Trading - (dis)organised chaos?
The first game I made this year, still hanging in dev limbo, began life with a sort of trading mechanic. Players, at odds over territory control, were encouraged to make arrangements between themselves and one another, to agree mutual (non-)aggression, co-operation or co-ordination. Aside from the players’ promises of action or inaction, they had nothing to trade, but since no-one was about to do something for nothing, I thought it would work out, but in practice it turned out there was no point to making these agreements, no-one really gained or lost anything by not making or agreeing to them.
The idea of trading mechanics went to sleep in my head for a few months, I stayed away from it in making other games as I didn’t want to make something too much like a computer game. When I played Settlers or Catan for the first time I was aware there would be a trading mechanic, and I was surprised by how much it was actually used. There were of course times towards the end when nobody would trade with the player winning, but having played a lot of multiplayer free-for-all MTG with friends as a kid, I know that alliances and co-operation don’t last, just for the time being, so why would someone trade with anyone if it’s going to help both of them?
So this brings me to two questions: what do you need the things you “trade” to get you/achieve to be worthwhile, and how direct do those benefits of the trade have to be to make their mutually beneficial nature work to your advantage?