[MUD-Dev] MUD Economy

[Ling]

On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Shawn Halpenny wrote:

Oo, my speciality gibberish!

> I have been pondering the startup and sustenance of a MUD economy,
> some thoughts follow about moving toward a complete trade economy
> where no money is present, nor required.

A side effect of the game will probably end up in money being created.
It's a 'logical development'.  Players will get miffed at having to carry
3 pigs, 8 goats and 12 three piece suites everywhere.  Money is
convenient.

> All vendors could start out quite stupid (i.e. not having any idea
> whatsoever about what an object is worth):  e.g. trading 1 kg of
> steel for 1 kg of flour.  Then, as the local demand for steel rises,
> the vendor would learn that he was initially trading steel for _way_
> too little and then raise his "price").  Now that price is what needs
> to be determined.  It's easy to say "You can have that sword if you
> give me three good milk cows", but where does the frame of reference
> for the comparison come from?  What makes the sword worth three cows?

On the flip side, what makes gold worth so much in the real world?  I've
never managed to work it out...

A large part of it will depend on if your players do use up or wear out
stuff they own.  For most muds, a sword will last indefinitely, with a bit
of servicing from the local blacksmiths.  A cow has no use, but I assume
players can set up their own little empires in the mud.  Cows also have a
maintenance requirement each day (to generate milk which needs to find a
vendor).  Don't forget the shopkeeper has to maintain the thing that goes
'moo' too.

> Perhaps vendors should keep track of what people have come in and
> asked for but the vendor didn't have.  He doesn't even need to have
> any idea that it exists, just that someone asked for it.  This
> requires that characters be able to walk into a store and ask for an
> item the shopkeeper doesn't have.  Then the shopkeeper can wait until
> someone trades him that desired item, or find another method of
> obtaining some (trade caravans come to mind, amongst other avenues of
> obtaining goods).

You'll need something to stop players going into a shop, buying all
available items of some sort then asking for even more (thereby inflating
the price) and selling it back at a silly price.

Alternative tactic, a player's arch rival needs one more cow, the player
goes around asking for cows a lot kick the price up to an artificial high.

[snipped a bit]

> something for nothing.  Another argument can be made, though, that
> eventually the shopkeeper will realize that no one wants to buy this
> (junk) widget that Bubba traded for that jewelled sword, so perhaps
> he will lie to the next trading customer about what it does? 
> Although possibilities abound within that, a huge set of junk objects
> could be created whose sole purpose is to get something essentially
> for free (not to mention turning every shopkeeper into a liar).  I'm
> not sure that this would enhance game play.  

Something I would not want to tackle, it has the potential to ruin an
economy.

> I suppose this view could be summed up like this:  shopkeepers do not
> really sell items to characters.  They act solely as distribution
> points and what they distribute depends on what they are asked for,
> what they have, and what they can get.  After all, what would money
> mean to a NPC shopkeeper?  Certainly, he could just accumulate it
> like everyone else and retire wealthy but is that interesting from
> any point of view other than simulation?  It seems that money
> wouldn't be required at all.  

Shopkeepers are NPCs who have their own motivations for setting up shop.
It is a way of making a living and it is certainly better than toiling on
someone else's plot of land.  It is a way of life, probably with less
security than farming.  A successful shopkeeper can open up a chain of
them or invest in hobbies like making a mud. :)

[substitute shopkeeper NPC for yourself and see if the above makes sense, 
in spirit, if not literally]

> So, to start the economy from nothing:
> 
> 1. Give shopkeepers no knowledge about any objects.
> 2. Give shopkeepers a method for determining what one object is
>    worth compared to another object and apply this equally to all
>    objects.  Also take into accout how much of an object is at hand,
>    and how much of it has been asked for.
> 3. Have shopkeepers track how often an object is requested and adjust
>    their trading practices accordingly

The 3rd one looks iffy.  How about changing the price when the object is
traded?  Kinda like the game Trailblazer (Metagaming) which assumed that
items not traded in will keep to the status quo (although in reality the
price would drop to zero).  I think shopkeepers will need to about the
items themselves.  The problem with bartering is that the size of the
coins is too coarse (1.25 milk cows anyone?) and the fact that anything
can be traded with anything else.  There won't be any specialist shops so
you can't imbue shopkeepers with knowledge about general types of items. 

Didn't bartering work on an as needed basis?  Two guys with an excess
stock unique to each other which the other need.  So they trade, everyone
wins.

So perhaps a system where players barter with each other?  But then,
players have this stupid tendency to give things away for free in muds.

[more snipped]

> Thoughts welcome, of course.

Does this mean you'll have a close economy?  Isn't this dangerous from
the balance point of view (as has been discussed almost a year ago).

  |    Kilo Lima Lima Oscar dash Niner Four, over and out.        ---o
_O_O_  Electronic and Electrical Division, Loughborough Corp.    <+=+=+>