Not an RP forum?

[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 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.

Of course it is, but under the current system, Crazy Girl can expect to have 100% In-Character threads in here aslong as they somehow impact the game, such as an IC-president taking the delegate position. Whereas if there was just an "In Character" section it would solve the problem, keep everyone happy, and it would actually make sense, so there would be less need to keep moving threads and enforcing rules, which i'm sure isnt fun.

[Sedgistan]

Wanbeck, there are occasions when people manage to combine the two, and were such a thread to be posted here, it'd be judged on a case-by-case basis. However, it's not particularly common.

[Topid]

Creating a nation, answering legislation, setting a currency, endorsing a nation, voting on a resolution... this is all gameplay, but it is all roleplay.

Not necessarily.
I answer issues so that my stats are the way I want them to be for my standing in the world census report. I don't have 'citizens' since I am a player not a nation... And I don't care at all what the actual impact of my answers are other than how they'll move me on the charts of my region.

I am the delegate of my community so I can ban anyone that bugs us or the like. That's why people endorsed me (the player) to be delegate.

I couldn't care less about everything on my NS page except my endorsements and influence... My currency and animal and motto might as well be blank, I can't remember them.

<---- This blue box with a heartagram in it is my avatar, not a 'flag'.

I do not roleplay, in anyway. I've never been a nation, I am and forever will be The Player Behind the Nation of Topid (That's my actual in-game full name)...

I am a gameplayer.

EDIT: OMG, I can't believe I even forgot my "nation's" name... :/ Post fixed.

[Romanar]

IMO, one of the interesting things about NS is that different people have different ideas about the game. Some people, like Crazy Girl and Topid, ignore RP. Some of the RPers in II ignore the game. Some people *cough* Generalites *uncough* ignore BOTH! Personally, I mix the two. My WA nation votes based on that nations ideals, which may or may not resemble my RL views. Same for my personal issue choices.

[Naivetry]

When Gameplayers have IRC weddings, balls/festivals/coronations, and so forth, I would call that role playing. The difference between that sort of RP and what you find in the RP forums here is that the fundamental unit of interaction for Gameplayers is still the player. Nations themselves are our characters; our national settings are just ways to individualize our various avatars/characters within the game.

The RP that typically takes place on these forums, on the other hand, imagines each "nation" literally. Your nation is not just a name with some stats you've tweaked - it's a place that you can map, with a population and an army and all kinds of things that you've invented and for which you've imagined a more complicated history... or at least the possibility of such a history.

So what you call roleplaying without distinction, I would describe as playing as a nation in a fictional universe vs. playing as a politician in a game. We're all still playing roles... but within two entirely different frameworks. Can you combine those two ideas? Yeah... but it's like one of those optical illusions. The picture can be seen in two equally plausible ways, but you can't see both at the same time without feeling like you have your eyes crossed and making your head hurt. And trying to make your nation RP fit with your Gameplay or vice versa makes your head hurt in the same way. It drastically limits the range of things you can do, to things that make sense under both paradigms.

For example: if you take the in-game concept of a region literally within your national RP as some kind of geographical or political unit, then you'll have a lot of explanatory work cut out for you if you also want to engage in the Gameplay activities of raiding or defending, which involve switching regions and WA status at the drop of a hat. Or take the use of puppets, and/or nations controlled by more than one player - if you want to express the idea that the nation of Kandarin has changed owners, you could say that his population disappeared and colonists from Naivetry have invaded, or that Naivetrian politicians have worked out some kind of deal for political control or whatever, but those are not scenarios which fit into my RP conception of my rather pacifistic and non-interventionist nation... and they definitely do not fit Kandarin's nation RP or the storylines in which his nation was involved when he left. If you try to fit your nation RP and your Gameplay together, inevitably you'll end up choosing one framework as more important to you when they conflict - and the choice to alter the story you're writing so that it reflects what you've decided to do in-game, or to change what you're doing in-game so that your story makes more sense, means you've decided that one of those things - the nation RP or the Gameplay - is more important to you when it comes right down to it.

I'm not anti-RP by any means. When I have the leisure to write up part of a story or RP-IC post, I enjoy it. I just don't enjoy it as much as I enjoy the game-level political interaction unique to NationStates (which is RP in the sense of adopting an in-game persona for some people but not for others). When people here normally speak about "Roleplay" and "Gameplay", though, we're talking about two very different ways of thinking about what a nation is, and what the "reality" of NationStates is as a result. That's why we have the all the different forums. No matter how much playing pretend happens in each, we're playing different games. Some of us play multiple games and enjoy them all... but we usually don't try to play them at the same time.

If it helps, think about NationStates as a toy, not a game - like a ball. Some of us kick the ball around the field. Some of us pick it up and shoot hoops. Some of us hit it with a stick and run around. Some of us tackle other players as they try to run past us. And all of that diversity is wonderful - it's part of what makes NS such a unique place. But it only works because we don't try to make the basketball players kick penalty shots, or the rugby players touch base. Each community is playing a different game with the same toy, and if you try to combine bits and pieces of the different games, you don't end up with The Ultimate Game NS Ought To Be...you end up with just another variation which develops its own internal logic and rules, too.

[Wanbeck]

I find it very easy to incorporate in-game functions to roleplay, infact I find it natural because I thought that was the whole point of a RPG. Otherwise there'd be no roleplaying choices, it would all be a logical game of stats and numbers.

Anyway I just think it would be easier to have an "In-Character" section, rather than labelling people's RP as "THIS IS NOT RP", even thought it is, just because your made-up system says that any RP (even if all IC) is "NOT RP" if it relates to actions on the game. Quite rude I'd say.

Holding a vote to elect a President most certainly IS role-play, and most clearly isn't gameplay. I'm sure it happens all the time where region's give their delegate the title of President, and choose to vote rather than use the game's endorsement system. Yet just because that thread, which is clearly people engaging in ROLEPLAY, gets picked up and moved by a moderator to a section titled "THIS IS NOT RP". Not only does the moderator have no right to make that judgement (RP='pretending to be someone else'), but it is rather rude and certainly confusing.

"In-Character" and "Out of Character" would make for more sense than splitting up the game into Gameplay and RP, thus causing confusion and implying that Gameplay and RP cannot mix - which is absurd because this is a text based RPG in the first place.

I accept, fully, that some people want to be OOC, not roleplay. But I think I have demonstrated very clearly how the current system is flawed and how changing it would make things much clearer and actually make sense. Th e way it is now has, evidently, come from some argument between Gameplayers and RPers using forums and it's ended up with it being split up all the wrong way. Look at it objectively.

Unless the Mods like moving threads around and telling people they're using the wrong threads? You could get rid of all the CAPITAL LETTER RULES like THIS IS NOT AN RP FORUM!! aswell - all the management and shouting and rules wouldn't be so necessary if things just made sense.

[Crazy girl]

Here's an idea.
Try playing the game for a few months, get to know the different sides..then tell us we've been doing it wrong since 2003.

[Wanbeck]

Here's an idea.
Try playing the game for a few months, get to know the different sides..then tell us we've been doing it wrong since 2003.

And that is exactly what I'm talking about. What makes sense to someone who's been here since 2003, might not make sense to the general user. And rather than telling the noobs they'd better learn your system, why not try to look at it objectively and be a bit more accommodating?

I'm making a positive suggestion for improvement here, I'm not trying to take anything away from how long you've been here. All credit to you.

I just think it would make a lot more sense, to a wider range of people, to use the labels "In-Character" and "Out-of-Character" rather than trying to create and educate people about this separation between Gameplayers and RPers, and moving threads around etc.

I think I've been rather constructive in demonstrating how that would be clearer, friendlier, less confusing, less rude, and actually make sense, as opposed to the current system.

[Crazy girl]

And we have been explaining to you over and over and over...why it wouldn't work.

[Wanbeck]

No, you've not explained to me why my suggestion wouldn't work at all.

Incorporating everything you have all said in reply to my OP, I suggested, constructively and clearly, that it would make far more sense to have IC and OOC sections, and result in less confusion for new players (which should still be welcomed, even if you have been here since 2003), and less work for admin/mods.

All you've done is tell me that I need to be here since 2003 to comment. I'm saying that whole attitude is the problem. The very fact that you would write that and hit send to a new member trying to make things better demonstrates my point perfectly. You shouldn't have to be here for 7 years for it to make sense - instead of making the noobs accommodate to you and your system, you should be accommodating to them.

I know there's obviously been some sort of argument in the past and you're very happy of this Gameplay forum, maybe it's personal to you, I don't know - but all I am saying is, objectively, it can be improved.

[Wanbeck]

It is clear to me, when you talk about "then tell us we've done it wrong", that you are totally resistant to change because you take it personally. To say something can be improved is not to say you "done it wrong", you really shouldn't be thinking of it like that.

I'm confident my suggestion would have made a serious improvement to the current system which really does not make sense, whilst still keeping Gameplayers and RPers happy, but I can see what I'm up against so I'll give up, and leave the mods to carry on moving threads and explaining what is and isn't RP or Gameplay.

Good to know we're always open to improvement. (That was sarcastic, I'm not sorry).

[Crazy girl]

I never said someone should be here since 2003.
I do want to point out it takes more than 6 days to understand how things work here.

[Wanbeck]

Only because you want it to. At the moment, any roleplay which affects the game, even if 100% In-Character, gets moved here and labelled "THIS IS NOT RP". I'm not thinking that is good. Infact I think it's a bit daft.

If you cared more about making things clearer and more welcome, than being precious about Gameplay and resistant to any change on a personal level, then we'd have a much easier conversation.

Current system + noob = doesn't make sense. Most people would want to take positive action to improve that, rather than insisting the noobs must learn our way, our way is best, we've been here longer so we know better.

Anyway I've made my point, clearly the current mess of a system satisfies you, and it'll keep any trigger-happy mods we may have happy too.

Maybe an open-minded mod will read this and feel where I'm coming from. Until then, I'll just continue taking overly-defensive remarks about how |I've not been here long enough to know what I'm talking about.

[Bazalonia]

Firstly, I'd like to point out that I recognise your intent, that you want to make things clearer for people such as yourself who are new to the NS community.

However, I'd like to point out that changing the way that people play NS as game is not likely to happen. The Raider/Defender gameplay was something that was initially unintended. No NSer, mod, admin, [violet] or even the great Max himself will evewr dictate how people play the game. They can define the rules in which certain aspects of the game operate but they will not tell individual users or groups of users which style of playing NS is the right style. Why? because simply there is none.

So if you are presenting an idea to 'label' the different methods of playing the game so that new users can understand what's available then that is something that should be taken to the admins, specifically with a post in technical. My recommendation to you is to create a new thread in Technical with your idea with additional explaination as to why you think it's needed. Then people can ask for clarification if needed or admins can discuss the issues further with you and a decision can be reached. I'm not sure what actual concrete things can be done but it's better to take the conversation in the right context.

Otherwise if you are saying that the way people play NS should be changed? Then good luck, it's not going to happen.

[Ardchoille]

We have a deeply In-Character forum, called NationStates; we have a differently IC section, called International Incidents, where people pay a bit more attention to their game-generated statistics (though these two cross over); we have a theoretically IC section, called International Trade; we have a Sports section where people cheerfully swap between the two and give points for RP; we have another theoretically IC section, Factbooks, where people RP their nation in the Factbooks but often discuss it as players in other threads; we have General, where people aren't even slightly IC as nations; and so on, through varying degrees of IC, OOC or just people, in F7, Arts, Issues, the GA and the SC, not to mention Technical and Moderation. And then you have specialist offsites, like Draughtroom or the conlang sites or the invite-only ones.

But what it boils down to is this: each forum is where people gather who want to talk about a particular aspect of the game or, in some cases, play it in a particular way.

They may not play the game you play, you may even think the way they play it is "wrong". Some of the things people do in this game astonish even Max Barry, the guy who thought it up.

But, providing they're not using "their" forum or "their" part of the game to stop other players playing in their own, different, way, he doesn't call it "wrong". It's like, he was the first settler, but now there's a village, and he's not going to try to make the weaver be a farmer just because Max prefers being a farmer.

Which means that, however much it's not the way you would play the game, this is the Gameplay forum. Gameplayers don't want to spend much time talking about what other people do in NS. They want to talk about the thing they do, just as players who hang out in the other forums want to talk about their pet topics.

That's why mods spend time moving threads out of one forum into another forum (and it doesn't just happen in Gameplay). To come into a forum to argue about something the other players aren't interested in is just impolite. It's also pointless. So the mods move the threads to where there will be people who want to argue about it, or do it, or join it, or play with it, or whatever, where there will be some point in having the thread.

That applies whether the mod is primarily a roleplayer, like me, or primarily a gameplayer , like Sedge. Not surprisingly, both of us would rather be spending our time playing, rather than shifting the forum furniture around. So that's why there are big unfriendly capital letters in this forum saying DON'T ROLEPLAY HERE!

The guy previously mentioned, the one who owns the site we're all on, agreed with the Gamplayers enough to set up a separate Gameplay forum, so that's the guy you're really going to have to address with any arguments for change.

And since changing the game is a technical problem, that discussion really belongs in Technical ...

[Wanbeck]

I simply think that, from what I've learned here, "In-Character" and "Out-of-Character" would instantly make sense with people, whereas there are examples of the current system being confusing, unclear and disrespectful.

Current system, apart from taking time to understand, still allows 100% IC threads in the Gameplay thread, and allows genuine RPers to be told that what they do is "NOT RP".

You can't say that Gameplay is totally separate from RP because I assure you that will alienate and confuse new people. In-Character and OOC is far easier to understand, and solves the problem of RPers not wanting OOC in the forums and vice-versa.

But thanks for your advice, I guess I'll write my suggestion up properly and send it there.

PS, To clarify, my suggestion to improve the understanding of our forum system to outsiders is in no way any attempt to change what people do or how they do it. Just to make more sense and be more welcoming. There's several points and examples I've made showing the flaws and benefits of each way, so I'll put them altogether and make a proper suggestion.

[Bazalonia]

You can't say that Gameplay is totally separate from RP because I assure you that will alienate and confuse new people. In-Character and OOC is far easier to understand, and solves the problem of RPers not wanting OOC in the forums and vice-versa.

I'd still say they are seperate but one will influence the other, something posted in a forum does not affect your nation's stats and your nation stats will not (at least directly) affect what you write (or what will be accepted from you) on the forums. This is a fact of the game that comes down to the fundamental structure of NS and something that any new person should take the time to grasp.

[Wanbeck]

You can't say that Gameplay is totally separate from RP because I assure you that will alienate and confuse new people. In-Character and OOC is far easier to understand, and solves the problem of RPers not wanting OOC in the forums and vice-versa.

I'd still say they are seperate but one will influence the other, something posted in a forum does not affect your nation's stats and your nation stats will not (at least directly) affect what you write (or what will be accepted from you) on the forums. This is a fact of the game that comes down to the fundamental structure of NS and something that any new person should take the time to grasp.

Yes, and a fully In-Character roleplay thread, which will impact on gameplay, should not be moved to Gameplay and branded "THIS IS NOT RP". Apart from being rude, it just doesn't make actual sense.

Sometimes, especially if you have been into this game for a long time, you really need an outsider's view in order to gain perspective. How else could you possibly know what makes sense to a noob, or regular player? Experience has pros and cons.

New nations join everyday. You just shouldn't tell RPers their RP is "NOT RP", and you shouldn't see it as your place to cast judgements on threads as Gameplay or RP. It is an artificial division that, I believe, does NS more harm than good.

[Crazy girl]

I'm getting more and more the feeling that this is about a specific thread. Link?

[Voltronica]

This poster takes things too seriously...

BTW everyone has there own privatized dictionary...

There is nation-states the Forum and nation states the game check web browser...

http://forum.nationstates.net
http://www.nationstates.net

Seeee...2 different website addresses...more simple than you think

[Wanbeck]

I wouldn't say I tale it any more seriously than anyone else? I didn't intend this thread to go on so long, but I'm just replying to what people are saying to me, that's just good manners. Plus, I'd say it's a worthy discussion and comments about taking things too seriously certainly don't help, so I'm not sure of your intention there. It's clear there are people on here who do take forum management very seriously, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

I think the current system doesn't make sense, is off-putting and unclear - so I've made a constructive suggestion for improvement. I'm feeling happy with that.

[Cennora]

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.

Not in this game it can't. To implement all the decisions made by people who role play in the role play forums would mean a rediculous amount of customization and code that really isn't at all necessary.

Now by all means you can role play on the forums about the issues you chose in the actual gameplay portion of Nationstates, but you cannot assassinate your leader on the forums and have it reflect that on your nation page. Thats just the way it is, the way it always has been, and the way it will more than likely always be. People have tried making this exact point throughout the years, (I've been on Nationstates on and off since 2004) and the answer is always the same. So while the idea isn't horrible, the fact of the matter is is that Nationstates does not have the resources to implement things like that.

[Wanbeck]

This is getting way too complicated, and it shouldn't be so technical. It should be something straightforward that everyone gets that couldn't possibly take a paragraph or two to explain.

[Cennora]

This is getting way too complicated, and it shouldn't be so technical. It should be something straightforward that everyone gets that couldn't possibly take a paragraph or two to explain.

Honestly, it is. You are the only person I have ever seen that hasn't gotten it. And thats not me being rude or anything, thats the honest to god truth.

[Wanbeck]

What do you think I haven't "gotten"?

I've not said I don't get the difference between Gameplay and roleplay that some perceive, I just think it doesn't make sense. I totally respect and agree with the idea that In-Character threads should be kept separate, but this system does not do that - it splits threads based on whether they link to gameplay, paying no regard to whether they are IC or not.

I've just made a suggestion for improvement and have given some very clear examples of where the current way fails, and the new way would work. Not one person on this thread has been able to match that constructive positive suggestion with a reason why it is a bad suggestion, other than to tell me I've not been here long enough to comment, or I'm the only one "not getting it".

If you asked the next 10,000 new nations to join NS if they understand the difference between Gameplay and roleplay, I reckon every one of them would be confused and say no. If you asked the same 10,000 if they are familiar with roleplay games, about 6-8,000 would say yes.

Of course I could be completely crazy and the current system may well be absolutely perfect and without any possibility for improvement. After all, these guys have been here long enough to know everything and can really see from a noob's point of view, what would I know?