Game Mechanics Vs Game Ideal

[CrashBlizz]

The other day I was reading the front page of Cantr (something I havent done in ages) and suddenly realised thats its not actually like that anymore. It states:

Playing always from the perspective of each individual character, you can try to play the worlds most famous politician, most feared criminal, most cunning military commander, most wealthy entrepreneur, or most beloved village idiot. Any role you can imagine you can play in this game and the challenge is in playing it consistently, and in achieving the goals you set for your characters individually.

In other words the games so diverse you can do anything. Thats what most of us like about it, right? In efforts to expand the diversity we've had the introduction of strength and skills, among many other things. But then I thought the introduction strength and skills (or rather those things being randomly given) and maybe other things actually goes against what the game is supposed to offer.

"Any role you can imagine you can play"
- Playing the worlds strongest man when the game tells you you're much weaker than average.
- Playing a really good sailor/pirate when you're no good at building ships
- Playing a blacksmith when you're no good at making tools, weapons and iron
- Playing the best soldier when you're no good at fighting and much weaker than average

These examples show that you cant actually play anything you want. You can play anything you want provided the randomness of the game lets you.

One can go further and say how can you play a shipbuilder if you spawn towns and towns and towns away from the nearest water....but I wont bother

This isn't saying that I think we should get rid of skills or make it so each player can choose their own settings, I just wondered what other peoples take on this was.

[Voltenion]

Yes, I thought about this too a lot of times (not true) but I only get the problem, never the solution... I really see no way of "fixing" this.

[Vazalco]

The random skill thing always pissed me off too. It doesn't make any real sense, if you think about it. Why not just have it set like normal games -- all skills start at a baseline and go up with use? Then you really can choose what to be good at and what not to be good at.

[Doug R.]

I'm ambivalent about skills. On the one hand, they can destroy preconceived notions about a character. On the other, they can provide something for a character to strive towards.

Say you wanted to play the world's best blacksmith, but you get lousy smithing skills. Instead of spawning as the world's best blacksmith, you can strive to become one. I know skills advance slowly, but if your character dedicates themself to one task exclusively, they go up much more quickly than most realize. It might take ten years or more, but in real life, how long does it take to become a "master" anything? And if you do that, and your character is an expert smith having come from novice or worse, isn't that much more of an accomplishment than simply spawning a character and saying that he's the world's best blacksmith? (while other characters inevitably roll their eyes behind his back because he can't prove he's really better than any other blacksmith).

Weakness and lack of fighting prowess have been the bane of many poor newspawns that want to be tough soldiers/pirates/conquerors. However, isn't being awake truly the hallmark of a good warrior? A weak soldier jumping to his town's defense is much more heroic than a strong one that sleeps until the action's over. And really, if everyone had the strong character that they wanted, would being strong really mean anything? I have one strong character, and that makes that character extra special to me. I have another that is striving to become strong, and the quest is driving his actions and choices (I was hoping he'd spawn strong).

Skills were put into place as part of the larger "genetic" plan for the game. As with all partial implementations, I'm sure it would have been better if the whole thing was implemented at the same time.

[SekoETC]

I had a guy who was spawned big and dumb, but he knew stealing was wrong and was sure to chase every thief he saw, so he got appointed a town guard. But then the skills hit and he was suddenly both weak and awkward. Someone dragged him playfully and was surprised to realize they had succeeded, since this character had been rp'ed as big and strong all his life. Suddenly he wasn't. He may still have been big, but with world's lousiest balance and motorics. Eventually he got depressed when he couldn't do his job and went inside, hitting himself with a waster almost every day, for several years. One day I noticed it was saying novicely, but turns out it was just that thing that was implemented to make suicide possible. He never reached novice level. He had a lot of food but when he ran out, he didn't go get more. He put away his equipment, walked off on a road and died.

I think instead of skills only being visible after testing, they (or at least the most important ones) should be visible before spawning, and the resources of the spawning location should also be listed, along with the information of whether it's by the sea or a lake or inland. If the player decides not to have the character, the slot would be blocked just like if they had a suicidal newspawn - but the world wouldn't have to suffer from throwaway characters. Someone who wants the perfect character could play lottery with their slots and risk ending up with getting an all awkward expert fisherman on a desert with their last try. It's like this game called Hypothermia where you could re-roll your stats but after enough attempts, you would be stuck with something random.

[Chris]

Whatever good RP is, I think it uses the materials at hand. You see what you are good at first, and based on that, you come up with ideas for what you want to do. Or maybe you decide to do something you can't do well, for the challenge or to become more skilled. Not all things come easily, just as in life. You play the hand you are dealt. If you play 15 hands, it's likely that you will get a large diversity of skills and other opportunities.

I've played fantasy RPGs. Rerolling characters or adjusting initial stats is common practice. But then again, these games tend to be narrow in scope: go to a dangerous place, kill monsters, get treasure, level up, repeat. It makes sense that if a character isn't suited for that kind of adventure, you would nix it. Is that how you want to play Cantr?

[SekoETC]

Rerolling characters or adjusting initial stats is common practice. But then again, these games tend to be narrow in scope: go to a dangerous place, kill monsters, get treasure, level up, repeat. It makes sense that if a character isn't suited for that kind of adventure, you would nix it. Is that how you want to play Cantr?

Some people do, and apparently we cannot ban those people very easily so anything that makes their poor playing less visible is good for the game. I think for every pirate and such, a player should create one character that is ready to tolerate being a victim, one that will want to stay alive even if they are imprisoned. Ideally every character should be like that, if you want to strive for success then you must also learn to accept the possibility of defeat. But when there are so many munchkins who just want to beat people up and take their stuff but would throw a hissy fit if someone did the same to their character, do those people deserve prisoners that are played with dedication? Or could they even appreciate such a thing?

To have the most famous politician, you need to have followers who care about politics; to have the most feared criminal, you must have victims who know fear; to have the most cunning military commander, you must have foot soldiers who follow his command; to have the most wealthy entrepreneur, you must have the resource gatherers, the factory workers and the customers; and to have the most beloved village idiot, you must have the village consisting of the regular, more or less intelligent people! Roleplaying games tend to lean towards the extremities but the world requires average people to balance it off. Since we don't have NPCs, it's up to the players to play those. You can't just eat frosting or you'll get sick, you need the cake to put it on.[/rant]

[tiddy ogg]

People have always bitched about skills, and maybe the front page blurb is wrong, but the game is a society simulator, and intended in its limited way to reflect RL. And in RL you find out what you're good at, not come pre-programmed. So the blurb should perhaps be changed. My chars have always been moulded by their situation, and I've never created them for a specific role, and I think that's the way it has to be.
Like any parent, you can have ambitions for your child to be a great <insetrt> but you have to take what you get.

[Vazalco]

Yeah, well, the skill thing is unfair and creates incredibly unbalanced game. In other games it's different. Let's take D&D for instance. Your character may not be very strong, but this would balance out by having a good score in some other attribute -- perhaps dexterity or intelligence. Whereas in Cantr, there is nothing to balance out a low strength score -- you're either strong or you're screwed. Unbalanced and makes for a very unfair game.

[saztronic]

Yeah, well, the skill thing is unfair and creates incredibly unbalanced game. In other games it's different. Let's take D&D for instance. Your character may not be very strong, but this would balance out by having a good score in some other attribute -- perhaps dexterity or intelligence. Whereas in Cantr, there is nothing to balance out a low strength score -- you're either strong or you're screwed. Unbalanced and makes for a very unfair game.

Come on, now. You're either strong or you're screwed? That's a bit of an exaggeration, isn't it?

I play two charries, one weaker than average and one much weaker than average. It barely impacts their lives. Both are happy, successful, productive, handsome, talented, admired, and irresistable to women.

Who cares about strength? If I neeed to drag somebody, I just get one of my harems to help me.

[Tangential]

I just thought I'd add my thoughts to this pot:

When I create a character, I usually create their personality and abstract goal in life first. For example, maybe I'll make a bold and confident character who likes to complain about constants (constant silence, constant talk, constant heat). He is persistent, but not annoyingly so; he knows he is destined for something, but doesn't know what it is. This character might have a certain fear or inhibition that I have given him and maybe this character's abstract goal is to be remembered by many after he dies.

There was this one time when I had predetermined that my new character will be a fashion designer with his own line of clothing and will act feminin. Turns out this character spawned in a forest with nothing but wood and he happened to be the worst awkward at tailoring. Some times things just aren't meant to be.

[Vazalco]

Come on, now. You're either strong or you're screwed? That's a bit of an exaggeration, isn't it?

All right, so what's the balance, then? For people who don't have high strength, what does the game implement to balance it out? Oh, that's right, NOTHING.

[DylPickle]

Skills make perfect sense in cantr as a society simulator.
A character is by no means screwed if they're spawned as weak and clumsy fighters. Everyone is spawned with a number of applicable skills that are at least efficient, and weak characters should concentrate on using those skills to employ the strong as defenders. That's how societies work. That's how it should be played in game.

[15454]

Well I have a character who is very very weak. And I like to follow the good old, where ever there is someone weak there must be someone strong to help them out. Like the story of the lion, thorn and the mouse. She doesn't have to be strong to get what she wants done. But she is very balanced luckily being an expert in almost every skill, no awkwards either.

[Tangential]

Come on, now. You're either strong or you're screwed? That's a bit of an exaggeration, isn't it?

All right, so what's the balance, then? For people who don't have high strength, what does the game implement to balance it out? Oh, that's right, NOTHING.

I don't quite understand how having low strength makes the game unblanaced. Low strength? No problem. Check out your fighting ability? Expert? Great, get a crossbow. Awkward? Work hard or try a career that doesn't involve physical strength. Be a tailor. Be a politician. Be a shipbuilder. Be anything you want.

I have a character who is much weaker than average, but is an expert fighter. But his strength and fighting ability doesn't matter to him in his life. His life revolves around making others happy and appreciative.

I had another character who was weaker than average, but was an expert fighter. His weapon was a sabre shield and his enemies were stunned by his attacks, calling him the strongest man in the army.

I have a character who is stronger than average and a decent fighter, but he's a cook. He's only used his weapon once on a thief.

If you're weak, you're not screwed. If you're awkward at fighting, you're not screwed. You can work around things most of the time.