Character Knowledge Cannot be Strictly Separated from Player

[Russell of Los Angeles]

I want to suggest that the dividing line between the knowledge of a player and the knowledge her character is rather arbitrary. However, I recognize that there is something of a consensus among players about where the line should be drawn (with room for argument.)

I’ll make three categories of knowledge between player and character. The first category is what I consider to be player knowledge that characters must necessarily share. The second category is knowledge that characters do not necessarily share, but some players agree to use, or other players don’t mind to have it used. The third category is generally considered to be knowledge off-limits to characters, and using it would be considered by most players to be a breach of the capital rule.

Category 1: Knowledge that must be shared between player and character.

1. Language. Except for those players that choose to play very ignorant characters, a character’s use of language is dependent on the player’s knowledge of language.

2. Basic Facts about the World. Players know facts through the senses that are naturally shared with characters but not detailed in the game. For example, a character knows the colors of natural objects (the sky is blue, leaves are green) and that people generally have two eyes, two hands, etc. These are assumptions that players make about the world of Cantr that carry over to their characters. Again, there may be some characters that may try to claim ignorance of the color of the sky, and that sort of thing, but it’s uncommon. This is usually transparent anyway (meaning that we don’t notice that we make these assumptions).

3. Basic knowledge of culture. Body language, terms of endearment, knowledge of government, business, and property rights, are some examples of knowledge that characters get from their players about how people socialize. This is dependent on and bound up in knowledge types 1 and 2 above. I think it’s impossible to play a character that begins as a totally blank slate about these matters.

4. Motive. This one is a little funny. Perhaps someone can help me understand this. Isn’t it obvious that a character acts on choices ultimately decided by the player? Motive appears in other forms in Category 2 and 3, so see more below.

Category 2: Knowledge that is sometimes or often lent to the character from the player, though not everybody agrees that it should be.

5. Motive, again. Players base the actions of their characters on their understanding and feelings about many different things. The feelings, inclinations, and motives of the player become “translated” into the motives and passions for the character. This is the main reason I started this thread. It seems that there is not much consensus among players about how freely a character’s motives may come from a player’s motives. Sometimes, a player regretfully makes a character act a certain way just because it is being consistent with a character’s personality. That’s what good roleplaying calls for, because a player isn’t always in the mood to laugh or cry and get into the role of a character. I don’t think this happens very much, though. If a character is too often behaving a way their own player doesn’t like, then they either change the character or quit playing her. Furthermore, a player may base character motives on certain amounts of Category 3 knowledge, but it is ostensibly based (by roleplaying) on some other reason.

6. Game mechanics. This is a broad category that also involves some “translation” between player and character. Now with the Wiki O’ Knowledge up, a lot more of this happens. It involves things like knowledge of manufacturing, combat, and seafaring. By translation here, I mean that player knowledge of the mechanics is imagined to be something more real in the game world. For example, if a character is hurt, she might say, “Ouch! I’m bleeding!” instead of “I am at 60% health.” (maybe someone can think of a better example than that, but, btw, this brings up the difference between “gamespeak” and good roleplay; see Category 3)

Category 3: Knowledge that is generally considered against the rules for a character to know without having discovered it in the game.

7. Game mechanics without “translation” into the imaginary world of Cantr. This is a matter of taste and roleplay. Since we’re all kind of pretending that Cantr is a real place (more or less), it’s generally considered bad form for characters to talk about Cantr as if it were only a computer simulation. Some players also prefer to have their characters “discover” how to manufacture something, or how to dock a boat, even if they know ahead of time how it’s done. So some players play as if #6 above is here in Category 3.

8. The reason behind some actions. If a player knows that he is going to be away from the game for a while, he may arrange for his characters to stock up on food or to go indoors for protection. However, the player needs to make up some excuse for why his character behaves this way. A character should not know that her player will go on vacation, or when the time reset occurs, or other things.

9. Historical and geographic knowledge of Cantr and the characters in it. This is one of the most often emphasized lines of separation between player knowledge and character knowledge. A character doesn’t know other characters or history until the meeting or learning happens.

10. Historical and geographic knowledge of RL and the people in it. This is the same for #9, the difference being that since RL history is not available to learn anywhere in the world of Cantr, a character may never learn it.

11. And much much more! I haven’t listed every type of knowledge in this category or either of the others.

Category Omega: Knowledge that the character knows that the player does not. Someone might say, “Obviously, if a character knows something, then the player of that character must also know it.” But I’m not sure that would be true. If it could be considered that emotions are a kind of knowledge (I’ve been pretty loose with the meaning of knowledge in this post), then sometimes it is only the character that feels the emotion, not the player, who is just acting. Also, a character may know what a bagh-nakh looks like, but a player doesn’t. I don’t really want to argue about it in this thread, but I thought I’d include this category just for the sake of completeness.

So, in conclusion, this is the end of the post. And—oh yeah, it’s okay for players to share knowledge with their characters. The question is: just how much?

[Doug R.]

The poll is fundamentally flawed. Your explanation lists 11 shades of gray, yet the poll is black and white.

[Russell of Los Angeles]

The poll is fundamentally flawed. Your explanation lists 11 shades of gray, yet the poll is black and white.

Yes. The poll is a gag. The way it's worded, it's even a trick question. If it's not okay for a character to know something a player knows, then it's not okay for a player to know something a character knows! And that would mean all character knowledge should be in "category omega" above.

My apologies.

I'm more interested in hearing discussion about the shades of gray.

P.S. I understand the poll doesn't have to be taken as a trick question, so some people may still want to vote for the last option. (one person already has, at this point)

[Wolf]

Here's my two cents:
It is real hard, if not impossible, to leave a character completely blank, regarding certain things a player knows.
After all, the player is the one who moves the char around, to put it in a very simple way.
And whether a player cares about his/her char or not, unless it's one of those suicidal events, a player will always try to keep his char alive.
So, in essence, the char knows he/she wants to survive.
He/she wants to find food when hungry, he/she wants to get the heck away from that posse armed with bows, crossbows and steel weapons when they attack.
Personally, I call that "low-level knowledge"; knowledghe that gets shared in what could be the character's subconsciousness, of which it can safely be assumed that it is something which the character has natural access to.
(Instincts, feelings, the curiosity which drives a char to read notes and try things when nobody else is looking, seeing others manufacture items...)
In fact, today I saw a character mention how she was learning from watching others, which I found an interesting way of playing.

Beyond that, there is a lot of knowledge which I would place in some grey area, and even more knowledge which I'd place in a "definitely not good"-shade of black.

By the way, I'm chuckling at your example of the bagh-nakh - most of my chars know what they are, what they look like... but I only found out a few days ago when I just couldn't take it anymore and started googling for it.
Other examples might be more language-oriented.
For example, I had to look up what a "waster" was the same time when I looked up a bagh-nakh, while one of my chars had been thinking of making one for a while already.
He still is thinking of making one, but needs to get the resources needed first.

* Edit: replaced "unavoidable" with "real hard, if not impossible".
I started writing one sentence but ended up writing another, and the word "unavoidable" would have ended up contradicting what I was trying to say.

[formerly known as hf]

You've hit on one of the big questions about Cantr - to which there is no answer.

Just remember that characters are twenty when they spawn - so it can be assumed that they have a 'backstory' of some kind - which gives them motives, social skills (or lack of), personality etc.

How strong the peronality / motive is of a spawn is down to the player - but there's no problem in creating a fairly fixed personality to start with - that's not 'sharing knowledge' - that's developing a character - because they are twenty years old

There's also no problem in creating a flexible character, most of my characters pick up their motives and personality from early experiences.

In regards to culture / basic physics / life or whatever - that' not necessarily true (the same with language maybe) - people do spawn characters who can't communicate, who are from another world, or some other excuse for not grasping basic cultural concepts.

As for political / religious concepts - it annoys me how much we import these from the real world - I've yet to see a truly unique political system in Cantr that doesn't reflect something from the World around us...

[Doug R.]

90% of the players, myself included, reject backstories, and assume those with them are insane. As I said previously, I'm 75% sure that they were discussed previously on the forum and determined by the Powers that Be that they are Wrong.

[Russell of Los Angeles]

In regards to culture / basic physics / life or whatever - that' not necessarily true (the same with language maybe) - people do spawn characters who can't communicate, who are from another world, or some other excuse for not grasping basic cultural concepts.

As I already admited in the starting post, there are exceptions. Some players create characters that don't know how to speak. Others create characters that do not recognize any meaning in a smile, handshake, or bow. However, I think it is impossible to do away with all of the language, culture, knowledge of basic facts about the world, and motives. The character would be just a dumb blob that doesn't recognize anything meaningful, have nothing meaningful to express, and even if it did have something to express it would be unable to express it in a meaningful way.

As for political / religious concepts - it annoys me how much we import these from the real world - I've yet to see a truly unique political system in Cantr that doesn't reflect something from the World around us...

Yes. It's interesting just how bound up our political and religious ideas are with our understanding of the world. There will never be a tribe of Cantrians who have no concept of, say for example, property rights, because the players are all modern people with modern concepts.

We're all basically playing ourselves, feigning ignorance.

[Russell of Los Angeles]

...
Personally, I call that "low-level knowledge"; knowledghe that gets shared in what could be the character's subconsciousness, of which it can safely be assumed that it is something which the character has natural access to.
(Instincts, feelings, the curiosity which drives a char to read notes and try things when nobody else is looking, seeing others manufacture items...)
In fact, today I saw a character mention how she was learning from watching others, which I found an interesting way of playing.

Yeah, "subconsciousness" is a good way of putting it. It's a better name than "Category The First". And it seems to be what I was getting at. A character's subconsciousness knowledge has to come from the player directly. The process of developing the subconsciousness based on exposure to the Cantr world may be skipped.

By the way, I'm chuckling at your example of the bagh-nakh - most of my chars know what they are, what they look like... but I only found out a few days ago when I just couldn't take it anymore and started googling for it.

I used bagh-nakh particularly because you mentioned it in another thread. None of my characters or I have ever seen one, but it seemed like a fitting example. Thanks.