Psychochild's Blog

A developer's musings on game development and writing.

18 August, 2018

When your community meets reality
Filed under: — Psychochild @ 10:30 AM

“No plan survives contact with the enemy,” as the saying goes. Not that other people are necessarily the enemy, but your plans for a perfect community might not be unchanged when you run into reality.

So let me go over a few ways that a community might have to change after it’s formed. We’ll look at some of the decisions you might not have to make up front, but that might be forced as the community grows.

Below are some different philosophies, often two extremes. Of course, not every group will fit into one extreme or the other. Most of these are a continuum, where most groups will rest somewhere in the middle between the two far ends. It’s up to a leader to figure out where the group should rest and make it explicit via the rules

Inclusive vs. exclusive

A lot of people focus on inclusiveness these days. For example, developers want a wide variety of players in their game. The industry also has a problem with including people who don’t fit the specific archetype of a young, single, middle-class, educated, straight white male. The idea is that we want a variety of people, as much as we can. Bigotry and exclusion based on things like skin color have no place.

But sometimes you don’t want to accept just anyone. Again, we can look at the example of a high end raiding guild to see an example of this. Such a guild may want to draw only those who have the ability and commitment to raid and gain clears of the content. Inviting anyone would dilute that focus, and potentially weaken the commitment to the guild. Or an RP group may only want people who share their RP philosophy to join in order to main cohesion in the group. In these cases it makes sense to exclude some people who don’t fit as well into the group or share it’s goals.

Safe space vs. free speech

This is also a bit tricky, as these are two conflicting principles that many people hold dear. A “safe space” often gets ridiculed, but it has a purpose: to people people who don’t fit well in other spaces. For example, you might want a safe space for kids because your group has a lot of adults who want to play with their children. In this case it’s reasonable to restrict speech to what’s appropriate for children; no profanity, lewdness, etc. This lets your group accomplish its goal of letting parents and children playing together.

But if you don’t have a specific reason, most people are going to assume that there is some freedom of speech in the community and may chafe under restrictions. But it can be useful to restrict speech depending on the community you want to build. Attracting older people may mean you want to cut down on the lewd stuff… but not always! Likewise, an RP group may want people to type in full sentences to maintain a certain atmosphere even in OOC spaces. Finding the right rules for your community will take communication. You might start with relatively unrestricted speech but add more restrictions as neeeded.

Deep vs. flat hierarchy

This is one of those things that doesn’t matter when you have few people. It makes no sense to have five different levels of hierarchy when you only have 4 people in your group. The default is to have a flat hierarchy: Leader and officers, the majority of people, then maybe a rank for newcomers or probationary members. But as you grow, especially if you’re doing something complex, it can make sense to have a deeper hierarchy. A raid group might have class leads who are above the main group of people, but not necessarily to the level of officers. Or they might be the officers if they handle other problems.

Choosing the hierarchy that makes sense is important, and this may adjust and evolve as needed. Especially as a group gets larger, everyone with an equal voice can start to make it feedback feel like a cacophony rather than useful feedback.

Collaborative vs. individual

The final dimension to consider is if your group is collaborative or if responsibility lies with the individual. In a collaborative group, the group takes care of things for everyone. Using our raid group example, you might have crafters to make gear or raid buff items for everyone, perhaps with help from others who do gathering. The group takes care of everything so that individuals can focus on what they need to in order to succeed. But you need people willing to pitch in and do this to help the group; some people will balk at the idea of having to help others without some sort of compensation.

On the other end you have a focus on the individual. Again, in our raiding group you might have people responsible for their own gear and raid buff items. Crafters in the group may require payment for their services, seeing that they put in extra effort to work up crafting, they will expect to be paid for their work. You could also have different people with different expectations: One crafter is generous to guildmates, another wants to be paid and may even get mad at the first. So you want to make sure expectations are managed here.

What do you think? What other elements might change as the group changes? Any other major features like these that I missed?







1 Comment »

  1. My views of planning are also summed up by those two famous military sayings:

    “No plan survives contact with the enemy”
    “Planning is everything; the plan is nothing.”

    At the moment I’m not involved in any guilds or even playing any MMOs much, but I’m finding your thoughts on community are surprisingly relevant to my chess club!

    For example like all clubs we’d love to have more members, but we do have to think about what type of members, and how much capacity we have to integrate them.

    Apart from our “raiding” (i.e. various team-based leagues) we also have the “casual” side, with free drop-in sessions, open to all, including people who don’t even know the moves yet. But if too many newbies turned up to our sessions at once, we’d have trouble dealing with it, as there are only so many people – “guild officers” – to help them get started and make them feel at home.

    Also it’s necessary to adapt what the club does to what the membership is at any given time, getting a match between the number and type of events and what people are capable of and want to do.

    Over time a lot of clubs have become less “hard core” and more “casual friendly”, which is probably a good development for the game.

    Comment by Pasduil — 19 August, 2018 @ 10:35 AM

Leave a comment

I value your comment and think the discussions are the best part of this blog. However, there's this scourge called comment spam, so I choose to moderate comments rather than giving filthy spammers any advantage.

If this is your first comment, it will be held for moderation and therefore will not show up immediately. I will approve your comment when I can, usually within a day. Comments should eventually be approved if not spam. If your comment doesn't show up and it wasn't spam, send me an email as the spam catchers might have caught it by accident.

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Email Subscription

Get posts by email:


Recent Comments

Categories

Search the Blog

Calendar

September 2018
S M T W T F S
« Aug    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  

Meta

Archives

Standard Disclaimer

I speak only for myself, not for any company.

My Book





Information

Around the Internet

Game and Online Developers

Game News Sites

Game Ranters and Discussion

Help for Businesses

Other Fun Stuff

Quiet (aka Dead) Sites

Posts Copyright Brian Green, aka Psychochild. Comments belong to their authors.

Support me and my work on