Persona Studies 2017, vol. 3, no. 2
66
PERSONA IN MMO GAMES:
CONSTRUCTING AN IDENTITY
THROUGH COMPLEX
PLAYER/CHARACTER RELATIONSHIPS
OSKA R MIL I K
ABSTRACT
Studies of online interaction involving identity can be divided into two
distinct categories. On the one hand, there is the study of the players, which often
asks questions of a psychological or economic nature. On the other hand, there is the
study of characters, which looks at issues of language or culture, and critical theory
topics such as gender, class, and race online. While these two approaches have
created a field of digital games research that provides many valuable resources and
research projects, the separation between these topics is also limiting due to the
complex and intertwined nature of online and offline interaction in the modern age.
This paper presents a new definition of persona as an additional
methodological concept that can be used to observe interaction in the online world,
particularly as it applies to the presentation of an identity to others. This construct
serves as a joint identity of character and player, combining these otherwise
separate topics to allow for a greater depth of understanding of the actions and
reasoning behind the characters and players of digital games. It is also applicable to
other online contexts, such as social networking, livestreaming, and forum use.
KEY WORDS
Identity; Online Interaction; Methodology; Qualitative Research; Digital Games
INTRODUCTION
The digital realm of interaction is a quickly growing and significant part of our lives. It is also
becoming an increasingly important target for research and theoretical debate. One area of
research that is of particular interest to researchers is online gaming identity practices. Many, if
not most, of these research projects can quickly be divided into two categories. First, there is the
study of the player behind the screen. These studies tend to ask their participants questions
regarding their motivations and personality characteristics (Barnett & Coulson 2010; Chang &
Zhang 2008; Yee 2006), personal histories and psychologies (Ducheneaut & Moore 2005;
Williams et al. 2011), and the economic impacts of their online experiences (Lehdonvirta &
Ernkvist 2011). The second area of research is typically focused on the character inside a virtual
social context. These types of studies focus specifically on social interaction and language online
(Moore, Ducheneaut & Nickell 2006; Paul 2010), culture in online groups (Boellstorff 2008;
Milik & Webber 2016; Taylor 2006), and some particular branches of critical theory, such as
gender and race (Bergstrom 2012; Grundy 2008; Kerr 2003; Nakamura 2009). It is uncommon,
Milik
67
however, for these different social realms to be viewed simultaneously. One such attempt was to
mesh large quantitative datasets with ethnographic data (Ducheneaut et al. 2010). However, the
vast collection of data made analysis at the final stage very disorienting. There are limits to any
collection of data. For example, there are only so many different factors that can be included in a
data set, and collecting an entire set of data for a character and another for a player may end up
being prohibitive in terms of time and resources.
This paper offers a solution in the form of a methodological paradigm: persona. This
methodological model has been crafted to allow for a relative amount of organisation and
generalisability for studies pursuing future research online. Persona as a tool allows for the
analysis of the region of social interaction that lies between the character and the player, but
includes the actions of both. This construct serves the purpose of unifying an otherwise complex
relationship that includes varying degrees of anonymity and permanence. In order to
accomplish this, this paper is arranged in three parts. First, it looks at the different types of
character-based interactions that an individual may encounter in a virtual world. Of particular
interest are the complex relationships generated when character accounts are shared, or when a
single player uses multiple characters to engage with the game world. In the second part, the
ways in which a player engages with a digital realm will be observed. Rather than focus only on
interactions that occur through an avatar, it will be shown that many players engage with others
through multiple interactional tools, including forums, social media, and even through in-person
meetups. After showing the potential problems that stem from the current dynamic, the final
section introduces persona as an interactional tool and offers some ways of understanding how
persona can be used as a device to generate better and more valuable data in future research
projects on online life.
This paper is grounded in the meeting space between several different disciplines. The
theoretical grounding for this project lies in between the fields of social psychology—namely
the focus on Identity Theory by researchers such as Burke and Stets (2009)—and the discipline
of sociology—specifically, the work on Dramaturgy by Erving Goffman (1959). The examples
used in this paper are based on a five-year study (2011-2016) of large Massively Multiplayer
Online (MMO) games (namely World of Warcraft (2003) and EVE Online (2001)). This study
involved participant observation, with the researcher involved as a player and a member of
several self-described “hardcore” organisations via a character named Daisarn (see Figure 1 and
Figure 2).
Hardcore play is defined by Pargman and Jakobsson (2008) as playing competitively and
spending at least twenty hours a week in-game. Data was collected through digital ethnography
Figure 2. Daisarn in EVE Online Figure 1. Daisarn in World of Warcraft
Persona Studies 2017, vol. 3, no. 2
68
(Boellstorff et al. 2012), ethnomethodology (Garfinkel 1967), and autoethnography. The names
of participants have been anonymised to comply with ethical requirements.
Erving Goffman’s (1959, 1974) works have been used in many different research
projects, particularly those involving ethnographic research methods (Milik 2015). This project
uses the conceptual framework of dramaturgy, specifically the purposeful presentation of the
self, which Goffman refers to as impression management (1959, p. 208). Using this perspective,
the individual is responsible for generating and maintaining a social self that they relay to
others. Goffman describes the active “selves” that are displayed based on the active region,
which is the social context of a particular interaction (p. 106). The Front Stage, for instance, is a
region that is visible to the largest audiences and therefore is the most deliberately crafted to
influence the viewer. For instance, a doctor will include artifacts in their office that display
medical competence to calm and reassure patients. Artifacts such as diplomas, awards, and
medical textbooks are commonly used as context in the Front Stage. Alternatively, the Back
Stage is the place where a different version of the self is allowed to be visible. Customer service
staff taking lunch in a break room, for instance, are free to speak to each other in a different way
to the type of speech they would use when out on the floor within earshot of customers.
For the purposes of looking at interaction between individuals in an online setting, such
as EVE Online or World of Warcraft, these two ‘stages’ fit neatly into the different simultaneous
experiences of a digital actor. On the one hand, there is the character—a Front Stage construct
wherein identity is actively crafted so that it can be shared with others. The character can
potentially change its appearance, pick up different conversational affects (such as trying to
speak more like a leader) (Milik 2015), and even change entire identities through mechanisms
in the game world (such as changing weapons to use a completely different set of attacks in
Guild Wars 2). This malleability is what differentiates the character from an avatar in a digital
game. Once crafted, an avatar retains its core identifying features, such as race, sex, name, and
so forth. The character, on the other hand, is a social construct that can, for instance, serve as
mesh between different game servers. At the same time, however, the individual is also the
player—a person who is sitting in a chair at a desk or on a couch, looking at a screen and
executing certain actions and behaviours that may or may not be directly connected to the
digital interaction. The actions conducted by this aspect of the self correlate with the concept of
the Back Stage: a situation where an individual presents a less crafted version of the social self
(Goffman 1959, p. 108). While the two stages, Front and Back, cover much of the research that is
done on interaction and identity online, it is the purpose of this project to present a “Meta-
Stage”, wherein the persona is shown to be the active social entity, socially encompassing the
actions of both a character and a player.
The concept of persona used for this project is that of a heuristic that allows for faster
communication. It can, for instance, offer a quick method of encompassing multiple characters
into a single social actor, allowing for social interaction to occur swiftly and meaningfully. This
concept takes the persona developed by researchers such as P. David Marshall (2010, 2014) and
directs the focus towards interaction rather than presentation. The use of persona in this paper
refers to multiple facets (Moore et al. 2017) that create complex social interactions, which in
turn gives the concept analytical use (Marshall & Barbour 2015). In particular, persona can be
crafted into a methodological tool, as has been done by Marshall and Barbour (2015), but
instead of focusing on presentation of a public self, the approach here concentrates on the
interactions that occur through different forms of digital media.
Goffman discusses the presentation of the self and the presentation of identity to others
(1959, p. 19). For the purposes of this paper, the concept of identity is theorised in the terms
Milik
69
discussed by Burke and Stets (2009). Identity theory, in their perspective, describes an
individual as a whole series of different identities (such as daughter, mother, spouse, professor,
gardener, sister, and so on). All of these identities have some amount of value to an individual,
but they will be ranked, with some identities coming to the fore while others recede to the
background. The ranking will change based on the situation, so the individual may primarily
present a mother when speaking to a child, but a professor when speaking to a student. Using
this paradigm, the individual is not linked to a singular identity (a unified self), but instead is
tied to a selection process through which their identities are defined and used in socially
significant ways (Carter & Fuller 2016). This perspective on identity meshes well with the
theoretical framework of dramaturgy. It helps to address a criticism aimed at Goffmanian
sociology, which asks where do these roles come from (Denzin 2003)? At the same time, it
preserves the different forms of presentation (the Front and Back Stages), which can be
intrinsically linked to the different identities that come to the fore in an interaction. These
stages can be used to display which identities are important to the individual in any given
situation. Lastly, Burke and Stets’ (2009) non-unified concept of identity shows how Goffmanian
analysis applies to a new age of social media and digital communication (Bullingham &
Vasconcelos 2013; Hogan 2010).
THE CHARACTER AS DRAMATURGICAL FRONT
The use of an avatar—through which an individual experiences and presents social interaction
in an online game—is standard for most MMO gaming experiences, from early text-based Multi
User Dungeon (MUD) games, to Ultima Online, to World of Warcraft used in this research.
Serving as the focal point of the in-game camera, as well as the source of action and interaction
between the player and the game world, the avatar is often considered the embodied self—the
character—of the player. In fact, embodiment is an important part of the game design process,
particularly in single player games where emotional investment is important, such as in
Telltale’s The Walking Dead series (Taylor, Kampe & Bell 2015). In the context of a MMO game,
embodiment can be the entire point for some participants as well. Role Playing (RP) servers on
World of Warcraft (WoW) are known for enticing players who dedicate much of their time and
energy in-game into crafting their character and immersing themselves within the game world
(Taylor 2002). The significance of the connection between the individual behind the screen and
the character that is presented in-game can be seen in the difficulty individuals have in choosing
a character name. The name is a central point of initial presentation of identity, and many
players admit spending a long time finding the right name for their character (Hagstrom 2008).
This problem demonstrates the difference between interacting through an avatar and having a
character. Players who change servers often in WoW, for instance, often keep the name, even
when they change classes or races on new servers (servers refer to the sub-region within a
game that allow characters to interact. Players on different servers would not be able to meet or
communicate in-game).
The role of the character in representing the qualities of the player behind the screen is
important to other players inside the game. Following the introduction of “garrisons” in WoW,
where individual players have access to in-game spaces that exclude others from being able to
interact with the character inside, many players expressed disappointment about not being able
to “show off” their accomplishments to others in the game. As one player stated, “I have all these
transmogs [visual costumes for the character] and mounts, but with garrisons there is never any
social contact or ability to share them with others”. With this connection between player and
avatar being so clearly defined in these examples, it makes sense that others would see this
relationship as simple. The idea that a single player accesses a personal computer, activates a
Persona Studies 2017, vol. 3, no. 2
70
single account with a single character, and engages with the game and others through a single
avatar is often incorrect. In practice, the actual form of play tends to take a vastly different route
(especially in MMO games), and there are far more complex relationships between player and
character. Even in the case of a player using only a single character for the majority of their play
(in an MMO this is known as a “main” character), there are often incentives to use other
characters (known as “alts”) as a means of creating additional value for the main. These alts are
usually created with a particular purpose in mind. For instance, WoW players will experience
limited inventory space and have a “bank alt” or an “AH (Auction house) alt” for economic
exchange. Similarly, EVE Online players will have “industrial alts” or “marketing alts” for the
same purpose (see Figure 3).
These alts can often be identified through a lack of concern for the naming structure that is so
important for the main. Alts will often have names connected to the main, such as the character
“Terris” using “Terrisbank”, or “Milo” using “Milothree” or “Milofour”. When directly placing
Auction House prices to beat out a competitor that they want to keep as friends, players will
often use names meant for complete anonymity, such as “Homemade” or “Buyme”.
In dramaturgical terms, a player interacting in this way with others will often
communicate as their main characters, even when actively playing the game with an “alt”
character. In one example, a player being asked to participate in an event responds “I can go. Let
me switch. I’ll need a summon, I’m stuck in SW [Stormwind, a city]”. When the player says “I”
here they are referring to their main character, demonstrating that playing on the alt is not a
socially relevant aspect of the interaction. The primary character is the persona, regardless of
the avatar or embodied entity that exists within the game world. Therefore, to only observe
active characters as the focus of research, as is customary in linguistic approaches or studies of
power relations, may lead to incomplete data and ignores the complex relationship an
individual may have with their alt and main characters.
The example of character/player interaction above is not the only way that gameplay is
experienced in groups that consider themselves “hardcore”. For instance, it is very common to
be required to play multiple characters which have the same level of commitment as a main
character. In WoW, guilds may require a player to choose between different characters to
maximise the team’s chances of success in a particular encounter. This means that each of those
characters must be at a level of maximal performance, the equivalent of having two or three
main characters. In EVE Online, many players will use multiple characters and “multi-botting”
Figure 3. Character Selection in EVE Online with multiple active characters
Milik
71
(using multiple game clients simultaneously to have multiple characters active, often via
automated systems for ease of use) as a means of protecting trade routes, bringing numbers to a
fight, or otherwise maximising profit from economic projects. One player explains that during a
fight with his main character, “I need money though, so I have a miner [alt] on right now to buy
my PLEX [in-game resource used to buy game time]”. Multi-botting also exists in WoW, where
one player explains:
We managed to kill him [an in-game boss]. Just the two of us with six characters
and you know… That was one of my more favorite accomplishments just
because of what it took to do that with just the two of us. It was not easy at all.
But you know, again, we still have toys and it still makes me smile after the fact.
The use of multi-botting creates a different relationship between player and character. Rather
than being represented by an avatar, the individual is instead represented by a series of actions
performed by a number of avatars.
One final limitation of character-based study is the ability for multiple people to use the
same character in the game through account sharing. While this is against the Terms of Service
(ToS) of most games, it can still occur. The most common example is when a family member
takes control of a character, either as a favour (bringing a character to a guild event when a
spouse is running late) or just to share the gaming experience with a child. This is an important
aspect of communication in the game, and often requires clarification when contacted by other
players. One player responds to a query by saying “Hey, this isn’t Sunny. I’m her husband, just
doing dailies. Want me to relay a message?” In terms of reflective action, such a response makes
it clear to the other players that the words and actions of the character do not necessarily reflect
that of the main user of that character. However, a character may receive social sanctions due to
the action of the temporary user, without the player having performed the sanctionable offence.
This can have a particular impact when the loss of control of a character comes as a result of an
outside event, such as the character being hacked. In that case, friends and guild mates may
attempt to contact the player outside of the game. In one shared e-mail, one player tells another:
“Hey, I think you’ve been hacked. Saw your account logging on all of your characters for a few
minutes and not responding to any messages. I sent a report to Blizzard but you should check
and report it too”. The fact that there can be temporary disconnects between the character and
the social actor that is supposed to be responsible for his or her actions shows that there are
more complex interactions in the game world than are sometimes studied.
From a dramaturgical perspective, it is important to note players will attempt to hide
aspects of their offline identity when interacting with an online character. In presenting the
character as a Front, certain stigmatised aspects of the self may act as hindrances to
accomplishing goals in the game. In MMO games, where the average age of a player tends to be
higher, at 27 years old for WoW (Yee 2006) and at 31 years old for EVE Online (CCP Quant
2014), being a very young player can be viewed as a negative that may limit the options the
character experiences. To navigate their social world, players will come up with techniques to
avoid that stigma. As one participant explains,
I’m in college now, but started raiding at fifteen. Back then I knew I’d get kicked
if I ever spoke up in chat, so I stayed quiet. If I had to talk I totally did that low
voice thing [deepening of voice] ‘Hey guys’ [Laughs].
When looking at the character as a dramaturgical Front Stage, it makes sense that the individual
will attempt to maximise impression management. They will also try to ensure that stigmatising
Persona Studies 2017, vol. 3, no. 2
72
factors, such as age, don’t impact the character in-game as they might if the player was fully
exposed to the virtual world.
Gender also comes into play in the complex interactions between player and character.
While it is perfectly acceptable for a male to play a female character in the game, there is a social
expectation that they will readily reveal this information in social interaction. If this expectation
is broken it can be very disorienting for the others in the interaction. In one case, a male player
played a female character, Jules. Due to the lack of voice communications in the early years of
WoW, this player never revealed himself as male. Jules had many friendships and relationships
in the game, but always through the female character. It was only after voice chats became
mandatory for play that Jules had to explain that he was male. Many of Jules’ friends expressed
discomfort with being deceived, with one stating that “My trust in Jules was based on a
falsehood”. The reaction was so strong that it wasn’t long before Jules left the server to join a
new one under a different name, and to start new relationships within the game. Jules as a
player became defined by the features and actions of Jules the character. This indicates that the
interaction between character and player is two-way. The persona here, as Meta-Stage,
incorporates both the character and the player, but also impacts the core identities and social
meanings of both. While the player has a central role in defining the aspects and traits of the
character, the character can also greatly influence how the player is perceived by others.
THE PLAYER AS DRAMATURGICAL BACKGROUND
The common perception amongst players, media agencies such as gaming journals and blogs
(Matticus 2009), and researchers (Kerr 2003) is that the many entanglements and relationships
between an individual’s actions within and outside of a game can be considered independent of
each other. Players in particular argue that, even when embodiment is a goal in a game, they will
not consider themselves as actually in the game world. A player of Battlefield 4, for instance,
explains that “I’m okay with shooting people in the game because I know I’ll never actually
shoot someone in real life”. This person is treating their identity as separate from their actions
because they see the virtual experience as being separated from their offline self. This mindset
also helps to explain “griefing”, which is a form of trolling behaviour in MMO games. The ability
to separate the player’s identity from a character’s actions can be very important; in the words
of one WoW player, “I wanted to live something as different from my real life as possible, that’s
why I’m horde [an in-game player faction], I wanted to be the bad guy”. The player prevents
cognitive dissonance by establishing that their player-self is a good person, even if their
character-self is “evil”.
Identity theory argues, however, that regardless of how many identities we may have
active as social beings, there is still seep-through between different identities, as they always
present themselves in varying levels in an interaction. Even when an action may only happen in
the virtual world, its consequences can impact the individual in the offline world as well. One
way in which this can occur is by realising that all virtual world interactions happen through the
services of a company. In the case of League of Legends (LoL) the company, Riot Games, has had
to monitor player behaviour extensively after the reputation of the game was damaged by
online players’ “toxic” behaviour. If a player is considered sufficiently toxic, it is possible for
them to be permanently banned from participating in the game in any way (Mamiit 2016). The
consequences of online behaviour for the offline person show that the attempt to separate the
player from the character is impossible and therefore problematic for research.
The qualities of the character will also shape the reactions a player experiences offline in
both subtle and direct ways. In one famous example, angry players targeted a researcher who
Milik
73
studied reactions to griefing behaviour online by acting inappropriately on a public server using
a character named Twixt. After the release of his findings (Myers 2008) upset players attempted
to damage his reputation by sending complaints and demands for action to the university where
he worked. While anonymity is a large part of many online social networks and online games,
continued anonymity is no longer a guarantee. In a world of security breaches and doxing
attacks (deliberate leaking of identifying information online), there are many challenges to
anonymity that may affect an individual in both the online and offline worlds.
What is it that defines a player, then? As much as the character is a social construct
created by an individual through a game client, so too is the player a social construct. The
identity features that are used in the player’s case, however, come from the offline-world
context the individual experiences. The player, while interacting online, is not a professor, or a
researcher, or a farmer, or a plumber. Instead, they are an individual who projects certain
identity features through language and behaviour: the dramaturgical process of impression
management. In this dramaturgical understanding, the player is just another aspect of the
character’s identity while online, and the character is a temporary identity for the player (as
seen in the above example in Battlefield 4). In an interaction, then, the character and player
occupy the same social space—the persona—and a researcher needs to account for both aspects
of the individual to get the highest quality data and results from their work.
At the intersection of the player and character is the dramaturgical concept of Back
Stage interaction, and in particular the ability to be a member of a team (or group) and be “in
the know” (Goffman 1959, p. 83). As the relationships created in an online setting, which are
often based on anonymity, gradually become intimate, more player identity features (i.e.
motherhood, employment, abuse history) will become part of the character-identity conveyed
to their online friends. As more of the player leaks into the character’s interactions, the
character becomes a social actor with a real person behind them.
The meshing of character and player can be seen in the popularity of real-world get-
togethers for online groups and games. In the EVE Online Alliance TEST, the community put
together a yearly “TESTival” to bring their membership together. These types of events have
become particularly popular with game companies that design large online games. Blizzard, for
instance, hosts Blizzcon, which was originally meant for WoW players but has expanded to the
whole game portfolio of the company. CCP Games (the makers of EVE Online) similarly have a
FanFest, where they bring players together in Iceland for events based around their game
characters. The continued popularity of these types of events shows that online relationships
are complex. Individuals not only accept but even seek out a meshing of social information
between their online self and their identities in the physical world.
Players are not surprised by the influence that feedback mechanisms from online
interaction can have on the player in the offline world. In fact, seeking a means of bettering
oneself is used by several players as a reason for their continued participation within a game
world. In the words of one self-described shy person, he was “always afraid of going out and
talking to people. I wanted to start somewhere where no one would see me, to get more
comfortable talking to them. That was years ago. I think the game has really helped me in
getting this job and just making friends in general”. Another person, whose first language was
not English, said a significant reason that he played the game was to work on his language skills.
He explains that “It’s hard to talk in person, people talk so fast. It’s much easier to talk to people
on here”. The connections that these individuals create between the interactions performed by a
character online and the qualities of themselves as a player behind the screen demonstrates
that they have a good sense of how these worlds are intertwined in their lives. For someone
Persona Studies 2017, vol. 3, no. 2
74
researching or observing these players, it becomes necessary to bring in both of these aspects of
the self to properly understand players’ actions. Social actions and cultures are impossible to
study without putting these together, and with the rise of virtual worlds that contain a sense of
permanence, there is increased need for these types of studies. The concept of persona, then, is
a tool that allows for the study of the individual as well as the relationship between the online
character and the offline player, all within a singular social concept.
THE PERSONA AS META-STAGE OF DRAMATURGICAL IDENTITY
Given these descriptions of many potential problems and pitfalls concerning researching
individuals in the virtual world, the concept of persona becomes a potential discussion point for
the further development of social scientists’ research into individuals and groups online.
Persona is a social front, in the dramaturgical sense, based upon an individual’s accessible
features. Rather than being an avatar with their actions wholly online, or a “real” person
walking around in the “real world,” a persona is a construct that assists the individual to create
consistent communications with others. The persona is easy to see in action in many different
situations. The CEO at a press conference needs to present a persona that simultaneously
encapsulates both himself and the spirit of his entire company. Similarly, Pewdiepie on YouTube
is not Felix Kjellberg. Felix may show up at a TV interview and adopt a Pewdiepie persona, but
in the same interview a viewer may notice that he slips from that persona back to a Felix self,
depending on the question being asked. The reason for this is that the persona provides a social
actor with relative consistency for interaction that isn’t inherently based on qualities of the self,
but rather on adopted qualities in other social constructions. For the digital citizen, then, the
persona can incorporate aspects from different social networks and digital games, and put them
all together into an actor who can interact with others successfully.
To connect more neatly with the concepts of character and player, I will continue to
focus on the digital gamer, but it is clear that research into other online locales, such as social
networks and forums, could also use the concept. In an MMO game, it can be helpful to see how
naming conventions work for an individual in the game. While each of a players’ characters will
have a unique name (as mandated by the structure of the game), attempting to know multiple
names for every group member is difficult. As such, players become known by a singular name
and referred to as such regardless of which character is active at the time. In my own history, for
instance, I would respond to the name “Dai” regardless of which of my characters were active at
the time, whether it was “Astellus”, “Daisarn”, “Gahyris”, or “Tempname”. This is a common and
taken-for-granted part of communicating in these games, with many players adopting naming
conventions to make the process easier (starting all their characters’ names with the same three
letters, for instance). These persona-based naming systems are very stable as well. As an
example, there was a player named Elise who played a mage in WoW for the first year of play.
After that year, however, Elise was no longer used, and the player was more active as a priest
named Leylein. The friends that she made in the first year, however, continued to refer to her as
Elise ten years later, even though any new friends would know her as Leylein. The durability of
this name would create difficulty if the study only observed the character, given that the names
changed but the accepted persona and name remained the same.
There are also official means of collecting persona-based information that have been
constructed by games developers running MMO games. Blizzard, for instance, has converted
their Battle.net system to be a social communication tool as well as a games client. Rather than
linking their system to a character, however, Blizzard connects each account to a singular
Battle.net account. As such, it is possible see that “Leylein1568 has come online”. This account
name will bring together different characters under a shared identity, which can become a
Milik
75
short-hand version of a persona. In EVE Online, there is a similar resource in the EVE
Application Program Interface (API). A group leader will often request the API from all
applicants, allowing them to see the history of every character that is on an account, rather than
rely on just the history of the particular character applying.
While there are specific names that are primarily used to call attention to a persona,
most players are happy to respond to any of the names that are linked to their particular
persona. The social expectations for each of them should be similar, due to them being linked in
the same way. There are, however, exceptions. In EVE Online, for instance, spying is a very
important part of organisational warfare. As such, many players have alts that are used to spy.
These players attempt to keep their persona hidden when acting on these particular spy
characters, but the durability of the persona may still affect them. The largest groups will have
counterintelligence teams, who will study interactions performed by questionable characters,
connecting them to public forum posts and discussions by a known persona to uncover a mole
or an enemy operative. This also happens in WoW sometimes, with some players attempting to
hide alts from others because they worry that they are not as proficient with using them. In
order to preserve the reputation of their persona, they will refuse to acknowledge a character
that would not perform to the same level.
These examples, and the work that players will put into protecting their persona,
demonstrate that this concept helps to account for a greater permanence in online interactions
than are often accepted in research projects. While the character is assumed to be relatively
mobile (a player can drop a character from their identity by merely logging off, or deleting the
character), a persona continues to exist beyond that character’s interactions. Therefore, as
online systems of communication and interaction continue to grow more complex, the different
concepts that we use to observe them need to encapsulate the greater attention and energy that
individuals will put into their virtual life.
In order to bring the persona into dramaturgical focus, it helps to differentiate it from
the character as Front Stage and player as Back Stage. Goffman explains that these stages are
socio-psychological constructs that define the scope of interaction. In Frame analysis: an essay
on the organization of experience (1974), he explains that social actors adopt different roles to
ensure the smooth flow of interaction. The player is active in out-of-game conversations and
interactions. For example, if one was to call a guild mate to remind them of an in-game event, it
would be awkward to greet them using their character name. Therefore, in such a scenario, the
player is the active social front. The character is a useful tool for immediate interactions, such as
meeting another player’s avatar in combat or attempting to make a purchase at a public part of
an in-game town. It is understood that players typically have more than one character (Carter,
Gibbs & Arnold 2012). If we only observe character-based interactions then only these
temporary and fleeting interactions would be the result. Instead, a player will expect that a
person will, in some ways, act consistently across different characters and over a series of
connected interactions. If one character acts in a certain way, then it would make sense that
other characters connected to them through a persona will act similarly. This is, after all, the
basis of a persona (Baden et al. 2009). Persona serves as a heuristic to allow for quicker
understandings between interactants, and for easier categorisation of others. For the
researcher, then, it makes sense to seek out the basis of this heuristic and to use it much as the
player does: to increase the understanding of social interactions.
Persona Studies 2017, vol. 3, no. 2
76
CONCLUSION
Studies of character and player have managed to get sufficiently interesting and important
findings so far without persona. However, there are still many research opportunities enabled
by using a more expansive paradigm of the digital social actor. Whenever an individual enters
an online world, they establish another layer of personal identity. Cumulatively, these layers of
persona create a measure of permanence online that can remain partially separate from the
offline self. The individual can participate with others using their character, but still have a
sense that interactions and relationships will be longer-term and more meaningful. These
concepts are tied to a greater sense of connection to their character and to the game. As we
become more invested in our online social networks and digital games, persona will become an
increasingly valuable tool to analyse interaction in the modern era.
Without the concept of persona, observations of online interaction can be unnecessarily
confusing. The character is just too malleable, and the player is considered too much of a
permanent entity who spends most of their time offline. In adopting persona, then, the social
action researcher can analyse online actions without needing to delve into the minds of actors
offline. At the same time, by looking at the persona as a tent within which multiple characters
exist, the researcher is able to understand more about players, online organisations, and
cultures that can grow out of online interactions. After all, all interactionists should wish to
move away from analysing people’s rationales after-the-fact and instead observe actions in situ.
As Jeff Coulter (1999, p. 179) stated: “There is nothing in the head of interest to us but brains”.
WORKS CITED
Baden, R, Bender, A, Spring, N, Bhattacharjee, B & Starin, D 2009, ‘Persona: an online social
network with user-defined privacy’, in Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2009 conference
on data communication, SIGCOMM, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 135–146.
Barnett, J & Coulson, M 2010, ‘Virtually real: a psychological perspective on massively
multiplayer online games’, Review of General Psychology, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 167-179.
Bergstrom, K 2012, ‘Virtual inequality: a woman’s place in cyberspace’, in Proceedings of the
International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, FDG, Raleigh, NC, pp. 267-
269.
Boellstorff, T 2008, Coming of age in second life, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New
Jersey.
Boellstorff, T, Nardi, B, Pearce, C & Taylor, TL 2012, Ethnography and virtual worlds: a handbook
of method, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Bullingham, L & Vasconcelos, A 2013, ‘The presentation of self in the online world: Goffman and
the study of online identities’, Journal of Information Science, vol. 39, no. 1.
Burke, P & Stets, J 2009, Identity theory, Oxford University Press, New York.
Carter, M & Fuller C 2016, ‘Symbols, meaning, and action: the past, present, and future of
symbolic interactionism’, Current Sociology Review, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 931-961.
Carter, M, Gibbs, M & Arnold, M 2012, ‘Avatars, characters, players and users: multiple identities
at/in play’, in Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction conference,
OZCHI, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 68-71.
CCP Quant 2014, ‘Player age distribution in EVE Online [OC]’, CCP Quant, retrieved 13 November
2017,
.
Chang, JH & Zhang, H 2008, ‘Analyzing online game players: from materialism and motivation to
attitude’, CyberPsychology & Behavior, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 711-714.
Milik
77
Coulter, J 1999, ‘Discourse and mind’, Human Studies, vol. 22, pp. 163-181.
Denzin, N 2003, ‘Much ado about Goffman’, in A Trevino (ed.), Goffman’s Legacy, Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Lanham, pp. 127-142.
Ducheneaut, N & Moore, R 2005, ‘More than just ‘XP’: learning social skills in massively
multiplayer online games’, Interactive Technology & Smart Education, vol. 2, pp. 89-100.
Ducheneaut, N, Yee, N & Bellotti, V 2010, ‘The best of both (virtual) worlds: using ethnography
and computation tools to study online behavior’, in Proceedings for EPIC: Ethnographic
Praxis in Industry Conference, Tokyo, Japan.
Garfinkel, H 1967, Studies in ethnomethodology, Polity Press, Malden, MA.
Goffman, E 1959, The presentation of self in everyday life, Anchor Books, New York.
Goffman, E 1974, Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience, Northeastern
University Press, Boston, MA.
Grundy, D 2008, ‘The presence of stigma among users of the MMORPG RMT: a hypothetical case
approach’, Games and Culture, vol. 3, pp. 225-247.
Hagstrom, C 2008, ‘Playing with names: gaming and naming in World of Warcraft’, in H
Corneliussen & J Rettberg, J (eds), Digital culture, play, and identity: a World of Warcraft
reader, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 265-285.
Hogan, B 2010, ‘The presentation of self in the age of social media: distinguishing performances
and exhibitions online’, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 377-
386.
Kerr, A 2003, ‘Women just want to have fun – A study of adult female players of digital games’,
in Proceedings of the Digital Games Research Association, DiGRA, Utrecht, Netherlands,
pp. 270-285.
Lehdonvirta, V & Ernkvist, M 2011, ‘Knowledge map of the virtual economy: Converting the
virtual economy into development potential’, infoDev/World Bank,
Mamiit, A 2016, ‘League of Legends troll streamer perma-banned, what did he do?’, Tech Times,
retrieved 3 May 2016,
.
Marshall, PD 2010, ‘The promotion and presentation of the self: celebrity as marker of
presentational media’, Celebrity Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 35-48.
Marshall, PD 2014, ‘Seriality and persona’, Journal of Media Culture, vol. 17, no. 3.
Marshall, PD & Barbour, K 2015, ‘Making intellectual room for Persona Studies: a new
consciousness and a shifted perspective’, Persona Studies, vol. 1, no. 1.
Marshall, PD, Moore, C & Barbour, K 2015, ‘Persona as method: exploring celebrity and the
public self through persona studies’, Celebrity Studies, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 288-305.
Matticus 2009, ‘Girls hate Chuck Norris: on women and raiding guilds’, World of Matticus,
retrieved 9 May 2013, .
Milik, O 2015, ‘Virtual warlords: an ethnomethodological view of group identity and leadership
in EVE Online’, Games and Culture, vol. 12, no. 7-8, pp. 764-785.
Milik, O & Webber, N 2016, ‘Selling the Imperium: changing organisational culture and history
in EVE Online’, in Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference of DiGDRA and
FDG, DiGRA/FDG, Dundee, Scotland.
Moore, C, Barbour, K & Lee, K 2017, ‘Five dimensions of online persona’, Persona Studies, vol. 3,
no. 1, pp. 1-12.
Moore, R, Ducheneaut, N & Nickell, E 2006 ‘Doing virtually nothing: awareness and
accountability in massively multiplayer online worlds’, Computer Supported Cooperative
Work, vol. 16, pp. 265-305.
Myers, D 2008, ‘Play and punishment: the sad and curious case of Twixt’, paper presented at the
meeting of The Center for Computer Games Research, Copenhagen, Denmark, May.
http://www.worldofmatticus.com/girls-hate-chuck-norris-on-women-and-raiding-guilds/
http://www.worldofmatticus.com/girls-hate-chuck-norris-on-women-and-raiding-guilds/
Persona Studies 2017, vol. 3, no. 2
78
Nakamura, L 2009, ‘Don’t hate the player, hate the game: the racialization of labor in World of
Warcraft’, Critical Studies in Media Communication, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 128-144.
Pargman, D & Jakobsson, P 2008, ‘Do you believe in magic? Computer games in everyday life’,
European Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 225-244.
Paul, C 2010, ‘Welfare epics? The rhetoric of rewards in World of Warcraft’, Games and Culture,
vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 158-176.
Taylor, N, Kampe, C & Bell, K 2015, ‘Me and Lee: identification and the play of attraction in The
Walking Dead’, The International Journal of Computer Game Research, vol. 15, no. 1.
Taylor, TL 2002, ‘Living digitally: embodiment in virtual worlds’, in R Schroeder (ed.), The social
life of avatars: presence and interaction in shared virtual environments, Springer-Verlag,
London.
Taylor, TL 2006, Play between worlds: exploring online game culture, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Williams, D, Contractor, N, Poole, M, Srivastava, J & Cai, D 2011, ‘The Virtual Worlds
Exploratorium: using large-scale data and computation techniques for communication
research’, Communication Methods and Measures, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 163-180.
Yee, N 2006, ‘The demographics, motivations and derived experiences of users of massively-
multiuser online graphical environments’, PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments, vol. 15, pp. 309-329.