*between the asterisks*

[Torch]

I'll go along with the creative writing analogy.

The style of writing that assumes the least effort, creativity and/or ability to interpret from the reader is the omniscient. Most good adult stories are written third-person single point-of-view, not an omniscient one. Sure, there are exceptions, but not many overall.

So given the creative writing point of view of choice is third-person non-omniscient, give some of us enough credit to know that when you frown something's up. (No, not always sadness either, you might be thinking intently on something, hurt, etc.) Let my character interact by asking what's wrong. Let your character interact by telling me. That builds up a much more believable character than forced omniscience. And if I perform some action and nobody asks, then maybe I might have to face the possibility that my character is just not that interesting to the others, and nobody cares.

Forced omniscience to me is sometimes a sign of not thinking about what others would really see. Other times, and in my opinion from most of the vocal people defending it, it's a case of "Look how cool and complex I am, and let me take away any thought and interpretation on your part so you're well aware of that" as was alluded to earlier.

[Lauren]

I know I asked about this earlier, but anyway.

I tend to allude to sadness more than anything other. I believe that the useage of adverbs is also essential to the emotes. Example:

*she smiles happily* or, *he sobs miserably, pounding his fists on the door*

In both instances, you can smile or sob in different ways. She could be smiling while putting on a brave face, or smiling rougishly as if in the face of danger. He could be falsely crying. You don't know these things in game because there aren't any facial expressions that you can "see" and read that way. However, knowing them is essential to getting the mood of what is being said or done.

[The Industriallist]

I would say that however you deliver the knowledge, whether it's through in-game telepathic emotes or forum posts, any actual knowledge of the inside of a characters mind is OOC information, which shouldn't be used IC at all. Playing 'better' with a character because you know their feelings and thoughts isn't playing better, it's collaborative fiction, which is totally different from Cantr.

Your character's treatment of another character should be based only on what the character can understand about them. Any deeper understanding the player has has to be kept out of the character's behavior.

I know I asked about this earlier, but anyway.

I tend to allude to sadness more than anything other. I believe that the useage of adverbs is also essential to the emotes. Example:

*she smiles happily* or, *he sobs miserably, pounding his fists on the door*

In both instances, you can smile or sob in different ways. She could be smiling while putting on a brave face, or smiling rougishly as if in the face of danger. He could be falsely crying. You don't know these things in game because there aren't any facial expressions that you can "see" and read that way. However, knowing them is essential to getting the mood of what is being said or done.

I do sometimes use emotional edjectives as well. I do it because I don't know any other way to describe the nuances of an expression...so the adjective is intended to describe the appearance better than words allow. Just *smiles*ing does leave things a bit unclear.

I would note that it doesn't have to mean anything accurate about the state of mind, though. *smiles happily* could mean simply that the character is sucessfully faking a happy smile, while actually miserable, or furious (though obviously, doing this often wouldn't be very realistic for most characters).

[Songthrush]

I suggest that even the following rather blunt form, which you've been criticizing:

*smiles happily, even while her heart is rend apart by sordid passions beyond mortal control.*

... is appreciably better at the important thing, namely conveying an interesting character into the gameplay, compared to the formal, castrated variant:

*smiles happily*

... from which we are expected to deduce the inner states of your character. I think it is necessary to first demonstrate that your character HAS any inner states to begin with, which the shortsighted pseudo-realistic form completely fails to do.

[Coramon]

I beg to differ. Your castrated variant is much more exciting, it is actually nice to be able to infer what another character is thinking. Like IRL. The Pseudo Realistic form obviously fails to do that, and for good reason. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't know any people who instinctually know what I'm thinking.

[Songthrush]

I already explained that no telepathy of any kind s involved in describing with exactitude and candor what your character feels or thinks. This is a message for other players, not their characters.

This is an example of the misguided "realism craze" that many players buy into unconsciously. They think that a pedantic dedication to "realistic" mechanics in their character's actual interaction with others in the Cantr world guarantees engrossing gameplay. Nothing could be further from the truth, though.

[Coramon]

If its not a message for the characters, then it should be labeled OOC, if it isn't it is obviously a message for the characters and therefore subject to the telepathy argument.

[Songthrush]

OOC stands for "Out of Character". The messages between the stars, though directed at the player, are NOT out of character. I guess that misunderstanding is the chief reason why you're up on the barricades against the idea of thoughts and feelings in starred descriptions, a technique that has some very clever uses and users in Cantr.

[Coramon]

Communicating movement is certaintly not out of character however communicating thoughts obviously is. There actually is, in my opinion a huge difference between motions and emotions.

[The Lurker]

I guess now is as appropriate as any time to step in and trot out a tired old phase: "Can't we just agree to disagree?"

[The Industriallist]

I guess now is as appropriate as any time to step in and trot out a tired old phase: "Can't we just agree to disagree?"

You mean peaceably? Why would anyone want to do that?

... from which we are expected to deduce the inner states of your character. I think it is necessary to first demonstrate that your character HAS any inner states to begin with, which the shortsighted pseudo-realistic form completely fails to do.

IRL, either you do or you don't communicate your inner state, with purely physical signals. Why, by any means, should cantr be different? If an inner state isn't being communicated successfully by the character's material behavior, it shouldn't be communicated at all.

Also, I would argue that your example, and others like it, only actually demonstrate an ability to write dramatized prose. Whether the character actually has an internal state is still entirely open to question.

OOC stands for "Out of Character". The messages between the stars, though directed at the player, are NOT out of character. I guess that misunderstanding is the chief reason why you're up on the barricades against the idea of thoughts and feelings in starred descriptions, a technique that has some very clever uses and users in Cantr.

Out of character means anything that isn't occuring in the world which characters live in and perceive. These thoughts are, you say, directed at the unfortunate player who has to read them. The fact that they presumably represent your character's thoughts doesn't change that they are entirely outside the relm of cantian perception. What's the difference between:
*continues with his work, showing no sign of his utter loathing*
and:
OOC: My character really, really hates that guy.

As best I can see, the only real difference is nearly everyone would think that the second is a pointless, annoying thing to say, while some people defend the first.

[Songthrush]

Let's not get into "cantrian perception" and cantrial epistemology here. That's not at all the question I ask myself when I log in my account. I instead ask, how can I make my character more real, more interesting, more true in an extatic sense?

That is what defines gameplay in Cantr, not arbitrary epistemological assumptions of the sort you gave.

Just as I described, there is a considerable difference between realistic game mechanics (in my opionion, an useless and meaningless thing in Cantr) and good gameplay.

"Realistic" just doesn't cut it.

[Torch]

I instead ask, how can I make my character more real, more interesting, more true in an extatic sense?

I agree with this, and thanks for saying it that way. I think this is the actual point we're all differing on.

You feel it's "more real, interesting, and true" to share your thoughts in some attempt to broaden understanding of your characters.

I feel it's unreal and less interesting, as I'd much rather have another character make a face, curse, and toss down his hammer with no out of character (in my opinion) telecast of his thoughts or emotions. Should my character care about the person or be interested for any reason, that character would ask "What's wrong?", or make an assumption on recent events (right or wrong, either would lead to good interaction) and actually RP the situation out. I'll actually get a much better three-dimensionality of the other character, and they mine, if we truly interact instead of them force-feeding me their feeelings.

Possibly the problem is that enough people don't RP well enough to respond to these things when they should, so people feel the need to express it off the bat instead of playing it as it would, in a real and true interaction. To me it's just a way to say "Hey, look at me!"

As characters, mine must be completely confused by the strange interactions that mean nothing to them, if they're meant solely for the players. As a player, I'm annoyed that people don't actually allow me to play, but instead want me to read what they've so craftily devised. For that I'll read books, here I'd rather interact with you, form relationships between the characters, and decide for myself if my character would really even notice somebody throwing a tantrum, staring out across the horizon for hours frowning, or whatever.

It's like the lawyer trick, where something is introduced into evidence that they know will be tossed out. Then some judge instructs twelve humans to totally disregard what they've just seen or heard and not use it in their decision making. For most people that's nearly impossible, and the lawyer knows that, which is why it's force-fed in the first place, even knowing it shouldn't. It's easy to say "ignore that if you don't like it" because people know it's improbable most players will be able to. Even if they try to, it will likely affect their future perceptions of that character.

[Lumin]

*continues with his work, showing no sign of his utter loathing*

See, this doesn't make any sense to me. If he's showing absolutely no signs, why mention it in the first place? I mean, it's neat that you have a character with such complete control of his emotions, but why do you have to spoil it by letting everyone know exactly what's going on in his head? Save that for when you finally have enough and give them a piece of your mind, or as a surprise for when they pry your diary out of your cold, dead hands.

Besides that, it just seems kind of unfair to expect the other players to continue having their chars act as though they're utterly oblivious. It's the equivalent of *smiles happily* and then sending and OOC message of 'I just absolutely hate your character!'

Or what if the example had been something closer: *continues with his work, showing no sign of the murderous plot forming inside his heart*

The other characters should just ignore that? Hand him a weapon and the keys to a building, maybe? Or confront that person and then get called CR breachers or bad RPers?

Me, I would have gone with:
*continues working at a careful, even pace, keeping his face utterly expressionless*

There's enough there for other characters to guess that something's going on, but it leaves it up to them whether they pursue it further or even notice it at all.

"What's wrong, Bob?"

*there is a pause before he responds, and when he does he seems to gaze at a point right past the shoulder of the man he's speaking to* Hmm? Oh, nothing. I'm fine. *without a word he goes back to his work*

[Songthrush]

The "artistic" approach didn't work or was applied poorly in this case. But so what? The error here is that just because it did not work in this case, it should be summarily banished into the hall of RP shame.

I hate "realism" zealotry (attempts to put mechanics over substance), because it constantly results in the baby being chucked together with the bathwater.