Player-Based Government Concluded

At this point we can finally get into if player-based Governments are right for you. They may not be! They sound compelling because Real World politics can be quite dramatic, and drama is quite often the most engaging mechanism in our toolbox. Political tension can be a tremendous boon to player retention, and it is especially desirable because we designers do not need to make up any of that content: the players will generate all the drama and all the action completely on their own. Don't worry if the water people go to war with the chaos people, because the other powers will rearrange theirselves according to the new paradigm. Don't worry if the smoke people become militarily ascendant because, again, the other peoples will rearrange theirselves according to the new paradigm. Don't try to steer their stories or meddle in what they see as their national affairs. Indeed it is actually counter-productive to attempt to steer their energies in the least. They will resent you for it and that will certainly cost you many players. This, like everything else, applies to the fundamental concept: they are playing their character, not yours.

So it really comes down if you can offer meaningful powers and authorities. Let us consider what powers might be available in a PvP-friendly world. Can certain people, say ``the army'', declare other people as ``enemies of the state''? Would that distinction have real value. In PvP worlds, people of faction A can freely attack individuals who are ``enemied'' w/o any sort of penalty. People whom faction A have declared ``enemied'' are automatically attacked by NPC/robot defenders owned/operated by faction A. For example, if Alice goes into Bob's city and starts beating up merchants, be they players or NPCs, then Bob, part of that city's army, can declare Alice to be an emeny. Any citizen of that city can attack her fear of w/o any sort punishment or flagging by the virtual world. Any robot laser turrets, or NPC guards, operated by that city will now immediately attack Alice. This is rather a potent power. Would PvP make any sense w/o this power? What if your world doesn't have PvP?

It's not an existential question, PvP, but a question of degree. If my character can mess with your character in any way, then your Mud most certainly has PvP. If I can heal your character then we have PvP. I can, for example, refrain from healing your character. If I can heal mobs/robots/NPCs, then we most certainly have PvP. I can opt to heal the goblin fighting you, for example. If people can walk right through other people, as if they were immaterial, then we certainly have PvP. I can max out my running skill and Ninja Loot the dragon you just spent 45 minutes fighting. If people cannot pass through each other, then we certainly have PvP. I can block a doorway and deny your passage. If people can trade with eachother then we have PvP. I can scam you any number of different ways, even if the virtual world puts in tremendous effort at being economically transparent for Good Faith transactions. If offices are attained via elections, then I can rig the votes just so. If taxes are collected against shops, then I can arrange boycots. You have PvP even if you don't want PvP.

So the question isn't if your virtual world has PvP, but a question of the modes supported, which then asks of politics would fit with your modes of conflict and tension. For my part, I am wholely and completely in favour of it any time a virtual world offers some fiction about multiple kingdoms or countries or whatever, and whenever there is rich PvP. It provides a non-violent escape valve for many forms of play involving domination. It also introduces a great many services which the players might otherwise take for granted or otherwise expect to be provided for free but now place them within both the larger economy on the whole as well as the culture specific to that Government.

People expect armies to defend them. Well now your Government has to provide them. Do these armies have costs? Are they paid by community taxes? Can the mayor of the city pay for the guards out of his own pocket? Are these recurring costs or singular investment/establishment costs or a bit of both? Are they free volunteers of other players, or are they mobs/NPCs/robots?

People expect towns to have merchants and vendors and shops and storehouses and homes. Can just anyone build just any structure whereever they like? How do these come about? Does the Council zone areas as ``residential'' or ``industrial'' or whatever? Is land bought or leased? Who sets the rate? Can a landlord sublet? That is to say, can I rent the land from the town, and then delegate usage to a tavern keeper and charge rent at a premium? Would limiting guildhousing be a good thing or a bad thing? Who decides? Should that decision be made by each individual settlement, or should it be global?

Are there taxes? Who collects the taxes? Who decides the rates? Are they imposed on sales or productions? Or are they levied directly to the People based on wealth-at-hand? Are the imposed only on landlords? How is compliance enforced? What services to those taxes purchase?

If you look to these questions and see a political game maturing, one just as engaging as the combat game, then player-based Governments are certainly for you. My only suggestion is to elect officials for life subject to recall. So if Fred is elected King, then he has the job until one or more other individuals challenge him and defeat him in an election. Fred could very well serve as King for several Real World years, and that's just fine. Do not impose term-limits or other Real World anti-corruption mechanics. Firstly, there is probably no corruption in your virtual world. Yes, the EVE Intergalactic Bank is a widely cited example of corruption but that's not actually corruption; that's the system worked perfectly as designed. Secondly, if someone is correct they will be quickly removed via an election, because in your virtual world, unlike the Real World, we can have an election at the drop of a hat rather than waiting six years.

So yes, I'm all for player-baed Governments, but only if they fit within your models and modes of play. A game about escaping from a POW camp doesn't involve Governments so this doesn't apply. A game about a lawless, post-apocalyptic wasteland doesn't involve Governments either; use regular player-Based factions here. But a game where your fiction includes Governments then by all means, include the players!

Player-Based Government Continued

Now you must understand that player-based Governments are only meaningful if there are multiple nations or city-states or whatever, and only if the offices afford actual power. The politics of Athenes only had meaning in the context of the politics of Sparta. To be ostracized from Athenes had a very profound impact. If these apply to you then by all means do go forth and design.

Let's say you're making a science-fiction game where colonization of planets and moons is part of the game. The players are the various colonists, and corporations of players organize the various colonial efforts. You might give each planet a mayoral position or possibly sort of mayoral position to the star system. Nearby stars might be organized into a ``constellation'' with it's own governor or whatever. Ultimately these governors report to a national council or possibly comprise it. In this paradigm anyone can try to become a star mayor, and if they like it and are good at it, they might rise up to constellation governor. Perhaps with some clever wit and a silver tongue they might even rise up to the top office of the entire nation, the Star Lord.

Yes that all sounds very nice, but what authorities and powers does each position have? W/o any sort of actual power, the positions are meaningless and insulting. If their fulfillment is necessary for the provision of services which are themselves necessary, your players will hate you. They'll roll up a mule or a gimp to serve in the thankless and entirely needless position of mayor so their moon colony can get back to playing the game, and that is if they bother to stick around at all. It's possible your implementation could be so horrible it sours the rest of an otherwise excellent virtual world. At this point you should realize that politics is itself a game, or at least a minigame. Just as combat or fighting are minigames, so too is politics. To be meaningful at all, it has to be meaningful on it's own and within the context of the larger virtual world.

As a final note it should be mentioned that some players will absolutely hate the idea of another character being able to mess with their character. For example, if they attack a foreign planet's defenses, they'll absolutely hate it if it's another player, rather than some code, which flags their charcter as an enemy. They are used to situations where they can farm the mobs to ``grind faction'', and the notion that they might have to offer real applogy to a real person, possibly make reprarations, irritates them. Yes, they certainly are an immature lot, but they are serious and will likely complain bitterly about this feature all the while they play. You can safely ignore this extremely vocal lot. There is another camp, but a less vocal camp, which ought to be considered. They don't like the idea of other players having authority over them, or being able to mess with their character at all. They don't like the idea of getting fined for desecrating the High Temple. These players won't be very vocal because either they won't play long enough to realize their fears are completely unfounded, or they'll quickly come to realize their fears are completely unfounded. If you do include any sort of player-based Government, then you'll need consider your messaging to address the concerns of this sort of player. For my part, player-based Government seems like a no-brainer and a perfectly natural thing to do in any world large enough and diverse enough to support them. For example, I had a character in one Mud who solely determined the advancement within the ``hard-wired'' class-based guild. There was no appeal process. I set the criteria, I set the advancement, and I set the culture within the guild. This position is obviously not for the indecisive, and some developers have concerns about letting one player determine the rank or standing of another player, but every position must have corresponding meaning. I held that position for many years and the guild thrived under my leadership.