[MUD-Dev] Affecting the world

[Marian Griffith]

On Mon 15 Sep, Jon A. Lambert wrote:

I found this old post in my mail and I thought it deserved more atten-
tion than it had gotten two months ago.

> On 12 Sep 97 at 14:21, Marian Griffith wrote:
> > On Thu 11 Sep, Jon A. Lambert wrote:

> > Even on a pure hack and slash game groups and group mechanics can be
> > important.  E.g. when solo characters have a severely limited proba-
> > bility to survive it's important to form groups, and to cooperate as
> > a group.  Especially when it goes beyond the automated healing  that
> > can be performed by a client.

> What automated healing? ;) Get rid of it.  Blood loss, broken bones, 
> nerve damage, sprains, amputations, etc.
> That area simply screams group mechanics. 

That is the point I was trying to make. Or rather what I think is
essential in any mud. The most effective way to play should be as
a group.  That way a certain amount of social behaviour is forced
on the players,  and disrupting the game and spoiling the fun for
others  has immediate consequences in the game.  Making healing a
little more involved works in that same direction.

> > > A politician holds a position.  That position should allow control of
> > > certain environmental systems.  Those systems should affect the game
> > > in positive and negative ways.  If there's nothing the statesman can
> > > do, it's merely a title.  A couple things come to mind. Allow
> > > statesmen to control taxes, pass laws, commision buildings and
> > > improvements, regulate guilds, raise and equipment armies, etc. 
> > > Create positions that have effects on players.  

> > I agree with this. Now the next question is: is anybody considering
> > to expand their game to include this kind of things?

> Most definately.  Each position is a subgame in itself.  Coupled 
> together with other subgames.  Ideally it's a game of 'how to win 
> friends and influence people'.  These goals cannot be achieved 
> through solo play.  Hopefully I can come up with a generic enough 
> model that can handle most cases. 

On the discussion started on rgmd a long time ago, that started of
my web pages,  somebody came up with the idea  to simply have rank
assigned by other players in the guild.  Players could not advance
unless  promoted by their organisation.  Of course this completely
upsets the system of levels  found on most muds,  but that may not
necessarily be a bad thing.

> How does one become mayor, councilor, warlord, dogcatcher, head 
> janitor?  How do these positions relate and influence each other, the 
> economy, the other players?  What benefits do players get from 
> occupying these positions?  What responsibilities do they undertake? 
> How much player time must be spent in this position?

Being elected or being appointed to it  I would guess is the best
way to handle these things.  The exception would be warlord where
a player must collect an increasing number of fighters around her
to increase in stature. Next it is a matter of keeping them happy
with your leadership and they continue to follow you.
That might be a way to approach this? Give the non players things
they want to see happen or do.  If those desires are not met then
they will, eventually riot, or at least appoint another official.
For citizens that would be mostly things like:  safe streets, low
taxes and so on.  A fighter would have entirely different wishes.
All non players would attach themselves directly or indirectly to
the player who is apparently most likely to fullfill their wishes
and  as long as they are not too disappointed,  they will stay by
that player. If not they will react as their 'nature' dictates. A
citizen might throw out an elected player from office.  A fighter
on the other hand is more likely to attack the warlord.
Of course players may, too, attach themselves to other players to
form powerfull alliances.
Can somebody comment on the feasibility of this approach?

> Without a REAL  economy, players build, create, buy, sell, trade
> in a vacuum.  That  is, their actions do not influence other players
> either positively or  negatively thus no group mechanics arise.
> How often have you had  someone hand you a couple hundred gold
> pieces out of the blue on a  mud?  How often does one hand several
> hundred gold pieces to help out  an NPC beggar?  This has always
> struck me as quite odd and surely it would indicate a complete
> lack of an economic system or game.  

Nobody can deny there is some kind of economy  on even the simplest
of muds. The problem is that they all suffer from rampant inflation
both over time and between levels. When a mud first starts money on
players and monsters is reasonably balanced.  As the game progesses
players begin to hoard enormous amounts of gold. After a while they
have more millions than they could ever hope to spend. Unless there
are drastic and unrealistic measures  to reduce the amount of money
again like rent or taxes.  Most likely however  this is "solved" by
setting prices for certain services at extremely high levels.
At the same time however you can see that new players have the same
amount of money that was reasonable when the game started.  As they
increase in levels they too must hoard worse than a dragon to be a-
ble to play the game properly.
The problem of course  lies in the fact that the supply of gold and
equipment  (which is sold in shops with an infinite supply of gold)
is endless. Ever more money is brought in and nothing is ever taken
out so the prices go up. You have to break out of this cycle to get
a real economy.  No equipment enters the game unless it is created,
and equipment is destroyed  at about the same speed  as it is made.
For each new player  a certain amount of money becomes available so
the number of players does not affect the economy. Of course when a
player is deleted the same amount of money must be removed from the
game again.

> Now really what is winning on a mud?  I think you have to define 
> goals. Hopefully these are dynamic and can be achieved multiple ways. 
> Some goals should require cooperation.  Does an aquisition-oriented 
> game really boil down to "winning"?  Be it power, money, or kills?   

I do not think that a game has to be aimed at winning it. For some
this is the most appealing way to play a game.  For others the fun
is in playing the game itself.  Consider pernmush. There is no way
to win there.  In fact there is not even a goal as such.  The game
is  basically a stage  for the players to act in.  Players may set
themselves a goal,  e.g. obtaining a certain rank, but this is not
encouraged by the game itself.
This  does not mean I believe all games should be like this.  Only
that I think there are other ways to organise a game and that this
requires that the game itself is less structured in that direction

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