Cantr II Discussion Forum

And not to say it is a CR Breach since children don't exist in game yet... I think Jos has made a point before that things that do not exist in game yet should not be used.

I dissagree. He does exist. I see him running around every day. So does Gods and Doctors and dogs and knomes and anything else some crazy mine conquers up.

Serenity (rklenseth) wrote:And not to say it is a CR Breach since children don't exist in game yet... I think Jos has made a point before that things that do not exist in game yet should not be used.

There has been permission given for children to be RP. So long as it is Kept with in reason.

Serenity (rklenseth) wrote:And not to say it is a CR Breach since children don't exist in game yet... I think Jos has made a point before that things that do not exist in game yet should not be used.

So, then what exactly was the point of saying that?

sparkle wrote:I dissagree. He does exist. I see him running around every day. So does Gods and Doctors and dogs and knomes and anything else some crazy mine conquers up.

Unless they are imaginery from the perspective of the character. But otherwise they don't exist yet.

I don't understand your point about doctors but everything else above applies.

g1asswa1ker wrote:

Serenity (rklenseth) wrote:And not to say it is a CR Breach since children don't exist in game yet... I think Jos has made a point before that things that do not exist in game yet should not be used.

There has been permission given for children to be RP. So long as it is Kept with in reason.

And giving this permission might screw up things later when real children are introduced so I think that was a bad decision but it wouldn't be the first time that I have had thoughts like that.

Anyways, I think Jos has made a point in the past that things that don't exist physically in game (but you can always play a character that believes they exist when they don't) don't exist.

So dogs are not physically in the game so they don't truly exist and could be close to a CR breach especially if suddenly everyone knows what a dog is. While a wolf on the other hand that are around said area can be known by Cantr people because they have seen them but we have to remember some animals are native to only one island. So there might be wolves around Ladvicitavoi and people know about them but people in Blojt won't know a wolf because they don't exist on said island. So dogs don't exist in game so no know one will know what they are, what they look like etc... until someone imagines it and then passes word along to other people (Like in the real world regarding mystical beasts like dragons ).

I think lately that the CR has been stretched a lot regarding these situations. I also think this is happening because there are a core group of new players that like to do this. I think this issue should be addressed.

I also hate to think that (while it is possible) a town of insane people imagining things that don't exist like children and dogs and gnomes.

Missy wrote:

Serenity (rklenseth) wrote:And not to say it is a CR Breach since children don't exist in game yet... I think Jos has made a point before that things that do not exist in game yet should not be used.

So, then what exactly was the point of saying that?

Saying what?

Serenity (rklenseth) wrote:

Missy wrote:

Serenity (rklenseth) wrote:And not to say it is a CR Breach since children don't exist in game yet... I think Jos has made a point before that things that do not exist in game yet should not be used.

So, then what exactly was the point of saying that?

Saying what?

Essentially, highjacking the topic to state an opinion and contradiction?

First and last time I looked this topic was to suggest that a character that was annoyingly well played. First and last time I checked there was a topic already to express your like/dislike or belief that a certain way of roleplaying was wrong/not wrong.

First you say

And not to say it is a CR Breach since children don't exist in game yet...

-----It's not wrong since IT IS in fact not a CR breach.

Then you say

I think Jos has made a point before that things that do not exist in game yet should not be used.

----People shouldn't rp children because you haven't yet heard Jos say they could? ~Since Jos said that, I think it is breaking the CR.~ No?

So, is it or isn't it breaking the CR? And what exactly ARE you saying if you aren't saying that it's a CR breach.

Well, the request was sent to the PD mail. The chairman approved this style of playing. His reply to the player who requested for permission was documented before Jos left; nearly a month before, in two seperate places. It was also discussed with other PD members. I'm certain Jos noted that this was approved, I could be mistaken, though I do recall another reply to the Chairmans reply stating "they'd like to see how it turned out"--this roleplaying of babies that was being aloud.

[Edit] In fact, noting a discussion in the general staff section he certainly saw that people were rp'ing babies.

I believe the topic you keep referring to is this one: http://www.cantr.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=706&start=0

Jos Elkink says: "I see more and more descriptions of actions in peoples` talking, like *smiles* or ::walks to ...::. As such, this is fine, and it adds to the roleplaying character of the game, but please limit it to behaviour that does not affect a surrounding and does not involve objects that are not actually in the game. E.g. ::hits Paul:: is not allowed, as for that there is a hitting function, or ::hides his bottle:: is not allowed, as there are no bottles in the game, or ::runs behind a building so nobody can see him:: does not mean nobody can see him ... That would simply be a different type of game." (2003-11-07)

Jos wrote: Well, two things: 1) no, there is no 'punishment' or so yet - it's by far not as important as the capital rule - but it is just ... well, a friendly request not to overuse the possibility of putting actions in your speaking. Some people were talking about poisoning someone, for example, while that really is impossible as of yet in this game (interesting idea, though ...). It is a fine line between adding a little more roleplay to the game by using these texts, and really changing the game from a computer-based environment to a freestyle game. Because the game is completely freestyle in terms of storyline, but it is not in terms of the physical world in which the characters live. That's the whole point

Perhaps he does not approve of baby RP according to his posts, but he has yet to say anything to the PD. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Jos and the PD Chairman.

K. Lastly:
" 1) no, there is no 'punishment' or so yet - it's by far not as important as the capital rule - but it is just ... well, a friendly request not to overuse the possibility of putting actions in your speaking. " DEFINE overuse. And how do you punish someone if there is no punishment?

It also takes a few posts in series when RKL attempts to put a point across.

Yes, RKL, I think you're too strict and way over reading the Capitol Rule in roleplay. Honestly, I don't and don't want to know who your characters are, but from the way you express yourself on the forums it would make my understanding of them currently and comparatively as very dull in roleplay, without much of an imagination. I think you need, and maybe with your politics as well , liberalize your thinking. This is a game, let people have fun when the play. Especially if it is allowed and I do believe I also heard elsewhere it was permitted by the Players Department.

Now, we can discuss this more in "proper role playing"
Back on topic in 3...2....1:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Smith, the Jack of All Trade dude seems pretty well roleplayed, always motivated to errrrrr work.

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.

Now I am not so rightly sure if I'm going to play Cantr ever again.

Just to make my point clear, this opens crap like gnomes and stuff right up. If people can claim babies exist when they don't then they will be able to claim that gnoes, dragons, or any mystical beast or thing. Now while I can believe that someone can 'imagine' something or make it up other people shouldn't suddely believe that something or know what that something is. But who am I to say.

Good-bye and I hope you all have a nice summer and maybe a nice rest of your life since I might not be coming back.

Okay, this topic is definately not worth quitting Cantr for. If either side quits, it is merely granting the other side the win. Both sides have good points, and both are right in a sense. Why don't we just discuss this as civilized adults without bashing someone's RP and without threatening to quit?

Missy wrote: before Jos left;

Jos has left?!?! Someone explain????

Cantr attracts 2 kinds of players in my opinion:

Role players
and
Strategy players,

And inevitably they mix a bit as well, I'm a strategy player and I know my rping isn't that great, I've always played Cantr for the planning scheming side of things.

From what I know of the "baby" my characters would be inclined to leave before the madness got them too, because I feel that roleplaying objects is a very grey area, especially considering the idea of Cantr is to provide the physical environment for characters so imagining and RPing something as existing on that kind of imaginary basis would work because it's being imagined (perhaps not from the character's perspective) but acknowledging something as being real when it's not physically in the game environment I feel is a bit too much.

From my point of view if all the players who "lack imagination" left then the game would get very boring, because an active player who is supposedly "very dull in roleplaying" could well be an excellant strategy player capable of the kind of scheming and grand plots/plans that makes the game worth playing for me. The point I'm making is people who play for roleplay would have a different perspective on what makes a good player than someone who likes to aculmulate vast material wealth and power.

What I'll finish saying is that everyone has a right to an opinion, and if perhaps you disagree with rping physical objects then seeing as the don't actually exist in the game then I think it's perfectly within a character's right to react to that as them being quite insane and whatever leads from that.

Solfius wrote:

Missy wrote: before Jos left;

Jos has left?!?! Someone explain????

On holiday.

Missy wrote:On holiday

You shouldn't do things like that...[insert relieved smily here]