*between the asterisks*

[Torch]

I think the problem though, Songthrush, is that for some of us there is no example that's going to be acceptable, since they convey things the character wouldn't see. Personally I want no information my character wouldn't get from observation. For you, there are many, likely including the one mentioned contrary to your last comment, that are fine or actually better than the simple observations that go no deeper than third-person point of view.

This is likely the point where we must agree to disagree, at least as far as I'm concerned, and that's cool too.

As for the zealots, I don't see anybody throwing anything out. Most people on both sides of the issue have stated they try to meet in the middle. I see no bathwater nor a baby being thrown anywhere, just a few people stating their opinions who don't happen to agree with you on the concept, let alone how "well" the OOC (IMNSHO) information is given. Usually that word gets brought up by one side when referring to people from the other side who simply believe the opposite as strongly.

[The Industriallist]

Lumin, I agree with that entirely...though I would make the quibble that

*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*

The underlined portion is insignificant in cantr, where a perfectly ordinary conversation may have day-long breaks in it. Unless there's some sort of action to indicate the start of the pause, no one would notice.

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

Well, I'm afraid in the sense you mean I'm an absolute realism zealot. As far as I'm concerned, the entire point of cantr is the mechanics. They are the substance of the game, the rest of it is the play. Soften the mechanics, and cantr no longer has anything to recommend it.

And I don't know what that thing in the bath-water is, but I'm quite confident it ought to go out...

Added:
I did know the example I was creating was lousy, but I didn't want to combine a gesture with the OOC comment. How about the difference between...

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

And
"*smiles happily*" followed by "OOC: my character is really sad, but is covering it up."?

[Songthrush]

I feel there is a significant difference. In the one case you are giving a literate presentation for other players that does not disrupt the game flow, and allows everyone to remain in their roles. In the "OOC:" case you're breaking the whole illusionary fabric of the game to inform somebody about something.

Literature, you must agree, is not information. The task of the literate roleplayer is to engage the other players emotions, making a character REAL in an important sense - not "realistic" as a simulant (What are we simulating?), but REAL as a quality of the character's inner being that's resonant with the player's. This will never occur as long as their emotions are represented mechanical AOL-style emotes or "actions".

I realize completely that I am describing a level of roleplay that most might not have experienced yet in Cantr. I've met only a few such characters myself, but they make the whole game worthwhile.

There is an ingrained illusion implicit in the machine age which we inhabit. It really does appear to the casual and undiscerning observer that if only everyone did their job and functioned as intended, then society on the whole would somehow acquire an elated efficiency that would then lead to a higher purpose and meaning.

I only bring it up because it's the same with your vision of Cantr as a "society". If only everybody roleplayed and emoted, and respected some arbitrary set of shared epistemological assumptions, Cantr would all of a sudden blossom into something interesting and meaningful on the whole.

But you're mistaken. That experiment with so-called "emergent structures" leads absolutely nowhere. A machine, a mechanism (even a very efficient and sound one) is a completely meaningless thing. By which I mean it represents nothing of lasting value to persons possesessed of properly refined senses.

I am a character. I feel that my Cantr characters are valuable to me to the extent that they allow me to disassociate in interesting ways from that character whom I play in real life. This is not escapism. It's looking inward through an interesting lens. My Cantr character mean nothing to me as participants of a mechanical contraption intended to crudely simulate self-organizing societies, because I see plain as day that there is no society of the scientifically interesting kind in Cantr. I say scientifically interesting with my tongue firmly in cheek, because a society is really an awfully boring machine whose only redeeming quality is that it sometimes accidentally produces (makes possible) very interesting types of waste- in the form of individuals who are variously called "geniuses" or "saints", etc. In our game they are usually called "good roleplayers", though even here there are those who disagree and think that good roleplaying is being a good cog for the machine.

Whether this lack of "society" in the game in the scholarly sense is good or bad, I don't know, that depends on one's goals. My goal in life has never been to "become a member of society and to have a function". Just as the "goal" of poetry is not to really to "rhyme in an entertaining and memorable way", but to make possible in the reader an authentic emotional awakening and rapture...

[Lumin]

Literature, you must agree, is not information. The task of the literate roleplayer is to engage the other players emotions. This will never occur as long as their emotions are represented mechanical AOL-style emotes or "actions".

Well, then why are you even playing? You can put every single thought that flits across a character's mind between astericks, and they're still considered and emote, even if I'd personally consider then poor ones and make an effort to avoid that character from then on.

Have you never managed to cause another person to feel an emotion in real life? Are you close to your family? Parents, siblings, spouse, kids? But how do you manage to care about them so deeply? Why do they care about you. No telepathy involved there, just words, body language, and actions. If you ever get mad at them but manage to keep yourself under control, they'll never know. (Unless you make a habit to say things like, "By the way, I'm furiously angry right now, even if my face isn't showing it.")

Which is precisely why I don't understand what you have against 'realism'. You can't get any deeper than real life, in terms of emotion or otherwise. Reality should be what every serious roleplayer strives for during those 200 minutes when they disassociate from themselves and take on the persona of the character.

When you're seeing from your characters' eyes, that's great, that's wonderful. It's a fun, liberating experience for you, and the things you do contribute to everyone else's fun, liberating experiences.

But the thing is, no matter how enthralled a person is by what they're seeing or thinking through their characters' point of view is, I don't like it when they try to force their inner thoughts on me. It's just intrusive, and when I come across someone who constantly does that it's all I can do to keep from leaving town or outright killing them so that I can be left in peace to enjoy the experience of playing my character without having someone else's thoughts drilled into my brain.

I realize you probably feel just as strongly about your position as I do about mine, but I will never except thought-projection as anything other than lazy roleplay by people who can't be bothered to SHOW their character's emotions. In literature that's called 'exposition', often referred to as an 'infodump', and neither one of those terms are considered a good thing. And in Cantr and other roleplaying enviroments I've found they're often ridiculously overwrought and just plain poor writing, no matter how you feel about the RP style itself.

Also, there's the fact that whenever a character near me comes down with a few too many sudden paragraph-long bouts of telepathy I can't shake the mental image of some damn teenager sitting at their computer all dressed in black and trying to get across how deep and intense they are, and such a great writer! Then I wonder how many angsty poems about suicide they have sitting on their hard drive.

If only everybody roleplayed and emoted, and respected some arbitrary set of shared epistemological assumptions, Cantr would all of a sudden blossom into something interesting and meaningful on the whole.

Well, I agree with that much, at least. Yes, I'd love it if only everyone roleplayed and emoted, but I certainly don't want everyone to only roleplay and emote, though I get the impression some of the people here would like that.

If Cantr ever went to far I'd suggest Jos just shut down the game itself to save money, and then everyone can roleplay and emote all they want on the forum, not to mention right collaborative fiction to their hearts' content...but I of course won't be here.

[The Industriallist]

I feel there is a significant difference. In the one case you are giving a literate presentation for other players that does not disrupt the game flow, and allows everyone to remain in their roles. In the "OOC:" case you're breaking the whole illusionary fabric of the game to inform somebody about something.

There is a minor stylistic difference, but you're still breaking the 'fabric of the game' by injecting this type of material. Look, for a moment, at the actual content of the two. They both, according to you, communicate the same things to the same people. It isn't the big letters that make 'OOC:' annoying, it's that someone is ramming messages to the players into the gamespace.

Literature, you must agree, is not information. The task of the literate roleplayer is to engage the other players emotions, making a character REAL in an important sense - not "realistic" as a simulant (What are we simulating?), but REAL as a quality of the character's inner being that's resonant with the player's. This will never occur as long as their emotions are represented mechanical AOL-style emotes or "actions".

Yes, I agree that there is a difference between literature and information. But if I want literature...or even good storytelling...I'll go read something by a professional author. I wouldn't come to the mixed bag of random people that populate cantr.

I realize completely that I am describing a level of roleplay that most might not have experienced yet in Cantr. I've met only a few such characters myself, but they make the whole game worthwhile.

Or completely worthless. It all depends where you're coming from, apparently.

There is an ingrained illusion implicit in the machine age which we inhabit. It really does appear to the casual and undiscerning observer that if only everyone did their job and functioned as intended, then society on the whole would somehow acquire an elated efficiency that would then lead to a higher purpose and meaning.

I guess I'm not a casual observer, then. I never thought that efficient economics, or whatever you mean, led to 'higher purpose and meaning'. I'm not convinced that any such thing even has the logical validity to exist.

That's getting a bit off topic, I guess...

I only bring it up because it's the same with your vision of Cantr as a "society". If only everybody roleplayed and emoted, and respected some arbitrary set of shared epistemological assumptions, Cantr would all of a sudden blossom into something interesting and meaningful on the whole.

You have this assumption in your mind that one needs, or even wants, something 'interesting and meaningful' to blossom out of cantr. As far as I'm concerned, cantr being taken as the virtual world it's designed to be is something interesting and meaningful in it's own right.

But you're mistaken. That experiment with so-called "emergent structures" leads absolutely nowhere. A machine, a mechanism (even a very efficient and sound one) is a completely meaningless thing. By which I mean it represents nothing of lasting value to persons possesessed of properly refined senses.

That's entirely a matter of opinion. I don't think I can even try to convince you that you are completely wrong here. However, as a random swing...unless you think there's some power directing the course of life on earth, you are an emergent structure. The world as we know it is an emergent structure. Is it without 'lasting value'?

As far as I'm concerned, you couldn't be more mistaken about what is interesting.

I am a character. I feel that my Cantr characters are valuable to me to the extent that they allow me to disassociate in interesting ways from that character whom I play in real life. This is not escapism. It's looking inward through an interesting lens. My Cantr character mean nothing to me as participants of a mechanical contraption intended to crudely simulate self-organizing societies, because I see plain as day that there is no society of the scientifically interesting kind in Cantr. I say scientifically interesting with my tongue firmly in cheek, because a society is really an awfully boring machine whose only redeeming quality is that it sometimes accidentally produces (makes possible) very interesting types of waste- in the form of individuals who are variously called "geniuses" or "saints", etc. In our game they are usually called "good roleplayers", though even here there are those who disagree and think that good roleplaying is being a good cog for the machine.

Good roleplaying is not being a good cog for the in-game machine...Some people have this odd notion that it's "good roleplay" to immediately ram themselves into whatever societal position seems open, which is just silly. Good roleplay is playing the characters as independant, thinking entities, within the world the game engine provides. That is their role...so play it. Whether their thought-style comes from some odd fragment of your mind, or primarily from someone elses fictional character, or from some program you manage to write doesn't really matter.

You do seem to be confusing the notion of following the game engine mechanistically with the idea of being a good little communistic peasant in some Cantrian leader's manufacturing plant. These are entirely different things. Cantr may need a few 'good little cogs' who just want someone to lead them and give them something to do, but it certainly doesn't need everyone to be like that. What it needs is characters who live inside the world, with motivations inside the world.

Side note...could someone please explain what an extatic sense is?

I'm afraid this is coming down to axioms of worth at this point... If so, the only really interesting thing left to hear is what is 'right' from the perspective of the highest cantr sources.

[Lumin]

I'm afraid this is coming down to axioms of worth at this point... If so, the only really interesting thing left to hear is what is 'right' from the perspective of the highest cantr sources.

Actually, it would be interesting to see what Jos' take on the issue is. I could have sworn I remembered him posting in a thread similar to this once, but I don't remember what it was called.

[Torch]

I feel there is a significant difference. In the one case you are giving a literate presentation for other players that does not disrupt the game flow,

in your opinion...

and allows everyone to remain in their roles.

again, in your opinion...

In the "OOC:" case you're breaking the whole illusionary fabric of the game to inform somebody about something.

That's what I'm trying to say. To you, the first doesn't break character. To me, and some others, it does, so we'll never agree on this topic. To me there's no difference between emotions and thoughts between the *'s and simply saying OOC: I feel, or I think, or whatever. To you they're different.

That's where the true disagreement lies, it seems. Nobody here from either viewpoint wants to break character, we just differ on what we think actually does break it.

[Songthrush]

Why would it matter what Jos Elklink's opinion on this question might be?

My point is more that one may want to break both the mechanics of the game and all the roleplaying conventions you've listed of which they are a part, if that allows for the brief manifestation of "extatic truth" in your characters.

Ecstatic truthfulness is an expression I picked up from the famous film director Werner Herzog.

W.Herzog: "There are deeper strata of truth in cinema, and there is such a thing as poetic, ecstatic truth. It is mysterious and elusive, and can be reached only through fabrication and imagination and stylization."

I recommend watching one of his fascinating and unconventional films, if you're interested in experiencing this concept "first hand" as it were, rather than reading somebody's dubious explanations. "Stroszek" (1977) is what I'd watch with you in my basement over a cool drink.

Another way would be to meet Cantr saints and geniuses, as I have!

[Lauren]

Agreeing to disagree would be the best option from now on.

Using OOC information and emotes irritates different people in different ways. Personally, I don't really care. I don't see what makes it such a big deal; you're going to encounter people that RP differently than you. That's what makes online RPGs so great: you have the oppourtunity to get different views and different styles of expressing the same thing from different people.

If everyone emoted or expressed character the same way, it wouldn't be a good game, right? Too predictable, the way that someone's going to respond.

My nickel's worth...

[Sunni Daez]

Ummm...since my mute talks with her hands and doesn't pass a bunch of notes, doesn't write paragraphs in the dirt...she uses alot of * * but I try hard to restrict it to be only what someone could see...

[Coramon]

(What are we simulating?)

Real life, (its a society simulator) ... But you

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

[Sarah]

I'm afraid this is coming down to axioms of worth at this point... If so, the only really interesting thing left to hear is what is 'right' from the perspective of the highest cantr sources.

Actually, it would be interesting to see what Jos' take on the issue is. I could have sworn I remembered him posting in a thread similar to this once, but I don't remember what it was called.

Is this what you're referring to?

It's nice to add emotions to speech, like *his voice turns sad* when speaking, but thoughts as such are really a little irritating and imho just not very good roleplaying ...

[Leo Luncid]

See subject.

[Sunni Daez]

In My Humble Opinion = IMHO

In My Not So Humble Opinion = IMNSHO

I think anyways