[MUD-Dev] Guilds & Politics [was Affecting the World]

[Jon A. Lambert]

On  7 Dec 97 at 12:59, Mike Sellers wrote:
> At 11:57 AM 12/6/97 PST8PDT, Marian Griffith wrote:
> >
> >I agree that not every player may enjoy a game where they have to do
> >some work to have their characters survive. But there may equally be
> >players who do not mind and enjoy the chance of variety and roleplay
> >it brings to the game. Different expectations I guess.
> >If a game starts to develop in this direction  it will cease to be a
> >kind of mud though  (in the traditional sense of the word)  and this
> >may confuse players. It does not mean it can't be a valid foundation
> >for a game.
> 
> I'm not sure how you mean it would cease to be a mud in the traditional
> sense.  The ideal, I think, would be to allow people to play
> "traditionally" (questing, killing things, the usual), with the
> political/social/economic cycles as background: make them the game if you
> want, or ignore them if you want.  That's what we tried to do with the
> dabbling bit of politics in M59 (the Duke and the Princess); it worked
> pretty well this way, as far as it went.  
> 

What if the emphasis was reversed?  Bring the political/social/economic
game to the forefront.  Relegate the combat/quest aspect to a minor
sub-game.  What if NO experience or advancement were given for combat?
What if combat were "realistically" risky, as opposed to the "player 
assumed to be hero" of many muds?  Would reasons for combat then naturally
evolve out of an economic/political/social situation?  I'm not talking
about a mundane economic game where the player is engaged in RL-like
activity in order to survive, but more a fantasy economic game where the
player's character has similar advantages as the hero-centered combat
game.  
   
--
Jon A. Lambert
"Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato