NationStates Post-Modern Tech Community Thread

[Allanea]

Interesting - presumably with lesser armour though, given most of the weight of a modern tank is armour?

Yes, but increasing the weight is less useful than one might think. If you'd like I'll explain to thebest of my ability

[Marquesan]

Nice work! Now what shall I do with all the equipment Ausitoria bought? But the most important one is still there. The mainstay of all naval power projection. The sole reason why Ausitoria has not given up hope. The backbone of all economically justifiable amphibious logistics. The Capricorn.

I had debated leaving Capricorn in with the addition of the Qarin class, but it really is just so useful. I couldn't dispense with it, despite its being huge.

Anything you had ordered from MTD that still carries over to Arioi will still be serviced by Arioi. Anything new you'd like to order, of course, will always be covered.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Nice work! Now what shall I do with all the equipment Ausitoria bought? But the most important one is still there. The mainstay of all naval power projection. The sole reason why Ausitoria has not given up hope. The backbone of all economically justifiable amphibious logistics. The Capricorn.

I had debated leaving Capricorn in with the addition of the Qarin class, but it really is just so useful. I couldn't dispense with it, despite its being huge.

Anything you had ordered from MTD that still carries over to Arioi will still be serviced by Arioi. Anything new you'd like to order, of course, will always be covered.

I know, it's utterly perfect - thanks.

Interesting - presumably with lesser armour though, given most of the weight of a modern tank is armour?

Yes, but increasing the weight is less useful than one might think. If you'd like I'll explain to thebest of my ability

Thanks - we've taken it to TGs, basically Allanea's right as a general rule, but there are particular other circumstances I won't go into here.

[The State of Monavia]

Years ago I locked horns with other roleplayers (especially Lyras and Wagdog)

I'll be straight with you.

My first impulse when reading this comment was to come up with an objection. I've come up with several. They were (in my mind, at least) reasonable objections, having to do with construction technology, mathematics, etc.

But then I realized that this is exactlythe sort of thing I was railing against.

I am not here to pick an argument about the technical feasibility of constructing massive capital ships. My main point regarding economies of scale (which I confess I stated rather imprecisely) is that there is not always a linear relationship between the scale of a country’s resources and production facilities on one hand and the amount of time it takes to convert those resources into finished goods on the other. My entire point on this subject addresses a very specific technical question about the pace of a country’s armaments production and should not be interpreted as an overall objection to roleplaying specific technologies.

I've had zero problems with people who disbelieve in the realism of superdreadnoughts, in 14 years of RP.

I have never issued any objections to the presence of specific technologies in a particular thread in eleven years on NS. I have expressed occasional reservations about whether something qualifies as MT or not back when I was new to roleplaying, but in the rare instances I did that, my questions were generally answered in a satisfactory fashion and I had no problems afterward. I do have a slight issue with roleplayers inventing a piece of equipment that lies way outside the realm of what is otherwise possible in a given tech level’s environment and then claiming to have ridiculous quantities of it with which to spam a newer player’s opposing forces. I do have a problem with people reducing war RPs to contests of who can launch bigger volleys of cruise missiles. I do find fault with people roleplaying their countries as contemporary (i.e. MT) postindustrial cookie-cutter Western nations while simultaneously assuming that war should be roleplayed as contests of raw industrial output à la major World War II (this particular problem has always been a special fixture of newbies).

Let's take the assumption the large population that exist in some NS RPs can exist and not everyone is starving to death (i.e that resource prices are comparable to those in the real world). Wouldn't it follow that a country like The Maccabees could afford a military proportionately the size of the US military, at more or less the same unit costs per vehicle, etc.?

Not necessarily.

Costs don't tend to translate proportionally. A larger population means more people to spread out fixed costs to, but before we can talk about demand we need to talk about the cost structure of supply (this is what determines whether there's an opportunity for economies of scale -- if fixed costs are zero, you might not have economies of scale at all [unless at some point marginal costs are also zero - like for tech]).

But if we (rightfully) wanted to avoid getting into a complexity that most NSers don't care about and is not helpful, let's assume yes, you're right.

What I was referring to, more so, was NSers (like myself) who don't just RP a military and stock proportional to the US, but disproportional on the heavy side. An average fleet like Lyras' or mine will carry more missiles than a U.S. fleet, proportionally. It's just what a lot of NSers tend to do: "spam."

The primary source of my distaste for “spamming” is the fact that it often just comes across as an overused trope of NS fiction. In some cases, spam attacks are a favorite of newbies who like to lord their NS stats over other newbies whose accounts are younger and have less impressive stats. In other cases, they are the default, go-to trope of every roleplayer who assumes that war in a (oftentimes postindustrial) MT context is just a contest of raw productive output and firepower (i.e. higher NS stats mean bigger missile spam capacity). From a storytelling perspective, I personally think that most roleplayers cannot write spam attacks that are particularly interesting to read. Those who can (and tend to hit it out of the park) end up becoming respected members of major RP regions.

There are severe problems with both sides of this argument (complex,elaborate arguments can be made to both defend and attack the notion that cruise missiles in NS would either cost as much as RL cruise missiles, or somewhat more) but at any rate:

I RP my nation as possessing a military vaguely of the same scale, proportionate to population and GDP, as the militaries of nations like the US and Russia. I find that in practice, as Nationstates warfare actually occurs, the biggest practical issue is actually deploying a significant proportion of these people to anywhere you don't have a land border with. Very rarely do I deploy more than a Corps. Indeed I rarely even send out that much.

Ah, yes, you cut to the heart of one of my favorite NS war RP tropes: the eerily consistent way some countries decide to play world policeman on the fly whenever they spot Generic Authoritarian Hellhole No. 438 posting some provocative stuff in International Incidents. For some reason, I have started believing that this trope is less common now than it was ten years ago, but I could simply be looking at the wrong threads. In any case, one of the challenges that RP Mentors need to consider is how to teach RPers (including some very experienced ones) about the need to pause before invading some place on the other side of the world to consider the logistical needs of such an undertaking. While several of our community’s advanced guides on war RP say a lot about logistics and several popular primers on roleplaying war address whether reasons for going to war are good or bad, I know of none that say “provocative IC behavior, like slavery, genocide, and human rights violations might be good reasons to declare war on somebody in theory, they are still not good reasons in practice if you cannot get your forces over there in the first place.”

Certainly I have the same experience - indeed Ausitoria has only used a corps twice, and that was only logistically feasible as it was the same region. Hence why I would expect all large nations seeking to project power to focus almost exclusively on their navies.

I agree with the thrust of this statement and would amend it to state “I would expect all large nations seeking to project power to focus heavily on their navies (including marine forces), and to a lesser extent, on their air power.”

If you will forgive my observing this discussion with some interest (like Allanea, my nation is rather larger than normal, even though I am constantly inventing ways to make it smaller to try to fit in with this sudden shift without serious cannonical implications), I should point out it is very clear that using eight times as many people and resources will result in a ship eight times bigger in tonnage (and twice as big in length). The time then depends on how modular it is.

Looking at the data, it is also very clear that larger countries IRL build larger ships. They do not build ships proportional to how big they are, because they still need more small ships, but in general a nation X four times the size of nation Y with a ship of 10,000 tons will have something like 2 ships of 10,000 tons and 1 of 20,000 tons, depending on the strategic constraints. Ignoring research costs and everything else (for sanity), in countries which operate in limited waters and for whom their is little need to have lots of ships they might well have one of 30,000 and one of 10,000. As such I for one have no problem with large countries having superdreadnaughts if they have any reason to do so.

Also, just to add a comment, if something is feasible, it arguably is realistic, because there are a hell of a lot if monkeys on nationstates and one if them is likely to write Hamlet at some point. Although personally I am still not about to let nations explicitly copy RL nations exactly as that is boring even if it realistic. Otherwise I think I generally agree with Allanea.

I have no problems with your interest in this discussion. If anything, I am heartened to see that you dug through my clumsy writing and unearthed my point about economy of scale in regard to production times and other technical considerations. I think both of us agree with Allanea about the propriety of roleplaying certain tech items. The stasis of our debate rests more or less on hair-splitting in regards to the way in which the invention, production, and utilization of these tech items are to be roleplayed.

As for your point about the relationship between feasibility and realism, I want to reiterate a statement I made in my previous post: Another way I approach MT and PMT technology is to take what I call an alternate-history approach. Under this approach, I not only evaluate the plausibility of an NS technology in terms of what is plausible in RL, I also evaluate the plausibility of an NS technology in terms of what could be plausible in RL had RL people chosen to pursue different options in the past.

I don't think there is a "we" that has a say on what's PMT and what isn't, and I don't think it'd be a productive conversation anyways.

Tech is an identity, you opt-in depending on how you see your canon fitting. I definitely consider myself PMT, despite having a NS pop nation.

The question isn't whether certain PMT things should be accepted, it's how we deal with subjective frictions in the spirit of promoting productive roleplay.

One way to do that is to set meta-rules that dictate pop-sizes and what technology is okay.

Have you considered writing a roleplaying guide that discusses how these meta-rules are created, interpreted, and used as a framework for guiding roleplay threads?

For instance, I'm currently putting together a 100 ton tank with a 155 mm gun and medium armour protection, but I don't expect Ausitoria would deploy it abroad in any serious numbers because of the nightmare of getting it there. But for a nation of enough size and inclination to build specialist tanks which would increase the range of fighting and defeat enemy attacks, it seems a logical step. Does the size of the nation in itself used to justify the tank being built make it PMT?

More and more MT is being used as a short-hand for 'strictly realistic' nations, I think.

I agree. In fact, I think a lot of people here will agree with your assertion. In fact, I for one would like to read more of your thoughts on this subject (and any thoughts that others here have on the matter).

[Allanea]

Ah, yes, you cut to the heart of one of my favorite NS war RP tropes: the eerily consistent way some countries decide to play world policeman on the fly whenever they spot Generic Authoritarian Hellhole No. 438 posting some provocative stuff in International Incidents.

Oh I love doing that.

I however do it with... right now I am in a thread where I am doing this with one submarine and two air regiments of 24 planes each.

The submarine has fired its weapons, hit absolutely nothing, and is leaving the area.

[The State of Monavia]

Ah, yes, you cut to the heart of one of my favorite NS war RP tropes: the eerily consistent way some countries decide to play world policeman on the fly whenever they spot Generic Authoritarian Hellhole No. 438 posting some provocative stuff in International Incidents.

Oh I love doing that.

I however do it with... right now I am in a thread where I am doing this with one submarine and two air regiments of 24 planes each.

The submarine has fired its weapons, hit absolutely nothing, and is leaving the area.

I actually read about a quarter of that thread earlier tonight. Qaidi seems like another Helsary or Greater Tezdrian with his provocative IC antics and very short posts. As usual, Amb. Nizhinsky and the royal family deliver readers their expected amusement.

[Allanea]

Oh I love doing that.

I however do it with... right now I am in a thread where I am doing this with one submarine and two air regiments of 24 planes each.

The submarine has fired its weapons, hit absolutely nothing, and is leaving the area.

I actually read about a quarter of that thread earlier tonight. Qaidi seems like another Helsary or Greater Tezdrian with his provocative IC antics and very short posts. As usual, Amb. Nizhinsky and the royal family deliver readers their expected amusement.

I talked to Qaidi out of character.

Not to worry, he's aware of the implications of his posts for his nation. This is his first RP so I have offered him assistance.

Also, Crystal Spires has contributed to one of my posts.

[Allanea]

The absolute best Allanea post is not actually by me.

[The Macabees]

On the topic of how to deal with differences in style, I'll share how I've come to resolve those situations.

Put yourself in the shoes of the player who's writing the opening post to a new thread. You have an idea in their head that has inspired them to start this thread. You have goals and ambitions. You are willing to cooperate enough to keep the outcome open-ended enough for the roleplaying part to be interesting, but this is your canon, this is the core of your game identity at stake. So at some level you always have preferences as far as which outcomes are most preferred and which are least preferred. It doesn't mean you're not flexible, it means you're concerned with what is basically your canvas, your piece of art, and so you'd like to be the master of its destiny. A reasonable enough request, in my opinion.

You post the OP. You wait 30 minutes, refreshing your egosearch here and there. Finally, a response.

You click the title and the screen changes to show the latest post.

You read, maybe in more eloquent terms, maybe in less, "I mobilize my military to absolutely destroy you. This is the ending I want and I care so little about you, your canon, and this world that you've started to put together for my enjoyment that I'm going to impose what I want!"

And you shut down. Or, you make it easy, you minimize drama, and you tell the player to please not post again. If he does, you tell a mod and they delete the post.

That's a lot of wasted time, so I just prefer not to deal with players who are like that.

That's the thing, though. It's not the props being used that are the problem, it's the players.

OOC arguments about tech and wanking and godmodding are often such a great waste of time because the point of contention is the wrong one. It's not about the props, it's about the way they're being used.

I've been roleplaying here since 12 June 2003. Some have been here longer (the roleplaying forum-side was founded around November 2002, if I remember correctly). I've been able to roleplay with hundreds of different players and I've been part of dozens of different communities, many of them as founder (or re-founder). I joined the miltech group very early in the game, first with people like Bisons, Artitsa, and others whose names I've sadly forgotten. Then I was part of the staff for the first iteration of the NS Draftroom and I refounded it soon after. I've been in dozens of RPs, some of them very good, a lot of them very bad. I've been involved in disasters like the war between RWC (me, Guffingford, and others) and NATO (Automagfreek and others), and I've been involved in beautiful wars like A Passion Play, Fatherland, and Titanomachy.

My point is that I've seen a lot of shit and I've come to know many different angles of the game.

Over time I've developed a philosophy of how I play the game.

I can be very strict about it, but it's helped me have a better experience overall as far as cooperatively writing stories goes.

The scope of the conflict is defined early on. Everyone involved is on board with it. We are immediately immersed in a cooperative framework. Don't get me wrong, there's still elements of competition, there's still a lot of room to roleplay (which implies a degree of freedom to make decisions), but there are meta-rules that define how the game is played. It's the same way a tabletop game is ran. There's a DM in control of the world for a reason; the job of the DM is to facilitate the open-ended decision-making of the other players, with the health and inertia of the story as the priority.

It doesn't need to be incredibly exhausting. A player doesn't need to bring up the use of a nuclear weapon at the very beginning of the discussion. Here's the thing, because we were all able to come together and decide to focus on cooperation, I can trust that person to bring it to the table before using it and to propose story scenarios that go with the general idea that was agreed upon in the beginning.

If all the players know the constraints from the get-go, their recommendations will get better and you'll be more successful at focusing their attention of evolving the story in the direction you want, but they're still making decisions.

It comes down to this. I think that the success of a PMT RP is highly dependent on the OP and the players. The OP needs to know how to lead, and/or the players involved need to understand their role and they need to help the OP understand theirs, or the players are good enough to hold the OP's hand (which is fine; if you've found this type of group you are a very lucky player).

[Allanea]

I try not to tie myself down to any given 'community', even ones where I have a good leadership position. I feel they're often very toxic.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

I try not to tie myself down to any given 'community', even ones where I have a good leadership position. I feel they're often very toxic.

Seconded, any group of people is extremely quick at finding points of agreement.

...as I've just proven...

Next step, exclusivity, next step, ostracization...

The scope of the conflict is defined early on. Everyone involved is on board with it. We are immediately immersed in a cooperative framework. Don't get me wrong, there's still elements of competition, there's still a lot of room to roleplay (which implies a degree of freedom to make decisions), but there are meta-rules that define how the game is played. It's the same way a tabletop game is ran. There's a DM in control of the world for a reason; the job of the DM is to facilitate the open-ended decision-making of the other players, with the health and inertia of the story as the priority.

It doesn't need to be incredibly exhausting. A player doesn't need to bring up the use of a nuclear weapon at the very beginning of the discussion. Here's the thing, because we were all able to come together and decide to focus on cooperation, I can trust that person to bring it to the table before using it and to propose story scenarios that go with the general idea that was agreed upon in the beginning.

If all the players know the constraints from the get-go, their recommendations will get better and you'll be more successful at focusing their attention of evolving the story in the direction you want, but they're still making decisions.

I'd agree that that's generally the way to go - for MT RPing too. Out of curiosity though, to what extent do you find this means either (a) the rough outline of the plot has to be worked out in advance (limiting creative freedom OOCly) or (b) a powerful enough nation dedicated to mostly maintaining the peace needs to be on hand to keep anything from getting out of control (limiting creative freedom ICly)?

[The Macabees]

I'd agree that that's generally the way to go - for MT RPing too. Out of curiosity though, to what extent do you find this means either (a) the rough outline of the plot has to be worked out in advance (limiting creative freedom OOCly) or (b) a powerful enough nation dedicated to mostly maintaining the peace needs to be on hand to keep anything from getting out of control (limiting creative freedom ICly)?

B shouldn't be the case.

It comes down to the leadership of the OP. If the OP is weak, hopefully there's someone responsible who can help guide the OP through the RP. As OP, you can have any post in the thread deleted on your whim. If a player isn't cooperating or isn't interacting in the way you want, the OP has the right to kick them from the RP and if that player refuses then the OP has the right to bring in a mod to bar that player from participating (although, I don't speak for mods, so if I'm wrong please correct me).

Bottom line: OP has creative control.

As for A, I think this is partly the case, but in my opinion, the limitations on creative freedom are not egregious, although at this point it becomes empirical (in the sense of needing data to really know which 'meta-framework' is best) and subjective.

Not every OP is the same, but when I OP a thread I usually have a story in mind. I can be pretty totalitarian as far as enforcing the meta-framework and the agreements made through this framework.

For example, Titanomachy could have easily turned into a clusterfuck. I invaded a Gothic country and, of course, every Gothic player still active wanted to join. The problem is that Scand and I (to me, Scand is co-OP) don't have the time to respond to 5+ different players. We didn't want to deal with that complexity or pace, so the meta-framework was set up to limit the two sides to eight main players and to agree to a general end for the war. I was very aggressive in telling people that their attempted entry into the RP wasn't going to work out. And that doesn't mean that those players can't join the RP at all, they just have to figure out a way of joining that's in-line with what we laid out in the beginning. I was able to include Havensky and Ghant in that way, and ultimately those same players who I originally said no to were able to join through a sister thread. But, the burden of the creativity will sometimes be on the player who wants to join, because I don't have the time to hold everyone's hand. And this may not be the way every, or any other, OP wants to do things, but it has worked for me quite a bit. Anyways, I just wanted to illustrate how a strong OP can keep control of the direction of an RP, to keep it healthy over time (healthy in the sense of protecting the main driving force).

Circling back to the question of creative freedom.

I like to think of it as being DM in a tabletop game. You have players who can independently make decisions.

The job of the DM is to give them some direction and to constrain their decisions for the good of the story. For example, it's common to have rules against people killing each other early on, especially if the players are immature.

Another example is the open world RPG. They'll have waypoints and marks on a map to give you an idea of what direction to go in, even though which mark to go after or how to get to that mark is up to the player. I like to think that the job of the OP is similar. Planning some of the plot early on is more like setting those marks/waypoints, the RP is the road taken, and that's where the meat of the interesting decisions will be.

In short, I do think that creative freedom will be limited. But it's almost like the role of laws in a free country (I don't want to spark a political debate, so just assume what I'm saying is right for the sake of analogy). Laws infringe on freedom, in some sense, but they can also help maximize freedom by curtailing the type of actions which are oppressive to others (like murder, theft, etc.). The meta-framework will place constraints, but if the constraits lead to overall good consequences by helping to keep the RP healthy, then over time we actually have more creative freedom with the meta-framework.

[The Macabees]

Speaking of guiding OPs, and this is tangential, weak OPs can also present a problem if they're being guided by the wrong player.

It's easy to manipulate a weak OP, meaning the [bad] player gets the outcome he/she wants by influencing the OP in a way that goes against the OP's best interests.

What are some methods you've used in the past to combat this?

[Allanea]

I have had a lot of fun – am having a lot of fun right now – doing regular, old-school, II RPs where I just join and see how things roll. Yes, sometimes it ends in some OOC argument, and then I shrug and leave. I’ve developed a long-standing practice which is approximately like this:

1. First enter the RP in a small-scale involvement, and only scale it up once it’s clear that it’s consistent with the scope and scale of the RP (as well as the events actually going on). There is also a clear IC motivation to act this was: the Allanean government, like any sane government, doesn’t want to be stuck in a nonsensical quagmire or fighting for a cause which turns out to be the wrong one.

2. Open lines of communication in-character (and out-of-character) with those present, both to clarify what they want from the RP, and what they absolutely do not want to happen.

3. Determine the characters’ IC goals ands work towards them within the scope determined.

Now, I generally avoid threads where the overall conclusion is determined in advance – in my experience this saps people’s desire to post and they start doing so very slowly (because, again, they know how it’ll end up).

I think that some people have such a strong aversion to having a ‘bad RP’ (which of course, bad RPs are unenjoyable) that they end up not even having a good RP, or an RP at all. Some of the RPs I end up in are awful. But my ratio of RPs that I enjoy to the ones I don’t enjoy is such that I’m still on NS.

[The Macabees]

Have you guys seen Blade Runner 2049, yet?

I saw it yesterday. As a cyberpunk film it fits the broad genre of this thread and I'm curious what you guys thought of it.

[Post War America]

Have you guys seen Blade Runner 2049, yet?

I saw it yesterday. As a cyberpunk film it fits the broad genre of this thread and I'm curious what you guys thought of it.

I've not seen it yet, I think I will try to rope a friend into seeing it with me, given that I want to see more near future works in our culture that aren't post-apoc. That being said I don't like going to the theater alone.

[The State of Monavia]

Have you guys seen Blade Runner 2049, yet?

I saw it yesterday. As a cyberpunk film it fits the broad genre of this thread and I'm curious what you guys thought of it.

I've not seen it yet, I think I will try to rope a friend into seeing it with me, given that I want to see more near future works in our culture that aren't post-apoc. That being said I don't like going to the theater alone.

Speaking of the post-apocalyptic genre, I have yet to encounter a single example of a post-catastrophe dystopia story told from the perspective of its ruling class that reveals what goes on behind the scenes. Instead, most dystopian fiction (especially the sort that is set in an environment that arose out of the ashes of some predecessor) is told from the perspective of characters who sit pretty far from the top of the food chains in their respective settings. Is it just me, or does this seem a bit like an unofficial standard or writing convention?

[Allanea]

Have you guys seen Blade Runner 2049, yet?

I saw it yesterday. As a cyberpunk film it fits the broad genre of this thread and I'm curious what you guys thought of it.

I'm not sure PMT NS is cyberpunk as such. Cyberpunk has certain style requirements beyond just 'advanced technology' that I for one reject in my writing.

[Bashriyya]

I've not seen it yet, I think I will try to rope a friend into seeing it with me, given that I want to see more near future works in our culture that aren't post-apoc. That being said I don't like going to the theater alone.

Speaking of the post-apocalyptic genre, I have yet to encounter a single example of a post-catastrophe dystopia story told from the perspective of its ruling class that reveals what goes on behind the scenes. Instead, most dystopian fiction (especially the sort that is set in an environment that arose out of the ashes of some predecessor) is told from the perspective of characters who sit pretty far from the top of the food chains in their respective settings. Is it just me, or does this seem a bit like an unofficial standard or writing convention?

I totally agree with you, although the Japanese have made a few.

[Post War America]

I've not seen it yet, I think I will try to rope a friend into seeing it with me, given that I want to see more near future works in our culture that aren't post-apoc. That being said I don't like going to the theater alone.

Speaking of the post-apocalyptic genre, I have yet to encounter a single example of a post-catastrophe dystopia story told from the perspective of its ruling class that reveals what goes on behind the scenes. Instead, most dystopian fiction (especially the sort that is set in an environment that arose out of the ashes of some predecessor) is told from the perspective of characters who sit pretty far from the top of the food chains in their respective settings. Is it just me, or does this seem a bit like an unofficial standard or writing convention?

Its probably a trope given that the post-apoc and dystopian genres kind of imply a certain kind of character struggle. Survival is often a big theme in these works, and its harder (not impossible mind, but harder) to write about such a struggle when depicting someone at the top.

Have you guys seen Blade Runner 2049, yet?

I saw it yesterday. As a cyberpunk film it fits the broad genre of this thread and I'm curious what you guys thought of it.

I'm not sure PMT NS is cyberpunk as such. Cyberpunk has certain style requirements beyond just 'advanced technology' that I for one reject in my writing.

No but certain cyberpunk elements can be fun. It adds a little bit of spice to the PMT level. While I would admit that I prefer the more optimistic Post-Cyberpunk outlook to the wrist slittingly cynical traditional cyberpunk, I find it more interesting to depict advancing technology as causing significant problems, especially those big existential crisis inducing ones such as Human augmentation and artificial intelligence.

[The Macabees]

Speaking of the post-apocalyptic genre, I have yet to encounter a single example of a post-catastrophe dystopia story told from the perspective of its ruling class that reveals what goes on behind the scenes. Instead, most dystopian fiction (especially the sort that is set in an environment that arose out of the ashes of some predecessor) is told from the perspective of characters who sit pretty far from the top of the food chains in their respective settings. Is it just me, or does this seem a bit like an unofficial standard or writing convention?

I'm trying to think of a counter-example, but nothing immediately jumps to mind. Perhaps more evidence toward your point.

In cyberpunk, I think it's a feature because the idea is to follow a low-standard of living/high-tech character who can break through oppressive state's high-tech apparatus.

I feel that it can be hard to write a compelling novel from the point of view of a post-catastrophe government, unless it was about an internal struggle (not impossible, though). Even then, interesting stories of this kind usually have something to do with a character overcoming the odds, so it's a weaker (good/moral) force vs. a stronger (evil/oppressive/sadistic) force. With a character who might not be at the very top, but has the potential to be there (or will be there at the end of the storyline).

Neal Stephenson's Seveneves is a good example of a book where it does follow the story from a relatively high level. For those who haven't read it, it's about an apocalyptic event that causes the moon to fracture and slowly break up, forming a ring that slowly collapses into the atmosphere, burning up the Earth and leaving it almost completely uninhabitable (spoiler alert). It follows the progress of human civilization trying to survive in orbit, and because of how small human civilization is at this point most of the players being followed are in a leadership position. Extremely interesting book.

Relatedly, have you guys read The Three Body Problem by chance?

What's interesting about it, in our context, is how although the main character is not government, he becomes one of the most important characters to the book's world. I've seen a lot of writers approach it that way, which loosely follows the trope of a power struggle, or a character who eventually becomes a leader, or a non-government character who has the fate of the world in their hands.

[The Macabees]

No but certain cyberpunk elements can be fun. It adds a little bit of spice to the PMT level. While I would admit that I prefer the more optimistic Post-Cyberpunk outlook to the wrist slittingly cynical traditional cyberpunk, I find it more interesting to depict advancing technology as causing significant problems, especially those big existential crisis inducing ones such as Human augmentation and artificial intelligence.

I've been setting up a cyberpunk 'world' within the wider canon of my NS nation.

Back between 2005 and 2007, I was in an RP called A Passion Play, which was basically a big war that involved the whole region. One of my opponents was New Empire, whose cities were all built underground because the surface had become essentially uninhabitable because of a long nuclear war that ravaged the country's original cities.

7 OOC years later (about 10 IC years after the event of that war), New Empire has long collapsed and has lost parts of its eastern lands in a series of wars. Peace is hardly kept by the three armies of peacekeepers. Through a series of negotiations, my nation is able to take all three peacekeeping missions and under the guise of peacekeeping essentially effects an occupation that it uses to organize a reunification of the various city-states. But, fractured and crime-ridden as they were, it's a harder task done than said, and as I RP my plan to is to bring those dark cyberpunk tropes about deep inequality, state oppression, and the struggle of the low-income/high-tech individual who lives in squalor with the obstacles of their everyday lives.

I feel it brings something different to my world, it makes it more interesting, and it also creates an environment where people can write in a cyberpunk style, either to practice or because it's their style of choice.

[The Macabees]

Coming back to Blade Runner 2049 really quickly, I really liked the movie.

In retrospect, I like it more. At the time, it was very long and, like the original movie, the story is slow to build/develop, and so you're sitting there wondering when this is going to get kickstarted. The plot definitely makes you think. I feel that it has holes, but maybe that's just what gets me to start thinking about it; it's definitely a movie you'll talk about afterwards (whether you loved it or hate it), that's to say the least. It's one of those that will be a cult classic, but not a box office hit.

The cinematography is spectacular. I highly recommend the movie just to see the camera shots...they are fantastic.

[Bashriyya]

Could nano-tech be used to dispatch bio-weapons?

[Allanea]

Could nano-tech be used to dispatch bio-weapons?

Can you clarify your meaning? Arguably viruses work on the same scale as nanotech.

But what is the point? Bioweapons are kind of lame.