Guilds & Politics [was Affecting the World]

[Jon A. Lambert]

On 23 Nov 97 at 10:51, Marian Griffith wrote:
> On Mon 15 Sep, Jon A. Lambert wrote:
> > On 12 Sep 97 at 14:21, Marian Griffith wrote:
> > > On Thu 11 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.
>
That's odd so do I. :) I thought it had inklings of pointing in the 
direction of that elusive gender neutral game some have been looking for.  I
think the "A place of my own" thread also had strong tugs in that direction.
I was about to finish a summary and extension of that thread, but in the
meantime... 

> > > > 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, commission
> > > > 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 definitely.  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.

I thought the crude system of rank points JCL and I hashed out might
be a starting point for a more workable model.  I haven't revisited it yet.
I can think of a number of in-theme organizations, some player run, some NPC
run that could be classified in the general sense as guilds.  I see a whole
range of positions and methods of advancement that might be unique to
certain guilds or fairly common.  Yes I think levels (in the traditional
sense) to be a poor measuring stick in this area.  Relating the purpose of
the guild to the ability of the character is important.  The ability of the
character is not necessarily a stat, a skill, a spell, it could be wealth,
reputation, or by player acclaim.  

> > 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.  

Not necessarily the most exciting way though.  Perhaps it's a little
known fact that the title of dogcatcher can be purchased from the
mayor.  Or perhaps I charm the warlord's wife (NPC) prior to applying to the
castle head janitor position.

> 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.  

Yes, to obtain certain positions as well as holding on to them.
The higher or more important the position the greater web of NPCs
(and PCs) needed to obtain, execute and hold the position.

> 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?

Yes! It's been commercially successful in the form of Civilization and
SimCity.  The earliest form of this type of game that I know of is
something called 'Hammurabi'.  Does anyone remember this very simple
game? 

Now there are big differences in the way it might be played within the
sandbox of a mud.  The player starts his character from the bottom perhaps,
maybe with some social class advantages through development.  And from
_within_ the game world.  That is, "the big picture" is never shown from the
top like games I mentioned, maybe glimpsed or intuited from time to time by
the character.  In short, the characters actions over the course of play are
micro-events that may have direct affects on positions the character is
seeking and many subtle indirect effects on other larger events.  Throw into
the mix the aspirations of many other "live" characters and I think you have
a game that's highly cooperative and highly competitive at the same time. 
It also relys heavily on a players social skills to organize, influence,
negotiate, make compacts and treaties, and those other traits that would
make Machiavelli smile. A powerful player is not necessarily the strongest
sword or the biggest fireball caster.  It could well be the player with the
cleverest tongue, the most gold, or the most land.

--
Jon A. Lambert

If I'd known it was harmless, I would have killed it myself.