Corrective Action and Remedies

This section contains a number of ideas for corrective action.

Make It Impossible

The most obvious way to deal with undesirable behavior is to modify the game rules so that the behavior is simply impossible.

This strategy works well if the distinction between permissible and impermissible behavior is easily discriminated by an algorithm. Care should be taken, however, to understand the long- term side effects of a prohibition .

Disincentivization

If there is no way to prohibit the behavior outright , then it may be possible to make it either unprofitable or unenjoyable.

This can be done by associating a cost with the action (which would be low enough not to deter legitimate instances of the behavior), by removing the rewards gained , or by providing an alternate, easier way to achieve the same rewards.

This particular strategy only works, however, if the incentives are amenable to manipulation. In particular, games tend to have lots of overlapping incentive structures, and it is not always possible to remove an incentive without destroying the game.

Deterrence

This is the threat of punishment against players who engage in proscribed behavior. This " punishment " action can be taken against the account holder (such as "banning" or canceling the account), or it can be taken against the avatar (removal of game capabilities).

One special type of punishment that has been used in some MUDs is public humiliation ”turning the character into a "toad," public floggings of the avatar, and so on. These types of "virtual body punishments" are only effective if the player has an emotional investment in his or her character. There is even a danger that players will seek out such extreme punishments for the thrill of causing a bizarre spectacle.

Social Ostracism

This technique attempts to deter violators by making their actions known to the community and encouraging them to shun the violators. This approach is quite limited, for several reasons. First, if the rule being violated is an unpopular one, the community might sympathize with the transgressor. Also, there is a possibility that the transgressor may actively seek notoriety. ("There's no such thing as bad publicity!") This type of strategy is most effective in enforcing the emergent, unwritten code of behavior, rather than the explicit and formal one.

Subjective State

One concept that has been used a number of times is the idea of "subjective state." In this strategy, it is impossible for players to monopolize resources or spoil another player's experience because each player has his or her own independent experience. A classic example is the idea of the "subjective dungeon" ”when a party of adventurers enters a dungeon to explore, a personal copy of the dungeon is created just for them, so that no other players can affect or spoil the experience for them. A subtler example is the "subjective quest" system used in Dark Age of Camelot . In this system, a quest is given to a specific character, and only that character can gain the benefits of that particular quest (although other characters may have their own quests).

Subjective state is a great strategy; however, it has one drawback ”it undermines the sense that the player is participating in a shared world. Competing with other players for resources, causing events to happen that affect the experience of other players, creating complex interactions between factions; all of these are part of the fun. Thus, the "subjective" state strategy needs to be used in moderation , balanced with a global "objective" state that all players can share.

Vigilantism

The idea behind this method is to give into the hands of the players themselves the ability to take corrective action against abusers ”to create a kind of "checks and balances " so that the outlaws are deterred in their efforts by the actions of other players.

There are two forms of this: defensive and offensive. Defensive vigilantism allows players to assist other players in defending against undesirable behavior but does not allow players to take retribution against miscreants, which offensive vigilantism does.

The advantage of this technique is that it creates a whole new dimension to the game, which can be quite enjoyable. The disadvantage , however, is that the same powers that can be used against abusers can also be used against innocent players. (Remember that the reason for giving the players this power in the first place is that we can't always tell the difference.) In particular, the difference between a vigilante and an outlaw is often just a matter of how they select targets.

Vigilantism is most effective when there is an easy way to keep the vigilantes accountable.

Assimilation

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em! With assimilation, we attempt to turn a weakness into a strength by incorporating the undesirable behavior into the game itself. The primary challenge is channeling the behavior so that it occurs primarily in the times and places that are appropriate to the design. For example, we might notice that a number of players like to ambush and rob other players; we could then encourage those players to take up residence in New York Central Park and become muggers, perhaps by discretely letting it be known that the police presence in that area is especially thin, and that a mugger could make a good living there. In this way, we create a "place of danger" that is part of the game.