Discovery Gaming Community
Explanation: Canon vs Non-Canon Roleplay; Cloak Roleplay Etiquette - Printable Version

+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Welcome (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=399)
+--- Forum: Help & Support (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+---- Forum: Tutorials & Tools (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=178)
+---- Thread: Explanation: Canon vs Non-Canon Roleplay; Cloak Roleplay Etiquette (/showthread.php?tid=206484)

Pages: 1 2

Explanation: Canon vs Non-Canon Roleplay; Cloak Roleplay Etiquette - Antonio - 01-14-2025

In light of recent discussions, I'm creating this thread to clarify certain roleplay concepts that might be unknown to some. The purpose is to differentiate what kind of roleplay belongs or doesn't belong to the canonically defined lore of the game.

Basic Terms:
  • Canon - the realm of work within a fictional series/franchise that is said to have "actually happened". It provides the groundwork and basis for all non-canon material to be based off of, as well as future canon material. (Source)
  • Roleplay - the act of pretending to be a person or character; getting in that person's head, practicing the thought patterns of that person, feeling what they're feeling, dealing with what they're dealing with, and making decisions based on that. (Source)
1. Canon vs Non-Canon Assets

Canon lore/assets are those you see in the game in singleplayer, with one exception listed in the next paragraph.
  • Vogtland Base exists in singleplayer and belongs to the Red Hessians, it is a canon asset that has "actually happened". Vogtland's additional lore states that it is hidden and serves as the main base of the Hessians.
  • Canonically, the allies and enemies of X faction are those defined in the faction's IFF description.
  • Bases, battleships, infocards, rumors, systems, and wrecks are canon. They establish what has "actually happened" in the Freelancer universe and help players build their roleplay using the canon world as a source.
  • No one can change canon lore except developers. Players can ignore or break it, but they cannot change canon lore unless the developers approve it.
Non-canon assets/roleplay are what you see outside of singleplayer (except one exception listed below), such as multiplayer, forums, Discord RP.
  • In-game NPC spawns are not canon. Killing an encounter or farming a battlezone to blow up 100 Liberty Dreadnoughts with your ship does not mean Liberty owned/lost100 Dreadnoughts in canon lore. NPCs spawning infinitely is a gameplay concession to provide an interaction loop.
  • Player ships are not canon assets. Hessian players owning 20 Jormungandrs doesn't mean the Hessians have 20 battleships in lore.
  • Player-owned bases are not canon assets. Building five Hessian POBs in New Berlin will not affect the lore of Hessian advances in New Berlin.
  • Player roleplay in-game and on forums is, in 99.9% of cases, not canon unless it specifically makes it into the singleplayer portion of the game - such as when we canonized a player-owned ship, the Nergal, in honor of a passed-away community member.
  • Player diplomacy is not canon. For instance, a Red Hessian player faction declaring the Coalition hostile does not mean the Hessians did the same in canon.
The main takeaway from these differences is the gameplay restrictions imposed to maintain roleplay freedom and choice. We can't allow unlimited access to battleships while making player ships part of canon lore. If players could use those battleships to push lore however they wanted, it would create total anarchy. We make many gameplay concessions that don't make sense in canon lore. Example: Usage of cloaks and jump drives - rare and highly restrictive assets, the latter only used by Kusari in experimental stages - is allowed in gameplay because player ships are not canon assets. A Red Hessian player ship with a jump drive is acceptable, but a canon Red Hessian cruiser near Vogtland with a jump drive would pose a major story problem.

Is breaking canon roleplay inherently against the rules? No. As long as it doesn't come at the expense of other players' roleplay, players are free to roleplay whatever they want. Roleplay, like life, is shades of gray. Even canonical allies experience tensions, and player roleplay can explore those tensions. We’ve seen plenty of examples where canon-breaking player roleplay occurred, and all players involved adapted to it.

2. Cloak Roleplay Restrictions

Cloaks are powerful tools in some applications and weak in others. While cloaks can be used for PvP, piracy, trading, and general concealed movement from point A to point B, this thread primarily focuses on the espionage roleplay potential of cloaks. Espionage roleplay is on paper cool, and it makes sense. Using cloak to hide and eavesdrop on enemy activities? Great. However, it highly depends on the way you utilize the gathered information, such as to enforce roleplay consequences, and it's a thin line between powergaming or not.

Realism

While realism-wise espionage roleplay sounds valid, it is not good enough. It makes sense that you'd use cloak to spy on people. Of course, why not? How else would you do it? It makes sense you'd follow a faction that you ooRP know is infected, in order to get inRP proof to expose them, right? Unfortunately not.

"Making sense" is only the first step. Why? Because many things that "make sense" are already forbidden:
  1. If I kill you in PvP, it makes sense I'd kill your character permanently in RP. Yet I don't do it, because it's powergaming and would harm roleplay foundations.
  2. If there's a 15v2 in-game, it "makes sense" that the 15 would just pile on the 2 with no restraint. Yet in order to preserve any kind of PvP etiquette, as well as respect the anti-gank rule, the players have to balance it out.
  3. It "makes sense" for me to kill any transport I want as a pirate in RP, yet I have to pretend that I cannot because rules say so.

"Making sense" is not enough. Thus, the problem with cloaks and espionage roleplay is not whether it "makes sense" but whether it is harmful.


Harm and intent

All the above examples are forbidden because they promote harmful behavior. Even if your intent behind using cloaks for espionage is good - such as exposing a Wild faction which is enemy of yours - it can still be harmful due to a lack of counterplay. The Wild player doesn’t know if they should behave carefully. The cloak's beeping sound range is too short, and the player list hides the cloaker's location.

As a result, the Wild player is punished for "playing the game." The cloaker indirectly discourages participation and encourages illogical behavior (e.g., sundiving instead of flying to base, fearing exposure) on the off chance that someone might be stalking them with a cloak and exposing their entire roleplay. If, for example, cloaks had a 15k beeping sound, then the Wild player could suspect something's up and act accordingly. That is currently not the case.

This game is based on player interaction. Features offering zero interaction while enforcing consequences are detrimental. Past incidents involving perma-cloakers punished shady corporate roleplay, making corporate player factions stop playing altogether until staff intervened. The recent warning issued stems from pragmatism - it was already tried and tested that perma cloak consequence enforcing is harmful, on multiple previous examples, as it punishes the players for playing the game, and encourages bottom of the barrel behavior from all sides. People in the past have been sanctioned, quite harshly, so when the staff only issued a warning for the most recent example, they did so because they acknowledged that while outcome was harmful, the intent wasn't.


Where can you use cloaks for your roleplay? Generally, perma-cloak usage is acceptable in any roleplay that doesn’t permanently harm someone else's roleplay. While I suggest you de-cloak and offer the other side a chance to roleplay back with you, ensuring that everything from the point you uncloaked and they acknowledged your presence can be used for enforcing consequences, it is not mandatory. Example: Eavesdropping on two Freelancers chatting about their favorite food near Freeport 11 is harmless and wouldn’t lead to harmful consequences if exposed. You can also stalk someone talking about picking up a shipment of valuable cargo, then pirate them at the next jumphole. However, due to the 0-counterplay nature of perma-cloaks, I don't see many more "serious", lasting applicable scenarios where it is healthy.


This thread can be edited upon further community feedback, to make it as accurate and objective source of information as possible for people to use as a baseline.

RE: Explanation: Canon vs Non-Canon; Cloak Roleplay Etiquette - Stewgar - 01-14-2025

(01-14-2025, 01:58 PM)Antonio Wrote: Canon lore/assets are those you see in the game in singleplayer.
  • Vogtland Base exists in singleplayer and belongs to the Red Hessians, it is a canon asset that has "actually happened". Vogtland's additional lore states that it is hidden and serves as the main base of the Hessians.
  • Canonically, the allies and enemies of X faction are those defined in the faction's IFF description.
  • Bases, battleships, infocards, rumors, systems, and wrecks are canon. They establish what has "actually happened" in the Freelancer universe and help players build their roleplay using the canon world as a source.
  • No one can change canon lore except developers. Players can ignore or break it, but they cannot change canon lore unless the developers approve it.
Non-canon assets/roleplay are what you see outside of singleplayer, such as multiplayer, forums, Discord RP.
  • Player ships are not canon assets. Hessian players owning 20 Jormungandrs doesn't mean the Hessians have 20 battleships in lore.
  • Player-owned bases are not canon assets. Building five Hessian POBs in New Berlin will not affect the lore of Hessian advances in New Berlin.
  • Player roleplay in-game and on forums is, in 99.9% of cases, not canon unless it specifically makes it into the singleplayer portion of the game - such as when we canonized a player-owned ship, the Nergal, in honor of a passed-away community member.
  • Player diplomacy is not canon. For instance, a Red Hessian player faction declaring the Coalition hostile does not mean the Hessians did the same in canon.

It's unfortunate that this even needs spelled out. I've noticed that too many players think they are the main character when we're not. We are only a piece part of a bigger universe. The best roleplayers understand this concept.

I want to focus on this specific piece here. I remember years ago that some players in governments or who roleplayed as government agents were lead to believe they can influence story by roleplaying certain scenarios. I haven't seen a government related post or at least any serious roleplay regarding government in quite some time. There's also been contradictory RP by official factions that correspond with story developments. There has been a big turnover in the development team during this time as well.

So my question to you is this - official factions or those wanting to roleplay governments, with rational and logical role play and transparency/communication with appropriate devs, can player roleplay get to a point where it CAN influence story? Understandably, extraordinary story events should require extraordinary role play and time taboot. A Liberty invasion of Bretonia or Coalition systems is simply too extraordinary to happen but in your example of Red Hessians having a falling out with Coalition, if the reasoning is correct and both sides agree to it (if there are a both sides), can we see player interaction and involvement influence story events, infocards, factions relations etc?

As of now (at least within my circles), players don't feel like we are in control of our own destiny even as official factions. If this has always been the case (but jenky devs behaved differently), that would be nice to know. If this isn't the case or once was the case but is no longer, what can be done so that players CAN feel like we have some control of our own destiny?

(I know this may derail from the specific issue of cloaking so if anybody wants to discuss via PM, than I understand). Thanks!

(01-14-2025, 06:01 PM)The_Godslayer Wrote: Lane Hackers have a CIS Recusant Light Destroyer from Star Wars.

Shut up or Mickey Mouse will come after us!!!

RE: Explanation: Canon vs Non-Canon; Cloak Roleplay Etiquette - Toaster - 01-14-2025

So the dev team gave players a far too powerful tool, removing just about every method of countering cloaks, and now players are being punished for making use of that tool, having paid millions of credits for the privilege. Maybe the actual solution is to return means with which to interact with cloaked ships instead of arbitrarily restricting how players are allowed to use gameplay mechanics.

Hiding cloaked ships on the player list was an obvious mistake. Making cloaks last over an hour(?) while stationary was another.

RE: Explanation: Canon vs Non-Canon; Cloak Roleplay Etiquette - LuckyOne - 01-14-2025

Why not just make cloak disruptors more powerful? Or a simple rule update - may not enforce role play consequences if cloaked and outside the range of detection.


After all, if the affected party has been warned by the beeping sound that someone is listening, yet still proceeds with actions that might put them into an unfavorable position then the blame is all on them.

RE: Explanation: Canon vs Non-Canon Roleplay; Cloak Roleplay Etiquette - Chenzo- - 01-14-2025

Hands down, thankyou for the best possible explanation the staff team has ever issued for anything.

Clear, concise and with working examples for maximum understanding.

RE: Explanation: Canon vs Non-Canon Roleplay; Cloak Roleplay Etiquette - Kauket - 01-14-2025

There is counterplay to cloaks and I dont know why you're so upset about people eavesdropping. Spying is sometimes good for furthering rp, like one of the things you and your friends said you hated is "circejerking". Counter point, everything behind closed doors can lead to stagnation.

How do you counter cloak eavesdropping?

Stop being in obvious spots. Share only sensitive info in Pm or group. Check npc tab. Keep moving your meeting point because cloaks run out of fuel VERY fast, even better if you talk on the move. Jumping systems also rapidly drains cloaks.


CLDs should be buffed. the proximity range should be buffed. Certain areas should have a cloak disruption effect. Cloak inhibitors should be deployables OR add a cloak disrupting effect to these deployables.

The problem isn't with cloaks and eavesdropping. The problem is buffing the tools we have. And the problem is people trying to make rp sense (cmon still reporting evidence after blowing up just to grief ppl), but hey even lore is questionable at times regarding stealth. Ie order apparently monitoring nomads

RE: Explanation: Canon vs Non-Canon; Cloak Roleplay Etiquette - Slimalou - 01-14-2025

(01-14-2025, 06:17 PM)Stewgar Wrote:
(01-14-2025, 01:58 PM)Antonio Wrote: Canon lore/assets are those you see in the game in singleplayer.
  • Vogtland Base exists in singleplayer and belongs to the Red Hessians, it is a canon asset that has "actually happened". Vogtland's additional lore states that it is hidden and serves as the main base of the Hessians.
  • Canonically, the allies and enemies of X faction are those defined in the faction's IFF description.
  • Bases, battleships, infocards, rumors, systems, and wrecks are canon. They establish what has "actually happened" in the Freelancer universe and help players build their roleplay using the canon world as a source.
  • No one can change canon lore except developers. Players can ignore or break it, but they cannot change canon lore unless the developers approve it.
Non-canon assets/roleplay are what you see outside of singleplayer, such as multiplayer, forums, Discord RP.
  • Player ships are not canon assets. Hessian players owning 20 Jormungandrs doesn't mean the Hessians have 20 battleships in lore.
  • Player-owned bases are not canon assets. Building five Hessian POBs in New Berlin will not affect the lore of Hessian advances in New Berlin.
  • Player roleplay in-game and on forums is, in 99.9% of cases, not canon unless it specifically makes it into the singleplayer portion of the game - such as when we canonized a player-owned ship, the Nergal, in honor of a passed-away community member.
  • Player diplomacy is not canon. For instance, a Red Hessian player faction declaring the Coalition hostile does not mean the Hessians did the same in canon.

It's unfortunate that this even needs spelled out. I've noticed that too many players think they are the main character when we're not. We are only a piece part of a bigger universe. The best roleplayers understand this concept.

I want to focus on this specific piece here. I remember years ago that some players in governments or who roleplayed as government agents were lead to believe they can influence story by roleplaying certain scenarios. I haven't seen a government related post or at least any serious roleplay regarding government in quite some time. There's also been contradictory RP by official factions that correspond with story developments. There has been a big turnover in the development team during this time as well.

So my question to you is this - official factions or those wanting to roleplay governments, with rational and logical role play and transparency/communication with appropriate devs, can player roleplay get to a point where it CAN influence story? Understandably, extraordinary story events should require extraordinary role play and time taboot. A Liberty invasion of Bretonia or Coalition systems is simply too extraordinary to happen but in your example of Red Hessians having a falling out with Coalition, if the reasoning is correct and both sides agree to it (if there are a both sides), can we see player interaction and involvement influence story events, infocards, factions relations etc?

As of now (at least within my circles), players don't feel like we are in control of our own destiny even as official factions. If this has always been the case (but jenky devs behaved differently), that would be nice to know. If this isn't the case or once was the case but is no longer, what can be done so that players CAN feel like we have some control of our own destiny?

(I know this may derail from the specific issue of cloaking so if anybody wants to discuss via PM, than I understand). Thanks!

(01-14-2025, 06:01 PM)The_Godslayer Wrote: Lane Hackers have a CIS Recusant Light Destroyer from Star Wars.

Shut up or Mickey Mouse will come after us!!!

Only if it does not run counter to that the story devs want to happen

RE: Explanation: Canon vs Non-Canon Roleplay; Cloak Roleplay Etiquette - Emperor Tekagi - 01-14-2025

I appreciate the non-canon/canon clarifications (which should have been common knowledge and common sense but oh well, good to have) but I really don't get the talk about cloaks.

Buff cloak disruptors. Keep the system disguise mechanic. Bring back the cloak beep and make it ~1-2k longer in range than the auto-decloak.
Simply restrict FR and Bounty application (or for your fancy rule interpretation convenience: Roleplay Consequences) through a completely cloaked encounter as being invalid. It's the favorite action to artificially reduce ways of playing the game after all. Although in this case, it's surprisingly justified!

Cloaker gets to use their cloak with all its features still. The one being stalked has a sign if the cloaker strays too close. If the cloaker wants their observations to matter, they just have to reveal themselves.

Sure, cloaker could sit then at max range for a while and claim it as valid. But it would be the same as if I dipped in and out of scanner range with a superior scanner (like a Wiretap) and listen in to all your convos outside of your own scanner range. So uh.

RE: Explanation: Canon vs Non-Canon Roleplay; Cloak Roleplay Etiquette - Kauket - 01-15-2025

another hot take

buffs all CLDs to 17-20k. no more of this 'fighter is only 5k range' crap. make it so the only incremental change is the amount of time the cloak is disabled for

BS CLD disabling cloaks for 15 mins
cruiser CLDs for 10 mins or so
fighters for 5 mins

this gives time for people to get intercepted rather than immediately move away and recloak

also buff detection ranges, so BS's can incidentally reveal targets from 3k away instead of 1k - this also forces cloakers to constantly reposition and cost fuel

plus, returning the beeping sound for ppl who have CLDs on. somebody entered possible disruption range? start the cloak beeps


cloaks are NOT infinite and I don't get why people get this idea. Get your cloaker moving, put pressure on them and it drains.

RE: Explanation: Canon vs Non-Canon Roleplay; Cloak Roleplay Etiquette - Catto - 01-15-2025

(01-14-2025, 11:24 PM)Kauket Wrote: There is counterplay to cloaks and I dont know why you're so upset about people eavesdropping. Spying is sometimes good for furthering rp, like one of the things you and your friends said you hated is "circejerking". Counter point, everything behind closed doors can lead to stagnation.

How do you counter cloak eavesdropping?

Stop being in obvious spots. Share only sensitive info in Pm or group. Check npc tab. Keep moving your meeting point because cloaks run out of fuel VERY fast, even better if you talk on the move. Jumping systems also rapidly drains cloaks.


CLDs should be buffed. the proximity range should be buffed. Certain areas should have a cloak disruption effect. Cloak inhibitors should be deployables OR add a cloak disrupting effect to these deployables.

The problem isn't with cloaks and eavesdropping. The problem is buffing the tools we have. And the problem is people trying to make rp sense (cmon still reporting evidence after blowing up just to grief ppl), but hey even lore is questionable at times regarding stealth. Ie order apparently monitoring nomads

That's a very sound argument that falls apart, because it assumes people won't metagame. When metagaming is enforced because it makes sense, people start to /1 /2 and then drama occurs. Which is why this thread popped into existence. It can get frustrating.

I do agree that using a cloak is less disruptive and smarter than, for example, Crayter organising their own player event where they waltz a capital fleet into Inverness and prove a Technocracy/Nomad connection, with stacked odds and no prior communication during a time nobody can bother with it. The spirit of the action is however quite similar.

Now, say one wanted to permadock an LSF fighter on Battlecruiser Tuscaloosa and start doing cloaked intelligence RP instead of Ruslan 1v1ggs, wouldn't that get even more annoying? What if somebody was persistent enough to constantly cloak and recharge in Inverness with the sole purpose of disrupting Auxesian roleplay? What if the ship entity constantly changes name and ship type, but is the same player posting as different characters, even different forum accounts?

You have to think of all sides involved when considering rules and mechanics. On the other hand, think I want to make a few fighter cloaks...