Tim (mightyfoo) wrote in ffproductions,


Kwikee topic to start this off:

Pledges will be made from one party ((N)PC, Train, the game gods) to another.
Pledges can be chained and dependent on each other (allowing a bit of either or flexibility)
Contracts will be implemented as 2 one-way pledges.
(i.e. an exchange of goods and services)

When one commitment is made, the other becomes binding.
The game will watch for a breech of binding pledges (and uncompleted contracts); either branding the breecher as a purjuror or voiding the contract.

Either party can release the other from his duties, but that will not automatically be reciprocal. Without entering into a “Release” meta-contract, such an act is foolish, trusting (foolish) or generous (foolish).

Commitment to:
  • Compensation
    • pay once
    • pay periodically
    • pay whenever...
    • give once/periodically/whenever...
  • Defence
    • support
    • defend
  • Relationships
    • leave alone
    • attack only in retalliation
    • attack
  • Quests
    • go to
    • deliver
  • Penances
    • walk The Walk
    • suicide player (harsh)
    • eradicate (punitively hard target, like a settlement)
  • Meta
    • Release (allows atomic, reciprocal releases from a contract)
    • Forgive (only an offended party [or the GMs] can remove a breeched contract from someone’s record. Which means that to breech, then eradicate the contracted player will make for a permanent stain on your record)
    • Renew (reciprocal renews allow for manually repeating contracts)

If you want to add comments, please do
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
My main concern is this whole thing about this artificial 'spreading of the word' about contract breaking.

But, we could rationalise this if we create 'in world' some kind of system allowing instant global communication. The question is, do we want this, as there are an awful lot of potential consequences to consider.
Screw enlightened behaviour, the ultimate sanction will always be a sound beating.

I quite like jimfer’s Jawa train more literally. A low tech world, purposely kept low tech (with strict gun laws for example), but with deisel oil, tractors and those big lozenge shaped things the Jawas went around in. [deisel, fodder ≡ tomato, tomato]

That would help justify radio communication. It would complicate things by making banking possible — but most of the wealth should be tied up in stock.
Some level of tech/magic might be quite entertaining.

Self motivated vehicles certainly could make things more interesting/complicated ...
More list items:

  • Defence
    • Attack someone/thing

  • Relationships
    • Join caravan
    • Travel together

  • Quests
    • Fetch someone/thing
    • Kill someone/thing

  • Penances
    • Pay someone/thing to someone/thing
    • Bind to a new contract

caravans and traveling together are probably things that don't need to be contracted. it should be made as simple as possible, since in engine terms, managing groups of people is mucho preferable to managing the individuals. there are things that can be calculated for a caravan, and then only be "projected" to individuals as they join or leave. which should be a real (CPU) time saver.
To be honest, I'd kind of imagined that the setting up of a caravan would create a 'contract' setting out terms for travelling with the caravan which players joining the caravan agree to automagically.