[MUD-Dev] off-line pk

[The_Druid]

From: Freeman, Jeff <jfreeman at verant.com>

>> As time becomes more and more valuable and the games become more
>> realistic0 and more wide spread I wonder what kind of behavior
>> might come from it?

> There are things in the world that most people take to be trivial
> "not worth getting upset over".

>   Two guys golfing and one gets upset and punches the other in the
>   nose.

> Happens in Hockey ALL THE TIME and no one thinks twice about it.
> This is news to the people that don't MUD: People who *do* MUD
> don't consider the things that happen to them in-game to be
> trivial.

Violence is everywhere in our real world.

When money is in the balance, there is always someone to use
violence or another "wrong" (in a common way of thinking) action to
get his found back.  There are people killed in real life for less
than a Hockey game.  If an online game alow the players to earn
millions of $, I am sure that some people will be able to kill other
player just for the money.

>> IRL wars started over something occurring in VR?

> I think it would be more interesting if it happened the other way
> around.  Now THAT represents a compelling gameworld: When
> something IRL ticks you off and you get your revenge - and are
> *satisfied* with that revenge - in VR.

I agree, the best satisfying thing for me, is if all the strong RL
conflicts were resolved in the VL.  It is always better to beat the
person you dislike at Quake than to have a real fight.  But it is a
kind of utopia to wish people will be wise enought for that.  The VR
is not the starting point for a conflict, but just a purpose for it.
Even without it, people will be able to have some conflict.  It is
the same with violence in videogames.  Without videogames, people
will be able to have conflict as they always have.

>> When will VR and IRL blur to be one?

> Since VR takes place IRL, they already have.  It's a distinction
> that never existed in the first place.  So when something reminds
> us that there is no such distinction then that can take us by
> surprise, I suppose.

Yeah,

As VR could be the way to allow some players to act like their
doomest or lightest though, you could not change the real being of
someone with a game.  If a gangster play an Online RPG and if
someone kill him in the game, I am sure he will try to find the
guilty guy and punish him in RL.

It is what the writer said in the article.

Their is two different kind of players, the roleplayers and the
others.  The roleplayers know that they are acting like an actor in
the game (sorry for my English).

The others are stuck to the game and have a tendancy to forget the
frontier between the game and the reality.  And there is no frontier
when money or other RL thing like notoriety is involved.

>> What game mechanics might help separate out VR vs IRL?  (is this
>> a good thing?)

> It's a bad thing, doomed to failure, since there's not any such
> distinction anyway.  :)

Again, I agree.  We are all able to create a game where acting good
is rewarded, but it never will change the human being.  I think that
it is better to create a game that encourage players to follow a
good path (like Nintendo games), but freedom allow everyone to
follow the path they wish.  And a good game is a game that include
freedom for the players to follow their own path, like in RL.
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev