Families, birth, pregnancies - generations

[Solutions Maximus]

Just out of curiosity, how long would this take, approximately. I'm not much of a programmer, but it seems like this might be a pretty major thing to program.

[Sho]

ProgD has been working on it for years. How far they've gotten, I have no idea.

[Solutions Maximus]

Aww... how endearing! *Hugs the ProgD*

[SekoETC]

lol When RD got access to ProgD forums, I saw the Babies topic there and it had a tag that says "BB", and I was like "cool, they have their own tag for Baby Broject". A bit later I realized that project starts with P instead of B. And then I checked the list of tags and BB stands for BackBurner. So I assume that means people can think about it if they got time and interest, but it's not done very actively.

[Arlequin]

Mmh, if something like babies played by players would be implemented, I'd suggest some sort of chat scrambling for them so we don't see 1 year olds with 'baby herman' syndrome.*

But actually I'd prefer something automatic till the 13 y.o., then a player takes the spot for the next years, while their skills and strength raise to their genetic values. A character with zero cooking skill will need assistance to survive unless there's enough food around for a stray child.

*see 'Who framed Roger Rabbit'

[Sicofonte]

Yes!



PS: xDDDDD, Baby Herman

[sanchez]

Institutionalising these family relationships seems a sad way of forcing other people to play with you, and it's just wrong, imo. The proposals for mechanising slavery are very similar (and you can just rp that). And if the children must be weaker and subservient, they are like pets. Wholly discounting those who simply want to rp more infantilism, can't people just try a bit more creatively instead to get competent consenting players to want to rp with you?

[wichita]

It doesn't have to be seen as institutionalizing it, just because there is a mechanic for it. The nature of the family can be left completely to the imagination and cooperation of the players.


Family A: tight knit, youngers respect elders, Clan tradition is the final authority and allegiance is demanded

Family B: father and mother are just the people that come together to spawn Cantrians, the kids are free to do as they please and are pretty much expected to murder there parents in a act of liberating rebellion and take all of their stuff as a spawnright


I am pretty sure which direction the current player base will run with it if implemented....

[sanchez]

I am against entailing gender roles in the process as well.

Why aren't more clans/tribes successful already, like TBR or the MacGregors?
Will this really help?

[Kreed]

In reality people dont have to be "persuaded" to "join" a clan or family system, they already belong to them and have the name of them from birth.
Heh, havent you heard of the institution of the family. In fact I'd go so far as to say expecting these sort of family structures to grow without some form of institutionalisation of the process is rather like expecting criminals to turn up to prision without the law forcing them too.
I'm all for free will but some things we have no choice over, the fact that we are born to parents is one of em.

[sanchez]

It's the diversity of social institutions that makes Cantr interesting. Mechanising a subset of relationships is counter to that. Imagine being assigned to a religion or governement...

[the_antisocial_hermit]

Not having a subset of relationships goes against the game's attempts (and original purpose?) at being a society simulator (not that it will ever be a true one). Blood is thicker than water and there are some dynamics that will never be acheived otherwise. It doesn't mean that Cantr will lose the social institutions you find so interesting; it just means it will have another set of social institutions that can be observed.

And we are essentially assigned to a religion or government in real life. We're born under the government we're born under and live under it for a chunk of our lives, and many families force a religion upon their children. It doesn't mean we can't change as we get older and decide we don't like those impositions we've had for years.

[SekoETC]

Last night I started thinking that since the novelty of having sex fades off soon after the beginning of a relationship, we could do so that two characters of the opposite can choose to form a link, which makes the game assume they are having sex somewhat regularly.

The game could then check (daily or hourly) if they're in the same room/outside location/on a road within close range (maybe being alone would be a requirement as well), roll an imaginary dice for wether they're on the mood, if yes then there would be a high chance of getting pregnant. There would be no events because having sex would be assumed to be a common activity, like dropping a poop.

It would be possible to form links like this with several people but then the father could only be assumed based on the traits of the child.

[sanchez]

Perhaps sex could maintain its interest for you longer if you don't presuppose a procreative act.

Does this topic get to devolve into a debate on gay marriage?

[Arlequin]

So, here is my doubt:

With the current system, two characters decide that the next cantrian that spawns is their 'child'... they offer him (her) a home and a family in hope he accepts them. The newspawn can obviously rebellate and deny their parenthood, either by RP or because the player doesn't agree on being born from those parents (well, lets say cantrian adolescency happens at 20 y.o.)...

Since there isn't 'parents' and 'childs' actually implemented (just a misterious flowers-and-bees method for transferring genes), would be roleplaying the above against any rule?

If it isn't, I'm happy enough with the current system.