Not an RP forum?

[Vetok]

RPing a new trade deal doesn't suddenly boost your gameplay nation's stats nor does a change in gameplay nation's stats effect your RP, unless you specifically set out to do so.

I don't accept that this means it is not roleplay. Gameplay and roleplay can combine - it may well be a machine making the next move and not another RPer, but it is still roleplay.

Just because something triggers an action in the game it doesn't mean it is separate from roleplay - surely the whole point is to incorporate the two? Your nation only exists because of the game, so every roleplay action you take has to be linked to the game.

You can roleplay setting up a cable network and selling it to a nation government, you'll take into account game-controlled information such as the nation's population. Decision not made by the RPer, but by the game.

Unless the RP'er decides to use different figures for their population.

[Wanbeck]

I don't accept that this means it is not roleplay. Gameplay and roleplay can combine - it may well be a machine making the next move and not another RPer, but it is still roleplay.

Just because something triggers an action in the game it doesn't mean it is separate from roleplay - surely the whole point is to incorporate the two? Your nation only exists because of the game, so every roleplay action you take has to be linked to the game.

You can roleplay setting up a cable network and selling it to a nation government, you'll take into account game-controlled information such as the nation's population. Decision not made by the RPer, but by the game.

Unless the RP'er decides to use different figures for their population.

Then why bother coming to NationStates at all if you would ignore everything here? Bit inconsiderate.

[Vetok]

Unless the RP'er decides to use different figures for their population.

Then why bother coming to NationStates at all if you would ignore everything here? Bit inconsiderate.

How many in General play the game? How many in F7 play it? How many RP'ers play it? The simple fact is, you have Nationstates the game, and Nationstates the forum where everyone hangs out. People change their population to how they feel it should be. Some P/MT'ers cap it, some FT'ers boost it. And another thing. The majority of people on NS have not read the books the game is based on. Have you? They find it through other channels. I myself found it through searching for online nation simulation games after an experience with SimCountry, and found NS.

[Ballotonia]

Just because something triggers an action in the game it doesn't mean it is separate from roleplay - surely the whole point is to incorporate the two? Your nation only exists because of the game, so every roleplay action you take has to be linked to the game.

The two are entirely separate, by definition even.

Example: if you Roleplay on the forum that you're killing half the population of your nation, the population listed in the game will not alter at all. It'll just increase per its normal rate.

Ballotonia

[Wanbeck]

Just because something triggers an action in the game it doesn't mean it is separate from roleplay - surely the whole point is to incorporate the two? Your nation only exists because of the game, so every roleplay action you take has to be linked to the game.

The two are entirely separate, by definition even.

Example: if you Roleplay on the forum that you're killing half the population of your nation, the population listed in the game will not alter at all. It'll just increase per its normal rate.

Ballotonia

Ok yes, I understand, it is different, But to say electing a President by system of voting is "NOT RP" is wrong. There is RP which chooses to incorporate the game, and there is RP which is completely separate. Personally I favour the former, because as a keen RPer I think games like this can be a real benefit to the RP and keep a level of realism which keeps things going.

But to say that gameplay is different from RP isn't right... perhaps it would be clearer if the categories were

"NationStates Roleplay" and "Unrelated Roleplay", or something similar.

All RP needs is a blank forum and some keen RPers, but many RPers agree that some sort of framework, scene setting, game-decisions and boundaries can be a real benefit to a better role play experience. Even the 'harcdore RPers' started the game for a reason.

[Crazy girl]

@Crazy Girl; Sorry, but I've read some of your posts before now and heard about you, and you do have an reputation for an intense dislike of RP'ers.

Only those who post roleplay in the gameplay forum. If you had been here in the early days, when this forum was created, you'd understand. There was quite the battle over this forum between the gameplayers and roleplayers who thought they could claim this as their OOC "lets organise a roleplay" forum. Thankfully Neut kicked them all out.

I do hang out in #nationstates from time to time and chat with the roleplayers there. I usually even enter with "Hello, roleplayers!".
They're not to bad. For roleplayers

Wanbeck, we don't roleplay. We don't make up people who live in our country, we don't pretend to be a leader of a country. As Ballotonia pointed out, we are players. Sitting behind a computer and moving around our nations (but yeah, it could've been helicopters, boats, cars, tribes, whatever) to other regions, defending them from invaders, liberating them, etc.

[Wanbeck]

@Crazy Girl; Sorry, but I've read some of your posts before now and heard about you, and you do have an reputation for an intense dislike of RP'ers.

Only those who post roleplay in the gameplay forum. If you had been here in the early days, when this forum was created, you'd understand. There was quite the battle over this forum between the gameplayers and roleplayers who thought they could claim this as their OOC "lets organise a roleplay" forum. Thankfully Neut kicked them all out.

I do hang out in #nationstates from time to time and chat with the roleplayers there. I usually even enter with "Hello, roleplayers!".
They're not to bad. For roleplayers

Wanbeck, we don't roleplay. We don't make up people who live in our country, we don't pretend to be a leader of a country. As Ballotonia pointed out, we are players. Sitting behind a computer and moving around our nations (but yeah, it could've been helicopters, boats, cars, tribes, whatever) to other regions, defending them from invaders, liberating them, etc.

But CG, surely now you understand my confusion? An election for the President of a region by off-site voting is roleplay, yet it goes into Gameplay because it has some indirect effect on the game. Yet what you have there is people role-playing in the Gameplay region. A full In-Character thread happening in the Gameplay forum. But it can't be moved because it has an indirect relation to the game.

[Crazy girl]

Actually, we're picking out which player has a say about the region. Not which nation.
Nor do we elect some made up person to be president of a country.

[Wanbeck]

Actually, we're picking out which player has a say about the region. Not which nation.
Nor do we elect some made up person to be president of a country.

But what I mean is, if some players/nations/whatever were running a thread here which was fully In-Character, and was around the scene of a Presidential election and the election, debate and voting process. Would you move that to NationStates became it is clearly roleplay and is reffering to roles and processes not used in the game, like voting and Presidents? Or would you leave it here and declare it as "NOT RP" because it has an indirect link to game functions?

Because then you will either end up having:

a) A fully in-character thread talking about presidents and voting methods within the Gameplay section, or

b) A thread in the NationStates section which will result in the change of game functions

Either that, or you could interrupt the thread and tell the players they must not role-play or be In Character when discussing real game functions... seems to me that by building this wall between Gameplay and Roleplay we're creating false definitions, and a a divide that doesn't even exist in a game that is, by its very nature, a roleplay game to the core.

[Sedgistan]

Trololololol.

Friendly mod reminder: Accusations of trolling go in the Moderation forum.

[Sedgistan]

But what I mean is, if some players/nations/whatever were running a thread here which was fully In-Character, and was around the scene of a Presidential election and the election, debate and voting process. Would you move that to NationStates became it is clearly roleplay and is reffering to roles and processes not used in the game, like voting and Presidents? Or would you leave it here and declare it as "NOT RP" because it has an indirect link to game functions?

What do you mean by fully In-Character? If I'm talking about electing a leader for my region, who controls the gameplay functions of my region, I'll be talking as sedge-the-player, not the RPed leader of my nation. I think that may be where the confusion is coming from.

[Wanbeck]

But what I mean is, if some players/nations/whatever were running a thread here which was fully In-Character, and was around the scene of a Presidential election and the election, debate and voting process. Would you move that to NationStates became it is clearly roleplay and is reffering to roles and processes not used in the game, like voting and Presidents? Or would you leave it here and declare it as "NOT RP" because it has an indirect link to game functions?

What do you mean by fully In-Character? If I'm talking about electing a leader for my region, who controls the gameplay functions of my region, I'll be talking as sedge-the-player, not the RPed leader of my nation. I think that may be where the confusion is coming from.

But this is a roleplay game, surely people will want to incorporate RP into the game? If the RP isn't based on the game, what's it based on? This concept of dividing the two amazes me, how you must either be a gamer or an RPer. It's a shame for such a well established online RP game. Which is exactly what this is, a roleplay game.

I don't know how else to put my question... I'm asking you what you would do with the thread I've described, but you've just told me how you would write it differently. But what if you didn't write it? As an experienced RP gamer you obviously know a thread can be fully 100% strictly In-Character and still impact in-game functions. That's the beauty of RP games. So where does the thread go?

[Vetok]

What do you mean by fully In-Character? If I'm talking about electing a leader for my region, who controls the gameplay functions of my region, I'll be talking as sedge-the-player, not the RPed leader of my nation. I think that may be where the confusion is coming from.

But this is a roleplay game, surely people will want to incorporate RP into the game? If the RP isn't based on the game, what's it based on? This concept of dividing the two amazes me, how you must either be a gamer or an RPer. It's a shame for such a well established online RP game. Which is exactly what this is, a roleplay game.

I don't know how else to put my question... I'm asking you what you would do with the thread I've described, but you've just told me how you would write it differently. But what if you didn't write it? As an experienced RP gamer you obviously know a thread can be fully 100% strictly In-Character and still impact in-game functions. That's the beauty of RP games. So where does the thread go?

That's not really how it works on Nationstates. It might on other sites, but I can assure you it doesn't here.

[Crazy girl]

I think there is your problem, you call it a roleplay game. But it's not a roleplay game. Roleplay is only one of many aspects of the game.

[Wanbeck]

But this is a roleplay game, surely people will want to incorporate RP into the game? If the RP isn't based on the game, what's it based on? This concept of dividing the two amazes me, how you must either be a gamer or an RPer. It's a shame for such a well established online RP game. Which is exactly what this is, a roleplay game.

I don't know how else to put my question... I'm asking you what you would do with the thread I've described, but you've just told me how you would write it differently. But what if you didn't write it? As an experienced RP gamer you obviously know a thread can be fully 100% strictly In-Character and still impact in-game functions. That's the beauty of RP games. So where does the thread go?

That's not really how it works on Nationstates. It might on other sites, but I can assure you it doesn't here.

But I love roleplay and that's why I love this game - i think it has an excellent mix of the two. If I was part of a region, with other's who enjoy roleplay, we may well want to have an In-Character government for our region wherby the Prime Minister or President would also hold the role of WA Delegate. Are you saying this is simply not how it works here and I must learn a divide between game and roleplay?

[Vetok]

That's not really how it works on Nationstates. It might on other sites, but I can assure you it doesn't here.

But I love roleplay and that's why I love this game - i think it has an excellent mix of the two. If I was part of a region, with other's who enjoy roleplay, we may well want to have an In-Character government for our region wherby the Prime Minister or President would also hold the role of WA Delegate. Are you saying this is simply not how it works here and I must learn a divide between game and roleplay?

Well, if we go back to what I said earlier about IC and OOC, we can solve this. You, the person behind the account, chose to place your nation in that region. All of you could be RP'ers who wish to establish a IC government, although this is normally only seen when the region concerned is the home region for certain groups or alliances.

However; this would have no effect on the game side, since regions don't have governments. Granted, your election would actually determine who becomes WA Delegate, but that's an OOC position.

[Wanbeck]

Creating a nation, answering legislation, setting a currency, endorsing a nation, voting on a resolution... this is all gameplay, but it is all roleplay. You can't hijack the definition to create this new concept of gameplay vs roleplay. So the gameplayers can't avoid the roleplay. And the roleplayers are here for a region, and they rely on many aspects of gameplay to influence their roleplay, so the roleplayers equally can't avoid the gameplay.

I think personally it would be so much more straightforward and sensible if there was just a section for "In-Character". That way, everything which is fully IC can go there, whether it ultimately affects gameplay or not.

That would be the best way to clear up confusion, stop people getting annoyed, and make things easier for everyone.

[Crazy girl]

We've been doing this since 2003...been working fine. I don't roleplay.

(Biyah, Sedge, that marriage doesn't count as RP )

[Wanbeck]

Well, if we go back to what I said earlier about IC and OOC, we can solve this. You, the person behind the account, chose to place your nation in that region. All of you could be RP'ers who wish to establish a IC government, although this is normally only seen when the region concerned is the home region for certain groups or alliances.

However; this would have no effect on the game side, since regions don't have governments. Granted, your election would actually determine who becomes WA Delegate, but that's an OOC position.

Exactly. So a 100% In-Character thread for election to President of a region should therefore happen in the NationStates section, because regions don't have presidents. But someone earlier, admin/mod I believe, was sure the thread should to to Gameplay because even though it is an In-Character thread, it would result in a WA Delegate being chosen.

If nothing else, I've at least demonstrated there is confusion even among the experienced.

[Crazy girl]

And it does if the president handles gameplay affairs, such as coordinating armies (WA nation armies, for invading/defending regions). You are making an issue here that isn't an issue.

[Vetok]

Creating a nation, answering legislation, setting a currency, endorsing a nation, voting on a resolution... this is all gameplay, but it is all roleplay. You can't hijack the definition to create this new concept of gameplay vs roleplay. So the gameplayers can't avoid the roleplay. And the roleplayers are here for a region, and they rely on many aspects of gameplay to influence their roleplay, so the roleplayers equally can't avoid the gameplay.

I think personally it would be so much more straightforward and sensible if there was just a section for "In-Character". That way, everything which is fully IC can go there, whether it ultimately affects gameplay or not.

That would be the best way to clear up confusion, stop people getting annoyed, and make things easier for everyone.

Actually, when you get down to it, NationStates is a nation simulation game, just without the realism. After all, you're not trawling though 10-page reports on your Foreign Minister cheating on his wife for the umpteenth time are you? You're answering the issues, raiding/defending or whatever. That's not playing a role. That's playing a game.

Well, if we go back to what I said earlier about IC and OOC, we can solve this. You, the person behind the account, chose to place your nation in that region. All of you could be RP'ers who wish to establish a IC government, although this is normally only seen when the region concerned is the home region for certain groups or alliances.

However; this would have no effect on the game side, since regions don't have governments. Granted, your election would actually determine who becomes WA Delegate, but that's an OOC position.

Exactly. So a 100% In-Character thread for election to President of a region should therefore happen in the NationStates section, because regions don't have presidents. But someone earlier, admin/mod I believe, was sure the thread should to to Gameplay because even though it is an In-Character thread, it would result in a WA Delegate being chosen.

If nothing else, I've at least demonstrated there is confusion even among the experienced.

No, I'm trying to understand what you're saying. Something like that would be Gameplay. Even if your region exists as an IC location, e.g. Azhukali, Rostil, Gholgoth or Haven, you're holding an election for an OOC position. If the election was for a solely IC position, i.e. being the president of the region in wars, emergencies, etc etc, then you put it in International Incidents or NationStates.

[Wanbeck]

Ok, so to confirm, if there was a fully 100% In-Character thread which was set around the scene of regional government elections for the posts of President and other government roles, then that thread should go on Gameplay and not NationStates because it is related to playing the game, ie. being in a region.

[Vetok]

Ok, so to confirm, if there was a fully 100% In-Character thread which was set around the scene of regional government elections for the posts of President and other government roles, then that thread should go on Gameplay and not NationStates because it is related to playing the game, ie. being in a region.

Okay, let's take the example of 10000 Islands. When they hold the election for their WA Delegate, it is 100% OOC because it is, by its very nature, an OOC position and 10000 Islands does not exist as an RP group.

If a region like the Joint Systems Alliance, now sadly defunct, held an election, they'd do it IC'ly, since they tied it to the position of Vice-Leader in their RP'ers alliance, which the region was named after. They also created other IC positions, such as Defence Minister, Trade Minister and others, which were all campaigned for IC'ly.

In the case of the first, it'd go on Gameplay which is an OOC forum. In the case of the latter, we'd have put it in NationStates or International Incidents, both IC forums, if we hadn't used a member's only forum to do so.

[Wanbeck]

I think keen roleplayers should be embracing NationStates as en enhancement to their nation roleplay. I hate the concept of having to choose... it is totally possible to see the whole thing as roleplay and declaring roleplay as being a seperate thing from gameplay is not only wrong, but confusing. Roleplay with gameplay is good, it gives framework, keeps realism. Gameplay should improve your RP experience, and RP should improve your gameplay experience.

I still think simply having a "In-Character" section would be far more sensible, less confusing, and less of this roleplay snobbery.

[Vetok]

I think keen roleplayers should be embracing NationStates as en enhancement to their nation roleplay. I hate the concept of having to choose... it is totally possible to see the whole thing as roleplay and declaring roleplay as being a separate thing from gameplay is not only wrong, but confusing. Roleplay with gameplay is good, it gives framework, keeps realism. Gameplay should improve your RP experience, and RP should improve your gameplay experience.

I still think simply having a "In-Character" section would be far more sensible, less confusing, and less of this roleplay snobbery.

What 'roleplay snobbery'? Where have you seen it? A lot of gameplayers, like Crazy Girl and Ballotonia, don't want RP's in Gameplay, and RP'ers don't want gameplay threads in II or NS. If people want to keep these two functions separate, that's their right.