Actually, the thing I find it lacks is simplicity and flexibility. I want to be able to create a campaign and have the rules fit with little tweaking, not alter a complex system. I guess I don’t play RPGs enough.
FWIW, Laminus is the DM of the online D&D through IM group I’m playing in. [:P] He’s cruel. [:'(]
If you thought that was weird than you’ve got to play age of empires and sim city! In the fomer the people are all completely brainless automatons who are instruments of your empire par excellence and I’ve noticed that economically the game has three implicit doctrines:
Warfare accumalates capital, taxes and gov. expenditures constitute the wealth of a nation, and trade is zero-sum. But of course the level of unrealism in AoE is pretty much to blame for this.
The latter game though, is a little more realistic though again, the gov. has to provide alot of the substantial resources.
I guess that’s why they are called games though.
That is, unfortunately, why it is difficult to make an Austro-libertarian version of Sim City, Civ, or Master of Orion; the fact that there is no central control of the economy makes for a rather boring game, unless the game itself is at a higher level of analysis, and the economic activities are mostly or completely abstracted, which would defeat the purpose of having a game about economics.
Give me THAC0 or give me death!
That or the Legend of the Five Rings RPG (d10 system, of course).
Majesty was pretty libertarian. You’re basically a Monarch who can tax your citizens, yes (low amounts though), but the heroes only respond if you pay them enough, and are not under your direct control. Spells are, but for a fee. I guess we can call it a feudal monarchy and the game will pass scrutiny (NOLLs [:P])