[8:00 PM] Kyrusia:
**NS Roleplay Symposium 2017**
LOCATION: Symposium Hall
TOPIC: "War and Storytelling"
TIME: 9:00-10:30 PM Eastern, Tuesday, July 11th
Good evening and welcome to our War and Storytelling panel. I'm Kyru, your discussion moderator for this session.
This evening we'll be looking to answer questions regarding war and conflict in roleplay, with an emphasis upon crafting a story involving conflict. Other pertinent questions may be asked.
Panellists, please introduce yourselves and tell us which subforums you haunt. Also: what is your favorite environment for a conflict?
I also thank guests for their patience. We will pull your questions from the #questions_chamber. To make it easier on us, please keep chatter to the main #ns_mentors channel. Thank you.
BEGIN
::
[8:00 PM] Cer: Hello, all. I'm Cer, a P2TM RP Mentor and an avid wargamer. I haunt primarily P2TM but I used to be a regular denizen in NS.
My favorite environment for conflict is any that gives my side the advantage. :smile:
[8:00 PM] Agy: I'm Agy, I hang out in P2TM for the most part but a LONG time ago I did a few shitty war RPs up in II (under different names). I'm here as one of your token P2TM panelists.
Favorite environment for conflict: Any one that involves the proletariat rising up and hanging their oppressors, clearly :stuck_out_tongue:
[8:01 PM] Gren: I'm Gren, and I post in P2TM, where I've been involved in a few war RPs over the last 4 years, including Excalibur Squadron, and recently, ATHENA.
[8:01 PM] Tilt: Hello, am Tilt. I'm a known P2TM lurker, semi-serious wargamer, and pie addict. Fear me in your next food fight.
[8:01 PM] Lamoni: I am Lamoni, a mentor, and experienced roleplayer, here to share my experiences with war and storytelling.
[8:01 PM] Ghant: Hello all! I'm Ghant, a veteran N&I Roleplayer specializing in PT and MT roleplays and worldbuilding. My favorite environment for conflict is probably in a "Mcguffin" location that's climatic to the plot. Otherwise, I'll take the frozen tundra :stuck_out_tongue:
[8:01 PM] FRFS: Hello I'm FRFS, FT player and consistent IC fire starter.
[8:02 PM] Macabees: Hi everyone, i'm The Macabees. I'm a Senior N&I Mentor, and otherwise I've been involved in more war RPs that I can count on my hands. I've been RPing on NationStates since June 2003 and have learned so much throughout my journey here.
[8:02 PM] Kyrusia: Welcome, panelists.
[8:02 PM] Kyrusia: Question #1 (PANEL-PROVIDED): In general, what is the role war or conflict (martial or otherwise physical) should or might play in a narrative?
[8:02 PM] Gren: Q1: To settle disputes that cannot be settled diplomatically.
[8:03 PM] FRFS: Q1: conflict can be a central pivot point for any story. It's a great vehicle to have tension crash together, and provide sub plots and lasting effects beyond the single RP/story.
[8:03 PM] Lamoni: Clausewitz would say that war is diplomacy by other means, and that all wars have a political objective.
[8:03 PM] Agy: Question 1: Conflict should be a way for conflicting ideas in a work to be resolved in a manner consistent with the themes one wants to get across. War in particular should be used to highlight disputes of an ideological, social, or economic nature between groups which CANNOT be resolved diplomatically. War should generally be the last resort in a narrative for it to be compelling, otherwise it comes off as somewhat pretentious and vicious.
[8:04 PM] Macabees: The war itself should be treated as the setting, and not as the end of the RP. There's so much more interesting things to talk about. A good war RP has detail - it has detail that flares the interest of the reader. And it's hard to focus on the details if you're focused on just the war as an end, meaning as a means of winning something (what are you winning? I have no idea. Internet pride, I suppose). Treat the war as the setting, something that you're discussing with the other players and finding common ground on.
[8:04 PM] Tilt: Q1. War can be RPed on a whole lot of levels. I'll speak more on what I see as P2TM's niche, as a generally more character-focused arena, which is to see war's effects on the characters, and the characters' effects (if any) on the war as an event.
To quote Infernal Affairs III: 'Events are not changed by men, only men by events. These men were extraordinary because they changed events.'
[8:04 PM] Ghant: Q1: I've always viewed wars and conflicts as the dramatic backdrop to the RP. They compel the conflict that drives the narrative. It's basically that great elephant in the room that characters deal with and address as the story progresses.
8:05 PM] Kyrusia: Question #2: What are both some commonalities and differences in war between tech levels? (Asked via back channels.)
(Moderator input forthcoming.)
[8:07 PM] Macabees: Q2: The commonality is the raison d'etre of having the war in the first place. And I don't mean in the in character sense, but rather in the out of character sense. That is, as a setting for a cool story idea. The differences are in the exact shape of the window dressing, but it's all window dressing in the end.
[8:07 PM] Gren: Q2: Commonalities: generally the horrors of war, how it dehumanizes people, etc. Differences: mostly what you can do.
[8:08 PM] Tilt: Q2. Good question. Ultimately I'm most familiar with war in MT, which has a general influence on strategic and tactical thinking on PMT-FT, modified by technology as it evolves.
[8:08 PM] Lamoni: The differences are mostly in regards to weapons and abilities. Commonalities? Dehumanization, horrors of war, nationalism.
[8:08 PM] Tilt: As Gren notes, the commonalities are the effects on people and society.
[8:08 PM] Ghant: Q2: Things in common generally involve the fact that there are sides in the war with stakes, and a means of conducting war, and that's the same in my experience with PT, MT, PMT, FT, etc. Where it gets different is the size, scope, and motive. In PT combat situations, they're fairly limited and might be fought for reasons of religion or irridentism. PMT wars, conversely, might be region-spanning, have million man armies and be fought for more intrinsically geo-political reasons.
[8:08 PM] Kyrusia: Q#2: Commonalities? War is still an extension of politics (and all the nuances thereof, but it cultural, ideological, economic, etc.). Horror, likewise, is ever-present.
Differences? I'd say the emphasis (or lackthereof) on the more overt technical aspects. In FT, for example, the "numbers game" is often not present, not recommended, or otherwise not as to the forefront as is often the case in certain circles in MT. There is an emphasis on using conflict as the backdrop for a story (or series of stories), rather than "going to war for the sake of war."
[8:08 PM] Agy: Question 2:
Commonalities: social forces as the driving factors (whether human or alien) and social actors as the primary movers; the horrors of war and the brutality of the conflict, esp. in how it dehumanizes and may specifically target certain groups of people
Differences: the scope of the conflict (small islands all the way up to across the known universe and beyond); what kind of weapons are being used; logistical concerns (food and available rocks vs energy batteries to supply laser cannons, etc); scope of the destruction
[8:08 PM] FRFS: Q2: scope, scale, etc. and it's at every tech level. PT, you see clans/tribes. MT, you see kingdoms, nationstates. FT, you see interstellar nations. _conflict in of itself is universal. But how you go about it definitely changes with tech level.
[8:09 PM] Cer: Q2 The tech changes with time, and the logistics to match it. However, conflict will forever remain.
[8:09 PM] Lamoni: And be just as ugly.
[8:09 PM] FRFS: Q2: You go from sticks and stones, to knives and swords, to guns and vehicles, to starships
[8:09 PM] FRFS: It's all relative to how you write it and immerse yourself with it.
[8:10 PM] Ghant: War. War never changes.
[8:10 PM] Macabees: Fwiw, consider that most sci fi others, when they're developing their FT war plots, they are projecting from an MT setting. They are making assumptions about what the details will look like in X many years, but their baseline is always MT in the sense of the emotion that drives the story.
[8:11 PM] Agy: War has changed, Ghant. :stuck_out_tongue:
[8:11 PM] Kyrusia: Question #3: [Does] astrography play a significant role in the formation of military doctrine for FT nations? (Asked by Sailor.)
(Moderator input forthcoming.)
[8:11 PM] Tilt: Q3. Most likely, though I've not done a war RP in FT (quite yet).
[8:11 PM] Tilt: Spoilers.
[8:12 PM] Gren: Q3: Depends on the technical aspects of the setting, but generally yes.
[8:12 PM] Agy: Question 3: You mean astrography like taking photos of the night sky? I've yet to see it used strategically in FT war RPs I've seen or been in but no-doubt it would prove an important tactic for observing enemy troop movements and anticipating them.
[8:12 PM] Kyrusia: Q#3: It can, but it will depend upon the nature of one's astrography, how "soft" or "hard" it is, and the degree of handwavium one has applied - not to mention the nature of one's FTL and related infrastructure.
[8:12 PM] Kyrusia: They mean stellar geography, Agy. It's an NSFT term.
[8:12 PM] FRFS: Q3: in some ways yes. Cause the size and breadth of your territory is going to directly influence your star navy and it's capabilities. How stretched out they will be in dealing with many crises that arise from different corners of your territory
[8:13 PM] Agy: Question 3 (cont): Ah, then yes. Like geography, astrography is important to understanding what your troops and the enemy's troops are capable of doing and can help dictate what kind of battles will occur, where, and what kind of terrain the battles will be fought on.
[8:13 PM] Gren: For instance, if you can only travel from one system to a handful of others, you can generally create chokepoints.
[8:14 PM] Cer: Q3 It has much to do with navigation. It determines how you move your forces and can, when designing a nation's tech, have a lot of bearing on what you come up with. It comes down to how you plan out your logistics. Do you want start off far and move your way in, or pop into the middle and move your way out (working on multiple fronts) etc.
[8:14 PM] Gren: Relativistic effects of black holes needs to be taken into account, etc.
[8:14 PM] Kyrusia: Or not. #RulePlot.
[8:14 PM] FRFS: Q3: the hard and soft differences have s lot of weight here. "Hard FT" is going to be more limited just because of the style.(edited)
[8:14 PM] Cer: Yeah, your group should agree on what is/isn't acceptable before you try throwing in elements.
[8:15 PM] Kyrusia: Question #4: How will you go to define a good army in both N&I and even P2TM? (Asked by Ched.)
[8:16 PM] Agy: clarification?
[8:16 PM] Agy: Good as in good to play with or good as in objectively strong or...
[8:16 PM] Tilt: ^
[8:16 PM] Gren: ^
[8:16 PM] Ghant: Q4: I think a good army is well defined in an ORBAT or some other sort of descriptive resource.
[8:17 PM] Ghant: A "bad" army, therefore, is one where there's alot of pulling from one's butt. :stuck_out_tongue:
[8:17 PM] Cer: ^^^
[8:17 PM] Lamoni: THIS
[8:17 PM] Kyrusia: Clarification: Clarifying as needed, good to play with and against
[8:17 PM] Ghant: Conversely, a "good" army is one that's fairly RPed.
[8:18 PM] Gren: "In 1944, the Third Reich turned the tide of war by mass producing the Maus tank, allowing it to steamroll through the Ardennes and against the Soviet hordes in Poland..."
[8:18 PM] Gren: ^ example of an asspull
[8:18 PM] Macabees: Q4: A lot of people think having the best weapons make a good army. Or having a lot of men. Or saying in canon that they're well trained. But, the only way that a good army is actually communicated in an in-character way is through RP. When people are comparing their [REDACTED] size, I usually tell them to solve it ICly. It's too easy to say you're the best, but its not so easy to prove it (and this is in large part because people set out to prove it the wrong way, competitively).
[8:18 PM] Lamoni: It really helps if the person RPing said army knows something of how an actual army functions, or the community standards if playing FT.
[8:19 PM] FRFS: Q4: if you want people to enjoy reading about your military's actions. It has to be constructed well, keep consistent, and written well on the forms. Do you research on how your want your military to be, consistently build it that way, and continue to represent it that way on the forums.
[8:19 PM] Cer: The thing is to make a believable army. It's not based on fluff and dust. What can your nation support? What is your nation's population (since your forces are pulled from it)? Do you have the means to keep it supplied? And so on. When I encounter massive armies (in nation play or P2TM), I start to look at what the player has. If you're not careful, I'll find ways to exploit it in order to undermine your efforts long-term.
[8:19 PM] Ghant: Or if not, has proper guideance Lamoni
[8:19 PM] Lamoni: That too, @ghant
[8:19 PM] Macabees: There are setting factors too that make armies believable. So I don't mean to detract from that.
[8:19 PM] Agy: Question 4:
An army that's good to play against is one that's clearly-defined so that the opposing player knows for the most part what they're up against and can respond accordingly.
An army that's good to play with is similarly well-defined, but also has interesting quirks and personalized details that make it fun for the player to write about and make it compelling for people to read about. Personalize your army - give your important soldiers and generals names and histories, and write up some important battles and general practices or traditions that encompass what it means to be in your military corps.
[8:19 PM] Tilt: Q4. A well-defined one as Ghant points out. In N&I, I'd tack on the extra requirement that it be suited to the needs and logistical ability of the nation employing it. Show work. Not required in P2TM, since I feel that's more a smaller-scale environment.
[8:20 PM] Cer: Good point, Agy.
[8:20 PM] Kyrusia: I would argue that depends on tech level and player preference. I will ignore an ORBAT and indulge a well-described, stellar naval fleet. If the player is a shitty player with it, I don't care what their numbers say.
[8:20 PM] Macabees: If my RP partner doesn't know a lot of about armies and wars, it's not a big deal. It doesn't make it less enjoyable. We focus on different things, like the characters, and the army is more the setting or part of the environment the characters are in. I really don't need to know exactly how many tanks you have. I trust you to be reasonable.
[8:21 PM] FRFS: You can do all the planing and research you want. But You're still gonna have to write it.
[8:21 PM] Lamoni: You will have to write it, but the research helps.
[8:22 PM] Cer: It does depend on the game itself. Are you moving pieces each turn, along with rolling die in a program? The humanization of things comes in how you craft your posts. Otherwise, (non-mechanics gaming), Mac's point is excellent.(edited)
[8:22 PM] Agy: ^^
[8:22 PM] Macabees: I personally recommend reading about wars - whether nonfiction history or military fiction. :smiley: But only if you're really that interested in it. Don't feel pressured to do things that aren't in your wheelhouse, just because everyone on NS seems to do it.
[8:22 PM] Ghant: There's certainly alot to be said about someone who admits that they don't know much about the military aspects of their work and is willing to admit that and ask for help, while at the same time focusing on their strengths as a writer.
[8:23 PM] Agy: I concur with what Mac says as well - if it's not a hard dice-and-numbers game, it's more important to be reasonable and fun than it is to be exact with your military.
[8:23 PM] Kyrusia: Frankly, it's more important to be consistent than technical.
[8:23 PM] Ghant: Contrary to what many believe, you can contribute great work to a war thread without knowing much about war related material.
[8:23 PM] Macabees: What Kyrusia said
[8:23 PM] Cer: Ghant, those make for excellent people to game with. Help them learn. You may be on different sides IC, but you both share a love for the game.
[8:24 PM] Ghant: Exactly @cer
[8:24 PM] FRFS: Consistency goes a long way into making your military believable. If you're military is widely different each time it is used, the level of belief dies.
[8:24 PM] Kyrusia: Especially in tech levels like FT and FanT, where one is working with things that, frankly, may not have technicals.
[8:25 PM] Macabees: In my experience, and it may not be universal, focusing on technical aspects is the proximate cause of OOC drama. I'll caveat this by saying, if you're interested in the technicals to make the story richer, that's one thing. If you're interested in the technicals because it may be the difference between you losing or winning, that's a problem.(edited)
[8:25 PM] Kyrusia: ^ This.
[8:25 PM] Agy: Well that goes back to: don't fight to win. Decide how the war's gonna go beforehand, and focus on writing up an interesting story in the meantime.
[8:26 PM] Agy: Fighting to win just results in cheap tricks, dirty plays, and angry players.
[8:26 PM] Ghant: Not to get too far off topic, but your desire to acquire knowledge of military tech should be to enrich the plot and not to gain some sort of competitve advantage against other players in the thread.
[8:26 PM] Kyrusia: Question #6: How would you describe a good space battle? (Asked by Eridani.)
(Moderator input forthcoming.)
[8:26 PM] Cer: ^ This (to Mac)
We should clarify that there is a difference between mechanics-based and non. Both can be storytelling. One requires details and ORBATs. One does not necessarily need them.(edited)
[8:28 PM] Gren: Q6: Personally? I'm a big fan of scientific plausibility, so battles that take that into account I find to be typically good.
[8:28 PM] Kyrusia: Q#6: Personally? One that does not focus on moving large hunks of metal around, but one that focuses on the perspectives and narratives of individual characters as they experience combat that, at any moment, can result in their being vented into space, ripped apart by a gravitic pulse, cooked by a Hellbore, shredded by a sandcaster, and simply watching as those around them fight for their lives in a largely confined space locked in a situation they cannot readily escape.
[8:28 PM] Tilt: Q6. Sensoriwise. Mind's eye details are crucial.
[8:28 PM] Cer: Q6 Tense, story-driven, spooked or strained crew and determined officers, operatic in flavor. Basically, put effort into making it interesting on a character level.
[8:28 PM] Agy: Question 6: Scope, scope, scope. Space battles, much like huge ground invasions, provide the backdrop for stories that have a multitude of characters, many situations happening at the same time, and a general atmosphere of chaos.
Take advantage of this. Make the characters participating interesting; make their struggle worth reading so your audience doesn't feel like paragraph after paragraph is a slog.
[8:29 PM] Macabees: Q6: Bare in mind that my foray into FT on NS is minimal. I do not have the hands on experience that the other panelists here have. I will answer the question from the perspective of an avid science fiction reader. Actually, I will answer it from the perspective of an avid science fiction and military non-fiction reader. I love when authors really put thought into what the characters are doing and on the detail, and reasonable creativity, of the overall battle. It shows that you put a lot of work into thinking about something that has a lot of moving pieces. Battles are hard to RP. They are prob. one of the things I RP the worst, except in times where I'm literally writing, re-writing, editing, and re-editing drafts -- we're talking about a month of work. I appreciate the effort, so it really speaks to me when I read it.
[8:30 PM] Macabees: I accept this as personal opinion haha. :smile:
[8:30 PM] Ghant: Q6: As someone who doesn't have much experience with this, the Star Wars: Heir to the Empire series is a good example of what I find compelling reading in this area.
[8:31 PM] Lamoni: I don't have NSFT experience, but I agree with Mac here.
[8:31 PM] FRFS: Q6: make it personable. While it's lovely to picture the ships moving about, the weapons firing, and all that jazz. It's the human touch that makes it all the better. The actions of the crew, the reactions to the battle unfolding around them. Their lives hang in the balance of your story. And to me, are all the more interesting.
[8:31 PM] Kyrusia: Question #7: Is it advisable to first work out your geography in order to make a defensive doctrine for your nation? (Asked by Sailor.)
Also, to our panelists, our first thirty minutes have elapsed.
[8:32 PM] Tilt: Q6 PS. Honor Harrington does it well.
[8:32 PM] Tilt: Q7c. What tech level?
[8:32 PM] Tilt: In general, yes.
[8:32 PM] Lamoni: It can help, but please don't make your terrain such that it is inaccessible. Otherwise, how did YOU get there?
[8:32 PM] Kyrusia: I would assume any and all tech levels in which ground combat occurs.
[8:33 PM] Agy: Question 7: Yes and no. It's not necessary, but any kind of defensive doctrine should account for your nation's geography - and if you don't have a solid grasp of what your geography is, then your defensive doctrine may come across as gimmicky, flat, or easily-exploitable.
For instance, how do we know your impenetrable bunker wall is a good idea if we don't know what's around it? If I can just sidestep the wall as Hitler did the Maginot Line, then it's not much of a defensive perimeter, is it?
[8:33 PM] Ghant: Q7: I certainly think knowing your geographic location helps. It gives you an idea of where you are in relation to the theater of war and other combatants, and how long it might take you to deploy or the distance for your supply train, etc. It also might give you an idea of who your immediate threats are and how best to defend against them.
[8:33 PM] Cer: Q7 You don't have to have it fully mapped, imho, but you will have forces set up for it. Mountains? You have troops for that. Ocean? You have a navy. Also consider if you involve yourselves in other nations' business. If you've fought there before, you may still have equipment pertaining to those environs.
[8:34 PM] Macabees: Q7: From a technical point of view, absolutely. Your doctrine and how your weapons are designed and how your soldiers are trained. From a MT/PMT perspective, if you're a small nation you can have an absolutely encompassing defense in depth, for example. For larger nations, you'll have to focus on mobility and moving between hot zones along a long border. In FT the details might change, but the concept is the same.
It's not just war. It's your career. It's your hobby. Everything has a unique landscape and the only way you're going to master it is by really knowing it and adapting around it.
[8:34 PM] FRFS: Q7: yes, for the most part the territory has been there much longer than your nations doctrine. And your nation would have adjusted to it how it would have needed to regardless
[8:35 PM] Gren: RE: Agy's mentioning of the Maginot Line. It should be important to note that it worked EXACTLY as intended, by forcing the Germans to go through the Low Countries and small parts of the French border, specifically so they could concentrate their forces in that area.
[8:35 PM] Kyrusia: Question #8: [What] are some important aspects of a nation that should be developed before the military is fleshed out? and in what order should one go about fleshing them out? (Asked by Zark.)
[8:35 PM] Agy: oh, wow, gren, impressive[8:36 PM] Ghant: Q8: Culture is pretty important, because it could provide some insight in to how your nation's society views war.
[8:36 PM] Tilt: Q8. The segments that impact the people. Industry/economy. Geography. Culture (which drives priorities).
[8:37 PM] Gren: Q8: The environment. Particularly natural resources, climate, and geography. Everything else depends on those.
[8:37 PM] Macabees: Q8: In my opinion, this is up to your preference. In life, some of us value health, others value love and relationships, and others their career. They're equally as okay, it's subjective. What do you want to focus on now? What would bring the most value to you and your NS experience? You're the only person who can answer that question.
[8:37 PM] Cer: Q9 You'll need to know your economy, your culture, your population - that helps you determine size. Your government structure also matters. How do the people view it? Will they throw themselves at the enemy in a frenzy of love for Dear Leader, or will they abandon their posts because they have no confidence in their weak government system.
[8:38 PM] Macabees: But, from a personal perspective, I did develop stuff like culture and geography first... somewhat
[8:38 PM] Agy: Question 8: Important aspects to know before fleshing out a military: nation's economy (GDP, main exports, etc) so you know your logistical limitations and also if you can produce any military equipment internally, nation's culture so you know how war-friendly your people are and any martial traditions that might contribute to how your military is structured or operates, nation's geography (for previously-mentioned reasons - will you have a navy? a mountain corps? specialized ops for swamps?)
What order: Should probably start with ground forces since those are the bread-and-butter of defense; after that, you can do naval, air, and space forces as well as auxiliary units; spec ops and other flashy goodies should be left until last since they supplement your nation's military, they don't replace it.
[8:38 PM] Macabees: Keep in mind tho that all of your canon will most likely be in a constant state of flux, so don't stress out too much about it.(edited)
[8:38 PM] Macabees: I started out with Panzer knock-offs .
[8:38 PM] Macabees: No, not Panthers or Tigers. Panzers.
[8:39 PM] Lamoni: I didn't even have THAT much when I started out.
[8:39 PM] Gren: At least it wasn't the Maus.
[8:40 PM] Kyrusia: Question #9: Followup to Zark's question, can a nation be started by developing its military first before everything else? (Asked by Ched.)
[8:40 PM] Macabees: oh don't even get me started with my 4,000 tonne tank
[8:40 PM] Lamoni: I would say no. You should really build up your culture, economy, and terrain, first. When building up a military, it helps to know what your needs are, first.
[8:40 PM] Ghant: Q9: I think it can be. For some players, having a certain military is important, so I don't see anything wrong with figuring out what sort of military you want, if you're into that, and then constructing a nation around it that's capable of supporing it.
[8:40 PM] Tilt: Q9. No, especially in N&I.
[8:41 PM] Agy: Question 9: Not unless the military is the center of your nation.
I'd strongly advise against it as, unless your nation's primary purpose is to serve as a vehicle for war RPs, you're really boxing yourself in if you develop your military FIRST and the national culture, economy, and other aspects to fuel said military.(edited)
8:41 PM] FRFS: Q9: I started with my military first. And now I've grown into wondering how warehouses operate in my nation, and a whole bunch of other random stuff.
[8:41 PM] Gren: Shit, Mac, even the Ratte was only 1000. The physicist in me is BSODing right now.
Q9: I'd recommend against, but I guess it can if you really want to.
[8:42 PM] Cer: Q9 Not really. Not unless it's a military government or a lost colony. Can you do it? Yes. But then you leave out so much that your military needs. People tend to do a military first because it's fun.
[8:42 PM] Macabees: Q9: I think that you should just start somewhere. Say that you start with your military. You're going to have questions like: "who is political leader of my military?" "how do they recruit or conscript?" "what effect does this have on my society?" By necessity you're going to branch out.
[8:42 PM] FRFS: To me it's all what hooks you into worldbuilding in the first place. If that's the military, than so be it.
[8:42 PM] Ghant: If the end result is the same, I don't necessarily see the harm in taking various steps to reach it, whether that's the military first, or other aspects. If you get to the same point, it probably doesn't matter much, IMO.
[8:43 PM] Agy: I think it can affect how you build other parts of your nation, though, which is why I'm against it. If the most interesting part of your nation is your military and you begin with that, that can cause serious worldbuilding issues later.
[8:43 PM] Cer: FRFS, true, but the you get the noob that spends days on their military only to have players groan at the unrealistic nature of it all. I hate seeing players go through that dejection.
[8:43 PM] Agy: ^
[8:43 PM] FRFS: Aye it is a real worry
[8:43 PM] Lamoni: ^
[8:44 PM] Kyrusia: Question #10: How does one make a believable insurgent faction in a civil war story? (Asked by Sailor.)
[8:45 PM] Cer: Start with what you know. Research and develop it. Ask your fellow players questions. Go to the tech advice threads and chats to get a feel for it.
I don't do Civil War, so I humbly bow out of this one.
[8:45 PM] Gren: Q10: Humanize them. Give them legitimate reasons for fighting. Make them question if its worth it.
[8:45 PM] Tilt: Q10. Motivation is key imho.
[8:45 PM] Ghant: Q10: Not setting them up as conveinent foils, one trick ponies, strawmen or any other sort of gimmick. I think having insurgents with sympathizable positions and realistic motivations is key, as well as having them have realistic goals.
[8:46 PM] Kyrusia: 45 minutes remain in our panel!
[8:46 PM] Agy: Question 10: I would hope I know, I'm writing one for a future RP right now!
Make them asymmetric to your primary forces. If they meet them in open battle, they should lose; that's why they're an insurgent faction. Consider what your civilians have access to, their morale, their environment, and then consider what foreign allies the insurgency might have. Craft equipment and what kinds of units the insurgents use from there.
Finally, as Tilt said, motivation is key. Your insurgents have it hard, they've got to be at least as well-motivated as the army they're fighting or it'll all fall apart far too quickly to be meaningful.
[8:46 PM] Macabees: Q10: Research, research, research! I'm RPing insurgencies in Indras, Holy Panooly, Nicaro, and New Empire, all different settings my military is involved in, and I've learned so much by reading books. You can learn in your own way, but I'm an academic at heart and I always recommend learning more. Find pleasure in digging for those details, that's where the beauty is.
[8:48 PM] Macabees: There's a scene from Band of Brothers that I LOVE. It's analogous, in a way. An American officer just killed a bunch of German POWs by spraying them with a Thompson. The camera pans into the lone survivor's hand, where his cigarette's end is burning up his fingers. That detail is AMAZING. I was so impressed. If you know what you're talking about, details like that become second nature.
[8:48 PM] Kyrusia: Question #11: When dealing with something like FFT, where wars typically are fought on such a scale that the size of forces can not be comprehended (i.e. Near infinite amounts of spaceships for example), can a conflict on that scale be thought of as a war in the same way we would imagine a war in MT? (Asked by WPT.)
(Moderator input forthcoming.)
[8:48 PM] Kyrusia: Q#11: While I do not quite comprehend the general presupposition of "Far Future Tech," and am a firm proponent of the idea that the generally accepted necessity of a physic-breaking concept (faster-than-light travel) being the "ground floor" of FT (and thus the "ceiling" of all others) ensures that regardless of further appendage descriptors, you are FT, I understand people like to tack on descriptors.
Even so, I feel you have answered your question already. If you cannot, in some form, comprehend it, you cannot write it well. You write what you know, or have a general understanding thereof.
And no, I would not. At best, I would consider it like a collision of various world volumes, branes, and other macro-cosmic, physical events. I'm not sure how one could, further, write a compelling narrative when entire universes are naught but baubles in a game of multiversal marbles. To me, personally, it tends to trivialize characters beyond even Lovecraftian, nihilistic Cosmicism - which can have its role - to simple "power for power's sake."
Regardless, people do what they want. But from a personal perspective, as a reader and a roleplayer, this falls into my personal area of, "Why...?" It's just not fun to me when one is on such a level that even the concept of risk is alien.
[8:49 PM] Macabees: What is FFT, for us noobs?
[8:49 PM] Kyrusia: A fairly niche subset of NSFT. "Far Future Tech."
[8:50 PM] Cer: As I tell P2TM denizens: WH40K has massive forces pitted against each other across large expanses of space. Where is the action at when playing? A squad. A small unit of some kind that allows you to pull the focus off the vastness of space and spotlight the individual.
[8:50 PM] Gren: Things like fractal universe battleships.
[8:50 PM] Lamoni: I assume that it is where the players own large stretches of the galaxy, if not the entire galaxy, Kyru?
[8:50 PM] Kyrusia: Try multiversal.
[8:50 PM] Macabees: ...that sounds awesome
[8:50 PM] Ghant: Q11: I think so. For instance, I'm pretty much strictly MT when it comes to tech and pop, and yet I'm involved in the Dienstad-Gholgoth conflict, where there are often times very large militaries at play. Whether it's PMT or MT, or FFT, there's still the same sense of conflict, lives at risk and things generally at stake. I get that sense even as a small nation surrounded by billions pop nations with great forces clashing against each other.
[8:50 PM] Agy: Question 11: I would concur with Kyru on this one. While I think that it's interesting to explore conflicts alien to us in fiction, I also think one must take great care to ensure the conflict remains compelling even if the logistics and the numbers cease to make sense. It's often quite staggering for your audience to take in such a scope, and you need to scale down to individual units or groups for them to sympathize and to get across any kind of meaningful emotion in the work.
[8:50 PM] Macabees: But also sounds FT
[8:51 PM] Cer: Mac, it can be, but usually it's a wankfest. That's why I prefer to avoid "eternity numbers" in wargaming. It's - well, it's dull to read and play.
[8:51 PM] Kyrusia: It falls into the "FT" rubric insofar that FTL exists; many of us recommend against claiming on such scales, however. Sunset has authored an excellent guide on this topic.
[8:51 PM] Kyrusia: What Cer said.
[8:51 PM] Gren: Q11: I honestly agree with Kyru. Its pretty much impossible to write something well when that something is beyond human comprehension.
[8:52 PM] Macabees: I getcha, I getcha. I was thinking battleship being there one second and behind you the next.(edited)
[8:52 PM] Kyrusia: That's "tactical FTL." Akin to how WMDs are used in MT: "Ask first."
[8:52 PM] Cer: If someone has it handy, a link to Sunset's guide would be useful for our guests.
[8:52 PM] Kyrusia: One moment.
[8:53 PM] Kyrusia: The Train Set: A Future Tech Analogy: forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=25371271#p25371271
[8:53 PM] Macabees: Absolutely! In fact, your RP partners should honestly never really be surprised, unless you think it's a positive surprise.
NEW MESSAGES
[8:53 PM] Cer: Thank you, Kyru.
[8:53 PM] Tilt: Q11. I'm not really sure what FFT is or how it might differ from FT.
[8:54 PM] Cer: Tilt, Swith's "first ones" Nifid would be on scale with FFT (she refuses to play that scale). My Thade are FT.
[8:54 PM] Kyrusia: Scale, generally. To a not small portion of players, it's akin to an MTer claiming the entirety of earth with a 100% of their population in the military. It can be done in a singular setting for the purpose of a constrained story, but it often devolves to, as Cer said, wanking.(edited)
[8:54 PM] Gren: From @mvc in the #ns_mentors thread: "the basic idea is just to take FT and then remove the sanity ceiling - build jellyfish that eat universes if you want (the founder of our region does that), or engineer sentient fractal bombs, or convince trillions of multiversal civilizations to work for you while also fighting each other"
[8:55 PM] FRFS: It should be 'Fantasy' Future Tech
[8:55 PM] Tilt: Q11. Gotcha, Cer. So, just writ large? I think then, yes, microcosming it would be best. Something like Ciaphas Cain?
[8:55 PM] Kyrusia: I stand by my opinion. To me, they inevitably end-up being largely vacuous claims of open space with little in the way of worldbuilding to add flesh and muscle to the bones. It's like having a sandbox the size of Europe, with only London, Paris, and Moscow being "fleshed-out."
[8:56 PM] Cer: PFFFT, go away.
[8:56 PM] Macabees: Can I talk about FFT/wanking and MT/hard MT for a sec?
[8:56 PM] Kyrusia: Go for it.
[8:56 PM] Cer: Yes please, Mac.
[8:56 PM] Ghant: Without getting into FFT, I think that in terms of scale, the same applies for strictly MT players and how they view PMT, NS Pop nation conflicts.
[8:59 PM] Macabees: I was involved in the NS "arms design" community from very early on. I've always loved tanks, so I was always technical in the military sense. 2003-2005 were years of a lot of fun, with a lot of freedom in RP and military design. Those of us who got really into it began to propagate a culture of technical accuracy. I managed the NS Draftroom for 6-7 years.
Hard MT was a response to people using technical details to their advantage. They focused hours on building tanks to make it better than their opponents, so they could defeat it in a war. But not from a story perspective, but in the metaphorically tangible way -- it was their personal goal to win. Hard MT, IMO, is TOO constraining, but I cannot blame it for being so. As RPers, we need to be cognizant of how our actions impact the general culture and whether you're helping, or hurting, the institutions that make this game as fun as it is.
m_yes1
[9:00 PM] Cer: Kyru, if you don't mind the example real quick, for P2TMers?
[9:00 PM] Gren: Mac, I loved NS Draftroom, especially the Mech-busting.
[9:01 PM] Lamoni: I'm not Mac, but I am an NSD admin, so thanks.
[9:01 PM] Macabees: I loved it too, but it killed my RPing tbh.
[9:01 PM] Kyrusia: @cer Not sure on what you're asking.
[9:01 PM] Cer: I mentioned Swith's nation earlier. It's FFT ungodly. It's very detailed. However, you'll only find her small colonies on NS. She created her Nifid for her own enjoyment, and sequesters them far away. Her pleasure in gaming comes from her ability to interact on a small scale. The high tech is there, but it's flawed and graceful.
So yes, you can expand and create as much as you want. Go overboard, if you will. But keep an element playable. Make a colony, or an offshoot, in order to partake in N&I gaming.
[9:02 PM] Kyrusia: Oh, ah. Ye. Go ahead.
[9:02 PM] Macabees: I became too focused on the details -- my Nakíl write up is a combined 120,000-150,000 words --- that's a damn novel.
[9:02 PM] Ghant: As a principally Hard MTer myself, I think it was more about realism then a tech level designed to create a more competitive roleplaying envrionment. Again, scale, because in hard MT, the population levels are at a more "realistic" level relative to what we have in the real world today, as opposed to the billions plus populations of most PMT nations.(edited)
[9:03 PM] Macabees: Btw, I was the noob who declared war on some random II nation for killing $_random_minority
[9:03 PM] Macabees: We all progress as RPers :stuck_out_tongue:
[9:03 PM] Cer: Yup.
[9:03 PM] Agy: Everyone has to start somewhere nods
[9:03 PM] Kyrusia: Question #13: What are your opinions on foreign actors participating in civil war RPs? (Asked by Sailor.)
[9:03 PM] Cer: Start small and with something you can hold in your head.
[9:04 PM] Agy: Question 13: It's like spice. It adds to the intrigue of the story and can sway the results, but it's generally best to not overuse foreign actors unless the nation's really going to shit and part of the geopolitical plot is foreign intervention and splitting up the country.
[9:04 PM] Tilt: Q13. If it complicates things too much, or if people aren't aware of how to do diplomacy well, steer clear, or make it a practice RP.
[9:04 PM] Gren: My first experience on the forums was popping into two people's MT/PMT naval confrontation with a starship.
[9:05 PM] Macabees: Q13: I'm the founder of Greater Dienstad, where Lamoni is delegate. One of our trademark RP was A Passion Play, a war of secession between the son and grandson of the deceased emperor of my country. My southern neighbor decided to invade me. Then about 10 players joined his side. People still talk about to this day, so absolutely, I'm all for it.
[9:05 PM] Gren: Q13: I mean, its not a bad idea.
[9:05 PM] Ghant: Q13: I think that if it's done the right way, with the right motivation and approach in mind and with adequate OP cooperation, that it can be compelling. I've had alot of fun participating in other nation's Civil War threads in a limited capacity where I could contribute to the narrative but not affect what the OP was trying to achieve too much in an adverse manner.
[9:05 PM] Cer: Q13 It depends on the story. I'm participating in a character-based one for Agy's nation. My own characters will be vital to the story, with the civil war serving as not only a backdrop, but also an objective within the game.
[9:06 PM] Agy: Q13: Note that in the above case, Cer will be affecting my nation's civil war with characters, not the entire Thade military. That's what I mean by spice - not too much, but it adds depth to the proceedings.
[9:06 PM] Cer: ^
[9:06 PM] Cer: One grain of rice can tip the scale. One character can impact a nation.
[9:07 PM] Lamoni: As can one gunshot.
[9:07 PM] Cer: Yes. Very much so.
[9:07 PM] Kyrusia: Question #14: [Is] it more important to place a greater focus on what is happening strategically or tactically in a war RP? For example, should the plot primarily follow a smaller number of soldiers and only explain strategic happenings as they affect said soldiers, or is the opposite true? (Asked by Grat.)
[9:08 PM] Macabees: Q14: What do you enjoy? I like both. I have some posts that are more strategic, others that are more tactical.
[9:08 PM] Gren: Q14: Depends on the scope of the RP.
[9:08 PM] Kyrusia: A little less than thirty minutes remain in our panel!
[9:08 PM] Lamoni: Do you want to focus on the characters? Or do you want to show the big picture?
[9:08 PM] Ghant: Q14: I think that depends on the style of the writer in question. Me personally, I prefer to construct a plot that follows a smaller number of soldiers and present the war from their point of view, while making some references to the greater strategic happenings of the war.
9:09 PM] Macabees: In my guide, I mention a simple three-step model to a story: beginning (context), middle (tension), end (resolution). I think strategic posts are great for context, and tactical posts for plot point-by-plot point tension.
[9:09 PM] Agy: Question 14: Depends on scope, but for reader's sake I would say tactical proceedings are more relevant and interesting that strategic ones.
Strategic proceedings should provide the backdrop for tactical scenes, is how I would put it. Strategically, if someone's winning the war, their troops will probably be better-supplied and have higher morale. Tactically, however, there is still a tension wherein their troops have to fight hard for their victory. Strategy will color how the characters are in the present moment; tactics will determine what they do.
[9:10 PM] Tilt: Q14. It's highly individual. I think Ghant and Agy's answers cover my views well.
[9:10 PM] Cer: Q14 Pulling from a guide here, "The terms tactic and strategy are often confused: tactics are the actual means used to gain an objective, while strategy is the overall campaign plan, which may involve complex operational patterns, activity, and decision-making that govern tactical execution."
As a player, both are important. However, your IC tactics in battle may have more bearing than the long-term strategy in your head, for story-writing purposes.
[9:11 PM] Cer: You can have your characters reveal a bit of strategy, but place your focus on one element at a time, advancing forces, meeting objectives, etc. Breaking it down into smaller steps helps you write it better, IMHO.
[9:11 PM] Kyrusia: Question #15: We've all acquainted ourselves with the 5% rule when it comes to percentage of military personnel in a nation's population, but what about GDP? What should be the recommended cap? (Asked by Sailor.)
[9:11 PM] Lamoni: That's more a question for Mac, and his economics knowledge.
[9:11 PM] Tilt: Q15. I have no idea as I haven't RPed a military on national scale.
[9:12 PM] Cer: (Kyru, please explain the 5% rule for those who have not heard of it before. I'm sure people will ask for clarification.)
[9:12 PM] Macabees: Q15: As an economist, I hate this question. Jk. Well... okay, let me start over. I'm not sure if you're asking what's a realistic cap for GDP or your military budget as a percentage of GDP.
[9:12 PM] Agy: Question 15: I'm not entirely sure. I mean, it depends on your nation's economic setup, I suppose. If we have for example a situation like in syndicalist Catalonia, production might be more geared for war %-wise than, let's say, Imperial Rome.
[9:13 PM] Kyrusia: In general, in MT, it is recommended to dedicate no more than 5% of your population to your armed forces. In practice, <1% is often more recommended. The general guideline being the more one approaches 5% (and higher), the less budget one has to dedicate to such a large percentage of your people.
Less budget, less training and advanced military equipment; thus, less efficient and successful armed forces.
[9:13 PM] Lamoni: In other words, 5% is for when SHTF.
[9:13 PM] Ghant: Q15: IIRC, it's supposed to be 2% of military personnel of a nation's population, and 5% of your nation's GDP.
[9:13 PM] Kyrusia: "Total war" scenarios.
[9:14 PM] FRFS: If everyone is training to die, who is making the pies! D:
[9:14 PM] Macabees: What's a realistic cap for your GDP -- GDP is a metric used by economists for specific purposes. It's not a measure of wealth. It's not really a measure of how great an economy is doing (which is why economists focuses on the change in GDP as a proxy for performance). It's a hard number to make up. What RL nation, current or historical, best approximates theres? How did their GDPPC compare to others' of their era? That's how you should set your GDPPC. Multiply your pop by GDPPC.
9:15 PM] Kyrusia: Gross Domestic Product per capita, for those wondering.
[9:15 PM] Macabees: If we're talking about military budget as a % of GDP -- are you at war or peace? are you an open society (that therefore prioritizes spending elsewhere) or a closed society (that can enforce the externalities of overinvesting in military on its people)? You can be a poorly preforming economy (relatively) so that you can afford a massive military, proportionally.
[9:15 PM] Macabees: And it's okay to do so, as long as it's for setting.
9:16 PM] Kyrusia: From Sailor... Clarification: percentage of GDP allocated for military spending.
[9:16 PM] Agy: To be honest, I think it's a poor question because it seems somewhat gamey to me.
[9:16 PM] Ghant: That's what I assumed. I thought it was 5%, but I could be mistaken.
[9:17 PM] Agy: I honestly think that if you're not playing to win, you really shouldn't be trying to min-max your GDP to try and figure out how big your military can be.
[9:17 PM] Macabees: What RL nation, current or historical, does your most compare to? What was their military budget as a percentage of GDP? Use that as a baseline.
[9:17 PM] Agy: My opinion only, of course.
[9:18 PM] Kyrusia: This is one of those differences between P2TM and N&I, Agy, I feel. When one is trying to slot one's self into a community where the external pressures of others are what fundamentally determine the degree one's ideas are accepted on a macro-scale, things are different than when one can simply define a thing for each thread.
[9:18 PM] Cer: It has bearing, but it's not usually seen outside of nation-roleplay. We don't worry about it in P2TM unless it's a non-NS nation war game.
[9:19 PM] Cer: Good point, Kyru.
[9:19 PM] Agy: Yeah that makes sense, I guess. I just feel like it really shouldn't even be necessary in nation-roleplay; it just lends itself to numbers wankery as far as I've seen. But it also controls numbers wankery so there's that.
[9:20 PM] Ghant: I think it depends on the motive. If the motive is to figure out what your nation would realistically have, then I think it's a good thing.
[9:20 PM] Kyrusia: In N&I, the concept of the nation itself - not just the thread or the world crafted in any one thread - are under the constant scrutiny of the given (sub-)community one is participating within. One can always find other roleplayers if one does not adhere to community standards, but those standards exist to help maximize the amount of potential partners one has while also providing general sign-posts for balance relative to prior experiences of abuse relative to each standard.
In the "5% Guideline's" case: it's people turning every person in their country into a super-soldier, without any thought as to the broader effects such a radical notion would have (vis-a-vis the complete socio-economic failure of the state in question).(edited)
[9:21 PM] Lamoni: A super-soldier with absolute loyalty to Dear Leader, and would never betray them or run away.
[9:22 PM] Macabees: And it's worth remembering that we learned not to start sentences with 'and' or 'but' before we were taught it was okay... if we used it right.
[9:22 PM] Cer: If P2TM were N&I, we'd all make characters and hope our applications and setup worked with other people's characters. Then we'd try to make a roleplay. Without an overarching GM, we're left with community rules and guidelines. That's why we see so much attention paid to small details. It helps people determine if their gaming systems mesh or clash, or if one "character" is godmoddery while the other "character" is super-realistic.
[9:22 PM] Kyrusia: Indeed. There are always caveats, Mac.
[9:22 PM] Kyrusia: Question #16: How would one make a good mix of their military, Navy, Army... Also how would you do a draft? (Asked by Emerstari.)
[9:23 PM] Tilt: Q16. I defer to the other panelists
[9:23 PM] Gren: Q16: I defer, as well.
[9:23 PM] Ghant: Q16: ^
[9:24 PM] Lamoni: I assume that you're talking about how to put your military together? In such a case, it helps if you base the structure of your military on that of an RL nation close to your own nation's culture (at least in MT), and build from there.
[9:24 PM] Lamoni: Obviously, RL populations, and NS populations are going to differ.
[9:25 PM] Macabees: Q16: I will give you an example, this is how I do it. #1 I have RL interest in military history, and I tend to like land warfare. I have a more balanced reading palette now, but in the past land has been my strength. That's how it tends to come out when I RP. Remember the question about insurgencies? It's about research. My land research was on point. #2 What are my geopolitical concerns ICly? My nation is a maritime empire, and so now I find myself focusing as much on my navy and airforce as on my army.
[9:25 PM] Kyrusia: There are five questions remaining. We will over-run at the leisure and pleasure of our panelists.
[9:25 PM] Agy: Question 16:
Army should generally be the largest, unless your nation is primarily islands or has many accessible rivers (in which case your navy would be your bread-and-butter). Air force and other such auxiliaries should complement rather than form the basis of your military. I'm speaking primarily from MT and from like... WWI/II-esque and Cold War-era stuff I've seen.
Take from RL structures if you're not sure how to structure your own military, there's plenty of nations out there with functioning armed forces you can look into.
As for the draft, it should be in a time of crisis and the military component should be accompanied with civilian implications, both social and economic. A draft fundamentally changes the nature of a war for an MT's civilian population, many of whom may be used to viewing the war from the comfort of their own living room couches. Now, suddenly, the war is relevant. It matters. Expect more resistance, expect some economic downturn in consumer goods but a rise in military production, that sort of thing.
[9:25 PM] Ghant: I can stay for all the questions.
[9:26 PM] Cer: Q16 That's where pre-build details come in handy. Your history has bearing on it. Does your history involve a need for naval superiority? Or does it need air superiority? Are you a small Cuba needing only a small military, or are you the former Soviet Union and pulling from vast resources?
[9:26 PM] Kyrusia: Question #17: Say you want to RP an international incident where things escalate towards war and the job of the characters is to avoid said war. How should the plot be reasonably paced without it turning into a war RP within one or two posts? (Asked by Sailor.)
[9:26 PM] Gren: I can stay as long as everyone else wants to.
[9:27 PM] Tilt: Q17. Careful planning and outlining is crucial there, I think, and for the same reason I'd keep such an RP small and closed.
[9:27 PM] Gren: Q17: ^
[9:27 PM] Lamoni: ^
[9:27 PM] Cer: Q18 Step back and breathe, and then set up a character-based thread. Ask your participants to do more than draft angry letters. Put thought into the game. Politics moves slow yet also quickly. Dialog takes time, however, and there's a need to find common ground.
[9:27 PM] Agy: Question 17: Actually make it questionable whether a war will even happen.
Do it. Make it so that the plot actually impacts if a war will occur. This will naturally lend your plot and characters to the places they need to be and the kind of deals they need to make to avoid the war.
Plan in the OOC. Plan plan plan. Make sure your players know the stakes and know that war is the last-preferred option.
[9:28 PM] Gren: Lets look at DS9. The first 5 or so seasons were spent with the characters trying to avoid a war, and then all of a sudden, it happened anyways. If you want to, you could strip out the filler, and chart each event with geopolitical significance relative to time, and that would give you a decent idea for good pacing.(edited)
[9:28 PM] Ghant: Q17: There's alot that goes into the process leading up to war. For instance, if you have characters that are endeavoring to avoid war, you can basically do a number of posts where they struggle with the gravity of the situation and do what they can to avoid war, whether they are the nation's leaders or people close to them. You can still have a slow-burn situation, if you will, where things gradually lead to war over the course of several posts. The dramatic tension is usually worthy to write and fun to read.
[9:28 PM] Macabees: Q17: Add a sub-tension.
Why do so many movies have romance to them? It's to attract a certain viewer, to some extent. But more importantly, it's to add another dimension to the story -- it's a side-plot that is less important than the main plot, but helps to keep the audience interested if the main story is long. It doesn't need to be romance at all. It can be a story about murder. Or miracles.
In my favorite sci fi book of all time, Hyperion, they stretch out the main plot by breaking the book up into sub-plots that focus on the different characters' backgrounds. That's another way to do it.(edited)
[9:29 PM] Cer: Or at Babylon 5. The politics involved there were delicious and allowed suspense to build.
[9:29 PM] Macabees: Think about the dynamic between characters outside of the context of the main plot
[9:30 PM] Macabees: Maybe there are professional jealousies. Forbidden love.
[9:30 PM] Ghant: One thing I try to emphasize in my writing, especially military stuff, is the human experience. How do these things impact the characters, and how do those experiences relate to the reader? I think that the buildup to a war and the characters struggling against it is a golden opportunity to demonstrate that very thing.
[9:30 PM] Kyrusia: Question #18: [Are] there any tips the panelists can give to a person who is interested in using war as a roleplaying/worldbuilding resource but does not know much about it? (Asked by Zark.)
[9:31 PM] Gren: Q18: Research, research, research. Figure out your setting, tech level, etc., and don't be afraid to use wikipedia.
[9:31 PM] Agy: Question 18: Research. Find out what about war interests you, and find out what kind of details would be compelling to add to your world.
Some players really like technical details, as was expounded earlier, and could go on for hours detailing the ins and outs of their nation's mechanized infantry corps.
Other players enjoy the character dramas, the battles, the struggles of individuals as they look for their place in the war effort or try their best to stop the war.
[9:31 PM] Cer: Q18 Don't be afraid to admit you don't know, and then don't be afraid to ask. We have strong tech communities on NS, and strong players. They want good opponents, so many will take the time to help you learn in order to become one.
And research, as Gren and Agy said.
[9:32 PM] Gren: I'll readily admit, I knew next to nothing about war until I started RPing. But now I consider myself something of a miltary aviation history buff.
[9:32 PM] Gren: Especially from WWII to Vietnam.
[9:32 PM] Gren: All of that knowledge was gained from research.
[9:32 PM] Agy: I still don't know a whole lot about war,
But I do know how it can be used to impact the stories I'm in, and I'm a sucker for war stories, especially underdog ones.
[9:32 PM] Ghant: Q18: I'll use myself as the prime example of the guy who writes in war threads without knowing much about military stuff. The advice I'd give is the same advice I give myself in this regard. Find and talk to people that are knowledgable about the subject, and learn from them. Communicate with the OP about what you'd like to do. Something that I do too is after I write a war post, do a peer review with others that know about military stuff, whether it's the OP or your trusted peers. Then post, and try not to be too hard on yourself for not being the best military writer. It's the thought that counts and the effort that matters most.
[9:33 PM] Macabees: #1 To learn how to do character RP, read Ghant. Trust me.
#2 Research to the extent of your interest. Don't spend time on it if it doesn't add value to you. But if you like it, absolutely I recommend research.
#3 Don't sweat the small bullets. The other player didn't notice that your super awesome missile could actually bypass his radars? Who cares? Focus on the story.
[9:33 PM] Kyrusia: Question #19: Should all our loses be exciting for all parties involved? And if so, for example, how best do we make our Dunkirks turn into heavily relieved miracles that still came at a questioning cost of human life and material? How should our German Empires fall and lead way into unstable, yet interesting to read Weimar Republics? (Asked by Ched.)
[9:34 PM] Ghant: Q19: I think that loses should be well portrayed and honestly, milked for whatever narrative value they can yield, out of principle. I think the rest of it comes down to style. For instance, I'm a poet at heart, and so for me, the loss, collapse, the end, what have you, should be poetic. Like the Fall of Troy.
[9:35 PM] Macabees: Q19: Those are the awesome stories that you should cooperate with others to create. Those are stories that are interesting. You can pitch your story idea to other players. When I coordinate an RP with other players I usually talk about what I'm thinking about doing and how I see the war unfolding. I say we should choreograph some battles. We should make this war RP read awesome.
[9:35 PM] Agy: Question 19: It's RP, if it's not exciting then why are you doing it? To bore yourself? What kind of masochist are you?
Losses should be exciting in that they provide opportunities for future character and nation-development. The end of a war, whether victor or victim, is a time for reflection and can provide opportunities for your nation and its people to take new courses of action.
Perhaps they contemplate the war and realize what a senseless waste of human life it was; you can develop a strong pacifistic, diplomatic tradition from there and reference the war in future dealings and with future character interactions.
Perhaps the war leaves them bitter and ready to be whipped into a frenzy, as was the case in Weimar Republic Germany. Use memories of the defeat to build the new ideology and leadership that will take your nation into the future.
[9:35 PM] Macabees: In my RP with United World Order, A Wolf in the Jungle, I actively told him how to encircle my forces and get the most out of his offensive. It was fun. It made for a great story.
[9:36 PM] Macabees: I wanted it to be like the Battle of Moscow. A last gasp halt to the offensive and a counter-stroke.
[9:36 PM] Kyrusia: Question #20: How detailed does an NS military have to be a good participant? Does one need a full table of organization and equipment for their entire military before taking part in a war RP? (Asked by Essexia.)
[9:36 PM] Kyrusia: To the last bit? "No."
[9:36 PM] Kyrusia: :stuck_out_tongue:
[9:36 PM] Agy: Question 20: Pass, not super-involved in NS or II.
[9:36 PM] Macabees: Q20: Okay, real talk, I have never put together a full orbat.
[9:36 PM] Macabees: Wayyyy too lazy
[9:37 PM] Kyrusia: Way too boring for me personally. xP
[9:37 PM] Gren: Q20: I honestly didn't know what an ORBAT was until the other night.
[9:38 PM] Cer: I thought we covered a bit of that earlier. Q20 It depends on the game. Mechanics -based games (dice and stats) use ORBAT. Storytelling (non-mechanics) don't always require them.
[9:38 PM] Ghant: Q20: I don't think it has to be that detailed. You can contribute in meangingful ways to a thread's story arc without all the detailed information about your military tech. As I said earlier, if you write to your strengths, and the product is compelling, that's what's important. As far as ORBATS, they help but by no means are they required unless the OP demands that participants submit them.
[9:38 PM] Kyrusia: Question #21 (FINAL QUESTION): How are some ways you can build up from losing a war - or civil war? (Asked by Jutomi.)
[9:40 PM] Ghant: Q21: Writing about the effects of the war. How does your nation change as a result? What do leaders think about it? How do they, and the people of your country, cope? Maybe there's revolution, maybe there's a recession. If you lost territory, maybe there's suddenly insurgency or an irredentist movement. Maybe the nation as a whole learned something and came away from it with some great wisdom it previously didn't have. Look to RL examples of what happened to nations that lost wars of various scales.
[9:40 PM] Agy: Question 21:
Rebuild infrastructure that's been destroyed; this'll create plenty of jobs and motivation for your people and its government. Determine whether you want the war to make people vengeful or mournful. Pour the war into your nation's literary, film, and other artistic works. Make the war central to the soul of your nation for a little while, let it simmer and join the other experiences that make it unique.
Then, when time has passed and you've developed your nation a little with new characters, RPs, and experiences, bring it back to its pre-war power (or don't, up to you) and see what you've learned.
[9:40 PM] Gren: Q21: Another war?
[9:40 PM] Macabees: Q21: So many possibilities.
What direction do you want to go?
Does it cause a collapse in your government? This would be fun. Imagine a democratic leader suffering from a collapse in support. Maybe impeachment. Imagine a king being toppled and an RP about the hope for liberty.
Does it only wound your society and cause it to recoil and prepare for the next war? Like, in the 1930s, WW1 did to Germany? World War 2 is such an awesome story that there are hundreds of thousands of books written on it. So that sounds like an RP with a lot of potential too.
Your imagination is the limit.
[9:41 PM] Ghant: Play your imagination like you should play poker. High stakes, no limit.
[9:41 PM] Cer: ^
[9:41 PM] Macabees: The question isn't "what's best for my nation"
[9:42 PM] Macabees: It's "what would be really, really interesting to me and my audience to do"
[9:42 PM] Cer: ^ This, exactly.
[9:42 PM] Agy: ^^^^^^
[9:42 PM] Lamoni: THIS
[9:42 PM] Lamoni: SO. MUCH. THIS.
[9:42 PM] Ghant: If the readers won't like reading it because they don't find it interesting, then what's the point?
[9:42 PM] Agy: Your nation isn't you, your nation is a canvass.
Play with it. Follow the type, or go against it. Make beautiful art. That's all there is to it.
[9:43 PM] Kyrusia: I'd like to thank your panelists and our audience! Was a wonderful, exciting, and enlightening panel this evening. That is all for tonight!
NS Roleplay Symposium 2017
TOPIC: War and Storytelling
TIME: COMPLETED
Our panels for tomorrow are as follows:
Wednesday, July 12
Worldbuilding and Related (Early Hour Panel) — 12PM Eastern/4PM GMT
Writing, Exposition, and the Narrative (Late Hour Panel) — 7PM Eastern/11PM GMT
Thread Marketing and Formatting — 9PM Eastern/1AM GMT
Midnight Madness: The Revolving Door (Late Night Panel) — 12AM Eastern/4AM GMT
Hilarity and madness! An opportunity for members of the Mentor Program to provide more personal insights into their volunteer activities and answer general questions about their work and time.
**NS Roleplay Symposium 2017**
LOCATION: Symposium Hall
TOPIC: "War and Storytelling"
TIME: 9:00-10:30 PM Eastern, Tuesday, July 11th
Good evening and welcome to our War and Storytelling panel. I'm Kyru, your discussion moderator for this session.
This evening we'll be looking to answer questions regarding war and conflict in roleplay, with an emphasis upon crafting a story involving conflict. Other pertinent questions may be asked.
Panellists, please introduce yourselves and tell us which subforums you haunt. Also: what is your favorite environment for a conflict?
I also thank guests for their patience. We will pull your questions from the #questions_chamber. To make it easier on us, please keep chatter to the main #ns_mentors channel. Thank you.
BEGIN
::
[8:00 PM] Cer: Hello, all. I'm Cer, a P2TM RP Mentor and an avid wargamer. I haunt primarily P2TM but I used to be a regular denizen in NS.
My favorite environment for conflict is any that gives my side the advantage. :smile:
[8:00 PM] Agy: I'm Agy, I hang out in P2TM for the most part but a LONG time ago I did a few shitty war RPs up in II (under different names). I'm here as one of your token P2TM panelists.
Favorite environment for conflict: Any one that involves the proletariat rising up and hanging their oppressors, clearly :stuck_out_tongue:
[8:01 PM] Gren: I'm Gren, and I post in P2TM, where I've been involved in a few war RPs over the last 4 years, including Excalibur Squadron, and recently, ATHENA.
[8:01 PM] Tilt: Hello, am Tilt. I'm a known P2TM lurker, semi-serious wargamer, and pie addict. Fear me in your next food fight.
[8:01 PM] Lamoni: I am Lamoni, a mentor, and experienced roleplayer, here to share my experiences with war and storytelling.
[8:01 PM] Ghant: Hello all! I'm Ghant, a veteran N&I Roleplayer specializing in PT and MT roleplays and worldbuilding. My favorite environment for conflict is probably in a "Mcguffin" location that's climatic to the plot. Otherwise, I'll take the frozen tundra :stuck_out_tongue:
[8:01 PM] FRFS: Hello I'm FRFS, FT player and consistent IC fire starter.
[8:02 PM] Macabees: Hi everyone, i'm The Macabees. I'm a Senior N&I Mentor, and otherwise I've been involved in more war RPs that I can count on my hands. I've been RPing on NationStates since June 2003 and have learned so much throughout my journey here.
[8:02 PM] Kyrusia: Welcome, panelists.
[8:02 PM] Kyrusia: Question #1 (PANEL-PROVIDED): In general, what is the role war or conflict (martial or otherwise physical) should or might play in a narrative?
[8:02 PM] Gren: Q1: To settle disputes that cannot be settled diplomatically.
[8:03 PM] FRFS: Q1: conflict can be a central pivot point for any story. It's a great vehicle to have tension crash together, and provide sub plots and lasting effects beyond the single RP/story.
[8:03 PM] Lamoni: Clausewitz would say that war is diplomacy by other means, and that all wars have a political objective.
[8:03 PM] Agy: Question 1: Conflict should be a way for conflicting ideas in a work to be resolved in a manner consistent with the themes one wants to get across. War in particular should be used to highlight disputes of an ideological, social, or economic nature between groups which CANNOT be resolved diplomatically. War should generally be the last resort in a narrative for it to be compelling, otherwise it comes off as somewhat pretentious and vicious.
[8:04 PM] Macabees: The war itself should be treated as the setting, and not as the end of the RP. There's so much more interesting things to talk about. A good war RP has detail - it has detail that flares the interest of the reader. And it's hard to focus on the details if you're focused on just the war as an end, meaning as a means of winning something (what are you winning? I have no idea. Internet pride, I suppose). Treat the war as the setting, something that you're discussing with the other players and finding common ground on.
[8:04 PM] Tilt: Q1. War can be RPed on a whole lot of levels. I'll speak more on what I see as P2TM's niche, as a generally more character-focused arena, which is to see war's effects on the characters, and the characters' effects (if any) on the war as an event.
To quote Infernal Affairs III: 'Events are not changed by men, only men by events. These men were extraordinary because they changed events.'
[8:04 PM] Ghant: Q1: I've always viewed wars and conflicts as the dramatic backdrop to the RP. They compel the conflict that drives the narrative. It's basically that great elephant in the room that characters deal with and address as the story progresses.
8:05 PM] Kyrusia: Question #2: What are both some commonalities and differences in war between tech levels? (Asked via back channels.)
(Moderator input forthcoming.)
[8:07 PM] Macabees: Q2: The commonality is the raison d'etre of having the war in the first place. And I don't mean in the in character sense, but rather in the out of character sense. That is, as a setting for a cool story idea. The differences are in the exact shape of the window dressing, but it's all window dressing in the end.
[8:07 PM] Gren: Q2: Commonalities: generally the horrors of war, how it dehumanizes people, etc. Differences: mostly what you can do.
[8:08 PM] Tilt: Q2. Good question. Ultimately I'm most familiar with war in MT, which has a general influence on strategic and tactical thinking on PMT-FT, modified by technology as it evolves.
[8:08 PM] Lamoni: The differences are mostly in regards to weapons and abilities. Commonalities? Dehumanization, horrors of war, nationalism.
[8:08 PM] Tilt: As Gren notes, the commonalities are the effects on people and society.
[8:08 PM] Ghant: Q2: Things in common generally involve the fact that there are sides in the war with stakes, and a means of conducting war, and that's the same in my experience with PT, MT, PMT, FT, etc. Where it gets different is the size, scope, and motive. In PT combat situations, they're fairly limited and might be fought for reasons of religion or irridentism. PMT wars, conversely, might be region-spanning, have million man armies and be fought for more intrinsically geo-political reasons.
[8:08 PM] Kyrusia: Q#2: Commonalities? War is still an extension of politics (and all the nuances thereof, but it cultural, ideological, economic, etc.). Horror, likewise, is ever-present.
Differences? I'd say the emphasis (or lackthereof) on the more overt technical aspects. In FT, for example, the "numbers game" is often not present, not recommended, or otherwise not as to the forefront as is often the case in certain circles in MT. There is an emphasis on using conflict as the backdrop for a story (or series of stories), rather than "going to war for the sake of war."
[8:08 PM] Agy: Question 2:
Commonalities: social forces as the driving factors (whether human or alien) and social actors as the primary movers; the horrors of war and the brutality of the conflict, esp. in how it dehumanizes and may specifically target certain groups of people
Differences: the scope of the conflict (small islands all the way up to across the known universe and beyond); what kind of weapons are being used; logistical concerns (food and available rocks vs energy batteries to supply laser cannons, etc); scope of the destruction
[8:08 PM] FRFS: Q2: scope, scale, etc. and it's at every tech level. PT, you see clans/tribes. MT, you see kingdoms, nationstates. FT, you see interstellar nations. _conflict in of itself is universal. But how you go about it definitely changes with tech level.
[8:09 PM] Cer: Q2 The tech changes with time, and the logistics to match it. However, conflict will forever remain.
[8:09 PM] Lamoni: And be just as ugly.
[8:09 PM] FRFS: Q2: You go from sticks and stones, to knives and swords, to guns and vehicles, to starships
[8:09 PM] FRFS: It's all relative to how you write it and immerse yourself with it.
[8:10 PM] Ghant: War. War never changes.
[8:10 PM] Macabees: Fwiw, consider that most sci fi others, when they're developing their FT war plots, they are projecting from an MT setting. They are making assumptions about what the details will look like in X many years, but their baseline is always MT in the sense of the emotion that drives the story.
[8:11 PM] Agy: War has changed, Ghant. :stuck_out_tongue:
[8:11 PM] Kyrusia: Question #3: [Does] astrography play a significant role in the formation of military doctrine for FT nations? (Asked by Sailor.)
(Moderator input forthcoming.)
[8:11 PM] Tilt: Q3. Most likely, though I've not done a war RP in FT (quite yet).
[8:11 PM] Tilt: Spoilers.
[8:12 PM] Gren: Q3: Depends on the technical aspects of the setting, but generally yes.
[8:12 PM] Agy: Question 3: You mean astrography like taking photos of the night sky? I've yet to see it used strategically in FT war RPs I've seen or been in but no-doubt it would prove an important tactic for observing enemy troop movements and anticipating them.
[8:12 PM] Kyrusia: Q#3: It can, but it will depend upon the nature of one's astrography, how "soft" or "hard" it is, and the degree of handwavium one has applied - not to mention the nature of one's FTL and related infrastructure.
[8:12 PM] Kyrusia: They mean stellar geography, Agy. It's an NSFT term.
[8:12 PM] FRFS: Q3: in some ways yes. Cause the size and breadth of your territory is going to directly influence your star navy and it's capabilities. How stretched out they will be in dealing with many crises that arise from different corners of your territory
[8:13 PM] Agy: Question 3 (cont): Ah, then yes. Like geography, astrography is important to understanding what your troops and the enemy's troops are capable of doing and can help dictate what kind of battles will occur, where, and what kind of terrain the battles will be fought on.
[8:13 PM] Gren: For instance, if you can only travel from one system to a handful of others, you can generally create chokepoints.
[8:14 PM] Cer: Q3 It has much to do with navigation. It determines how you move your forces and can, when designing a nation's tech, have a lot of bearing on what you come up with. It comes down to how you plan out your logistics. Do you want start off far and move your way in, or pop into the middle and move your way out (working on multiple fronts) etc.
[8:14 PM] Gren: Relativistic effects of black holes needs to be taken into account, etc.
[8:14 PM] Kyrusia: Or not. #RulePlot.
[8:14 PM] FRFS: Q3: the hard and soft differences have s lot of weight here. "Hard FT" is going to be more limited just because of the style.(edited)
[8:14 PM] Cer: Yeah, your group should agree on what is/isn't acceptable before you try throwing in elements.
[8:15 PM] Kyrusia: Question #4: How will you go to define a good army in both N&I and even P2TM? (Asked by Ched.)
[8:16 PM] Agy: clarification?
[8:16 PM] Agy: Good as in good to play with or good as in objectively strong or...
[8:16 PM] Tilt: ^
[8:16 PM] Gren: ^
[8:16 PM] Ghant: Q4: I think a good army is well defined in an ORBAT or some other sort of descriptive resource.
[8:17 PM] Ghant: A "bad" army, therefore, is one where there's alot of pulling from one's butt. :stuck_out_tongue:
[8:17 PM] Cer: ^^^
[8:17 PM] Lamoni: THIS
[8:17 PM] Kyrusia: Clarification: Clarifying as needed, good to play with and against
[8:17 PM] Ghant: Conversely, a "good" army is one that's fairly RPed.
[8:18 PM] Gren: "In 1944, the Third Reich turned the tide of war by mass producing the Maus tank, allowing it to steamroll through the Ardennes and against the Soviet hordes in Poland..."
[8:18 PM] Gren: ^ example of an asspull
[8:18 PM] Macabees: Q4: A lot of people think having the best weapons make a good army. Or having a lot of men. Or saying in canon that they're well trained. But, the only way that a good army is actually communicated in an in-character way is through RP. When people are comparing their [REDACTED] size, I usually tell them to solve it ICly. It's too easy to say you're the best, but its not so easy to prove it (and this is in large part because people set out to prove it the wrong way, competitively).
[8:18 PM] Lamoni: It really helps if the person RPing said army knows something of how an actual army functions, or the community standards if playing FT.
[8:19 PM] FRFS: Q4: if you want people to enjoy reading about your military's actions. It has to be constructed well, keep consistent, and written well on the forms. Do you research on how your want your military to be, consistently build it that way, and continue to represent it that way on the forums.
[8:19 PM] Cer: The thing is to make a believable army. It's not based on fluff and dust. What can your nation support? What is your nation's population (since your forces are pulled from it)? Do you have the means to keep it supplied? And so on. When I encounter massive armies (in nation play or P2TM), I start to look at what the player has. If you're not careful, I'll find ways to exploit it in order to undermine your efforts long-term.
[8:19 PM] Ghant: Or if not, has proper guideance Lamoni
[8:19 PM] Lamoni: That too, @ghant
[8:19 PM] Macabees: There are setting factors too that make armies believable. So I don't mean to detract from that.
[8:19 PM] Agy: Question 4:
An army that's good to play against is one that's clearly-defined so that the opposing player knows for the most part what they're up against and can respond accordingly.
An army that's good to play with is similarly well-defined, but also has interesting quirks and personalized details that make it fun for the player to write about and make it compelling for people to read about. Personalize your army - give your important soldiers and generals names and histories, and write up some important battles and general practices or traditions that encompass what it means to be in your military corps.
[8:19 PM] Tilt: Q4. A well-defined one as Ghant points out. In N&I, I'd tack on the extra requirement that it be suited to the needs and logistical ability of the nation employing it. Show work. Not required in P2TM, since I feel that's more a smaller-scale environment.
[8:20 PM] Cer: Good point, Agy.
[8:20 PM] Kyrusia: I would argue that depends on tech level and player preference. I will ignore an ORBAT and indulge a well-described, stellar naval fleet. If the player is a shitty player with it, I don't care what their numbers say.
[8:20 PM] Macabees: If my RP partner doesn't know a lot of about armies and wars, it's not a big deal. It doesn't make it less enjoyable. We focus on different things, like the characters, and the army is more the setting or part of the environment the characters are in. I really don't need to know exactly how many tanks you have. I trust you to be reasonable.
[8:21 PM] FRFS: You can do all the planing and research you want. But You're still gonna have to write it.
[8:21 PM] Lamoni: You will have to write it, but the research helps.
[8:22 PM] Cer: It does depend on the game itself. Are you moving pieces each turn, along with rolling die in a program? The humanization of things comes in how you craft your posts. Otherwise, (non-mechanics gaming), Mac's point is excellent.(edited)
[8:22 PM] Agy: ^^
[8:22 PM] Macabees: I personally recommend reading about wars - whether nonfiction history or military fiction. :smiley: But only if you're really that interested in it. Don't feel pressured to do things that aren't in your wheelhouse, just because everyone on NS seems to do it.
[8:22 PM] Ghant: There's certainly alot to be said about someone who admits that they don't know much about the military aspects of their work and is willing to admit that and ask for help, while at the same time focusing on their strengths as a writer.
[8:23 PM] Agy: I concur with what Mac says as well - if it's not a hard dice-and-numbers game, it's more important to be reasonable and fun than it is to be exact with your military.
[8:23 PM] Kyrusia: Frankly, it's more important to be consistent than technical.
[8:23 PM] Ghant: Contrary to what many believe, you can contribute great work to a war thread without knowing much about war related material.
[8:23 PM] Macabees: What Kyrusia said
[8:23 PM] Cer: Ghant, those make for excellent people to game with. Help them learn. You may be on different sides IC, but you both share a love for the game.
[8:24 PM] Ghant: Exactly @cer
[8:24 PM] FRFS: Consistency goes a long way into making your military believable. If you're military is widely different each time it is used, the level of belief dies.
[8:24 PM] Kyrusia: Especially in tech levels like FT and FanT, where one is working with things that, frankly, may not have technicals.
[8:25 PM] Macabees: In my experience, and it may not be universal, focusing on technical aspects is the proximate cause of OOC drama. I'll caveat this by saying, if you're interested in the technicals to make the story richer, that's one thing. If you're interested in the technicals because it may be the difference between you losing or winning, that's a problem.(edited)
[8:25 PM] Kyrusia: ^ This.
[8:25 PM] Agy: Well that goes back to: don't fight to win. Decide how the war's gonna go beforehand, and focus on writing up an interesting story in the meantime.
[8:26 PM] Agy: Fighting to win just results in cheap tricks, dirty plays, and angry players.
[8:26 PM] Ghant: Not to get too far off topic, but your desire to acquire knowledge of military tech should be to enrich the plot and not to gain some sort of competitve advantage against other players in the thread.
[8:26 PM] Kyrusia: Question #6: How would you describe a good space battle? (Asked by Eridani.)
(Moderator input forthcoming.)
[8:26 PM] Cer: ^ This (to Mac)
We should clarify that there is a difference between mechanics-based and non. Both can be storytelling. One requires details and ORBATs. One does not necessarily need them.(edited)
[8:28 PM] Gren: Q6: Personally? I'm a big fan of scientific plausibility, so battles that take that into account I find to be typically good.
[8:28 PM] Kyrusia: Q#6: Personally? One that does not focus on moving large hunks of metal around, but one that focuses on the perspectives and narratives of individual characters as they experience combat that, at any moment, can result in their being vented into space, ripped apart by a gravitic pulse, cooked by a Hellbore, shredded by a sandcaster, and simply watching as those around them fight for their lives in a largely confined space locked in a situation they cannot readily escape.
[8:28 PM] Tilt: Q6. Sensoriwise. Mind's eye details are crucial.
[8:28 PM] Cer: Q6 Tense, story-driven, spooked or strained crew and determined officers, operatic in flavor. Basically, put effort into making it interesting on a character level.
[8:28 PM] Agy: Question 6: Scope, scope, scope. Space battles, much like huge ground invasions, provide the backdrop for stories that have a multitude of characters, many situations happening at the same time, and a general atmosphere of chaos.
Take advantage of this. Make the characters participating interesting; make their struggle worth reading so your audience doesn't feel like paragraph after paragraph is a slog.
[8:29 PM] Macabees: Q6: Bare in mind that my foray into FT on NS is minimal. I do not have the hands on experience that the other panelists here have. I will answer the question from the perspective of an avid science fiction reader. Actually, I will answer it from the perspective of an avid science fiction and military non-fiction reader. I love when authors really put thought into what the characters are doing and on the detail, and reasonable creativity, of the overall battle. It shows that you put a lot of work into thinking about something that has a lot of moving pieces. Battles are hard to RP. They are prob. one of the things I RP the worst, except in times where I'm literally writing, re-writing, editing, and re-editing drafts -- we're talking about a month of work. I appreciate the effort, so it really speaks to me when I read it.
[8:30 PM] Macabees: I accept this as personal opinion haha. :smile:
[8:30 PM] Ghant: Q6: As someone who doesn't have much experience with this, the Star Wars: Heir to the Empire series is a good example of what I find compelling reading in this area.
[8:31 PM] Lamoni: I don't have NSFT experience, but I agree with Mac here.
[8:31 PM] FRFS: Q6: make it personable. While it's lovely to picture the ships moving about, the weapons firing, and all that jazz. It's the human touch that makes it all the better. The actions of the crew, the reactions to the battle unfolding around them. Their lives hang in the balance of your story. And to me, are all the more interesting.
[8:31 PM] Kyrusia: Question #7: Is it advisable to first work out your geography in order to make a defensive doctrine for your nation? (Asked by Sailor.)
Also, to our panelists, our first thirty minutes have elapsed.
[8:32 PM] Tilt: Q6 PS. Honor Harrington does it well.
[8:32 PM] Tilt: Q7c. What tech level?
[8:32 PM] Tilt: In general, yes.
[8:32 PM] Lamoni: It can help, but please don't make your terrain such that it is inaccessible. Otherwise, how did YOU get there?
[8:32 PM] Kyrusia: I would assume any and all tech levels in which ground combat occurs.
[8:33 PM] Agy: Question 7: Yes and no. It's not necessary, but any kind of defensive doctrine should account for your nation's geography - and if you don't have a solid grasp of what your geography is, then your defensive doctrine may come across as gimmicky, flat, or easily-exploitable.
For instance, how do we know your impenetrable bunker wall is a good idea if we don't know what's around it? If I can just sidestep the wall as Hitler did the Maginot Line, then it's not much of a defensive perimeter, is it?
[8:33 PM] Ghant: Q7: I certainly think knowing your geographic location helps. It gives you an idea of where you are in relation to the theater of war and other combatants, and how long it might take you to deploy or the distance for your supply train, etc. It also might give you an idea of who your immediate threats are and how best to defend against them.
[8:33 PM] Cer: Q7 You don't have to have it fully mapped, imho, but you will have forces set up for it. Mountains? You have troops for that. Ocean? You have a navy. Also consider if you involve yourselves in other nations' business. If you've fought there before, you may still have equipment pertaining to those environs.
[8:34 PM] Macabees: Q7: From a technical point of view, absolutely. Your doctrine and how your weapons are designed and how your soldiers are trained. From a MT/PMT perspective, if you're a small nation you can have an absolutely encompassing defense in depth, for example. For larger nations, you'll have to focus on mobility and moving between hot zones along a long border. In FT the details might change, but the concept is the same.
It's not just war. It's your career. It's your hobby. Everything has a unique landscape and the only way you're going to master it is by really knowing it and adapting around it.
[8:34 PM] FRFS: Q7: yes, for the most part the territory has been there much longer than your nations doctrine. And your nation would have adjusted to it how it would have needed to regardless
[8:35 PM] Gren: RE: Agy's mentioning of the Maginot Line. It should be important to note that it worked EXACTLY as intended, by forcing the Germans to go through the Low Countries and small parts of the French border, specifically so they could concentrate their forces in that area.
[8:35 PM] Kyrusia: Question #8: [What] are some important aspects of a nation that should be developed before the military is fleshed out? and in what order should one go about fleshing them out? (Asked by Zark.)
[8:35 PM] Agy: oh, wow, gren, impressive[8:36 PM] Ghant: Q8: Culture is pretty important, because it could provide some insight in to how your nation's society views war.
[8:36 PM] Tilt: Q8. The segments that impact the people. Industry/economy. Geography. Culture (which drives priorities).
[8:37 PM] Gren: Q8: The environment. Particularly natural resources, climate, and geography. Everything else depends on those.
[8:37 PM] Macabees: Q8: In my opinion, this is up to your preference. In life, some of us value health, others value love and relationships, and others their career. They're equally as okay, it's subjective. What do you want to focus on now? What would bring the most value to you and your NS experience? You're the only person who can answer that question.
[8:37 PM] Cer: Q9 You'll need to know your economy, your culture, your population - that helps you determine size. Your government structure also matters. How do the people view it? Will they throw themselves at the enemy in a frenzy of love for Dear Leader, or will they abandon their posts because they have no confidence in their weak government system.
[8:38 PM] Macabees: But, from a personal perspective, I did develop stuff like culture and geography first... somewhat
[8:38 PM] Agy: Question 8: Important aspects to know before fleshing out a military: nation's economy (GDP, main exports, etc) so you know your logistical limitations and also if you can produce any military equipment internally, nation's culture so you know how war-friendly your people are and any martial traditions that might contribute to how your military is structured or operates, nation's geography (for previously-mentioned reasons - will you have a navy? a mountain corps? specialized ops for swamps?)
What order: Should probably start with ground forces since those are the bread-and-butter of defense; after that, you can do naval, air, and space forces as well as auxiliary units; spec ops and other flashy goodies should be left until last since they supplement your nation's military, they don't replace it.
[8:38 PM] Macabees: Keep in mind tho that all of your canon will most likely be in a constant state of flux, so don't stress out too much about it.(edited)
[8:38 PM] Macabees: I started out with Panzer knock-offs .
[8:38 PM] Macabees: No, not Panthers or Tigers. Panzers.
[8:39 PM] Lamoni: I didn't even have THAT much when I started out.
[8:39 PM] Gren: At least it wasn't the Maus.
[8:40 PM] Kyrusia: Question #9: Followup to Zark's question, can a nation be started by developing its military first before everything else? (Asked by Ched.)
[8:40 PM] Macabees: oh don't even get me started with my 4,000 tonne tank
[8:40 PM] Lamoni: I would say no. You should really build up your culture, economy, and terrain, first. When building up a military, it helps to know what your needs are, first.
[8:40 PM] Ghant: Q9: I think it can be. For some players, having a certain military is important, so I don't see anything wrong with figuring out what sort of military you want, if you're into that, and then constructing a nation around it that's capable of supporing it.
[8:40 PM] Tilt: Q9. No, especially in N&I.
[8:41 PM] Agy: Question 9: Not unless the military is the center of your nation.
I'd strongly advise against it as, unless your nation's primary purpose is to serve as a vehicle for war RPs, you're really boxing yourself in if you develop your military FIRST and the national culture, economy, and other aspects to fuel said military.(edited)
8:41 PM] FRFS: Q9: I started with my military first. And now I've grown into wondering how warehouses operate in my nation, and a whole bunch of other random stuff.
[8:41 PM] Gren: Shit, Mac, even the Ratte was only 1000. The physicist in me is BSODing right now.
Q9: I'd recommend against, but I guess it can if you really want to.
[8:42 PM] Cer: Q9 Not really. Not unless it's a military government or a lost colony. Can you do it? Yes. But then you leave out so much that your military needs. People tend to do a military first because it's fun.
[8:42 PM] Macabees: Q9: I think that you should just start somewhere. Say that you start with your military. You're going to have questions like: "who is political leader of my military?" "how do they recruit or conscript?" "what effect does this have on my society?" By necessity you're going to branch out.
[8:42 PM] FRFS: To me it's all what hooks you into worldbuilding in the first place. If that's the military, than so be it.
[8:42 PM] Ghant: If the end result is the same, I don't necessarily see the harm in taking various steps to reach it, whether that's the military first, or other aspects. If you get to the same point, it probably doesn't matter much, IMO.
[8:43 PM] Agy: I think it can affect how you build other parts of your nation, though, which is why I'm against it. If the most interesting part of your nation is your military and you begin with that, that can cause serious worldbuilding issues later.
[8:43 PM] Cer: FRFS, true, but the you get the noob that spends days on their military only to have players groan at the unrealistic nature of it all. I hate seeing players go through that dejection.
[8:43 PM] Agy: ^
[8:43 PM] FRFS: Aye it is a real worry
[8:43 PM] Lamoni: ^
[8:44 PM] Kyrusia: Question #10: How does one make a believable insurgent faction in a civil war story? (Asked by Sailor.)
[8:45 PM] Cer: Start with what you know. Research and develop it. Ask your fellow players questions. Go to the tech advice threads and chats to get a feel for it.
I don't do Civil War, so I humbly bow out of this one.
[8:45 PM] Gren: Q10: Humanize them. Give them legitimate reasons for fighting. Make them question if its worth it.
[8:45 PM] Tilt: Q10. Motivation is key imho.
[8:45 PM] Ghant: Q10: Not setting them up as conveinent foils, one trick ponies, strawmen or any other sort of gimmick. I think having insurgents with sympathizable positions and realistic motivations is key, as well as having them have realistic goals.
[8:46 PM] Kyrusia: 45 minutes remain in our panel!
[8:46 PM] Agy: Question 10: I would hope I know, I'm writing one for a future RP right now!
Make them asymmetric to your primary forces. If they meet them in open battle, they should lose; that's why they're an insurgent faction. Consider what your civilians have access to, their morale, their environment, and then consider what foreign allies the insurgency might have. Craft equipment and what kinds of units the insurgents use from there.
Finally, as Tilt said, motivation is key. Your insurgents have it hard, they've got to be at least as well-motivated as the army they're fighting or it'll all fall apart far too quickly to be meaningful.
[8:46 PM] Macabees: Q10: Research, research, research! I'm RPing insurgencies in Indras, Holy Panooly, Nicaro, and New Empire, all different settings my military is involved in, and I've learned so much by reading books. You can learn in your own way, but I'm an academic at heart and I always recommend learning more. Find pleasure in digging for those details, that's where the beauty is.
[8:48 PM] Macabees: There's a scene from Band of Brothers that I LOVE. It's analogous, in a way. An American officer just killed a bunch of German POWs by spraying them with a Thompson. The camera pans into the lone survivor's hand, where his cigarette's end is burning up his fingers. That detail is AMAZING. I was so impressed. If you know what you're talking about, details like that become second nature.
[8:48 PM] Kyrusia: Question #11: When dealing with something like FFT, where wars typically are fought on such a scale that the size of forces can not be comprehended (i.e. Near infinite amounts of spaceships for example), can a conflict on that scale be thought of as a war in the same way we would imagine a war in MT? (Asked by WPT.)
(Moderator input forthcoming.)
[8:48 PM] Kyrusia: Q#11: While I do not quite comprehend the general presupposition of "Far Future Tech," and am a firm proponent of the idea that the generally accepted necessity of a physic-breaking concept (faster-than-light travel) being the "ground floor" of FT (and thus the "ceiling" of all others) ensures that regardless of further appendage descriptors, you are FT, I understand people like to tack on descriptors.
Even so, I feel you have answered your question already. If you cannot, in some form, comprehend it, you cannot write it well. You write what you know, or have a general understanding thereof.
And no, I would not. At best, I would consider it like a collision of various world volumes, branes, and other macro-cosmic, physical events. I'm not sure how one could, further, write a compelling narrative when entire universes are naught but baubles in a game of multiversal marbles. To me, personally, it tends to trivialize characters beyond even Lovecraftian, nihilistic Cosmicism - which can have its role - to simple "power for power's sake."
Regardless, people do what they want. But from a personal perspective, as a reader and a roleplayer, this falls into my personal area of, "Why...?" It's just not fun to me when one is on such a level that even the concept of risk is alien.
[8:49 PM] Macabees: What is FFT, for us noobs?
[8:49 PM] Kyrusia: A fairly niche subset of NSFT. "Far Future Tech."
[8:50 PM] Cer: As I tell P2TM denizens: WH40K has massive forces pitted against each other across large expanses of space. Where is the action at when playing? A squad. A small unit of some kind that allows you to pull the focus off the vastness of space and spotlight the individual.
[8:50 PM] Gren: Things like fractal universe battleships.
[8:50 PM] Lamoni: I assume that it is where the players own large stretches of the galaxy, if not the entire galaxy, Kyru?
[8:50 PM] Kyrusia: Try multiversal.
[8:50 PM] Macabees: ...that sounds awesome
[8:50 PM] Ghant: Q11: I think so. For instance, I'm pretty much strictly MT when it comes to tech and pop, and yet I'm involved in the Dienstad-Gholgoth conflict, where there are often times very large militaries at play. Whether it's PMT or MT, or FFT, there's still the same sense of conflict, lives at risk and things generally at stake. I get that sense even as a small nation surrounded by billions pop nations with great forces clashing against each other.
[8:50 PM] Agy: Question 11: I would concur with Kyru on this one. While I think that it's interesting to explore conflicts alien to us in fiction, I also think one must take great care to ensure the conflict remains compelling even if the logistics and the numbers cease to make sense. It's often quite staggering for your audience to take in such a scope, and you need to scale down to individual units or groups for them to sympathize and to get across any kind of meaningful emotion in the work.
[8:50 PM] Macabees: But also sounds FT
[8:51 PM] Cer: Mac, it can be, but usually it's a wankfest. That's why I prefer to avoid "eternity numbers" in wargaming. It's - well, it's dull to read and play.
[8:51 PM] Kyrusia: It falls into the "FT" rubric insofar that FTL exists; many of us recommend against claiming on such scales, however. Sunset has authored an excellent guide on this topic.
[8:51 PM] Kyrusia: What Cer said.
[8:51 PM] Gren: Q11: I honestly agree with Kyru. Its pretty much impossible to write something well when that something is beyond human comprehension.
[8:52 PM] Macabees: I getcha, I getcha. I was thinking battleship being there one second and behind you the next.(edited)
[8:52 PM] Kyrusia: That's "tactical FTL." Akin to how WMDs are used in MT: "Ask first."
[8:52 PM] Cer: If someone has it handy, a link to Sunset's guide would be useful for our guests.
[8:52 PM] Kyrusia: One moment.
[8:53 PM] Kyrusia: The Train Set: A Future Tech Analogy: forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=25371271#p25371271
[8:53 PM] Macabees: Absolutely! In fact, your RP partners should honestly never really be surprised, unless you think it's a positive surprise.
NEW MESSAGES
[8:53 PM] Cer: Thank you, Kyru.
[8:53 PM] Tilt: Q11. I'm not really sure what FFT is or how it might differ from FT.
[8:54 PM] Cer: Tilt, Swith's "first ones" Nifid would be on scale with FFT (she refuses to play that scale). My Thade are FT.
[8:54 PM] Kyrusia: Scale, generally. To a not small portion of players, it's akin to an MTer claiming the entirety of earth with a 100% of their population in the military. It can be done in a singular setting for the purpose of a constrained story, but it often devolves to, as Cer said, wanking.(edited)
[8:54 PM] Gren: From @mvc in the #ns_mentors thread: "the basic idea is just to take FT and then remove the sanity ceiling - build jellyfish that eat universes if you want (the founder of our region does that), or engineer sentient fractal bombs, or convince trillions of multiversal civilizations to work for you while also fighting each other"
[8:55 PM] FRFS: It should be 'Fantasy' Future Tech
[8:55 PM] Tilt: Q11. Gotcha, Cer. So, just writ large? I think then, yes, microcosming it would be best. Something like Ciaphas Cain?
[8:55 PM] Kyrusia: I stand by my opinion. To me, they inevitably end-up being largely vacuous claims of open space with little in the way of worldbuilding to add flesh and muscle to the bones. It's like having a sandbox the size of Europe, with only London, Paris, and Moscow being "fleshed-out."
[8:56 PM] Cer: PFFFT, go away.
[8:56 PM] Macabees: Can I talk about FFT/wanking and MT/hard MT for a sec?
[8:56 PM] Kyrusia: Go for it.
[8:56 PM] Cer: Yes please, Mac.
[8:56 PM] Ghant: Without getting into FFT, I think that in terms of scale, the same applies for strictly MT players and how they view PMT, NS Pop nation conflicts.
[8:59 PM] Macabees: I was involved in the NS "arms design" community from very early on. I've always loved tanks, so I was always technical in the military sense. 2003-2005 were years of a lot of fun, with a lot of freedom in RP and military design. Those of us who got really into it began to propagate a culture of technical accuracy. I managed the NS Draftroom for 6-7 years.
Hard MT was a response to people using technical details to their advantage. They focused hours on building tanks to make it better than their opponents, so they could defeat it in a war. But not from a story perspective, but in the metaphorically tangible way -- it was their personal goal to win. Hard MT, IMO, is TOO constraining, but I cannot blame it for being so. As RPers, we need to be cognizant of how our actions impact the general culture and whether you're helping, or hurting, the institutions that make this game as fun as it is.
m_yes1
[9:00 PM] Cer: Kyru, if you don't mind the example real quick, for P2TMers?
[9:00 PM] Gren: Mac, I loved NS Draftroom, especially the Mech-busting.
[9:01 PM] Lamoni: I'm not Mac, but I am an NSD admin, so thanks.
[9:01 PM] Macabees: I loved it too, but it killed my RPing tbh.
[9:01 PM] Kyrusia: @cer Not sure on what you're asking.
[9:01 PM] Cer: I mentioned Swith's nation earlier. It's FFT ungodly. It's very detailed. However, you'll only find her small colonies on NS. She created her Nifid for her own enjoyment, and sequesters them far away. Her pleasure in gaming comes from her ability to interact on a small scale. The high tech is there, but it's flawed and graceful.
So yes, you can expand and create as much as you want. Go overboard, if you will. But keep an element playable. Make a colony, or an offshoot, in order to partake in N&I gaming.
[9:02 PM] Kyrusia: Oh, ah. Ye. Go ahead.
[9:02 PM] Macabees: I became too focused on the details -- my Nakíl write up is a combined 120,000-150,000 words --- that's a damn novel.
[9:02 PM] Ghant: As a principally Hard MTer myself, I think it was more about realism then a tech level designed to create a more competitive roleplaying envrionment. Again, scale, because in hard MT, the population levels are at a more "realistic" level relative to what we have in the real world today, as opposed to the billions plus populations of most PMT nations.(edited)
[9:03 PM] Macabees: Btw, I was the noob who declared war on some random II nation for killing $_random_minority
[9:03 PM] Macabees: We all progress as RPers :stuck_out_tongue:
[9:03 PM] Cer: Yup.
[9:03 PM] Agy: Everyone has to start somewhere nods
[9:03 PM] Kyrusia: Question #13: What are your opinions on foreign actors participating in civil war RPs? (Asked by Sailor.)
[9:03 PM] Cer: Start small and with something you can hold in your head.
[9:04 PM] Agy: Question 13: It's like spice. It adds to the intrigue of the story and can sway the results, but it's generally best to not overuse foreign actors unless the nation's really going to shit and part of the geopolitical plot is foreign intervention and splitting up the country.
[9:04 PM] Tilt: Q13. If it complicates things too much, or if people aren't aware of how to do diplomacy well, steer clear, or make it a practice RP.
[9:04 PM] Gren: My first experience on the forums was popping into two people's MT/PMT naval confrontation with a starship.
[9:05 PM] Macabees: Q13: I'm the founder of Greater Dienstad, where Lamoni is delegate. One of our trademark RP was A Passion Play, a war of secession between the son and grandson of the deceased emperor of my country. My southern neighbor decided to invade me. Then about 10 players joined his side. People still talk about to this day, so absolutely, I'm all for it.
[9:05 PM] Gren: Q13: I mean, its not a bad idea.
[9:05 PM] Ghant: Q13: I think that if it's done the right way, with the right motivation and approach in mind and with adequate OP cooperation, that it can be compelling. I've had alot of fun participating in other nation's Civil War threads in a limited capacity where I could contribute to the narrative but not affect what the OP was trying to achieve too much in an adverse manner.
[9:05 PM] Cer: Q13 It depends on the story. I'm participating in a character-based one for Agy's nation. My own characters will be vital to the story, with the civil war serving as not only a backdrop, but also an objective within the game.
[9:06 PM] Agy: Q13: Note that in the above case, Cer will be affecting my nation's civil war with characters, not the entire Thade military. That's what I mean by spice - not too much, but it adds depth to the proceedings.
[9:06 PM] Cer: ^
[9:06 PM] Cer: One grain of rice can tip the scale. One character can impact a nation.
[9:07 PM] Lamoni: As can one gunshot.
[9:07 PM] Cer: Yes. Very much so.
[9:07 PM] Kyrusia: Question #14: [Is] it more important to place a greater focus on what is happening strategically or tactically in a war RP? For example, should the plot primarily follow a smaller number of soldiers and only explain strategic happenings as they affect said soldiers, or is the opposite true? (Asked by Grat.)
[9:08 PM] Macabees: Q14: What do you enjoy? I like both. I have some posts that are more strategic, others that are more tactical.
[9:08 PM] Gren: Q14: Depends on the scope of the RP.
[9:08 PM] Kyrusia: A little less than thirty minutes remain in our panel!
[9:08 PM] Lamoni: Do you want to focus on the characters? Or do you want to show the big picture?
[9:08 PM] Ghant: Q14: I think that depends on the style of the writer in question. Me personally, I prefer to construct a plot that follows a smaller number of soldiers and present the war from their point of view, while making some references to the greater strategic happenings of the war.
9:09 PM] Macabees: In my guide, I mention a simple three-step model to a story: beginning (context), middle (tension), end (resolution). I think strategic posts are great for context, and tactical posts for plot point-by-plot point tension.
[9:09 PM] Agy: Question 14: Depends on scope, but for reader's sake I would say tactical proceedings are more relevant and interesting that strategic ones.
Strategic proceedings should provide the backdrop for tactical scenes, is how I would put it. Strategically, if someone's winning the war, their troops will probably be better-supplied and have higher morale. Tactically, however, there is still a tension wherein their troops have to fight hard for their victory. Strategy will color how the characters are in the present moment; tactics will determine what they do.
[9:10 PM] Tilt: Q14. It's highly individual. I think Ghant and Agy's answers cover my views well.
[9:10 PM] Cer: Q14 Pulling from a guide here, "The terms tactic and strategy are often confused: tactics are the actual means used to gain an objective, while strategy is the overall campaign plan, which may involve complex operational patterns, activity, and decision-making that govern tactical execution."
As a player, both are important. However, your IC tactics in battle may have more bearing than the long-term strategy in your head, for story-writing purposes.
[9:11 PM] Cer: You can have your characters reveal a bit of strategy, but place your focus on one element at a time, advancing forces, meeting objectives, etc. Breaking it down into smaller steps helps you write it better, IMHO.
[9:11 PM] Kyrusia: Question #15: We've all acquainted ourselves with the 5% rule when it comes to percentage of military personnel in a nation's population, but what about GDP? What should be the recommended cap? (Asked by Sailor.)
[9:11 PM] Lamoni: That's more a question for Mac, and his economics knowledge.
[9:11 PM] Tilt: Q15. I have no idea as I haven't RPed a military on national scale.
[9:12 PM] Cer: (Kyru, please explain the 5% rule for those who have not heard of it before. I'm sure people will ask for clarification.)
[9:12 PM] Macabees: Q15: As an economist, I hate this question. Jk. Well... okay, let me start over. I'm not sure if you're asking what's a realistic cap for GDP or your military budget as a percentage of GDP.
[9:12 PM] Agy: Question 15: I'm not entirely sure. I mean, it depends on your nation's economic setup, I suppose. If we have for example a situation like in syndicalist Catalonia, production might be more geared for war %-wise than, let's say, Imperial Rome.
[9:13 PM] Kyrusia: In general, in MT, it is recommended to dedicate no more than 5% of your population to your armed forces. In practice, <1% is often more recommended. The general guideline being the more one approaches 5% (and higher), the less budget one has to dedicate to such a large percentage of your people.
Less budget, less training and advanced military equipment; thus, less efficient and successful armed forces.
[9:13 PM] Lamoni: In other words, 5% is for when SHTF.
[9:13 PM] Ghant: Q15: IIRC, it's supposed to be 2% of military personnel of a nation's population, and 5% of your nation's GDP.
[9:13 PM] Kyrusia: "Total war" scenarios.
[9:14 PM] FRFS: If everyone is training to die, who is making the pies! D:
[9:14 PM] Macabees: What's a realistic cap for your GDP -- GDP is a metric used by economists for specific purposes. It's not a measure of wealth. It's not really a measure of how great an economy is doing (which is why economists focuses on the change in GDP as a proxy for performance). It's a hard number to make up. What RL nation, current or historical, best approximates theres? How did their GDPPC compare to others' of their era? That's how you should set your GDPPC. Multiply your pop by GDPPC.
9:15 PM] Kyrusia: Gross Domestic Product per capita, for those wondering.
[9:15 PM] Macabees: If we're talking about military budget as a % of GDP -- are you at war or peace? are you an open society (that therefore prioritizes spending elsewhere) or a closed society (that can enforce the externalities of overinvesting in military on its people)? You can be a poorly preforming economy (relatively) so that you can afford a massive military, proportionally.
[9:15 PM] Macabees: And it's okay to do so, as long as it's for setting.
9:16 PM] Kyrusia: From Sailor... Clarification: percentage of GDP allocated for military spending.
[9:16 PM] Agy: To be honest, I think it's a poor question because it seems somewhat gamey to me.
[9:16 PM] Ghant: That's what I assumed. I thought it was 5%, but I could be mistaken.
[9:17 PM] Agy: I honestly think that if you're not playing to win, you really shouldn't be trying to min-max your GDP to try and figure out how big your military can be.
[9:17 PM] Macabees: What RL nation, current or historical, does your most compare to? What was their military budget as a percentage of GDP? Use that as a baseline.
[9:17 PM] Agy: My opinion only, of course.
[9:18 PM] Kyrusia: This is one of those differences between P2TM and N&I, Agy, I feel. When one is trying to slot one's self into a community where the external pressures of others are what fundamentally determine the degree one's ideas are accepted on a macro-scale, things are different than when one can simply define a thing for each thread.
[9:18 PM] Cer: It has bearing, but it's not usually seen outside of nation-roleplay. We don't worry about it in P2TM unless it's a non-NS nation war game.
[9:19 PM] Cer: Good point, Kyru.
[9:19 PM] Agy: Yeah that makes sense, I guess. I just feel like it really shouldn't even be necessary in nation-roleplay; it just lends itself to numbers wankery as far as I've seen. But it also controls numbers wankery so there's that.
[9:20 PM] Ghant: I think it depends on the motive. If the motive is to figure out what your nation would realistically have, then I think it's a good thing.
[9:20 PM] Kyrusia: In N&I, the concept of the nation itself - not just the thread or the world crafted in any one thread - are under the constant scrutiny of the given (sub-)community one is participating within. One can always find other roleplayers if one does not adhere to community standards, but those standards exist to help maximize the amount of potential partners one has while also providing general sign-posts for balance relative to prior experiences of abuse relative to each standard.
In the "5% Guideline's" case: it's people turning every person in their country into a super-soldier, without any thought as to the broader effects such a radical notion would have (vis-a-vis the complete socio-economic failure of the state in question).(edited)
[9:21 PM] Lamoni: A super-soldier with absolute loyalty to Dear Leader, and would never betray them or run away.
[9:22 PM] Macabees: And it's worth remembering that we learned not to start sentences with 'and' or 'but' before we were taught it was okay... if we used it right.
[9:22 PM] Cer: If P2TM were N&I, we'd all make characters and hope our applications and setup worked with other people's characters. Then we'd try to make a roleplay. Without an overarching GM, we're left with community rules and guidelines. That's why we see so much attention paid to small details. It helps people determine if their gaming systems mesh or clash, or if one "character" is godmoddery while the other "character" is super-realistic.
[9:22 PM] Kyrusia: Indeed. There are always caveats, Mac.
[9:22 PM] Kyrusia: Question #16: How would one make a good mix of their military, Navy, Army... Also how would you do a draft? (Asked by Emerstari.)
[9:23 PM] Tilt: Q16. I defer to the other panelists
[9:23 PM] Gren: Q16: I defer, as well.
[9:23 PM] Ghant: Q16: ^
[9:24 PM] Lamoni: I assume that you're talking about how to put your military together? In such a case, it helps if you base the structure of your military on that of an RL nation close to your own nation's culture (at least in MT), and build from there.
[9:24 PM] Lamoni: Obviously, RL populations, and NS populations are going to differ.
[9:25 PM] Macabees: Q16: I will give you an example, this is how I do it. #1 I have RL interest in military history, and I tend to like land warfare. I have a more balanced reading palette now, but in the past land has been my strength. That's how it tends to come out when I RP. Remember the question about insurgencies? It's about research. My land research was on point. #2 What are my geopolitical concerns ICly? My nation is a maritime empire, and so now I find myself focusing as much on my navy and airforce as on my army.
[9:25 PM] Kyrusia: There are five questions remaining. We will over-run at the leisure and pleasure of our panelists.
[9:25 PM] Agy: Question 16:
Army should generally be the largest, unless your nation is primarily islands or has many accessible rivers (in which case your navy would be your bread-and-butter). Air force and other such auxiliaries should complement rather than form the basis of your military. I'm speaking primarily from MT and from like... WWI/II-esque and Cold War-era stuff I've seen.
Take from RL structures if you're not sure how to structure your own military, there's plenty of nations out there with functioning armed forces you can look into.
As for the draft, it should be in a time of crisis and the military component should be accompanied with civilian implications, both social and economic. A draft fundamentally changes the nature of a war for an MT's civilian population, many of whom may be used to viewing the war from the comfort of their own living room couches. Now, suddenly, the war is relevant. It matters. Expect more resistance, expect some economic downturn in consumer goods but a rise in military production, that sort of thing.
[9:25 PM] Ghant: I can stay for all the questions.
[9:26 PM] Cer: Q16 That's where pre-build details come in handy. Your history has bearing on it. Does your history involve a need for naval superiority? Or does it need air superiority? Are you a small Cuba needing only a small military, or are you the former Soviet Union and pulling from vast resources?
[9:26 PM] Kyrusia: Question #17: Say you want to RP an international incident where things escalate towards war and the job of the characters is to avoid said war. How should the plot be reasonably paced without it turning into a war RP within one or two posts? (Asked by Sailor.)
[9:26 PM] Gren: I can stay as long as everyone else wants to.
[9:27 PM] Tilt: Q17. Careful planning and outlining is crucial there, I think, and for the same reason I'd keep such an RP small and closed.
[9:27 PM] Gren: Q17: ^
[9:27 PM] Lamoni: ^
[9:27 PM] Cer: Q18 Step back and breathe, and then set up a character-based thread. Ask your participants to do more than draft angry letters. Put thought into the game. Politics moves slow yet also quickly. Dialog takes time, however, and there's a need to find common ground.
[9:27 PM] Agy: Question 17: Actually make it questionable whether a war will even happen.
Do it. Make it so that the plot actually impacts if a war will occur. This will naturally lend your plot and characters to the places they need to be and the kind of deals they need to make to avoid the war.
Plan in the OOC. Plan plan plan. Make sure your players know the stakes and know that war is the last-preferred option.
[9:28 PM] Gren: Lets look at DS9. The first 5 or so seasons were spent with the characters trying to avoid a war, and then all of a sudden, it happened anyways. If you want to, you could strip out the filler, and chart each event with geopolitical significance relative to time, and that would give you a decent idea for good pacing.(edited)
[9:28 PM] Ghant: Q17: There's alot that goes into the process leading up to war. For instance, if you have characters that are endeavoring to avoid war, you can basically do a number of posts where they struggle with the gravity of the situation and do what they can to avoid war, whether they are the nation's leaders or people close to them. You can still have a slow-burn situation, if you will, where things gradually lead to war over the course of several posts. The dramatic tension is usually worthy to write and fun to read.
[9:28 PM] Macabees: Q17: Add a sub-tension.
Why do so many movies have romance to them? It's to attract a certain viewer, to some extent. But more importantly, it's to add another dimension to the story -- it's a side-plot that is less important than the main plot, but helps to keep the audience interested if the main story is long. It doesn't need to be romance at all. It can be a story about murder. Or miracles.
In my favorite sci fi book of all time, Hyperion, they stretch out the main plot by breaking the book up into sub-plots that focus on the different characters' backgrounds. That's another way to do it.(edited)
[9:29 PM] Cer: Or at Babylon 5. The politics involved there were delicious and allowed suspense to build.
[9:29 PM] Macabees: Think about the dynamic between characters outside of the context of the main plot
[9:30 PM] Macabees: Maybe there are professional jealousies. Forbidden love.
[9:30 PM] Ghant: One thing I try to emphasize in my writing, especially military stuff, is the human experience. How do these things impact the characters, and how do those experiences relate to the reader? I think that the buildup to a war and the characters struggling against it is a golden opportunity to demonstrate that very thing.
[9:30 PM] Kyrusia: Question #18: [Are] there any tips the panelists can give to a person who is interested in using war as a roleplaying/worldbuilding resource but does not know much about it? (Asked by Zark.)
[9:31 PM] Gren: Q18: Research, research, research. Figure out your setting, tech level, etc., and don't be afraid to use wikipedia.
[9:31 PM] Agy: Question 18: Research. Find out what about war interests you, and find out what kind of details would be compelling to add to your world.
Some players really like technical details, as was expounded earlier, and could go on for hours detailing the ins and outs of their nation's mechanized infantry corps.
Other players enjoy the character dramas, the battles, the struggles of individuals as they look for their place in the war effort or try their best to stop the war.
[9:31 PM] Cer: Q18 Don't be afraid to admit you don't know, and then don't be afraid to ask. We have strong tech communities on NS, and strong players. They want good opponents, so many will take the time to help you learn in order to become one.
And research, as Gren and Agy said.
[9:32 PM] Gren: I'll readily admit, I knew next to nothing about war until I started RPing. But now I consider myself something of a miltary aviation history buff.
[9:32 PM] Gren: Especially from WWII to Vietnam.
[9:32 PM] Gren: All of that knowledge was gained from research.
[9:32 PM] Agy: I still don't know a whole lot about war,
But I do know how it can be used to impact the stories I'm in, and I'm a sucker for war stories, especially underdog ones.
[9:32 PM] Ghant: Q18: I'll use myself as the prime example of the guy who writes in war threads without knowing much about military stuff. The advice I'd give is the same advice I give myself in this regard. Find and talk to people that are knowledgable about the subject, and learn from them. Communicate with the OP about what you'd like to do. Something that I do too is after I write a war post, do a peer review with others that know about military stuff, whether it's the OP or your trusted peers. Then post, and try not to be too hard on yourself for not being the best military writer. It's the thought that counts and the effort that matters most.
[9:33 PM] Macabees: #1 To learn how to do character RP, read Ghant. Trust me.
#2 Research to the extent of your interest. Don't spend time on it if it doesn't add value to you. But if you like it, absolutely I recommend research.
#3 Don't sweat the small bullets. The other player didn't notice that your super awesome missile could actually bypass his radars? Who cares? Focus on the story.
[9:33 PM] Kyrusia: Question #19: Should all our loses be exciting for all parties involved? And if so, for example, how best do we make our Dunkirks turn into heavily relieved miracles that still came at a questioning cost of human life and material? How should our German Empires fall and lead way into unstable, yet interesting to read Weimar Republics? (Asked by Ched.)
[9:34 PM] Ghant: Q19: I think that loses should be well portrayed and honestly, milked for whatever narrative value they can yield, out of principle. I think the rest of it comes down to style. For instance, I'm a poet at heart, and so for me, the loss, collapse, the end, what have you, should be poetic. Like the Fall of Troy.
[9:35 PM] Macabees: Q19: Those are the awesome stories that you should cooperate with others to create. Those are stories that are interesting. You can pitch your story idea to other players. When I coordinate an RP with other players I usually talk about what I'm thinking about doing and how I see the war unfolding. I say we should choreograph some battles. We should make this war RP read awesome.
[9:35 PM] Agy: Question 19: It's RP, if it's not exciting then why are you doing it? To bore yourself? What kind of masochist are you?
Losses should be exciting in that they provide opportunities for future character and nation-development. The end of a war, whether victor or victim, is a time for reflection and can provide opportunities for your nation and its people to take new courses of action.
Perhaps they contemplate the war and realize what a senseless waste of human life it was; you can develop a strong pacifistic, diplomatic tradition from there and reference the war in future dealings and with future character interactions.
Perhaps the war leaves them bitter and ready to be whipped into a frenzy, as was the case in Weimar Republic Germany. Use memories of the defeat to build the new ideology and leadership that will take your nation into the future.
[9:35 PM] Macabees: In my RP with United World Order, A Wolf in the Jungle, I actively told him how to encircle my forces and get the most out of his offensive. It was fun. It made for a great story.
[9:36 PM] Macabees: I wanted it to be like the Battle of Moscow. A last gasp halt to the offensive and a counter-stroke.
[9:36 PM] Kyrusia: Question #20: How detailed does an NS military have to be a good participant? Does one need a full table of organization and equipment for their entire military before taking part in a war RP? (Asked by Essexia.)
[9:36 PM] Kyrusia: To the last bit? "No."
[9:36 PM] Kyrusia: :stuck_out_tongue:
[9:36 PM] Agy: Question 20: Pass, not super-involved in NS or II.
[9:36 PM] Macabees: Q20: Okay, real talk, I have never put together a full orbat.
[9:36 PM] Macabees: Wayyyy too lazy
[9:37 PM] Kyrusia: Way too boring for me personally. xP
[9:37 PM] Gren: Q20: I honestly didn't know what an ORBAT was until the other night.
[9:38 PM] Cer: I thought we covered a bit of that earlier. Q20 It depends on the game. Mechanics -based games (dice and stats) use ORBAT. Storytelling (non-mechanics) don't always require them.
[9:38 PM] Ghant: Q20: I don't think it has to be that detailed. You can contribute in meangingful ways to a thread's story arc without all the detailed information about your military tech. As I said earlier, if you write to your strengths, and the product is compelling, that's what's important. As far as ORBATS, they help but by no means are they required unless the OP demands that participants submit them.
[9:38 PM] Kyrusia: Question #21 (FINAL QUESTION): How are some ways you can build up from losing a war - or civil war? (Asked by Jutomi.)
[9:40 PM] Ghant: Q21: Writing about the effects of the war. How does your nation change as a result? What do leaders think about it? How do they, and the people of your country, cope? Maybe there's revolution, maybe there's a recession. If you lost territory, maybe there's suddenly insurgency or an irredentist movement. Maybe the nation as a whole learned something and came away from it with some great wisdom it previously didn't have. Look to RL examples of what happened to nations that lost wars of various scales.
[9:40 PM] Agy: Question 21:
Rebuild infrastructure that's been destroyed; this'll create plenty of jobs and motivation for your people and its government. Determine whether you want the war to make people vengeful or mournful. Pour the war into your nation's literary, film, and other artistic works. Make the war central to the soul of your nation for a little while, let it simmer and join the other experiences that make it unique.
Then, when time has passed and you've developed your nation a little with new characters, RPs, and experiences, bring it back to its pre-war power (or don't, up to you) and see what you've learned.
[9:40 PM] Gren: Q21: Another war?
[9:40 PM] Macabees: Q21: So many possibilities.
What direction do you want to go?
Does it cause a collapse in your government? This would be fun. Imagine a democratic leader suffering from a collapse in support. Maybe impeachment. Imagine a king being toppled and an RP about the hope for liberty.
Does it only wound your society and cause it to recoil and prepare for the next war? Like, in the 1930s, WW1 did to Germany? World War 2 is such an awesome story that there are hundreds of thousands of books written on it. So that sounds like an RP with a lot of potential too.
Your imagination is the limit.
[9:41 PM] Ghant: Play your imagination like you should play poker. High stakes, no limit.
[9:41 PM] Cer: ^
[9:41 PM] Macabees: The question isn't "what's best for my nation"
[9:42 PM] Macabees: It's "what would be really, really interesting to me and my audience to do"
[9:42 PM] Cer: ^ This, exactly.
[9:42 PM] Agy: ^^^^^^
[9:42 PM] Lamoni: THIS
[9:42 PM] Lamoni: SO. MUCH. THIS.
[9:42 PM] Ghant: If the readers won't like reading it because they don't find it interesting, then what's the point?
[9:42 PM] Agy: Your nation isn't you, your nation is a canvass.
Play with it. Follow the type, or go against it. Make beautiful art. That's all there is to it.
[9:43 PM] Kyrusia: I'd like to thank your panelists and our audience! Was a wonderful, exciting, and enlightening panel this evening. That is all for tonight!
NS Roleplay Symposium 2017
TOPIC: War and Storytelling
TIME: COMPLETED
Our panels for tomorrow are as follows:
Wednesday, July 12
Worldbuilding and Related (Early Hour Panel) — 12PM Eastern/4PM GMT
Writing, Exposition, and the Narrative (Late Hour Panel) — 7PM Eastern/11PM GMT
Thread Marketing and Formatting — 9PM Eastern/1AM GMT
Midnight Madness: The Revolving Door (Late Night Panel) — 12AM Eastern/4AM GMT
Hilarity and madness! An opportunity for members of the Mentor Program to provide more personal insights into their volunteer activities and answer general questions about their work and time.