Cantr II Discussion Forum

Two men just left Kirinn forest. While they were there, they started identical projects within seconds of each other, and were awake at the same times. They spoke the same way, had the same equipment (alright... none) and they were even named similarly. I may be over cautious, but it made me wonder.

Maybe he has two Characters in the same place. Is that a CR breach to have more then 1 Character in the same place?

No, but they can't automatically know each other. They have to had met in game.

The guy didn't say that they knew each other. Merely that they acted in a similar fashion, which is not, to my understanding, a breach. Then again, the PD likes to change the rule periodically, without notice, and tell us that's how it's always been, and convince us we're wrong. (doublethink, anyone?)

The rules themselves don't change, since the only actual rule in Cantr is the Capital Rule. What is left to debate, measure of enforcement, etc., in the PD is the interpretation and application of the CR.

We try to take whatever stance will seemingly best protect the integrity of the simulation (which is the purpose of the CR), without hindering roleplay flexibility, since doing so would also taint the simulation. In instances where these two goals conflict, we weigh out which one has the least harm on the simulation.

Also, how strongly we enforce something is usually on a player by player basis. We tend to start by saying something that would taint the simulation should be avoided, but can be done if the IC situation requires it to preserve the char's nature, etc. When a particular players or players are found after investigation to be fluanting the guideline for non-roleplay purposes, then the guidleline(s) can become actual rules that the player can't break for any reason.

The purpose of this is to allow players who don't abuse the guidelines the flexibility and trust to judge on their own when something is or isn't appropriate IC, while making it more clear and offering consequences to players who strive to have an illigitimate advantage over everyone else.

This may be confusing at times, because a player may post that something isn't allowed, because he or she was told that he or she can't do that thing. But, that thing may be something that players overall are trusted to attempt to avoid on their own and only do when they feel it would actually taint the simulation more to not do it.

I know some players have said they'd like an official list of all the rules to be listed, for clarity and ease. This would also make things easier for the PD, because we could simply put a long list of very clear rules and then chase people around with hammers when they don't follow them and not have to spend time investigating or asking players about the specific situations of their chars and then analysing those situations. However, a long list of explitic rules would be counterproductive, because the rules wouldn't actually keep the simulation pure in every situation.

What we could do though, is present some pretend scenarios, and players could offer suggestions for how the player of the pretend chars might handle the situation. The PD could offer insight on how well the suggestions might actually play out, based on the experience gained from seeing cases with such a situation. Also, it might let us see some general misconceptions about how the CR is applied, etc. The discussions might help players think of solutions they might not have otherwise, and might help the PD think of how to better communicate our interpretations to reduce confusion, etc.