Appreciating people who "see" more than there is.

[Cogliostro]

In the old days here in the forum I used to often make fun of NickR. At the time, Nick was heavily of the opinion that Cantr has the potential to generate actual (not faked) emergent societies, that it could, if only everyone participated properly, be almost a scientific-level simulation. This point of view is reflected in how many people even now approach roleplaying. They choose to consider the limits of the game a limiting absolute.

Just an example, you don't mention to such players that you see the moon beautifully shining, because there is no moon (they say). Nor do you talk about annoying mosquitos, because there are no mosquitos, and so on. They want to pretend that Cantr is a reality onto itself, not a theatrical reflection of our real lives.

This is especially weird when these same people try to police how others use words in the game, sarcastically quipping about "not seeing any mosquitos here" or even worse, respond to your roleplaying attempt with: "what's a mosquito?"

What such people don't seem to realize is that English, the language most of us use, is a crazy patchwork made of hundreds of thousands of borrowed words and contructs from other languages, cultures, epochs. It is not possible to speak English and remain real-world-neutral (as though there was no real world, only the Cantr world). There is no way to accomplish that, the simplest grammatical constructions "I am John" already have hundreds of real-world historical and linguistic connotations!

So would it not be much more reasonable, I want to ask, to stop with that stupidity, and to explore the possibilities of Cantr's full potential as a fantastic vehicle for your imagination, unfettered by any game mechanics or anal self-imposed rules?

[Dudel]

Nope.

Cantr is a game and is based around mechanics. There is no way around this even with "clever thinking".

Denying that fact only seems stupid, to me, but whatever.

[*Wiro]

Cantr is a game and is based around mechanics.

It's not. The mechanics help create the realism.

[Dudel]

Cantr is a game and is based around mechanics.

It's not. The mechanics help create the realism.

Go play FTO and pretend that game isn't "controlled by mechanics" don't argue that here.

GAMES! End of story.

[Chris]

Cogliostro, people aren't complaining about comments about how brightly the moon is shining. They are complaining about people emoting covert thought processes that no one would know about. Now if the person just said, "I think ....", that would be fine.

I also hate when people tell me what conclusion my character and other characters have drawn. Bullshit. Tell me what your character does, and my character will draw his/her own conclusion.

[Leo Luncid]

I recall complaining about this before, but I keep saying how much there's a need to officially claim what you see in the sky and stuff like that. My point back then was that the game should have some answers to explain where Cantr is in the world or what kind of world Cantr is. We can't just say that the sky does get dark sometimes or that there's even a sun, because nothing in the game states so. You only know that you do see everything there is to see in where you are. But I guess it's up to us to draw our own conclusions from what we see in game, but what's the point anyways? No one questions why objects appear when people die on the roads, or why we're able to see everything in your location 24/7, or even why bugs allow you to spawn on ships. No one questions why we spawn or how we're spawn. It's nothing but a world of assumptions.

[*Wiro]

Cantr is a game and is based around mechanics.

It's not. The mechanics help create the realism.

Go play FTO and pretend that game isn't "controlled by mechanics" don't argue that here.

GAMES! End of story.

Dude, shut up. Cantr is not the mechanics. There is no flowers that instantly gets turned into honey, there's bees that do it - to name one example. But do you see this bees? Nope. If you leave with a car at x.20 and get there a second later, did you teleport? Nope. If your character is blind and the events log says "You see ..." did your character actually see? No.

[Miri]

1st: it's the player's choice how he/she wants to play the game.

2nd: if Cantr was just about mechanics it would really suck as a game. What makes Cantr so great are actually all the other things. Mechanics is just a bare frame that you need to have to build the roleplay on it.

[SekoETC]

People just gotta know where to draw the line. I think it's okay to for example rp the existence of flowers on a region that doesn't have them as a resource, or small animals such as insects and birds, or geographical details such as cliffs and ravines in the mountains, or using resources/items in your inventory/location in an innovative manner, but people shouldn't talk about resources/animals that exist elsewhere in Cantr and that their character has never seen or even worse, imagine that they or their location has them.

Examples:

- If your character has salt, they could rp using it to spice up their food but they couldn't rp finding herbs in the nature if they don't grow in that location.

- Your character could be shooing away mosquitoes or flies, or comment on birds singing, but they shouldn't talk about dogs on an island where they don't exist, or other large animals (anything larger than pigeon) because that would raise the question of how come we can't hunt them.

- I'm also a bit iffy about people rp'ing the existence of trees in locations that aren't of type forest. Some bush-like trees such as willow might be acceptable, as they're no good for building ships and cottages, but when people talk about climbing threes or sitting in the shadow of the foliage, it makes me imagine big oak trees and such. Doesn't that raise the question of how come we can't gather them at least for firewood?

[*Wiro]

Seko, about the third example...I think it's possible a tree was planted there (which means you would have to roleplay this all), but this'd be a very slow thing. And eventually someone could RP cutting it down. But I don't think it's a good idea to do this in a place without wood near-by. Or in mountains and deserts. Though this is just a rare case example and in pretty much most all other cases it shouldn't be happening...unless it's an accident. Like OOCly thinking you're in a forest when you're not.

[chase02]

Anything that isn't stated (by mechanics or world lore) will be assumed (usually subconsciously) in the players mind according to their experience in life (e.g. there is gravity, toucans look like earth toucans, characters are basically human, there is a sky/sun/moon/seasons, waves on the ocean, etc).

So I think anything based on the above understanding (filling in the blanks with a reasonable 'world' e.g. earth) is fair.

Which is why Cantr's spawning process is so frustrating. It isn't the same as earth, yet there is no world lore to explain why it is the way it is.

[Dudel]

Dude, shut up. Cantr is not the mechanics. There is no flowers that instantly gets turned into honey, there's bees that do it - to name one example. But do you see this bees? Nope. If you leave with a car at x.20 and get there a second later, did you teleport? Nope. If your character is blind and the events log says "You see ..." did your character actually see? No.

Aye, aye, aye... aye! I'm gonna have to argue this HERE, as well?

Actually, there will be zero to no point as you will not "listen" buuuuuuut......

The mechanics ARE THE WORLD however the PLAYERS add to it otherwise.

This meaning that what IS NOT in the world via the MECHANICS is not there. You can IMPLY OTHERWISE but the object IS NOT ACTUALLY THERE! Which is why it is up to other players to "play along" and with ANY game like this that chance is sometimes impossible unless you absolutely accept the mechanics as the basis.

However if you MUST move beyond the mechanics that are allowed within the world that was created then it must be done in a "proper way".

For instance... one can not emote that they *heard toucans* (Or actually emote that they heard anything) HOWEVER, they can *quirk their head* and say "Did you hear the toucan caw?*... which goes for just about anything else that "isn't there". This includes *bats away misquotes* when it should be "*Waves his/her arms in front if his/her face* Damn mosquitoes!"

Emotes ARE FACT... which means NOTHING within them can be taken beyond the world that is presented, sorry. This goes with "You say/see/etc/whatever". You THE PLAYER, pick to IMPLY OTHERWISE and that is your choice as a player but the game mechanic CLEARLY STATE "see/hear/say/etc". It could also be argued that one is not "allowed" to emote as you can not "say emotes" but that is taking this idea to a retarded extreme.

IN SHORT: Unless Cantr says there IS...there isn't. Players may chose to think/play/etc otherwise but that DOES NOT make it actually the fact of the nature. This means that other players may openly disagree and furthermore outright REJECT the "situation" that was presented. Yes, Cantr IS ITS MECHANICS but its PLAYERS pick to "ignore that". Personally, if Cantr is seen on a strictly mechanical level then is crappy. Some wish NOTHING to do with ANYTHING OTHER then the mechanics while others outright ignore them.

This all presents a problem, however, when speaking of player freedom within the game vs mechanics that build it. Right now, Cantr has player freedom but no mechanics to back it up. This creates the "that isn't there" issue that is being spoken of.

Note: I "play along" when I can because it downright IRRITATES when others do not. However, I understand that the things are NOT ACTUALLY THERE within the game world so can not ACTUALLY BE INTERACTED WITH. Basically... I play stupid in order to have fun.

Personal Example: Not long ago I was going to talk about crickets but it would be "difficult" do to unknown time restraints and if others would "accept my reality of the situation". I chose for something actually in game (I don't remember what) to prevent this possible annoying problem.

But, of course, I am wrong and know nothing about the games I play and/or play them "wrong".

[Caesar]

Dude, shut up. Cantr is not the mechanics. There is no flowers that instantly gets turned into honey, there's bees that do it - to name one example. But do you see this bees? Nope. If you leave with a car at x.20 and get there a second later, did you teleport? Nope. If your character is blind and the events log says "You see ..." did your character actually see? No.

Aye, aye, aye... aye! I'm gonna have to argue this HERE, as well?

Actually, there will be zero to no point as you will not "listen" buuuuuuut......

The mechanics ARE THE WORLD however the PLAYERS add to it otherwise.

This meaning that what IS NOT in the world via the MECHANICS is not there. You can IMPLY OTHERWISE but the object IS NOT ACTUALLY THERE! Which is why it is up to other players to "play along" and with ANY game like this that chance is sometimes impossible unless you absolutely accept the mechanics as the basis.

However if you MUST move beyond the mechanics that are allowed within the world that was created then it must be done in a "proper way".

For instance... one can not emote that they *heard toucans* (Or actually emote that they heard anything) HOWEVER, they can *quirk their head* and say "Did you hear the toucan caw?*... which goes for just about anything else that "isn't there". This includes *bats away misquotes* when it should be "*Waves his/her arms in front if his/her face* Damn mosquitoes!"

Emotes ARE FACT... which means NOTHING within them can be taken beyond the world that is presented, sorry. This goes with "You say/see/etc/whatever". You THE PLAYER, pick to IMPLY OTHERWISE and that is your choice as a player but the game mechanic CLEARLY STATE "see/hear/say/etc". It could also be argued that one is not "allowed" to emote as you can not "say emotes" but that is taking this idea to a retarded extreme.

IN SHORT: Unless Cantr says there IS...there isn't. Players may chose to think/play/etc otherwise but that DOES NOT make it actually the fact of the nature. This means that other players may openly disagree and furthermore outright REJECT the "situation" that was presented. Yes, Cantr IS ITS MECHANICS but its PLAYERS pick to "ignore that". Personally, if Cantr is seen on a strictly mechanical level then is crappy. Some wish NOTHING to do with ANYTHING OTHER then the mechanics while others outright ignore them.

This all presents a problem, however, when speaking of player freedom within the game vs mechanics that build it. Right now, Cantr has player freedom but no mechanics to back it up. This creates the "that isn't there" issue that is being spoken of.

Note: I "play along" when I can because it downright IRRITATES when others do not. However, I understand that the things are NOT ACTUALLY THERE within the game world so can not ACTUALLY BE INTERACTED WITH. Basically... I play stupid in order to have fun.

Personal Example: Not long ago I was going to talk about crickets but it would be "difficult" do to unknown time restraints and if others would "accept my reality of the situation". I chose for something actually in game (I don't remember what) to prevent this possible annoying problem.

But, of course, I am wrong and know nothing about the games I play and/or play them "wrong".

Who is to decide what is wrong and what isn't, Dudel..?

Besides that the front page clearly states you can play any role you want.
Do you see politicians or military leaders implemented in the game mechanics...?

Another role could be;
'The person that bats away mosquito's, while shouting at a duck'
It is a role, isn't it?

You can put it in a sentence as well, just like 'a politician'.


'A politician is speaking about nuclear warfare.'
'The person that bats away mosquito's, while shouting at a duck is speaking about nuclear warfare.'

Both of them are possible.
And so the promises made about the 'game', which seem to have been accepted as facts, by itself make EVERYTHING possible.


And besides that, it is up to each player to decide what he or she thinks that is, or isn't correct to play, relatively to the mechanics.


Sorry if I am being chaotic or otherwise not making any sense. I am tired and off to bed pretty soon.

[*Wiro]

Dudel, you are trying to do the same thing here as you tried with FTO. Which is making it into a game that is different from what it actually is, just to fit your own needs.

PS. I only read the first sentence of your post, oh and the second...so you were right. I didn't really listen.

[Dudel]

Dang it Wiro... don't bring that mentality over here/make it worse then it already is!

Let me play how I wanna play!

I've been playing the game "like that" sense I freaking started playing. It is YOU, in my opinion, who are playing the "game wrong".

So not "trying", accomplished. I get out of Cantr what I want out of Cantr... and I've said this IN THE PAST but only RECENTLY has it been a problem. SO SHHHH!