Just a thought:

There is alot of emphasis in MMORPG''s on cash and points. Some of you here have posted that a game would "suck" or have no point without such explicit referants of accomplishment. I don''t have a solution to the dilemma in the slightest, but there is one thing that is consistantly overlooked.

It is not at all necessary to place an emphasis on cash as points and/or points period. In a game design I am currently outlining, I sidestep the issue completely by making basic weapons etc. easy to find or buy. Cash exists but I will be using "boring" mundane methods such as an automated cost of living to severely limit it. How will cash be earned? Through hard simple labor. Yes, this may be done offline for a (very) slight penalty, since a roleplaying laborer is more valuable to the game than someone who is for all purposes an NPC drone. However most things in the game are not realistically obtainable through cash. This is basically a "true" feudal economy (in appearance) close to Japan''s model of Daiyamos (spelling?), samurai and vassals working in the fields. I suspect most PC''s would play the samurai class.

OK, sounds lame so far? Yeah, I hear you. But here''s the thing. The "point" system rests upon one thing: Honor. The prestige and position of your clan/dojo comes before all else, much as in tribes. This is settled through official duels, clan warfare, and political power. The ultimate goal would be to claim the title of Shogun, which would confer several benefits to the player as well as clan, but would of course make the player/clan prime targets for assassination or even all-out war from the second rival. Now, if players wish to mint money, they will be free and supported in doing so, but as has been mentioned, this will only have the value the players within that clan have placed upon it. Another clan may use it for toilet paper if so inclined, (ouch! bamboo splinters!)and a clan may adopt a more communal economy, or an economic free-for-all. Material resources would be kept at a slowly increasing constant, relative to the increase of population, and if someone hoards goods, they would most likely be seen as a liability to the clan and dealt with in-game by the clan leader (if said player *is* clan leader, perhaps mutiny is in order?). Goods would be manufactured by player characters, who would be entirely free to modify the textures etc. of the goods and would have a wide variety of 3D models to choose from for each article of clothing, weaponry etc. to be created. Don''t believe that it can be "fun" to make clothes, tools, weapons, decorations, etc.? Anyone hear of a little game from a little company called Maxis?

Ok, I''ll shut up now.
Just a thought.

Actually, Anonymous poster, you nicely brought the conversation around to another wacky idea. Do we need money?

Tabletop D&D measured wealth down to the cent. If you were that cent short of buying a sword, you couldn''t have it. It''s this kind of miserly outlook that set the tone for CRPGs, which are largely money and experience reward based.

So if you can do experience better, why not money too?

White Wolf games has released a series of games (starting with vampire: the masquerade) that don''t count money down to the cent. Instead, you have a general rating of your "wealth". It tells you what you can generally afford to buy. In a CRPG, this would amoun to a "budget" kind of. It assumes that whacking monsters is not your only source of income (ideally no income at all!)

Could it work? A game with no bag of money pooping up every time something dies?

"The unexamined life is not worth living."
-Socrates

Hey, what about single player RPGs? Any systems for those? I''m kinda tired of running around the world killing enemies just so I can buy some new armor.

"Here comes armageddon, we're gonna have some fun.
Here comes armageddon, everybody grab your gun"

If a player is allowed to get "something for nothing" then the game designer should recognise this as a "tool or weapon" as sorts. Then you have to consider balancing it into your game.

This is the same problem i see where characters or players for that matter go XP vulturing. They go around killing the little enemies for eons in order to gain easy XP. This too is a tool or weapon for character advancment and there should be an in-game mechanic that balances this out.

( Sorry Niphty, i''m not a big car fan:-)

WE are their,
"Sons of the Free"

Okie Niphty thx for taking time to reply to my post.

I agree with you on trade, i just want to underline if someone is developing a MMORPG take a look at Muds, trade has been developed in myriads of diffrent forms, alot has been tested. Don''t reivent something that doesnt work.



You seem abit concerned about the infinate amount of money in the game. Really there is no reason for your game engine to keep track of an exact amount of gold in the world, and even if you tried it would be hopeless guesses. From the rollplayers point of view: I have 100 gold, there is more gold out there then i can carry, I''m out to get a big share, there is so much gold in this one little city I couldnt spend it all, to me it''s infinite enough, and I will get filthy rich, It doesnt matter to me go ahead keep track of 100 players*100 per year*600000000 million NPCS etc etc, there''s still enough money for me to pillage and rob to get what i need.


If you were to take out coinage out of the system it wouldnt really make that big a difference. Money (i dare say for most) isnt the main goal, its what you can obtain with it. If you can''t have the money to reach the goal, then lets trade the GOAL instead. Players will trade things instead. Like a pair of troll sleeves for a bottomless bag of the tinkers.


Other than that i agree with your post. RP away!

(RPG/MMORPG economic)

I hate the idea of having unlimited money in a game. I love having to be thrifty with what i spend my money on in a game. If a player new that there was only "X" amount of dollars in the RPG world then they would place a higher value on this in the game. Which brings the player closer to the game because they are thinking about it. Every inch counts.

WE are their,
"Sons of the Free"

RE: PAUL C

Well realistically it''s not about unlimited money, it''s about the fact that if you have a large fantasy world there is enough money to make you rich, this is what you''re calling unlimited well it aint. So 10 peasants make 200 gc per year, it''s not unrealistic to fraud 10 ppl off their savings. With 1000 gc a player should be pretty rich and who cares if the world itself has 100000000000 gc as a limit I dont need the rest.

Spyder, it''s not about how much gold you have, it''s how much you COULD have.
The major problem with this is that infinate money means nothing has real value to it. You have to realize that things in the medieval times costed a LOT. 20k for a sword, 80k for a horse.. i mean that''s a compact car for a sword and an Acura NSX for a horse!
Things are cheap now because of mass production. We''ve just lost sight of what is cheap and what isn''t. It''s all about the economy as a whole. If there''s infinate money, no algorithm will ever work to try to make the MPC''s match the player inflation rates. so you curb inflation to keep things balanced You accept that there''s going to be more money, but also more people. And money doesn''t come off dead creatures.. no no. Money comes from other places. Creatures don''t carry any kind of human currency unless they''ve killed a human or something along those lines. Just think about how undervalued our money would become if they just started printing hundred dollar bills like mad. The hundred would become like the one dollar bill we have now! Don''t believe me? read up.. it''s true.

J

Spyder, it''s been said before in this thread - it''s not about personal wealth, but rather the wealth of groups.

Consider the world has 100% of the money ( no aliens running off with anything ). The human populace initially holds 60% of the total money, while monstrous hoards contain the other 40%.
Now, there are two really excellent players in this world: one is a trader, the other a dragonslayer.
The first manages to obtain half of the total money in the human populace, the other half of the total money that resides with monsters.
Two effects:
- People will be a lot poorer now ( half of the money is no longer circulating )
- Monsters will be a lot poorer too ( and since they were using/hoarding money, it matters to them. )
People will raid monsters, and find they don''t get money.
Monsters will do the same.
Eventually, everyone will notice that there are two characters who have half the money in the world in their own private possession.
How long would it take for a joint monster/human strike to get some of that cash back into circulation?
(another interesting avenue, what if there are "governments" that can print more money? Inflation I tell you! )

It would be a very interesting system...


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment..
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

(mmorpg economics)

I think there's 2 value's to money which are getting a little mixed up here so i'll try to categorise them.

1. Economic value - as in the trading term, like how many Australian dollars equal a UK dollar.
2. Personal value - what does money mean to the individual/player, that is - do you care about money? do you love money? etc.

My previous post was striking more on the personal (psychological) values of money rather than the game design logics and mechanics of money.

WE are their,
"Sons of the Free"

Edited by - Paul Cunningham on July 1, 2000 4:26:24 AM