Hi mises people!I'm making a tabletop based off basic economic concepts. It will have division of labor, technology, education, etc etc. As many market-forces as possible without having an overly complicated system. The complexities enter into it in how the players interact with one another. In some alpha tests of the game, very complex and interesting trading strategies arose. Its quite exciting and fun.
I also put violence into the game, since i'm really trying to simulate anarchy.So here's the question... What do I call this game? I can't come up with any clever economic puns or anything :(
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream
are there any characters or defined roles?
(maybe OT but I always though that a good possibility for a game would be SimPDA or somesuch)
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
p.s. may i play it?
Something to do with the golden rule? "He who has the gold, rules"
I don't know.
But it's pretty neat that you're figuring out a game.
The appeal to "charity" is a truly ironic one. First, it is hardly "charity" to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. -Rothbard
How about, "Praxis"?
Human Action Comics Issues 1-6
How about Zero Barriers? This is one of the characteristics of Perfect Competition. Perfect Competition being the oposite of Monopoly which is the name of another, very famous, board game. You see where I am going with this?
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
nirgrahamUK:are there any characters or defined roles?
For example, if you dont have food or water, you die, so it makes sense to make a deal with someone to produce your water if you produce their food (since you will both get better at it as time goes on). Alternatively, you could produce all of your own food and water, which would probably be a bad move since your skills would develop more slowly. Its really up to the players and how everyone treats eachother.
Some skills need land to be used, such as agriculture. No one "owns" land but rather can use it so long as no one challenges them. In fact, all property rights in the game are established by the *players* rather than from the game's rules. I suppose this sounds complicated, but its really pretty simple when you have the character sheet in front of you. I'm building it in excel as well so players dont have to do any math. Its still very much in beta though...
We're still working on a goal to drive the players. Right now we have them accumulate a certain basket of goods (20 food, 20 water, 5 tools, 10th tier shelter etc), which are all produced using various skills and resources. So I guess it's kind of like the civilization games except its a tabletop and you're a dude rather than a society.
ryanpatgray:How about Zero Barriers? This is one of the characteristics of Perfect Competition. Perfect Competition being the oposite of Monopoly which is the name of another, very famous, board game. You see where I am going with this?
Snowflake:So I guess it's kind of like the civilization games except its a tabletop and you're a dude rather than a society.
call it EgoZania
you don't have to. its not like,.... the law or anything......
Snowflake:What do I call this game?
Greed
Jk.
I like Lilburne's suggestion. For another, perhaps Mutuality.
Snowflake:division of labor
I think u said it best.
Snowflake:I also put violence into the game, since i'm really trying to simulate anarchy.
If feasible, you could add in player-defined legal structures. I think that would really help people understand what it means for something to be "legal" or to have a "right" to something, and where those concepts begin and end. For example, players would be free to define Rothbardian legal systems based on property rights, and get a group of other players to agree on enforcement, but other players could start non-propertarian legal systems and see the results. The more players the better.
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
AJ:If feasible, you could add in player-defined legal structures. I think that would really help people understand what it means for something to be "legal" or to have a "right" to something, and where those concepts begin and end. For example, players would be free to define Rothbardian legal systems based on property rights, and get a group of other players to agree on enforcement, but other players could start non-propertarian legal systems and see the results. The more players the better.
Out of the Garden
Goods and Bads
http://www.vforvoluntary.com/
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap