04-21-2003, 06:37 PM
Issue 1.
Standards of good taste as regards names of characters.
Issue: how to establish good taste norms for a multi thousand player base, versus a dozen or less player base typical to the PnP game model from which all of these games spring, and whose norms are a default for a considerable section of the fan base.
The ethical issue goes back to PnP game 'Game Master and Group' tolerance, an interactive interpersonal process that finds its own level in small groups. If the GM put up with it and the other players did as well, the name was good to go. If not, it was not.
Applied to the larger MMO universe, the Game Master must consider the enjoyment of his entire game playing base. He (game Master = Company in this case) must balance the likelihood of offensive names materially detracting from the pleasure of his players with the amount of freedom and customizability presented, since the norming process of the small group does not scale to the multithousand player model one for one. The DM still has to establish the base character of his 'world.'
First Ammendment rights are NOT the issue: it is a private not government relationship.
The ethical consideration of 'legislating good taste' gets tied to customer relationships as well as prospects for future customer loyalty. The texture of each small PnP campaign was created by the Game Master <=> Player interaction. This customization is less prevalant in MMORPG simply due, once again, to scale. The Game Master is still held accountable for creating, in the RPG world, a set of cultural norms by structure that creates itself in the PnP model.
The sense of balance between taste and customer freedom to enjoy is seen quite differently by many players, not to mention the differences between Game Master and the player who wants to name his Barbarian HansOnnerTitz.
Ethics issue: How do you draw a line that makes every one happy? Simple: you can't.
Therefore, the Game Master must establish initial guidelines. Then, an interative process must be available, an appeal perhaps, to allow for the same sort of norming that took place on the small level to be available on the large level. Without the feedback loop, and opportunity for relief or waiver, the intimacy and feeling of personal touch, which is critical to the RPG, is lost: both by the player who cares not for HansOnnerTitz type names, and for those who like to stretch punnery in the ribald direction, by applying such names as Chesty_Puller (nickname of a famous Marine general) to a well stacked Amazon bow wielder.
Ethically, the Game Master is accountable to all of his customers, not just the guy with Hans as his chosen nom de player, and not just the pure, clean as rainfall Role Player whose Norse names fit norse environments, and whose Arabic names fit the more Arabic environments.
The policy decision must made with that in mind must be well communicated to the players, and appeal/relief must be available in order to approach as high a threshold of 'fairness' as good taste, which both the community and the Game Master contribute in defining, will permit. The accountability is discrete: people play or they don't, and the company lives with the reputation its decisions build.
2. Selling items:
That is beyond easy. All items belong to the proprietary game environment created in the game. Hence, no sale can be made without a payment of a royalty to the game company, whose proprietary environment enables the commercial transactions.
Selling accounts: Ungovernable. If an entire account, lock stock and barrel, complete with passwords, is sold via third party transactions, it is transparent to the host. One account still sustains. The change of billing source and address becomes the point of contention.
Is it allowed? It has to be. If change credit card company's, it makes no sense that I cannot transfer my account from my Visa to my Mastercard. Plus, if I change my name, for example via marriage or to Anglicize a foreign name, that process is in the interest of the company to protect.
It is hardly cost effective to create the administrative burden to prohibit this, see customer loyalty as a core Company metric.
That is all I have for you. :)
Hope some of it helps.
Standards of good taste as regards names of characters.
Issue: how to establish good taste norms for a multi thousand player base, versus a dozen or less player base typical to the PnP game model from which all of these games spring, and whose norms are a default for a considerable section of the fan base.
The ethical issue goes back to PnP game 'Game Master and Group' tolerance, an interactive interpersonal process that finds its own level in small groups. If the GM put up with it and the other players did as well, the name was good to go. If not, it was not.
Applied to the larger MMO universe, the Game Master must consider the enjoyment of his entire game playing base. He (game Master = Company in this case) must balance the likelihood of offensive names materially detracting from the pleasure of his players with the amount of freedom and customizability presented, since the norming process of the small group does not scale to the multithousand player model one for one. The DM still has to establish the base character of his 'world.'
First Ammendment rights are NOT the issue: it is a private not government relationship.
The ethical consideration of 'legislating good taste' gets tied to customer relationships as well as prospects for future customer loyalty. The texture of each small PnP campaign was created by the Game Master <=> Player interaction. This customization is less prevalant in MMORPG simply due, once again, to scale. The Game Master is still held accountable for creating, in the RPG world, a set of cultural norms by structure that creates itself in the PnP model.
The sense of balance between taste and customer freedom to enjoy is seen quite differently by many players, not to mention the differences between Game Master and the player who wants to name his Barbarian HansOnnerTitz.
Ethics issue: How do you draw a line that makes every one happy? Simple: you can't.
Therefore, the Game Master must establish initial guidelines. Then, an interative process must be available, an appeal perhaps, to allow for the same sort of norming that took place on the small level to be available on the large level. Without the feedback loop, and opportunity for relief or waiver, the intimacy and feeling of personal touch, which is critical to the RPG, is lost: both by the player who cares not for HansOnnerTitz type names, and for those who like to stretch punnery in the ribald direction, by applying such names as Chesty_Puller (nickname of a famous Marine general) to a well stacked Amazon bow wielder.
Ethically, the Game Master is accountable to all of his customers, not just the guy with Hans as his chosen nom de player, and not just the pure, clean as rainfall Role Player whose Norse names fit norse environments, and whose Arabic names fit the more Arabic environments.
The policy decision must made with that in mind must be well communicated to the players, and appeal/relief must be available in order to approach as high a threshold of 'fairness' as good taste, which both the community and the Game Master contribute in defining, will permit. The accountability is discrete: people play or they don't, and the company lives with the reputation its decisions build.
2. Selling items:
That is beyond easy. All items belong to the proprietary game environment created in the game. Hence, no sale can be made without a payment of a royalty to the game company, whose proprietary environment enables the commercial transactions.
Selling accounts: Ungovernable. If an entire account, lock stock and barrel, complete with passwords, is sold via third party transactions, it is transparent to the host. One account still sustains. The change of billing source and address becomes the point of contention.
Is it allowed? It has to be. If change credit card company's, it makes no sense that I cannot transfer my account from my Visa to my Mastercard. Plus, if I change my name, for example via marriage or to Anglicize a foreign name, that process is in the interest of the company to protect.
It is hardly cost effective to create the administrative burden to prohibit this, see customer loyalty as a core Company metric.
That is all I have for you. :)
Hope some of it helps.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete