[MUD-Dev] Are eBay sales more than just a fad?

[Paul Schwanz - Enterprise Services]

> From: Travis Casey <efindel at earthlink.net>

> Corey Crawford <myrddin at seventh.net> wrote:
 
> > Not to mention that the player didn't even earn it.. I honestly believe that 
these virtual
> > worlds should be contained and not influenced by outside forces (in this 
case, real life
> > money). You play in the world, with it's rules, and truly earn what you get 
in that world.
> > Just because your rich in the real world doesn't mean you should be rich in 
a completely
> > separate virtual world.
> 
> Of course, one could equally argue that just because you're smart and
> articulate in reality, that shouldn't mean that you can be smart and
> articulate in the game.  Do you propose a system to prevent people
> from using their own brains to help their characters?
> 
> There are limits to how much you can prevent reality from spilling
> over to the game world.  You can choose to try to prevent people from
> using real-world money to gain an advantage in the mud, or you
> can decide not to try to prevent that, and instead to use the fact
> that they want to use their money that way to help fund your mud.
> IMHO, neither is inherently a "better" choice, from either a moral or
> a practical standpoint.  They're simply *different* choices.
> 


Personally, I don't think it is so much an issue of real life spilling over to 
the game world as much as preconceived notions about what is 'fair' in an online 
role-playing game.

In the Olympic games, real life skill definitely tends to spill over into the 
'game world.'  After all, the whole concept of the games is based on real life 
skill.  It is this same concept that causes us to repudiate outside influences 
such as steroids.  

In fact, in most pastimes which call themselves games, skill and intelligence 
are routinely considered legitimate influences on gameplay, while other types of 
'real life' influence are often considered cheating.

But this isn't a black-and-white issue, since residual equipment for such games 
of skill can often cost non-trivial amounts.  I find $1000 for clubs and $35 for 
green fees prohibitive...so I play tennis instead of golf.  But I don't pretend 
that, therefore, golf must not be a game of skill or even that tennis is 
grounded more firmly in skill than golf is.

Certainly a pastime *can* be based more on money than skill, and I would think 
that it is a stretch to call such a pursuit a game.  It seems insulting to the 
very concept of 'game.'  But, while I don't particularly like Matt's approach to 
MUD design, if it is still primarily based on skill, I don't see how it can be 
considered any less legitimate than golf as a pastime and even a role-playing 
game.  If I find the cost prohibitive, though, I won't play it.

--Phinehas





_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev