Thanks for all your responses!
I do appreciate the thought you all put into them. I'll try and address your points in two posts, to avoid hogging the thread.
Tiamo wrote:Cantr has a bit of both those game types, making the question cutecuddlydirewolf poses a difficult one. Some degree of danger adds to the appeal (and realism level) of a game like Cantr, but getting one of your characters hurt or even killed out of the blue can be quite upsetting, as players probably have invested a LOT of playing time in their characters.
I think the powers that be would be wise to (re)consider this, and related issues, trying to find a balance between action/violence, excitement, involvement, planning and safety that suits Cantr, and change appropriate game mechanisms accordingly.
Themes involved: death of old age, interaction/cooperation by chars from the same player, combat system, dragging, locks&keys system, possible interaction/violence results (defense, fleeing, surrender, robbing, capture, permanent physical results?), succession/inheritance.
I'm inclined to agree with just about everything you said, Tiamo. I totally understand how much time and effort people put into their characters, and how devastating it can be when that's taken away from them at a moment's notice. The issue with combat is tricky. Right now, the group with more people wins the fight almost all the time- for the simple reason that the more people you have, the more times you can attack before you have the day-long cooldown. Personally, I'd prefer a turn-based form of combat instead, or an automatic counter-attacking system like Marosia has. I think overall, one of those options would be more fair to everyone involved, as well as provide better opportunities for roleplay, which is easy to forget in the heat of the moment.
Naranjita wrote:At least from what I've seen, it's almost hard to get killed by her crew if you do roleplay. I don't know of other villains with such a high ratio of survivors left behind. And let's admit it, being a survivor is sooo cool to bring the trauma out of you... Call me old bat, but what's life without a pinch of drama?
The fact is that with awake, interacting characters I don't have the feeling I'll be instanctly killed without roleplay. Depending on the character and how much I invested on it, that absolutely would piss me off and I understand a player may want to quit the game because of that. I understand sometimes it's an unavoidable ending, but really don't see En Kell that kind overall.
Cantr combat system doesn't help to roleplay combats (specially for those who play on the phone) but I like the amount of conversation and context that she provides anytime she strikes. Maybe my next post is to blame her in seven languages, but unlikely other villains I tend to feel 'safe' as a player, like if there was a rear exit for the chars if they pledged to her twisted whims. I mean, if you were wondering if the 'less eager to murder' thing is noticeable, it is. And I as a player thank you for that, it's a kind approaching to evilness in a game whose player base is so reduced and frail. Hope you have the chance to give En Kell the bloody ending she deserves (I doubt it, but really hope it won't disuade you to create more villains of this type in the future!).
That is generally the kind of feeling I try to give with En. Honestly, straight combat without any kind of roleplay or flavor text grows old very quickly, and it's not very good for writing or for character development. En as a character has her own goals and agendas, and I think in the future, it would be more productive to focus on varying the means in which she attempts to achieve those goals. Avoiding killing off active characters is a good start- if it can be avoided. But I do appreciate that she's been able to generate some interest for you.
Wolfsong wrote:Villains and antagonists in roleplaying games are interesting from an out of character perspective because, and this isn't exclusive to Cantr by any means, they are always polarizing both out of character and in character, even if their actions only occur within the confines of the game world. Despite posing no threat to the player of a game, players often react to them with disproportionate defensiveness and hostility, and transfer that hostility from character to player, ostracizing other players from a group for the actions of their character.
This happens across a number of different games, from tabletop (pen-and-paper) RPGs, multiplayer RPGs, MMOs, roleplay focused MUDs, and simulation and roleplay focused browser games. It is more prevalent in games with permadeath, however. When these other players are also staff members, this ostracization can be (and often is) literal and permanent. It's somewhat unique in that other types of drama or conflict do not seem to have the same ability to provoke such immediate and intense player hostility, and is often even praised by other players.
Wolfsong wrote:Murderers in the past have attacked "without roleplay" and ruined stories for other people (see discussion re: Doryiskom massacre) and those players were banned for it. Therefore, the majority player community identifies all characters who are murderers with the same broad strokes - players then who must surely "get off on it" and do it with purely destructire OOC impulses in mind.
I agree with this, and actually find it very unhealthy. I know it's easy for me to say that since I'm now taking on that role of the pariah you're talking about, but frankly, I don't think
any player should be treated that way. I'm not the first player to be in that position, either. That mindset, the idea that any character who "disrupts" the storylines of other characters is made only to troll and be malicious, is toxic.
Wolfsong wrote:In brief, a player invests a lot of time and effort into playing a character. The more time invested, the longer the player plays a character, and the more "stuff" a character accumulates, the more the player becomes attached to their character. Players can foster a sort of fictional relationship with their own characters, where they talk to them and about them as if they were real people. They can also assume this character as an avatar for themselves - a stand in that acts the same way they would in a given situation. This makes any slight against their character a slight against themselves as players. Imaginary slights become as deadly serious as real life threats. It's inevitable that, as time goes on, the lines between what happens to their character, and what happens to them as a player, is blurred. This goes two ways - players who dislike other players will form grudges against their characters and, if a character acts in a way that is hostile to their own character's ideals, they themselves will form grudges against other players.
This is exactly why we have the Capital Rule in place. It's impossible to totally separate yourself from your characters- after all, they are technically a part of you. And after nurturing their personalities and lives over the course of real-life years, you're going to grow attached to them. However, I'll maintain my opinion that players who freely allow that line to be blurred and actively resent or hate other
players because of in-game happenings are unhealthy- not only for other players, but for the community as a whole. It's difficult to remember sometimes that there's another person behind any given character. Not some faceless, apathetic robot, but a human being who feels and wants something out of Cantr, whatever that may be. Not to wax romantic here, but that humanity is something everyone needs to remember, I think. I'll be perfectly blunt- if you hate another player because their character slighted yours in-game, that's wrong.
Wolfsong wrote:The problem is, of course, that autonomy is a lie. The player does not have endless ability to affect the life of their character; they cannot solely direct and shape their story. In fact, the player can have their autonomy very easily taken away by other players and by staff members, whether fairly or unfairly, for good reason or no reason at all. They might spend four or five years building a character toward some dream or goal, only to have them removed from the game in an instant. Villainous characters have the ability to remove a player's autonomy and agency, and that's why they are so reviled by the majority of the playerbase. Playing these alternate life games is a very selfish, escapist endeavour. When things happen to characters that their players cannot control, there is stress and frustration. People stop having fun because their vision of what is fun is ruined.
Wolfsong wrote:In real life, when bad things happen, people are forced to adapt and change. They either buckle against, or overcome, these obstacles. It's the hero's journey - or it isn't. But in a game, when bad things happen, the player always has the ability to step back and stop playing the game. When something stressful or frustrating or negative happens, the player can always quit. In fact, it's often the last way a player can affect autonomy over their own character - a final gesture of defiance that allows them to end things "on their own terms." Hence why ragequitting is so popular. The only winning move is not to play.
I agree with all of this. At risk of sounding callous, I will say something about that- something I know that players in the community don't like to hear. If you as a player are looking for a game where nothing bad ever happens and there's no conflict... why are you playing Cantr, a game that allows said conflict, instead of something you hold full control over, like Animal Crossing or Stardew Valley? Cantr II was never meant to be a "feel-good" game, at least, not all the time. As you pointed out, the blurb on the home page of the website:
Play as a politician, a pirate, a poet, a feared conqueror, a trader, an artisan, a courtesan, or as an explorer in an ever-changing world that is affected by the choices you make in game.
This is my opinion, so please take it with a grain of salt, but to an extent, I believe that it's selfish to insist that other players play how
you want, when you signed up for a game that promotes itself as a free-for-all. (General "you", I mean. Not you specifically, Wolfsong.)
Wolfsong wrote:Basically, at this point, it's culture. But it's this culture that exposes a big flaw in your reasoning for playing a villain, too. You hope that your villain will rally other characters into action, spurring characters to react or adapt or overcome the obstacles set before them. But for most people who play this game, that's too hard. And that isn't why they play the game - that isn't part of their story, and will never be. So they will instead retreat even further into their own narratives, quit when those narratives are disrupted, and generally just wait until staff finally remove the offending player-character from the group.
It is the culture, you're right. And perhaps it's naive to feel that it can be changed. The game is on its way out, and how the community acts certainly doesn't help anything. I've seen new players join up, and then quit only a week later because their characters are ostracized or excluded for not fitting into the stories of the dominant personalities in town. To me, it makes more sense that most of the community seems to view Cantr as some kind of catharsis, as opposed to a group writing exercise. I see it wholly as the latter. The "story" never belongs exclusively to your character, or rather, it shouldn't. Your character should be a part of the world, the lore- a character in Cantr's "story" as a whole. And I think that's been forgotten amidst all the drama and hard feelings.
All that said, I did very much enjoy reading your post, Wolfsong.
It definitely gave me some food for the thought to chew on, and I appreciate the time and consideration you put into it.
