RPing Questions? Ask Here!

[Santheres]

For those new, uncertain, in a rut, or wanting to discuss any sort of topic in between in regards to II Role-Playing, please feel free to posit questions or solicit advice here. This thread is intended to be an open area of general discussion on II Role-playing, for newer and older players where assistance can be given. Please keep all off-topic chatter to a minimum, however, as our main focus is RP in this and the adjacent subforums.

If you do have questions, it might help greatly to review our New RolePlayer Orientation Thread

NOTE: II, GE&T, and F&NI RPing questions only, please. NSSports and Gameplay-based RPing questions are not within the purview of this thread, as they have generally distinct communities with their own cultures and approaches to roleplay. They also have their own systems to help orient and welcome newcomers.

Have fun!
- Santh

[-Deus-]

So yeah, I got a question...

...So, I was writing this story once, implying some really heavy themes, you know...real thematic type stuff. I tried to make it deep, heavy even, make my reader cry like the little baby he or she is. I hope I got it down, but...I'm just not sure, yea' know what I'm sayin' Mack? Yeah yeah, Retro, I'm askin' now, since all the strength has been taken out of me and I'm on my hands and knees literally beggin' now...

...You gonna Bring Da Ruckus?


Nah nah nah, okay real question: How could one strive to put actual depth and feeling into their writing?

[Jenrak]

Have you ever killed a man?

...
...
...

It seems like a bit of a joke question, but it's an earnest one. The act of killing is actually a pretty accurate way to describe how one deals with the gamut of emotions that may come out of a murder. Whether it be fear, anger, vengeance, fanaticism, the act of such a heinous nature belies a rudimentary feeling - exhilaration. Not necessarily the whole 'I feel great' sort of feeling, but rather a 'wind' of emotion that swells up. That emotion underlies everything about the deviousness and deviance of that act, and as your heart race beats furiously, like a high, you're on a rush of both power and regret. But regardless of your feeling, it's a wind.

So what does this have to do with depth and feeling? Find the lowest common denominator of emotion. Find that 'wind', and base your writing on that. Emotions should be focused on coming from that - how one feels and how one perceives the circumstances around him should really be focused on a single, simple emotional process. And everything should span out like the branches of a tree. Maybe I'm using too many metaphors for this, but the fact of the matter is that depth and feeling into writing is the stuff that people can span hundreds of pages and entire books on - and have. If I can sum it up, the simplest process to put depth and feeling into your writing are things such as relating events to how you would perceive and feel them, find the base emotion upon which they're acting, and ultimately, note what they may be losing. Honestly, only with practice could you become more 'deep' and in your writing, and that takes practice; there's no short cut in this department, since many writers strive to establish their own sense and style of it, and not everyone is successful at it.

It's a bit vague, I know, but the subject is just so broad that I can't cover everything effectively.

[-Deus-]

Have you ever killed a man?

...
...
...

It seems like a bit of a joke question, but it's an earnest one. The act of killing is actually a pretty accurate way to describe how one deals with the gamut of emotions that may come out of a murder. Whether it be fear, anger, vengeance, fanaticism, the act of such a heinous nature belies a rudimentary feeling - exhilaration. Not necessarily the whole 'I feel great' sort of feeling, but rather a 'wind' of emotion that swells up. That emotion underlies everything about the deviousness and deviance of that act, and as your heart race beats furiously, like a high, you're on a rush of both power and regret. But regardless of your feeling, it's a wind.

So what does this have to do with depth and feeling? Find the lowest common denominator of emotion. Find that 'wind', and base your writing on that. Emotions should be focused on coming from that - how one feels and how one perceives the circumstances around him should really be focused on a single, simple emotional process. And everything should span out like the branches of a tree. Maybe I'm using too many metaphors for this, but the fact of the matter is that depth and feeling into writing is the stuff that people can span hundreds of pages and entire books on - and have. If I can sum it up, the simplest process to put depth and feeling into your writing are things such as relating events to how you would perceive and feel them, find the base emotion upon which they're acting, and ultimately, note what they may be losing. Honestly, only with practice could you become more 'deep' and in your writing, and that takes practice; there's no short cut in this department, since many writers strive to establish their own sense and style of it, and not everyone is successful at it.

It's a bit vague, I know, but the subject is just so broad that I can't cover everything effectively.

...
...
...
...

Logic, in my NS. An interesting perspective on the way feeling could be shown correctly in an RP.

[Toopoxia]

Man, I just sent off a TG to one of the Mentors asking a question that'd be perfect here. Ah well, I can ask again here.

How can I introduce flaws into my characters and into my nation when this makes them imbalanced amongst others less willing to introduce flaws?

I'll give an example. If I wanted to introduce an inept, but passionate commander, in battle he would easily find himself amongst all the worlds finest military minds, those who nary make a mistake. Or on a wider scale, if I were to introduce a small, purely display, military, and had them held with my peers, I would find my military wanting, but not willing to remove the interesting element of either the commander or the military.

If you need other examples, I have issues with more than just the military, I can provide more.

[Jenrak]

Man, I just sent off a TG to one of the Mentors asking a question that'd be perfect here. Ah well, I can ask again here.

How can I introduce flaws into my characters and into my nation when this makes them imbalanced amongst others less willing to introduce flaws?

I'll give an example. If I wanted to introduce an inept, but passionate commander, in battle he would easily find himself amongst all the worlds finest military minds, those who nary make a mistake. Or on a wider scale, if I were to introduce a small, purely display, military, and had them held with my peers, I would find my military wanting, but not willing to remove the interesting element of either the commander or the military.

If you need other examples, I have issues with more than just the military, I can provide more.

From what I'm seeing of how your framed your question, it looks like you're finding for a way to effectively implement flaws without having it backfired against you. If I am misunderstanding your question, please clarify further - I would greatly appreciate it.

In a nutshell, when introducing flaws into characters, we need to wary of the circumstances of their position in the story and what makes them tick. This is a bit of vague advice, so I'll make it more specific by turning to your passionate commander scenario. Exactly why and how did he get into a position where he is able to challenge and butt heads with world class military minds? Was he thrust unto this position or greatness, or did he seemingly have a series of 'flukes' that allowed him to become what he is? How confident is he in his ability to implement it? Questions about his backstory will form the basis for his flaws, and on a greater whole, his personality. If we can figure out what lead to his promotion, we can see how he'll act, and more importantly, whether he knows about it. The major thing that's important about a character's flaws is whether he shows it or not. If a character does not show his flaws, then you have a case of a man willing to enclose and cocoon himself in either his own warped self-perception or something else like alcohol. It doesn't necessarily make bad, per se, but it does raise issues of confidence.

At that stage, you can easily cancel out the flaws with someone else - someone who is there to help and guide him through his path will be someone who can prevent you from having to deal with mistakes in the decision making, but also ultimately display a good character. For example, in one of the RPs I am in with New Azura, Colossus Rising, my character Miriana is a semi-sociopathic, dry, coarse and elitist man, who believes others to be of lesser consequence to him. This has risen from not only his history at the hands of the Kraven, partially as a means to overcompensate for his lack of power by exerting it too much, but also from his position as a Jagite - an ethnicity hardly taken seriously in some parts of the world - to 'fit in' with the others by acting in a position of power. Such a volatility, of course, can be problematic, but he's tempered by his wife, Akreska, who is more of a managerial person with whom he seeks not a sexual relationship, but one of a counselling and solace position.

You can do the same with yours - your traits do not have to be a fault in themselves to the RP or the efficacy of whatever it is that you do, but you need to cancel it out somehow. Finding someone who is willing to be there for your character gives them not only a means to interact and thus display their weaknesses, but a moral and foundational crux upon which the reader can more readily appeal with.

[Ustio North]

Why does this thread not have more people asking questions?

[Milograd]

Why does this thread not have more people asking questions?

[ OoC ]

I'd probably say because the title doesn't include "[ Open for Questions! ]" in it.

Actually, I have no idea, to be honest. You would think this kind of thread would get a lot of posts/views, but I guess that is not the case. ; _ ;

[Toopoxia]

Why does this thread not have more people asking questions?

I have tons of questions, I just don't intend to jam everything up with asking all of them at once

Just kidding, here they are: There are no real guides to making a collaborative story which is composed fluently, how do you lay out a composed narrative when there is more than one creator involved?

I recently thought about making an RP which involves heavy doses of Toopoxia's history, I was going to write these as stories and have them revealed as a part of one major RP, then I decided that might be doing a disservice to the idea of RPing, I'm wondering whether having the history in story form would be a major obstacle or whether I should open up the story to a lengthy campaign of many parts?

I also recently wanted to create an RP about art, a new element of Toopoxican society becomes a worldwide smash or the like, but I found it lacked purpose or direction, is it essential to have these things when creating an RP?

I've always been interested in a creating a puppet nation whose sole purpose is that of spite, but I experienced the one dimensionality of such a creation and the lack of believability in a nation whose entire purpose seems entirely backwards to its concept, is it possible to pull this off successfully?

Does the want to tell a dramatic story excuse some forms of godmodding? For example, having a super military, but (with the above example) their purpose is for inhumane things like destruction.

Several featured articles remind us to take note of the background structure of our nation and its events, but how can this effectively be blended into the story without seeming clunky and expository?

I think that's everything from me. I'll be sure to return with more in the future...

[Lyras]

Have you ever killed a man?

Yes. Aussie Army. Iraq, Afghanistan, and sundry others.

Why does this thread not have more people asking questions?

I have tons of questions, I just don't intend to jam everything up with asking all of them at once

Just kidding, here they are:

There are no real guides to making a collaborative story which is composed fluently, how do you lay out a composed narrative when there is more than one creator involved?

Partly it involves communication external to the narrative. This way issues can be cleared up without cluttering the story. On NS, telegrams or an out-of-character forum can work.

I recently thought about making an RP which involves heavy doses of Toopoxia's history, I was going to write these as stories and have them revealed as a part of one major RP, then I decided that might be doing a disservice to the idea of RPing, I'm wondering whether having the history in story form would be a major obstacle or whether I should open up the story to a lengthy campaign of many parts?

All of the above are feasible. It just takes tact, and helps if one tries not to overwhelm current events in the RP.

I also recently wanted to create an RP about art, a new element of Toopoxican society becomes a worldwide smash or the like, but I found it lacked purpose or direction, is it essential to have these things when creating an RP?

Essential, no. But certainly helpful. RPs can take on lives of their own pretty fast sometimes.

I've always been interested in a creating a puppet nation whose sole purpose is that of spite, but I experienced the one dimensionality of such a creation and the lack of believability in a nation whose entire purpose seems entirely backwards to its concept, is it possible to pull this off successfully?

Short answer: Yes. But you have to keep the adversarialism within the bounds of realistic conduct, otherwise you get that one-dimensionality you refer to.

Does the want to tell a dramatic story excuse some forms of godmodding? For example, having a super military, but (with the above example) their purpose is for inhumane things like destruction.

Clear each bit with your opponent in specific cases, or make sure you have a justifiable way of explaining it if you're talking more broadly.

Several featured articles remind us to take note of the background structure of our nation and its events, but how can this effectively be blended into the story without seeming clunky and expository?

Unless its something like 'President starts explaining history to foreign dignitary', then in snippets is fine. Part of a declaration of war, for instance. A coherent piece written in your factbook, and linked via signature, can also be feasible, if you just want it able to be accessed by folks.

I think that's everything from me. I'll be sure to return with more in the future...

Please do. Happy to help. Or try-to-help, anyway.

[Ustio North]

Why does this thread not have more people asking questions?

I have tons of questions, I just don't intend to jam everything up with asking all of them at once

Just kidding, here they are: There are no real guides to making a collaborative story which is composed fluently, how do you lay out a composed narrative when there is more than one creator involved?

I recently thought about making an RP which involves heavy doses of Toopoxia's history, I was going to write these as stories and have them revealed as a part of one major RP, then I decided that might be doing a disservice to the idea of RPing, I'm wondering whether having the history in story form would be a major obstacle or whether I should open up the story to a lengthy campaign of many parts?

RP's with multiple creators - well, personally, I must say that I think any RP where people have a good level of collaboration has multiple creators, in a sense - but one's like you're talking about are somewhat rare, mainly because the people who do them don't go into them lightly and like to do them with people they know. As they are so rare, there's few people who'll have seen enough of them through to the end to know how a guide would be formed.

However, in layman's terms, it should be as simple as organising standalone RPs. Basically, you'll need your idea (which you've got) and someone who's interested enough to keep it. Finding the right person may be the key to it all. Given that i've only just started what could turn out to be a story like the one you're suggesting, if I get to the end i'll gladly write a guide for you and anyone else who wants one .

As for the other RP idea about your history, it's perfectly feasible and within the rules of NS to do RPs on your own. Sometimes, what you have in mind may be crucial to your nation's development but may not neccessarily require the input of another player. So it does depend entirely upon whether you feel the presence of another player is going to work out. As above, if you have someone who is willing to partake in a bit of give and take, another presence in the RP could be what makes it work.

For both, Lyras' advice is sound. External communication is key to making a thread of this manner work.

[-St George]

Right then broskis.

Nuke cap. There's seems to be a de facto cap on when you can and cannot have nukes (seemingly nations below 100mil cannot and nations above 100mil), and I've never quite got that. Why should nation x with 310 million pop and an economy of 'poor' be able to have nukes and nation y with a 45 million pop nation and economy of 'powerhouse', assuming both go on ns data, not be able to have them?

[Milograd]

Right then broskis.

Nuke cap. There's seems to be a de facto cap on when you can and cannot have nukes (seemingly nations below 100mil cannot and nations above 100mil), and I've never quite got that. Why should nation x with 310 million pop and an economy of 'poor' be able to have nukes and nation y with a 45 million pop nation and economy of 'powerhouse', assuming both go on ns data, not be able to have them?

[ OoC ]

It should be noted that the "Nuke rule" is actually an unwritten guideline, and not a rule, and therefore cannot be forced upon anyone.

From what I can tell, the "one hundred million nuke rule" pretty much was made because for the most part, it prevents noobs from nukespamming and the like. In regards to the whole "Why should nation x with 310 million pop and an economy of 'poor' be able to have nukes and nation y with a 45 million pop nation and economy of 'powerhouse', assuming both go on ns data, not be able to have them?", technically, it wouldn't make much sense if the former had a nuclear stockpile. That said, the later very well could have nuclear weapons, although if they were doing so poorly, rp-wise, they would likely get called out on it, this is all from my experiences though.

It seems to be addressed on how it is rped, more so than the population-factor. Although, if it doesn't make sense that a nation has nuclear weapons, for economic reasons, that may be called out as well. Hope that works.

[Ustio North]

Right then broskis.

Nuke cap. There's seems to be a de facto cap on when you can and cannot have nukes (seemingly nations below 100mil cannot and nations above 100mil), and I've never quite got that. Why should nation x with 310 million pop and an economy of 'poor' be able to have nukes and nation y with a 45 million pop nation and economy of 'powerhouse', assuming both go on ns data, not be able to have them?

The "Nuke-Rule" is more like a guideline than an actual rule. And an unwritten one at that.

More than anything else, it's function is so that we don't get roleplayers who are new to the forums coming in and nukespamming in their first posts, but they will get a feel for conflict without resorting to nuclear weapons. In layman's terms, it serves to deter newer nations from thinking that nuclear weapons are the be-all, end-all of NS conflicts.

Of course, we do still see it, since A.) It's simply a guideline, so no-one can force it and B.) It's unwritten, so most people won't know about it until they're told what they're doing isn't how people generally play.

[The Mighty Islands]

Is there a basic cap of military numbers I can send into a single fight? I know the 5% rule of military service, but people get mad at me for "Number Spamming." I'll give you an example: It's a WW2 war, and I want to go on a bombing run. Because of my military draft, I have 10,000 B-29 bombers and a few thousand fighter escorts, but more fighters to stay back and guard the nation's airspace. Why can't I send all of these in on a single bombing run on a massive nation? I have the bombers, and I have no reason to not use them in a bombing run because they aren't needed for defense. So why is it wrong to send every bomber I have on the bombing run if there is no physical restriction against it, only a player getting upset about it?

[-St George]

Is there a basic cap of military numbers I can send into a single fight? I know the 5% rule of military service, but people get mad at me for "Number Spamming." I'll give you an example: It's a WW2 war, and I want to go on a bombing run. Because of my military draft, I have 10,000 B-29 bombers and a few thousand fighter escorts, but more fighters to stay back and guard the nation's airspace. Why can't I send all of these in on a single bombing run on a massive nation? I have the bombers, and I have no reason to not use them in a bombing run because they aren't needed for defense. So why is it wrong to send every bomber I have on the bombing run if there is no physical restriction against it, only a player getting upset about it?

Logistics.

Cost.

Fuel.

Supplies.

Massive casualties.

[The Mighty Islands]

Is there a basic cap of military numbers I can send into a single fight? I know the 5% rule of military service, but people get mad at me for "Number Spamming." I'll give you an example: It's a WW2 war, and I want to go on a bombing run. Because of my military draft, I have 10,000 B-29 bombers and a few thousand fighter escorts, but more fighters to stay back and guard the nation's airspace. Why can't I send all of these in on a single bombing run on a massive nation? I have the bombers, and I have no reason to not use them in a bombing run because they aren't needed for defense. So why is it wrong to send every bomber I have on the bombing run if there is no physical restriction against it, only a player getting upset about it?

Logistics.

Cost.

Fuel.

Supplies.

Massive casualties.

1. I have the logistics to handle that because of my population size.

2. I have a strong enough economy to build that many planes, and other than that I have enough fuel to fly them so drilling for more won't cost too much.

3. See above.

4. See above but change fuel to supplies.

5. The B-29 flew too high for almost all AA guns to reach and very few warplanes could get the high, let alone operate at that altitude.

And my question was: why is it wrong to send every bomber I have on the bombing run if there is no Physical Restriction against it, only a player getting upset about it?

[-St George]

Logistics.

Cost.

Fuel.

Supplies.

Massive casualties.

1. I have the logistics to handle that because of my population size.

2. I have a strong enough economy to build that many planes, and other than that I have enough fuel to fly them so drilling for more won't cost too much.

3. See above.

4. See above but change fuel to supplies.

5. The B-29 flew too high for almost all AA guns to reach and very few warplanes could get the high, let alone operate at that altitude.

And my question was: why is it wrong to send every bomber I have on the bombing run if there is no Physical Restriction against it, only a player getting upset about it?

1. Large pop =/= logistics to handle a bombing run of 10,000 planes.

2. Remember that this is WW2, not MT. You might have a strong enough economy to build that many planes, but do you have a strong enough economy to build 10,000 more every two months? Cos that's what you'd have to do, tbh, if you're sending all of them on a single bombing run.

3. You'd quickly run out of fuel. Very quickly. Drilling for oil is an intensive, long term process. It has to be found, extracted, refined, transported, etc. This takes time, and money. And nothing bankrupts a country quicker than a war (aside from bankers).

4. See above but change fuel to supplies and multiple it by 10.

5. Source?

[Mikoyan-Guryevich]

Is there a basic cap of military numbers I can send into a single fight? I know the 5% rule of military service, but people get mad at me for "Number Spamming." I'll give you an example: It's a WW2 war, and I want to go on a bombing run. Because of my military draft, I have 10,000 B-29 bombers and a few thousand fighter escorts, but more fighters to stay back and guard the nation's airspace. Why can't I send all of these in on a single bombing run on a massive nation? I have the bombers, and I have no reason to not use them in a bombing run because they aren't needed for defense. So why is it wrong to send every bomber I have on the bombing run if there is no physical restriction against it, only a player getting upset about it?

Few things wrong with it.

First and foremost is the time and practicality of getting ten thousand aircraft and their crews into the air. To fuel and arm a B-29 would take around twenty personnel roughly twenty minutes and an airfield might have fifty or more of these aircraft on station. Because there isn't 1000 spare groundies running around to load and arm all aircraft at once, it would most likely take the better part of a day to get all aircraft ready in preparation. Then you have to consider how you are going to get them all airborne, safely, without having the aircraft which took off first loiter around for too long while waiting for the remainder to take off. More than likely you will have to use every available airfield in your nation to get your B-29's into the air, you could have hundreds of spare airfields but its also likely you could have less than twenty, the remainder being factored out by range, damage by enemy, runway length constraints etc.

Secondly is the huge logistics nightmare this poses. You are going to be using millions of bombs and hundreds of millions of gallons of fuel for this one sortie. And you are going to be taking these all at once. There is a strong probability that there won't be enough fuel or ordnance at any one time to arm and fuel every aircraft that you have in your inventory. Storage and transport of these two crucial items is another factor to consider. Also think about other portions of your armed forces which desperately need supplies.

And lastly, the B-29 is not invincible and if your nation claims to have without a doubt the most advanced strategic bomber of WWII , I don't see why your enemy wouldn't have access to the most advanced fighters of that same period, aircraft which can fly as high as, and take down, the B-52. With ten thousand big, heavy and slow targets in the air at once, any enemy would have a field day shooting them out of the sky at will. Even if you had escorts, they would be little good against wave upon wave of enemy fighters. Your losses would be absolutely tremendous; not just to your bomber numbers but fighters as well. One sortie like this could see you lose the war.

The top two reasons are physical restraints, the last reason is why you shouldn't do it anyway.

[Ustio North]

As an example to add onto what Mikoyan said, if you look at the controversial bombing raids that the RAF and US Air Force launched against Dresden in February of 1945, they managed to - basically - flatten the city. In that series of four raids, 3,600 aircraft were involved but only 1,300 of them were actually heavy bombers (Lancasters, Halifaxes and B-17s). During the raids, they dropped over 3,900 tons of explosives.

So, sometimes you need to consider just whether ten thousand aircraft is overkill. Getting those 3,600 into the air and to the raid took a good two days.

Also, i'm wondering if you've taken into account Combat:Support ratios (such as 1 Pilot to every 3 ground crew etc) or what the effects of having a 5% military are on your economy. Even at wartime, you would be stretching your economy dangerously thin at 5% and I suspect that at 5% you'd have trouble affording B-29's.

Always remember; The bigger your army, the less well trained and well equipped it's liable to be.

[The Mighty Islands]

Okay, thanks guys.

[Hedonecia]

I wrote this in the "What is and what isn't an NS-setting RP"-topic.

I've been toying with the idea of starting an RP, but reading this I'm not entirely sure it would be allowed.

The basic premise is that the year is 1900, on planet Earth. In the 1870s, scientists started to experiment with steam technology to replace coal. During the 1880s and 1890s the military of leading nations (Britain, the US, Germany, France, and so on) began using it, and it has recently been seen in civilian use as well.

So, it would be an alternate version of Earth, but there would be no re-enactments of history. From history in the 1870s up to the present (1900) everything would be Earth in name only. The players would re-create the country's history from 1870-1900 entirely. Maybe the player of Britain wanted to have the military overthrow the monarchy using the new steam technology in the 1890s and so on.

So, would this be alright?

Basically, the RP wouldn't be a re-enactment of history although it would use fictionalised versions of actual countries, although players would be welcome to create their own countries which could be made major powers through the course of the game.

[-St George]

I wrote this in the "What is and what isn't an NS-setting RP"-topic.

I've been toying with the idea of starting an RP, but reading this I'm not entirely sure it would be allowed.

The basic premise is that the year is 1900, on planet Earth. In the 1870s, scientists started to experiment with steam technology to replace coal. During the 1880s and 1890s the military of leading nations (Britain, the US, Germany, France, and so on) began using it, and it has recently been seen in civilian use as well.

So, it would be an alternate version of Earth, but there would be no re-enactments of history. From history in the 1870s up to the present (1900) everything would be Earth in name only. The players would re-create the country's history from 1870-1900 entirely. Maybe the player of Britain wanted to have the military overthrow the monarchy using the new steam technology in the 1890s and so on.

So, would this be alright?

Basically, the RP wouldn't be a re-enactment of history although it would use fictionalised versions of actual countries, although players would be welcome to create their own countries which could be made major powers through the course of the game.

It sounds very much like an Alternative Earth RP. These go in either II or F7. I'd suggest starting the Out of Character thread in II, and if it's a more appropriate for F7, then a mod will move it.

[Ustio North]

Alternative Earth is still, in this case, Alternative History, since it uses RL Earth and RL Nations, only with diverging historical events. Alternative History threads belong in F7, i'm afraid.

[UpperWales]

I hate roleplaying. Even more so, I hate the fat nerds who "invade" regions.

How do I get rid of it?

The Kingdom of Great Britain has been invaded and I want that douche out.