War in Synthetic Worlds

War in Synthetic Worlds MA War Studies, King's College London Jan van der Crabben
War in Synthetic Worlds

How to make people fight each other in MMORPGs
and what we can learn from it.
King's College London

MA War Studies Dissertation
Jan van der Crabben

0535739
1 / 54
Table of Contents
Table of Contents................................................................................................................................. 2
Acronyms............................................................................................................................................. 3
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 4
Overview..........................................................................................................................................4
What are Synthetic Worlds?............................................................................................................ 5
Examining the Synthetic World.......................................................................................................5
MMORPG Technology....................................................................................................................7
Chapter 1: Life in the Screen................................................................................................................9
The Avatar Reality...........................................................................................................................9
Serious Society.............................................................................................................................. 11
Beyond the Magic Circle............................................................................................................... 15
Virtu(-re)al Economy.....................................................................................................................17
Real Virtual Behaviour.................................................................................................................. 19
Chapter 2: On War: Online and Offline............................................................................................. 20
What is War?................................................................................................................................. 20
Synthetic World Combat............................................................................................................... 21
Is this War?.................................................................................................................................... 22
Guild Politics?................................................................................................................................24
Reasons for War.............................................................................................................................24
Psychological Causes of War........................................................................................................ 25
Structural Causes of War............................................................................................................... 28
Systemic Causes of War................................................................................................................ 29
No Wars in MMORPGs – Why?................................................................................................... 30
Chapter 3: Designing War.................................................................................................................. 34
Leviathan Emerges........................................................................................................................ 36
Leviathan Goes to War.................................................................................................................. 38
Leviathan in Control...................................................................................................................... 39
Blind Leviathan..............................................................................................................................41
Consequences.................................................................................................................................41
Design Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 43
Chapter 4: Studying War.................................................................................................................... 45
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................... 48
Bibliography....................................................................................................................................... 49
Books, Articles, Websites..............................................................................................................49
Further Reading............................................................................................................................. 52
Games............................................................................................................................................ 52
Appendix A: Some MMORPG Terms............................................................................................... 53
Appendix B: The Galaxy of EVE Online...........................................................................................54
2 / 54
Acronyms1
AI......................................................................................................................... Artificial Intelligence

EULA......................................................................................................End-User Licence Agreement
Lvl................................................................................................................................................. Level
MMOG........................................................................................ Massively Multiplayer Online Game
MMORPG..............................................................Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game
MUD..................................................................................................................... Multi-User Dungeon
NPC..................................................................................................................... Non-Player Character
PC................................................................................................................................ Player Character
PvE.............................................................................................................. Player versus Environment
PvP......................................................................................................................... Player versus Player
POW..............................................................................................................................Prisoner of War
XP.............................................................................................................................. Experience Points
1 For a more detailed explanation of MMORPG terminology, refer to Appendix A.
3 / 54
Introduction
Overview
This paper demonstrates that synthetic worlds (massively multiplayer online role playing games)
can be a highly valuable research tool. They can be used to empirically develop and test theories in
simulations that are populated by real people. I suggest that using synthetic worlds, academics can
learn about the human behaviour in relation to war, why war is caused, and how it develops.
Chapter 1 examines why synthetic worlds are not simply games, and proves that they are
genuine human societies that, on an abstract level, function the same as real-world societies. This is
because players are very immersed in the world, in the sense that they not only forget that they are
inhabiting a non-material space, but also that they are highly emotionally attached to this space.
Why, then, are there no real wars in synthetic worlds, even though most of them involve a high
amount of fighting? By real war I do not mean realistic war – a more realistic experience of fighting
does not constitute more real war. Rather, following Clausewitz' definition, war is a political act.
Using mainly Hobbes, I explain why no political sphere can emerge in most synthetic worlds.
Various theories of the causes of war then help us to define how war is caused, and why it is not
caused in synthetic worlds, which is explained in Chapter 2. I will then discuss how synthetic
worlds can be changed so that war becomes possible, even encouraged. Motivations to go to war
can be created by slightly altering the game design, without removing the fantasy element from
games, and without making them a realistic simulation of war, which is the subject of Chapter 3.
This paper deals with games, after all, that need to be enjoyable.
Finally, in Chapter 4, I will draw all the previous chapters together and explain how, once there
4 / 54
is war in synthetic worlds, these worlds can be used by academics to study war. This is possible
because synthetic worlds constitute fully transparent societies, in the sense that every action of
every person is recordable and can thus be evaluated. Even though synthetic worlds are marketed as
games, they can be a serious research tool that should not be overlooked.
What are Synthetic Worlds?
This paper deals with massively multiplayer online games (MMOGs), focusing on massively
multiplayer online role playing games (MMORPGs)2, both of which are commonly referred to as
“virtual worlds.” In everyday language, “virtual” normally refers to something simulated in the
computer, but the true meaning of the word is much broader than that. Anything that is not actual
can be virtual, thus anything that could happen but has not happened yet is virtual. 3 Rather than
merely virtual, these worlds are real worlds, similar to the Baudrillardian simulacra of the third
order – “founded on information, the model, the cybernetic game... hyperreality.”4
Following Edward Castronova's suggestion, I will therefore refer to an MMORPG as a
“synthetic world,” which he defines as an “expansive, world-like, large-group environment made by
humans, for humans, and which is maintained, recorded, and rendered by a computer.”5 These
games generally feature an expansive 3D, a large population (World of Warcraft currently has over
6.5 million active subscribers6), social interaction, and an economy.
Examining the Synthetic World
Synthetic worlds can generally be divided into two categories: social worlds and action-based
2 Pronounced either “em-em-oh-arr-pee-gee” or “morpeg”.

3 Lancaster (1999), p. 4
4 Baudrillard (1995), p. 121
5 Castronova (2005), p. 11
6 MMMOGChart.com (2006)
5 / 54
worlds. Social worlds, such as Second Life, are basically chatrooms on stereoids: Users can see each
other in a 3D world, can exchange virtual items, can talk, make gestures, and generally socialize.
They usually do not feature combat and are therefore not relevant to this paper. Action-based
worlds, share the same basic characteristics of social worlds, but they also feature combat, usually
against AI (computer controlled) monsters, but also between players. They are usually set in a
fantasy world, as they have evolved from the pen & paper role-playing game Dungeons &
Dragons.7
The player “exists” in the world by controlling a so-called “avatar,” which is a graphical
representation of the player, usually in humanoid shape, whose name, look, race, and class (the
specialization of the character, such as wizard or warrior) the player can define. 8 The player can
move his avatar through the game world, equip him, and make him perform actions or gestures.
Each player controls only one avatar, unlike in many other computer games where the players can
control whole armies.
All MMORPGs have a vast world in common. It is impossible to determine how big these
worlds are in square miles, but it is possible to have 15,000 people on them without being crowded
– in some areas one may not even encounter another player for hours. World of Warcraft, the most
popular world at the time of writing, features two continents both of which take approximately two
hours to walk through from north to south, and around 30 minutes to walk from west to east.
Worlds are generally divided into areas of different flair and terrain, which feature camps, towns,
or fortresses where AI-controlled non-player characters (NPCs) give the players quests. These
quests usually involve killing monsters in the area, or finding an item hidden in a dangerous place.9
7 King & Borland (2003); Turkle (1995), pp. 180-181

8 The term “avatar” originally refers to the earthly incarnation of a god in Hindu mythology. It is now generally used
to denote the graphical representation of a person in a synthetic world.
9 A stereotypical quest would be: “The goblins north of the town are stealing my livestock. Please kill them, and I will
give you 10 gold coins.”
6 / 54
Upon completion of the quest, the player is rewarded with gold or items, and experience points
(XP). By gaining more items and more XP, the player progresses (gains levels) and becomes
stronger.
The items that players find can either be sold to NPC merchants or to other players. At the same
time, players can buy items from NPC merchants or from other players. Additionally, many games
feature a crafting system which allows players to build their own items from resources that they
find or buy. In this way, synthetic worlds not only simulate a society, or a war, but also an
economy. This economy is not only virtual, but also actual, because it connects to the real world, as
we shall discuss later.
MMORPG Technology
Since this paper deals with game design in relation to academic theory, the technical aspects of
MMORPGs are unimportant. There are some technical peculiarities of MMORPGs which are
relevant to further discussions in the paper, and therefore I will explain them briefly.
At the heart of each MMORPG, there are several massive databases housed on high-end servers..
Several servers are required to simulate a virtual world, each server taking care of a different aspect
of the simulation. These groups of servers used to simulate a world are called clusters, and there are
hundreds of clusters that players are assigned to, to balance the workload for the servers. 10 To the
user these clusters of servers are invisible – all the user sees is a separate copy of the world that he
can log into. Users simply refer to these clusters as “servers” (even though each cluster consists of
several servers), “realms,” or “shards.” To avoid confusion, I am going to call these server clusters
“shards.” They exist so that the player activity is spread across many shards, as no computer (or
cluster of computers) could handle the high amount of players MMORPGs attract – 6.5 million
10 Bartle (2004), pp. 96-98
7 / 54
players in the case of World of Warcraft. For World of Warcraft there is a total of 365 shards for
European and North American players, and more are added every month.11 Thus, there exist 365
copies of the same world, each populated by roughly 18,000 players. It is important to remember
that most MMORPGs are split into several identical parallel universes – a useful tool for the
academic study of war scenarios.
11 As of 16 August 2006, taken from public realm status listings on the World of Warcraft US and EU websites.
8 / 54
Chapter 1: Life in the Screen
Upon hearing that millions of people spend significant portions of their free time in online
worlds that are essentially marketed as games, many people they might dismiss this phenomenon as
yet another lightweight entertainment – an understandable reaction. Upon delving deeper into the
phenomenon, it becomes apparent, though, that synthetic worlds are much more than games – they
are sites where identities are constructed, where alternate societies emerge, where real economies
exist and interact with the real world. In short, synthetic worlds are 'large enough, conceptually and
technologically as well as in terms of raw population and hours of use, to be considered genuine
human societies in their own right.'12
The Avatar Reality
When studying text-based MUDs13 in the early 1990s, Sherry Turkle interviewed hundreds of
people who were socializing in synthetic worlds, often for significant amounts of their free time.
Amazed at the intensity of personal investment in synthetic worlds, she asked herself: 'Are we
living life on the screen or life in the screen?'14 Because, as Raph Koster explains, human perception
functions through abstractions, our perception of the game world (which is an abstracted, less
detailed world) is no different from our perception of reality: When we see a tree, we do not see all
the leaves and the colours, but our brains only perceive an abstracted tree-object. A computer-
generated tree is therefore perceived in the same way that we perceive a material tree. 'Games...
have more in common with how our brain visualizes things than they do with how reality is actually
formed.'15 Players therefore are inclined to see the simulated world in the same way they see the real
12 Castronova (2006), p. 183
13 Multi-User Dungeons, text based synthetic worlds that were the precursors of the contemporary 3D worlds.
14 Turkle (1995), p. 21
15 Koster (2005), p. 34
9 / 54
world. Indeed, the events in MMORPGs are taken very seriously by their “residents.” One of
Turkle's interviewees stated that real life 'is just one more window, and it's not usually my best
one.'16 In a recent survey, 20 percent of the users claimed that their synthetic world was their “real”
place of residence, while real life was just there to eat and sleep.17
For many MMORPG players, the synthetic world offers a better experience than the real world,
and they invest significant amounts of time, energy, and emotion in their virtual lives. Game
companies even hire psychologists to make the games more playable for a longer period of time. 18 It
makes sense to think of the avatar as a node of interpersonal connections, just like the real self is a
node of such connections. If, in the real world, a person has regular contact with 15 friends, for
example, he is a node with 15 friend-connections. In the MMORPGs, one can easily reach a much
higher number of connections, thus the synthetic world may become the most important node in a
person's life. If someone leaves the synthetic world, he will be missed by his MMORPG friends,
which leads to even more immersion in the game. Marhsal McLuhan believed that man is extending
himself through technology: 'We have extended our central nervous system itself in a global
embrace, abolishing both space and time as far as our planet is concerned.'19 Katherine Hayles
believes that we have not only extended our bodies, but we have become posthuman: Our identity is
no longer tied to our material body, and 'there are no essential differences... between bodily
existence and computer simulation.' The body is only 'the original prosthesis,' which can be easily
replaced by a simulated one.20 Indeed, it makes sense to think of the avatar as a prosthetic body:
The body is the tool by which the mind receives sensation and
manipulates the environment, and this avatar body does exactly
and only that. And it make sense to think of it as your body, just as
16 Turkle (1995), p. 13
18 Khazan (2006)
19 McLuhan (2003), p. 3
20 Hayles (1999), p. 3
10 / 54
someone with a prosthetic arms should think of it as his arm.21
In this way, players of MMORPGs are directly involved in the computer-generated world, even
if they are not “hardcore” players. Similar to watching a film, the mind suspends disbelief of the
fantastic world, as it is not only more enjoyable, but also less stressful for the mind – otherwise the
mind would always have to remind itself that this is not real. Thus, when a dragon appears behind a
corner to attack the avatar, the player will be shocked (albeit less shocked than he would be if that
happened on earth, as it is something he is expecting in an MMORPG), and if the player loses gold,
resources, or experience points, he will be upset (as upset as if he was losing real money, as we
shall see below).
Serious Society
MMORPGs constitute a society of play, a society which exists on the precondition that its
playful existence is never made apparent in the game. On most shards, role-playing is essential: In
Everquest or World of Warcraft it is expected that players behave as if they truly are wizards or
paladins who passionately care about the supposed threat of the goblins stealing cattle, or about the
fictional “wars” that form the background story of many games. In EVE Online, for example, over
time a divide between the “north” and the “south” of the galaxy emerged: Players who are members
of factions in the northern hemisphere are usually hostile towards players of the south, and vice
versa. Players of one hemisphere are more or less allied in their fight against the other, even though
there is no particular reason, and the background story does not suggest any such antagonism. It is
pure performance, which emerged at some point in the game and is now socially accepted as a fact.
Even if the events of the world per se do not move the player significantly, MMORPG society
almost forces every player to conform to treating the synthetic world as if it were perfectly real:
'Even if I don't care that the Dragon of Zorg has been killed, the fact that everyone else is excited
11 / 54
makes me excited; hence we are all excited.'22
MMORPG society has a normative function, it forces the player to believe in the game world,
even if he may be reluctant. Players are expected to remain within what Johan Huizinga calls 'the
magic circle': The almost sacred sphere of play that is separate from the real world, that only makes
sense within the game world.23 Indeed, in many MMORPGs, players who break this magic circle
(who behave out of character, or “OOC” in MMORPG slang) are usually being shunned or even
punished by the community. It is seen as socially not acceptable for an elven wizard in a medieval
fantasy-based world to talk about yesterday's episode of Big Brother, for example. Another OOC
practice is the so-called “griefing” or “PK-ing” (player-killing): Experienced high-level players go
to areas where new and weak low-level players start, and kill them purely for entertainment. Within
the reality of the game world there is no justification for such actions, and it is therefore considered
OOC. This practice is not only frustrating for new players, but also endangers the society of that
game as a whole: If new players are frustrated and stop playing the game because they have no
chance to advance in the game as they are being killed by high-level players, the society will at
some point erode, as no new members are joining. As Constance Steinkuehler reports, the
MMORPG society of Lineage reacted to such behaviour and actively punished these griefers in
organized 'PK hunting parties,' in which groups of high-level players patrol low-level areas and kill
all those who harass new low-level players.24 In this way, MMORPGs constitute a normative, self-
stabilizing society that enforces a serious attitude towards the game world.
Indeed, such a society is in no way different from our real-world societies, which function in
precisely the same way. Our societies are normative and self-stabilizing, as they enforce culturally
acceptable behaviour through social pressure and punishment. Huizinga suggests that play is the
defining principle of civilization (even though it predates civilization), and that 'in a purely formal
23 Huizinga (1955), p. 57
24 Steinkuehler (2006), p. 201
12 / 54
sense... all society is a game.'25 Games are performances within the magic circle of the game, and
society is the sum of performances within the magic circle of society. One can understand all
aspects of life through 'a paradigm of performance' that applies to 'any kind of social, cultural, and
political behaviour.'26 Performances and games share the quality that there is always a set of rules
that confine them to a magic circle. The main difference between performance and game is that one
is for the enjoyment of the audience, while the other is for the enjoyment of the participants.
MMORPGs are both: On the one hand, they are games, as the players have fun fighting monsters
(or each other), and advancing their avatar. On the other hand, they are performances, as each
player behaves as it would be expected to behave within a fantasy world. A warrior will be
aggressive and ready for fighting, a priest will stay back and heal people. It is also not uncommon
in medieval-themed MMORPGs to read fake medieval English such as: “Hail thee, my name is
Corvin. I am pleased to make your acquaintance, sire.” MMORPGs are “performative games,” the
perfect mix between game and performance.
As mentioned above, such game-performances are not unique to MMORPGs, but can be found
in all human societies, be they online or offline. Raph Koster suggests: 'The constant manoeuvring
for social status that all humans engage in is... essentially a game.'27 Every society is one big game
with one big magic circle, but it also consists of sub-games with their own magic circles. One such
sub-game would be the business world. In this game, one could say, the goal is to collect as much
money as possible. The rules could be loosely defined as: work hard, be nice to your superiors, and
outplay your competitors. The game of business also requires a certain type of dress (in most
companies, at least), a certain way of dealing with people (in a business-like, non-personal manner),
and a certain temporal playing-field (usually from 9am to 5pm). Or, as Bill Spratch humorously
suggests, the game of Vietnam (from the perspective of a potential conscript after graduating from
25 Huizinga (1955), p. 101

26 Lancaster (1999), p. 11
27 Koster (2005), p. 92
13 / 54
Harvard) is a game level with cocaine power-up items, your father as main weapon (to use his
connections) and the Texas Air National Guard Admissions Board as the final boss (which needs to
be overcome not to be sent to Vietnam).28 Obviously, one can easily imagine society being played
in a completely different manner, but this is how the rules for this game are set, and whoever does
not play by these rules is either shunned and disadvantaged in the game, or is simply out of the
game. By playing by the rules or cheating by using your family's connections, you will get far.29
As we can see, MMORPG societies are not that different from real societies – in fact, they
function very similarly, both on a normative and a performative level. Anything that breaks the
illusion of it being a game is shunned or punished. Indeed the word illusion derives 'from inlusio,
illudere or inludere,' which literally translates as “in play.”30 Not only does play create a suspension
of disbelief, or a 'consensual hallucination' in the words of William Gibson,31 but the normative
function of MMORPG societies forces players to take the simulacrum very seriously. Also, players
of any society perform in the manner that is expected. We have also established that the avatar acts
as a prosthesis, the tool by which the player perceives and interacts with the world. He thus
generally behaves as if he was that avatar.32 Huizinga states in his nominal work Homo Ludens that
'...play can be profoundly serious. The player can abandon himself body and soul to the game, and
the consciousness of its being “merely” a game can be thrust into the background.' 33 The logical
conclusion is that human behaviour in MMORPGs is hardly different from human behaviour in
real-world society. Thus, we can study MMORPGs in the same way that we study real-world
societies, and the conclusions we draw from such studies should apply almost equally to both types
of societies.
28 Spratch in Compton (2004), p. 182

29 ibid., pp. 186-188
30 Huizinga (1955), p. 11
31 Gibson (1984), p. 51
32 Of course this does not apply to combat situations, as avatars generally do not die permanently, but are resurrected
with a small death penalty.
33 Huizinga (1955), p. 21
14 / 54
Beyond the Magic Circle
A very striking feature of MMORPGs is that players do not only take the game very seriously
within the magic circle of the game, but the game interacts with the real world. The borders of the
magic circle of MMORPGs are not solid – the game world and the real world interact constantly,
emphasizing the serious nature of the game. These interactions are both of cultural and economic
nature.
Jesper Juul describes video games as consisting of 'rules and fiction,' bringing together the two
strands of game studies, ludology (games as rules) and narratology (games as fiction).34 Rules of a
good game, in the words of Sid Meier, are 'a series of interesting choices.'35 Thus, most functions of
the game are of an economic nature, as choice under scarcity is what an economy is. 36 Fiction in
computer games is what immerses the player, and what makes him suspend disbelief and accept the
synthetic world he is inhabiting as perfectly real. The magic circle of computer games is, I would
therefore argue, mainly delineated by fiction, as the rules of the game are also discussed on a meta-
level, outside of the game, while the fiction never leaves the game – it is never questioned.
Both, the rules and the fiction of MMORPGs are not fixed, but they constitute a constant
negotiation. While the basic rules and the background story are created by the game developers, the
society that emerges is out of their control. Players construct their own identities, which then
interact with other online identities to form a society. In MMORPGs 'the self is constructed and the
rules of social interaction are built, not received.'37 What is acceptable and what is not is a constant
negotiation among players, as well as between the players and the game developers. Both
negotiations often take place outside the game, on forums dedicated to the game where people can
post their opinions and discuss them with other players and potentially the game developers. The
34 Juul (2005), p. 12
35 ibid., p. 19
36 Castronova (2005), pp. 174-177
37 Turkle (1995), p. 10
15 / 54
usual topics are that monsters or character classes are over-/underpowered, or that there are bugs in
the game that need to be fixed. At the same time, the background story is in part determined by the
players – in World of Warcraft, for example, different servers are in different “stages” of history,
certain events have taken place on some servers but not on others.
This negotiation of both rules and fiction can take place inside or outside the game, and it may be
influenced by real-world issues. In World of Warcraft, for example, a guild leader was given a
warning by a moderator38 for advertising a “GLBT-friendly”39 guild. The player felt the need to
create such a guild because many non-straight people are often harassed in MMORPGs, and “gay”
is often used as a general insult. According to the game developer Blizzard, this constituted a
violation of the EULA, as it was provocative speech in the sense that it provoked other players to
insult this guild for its sexual liberation. This event became publicized in forums and blogs, until it
was finally picked up by the mainstream media (including Wired and the BBC), which resulted in
gay pride marches occurring within the game world of World of Warcraft. Under such pressure,
Blizzard accepted the change its EULA. This example illustrates that out-of-game issues can
interact with in-game issues, and that the events within the game are taken seriously by the players.
Similarly, in-game issues can spill out into the real world. The space-themed MMORPG EVE
Online, which at the time of writing is the MMORPG that comes closest to real war (see below),
has a fan-made (but official) online newspaper called EVE Insider that has now become a print
magazine. The magazine discusses in-game issues such as immigration laws, wars, new ship types,
and similar issues that might be found in any real-world newspaper. In July 2006 the game
developers CCP have launched EVE TV, a TV show that is broadcast several days a month which
features in-game events, analysis of these events by veteran players, and interviews with the
development team – a mix of in-game and out-of-game issues. Sony Online Entertainment, the
38 An employee of the game developer (Blizzard in this case) who is online to make sure that there are no problems in
the game world.
39 GLBT = gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual
16 / 54
publishers of Star Wars Galaxies organize regular conventions for players to come, socialize, and
have Q&A sessions with the developers.40 EVE Online is hosting a similar “fan-fest” in Reykjavík
(Iceland), for which the total package (flight from London and hotel) costs around £300 per person
– a price people are willing to pay to socialize with fellow players.41
Virtu(-re)al Economy
'Economics is usually defined as the study of choice under scarcity,' writes the economist
Edward Castronova.42 The value of an object is not determined by what the object actually is, but
rather, how desired the object is. As most MMORPGs are played because it is fun to play them, the
value of any given object in the game is how much it increases fun. For most people, fun objects are
those that make their avatar more powerful, or make their avatar look better – in general, anything
that people can brag about. In Guild Wars, black dye is very expensive, because most players think
wearing black clothes is “cool.” In World of Warcraft, having a parrot pet follow the character
around is more expensive than a simple cat. And, of course, having a sword that does 100 damage is
more expensive than one that does 50 damage.
Surprisingly enough, the value of objects in synthetic worlds can not only be expressed using the
currency of that world, but in real-world currency, usually in US Dollars. Indeed, the real-world
trade of virtual goods such as magic swords, beautiful clothes, or even high-level avatars occurs on
a grand scale, usually on eBay or by specialized companies such as IGE (Internet Gaming
Entertainment). The game gold or item is sold in the real world (such as on eBay or IGE), the buyer
and the seller agree where and when to meet in the synthetic world, and the traded goods are handed
over. IGE currently sells 1,000 gold coins for the game World of Warcraft for $47,68 – or 1 WoW
40 Lawley (2006)
41 eve-online.com (2006)
42 Castronova (2005), p. 172
17 / 54
gold is worth 4.7¢, which is five times as much as the Japanese Yen! 43 Castronova estimated 'the
collective volume of annual trade in synthetic worlds... almost certainly above $1 billion' in 2005.44
He also states that 'the GDP per capita inside synthetic worlds is far higher than in the real world's
poorer economies, such as those of India and China.'45 It is no surprise then that many young
Chinese have found a new job: Gold Farmer. “Gold farming” is a term used in MMORPGs that
describes the practice of playing the game purely to gather gold and good items in order to sell them
for real money. There are many such gold farms in China, which are real companies that employ
young people to play a certain MMORPG with the goal to collect gold, which the company then
sells on the Western market. The Donghua Gaming Workshop in Jinhua, for example, currently
employs 150 people (aiming for 500 by the end of 2006). 'The workers earn 1000RMB ($125) per
month, working ten hours a day, with free food and housing: a good wage for the average Chinese
worker.'46
In this way, synthetic world economies are connected to the real economy, and many players
have avatars whose total worth may hover around $1,000 or more, depending on the avatar level,
the equipment of the avatar, and the game world's currency value. Most players either do not know
that or do not care about it, as for them the true value of their avatars is the time and emotional
effort they have invested in creating their alternate identity. Incidentally, time investment is the
major determinant of monetary value: Gold is expensive because it is rare, and it takes a lot of effort
and time to find, mine, and refine. Either way, the content of the game has real value for the player,
it thus is not merely a game.
43 Data collected on 11 August 2006 from www.ige.com (Euro-Server: Steamwheedle Cartel) and www.x-rates.com.
45 ibid.
46 Jin (2006)
18 / 54
Real Virtual Behaviour
By the end of this chapter, it should be clear that even though MMORPGs are seen as games, the
players of MMORPGs do not behave significantly differently from how they would behave in the
real world. This is for several reasons:
1. The avatar acts as an alternate body, like a prosthesis, which is the tool for interaction with the
synthetic world. In this way, the player behaves as if he was the avatar.
2. Like any other society, MMORPGs are normative. They enforce an expected type of behaviour – a
behaviour that requires the player to interact with people, objects, and concepts in the world as if
they were perfectly real.
3. MMORPGs are a performance, but a performance that is not very different to the performance that
real-world societies require its members to do in order to be accepted by society and to succeed in
it.
4. Synthetic worlds intersect with the real world in the shape of real-world fan conventions, print
magazines, and even trading card games.
5. All items within the synthetic world have a real-world exchange value. Therefore, players value
their possessions in MMORPGs (their avatar, their equipment) highly.
6. Players value the time and emotion invested in getting to the level of power and social status that
they have in the synthetic world.
As MMORPG societies are societies just like the real-world ones that we are used to, and 'any
good theory ought to function in about the same way everywhere,' it logically follows that 'therefore
any theory worth examining ought to function about the same way in all large games [ie. societies],
online of offline.'47 As this paper deals with war in synthetic worlds, let us first examine the existing
theories of war and then relate them to MMORPGs.
47 Castronova (2006)
19 / 54
Chapter 2: On War: Online and Offline
This chapter is going to define war by using Carl von Clausewitz's theories. Furthermore, it will
examine how fighting is conducted in most MMORPGs, and why it does not constitute war.
Finally, I am going to discuss theories of the causes of war, and see whether they can be applied to
synthetic worlds.
What is War?
According to Carl von Clausewitz, the “father of strategy,” as he is often called, 'war is a
continuation of politics by other means.' The political purpose of the war must be the 'original
motive' for war, everything else is only combat.48 War is created by conflicting interests between
two parties, who then escalate the situation so that it leads to war. This is always driven by politics,
and once war is imminent, the escalation is of a military nature, as each side attempts to bring more
force to the battlefield than the other, while still making the means proportional to the ends.
For Clausewitz, war is caused and conducted by the trinity of reason, friction, and passion.49
Reason is generally mapped onto the government, which has supposedly rational reasons for going
to war. Friction, by which he means physical problems, is mapped onto the military, which has the
task of overcoming the physical problem of achieving the goal – which is usually the other side's
military. Passion is what the people have, as a country's population may support a war for
completely irrational reasons, such as German-French hatred fuelled the first World War. Thus, war
is not only political, but also the result of reason and passion, and the outcome of a war is greatly
determined by chance.
48 Clausewitz (2003), p. 34
49 ibid., p. 46-47
20 / 54
Synthetic World Combat50
All MMORPGs have two types of combat in common: PvE and PvP.
PvE (Player versus Environment) combat is the player fighting computer-controlled enemies,
such as orcs, dragons, or evil cultists. These monsters spawn (ie. re-appear) regularly in the game
world in fixed places, and often the number of monsters appearing is determined by the number and
strength of players nearby. Thus, these monsters are an unlimited supply of gold and experience, as
they can be killed over and over again. Gold farmers play MMORPGs by exclusively hunting
monsters for the gold and items they drop when the monster are killed. As AI-controlled monsters
have no goals and usually do not move around much, they simply fulfil the purpose of helping the
players advance – they are a function in the game, not a faction that could conduct war.
PvP (Player versus Player) combat is what this paper focuses on, as only human players are
intelligent, rational, passionate, and have goals. The problem is that PvP combat in most games is
conducted purely for the fun of killing weaker players, and has therefore become 'a negative for
MMORPG players and developers.'51 Some recent games, such as D&D Online: Stormreach do not
feature PvP at all. Where it exists, PvP usually takes place is pre-built arenas – areas in which only
PvP combat takes place. They are spaces apart, like bubbles that the players can travel into and out
of, but whatever happens inside hardly influences the world outside, and vice versa.
In World of Warcraft, there are several arenas where players can fight each other. By killing
opponents, players earn honour points, which allow them to receive items such as a special cloak, a
magic sword, or a good armour – items which are much easier to find by killing AI-controlled
monsters. Very successful players earn ranks (such as Scout, Corporal, etc.) which are displayed in
50 These accounts derive from my personal experience in these games. For those games that I have not experienced, I
reference a source of information. I am aware that there are more games which may feature more war-like PvP
combat (such as Lineage II), but my knowledge of them is not sufficient to write about them.
51 Wikipedia (2006)
21 / 54
the character's name once they have won enough battles. The fighting in arenas has no effect on the
outside world. On so-called PvP servers, players can also attack players of the opposing faction in
outside the arenas, but again these kills have no significant effect except for honour points and
ranks (ie. bragging rights). It is not possible to take control of territory, conquer cities, or “win” the
war.52
Guild Wars (another game with war in the title) functions in almost the same way, with the
exception that players cannot fight each other outside the arenas. Additionally, there is an “über-
arena,” where teams of players can only enter once they have won in all the other arenas. The game
is divided between American, European, and Asian servers. If a team based on a European server
wins in the über-arena, all European players can enter special areas. Thus, winning a battle has an
effect on the game world as a whole – but no effect for those who are currently in the arena, apart
from the reputation gained.
In Dark Age of Camelot, there are three competing realms, each with a battleground area at their
borders housing a relic that can be captured. Captured relics give positive effects for the rest of the
realm. Even though this is a good idea, 'raids on relic castles [are] fairly rare.'53 This is because
players gain direct rewards for killing enemy players, while the rewards for taking control of relics
are indirect and affect the whole realm. Rather than organizing armies to conquer relics, PvP
fighting is usually unorganized mob fighting, each player fighting for himself.54
Is this War?
While many computer games simulate a war-like situation, most of the action that occurs in them
is not real war. Real war takes place because it has a rational, political motivation, which is
52 One day before this paper being printed, Blizzard has released a patch that allows players to conquer a limited
number of positions in the non-arena world.
53 Castronova (2006), p. 180-181
54 ibid.
22 / 54
something that the player does not have if the supposed reason why he is fighting is found in the
background story of the game. War only then occurs if it is conducted for rational political reasons
– reasons that the players understand, cause, and control. As Nate Combs points out, the arena type
of fighting is closer to sports than to war.55 There is no political motivation, the main motivation in
all these types of combat is glory, as there is no conflict of interests. Even though there may be
positive effects for the realm these players are fighting for (such as in Guild Wars or Dark Age of
Camelot), the combatants themselves have no gain, and are therefore not motivated by such
interests. They fight for fun, and for the reputation they gain from fighting, which makes them able
to brag to their friends how powerful they are.
Even though the fighting in most MMORPGs is unrealistic, as there is no permanent death and
fighting often involves magic, this does not make war less real if it is fought for political reasons.
To draw an analogy to the real world, it does not matter how war is fought: Tribes fighting each
other with wooden clubs is war, and so is ships launching cruise missiles. An MMORPG avatar that
is resurrected when dead can thus be compared to a remote-controlled missile that is resupplied
when it explodes, and magic is just another weapon. Thus, it does not matter how combat is
conducted to make it war, but rather why combat is necessary – a political reason.
55 Combs (2006a)
23 / 54
Guild Politics?
Nearly all MMORPGs allow players to form so-called guilds, which are often seen as political
entities. They are not political, though, in the same way that a sports club is not political. Their
function is to add another social dimension to the game, where players can play with their guild-
mates, and compete with other guilds in arenas. Like in a club, there are politics within the
organization regarding the positions of honour, but the guild has no political power within the
world. There is one notable exception, however: EVE Online, which we will discuss later.
Reasons for War
In order to determine why war does not happen in MMORPGs (with the exception of EVE), and
how games can be designed to facilitate war, one needs to understand the causes of war. As the
causes of war are highly complex and not fully understood, it is beyond the scope of this paper to
come to a final conclusion what causes wars. Hundreds of books have been written on that issue,
and I will use several theories to give an overview of the causes of war, and relate them to
MMORPGs, where possible.
At the highest level of abstraction, Kenneth Waltz believes that the causes of war 'can be ordered
under the following three headings: within man, within the structure of separate states, within the
state system.'56 The first cause could be called psychological, the second cause could be called
structural, and the third cause could be called systemic. Onto these we can map certain recurring
themes: honour, culture, and ideology are psychological causes, as they are born in the mind.
Economy, oppression, and security concerns are structural causes, as they are born out of the
economic or political structure of the respective society. The continual competition between states,
56 Waltz (2001), p. 12
24 / 54
or the lack of an authority above states, is a systemic cause. I am going to use these three headlines
to order the causes of war, focussing on psychological and structural causes, as there is no state
system withing MMORPGs... yet.
Psychological Causes of War
War is often seen as an inherent condition of humanity. Martin van Creveld follows this line of
argument and states that 'the only way to account for this fascination [with war] is to regard war as
the game with the highest stakes of all.'57 On a slightly sarcastic note, he elaborates this point by
saying: 'However unpalatable the fact, the real reason why we have wars is that men like fighting,
and women like men who are prepared to fight on their behalf.' 58 War, therefore is not only inherent
to humanity, but part of human behaviour – it is a game, a game that is played by men to impress
others. War therefore is, as Huizinga observes, a cultural function, because it has the character of
play, as it is rule-bound. Such rules are evident throughout history, such as the relatively simple
code of honour described in Homer's Iliad or in Icelandic Sagas, the code of chivalry in the middle
ages (both of which codes can be found in MMORPGs), or the modern-day Geneva Convention. 59
War only remains a cultural function, though, if the enemy is seen as an equal human being, 'in
other words its cultural function depends on its play-quality.'60 War therefore is a cultural function
of synthetic worlds. This, for Steven Poole, is the reason why so many computer games are about
combat: 'The fighting game, like fighting itself, will always be popular.'61
It is also clear that war is a cultural function when examining the reasons why war was fought in
ancient times. Harry Sidebottom believes that 'the failure of the Greeks to produce an extended and
systematic theory on the just war might suggest that they thought war was the normal state of
57 Creveld (1991), p. 85
58 ibid., p. 87
59 see Herodot (2001); Homer (2000); Huizinga (1990); Smiley (2001)
60 Huizinga (1955), p. 89
61 Poole (2004), p. 33
25 / 54
humanity... The need for an elaborate ideology was weak because the causes of war were thought to
be self-evident, were widely agreed, and were thought to be inherent to humanity.' 62 Herodotus does
not question the legitimacy of the Persian-Lydian war and traces its origins back to the Trojans
abducting Helena from Greece, and the Hellenes kidnapping Medea from Colchis (a Persian vassal
state).63 Any reason could be justified to cause war, because war was not seen as a bad thing. John
Rich believes that 'the Roman people were ready for war and not averse to it,' as war was not only
the cause of existence of the Roman empire, but a cultural function.64
If war was inherent to humanity, and war is a cultural function, or is seen as the normal condition
of man, then there would be war all the time. This is not the case, though, and therefore there must
be more reasons. Most theorists agree that war is fought for honour and ideology (I count religion
as a form of ideology, too). Donald Kagan in his book On the Origins of War notes:
It has long been clear that many of the European empires were
unprofitable from a material point of view, and that the practical
reasons given for acquiring them were excuses rather than true
justifications. The real motives were often psychological and
irrational rather than economic and practical, that is, they derived
from questions of honor.65
This has been the same throughout human history. In ancient times, 'For Herodotus, revenge,
kinship, and obligation were key motivating forces in history.'66 John Rich agrees that in ancient
Rome, the causes for war were strongly influenced by notions of honour.67 The medieval Arabic
scholar ibn Khaldun lists four types of war, three of which fall into this category: tribal or family
62 Sidebottom (2004), p. 56
63 Herodot (2001), Book I, para. 1-5
64 Rich, John (1993), p. 56
65 Kagan (1995), p. 38
66 Sidebottom (2004), p. 53
67 Rich (1993), p. 39
26 / 54
wars, warmongering, holy wars, and dynastic wars.68 Defending and spreading a way of life, which
Seyon Brown lists as a cause of war, can be traced from the earliest wars of religion to the modern
War on Terror, which (at least according to President Bush et al.) is fought to defend our way of
life.69
While all of these are conscious reasons to fight, there can be a cause that those going to war are
not aware of: cognitive failure. According to John Stoessinger, 'the most important single
precipitating factor in the outbreak of war is misperception.'70 Leaders may base their decision to go
to war on false intelligence, believing that the enemy is launching a nuclear attack when a flock of
geese is showing on the radar. Miscalculation is very similar, as leaders may underestimate what
reaction their actions might cause – the Cuban Missile crisis is a good example of Soviet
miscalculation. Similarly, the outbreak of the 2nd Peloponnesian War was caused by Corinth
miscalculating Athens' response to its war with Corcyra.71 It is also important to note that
misperception is often consciously created by certain individuals in power if they believe that they
can gain from a war.72
Another putatively unconscious cause is cathartic violence. 'The need to enhance one's own self-
worth by knocking others down is indulged in the great participatory and spectator sport of war.'73
Not only can fighting an enemy increase a society's self-worth, but it can define a society's identity
– war becomes a cultural function (which leads us back to Huizinga). Edward Said applied the
linguistic theory of Ferdinand Saussure (words gain meaning in opposition to what they do
not mean) to cultural identity. Identity is not created simply by being part of a culture, but by
opposing that culture to what it is not, what is the Other.74 Samuel Huntington follows this line of
68 ibn Khaldun (1377), p. 90

69 Brown (1994), p. 34
70 Stoessinger (1998), p. 211
71 Kagan (1995), p. 45
72 Brown (1994), p. 37; Stoessinger (1998), p. 209
73 ibid., p. 11
74 Said (1995)
27 / 54
argument by saying that we often only know who we are 'when we know whom we are against.'75
These are the psychological causes of war. Even though they are convincing reasons for war,
they usually do not suffice to trigger war – structural causes are required.
Structural Causes of War
It is axiomatic that humans strive for security, because they then need not worry about their
livelihood. This security can take the form of physical security from attackers, but also the form of
economic security from hardship. If human security is threatened, extreme measures are often taken
to improve or preserve it – one of which is war. Martin Wight notes that 'in the majority of wars
between the great powers the aggressor's motive has been preventive.'76
According to the frustration hypothesis, humans go to war when they become frustrated,
meaning that 'when the frustrated person expects to have achieved the objective were it not for
interference, the result is often anger, expressed in attempts to hurt or destroy the object or person
perceived to be the cause of frustration.'77 Three words need to be emphasized here: objective,
perceived, and interference. As mentioned above, the objective is usually security. The interference
is perceived and may therefore not be real. The interference itself can emerge from inside or outside
a community.
The combination of misperception on both sides and insecurity is what is generally called the
security dilemma: 'A security dilemma is a situation in which each party's efforts to increase its own
security reduce the security of the others.'78 Thus, if both sides believe the other to be of malicious
intent, a build-up of arms will re-confirm both sides' (mis)perceptions and ultimately lead to a very
messy war. This is the situation that is most likely to result in a war – we will come back to it.
75 Huntington (2002), p. 21
76 Wight (1979), p. 91
77 Brown (1994), p. 13
78 Walter (1999), p. 15
28 / 54
The most immediate threats to security (thus causes of frustration) are physical. In liberal theory,
the main cause for war is understood to be oppression.79 This can be the oppression that one country
exercises on the other (colonial wars could be seen as caused this way), or oppression of a ruling
elite exercised onto the people (wars of revolution are often caused this way).
Economic factors are an equally potent cause of war. If people have nothing to lose, they can
only gain from war. Indeed, 'a seemingly paradoxical, yet common, motivation for recruitment is
safety. Compared with the starvation and disease facing the thousands of people displaced from
their homes, the organized facilities of a rebel group provide a haven.'80 Also, if people believe that
they can significantly increase their economic security by overthrowing their government, or by
seceding from their colonial masters, they are more likely to do so violently than if they do not feel
an economic burden. Barbara Walter summarizes: 'If men are greedy, or if resource scarcity makes
them predatory, this intensifies security concerns.'81 It is also worth noting that greed can very well
be security-driven behaviour. If one does not feel secure with the possessions one has, more is
needed – potentially to be taken by force.
Combining the previous structural causes, one can detect a logic: If conditions cause frustration
by decreasing security, and the cause of this frustration is perceived in another faction, then war is
likely – especially if the same logic persists on the other side, causing a security dilemma.
Systemic Causes of War
Some scholars blame the anarchic state system for causing wars – the school of thought that is
generally referred to as “realist.” The state system is anarchic because there is no authority above
the state which can punish a state for bad behaviour. States, the theory goes, are in constant
79 Nelson (1980), p. 41
80 Collier (2003), p. 68
81 Walter (1999), p. 23
29 / 54
competition and always follow their own interest: 'Major powers must look out for themselves.' 82
This interest usually poses a threat to another nation, and thus war can emerge – which can be
blamed on the state system.
As there are no states within MMORPGs, I believe we can dismiss this point – for now, at least.
There is one promising MMORPG that is going to be released in late 2006: ArchLord. In this game,
a player can become the Arch Lord, in short king of the MMORPG world. It is not yet clear what
this king will be able to do, but it will require a lot of effort to become king – one requires a whole
guild who backs this one person to be king. Of course, there will always be guilds and their
champions vying for power, which may result in constant war caused by systemic factors. We will
see.83
No Wars in MMORPGs – Why?
Before examining why there are no wars in most MMORPGs, it is a good idea to look at the
exception: EVE Online, a comparatively small MMORPG with just over 125,000 subscribers.84
Nonetheless, it is the most populated MMORPG: 'There are more players in EVE's single world
than in any other MMO's [sic].'85 This is because the game has only one shard, while most other
games split the world into several shards, each hosting around 15,000 players (EVE's server
currently has around 25,000 players online at peak hours).86
EVE is set in an expansive galaxy with hundreds of solar systems, where players earn money by
mining, by trading, or by combat / bounty hunting. The centre of the galaxy belongs to three AI-
controlled empires, which keep track of the behaviour of players (players can attack everybody and
82 Brown (1998), p. 100

83 ArchLordGame.com (2006)
84 MMOGChart.com (2006)
85 Anonymous (2006)
86 EVE-Online.com (2006)
30 / 54
everything), and sometimes outlaw players and put a bounty on their head, which other players can
collect. The outer parts of the galaxy are lawless space, and player-controlled alliances of
corporations (called guilds in most other games), control of some of the territory.87 This is quite
unique, as most other games have no mechanism for players to control an area. There are several
reasons for why it is possible in EVE.
Corporations can build space stations in which players can conduct business. These space stations
are built from tax revenue that corporations collect from their members. Tax revenues are also used
to buy ships (such as capital ships / battle ships) which high-ranking and experienced players can
fly into battle. Neutral players also value space stations, as they can trade there (a service for which
they are taxed by the station owners). The truly precious resources are only found in the outer rims
of the galaxy, and therefore corporations have an incentive to control these regions, and freelance
merchants have an incentive to have protected space stations in the region to trade with. War is
often fought over resources, but it is also often caused by miscommunication or rogue players
purposefully causing war.88
I believe that the wars in EVE can rightly be called wars, as they fulfil all the criteria: They are
rational and have a political purpose, which is usually the control of territory to improve the
position of the alliance in question. They are fuelled by passion, as the players take these wars very
seriously and voluntarily fight for their alliance, as they could equally not participate without
having to fear heavy punishment – they could simply join another alliance who would then protect
them. And, of course, they include friction, the (virtual) physical challenges involved in conquering
that territory by fighting an enemy alliance.
Why is it then that in EVE there are true wars, and not in World of Warcraft, whose title suggests
war? The reason is simple yet very complex: There is no political structure in World of Warcraft.
87 See Appendix B for a map.

88 Muireann (2006)
31 / 54
The guilds of World of Warcraft and the corporations of EVE are very similar, but in the former
they lack what Hobbes calls the commonwealth.89 A commonwealth requires duties from its
members, and in return provides services. The duties usually involve taxation and abiding the laws
of the commonwealth. The services usually consist of protection from instability and punishment
against those who violate the law. Men voluntarily join such a commonwealth because it serves
them, even though they have their rights restricted.90 EVE's alliances function in a similar way:
They require duties: Merchants pay taxes of all their profits to the alliance. Fighter pilots have to
protect these merchants, or fight in wars. Of course, most of them require good behaviour from their
“citizens.” They also offer services: Merchants are protected within the alliance's territory, which is
in lawless space where all the precious minerals are. Fighter pilots get cheap supplies, can buy
cheaper ships (which are produced by the alliance, using minerals) and know that they are backed
by an alliance fleet.
Such a commonwealth is not possible in most other synthetic worlds, as the economy is much
simpler: Resources are either very abundant or found in AI-controlled areas, and the most viable
option for most players is to simply kill monsters for gold and experience, and then buy the
equipment from the AI (which has an unlimited supply that is not tied to resources). Also, it is
usually not possible to control access to an area, as guilds have no way of owning land and building
defences there which will attack enemies even if no human player is around.
As we have seen above, security concerns are a major cause for war, as nearly every action can
be (mis)interpreted to threaten a community's security. Thus, commonwealths are not necessary in
most synthetic worlds, as there are no security concerns: Players can often not be attacked at all,
they cannot lose their possessions or have them stolen, and if they die, they resurrect within seconds
and without any penalties. Players therefore have no need for security, as they are secure by the
89 Hobbes (1998), p. 7
90 ibid., pp. 83, 87, 96, 111
32 / 54
design of the system. Players therefore cannot get frustrated with other players, as the only thing
that keeps them from advancing are AI monsters that they have to kill.91
To summarize, most synthetic worlds lack the following:
1. Commonwealth:
A political player organization that offers protection in exchange for taxes or other duties.
2. Control:
Commonwealths cannot control territory, thus own no resources, and thus have no power.
3. Meaningful Resources:
Resources are too abundant, not important enough, and placed in uncontested areas, and have
less value than killing monsters – thus have little value to players.
4. Security Concerns:
If players cannot die or lose possessions, they have no need for security.
5. Politics:
Without opposing commonwealths, and without the control of land and resources, there can be no
politics, and without politics, there cannot be war.
91 The process of killing monsters to advance is often seen as a boring feature of MMORPGs and is generally referred
to as "the grind.”
33 / 54
Chapter 3: Designing War
In nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First,
competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory. The first maketh
men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for
reputation.92
The above quote by Thomas Hobbes succinctly summarizes the reasons for war that we have
elaborated above. The problem is that out of these three principal causes, only one exists in most
MMORPGs: glory.
This chapter is going to suggest how MMORPGs can be designed to make players go to war
with each other without breaking the fundamental principles of the game, and without making the
game “not fun” for the players. We have previously classified the causes of war into psychological,
structural, and systemic causes. The individual causes could again be classified into glory,
economic gain, security fears, cognitive failure, and bad leadership. As bad leadership cannot be
designed, I will discuss the first four keywords in terms of game design.
Nate Combs explains that human motivation can be divided into extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation, a concept that is very helpful when designing MMORPGs. Extrinsic motivation comes
from the outside, such as when a person is paid to do something – they will do the job simply
because they are paid to do it. Intrinsic motivation comes from within – someone completes a task
because he wants to. Naturally, intrinsic motivation is stronger than extrinsic motivation.93
Similarly, Hobbes notes that 'the imagination is the first internal beginning of all voluntary action.'94
It would therefore be desirable to capture the player's imagination to create intrinsic motivations
92 Hobbes (1998), p. 83
93 Combs (2006b)
94 Hobbes (1998), p. 33
34 / 54
which lead to war. Currently, most players have extrinsic motivations in MMORPGs, as the main
tool for advancing in the game is the quest, which gives the player a task that he is rewarded for.
The more intrinsic motivations a game can create, the better.
Castronova argues that synthetic worlds have become so popular because they fill a basic human
need: 'A sense of the significance of acts is absolutely critical to basic mental functioning, and our
daily life, which is now bereft of any overarching shared mythos, must inevitably suffer from the
loss of meaning.'95 As Francis Fukuyama observes, people living and working in the modern world
'don’t believe in anything strongly enough to want to impose their values on one another.' 96 Nothing
we do seems to matter, and not even what politicians do seems to matter. In a time that Douglas
Coupland calls 'historical underdosing,'97 where life seems meaningless, people feel that their
actions are insignificant. MMORPGs create new 'myths' that are easy to grasp and that make sense,
and they place players in the position of a hero whose acts are grand and important.98 Despite being
a hero, the acts of the players usually do not matter, though. This changes with the system I propose
below, and the players are even more immersed in the game.
96 Fukuyama (1999), p. 89
97 'Historical Underdosing: To live in a period of time when nothing seems to happen. Major symptoms include
addiction to newspapers, magazines and TV news broadcasts.' – Coupland (2002), p. 9
98 Castronova (2005), p. 275
35 / 54
Leviathan Emerges
Hobbes calls the state a Leviathan, because it overshadows and overpowers every person and
institution that lives within its jurisdiction. According to Hobbes, people join commonwealths (ie.
states or state-like structures) because they want to, because they feel that they can gain something
from them.99 As we have seen above, EVE has already created such a system – players join player-
led alliances because they benefit from them by gaining security, economic advantages, and social
contacts. A game designer may feel he is losing too much control when creating player-led states,
but a Leviathan is possible even if it is AI-controlled.
First of all, the system of restricted PvP must be abandoned – every person must be able to attack
everyone, anywhere, any time. Ultima Online allowed full PvP early on, with the disastrous effect
that high-level players would randomly kill low-level players for no reason.100 As this practice
reduces the fun for low-level players and may alienate newcomers, who then will leave the game,
restrictions on PvP were introduced, which can be found in most MMORPGs today. This is not
necessary, though, as other control mechanisms can be created, and some already exist. As
mentioned above, societies are normative, and such behaviour may be punished by other players.101
Still, this is not enough to ensure an enjoyable experience.
The solution lies within the AI. Castronova views 'faction AI as the most effective political
power that there is in synthetic worlds' because it is the 'only group that rewards loyalty with
safety.'102 If there are several realms, which are controlled, protected, and patrolled by the AI, then
the AI can practically enforce the law. Suppose one player kills other players within the territory of
a realm. All AI guards of that realm will remember that he is a criminal and kill him on sight –
99 Hobbes (1998), p. 111

100Castronova (2005), p. 209
101Steinkuehler (2006), p. 201
102Castronova (2005), p. 212
36 / 54
effectively barring him from entering important locations such as towns and markets in that realm.
At the same time, he will become hostile to all players who have pledged allegiance to that realm.
In this way, players have an incentive to join a realm, because they gain protection by having not
only an army of other players behind their backs, but also the AI. The realm may tax the players or
it may not. If it taxes, it may offer additional services to those who pay them, such as access to
specific items, or specific locations.
As discussed above, glory is one of main motivations to go to war, at least on the individual
level. Glory in Clausewitz' trinity can be ascribed to passion, which fuels the war effort. Players of a
realm may also be given tasks that they have to complete. A high-level player may be given the
quest to hunt down a slightly weaker player who has violated the law in that realm. Upon
completion, he will get a reward and rise in the ranks of that realm. If he refuses, his standing
decreases, and if he refuses too often, he may be punished or exiled from the realm.
In this way, players have intrinsic motivations to join a realm, and by being a citizen of this
realm, they feel more and more attached to it, until eventually the extrinsic motivation of
completing tasks for that realm become intrinsic motivations, as it becomes a question of honour.
Also, rising within the ranks of the realm is an intrinsic motivation within itself, as players always
aim for more glory – the only reason why they fight PvP in most games right now. Another way to
create intrinsic motivations is to make the player feel attached to the NPCs that he interacts with,
which is best achieved by making the AI appear more emotional, as Joseph Bates outlines. This
works similarly to the way cartoon characters are made believable: Emotions are clearly articulated
visually.103 This is quite possible in most current MMORPGs, which let characters perform actions
such as laughing, crying, or dancing. If NPCs used these tools, they would be more believable,
making the quests they give less extrinsic for the player.
103Bates (1994)
37 / 54
Leviathan Goes to War
Once such a system of commonwealths is established, there are several ways in which war can
be caused. Of course, game designers can periodically simply make one realm declare war on
another, but this would not be an intrinsic motivation, and it would not be political. It would be best
if players have at least a significant degree of control over when and whom to go to war with. This
could be established in several ways.
Players could periodically vote on who to go to war with, who to ally with, and who to offer
peace to – a form of a democratic state that has no player as leader. It would be best if, following
the ancient Greek model of democracy, the value of the vote depends on the rank of the players of
the realm, as one can expect experienced players to make more informed decisions whom to go to
war with. Players could also be in control of some realms, while there is a core of relatively
peaceful AI-controlled realms for the weaker players to find a safe haven in – the path that EVE has
chosen. This would probably result in many smaller player-controlled realms to emerge.
Both approaches create more intrinsic motivations for going to war, but these motivations must
be fuelled, as war that is declared without reason lacks a political dimension and therefore does not
constitute war – structural causes are needed. As all MMORPGs have an economy of some kind,
the easiest way is to create economic reasons to go to war. As mentioned above, EVE places
important resources in contested areas, which incites players to take control of these areas. The
predominant model does not require players to use resources, though, as the main path of
advancement is killing monsters and collecting their loot, or being rewarded by a quest for killing
these monsters.
Resources alone only make truly greedy players go to war over them, but once resources and
security become entwined and create a security dilemma, war is more likely. Security concerns
38 / 54
emerge when resources are not only valuable, but essential to the functioning of the community.
The simplest way to create such a need for resources is to create more consumable and depletable
items, as Castronova suggests.104 Swords get used, they need to be mended, and arrows are shot into
oblivion. In order to fix the sword, and to create more arrows, there needs to be a supply of
resources that need to be collected by the players. At the moment, NPCs who repair items have an
unlimited supply of resources, and it only costs money to repair or renew items. If merchants
instead needed raw materials to sell or repair items, they could give players a quest to collect these
items. If, then these resources are located in contested territory, and if the resources themselves are
not in unlimited supply, players have an intrinsic motivation to make sure that their realm controls
these resources. This way, there is a security dilemma: If one faction tries to improve its situation, it
automatically reduces the security of another faction: a zero-sum game.
Frustration is a major psychological cause for war, and in this way resources can cause
frustration in the players, as they are essential to the functioning of the commonwealth. Of course,
this frustration may not reach the level that the players leave the game. Thus, at some point,
resources must re-appear – but in a different location. Another way to cause such frustration is to
have important NPCs located in enemy territory. In this way, players want to have control of the
territory, as there is a location they need to visit frequently there. Again, it must be possible to
achieve the goal in other, but less convenient, ways.
Leviathan in Control
This leads to the issue of control. In most MMORPGs, non-human factions have de-facto control
of certain areas. In World of Warcraft, for example, cities and whole territories are pretty much
controlled by either the Horde or the Alliance. Stormwind, the capital of the humans (Alliance), is
104Castronova (2005), p. 185
39 / 54
nearly impossible for Horde players to enter. The heartlands of each faction are also patrolled by the
AI, and there are guards on the borders of the territory (but it is usually possible to sneak past
them). Smaller towns and outposts are guarded, but it is possible to attack them and defeat the
defenders – at least for very high-level players.
This system, in combination with an AI-led faction and police system, could be used to make
one faction take control of a territory. The AI guards will attack any enemies or outlaws on sight,
effectively defending the area. A strong group of many players, though, could defeat these guards,
enter the territory, and, if they hold the outpost for long enough, the territory now belongs to the
conquering faction – similar to a capture-the-flag scenario. To make it fair, nearby players would be
informed that the outpost is under attack (for example by a message appearing on the screen), so
that they could rush in and help the AI defend the area.
In this way, a faction could therefore lose control of their entire territory. Most world designers
(and players) do not seem to think that this is desirable, as it frustrates the players of that faction and
may make them leave the game. In order to prevent this, one could create a system that modifies the
strength of the AI defenders according to the total power of the realm – the stronger the realm, the
weaker the defenders, and the more the players have to do themselves. This of course undermines
the notion of real war, and therefore game designers should consider such a system carefully.
In this way, it is possible to conquer and control territory, and there is a rational political reason
to do so, as important resources are found there, which are necessary to play the game. The
motivation to do so is no longer extrinsic, as it is not a task to be completed, but intrinsic, as it is in
the interest of players to do so.
40 / 54
Blind Leviathan
Many wars arise from cognitive failure. Cognitive failure often leads to security concerns, as
incomplete information can cause distrust, and misinterpretation can lead people to believe the other
side to have malicious intentions, as Walter explains. 'Security-driven individuals and predatory
individuals often have incentives to act in similar, if not indistinguishable ways...' 105 In most current
MMORPGs, it is easy for players to enter enemy territory and see what is happening there or even
communicate freely with members of an opposing faction. World of Warcraft has come up with an
interesting solution. The two factions speak different languages, and text in the other language will
come up garbled in the chat window.
The game could quite purposefully give players of all factions ambiguous information. For
example, a public noticeboard (which changes all the time), might tell players that a large group of
enemies was sighted near the border, or that it is rumoured that new resources were found in enemy
territory near the border. This information may sometimes be correct and sometimes incorrect, but it
is important that the players receive it and are inclined to act on it.
With the system of AI guards and policing, it would also be much more difficult to enter and
scout enemy territory. A dangerous, but possibly rewarding task. Players could be sent into a hostile
region to steal documents, which contain information about how many players of the opposing
faction are online, where they are, or where the other faction's resources are located. Again, the
information the players receive does not have to be correct. This way, though, the players feel that
they have a direct effect on the game world, which again is shaped by the actions of other players.
Consequences
In most MMORPGs, death is more of a nuisance than a penalty. Players can resurrect their
105Walter (1999), p. 304
41 / 54
avatars immediately, or they can be resurrected by their friends (if they are powerful priests). Guild
Wars has an interesting approach: For every death, the avatar has all his powers weakened by 15%
until he enters a town where he can rest. While this system is already good, I imagine another
system, a system of consequences.
If a player dies within his realm's territory, I would suggest only a very low penalty. If he dies in
enemy territory and there are no friends around to resurrect him, he becomes a prisoner of war and
respawns in a POW camp, where he has to spend a certain amount of time. Players could possibly
also buy their way out of the camp, by paying a significant sum of money (dependent on their
wealth). The POW camp would be boring for the player, but not too boring, as there will probably
be other players there who he can talk to.
Another possibility, which was tried when designing the War of the Ring world for Neverwinter
Nights, is that a random item that the player carries is dropped when killed. If friends are around,
they can pick it up and give it back to the player. If enemies are quicker, they can pick it up and
keep it. This must be considered carefully, as many players get very frustrated when they lose an
item that took them hours, days, or even weeks to acquire.
In this way, it becomes riskier to enter enemy territory, and probably players will not attempt it
unless they are either highly powerful, or in a larger group – a realistic set-up. At the same time,
death is an annoyance, but not completely frustrating either.
As mentioned above, players who misbehave within their own realm, such as by killing allies
must feel consequences, such as a demotion in rank, or eventually exile from the realm – meaning
that the realm is now hostile towards that player. He can live as an outlaw in neutral territory, or
join another realm. Just like in all normative societies, people will learn to behave well.
42 / 54
Design Conclusions
As demonstrated above, there are many ways to design synthetic worlds for war, without
fundamentally changing the way they work, and keeping them fun for the players. All of the
suggested changes are not hard to program, are very possible, and do not require higher processing
power than contemporary computers have. The design paradigm that I am proposing could be
summed up as giving the player the power to make a difference in the world, and feel the
consequences of his actions – good or bad. This is not a new concept, and many games advertise
that the players actions finally have consequences – Peter Molyneux' Black & White and Fable
come to mind, but both are small games, in the sense that they are single-player focussed.
Of course there are also causes of war that MMORPGs cannot be designed for. If war is inherent
to humanity, and war is a cultural function with a potentially cathartic outcome, then there is
nothing the game designer can do. Rather, he should expect that people play war-based MMORPGs
for exactly these reasons. Therefore, MMORPG players also constitute a culture that is not averse to
virtual wars (similar to ancient Rome), and therefore will go to war whenever they have a reason to
do so – and sometimes even without rational reason. Similar to Herodotus' and ibn Khaldun's ideas,
MMORPGs lend themselves to wars of revenge, obligation, and dynasty. Guilds offer such kinship
groups with a despotic leader, and splits within a guild can cause wars, something that happens
rather regularly in EVE.
Miscalculation is common to all human societies. Only in games where the human is fighting the
AI, it is possible for the human to correctly calculate the outcome of his actions. Thus, all human
interactions are prone to miscalculation. Nonetheless, as we have seen, there are certain design tools
that reduce the players' abilities to predetermine the outcome of their actions.
As we have seen above, there are many factors which most games are currently lacking, and
43 / 54
which can be designed very easily. The changes I am suggesting would allow for real war – war
that is a rational political act, involving military force and the support of the people. Let me
summarize these changes:
1. Commonwealth:
Even an AI-controlled realm can offer services and demand duties from players.
2. Control:
Control can be achieved by AI patrols, but the players are able to change it by holding a territory
long enough.
3. Meaningful Resources:
If AI merchants do not have unlimited resources and ask players to collect them in order to sell
more, and if items deplete and must be repaired, all players see the importance of resources.
4. Security Concerns:
When players are vulnerable in full PvP, they need protection from the commonwealth. At the
same time, they feel threatened by the loss of resources.
5. Politics:
Politics can be achieved either by an AI-controlled democracy (vote who to go to war with, ally
with, make peace with), or through entirely player-controlled realms.
44 / 54
Chapter 4: Studying War
We have discussed what MMORPGs are, how serious they are, that they constitute genuine
human societies, that there is no war in them, why there is no war in them, and how one can create
war in them. Many people have asked me: “Why would you want war, though?”
The answer is twofold: First, the majority of computer games are about violence, if not war.
Many of them have a war-like title. War games pre-date computer games by millennia – chess is
probably the oldest war game played today. War games are enjoyable, as war is what van Creveld
calls 'the game with the highest stakes of all.'106 Video games allow war to be played without the
negative “side effects” of death and suffering (which I would argue accounts for their high
popularity) while at the same time being a fictional, visual, and aural experience – all of which
make cinema popular, but games are interactive on top of that.
The second reason why it is desirable to have war in MMORPGs is much more profound and
requires some thought. War, due to the fact that humans are fascinated with it, but at the same time
wish to exterminate it, has seen much academic attention. In order to effectively work against war,
one must understand war, its causes, its progression, and how it can be ended. Political theorists
have sought to understand war from the perspective of the state, sociologists have attempted to
understand war from the perspective of society, and psychologists from the perspective of the
individual. All of these approaches have helped us to understand war better, but none is conclusive
– perhaps no theory ever can be conclusive.
It is also important to note that all of these theories are based on simulations in the mind –
simulations of how the theorist thought human society works. Similarly, all public policy decisions
106Creveld (1991), p. 85
45 / 54
are based on purely theoretical simulations. Turkle, writing about the city-building simulation game
Sim City, notes that 'it is easy to criticize the Sim games for their hidden assumptions, but it is also
important to keep in mind that this may simply be an example of art imitating life. In this sense,
they confront us with the dependency on opaque simulations we accept in the real world.'107 This
point is very important, so let me restate it: All policy is based on 'opaque simulations,' and we do
not question the incompleteness of simulations that our political and economic systems use.
Synthetic worlds are also simulations, but they are simulations that are very large, complex, and
(above all) have real people within the simulation. In this way, MMORPGs have become 'genuine
human societies in their own right.'108 No government simulation is based on more than the
questionnaire responses of a few thousand people – if at all. Economic and policy simulations are
mostly theoretical. World of Warcraft currently has 6.5 million subscribers, but even smaller games
such as EVE Online have over 100,000. While these worlds are, of course, games, and they do not
function in exactly the same way real-life society functions, the similarities are striking: Player's are
not just playing in MMORPGs, they are 'living a big part of their social lives within them.'109 As we
have discussed in Chapter 2, the players of these worlds behave not very differently than people
behave in real-world societies. 'Core phenomena such as supply and demand, patronage, stigma,
diplomacy, and yes, coordination ought to operate similarly in all large games wherever they are
located.'110
MMORPGs have one distinct advantage over real-world societies: They are entirely transparent.
Every single action of every person can be recorded and evaluated by the computer. Even though
Blizzard does not allow academics to tap into their system, it is possible for academics to build
bots111 to record actions that users make on certain shards. It is also imaginable, that game
107Turkle (1995), p. 71
108Castronova (2006), p. 183
109Alexander (2005), p. xii
110Castronova (2006), p. 171
111Bot (RoBot): A computer-controlled character that performs tasks, such as recording certain activities on the server.
46 / 54
developers and academics cooperate – Linden Lab, who developed Second Life, is open to academic
interaction for example.112 Multiverse is an MMORPG development platform that is currently being
beta-tested. It is supposed to be very easy to use, allowing nearly anybody to build an MMORPG
with minimal investment.113 Academics could create MMORPGs in this way, building them
according to the theoretical assumptions they want to test.
From the perspective of the researcher, MMORPGs have another significant advantage. Not only
are they transparent and fully recordable, but they can also run parallel universes. Most MMORPGs
are divided into several shards each of which hosts a fraction of the total userbase. 'Each server is an
exact replica of the others, and so the... servers as a whole represent... replays of the same
history.'114 Thus, it is possible to see many different outcomes of the same scenario, and, since all
actions can be recorded, it is easy to evaluate why these outcomes differ. In the same line of
thinking, it would also be possible to slightly modify each server, to change the environment
variables that are relevant to the research in question and see how this change affects the outcome.
One could, for example, change resource distribution slightly, and see how this affects the
development of a war. It is thus possible to have several parallel what-if runs of the same history.
We can thus research a scenario, 'viewing its features not from a single outcome but from a whole
range of things that might have been but were not.'115 This is an unprecedented tool for research for
not only the causes and development of wars, but any kind of social, political, or economical
research. MMORPGs are unparalleled petri dishes for academic research – if both academia and
game developers are willing to cooperate.
112Alexander (2005), pp. 68, 77

113Multiverse.net (2006)
114Castronova (2006), p. 176
115ibid, p. 183
47 / 54
Conclusion
When thinking of real war, most game designers will think of how they can create a more
realistic experience for the player. I believe that a realistic experience is neither necessary nor
desirable to create a real war in synthetic worlds. Real war, as demonstrated in Chapter 2, is defined
not by how it is fought, but rather why it is fought – it is a political act, conducted by the military,
fuelled by the passion of the people. It is fought for a variety of causes, which can be summarized
as psychological, structural, and systemic.
If massively multiplayer online games were designed so that they would allow the interplay of
politics, the military, and passion, then real war could emerge. This can be easily done by creating a
Hobbesian state system, combined with a design that gives rise and promotes psychological and
structural causes of war – as outlined in Chapter 3. This does not make MMORPGs more realistic,
but it would elevate the fighting from the realm of skirmishes into that of war. Once a synthetic
world allows for real war, it is possible for academics to analyse them and make deductions
regarding the nature of war. This is because, as Chapter 1 demonstrates, synthetic worlds are not
very different from real-world societies – in fact, they function in the same way. These simulated
societies are proper human societies, which are better and more realistic simulations than the purely
theoretical simulations of society used to develop theories and policy decisions.
As synthetic worlds are fully transparent in the sense that every action can be recorded and
evaluated, they offer a formidable research tool for academics of war – not only as a test-bed for
new theories, but also as a wide angle looking-glass into human behaviour in war.
48 / 54
Bibliography
Books, Articles, Websites
Alexander, Thor (2005), Massively Multiplayer Game Developmet 2 (Hingham, MA: Charles River
Media).
Anonymous (2006), 'TOP 100: 30: EVE Online' in PC Gamer, September 2006 (Bath: Future
Publishing), p. 62.
ArchLordGame.com (2006), http://www.archlordgame.com (accessed 15 August 2006).
Bartle, Richard (2004), Designing Virtual Worlds (Berkeley: New Riders).
Bates, Joseph (1994), 'The Role of Emotion in Believable Agents' in Communications of the ACM,
Vol. 37, No. 7, July 1994 (New York, NY: ACM).
Baudrillard, Jean (1995), Simulacra and Simulation (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).
Brown, Michael E. & Lynn-Jones, Sean M. & Miller, Steven E. (eds.) (1998), Theories of War and
Peace (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press).
Brown, Seyon (1994), The Causes and Prevention of War 2nd Edition (New York: St. Martin's
Press).
Castronova, Edward (2005), Synthetic Worlds: The Business and Culture of Online Games
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
_____ (2006), 'On the Research Value of Large Games: Natural Experiments in Norrath and
Camelot' in Games and Culture Vol. 1, No. 2, April 2006 (London: Sage), pp. 163-186
van Creveld, Martin (1991), 'Why Men Fight' in Freedman, Lawrence (1994), War (Oxford: Oxford
Readers).
Collier, Paul et al. (2003), Breaking the Conflict Trap: Civil War and Development Policy, A World
Bank Research Report (World Bank).
Combs, Nate (2006a) 'The Fallacy of War' in Terra Nova, 06 June 2006
(http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2006/06/the_pvp_trinity.html).
_____ (2006b), 'Statistical Heroism' in Terra Nova, 12 August 2006
(http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2006/08/statistical_her.html).
Compton, Shanna (ed.) (2004), Gamers: Writers, Artists & Programmers on the Pleasures of Pixels
(New York: Soft Skull Press).
Coupland, Douglas (2002), Generation X (London: Abacus).
EVE-Online.com (2006), http://www.eve-online.com (accessed 11 August 2006).
49 / 54
Fukuyama, Francis (1999), The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social
Order (New York: The Free Press).
Gibson, William (1984), Neuromancer (New York, NY: Ace Publishing).
Hayles, Katherine N. (1999), How we became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics,
Literature, and Informatics (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Herodot (2001), Das Geschichtswerk des Herodot von Halikarnassos (Frankfurt: Insel Verlag).
Hobbes, Thomas (1651/1998), Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth
Ecclesiastical and Civil (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Homer (2000), Klassische Sagen: Ilias (Essen: Mundus Verlag).
Huizinga, Johan (1955), Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture (Boston, MA: the
Beacon Press).
_____ (1990), The Waning of the Middle Ages (London: Penguin)
Huntington, Samuel P. (2002), The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New
York, NY: The Free Press).
ibn Khaldun (1377), 'Four Kinds of War' in Freedman, Lawrence (1994), War (Oxford: Oxford
Readers).
Jin, Ge (2006), 'Down on the gold farm: Meet the Chinese workers who are paid to play' in PC
Gamer, September 2006 (Bath: Future Publishing).
Juul, Jesper (2005), half-real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds (Cambridge,
MA: MIT University Press).
Kagan, Donald (1995), On the Origins of War (London: Pimlico).
Karsh, Ephraim (1994) 'The Causes of War' in Freedman, Lawrence (1994), War (Oxford: Oxford
Readers).
Khazan, Olga (2006), 'Lost in an Online Fantasy World: As Virtual Universes Grow, So Do Ranks
of the Game-Obsessed' in washingtonpost.com, 18 August 2006.
King, Brad & Borland, John (2003), Dungeons and Dreamers: The Rise of Computer Game
Culture from Geek to Chic (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Osborne).
Koster, Raph (2005), A Theory of Fun for Game Design (Scottsdale, AZ: Paraglyph Press).
Lancaster, Kurt (1999), Warlocks and Warpdrive: Contemporary Fantasy Entertainment with
Interactive and Virtual Environments (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company).
Lawley, Liz (2006), 'community outreach, or community outrage?' in Terra Nova, 24 April 2006
(http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2006/04/community_outre.html).
McLuhan, Marshal (2003), Understanding Media (London: Routledge).
MMOGChart.com (2006), http://www.mmogchart.com/ (accessed 01 August 2006).
50 / 54
Muireann, Meinir (probably avatar name) (2006), 'Civil War at and End – New Hope for Deklein
Coalition' in EVE Insider, No. 204, 06 June 2006 (http://myeve.eve-
online.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=1151&tid=7), requires login.
Multiverse.net (2006), http://www.multiverse.com/ (accessed 15 August 2006).
Nelson, Keith L. & Spencer C. Olin, Jr. (1980), Why War? Ideology, Theory, and History
(Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
Poole, Steven (2004), Trigger Happy: Videogames and the Entertainment Revolution (New York,
NY: Arcade Publishing).
Rich, John (1993), 'Fear, greed and glory: the causes of Roman war-making in the middle Republic'
in Rich, John & Shipley, Graham (eds.) (1993), War and Society in the Roman World (London:
Routledge).
Said, Edward W. (1995), Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient (London: Penguin).
Sidebottom, Harry (2004), Ancient Warfare: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
Smiley, Jane & Kellog, Robert (eds.) (2001), The Sagas of Icelanders (London: Penguin).
Steinkuehler, Constance (2006), 'The Mangle of Play' in Games and Culture Vol. 1, No. 3, July
2006 (London: Sage), pp. 199-213.
Stoessinger, John G. (1998), Why Nations Go to War, 7th ed. (New York: St. Martin's Press).Turkle,
Sherry (1995), Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet (London: Simon &
Schuster).
Walter, Barbara F. & Snyder, Jack (eds.) (1999), Civil Wars, Insecurity, and Intervention (New
York, NY: Columbia University Press).
Waltz, Kenneth N. (2001), Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis (New York, NY:
Columbia University Press).
Wight, Martin (1979), 'Wars of Gain, Fear, and Doctrine' in Freedman, Lawrence (1994), War
(Oxford: Oxford Readers).
Wikipedia (2006), 'Player versus Player' at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_versus_player
(version of 19 August 2006, 05:16 hours).
51 / 54
Further Reading
Björk, Staffan & Holopainen, Jussi (2005), Patterns in Game Design (Hingham, MA: Charles River
Media).
Bukatman, Scott (1993), Terminal Identitiy: The Virtual Subject in Postmodern Sciencie Fiction
(Durham, NC: Duke University Press).
Brown, Michael E. (ed.) (1996), The International Dimensions of Internal Conflict (Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press).
McAllister, Ken S. (2004), Game Work: Language, Power, and Computer Game Culture
(Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press).
Raessens, Joost & Goldstein, Jeffrey (eds.) (2005), Handbook of Computer Game Studies
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Games
Abandon Entertainment (2002), Dark Age of Camelot (Wanadoo Edition).

ArenaNet (2005), Guild Wars (NCSoft).
Blizzard Entertainment (2005), World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment).
CCP Games (2003), EVE Online (Crucial Entertainment).
Codemasters (2006), ArchLord (Codemasters).
Origin Systems (1997), Ultima Online (Electronic Arts).
Turbine (2006), Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach (Atari).
52 / 54
Appendix A: Some MMORPG Terms
Avatar
The avatar is a figure in the synthetic world that the player controls, like a puppet. It is the player's
representation in the synthetic world. The player can change appearance, name, and equipment of
the avatar. See also Chapter 1: The Avatar Reality.
Experience Points (XP)
XP accumulate through killing monsters or completing quests. The more XP an avatar has, the
higher is his level.
Level (Lvl)
A level is an artificial threshold at which a character becomes stronger. Levels are gained through
XP points and increase the power of the avatar.
Non-Player Character (NPC)
An NPC is a computer-controlled character that the avatar can interact with. These can be
merchants, quest-givers, guards, or simply information-givers.
PvE & PvP
See Chapter 2: Synthetic World Combat.
Quest
A quest is a task given to the avatar by an NPC, which usually involves retrieving an item or
killing certain monsters. Upon completion, the avatar is rewarded with XP and sometimes items.
53 / 54
Appendix B: The Galaxy of EVE Online
Player-controlled empires in EVE.

Source: http://www.eve-files.com/media/corp/crii/latest.jpg (13 August 2006)
54 / 54

War in Synthetic Worlds

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

War in Synthetic Worlds

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

War in Synthetic Worlds MA War Studies, King's College London Jan van der Crabben

War in Synthetic Worlds

King's College London

Jan van der Crabben

AI......................................................................................................................... Artificial Intelligence

1 For a more detailed explanation of MMORPG terminology, refer to Appendix A.

What are Synthetic Worlds?

order – “founded on information, the model, the cybernetic game... hyperreality.”4

Following Edward Castronova's suggestion, I will therefore refer to an MMORPG as a

“synthetic world,” which he defines as an “expansive, world-like, large-group environment made by

6.5 million active subscribers6), social interaction, and an economy.

Examining the Synthetic World

2 Pronounced either “em-em-oh-arr-pee-gee” or “morpeg”.

control whole armies.

7 King & Borland (2003); Turkle (1995), pp. 180-181

we shall discuss later.

10 Bartle (2004), pp. 96-98

academic study of war scenarios.

Chapter 1: Life in the Screen

human societies in their own right.'12

The Avatar Reality

manipulates the environment, and this avatar body does exactly

someone with a prosthetic arms should think of it as his arm.21

shall see below).

makes me excited; hence we are all excited.'22

practice is the so-called “griefing” or “PK-ing” (player-killing): Experienced high-level players go

perfect mix between game and performance.

25 Huizinga (1955), p. 101

28 Spratch in Compton (2004), p. 182

Beyond the Magic Circle

– a price people are willing to pay to socialize with fellow players.41

more expensive than one that does 50 damage.

it thus is not merely a game.

Real Virtual Behaviour

real world. This is for several reasons:

they were perfectly real.

magazines, and even trading card games.

their possessions in MMORPGs (their avatar, their equipment) highly.

they have in the synthetic world.

theories of war and then relate them to MMORPGs.

Chapter 2: On War: Online and Offline

Synthetic World Combat50

from the reputation gained.

to brag to their friends how powerful they are.

Reasons for War

MMORPGs, where possible.

system withing MMORPGs... yet.

Psychological Causes of War

the cause of existence of the Roman empire, but a cultural function.64

unprofitable from a material point of view, and that the practical

justifications. The real motives were often psychological and

from questions of honor.65

can gain from a war.72

68 ibn Khaldun (1377), p. 90

Structural Causes of War

needed – potentially to be taken by force.

Systemic Causes of War

blamed on the state system.

No Wars in MMORPGs – Why?

currently has around 25,000 players online at peak hours).86

82 Brown (1998), p. 100

reasons for why it is possible in EVE.

purposefully causing war.88

that territory by fighting an enemy alliance.