CRB type questions

[NancyLee]

I always went by the rule "your characters should be played as if they are controlled by different players, that do not know each other" (being the only exception avoid trading with my townleader although she had the best prices in that area, but it never bothered me working a couple of days more, I find it irrelevant). Having two characters in the same town temporarily is a bummer for me, so I try to find IC reasons to avoid it, but when it's not in my power I rarely put one to sleep unless there were a reason and they would talk to each other if there were IC reasons to do so and I never ever got contacted by PD so I think I did nothing wrong this far.

I can understand perfectly that some things are discouraged, like having chars travelling together or sharing work although it would be in the character's nature, not because I believe all players are willing to cheat, but because in some few cases players do cheat and I find no biggie in trying to make staff work a bit easier when we can and keep things as clear as possible (also, for me it'd be a total "turn off" having to play two characters in the same enterprise/organization/etc, even if it was allowed) since it could be dubious in some cases to really demonstrate if one char is trying to benefit another or something of the sort and what they're trying to guarantee is that the game is fair for all.

I remember years ago seeing a character trying hard to convince a boss to hire another character of the same player and I remember feeling awkward about it. The player who roleplayed that boss felt the same and told me that, even if she wouldn't have hired that second character even if it was played by another person, it made her feel uncomfortable and suspicious. That doesn't mean the player who wanted that was a cheater, but it led to an awkward situation that, in my opinion, was unnecessary since there's hundreds of places to be and hundreds of business to work in.

[ManyVoices]

I get not getting involved in the same organization and stuff, I mean, that's their whole life. I'm talking about when characters run into each other because of how the game plays out and all of a sudden they're acting completely out of character because interaction with another one of their characters around is all forbidden. I also understand how it could be abused, but I think the majority of players don't want to abuse it, and it would be more in keeping with the capital rule to deal with major forms of abuse then all of a sudden active characters going comatose while their friend is being slaughter. How do you RP that after, "Oh, sorry everyone, I got sleepy so my good buddy died", or "Oh sorry, I know our friends are in danger, but you know ... sleep is important too".

[NancyLee]

I think I understand what you mean and also that it can be a bit frustrating, but I do also believe that when it comes to attacks and such it is necessary to enforce those guidelines because it can be delicate and easily abused.

I have been staff (not in cantr, different game) and my insight is that, even if the guidelines can restrict a bit someone's game in a particular and precise situation, it's more important make sure things are as balanced as possible for all. I'll try to explain myself: in the scenario you pictured, being a totally honest player and all, there could be reasons for your characters A and B to protect their friend and fight the agressor, no cheating at all involved, but allowing those chars to do so because it's legit would lead to allow it in every situation (how can you really prove that it's not legit after all?) and that'd make things unbalanced. I agree that the people who cheat are a tiny minority, and in some of those cases the player doesn't even have any malice and don't know (s)he's acting against the rules, but I personally rather someone having to go out of character and keeping his/her character out of a situation than thinking that people can easily team up their characters to slaughter some other character, for instance.

It's hard to please everyone and no system in the world is perfect, but I think we all have enough roleplaying tools to not having to say "Oh sorry, but I did rather sleep" unless we want to; you can even roleplay that you try to attack and miss, without actually hitting the target, so you keep your actions IC but are not breaking a basic rule. For me, keep things as balanced as possible for all players is more important than anything else.

It's just an opinion.

[SekoETC]

If you were chasing someone with two characters, it wouldn't be fair towards the person being chased because it would be two against one. Even if you sent your characters in two different directions, you could still cover more ground than by only using one character, so unless you know OOC where the target is and intentionally send one of your characters the wrong way because they don't have the knowledge personally, that way you could have two characters involved in the chase without having a risk of them having a double influence.

As for trading with your own characters, you can do it if you give other players' characters a chance to trade first and won't for example keep some things off the trade list when dealing with other because you know your other character would like them. Also you're supposed to inform PD in advance. Also, giving other characters a chance to trade means stopping in other towns along the way, instead of just heading directly to your other character's location.

Years back in the past I found it a bit suspicious that some Polish trader came to Klojt with gems, when it's unlikely that they would've heard it's a trade hub, whereas most English people would visit either Longinazy/Shortinazy, Blojt and maybe Pok Harbor on the way, or Doryiskom if they came in through that way, so it's surprising that there were any gems left by the time they reached Klojt. You'd think everybody would want to buy them.

[Joshuamonkey]

The thing is that even though the main idea is to have characters act independent of each other, like Nancy said, it could be hard to know when it's legit and when it's not, and it's important to consider the other side, the person being attacked. It's not fair for a character to be attacked by two characters of the same player one because those characters would be awake at the same time, giving them a huge advantage. They can apply with trading as well. When I have two characters in the same town for whatever reason, I make sure that they aren't both awake at the same time, so I take turns with the characters. That said, even though you it doesn't seem to you that you're breaking the capital rule by what your characters are doing, you may be doing so without realizing it, like having characters with similar opinions for example.

[ManyVoices]

I think the point of my argument has been missed by some. My claim was simply that the capital rule isn't really the capital rule.

I won't even disagree with all your arguments about how things can be done unfairly. My point is that a series of 'other rules' that are enforced actually go against the capital rule. The capital rule is dead, it's all the other rules (whether good or bad for the game) that enforce the game.

Jos Elkink wrote:
...I think the rule is quite clear and concise: your characters should be played as if they are controlled by different players, that do not know each other.

If this was truly the capital rule than player's characters could interact without being hunted down by the players department, or contacting them wouldn't be necessary to ask if you can do something, as characters are individual entities, even if controlled by the same player.

This isn't a knock against the players department either. They're doing what they've been told to do and enforce the 'other rules', just not the capital one.

[computaertist]

I think the point of my argument has been missed by some. My claim was simply that the capital rule isn't really the capital rule.

I won't even disagree with all your arguments about how things can be done unfairly. My point is that a series of 'other rules' that are enforced actually go against the capital rule. The capital rule is dead, it's all the other rules (whether good or bad for the game) that enforce the game.

Jos Elkink wrote:
...I think the rule is quite clear and concise: your characters should be played as if they are controlled by different players, that do not know each other.

If this was truly the capital rule than player's characters could interact without being hunted down by the players department, or contacting them wouldn't be necessary to ask if you can do something, as characters are individual entities, even if controlled by the same player.

This isn't a knock against the players department either. They're doing what they've been told to do and enforce the 'other rules', just not the capital one.

Agreed 100%.

Thank you PD for your hard work at keeping the game fair.

[NancyLee]

The thing is that I don't find it really contradicts the capital rule in the case you're stating: "your characters should be played as if they are controlled by different players". Sure two, four, or ten different players can be online at the same time to chase one same character, but when it's you the only player roleplaying several chars, the one controlling all those chars is online so that raises the odds significantly, meaning it's not the same situation as if there were several players.

The capital rule also says:

So whenever you gain advantage because you control more than one character in the same region/organisation/town/story/event/etc., you are in breach of the rules.

I might be missing something, of course, but for me Jos' explanation is pretty clear in that case.

Edit to add: it sounds like I am trying to convince you or something, which is not, I swear I'm only bored and spending spare time on the forum XD