Families; revisted and simplified

[kinvoya]

DELGRAD, do you understand what nonsexual reproduction means? Cantrians do not need to have sex to reproduce. No penises or vaginas involved. Get over it.

[N-Aldwitch]

DELGRAD, do you understand what nonsexual reproduction means? Cantrians do not need to have sex to reproduce. No penises or vaginas involved. Get over it.

Precisely.

[formerly known as hf]

I have never liked the idea of children in Cantr, I've always seen it as just too messy an issue.

It would just have to be made very clear that it is asexual and random. I wouldn't want a slander in my Cantr lesbian coven (you're not invited)

The RP around whether or not there is any bond percieved, any duty to the spawn or any relationship between the 'parents' would hopefully lead to some interesting cultural differences.
(Here's hoping it doesn't just develop a universal reaction such as the sleeping sickness)

[Chris Johnson]

The RP around whether or not there is any bond percieved, any duty to the spawn or any relationship between the 'parents' would hopefully lead to some interesting cultural differences.

After a two hour commute I've given this more thought and agree with this as well - I'd actually propose that we don't mention specific parenthood but just state that person x and person y look similar to you

It allows people to develop their own concept of relationship - these people could be mother, father, brother , sister , great uncle , cousin aunty ,clone, fellow tribal person or just another person with red hair .

Whilst watering down the initial proposal it becomes a more neutral
method and doesn't force RP in one direction or another and potentially allows development of more interesting social relationships.

[kinvoya]

I understand what you mean here, Chris, but I don't care for bringing in the appearances of the characters. I suggest using 'related to,' 'kin to' or 'kinfolk of.' Kinfolk is my favorite. It has that old-fashioned quality.

Then there is the question of who would receive this information:

Everyone outside?
Just the newspawn?
Just the kinfolk?
Just the newspawn and the kinfolk?

Examples:

Announced to the town: You see a woman in her twenties you haven't seen before. She is related to George and Betsy.

Announced privately to newspawn: a woman in her thirties and a woman in her fifties are your kin.

Announced privately to an existing char: Pete, you are one of the kinfolk of a woman in her twenties.
or
Pete, you and Steve are the kinfolk of a woman in her twenties.

[formerly known as hf]

Kin also has rl connotations of responsibility and relations that parents does.

One way of doing it would just be to spell out the mechanics of the process.
- Your genes were recieved from person x and person y.
- Genes from person x and yourself were recieved by person y

(Could use 'inherit', but that has connotations too)

This doesn't imply the spawn was a result of any particular action. nor does it necessarily imply that the spawn has any relationship with the gene-providers. nor does it imply any relationship between the gene providers.

That'd be down to the RP of those involved.

[Sicofonte]

People need to understand (or to think that s/he understand) the reality. If not, we complaint against it.

So, let's explain to all Cantr CHARACTERS (and players) how the newspawning works... in a RL context, not just the implementation.

¿Has anyone played Wraith The Oblivion?


I'll suggest this:

When a person SPAWNS in the world (Cantr), s/he appears in the ground, crouched in fetal position, nude, usually confused. His or her flesh and blood comes from two nearby people in a misterious way, inheriting some of their characteristics.




This way, no more "I don't want my characters being the parents of anyone". Just because no characters are the parents of anyone. It is something different, no sex, no paternity.

No parents, just... spowners?

[Doug R.]

Sanchez's suggestion is by far the best so far. One named parent, and people can role-play it any way they want.

Chris, the ambiguity of your suggestion leaves things wide open for OOC (mis)interpretation.

[UloDeTero]

No no no no no.

Cantr is supposed to be a society-simulation, mixed with an entertaining roleplaying game. In other words, it's meant to be like the real world. Like it, but different enough to be entertaining. But not so different as to alienate new players who don't understand the differences.

The whole point behind spawning is that it simply simulates the creation of new beings. It makes no sense to keep this the same if a better solution can be found, therefore comments like "Well, this is the way it is. Why change it?" make no logical sense to me. Yes, this is the way Cantr is, because there is currently no better way.

Added to this, it seems crazy to me to suggest all kinds of embellishments to the current system which only serve to weirdify it. What's the point of introducing parentage, but then say that the parents don't need to be different genders, don't need to be in a relationship, and don't even need to know each other? Given this kind of logic, why limit it to two parents? Because it's realistic? Then it's the only thing that is!

In my opinion, these suggestions offer just enough reassuring realism to make things unrealistic and weird.

On the other hand, there are players who want to see their characters have 'real' offspring, both as a feature of romantic relationships and as a foundation of ancestry. I believe we can do that if we put our minds to it.

-----------------------------------
Edited to add:
How about this?:
- A male and a female character somehow 'register' a sexual relationship (perhaps by a special button or something. This would be 'registration' purely in terms of coding, not some kind of standardised IG marriage)
- They must be over 40
- Newspawns result from this, using their genes, at 20 as usual.
- The newspawn is declared to the parents as their child and is notified of his parents.

This negates the whole baby thing, but retains the other stuff. The age limit solves the problem of 20 year olds having 20 year old children.

[Nick]

The RP around whether or not there is any bond percieved, any duty to the spawn or any relationship between the 'parents' would hopefully lead to some interesting cultural differences.

After a two hour commute I've given this more thought and agree with this as well - I'd actually propose that we don't mention specific parenthood but just state that person x and person y look similar to you

It allows people to develop their own concept of relationship - these people could be mother, father, brother , sister , great uncle , cousin aunty ,clone, fellow tribal person or just another person with red hair .

Whilst watering down the initial proposal it becomes a more neutral
method and doesn't force RP in one direction or another and potentially allows development of more interesting social relationships.

I think I'm in favor of the generic terming idea as well.

While just announcing one parent would be great, I just dislike how it inconveniently leaves out the other parent; who will, in game terms, still have a role in what the spawn's genes are.

Also, only having one parent will eliminate families intermixing. I think that's an aspect of real life bloodlines that is too important to leave out.

[SekoETC]

Fail.

[SekoETC]

Fail. FAIL. Compromises aren't going to make anyone happy. If you aren't going to accept that Cantrians are humans then you're just gotta continue adopting newspawns.

[kinvoya]

Cantrians are human-like but not human. They spawn (are not born) fully functional at age 20. If I can accept that then it's just as easy to accept that they have specific genetic relatives from whom they derive traits.

There are several other physical characteristics which make them different from humans as well. They don't change with age. There is no difference in size or strength between males and females. They can heal simply by eating special foods. I'm sure there are more.

[Black Canyon]

Hmmm.....

I think this idea might have some potential. Although it definitely requires some adjustment in thinking, it could be some variation of this that just might work. I must say that I prefer two identified instead of one.
However, I also kind of like the idea of signing up for the possibility of producing a newspawn "kin." This might be a way to make those who want no part of it happy. Hmm... but then would newspawns only arrive in location swith willing relatives? Or would we have some newspawns "unparented" or at least mystery-spawned? There is still the potential for some very interesting role-play either way.

It actually seems simple enough to implement. And I'm not sure which way yet I prefer. But....... interesting.

[Sicofonte]

Cantr it's meant to be like the real world. Like it, but different enough to be entertaining. But not so different as to alienate new players who don't understand the differences.

It makes no sense to keep this the same if a better solution can be found, therefore comments like "Well, this is the way it is. Why change it?" make no logical sense to me.

What's the point of introducing parentage, but then say that the parents don't need to be different genders, don't need to be in a relationship, and don't even need to know each other? Given this kind of logic, why limit it to two parents? Because it's realistic? Then it's the only thing that is!

In my opinion, these suggestions offer just enough reassuring realism to make things unrealistic and weird.

On the other hand, there are players who want to see their characters have 'real' offspring, both as a feature of romantic relationships and as a foundation of ancestry. I believe we can do that if we put our minds to it.

Amen.

This negates the whole baby thing, but retains the other stuff. The age limit solves the problem of 20 year olds having 20 year old children.

No way, populated places without old chars should be able to spawn new characters. We can't forget that the people subscribe and accout / create a new character when they want, not when others palyers decided yo have a child.