Olthenia wrote:Hello everyone.
So, an RP I'm in, and which I've fairly enjoyed for some time, has taken me into a part of the Nationstates experience I'm utterly unfamiliar with. The rules and guidelines for "regular" character interaction don't seem to apply here, and I'm stumped. Maybe even a little frightened.
Thing is, I'm headed into what's probably my very first war. From what I can tell, the other players aren't really writing in ways that make a lot of sense to me. For instance, most of them seem happy to state the results of their own actions on their opponents forces, then move the plot forward at their leisure and requests reactions to the results rather than the attempt. Others again even seem to regard the entire RP as an enormous board game where their posts constitute moves of individual pieces. They also seem content to state the results of their own actions and fiercely defend their reasoning with references to earlier posts. "I moved those troops into such and such a position. I stated I had artillery of this type, whereas you have artillery of that type. Clearly, my force is superior." They marshal their facts in neat little lines and beat everyone else to death with them.
I thought war and combat in roleplaying would be more an effort of interactive storytelling; one where cooperation was key rather than OOC shouting matches about ballistics, uniforms and how heavy your army's artillery is.
Is this simply a case of "naive old fool meets RP reality", or is this striking a chord with anyone?
What happens if I disagree with someone else's move? Can I choose to ignore someone if I feel they're being unreasonable? Or even politely decline to acknowledge them if I don't feel engaged by their writing?
When did my exercise in interactive storytelling become an exercise in number-waving slash tabletop wargaming?
These are very good questions. I will respond to each bit one at a time.
I thought war and combat in roleplaying would be more an effort of interactive storytelling; one where cooperation was key rather than OOC shouting matches about ballistics, uniforms and how heavy your army's artillery is.
Generally speaking, yes that's the case, although it depends on the thread OP. For practical purposes, the OP of the thread is "God," in the sense that he sets the rules for the thread, determines what is acceptable to it and what is not. Having said that, are you familiar with the OP and what their rules are for the thread? If you don't like the way the OP runs a thread, you can always not post in it (that's the best advice I can give you regarding RPs that rub you the wrong way. Nobody can force you to post).
Is this simply a case of "naive old fool meets RP reality", or is this striking a chord with anyone?
Oh I most assuredly agree with you, however like I said, it depends on what rules the OP has for his thread. If things are happening against what the OP said are the rules, than the offending parties could get kicked out of the thread and their material in said thread retconned and ignored.
What happens if I disagree with someone else's move? Can I choose to ignore someone if I feel they're being unreasonable? Or even politely decline to acknowledge them if I don't feel engaged by their writing?
A matter of common courtesy in roleplaying, be it on NS, or anything else, is that the defender states the losses. Nobody can tell you what your losses are...that would be considered Godmodding. So if someone dictates what happens to your stuff, you can disagree with it on the grounds that you as the defender state your losses. If they refuse to adhere to this, you can ignore them. In fact, you can technically ignore anyone at any time for any reason that you see fit. Just be careful with how you choose to ignore people, and how often. Frequent ignorers who do so for less than reasonable reasons can earn a bad reputation quick (and trust me, you don't want a bad reputation in NS RP).
When did my exercise in interactive storytelling become an exercise in number-waving slash tabletop wargaming?
Generally there are two schools of thought in NS RP. Competitive and Cooperative RP. The former is based around a system of winners and losers, usually with open-ended threads and the latter is a collaborative effort where the writers agree on what happens, how it happens, etc. Trust me, the two are like oil and water, and it's better to run in one camp or the other depending on your tastes and preferences. The important thing is to have fun, so try to do that with other people that enjoy the same things as you do!
