NationStates

As many of you might know, I've been stalking the Gameplay forum as part of an effort to better learn how this slice of the community functions, where its problems are, and so on in an effort to better moderate the place while we're on the hunt for some new mods to help fill the gap left by Sedge and CG. I've also been stalking a small cross-sampling of R/D related Discords (NSGP, Libcord, TGW, and TBH; started with those but I am open to suggestions for other ones to lurk on if welcome) to similarly get a feel for the offsite portion and how it can affect the on-site stuff. Even reading threads in here, I'm often left baffled by terms and clearly long-running histories between regions, between organizations, ancient betrayals and spectacular coups.

Surely, I'm not the only one. So my challenge to anyone willing to undertake it is such: If you were going to explain Gameplay, these histories, personalities, jargon, and so on, how would you do so? Obviously given the nature of some rivalries, these sorts of descriptions might not be well-suited to the public forum, in which case I would love to hear from folks via TG. (With the solemn vow that nothing sent via TG to me about this topic will be divulged with anyone, bar the other mods only in the event such information becomes relevant to a Moderation matter... which probably is not likely to happen since this is basically "Hey, what's your opinion about X, Y, Z, etc things in Gameplay?")

Some possible angles of attack to give everybody ideas to get started:

• How would you describe your organization/allies/region/treaties/important folks to someone with minimal knowledge of Gameplay? (Basically, someone knows the basic game mechanics that underpin the most basic elements of R/D, but probably doesn't know the difference between a raider and an imperialist for instance.)
• How would you describe other organizations/their allies/regions/treaties/important folks to someone with minimal knowledge? (This one is likely better sent via TG for likely obvious reasons. )
• The origin of yours or some other group/region/etc's theming. Was it planned, or did it just sort of develop over time?
• What GP jargon is vital to understanding Gameplay, and how would you define those terms? (Raider, defender, imperialist, independent, francoist, triggering, userite, etc.)
• How about history? What big moments would you want somebody to have a basic understanding of? How far back in time do you think they should be briefed on, the past six months, or would you go clear back to 2003 and the wild and crazy days of Francos Spain's stranglehold on the Pacific (... I am thinking of the right feeder on that, right?) How did so-and-so's coup or newly elected government impact relations with such-and-such group? That sort of stuff.
• What about the tools of the trade? The spreadsheets, the interface enhancements, intel gathering, and so on?

I am most curious to see the community describe itself and its history, skewed viewpoints and inter-regional/personal/organization biases and all. The guide threads, while informative, are rather dry and lack a lot of the historical information and subtext that I suspect are rather important to having anything close to a more comprehensive view of the big picture.

... Huh, now that I think about it, basically a sort of Gameplay folklore collection project.

Gameplay really is just a version of the game "Diplomacy." You have varying factions vying for control of the game: Raiders, Defenders, Independents, Imperialists, Francoists, etc. etc. You have supply centers (GCRs) where you must recruit to gain more military units. Then, through a complicated series of military operations and negotiations, find out every turn (update) who controls what region (through the delegacy).

As a result, diplomacy between regions and factions is very cutthroat and vicious. It takes skilled players to rise up the ranks to control each faction. And more importantly, you can never fully trust anybody, as personal attachment can be used against you down the road when your "friend" needs to gain political capital by sacrificing you.

Drasnia wrote:Gameplay really is just a version of the game "Diplomacy."

Needlessly difficult to get into without someone who knows how to play already, and notorious for destroying friendships
Sounds about right :^)

Derpsles wrote:

Drasnia wrote:Gameplay really is just a version of the game "Diplomacy."

Needlessly difficult to get into without someone who knows how to play already, and notorious for destroying friendships
Sounds about right :^)

Damn straight.

Knowing me, something very very long that doesn't help much

Drasnia wrote:Gameplay really is just a version of the game "Diplomacy."

This isn't useful for people who haven't played that game lol

Solorni wrote:

Drasnia wrote:Gameplay really is just a version of the game "Diplomacy."

This isn't useful for people who haven't played that game lol

Yeah... like me, though I've heard about it...

So, this still assumes a little bit of knowledge, but not too much hopefully. I also skipped a few I did not want to or feel I have the knowledge to answer well.

Reploid Productions wrote:How would you describe your organization/allies/region/treaties/important folks to someone with minimal knowledge of Gameplay? (Basically, someone knows the basic game mechanics that underpin the most basic elements of R/D, but probably doesn't know the difference between a raider and an imperialist for instance.)

The Black Hawks(TBH) are one of the oldest and most consistently active and reliable raiding organizations. We were started in 2005 and have gone through a lot of ups and downs. Our more recent notable events include the reformation of the council in July 2015, the council structure that is currently active today, and the creation of raidervision, an annual event open to anyone interested in learning more about raiding. While Red Back is technically the commander, the operation of the region is largely done by a group known as the Council of the Hawks. While we would not be nearly as successful without our allies, TBH has done much to further raiding and gameplay as a whole. Some achievements include being the only active region to hold two world assembly condemnations, and to hold the record for the most regions tagged in a single update.
More info can be found in this dispatch

The origin of yours or some other group/region/etc's theming. Was it planned, or did it just sort of develop over time?

It was based off of the founders first raiding groups name, The Black Eagles. There isn't too much of a theme, but the rank structure is very similar to actual military ranks, and the system of ranks and what you are allowed to do at certain ranks has changed over time. Recently there has been a trend to let players get into leading tag runs and such earlier in the ranking system.

What GP jargon is vital to understanding Gameplay, and how would you define those terms? (Raider, defender, imperialist, independent, francoist, triggering, userite, etc.)

Those terms are pretty hard to specify, as people tend to blur the lines at times.

Raiders are people who take over founderless regions for fun and excitement, they do it for the heck of it, not out of a particular cause.

Defenders are people who mostly focus on countering raiders. This used to be only by stopping raids, but recently has often included raider like regions.

Imperialist, to the best of my understanding and view, are people who will raid or defend based on a cause or ideology. They will raid people against their cause, and defend people who agree with it. This can be from expanding their regions territory and influence, or promoting feminism or fighting facism.

Independent means you will raid or defend, whichever you feel like doing or is convenient at the time.

the other terms listed tend towards the GCR vs. UCR drama that I don't get involved with.

What about the tools of the trade? The spreadsheets, the interface enhancements, intel gathering, and so on?

Both raiders and defenders use tools and scripts that make their job easier and faster. For new players, it's best to spend at least a little time doing things without them, which is also called doing things manually. This gives you a better understanding of how things actually work, which is useful to know, and also gives a better appreciation of how much the scripts do for you. Once you have a little more experience, poke around and see what tools are available that might make your NS experience better.

---

My biggest piece of advice for new players is find a region that looks interesting, and just go for it. You will learn a lot more faster by getting into it. You will make mistakes, but we all do, and that's how we learn and grow. Never be afraid of mistakes, and never be afraid to ask. You'll be surprised at how quickly you get a handle on things and can start having fun with the main part of gameplay.

Its an elaborate simulation of foreign policy and national government that some people take seriously in some areas and not in others, while some people take nothing seriously and some people take it very seriously all the time.

Military combat, due to the limits of the game code, is simplistic, but an elaborate series of ideas have formed around that simple mechanic. At its core there is just capture (move units in to change who the WAD is) and defense (Move units in to keep WAD as is). Every R/D ideological position is basically a set of general principles or hard rules as to when capture is or isn't acceptable, and when/if one should defend and how that should work.

When you dig deeper, you find an even deeper divide that has to do with the 'some parts seriously, some parts not' aspect - at the core of many divides on the subject of R/D is the question of if the basic unit of organization in this game is the community of players, or the region of nations. Most defenders - or at least the hardlines ones - tend to fall on the side of 'Region of nations' while most who raid feel it is 'community of players' that matters most. Some treat this as just a game rather than a moral imperative - and some kind of do it both ways.

The whole thing gets infinitely more complicated when you layer in the fact that there is an implicit IC and OOC, and how personality and politics tend to affect it all, how you can be friends with your enemies and enemies with your friends, and how some people will take an IC thing OOCly, and how some people will use OOC for IC advantage, etc.

Its a massive social game where the only currency is the ability to convince someone to do the thing, whatever 'the thing' is.

I'll have to post more later, because man, this is a question with a lot of moving parts, but what I've posted now is basically how I break it down in quick conversation, such as when my dad asked what It was I was doing online.

Imperialist, to the best of my understanding and view, are people who will raid or defend based on a cause or ideology. They will raid people against their cause, and defend people who agree with it. This can be from expanding their regions territory and influence, or promoting feminism or fighting facism.

Independent means you will raid or defend, whichever you feel like doing or is convenient at the time.

Oh man, I'll have to correct you on these terms tommorrow when I have the time for it. Fighting RL politics in NS isn't Imperialism, its NSLeftism, or NSRight-wingism, etc or the like.

How would I describe it?

Gameplay is in essence a gigantic years long [male body part] measuring contest. Everything is a giant endless war between two somewhat vaguely defined groups calling themselves "raiders" and "defenders". The names and groups become just different faces of the same endless conflict. Vile and toxic conflict between the demagogues of NationStates, often becoming personal and more often than it should its attacks reach into the real world. Those who value themselves and their sanity would be wise to stay away.

Explain it? I wouldn't.

There are plenty of guides out there, and specific questions can be answered in the appropriate places. Learning the history just requires a bit of light reading.

How would you describe your organization/allies/region/treaties/important folks to someone with minimal knowledge of Gameplay?
We're SIMPLY THE BEST!

How would you describe other organizations/their allies/regions/treaties/important folks to someone with minimal knowledge?
All you fascists bound to lose!

The origin of yours or some other group/region/etc's theming. Was it planned, or did it just sort of develop over time?
It was planned, although elements of The Red Fleet's theme have developed and changed over the years. For instance, the squadrons previously had more general names (Solidarity Squadron, 1917 Squadron, Socialist Americas Squadron) but have more recently been named after prominent leftists: Castro, Makhno, Durruti, Ibarruri, and currently Huey P. Newton and Thomas Sankara.

How about history? What big moments would you want somebody to have a basic understanding of?
Taking down the Greater German Reich will always be a highlight of my time in NS. And to think that we brought the crew together in under six hours (as I recall, we started pulling troops together around 7pm, with update hitting the region at ~12:45am) and succeeded on our first try - it was first time The Red Fleet led a major operation, and it was a massive success from start to finish.

What about the tools of the trade? The spreadsheets, the interface enhancements, intel gathering, and so on?
We hands-down have the best tools, from what I can tell. The interesting thing I've noticed is that our tools have all been designed to make manual operations easier, instead of trying to outright automate things.

I would tie them to a chair, dangle the chair upside down from the side of a tower block hundreds of metres high and slap them round the face with a fish until their skull was bare.

A wretched hive of scum and villainy. Basically, we're the Mos Eisley Cantina. I meant this as a shitpost at first, but it's honestly really fitting as I think about it more.

I'll post a more philosophical answer within the week.

"Look Simba, everything the light touches is NationStates."

"But what about that shadowy place?"

"That is The Gameplay Subforum. You must never go there."

Tim-Opolis wrote:A wretched hive of scum and villainy. Basically, we're the Mos Eisley Cantina. I meant this as a shitpost at first, but it's honestly really fitting as I think about it more.

I'll post a more philosophical answer within the week.

Yeah. I sadly sadly agree with tim.

For the history there are a number of very good (and relatively short) explanations in the 'You've got Questions' thread about Gameplay history: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=152919

EDIT: Just realised a number of the older links in that thread are dead. I will try to find some of the older stuff later this week. Most of what I have is related to the orgs in my signature.

I'd explain r/d and interregional politics as roleplay utilising game mechanics. (as opposed to roleplay that is free Form, or using third party mechanics (eg. NS sports))

My number one priority would be to avoid conflating R/D with GP; those nuisances may be very noisy, but they are only a small section of the larger GP community which is principally about regional governance.

Belschaft wrote:My number one priority would be to avoid conflating R/D with GP; those nuisances may be very noisy, but they are only a small section of the larger GP community which is principally about regional governance.

I agree with this for the most part but I do think R/D is definitively a part of the larger GP experience. Many new nations take part in some aspect of the dynamic, or are at the very least badgered with recruitment Telegrams asking them if they want to take part in such activities. Without including them in an explanation of Gameplay I believe a significant part of the experience could be overlooked. Plus, many regional governments organize some form of regional military if they get to a certain size.

I'd call it Game of Thrones Online. If the person doesn't know what Games of Thrones is, then I'd name an actual RL government that's closest to what GP is like.

Greater Moldavi wrote:

Belschaft wrote:My number one priority would be to avoid conflating R/D with GP; those nuisances may be very noisy, but they are only a small section of the larger GP community which is principally about regional governance.

I agree with this for the most part but I do think R/D is definitively a part of the larger GP experience. Many new nations take part in some aspect of the dynamic, or are at the very least badgered with recruitment Telegrams asking them if they want to take part in such activities. Without including them in an explanation of Gameplay I believe a significant part of the experience could be overlooked. Plus, many regional governments organize some form of regional military if they get to a certain size.

I think you can do GP without R/D, but R/D is part of GP regardless - because one of the major parts of regional governance is Foreign Affairs, and R/D, being the only viable form of military activity in the game that isn't roleplayed, is thus obviously bound up in Foreign Affairs.

Fundamentally, the root purpose of a region is for everyone to have fun and enjoy the game by giving them things to do, and that can include R/D. If the goal of the region isn't to enjoy the game, why are you here?

I personally would explain Gameplay as the medium through which players (nations), acting on behalf of their own ambitions, and those of their respective region(s), interact with other players/nations/regions in order to determine a future course of action based upon past actions and current realities/dynamics. It is essentially a model UN where all the nations are autocratic and led by megalomaniacs.

Greater Moldavi wrote:I personally would explain Gameplay as the medium through which players (nations), acting on behalf of their own ambitions, and those of their respective region(s), interact with other players/nations/regions in order to determine a future course of action based upon past actions and current realities/dynamics. It is essentially a model UN where all the nations are autocratic and led by megalomaniacs.

a model UN where all the nations are autocratic and led by megalomaniacs


You're not exactly wrong.

I'm not suggesting that R/D should be ignored - it is a significant part of Gameplay - but merely that it can't be conflated with it. R/D =/= GP. It isn't even all of Military Gameplay, as there are many regions with active armies that don't engage in R/D as a principal activity; not every military operation in GP is a raid or defence. GCR wars should not be included as such, nor the Commie/Nazi battles that the NS far-left and far-right have always engaged in. There's also other parts of Mil GP like the warzones, "Nazi Hunts"/"Fash Bash" that GCR's and major UCR's tend to engage in, etc... whenever an outside group enters a region and takes the Delegacy it's an invasion in a technical sense, but not all invasions are raids. I'd strictly limited R/D to the arbitrary stuff that goes on between self declared Raider and Defender groups, and take out the political and ideological stuff.

Broadly speaking;

Gameplay
->Military Gameplay
--> R/D
--> GCR War
--> Coups/Civil War
--> Ideological/Nationalist War (Nazis vs. Commies, Greeks vs. Persians, Country Region collecting, etc)
--> Warzones
--> Fash Bash

It's principally the R/Ders who try to group all Mil GP under their banner, to the detriment of GP as a whole and actively misleading non-GPers