[MUD-Dev] Blacksnow revisted

Mark Eaton marke at mac.com
Wed Apr 3 18:41:03 New Zealand Daylight Time 2002


On Monday, April 1, 2002, at 11:31 PM, Eli Stevens wrote:

> From my point of view, Mythic owns the toys, and the rest follows
> naturally from that.  If we disagree on the ownership part of the
> equation, it seems THAT is what we should be talking about.  And
> from what I can tell, we _do_ disagree on that point, which I find
> hard to understand.

You weren't addressing me, but I'd like to chime in here.

I think the source of this notion is that players are allowed, no
encouraged to trade items amongst themselves in game. Players are
allowed to sell items for in game currency. This is all encouraged
under the rubrik of 'in game economy'.

If players have no ownership whatsoever how is the above fair?

E.g. if I sit outside the room of "mean nasty boss orc" and charge
players for access to said monster's loot, I would most likely be
deemed a nut by the other players. If I go in and whack mean nasty
boss orc and take his sword of bashemgud, and then sell it to
another player for 50 samolians -- or whatever that particular
game's currency is -- its deemed perfectly normal.

So the leap is then made that the player 'owns' the sword of
bashemgud..

Now whether the player *really* owns that item is the crux of the
debate, but I was just trying to sum up the pro argument.

</re-lurk>

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev



More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list