Arelith

Guildhouses! They're great. Lots of storage, lots of quarters, lots of people in them.

However, there is a common thing happening of few factions ending up with many guildhouses in a server that is already starved for quarters. And, in light of the recent conversation of server stagnation, this was at the forefront of my mind.

So I'm looking to the playerbase for what you all would think about if a suggestion was made to limit factions to only owning a single guildhouse.

If someone in the faction has one, then no others in that SAME faction would be able to own one. This would limit a severe current disparity in property ownership. And likely would need a bit of DM oversight so you don't have "yeah Bob isn't part of the faction, but he owns a guildhouse and gives us all keys so we can use it"

Thoughts on this? Is this something that people would be favorable for?

This'd require a fair amount of DM discernment in enforcement, but I think it would be a generally positive change.

The number of potential factions and interested parties who could fill out a guildhouse greatly outnumber the number of guildhouses available to house them - and the hoarding of guildhouses is becoming something of a genuine problem. On the Surface, without naming any names, there's one faction that owns 3 guildhouses and another that owns 2.

I get that everyone wants to personally have a big, super fancy quarter themselves - personally - but, like. C'mon, people: other people are also doing stuff and deserve a chance to have nice things too.

That would require a massive rework of how factions work right now:

-You can have factions with only one member
-Faction members are not restricted from becoming members of other factions
-Faction members can leave or join factions on a whim

Additionally, I don't see any way of preventing players from leaving their -faction in order to get their hands on a quarter, all while still functionally remaining a member of that faction.

Would it be impossible to enforce a rule that factions that own a guildhouse have to individually assign the interior quarters?

Is there a way to mechanically change guildhouse sub-quarters to be less useful as Generic Storage and more useful as "this is my room in our cool new guildhouse"?

I like this. It would take some policing but that does not make it bad. Sure, it could be harder to mantain than the 1 quarter per player rule, but as long as everything is clear, this should work.

If this went live, people who gamed the faction system by just dropping out of the faction mechanically should be punished. It is best to have this rule and have the DMs enforce it (and help them enforce it through any necessary reports) than not have it.

I like this aswel.

Perhaps I'm naïve, but I assumed this would already be true in almost all cases? I certainly agree though. I can't see a reason for it unless your group is huge.

DangerDolphin wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 12:37 pm Perhaps I'm naïve, but I assumed this would already be true in almost all cases? I certainly agree though. I can't see a reason for it unless your group is huge.

For as long as I’ve been playing, the common wisdom was that most factions who own guild houses don’t assign any of the sub quarters inside, except the person who owns the guild house claiming one quarter inside. Then each of the factions members gets their own outside quarter, if they can, sometimes even making it explicitly a satellite office or secondary faction property, or just as their own personal Cool House.

This has always, any time it’s come up, been something people have said was unavoidable and nearly if not impossible to regulate.

Complex wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 12:28 pm I like this. It would take some policing but that does not make it bad. Sure, it could be harder to mantain than the 1 quarter per player rule, but as long as everything is clear, this should work.

If this went live, people who gamed the faction system by just dropping out of the faction mechanically should be punished. It is best to have this rule and have the DMs enforce it (and help them enforce it through any necessary reports) than not have it.

Alright, but in that case we'd need a clearly defined point after which a group characters who often hang out together, are actively helping each other and share common goals would be considered to have formed a faction.

Yeah, property monopoly is actually a pretty big issue I would've said, and that's coming from someone who's specifically playing characters are intended to be homeless because property ownership is so unlikely.

Yes. This. Please.

I mean, there would be the issue of people often belonging to more than one faction, but generally speaking you can still identify which particular faction is owning the various guildhouses, and reports sent to the team about people trying to skirt the rules would help put a chilling effect on gaming the system.

Yes.

There is currently a faction in Cordor that owns guildhouses both in Cordor and at the Radiant Heart. I have no idea how this isn't a breach of the quarter rule/Be Nice rule.

Property monopoly (like other hording of wealth on this server) is like a deeply entrenched IC/OOC thing.

During my time playing as a drow, this got really bad, because every single time the most wealthy and influential noble house would claim the Devil's Table Mansion, the Temple, and sometimes the District house as well. At one point, the issue got so egregious that one house had all of the above, and the outpost, but their actual active membership was about three people and a leader that was only ever seen outside of her home when elections rolled around.

I'd just sort of gotten used to the reality that those who have influential and wealthy factions will keep a ton of ridiculously large properties, but if the community is willing to have a more pro-active discussion about the matter, I'm happy to throw my voice in for support of fixing this rampant issue.

This is certainly something that has been under discussion.

Most of the larger guildhouses/noble estates are always empty. There is no real reason why someone would buy a quarter inside a guildhouse because you have that space already. Additionally, if there is ever a time that you get kicked out of the guildhouse, you lose your stuff; it's not like getting property evicted by a settlement, since there are no rules on removing someone's access to the guildhouse. There are legit only negatives from buying interior properties. Also, if you look at the Cordor Barracks for example, there is no public guildhouse storage, so the other (lame) rooms (but are good as offices) get used for storage.

The worst part of this is you end up with factions/groups/etc who have properties everywhere across the isle and they don't need that kind of space anyway.

Xerah wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 5:12 pm This is certainly something that has been under discussion.

Most of the larger guildhouses/noble estates are always empty. There is no real reason why someone would buy a quarter inside a guildhouse because you have that space already. Additionally, if there is ever a time that you get kicked out of the guildhouse, you lose your stuff; it's not like getting property evicted by a settlement, since there are no rules on removing someone's access to the guildhouse. There are legit only negatives from buying interior properties. Also, if you look at the Cordor Barracks for example, there is no public guildhouse storage, so the other (lame) rooms (but are good as offices) get used for storage.

The worst part of this is you end up with factions/groups/etc who have properties everywhere across the isle and they don't need that kind of space anyway.

Maybe it's not feasible for existing guildhosues but perhaps going forward if all quarters within guildhouses had external access it would alleviate this somewhat? It might limit how the layout can be designed a little bit, but it would both mean that guilds can't leave the sub-quarters empty, or any passers-by could loot the storage chest, and that the owner has the ability to retrieve their junk if they lose the good graces of the guildhouse owner.

I think you have to look a bit deeper in some cases. Are biddable properties considered guildhouses? Are they considered to be more owned by the faction that "owns" it or the city it is affiliated with? At any time Castles can be snatched away during a transition of power or just by angering the governing body of a city. In my opinion I think they should be considered the property of a city.

Tredrok wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:14 pm I think you have to look a bit deeper in some cases. Are biddable properties considered guildhouses? Are they considered to be more owned by the faction that "owns" it or the city it is affiliated with? At any time Castles can be snatched away during a transition of power or just by angering the governing body of a city. In my opinion I think they should be considered the property of a city.

There is a guildhouse inside each of the castles.

Which can and will be lost if someone else wins the bid.

Guildhouses in settlements can also be evicted.

Absolutely. But there is a clear difference in the manor in Cordor that requires rp to revoke and a Castle that can be outbid on and lost overnight.

I mean, yes, you can lose the biddable castle...But that also applies to anyone that owns a quarter in a settlement and upsets the elected leader of that settlement. The castles are by-and-large super guildhouses providing a number of bonus benefits with enormous size. The extra risk in being able to lose them is balanced by the benefit of the additional size and scope.

If it is a problem for a prominent faction to lose said biddable property, they may wish it to instead be an extension of their settlement's general military, rather than owned by private faction.

Seven Sons of Sin wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 3:16 pm Yes.

There is currently a faction in Cordor that owns guildhouses both in Cordor and at the Radiant Heart. I have no idea how this isn't a breach of the quarter rule/Be Nice rule.

Property monopoly (like other hording of wealth on this server) is like a deeply entrenched IC/OOC thing.

Oh, they aren't even the worst offenders. Another Cordorian faction owns three guildhouses.

EDIT: Mea culpa - I miscounted. They actually own four.

What is probably better than a hard and fast rule about how much factions can own is a little more latitude given to DMs to evaluate whether a guildhouse is being well-utilized. As comforting as a bright-line rule might be, shared use property is so much more complicated than single-player dwelling space that it's likely any such rule would produce results that are nonsensical, unfair, and gameable.

Some quick examples:

I personally care a lot less about a faction owning two guildhouses (particularly if they are properties with entirely disparate functions, like a castle and a chapel) so long as both guildhouses see at least some beneficial use than I do about a small low-activity faction owning a single guildhouse and using it basically as bonus chests.

Likewise, I'm less concerned if a member of one faction owns a guildhouse that's used for another faction that they are part of (or simply as a convenient access point for passers-by to enjoy) than I am about 2-3 players OOCly tossing a boat to each other for 5 years.

That said, entirely open to the idea of closer review of whether guildhouses and similar resources are being acceptably utilized.

A faction should fill the guilshouse's rooms. If they dont, or cant, they shouldnt own the guildhouse. it is that simple. If they have enough active members to fill two entire guildhouses, then they should be allowed to. This would be easier to enforce, and it is clear-cut, no favorism, and it means no faction will realistically be able to own more than one guildhouse.

Scurvy Cur wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:47 pm I personally care a lot less about a faction owning two guildhouses (particularly if they are properties with entirely disparate functions, like a castle and a chapel) so long as both guildhouses see at least some beneficial use than I do about a small low-activity faction owning a single guildhouse and using it basically as bonus chests.

If the small faction is on the decline or is dead but they won't admit it yet, sure. But I think we should be encouraging small factions to make an effort for the sake of diversity and creativity and small factions by the nature of fewer members will always seem less played than the big guys. It's also really easy to think a property owned by a small faction is unused if you don't know the members and they play at times you don't.