Children

[g1asswa1ker]

The problem is that most strategy players are willing to figure out how to work there characters together for better productivity. I know a lot of them in this game and it makes me sick. This game s not ment to be a hack and slash game yet a lot of people play it that way. Role-plays for the most part morn the lost of a well developed character. While you strategy players go oh well next. Trust I am watching. sooner or later everyone screws up and gets caught. I plan to be there when it happens.

[Solfius]

The problem is that most strategy players are willing to figure out how to work there characters together for better productivity.

I disagree, I don't play this as a hack and slash, and I'd be willing to wager I've killed less characters than some roleplayers.

I find no fun in controlling a town that consists my own characters, because in effect you don't control anything because it's all you.

That aside, it's against the capital rule and I think we can make a distinction that some people play by the rules, and some don't, regardless of their playing style.

I'd morn the loss of a powerful character, use the hypothetical example of a 40 year old town leader who spent his whole life reaching that point, it would be very disapointing to have him die at that stage.

[Missy]

Ohh my.. I'm not even going there. This is getting blown out of proportion here.


Annoyingly Well played..lemme see..lemme see...

Silverfoot in Krif. Who else agrees?

[Solfius]

Agreed, I don't want an arguement, but if this goes further it could lead to one, best to stop now.

Never actually knew Silverfoot, but I think there was some massive conspiracy involving him/her so I think there's certainly something interesting there

[nitefyre]

Well then since I 'lack imagination' and 'very dull in roleplaying' then I guess nobody will miss my characters when they are gone. I think that has pretty much made up my decision for what I am going to do over the summer.

Gimme the last word on this matter please....

You quoted me out of context, so I'd like to repeat I said "currently and comparatively" prior to that opinion. It was in response to your bashing of new current players that in your words don't understand the Capitol Rule. (I'm not sure if that was stated in this forum or another) It clearly and concisely opinions that you are too close minded on the matter, on at least letting other people roleplay to a degree that is permitted by the PD. Yes, Solfius hit it with, there will be 2 types of players, but keep in mind, there'll be a grey zone inbetween.

p.s. None of my characters have babies, and it took one of mine a solid several days to realize what a baby was, as he played it as if a baby was an object. Have a solid summer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the limited interactions with Silverfooot my character has had, I'd have nothing bad to say about her.

[Oasis]

I have split this topic because I think there is more to say, and it did not belong where it was. I need to get my two cents worth in here at least.

I agree with Nitefyre there is a very grey area regarding types of players. I rp many of my characters, but others are goal oriented, and involved in strategy. Sometimes these characters get into rp as well. No style is right or wrong. We are all here to have fun, and enjoy the experience.

One part of roleplaying in this game is developing relationships amongst characters. These relationships can become very involved, including marriage, and the want to start a family. The one thing missing in this game, that makes it very frustrating to play, is the complete lack of family in game. (other than those created, such as the Nosse in Drojf) But family is something that is a fundamental part of us as humans, thus it is very hard to not be allowed to incorporate it into the game. I heard someone somewhere yesterday refer to his great great uncle so and so. I thought that was ok. Added some humanity to the game. (Ok, so our chars aren't human, but we are, and we can't do anything about that.)

So, getting to my point, we were led to believe that oh.......six months ago we would likely have the ability to have children in game. It was extremely disappointing for some when the realization came that that wasn't going to happen this year, maybe not next, maybe never. When your chars have developed relationships such that children is the next step, that step having been put off indefinetly, it is not surprising the desire for some players to want to rp children into the game. Can cause long term psychological effects on the characters, to keep trying to conceive and never being successful.

I ask you..........what harm does it do? I agree if you don't have a hammer, you can't rp using one. I agree that you can't say ...... "that rings a bell"......because bells don't exist in Cantr. (Bells are objects, children are not!) Nor do I even think you should roleplay being a gnome. But this is an entirely different issue, in my mind at least. Gnomes are mythical creatures. Children are a fact of life, and should have been in the game months ago. And those rp'ing children have, for the most part, found other players who don't mind going along with it. Even actually enjoying it. So what is the harm?

And in closing, I would just like to say..........................
I agree, Silverfoot is well played.

[Lone Wolf]

I agree that we should be allowed to RP children, it's fact of life. Some people even RP thier chars past, before they turned 20. I remember hearing a person saying that thier parents were killed in a terrible accident or massacre when the char was real young. He/she then traveled but doesn't remember what towns he/she had gone through. They claimed to have slipped into town unnoticed and liked the town and decided to stay. Their memories were vague. Now that Rping, aslong as they keep it with in reason, is fine and interesting. It gives a sence of humanity to the game.

As long as we talk about things that don't exist in the game, lets look at gasoline? There is not gasoline, but we have cars. We have hunting bows, war bows, cross bows, but we have no arrows and bolts. These are objects that don't exist, but they must in some way be there or else they would never work. So to RP that "you pull the arrow out of the dead animal" I think is fine. To RP Shooting a man "In the neck/head with his arrow" is wrong if the man doesn't die as this wound would be fatal.

I believe the CR to be a guideline we all abide to keep the game fair. In the past this rule has grown and it will continue to grow as time moves on. So to read it and say "well this is wrong, or that is wrong" in its self would be wrong. The CR keeps many things open still, that is the purpose of developing it

Anyways that's my opinion

[Sparkle]

I personally think that babies is just another part of how creative people can be. Cantr to me requires alot of role-playing to make things spark up a little. I used to play Cantr a long long time ago and it has advanced quite a bit and rping has advanced right along with it. Everything changes and change is good.

What I don't like is when people get all upset about it. Instead of making good use of it and being a good rping sport we get people like this in the game:

846-1:Tabbitha says: "You bother me greatly, and I hope you meet
a horrible, painful death sometime very soon... though not at my hand
of course, as I would rather stay out of prison and keep my job. And for
the last bloody time, it`s TabBitha. "
846-1: Cathrine says: "Oh Tabitcha did you say? *She pulled on her
lobe a little.* "
846-1: You see Tabbitha(e) slap Cathrine in the face.
846-1: Cathrine says: "You`re so nasty. You ought to let my husband
examine you for a while. He knows all about these mood swings us women experience. He`s very smart you know? *Smiles charmingly.*"

846-1: Tabbitha(e) says: "All I did was state that you cannot create
life, it is spawned. And of course now I am being pushed out of my home
for it. *she shrugs* So is the way of life I suppose."

I understand they both feel different but Tabbitha said OOC that she didn't like the idea of babies in the game. Which leaves us to believe that because of that she automatically didn't like Catherine. Her character had some attitude problems but she was not a bad person and very respected in her town. Instead of being a good rper she just made herself look bad and got kicked out of her home.

That could have easily been rped like:

You see woman in her thirties take baby and beat it's head against the ground and killed it instantly.

I mean none of my characters would but I think this is more of being a sport about not liking something then bitching about it. If you ask me her slapping Catherine for something her herself didn't like and not even given her character a chance to understand it, because first of all her character haven't heard of it so how can she dissaprove of it. (CR BREACH)

This is getting out of control and somebody needs to decide once and for all what's right and what's wrong.

[Sico van der Meer]

I myself have no opinion on this matter yet, so please go on discussing the topic here... But I would like to add two remarks at this moment already:

1) It was said that the CR should be made more clear on this kind of role playing. I doubt about this. The good thing about Cantr is that is does not have 1001 rules about how to play. The whole game is one big experiment, so to say. I don't think it would work when you have to read a book before understanding how to play. However, some implicit rules are developing continuously already, which is not that bad, of course.

2) The argument that children are important in life (as is family) is not a very strong argument, I think. Remember the Cantr world is not the real world. We have had discussions about this theme before, for example about the strange technical levels - weapons out of the Middle Ages, but cars from the 20th century... Cantr is Cantr, not real life.

Hmm, while writing this, I am also thinking about something else: roleplaying a baby will become difficult when the baby will grow up to a child, and what to do after twenty years? A roleplayed, non-existing character?

Well, whatever, let's go on with this discussion and maybe I will be back later with a real opinion...

[Calista Anderson]

What exactly happened? This is the first I've heard about someone role-playing a baby. How does that work? Is one person's character just role-playing two parts? Where did this happen?
Sorry...I'm behind.

[Revanael]

Hmm, while writing this, I am also thinking about something else: roleplaying a baby will become difficult when the baby will grow up to a child, and what to do after twenty years? A roleplayed, non-existing character?

That's something Lone Wolf and I were discussing earlier. A couple of ways round that, but he needs to discuss the idea we had with the PD.

[Missy]

@ Calista- Yes, someone asked to RP a baby by playing the baby until it was twenty through strictly RP.

When it is twenty, it will be handed over to another player whom has a newspawn, along with the history of the childs life. How that happens, is the question!
That might not be the case however, a lot can change in a years time r/l. There might be a better solution. Per chance babies are actually implemented before we actually have one that survives til 20 years of age. If that should happen, I'd imagine or hope that the programming dept would take the babies that are already being RP'ed and implement them at whatever age they should already be to be RP'ed by another player. For the time being, they are simply rp'ed by the characters who have them.

I have seen no firm decision discussed anywhere.

[Pulpcatcher]

I haven't made my mind up as to whether RPing imaginary infants is acceptable or not but I do see some major flaws in it. I'd like to ask a question that I think exposes this flaw:

If my character meets another character who is RPing looking after their children and with my character I decide to RP the murder of their children, what will be the result?

It's not a nice idea, I know. But I think it shows the vunerability of this kind of RP. It's not based around anything physical and so is open to different influences.

Pulp.

[Lone Wolf]

I can't speak for anyone else...but I'd RP that as a murder of a child. Then it would be up to the town as to what happens next.

I would not RP that the child was only injured as it was already stated it was dead. My RP would have to follow, the other persons.

Although I'd hope no one would do such a thing

[jeslange]

Pulpcatcher, I don't see how the reaction to the murder of a "baby" would be flawed in comparison to the reaction to the murder of husband, good friend, etc. Perhaps I didn't get the point you were making.