[MUD-Dev] "short" Introductory Message (fwd)

[Marian Griffith]

On Thu 19 Jun, clawrenc at cup.hp.com wrote:
> In <199705172042.5025153.8 at shadow.null.net>, on 06/17/97 
>    at 08:42 PM, Martin Keegan <martin at cam.sri.com> said:
> No.  What is missing is feedback.  Consider the case of a mayor of a
> city:

>   Excluding bugetary considerations (another, different feedback
> loop), he can promote as many beat cops as he wants to Sheriff or
> whatever other tin badge value he wants.  The reason he doesn't do
> this is that should those promoted not live up to the expectations
> engendered in their new positions the mayor will lose his job.  (And
> thus we get the idiocies of popularity-driven politics)  It is
> essentially a time-delayed feedback loop.  He can spend as much power
> as he wants on the beat cops -- but should the beat cops squander that
> power, the mayor loses it.

This is a wonderful idea.  Rank gives a player power,  but to use that
power she must employ others to carry that power. If those others fail
this reflects badly on the ranking player,  to the point that she will
lose some of her power (rank).
This reminds me of the way early nordish chieftains and kings arranged
things. There a young fighter was offered a pick off the leader's arm-
oury before embarking on a mission.  When he returned successfully  he
contributed to the collected wealth of the leader. Which was what that
armoury really was: magical weapons and armour that enhanced the stat-
us of the king and all the king's men. And the more succesfull a young
warrior became the greater his pick from the weapons and armour.
This would fit in wonderfully with that idea to use houses as the cen-
tral character  rather than an individual player.  Players do not rent
out equipment, this is left behind in the house, to be used by others.
That way being member of, or being allied to,  a powerfull house has a
real significance in the game.  I suppose there must be a real economy
of equipment for this to work,  or houses would simply acquire endless
hoards, and the magical weapons or armour must be truly unique. Quests
to obtain that kind of things would be something to involve the entire
game in.  Especially if a house must form alliances with others  to be
successfull.

>   Perhaps investment economics would make a decent model?

> >The rationale is of not getting "something for nothing". The more
> >powerful/valuable the object/mobile/room you're creating, desto it's
> >gonna set you back.

> How about, "The more capable the object, the more the creator is
> personally at risk for it?"  Then a "good" creator can create as much
> as he wants, but a "bad" creator gets negative investment feedback and
> zeros out.

I prefer the idea that the player doing the creation must actually give
up something to be able to create anything worthwile. I suspect that in
the long run this works out better. And if the thing being created must
be durable and usefull the investment must be rather higher. This ensu-
res that a player must actually use the object to advantage and can not
just create cheesy objects that upset the game balance.

marian
--
Yes - at last - You. I Choose you. Out of all the world,
out of all the seeking, I have found you, young sister of
my heart! You are mine and I am yours - and never again
will there be loneliness ...

Rolan Choosing Talia,
Arrows of the Queen, by Mercedes Lackey