Where Have All the Good Guilds Gone?

That's the question Ryan Scott puts forth in the Games for Windows monthly column, "Crisis on Infinite Servers." In the February 2008 installment, Scott writes that guilds today "zerg" enrollment to accomplish goals like raiding, doing 5-womans, questing, etc. Rather then establish a protocol for recruitment, including an interview process (rigorous or not), guilds today focus instead on getting as many members to join as possible, often with little more ceremony than "Hey, wanna join my guild? Ok. /ginvite."

I guess to some extent, I see his point. But towards the end of his column, Scott writes something that seems to contradict everything he'd written before. He says, "You're only worth as much as you bring to the weekly 25-man raid, and if you're not committed enough to that cause . . . well, we've got plenty of other applicants in the queue. Next in line, please?"

He loses me here because isn't the entire point of joining a guild to accomplish certain goals? Some guilds exclusively raid, like the guild I'm in for instance. If a guild member isn't consistently showing up for 25-man runs, then why would the guild want to keep that member? And why would that guildee want to stay in the first place?

For all the prestige of raiding without all the cumbersome, time-consuming raiding that goes with it?

You either want to raid or you don't, and most WoW guilds don't retain five or six layers of class types to ensure they can always field a raid. Instead, they try to build a roster of committed gamers, people who consistently raid.

Scott seems peeved that a raiding guild would replace an uncommitted player with one who actually wants to raid. But I think he might be confusing loyalty with goal-setting. Earlier in his column, Scott talks fondly of a guild he belonged to in Ultima Online. He writes, "And as my one-time guildmaster once succinctly noted to new members, 'If you call for help in this guild, don't be surprised if like nine people show up.' That's commitment for commitment's sake."

Methinks Mr. Scott indulges in nostalgia. Even if he doesn't, I would ask him what this UO guild would do with a member who not only didn't show up to a fellow guildee's plea for help, but outright refused? Would that be any different than a guildee not showing up for the weekly Tempest Keep run? I don't think so, and in this instance, I think Scott would be the first in line to boot a deadbeat member who didn't share the goals and values of his old UO guild.

Scott meant it as a criticism, but in a raiding guild, you really ARE worth only as much as you can bring to the raid. WoW end-game raiding content is too complex and challenging to field 25 casuals. If you're not good at your assigned role, or you don't show up on time, or you just don't bother to show up at all, then you're not a raider and you shouldn't be in a raiding guild. Maybe that's not your fault, but it's definitely not the guild's fault either. Scott seems to imply that guilds should put loyalty before their chartered goals, deal with members who pursue goals different than that of that guild as a whole. But I don't see how any guild, no matter their mission statement, could be successful by not staying focused on their ultimate goals.

Commitment for commitment's sake? You'll find no better example of it than in a MMO raiding guild, even if that same guild has to cull some misfits to preserve its raiding effectiveness.

That's commitment for progression's sake.