Heroes are, almost by definition, outside of the normal bounds of society. Even when the hero represents a normal person thrust into extraordinary circumstances, for the duration of the adventure the hero is outside of the scope of society. The mundane folks carry on mundane jobs, that are connected to other mundane folks because they all work together to keep society running. The hero, by contrast, is off alone, slaughtering monsters in a cave or disarming explosives on an airplane in mid-flight. The actions of a hero are exceptional or singular or both. Heroes aren''t perfectly isolated. Games often have a haggling skill, and occasionally a reputation. Not very much compared to the wealth of detail lavished on the hero''s other skills, nor on the intricacies of mundane life. IMO this is one reason why adventures are reduced to the same old hack and slash formulas. Problem statement: How do we better integrate our hero with larger social environment without boring the player and without changing the hero''s primary purpose? Here are my suggestions: First, we need a number or two, a stat or variable associated with mundane society. I propose a variable that represents the player''s social class, rank, and status. This is also measure of the character''s privilege, wealth, place in society. This number might include reputation from adventuring, but it may be worthwhile to keep the two separate. Certainly earning a reputation as an adventurer can open some doors, but it doesn''t really represent the network of influence that comes with social class. Furthermore, if a player can easily climb the social ladder through their primary occupation (adventuring) then there is little incentive to model any further social structure. Next, we need incentive for the player to be concerned about his social standing. We want to provide motivation to climb the social ladder without too many penalties for being at the bottom. Some suggestions: 1) Equipment. Access to practical equipment (ropes, lanterns, sacks) should not be connected to class. Standard adventurer tools (maps, weapons, armor) are sufficiently outside of mundane life that social standing doesn''t have a lot of influence either (cabinet ministers are certainly wealthy enough to afford automatic weapons, but are rarely seen carrying them to work). However, access to advanced or rare materials needed for magic/tech might be heavily influenced by social standing. Example: Frieda''s Silk Imports has a fairly upper-scale clientele. On a scale of 1-10 it might rate a 7. A low-class peasant or laborer might be refused service. A farm yokel might be given lower quality goods at an outrageous price because the merchant expects that the hick will not have the taste to know better. A very rich or influential customer might be given a discount to encourage patronage which will draw other rich customers. In game terms, some items are simply not available to the peasants. There is a heavy tax or cost for acquiring rich items if you are lower class. (a large modifier for cost based on relative social standing - something on the order of +/- 25% per point difference in the above example). Keep in mind that some shops may operate the other way as well. A tailor who serves the peasants may start jacking up the price for a rich person - charging extra because the wealthy can afford it. In game terms, something like a +/-10% based on relative social standing for the scale mentioned above. Some shops (like a black marketeer) may discourage the patronage of the privileged altogether for fear of the attention that it might bring from the local law enforcement types. Licenses and Laws. In most societies with a centralized government, the common citizen is restricted from owning weapons comparable to soldiers or police. Weapons used for hunting might be commonly available, but you don''t walk around a city carrying one while you shop. In game terms, access to weapons/armor might be restricted by license, or to specific sections of society (military, police, etc). This might not require the player to simply climb the ladder as much as join a specific social class/job or get a special license from a higher up. It''s a privilege. Carrying weapons around in public would certainly be restricted. It might only be enforced in certain areas of town, or it might cover the whole city. This isn''t meant as a heavy penalty; have a guard station refuse entrance or confiscate large, unconcealed weapons while the player is in town, returning the items when the player leaves. Obviously this could be mitigated by a player''s reputation as an adventurer or social standing. A peasant might have his sword confiscated while a knight would not. This also provides a game mechanic to reinforce the weapons chosen by a generic thief - small and concealable. Similar restrictions might apply to powerful magic items or dangerous substances like poisons. While you''re in a cave killing goblins no one cares if you use poison or not, but they get nervous if you walk around the city carrying a bottle of the stuff. Again, mitigated by status or reputation. If you bother with a law or court system (I generally wouldn''t) keep in mind that the privileged can pull strings to get crimes reduced or even erased. Some feudal societies had different laws based solely on class, where guilt or innocence was determined by social standing as much as the facts. Taxes would be similarly prejudiced. Facilities: Generally the upper crust has access to better quality facilities. Someone qualified to be the royal physician probably doesn''t bother healing yokels, but might help a friend of a friend of the prince. Any facility that is intended to provide direct benefit to the player (medical, training, libraries, etc) where the quality of function can be incrementally divided should be influenced by social rank. Sticking with the medical example, a local clinic might be able to provide light healing or treatment, but heavy duty care would only be available at an upper class hospital. Availability of doctors and beds determined by who they were treating. It is reasonable to provide a set of facilities only available to the outcasts as well. The old mystic hermit in the woods, a local witch/midwife, bars that cater to the laborers, that sort of thing. You could substitute individual doctors, trainers, or sages instead of places, but the effect is the same. Salary: This is an important one. Today most adventurers earn their living from their victims. Giant spiders might poop out gold and equipment when they are slain, for example. The only reason for this is game mechanics. Let''s see what happens when we change this adventure cliche. 1) Monsters do not generally carry treasure. The only ones that might have treasure would have to have the intelligence and social skills to understand trade. This does not mean that they will offer to trade, just that they are developed enough to use it. Some exceptions may be made for creatures that like shiny objects, but this would only be a coin or two, or maybe a gem. Intelligent creatures probably do not carry their life savings around on their back. If they do, it''s fair to assume that their life''s savings don''t amount to much. If creatures are wealthy and settled, then it is likely that they engage in trade with society. Wiping them out may not be a good thing. Even if a player is given incentive to wipe them out, the state may decide it wants a hefty cut of any treasure. Forfeiture laws, taxes, and whatnot. Opportunists and thieves gather like buzzards. Remember, if these people were noble, they''d be the heroes. 2) Instead, a player has a salary or a petty cash value which is proportional to his rank in society. This represents how much cash the player can expect to have on hand after normal living expenses are covered. It can from a day job, an inheritance, a stipend. This should not be a linear scale. A character might earn additional bounties for completing adventures or quests, or not. In any case this shouldn''t be huge. 3) At a fixed interval the player gets paid. This could be between adventures, or every time they return to rest and heal (a true weekend warrior). When they are paid, if their current cash is less than their salary, their current cash is reset to the salary value. They don''t simply accumulate money without end. Anything extra is eaten up in incidental expenses. The players ought to be given the opportunity to spend what they have before their next paycheck. We''ve removed the option of a savings account, so to be fair, we don''t automatically force payday on the player until he is ready. The good news is the player always has a ready supply of cash. The bad news is it''s probably not enough to do everything he wants. But we don''t reduce any excess earned through adventuring, meager though it may be. 4) Since cash cannot be banked, players will immediately try and bank material goods to resell later. This should be discouraged - the character is a hero, not a merchant! This can be crippled by requiring a business license, or by drastically cutting the resale value (Diablo, anyone?), or by eliminating the resale altogether. Another good way to do this would be to make the common tools (sword, rope, lantern) fairly cheap, but have the player spend most of his cash on consumables like healing potions, batteries, or enchantments. 5) Obviously, the only way to increase salary is to move upwards in society. So what is the result? We have reduced the cash incentive from direct adventuring, which was of dubious moral value to begin with. We have added incentive to be concerned with social status, but we let the player have tools common to his trade (adventuring) without much fuss. We get rid of the silly ''gold as monster poop'' cliche. People: Other people in society are useful. More than just the merchant or trainer that most games feature. If a player wants to improve or repair the character, see facilities section above. Other people are critical to increasing a player''s social status or advancing a plot. (It''s not what you know but who you know) If we use the salary rules above, then social mobility is important. Even in a rigid class system, heroes should have the opportunity to move up and down the scale because they are normally outside the system. The player might impress a patron who introduces him to the right connections, for example. The simplest system I can think of is to have the player earn reputation through heroic adventures and then cash these in to climb the social ladder. It might be possible for the player to lose reputation for unsavory acts, and get bumped down the social ladder because of it. If you develop a system of social skills, these can also be used to help move up and down the ladder of privilege. If a player doesn''t develop the social skills appropriate to his status he might be passed over for promotion and left off the invitation lists. Other people are good for advancing plots: If the player wants to steal the earring of the princess, he needs to get to the princess to do it. Why not woo her with a love poem (like Cyrano)? The wizard in the park won''t discuss the mystic principles of foo with anyone who too stupid to understand it. How to demonstrate reasoning? Play him in a game of chess, or engage in lively rhetoric. Need to get into an upper class party? Social status really helps when you try and bluff your way past security, while having earned a patron might let you use their name to get in. A more general form would be an obstacle or obstacles that are between the player and his goal(s) that rely on social skills. The adventure, or at least a portion of it, takes place in a social setting. This requires a more complicated system of skills than our simple singular measure of social status. That would be a separate subject in and of itself, so I won''t make any detailed suggestions here. I put one time uses of social skills into the not-fun category. If you bother to have a skill like debate or art appreciation then make sure you''ve got a heavy chunk of design available to support it. Otherwise make the simplification that a player acquires all of the appropriate manners as they change social rank.

OK, so I appologise for not reading through the whole thing, I got up to the first point about climbing the social ladder. If I am being repetitive then may someone .trout me

In my game I am having a few Socially related issues that the player can indulge in. There are things like drinking, so as to glean information, while also increasing certain stats (hidden of course) that relate to social acceptability, how much they can hold, and charm... possibly even friendliness.

Other than that, there is the drug taking aspect... this can be social in the lower forms of life, but can also decrease social acceptance if, for example, the player becomes a junkie.

Sex is another thing that I considered important. You can have your character being a man-whore and become a legend among the lads, but will not be trusted amongst most of the ladies (actually, some of the lads should be a little pissed off at you too). By becoming more ''experienced'' you gain charm/charisma.

There are more opportunities than this for a player to interact with the other characters in the game... Does anybody have any ideas on what else can be used to this end?

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - The future of RPGs
Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche

OK... now I have read it. I applaud your wonderful post.. Great reasoning and description.... now.

Maybe if we reduce the bounty of hunting arbitrarily. Killing a few wolves gives you some hides... But when you return to the town, there is already an abundance of hides, so either you cannot sell them, or they are offloaded cheaply. The only way to make money off of killing the wolves is to increase a hide skinning or tanning skill (by sociallising with the respective peeps) or by waiting to be asked to go and fetch some hide. You must make your presence known to get asked for some favours (like finding some rare hide).

Other than that, say that there is a Goblin Problem (hehe.. the goblin problem is usually the people hunting them ). If you just went out and killed goblins, what do you get? Some slimy green hide? What does that get you? Jack all... BUT! If the goblins are causing havoc, then the powers that be may ask you to solve the problem (based on your reputation of course) and then you may be rewarded for your brave deeds.

Your reputation with different social groups should be handled seperately... This way you may increase peoples awareness of you in higher standing, while still being a man of the people in the lower status.

I think that another possibility is that you may be able to disguise yourself as different people. Depending on your charm (gained in various methods as mentioned in previous post) you may be able to pull this off more convincingly. So by acting as different kinds of people you may be able to bluff your way into different places.

I definitely like the idea about no weapons to be seen in town.. I would like also to think that people in armour would also be viewed suspiciously... This is why in my game there is a place for the player. The player owns a house (or buys one) or is renting a room at an inn. They may have a back entrance to which they are able to disguise their passing. This means that people will see them not as a threat, but as a general person who has done extraordinary deeds. Maintaining this view should be a priority.

The player should have to make sure that they look socially acceptable for where they are going to, and may choose to look more beggarly or more noble depending on the kind of image they are trying to portray.

A noble is also more likely to get robbed, so highway robbery or pickpocketing could also be implemented... this is something that I see as being very useful... You just came back off your slaughter quest to fetch the necklette of the Tsar, and some grotty little kid has pinched it... so now you have to infiltrate the theives guild

Anyway... I think I have ranted enough for now...

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - The future of RPGs
Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche

Fat, cigar chomping exec of Acme Gaming arts glowers at JSwing. "Get him outta here!!!!"

Great post!

quote: Original post by JSwing

This number might include reputation from adventuring, but it may be worthwhile to keep the two separate. Certainly earning a reputation as an adventurer can open some doors, but it doesn''t really represent the network of influence that comes with social class.

I''d like to see something like this implemented on a per faction basis, with social strata, ethnic groups, and professions divided into potentially competing groups. Then your stat represents per group how good you are, which involve possible trade offs with other groups (i.e., you''re a member of both the clergy and the mafia )

quote:
Furthermore, if a player can easily climb the social ladder through their primary occupation (adventuring) then there is little incentive to model any further social structure.

My concern here, though, is why adventure then at all? I see these two as having to be tightly integrated or there''s no purpose for one or the other.

quote:
1) Equipment.
...
However, access to advanced or rare materials needed for magic/tech might be heavily influenced by social standing.

I really like this. This is the effect of "friends in high places" that relates directly to your adventuring.

quote:
Some shops (like a black marketeer) may discourage the patronage of the privileged altogether for fear of the attention that it might bring from the local law enforcement types.

Right. And the rich risk being robbed or harmed, or stand to get arrested, or be seen and lose face.

quote:
Licenses and Laws.
In most societies with a centralized government, the common citizen is restricted from owning weapons comparable to soldiers or police. Weapons used for hunting might be commonly available, but you don''t walk around a city carrying one while you shop.

...

This also provides a game mechanic to reinforce the weapons chosen by a generic thief - small and concealable.

Limiting weapons use but still presenting danger in town could lead to much more layered conflict: Things like disguises, smuggling, shadey deals in town, etc.

quote:
Similar restrictions might apply to powerful magic items or dangerous substances like poisons. While you''re in a cave killing goblins no one cares if you use poison or not, but they get nervous if you walk around the city carrying a bottle of the stuff. Again, mitigated by status or reputation.

Probably context, too. If the city is being invaded, people are going to be happy to see you rushing to defend it with your M60 (as they trott out theirs, too ).

I''d like to see something like this partly based on policing, too. You can run as many red lights as you like if the cops or cameras don''t see you, right?

Hehe, then again there''s the sawed off shotgun in the box of long stem roses trick (Terminator 2)

quote:
If you bother with a law or court system (I generally wouldn''t) keep in mind that the privileged can pull strings to get crimes reduced or even erased. Some feudal societies had different laws based solely on class, where guilt or innocence was determined by social standing as much as the facts. Taxes would be similarly prejudiced.

Very nice. I''ve been actually toying with a quick & dirty legal system where X,Y, or Z resources, whatever they are, modify the player''s crimes (or law protection, aka lawyer). So in a materialistic society like the United States, money buys freedom (O.J., often most major corporations)
On another planet, the number of kills you''ve made (veteran status) would factor. Only in truly egalitarian societies would justice be blind.

quote:
Facilities:
Generally the upper crust has access to better quality facilities. Someone qualified to be the royal physician probably doesn''t bother healing yokels, but might help a friend of a friend of the prince.

Any facility that is intended to provide direct benefit to the player (medical, training, libraries, etc) where the quality of function can be incrementally divided should be influenced by social rank.

This is how you get intricacy: For example, you get shot, but you''re a criminal, so you can''t go to the hospital. But there''s always the back alley doctor, with all the risks that that entails.

quote:
Salary:
This is an important one. Today most adventurers earn their living from their victims. Giant spiders might poop out gold and equipment when they are slain, for example. The only reason for this is game mechanics. Let''s see what happens when we change this adventure cliche.

The problem that I have with this is that it short circuits the action / rewards system. As you''ve stated above, adventuring is seperate from social class. If monetary advancement is also seperate, why is the player risking his neck rather than trying to be a the next medieval Great Gatsby?

quote:
1) Monsters do not generally carry treasure.
...

Some exceptions may be made for creatures that like shiny objects, but this would only be a coin or two, or maybe a gem.

Technically, though, there''s no reason why you couldn''t find treasure chests and stashes of equipment and loot. I understand you''re intent, but this would also be expected.

quote:
If creatures are wealthy and settled, then it is likely that they engage in trade with society.

This is actually more the source of hack & slash than the rewards system. Armies of mindless minions that you have to wade through. Reduce the number and increase their complexity, and you partly solve the problem.

quote:
Wiping them out may not be a good thing. Even if a player is given incentive to wipe them out, the state may decide it wants a hefty cut of any treasure. Forfeiture laws, taxes, and whatnot. Opportunists and thieves gather like buzzards. Remember, if these people were noble, they''d be the heroes.

Hmmmm... I don''t like this so much because now the very people the player works for are villains. This is fine if in fact the player has to combat them, or your game universe doesn''t have a stereotypical notion of good, but otherwise you''re stabbing the player in the back.

quote:
2) Instead, a player has a salary or a petty cash value which is proportional to his rank in society. This represents how much cash the player can expect to have on hand after normal living expenses are covered. It can from a day job, an inheritance, a stipend.

Unless adventuring has some other motivation, though, I see this as short circuiting the rewards loop.

quote:
3) At a fixed interval the player gets paid. This could be between adventures, or every time they return to rest and heal (a true weekend warrior).

When they are paid, if their current cash is less than their salary, their current cash is reset to the salary value. They don''t simply accumulate money without end. Anything extra is eaten up in incidental expenses.

I don''t think this is the way to go to encourage heroism. If you want players to stop acting like accountants, I think you need to reward them in other ways directly for the danger they''ve put their avatar in.

Look at it this way: Megamillionair Bruce Wayne didn''t need a stipend to be a hero. His rewards for heroism were something else (indeed, more dark and personal, like the need to hurt evil).

quote:
4) Since cash cannot be banked, players will immediately try and bank material goods to resell later. This should be discouraged - the character is a hero, not a merchant!

This can be crippled by requiring a business license, or by drastically cutting the resale value (Diablo, anyone?), or by eliminating the resale altogether.

Hmmmm... again this doesn''t jive with me. Seems like punishment. I''d rather the carrot than stick: If you''re the hero of the town, people should be busting their a**es to help YOU! You don''t need to lug around gold coins when people are coming up to you begging you to take their slain son''s enchanted sword.

quote:
Another good way to do this would be to make the common tools (sword, rope, lantern) fairly cheap, but have the player spend most of his cash on consumables like healing potions, batteries, or enchantments.

A money sink. This is good! This makes them feel like the money is doing something useful.

quote:
People:
Other people in society are useful. More than just the merchant or trainer that most games feature. If a player wants to improve or repair the character, see facilities section above. Other people are critical to increasing a player''s social status or advancing a plot. (It''s not what you know but who you know)

This I like above all else. Suddenly all those useless NPCs milling about in town could mean something.

quote:
The simplest system I can think of is to have the player earn reputation through heroic adventures and then cash these in to climb the social ladder. It might be possible for the player to lose reputation for unsavory acts, and get bumped down the social ladder because of it.

Oh, wait a minute, maybe I misunderstood your first few points about money. I''d agree with doing it this way, though in a way deeds become money.

Anyways, great points!

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Just a quick message for JSwing :

Realism has never been taken well in the gaming community. Whenever you add realism to your world, you break a lot of other things. Fantasy is inherently unrealistic, which is what makes it so enjoyable, and I've not yet seen a game set in the modern day that was anywhere near as successful as the greatest fantasy games.

Heroes are set aside from society specifically because they are heroes . They're not supposed to be everyday schmoes with mundane everyday jobs. Heroes are their own social stratum. They are revered by the public at large, just as villains are hated. Trying to throw a hero down into the muck that is mundacity is altogether ignoring the whole idea of what it means to be a hero.

Your ideas are great for a world in which everybody is just a normal guy, but how many people play games to be normal guys? Zero comes to mind. Your intent is obviously to draw player-characters closer to the activities of the non-player community, but why the hell would you prefer mingling with NPC's when you can mingle with other players? I don't really care how advanced your AI is, I'd much rather adventure with my best friends.

Whoops, I made the mistake of assuming we were discussing MMORPG's. I could be wrong about that. In that case, you're talking about a life simulation rather than a video game, something even less fun. The Sims may have been the number-one best-selling game of 2000, but how many of us here at Game Design agree with public opinion? I certainly don't. I got bored to death of the game after three days.

Your ideas sound nice until you think about implementing them. You're certainly on the right track to closing the gap between games and real life, but I think you're going in the wrong direction if you expect to make something fun.

Now, I can't very well shun your ideas without presenting an alternative to them. The idea of social classes is good. Like I said, heroes will always have a high social standing. Villains will not. Nothing else really changes. The rest of your ideas are good.

Heroes should not be connected to the general public. They should be connected to other heroes, preferably through guilds. Guilds have been the single most successful organizational factor of every role-playing game ever made. (Asheron's Call does not have guilds, which is probably why the dated EverQuest still outsells it, despite AC's cheaper monthly fee and "ever-changing world.") If you want players to get together, you let them form guilds. Even in a single player game, guilds are a very popular means of character advancement.

You make the comment that "the character is a hero, not a merchant." So what? He's a hero. He should be able to do whatever the hell he wants to do. If he feels like investing 100 gold coins in a bunch of long swords, let him do it. You're certainly not going to hold onto players by preventing them from reasonably investing their hard-earned money. The idea is that players own the world, not the designer, so you have to take that into account in your design. Besides, characters should be allowed mercantile skills, right? You're the one who's gloating realism. Let them be merchants.

Monsters do generally carry treasure. Every sentient creature with monetary values will carry some money. It won't be a chest full of priceless gems, but you can expect to find a couple coins on just about anything with pockets. And if the copper doesn't sell you, then what about the creature's equipment? Even goblins know better than to walk around naked and unarmed.

Animals don't carry money, true enough. But they often horde it. And in a fantasy realm, you can make new animals with reasons for hording treasure. If you can follow a creature's tracks back to its lair, who knows what goodies will lie in store for you? And there's always the raw materials you can get from skinning and carving an animal. According to myth, you can make medicine from dragon eyes by drying them and grinding them into powder.

In closing, Counter Strike is a very successful add-on for Half-Life , and it's supposed to be very realistic in its physical model. Still, how often do you grab your automatic rifle and leave home with the intent of mowing down a platoon of soldiers? Exactly, never. Avoid realism. Realism is the reason people play games.

Edited by - Tom on April 20, 2001 12:26:01 PM

Tom, I agree with you to a point, but a few things...

quote: Original post by Tom

Realism has never been taken well in the gaming community.

No, as your post illustrates realism isn''t taken well (often) by fantasy gamers. Us tech gamers like a dash of realism (to a degree) because it''s things we can relate to. That''s why you have people who play Total Annihilation, but not Warcraft. Or Fallout, but not Baldur''s Gate.

quote:
Whenever you add realism to your world, you break a lot of other things. Fantasy is inherently unrealistic, which is what makes it so enjoyable, and I''ve not yet seen a game set in the modern day that was anywhere near as successful as the greatest fantasy games.

You can''t be talking raw sales figures, right? This is off. I can point out tons of games which are modern day that are very successful. Again, it''s the fantasy gamers that don''t like it.

quote:
Heroes are set aside from society specifically because they are heroes . They''re not supposed to be everyday schmoes with mundane everyday jobs. Heroes are their own social stratum. They are revered by the public at large, just as villains are hated. Trying to throw a hero down into the muck that is mundacity is altogether ignoring the whole idea of what it means to be a hero.

Agreed, but I think JSwing isn''t saying the hero should be a SimFarmer, only that the hero shouldn''t be so disconnected from society. The social rules the hero has to deal with make a deeper, more intricate game.

Consider a spy hero to see what I''m talking about. Have you seen True Lies? The spy hero has to mix and mingle, do the tango, and charm and con his way past guards in addition to performing feats of derring do.

quote:
Your ideas are great for a world in which everybody is just a normal guy, but how many people play games to be normal guys?

Ultima. You could be a baker and bake bread. A great many players loved that. They were the folks I think who play to escape into an alternate universe for the fun of it. (Do you know what a vignette is? That''s what they want)

quote:
Whoops, I made the mistake of assuming we were discussing MMORPG''s. I could be wrong about that. In that case, you''re talking about a life simulation rather than a video game, something even less fun. The Sims may have been the number-one best-selling game of 2000, but how many of us here at Game Design agree with public opinion?

Did you play SimCity? How about Roller Coaster Tycoon? Again, it''s ya''ll fantasy gamers that don''t like it, me thinks.

quote:
The idea of social classes is good. Like I said, heroes will always have a high social standing. Villains will not. Nothing else really changes. The rest of your ideas are good.

No, you''re wrong here. Even D&D has several high ranking bad guys who, because of their status, can''t be touched (like modern day politician)

And mythology and fantasy are FILLED with poorboy heros, anti-hero theives, and low class good guys!!!!

quote:
You make the comment that "the character is a hero, not a merchant." So what? He''s a hero.

Did King Arthur go around bartering the price of Mordread''s Armor? Did Robin Hood collect gold pieces from Sheriff John''s badguys to buy a +2 bow?

Economic inspires greedy, selfish, unheroic activity. Heroism is about risk and sacrifice, something you don''t get if the player is busy being a minmaxing merchant.

That''s not to say, btw, that selling isn''t fun. But it isn''t heroic.

quote:
He should be able to do whatever the hell he wants to do. If he feels like investing 100 gold coins in a bunch of long swords, let him do it. You''re certainly not going to hold onto players by preventing them from reasonably investing their hard-earned money. The idea is that players own the world, not the designer, so you have to take that into account in your design. Besides, characters should be allowed mercantile skills, right? You''re the one who''s gloating realism. Let them be merchants.

Well, only if you''re doing a medieval sim rather than fantasy RPG, right?

quote:
Monsters do generally carry treasure. Every sentient creature with monetary values will carry some money.

When soldiers go into battle they normally don''t carry their checkbooks. If Orcs & goblins are supposed to be part of a monster army, then there''s nothing logical about carrying treasure.

quote:
Animals don''t carry money, true enough. But they often horde it.

What?!?!?!?!?! Dude, no.

When''s the last time you saw a bengal tiger counting cash?

quote:
And in a fantasy realm, you can make new animals with reasons for hording treasure. If you can follow a creature''s tracks back to its lair, who knows what goodies will lie in store for you?

So you''d be doing it not to be heroic, to help the town or whatnot, but to pad your pockets.

See, that''s what I mean. You end up being a banker, not a hero. Might as well make the player a lawyer!




--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Thx for the feedback, glad you liked it. I''ve got a response for Dwarf and Wav, but I need to answer Tom''s objections first. So my other reply will be a second post.

Tom, you are 100% correct about the dichtomy between heroic life and mundane life. But my goal isn''t realism (it''s not MMORPGs either, btw).

Society provides a context that gives meaning to action. In an isolated adventure (dungeon) environment that provides all a player needs, are his actions heroism, extermination, or survival? There is no difference.

It''s only against a backdrop of society that the actions of a player can be judged and appreciated. In many games this is a flimsy backstory that is waved around at the beginning and then ignored. A stronger model for society gives a stronger context.

This is why I think it is necessary to model a hero''s place in society. And if the player is encouraged to spend time exploring that

The first task was to crack the wall separating heroic action and mundane life. I chose to go after the cliche of adventurer as an occupation.

If the player is supposed to be a hero accomplishing larger than life deeds, then mundane treasure gathering is unimportant. I think the gold as monster poop cliche needs to be torn down too.

I don''t object to acquiring some coins while adventuring, but it shouldn''t be the primary motivation. Scavenging and pillaging falls into the same category.

Since players still need income, this creates the first hook to connect the player to society. Give them a job. It can be ''royal goblin-slayer'' or ''accountant''. It doesn''t matter. I don''t advocate specific job skills or asking the player to spend time on mundane tasks.

Instead declare that the player''s job takes place off-screen, outside of game-time. It simply provides a steady cash value for the player to use. This is not a steady flow (rate) since that would encourage inaction.

The other rules against resale and hording are primarily there to take care of the obvious work-arounds. If swords are common enough that every goblin has one then they are essentially worthless.

Are there still rewards for adventuring? Of course. Skill or level improvements are still there. Magic items or powerful artifacts can be won, though I''d try and keep them as quest goals rather than incidental objects.

quote:
Heroes should not be connected to the general public...

He''s a hero. He should be able to do whatever the hell he wants to do

I don''t quite agree. As the protagonist, he should do what ever he wants. But this doesn''t make him a hero. Without the public he''s not a hero or a villain.

I want keep the player in the driver''s seat, but I want him to be concerned with the larger picture. So I keep the focus on the larger than life deeds and neglect the petty commerce.

By connecting the results of his actions with his reputation and thence his position in society, the loop is completed. It also allows for man vs society conflicts, but my design isn''t that far advanced yet.

About the job aspect, I would just like to say that the player chooses their own job and therefore their own place in society. What a designer thinks is mundane may not in fact be mundane to players... Maybe some people out there (weird people mind you) are more interested in accounting than depriving goblins of their hide... Well.... most ppl here don''t want to deprive the poor goblins of their skin, but they might prefer other things. I think that in a fantasy MMORPG, it would be rather interesting if people could become the owners of a bar, or the leader of an orcish hoard... these things should be allowed because of the sense of community that it would bring into the game and it is the socialising as much as the game that keeps the players coming back.

But that is just my opinion... I could [unlikely] be wrong

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - The future of RPGs
Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche

Firstly, JSwing, just because every member of a race has a particular type of weapon, doesn''t mean they are worthless. If every goblin had a cutlass, but 1 in 20 had broadswords, would that make all swords worthless?

Concerning jobs, I agree with dwarfsoft. People want to choose their own jobs. A high proportion of players will choose that job so they can spend more time doing that job than anything else. I, myself know several people on various online worlds, who spend their whole time online as bar keeps, or shop keepers. Also a couple of hotelliers.

If the player finds it fun, does it matter if its being a hero, or something much more mundane? After all, the player''s enjoyment is the prime imperitive, is it not?



Virtual Worldlets, the home of online worlds

Exactly... givet he player a world to choose from .. .OTherwiset he player will get bored wth what you give them

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - The future of RPGs
Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche