What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

I feel this is related to the discussion "What does 'Free' mean?" and yet not completely on-topic, hence the new thread.

It seems a lot of peoples argument against games that have pay-for-perks advertising themselves as free to play comes down to their view of what is fair. The people against pay-for-perks argue that the game favours people with money, the people for pay-for-perks argue it stops the game favouring people with time.

So, what is fair in an online game these days? I'm not talking about what is successful (lets face it, a fool and his money...) but what in your view creates a level playing field for a game and whether this is desirable.

Personally I don't agree with pay-for-perks unless said perks don't affect the ability of a player to compete with other players. For example I have no problem with people paying for re-strings of equipment. This does not affect the gameplay or playing field. I do have a problem with people being able to buy the leet armour of doooooom that is better than anything normally available in the game, as it gives them an advantage over other players.

Why don't I agree? Because the one thing everyone in the world has is time. Not everyone has money. If you choose to spend most of your time on your job and family, then you can't really expect to be able to compete against someone who does nothing all day except play games. This is the same as me being unable to compete against professional sports players who spend most of their time playing their sport when I spend very little in comparison. It's the way competitive endeavours work. If I put in the time and effort to be really good at something, I don't expect someone else to be able to come along, pay a hefty fee, and be the same or better than me just because they earn more money than me in the real world.

Opponents of my point of view will no doubt point out that there's nothing anyone can do to stop third-party selling of things so no game can be completely free of it and fair. This is perhaps true, but why not lead by example? Rule-breaking will happen no matter what we do, but just as it's unacceptable to drive over the speed limit "because other people do it anyway and you'll never stop all of them" I don't see why the argument of "You can't stop it affecting the game" is a good defense for supporting it.

I should point out here I have no problem with games that charge a monthly fee to play and then no perks, as they at least try and adhere to the "money doesn't affect the playing field" approach. You have to pay to get into the game, but once in it doesn't matter whether you're playing against a minimum-wage worker or Bill Gates, as time is the great equaliser and not how much wealth you have.

By the way, I'll be watching this thread closely. Please try and refrain from personal attacks against other members. I know this sort of discussion is an emotional one and something a lot of people feel very strongly about, but that's no excuse for dragging it down into "You suck" arguments ;)

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

The reason I personally avoid the pay-for-perks model in competitive games is that it always seems to devolve into an arms race. Player A has a sword. Player B buys a Shiny Sword. Now, player A buys a Shiny Sword because he's tired of losing to all the Player Bs of the world. From a business perspective, the administration notices "Shiny Swords are very popular. What if we offered an Especially Shiny Sword?" So player B buys an E.S.S. Player A, despite having spent money, is back at their original competitive disadvantage to Player B.

The problem gets worse if the game involves any sort of PvE challenge-- if Scary Dungeon is balanced to be a challenge for the guy wielding an Especially Shiny Sword, it's often too hard for a regular player to adventure in. If a lot of dungeons share this trait, the game further devolves into de facto pay-to-play-- either you buy the perks, or else you sit in the introductory areas and miss out on all the 'cool' stuff.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

I don't believe there is any way to be totally and completely "fair" - if you are talking about equitable investment in your game-playing. People who don't have time to play, will never get the real-world experience of playing, that people who -do- have time to play. People who can't afford to pay for perks, will never get the perks that people who can afford to pay for them. In free games, *someone* always has more time than others to flesh out their character, train more with their skills, learn the terrain - etc. Someone will always have that OOC advantage. In pay-to-play games where there are no "extra" costs, it'll be exactly the same. Someone will always have paid for more time than someone else, simply because they have more time to spend for the money they paid.

Even limiting the time you're allowed to play doesn't work; here's why.

GameX gives each player 6 hours per day, and can carry hours over for up to 60 hours maximum. Joe is unemployed and lives in his mom's house. He has a light load at high school and he's a straight A student with little-to-no need for homework. He has 6 hours to blow every day on GameX, which he does. He gets involved in the RP plotlines, people know his character well, and he's always included in the game-world's big parties. Sue is a new mom and a graduate student of medicine, with an enormous workload. She can play on weekends, and once in awhile, she can add an hour mid-week while her newborn daughter is sleeping. Not many people know her character. But the ones who do, take ALL her time in the game for RP, because they know that her time is scarce. So Sue rarely if ever gets to go out and explore the game world, because she's always stuck in the game's tavern being caught up on what everyone else has been doing all week.

This is a pretty typical situation in games; someone will -always- feel left out, and someone will -always- get to do all the neat stuff. It's a matter of timing, and no game admin can do anything about it, no matter how they charge, or if they charge.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

In my view, a level playing field is primarily one where the players can compete on equal footing, with the same in-game power level. Ideally this would be one where everyone pays the same amount (i.e., nothing, or a fixed monthly fee), but that doesn't have to be the case.

For example, suppose you had a PK mud where it took 100 hours or $100 to reach maximum potential (or some combination thereof, with $1 being the equivilent of 1 hour of play). While I wouldn't be overly fond of such a system, I would still consider it reasonably "fair", because players could reach exactly the same level of power with a realistic investment of either time or money - and then they'd be on equal footing with each other.

On the other hand, I wouldn't consider a game "fair" if you can purchase bonuses that are unavailable to non-paying customers - for example, in some muds the best equipment in the game is only available via payments, and is locked to your character (so you can't even trade with paying customers; if you don't pay, you can't compete).

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

I have to agree with KaVir, which is probably why I ended up in IRE games for so long.

I never had much money to spend (things are different now, but don't play as much either) and hence I stayed away from pay-to-play games. I had tried a few pay-for-perks but it really felt like if I didn't pay I wouldn't get much enjoyment out of it. Achaea was different as I was able to get their pay-for-perks currency IG and it worked for me.

I played free games for a long time, but things got boring as it rarely changed (the game I played, not saying all free are like that as I know they are not) and went looking for something new. One advantage the commercial games have over most, notice I didn't say all, free games is the staff to keep things changing and evolving.

To each their own though, to me a balanced pay-for-perks is good but to others it isn't.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

(Note: "you" is rhetorical)

MUDs are no different than any other facet of life and they will never be completely "fair" for every single person as long as "fair" means "allowing the exact same experience for all players in all situations." That's impossible to achieve, and, honestly, I don't see the problem. If a game offers the same opportunity to all players, what's the issue? That people with more time or money can advance their characters faster and get more cool stuff? Why's that different than with any other product on the market? I guess I'm a capitalist at heart and don't understand why the MUDding commuity needs to be a socialist society. If more people were willing to pay in a month's time what they spend to go see a movie, renti a few DVDs, buyi a couple books or a couple weekends-worth of beer, this wouldn't be nearly the issue it has become. It's about priorities, and MUDs seem to be low on the list.

I realize that the issue is the fairness of in-game perks for real-life cash, but I don't see why they are different than any other available commodity. If you don't have the money to spend on a game to maintain the experience to your satisfaction, don't play. The only issue I have with this model is calling the games that use it "free," but that's a discussion for another topic.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

As a player I completely agree with this one. There was a time when I could play MUDs all day long and would not have "paid for perks" in a MUD. Money was more valuable to me than my time. Not that it would have stopped me playing that game at all, depends on the model.

Life moves on. For me personally I have a wife, a 3 year old daughter, a home to maintain and a number of contracted projects to complete. You could argue that I "choose" to do those things so shouldn't expect to compete with someone in a game that has 12 hours a day free. I'd argue the point on "choose". It is the equivalent of arguing that those with no money could "choose" to make more money and buy perks so they have just the same options as anyone else.

Regardless, if the only way I can be relevant in a game is to "choose" not to do those things it is time to find a new hobby. Time is more precious than money to some people. Money is more precious than time to some people. I'm all for a good compromise that allows both groups of people to enjoy the same game.

Last thought, what about someone who has a lot of time and a lot of free money? Well good for them, with everything else equal they're always going to be better at whatever it is they decide to compete in, online or offline. That is not the group you want to balance a game for.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

But most people, if they have access to a computer and time to spend online, either will have the money to finance online game play or have the time and ability to work at McDonald's to earn the money to do so. In this sense, everyone who is even in a position to consider spending/wasting time playing games potentially has both the time and money to do so. Both time and money are limited assets which someone may be unwilling to invest in a game. For high school and college students it's more likely to be the former. For working folks with families, it's much more likely to be the latter (this is, after all, the gamer's curse - when we have plenty of time to spend on games, we often don't have huge sums of money to invest in gaming, when we finally have the money, we often no longer have the time).

As for "fair," the only meaningful criteria really is transparency. If the players know how the cards are stacked they can decide for themselves whether or not a particular game will present them with a worthwhile experience that is worth spending time and/or money on.

An unfair situation would be more along the lines of an admin who is secretly receiving payments from players in exchange for in-game perks. In a situation such as this, there is a lack of transparency - most players involved in the game will not be aware that they are playing by a set of rules that are other than those which they have been led to believe they are playing by.

You (the indefinite "you") might not want to compete with people who can pay to power themselves up, but this doesn't make that system unfair. It just makes it a system which isn't amenable to your style of play or your willingness to invest in the game financially or your personal feelings about whether or not games should seek financial compensation from players. Some other players might find a game which (like many games) hugely benefits people who don't work eight hour a day disagreeable. Again, such a game wouldn't be unfair on this basis alone. It just might not provide the most enjoyable experience for certain classes of players.

Everyone who chooses to play such games will understand the rules and, by playing them, have tacitly accepted these rules as fair even though they may advantage some players over others. This is no different from me choosing to play chess against someone I know is much better than me. I may have no chance of winning, but no one would really consider such a match to be unfair. If he keeps really whupping my ass, I might decide that playing him is no longer fun. But this decision has nothing to do with fairness.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

nobody talked about %100 fairness (with the existance of possible ooc connections, lagging problems etc.) i can't remember but that's really %2 part of the whole discussion if you ask me and sometimes fun part of it.not a problem in the long run.

i couln't yet find an in-character explanation of getting in-game benefits with the assistance of RL money.and i couln't hate ones who have more free time.if he has put more time investing his character than me then it's his right to get ahead in the competition.i don't care much WTF he is in OOC.

but that competitive perspective also not a problem for me cause i prefer less-competitive, level-less rpgs these days.i can try roleplaying a beggar if need be..

yes, as you can see i have a crappy english(my third language). thus iam slow in emoting,pmoting and that kind of stuff ( plus; looking up at dictionary many times to catch the humours)

is this fair?

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

See, I disagree with this statement completely. NOT everyone has time. If you have children, you MUST care for them unless you are some evil degenerate person. If you don't, you can get thrown in jail or have them taken away from you. That's really not a choice you can logically ask a decent human being to make. It's also often not about COMPETING. It's about progressing at a decent pace compared to your fellow gamers. Most "in-the-basement-tons-of-time" people tend to hang out together. They don't exactly welcome others who can't put in the time with open arms. That's really not a problem. People with the same gaming habits tend to game together.

In my opinion, what is "fair" is equal opportunity. As long as everyone in the game as the same METHODS of progression available to them, then you have the most fair system possible. Thus, I honestly believe almost all systems are "fair" unless the admin is just picking people out of the aether to reward or there's a really gray/shady system set up where the bonuses are not defined for your contributions. It's just up to the players to decide which MU* works best for how they want to progress. Ultimately, I think in this day and age, most players choose their game based on gameplay, not on the payment model, but to the people who choose based on payment model, that factor happens to be extremely important to them.

Time will probably ALWAYS be the most important resource in playing any game, but I don't think it's unfair for it to be the only resource. I think it's very "easy" to just decide time is the equalizing factor when it is often NOT. To call caring for your children and family a "choice" makes me very worried about what we accept as human beings.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

Everyone has time. Not everyone can spend it playing a game. This is a choice, and if you choose to spend your time raising a family then I say more power to you (it's one I'll get around to at some point hopefully, and I'll come down heavily on the side of raising a family). Some people choose to spend their time on a career, some on a family, some on both. The question becomes one which is being asked increasingly in the gaming community (I think): Is competitive gaming a sport? If it is, then my example stands and you can't expect to compete with someone who dedicates their life to playing the game when you've made the choice to raise a family, just like you can't expect to wander down to your local golf course and be on the same level as Tiger Woods. If it isn't and it's just a hobby, then why are you so determined to be on an equal footing with people who have more time than you? Playing games online is a hobby of mine. I don't spend a lot of time doing it compared to some people, so I'm not as good as them at it. Why should I be able to spend money (which someone else may not have) just to be on an equal footing with them? Does that not devalue the time and effort those people have put in? What is it about society today that demands everyone become equal at everything? These are the questions I find most interesting, and it's good to read all your replies thus far :)

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

I think that I agree with that most - as long as the rules are clearly stated and followed (by game staff as well as players), I think you're pretty close to a fair system. If you look at it from the big picture, a player can always choose another game ahead of time, if they see a feature that they don't like. For example, if a MUD offered to make any character invincible for $100, a boon that can't be gotten any other way. I'd agree that it's a bad move, but not really unfair - as long as it is clearly stated and followed (i.e. the admin doesn't give free invincibility to his friends). A player who chooses to play that game knows what they're getting into. Perhaps they even like being at that disadvantage. Whatever the reason, they could easily choose to play a different game and have lost nothing.

What would be unfair would be if the goalposts are moved during play, or are uncertain. If someone starts playing a game and the policy of $100 invincibility is so well hidden that they only find out 6 months later, that's unfair. It means that should they choose to leave, they've lost 6 months of their time because they weren't given pertinent information at the beginning. Likewise, if a MUD is totally free for a long time, and suddenly decides to offer $100 invincibility without compensating existing players, that would be unfair - people have played in good faith, and suddenly something that changes the game dramatically appears.

The game-master is always right, and the players can always find another game. What's unfair is when the game-master strings the players along until the players have so much time/effort/money invested in the game, that this is used as a bargaining piece in order to get more out of them.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

By this argument, though, you can argue that everyone who has time can have money as well. We are discussing what people can invest into the game, whether it be money or time, not what people just HAVE. For example, I think that my statement that you don't get to CHOOSE to spend time on your children, you HAVE to, would be equivalent to people saying "I can't spend MONEY on a game. I have to EAT." It's a matter of how much money you have to spend on a game or how much time you have to spend on a game.

The other problem I have here is that COMPETITIVE gaming may be a sport, but are MU* all competitive? My belief is that they are not. ASPECTS of MU*s may be competitive, but most games have a very cooperative element to them as well. Most MU*s strive to be newbie friendly. You can argue that that would be the opposite of competitive.

Again, I think this is a question best answered by the question "What do you look for in a game?" For me, SKILL is the most important factor in a game that I choose to play whether it be skill at RP, skill at using abilities to kill mobs, skill at crafting the best items, etc. I want to see skill rewarded, and I want multiple ways to see various skills rewarded. I've got no interest in logging into a game where I just put time in. I want to see progress that is in my hands. Unfortunately, most game systems reward sheer time. Granted, time will always be a factor, but ultimately, being able to make an impact by using my own RL skills is what I enjoy best. (Even if it's just the skill of, "HEY! I can mash this button faster than you!" I always always a big fan of whack-a-mole.)

In the end, ALL games that I've ever played reward time more than anything else, but the games I stay with reward skill as a close second. Perks barely make a dent in anything and is hardly the equalizing factor that we're making it out to be on these forums. Also, most people in the game have the perks because we understand that it's more of a "donation" system where we get a minor reward as thanks. I prefer for perks to be in the hands of the admins of the game rather than from third party re-sellers because they don't actually care about spamming you or annoying you. (I think I'm tangenting now, so I'm going to wrap it up.)

Ultimately, I choose gameplay over everything else, and as long as the admins aren't doing any backroom dealing ("Hey, give me $10 and I'll see what I can do for you"), I'm pretty much happy with any pay system they use. It's "fair" as long as all players have the same options. Granted, I have to say that I live in fear of games being sold to bigger companies (Neopets), having a pwipe, or shutting down (Darkwind, I miss you!). Thus, I prefer to play games that have been around for a long time, have had the same head admins for a while, and are somewhat commercial (have a professional site, have monetary investment, etc.).

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

I think you started off with a false premise.

You are treating time as an absolute (if you have ANY time, you "have time") but you do not apply the same standard to money. To the extent that everyone has time, everyone also has money. To the extent that not everyone has money, not everyone has time either. What you really said is:

Everyone has at least some time, but not everyone has a lot of money.

Well it isn't fair to compare them in that way.

Everyone has SOME time and SOME money (or else they couldn't even get online). The difference is, some people have a lot of one and not as much of the other.

For some reason, most games seem to have no problem with unfairness that benefits people with a lot of time. The grind model of advancement and the growing trend of no (or a very small) death penalty just make this worse. When dying does not set you back, skill is even less of an asset and sheer time becomes even more the only thing you need to get ahead. At least in older games, incompetent players would die a lot and lose levels frequently. This would give better players with less time an opportunity to "catch up."

I see no real difference, from a fairness perspective, between rewarding time vs. rewarding money. They are both scarce resources, and they frequently exist in inverse proportion to each other. Best of all are games that reward both, so people can use whichever they have an excess of (time or money) to stay relatively equal.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with you there, and I'll even use myself as an example. I'm currently unemployed, have no income because of this, and am living at my parents house whilst I look for work. They pay for the internet connection which is how I get online. I have plenty of time, but no money. Literally. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this position, and whilst it's possible for me to get work what do you do about people who can't for medical reasons and are in my position? What about people playing from libraries for free because they have no money and/or home? Disabled people unable to work?

This is why I say that time != money. Everyone starts off with time, but not everyone starts off with money.

I would agree, however, that systems which reward grind are not brilliant. A system should reward time spent playing the game because it increases the players skill just like in any other sport, not because someone could sit there for 8 hours pressing a button.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

That is a good point that is related to the powergamer thread Mina created. It takes a mature, experienced developer to know that you can never balance a game by focusing on the extreme. People that have tons of time and tons of money are just blessed. You can't balance for such lucky people. :)

Two people make a similar point:

and:

I think those two people really hit the nail on the head. Fairness in any other context is an unattainable fantasy. The only type of fairness a developer can reasonably achieve is fairness of opportunity. Let everyone know the rules in advance, give everyone the same access to the paths of advancement, and then let people decide how much time and/or money they want to invest.

Also, as Mina noted, I'd much rather buy perks from the developer than from third parties. At least the developers won't spam me all day, compete with me for access to content, hack people's accounts to get gold to sell, or all manner of other things third parties do that are FAR worse than having a developer sell perks. Furthermore, if the developer is getting the money, at least some portion of that will go back into the development and maintenance of the game I enjoy.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

I am very uncomfortable with this situation being made personal. I think it was better left in the purely hypothetical arena. Talking about people's personal employment or financial status gets sticky.

But the truth is, if you have time, you can use that time to get money. So it isn't fair to say people have time but not money, because if you have one you can get the other. And furthermore, should ANY game be designed to lure people onto it who have such a serious situation in RL that they have NO MONEY? I mean actually, I would rather such people NOT be playing my game if their life is in such a state of flux.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

It might if it were anyone but me, but you're free to comment on my life if you want. I learned long ago not to let other peoples opinions of how I live my life bother me ;)

Yes, you can use time to get money, but therein lies the entire argument. Everyone already has time, but to get money you have to use some of it. Plus you didn't address situations where the person literally can't go work.

And I agree completely that if you have no money you shouldn't be playing pay-to-play games. That's why I waste my time lazing around here on TMS ;) Unfortunately, many games developers/big companies don't care if they lure people in as you mention. All they're interested in is the money, which is a sadly prevalent attitude these days.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

Therein lies the argument. Time and money are often interchangeable assets. This is especially true when what we are discussing is discretionary time use (which would cover time spent gaming). Someone with twelve hours a day to spend on online gaming is most likely in a situation where they could easily spend four hours of that delivering newspapers or mowing lawns in order to obtain the money that would be required to compete in most pay-for-perks games.

Aside from the obvious misfortune of such an individual's position, how is it any different than the situation faced by a working gamer who only has two hours a day to game because the rest of the day is spent working (to afford things like food, rent and an internet connection) and sleeping? Not that it really matters. We don't declare graphical MMORPGs unfair because they aren't readily accessible to blind players, or because some people still do live in areas without broadband access.

If you don't have money to spend on games, don't play games where that inability to spend money will put you at a disadvantage. But don't call such a game unfair just because it has a set of rules that inconvenience or disadvantage you. Just find a game with rules more to your liking.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

I can't wait to see your opinion if the first part should come true. ;)

Time is not an equalizer, especially in games, because we all don't have the same amount overall. Yes, we have ALL have the same amount of time in a day - but that doesn't make a level playing field. Most people don't play games for only a few days or months. If your own example of how much time you have right now doesn't bring that fact into sharp focus, then look at how circumstances have changed for most of us OG's (old gamers :p) here. I'll bet most of us started gaming when we had "more" time than money ... but I'll bet for most of us that's changed now.

You seem to only see the finite. How much time you have RIGHT NOW. How much money you don't have RIGHT NOW. Because both of these will change throughout your gaming history (hopefully), it is not fair to say one is more "valuable" than the other. If you think players who have more money than time shouldn't be allowed to spend cash to increase their characters, then why should you be able to spend more time on your character just because you have more of it?

That's not very fair. Even using your own "sports" example - pros don't just spend large amounts time to get where they are at, they also spend money. Just using your example of Tiger Woods - do you think he would be as good as he is today, if he couldn't have afforded the costs of green fees, or training when he first started? It's not like he won the PGA the first time he picked up a club.

As someone else said - the only thing fair to discuss (especially for the sake of games) is opportunities.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

Heh, I was almost resolved to stop posting here, but this topic lured me out.
So here are some of my thoughts on the subject ‘Fair Play’.

To me a Mud is a skill game.
In this context I am only talking about Muds with a competitive element, meaning that the viewpoint for some RP enforced Muds might be a bit different from mine. But in a competitive Mud, especially if it involves PvP, whatever results a player reaches in the game IMO should be based on their personal skills and game experience. To me this means that they should at least start on the same footing, and that money in any form shouldn’t influence what progress they make.

Sure, you can argue that some players have more time to put into the game than others, and that this isn’t ‘fair’. This seems to be the most common argument to why time should be replaceable with money.

But time isn’t the only element involved in the game. What really should matter mostly is player skill. And player skill involves elements like knowing the world in detail, knowing what certain objects are good for and where you can get them, knowing the weaknesses of any ‘boss mob’ in the game and how to defeat them, knowing what tactics, weapons and equipment are most effective against different mobs and players. And at least in my own game the best equipment can only be acquired by having the patience and intelligence to solve a number of Quests, which are quite a bit more complex than the usual ‘fetch-and-carry’ or ‘kill-that-mob’ Quest.

Most of these things involve knowledge that you can only achieve by playing the game, i.e. spending time on it. But two players spending the exact same amount of time will not end up equally powerful. The more intelligent and knowledgeable – ‘skilled’ – player will always be the better one. Things like reflexes also play a role. Younger players usually have quicker reflexes, but that is often balanced by older players having more game experience.

But when you add an element where one player can buy advantages to even out or surpass those natural differences, then you also add an unfair element.

Some people like to defend unfair elements in a game by naming other things that also are unfair. To me that is absolute BS. Just as two wrongs doesn’t make one right, adding another unfair element to something that is already unfair doesn’t make it fair. It just makes it more unfair.

Some people also like make sweeping allegations, meant to insinuate that various wrongdoings are very common elements in a community. And since sweeping allegations always manage to make my hackles rise, let’s have a closer look at some of those simple ‘truths’ and what conclusions you cannot automatically make from them:

1. Life isn’t fair. This doesn’t mean that everything in life is unfair.
2. All horses are animals. This doesn’t mean that all animals are horses.
3. The fact that something is legal doesn’t automatically mean that it is fair or ethical.
4. The fact that something is common practice doesn’t automatically mean that it is fair or ethical.

Now let’s apply a similar way of reasoning to some examples of things that are usually considered ‘unfair’ in the Mudding Community :

1. ‘Some imms cheat and/or play favourites’. This doesn’t mean that all imms do this.
2. ‘Some players cheat’. This doesn’t mean that all players cheat.
3. ‘Some Admin are crooked/corrupt'. This doesn’t mean that all Admin are crooked/corrupt.
4. ‘Some games are unfair'. This’ doesn’t mean that all games are unfair.
5. ‘Some Mudowners would lie or be consciously misleading about the content and/or financial model of their Mud’. This doesn’t mean that all Mudowners would do it.

Not even somewhat more restricted statements, like ‘All players/Admins would cheat, if given a chance to do so without risk of being discovered and punished’ hold true.

For this discussion to be valid, we need to at least recognize that concepts like ‘fair’ and ‘ethical’ not only exist, but actually matter to some people, whatever your own personal standards and viewpoints might be.

While the statements listed above will be recognized as true by most people, I am aware that the definition of ‘fair’ will vary with the person. So in the following concrete examples, I will only state my own opinion of what is fair.

1. Is it fair that player A was born a lot more intelligent than Player B, and consequently has a bigger chance of being good at a skill game?
No, it isn’t fair, but we have to chalk it down to the general unfairness of Life, since it has got nothing to do with the fairness of a Game.

2. Is it fair that Player C was born in a richer family than Player D, and consequently has advantages in many different ways?
No, it isn’t fair, but again it’s due to the general unfairness of Life as stated in point 1.

3. Is it fair that Player E, who is a college student, has a lot more spare time to play Muds than Player F, who works full time?
Again see Point 1. (And at least this will probably change over time).

4. Is it fair that Player X, who has spent several years playing a Mud is a lot more skilled and powerful than Player Y, who just started mudding 3 weeks ago?
Yes, I think it is. It’s not only fair but natural.

5. Is it fair that Player Y can buy ‘the Sword of Uber Slaying’ for 500 dollars and kick Player X’s behind in a PvP fight, even though Player X is a much better player?
No, I don’t think it is, and I’d never play a Mud myself, where this was possible.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

This example is the orange among the apples of the previous four examples. Using this reasoning to determine "fairness," you should also be asking:

6. Is it fair that Player Y can acquire 'the Sword of Uber Slaying' through extended grinding and camping and kick Player X's behind in a PvP fight, even though Player X is a much better player (she is a better problem-solver, she is better at fighting npcs/players within her level range, she is more efficient at locating gear) and lags behind solely because she hasn't been able to put in geologic amounts of time into the game like Player Y?

Note that this question isn't about the "fairness" of Player Y having more time than Player X. I agree with you that this is just a part of the general unfairness of life. The question here is the "fairness" of Player X being rewarded in game for this. If #5 is unfair, wouldn't #6 be unfair as well? In both cases the game is rewarding someone for having more of a particular out-of-game asset.

Of course, as I've stated before, I don't think either situation is unfair. In both cases we have game rules which are applied evenly to all involved. In situation #5, the game rules state that you can gain advantages by spending real world money. In situation #6, the game rules state that you can gain advantages by spending real world time. It doesn't matter that these rules aren't necessarily written down somewhere (in the case of #6, especially, they almost never are). They are understood by the players that participate in these games.

You obviously don't like the game rules for example #5. You clearly wouldn't play a game that incorporates such rules, and it would make little sense for someone to argue that you should do otherwise. After all, if you don't like cabbage, you don't like cabbage. In what way, however, does that make the rules in question unfair? These are rules which people volunteer to play by. And assuming they are applied impartially to all who volunteer to play by them, then they are, by definition, fair.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

Stop dreaming, nothing is fair in love, war, or Muds.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

Fair is when a game is coded and implemented in a way where I can play however long or short I want, and be ahead of everyone else. Whether that means having the better equipment, or getting to be the leader in a hunting group, or the High Muckety Muck of the city. If someone else gets to have that, and I get left in the dust, then the game is obviously unfair. Especially if it's free and full PK.

What I really would rather know, is what does "is" mean?

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

I didn't say the Rules for the example #5 game were unfair.
I said the Game was unfair.
There is a difference, you know. :)

Of course it always helps if the Rules are the same for everybody, and if they are made clear from the start of the game.
Then everyone gets a fair chance to choose the kind of game they like.
And I never argued that they shouldn't.
I made it very clear these were MY preferences, not everybody's.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

Well, given that games are ultimately just groups of players interacting in accordance with a set of rules, you can simply substitute "game" for "rules" in the last sentence you quoted if you want. The point of the argument remains the same.

Of course. I'm not interested in knocking anybody's preferences (well, not in this thread, at least ;)). But the supposed topic of this thread is the "fairness" of certain type games. And this topic is rooted in a fairly long-running series of arguments on these boards in which people have tried to argue that an openly and impartially applied set of rules are somehow inherently unfair, with some even going so far as to suggest that the games applying such rules are crooked and somehow cheat the players who participate in them.

It's just worth considering that these games are simply what they are - specific sets of rules that aren't going to be everyone's cup of tea.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

I believe for some hardcore people muds might start coming into play even from the bottom of the pyramid :P Hehe. It might be their way to get sex... eww.

And the safety sphere definately must be mud related. Some people might argue that their characters, equipment etc are their "property" much like any IRL item would be. Since some games use cash to buy these items, it just makes sense i guess.

Just some observations :)

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

You can't have sex in a MUD any more than you can kill a dragon. It's called the 'reproductive urge' not the 'masturbate while typing' urge for a reason, not to be snarky.

We could get into legal discussions here about how players don't own the stuff that their avatar "owns" in the in-game fiction since they are just entries in a database owned completely by the game developer, but I don't think that really gets to the point in this case.

The short version is that you're reading "property" way too broadly. Tier 2 refers to physiological safety, which, of course, has essentially nothing to do with the virtual sphere.

--matt

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

(my highlight)

I wasn't aware that the topic was restricted to that. I actually thought that we were supposed to discuss various things that could make a game unfair - (including fairly common problems in all Muds, like botting and bug-abuse, bias and imm 'favouritism', and the potential conflict of interest with imms who also have morts) - and how to best handle those problems.

But of course, if the topic is going to be that restricted, it also makes it less interesting to me.

That's an example of those arguments that seem to be lobbed out just to muddy the waters.
There are some German or Spanish-based and, I suppose, Chinese-based Muds out there. To people seeking one of those, the information that a Mud is solely English-based is just valid info, for instance in a search engine. 'Fair' has absolutely nothing to do with it.

And if you read the threads, I think that you will find that the complaints are not primarily directed at the pay-for-perks concept, but the fact that some pay-for-perks Muds are painting themselves out as 'Free to play' in their adverts, (which may be true in a very literal sense, but also is misleading). That is what the 'What is Free' thread mainly is about; the request for a search engine that distinguishes between different types of monetary policies as accurately as possible - you could even say in a 'fair' way.

But since this is already covered in that other thread, how about we stick to various things that make a game unfair to the players in this one? I believe that is why Xerihae opened a new thread for the subject.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

Molly wrote:
But of course, if the topic is going to be that restricted, it also makes it less interesting to me.
[/quote]

I see. You would like to see a discussion on a variety of topics that factor into various people's idea of fairness...

...unless, apparently, you don't want to discuss that issue. If it's too hard it's because someone is just "muddying the waters."

How about instead of addressing your perceived motive of the poster, you address his argument? We'll get a lot further if we stick to criticizing ideas instead of people.


Huh. So, just like there are MUDs that mandate different languages, there are MUDs that mandate different business models and because of that, they're fair? Sounds reasonable to me.

What does a search engine have to do with this thread, entitled, "What does fair mean?" The search engine doesn't define what fair means. Whether a MUD is english-based is no different from whether a MUD sells placemats or whether it has orcs from a search engine's point of view except insofar as whether it's english based is far more important than almost any other aspect of it in most likely consumer's minds, including the business model. Being purely English-based is, by any reasonable standard, FAR more "unfair" (by the definition you seem to be using) to non-English speakers than a "pay for perks" mud is to people without much real-life money. At least those people can reasonably play the game. Non-English speakers face discrimination from the moment they log into the game.

The thing is, of course, that there's nothing wrong with that.


I'm not sure what you're referring to. I never mentioned pay-for-perks or free-to-play, nor did I refer to them specifically any more than I did to "roleplay enforced" or "allows half-orc characters" or any other subset of the complete rulset of a game world.


Exactly why I bring up the issue of language competence. That's an OOC resource (just like money!) that nonetheless can have an effect of varying level on the success of players in-game. That seems to be why people cry 'unfair' about the virtual asset sales model.

I've watched many a player for whom English is not a first language struggle because of their language deficiency. There is no feasible suggestion for their disadvantage but that they don't bring the OOC resource of English fluency to the game. No different, at all, from not having the monetary resources to pay WoW's subscription or buy a virtual sword in Achaea, or whatever. You can spend the time to learn English (if you have the time), just as you can spend the time (if you have it) to earn the money to pay WoW's subscription just as you can spend the time (if you have it) to earn the gold to buy credits to get a virtual sword in Achaea.

--matt

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

Umm...
How did player Y access 'the Sword of Uber Slaying' in your example?
Through extensive grinding and camping?

That seems to me to be an example of very bad Game design.

This is a very good point.

I have noticed the generally diminishing death penalty myself, (even in my own Mud), and it irritates me. But since it seems to be a general trend, muds that apply harsh death penalty actually are put at a disadvantage. Players, who are used to dying every five seconds without any more penalty than having to re-wear their gear, are not likely to stay long in a game where death sets you back a lot, or even is permanent. I guess you could say that those are not the type of players you'd like anyhow, but let's face it, if all the players were of the ideal type, our Muds would be very empty.

"In the old days, young whippersnappers, dying would set you back so may levels that it would take weeks to catch up again, and we didn't have any of those 'portals' or 'transport items' or fancy swords either..."

There is actually a general trend of making a lot of things easier in Muds nowadays. Not just death penalties but almost everything gets smoothed out, so that players get babysat and led by the hand and skill becomes less and less of an asset. So even the foolhardy or downright dumb players can advance like crazy nowadays, where in the old days they'd go down in a blaze of fire and have to recreate, because they were so far in the negative that recreating would be a quicker way. (Nowadays I guess they'd just quit instead of recreating, and find themselves an even easier game). :P

It's sad, really.

There are of course ways to counteract this tendency and put some sort of challenge into the game, but they are not always effective, and they are almost always made at the expense of a large playerbase.

Our own method is to offer alternatives to grinding, as ways to get ahead. Above all we use Quests that are not just 'fetch-and-carry, but actually require a lot of attention and at least some thinking to solve. This is where the best equipment comes from in 4D. On top of that we put wear-flags on the quest equipment, so that you can only use it if you have done the quest yourself.

Of course this makes the players who are unable to solve the Quests on their own very frustrated, and I bet they are saying that it's 'unfair'...

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

who is/are that 'some' posters? can you give a name please? if that's me, read that post again carefully. :)

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

By all means, let’s discuss language then, if you find it that important.
I am not an English major myself, so I can appreciate that it has some impact, but to me it’s a minor one, compared to many other problems.

By playing – and above all by building - in Muds, I have increased my own vocabulary, spelling, grammar and general language skills a lot. Sure, there were times in the past when I encountered words in Muds that I didn’t know the meaning of, and having to look them up in a dictionary slowed me down a bit. (For instance I didn’t have a clue what 'jerkin' or 'coif' meant).
But I don’t see that as a major handicap, compared to many other bigger issues.

Perhaps a better example would be a group of players we had from one of the former Soviet satellite states. Their English was so bad when they first started playing with us, that they seemed almost illiterate. But this did not perceptibly slow them down in advancing, in fact they were all typical ‘power players’ and they had obviously played other Muds before ours. Their main problem was that some other players mistook their bad English skills for stupidity, and started to banter them. This lead to mutual resentment, and eventually to some disastrous clashes that affected the entire Mud.

In spite of all this, the players stayed on, and their language skills steadily increased over the years. Today you cannot immediately perceive that they are not English, by ‘listening’ to them on the open channels. I don’t know how much part the Mud had in that, but it certainly had some. In fact you could argue that they didn't just 'waste' their time by playing a computer game - by playing that game they also increased their English skills. So maybe we even helped them to a ‘fairer’ life. :)

Incidentally I find players that drop capitals or punctuation, or use expressions like ‘R U stoopid?’ or ‘ I pwn U’ a lot more of a problem than those that don’t have English as their native language. Even in a RP enforced Mud, you could get past the problem by roleplaying a visitor from a foreign country. Since many roleplayers already adopt phoney accents, what’s wrong with playing a French Knight or a Bulgarian Ambassador?

And speaking of communication problems, we also have a couple of players that are blind. They never ask for any extra favours to compensate their handicap, (apart for some technical code things that could make things easier for them, like a toggle to turn off battle-spam and ascii maps). In fact I am amazed and impressed by how well they get along in the game.

Related to the communication issues is typing skill, which I see as a much larger handicap than limited English. My own typing speed has increased a lot by mudding, but I still have to look at the keyboard, which undoubtedly puts me at a disadvantage against skilled typers in most situations, not just combat. But I regard this as my own fault for being too lazy to learn to type by the touch method, and not something that makes the game unfair.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

Personally I think typing speed is much more of an advantage than lanquage ever could be. We have many foreigners on NW that have no problem competing in the game world both in combat and in roleplay. But typing...now THAT is a huge advantage. I have one player that types 140 WPM which is almost double my typing speed on a good day. Thankfully she is a grand roleplayer and a merchant at that, so she can whip out items, clothing, etc. very fast. I also understand she normally plays 3 muds at once, so just because she types fast, may not make her fast on our game unless focussed specifically at New Worlds.

Which brings back the issue, is anything really fair? Not really, because it is so hard to gauge.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

Ok, so if I find a Finnish mud for you to play you think you'll not have a major issue playing that, even though you won't be able to understand the first word? I suspect you're wrong. ;) I think you'll find that not speaking the language is, aside from not having access to a computer or internet connection, the most fundamental requirement for playing a text MUD.

So you mean they could actually speak English, at least to a rudimentary level. Most people in the world cannot speak English to any level at all.

That is indeed unfortunate and I see it happen a lot. In WoW, players who seem like they may be Chinese get a lot of grief from Westerners.

Yep, we have blind players too. They're at a huge disadvantage in combat. Does that make our games unfair as a whole? I don't think so. It just makes them unfair to blind players.

My point is mainly just that almost every design choice that you choose or which is pushed on you (if you only speak English chances are you're not going to be developing a Bulgarian MUD) is "unfair" to someone. That doesn't make your MUD unfair in general, it just means that it's targetting a certain group of people at the expense of others.

--matt

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

We know that there are humans that exist outside of a normal "model" at any given time, so I'm sure that in some cases, this is true. It would explain why so many people will game to the detriment of their RL obligations. For some, gaming IS the way they meet someone they will ultimately love/have sex with.

I think for most, though, taking care of what they already have comes first, and gaming wouldn't come into the bottom of the pyramid.

Again, you do see this with extreme gamers. They will actually put their virtual property before their RL ones. I don't believe this is the norm, though, which is why it actually makes headlines. (Normal stuff just doesn't make headlines.) Yes, every now and then we get the story of the Korean dude who went and killed his buddy because his buddy sold off an uber sword from their mutual account, but again, that's not normal! Obviously, that dude threw physiological safety out the window real fast. :)

I highlighted "choose" because I believe that this is the basis of fairness in a gaming system. As long as everyone has the same ability to CHOOSE the same things, it's a fair system. One of the biggest reasons that life isn't fair is because we don't all have the same choices. Someone in Sierra Leon can't just choose to move out of the country to escape slaughter. Someone born in Asia can't just choose to change the color of their skin when they move to the US in order to fit in better. In gaming, we get to choose these things down to the type of game we choose to play. The only "unfairness" that really comes into gaming, imo, is when each player gets a different set of rules or options based on their relation with the devs. For example, if player X asked to purchase some XP from the devs and was told that this option is "not available", but player Y was allowed to purchase XP from the devs at the rate of 1 xp per $1,000, that would be unfair because player X obviously isn't allowed the same options as player Y. In gaming, the most "fair" you can be is to allow everyone the same choices.

Granted, there are a lot of things that can seem unfair in a game due to game balance, game design, etc. One could argue that it isn't fair that a healer class can't level as easily as a warrior class via solo combat. At the same time, a warrior class could argue that it wasn't fair that they couldn't gain xp by healing safely from town like a healer class could. Unfortunately, if things like that were "fair", then everyone would be playing the exact same class with the exact same power, allowed to make the exact same coin and XP in the exact same amount of time. At that point, why even have a game? Arguments about fairness in payment systems, game balance, etc. are all based on SUBJECTIVE fairness. It's a matter of opinion, and opinions obviously differ vastly. The real "fair" factor is the fact that all players have the same CHOICES available to them in the game, and I'm not really sure that the word "fair" really applies. Can Player X and Player Y both choose to level to 100 through pure time? Can Player X and Player Y both choose to pay $1 dollar for 1 xp? Can both players choose to roll up a healer? Can both players choose to go through the steps to create a Jedi of Badassedness? If so, then that's about as fair as you can get. Trying to enforce the definition "fair" across all games in regards to game design is futile and a bit presumptuous.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

Sometimes, a thread title seems only a dictionary page-flip away. It was with this confidence that I went to , in order to have a definitive basis for my reasoning.

Start here:
'56 results for: FAIR':
Right off the bat, I'm in trouble...
First problem, easily overcome...the page only actually defines the word 'fair' 31 times, the rest of the entries being devoted to related terms, usually defined with the word 'fair' in them. So scratch those. Some, of course, deal with skin complexion. I can safely say that many games have pimples, so most of them aren't fair.

The in-betweeners, I devote to humor.

1.free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.
This one is worthy of three new threads. "What is bias, dishonesty, and injustice?" IMO if perks can be bought with RL cash that cannot be obtained with game-time pursuit, the rules are unfair. It can be semanticized into 'undesirable for my condition set of enjoyment', all day long. I'll simplify it to a very easily understood concept. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If I don't sense that level playing field, I don't play.

2.legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.
These have been covered. I don't think any of the extreme examples of favoritism posted on earlier NEED to be mentioned as unfair.

3.moderately large; ample: a fair income.
Now THIS makes sense. Only the largest games, making the largest incomes are fair. Here, all we need are some ledger books, and a definitive boundary of population and income, and we can know right then and there which games are fair. I love dictionaries.

4.neither excellent nor poor; moderately or tolerably good: fair health.
Oho! Modify #3. Now even the middling 80% of MUDs, this time, determined by game quality, are fair. This just gets fairer and fairer all the time.

5.marked by favoring conditions; likely; promising: in a fair way to succeed.
EXCELLENT! Now even the games that play favorites are fair, or any game 'marked' by people as playing favorites. I think by now, we've hit 99.999999% of all MUDs out there. The one MUD that hasn't been accused of favoritism being the NEXT one to be started. We've managed to be fair in calling almost every single game out there 'fair'.

6.Meteorology. a.(of the sky) bright; sunny; cloudless to half-cloudy. b.(of the weather) fine; with no prospect of rain, snow, or hail; not stormy.
7.Nautical. (of a wind or tide) tending to aid the progress of a vessel.
Also, if your game has a sky or an ocean, it's fair, unless the weather is crappy. It has to be REALLY crappy, though, or your game is still fair under rule #3.

8.unobstructed; not blocked up: The way was fair for our advance.
If people can log into your games, then you have a fair game! This is really covering all but the most infinitesmal fraction of all games! Wow!

9.without irregularity or unevenness: a fair surface.
10.free from blemish, imperfection, or anything that impairs the appearance, quality, or character: Her fair reputation was ruined by gossip.

WHOOPS, back to square one. NO GAMES ARE FAIR. Damn, we were doing pretty good up to this point.


11.
easy to read; clear: fair handwriting.
12.of a light hue; not dark: fair skin.
13.pleasing in appearance; attractive: a fair young maiden.
Okay, these are font, coloration and aesthetic issues. I can't be fair about this one. I have poor eyesight.


14.seemingly good or sincere but not really so: The suitor beguiled his mistress with fair speeches.
Oh HELL yes! Now even the DISHONEST MUDs are fair! God Bless Clarity In Speech! We're back on track, since now all a mud has to do to be fair...is lie.

15.courteous; civil: fair words.
The only fair word that can be expressly defined here is 'fair', so if your mud has the word 'fair' in it, it's a fair mud. Partial credit will be given for the word 'courteous'.

16.Medicine/Medical. (of a patient's condition) having stable and normal vital signs and other favorable indicators, as appetite and mobility, but being in some discomfort and having the possibility of a worsening state.

EXCELLENT! All muds are fair again.


17.Dialect. scarcely; barely: It was just fair daylight when we started working.
So, even if your game is still in Alpha, barely coded, scarcely legible, it, too, is still fair. Fair is a really awesome word!

–adverb
18.in a fair manner: He doesn't play fair.
Whoops, it looks like we might have to start alllllllll over.

19.straight; directly, as in aiming or hitting: He threw the ball fair to the goal.
20.favorably; auspiciously.
21.British, Australian. entirely; completely; quite: It happened so quickly that it fair took my breath away.
–noun
22.Archaic. something that is fair.

19-21: If your game has aiming or hitting, and does so auspiciously, especially if it hits Brits and Australians until they can't breathe, and has something within its content that someone, somewhere, might call 'Archaic', you have what is referred to as "Fourfold Fair" and may check that box on the TMS mudselector menu.

23. A woman
Okay, there we go. If your game has women....


On the other hand, I did find in this thread what I've believed my entire life was the single best-worded definition of 'UNFAIR'.

"targetting a certain group of people at the expense of others."
Divide a room of kindergardeners right down the middle. Tell the ones on the left they get a treat, while the ones on the right do not, and for no other reason than because one group was on the left, and one group was on the right. Ask them what they think of that.

They won't be hyper-semantic about it.

In that sense, NO game is fair.
And still, I do believe most people know intuitively what fair means. Buy Ubersword that cannot be brought in game unless RL cash is paid? Not only is it unfair....GAH, IT'S SO OOC!

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

Any roleplaying game in which player skill has any effect on the game is already involving OOC factors. Personally, I think that keeping everything in-role (ie completely dependent on the character rather than the player) makes for one heck of a boring game. I like to be able to use my knowledge, intelligence, skill, etc in games even if they're OOC resources (just like free time and money are).


--matt

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

Semantics:

I'll amend:
"SO HORRIBLY OOC AND POTENTIALLY HIGHLY DIVORCED FROM DESIRABLE SKILLS TOWARDS GAMEPLAY THAT LUMPING 'FOUND $20 IN A DUMPSTER' CAN EQUATE TO 'STUDIED ENGLISH, TYPING, HISTORY, LITERATURE, PROBLEM-SOLVING AND ACTING FOR 30 YEARS' BELEAGUERS CREDULITY".

That's what I really should've said.
I'm sure that can be semanticized and rationalized into triviata, but it also something easily and intuitively understood by most people. Ask the kindergardeners.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

There's absolutely nothing inherently more OOC about real-life cash than other real-life resources such as typing skills or language mastery. In both cases, they are literally "out-of-character" resources. If your justification for opposing OOC in blanket terms is simply that something is OOC, then there's really not a lot of room to distinguish between the two. A more nuanced view of things is probably in order.

It strikes me that you seem to feel that money is a special resource, different from all sorts of other resources that are equally OOC. Why? All MUDs/MMOs require different OOC resources from people that different people possess in varying amounts. You yourself may prefer that one or another OOC resource is highlighted as being important, but of course that's not 'fair' to anyone who doesn't possess that resource. I'm at a huge disadvantage if I go play a Chinese MMO, because I don't possess the OOC skill of speaking Mandarin or Cantonses well, but that doesn't mean the Chinese MMO is unfair (or perhaps it does, in which case I stop caring about that definition of 'fair' given that it's a silly one).

I'd suggest that in any game, what's fair is what's allowed by the rules. Complaining that something that's within the rules is unfair is like claiming that it's unfair for a pitcher to throw a 98 mph fastball just because you can't.

--matt

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

Just because you generalize cash in with actual GAME SKILLS as 'outside resources', and therefore no more or less inherently ooc simply doesn't wash with me.

Firstly:
It's my very strongly held opinion that there are only two kinds of people who would rationalize it that way.
Game moderators who wish to make a buck, not that I begrudge them this.
Game forum moderators who don't wish to aggravate paying advertisers.

And, to remain topical, that's fair.

To use that sports analogy of football, it's like one team practiced all summer, exercised, trained but can't afford helmets and pads but are issued maybe a nutcup by the little league, and are put on the scrimmage line with kids who had a little practice, learned a couple of plays, but have cleats, full pads and helmets, and were given in some cases steroids.
That's a far more accurate sports analogy than comparing it to someone with a 98 MPH fastball, which the guy didn't go to a vending machine and BUY.

Secondly, the entire basis of my argument was not simply that it's ooc. But that it's SO ooc that it takes a lot of mental contortions to arrive at the final conclusion that it is somehow 'fair'.

Still, it's my opinion, nothing more, and can be dissected. Bottom line, I wouldn't play a game that made the field thus unleveled. On and off in my playing career of three decades, I've been at varying levels of income and time. I've also seen games that try to strike a fair balance for both player types (time and money). In no case is that fairness achieved by allowing one player set access to features or gear that wasn't in some way achievable by the other player set.
So you're right, it is a preference, and it's a preference based on determination of 'fair' as I have always perceived it.

The 'it's in the rules and therefore fair' argument sounds like a lot of self-justifying rationalization to me.
Chess. White always goes first. Okay, it's an advantage in the rules, but it is pure luck of the draw, available to either player. The black player cannot somewhere down the line slip the officials a twenty and be given a second queen.

But, I realize that my opinion differs from the moderator's.
"targetting a certain group of people at the expense of others" equates to 'advantaging a certain group of people at the expense of others'. You can call it 'fair' if this is disclosed up front. It just doesn't have the ring of fairness I expect when I think of 'does that just -sound- fair?'

So perhaps you're right in the implication that I am not fair-minded, and that this is a huge blind spot in my reasoning, and sense of justice and fair play. On a given day, I could argue the position from your side, essentially adopting an 'all's fair if it's disclosed up front' position, and make a case.

My heart wouldn't be in it. Not as a player, a designer, a person. It just sounds like another way to 'commercialize' a word like 'free'. Words mean things. Free is free (although at this point FREE* should be added to the dictionary the way definition 14 of 'fair' was), fair is fair. Watering down a concept with caveats, disclaimers, rationalization and semantics only seems to make a subjective word, that most people consent to agree upon, meaningless.

The topic asked a question. I answered it.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

Well, that's simply not true unless you're suggesting that, for instance, virtually all South Korean gamers (the most MMO-mad culture on earth) are game moderators or game forum moderators.

You're just exercising cultural bias, which is fine, but is fairly arbitrary.

--matt

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

I guess this is getting to be a dead horse.

Calling me culturally biased, when what most people on this forum are talking about are English-based muds is just another venture into non sequitor. Being a moderator isn't really enough license to keep making personal assessements for daring to disagree with you. You say what is clearly labeled as my opinion isn't 'true'? Yeesh.

Extrapolating my very simply-understood point to mean "all South Korean gamers are moderators" is just fallaciously polymic. Argument for its own sake. This is a debating tactic that really cheapens a debate.
I don't really see a lot of South Koreans in this topic thread saying what you're saying. I see you saying it, and very likely fitting the precise demographic I was very specific about.

So, for the sake of pre-empting additional trivial side-points such as, "I have no arms or eyes, can't type, am not from this planet and therefore have no language skills, and therefore all games are inherently unfair, and if that's true, paying money for items non-payers can't get is therefore no MORE unfair than all those other conditions', let me add this caveat. I believe some of the 'nuances' of this debate are implicit.

Being intentionally obtuse to meaning, resorting to personal assessments, and otherwise honing debate skills without really furthering the topic beyond "Everything's fair, so long as a doc is available somewhere calling an unfair practice a 'rule'." isn't really the purpose of this thread, beyond the fact that it does invite that rather singular opinion.

Definition 1 says it best. The word 'fair' has genuine meaning, and if any 'bias' is being shown, it would be the bias toward those who are willing to outspend rather than outgame someone. Yes, it's a design and policy choice, but its goal isn't by any reasonable person's stretch of credulity intended to promote 'fairness'. It's intended to promote 'profits'. It can of course be excused as 'fair' so long as everyone knows that's the case (presuming, which I don't, that the moderators are -completely- honest up-front about how it precisely affects gameplay).

Having said all that, I had a platinum account on GS4 for years. I got WHACK perks for it, -while- I had extra time to play as well. I didn't at any point feel like I was paying the extra money to promote fairness. I wanted the unfair advantage it gave. It was clear, up-front, documented as a 'rule', and the knowledge that such was the case was available to everyone, even if the means to exploit it wasn't. It was that very obvious situation that not everyone would have the means to exploit it that gave me an unfair advantage, in that I could. These advantages quite often create unintentional additional advantages, so it's very reasonable to say that it wasn't really all that up-front, just because it was in the 'rules'.

Let us agree to disagree. You think I'm a culturally biased and innately unfair and unreasonable person with disproportionate views on money.
I think you're a rationalizing defender of money-grubbing special interests with a profit agenda more interested in diluting than crystallizing a debate.

:D

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

I think it's all fair if everyone is offered the same opportunity. If you only offer play for perks to some people that is unfair. If some people must pay for perks and others get those perks for free that is unfair. If some people were only allowed by the game to log in for restricted times and others for unrestricted times, that would be unfair.

But if the game is open to anyone who wants to log in for the same hours and your schedule doesn't allow you to be logged in for all the hours someone else's schedule allows, too bad. Win the lotto. Find a game where the norm is to play less.
If some people can afford more perks than you, find a free game, one with a cheaper price structure, or win the lotto.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

Not precisely a structure I've ever seen in reality. The game is free to most, but some -must- pay? You're right, it's not fair. However, the actual condition discussed is 'must pay if they don't want to put in the same work as someone who does not pay and want a shortcut'. It is -exceptionally- unfair if that shortcut's goal is available to only one player set.

By 'the game is open to anyone', do you mean that every feature available to non-payers is available to payers? You can either spend time and work for the perk, or is it only 'open' to payers? If not, I can't imagine on what planet that would be 'fair'.

I used to have that attitude. "I can outspend you. Tough luck." It's not about whether the game is FREE or CHEAP. It's about whether everyone pays the same, or pays in an equitable tradeoff. It's about equitability. I don't have a problem if everyone is charged a flat fee, even if that fee is half the lotto. This isn't an infantile rant of the haves over the have-nots.

You can call it fair for a month. It doesn't make it so. I -would- leave a game with a structure of pay-only-perks, not because of the money, but because of the unfairness.

When you consider that it's by no means really a time-versus-money issue, as in the following example:
Player A logs in for the first time. He hasn't paid for perks. He just wants to check the game out.
Player B logs in for the first time. He's got a ton of money to throw around, so he checks all the boxes, and bills his card. Voila, two people step out of the chargen, already imbalanced.

Player A sets about hunting. He's got some experience with gaming, and does just fine.
Player B sets about hunting, but he's in another area where the mobs are tougher, or he's ripping through the same area twice as fast.
And at some point, the same two players end up in PvP. One has an unfair advantage. Even if they're both in their first day.
How much clearer does the unfairness need to be?

As far as winning the lotto, I'd love to. There's a fine example of how to make this fair. (sarcasm).
In other words, the odds of making the game fair are roughly a half trillion to one. If there are perks offered to one set for money that are not offered to another for time, I agree, it's a real long-odds stretch that it could be construed as fair. Then again, I don't think this is about fairness any more.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

The time thing was if the game is open 24 hours and some people have 24 hours a day to play and you don't and they advance more than you is that fiar? And my response to that is yes it is fair. My feeling is if everyone has the same set of options open to them, you can spend, or play or accomplish/get/have less you choose, that's perfectly fair.

Of course, I've never played a mud where you pay for perks. So, my opinion is an uninformed one.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

I'm coming to this thread a little late, so I apologise if what I say has already been covered; but it seems to me that arguing about whether or not a pay-for-perks model is "fair" is really missing the point. I think both sides are missing the point. It seems to me that a pay-for-perks model is deeply, profoundly unfair, but that this doesn't actually matter a damn.

Some people will feel (as I do) that they want to progress in a game by virtue of their innate cunning and and game-related ingenuity. To people like me, a pay-for-perks model is repulsive, because on a pay-for-perks MUD I will continually get pwned by 733t hax0r kiddies whose skill is vastly inferior to my own, but who have managed to overcome that disadvantage simply by having rich parents.

I couldn't stand playing on a MUD like that. And so I don't. :) There are plenty of MUDs out there that are not pay-for-perks, and so, if I want to do some MUDding, I'll choose one of them.

But not everyone feels like that. Some people have reached a time in their lives where they can't actually be bothered to spend hour after hour grinding through the lower levels of a MUD in order to become powerful. They simply don't find that kind of game fun any more. What they want is to be able to progress at a rate that is comfortable to them and that they are capable of sustaining. A person like that would actively prefer a pay-for-perks model, because they can use cash to compensate for their lack of free-time.

The important point is that, however much I may personaly dislike pay-for-perks MUDs, I haven't the slightest objection to other people playing them. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that, simply beause pay-for-perks-lovers have different wants and needs from mine that no one should be allowed to cater for those needs. If a previously non-pfp MUD that I had spent a long time on suddenly decided to switch models I might make a fuss about that - "but this will so change the nature of the MUD it will no longer be recognisably the same game", etc. - but otherwise it's simply a case of "live and let live" - you guys play the type of game you like, and I'll play what I like.

It's a terrible mistake for pay-for-perks admins to try to claim that pay-for-perks is "fair"; it isn't, and they just make themselves look stupid if they say it is. What they should be saying is "no, of course it's not fair, but that's the whole point - this is a game for people who don't want the game to be fair. Why is that a problem?"

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

Shasarak, you said my actual stance, and I don't begrudge anyone the choice to play or create pfp's. I don't begrudge my beloved muds the right to make money and stay in business.
I begrudge them, under the topic's title, the right to call it fair. I just don't agree the opportunity is 'open' to everyone. Usually the way players discover how innately unfair they are, despite disclaimers, is by surprise.

I can absolutely agree that a pfp model that's fair is if the goal or object is acquirable by an expenditure of time -or- money, -or- some other commodity the game admins find to be of value.
Levels? Sure, why not? So long as there isn't a cap for non-payers. Ubergear? Sure. So long as it can be purchased by RL cash, IC cash, or IC methods available to everyone.
Access to premium areas? I'm torn on this one, unless the area itself provides some innate advantage like larger storage capacities. While I find such perks fair to the admin's goals, and reasonable if more labor is purchased or server space is dedicated, etc. But these things aren't really designed with fairness in mind.

I realize some of my preferences for games are innately unfair.
I prefer games that are 18 and over. Not fair! wail the kids. (True, but it's more peaceful, IMO.)
A number of preferences for gamestyle may be desirable, and a number of those preferences trade off some other desired condition that shelves fairness. Whaddayagonnado?

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

In my opinion, there is no such thing as a perfect ideal named "fair".

There is, however, a quality that you can apply to some dimension of a game named "fair".

What do I mean? First, I think the concept of "fair" can only be described when there is some form of competition between players. To step away from MUDs, let's say two people are playing a "Myst"-style game. One solves all the puzzles, the other uses walkthroughs on the Web (or maybe even available in-game for all that this matters). Is this "fair"? I claim it is immaterial. If both players have had fun, it doesn't matter. Is the first player's fun diminished by the fact that the second person "cheated"? (If even that term can be applied.) No.

However, say the two people, or the game, starts to compare the players, and publish rankings of how fast players have solved it. Thus, competition comes into play, and therefore, "how" they progress matters.

Now consider MUDs. If you have a mostly pure PvE environment, is there competition? If not, then the only point of "fair" turns into ego points. "It took me x hours of gaming to get that level, I don't want someone spending $ to get it for free." (Yes, that is an oxymoron.)

So, the question is, what is it do you want to be "fair"? The work someone puts in to level? The money that they spend? Puzzles that they solve? The player's aptitude with strategy? The programmability of their client?

And sometimes it just doesn't work out how you think. To claim some "fairness" in PvP, does it matter if someone bought their way up, or have been there for years? In the end, the same character "power" is arrayed against you (though admittedly, not player skill--in that case, if you are trying to be ganked by someone 5 levels over you, wouldn't you rather be a bought up newbie?)

Specifically with pay-for-perks, generally speaking, in what matters to me, a system where money equalizes for time is much more "fair" than one where you can only buy the perks. However, there's a very sliding scale here. Having to spend $100s or even $1000s to equalize may sound fair, but unacceptable to me, as is the other way around, where I have to spend huge amounts of time to keep up with someone.