Lords, Vassals, Serfs and the Clergy
(Why player governments never work in fantasy MMORPGs)
I’ve been on a lot of “player-run” servers. I’ve been a Game Master (GM) on a few. One concept that never works out is a player-run city.
The reasons for this vary, but rarely do those reasons have much to do with the ability of the “mayor” to be a good leader. The problem is that designers don’t write game mechanics to handle the position.
Sadly, administrators think that voting (handled either by the players, or by a GM) is a good way to choose a ruler. Worse, they think the players should be able to enforce the rule of law through “good role-playing” or by shear Lord of the Flies governance (if you don’t listen to me, I’ll get my 4 buddies to kill your character and loot you). The worst scenario is when an administrator thinks that a player can rule a city through the beneficent influence of a GM assigned to that player’s city.
VOTING is the basis of democracy. Democracies make no sense in terms of a fantasy role-playing game. Beyond the fact that it’s difficult to get a fair and accurate account of votes from your player-base (people might not log in for weeks at a time), democracies make “getting things done” hard to do. When things are left up to a committee, progress grinds to a halt. In an on-line world, where there’s no real consequence to your choices (you don’t have to live with the effects) it’s hard to get people to understand how important those choices are. This is especially true if much of your player-base is young.
PLAYER ENFORCEMENT doesn’t work because when it comes to role-playing, there is no set standard. If someone chooses not to “go along” with your idea of role-playing, then the system instantly breaks down. Without the ability to actually enforce your will through the mechanics of the game there is no way for you to actually have any authority.
GAME MASTER ENFORCEMENT is the worst policy because it always leads to favoritism. Even when it doesn’t, everyone will think it does. A Game Master or group of Game Masters will not be able to objectively and fairly apply all rules all the time to all players. It simply isn’t possible.
It is possible for player governance to be a success, but certain changes to the game will be required:
• A player government must be built into the game mechanics to function. Game Masters should only have to intervene in rare circumstances (the ruler doesn’t log in for long periods of time, etc).
• There must be an in-game system for players to become rulers, and for those same players to have their rule deposed.
• The ruler must have real authority over his lands within the game and that authority must be backed by the game mechanics.
• There must be some motivation for the rest of the player-base to:
1. Put another player into a position of power.
2. To actually follow the rule of that player or another with similar power. (i.e. What’s in it for me?)
• Removal of the ruler from his position of power must result in a negative impact for that ruler’s subjects.
• A system must exist to back up the ruler’s reign so the negative effect of the ruler being deposed is thwarted.
• The entire system must support the ruler’s power and make removal of the ruler difficult in order for the system to attain stability.
History provides the perfect model for a societal structure that will function in the context of a fantasy MMORPG. The rigid hierarchy of feudal Europe is an ideal system on which to model the typically chaotic social disorder of a virtual world.
To support the ruler and “begin the process” of erecting a society, a system for religion is required. In most societies, the “chief” rules by divine right, or the two power structures are closely linked.
Religions give characters sub-groups in which they can participate and upon which the greater societal structure is formed. The religious orders must have the ability to police themselves via a game mechanic for indoctrinating new priests and followers, as well as excommunicating priests and followers who fail to participate in the religion in a way that is deemed appropriate by the group. Ultimately, the gods of the religion(s) should be played by Game Masters who can help “influence” the direction the order follows.
Priests must not be allowed to be rulers through the game mechanics. That is, unless a pure theocracy is desired, and the entire game world is built upon this principle. Otherwise, that’s what you’ll get.
A priest should be necessary to the creation of a ruler. My suggestion is that each major city be laid out similarly, such that each city has its own castle. The castle is the seat of power, and is the place in which the ruler should be required to conduct his official business. If commands which are accessible to only a ruler are only accessible while the ruler is in the castle, then the ruler is encouraged to spend time in the place which serves to maintain the context of the game. It is in this castle that the potential ruler and priest must meet in order to confer the title to the new ruler.
I’m also suggesting that multiple religions be capable of performing the same “anointing ritual” on the ruler, so a ruler can strengthen his rule by garnering the support of multiple faiths. This also leads into regional banking.
Once a character has become a ruler, he can immediately begin to subject other Player Characters. If a PC agrees to subject himself to the ruler’s power, that PC instantly gains any and all benefits conferred by the active improvements in that ruler’s city, and the PC begins to pay taxes on the next, and subsequent tax cycles.
PCs should be taxed at a standard rate set by the game. Rulers should have the ability to adjust the prime tax rate by +/- 10% for their particular city. PC tax burden increases for property ownership and merchant status (owning a player-vendor and vendor stall). This places an increasing tax burden upon those most likely to create and hoard the most junk, encouraging those players to sell off junk to pay taxes.
Each tax cycle, gold is collected from all the subjects of a city. This takes the form of a pop-up window asking the player to pay their taxes. Requiring players to pay taxes directly and from their pack (as opposed to having the gold automatically taken from their “bank account”) keeps the tax obligation in the mind of the player. There is no penalty for failure to pay if the player has not logged in for a few cycles. The total tax due is simply collected on their next log in. At that time, the PC can pay their taxes, or go get the gold required to pay and log out and back in, re-prompting the PC for tax payment.
If a PC refuses tax payment long enough, however, the ruler can choose to jail the character. If the character’s tax burden becomes greater than their property value, the ruler can choose to repossess the PC’s property. This removes the higher tax burden from the PC (assuming the ruler doesn’t kick them out of the city entirely), and it grants the ruler ownership of all the PC’s possessions within that property.
Once a city accrues enough tax money in the “coffers”, the ruler can begin to buy improvements for his city. Each city improvement has a start up cost and then draws gold from the coffers for upkeep. Each tax cycle, the system checks to see if there’s going to be enough gold in the coffers to cover each improvement. If not, improvements begin to disappear in order from the most expensive upkeep to the least, until there is enough gold in the coffers to cover the burden of the remaining city improvements.
City improvements should confer some skill or attribute bonus to subjects of the city, or provide some service that is greatly desired. In any case, the reward for removing gold and items from the system should be a service. This resource/item sink helps to increase the efficacy of the ruler system as a whole, and helps to drive the entire system in a realistic fashion, even when the actual systems for removing the resources aren’t totally realistic. Even so, the realism with which these systems have been implemented in some games ended up being a serious negative due to player expectations of what a game should be (see Raph Koster’s treatise on player economies - work equals profit).
Finally, to add stability and longevity to the entire structure, and in order to deal with those players who inevitably collect insane amounts of gold, a “hierarchy” system needs to be in place. The ruler needs to be able to sell “titles of nobility” to the richest players. Titles are priced by the system, but who is allowed to buy a title is the purview of the ruler. The nobility must pay a one time price for their title and then an upkeep fee that is higher than the standard tax rate, but is not applied to the tax coffers, but is kept in a separate fund.
If there is no hierarchy in place when the ruler is deposed, then the entire political structure of that ruler’s city collapses. All the city improvements and their conferred bonuses are lost. If a hierarchy exists, on their next login, each member of the top tier is prompted for a vote. If the vote succeeds, the new ruler is chosen from the top tier, the second tier is then prompted for a vote to move a member of that level to the next tier, and so on. Assuming the top tier successfully votes in a new ruler, the gold in the hierarchy fund is moved to the tax coffers to cover the cost of all current city improvements until the next tax cycle as the “ruling families use their own money to prop up the government during the time of turmoil”.
The ruler would receive pressure from his own subjects to sell titles to players who can afford them, so everyone doesn’t suffer should his rule be deposed. At the same time, the ruler will want to put players in positions of power whom he trusts.
The ruler enforces his law through his knights. Knights are standard fighter classes who are 1.) members of the same religion of that anointed the ruler (or one of the other supporting religions in the city) and 2.) a current subject of the city. The ruler can knight a fighter class character and turn him into a Paladin, the sword arm of the Priests. Priests can excommunicate a Paladin and strip him of his powers should the priests wish.
I’ve got some more detailed ideas about rewarding crafters and other classes with experience points and using those points in conjunction with this system, but I’ll save that for the next article.
I’ve been on a lot of “player-run” servers. I’ve been a Game Master (GM) on a few. One concept that never works out is a player-run city.
The reasons for this vary, but rarely do those reasons have much to do with the ability of the “mayor” to be a good leader. The problem is that designers don’t write game mechanics to handle the position.
Sadly, administrators think that voting (handled either by the players, or by a GM) is a good way to choose a ruler. Worse, they think the players should be able to enforce the rule of law through “good role-playing” or by shear Lord of the Flies governance (if you don’t listen to me, I’ll get my 4 buddies to kill your character and loot you). The worst scenario is when an administrator thinks that a player can rule a city through the beneficent influence of a GM assigned to that player’s city.
VOTING is the basis of democracy. Democracies make no sense in terms of a fantasy role-playing game. Beyond the fact that it’s difficult to get a fair and accurate account of votes from your player-base (people might not log in for weeks at a time), democracies make “getting things done” hard to do. When things are left up to a committee, progress grinds to a halt. In an on-line world, where there’s no real consequence to your choices (you don’t have to live with the effects) it’s hard to get people to understand how important those choices are. This is especially true if much of your player-base is young.
PLAYER ENFORCEMENT doesn’t work because when it comes to role-playing, there is no set standard. If someone chooses not to “go along” with your idea of role-playing, then the system instantly breaks down. Without the ability to actually enforce your will through the mechanics of the game there is no way for you to actually have any authority.
GAME MASTER ENFORCEMENT is the worst policy because it always leads to favoritism. Even when it doesn’t, everyone will think it does. A Game Master or group of Game Masters will not be able to objectively and fairly apply all rules all the time to all players. It simply isn’t possible.
It is possible for player governance to be a success, but certain changes to the game will be required:
• A player government must be built into the game mechanics to function. Game Masters should only have to intervene in rare circumstances (the ruler doesn’t log in for long periods of time, etc).
• There must be an in-game system for players to become rulers, and for those same players to have their rule deposed.
• The ruler must have real authority over his lands within the game and that authority must be backed by the game mechanics.
• There must be some motivation for the rest of the player-base to:
1. Put another player into a position of power.
2. To actually follow the rule of that player or another with similar power. (i.e. What’s in it for me?)
• Removal of the ruler from his position of power must result in a negative impact for that ruler’s subjects.
• A system must exist to back up the ruler’s reign so the negative effect of the ruler being deposed is thwarted.
• The entire system must support the ruler’s power and make removal of the ruler difficult in order for the system to attain stability.
History provides the perfect model for a societal structure that will function in the context of a fantasy MMORPG. The rigid hierarchy of feudal Europe is an ideal system on which to model the typically chaotic social disorder of a virtual world.
To support the ruler and “begin the process” of erecting a society, a system for religion is required. In most societies, the “chief” rules by divine right, or the two power structures are closely linked.
Religions give characters sub-groups in which they can participate and upon which the greater societal structure is formed. The religious orders must have the ability to police themselves via a game mechanic for indoctrinating new priests and followers, as well as excommunicating priests and followers who fail to participate in the religion in a way that is deemed appropriate by the group. Ultimately, the gods of the religion(s) should be played by Game Masters who can help “influence” the direction the order follows.
Priests must not be allowed to be rulers through the game mechanics. That is, unless a pure theocracy is desired, and the entire game world is built upon this principle. Otherwise, that’s what you’ll get.
A priest should be necessary to the creation of a ruler. My suggestion is that each major city be laid out similarly, such that each city has its own castle. The castle is the seat of power, and is the place in which the ruler should be required to conduct his official business. If commands which are accessible to only a ruler are only accessible while the ruler is in the castle, then the ruler is encouraged to spend time in the place which serves to maintain the context of the game. It is in this castle that the potential ruler and priest must meet in order to confer the title to the new ruler.
I’m also suggesting that multiple religions be capable of performing the same “anointing ritual” on the ruler, so a ruler can strengthen his rule by garnering the support of multiple faiths. This also leads into regional banking.
Once a character has become a ruler, he can immediately begin to subject other Player Characters. If a PC agrees to subject himself to the ruler’s power, that PC instantly gains any and all benefits conferred by the active improvements in that ruler’s city, and the PC begins to pay taxes on the next, and subsequent tax cycles.
PCs should be taxed at a standard rate set by the game. Rulers should have the ability to adjust the prime tax rate by +/- 10% for their particular city. PC tax burden increases for property ownership and merchant status (owning a player-vendor and vendor stall). This places an increasing tax burden upon those most likely to create and hoard the most junk, encouraging those players to sell off junk to pay taxes.
Each tax cycle, gold is collected from all the subjects of a city. This takes the form of a pop-up window asking the player to pay their taxes. Requiring players to pay taxes directly and from their pack (as opposed to having the gold automatically taken from their “bank account”) keeps the tax obligation in the mind of the player. There is no penalty for failure to pay if the player has not logged in for a few cycles. The total tax due is simply collected on their next log in. At that time, the PC can pay their taxes, or go get the gold required to pay and log out and back in, re-prompting the PC for tax payment.
If a PC refuses tax payment long enough, however, the ruler can choose to jail the character. If the character’s tax burden becomes greater than their property value, the ruler can choose to repossess the PC’s property. This removes the higher tax burden from the PC (assuming the ruler doesn’t kick them out of the city entirely), and it grants the ruler ownership of all the PC’s possessions within that property.
Once a city accrues enough tax money in the “coffers”, the ruler can begin to buy improvements for his city. Each city improvement has a start up cost and then draws gold from the coffers for upkeep. Each tax cycle, the system checks to see if there’s going to be enough gold in the coffers to cover each improvement. If not, improvements begin to disappear in order from the most expensive upkeep to the least, until there is enough gold in the coffers to cover the burden of the remaining city improvements.
City improvements should confer some skill or attribute bonus to subjects of the city, or provide some service that is greatly desired. In any case, the reward for removing gold and items from the system should be a service. This resource/item sink helps to increase the efficacy of the ruler system as a whole, and helps to drive the entire system in a realistic fashion, even when the actual systems for removing the resources aren’t totally realistic. Even so, the realism with which these systems have been implemented in some games ended up being a serious negative due to player expectations of what a game should be (see Raph Koster’s treatise on player economies - work equals profit).
Finally, to add stability and longevity to the entire structure, and in order to deal with those players who inevitably collect insane amounts of gold, a “hierarchy” system needs to be in place. The ruler needs to be able to sell “titles of nobility” to the richest players. Titles are priced by the system, but who is allowed to buy a title is the purview of the ruler. The nobility must pay a one time price for their title and then an upkeep fee that is higher than the standard tax rate, but is not applied to the tax coffers, but is kept in a separate fund.
If there is no hierarchy in place when the ruler is deposed, then the entire political structure of that ruler’s city collapses. All the city improvements and their conferred bonuses are lost. If a hierarchy exists, on their next login, each member of the top tier is prompted for a vote. If the vote succeeds, the new ruler is chosen from the top tier, the second tier is then prompted for a vote to move a member of that level to the next tier, and so on. Assuming the top tier successfully votes in a new ruler, the gold in the hierarchy fund is moved to the tax coffers to cover the cost of all current city improvements until the next tax cycle as the “ruling families use their own money to prop up the government during the time of turmoil”.
The ruler would receive pressure from his own subjects to sell titles to players who can afford them, so everyone doesn’t suffer should his rule be deposed. At the same time, the ruler will want to put players in positions of power whom he trusts.
The ruler enforces his law through his knights. Knights are standard fighter classes who are 1.) members of the same religion of that anointed the ruler (or one of the other supporting religions in the city) and 2.) a current subject of the city. The ruler can knight a fighter class character and turn him into a Paladin, the sword arm of the Priests. Priests can excommunicate a Paladin and strip him of his powers should the priests wish.
I’ve got some more detailed ideas about rewarding crafters and other classes with experience points and using those points in conjunction with this system, but I’ll save that for the next article.
posted by Jaycen Rigger at 2:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home