Properly Molding the Gamer Child
jeff-vogel.blogspot.com
jeff-vogel.blogspot.com
Kids can safely experiment with "right" and "wrong" (stealing, murdering, protecting, sacrifice) without permanent marks. You are damaging someone and suffering loss, but you've all opted in. I once leapt into combat to help someone fleeing from a murderer. As soon as I approached, the "victim" drew his weapon. They killed me and divided up my belongings. Real life doesn't offer many chances to try different options in that scenario.
Also, the typical authority structure of growing up (which is age-centric) is reversed. Younger people have less obligations, so generally play more, become more powerful, and end up in the leadership roles. As a 14 year old guild leader you're directing a group of 12 to 50 year olds. I don't know exactly what that does to a person, but my feeling is that it's beneficial.
I haven't really played MMOs in years. I keep an eye on them, and I've been disappointed by the shift to remove antisocial play by adding new game rules and protecting players from loss. It's messing up the risk-reward ratio and removes the chance for social and moral experimentation that was so valuable to me.
Yeah, that's why it is a shame that most newer MMORPGs seem to have opted for the "no PKilling allowed" approach. I also thought UO offered some nice learning experiences.
The game doesn't stop you from committing crimes, but it does mark you as a criminal and keep a rough record of your deeds, so other players [can] change the way they treat you. The learning experience for me is: do I walk into a potential trap to try and save someone who might be a victim, or is it better to walk away safely and maybe let them get murdered. I gain nothing but a sense of moral right by helping and risk losing a lot. The learning experience for the tricky murderers is: was making that guy sad worth the stuff I got?
Everything your character is carrying is lost when you die (and consequently gained by the murderer). So you're losing time, which is essentially the real currency of MMOs. You also have to wander around as a ghost (yes) until you find a friendly player who has invested in the skills needed to understand ghosts (really) and will then take the time to resurrect you (yup). If you're in the wilderness without friends, you can literally be wandering around incorporeal, haunting rabbits or whatever, for hours.
To put the game rules in perspective, you can more or less freely kill anyone you meet. Your safety is maintained by keeping a group of friends who can warn you of impending threats and who will gather together to defend themselves (and hunt down criminals) when necessary. Certain regions of the world were essentially instant death zones, and in other areas the most powerful groups maintained somewhat arbitrary laws with a strict death penalty.
One group of murderers was continuously causing me problems as a young player. I was frustrated to keep losing my brand new armor. It turns out they murder anyone wearing armor in their neighborhood to weed out more powerful players so very new players have a safe, non-crowded place to start hunting.
Learning, well, for example not to be so trusting and to take care of myself :-) I fell in a similar trap once: I was already quite low on hit points, but some guy convinced me to still fight some monster, as he would be by my side. Of course then he robbed me. Not sure if I really learned, but the lesson is clear - if you are wounded, take care of yourself.
Even though it was just a game, I can tell you that such experiences would sting in UO :-)
I'm guessing that you don't know the reason cops hate taking domestic-violence calls?
I think it's good idea to give your kids the chance to take real risks, with the consequences becoming progressively more meaningful (obviously you don't start with anything too harsh).
There are a huge variety of moral questions. If there's a safe real-world parallel, I agree that's probably a better lesson, but games can probably be designed to help fill in a bunch of gaps.
An MMO is still a social environment where you interact with other people. Those interactions can play out pretty much the same way they do in real life. The only difference is the protection of anonymity... which in my opinion is actually a negative difference. It relaxes people sense of social responsibility.
I won't be teaching my kids that it's OK to be a complete douchebag online simply because no one knows who you really are... and if I ever catch a kid of mine doing something like that, you can bet your ass there'll be some very real world consequences.
Holy crap can I offer some counterexamples. Some of which would skirt the boundaries of work-safety, such as the 14-year-old raid GM on Earthen Ring who reportedly made women engage in cyber-sex with him in exchange for privileges. Not at all limited to his own age group; the internet is good at effacing such distinctions.
I agree that many teenagers can handle responsibility sooner than western culture currently assumes -- but there must be oversight and consequences even then. The highest levels of MMO gameplay/politics, on the other hand, are pure Lord of the Flies territory.
Extremes aside though, that 14 year old GM is probably spending a fairly significant amount of time in the game. No doubt there's plenty to learn in an MMO social environment, but there's also plenty to learn in any team environment like sports.
There's also quite a bit of evidence that MMOs are addictive. Since most are based on an achievement system, they give the player a sense of accomplishment but also means time spent away from the game is time the character isn't progressing.
It comes down to moderation and supervision. If video games become the babysitter because you believe it's a safe learning environment for them to spend hours on end, then you're fooling yourself.
Pretty much anything is unhealthy when unmoderated, whether it's involvement in video games or sports.
The phrase tank an instance for daddy makes me think daddy has an online gaming addiction and rather than adapt his habits for the sake of his kids, he's involving his kids in gaming to feed his own habit. That may be a little harsh, but it didn't sound great to me.
* A problem for their media image. Presumably added an element of stickiness to the game that wasn't too bad on the bottom line. Also, a pun!
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2003/12/12/sims_onli...
alright then...
I recommend this guy's baby diaries if you have the time: http://www.ironycentral.com/babymain.html
I just found them through the linked blog entry, and they're hilarious.
Of course many of these games only have a loose semblance of reality associated with them, but I was aware of that! I learned a lot from those games, and more importantly, I was inspired to learn a lot more.
I can only speak for myself, but my world-view was significantly impacted by the history presented in these games, and the accompanying reading they provoked.
I am speaking from a bitter experience. If not for 20+ years of computer gaming(from AppleII to Core2, single turn strategies countless MUDs, MMORPGs), I would probably be a better programmer or an investor(setting aside lessons learned trading in Everquest).
If you are prone to addictive behaviours, gaming is better than say smoking or drinking, but much preferable would be to channel ones energy into productive addictions(even lifting weights would be better).
(Yes, I've won several games of Diplomacy. The bitterness can last a while sometimes.)
For example, with my brothers and a few of their friends it is entirely expected that you will get stabbed in the back in a game if it helps the other guy win. There is a lot of guarding-our-flanks with that crowd. It's totally normal and expected, however some people have more of a reputation for it than others, which can lead to some players being unable to make any pacts without excessive bribery.
On the other hand, my current social peers are paragons of morality. If someone says something regarding the game, no matter how casually, they will be bound do that for a reasonable duration. Breaking this code creates a reputation which will carry over for the next few games and you'll find very few people willing to ally with you without stringent conditions.
Another odd example is playing multiplayer Magic: the Gathering. Throughout our time there have been a few decks that may not win often or quickly, but when they get going they become unstoppable, kill everyone in a single turn, or create a global effect that makes the game "unfun" for the other players such as destroying all their creatures and lands. Some of them have gotten such a reputation that certain players have only to play a certain spell on their first turn and the rest of the table will immediately focus on killing that one person first.
My fiancée will always put the dagger in my back in games. That's love, I guess.
take Junta http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/242
If you want to lose your friends more quickly, you should try Kuhhandel (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1117). That's poor evil `attacking', bluffing and second-guessing. (Unfortunately alliance are not common, so you do not get to break your word and stab your friends. But still a good game. :)
The communities are generally pretty small.
My experience in playdiplomacy.com is that it doesn't feel like a bunch of strangers after a couple of games, especially if you go to the forums - since playing diplomacy (with good players) normally involves quite a lot of talking, you can make somewhat more significant ties than in other online games.
Perhaps we should organize a Hacker game once? Even if we can't find seven diplomats (+ a GM), there are interesting variants for a smaller number of players. Like `Hundred' or `Sail Ho!'.
Ido, what do you think of this article: [http://www.diplom.org/Zine/F1997R/Windsor/lawdip.html]?
For a lot of the web based ones (including the site I mentioned) you do not need a GM, it is arbitrated by the computer.
It also works a lot quicker and is more user friendly than PBEM.
However the typical workload for a GM is far lower than without computer arbitration, of course. And you can read all the negotiations, if you want to.