and this:

Perhaps creating player clans shouldn't even be a possibility.

In the first, you're judging 1) that there's a lack of participation.

What constitutes "enough" participation? Quantify it. I challenge you to that, because there are extremes on either side. On the one hand - none, or maybe just one failed attempt, might be indicative of something significant. On the other hand, if everyone was doing it, it would cease to be a special thing, and by extension, no one would bother anymore.

Speculative. I would quantify 'enough' participation as being 1-3 Player Clans made per RL year, and 1-2 of those clans being destroyed/decimated/absorbed per RL year.

You're also judging that 2) the lack of "fun" is the reason why there is some non-quantified lack of participation.

I posit that 1) there is no such lack, and 2) the reason it's not MORE popular, is because most people simply aren't interested in creating their own player clan. Some want to be a mage, and do magey things. Some want to be independent. Some want to be in an established clan. Some want to be members of someone else's clan, and not run or create their own. Some just want to kill stuff with bone swords. Some want to adventure. There are as many reasons for people to not want to create a player clan, as there are people not trying to create a player clan.

I would agree there are more reasons than the system not being fun that it's not wildly successful.

The second thing - that perhaps player clans shouldn't even be a possibility - seems to be cutting your nose off to spite your face. Especially considering that several clans that exist currently, do so because players created them. House Terash and the Atrium comes to mind.

I merely question the purpose behind having a player-clan system in a Game World that does not encourage lasting longevity of player made clans. It seems to be at odds with the mission statement of ArmageddonMUD, in that there is no common literacy (legacy with writing for common people doesn't exist), there is no emphasis on religion or history, and static monopolies/large organizations with some wiggle room.

[Brokkr]

Speculative. I would quantify 'enough' participation as being 1-3 Player Clans made per RL year, and 1-2 of those clans being destroyed/decimated/absorbed per RL year.

We are good for this year then!

[Lizzie]

I would agree there are more reasons than the system not being fun that it's not wildly successful.

You're doing it again. I don't think it should be "wildly" successful, for the reason I already stated. I'll restate differently:

Everyone wants a "special something" in their gaming experience. Everyone wants a blue widget, because it's an interesting, unique, different, special thing that most people don't have. It's a novelty.

But once everyone has one, everyone stops wanting one. Because it's no longer interesting, unique, different, or special. It certainly ceases to be a novelty.

Player-created "official" clans are a lot of WORK. Just ask anyone who has EVER created one, in Armageddon. You have to be able to create the concept, draw enough interest to have employees, maintain that interest without drawing negative attention from potential competition and/or the "authorities" (templars, nobles, etc), and continue to maintain it long enough that people take your clan seriously. THEN - you can ask for something stable to house it. And THEN - you have to maintain THAT.

This was true even before they created the written docs about player clans. The only thing that's changed, really, is that the rules are clarified and made such that everyone is expected to follow the same rules as everyone else. Previously, some didn't have to follow so strictly, some had even stricter criteria. Now everyone is on the same page. Everyone has the same opportunity to do this.

It was never easy. It still isn't easy. But now, it's not easy, officially whereas previously it was not easy, unofficially.

It's not "wildly" successful. That's good. If it were, that'd mean the existing clans were empty because all the players had their own clans. The player clan system is supposed to be an added perk, not the basis of the entire system. Be glad it's not "wildly" successful.

[Dresan]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the current system, just the overall IC game environment doesn't encourage or make it plausible. You should totally be able to open up a shop, and sell your own custom designs with their own unique boosts and flavor without pissing anyone off. However, the player mindset that a GMH clan doesn't need to go out of their way to murder a player who is trying to start a shop to sell their own unique brand of knives just isn't there.

Its still easier and much more enjoyable to sell directly to players, and run your small clan/crews from your apartment. If the staff wanted to see more mini clans pop up over night, they should just make some apartments to allow 3-4 people to rent them.

[Riev]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the current system, just the overall IC game environment doesn't encourage or make it plausible. You should totally be able to open up a shop, and sell your own custom designs with their own unique boosts and flavor without pissing anyone off. However, the player mindset that a GMH clan doesn't need to go out of their way to murder a player who is trying to start a shop to sell their own unique brand of knives just isn't there.

Its still easier and much more enjoyable to sell directly to players, and run your small clan/crews from your apartment. If the staff wanted to see more mini clans pop up over night, they should just make some apartments to allow 3-4 people to rent them.

While I agree the game environment doesn't really encourage or foster the idea of a MMH in the first place, I DO think that a GMH would watch an up-and-comer very closely. If they're GOOD, hire them. If they refuse? Cut their supply line. If they continue, eradicate them. If they're actually not very good and not infringing on your business? Make them pay you to continue operating and you make out on the dea.

[Dresan]

Stuff

While I agree the game environment doesn't really encourage or foster the idea of a MMH in the first place, I DO think that a GMH would watch an up-and-comer very closely. If they're GOOD, hire them. If they refuse? Cut their supply line. If they continue, eradicate them. If they're actually not very good and not infringing on your business? Make them pay you to continue operating and you make out on the dea.

The overall idea of MMH just doesn't work in this game environment, the concept behind the system is too big.  The problem i find is that GMH don't act big enough as their background suggests, and indy businesses aren't treated as small enough.

GMH involves thousands of hunters, crafters, merchants plus influential family members, where an indy crew/small business really involves 3-7 people and maybe one or two NPC some day. Its ridiculous pitting a sponsored player against an indy with no real backing, just because they want to sell a couple custom cloths/armors/etc.

It would be great to see GMH's cutting a deal with these small businesses but this mentality is definitely not there in this community. In the past, I had an indy merchant wanting to do the same with a GMH, giving them a cut of his business and even buying from them at cost and selling out in the far wastes. It was a resounding NO and he was even forbidden to purchase goods from the store to resell. Can't outsource the fun of their clanned merchants...

That said, on the other side of the coin, one crafter and a couple of hunters, should not be trying to create PC cure/resource monopolies as others have tried to do in the past. This is silly when you consider NPCs and VNPCs running their own shops. Not that there shouldn't be some "friendly"(deadly) competition for clients and contracts between PC indy merchant, but people should be taking account the scope of these actions within the world.       

Again its less about the system and more with the concept within the current environment.

[Lizzie]

I think the reason you're saying that Dresan, is because you are seeing the GMHs as smaller than they really are.

The PC Merchant and his crew have a problem with Jimbob Indy. Why? Because Jimbob is interfering with Merchant and his crew. Merchant represents the House, yes- but Merchant is not the WHOLE house. Merchant is in charge of THIS CREW. And This Crew relies on THESE customers, and THIS customer base of PCs, for its contribution to the House, which is mostly virtual. The virtual crews rely on their virtual customers and virtual customer base of VNPCs, and even some NPCs. But the PC-run and PC-played crew, relies on the PC-based customers.

Jimbob Indy isn't a threat to the HOuse. But he is a threat to one particular crew of the House. Since that crew exists to make the House money, it stands to reason that the House might be a little annoyed if Jimbob got big enough to break up that crew. On the other hand, the House also relies on its Merchant to ensure that the Crew is strong enough to withstand some outside competition - as long as it doesnt' get too big.

[Dresan]

I'm sure there are plenty of people that can come up with reasons to justify the way IC clans behave. I still don't agree with those point of views.

Ultimately for me, its always been an OOC reason, a rather lame one at that. Clans can have a lot of down time, and can be boring.  There isn't always something more grand going on in the background. You don't want to make the clan even more boring by outsourcing the work to someone else outside the clan if you don't need to.  Additionally, screwing around with indies gives your people something to do.

Again my point, it isn't the system, its just that we don't currently have the type of environment that encourages many businesses