Cantr II Discussion Forum

Everyone knows that without conflict, there is no story, yet Cantr characters seem bent on eliminating conflict from their lives entirely. They are their worst enemies, actively scheming and plotting to conquer the one thing that makes their lives interesting, and when they do, they vigilantly guard the peace, doing their best to ensure that no conflict creeps back into their lives. The lack of conflict means lack of plot, and the lack of plot means lack of meaning, so these blissful characters almost always succumb to sleep, having no reason to wake.

And why is it this way? Why have we appeared to have developed a pathological aversion to the one thing that guarantees an engaging and interesting gaming experience? Because we're emotional cripples. If there is any chance what-so-ever that we could lose our precious character by trying to inject a little conflict into the game, we simply will not do it. Instead we tilt at windmills to try to find that thrill; OMG! That newspawn picked up a note instead of copying it! Or for those who completely snap from a lack of stimulation, go on a killing spree and wipe out entire towns for no reason.

It is a matter of having a ring in hand: I have this ring, it is precious to me. I could go and pawn my ring for cash and invest it, earning more cash and buying back my ring and make a profit...but I could also lose my ring; my investment could fail, or someone could buy my ring before I do. So I'll keep my ring safe. It's nice to look at on my finger...

So we all shelter our precious characters, hoping against all odds that someone else will come along and amuse us. And when serious conflict does come along, when some precious characters die and after we mourn, we remember those days of good story fondly...but don't we also wonder about the players of the villains? What kind of player is so unattached to his characters that he'd risk them so wantonly? Perhaps they don't really care about the game and all those characters they killed. They must be griefers! I bet they broke the CR!

And so we spin the web that the big ugly spider named Stigma rests upon. The web that no player who cares wishes to get trapped in. So we further lessen the odds of someone else amusing us. Lessen the odds that someone else will take up the conflict and drive the story forward, for even if they have the courage to put their precious character at risk, the thought of being disliked by the player community may snuff that courage like a wet towel on a fire.

And last but not least, I'll address the horrid specter Empathy. Empathy, the creature that makes a story a good story by allowing us to feel for the characters, yet is perversely twisted upon it's head in Cantr to ensure that the only thing anyone feels is good. The feeling that, "I won't rob this town/murder this person/fuel this conflict, even though I can, because it might make someone just like me sad" is the largest dagger in the heart of the Cantr storyline.

Most of what I said even applies to myself. I freely admit that I'm part of the problem. It is clear to me that the Cantr community has evolved this way because this is the only way it could have evolved. The mechanics and social structures, put in place over time, have guaranteed this. It's futile to change ourselves. We need to change the world around us to force us to adapt.

How?

I see two possibilities:

1) Introduce non-player induced conflict.

In whatever form this would take, I can't see it working. First, there is nothing in the game not done by the players themselves, and this would be a radical departure from the game concept. Second, any such conflict would have to be introduced by people who are also players, causing an inherent conflict of interest and all the suspicions and discord that go along with it.

Edit: This does exist currently to a limited extent in the form of animal attacks, and could see another neutral form in weather, however, these are too random and forgettable to drive a story by themselves. They are isolated incidents, not engines capable of driving a long-term plot.

2) Eliminate perma-death.

Players will be more prone to pawn their ring if they're guaranteed to get the ring back in some manner or another. If their investment loses money, and they can't afford to buy it back, they can always find a job to earn cash and save over time. I'm certainly not saying that there shouldn't be consequences for bad investments, just that that they cannot be absolute if we are to expect the players to participate in driving the "economy" of the game plot.

So, if we want players to put their characters at risk, if we want the stories in Cantr to get richer and more engaging, if we want to have any hope of increasing our player base, we need to get rid of perma-death. If a character's player is the only person that can end that character's story, then Cantr will truly open up the limitless possibilities that it advertises. If you really digest what I've said, you know in your heart I'm right. This is why we implemented the near death state. It was something we knew needed to be done, even if we couldn't say why in a concrete way. But we know it's not enough. Let's have the courage to take the next step.

I understand that every single person reading this can point to one or more of the generalizations that I've made and say with all honesty that "this doesn't apply to me or the way I play." However, I am speaking not of individuals, but of populations and trends. This is how our behavior as a community trends, based on my extensive experience as a player and staff member. So please let us not bog down the discussion debating about how my points are "wrong because I'm not like that." No two individuals are the same, yet populations of individuals still behave in generalized and predictable ways.

I agree with most of what you say here, Doug. And it is so true about how the player base ostracizes those players who play villains. Which is why we have so few of them. In fact, as far as statistics go, I'd love to see something on of all players who have been banned from the game, what percentage played villains, murders and overall bad guys.

What I can't get my mind around is how you get rid of Perma-Death and not turn into World of Warcraft (without the cool graphics)?
The intense emotions that this game can evoke is unique, for certain. And I agree that it isn't necessarily a good thing. Some of us, most of us.... have enough heartache in our own lives to not have to be beat over the head with it in a game. But I wonder if there is a middle ground possible?

I was skeptical for most of this. How can the game make any sense at all if characters never die? But then I got to the end, and I think that holds the key point. The important suggestion here (or, sorry, essay topic) is that PLAYERS ought to chose when their own character's story ends.

Interestingly, I thought this whole thing was a good reflection of reality. There are so many ways in which we strive for easiness in life, and remove all the frictions we might face. And I think the result of this is that, as a society, we've become bored and depressed. We're designed, instinctively, to seek protection, but for this to work we have to be facing hardships that need addressing. Now that we don't have actual threats in our lives, we put that energy into stuff that doesn't matter, instead.

Swingerzetta wrote:Interestingly, I thought this whole thing was a good reflection of reality. There are so many ways in which we strive for easiness in life, and remove all the frictions we might face. And I think the result of this is that, as a society, we've become bored and depressed. We're designed, instinctively, to seek protection, but for this to work we have to be facing hardships that need addressing. Now that we don't have actual threats in our lives, we put that energy into stuff that doesn't matter, instead.

This is quite exactly what I thought...

I wonder, how would we turn of perma-death? Respawns? The char respawns at some random location, with no stuff at all, but -with- the memories? Or will it become totally impossible to kill?

How I saw it was just having death be replaced by an extended near-death state, which maybe the character could eventually come out of, or be rescued from, and the player would have the option to die if they deemed the time to be right.

Swingerzetta wrote:How I saw it was just having death be replaced by an extended near-death state, which maybe the character could eventually come out of, or be rescued from, and the player would have the option to die if they deemed the time to be right.

So, actually, just remove the 'finish off' button? Might not be a bad way...

Hiho Doug,
you made some very good points, and I agree with them all.

I would also note one thing:
people want to play games to get amused.
For some they get amused by their chars having great stories, but others like to see their characters develop, simply exist and so on.
And losing these characters (for them, and I belong to this group) is certainly not amusing, what makes these players unwilling to take risks.

Cheers!

I agree with most of Dougs observations. Cantr has evolved into a pet game. The chars are our pets; we want everything good for them, first of all to be safe. This does go as far as players trying to eliminate risks, big challenges and possible hardships by trying to change the game rules and game environment into a safer/more generous place via the suggestions forum.

Even Dougs line of thinking for a possible 'solution' goes in that direction. Permadeath for your char is 'not nice', so we should soften it or even eliminate it...
This is where i totally disagree with Doug. If you want the game to have more thrills, you should create challenges, hardships, conflict, not eliminate them. I think players will tend to let their chars take more risks, engage in more conflicts, seek more of a thrill, if they know they have less, or nothing, to lose. I.e., if they know life will inevitably end, but not necessarily when the player so decides.

Dying of old age will imo spice up things, where eternal life/lives will further dampen it.

I suggest to remove perma-death from real life.

And if you invest a ring there should be somebody to give your money back in case of bad investment, because nobody should be punished for own wrong decisions.
[irony mode off]

I have no idea for more constructive comment now.
Maybe just: perma-death is one of most important features which make Cantr different from the other games.

First of all, Doug, may I say that you write beautifully!

The entire time I was reading this, I was just smiling to myself and nodding. These are really drastic changes that you're suggesting, but I like change. Change is pretty darn cool. What I like most about this is the whole concept of getting rid of perma-death. To some, this might seem horrible, as it would get rid of much of Cantr's realism. Just look at how characters are spawned, though - twenty years old, out of thin air. Seems pretty unnatural to me. How is a bigger stretch to say that the characters don't just teleport away to a new place when they die? The way I see it, this would get rid of a lot of the sleeper problems, as well. Players would now have something to defend - something precious and of value.

I was thinking that if characters could have children, and people were allowed to play their own children, players could keep wealth in their own hands without needing to have 100+ year old eternally young characters. If you were playing your character's son or daughter, naturally you would give this character equipment even before the parents die, so you would need to invest in at least two people instead of one, and it would be half less likely that both of them would die at the same time. You could send one of them into battle while keeping the other one safe, and they would share a lot of the same memories because they experienced a lot of the same things, or the younger one could be assumed to have heard stories from the older one.

Tiamo wrote:Dying of old age will imo spice up things, where eternal life/lives will further dampen it.

It's an interesting point, and one I'm not prepared to argue against. The removal of perma-death would remove the largest obstacle to risk-taking, were-as random death from old age would light a fire under a character's ass to have a decent story before they drop dead.

On the one hand, removal of perma-death could lead to more complacency, since characters wouldn't even have to defend themselves to survive, and on the other, the perspective that the character's goals are impossible to achieve before they die could lead to even more abandoned characters as their plots are abandoned by their players. I would say, however, that the characters are already very complacent. There are very few English towns that have any reasonable defensive plans, simply because crime is more or less non-existant, or something that happens to "other people."

Black Canyon wrote:In fact, as far as statistics go, I'd love to see something on of all players who have been banned from the game, what percentage played villains, murders and overall bad guys.

In my experience, most. However, they wouldn't have been banned if they weren't cheaters or had violated the rules in some way. To some extent or another, characters are a reflection of their players. Assholes tend to play assholes. This goes back to the empathy issue: People that obey rules also tend to be nice people.

Greek wrote:And if you invest a ring there should be somebody to give your money back in case of bad investment, because nobody should be punished for own wrong decisions.

Doug R. wrote:If their investment loses money, and they can't afford to buy it back, they can always find a job to earn cash and save over time. I'm certainly not saying that there shouldn't be consequences for bad investments, just that that they cannot be absolute if we are to expect the players to participate in driving the "economy" of the game plot.

Greek wrote:Maybe just: perma-death is one of most important features which make Cantr different from the other games.

Maybe. Which is why I asked the question earlier. But how do we make the risk worth it? I think that is the question. If "perma-death" is to remain.... what is worth dying for in cantr?

Doug R. wrote:

Black Canyon wrote:In fact, as far as statistics go, I'd love to see something on of all players who have been banned from the game, what percentage played villains, murders and overall bad guys.

In my experience, most. However, they wouldn't have been banned if they weren't cheaters or had violated the rules in some way. To some extent or another, characters are a reflection of their players. Assholes tend to play assholes. This goes back to the empathy issue: People that obey rules also tend to be nice people.

I can't argue with that. But I will say that a society simulator needs the assholes too. At least to an extent. I'm not suggesting that cheating should be condoned. Just maybe that the cheating is another attempt to avoid or reduce the risk of "perma-death" also.

Black Canyon wrote:What I can't get my mind around is how you get rid of Perma-Death and not turn into World of Warcraft (without the cool graphics)?

Customization and freedom.
WoW has neither in any extent anything like Cantr's.
I can take perma-death or leave it; I haven't decided yet.
I don't play WoW for lack of customization and freedom.

Edit: This also applies to all the other mmo games I've tried minus -maybe- EVE (maybe), but I don't care enough about space ships for EVE.
Second Life is not a game. It's a 3D internet.