So, what makes a successful town/character?

[Pirog]

rklenseth>

Exactly!

[Pirog]

What if the other people involved don't feel like cooperating with your unilaterally invented connection/interaction?

That has never happened to me.
If it comes down to me knowing the boundries well enough not to cross the line or pure luck is probably something we would have different perspevtives on too

Acting as if it's something different denies other players the ability to see/hear the same things you're seeing...which isn't valid if you don't intend your characters to be insane. And we really don't need that many insane people.

But you take every creative way to spice up the game and blow it out of proportion. I don't condone playing like you are an ork or riding a dragon...

My solution is to let those things happen as they happen.

Well, I don't like that solution. "Your" Cantr would be a hollow and desolate world to me and I wouldn't want to play in it.
I'm a strong supporter of keeping Cantr realistic, but I believe the most important thing for the game isn't to be perfect when it comes to building up a realistic world...it's simply to be a fun game.

kroner>

I do agree that there are too many gullable, insane and retarded people in Cantr. A lot of it comes down to the distorted and somewhat confusing world setting of Cantr. Some see it as a medieval setting while others use modern day intellect with their characters.
If 21st century person would go back a couple of hundred years in time he would probably see most people as idiots.

TO OTHERS:

This discussion might look somewhat confusing, since both me and Industrialist are having a private discussion about the same thing...so sometimes we might answer things that we don't seem to have enough knowledge about to know.

[kroner]

The Industriallist>

I think a part of why you and me play Cantr so differently is that you apply your own OOC knowledge and feelings to your characters.

Watch your words.
Do you understand implications of this statement? You're saying that your OOC knowledge and feelings are not applied to your characters. Now I will deconstruct this claim.

Every action that a cantr character performs is dictated by the player. There is no way araound this. Every thought, statement, etc of a character must come from the mind of the player. There can be no other source. Therefore all cantr character knowlegde, personality and feelings are based on player knowledge and feelings. How can player knowledge and feelings not be "applied" if they are the only source of a characters personality? You are not exempt. There's no magical new sentient being that's created when you hit the big smiley face button, only a new partition being added to your own mind.

Ah, but what our characters would do is not what we would do which is what I believe Pirog was getting at. Quite simply the personality of his characters (as well as mine) is not his personality (nor mine) but that of which he created for those characters. I consider character personalities to be an IC rather than OOC.

Anyways, the main point that Pirog was getting at is that there are players that play their characters with the same personality (their own mainly).

no one ever disagreed that your character shouldn't be played exactly how you think. i doubt you could show me a place where something to that effect is said. this is only what pirog has been accusing the industrialist of doing, but as i said before, without credible evidence since he doesn't know who the industrialist plays. it's just something pirog's gotten in his head based on the industrialist's opinions, when really what the industrialist has been arguing is something entirely different. you should base your counter arguements on what people say, not on what other people claim they say.

what i was saying in that quote has nothing to do with what poeple "should" do. just pointing out that eveyone's characters have the player's ooc kowledge and feelings applied to them, because these are what constitute the player's mind, and the character must come from the player's mind. QED. simple logical arguement. your characer's differences from yourself are all consciously inserted by you and therefore are still a product of your knowlegde and feelings, though less of a direct application. again i'm not saying this is bad, i was only refuting a ridiculous statement.

[Pirog]

this is only what pirog has been accusing the industrialist of doing, but as i said before, without credible evidence since he doesn't know who the industrialist plays. it's just something pirog's gotten in his head based on the industrialist's opinions, when really what the industrialist has been arguing is something entirely different. you should base your counter arguements on what people say, not on what other people claim they say.

You mean kind of like how you are accusing me of not having enough material to base my judgement on when you have perhaps read 1/10 of the things me and Industrialist have said to each other?

I have tried to be clear about not claiming that what I say is an absolute truth. It is just an assumption. So far that assumption has only grown stronger. I no longer even believe Industrialist is capable of playing in another manner than I assume he does...
Sadly the most interesting parts of mine and Industrialists discussion has been kept by PM's. I think a lot of you would be appauled by what Industrialist wants to do with our beloved Cantr

[The Industriallist]

Here. I'll give you my favorite thing I've said, I think It loses only a little bit taken out of context.

I take the intro material for cantr very, very seriously. The entire point of cantr is for characters to act like people in the world with mechanics defined by the game program. That is the entire point. I happen to think that doing that is fun, which is why I play the game. That means every time someone violates the boundaries of the previously stated world, I consider that to be a breach of the game's purpose. In all seriousness, I think that anyone who doesn't see that that is the point is in the wrong game...though I can't do anything about it.

(Note: the 'mechanics' of the character's mind are explicitly left to the player to determine, within the broad boundary of the CR)

>Pirog
And incidentally...I would say that Kroner has far more information on which to base opinion of me on that you have or will ever have, Pirog.

Also...there's no difference between calling something a fact and an assumption. You might mean to indicate by it that you consider the assumption more flexible...but I've not seen any sign of that.

[Pirog]

I take the intro material for cantr very, very seriously. The entire point of cantr is for characters to act like people in the world with mechanics defined by the game program. That is the entire point. I happen to think that doing that is fun, which is why I play the game. That means every time someone violates the boundaries of the previously stated world, I consider that to be a breach of the game's purpose. In all seriousness, I think that anyone who doesn't see that that is the point is in the wrong game...though I can't do anything about it.

Yet you have taken that quote out of it's context.
The point you were trying to make with it in our discussion was that absolutely nothing at all exists unless clearly defined by the game program...and that would leave Cantr a very boring and hollow place to me.

I'm not talking about adding animals that aren't programmed, effect other people physically with items or actions not existing etc. I'm just talking about filling the Cantr world with some life and color. (Like for example having a wrinkled or torn pair of pants without the game engine defining them as wrinkled or torn...)

And incidentally...I would say that Kroner has far more information on which to base opinion of me on that you have or will ever have, Pirog

He might...but that is still just an assumption from your part to counter my assumpion. It's really as simple as that.

Also...there's no difference between calling something a fact and an assumption. You might mean to indicate by it that you consider the assumption more flexible...but I've not seen any sign of that.

There is an obvious difference to me. Perhaps most of it is moral, but it still has an effect. Unless I feel certain about something I would be very careful calling something a fact. If I call it a fact I can obviously still be wrong, but I have made a clear stand about it.
My assumptions about you have a lot of room for change...I just haven't seen anything that would change them yet.

[The Industriallist]

I take the intro material for cantr very, very seriously. The entire point of cantr is for characters to act like people in the world with mechanics defined by the game program. That is the entire point. I happen to think that doing that is fun, which is why I play the game. That means every time someone violates the boundaries of the previously stated world, I consider that to be a breach of the game's purpose. In all seriousness, I think that anyone who doesn't see that that is the point is in the wrong game...though I can't do anything about it.

Yet you have taken that quote out of it's context.
The point you were trying to make with it in our discussion was that absolutely nothing at all exists unless clearly defined by the game program...and that would leave Cantr a very boring and hollow place to me.

Clearly defined by the game program...or by the other rules. For example, it was ruled that facial expressions and gestures were a part of the cantr world.

I'm not talking about adding animals that aren't programmed, effect other people physically with items or actions not existing etc. I'm just talking about filling the Cantr world with some life and color. (Like for example having a wrinkled or torn pair of pants without the game engine defining them as wrinkled or torn...)

Yes, that would be an example of the kind of thing I would think was out of bounds. If something's going to be wrinkled and torn...doesn't that need to have some solidity? If you discard (or get killed with) your 'wrinkled and torn' pants, and I take them and decide they're in perfect condition...isn't there a problem? My character might not even know that they ever were 'wrinkled and torn'.

[Pirog]

Clearly defined by the game program...or by the other rules. For example, it was ruled that facial expressions and gestures were a part of the cantr world.

But facial expressions and gestures occured long before that was an official ruling. That is the point I'm trying to make. The basic game mechanics shall of course be defined by the programmers, but the RP parts are usually worked out by people just using common sense and in cases where there is a conflict the Cantr Staff can make an official ruling.

The fact that facial expressions and gestures are allowed is the result of people not applying your strict reading of the rules...and I know that I am far from alone in thinking Cantr would be a hell of a lot less fun game if they weren't included. If everyone played the way you want there wouldn't be any facial expressions and gestures in the game...or at least not more than some simple programmed one that would leave the more dedicated roleplayers frustrated.

Yes, that would be an example of the kind of thing I would think was out of bounds. If something's going to be wrinkled and torn...doesn't that need to have some solidity? If you discard (or get killed with) your 'wrinkled and torn' pants, and I take them and decide they're in perfect condition...isn't there a problem? My character might not even know that they ever were 'wrinkled and torn'.

I don't think it is a serious problem.
If you want to rob corpses of their clothes and believe they are spot free and free from wrinkles or torns I don't mind.

There are similar glitches even when not being "out of bounds". Like the lack of realism in not seeing if a corpse died from starvation, a sabre slash, a crossbow bolt or by a pack of hungry wolves tearing it to pieces...

But, and this is important, if the Programming Department added a function for clothes to be torn or wrinkled I think you would cross the line to "RP" as having torn/wrinkled clothes when you are clearly not.

Hopefully the Programming Department will leave such features to a regulated free form description or keeping it as it is now and spend their time developing more important features for the game...like children.

[Nick]

If you want to rob corpses of their clothes and believe they are spot free and free from wrinkles or torns I don't mind.

What's a wrinkle? Until degradation is added to clothes, clothes stay in mint condition from creation until afterwards. If they got torn and ripped occasionally, then logically there would be a point when there was no more shirt, it would just be a torn cloth. But clothes last infinitely.

There are similar glitches even when not being "out of bounds". Like the lack of realism in not seeing if a corpse died from starvation, a sabre slash, a crossbow bolt or by a pack of hungry wolves tearing it to pieces...

Wounds don't exist. When you are hit by a sabre, you are hurt, but you can eat some healing food and will be perfectly healthy. Blood doesn't exist. If you want wounds, go to the suggestions department. These are Cantrians, not humans. Keep that in mind.

[The Sociologist]

What's a wrinkle? Until degradation is added to clothes, clothes stay in mint condition from creation until afterwards. If they got torn and ripped occasionally, then logically there would be a point when there was no more shirt, it would just be a torn cloth. But clothes last infinitely.
[...]
Wounds don't exist. When you are hit by a sabre, you are hurt, but you can eat some healing food and will be perfectly healthy. Blood doesn't exist. If you want wounds, go to the suggestions department. These are Cantrians, not humans. Keep that in mind.

I must disagree. If there are no wrinkles, then you cannot speak of a "peculiar wrinkle" in a problem. If nothing gets torn, you cannot speak about being "all torn up". If wounds don't exist, you cannot speak of "wounded pride". If there's no blood, one cannot refer to "blood ties", and Kriffians cannot speak of the "bloodied boots" of a certain neighbor.

And so on...

You would rip out the heart of the rich language needed for decent roleplay. So I'm in favor of a very strictly legalistic interpretation of the CR itself.

Sure, you cannot roleplay you're flying around in a hovercraft if you're actually walking, but if you want to roleplay that you're bleeding from a wound and in pain, I don't see a problem.

Other issues that then crop up in poetic usage: "dark night" (no night and day therefore no concept of dark at all?), "cold high mountains" (no temperatures, therefore no "cold stare"?), icy peaks (no snow?), "blue skies" (probably no skies since hawks must run along the ground in order to be hit by sabers...).

Hence no "clouded expression", no "rainbow-bright", no "bridge to a better future", no "bridging finance"... And so on...

Human language is very rich and massively metaphorical, and no matter how gloriously Jos is doing, he cannot possibly encompass all of it within the Cantr world.
.

[kroner]

I'd say things such as "a cold stare" are permissable even if the concept of temperature cold was banished until added to the game world.

If cantr were to function as a perfect society simulator within a world very different than our own, then the charaters within the cantr world would develop their own language. This language would take all it's metaphors and idioms from the in game concepts that they were accostomed to. It would sound very strange to us. (on a side note, this would be part of a true cantr culture, not the artificial version I was talking about before.)
But this can never happen because of the limitations of this being a game and the characters having to be played by people who live in an entirely different world and who can only spend a small portion of their lives developing a cantr culture. So we have to take a language from the outside world, English in this case, along with all it's idioms and metaphors that cantrian could never comprehend. Being required to use this bit of OOC culture is due to limitations in the game. The use of OOC culture and other false cantr culture should be used only when required because of game limitations. So I would still argue against someone in cantr being cold, or a shirt being wrinkled, even if cantrarians are allowed to say "what a peculiar wrinkle", since we have no choice if we want a nice language to communicate in.

[mortaine]

If there's no snow, then what's that white stuff in the pictures for the Ankypor Mountains? There are images representing the terrain of the area you're in-- the mountains have, in fact, snow covering them and I'm pretty sure the little micro-map for where the mountains begin has a white background.

[kroner]

i'm fairly sure it's grey, but even were it white, what leads you to believe that white is snow in cantr? couldn't it be white ground? white rock? really it could be anything.

[Bowser]

The mountains in Nraam are definately snow capped. Perhaps in cantr, its just a white mountain or perhaps its actually very hot in snowy areas. I have seen the land from a birds-eye view using my helicoptor engine strapped to a longboat.

[DylPickle]

This is getting ridiculous, it's a god damn game. Shit, have fun.