What Design Principles Would You Choose For Cantr?

[HoH]

Physical features on characters like long or short hair, scars, body weight, height, etc. would go further. A little bit of detail goes a long way in facilitating roleplaying.

Yes, a character description you could/have to fill out would definitely benefit roleplaying. It may be worth reconsidering the skill system too. The current genetical approach is quite interesting in a geeky kind of way, but it doesn't exactly facilitate playing a preconcieved role. Simply choosing skills wouldn't be against the core idea of the game and would definitely get rid of a lot of newspawns starving themselves to death.

Agree and Disagree.
Rethinking the skills system: good idea.

However, the character description thing turns me off a bit. Most players already have an idea of what their character looks like and do incorporate that when they role play. But maybe that just because its one more thing you'd have to look at on the page about the characters around you. Clutter.
But, I suppose it has its pros too. At least then players with 15 characters would have an easier time keeping their appearances a little more orderly.

Anyways, I'm done discussing this. I appreciate your ideas, apologize if I was a bit short with anyone, and that's it.

[Solfius]

Anyways, I'm done discussing this. I appreciate your ideas, apologize if I was a bit short with anyone, and that's it.

Thank you for your contributions

[Piscator]

My point was that the current skill system is not so precious that we have to conserve it by all means. In which way it should be changed I do not know. Starting with average skills and working up from that doesn't sound bad either.

Character descriptions would be primarly intended to inform other character's players, not for yourself. It would make it unnecessary to "strike back your red, curled hair" every time you meet a new character.

[Solfius]

So, character descriptions would perhaps suggest an underlying principle such as:

The game should provide feedback and descriptions concerning the environment to characters

the environment including the results of actions, symptoms of illness, appearance (however that is decided), and so on

[Gran]

Sad, I think I came too late for discussion. Well, I'm gonna state some ideas, this might get long.

I think in cantr more like a society/reality simulator than a simple RPG. Role-playing it is important, but not as simple rp, but as social interaction that should be needed to keep the in-simulation individuals sane and healthy.

A complex society, like our society for example, would not be completely simulated in a limitaded enviroment. It needs a whole world to be simulated with it, to give players both freedom and responsibilities concerning this whole new world and their chars relation to this reality, which is not created nor is dependant on the players or the chars. Rather, players and individuals adapt to the existant enviroment.

Simulation of not rules, but mechanics. Chemistry, knowledge, the cycles of planets and stars around the universe, weather, physics used to create a world, even it would be Matrix like. That sometimes is my dream.

However, I don't think the path of a full reality simulation and scrutiny should be adopted by cantr, as it may doesn't represent the all the players, I'm just stating some of my ideas, that happened to be created based on my experience in Cantr.

However, I think the implementation of more complex mechanics like weather, seasons, maybe even space, farming and cyclic resources would not be a problem but a great improvement of gaming experience. Weather could for example be used for balancing combat, as the fog or rain may reduce visibility therefore samage made by long range weaponry or a desertic arid climate may tire people a lot more.

Roleplay ins't killed by that things, working doesn't impede talking, this is a fact. Now, if you work in an isolated room, the implementation of windows as said by marginoferror would be a simple solution, and also a improvement in visual. The windowless appearance of buildings create a feeling of huge isolation.

[Chris]

1. Fun. The game should be fun for players.

2. Diversity and choice. There should be many ways to play and have fun.

3. Casual (but not comatose) play. People should be able to maintain a character by playing for a few minutes per day. Those who want to spend more time will tend to dominate, but they should not completely crowd out casual players. People who play less than once per day should be slightly penalized. (IMO, 80-day gathering projects and high-repetition projects are absurd.)

4. Character improvement. A character should become more skilled with effort over time.

5. PvE over PvP. A little PvP goes a long way. Unfortunately there is currently very little PvE challenge -- just food, animals, and sickness.

6. The interface should be consistent, easy to use, and forgiving of errors.

7. Proportion in effects. What someone can do should be proportionate to the time and effort put in. It is poor design that someone, in a few seconds, can clog a machine with a long project that requires tons of materials, and no one can reverse it without staff intervention.

8. Minimize need for staff intervention. For example, removing corpses from small vehicles shouldn't require staff intervention.

[Tiamo]

1. Fun. The game should be fun for players.

This goes without saying. 'Fun' cannot be added as a feature, we can only hope (and expect) it will be the result.

2. Diversity and choice. There should be many ways to play and have fun.

Good point. In the current game promotion this requirement is mentioned as a prime feature ("You can play any role you want").

3. Casual (but not comatose) play. People should be able to maintain a character by playing for a few minutes per day. Those who want to spend more time will tend to dominate, but they should not completely crowd out casual players. People who play less than once per day should be slightly penalized. (IMO, 80-day gathering projects and high-repetition projects are absurd.)

The option of 'casual play' is one of the current design goals, although the difference between casual play and avid play currently could be considerable, both in the 'action' department and in the roleplay department.

4. Character improvement. A character should become more skilled with effort over time.

5. PvE over PvP. A little PvP goes a long way. Unfortunately there is currently very little PvE challenge -- just food, animals, and sickness.

6. The interface should be consistent, easy to use, and forgiving of errors.

7. Proportion in effects. What someone can do should be proportionate to the time and effort put in. It is poor design that someone, in a few seconds, can clog a machine with a long project that requires tons of materials, and no one can reverse it without staff intervention.

8. Minimize need for staff intervention. For example, removing corpses from small vehicles shouldn't require staff intervention.

Those are more detailed aspects. Good input, though i am not sure whether i can agree with all of them (i like PvE-type games, but in my opinion Cantr is not a PvE-type game and is never meant to be one; 'reward' is subjective, when characters (inter)act others can be harmed disproportionally, just like in RL).

[formerly known as hf]

On that sustainability note, I just realised it was actually my first ever post...
http://www.cantr.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=46445

Also, I really disagree with PvE over PvP. To be honest, I'm not sure Cantr even fits with those terms. either way, the 'environment' should be largely passive. There shouldn't be too anything about the world that's scripted or designed as a specific challenge.

Anyway, have you been to some of the islands? I know quite a few places where the animals are a massive threat. In most of the well populated places, they aren't - for obvious reasons.

[Solfius]

Not having heard of PvE before, I read it as Player vs Environment and understood it as the player responding, reacting, and interacting with the challenges generated by a dynamic environment.

Such as dealing with animals, weather conditions, deterioration, finding scare resources, travelling long distances, or whatever you care to include.

[formerly known as hf]

Player vs Enemy, as I know it. Enemy being NPC, monster or otherwise.

I've usually seen it refer to what people might know as 'grinding'. I much prefer player with player interaction than player and game code interaction. Spontaneity etc is so much greater.

I've got no problem with a well thought-out environment within which players interact, both in response to one another and environmental models such as weather, resources etc. But for cantr, that should always be the background to the game - coming to the fore where important; in frontier societies for example, but I don't think it should be the focus.A society is, of course, in part how it develops with the environment, but for more advanced societies, the environment often rendered out.

[Solfius]

Player vs Enemy, as I know it. Enemy being NPC, monster or otherwise.

Definitely against the spirit of the game

[Chris]

Solfius is correct: Player vs. Environment (not Player vs. Enemy). "Environment" can be anything that isn't another player. The "vs." part emphasizes the positive and negative outcomes from interacting with the environment.

[Chris]

1. Fun. The game should be fun for players.

This goes without saying. 'Fun' cannot be added as a feature, we can only hope (and expect) it will be the result.

Fun should be the first principle, to which all else is subordinate. Some people get hung up on realism, which can add to fun or, when dogmatically implemented, detract from it. Some people tout role playing as a first principle, but for many people, a little RP goes a long way, and too much pleases only wannabe stage actors. I wouldn't be too specific in advance about what is and isn't fun. You know it when you experience it. Pay attention to those fun and not-fun experiences, with an eye toward the overall process (i.e., you might have a bad outcome, but you are glad the challenge is there, for you to succeed or fail). As for specific features, my understanding was that this topic is about design principles, not suggestions as seen in the Suggestions forum.