Appreciating people who "see" more than there is.

[Ryaga]

Also (As this was brought to me via IM): No, there is not Politics or War... there is conflict and combat. The players then CHOSE to say "Politics" and "War".... rather add the "words" to imply something more "grand" then actually is.

Conflict is a human idea, and so is combat, it obviously doesn't exist in Cantr, because the mechanics don't state we're human. You can't break something complicated as society down to game mechanics.

[Dudel]

You may play as you wish (be that with or "without" mechanics) but either way you should not be upset of another plays be the opposite means. If you play "more then mechanics" someone who is "only mechanics" will have difficulty, or never, accepting something that the mechanics do not state as "there".

I never said that you are not allowed to play as you wish. I simply tried to see your way of thinking. Pretty much try and understand it, and perhaps even accept it into my way of thinking. (Or partly integrate it.) I actually do agree on some of your points. I am testing your arguments.

I find this funny cause my view of the game hasn't changed sense the first time I started playing it. Only RECENTLY has it been an "issue"... or is it that only recently I have "said something"? I think it is the latter and only because people "encouraged" me to "raise complaints" if I've got them.

And your conclusion is taking things out of context. That is thinking OUTSIDE the world while mine is INSIDE the world. (And in my opinion that solution is a bit absurd)

There was no solution. It was a conclusion. Besides that, 'players' are OUTSIDE the world already. Characters are 'INSIDE' the world. But even then, there is no real Cantr-world.

No there is not "real Cantr-world" and that is "part of the problem". There are no "this is" and "this isn't" lines drawn. (This breaches on player freedom vs actual world however... difficult to balance)

If CHARACTERS create things that DO NOT EXIST other CHARACTERS have all the right to say so.

Rules never stated that. So it is an opinion, not a fact.

Actually there is. Its called the CR. Characters shouldn't know what they shouldn't. And as "this", whatever "this" is, doesn't ACTUALLY EXIST within the world its a break of the CR to speak of it.... in effect.

This is a "stretch" of the CR, yes... but in general it is "poor conduct" to create things out of thin air within ANY community.

You, as a PLAYER, should realize that they, the opposite CHARACTERS, are ALLOWED to do this BECAUSE THE MECHANICS support them.. AND NOT your character.

No, but the front page, and even the wikipedia, along with some other sources, state you can play any ROLE you want. Technically it is a role being 'a person batting some mosquitos'. So it is true that you can play that role.

Again, play whatever/however/etc you wish. HOWEVER... its kinda the manner that you do things that becomes a problem. See, I'm gonna say this gain, you can IMPLY mosquitoes... but CAN NOT state them as fact.

Reason: Cause they ARE NOT ACTUALLY THERE!

You could "suggest" that mosquitoes are around and then others may then "play along' but the VERY SECOND you emote *there ARE ACTUALLY MOSQUITOES* its difficult for another to contradict you... especially if in their "view" there are none.

Poor Edict.

Play the role of "mosquito swatter" but don't be mad when someone else thinks your character is insane and "sees no mosquitoes".

I'm speaking "within the game world"... and within THIS game world, there ARE NO MOSQUITOES! (And further more it could be argued that there are not a LOT of things... some of which players do on a normal and common basis.)

A lot of things are(n't) there. Yet they are. It is because it are the players that have been given the power to form the game, not the mechanics. The mechanics are no more than bones. The players and their imagination are the intestines, the skin, the flesh, the brains.

There is no "yet they are". Things are NOT... or they are. An implication or SUGGESTION to otherwise does NOT make the item/bug/whatever actually there. This includes a LOT of things but some are more widely accepted among the players then others. HOWEVER, that DOES NOT make the item ACTUALLY THERE!

Basically Cantr is REAL bones with INVISIBLE skin, flesh, and brains... but everyone is "cool with it" so there isn't a problem.

Also (As this was brought to me via IM): No, there is not Politics or War... there is conflict and combat. The players then CHOSE to say "Politics" and "War".... rather add the "words" to imply something more "grand" then actually is.

I am not sure what you mean here, please explain in more detail, I long to know.

Oh this one is easy.

Combat = hitting/etc (which is the game mechanic)
Conflict = Character to Character strife (Which is the player addition to make said mechanic worth something)

Those are what ARE actually there. (The latter is strictly a player thing and not fundamentally needed for at least "war".) These things then get "bigger", but only within the constraints that Cantr allows, and create the illusion of "politics" and "war". Of course one could argue the same thing about RL "politics" and "war", if you wished, but within a GAME WORLD its a bit more obvious especially when one is actually GROUND IN by numbers (Combat).

[Dudel]

Also (As this was brought to me via IM): No, there is not Politics or War... there is conflict and combat. The players then CHOSE to say "Politics" and "War".... rather add the "words" to imply something more "grand" then actually is.

Conflict is a human idea, and so is combat, it obviously doesn't exist in Cantr, because the mechanics don't state we're human. You can't break something complicated as society down to game mechanics.

You are correct, we can not HOWEVER... Cantr is NOT "society" and it BARELY simulates it.

CANTR IS A GAME!

[Caesar]

You may play as you wish (be that with or "without" mechanics) but either way you should not be upset of another plays be the opposite means. If you play "more then mechanics" someone who is "only mechanics" will have difficulty, or never, accepting something that the mechanics do not state as "there".

I never said that you are not allowed to play as you wish. I simply tried to see your way of thinking. Pretty much try and understand it, and perhaps even accept it into my way of thinking. (Or partly integrate it.) I actually do agree on some of your points. I am testing your arguments.

I find this funny cause my view of the game hasn't changed sense the first time I started playing it. Only RECENTLY has it been an "issue"... or is it that only recently I have "said something"? I think it is the latter and only because people "encouraged" me to "raise complaints" if I've got them.

You already lost me there, sorry. I just explained I am not upset with any player that decides not to play along due to them preferring to play to the mechanics, and that I am actually trying to find out about your opinion.. And you just state that your opinion is an "Issue".

Quite a contradiction. Besides that, seeing your own opinion as an issue already makes it lose some of it's worth.

[Dudel]

When ANYTHING causes conflict it is an "issue". My words or your words, it does not matter. If one of those opinions/beliefs/whatever is opposite the norm it causes an issue. Story End.

...and within the time I have played NO ONE has bothered to question me on "why" to such an extent as they have within the last few weeks to a month... or furthermore attacked me at times for it. (See Wiro, Reb and a LOT of "FTOians".)

Also: I don't have an opinion on this matter I have FACTS on this matter.

My opinion is I'd rather my FACTS be horribly incorrect. I'd LOVE for Cantr to be "more then a game"... or more then barley over "just a game" but the stand point is Cantr will NEVER be ANYTHING MORE then a game... EVER. Sweeping me and/or my words and actions "under a bridge" does not remove this fact from ANY GAME that does as Cantr does/tries. (Not yet anyway) Cantr isn't a "normal game" or a "standard/typical game" but STILL... its a game.

Regardless of players, regardless of RP, REGARDLESS of abstract thought brought into the game with attempts to "un-game it"... IT WILL REMAIN A GAME! Heck, one of the KEY POINTS of Cantr is to micro-manage. Be that your health or... projects or... resources allocation... or trade. Another KEY POINT, which is NEVER going to get past "game" no matter HOW HARD one may try, is the combat. Even with the MASSIVE suggestions via the creator of this thread, combat will REMAIN "clicky" OR end up "die rolly" and anything in the middle will be even more awkward then what is now.

The only part of Cantr AND FTO that "isn't gamy" is the RP and the RP isn't even whats important. (I hope to GOODNESS that Revieres does not fall into this trap or at least tricks me otherwise.) What IS IMPORTANT is stuff! Healing food, weapons, shields, random resources to build other stuff... etc. Its not "as bad" here as most of the "stuff" is already about but it is as Satrap says.

Now, have I fallen "into this hole" as well? YES I HAVE! Why? Because that's how you play Cantr and you CAN NOT play otherwise! You collect stuff and in the middle of it all you RP something. The game is "get stuff" and then RP is thrown on top of it. I am sure that was not the ORIGINAL INTENTION but that is what is now.

Now, do I've a problem with that? NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT!

But, do I have a problem with people 100% denying this fact? YES, I FREAKING DO!

Note: I am done with these forums for awhile on the grounds that I see a familiar patter arising and I would just HATE this to flow IC.

[Helmaroc]

The only part of Cantr AND FTO that "isn't gamy" is the RP and the RP isn't even whats important. (I hope to GOODNESS that Revieres does not fall into this trap or at least tricks me otherwise.) What IS IMPORTANT is stuff! Healing food, weapons, shields, random resources to build other stuff... etc. Its not "as bad" here as most of the "stuff" is already about but it is as Satrap says.

I strongly disagree with that statement in particular.

However, I am not going to argue, I'll let you 'play the game the way that you want to play it'.

[Ryaga]

Also (As this was brought to me via IM): No, there is not Politics or War... there is conflict and combat. The players then CHOSE to say "Politics" and "War".... rather add the "words" to imply something more "grand" then actually is.

Conflict is a human idea, and so is combat, it obviously doesn't exist in Cantr, because the mechanics don't state we're human. You can't break something complicated as society down to game mechanics.

You are correct, we can not HOWEVER... Cantr is NOT "society" and it BARELY simulates it.

CANTR IS A GAME!

Cantr is a society simulator

[chase02]

The only part of Cantr AND FTO that "isn't gamy" is the RP and the RP isn't even whats important. (I hope to GOODNESS that Revieres does not fall into this trap or at least tricks me otherwise.) What IS IMPORTANT is stuff! Healing food, weapons, shields, random resources to build other stuff... etc. Its not "as bad" here as most of the "stuff" is already about but it is as Satrap says.

Dudel, I get your point (and agree to a degree). It is heavily supporting an achiever player type, in a socialiser player type genre. But it is having an identity crisis of sorts, taking away levelling and the ability to do much with skills - both fto and cantr suffer from this, fto more so.

It is a tough problem to solve, and one I'm sure we'll debate in length when the Rev forums go live shortly. I plan to attack in on many levels (pun not intended). Making most formulas dynamic and abstracted (even inventory limits) is a nice start.

[Caesar]

I just checked my character page, and, like yesterday, and the day before, only two of my characters are working on any projects. About seven of them have no items but food, and four of them live just because I RP them.

I do not see the importance of gathering all of those items. Is it natural human greed that makes it so important?

[Dudel]

Correcting Misconception: I don't play "only to get stuff" and if any of you have met ANY of my characters, you'll find that "stuff" ain't really my deal. I've SEVERAL that 1) Don't realize they have things and/or 2) Give it away for no reason, or at least a "poor reason". OOCally I put NO VALUE on the "stuff" that Cantr "wants me to get" and that quickly reflects IC.

The only reason I've characters "get stuff" is so that SOMETHING was accomplished... cause otherwise, nothing is.

But the fact of the matter IS, regardless of how else you imply otherwise. Which is why people need not get mad when others point it out and/or "play that way". (Which a LOT of you do.)

Dudel plays Cantr in a similar way to the rest of you.. but hasn't fooled himself to think of Cantr is "more then a game" or that "RP is the most important thing".

If the latter was true then you'd not be "allowed" to simply gather and say/do nothing else. If the latter was true then you'd not be "allowed" to have a rampaging speechless murdering f-tard.

chase: I am a bit of both. I like to hear that I've accomplished something and I like the addition of creating something from air (RPing). However, how things currently are, things can not regularly be accomplished with only RP.

The ONLY PROBLEM with "either type of play" is when one type meets the other.

One wants to "add mosquitoes" and the other "sees none". The problem, however, is that Cantr (the game and its mechanics) support the latter character/player and not the former. This is a problem as "the former" generally sees the latter as "dumb/stupid/playing the game wrong/whatever" and it creates a strife. The behavior that "the former" is angry with, though, ISN'T ACTUALLY WRONG AS CANTR MECHANICS SUPPORT THEM. Which means that your mad at someone playing the game "right" and saying otherwise. Which also means that it is YOU who is "playing wrong".

So as to answer the question again: Nope, but do whatever you want because that's the freedom of Cantr. Just don't be sad/upset/whatever when someone contradicts you as THEY are the ones who are "correct" within the mechanics that have been presented.

[chase02]

chase: I am a bit of both. I like to hear that I've accomplished something and I like the addition of creating something from air (RPing). However, how things currently are, things can not regularly be accomplished with only RP.

Keep in mind, you can absolutely achieve things while playing predominantly as a socialiser - you just go about it in a different manner. Achievers are driven by gain - be it items, levelling up, maxing out skills -- at it's most basic, having the game support (via mechanics that say so to everyone else) that you are the best (I'm looking at you, Adam).

There are plenty of people playing cantr that have achieved great in-world status (many of the leaders) through roleplay only (not the achiever path of getting the best sword to overthrow the leader and become one). So I'm not saying you cannot achieve while playing the socialiser/politician path.

Many people are a little mix of both - I heavily tend toward socialiser, but I do like to gain items and max stats a bit as well. I think this is fairly common in cantr. FTO I see as heavily about items and maxing stats, with RP as an aside.

[Marian]

I only skimmed the last couple of pages, so this may have already been brought up, but wouldn't it be a problem if your character was enjoying the beautifully shining moon, and then mine stepped outside and started talking about the lovely sunny day with all the fluffy clouds and singing birds?

[Caesar]

I only skimmed the last couple of pages, so this may have already been brought up, but wouldn't it be a problem if your character was enjoying the beautifully shining moon, and then mine stepped outside and started talking about the lovely sunny day with all the fluffy clouds and singing birds?

I avoid talking about both sun and moonlight for that reason.

However, I do not refrain from talking about 'light'.

[Genevieve]

I only skimmed the last couple of pages, so this may have already been brought up, but wouldn't it be a problem if your character was enjoying the beautifully shining moon, and then mine stepped outside and started talking about the lovely sunny day with all the fluffy clouds and singing birds?

I actually go by Cantr Time - so when it is the middle of the "cantr" day - it is bright and sunny. End/beg of Cantr day = evening. I suppose there could be variations, but that is generally how I view it. But ... I don't mind terribly if someone contradicts me.

[SekoETC]

I usually say end of the day rather than tonight or in the evening because other people might not take hours 7/0 as night. I do, even though that's my most active time in Cantr.