Online roleplaying games as a model for understanding the real world

[jollyreaper2112]

Scientists, economists and psychologists love making models to understand things. A physicist will take a look at a real world phenomena and will write equations to describe what he thinks is going on. If the equation can then predict the real result, he's gained a better understanding of the world. Similarly, economists will create their models to try and understand the ebb and flow of the markets.

Society is an artificial construct, much like these models, but the difference is that we're living in it. When the game masters change the rules, we all have to adapt to the new conditions. Feds raised intrest rates? There you go. Bush cuts taxes and starts another war? Behold the consequences and adapt. Still, it can be tough to see the forest through the trees when you're living so deep inside the game.

I've been thinking about this sort of thing due to a game I've been playing, Eve-Online. It's a massive multiplayer space trading and combat game. What I find interesting is that the problems present in the game are just as human as we have in the real world. It gives one pause to think about the parallels.

1. The first issue is that the game is freeform. Nobody defines the goals for you, you get to decide what you want to do. You can be a combat pilot or a miner or an industrialist as well as a number of other minor professions.
2. The game demands cooperation. You cannot get nearly as far alone as you can with a group. Someone going in thinking he can be a Mad Max-style badass will find out that this is simply not possible. The lone wolf lives on borrowed time. So players are encouraged to form corporations for mutual cooperation. Several corporations can form and alliance, all for greater cooperation.
3. Aside from directly hacking the game client or threatening people in real life, there are NO LIMITS TO IN-GAME BEHAVIOR. This is by design. So social engineering, scamming, and thieving are ALL VALID TACTICS. The converse of that, of course, is that there are few limits on the retribution that can be directed to such people. Players who get their satisfaction from the pain and suffering of others are called griefers.
4. The game does have an actual economy running. Prices are determined by market forces. The designers do have some tools they can use to influence how the economy goes, stronger tools than the Feds possess, but they still don't have total control over how players behave.
5. The last point is actually the biggest scandal in the game. The game's developers are known to play the game. That's only to be expected! They created the whole thing because it's something they wanted to play. The only problem is that some of the developers are taking part in the largest in-game wars and are also cheating -- that is to say they are making use of knowledge and resources unavailable to other players. They will give industrial players blueprints for very rare and powerful equipment, magic battleships out of thin air, part the red sea and slay the firstborn of egypt. Now this kind of cheating is deal-breaking for the majority of players because who wants to pay their monthly subscription just to get spanked by someone with an "I win" button?

Personally, I find the exploration of personality to be fascinating. For someone who plays as a pirate in the game, it's not all Errol Flynn singing and dancing. You are attacking people and trying to steal their stuff. Because of the dynamics of the game, you have to really work to put your ship together and properly equip it. If you lose that ship, you're not replacing it in five minutes. Also, because of the design of the game, older players have the advantage of a greater familiarity with the rules of the game AND their character stats will be higher, plus they'll be flying better ships. So when a pirate attacks, he can really ruin the other guy's day. Player vs. player combat, PVP, isn't always consensual, as if two gentlemen agreed to step outside the club and engage in fisticuffs. PVP can be as unconsensual as a mugger in a dark alley. Now in real life the pirate could be an accountant or a college student but the game gives them the freedom to engage in a sadistic side of their personality. At the same time, other players may play as vigilantes or anti-pirates, looking for a fight but only against the outlaws.

But the personality interplay can become even more complex than that. Putting together a corporation requires some organization skills. This isn't just a simulation, you will be dealing with real people in your corporation and must coordinate their activities. towards whatever goal is set. You can see the rise of ego in some corporations and just see the parallels with Enron and other real world companies. The ego gets going and some decisions can be made from the crotch rather than the brain.

What really has me equating the game world and the Bushiness of DU is the scandal with the developers helping out one of the in-game alliances, basically making them an unbeatable force. For starters, you've got the connections angle. Our cultural myth says that anybody can start from the bottom and rise to the top. The same is supposed to be true in EVE. However, it's not what you know but who you know in both cases. Second, there's the way the game is supposed to be played and then there are the people who will bend and break every rule they can to get away with it. The Bush administration views rules and laws as obstacles to evade rather than guides for behavior. Even if they understand the spirit of a law, they will use the letter to evade that spirit. This reminds me of modern-day CEO's as well as the Bushies. Within the game, there are limitations of hardware and software that can be exploited to provide win conditions. You don't outfight your opponent, you cause lag on the server and he will eventually be force-logged off -- you then get to blow up his ship and claim victory. Not too different from how the GOP will enter into an election, lose fair and square, and then jiggle the rules to somehow get declared victor.

EVE is a whole lot smaller than the USA, even though the problems are all caused by common flawed humanity. People are trying to fix things in EVE. The tactics that work there might also translate to dealing with our own griefers and thieves.

[jollyreaper2112]

1. one more thing

One other point I'd like to mention, these sorts of games could provide a lot of grist for academics. These experiments are so much larger than what they could hope to create on their own. Just for economics alone, it would be interesting to see supply-siders try to put their ideas into effect in the game, see it fail, and see how they try to explain away such evidence. I'd sooner see experiments in the game models than experiments on the national level.

[Rue]

2. My information sciences college did a study . . .

on World of Warcraft players and how they handle the amount of information they need to know to play the game :)

[Javaman]

3. What were the results? nt

[jollyreaper2112]

4. something I think the academics miss

They assume that people are rational actors. No, they're not! They're dumb and pannicky! Just look at runs on the market. Even better, look at the Great White club fire. Everyone could have gotten out if it was an orderly evacuation. But set the place on fire and, understandably, logic and reason goes out the window. It'll be interesting to see the kinds of models scientists will be able to come up with given the computing horsepower we have to day but I think those models will be even better if they can get human interaction in that loop.

[fed-up]

5. my 18 YO plays a live action RPG-Vampire-a well researched game n/t

[Ian David]

7. I'm waiting to see which comes out first-- the MMORPGs based on Firefly or Stargate

And then I'm going to hop into that head-first.

[Ian David]

6. I remember some interesting cheats in the good old days of BBS-based multi-player gaming

I'm not proud to admit that on several occasions I called the operator to make an "emergency break-through" on an opponent's phone line so I could trash their ship.

[Ian David]

8. I wouldn't tolerate a game where the designers play and CHEAT

I once quit a BBS because the SysOp once broke into a private chat between myself and my girlfriend.

I realized that our privacy was basically at the mercy of the SysOps, but it was more of a violation to have him appear in our private chat, than it would have been had he quietly monitored and said nothing.

It broke down that 5th wall that gave the illusion of privacy, and it showed an unconscionable disrespect and disregard for the customers.

And the asshole even had the gall to argue, "It's MY BBS, I can do what I want." To which my reply was, "We're the customers, we're the ones paying you money, without which you wouldn't HAVE a BBS."

Eventually, his co-SysOp apologized, but the asshole in question never did.

[jollyreaper2112]

9. that's the danger they face

A lot of the current EVE playerbase defected from Star Wars Galaxies. It was a great game at first, or so I hear, but they eventually made sufficient changes to utterly ruin it. Everquest was huge but, as I understand it, the problems there meant that people were willing to defect to Warcraft en masse. There's another significant faction going over to EVE from Warcraft just because of things they don't like with the design of the game.

The owners of EVE need to be careful. Right now EVE is the only game in town for people who want more scifi than elves. But if they aren't careful, a critical mass could build and people will move to a different game.

You see the same dynamics with political parties. The GOP was so arrogant, they thought they could keep giving loyal voters shit sammiches and keep telling them it's prime rib. 2006 should have been a wakeup call. Fortunately, it wasn't so I think (hope) their losses in 2008 will be even greater.

The danger, of course, is when there are no good alternatives and you're stuck with a party that has no compelling reason to perform.

[Ian David]

10. I think reasonable compromises are in order that should make all sides happy

What EVE needs is two segregated systems-- EVE-Alpha and EVE-Beta.

In EVE-Beta, the designers and SysAdmins would have free reign to do whatever they please, under the guise of "Beta-Testing" new features and tactics and whatnot. They'd be free to get their jollies however they please.

Users of EVE-Alpha would be free from Deus ex Machina interventions and interference.

Of course, EVE-Beta must have some kind of incentive to attract users to participate, or else the designers would just be playing with themselves.

For those allied with the guilds the designers are playing with, the attraction is obvious-- you've got the Master Control Program on your side, standing by to smite your enemies.

Perhaps if you earn currency playing EVE-Beta, it can be carried back to EVE-Alpha at some kind of "exchange rate." Or perhaps the privilege of getting to play with new equipment not yet designed into Alpha is reward enough. Or perhaps membership to EVE-Beta would be at a discount compared to Alpha.

[jollyreaper2112]

11. ha

They already have the segregated systems, Singularity and Trinity. Singularity is explicitly for testing and no real gameplay goes on there except for what is required for testing things out. Nobody plays there for real, i.e. building their empires and whatnot. The real gameplay occurs on Trinity. And again, the problem is that devs are intervening in the game and are not getting punished by the owners of the game. It'd be one thing if the devs played their faction like the arbiter race from Star Trek, the one not getting too involved in the lesser races but possibly answering certain petitions and concerns.