Defining Grief Play in MMORPGs: Player and Developer
Perceptions
Chek Yang Foo
Elina M.I. Koivisto
Curtin University of Technology
Higher Degree Research Unit, CBS
GPO Box U1987
Perth WA 6845, Australia
Nokia Research Center
P.O. Box 100
33721 Tampere, Finland
[email protected]
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
In current literature, grief play in Massively Multi-player
Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) refers to play styles
where a player intentionally disrupts the gaming experience
of other players. In our study, we have discovered that player
experiences may be disrupted by others unintentionally, and
under certain circumstances, some will believe they have
been griefed. This paper explores the meaning of grief play,
and suggests that some forms of unintentional grief play
be called greed play. The paper suggests that greed play
be treated as griefing, but a more subtle form. It also investigates the different types of griefing and establishes a
taxonomy of terms in grief play.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
J.4 [Social and Behavioral Sciences]: Sociology
General Terms
Human Factors
Keywords
MMORPG, game design, grief play, harassment, power imposition, scamming, greed play, avatars, role-play
1.
INTRODUCTION
Massively Multi-player Online Role-Playing Games, or
MMORPGs, are large online worlds where players take on
different roles and ‘role-play’ their avatars. The subscriber
bases of large MMORPGs each comprise players numbering in the hundreds of thousands. With so many players
in the game, individual perceptions of what is ‘fun’ in an
MMORPG will logically vary. While the majority of players get along harmoniously, some players appear to engage
instead in play styles that specifically disrupt other players’
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific
permission and/or a fee.
International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology ACE 2004, June 3-5, 2004, Singapore
Copyright 2004 ACM 1-58113-000-0/00/0004 ...$5.00.
gaming experiences. This type of play style is known as
‘grief play’, and grief players are known as ‘griefers’ [11].
Surprisingly, although the term ‘grief play’ is familiar to
players and developers of MMORPGs, very little formal
study has been conducted to investigate this behaviour. This
paper attempts to define grief play, and establish a taxonomy of its types. The intention of this paper is to assist
both players and developers in understanding what it is.
2.
DATA COLLECTION
The sources of data for this paper include a series of
interviews conducted by Foo with a group of 31 respondents (comprising 18 ‘non’-grief players, 8 griefers, and 5
MMORPG developers), and discussion room postings from
players. However, for the limited objectives of this paper,
data was used from interviews primarily, with discussion
postings used to validate the findings. The mode of interview inquiry was semi-structured and through email, and
ran from Sep 2003 to Jan 2004 with two to three questions per email. An average of 24 questions were asked
per respondent, covering not only the definitional aspects
of grief play, but also player expectations, griefer motivations, perceptions of game management, and player justice
systems. Replies varied in length - some wrote sentences,
others wrote pages. Also, both researchers are active players of MMORPGs, and care was taken to eliminate bias and
personal opinion in the study. The resulting data was analysed in a qualitative manner.
3.
DEFINING GRIEFING
Studies of anti-social behaviour in multi-player role-playing
games in the 90s were centred around Multi-User Dungeons
(MUDs), comprising usually hundreds of users. MMORPGs
tend to have much larger subscriber bases, coupled also
with the added dimensions of avatar-based role-playing and
graphical realism. Kim [7] notes the relationship between
violence exhibited by griefers in the first large MMORPG,
Ultima Online (UO), and the existence of social communities
in Britannia, its game world: “The paradox of violence in
online worlds is that while it generates moral outrage, it also
encourages players to band together into tightly knit groups
of trusted comrades. These groups - tribes, clans, families,
or guilds - are what Britannian culture, and perhaps online
culture in general, is really all about.”
Ever since the launch of UO in 1997, grief play has surfaced as an interest area to players and developers, evidenced
245
by the amount of discussion generated in online forums.
Moreover, we believe a study of grief play will be of interest to academics researching on social conflict in online
communities.
‘Grief’ can be defined as “a source of deep mental anguish”, “annoyance or frustration” [1]. Mulligan & Patrovsky [9] explain that a griefer is: “A player who derives
his/her enjoyment not from playing the game, but from performing actions that detract from the enjoyment of the game
by other players.”
Key to this definition is that:
action may cause others distress, it is not considered harassment until it is determined by OSI/EA that it was done to
intentionally cause distress or to offend other players.”
To better illustrate the significance of whether intention is
critical in an act, two scenarios to show the relative absence
of intent were posed to interview respondents:
1. “A player with vendors somehow succeeds in cornering an important resource needed by players and is
normally sold on NPC5 vendors, so that it no longer
becomes available for sale on NPCs. Players can only
buy the resource at increased prices, and the seller does
this for the purpose of making large profits.”
1. The griefer’s act is intentional;
2. “A player persistently camps a high level mob for an
item he wants. But because his character isn’t advanced enough, this mob kills the player, and proceeds
to kill other neighbouring players. The others are unhappy and feel their gaming is being affected, but this
player refuses to leave the area and continues to fight
the high level mob, as he wants that item.”
2. It causes other players to enjoy the game less;
3. The griefer enjoys the act.
There is evidence to suggest that the actual number of
players who grief is really quite small - the statistic of 3 percent of players who grief was quoted in the Game Developers
Conference 2002 [13]. However, Pham [11] notes that their
play style affects players many times their numbers.
Central to what makes an activity griefing is the presence
of intent, which is noted by Mulligan & Patrovsky [9]. We
observe this also in the responses of our interviewees, discussion room postings, and in the Rules of Conduct (ROC)
of some games. Respondents do not seem to dispute the
meaning of ‘grief’, nor the presence of intention to detract
other players’ enjoyment1 .
3.1
The issue of intention
Data from our interviews initially suggested that respondents believe grief play is often intentional. Even then, after
more in-depth investigation, we realised that some players
believe that even if an action is permissible by game mechanics and the griefer’s foremost intention may not have been
to cause distress to others, they will feel griefed if they have
been annoyed or disturbed as a result of that action nonetheless. In other words, griefing may be unintentional, for example, as one respondent (R28)2 of UO cites an incident
of a tamer with a pet he cannot properly control attacking
the mobs3 already engaged by other players. Another player
(R23) remarks that if an act has made it harder for other
players to advance (in the game), it is griefing regardless of
the presence of intent: “When you camp4 out a spawn simply to collect the money and high end items you cause grief
to other players because they never get a chance.”
To complicate matters further, the ROCs of some games
suggest that the presence of intent is critical in the assessment of an act to see if griefing has taken place. For example, the Harassment Policy of UO [4] says: “While an
1
Examples of respondent definitions can be found at
http://www.chekyang.com/phd/gf/ act2004-grief-1.htm.
2
The interview material is not publicly available at the moment, and the identity of each respondent in the study is
protected. The authors of this paper can be contacted if the
reader would like to follow-up on interview data requests.
In addition, for consistency, we will use the masculine form
when referring to respondents, although both sexes were represented in our study.
3
Hostile creatures or computer controlled entities in the
game.
4
Wait in the vicinity for a period of time where the item or
mob is known to appear.
Responses to the first scenario suggested that if an activity
is part of the game mechanic by design, then it would not
be a grief tactic (R1). Moreover, this could be a case in
which players have responded to incentives in the game to be
profitable, and while their method of gaining profit may have
been ‘unexpected’ (R3), it has not been with the specific
intention of causing discomfort to other players.
The second scenario drew varied responses, with one respondent (R15) suggesting that the player is repeatedly playing in a manner that poses significant harm to other players.
Hence, while his actions may not have been with the specific
intention of distressing other players, that they have causes
the act to be perceived as griefing, if a more ambiguous
form of. Another respondent, a griefer (R10), even suggests
that this scenario poses the potential for more griefing from
surrounding players, if they initiate hostilities towards this
ambitious player camping the mob.
The difference between the two scenarios lie in how much
harm has been posed to players. The first will inconvenience
players, but the second can potentially kill their avatars. We
believe griefing can be perceived in the second scenario in
two ways: firstly, the actor engaging in dangerous activities is aware that his actions pose danger to other players.
Secondly, the action continues to take place even after surrounding players have made known their displeasure (R30).
The player base seems to be forgiving towards a player who
may be unconscious of the dangers or risks his action exposes other players to. But if that action is repeated, even
in the absence of a specific intention to grief, players will
consider that act to be griefing (R27).
While game management in MMORPGs do attempt to
determine if there has been intention to grief when investigating an act, interview data suggests this is not easy. Unless the grief player has verbalised some part of his action
(R1), or the action perpetuated is clearly providing minimal
direct benefit to him, whether the player is truly intending
to distress or disrupt can be difficult to determine.
Data in our study suggests, similarly, that some players regard as griefing any activity that interferes with their enjoyment of the game, regardless of any intention to distress or
disrupt. While Mulligan & Patrovsky’s definition of griefing
5
Non-player, or computer controlled, characters.
246
is appropriate in identifying ‘purposeful’ griefing, we believe
a distinction needs to be drawn to distinguish two types of
grief play - the purposeful, and the more subtle kind.
• The first type has the clear presence of intention to
disrupt other players’ gaming experience, similar to
that suggested by Mulligan & Patrovsky.
• The second type is ambiguous as there is no explicit
intention to grief. The actor may be responding to incentives provided in the game to get ahead. However,
by carrying out an action where the actor is the sole
beneficiary, that action could be seen as selfish, and
potentially upset or harm other players. For this, we
propose the term ‘greed play’, and suggest it be placed
as a type of grief play.
Another factor supporting our argument for distinction
between these styles is the issue of player types. Bartle divides players into four categories: “killers”, “socializers”,
“explorers”, and “achievers” [2], and we believe griefers are
primarly killers and greed players achievers according to his
player types. The principal difference between grief and
greed play, again, lie in how explicit is the intention to grief.
With this in mind, we define grief play as:
Play styles that disrupt another player’s gaming experience, usually with specific intention to. When the act is not
specifically intended to disrupt and yet the actor is the sole
beneficiary, it is greed play, a subtle form of grief play.
Our paper will elaborate in a later section the various
types of grief play we have observed, and also greed play.
3.2
Other characteristics of griefing
In grief play, and to a lesser extent greed play, the griefer
enjoys the act and attention. The presence of web sites that
relate the exploits of griefers6 suggest that griefers are unabashed about their activities. This behaviour is similar
to teasing - Feinberg [5] suggests that a teaser through the
exercising of his wit, intelligence, and imagination gets the
attention he wants. One player also notes that the determinant to whether a griefing activity is successful is based on
the reactions of the people suffering from the griefer’s actions, and not merely from the accomplishment of whatever
is being done (R30).
In addition, several respondents revealed incidents where
they were griefed either as new players, or when their characters were in vulnerable states. The griefer is typically
more powerful than the victim in terms of character advancement, assets and equipment owned, and often a more
experienced player. This makes it difficult for the victim
to retaliate (R15). Moreover, when asked if griefers enjoy
being attacked in return in a Player versus Player7 (PvP)
setting, one griefer (R12) remarks: “Griefers don’t want
retaliation. If there was, they could not grief as much and
the whole purpose to be a griefer is to cause grief and get
away with it.”
This is not to suggest that all griefers avoid retaliation.
For some, it is an added challenge when their victims attempt to defend themselves (R6). In addition, it could be
a signal to the griefer that his effort to annoy has been succesful if the victims have been sufficiently distressed to take
action.
6
For example http://galad.griefgaming.com.
Refers to situations where players engage in combat against
other players.
7
3.3
Griefing and rules
Salen & Zimmerman [14] write that there are three related
levels of rules in a game - constituative rules which are the
“core mathematical rules”, operational rules which are the
“rules of play” that players follow, and implicit rules. For
the purposes of our paper, we have adapted these to form
three types of rules:
• ‘Law of Code’8 or what is allowed by program code.
• Rules found in the Terms of Services or ROCs accompanying MMORPG titles.
• Implicit rules which are the loosely defined, gamespecific social rules of ‘fair-play’ and etiquette of that
game.
When game management employees, for example game
masters, investigate if griefing has occurred in an incident,
of significant concern is if rules, particularly of the first two
types above, have been broken. Rules, however, differ from
game to game. A play style that is disallowed and used as a
method for griefing in one could be regarded as an acceptable game tactic in another. For example, player blocking
is allowed in UO [4] but not in EverQuest (EQ) [15]. Restrictions on a play style are either implemented in the Law
of Code - which makes it normally impossible for players
to get round, unless loopholes are exploited - or governed
by the ROC, which players are required to follow. Harder
to enforce, however, are the implicit rules, which tend to
be nebulous and may be subjective for different players.
Moreover, a new play style could be perceived as griefing
according to implicit rules, but could come to be regarded
as a legitimate play style if it becomes commonplace or as
the player base matures. ROCs, however, routinely include
a ‘catch all’ which states - often in broad terms - that a
player may not play the game in a way that inhibits the
enjoyment of other players. For example, in Dark Age of
Camelot (DAoC): “Player may not engage in any conduct
or communication while using the DAoC Services which is
unlawful or which restricts or inhibits any other Player from
using or enjoying these Services.” [10]
Players will often employ implicit rules when assessing if
they have been griefed by a play style, while game management will base their consideration on Law of Code and
ROCs.
4.
A TAXONOMY FOR GRIEF PLAY
Based on our data, we suggest four categories of griefing:
harassment, power imposition, scamming, and greed
play9 . The four categories differ along these criteria: 1)
how explicit is the intent to grief when in that play style;
2) the kind of rules the play style breaks; 3) developer and
player perceptions of the play style.
We will add a note on game exploitation here. While
perceptions among players and developers differ on what
kind of play style is griefing, game exploitation is seen with
disdain by players, and disallowed by game management
altogether. For example, in EQ’s ROC:
8
The term ‘code is law’ is used in Lawrence Lessig’s book
‘Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace’ [8].
9
More
detail
on
grief
play
types
and
their
relation
to
rules
can
be
found
at
http://www.chekyang.com/phd/gf/act2004-grief-1.htm.
247
“You will not exploit any bug in EverQuest and you will
not communicate the existence of any such exploitable bug
(bugs that grant the user unnatural or unintended benefits in
game), either directly or through public posting, to any other
user of EverQuest.” [15]
Game exploitation is associated with griefing when exploits are used to facilitate or enhance the effects of a griefing
act. For example, a player who is blocking another player’s
way in a Player versus Environment10 (PvE) setting with
the intention of getting him killed by monsters could be exploiting loopholes in the game. This is assuming that this
is a play style that has not been considered in design earlier
on and code written in to make such behaviour impossible.
Even then, game exploitation may occur separately from
a griefing action. The exploiter’s intent may be to benefit
purely from the deficiencies of game design or code and not
to grief, even if the effects of that exploitation may affect
indirectly the gaming experience of other players.
4.1
Harassment
In harassment, the griefer’s intention is to cause emotional
distress to the victim. Aside from the enjoyment of seeing
the victim suffer, the griefer does not benefit from the action otherwise. In some instances, harassment can be without the intention to grief if the actor does not know his
behaviour upsets other players, for example by using a term
in his speech or in his character name that may be racially
offensive to a particular group of players. Regardless, if the
player has been asked to stop using this term but does not
do so, it could be reasonable to conclude that the player
is griefing, regardless of initial intent. The ROCs of many
MMORPGs prohibit harassment strictly.
Of harassment types, shouting slurs is a common way to
harass other players. This type of behaviour is often easy
for game management to prosecute as chat messages can be
logged for further investigation. The player may also intentionally spam a chat channel repeatedly with messages of
low relevance or utility. Players may also emote in an offensive way, for example when performing a so-called ‘virtual’
rape of a victim in the game (R20). MMORPGs often allow players to ignore chat messages from specific players,
or engage profanity filters. Spatial intrusion occurs when
a player repeatedly violates the space perceived to be private to another player even when he is requested to stop.
For example, a griefer can enter a player-owned house or establishment and proceed to make a nuisance by spamming
slurs. One player (R24) of UO relates the following: “Some
punk kid came along one day and ran inside my house as I
was coming out. He stood in the doorway, holding the door
open and called to passers by come on in and take anything
you want for free! ... I killed him three times (trashing my
reputation) and he just rezzed [resurrected] himself back in
my house and continued the harassment.”
Game design improvements since then allow the owner
of a player establishment to better manage who gets access
into the property.
Event disruption occurs when an event organized by
players is purposefully interrupted by other players. One
player (R27) of UO relates an event, called ‘The Trinsic incident’, where a large role-playing event was griefed by 5
players, resulting in the event being called off after 15 min10
Refers to players engaging agents which are not controlled
by other players but by the game environment.
utes. Often, griefers either disrupt events directly by spamming chat messages that violate the spirit of the event, or
engage in destructive action to upset the arrangement or organization of the event. Moreover, because MMORPGs are
social systems and not just games [12], ways of harassment
that are possible in real life are possible in the game as well;
for example stalking, eavesdropping and threatening.
4.2
Power imposition
The demonstration of power in itself is not perceived by
players as griefing. But when power superiority is manifested through other actions, for example certain types of
player killing, or coupled with other griefing types, for example harassment, it is.
Some developers feel that a play style is not a griefing
tactic if it is allowed by game design and code (R1). If PvP
combat is allowed in a game and players are ambushed and
killed unexpectedly, the ROC does not typically regard this
as griefing. Moreover, player killing may be motivated by
a desire other than to impose power over the victim - for
example because the game by design encourages consensual
player killing in the form of player faction conflict. However,
data suggests that the particular circumstance of a player
killing may cause the victim to believe he has been griefed.
A player (R23) of UO relates the following encounter with a
griefer: “He invited us over to see his house and we agreed,
as he seemed like a nice guy. Once close to his house he
turned around and attack us. My friend fell first and then
I fell next. He looted our things and refused to resurrect
us. When we finally did get resurrected, we went back to my
friends house only to be killed again. We were killed by him
4 times that night.”
In this case, the respondent’s character was killed repeatedly. In addition, several respondents also related incidents
where their characters were killed when helpless (for example having just combatted a tough mob and leaving the character in a weakened state), new or very inexperienced, with
verbal abuse often accompanying the act. Moreover, the
use of loopholes to cause the death of another player’s
character will likely add to perception that the player has
been griefed with underhand methods.
To put it another way, regardless of the Law of Code,
the act of killing another player could be perceived to be
griefing if: 1) the victim’s death offers little or no direct
benefit outside faction PvP to the player; 2) verbal abuse
accompanies the act; 3) the act is repeated several times; or
4) the act is facilitated through the use of loopholes.
Similarly, rez killing and newbie killing are perceived
to be grief play if the player does not significantly benefit
from the action, regardless of the Law of Code. In rez killing,
the griefer first resurrects the victim and after that kills
him again, doing so repeatedly. Newbie killing refers to the
killing of new and frequently inexperienced players for fun,
even though there is little direct benefit from attacker to the
victim.
Other more subtle ways to impose power include training
and player blocking. Training is defined as “pulling/leading
a hostile NPC or creature along behind you and attempting
to get it to attack another player who does not desire that
engagement.” [16] In EQ, a player seeking to escape from a
mob in a high level dungeon could accidentally lead this and
other mobs to nearby players, resulting in an unintentional
train. We suggest that only intentional training constitutes
248
griefing. Player blocking refers to the obstruction of another
player’s escape path and causing the character’s death. In
both cases, the griefer feels powerful for having caused the
deaths of other players, as he has demonstrated superior
knowledge of game mechanics and has manipulated game
code limitations.
4.3
Scamming
A scam refers to a fraudulent business scheme or a swindle
[1]. Data suggests significant disagreements on whether it
really is griefing. The root of this lies in the role-playing context of a MMORPG, and some players expect to be able to
role-play unsavoury characters. In our study, the following
scenario was posed to respondents: “A player’s character
is a thief, and this is visibly tagged on this character for all
to see. What if this person scams another player, but when
queried by the game master, he insists he was role-playing
in a manner consistent to that of a thief ?”
Data suggests that some players believe player transactions should operate on caveat emptor (“let the purchaser
beware”), with one respondent even remarking: “This is not
grief play, but ‘smart play’ on the part of the thief and ‘dumb
play’ on the part of the buyer.” (R25) Moreover, it is not
easy to code mechanisms that can determine a seller’s trustworthiness. On the other hand, others believe that there are
some actions in a game that are to occur ‘out of character’
- and player sales and transactions are in this ‘exception’
list. One player of EQ (R16) says: “When people barter,
they drop out of role-play mode. It’s implied that any trade
agreement they are making is made in good faith.”
The developers interviewed say that the above type of
‘role-playing’ scenario is tricky. As before, if the game by
design supports a play style that rewards players for getting ahead, can players who turn dishonest really be called
griefers? On the other hand, several developers believe that
more often than not, a player who claims he is role-playing is
more likely attempting to get away with misbehaviour than
demonstrating any true role-playing on his part. Moreover,
ROCs in EQ [15] and Star Wars Galaxies (SWG) [16] disallow fraud, and add that role-playing does not excuse such
behaviour.
Scamming is considered to be griefing when it is exploitative of poorly designed trading systems, which may enable
trade scamming. Many current MMORPGs use secure
trade windows for player trading, which require players to
give explicit consent for item and money exchanges before
the transaction is completed. What they are less effective in
preventing are scams from promise breaking. This occurs
when the other player promises to do something, for example render a service or sell an item outside the trade window
- but upon the exchange of monies, the player does not fulfil
his promise.
Identity deception occurs when a player attempts to
deceive by presenting himself as someone else. While identity deception is common in Internet groups and games [3],
the context of an MMORPG suggests that identity deception can possibly be seen as true role-playing rather than
griefing. For example, a player could attempt to portray
himself of the opposite gender, different age, or other personality traits, with the intention of being consistent with
the ‘type’ of character being role-played. When it could become griefing is if the impersonation is with the intent to
actively deceive, abuse or scam disguised as someone else.
Also, ROCs do not usually explicitly disallow the impersonation of another player’s character, although this is not
easy unless the griefer has designed his character to physically resemble the targeted victim in outward appearance,
and chosen a name that is the same or close to the victim’s.
ROCs do disallow the theft of player accounts, and explicitly
disallow the impersonation of game company employees.
4.4
Greed play
The player’s motive in greed play is to benefit, regardless if the action annoys the other players around him. The
unsportsmanlike behaviour described in Salen & Zimmerman’s book [14] is similar to greed play - the actor will do
anything to win; he follows the operational rules of a game,
but violates the spirit of the game and its implicit rules.
Our discussion in section 3.1 has suggested varied opinion
over whether greed play constitutes griefing, since there is
an absence of an explicit intention to disrupt. The intention
here is to get ahead. Hence, should players be faulted if the
game encourages them as a result to do so, for example, by
allowing more ‘powerful’ players access to additional play
areas? Data suggests that players are forgiving if greed play
is merely inconveniencing them, for example in the hoarding of resources. On the other hand, data also reveal that
players are still upset at such behaviour, and are likely to
consider it to be a subtle form of griefing when the act poses
direct risk or causes harm to their avatars.
One common form of greed play is ninja looting, which
Mulligan & Patrovsky [9] define as “taking loot that was
earned by another player, by speed, guile, or a cheat.” Typically, a player quickly loots mob corpses that he should not
be looting. This could be because firstly, he did not participate in the fight; or secondly, he participated as part of
the team but had insignificant contribution; or thirdly, he
is part of the team but someone else has already been assigned to loot the mob. The first kind of ninja looting can be
prevented in code, as looting rights can be awarded only to
the player or team who succeeds in administering the most
damage. However, this may encourage griefers to kill steal
(see below) and then loot the mob immediately after the
battle. If no such damage-based looting code exist, it could
encourage players in the vicinity to ‘all have a go’ at a mob
when it appears since they all have some chance of getting
looting rights. The second kind is harder to prevent through
game design, as it is less easy to code a mechanism that will
fairly determine looting rights based on contribution within
a team, since support-class players - for example healers - are
less likely to administer direct damage. Some MMORPGs
allow looting rights to designated with the group; with Anarchy Online’s ROC [6] even stating that looting disputes
within a team are not considered ninja looting.
Kill stealing refers to an action where a player attempts
to gain benefit by participating in the killing of a mob that
is already engaged in a fight with another player or team.
A player of DAoC (R18) shares the following: “This player
came along and asked to join us... But he was about 6 levels
lower than all of us and wouldn’t be able to help the group
much and would only leech our xp, so we politely declined.
He got offended and started shooting at the mobs we were
killing, boasting about the damage he was doing.”
Like ninja looting, kill stealing as a form of greed play is
recognized as a disruptive and annoying type of behaviour,
with divided perception whether it is explicit griefing since
249
it does not normally result in player deaths. Moreover, if
the mob carries a highly contested item, some players believe they are justified in engaging in competitive behaviour
for it. For example, for a short period of time in SWG, fierce
competition for an item known as the ‘Holocron’ resulted in
large groups of players continuously camping known spots
spawning mobs that carry the item. When the mob appeared, surrounding players abandoned any prior arrangements of turn taking, and attacked the mob simultaneously
in a frenzy, all hoping to get the required looting rights.
Some players regarded this as griefing, while others did not
(R20).
Data suggests that kill stealing may be regarded as griefing when the actor is grossly over powered in relation to the
mob’s prowess and the already engaged player’s or team’s
collective abilities. For example, a team of low level players
fight a mob, and midway a highly powered player without
invitation engages the same mob, killing it quickly. Typically, whether this mob will grant this highly powered character any loot is a moot issue - the significant power level
difference between the high level character and mob causes
surrounding players to perceive griefing has occurred, since
this player has defeated the mob with little risk or effort
involved.
Area monopolising takes place when a player or a group
demands exclusive access to an area, for example in order
to be sole occupants to an area where a mob or resource appears. One way to monopolise areas is camping, often with
the intention of repeatedly obtaining experience or items in
the most efficient way possible (‘farming’). Camping is considered as valid play rather than griefing, and players are
occasionally required by ROCs to share areas, for example
in EQ’s [15] ‘play-nice’ rules. Even then, unless the new
group has come to some mutual arrangement at turn taking with the group already present, when the mob appears,
this occasionally results in chaos as both groups scramble to
fight.
On other occasions, a highly powered character could be
farming a weaker mob producing an item, and the weaker
players have no reasonable chance of contesting and defeating the same mob under such competition. Again, there may
not have been a specific intention to grief, but some players
become annoyed and feel that this is not fair play.
5.
CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this paper has been to define grief play
and provide a taxonomy for its types in the context of a
MMORPG. An important issue in our study has been the
intention on the actor’s part to disrupt another player’s enjoyment of the game. This is not always easy to determine,
unless other actions accompany the act. Moreover, though
players and developers frequently regard griefing as intentional, data suggests that some players regard play styles
where the actor is the sole beneficiary as griefing, regardless
of intention to disrupt or distress. We call these activities
‘greed play’, and suggest it to be treated as a form of griefing.
In the eyes of players, an activity is clearly griefing if the
actor has little direct gain from the act, or if the act is
repeated, or if another griefing type accompanies the act.
Victims often find it difficult to oppose griefing or defend
themselves as well. On the other hand, game management is
more concerned if rules of conduct have been broken or loop-
holes in code exploited when investigating griefing. Moreover, rules differ from game to game. What could be griefing
in one may be a legitimate play tactic in another. In some
games which are dominantly PvP, a player is provided the
means to resolve acts of griefing himself - usually by attacking the griefer.
Alternatively, some grief play types can be prevented in
game design, for example through the inclusion of secure
trading systems. Some games also allow players to reduce
the effect of griefing - for example profanity filters, ignore
player options, and house management. On the other hand,
other grief play types are harder to prevent, for example
activities that depend on a player’s trustworthiness.
We believe this paper has shown that there is a wealth of
information and range of perceptions about griefing among
players and developers, and we believe more work is needed
in this area to better understand grief play. We will be continuing our research to investigate grief player motivations,
its effects on the game world and players, player perceptions of game management, and if grief play can be better
managed altogether.
6.
REFERENCES
[1] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language 2000. Houghton Mifflin Company, Address,
2000.
[2] R. Bartle. Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players
who suit muds. Journal of Mud Research, 1997.
[3] J. Donath. Identity and deception in the virtual
community. Communities in cyberspace: perspectives
on new forms of social organization, 1997.
[4] Electronic Arts. Service and payment information.
2003. http://support.uo.com.
[5] L. Feinberg. Teasing: Innocent fun or sadistic malice.
New Horizon Press, New Jersey, 1996.
[6] Funcom. Rules of conduct within Anarchy Online.
2004. http://www.anarchyonline.com.
[7] A. J. Kim. Killers have more fun. Wired News, May
1998.
[8] L. Lessig. Code and other laws of cyberspace. Basic
Books, New York, 1999.
[9] J. Mulligan and B. Patrovsky. Developing online
games: an insider’s guide,. New Riders, Indiana, 2003.
[10] Mythic Entertainment. Rules of conduct policy. 2001.
http://support.darkageofcamelot.com.
[11] A. Pham. Online bullies give grief to gamers. Los
Angeles Times, September 6 2002.
[12] Pika. Interview with Raph Koster, chief creative
officer of SOE. Warcry News Network, February 2
2004. http://www.xrgaming.net.
[13] P. Pizer. Social game systems: cultivating player
socialization and providing alternate routes to game
rewards. Charles River Media, Massachusetts, 2003.
[14] K. Salen and E. Zimmerman. Rules of play: game
design fundamentals. MIT Press, Cambridge, 2004.
[15] Sony Online Entertainment Inc. Everquest rules of
conduct. 2001. http://eqlive.station.sony.com.
[16] Sony Online Entertainment Inc. Policies: community
standards. 2004.
http://starwarsgalaxies.station.sony.com.
250