[MUD-Dev] Affecting the world

[Derrick Jones]

On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Marian Griffith wrote:

> 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:
> 
> > > > 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.  
> 
> > 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. 
> 
> > 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?

A simular approach has been taken in the real world.  This has led to the
establishment of an 'old-boys' club mentality, where a select few players
control most of the decisions, and only the most trivial are relagated to
the less influencial.  I'd forsee the same problem arising in a
mud-setting, except that in a mud-world the populations are much smaller,
and a small group of players would quickly rise to monopolize power,
leaving other players to fill only the most trivial of positions.

> > 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.

Hrm...maybe the answer lies in the probability that a helped PC coming
back to rescue the character as apposed to a helped NPC.  Giving out a few
coins by a seasoned player is the most popular way to influence people on
muds.  Bribing a beggar that's conscidered cannon fodder really doesn't
gain you anything.  The NPC economy is stagnant mostly because the NPCs
themselves are stagnant.
> 
> 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.

I've never listed taxes as unrealistic myself.  About a third of my
paycheck goes there.  Also, the main reason that mud economies break down
from inflation is that there is a magical printing press stamping out
billions of gold coins every reboot and putting them into the pockets of
likely targets.  To balance an economy, set limits on both the amount of
total money in the gameworld, and the amount of products that can be
bought with that money.  What will most likely result is a few
powerful/influencial players hoarding vast treasures, while the poor
masses have to struggle to make ends meet.  If you then place methods for
the redistribution of wealth (taxes, high-ticket items for the select few
who can afford them, bank vaults that can be robbed, etc) the balance of
power on the mud will be in constant flux, but never spiral out of
control.

> 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.

New players will quickly learn who the rich players (read best targets)
are and will probably turn out to be the best method of wealth
redistibution.

> 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.

Yes, but you have to keep players from being a dead-end moneywise.  The
money will most certainly filther into the hands of the quick and the
brave.  Also, keep players money in-game even if they aren't connected.
Otherwise players taking a break from the keyboards will slowly funnel
money out of the mud, and the cash flow will dry up(with a sudden deluge
after you purge the old rent-files).

Gunther