t.l. taylor at msr

| 7 Comments

I had invited T. L. Taylor to participate in the social computing symposium, but she had a prior E3 commitment. Much to my delight, Tamara Pesik snagged her to speak in the MSR speaker series this week, so I get a chance to hear a presentation from her today about her research! Yay!

There's a good turnout, which is nice to see.

She starts by painting a basic picture of MMOG environments, including the software and service model associated with them, noting "breakthrough" titles such as Ultima Online (1997), EverQuest (1999), and World of Warcraft (2004).

Shows an excellent chart from mmogchart.com showing subscription data (how does he get this?). The WoW curve is pretty astounding (and it's six months out of date, showing 5 million rather than 6.5 millions WoW subscribers).

She's interested generally in the relationship between social and technological artifacts, and sees games as an excellent context in which to "unpack" that relationship.

Becoming a player involves a great deal of socialization--norms, practices, social regulation. There's a lot of 'indeterminacy' -- things that aren't specified in the manual, that users have to make sense of and create through social practice. She uses "trains" in EverQuest as an example of how practice and lore develop around technical phenomenon. (She mentions use of trains for grief play, and this spurs an interesting side discussion, one that I refrain from responding to because this is a particularly sore spot for me in WoW right now.) Excellent point here -- "you can't look at a train and figure out what it means; you need to look at the context to understand it."

Next she talks about guilds, and points out how different they are. Family guilds, professional guilds, raiding guilds, casual guilds, age-based guilds, and many others. Most involve trust, responsibility, accountability, and reputation. At the highest levels of most games, it's almost impossible to play without having been socialized into a guild structure.

Shows a social network graph showing relationships among members of a family guild, differentiating between RL and RP (role playing) relationships. (Nice line: "Friends are the ultimate exploit.") Notes the extent to which people share characters, which is technically a bannable offense--but an example of how users co-opt aspects of a system in ways devs may not expect or want.

Some discussion of the external databases of player-created information about the game. The examples she shows require explicit input by users, but many of the WoW sites now use add-ons to automatically update (like thottbot.com, or auctioneer).

Interesting question from the audience--how much of the reward for playing comes from system-based rewards (levels, xp, honor) and how much comes from social interaction (reputation, etc).

Shows a raid-leader's screen, with mods everywhere. Wow. I've not seen this before. It does change the experience. She notes the social impact, as well, since these mods often show explicitly the micro-level contributions of each player.

Talks about some "persistent critical issues." She mentions a variety of RMT issues--selling accounts, buying gold, etc. Public vs private sources of control. She shows the warrior protest in IronForge, and the "bullhorn-like" response by Blizzard. (Found the story and the screenshots; scroll down to bottom for system message.) Talks about the GLBT-friendly guild issue, as well, and the whole "should real life come into gaming environments" issue.

Discussion (as is typical at MSR talks) is intelligent and wide-ranging, so I'm not going to try to distill it. The most interesting surrounds the issue of "addiction." This is clearly a divisive issue, and TL handles it quite well. She reminds people of the moral panic over the introduction of childrens' literature, and talks about the increasing number of people playing with their kids.

Interesting question--"is there a takeaway from your book for designers of social spaces?" Makes me think there's a hunger for this right now, for lessons we can bring from these increasingly important and influential spaces of play into other contexts.

7 Comments

Thanks for the writeup. What do you mean by "grief trains?" I'm used to "training" in MMOs meaning directing hostile mobs to another player, forcing him to fight more than he can handle against his will. I'm having trouble relating that to the context.

Would you mind elaborating on the "sore spot" you touched on? I'd be interested in hearing it.

Adam, what do you mean by "forcing" another player to "fight more than he can handle against his will"? Are you doing this in a group context - eg as the puller returning with lots of mobs? Are you inadvertently attracting the attention of a group of hostile mobs, and, in fleeing, training them past others? Or are you deliberately doing this (pulling large group of hostile mobs) to some player you don't necessarily know, who could be just minding her/his own business?

Option one could be done deliberately (group has good crowd control and enjoys a challenge) or inadvertently (clumsy pulling, or lack of knowledge of mobs in question). Option two, well, maybe carelessness, maybe ineptitude, or unfamiliarity with an area or dungeon. I would consider the third option to be griefing. I suppose it could also be done as a prank...

The context I'm familiar with is malicious. You and I are farming the same group of mobs, and I want you to leave. I aggro 3 or 4 monsters and drag them through your AOE while you are fighting your own battle, causing all my mobs to redirect to (and probably kill) you. In Warcraft, same-faction training is considered griefing, and is against the terms of service.

The context I'm familiar with is malicious. You and I are farming the same group of mobs, and I want you to leave. I aggro 3 or 4 monsters and drag them through your AOE while you are fighting your own battle, causing all my mobs to redirect to (and probably kill) you. In Warcraft, same-faction training is considered griefing, and is against the terms of service.

Yes, well, I'm familiar with the malicious context also (option three that I mentioned above). I'd be interested to hear what Liz's "sore spot" is, also.

Do you have any further information on "the moral panic over the introduction of children's literature"? I have googled with no luck. Thanks

Liz,

Mike at Vitia has a posting setting up a framework for speculationg about MMOGs and transactions in and around the composition classroom.
http://www.vitia.org/wordpress/2006/05/17/the-goldfarmer/

In the comments there I suggest Bourdieu, with whom you are familiar, as a possible starting point. Especially, Bourdieu’s categories of social capital. economic capital and cultural capital.

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry published on May 12, 2006 11:40 AM.

symposium reflections was the previous entry in this blog.

(on sabbatical)^2 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Archives

Category Archives