[MUD-Dev] Non-combat advancement and roleplay

[J C Lawrence]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:12:23 -0700 
Brian Green <Brian> wrote:

> I had a thought about non-combat advancement and roleplay I
> The core of my proposed system is a stat that is recorded on the
> player.  This stat, called "Prestige", determines how you can
> interact with others.

I've previously heard this called "presence" or "altitude".  In
those cases it also mapped against subserviance (who could order
who, who was a peer, who would be automatically obeyed, etc).  This
was associated with a willpower stat to refine the details of
unwilling obeyance (I know I don't want to, I know I shouldn't, but
I just can't help myself) Effectively it mapped to a master slave
relationship with limited capabilities for revolt.

> If someone has a much greater prestige than you, you cannot affect
> them though violent actions.  

Why limit it so narrowly?

> So, for example, say we have a (PC) king that ascended to the
> throne through heredity.  He has had a bit of combat training, but
> he's not the fighter his great grandfather, who unified the
> country, was.  He rules a modest, but prosperous kingdom and has a
> fair measure of prestige, enough to have a group of (NPC)
> bodyguards taking care of him.

> One day, Joe Blow, the knife-wielding maniac bursts into the
> throne room.  He has no prestige, but demands that the king give
> him a large sum of money.  The king laughs and tells him to quit
> wasting his time. As Joe rushes toward the king with his blade
> brandished, the guards step in and bring a quick end to Joe's
> life.

Translation:

  The twit attacks the King.

  The twit has far less prestige than the guards, let alone the
  king.

  Therefore the guards feel free to nuke the twit freely.

  When attacked the twit is easy prey.

> Later that day, the empress from a nearby country arrives on a
> diplomatic.  The king knows that she's about his prestige level,
> so he takes precautions against any spells she might throw against
> him.  He also keeps a magic dagger close to him should it come to
> blows; due to the empress' prestige, the guards are more reluctant
> to fight the empress.  It's rumored that she's favored of one of
> the gods and gains protection from him.

Translation:

  The Empress is a peer. 

  She has much higher prestige than the guards.

  The guards, by default, will automatically defer to the Empress.

  The Empress has similar prestige to the King.

  The King will not by default defer to the Empress, and the Empress
  will not by default defer to the King.

  Should the Empress attack the King a guard may try and defend the
  King given sufficient WillPower etc.

  The King will defend himself against the Empress (and may attack
  her) freely.

> A week later, the Dark Lord, Most Feared of the Children of Chaos
> comes to give a threat to the king.  Knowing that the Dark Lord
> has much more prestige than he does, the king treats him with
> respect until the king can find someone to deal with the Dark
> Lord.  The king's guards are powerless in awe to the power the
> Dark Lord wields.

Translation:

  The Dark Lord is a master.

  The Dark Lord has far more prestige than the guards.  They are in
  the same position as the twit was to them.  They are powerless and
  the Dark Lord is their master.

  The Dark Lord has more prestige than the King, but not so much
  more that the King is powerless.  The King will tend to defer to
  the Dark Lord, but is able to resist should he wish to.

  Should the Dark Lord attack the King the guards will likely help
  the Dark Lord or may do nothing.  The King will resist such an
  attack.  It would be difficult for the King to attack the Dark
  Lord.

> What this system primarily does is prevent non-combat PCs from
> running in fear of every knife-wielding psycho in the game.  It
> also provides a strong, definite path for non-combat advancement.
> As you gain prestige, you become more powerful to others who deal
> with prestige, even if you couldn't fight your way out of a wet
> paper bag without your honor guard.

This could be translated as a crude parallel to the old rule of:

  You can only attack other players if they are of lower level or
  nor more than two levels higher.

The difference is that now instead of using a single base state of
level, we've created two new stats (prestige-rank and
prestige-quest) from which we compute this new pseudo-level.  Not
inherently a problem, but worth noting.

> High prestige imposition.  You could allow high prestige people to
> impose upon people of much less prestige.  In our example with the
> King and Joe Blow above, the King could have had his guards throw
> Joe out of the throne room instead of having to wait for Joe to
> attack him.  This would help prevent a lot of "soft" PKing
> problems, potentially at the expense of people abusing the system.

It also helps entrench and protect high prestige players making them
even more unassailable by lower prestige players.  Or, if you wish,
you've institutionalised the peerage and granted them something of a
monopoly to boot.

> Prestige transfer/investment.  You're a diabolically evil sorcerer
> that wants to get rid of that goody-two-shoes of an empress, but
> don't want to get your hands dirty.  Or, perhaps you're a goodly
> king that wants to rid the lands of the evil sorcerer, but just
> can't fit it in between schedule appointments of running a free
> health clinic for children and personally helping farmers with
> their fields.  What do you do?  Hire a patsy!

> But, with prestige rules, you can't just hire anyone off the
> street. They have to have a certain level of prestige to even
> approach the person.  Allowing individuals to transfer or invest
> prestige can help solve this problem.  When you hire someone to do
> a deed that requires prestige, you can share your prestige with
> them temporarily.  They must complete the task within a certain
> time.  Or, you might "invest" prestige in the task, giving the
> hireling the prestige necessary to do the deed.  If the hireling
> succeeds, it gives you a (temporary?) boost to prestige.  Should
> they fail, you will feel the opposite effect.  You (gain/lose)
> prestige as your enemies (fall before you/uncover your
> questionable plots).

I am on a mission for the King and carry with me the full weight of
the King's favour should you help me, or his ire should you obstruct
me!

> This could also work so that a group of people with a reasonable
> level of prestige can band together to affect another person with
> greater prestige.  

Civil war.  

> So, again, the king in our example above might decide to try to
> band together with the empress in hopes that their combined
> prestige would be enough to deal with the Dark Lord.  The fear
> here is that it would allow newbies to just band together to
> tackle the rulers with moderate amounts of prestige, reducing us
> back to the original problem.

It has to cut both ways.  There needs to be value in the prestige
but it also can't be unassailable or you've just instituted despots
protected by code.

--
J C Lawrence                                       claw at kanga.nu
---------(*)                          http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/
The pressure to survive and rhetoric may make strange bedfellows
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev