RPing Questions? Ask Here!

[Roski]

Are there many Medieval Tech Civilizations on Nation States that rp. Sorry I'm new here

Deian Salazar has been looking for PT RP partners

[The Macabees]

Are there many Medieval Tech Civilizations on Nation States that rp. Sorry I'm new here

Past tech RPing can also be strong within regional communities and other types of RP communities, where the players know each other well and it's easy to coordinate. And there's an incentive in those contexts, in that since there is a community canon, it's common for players to want to develop that canon, including their nation's histories. The region I am, for example, has a World War II-era RP going on and I'm pretty sure we've done some medieval RPs as well. This approach is longer-term, since you'll have to settle in the community that's right for you, and finding one that's right for you is always a process, but over the long-run you will probably find that setting up past tech RPs is easier than when you're relatively new to the game.

[Holy Chuder]

Are there many Medieval Tech Civilizations on Nation States that rp. Sorry I'm new here

Past tech RPing can also be strong within regional communities and other types of RP communities, where the players know each other well and it's easy to coordinate. And there's an incentive in those contexts, in that since there is a community canon, it's common for players to want to develop that canon, including their nation's histories. The region I am, for example, has a World War II-era RP going on and I'm pretty sure we've done some medieval RPs as well. This approach is longer-term, since you'll have to settle in the community that's right for you, and finding one that's right for you is always a process, but over the long-run you will probably find that setting up past tech RPs is easier than when you're relatively new to the game.

Ok thanks for the advice!

[Bubba Reb]

I am thinking about hosting an RP in my nation.
It would have several goals.

1) Allow nation leaders the opportunity to learn more about one another and their countries.
2) Disprove steriotypes about dictatorships and dictators.
3) Provide a venue for nation leaders to be interviewed by journalists. (Either self created to reveal more info about their nation/leader, or allow other players to ask questions IC using their own journalists.)
4) Reveal more about my nation. Show that it is not the dreary land of oppression, full of downtrodden, hopeless individuals that so many believe a dictatorship must be.
5) Broaden foreign relations.

I've never hosted an RP like this before.
What I want from experienced RP writers is advice.

1) What are some good tips on writing this type of RP
2) What should I avoid.
3) Pictures, only one? Many? Links and spoulers only?
4) What questions should be asked in the application to join the RP?

Any advice or comments from respected, proven, RP writers are welcome.

[Questers]

1) What are some good tips on writing this type of RP
2) What should I avoid.
3) Pictures, only one? Many? Links and spoulers only?
4) What questions should be asked in the application to join the RP?

Any advice or comments from respected, proven, RP writers are welcome.

If you want to be a roleplayer with a good reputation:
a. never post a picture or photograph in a post that isn't a news post or a technical description. Never post url hyperlinks inside actual posts, and do not use spoilers in IC posts that are not technical descriptions.

b. there should be no "application posts and forms" for your roleplays. These are not used in real life, and we can assume the actual diplomatic procedures are done ICly since there's no point in roleplaying them. If you're concerned about who wants to join, make a signup thread. This also has the added value of attracting interest without reading an OP.

General writing advice:
As with all forms of writing, roleplay posts should be CRAP: Concise, Relevant and Pithy. Purple prose, which is language that is so extravagant that it draws attention from being what is said to the language itself, is not a way that you can show you are in command of the English language.

Think carefully about dialogue. Dialogue is the meat of all writing, so think carefully about how the people who you are writing would actually speak. For example, I have seen many posts where emperors of infamous royal lines say things to their generals like "Suck my dick motherfucker!" If this is how people with authority in your country really speak, then whatever, but in the real world this is how sixteen year olds and gangsters converse.

Exclude numbers from writing; write three thousand instead of 3,000 - there is an exception for dates. Where possible, leave out initialism; write their common form, or write the acronym out in full; acronyms are fine but should be written in lower case. Leave out technical jargon, or replace it with commonly understood terms. For example:

The MAS B777-200ER cruised at 40,000 feet, flying at 815 miles per hour.

Instead: The Malaysian airlines jumbo jet cruised above the clouds.

Lastly - use proper grammar. This is normally okay on NS, but punctuate properly, and understand how apostrophes work (most English speaking people are not very competent at either of those things.)

These rules are not my opinion - they are the general views of published authors, and can be found in virtually any good and published literature - and when broke, done so intentionally to prove a particular point or illustrate a particular purpose.

[Bubba Reb]

Questers, thank you very much! That was an extremely helpfull post. It was well written, easy to understand, and contains some very good points.

In fact, when Bubba Reb read it, he seemed pretty impressed too. I would tell you what he said in my own words, but instead, I'll just let you see for yourself.

"Daggum! That rascal right there knows they stuff Jack!
That ain't just some two bit, fancy pants, self appointed expert. Naw, that one's firin from both barrels and hittin the bulls eye right smack dab in tha dang middle! You tell 'em ol Bubba Reb said they is good people, and thats a fact Jack!
You needed some good learnin, if'n you gonna be doin all this writin, typin, and such, and that right there was some good learnin!"

------------------------------------

Are misspelled words and improper grammar of that nature acceptable when trying to convey a characters accent and dialect?

[Questers]

That's a good question. I wrote a post in which all dialogue was in Yorkshire dialect but decided against it, although not because of the dialect. I think that it's ok in the dialogue context - some writers will do that for sure, some will not. If you are roleplaying a country which doesn't speak English, you can read up about the language they do speak and try to mimic its forms in English. Hemingway was fluent in Spanish and lived in Spain and Cuba so he was very good at doing that in his books. I would say - do nothing excessive.

[Sunset]

As long as it's not too dominant I don't have a problem with it and do it myself. In fact, if you do this thing I'm very much going to send Rear Admiral Titan McCopper - who talks just like the old weather-bitten miner he is - as the official envoy along with his stripper-dwarf adjutant. Should be fun.

Oh, and...

It's = It Is.

If you can't put it is instead of it's then don't use an apostrophe. I still catch myself doing that.

Other than that, I agree with everything Questers had to say. Having read some of your stuff, you've got a lot of potential and a diplomatic gala of some kind might be the best way to stretch your RP legs a bit. It would definitely need that Bubba Reb flavor to it though. Maybe a barbecue held on a crumbling dock next to the swamp; You catch it, he cooks it.

[Bubba Reb]

You folks are awesome! I will be coming back to glean the great information here time and again.

Thank you so much.

Sunset, as always you are a great, and very creative help.
I'd love to have Bubba meet Admiral McCopper. He sounds like a very colorful character!

[Divergia]

Hey just wondering: If me an a few others are planning on making a RP alliance, can we work on our Charter in an OOC(only) thread? I'm not exactly a new player, and the only OOC threads I really see in II are for Applications. If you're not supposed to put such a thread up in this part of the forums where would one do so?

[Yalos]

Hey just wondering: If me an a few others are planning on making a RP alliance, can we work on our Charter in an OOC(only) thread? I'm not exactly a new player, and the only OOC threads I really see in II are for Applications. If you're not supposed to put such a thread up in this part of the forums where would one do so?

As long as it serves an RP related purpose, and doesn't devolve into a simple chat thread (so basically, as long as you're talking about and discussing your alliance and relayed issues), it should be fine to just use an OOC thread in II.

[Divergia]

Hey just wondering: If me an a few others are planning on making a RP alliance, can we work on our Charter in an OOC(only) thread? I'm not exactly a new player, and the only OOC threads I really see in II are for Applications. If you're not supposed to put such a thread up in this part of the forums where would one do so?

As long as it serves an RP related purpose, and doesn't devolve into a simple chat thread (so basically, as long as you're talking about and discussing your alliance and relayed issues), it should be fine to just use an OOC thread in II.

Thank you Yalos.

[Vandario]

I'd like to try and get more involved in RP'ing my issue is whenever I look at most RP's I tend to get lost in all the details, like example one will ask to fill out something and like how many people do I have in military service and all I an think "idk" because I'm not even sure how many I should have how much would be too much or too little compared to my government spending and RP'ing, but I also understand things can't be too vague it would leave too much open you need those sort of stuff, so I guess I'm never too sure whats too much or whats enough, I've not really RP'd so maybe its just inexperience.

[Vancouvia]

I'd like to try and get more involved in RP'ing my issue is whenever I look at most RP's I tend to get lost in all the details, like example one will ask to fill out something and like how many people do I have in military service and all I an think "idk" because I'm not even sure how many I should have how much would be too much or too little compared to my government spending and RP'ing, but I also understand things can't be too vague it would leave too much open you need those sort of stuff, so I guess I'm never too sure whats too much or whats enough, I've not really RP'd so maybe its just inexperience.

Usually you should see what other people are doing in the specific RP and then establish a military underneath their numbers. Also, keep in mind these numbers aren't really, essentially, important; what matters is how well you can convey what your troops/armies are doing. Or you can go another route, for example my nation emphasizes special forces instead of numerical advantage.

[Sunset]

Personally, when I see an RP asking me to supply troop numbers and similar 'hard' details, I walk away. My view is that RolePlay should be just that - Role Play.

Not Roll Play.

That's an old tabletop roleplayer joke; Are you role-playing, or roll-playing? Are you playing to see how many dice you can roll, or are you playing a role? The same is true for forum RP; If you need those hard numbers are you playing to win or are you playing to create the best story? To my mind, since all winning or losing is completely voluntary, why not just skip the numbers altogether and write a story instead? Consider the great works of (even military) fiction. Does the author talk about how there are forty five thousand men on one side, six hundred were cut down in the first volley, it took two minutes for the cannons to prepare their next shot? Or do they write about the heroics and sacrifices of that soldier, that General, or that unit?

And yes, you can write about how a larger event is playing out while focusing on one particular individual or group of individuals. Describe what they see, what is happening around them, who is there or who is not. None of this needs hard numbers nor often any numbers at all. You just need to put yourself in there out on that battlefield watching those cannon roar and hearing the snap-whiz of musket rounds whining past. Write that story that everyone else wants to read. Is this going to cut down on the possibilities for RP partners? Maybe. But maybe you'll enjoy yourself more too, rather than worrying about winning.

[Dralka]

Personally, when I see an RP asking me to supply troop numbers and similar 'hard' details, I walk away. My view is that RolePlay should be just that - Role Play.

Not Roll Play.

That's an old tabletop roleplayer joke; Are you role-playing, or roll-playing? Are you playing to see how many dice you can roll, or are you playing a role? The same is true for forum RP; If you need those hard numbers are you playing to win or are you playing to create the best story? To my mind, since all winning or losing is completely voluntary, why not just skip the numbers altogether and write a story instead? Consider the great works of (even military) fiction. Does the author talk about how there are forty five thousand men on one side, six hundred were cut down in the first volley, it took two minutes for the cannons to prepare their next shot? Or do they write about the heroics and sacrifices of that soldier, that General, or that unit?

And yes, you can write about how a larger event is playing out while focusing on one particular individual or group of individuals. Describe what they see, what is happening around them, who is there or who is not. None of this needs hard numbers nor often any numbers at all. You just need to put yourself in there out on that battlefield watching those cannon roar and hearing the snap-whiz of musket rounds whining past. Write that story that everyone else wants to read. Is this going to cut down on the possibilities for RP partners? Maybe. But maybe you'll enjoy yourself more too, rather than worrying about winning.

Beautiful.

[Valaran]

Personally, when I see an RP asking me to supply troop numbers and similar 'hard' details, I walk away. My view is that RolePlay should be just that - Role Play.

Not Roll Play.

That's an old tabletop roleplayer joke; Are you role-playing, or roll-playing? Are you playing to see how many dice you can roll, or are you playing a role? The same is true for forum RP; If you need those hard numbers are you playing to win or are you playing to create the best story? To my mind, since all winning or losing is completely voluntary, why not just skip the numbers altogether and write a story instead? Consider the great works of (even military) fiction. Does the author talk about how there are forty five thousand men on one side, six hundred were cut down in the first volley, it took two minutes for the cannons to prepare their next shot? Or do they write about the heroics and sacrifices of that soldier, that General, or that unit?

And yes, you can write about how a larger event is playing out while focusing on one particular individual or group of individuals. Describe what they see, what is happening around them, who is there or who is not. None of this needs hard numbers nor often any numbers at all. You just need to put yourself in there out on that battlefield watching those cannon roar and hearing the snap-whiz of musket rounds whining past. Write that story that everyone else wants to read. Is this going to cut down on the possibilities for RP partners? Maybe. But maybe you'll enjoy yourself more too, rather than worrying about winning.

Had to admire this post in our RMB as it hit the nail on the head so well.

[Lubyak]

To add on:

The point of RP is to tell a story. Everything around that story--your nation's history, organisation, etc.--is all window dressing. Sometimes the window dressing is exceptionally beautiful and well done, and you can admire it for what it is, such as people who have done exhaustive work creating their nation's military' and political structure. The window dressing can even effect how you RP, by giving you a frame of reference. e.g. How would my soldiers be trained to react in this situation, based on the doctrine I wrote up? or How would my leadership react to this incident, bearing in mind their political situation and our military abilities? The window dressing can give you guidance and consistency in how you play your characters and nations, but it shouldn't dictate how you RP.

However, such things--including realism--should always be allowed to bend in favour of telling a good story. While it is impressive that you have 20 page write up of a tank detailing its amazing weapons and defensive potential, if it serves the story better to have it blow up dramatically, then it should blow up dramatically.

However, to get back to the original point, in my experience many of these: 'How many troops are you sending/do you have?' are more to weed out wankers and other such 'RP to win' style players. So, if you're facing one, and don't have an answer, feel free to say 'I've not worked that out yet, and I'm trying to do so.' People will respect you more for that than simply spitting out a random number. NS already has plenty of people who just post 'I have x million troops, y tanks, and z planes.'

[Bubba Reb]

Personally, when I see an RP asking me to supply troop numbers and similar 'hard' details, I walk away. My view is that RolePlay should be just that - Role Play.

Not Roll Play.

That's an old tabletop roleplayer joke; Are you role-playing, or roll-playing? Are you playing to see how many dice you can roll, or are you playing a role? The same is true for forum RP; If you need those hard numbers are you playing to win or are you playing to create the best story? To my mind, since all winning or losing is completely voluntary, why not just skip the numbers altogether and write a story instead? Consider the great works of (even military) fiction. Does the author talk about how there are forty five thousand men on one side, six hundred were cut down in the first volley, it took two minutes for the cannons to prepare their next shot? Or do they write about the heroics and sacrifices of that soldier, that General, or that unit?

And yes, you can write about how a larger event is playing out while focusing on one particular individual or group of individuals. Describe what they see, what is happening around them, who is there or who is not. None of this needs hard numbers nor often any numbers at all. You just need to put yourself in there out on that battlefield watching those cannon roar and hearing the snap-whiz of musket rounds whining past. Write that story that everyone else wants to read. Is this going to cut down on the possibilities for RP partners? Maybe. But maybe you'll enjoy yourself more too, rather than worrying about winning.

This forum really needs a "like" button....

[Bubba Reb]

As long as it's not too dominant I don't have a problem with it and do it myself. In fact, if you do this thing I'm very much going to send Rear Admiral Titan McCopper - who talks just like the old weather-bitten miner he is - as the official envoy along with his stripper-dwarf adjutant. Should be fun.

Oh, and...

It's = It Is.

If you can't put it is instead of it's then don't use an apostrophe. I still catch myself doing that.

Other than that, I agree with everything Questers had to say. Having read some of your stuff, you've got a lot of potential and a diplomatic gala of some kind might be the best way to stretch your RP legs a bit. It would definitely need that Bubba Reb flavor to it though. Maybe a barbecue held on a crumbling dock next to the swamp; You catch it, he cooks it.

It is up!

viewtopic.php?ns=1&f=5&t=336884&p=24166232#p24166232

Seeing that this is my first time hosting an RP of this type, I would value input and tips from you very helpfull people.

Also, may I quote you Sunset and Questers?
I'd like to quote your RP advice in the few previous posts in my OOC post. (Giving credit to you of course)

[Stahn]

Personally, when I see an RP asking me to supply troop numbers and similar 'hard' details, I walk away. My view is that RolePlay should be just that - Role Play.

Not Roll Play.

That's an old tabletop roleplayer joke; Are you role-playing, or roll-playing? Are you playing to see how many dice you can roll, or are you playing a role? The same is true for forum RP; If you need those hard numbers are you playing to win or are you playing to create the best story? To my mind, since all winning or losing is completely voluntary, why not just skip the numbers altogether and write a story instead? Consider the great works of (even military) fiction. Does the author talk about how there are forty five thousand men on one side, six hundred were cut down in the first volley, it took two minutes for the cannons to prepare their next shot? Or do they write about the heroics and sacrifices of that soldier, that General, or that unit?

And yes, you can write about how a larger event is playing out while focusing on one particular individual or group of individuals. Describe what they see, what is happening around them, who is there or who is not. None of this needs hard numbers nor often any numbers at all. You just need to put yourself in there out on that battlefield watching those cannon roar and hearing the snap-whiz of musket rounds whining past. Write that story that everyone else wants to read. Is this going to cut down on the possibilities for RP partners? Maybe. But maybe you'll enjoy yourself more too, rather than worrying about winning.

I couldn't agree more. I also agree with what Lubyak wrote about how realism shouldn't be considered more important than telling a good story.

But that is also because opinions differ on what realism is. For example, what one person can consider the best tank ever, someone else can consider to be a piece of crap.

And there are a lot of properties of equipment that are not public knowledge.

I have said it before, I enjoy the roleplays that function as collaborative writing with no competitive element. One should make an effort understanding what the other roleplayer is going for and try to anticipate and play along with that. This doesn't work when people are out to present their nation, technology, characters or whatever as super duper awesome at the expense of everything else.

[Questers]

To add on:

The point of RP is to tell a story.

According to who? Who said role-playing was story telling? Actually a role-playing game is just transplantation of reality to fiction. There is no rule, in this game, in pragmatic terms or in dictionary terms about whether roleplaying is about telling a story - because that is one approach you can take, if you like. If people want to play roleplay as a competition, that's their right.

Everything around that story--your nation's history, organisation, etc.--is all window dressing. Sometimes the window dressing is exceptionally beautiful and well done, and you can admire it for what it is, such as people who have done exhaustive work creating their nation's military' and political structure. The window dressing can even effect how you RP, by giving you a frame of reference. e.g. How would my soldiers be trained to react in this situation, based on the doctrine I wrote up? or How would my leadership react to this incident, bearing in mind their political situation and our military abilities? The window dressing can give you guidance and consistency in how you play your characters and nations, but it shouldn't dictate how you RP.

However, to get back to the original point, in my experience many of these: 'How many troops are you sending/do you have?' are more to weed out wankers and other such 'RP to win' style players. So, if you're facing one, and don't have an answer, feel free to say 'I've not worked that out yet, and I'm trying to do so.' People will respect you more for that than simply spitting out a random number. NS already has plenty of people who just post 'I have x million troops, y tanks, and z planes.'

People create fictional nations for fun, and because they enjoy the subject matter. That being said, whatever nation you create should follow general internal consistency. Stories which are internally inconsistent are poor - you will notice that in any good story a character acts according to how they would act based on what their personality & circumstances are. Let's just take 1984 as an example. It might have made a great story if Winston became a resistance fighter and overthrew Big Brother. Most likely, however, it would have been dumb, because that was not the type of person he was, and it would have been greatly consistent internally. Nationstates is the same. The window dressing that you refer to is not window dressing - it is the personality, characteristics and circumstances of a nation, and these things dictate what happens in accordance with good internal consistency.

However, such things--including realism--should always be allowed to bend in favour of telling a good story. While it is impressive that you have 20 page write up of a tank detailing its amazing weapons and defensive potential, if it serves the story better to have it blow up dramatically, then it should blow up dramatically.

There is no 'good' story ever published which has bent realism (excepting science fiction and fantasy, which substitute their own realisms, with internal rules) in favour of story-telling. Even magical realism, best exemplified by Gabriela Garcia Marquez, does not do this. But he was a fantastic author, and unmatched by anyone on this site, frankly. And you may claim, as many do, that magical realism is a code word for fantasy.

There is a good reason for this, one that magical realists do not ignore: that is suspension of disbelief. All fiction includes suspension of disbelief. It is a balance that if a story is good enough and its human elements are compelling enough, people can ignore things that they would otherwise refuse to believe. Inside "modern tech" writing, this has its limits. This is true for all people, but those who aren't educated about a particular topic might not disbelieve something fictional just because they do not know it is wrong. That applies to all technical military aspects, but it also applies to basic real life things that require education. I don't know anything about aerodynamics, so it's difficult for me to precise about what I feel suspension of disbelief is. I know a lot about, let's say, cooking, or on paper, tanks, so it is much harder for me to suspend my disbelief for those things.

If, in a fiction setting, you destroy the readership's suspension of disbelief, you have failed totally in providing a good story. That does not mean that everything must be superrealistic, only that people must be able to accept those unrealistic things happening because the story is so good. A very good story will allow you to bend realism - realism should not be bent at the expense of a particular literary aim. That is called deus ex machina. This is usually thought of as a literary failure, but those writers who've used it well were again, as Gabriela Garcia, much better than whatever can be found here.

I don't advocate either "competitive" or "collaborative", "unplanned" or "planned" roleplaying. I think that people should take their country and their characters in a course that it is believable for that country and those characters to take.

[Lubyak]

According to who? Who said role-playing was story telling? Actually a role-playing game is just transplantation of reality to fiction. There is no rule, in this game, in pragmatic terms or in dictionary terms about whether roleplaying is about telling a story - because that is one approach you can take, if you like. If people want to play roleplay as a competition, that's their right.

This is all my personal opinion. This is what I see RPing on NS as, and I personally feel it is the best way to emphasise the right things to new players. Of course you're welcome to disagree, and RP in a different way, such is the nature of writing and a free form setting, but that is how I see RPing on NationSates.

People create fictional nations for fun, and because they enjoy the subject matter. That being said, whatever nation you create should follow general internal consistency. Stories which are internally inconsistent are poor - you will notice that in any good story a character acts according to how they would act based on what their personality & circumstances are. Let's just take 1984 as an example. It might have made a great story if Winston became a resistance fighter and overthrew Big Brother. Most likely, however, it would have been dumb, because that was not the type of person he was, and it would have been greatly consistent internally. Nationstates is the same. The window dressing that you refer to is not window dressing - it is the personality, characteristics and circumstances of a nation, and these things dictate what happens in accordance with good internal consistency.

Which is where I think we disagree. Window dressing, as I call it and see it, is the framework around the story. It provides an overall structure and what not, but--in the end--should not become the overwhelming basis of everything. Yes, it also provides for internal consistency, but you can have internal consistency and still tell a wide variety of stories. This goes back to my personal belief that--as far as NS RP goes--the story should pre-dominate. People should be free to tell whatever story they want, be it 1984, or a story where Winston becomes a glorious resistance fighter and drives Big Brother off with the magic of friendship. The same frame could exist over each of those stories, and both could remain internally consistent throughout. I think that such internal consistency is far more important to maintaining a story with suspension of disbelief throughout than anything else, and having well made window dressing makes maintaining that consistency all the easier.

There is no 'good' story ever published which has bent realism (excepting science fiction and fantasy, which substitute their own realisms, with internal rules) in favour of story-telling. Even magical realism, best exemplified by Gabriela Garcia Marquez, does not do this. But he was a fantastic author, and unmatched by anyone on this site, frankly. And you may claim, as many do, that magical realism is a code word for fantasy.

There is a good reason for this, one that magical realists do not ignore: that is suspension of disbelief. All fiction includes suspension of disbelief. It is a balance that if a story is good enough and its human elements are compelling enough, people can ignore things that they would otherwise refuse to believe. Inside "modern tech" writing, this has its limits. This is true for all people, but those who aren't educated about a particular topic might not disbelieve something fictional just because they do not know it is wrong. That applies to all technical military aspects, but it also applies to basic real life things that require education. I don't know anything about aerodynamics, so it's difficult for me to precise about what I feel suspension of disbelief is. I know a lot about, let's say, cooking, or on paper, tanks, so it is much harder for me to suspend my disbelief for those things.

If, in a fiction setting, you destroy the readership's suspension of disbelief, you have failed totally in providing a good story. That does not mean that everything must be superrealistic, only that people must be able to accept those unrealistic things happening because the story is so good. A very good story will allow you to bend realism - realism should not be bent at the expense of a particular literary aim. That is called deus ex machina. This is usually thought of as a literary failure, but those writers who've used it well were again, as Gabriela Garcia, much better than whatever can be found here.

I don't advocate either "competitive" or "collaborative", "unplanned" or "planned" roleplaying. I think that people should take their country and their characters in a course that it is believable for that country and those characters to take.

I think we're basically saying the same thing in different ways here, but perhaps with a greater emphasis on one side or the other. I do not see any realism bending as a deus ex machina. I see realism bending as a tool that allows writers who do not have the same deep know-how of say, how tanks, planes, and other such things work, and allow them to tell the story they want. As you pointed out, suspension of disbelief is going to be different for different people. What works perfectly fine for one group of players might utterly destroy another's suspension of disbelief. However, this is why I stress the importance of the story. Yes, it might break my--and your--suspension of disbelief to have a person using say Apocalypse tanks fresh out of Red Alert 3 to fight off M1A2s, but for others it might not, and if the underlying story is good enough: who cares? When I say 'bend realism', I mean that people should be more concerned with what the story they're writing is, rather than whether it's realistic or not for my tank's gun to penetrate your tank's armour, etc. etc. As I said, if it serves the story better for it to do so, then it should, and if it doesn't it shouldn't.

Where I think we're talking past each other is this: I fully agree that maintaining suspension of disbelief is important, however I think that is best done by sticking to an internally consistent structure, and if that structure happens to be 'unrealistic' in some way, then--as long as the internal consistency remains--my suspension of disbelief will generally be maintained, and the window dressing of backstory and other aspects of a nation can be very helpful at maintaining that consistency. (With exceptions of course for those who seem as if they want to just write to 'win' everything. Though, of course, you can write that way if you so choose, I just don't personally see it as very productive and advise against it.) Perhaps this is born out of my personal preference for FanT and FT but, to me something in everyone's nation will break someone's suspension of disbelief in some way, be it an economic, legal, military, or political system or something else entirely. However, this is why I encourage new players to emphasise the stories they tell/want to tell. As they build up their nation's backstory and factbooks, I'd rather they not worry about 'Is this realistic?' but rather 'Is this consistent with my nation?' As long as internal consistency is maintained, I find that most people are willing to buy in, as long as a good story is being told. Perhaps that is different in different circles on NS and I fully expect people to disagree with me, but at least part of the reason why we have these open threads is for diversity of opinions.

[Questers]

We're not talking past each other. I'm just not explaining myself very well.

Firstly, internal consistency is impossible without what you refer to as window dressing. Without exposition about a country's characteristics, it is impossible to make someone believe something is internally consistent, and consequently impossible to make something have a meaningful impact. I agree that there are a lot of details that do not need to be said - I prefer to write posts without specific details (as I illustrated in the last page) but in general, a nation's actions have to be internally consistent, and we have to know that they are internally consistent. We expect the DPRK to act the way it does because we know the DPRK - and if it changes, or does something uncharacteristic, the impact is intensified because we know what it should be doing. That is why context - which is what you are calling window dressing - is important.

There doesn't have to be a story, or stories. Some people are happy posting endless number-wank. Some people are happy building an alternate reality. Or an alternate not-reality. I do not believe in telling other people how to play the game, I'm only detailing already-accepted IRL "rules" of literature for people who like to write.

Here's the problem with what you're saying: you are suggesting directly that people who do not know how military affairs work should write about them and just bend reality. Let's just take the example you used earlier of a tank exploding. In the first place, in traditional prose, none of the myriad factors that lead up to this have to be stated or explained. It is sufficient to note that the vehicle was destroyed. Red Army is a great example of this. Specific details do not make a good story. Humans and how and why they act make a good story. It is never necessary to do anything that is unrealistic, because everything is fictional - if you set a context in which unrealistic things don't need to happen. That is the real work. If you just want to change reality because you can't find a way to make the context work for you, that is lazy writing, and additionally breaks suspension of disbelief.

Now that being said: you must write for your audience. The majority of my war posts are character exposition. Unless I write narrative history, which is just an explanatory thing, there are no numbers or specific details. The audience I am writing for prefer that. Presumably, some people don't. If you are writing for an audience that won't care if a pistol destroys a tank, then go ahead. A good writer should know what level of disbelief his readership will accept and mold that. Personally I do not care for fantasy, but there are some very good fantasy authors. They appeal to their audience very well. But if any of them tried to write a book like The Sun Also Rises, they would probably fail.

[Lubyak]

We're not talking past each other. I'm just not explaining myself very well.

Firstly, internal consistency is impossible without what you refer to as window dressing. Without exposition about a country's characteristics, it is impossible to make someone believe something is internally consistent, and consequently impossible to make something have a meaningful impact. I agree that there are a lot of details that do not need to be said - I prefer to write posts without specific details (as I illustrated in the last page) but in general, a nation's actions have to be internally consistent, and we have to know that they are internally consistent. We expect the DPRK to act the way it does because we know the DPRK - and if it changes, or does something uncharacteristic, the impact is intensified because we know what it should be doing. That is why context - which is what you are calling window dressing - is important.

I would say that internal consistency can be shown through actions, rather than just exposition. I think we basically agree here on the importance of context, however I term it 'window dressing' as an attempt to convey to new players that it's the consistency, rather than the numbers and minutiae that's important. What I am basically saying is that it's not necessary to have precisely calculated numbers of troops, GDP, etc. to create an internally consistent nation. An idea of character and general culture of the nation is, and adding more detail to it enables consistency to be better defined and maintained, but it's an add on rather than the core. I suppose that I am saying that there are different levels of internal consistency. There is the core of it, which is the very nature of the nation being RPd, and then there is the edge, which would be details such as how everything is organised, etc. As long as the core is maintained, so is the vast majority of internal consistency. Details such as the name and structure of government departments and other such things are less important to consistency, and lie on the edge where altering them is less damning to internal consistency.

There doesn't have to be a story, or stories. Some people are happy posting endless number-wank. Some people are happy building an alternate reality. Or an alternate not-reality. I do not believe in telling other people how to play the game, I'm only detailing already-accepted IRL "rules" of literature for people who like to write.

That is also true. NS is free form and everyone can do anything they want, be it number wank, simply world build, etc. However, I feel fine encouraging a certain style of RP, and give advice accordingly.

Here's the problem with what you're saying: you are suggesting directly that people who do not know how military affairs work should write about them and just bend reality. Let's just take the example you used earlier of a tank exploding. In the first place, in traditional prose, none of the myriad factors that lead up to this have to be stated or explained. It is sufficient to note that the vehicle was destroyed. Red Army is a great example of this. Specific details do not make a good story. Humans and how and why they act make a good story. It is never necessary to do anything that is unrealistic, because everything is fictional - if you set a context in which unrealistic things don't need to happen. That is the real work. If you just want to change reality because you can't find a way to make the context work for you, that is lazy writing, and additionally breaks suspension of disbelief.

I don't think I'm being clear here either. I adore Red Army for its writing and human element focus. What I'm saying is that if a player wants to RP military action, but doesn't have the know how to write it realistically, they should fall back on abstraction and focus on the story, which seems to fit with what you're saying as well. When I say 'bend reality' I mean that players shouldn't focus on the details of organisation, or technology behind all their things, but rather keep focused on how their characters view and deal with the situations facing them. I do agree that once you've set yourself a context, you shouldn't break the suspension of disbelief by acting inconsistently with that context. However, the context itself should be free to be unrealistic. as long as it is internally consistent with itself. The reality bending that occurs is one that happens as the context is set up, not breaking from the context. Furthermore, when I say 'bend reality' I'm not necessarily saying 'do anything', I'm saying 'don't concern yourself too much with what's realistic. Focus on consistency and telling the story.' Of course, as mentioned, I am trying to encourage story telling styles of RP, and others might have different ends in mind, for which I am probably not the Mentor best suited to them.

Now that being said: you must write for your audience. The majority of my war posts are character exposition. Unless I write narrative history, which is just an explanatory thing, there are no numbers or specific details. The audience I am writing for prefer that. Presumably, some people don't. If you are writing for an audience that won't care if a pistol destroys a tank, then go ahead. A good writer should know what level of disbelief his readership will accept and mold that. Personally I do not care for fantasy, but there are some very good fantasy authors. They appeal to their audience very well. But if any of them tried to write a book like The Sun Also Rises, they would probably fail.

I agree with you there. Obviously, different RP groups have different ideas of how things should be. When I give advice, I give it from my experience and what I think would be helpful.