Implied vs. Explicit
Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department
- abandoned
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:26 pm
- Location: austria...
Re: Implied vs. Explicit
Hm, I guess I should start activly RPing my characters sleep *snores*
I'm mainly for implied, but especially when it comes to machinery and such I play my younger characters as dumb or knowledge-hungry but my older chars as wise and all-knowing.
I'm mainly for implied, but especially when it comes to machinery and such I play my younger characters as dumb or knowledge-hungry but my older chars as wise and all-knowing.
Strike of the One Million Fear-ridden Pandas (es gibt für alles den passenden Generator)
- Mafia Salad
- Posts: 832
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:53 am
Re: Implied vs. Explicit
I tend towards the Explicit but don't limit myself or hassle other characters for being weird. I try to use the game mechanics in my RP when possible and refer to game elements when I can. I also like trying to explain game phenomenon from an in character perspective.
For example if my character is upset, I would prefer to call someone a boar than a pig. Or if a body that died on the road appeared back in town, Instead of ignoring it, I would speculate as to why, probably because towns are where the gravity is stronger.
For example if my character is upset, I would prefer to call someone a boar than a pig. Or if a body that died on the road appeared back in town, Instead of ignoring it, I would speculate as to why, probably because towns are where the gravity is stronger.
Fortune Cookie Says:
You should consider a career change, you'd make an excellent doormat.
[quote]1441-7: You skillfully kill a racoon using a broom.[/quote]
You should consider a career change, you'd make an excellent doormat.
[quote]1441-7: You skillfully kill a racoon using a broom.[/quote]
- FiziKx
- Posts: 548
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:40 pm
- Location: United States
Re: Implied vs. Explicit
Mafia Salad wrote:I tend towards the Explicit but don't limit myself or hassle other characters for being weird. I try to use the game mechanics in my RP when possible and refer to game elements when I can. I also like trying to explain game phenomenon from an in character perspective.
For example if my character is upset, I would prefer to call someone a boar than a pig. Or if a body that died on the road appeared back in town, Instead of ignoring it, I would speculate as to why, probably because towns are where the gravity is stronger.
Almost the same here. I am almost completely implied, but if there is something like a bug in the game or something, I just take it as an odd event- my charries react as I think they would if it happened IRL and they were there to experience it.
-
AlchemicRaker
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:56 am
Re: Implied vs. Explicit
In such unrealistic situations, say somebody dies on a path and their stuff appears back in town...
It isn't odd, thats how the Cantr world works.
So, my character wouldn't think twice about it... the person died while traveling, and here's his stuff. Recalling that the game trumps our RP, I think that some game mechanics (though unrealistic to us) shouldn't really be surprising or unusual to Cantrians.
- Natso
It isn't odd, thats how the Cantr world works.
So, my character wouldn't think twice about it... the person died while traveling, and here's his stuff. Recalling that the game trumps our RP, I think that some game mechanics (though unrealistic to us) shouldn't really be surprising or unusual to Cantrians.
- Natso
- Mafia Salad
- Posts: 832
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:53 am
Re: Implied vs. Explicit
My characters would think it is normal too, but I would also want to explain it in a way that would make sense if you lived in that world, instead of ignoring it. People ask how and why all the time about everyday things in our world, we call that curiosity, or science.
Game Mechanics is the best place to start any sort of scientific, philosophical or religious RP, Answering the questions of life for people who live in a world where everyone eats once a day at the same time. There is a huge opportunity for RP in the places where the game world differs from our own and that is where I find a lot of joy in the game.
Game Mechanics is the best place to start any sort of scientific, philosophical or religious RP, Answering the questions of life for people who live in a world where everyone eats once a day at the same time. There is a huge opportunity for RP in the places where the game world differs from our own and that is where I find a lot of joy in the game.
Fortune Cookie Says:
You should consider a career change, you'd make an excellent doormat.
[quote]1441-7: You skillfully kill a racoon using a broom.[/quote]
You should consider a career change, you'd make an excellent doormat.
[quote]1441-7: You skillfully kill a racoon using a broom.[/quote]
- FrankieLeonie
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 3:12 pm
Re: Implied vs. Explicit
I have been told all the building in Baaak are underground because thats the only way you could fit all those rooms into the few buildings 
- mojomuppet
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:24 am
- Location: Florida, USA
Re: Implied vs. Explicit
^ You should believe anything Baaak tells you. 
- FrankieLeonie
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 3:12 pm
Re: Implied vs. Explicit
mojomuppet wrote:^ You should believe anything Baaak tells you.
Oh I didn't hear this from Baaak, at least not that I know of. But I like the way it sounds.
- Dudel
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:21 am
Re: Implied vs. Explicit
Explicit, duh.
With me it will forever be "Mechanics First" as those are what can not be argued with. I don't accept hits unless characters actually HIT. I don't accept blocked doors unless doors are locked and I don't have the key. I don't accept being "dragged" unless actually dragged.. yeah.
I'm not one of those "There are No <blank> in Cantr" types (Most of you implied people use that argument more than anyone I've ever seen!) but I also don't make assumptions. I make no notice of sky, moon, stars, weather, unseen insects, life before spawn, character appearance (before custom descriptions), smell, touch/feel and just about anything Cantr mechanics leave short. If there isn't a mechanic I try not to mention it beyond vague, horribly vague, implications.
However, I'm not going to argue with someone and if anyone wants to "pretend" there are grasshoppers in tall grass or that because there is a ground there must be a sky. I'm not going to argue with the logic of things. Cantr mechanics also do NOT state there are NO grasshoppers. Cantr mechanics simply state they are not "visible to the naked-eye" or somehow "ignorable". But when it comes down to things the "Mechanical Player" will always win any argument, especially a CR related one. Little FYI for y'all... little FYI.
With me it will forever be "Mechanics First" as those are what can not be argued with. I don't accept hits unless characters actually HIT. I don't accept blocked doors unless doors are locked and I don't have the key. I don't accept being "dragged" unless actually dragged.. yeah.
I'm not one of those "There are No <blank> in Cantr" types (Most of you implied people use that argument more than anyone I've ever seen!) but I also don't make assumptions. I make no notice of sky, moon, stars, weather, unseen insects, life before spawn, character appearance (before custom descriptions), smell, touch/feel and just about anything Cantr mechanics leave short. If there isn't a mechanic I try not to mention it beyond vague, horribly vague, implications.
However, I'm not going to argue with someone and if anyone wants to "pretend" there are grasshoppers in tall grass or that because there is a ground there must be a sky. I'm not going to argue with the logic of things. Cantr mechanics also do NOT state there are NO grasshoppers. Cantr mechanics simply state they are not "visible to the naked-eye" or somehow "ignorable". But when it comes down to things the "Mechanical Player" will always win any argument, especially a CR related one. Little FYI for y'all... little FYI.
- Ryaga
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:43 am
Re: Implied vs. Explicit
I'm going to go through multiple things here that I'm about to debunk Dudel.
man - 1. a member of the species Homo sapiens
2. A human being; person
Cantr defines in it's mechanics the use of the word man. If a 'man' in cantr was a goat it wouldn't use the word man. It'd state 'male' or 'female' because man is used specifically to describe a human.
This means that we assume, unless otherwise stated that I'm a human man or woman correct? Well no where does this assumption become broken. I obvously have arms and legs as the clothing descriptions imply. I have a face as some of the hat descriptions imply. What implies that I do not? It's been stated explicitly by Cantr that I am a man. Where does it state explicitly that I'm not?
You can obviously feel, for you get a message of how wounded you are after being hurt. Someone who doesn't feel would have no idea. The only thing that would indicate anything is the movement of their body/viewport.
And obviously because I'm a human man and no where is it stated otherwise that I am anything more or less I do not know sheerly by magic. I know I can't tell time by magic, or know when I'm hurt through magic. So I must both feel and see. And since I can't tell time through magic I must know through the skies. And since I'm a human man I also presumably smell. As no where does it say I'm more or less than a man. So I have a nose. I agree with the hitting and dragging though. In those cases Cantr does explicitly declare a difference. And the mechanics should be used.
man - 1. a member of the species Homo sapiens
2. A human being; person
Cantr defines in it's mechanics the use of the word man. If a 'man' in cantr was a goat it wouldn't use the word man. It'd state 'male' or 'female' because man is used specifically to describe a human.
This means that we assume, unless otherwise stated that I'm a human man or woman correct? Well no where does this assumption become broken. I obvously have arms and legs as the clothing descriptions imply. I have a face as some of the hat descriptions imply. What implies that I do not? It's been stated explicitly by Cantr that I am a man. Where does it state explicitly that I'm not?
You can obviously feel, for you get a message of how wounded you are after being hurt. Someone who doesn't feel would have no idea. The only thing that would indicate anything is the movement of their body/viewport.
And obviously because I'm a human man and no where is it stated otherwise that I am anything more or less I do not know sheerly by magic. I know I can't tell time by magic, or know when I'm hurt through magic. So I must both feel and see. And since I can't tell time through magic I must know through the skies. And since I'm a human man I also presumably smell. As no where does it say I'm more or less than a man. So I have a nose. I agree with the hitting and dragging though. In those cases Cantr does explicitly declare a difference. And the mechanics should be used.

- Dudel
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:21 am
Re: Implied vs. Explicit
When Cantr says "man" or "woman" it only means "mostly male" or "mostly female". There are plenty of not human Cantrinians and it is allowed within the CR to do as such provided you don't go totally ape shit with it. Thus people can be canine, feline, reptilian or fish and as we can not know within the Cantrinian universe if "animal types" can feel, we're lacking. Cantrinians are CLEARLY not human. They are an odd group of beings with no genetics or history and can be almost anything within some "understandings". So, in short, Cantr states neither man nor beast... but Cantrinian. Which can not be understood by our 3rd party perspective of those in the Cantr world.
Cantr makes no notice of smell or touch/feelings beyond the RPed boundaries placed by RPers... and this can quickly become difficult based on player perception and ideals.
Cantr only states that you "see" and that you were hit. I have honestly seen people flat out ignore being hit for 50+ damage. So, clearly, its not a feel. Being gashed in your side as you sleep would clearly send you jolting up into the air if you FELT it or were honestly one of the human species. Your character sees that he/she failed to block the strike with his/her shield (if they even have one) and are now aware of how much damage which was taken as they look down at themselves and view exactly what has happened. A "real human" would not refer to him/herself as "30% dead". In fact, few Cantrinians make notice of pain when struck. It is an annoyance, something easy to ignore and mend.
The concept of time is STRICTLY an OOC concept for the players. There is no notice in the game of time, it is a PLAYER time stamp and could be argued that making mention of it is a breach of the CR on that very ground. Cantrinians might be aware of tick timings of in world events as a way to keep track of time but this has nothing to do with earth, sun, sky, stars or moon. No assumption can be made about the understanding of time based on the world beyond this.
The Cantr world is not like our Earth. There is no mention gravity/falling (unless RPed by the players and accepted by others), breathing (Guess the world is filled with nitrous oxide?), excrement or just about anything a normal human would be aware of. Within Cantr life you can honestly not make any assumptions based on "our Earth". Hell, the gravity implications ALONE would alter perception within the Cantr world. You can't make notice without being there to notice and as that is literally impossible, I make no mention of such things.
Then again....
What Cantr leaves "blank" isn't a "No" but more of a "maybe" or "perhaps". The argument isn't "There is (not) a sky." The argument is "There may or may not be a sky, perhaps."
AGAIN, I'm a very explicit player.
Cantr makes no notice of smell or touch/feelings beyond the RPed boundaries placed by RPers... and this can quickly become difficult based on player perception and ideals.
Cantr only states that you "see" and that you were hit. I have honestly seen people flat out ignore being hit for 50+ damage. So, clearly, its not a feel. Being gashed in your side as you sleep would clearly send you jolting up into the air if you FELT it or were honestly one of the human species. Your character sees that he/she failed to block the strike with his/her shield (if they even have one) and are now aware of how much damage which was taken as they look down at themselves and view exactly what has happened. A "real human" would not refer to him/herself as "30% dead". In fact, few Cantrinians make notice of pain when struck. It is an annoyance, something easy to ignore and mend.
The concept of time is STRICTLY an OOC concept for the players. There is no notice in the game of time, it is a PLAYER time stamp and could be argued that making mention of it is a breach of the CR on that very ground. Cantrinians might be aware of tick timings of in world events as a way to keep track of time but this has nothing to do with earth, sun, sky, stars or moon. No assumption can be made about the understanding of time based on the world beyond this.
The Cantr world is not like our Earth. There is no mention gravity/falling (unless RPed by the players and accepted by others), breathing (Guess the world is filled with nitrous oxide?), excrement or just about anything a normal human would be aware of. Within Cantr life you can honestly not make any assumptions based on "our Earth". Hell, the gravity implications ALONE would alter perception within the Cantr world. You can't make notice without being there to notice and as that is literally impossible, I make no mention of such things.
Then again....
Dudel wrote:Cantr mechanics also do NOT state there are NO grasshoppers. Cantr mechanics simply state they are not "visible to the naked-eye" or somehow "ignorable".
What Cantr leaves "blank" isn't a "No" but more of a "maybe" or "perhaps". The argument isn't "There is (not) a sky." The argument is "There may or may not be a sky, perhaps."
AGAIN, I'm a very explicit player.
- EchoMan
- Posts: 7768
- Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:01 pm
- Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Re: Implied vs. Explicit
Lol. Did you design this game? Where do you get your "facts" from? Source please.
Mostly male?
Of course there is gravity. If it were no gravity everything dropped would float away.
Mostly male?
Of course there is gravity. If it were no gravity everything dropped would float away.
- Piscator
- Administrator Emeritus
- Posts: 6843
- Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:06 pm
- Location: Known Space
Re: Implied vs. Explicit
More importantly, without gravity nothing would have a weight. Then again, grams are strictly speaking a unit of mass...
Pretty in pink.
- Dudel
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:21 am
Re: Implied vs. Explicit
EchoMan wrote:Lol. Did you design this game? Where do you get your "facts" from? Source please.
Mostly male?![]()
Genderless and duel gender characters is my "fact" on that one.
Of course there is gravity. If it were no gravity everything dropped would float away.
Assuming gravity is the force that keeps things "grounded" within the Cantr-verse. Can you gauge it? Can you measure it? No, you can make an assumption that the Cantr world works "similar" to ours. Which you can't really do as can't know without being actually there to witness and measure. Maybe, in the Cantr-verse, friction from the thick air is what keeps things, and people, from floating into imaginary Cantr-outer-space. The air is so thick that anyone who dies on a road is SHOVED back into town as that's where the air is less dense and allows for movement.
-
AlchemicRaker
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:56 am
Re: Implied vs. Explicit
Dudel wrote:EchoMan wrote:Lol. Did you design this game? Where do you get your "facts" from? Source please.Mostly male?![]()
Genderless and duel gender characters is my "fact" on that one.
My characters are all 4/7ths male and 2/7ths female.
Return to “General Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


