Personally, I didn't like it. While the author does manage to make a good point here or there, the whole thing seems to be derived from his desire to put down/show up authors of previous articles.

 

 

 

From the looks of it, Flammacor skimmed through the articles he referred to in his, saw something that caught his eye, allowed himself to take it out of context, got upset about it, rinsed and repeated until he had enough to start a rant. In fact, I'm willing to bet that this article would have turned out quite differently had he actually read those articles and fully understood them (regardless of whether or not he agreed with them).

 

 

 

In my book, what you wrote there counts as flaming. If you think I've taken something out of context, address it specifically. Accusing me of not fully understanding those articles without providing specific references is very insulting.

 

 

 

Again, I think the article does have a valid point (about emergent game play being a good thing); however, I also think it was needlessly diluted by an apparent desire to attack previous articles which actually agree with this point, and that it failed to adequately defend this "wilderness code of honor". The whole defense seems to rely on the notion that this "code of honor" is emergent game play.

 

 

 

I don't understand why you think I'm attacking articles which actually agree with this point, and since you don't provide specifics I don't see how I could understand. I'll provide a definition of emergence which will hopefully provide some insight as to how far emergent game play can be taken, condensed in wikipedia from an article by Goldstein (1999) in the inaugural issue of Emergence:

 

 

 

Emergence refers to the arising of novel and coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of self-organization in complex systems. The common characteristics are: (1) radical novelty (features not previously observed in systems); (2) coherence or correlation (meaning integrated wholes that maintain themselves over some period of time); (3) A global or macro "level" (i.e. there is some property of "wholeness"); (4) it is the product of a dynamical process (it evolves); and (5) it is "ostensive" - it can be perceived. (6) it is supervenient (downward causation between levels)

 

 

 

By this definition, any persistent organization of people in an MMORPG to accomplish some ingame (or even purely social) goal is clearly emergent.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with that. Emergent game play exists for the purpose of having fun with a game beyond how it was originally intended, and for finding ways to utilize the game environment to your advantage that the programmers hadn't foreseen. The "code of honor" that is referred to is the exact opposite. In fact, it's a way of impeding emergent game play, and to get the opposition to do what you want in order to make it easier to kill them and get their stuff.

 

 

 

Emergent game play does NOT exist for a purpose. If a feature was constructed for a purpose, then it would not satisfy condition 4 above, as instead of a product of a dynamical process it would be a designed game feature. I don't really understand what you are talking about by impeding... it seems to me that a common confusion people have about the code of honor is the way in which behavioral memes propagate. The preferred method is not intimidation, but shame. When a group of 4 pkers mocks someone for praying, there is obviously no intimidation intended, only shame. Also, the main effect of the conversation is just to maintain morale and group unity of the pking group, to attempt to interpret "trash talk" as an attempt at serious communication is really quite naive.

With all due respect and (dare I say?) LOVE, and with no intention of flaming anyone, may I kindly point out that with regard to laws, moral codes and social contracts, drawing an analogy between Runescape and the Real World is flawed at its core?

 

 

 

Maybe people have noticed that in Runescape there is a skill called "thieving" and that, if you are a really good thief, you can get a nice purple cape to wear that will bring you honour and respect as you walk through the land?

 

 

 

In the real world, of course, thieving doesn't bring you honour and respect, it gets you locked up in prison because, after all, thieving is against the man-made laws of every country, and against every deity-made and man-made moral code of which I am aware.

 

 

 

The whole point of Runescape is that it is a fantasy world where people go to get away from the real world. If Runescape's skills involved "studying," "working," and "cleaning," instead of magic, ranging and thieving, or if Runescape required that its players follow all real world laws and moral codes and abide by various social contracts, then the number of members would drop from 1 million to zero faster than you can say "Culinaromancer."

 

 

 

Runescape is a game where people are free to act as they wish, limited only by the rules that have been made by the world's creators (JaGeX).

 

 

 

It continues to bewilder me that players go into the wilderness to kill other players (!), then try to insist that a moral code or social contract should limit the actions of their intended victims, and when these intended victims don't act according to their expectations they get mad and start hurling insults.

 

 

 

After all, out of all the square footage in Runescape, they have chosen to go into the one area where JaGeX has allowed players to kill other players and where, as they must know, the rules that they seek to impose on other players are not actually in effect.

 

 

 

You may call this "emergent gameplay" if you wish. And, if groups of players are explicitly agreeing to these rules among themselves and aren't harrassing other players who either don't know about or don't agree with these rules, then I might agree with you.

 

 

 

However, if these self-appointed rulemakers are harrassing other players over public and private chat, calling them names, etc., I don't call this "emergent game play" - I just call it "silly" - and you should too.

 

 

 

This was (I believe) one of the main points of Sausageman's article which was addressed only in passing in the current article. Therefore, it is difficult to see the current article as actually being a "response" to many points that Sausageman made in his article.

With all due respect and (dare I say?) LOVE, and with no intention of flaming anyone, may I kindly point out that with regard to laws, moral codes and social contracts, drawing an analogy between Runescape and the Real World is flawed at its core?

 

 

 

Hey I feel the love! Your point about thieving is basically that the real world is different than RS, so the analogy doesn't work. That isn't a good argument-- if RS weren't different than the real world, you wouldn't need analogies, as they would be the same thing! The analogy only requires that both are environments in which individuals form emergent social units.

 

 

 

In the real world, of course, thieving doesn't bring you honour and respect, it gets you locked up in prison because, after all, thieving is against the man-made laws of every country, and against every deity-made and man-made moral code of which I am aware.

 

 

 

People that actually steal obviously have a personal moral code that allows stealing. Since stealing is fairly common, then moral codes that allow stealing are also common. Not that this is relevant to my analogy, but it's interesting. If you want academic moral codes instead of personal moral codes, than off the top of my head i can think of egoism, relativism, amoralism, utilitarianism(sometimes), justice based systems (sometimes). The list goes on I'm sure. Imagine if RS were fully fleshed out to where there were realistic penalties for thieving, and meaningful rewards for good citizenship--where the npc's had personalities vivid enough so that you felt guilty about stealing from them, and the economy of the npc's was affected by thieving. That'd be pretty awesome, eh? Since it's not like that, thieving in RS is kinda analogous to stealing salt from the sea in real life :shame: i know, horrible isn't it? Oh, or games where you can steal from other player characters. I remember one MMO where you could pick a thief class and steal from player characters, one thief stole an incredible amount of money that a guild was going to use to build an entire city. That would certainly turn world 2 fally into an empty wasteland :P

 

 

 

Runescape is a game where people are free to act as they wish, limited only by the rules that have been made by the world's creators (JaGeX).

 

 

 

Which includes forming emergent social units that attempt to demarcate certain areas of the game as their special areas, right? You are free to ignore their attempts or work against them, and they are free to call you a noob afterwards, right? It continues to bewilder me that people make this claim of yours without really meaning it.

 

 

 

It continues to bewilder me that players go into the wilderness to kill other players (!), then try to insist that a moral code or social contract should limit the actions of their intended victims, and when these intended victims don't act according to their expectations they get mad and start hurling insults.

 

 

 

That's actually kinda similar to people insisting that a moral code should limit the actions of other people in the real world, but that's been in style for quite a long time, hasn't it? Killing other ppl in the wildy is just friendly competition of the sort that is pervasive in everyday life in the real world, so that's no objection. Looks like my analogy keeps coming back in style \

 

 

 

After all, out of all the square footage in Runescape, they have chosen to go into the one area where JaGeX has allowed players to kill other players and where, as they must know, the rules that they seek to impose on other players are not actually in effect.

 

 

 

The rules they seek to impose on other players are not only not in effect in the wildy, they're not in effect anywhere in RS! :-w That's why we're talking about emergent gameplay, because people are creating their own social rules.

 

 

 

You may call this "emergent gameplay" if you wish. And, if groups of players are explicitly agreeing to these rules among themselves and aren't harrassing other players who either don't know about or don't agree with these rules, then I might agree with you.

 

 

 

However, if these self-appointed rulemakers are harrassing other players over public and private chat, calling them names, etc., I don't call this "emergent game play" - I just call it "silly" - and you should too.

 

 

 

I think it's both emergent game play and silly. And you should too. :P If someone comes to your door and attempts to convince you that technology is evil and you should destroy your computer, you would think that's silly right? But there are people that actually do believe that, and there have been such people for many hundreds of years. Check out the Luddites on wikipedia for an example of such a social movement in history. I guarantee you, it's not silly to THEM. Well, it's probably silly to some of them. Anyways, the Luddites trashed factories and such which is probably a negative for those who disagree with them, ppl who call you a noob as you kill them in the wilderness seem to me to be a positive even if you disagree with them. Do you see my point? That's what is so great about rpg's, even the super annoying trolls kinda add something to the game world. ignore lists, world hopping, teleporting, respawning in lumby, this game is full of ways to deal with unpleasant characters that real life sorely lacks.

 

 

 

This was (I believe) one of the main points of Sausageman's article which was addressed only in passing in the current article. Therefore, it is difficult to see the current article as actually being a "response" to many points that Sausageman made in his article.

 

 

 

I would have responded to more of his points, but I agreed with the majority of what he wrote. This article was my response to his conclusion, which I disagreed with. I believe that disagreeing with every single thing someone says just because there is a dispute over one issue is something that loses its appeal as one grows older.

The problem with the comparison with Runescape and Earth is that while they are similar in some aspects, they are very different in others. While there are obvious consequences for wrong actions on "Earth", on "Gielinor", you can ignore people completely by the tap of a button, and escape a situation by pressing "log out". Because of this freedom to avoid any rules. it is harder to enforce any rules that are either written or conceptualized. The term "Anything Goes" stems from this concept. Some people do not care about the emergence of codes, and will not see themselves as ruining "codes", but rather playing the game their own way.

The "honor" of the wilderness only exists because of frustrated pkers.

 

 

 

A guy is pking and he is winning a fight, the loser teleports. The winner is frustrated but he would sound like a whiny [bleep] if he calls him a tele noob, so instead the nonexistant concept of honor is made up.

 

 

 

This is an MMORPG, and a childish one at that. If you've ever really played in another competitive online game, you'll know that "honor" is not as issue. People do whatever they can to win within, knowing that there are certain drawbacks, and people understand that.

 

 

 

The problem has 2 aspects in RS:

 

1. A lame PvP system, there is basically no disadvantage to carrying teleports or using protect prayers. They are extremely easy to use, but difficult and expensive to stop.

 

2. Childish players; a real PvPer wouldn't complain about honor, he would recognize the measures he needs to take to become a good pker. People love to sit in edgeville and complain about all the prayer and tele noobs, when their time would be better spent pking deeper in the wildy or training.

A guy is pking and he is winning a fight, the loser teleports. The winner is frustrated but he would sound like a whiny [bleep] if he calls him a tele noob, so instead the nonexistant concept of honor is made up.

 

 

 

"nonexistant concept" is quite a nutty oxymoron, I congratulate you on that. I could ponder that for hours on end. Descartes meets LongestMile= "I think that I don't exist, therefore I am a figment of my own imagination" :-k Anyways, you are correct in that this frustration is undoubtedly what spurred the creation of this code of honor. However, it seems likely to me that frustration spurred about 90% of all inventions. Most inventions you read about these days start with the inventor saying "I was really frustrated because I couldn't do this, so... " or "I wanted to do X but no one sold a device that could do that, so I made one myself" It's only common sense, if you're not frustrated, you don't try to change things.

 

 

 

This is an MMORPG, and a childish one at that. If you've ever really played in another competitive online game, you'll know that "honor" is not as issue. People do whatever they can to win within, knowing that there are certain drawbacks, and people understand that.

 

 

 

That simply isn't true. When I played WoW, it was more 'honorable' to let someone heal up before fighting them, than to attack them while the monster was still fighting them. I found that the majority of people were honorable near the start of the game, and as time went by and the demographics of the game changed, it became less and less honorable. Also, in battlegrounds, there were constant debates as to what was more or less honorable. Afking out of BGs, turtling, gy camping, all kinds of stuff.

No, my point was actually that Runescape is set up as a fantasy, specifically to be unlike real life and the real world.

 

 

 

In fact, as Longest Mile hints at above, Runescape is a mishmash of various fantasies - you want a knight and a wizard from the times of King Arthur? Yep, we got that. You want a vampire from Transylvania? Yep, we got that. You want zombies from voodoo lore? Check, got those too. You want a werewolf? We got you covered. Would you like some evil mummies from ancient Egypt? Coming right up! How 'bout an ice queen, a phoenix, hellhounds, demons, trolls, faeries, sea monsters and characters from Norse legend? All present and accounted for - bunched together in this one little space. A bit ridiculous when you back away from it and give it a hard look but, hey, we take the game as we find it.

 

 

 

So sure, you can try to make analogies between anything you want. If you want, you can try to make analogies between hot and cold, tall and short and clever and stupid. You can try to draw analogies between something that is "X" and something that specifically has been designed to be "Not X." However, these will not be strong analogies because any similarities, if they exist at all, are likely to be merely tangential, not fundamental.

 

 

 

Your point seems to be that in real life people have tried to order their societies according to laws, rules and codes and that some people in Runescape have tried to do the same thing. Of course, you are right about that, but beyond pointing out that obvious fact, what are you trying to say, and how is it responsive to what Sausageman wrote in his article?

 

 

 

What I was reacting to in my post were statements in your article like:

 

 

 

"ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a good thing that the movement to preserve the purity of the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åanything goesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Personally, I didn't like it. While the author does manage to make a good point here or there, the whole thing seems to be derived from his desire to put down/show up authors of previous articles.

 

 

 

From the looks of it, Flammacor skimmed through the articles he referred to in his, saw something that caught his eye, allowed himself to take it out of context, got upset about it, rinsed and repeated until he had enough to start a rant. In fact, I'm willing to bet that this article would have turned out quite differently had he actually read those articles and fully understood them (regardless of whether or not he agreed with them).

 

 

 

In my book, what you wrote there counts as flaming. If you think I've taken something out of context, address it specifically. Accusing me of not fully understanding those articles without providing specific references is very insulting.

 

 

 

Again, I think the article does have a valid point (about emergent game play being a good thing); however, I also think it was needlessly diluted by an apparent desire to attack previous articles which actually agree with this point, and that it failed to adequately defend this "wilderness code of honor". The whole defense seems to rely on the notion that this "code of honor" is emergent game play.

 

 

 

I don't understand why you think I'm attacking articles which actually agree with this point, and since you don't provide specifics I don't see how I could understand. I'll provide a definition of emergence which will hopefully provide some insight as to how far emergent game play can be taken, condensed in wikipedia from an article by Goldstein (1999) in the inaugural issue of Emergence:

 

 

 

Emergence refers to the arising of novel and coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of self-organization in complex systems. The common characteristics are: (1) radical novelty (features not previously observed in systems); (2) coherence or correlation (meaning integrated wholes that maintain themselves over some period of time); (3) A global or macro "level" (i.e. there is some property of "wholeness"); (4) it is the product of a dynamical process (it evolves); and (5) it is "ostensive" - it can be perceived. (6) it is supervenient (downward causation between levels)

 

 

 

By this definition, any persistent organization of people in an MMORPG to accomplish some ingame (or even purely social) goal is clearly emergent.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with that. Emergent game play exists for the purpose of having fun with a game beyond how it was originally intended, and for finding ways to utilize the game environment to your advantage that the programmers hadn't foreseen. The "code of honor" that is referred to is the exact opposite. In fact, it's a way of impeding emergent game play, and to get the opposition to do what you want in order to make it easier to kill them and get their stuff.

 

 

 

Emergent game play does NOT exist for a purpose. If a feature was constructed for a purpose, then it would not satisfy condition 4 above, as instead of a product of a dynamical process it would be a designed game feature. I don't really understand what you are talking about by impeding... it seems to me that a common confusion people have about the code of honor is the way in which behavioral memes propagate. The preferred method is not intimidation, but shame. When a group of 4 pkers mocks someone for praying, there is obviously no intimidation intended, only shame. Also, the main effect of the conversation is just to maintain morale and group unity of the pking group, to attempt to interpret "trash talk" as an attempt at serious communication is really quite naive.

 

 

 

Alright, first off, quit trying to pick fights with everyone that doesn't kiss your backside and agree with you on everything. It's really annoying, and I refuse to give you the time of day.

 

 

 

Second, if expressing one's opinions and views was flaming just because they shed a bit of negative light on someone half of the people on these forums would be banned by now.

 

 

 

Third, I apologize for not having posted specific quote and done extensive research before posting, but I don't have a copy of the article on my hard drive and intended my post to be a way for me to get in my 2 cents rather than the starter for a full-on debate. Last I checked this was the General forum, not Debate Club.

 

 

 

What I posted in my last message was just my own personal view point. I've never once said it was completely factual, or that it would hold up in a court of law, or anything like that. You don't like it? Fine, that's your prerogative, but don't bother me about it and accuse me of flaming just because it wasn't what you wanted to hear.

Despite its seemingly negative reception, I think it was a very good article.

 

 

 

The article ponts out certain things which people have deemed 'unaccepable' to say or 'unnecessary' which I guess is the couse of the uprise.

 

 

 

I do think that people should open their eyes to the 'nanny' nature or Runescape, rather than saying that jagex is perfect just becouse they enoy the game so much.

 

 

 

Yes, I do agree that the game is fun to play and that Jagex has got a few things right, but shouldn't we, as the players, be allowed more freedom, more choce? Surely the game would be more fun that way?

The topic of this article is why I like runescape so much. It allows so much (reasonable) freedom which plays on my ADD. One minute I can chop some yews for cash, the next I can kill demons, and then i can hang with my pals. I think this is what has made runescape so succesful. It allows such different game play then other rpgs. We aren't just on a mission to solve a specific quest, but you can try to get one skill to 99, try to balance all your skills, or not do skills at all and just fight. I love the utter unorganizedness of runescape.

Thread cleaned. Mild, constructive criticism is fine, but, outright flaming of the article is not.

Alright, first off, quit trying to pick fights with everyone that doesn't kiss your backside and agree with you on everything. It's really annoying, and I refuse to give you the time of day.

 

 

 

I'm sorry that you perceive me asking you to stop being insulting as me trying to pick a fight with you. There's really not much else to say.

 

 

 

"

No, my point was actually that Runescape is set up as a fantasy, specifically to be unlike real life and the real world.

 

...

 

So sure, you can try to make analogies between anything you want. If you want, you can try to make analogies between hot and cold, tall and short and clever and stupid. You can try to draw analogies between something that is "X" and something that specifically has been designed to be "Not X." However, these will not be strong analogies because any similarities, if they exist at all, are likely to be merely tangential, not fundamental.

 

 

 

Runescape has clearly been designed to be very similar to real life in a lot of ways, and quite different in other ways. Your description above is an oversimplification. Also, I don't understand why you are going through all this effort just to show that my analogy wasn't "strong". I used it to be funny and illustrative, not to support the Golden Gate Bridge.

 

 

 

You can't be talking about Sausageman's article, can you? He wasn't trying to "preserve" anything, because the "anything goes" nature of the wilderness is a given - it is an artifact of the rules established by JaGex and is a simple fact of life inside Runescape. For example, it isn't up to Sausageman, you to or any other player to "preserve" another player's ability to tele out of level 1 wildy, which is an action that would be outlawed by almost any so-called "honour PKer." This ability is granted to all players through the game - so talk of "preserving" this ability is meaningless, and you certainly don't have the power to abolish it.

 

 

 

Part of the point of the analogy, was to show how the wilderness is not actually "anything goes", but has a large number of rules and restrictions. The other point was to show how some people find it beneficial to add even more rules to the wilderness to make their gameplay more fun, even though those rules are not strongly enforceable on others-- just as people do in the real world. Certainly laws are more enforceable than honor codes, but honor codes exist in the real world also, and even laws aren't absolutely enforceable. I'm just kinda rewording things that have all been said in the article here... one more thing.

 

 

 

 

 

In any event, when you say that if we didn't impose rules on ourselves in real life on planet earth, we might "all still be living in caves," and then attempt to use this as an analogy to the consequences of a lack of rules in the Runescape wildy,...

 

 

 

I'm not actually doing that. You can tell because my next sentence isn't "Well RS is exactly like earth so unless you want to be cavemen, get an honor code"; it's "What does this fanciful example show us about RuneScape? " See why I'm not distressed by you saying the analogy isn't strong? It's a fanciful example, not a pillar of logic.

Can it Flammacor. This thread's just had all the guts ripped out of it by a mod.

 

 

 

Don't go on flogging a dead horse and attempting to get people to argue with you.

I don't agree that it had the guts ripped out of it by a mod. To me, personal attacks and flaming are not the guts of the thread, discussion about content is the guts of the thread.

 

 

 

I also don't agree that the thread is a dead horse because the flaming was removed, nor do I agree that responding to people who make comments is attempting to get them to argue with me.

 

 

 

I am sorry that our viewpoints differ Hugh, but I don't believe that we should stop discussion every time viewpoints differ. If we remain civil in our comments, we can learn from our differences. If we all had exactly the same viewpoints, there wouldn't be much to talk about.

Can it Flammacor. This thread's just had all the guts ripped out of it by a mod.

 

 

 

Don't go on flogging a dead horse and attempting to get people to argue with you.

 

 

 

 

 

Afraid I have to agree. I'm done with this one...

You snooze, you lose. Winner take all, if you cant stay alive in the wild for some reason :boohoo: an honor code wont help you, its called Natural Selection.

Im sorry, but I had to stop reading after the first paragraph.

 

 

 

I think the fundamental problem with allowing guest writers to write frequently is that they disagree with each other and contradict each other. This article took it one step further and flamed the articles to high heaven.

 

 

 

Call me mental, but a site that is slagging off its own articles is a bit twisted?

Wow, Tip.It Times is really going down the hole....

 

 

 

Last week it was a loon raving about all of the noobs being protected and how ugly a ditch is and this week it's an article about emergant gameplay that's for some reason titled to make you think it's about Wilderness ethics.

 

 

 

Looks like it's time to get some more editors for Tip.It Times...

Good read with good points.

I'll start by saying I'm not a PK'er. I avoid the wilderness.

 

 

 

You are more than welcome to follow a code of conduct. You are more than welcome not to. I don't. If I have to go to the wilderness to do a quest or to get an item I can't get anywhere else, I'm going in one of two ways: buck naked or loaded for bear. If I'm naked, you'll get my bones and nothing else. I'll probably go refill my tea while you do it.

 

 

 

Otherwise, I'm going to use everything I can, honorable or not, to defend myself. I'll use my prayer pots. I'll eat a lobster when I'm 15 hp below max. I'll teleport if I'm at 50% hp. I'll run to stay alive.

 

 

 

If you have a problem with that, it's your problem. Telling me will just make my ignore list one name longer.

 

 

 

That's my 2 cents.

 

 

 

Now there you have sense...

 

 

 

Firstly, I'd have to agree with everything said in the quote above, but secondly here are a few thoughts on the idea of "honour codes" in the Wilderness.

 

 

 

1) There are a couple of times when Flammacor mentions the single aim of Runescape being to provide enjoyment. Whilst there are some basic rules that are enforced by Jagex with respect to certain "illegal" practises, it is worth noting that there are no Jagex specified rules regarding the Wilderness. The problem with the majority of reports on Wilderness gameplay etc is that they simply ignore the obvious fact that people enjoy the way they play it. If YOU don't, the problem lies with the way you are playing, not the way someone else is. Get over it. If you personally don't like being beaten because someone did something unexpected, like prayers or eating food, learn from it and don't be caught out next time. They are enjoying what they do (which Flammacor rightly explains to be the whole point of Runescape), therefore fulfilling the only aim of the game. Just because YOU don't enjoy the way THEY play doesn't make it wrong.

 

 

 

By the same token, people who are "pure skillers" aren't doing anything "wrong" when beating you to resources, they're simply enjoying the game the way they want to and Jagex allows them to. Admittedly somewhat different from wilderness situations, but a similar extension of Flammacor's idea.

 

 

 

2) This is purely about Flammacor's article, but perhaps worth noting for anyone in particular support of this idea: since when did anyone play Runescape because it was like real life? Drawing parallels with planet Earth is perhaps a little far-fetched for a simple study of Wilderness habits. Runescape death involves losing some virtual money (unless you were fool enough to buy that virtual money with your own real money), a swift trip to Lumbridge and quite likely a fair bit of cursing at your misfortune. On Earth, whatever your views on what happens after death, you lose EVERYTHING from the life you just lost. A fairly substantial reason for the differences between virtual and real life, surely?

 

 

 

That said, if you want to extend Earth into Runescape, particularly in the Wild, here's an important point to remember. Humans are less resilient to sword slashes and arrow shots than our Runescape "avatars", hence in warfare tactics have become so important. Generals and military leaders will always seek to minimise casualties and reduce the risks to themselves and the men following them. People using prayers and food or teleports aren't doing anything different in trying to save their own life, it is simply Runescape's manifestation of it. Indeed, almost any human situation can be used to illustrate the point - people do not enter hazardous situations unprepared unless they are thoroughly stupid or caught by surprise. Boxers train for years to deal with the physical punishment they receive, pilots learn escape manouevres and drills in case of disaster. Runescape players taking food and prayers to the Wild are only doing the same thing - going prepared. If you choose not to and are bested by such players, get over your bitterness and learn to deal with it.

 

 

 

Of course if you don't think much of the Planet Earth parallels, like me, then you can pretty much ignore all that, although the last few lines are worth noting for anyone.

 

 

 

3) If you go into the Wilderness, you must expect to die at some point. If that is because you didn't prepare, that's your loss. If you did prepare and still got killed, take a clan next time or train until you can avoid the humiliation.

 

 

 

Personally, I've never been past level 3 Wilderness, and then only to duel a friend on f2p worlds, but I enjoyed myself, so what's wrong with that?!

 

 

 

If you haven't already guessed, my view on the Wild is that anything "legal" goes, so if you see me in the Wilderness, don't expect me to go without prayers and food just because you want me to.

 

 

 

I suspect a lot of that was a little rambling in nature, but it might've been interesting to someone out there! Enjoy.

I have to say this article felt like it made no solid points. To me it came across as the longest ramble I've seen yet in a tip.it article. Sure it was well written, but the use of larger than necessary words gave it a very boring, droning feel to it like the lectures of a monotone professor on a hot day.

 

 

 

I would rate this article with a solid "who cares?" Looking forward to a bit more interesting article content in the future.

Interesting, article. Although I don't agree with it, I still think it was pretty interesting and showed some points for the other side of the argument.

I found this article to be well written, even if I did disagree with the ideas (I'm more of a "defend my butt however I can" kind of guy). I didn't mind the "large words" I've seen many people complain about, and found the RS-Earth comparison quite enjoyable.

 

IMO you don't have to agree with the views of an article to appreciate good writing, and I'm saddened to see all the people saying it's a bad piece of writing just because they don't agree with the "code of honor".

 

 

 

sambo1660:

 

"I suspect a lot of that was a little rambling in nature, but it might've been interesting to someone out there! Enjoy."

 

 

 

*Is someone out there*

 

XD

2) This is purely about Flammacor's article, but perhaps worth noting for anyone in particular support of this idea: since when did anyone play Runescape because it was like real life? Drawing parallels with planet Earth is perhaps a little far-fetched for a simple study of Wilderness habits. Runescape death involves losing some virtual money (unless you were fool enough to buy that virtual money with your own real money), a swift trip to Lumbridge and quite likely a fair bit of cursing at your misfortune. On Earth, whatever your views on what happens after death, you lose EVERYTHING from the life you just lost. A fairly substantial reason for the differences between virtual and real life, surely?

 

 

 

I would never claim that Runescape is exactly like real life, however I would submit that every game draws some kind of inspiration from real life, as the creators of the game have nothing else to draw inspiration from. Runescape, as an mmorpg, is much better as a sociological simulation than a game like solitaire.

 

 

 

It's true what you, and many other in this thread, have said... death in real life is a much more sobering danger than it is in RS. However, let's take a closer look at how this impacts the code of honor. It is very commonly regarded as a good thing to be honorable in real life, even though it may increase one's personal danger. Not kicking opponents when they're down, not hitting someone with their back turned, standing up for what's right instead of running away... these are all positions with substantial backing in the real world. Even more elaborate and risky codes of honor have existed in the past, again, reference duelling on wikipedia for some fascinating reading. To make the claim that codes of honor are a good thing in real life, but not ok in RS because of the differing hazard levels, is like saying that you would risk your life in the real world to be honorable, but you just can't risk that set of full rune to be honorable in RS, that's just going way too far. If you're not making that claim, then the difference in hazard levels between RL and RS just isn't relevant... well it could be relevant to certain other claims, but I don't think I've seen one of those other claims in this thread, and they would complement not contradict my point in any event.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't want to be misconstrued, those who take the chance to kill without retribution and behave solely for one's own benefit in RS are also contributing to the emergent gameplay and adding to the richness of the game. I don't want to convince every single person to follow a code of honor, I just want to encourage a vital and entertaining variety of behaviors ingame.

Ok, I have edited my post, because everything I have wrote in the first place has "expired" [meaning that you already have talked about it] [i was too lazy to read everything in the first place]. Sorry.

 

 

 

Ill just reply of what you said 1 post above.

 

 

 

It's true what you, and many other in this thread, have said... death in real life is a much more sobering danger than it is in RS. However, let's take a closer look at how this impacts the code of honor. It is very commonly regarded as a good thing to be honorable in real life, even though it may increase one's personal danger. Not kicking opponents when they're down, not hitting someone with their back turned, standing up for what's right instead of running away... these are all positions with substantial backing in the real world. Even more elaborate and risky codes of honor have existed in the past, again, reference duelling on wikipedia for some fascinating reading. To make the claim that codes of honor are a good thing in real life, but not ok in RS because of the differing hazard levels, is like saying that you would risk your life in the real world to be honorable, but you just can't risk that set of full rune to be honorable in RS, that's just going way too far. If you're not making that claim, then the difference in hazard levels between RL and RS just isn't relevant... well it could be relevant to certain other claims, but I don't think I've seen one of those other claims in this thread, and they would complement not contradict my point in any event.

 

 

 

You can't expect from everyone to be a "hero". Or at least, there always will be someone who thinks it's more smarter to run away than to die. Even if it's only rs.