[MUD-Dev] MUD Economy

[Brandon J. Rickman]

On Thu, 8 Jan 1998 Ling <K.L.Lo-94 at student.lboro.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Shawn Halpenny wrote:
>> 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.

I saw a nice exhibit on currency at the British Museum which
provided a nice summary of how and why currency (money)
frequently results from barter economies.  Money is an abstraction of
direct trades, so if I want to trade 1 emu for 3 wool sweaters I
have calculated the value of 1 emu = 3 wool sweaters, or
1 sweater = 1/3 emu.  One could make sweaters be the common currency,
and sheep farmers would become bankers, but since sweaters aren't
that durable and the supply of sweaters could easily be influenced it
wouldn't last too long.  Money provides a nice abstraction
of the value of emus versus sweaters, which is pretty much the
naive economic model used by RPGs and muds.

>> 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...

Scarcity and durability.  Whatever it is that is the basis for currency
is inherently valueable because it is rare.  For a while currency was
actually made out of rare metals, and anyone that owned their own
gold mine could print their own currency.  And actually that can work
just fine, esp. in a mud where the economy is unlikely to scale up past
a certain point.

The "frame of reference" is, unfortunately, some abstract value that
the system uses to compare swords against cows.  You can determine this
inside the game empirically, having the merchants make offers and
solving a bunch of linear equations to figure out the value of the
traded objects.  But it is probably more efficient to provide some
hints, i.e. value properties on objects, and let the system adjust from
there.

>> 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.

There's nothing wrong with that, and no way to prevent someone with
enough money from trying.  Remember that as the supply decreases 
the price will go up, even for the player trying to corner the market.
Unless you allow your players to buy in bulk this would only be tempting
for the richest players, and the profit margins are pretty slim.

>> 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
>>
>>Given that, is there a requirement for a planned initial distribution
>>of objects to vendors to seed the economy somewhat?  Each vendor
>>would have to at least start with one item, or he'd have nothing to
>>trade (and there's no incentive for a player to trade anything to the
>>vendor if the vendor has nothing or just gives away his object for
>>free).  Is more than one item necessary for each vendor?  The paths
>>of future trade caravans can be started at this stage simply be
>>putting all the flour in one vendor's shop and all the milk and eggs
>>in another.  As long as the object given to the vendor is somewhat
>>desirable by at least one player, would things take off from there? 
>>Or could things just be dumped haphazardly on vendors and the result
>>(a semi-functioning economy) be the same?  Perhaps each would yield
>>something sustainable and interesting.

I would say you are hoping for some kind of emergent economic system 
that is both stable _and_ useful for players.  If it isn't useful to
players then it is something like all those uninspiring genetic algorithm
packages sometimes sold as "games": only interesting to a computer
scientist or in this case an economist.

But to be less discouraging: implement some simple rules and plug it
into a game, just about anything is more interesting than the traditional
mud shop & shopkeeper:

Shopkeeper says, "Duh, I already have 43 rabbit pelts in stock, but I'll
give you 10 gold for that one."
Shopkeeper gives you 10 gold.
Shopkeeper says, "Duh, I already have 44 rabbit pelts in stock, but I'll
give you 10 gold for that one."
&c

Initial distribution: I'd just scatter stuff everywhere, instance a lot
of "vendors" and let them scramble for what they can.  Then, assuming
your rules are flexible enough, the successful vendors will trade with
one another and your trade routes will develop.

As to exactly what the resources are and how they produce, you can be
obsessively complex - grass grows, cows eat grass, cows produce milk,
vendor buys milk - which may have been discussed before.  Or you can
treat a resource like a black box - a dairy farmer produces milk and
cheese.  This is generally easier to implement, not particularly
unrealistic, and far less prone to catastrophe.

Remember that complex systems can arise from very simple rules.
Perhaps: never sell an item for less than you paid for it; produced
items are worth the material cost plus X times the number of man hours
needed for production. (Figuring out X can be tricky.)

So, if X is 5 zorkmids:

Cows produce milk (for free!)
It takes Farmer Bob (a vendor/merchant) 1 hour to get 5 gallons of milk
from his cows.
-> a gallon of milk is worth at least 1z to Farmer Bob.
It takes Farmer Bob 3 man hours (and a few weeks) to turn a gallon of
milk into cheese.
-> a chunk o' cheese is worth at least 1z plus 3 times 5z = 16z.

Now considering that milk is free, the difference in price between milk
and cheese is reasonable.

By the time the milk and cheese get to a store their price will increase
(transport costs).

Of course, milk and cheese will spoil eventually, so a shopkeeper only
wants to buy what he knows he can sell, which was the original concern.

I guess I'll stop now that I've come full circle.

- Brandon Rickman - ashes at zennet.com -
While I have never previously found a need for a .sig, this
may be considered one for the purposes of this list