[8:11 PM] Swith: Don't even get me started on software engineering, Tilt. 
Fifth Question posed by Ched - "If you're having a hard time figuring out a particular part of your world and are suffering from writers block, what do you do to alleviate that?"[8:12 PM] Gren: Q5: Bring in a different perspective.
[8:12 PM] Ghant: Q5: Talk to other players and get their advice / suggestions. Peer reviews are very useful and can help you think about things that didn't occur to you on your own.
[8:12 PM] Kyrusia: Q6: Move onto a different facet. I often recommend ones that you, as a player, deal with everyday, but are usually overlooked: food, drink, music, dance, idioms, entertainment in general, etc.
[8:12 PM] Tilt: Q5. Go polish something else and come back to it. Or veg out for half an hour and go on YouTube.
[8:13 PM] Zark: Q5: Work on another part of the world, possibly one that can become related to the one blocking me somehow. If you have a very good idea for one, and one determines the other, your problem is baiscally solved
[8:13 PM] Vocenae: Q5: Always be looking for new inspiration. Something that helps a lot is finding someone you trust to give you a fresh perspective on what you're making, communication is so vital to the success of an RP and it applies to worldbuilding as well. If you feel burnt out by all of it, then always be open to taking a break and ingesting new forms of inspiration like movies, art, books, video games, music.
[8:13 PM] Swith: Sixth Question also posed by Ched who, apparently, is going to break his old record (awesome!) - "Are there certain aspects of worldbuilding that you prefer more over other aspects?"[8:14 PM] Ghant: Q6: Historical relations with other nations. When first contact was made, if there were wars, monarchial intermingling, cultural exchanges, things like that.
[8:14 PM] Swith: Q6: I actually loathe doing history for my nations. I groove on the flora and fauna, and waste a considerable amount of time researching things until everything is 'just right'.
[8:14 PM] Gren: Q6: The science-related aspects are my favorite. I'm also partial to geography (if you've seen Antediluvia, those are my maps) and food.
[8:14 PM] Ghant: If it's on my own, then geography, and figuring out what's where.
[8:15 PM] Vocenae: Q6: I can like a different aspect of worldbuilding over others depending on my mood, but something I /don't/ have much interest in is statistical facts. Numbers, how large a caliber is this bullet, what rate does it fire, how many people overall, the meticulous details of government and law, etc. Sometimes I /have/ to work on this stuff, but usually I just establish enough of a backbone for it that I can continue focusing on all the other aspects of worldbuilding that I enjoy.(edited)
[8:15 PM] Kyrusia: Q6: I much prefer diving into the details of culture, religion, and history than I do the tech. I like exploring characters and landscapes beyond the "gilded towers of the elite." In my case, I play a star-state in FT that has exceptional social stratification and pervasive poverty for most. I enjoy indulging in the construction and exploration of how the "Average Joe" lives with and in such, what their day is like, how they survive - and even thrive - despite their socio-economic disadvantages.
[8:15 PM] Tilt: Q6. Somewhat, though I wouldn't say I prefer them so much as I'm better at some than others. Culture, economy, and so on. Factoids. The CIA World Factbook is drugz, man.
[8:15 PM] Zark: Q6: I enjoy trying to develop the culture of a given civilization or species. I'm no expert at it, but I enjoy it, and everything else I develop afterwards tends to stem from that.
[8:16 PM] Swith: Question Seven posed by Akimonad - "What would you say is the bare minimum worldbuilding one should do, if one finds it difficult/boring?"[8:16 PM] Ghant: Q7: As I previously stated, as much as you think you need for whatever RP you wish to be involved in.
[8:17 PM] Gren: Q7: As much as is needed to introduce players to the setting.
[8:17 PM] Tilt: Q7. Highly dependent on genre. Some will let you get away with less, especially if you're working within an established work.
[8:17 PM] Vocenae: Q7: You always need to have a solid foundation. You need to define who/what/where/when/why/how to a culture, civilization, military, etc, even if it's just a vague backbone. However the more work you put into something, the more solid you make it, the better it will always be. More is good, essentially. This will allow you to create a deeper, richer setting from which you cna pull interesting characters or tell a interesting story. It gives your nation/setting depth, as opposed to just being "Well I'm just a notGalactic Empire
".(edited)
[8:17 PM] Zark: Q7: If you find it boring, then there's probably an underlying problem, though finding it difficult is more or less normal, I figure. Regardless, I concur with Gren again, give your players enough to work with and stop there if you don't have the drive to go on.
[8:18 PM] Kyrusia: Q7: If one finds worldbuilding boring, at least insofar as N&I is concerned, I'd say you may have stumbled into the wrong hobby.
Worldbuilding is not just about the creation of a fictional world; it is also a tool for characterization and expression of concepts relative to roleplaying. That means - especially in the case of characters - creating a fictional environment that provides meaning, justification, and causation to their perspective, philosophy, and worldview.
Emphasis on "worldview."
[8:18 PM] Swith: Question Eight posed by Ched - "Is there a part of worldbuilding that you find very burdensome to try and create, one that tires you out just thinking about it?" and a follow-up to this, "When that happens, how do you handle it? Handwavium?"[8:19 PM] Gren: Q8: Languages. I either skip it, or if I'm working with others, I let people with more experience and passion in that department work on it.
[8:19 PM] Zark: Q8: Stuff like economy and politics. I'm getting better, very slowly, but it's hard for me to wrap my head around those things so I tend not to give them much thought, despite the fact that some consider them very important for any given civilization.
[8:19 PM] Ghant: Q8: Economics and Military information. I'm personally not a fan of Hand Waves, so what I'll do instead is have a general idea of those areas, and then just wing it in a cloud of ambiguity until I'm essentially forced by a roleplay to determine that information in greater detail.
[8:20 PM] Tilt: Q8. I'm not very original, despite my best efforts, and that shows up in my worldbuilding sometimes. I would say absolutely that doing research is indispensable. Everything under the sun is old; all you have to do is go out and find something that approaches what you want to do (if not exactly matching), and then weave that into your worldbuild.
[8:21 PM] Kyrusia: Q8: While I can indulge in some facets of tech, I just do not jump into, say, designing the individual armaments of my spess!boats. Whereas other facets of worldbuilding I can work in a constant, psychological flow of raw creation, with these I find I must actually work at them and tie them in cohesively in a manner I find more natural with other things; I also find myself making sure they tie into other aspects of the world - such as its themes and aesthetics.
Some things can be raw handwaved - like specific tech details - but I do find myself usually trying to find a rational level of connectivity and feasibility. Even if under "close scrutiny," something wouldn't work in reality, I aim to suspend disbelief through the narrative, presentation, and execution to the point that no one looks that closely, accepting the rational line of causation woven into the concept and having it successfully satisfy their reader's eye.
[8:21 PM] Swith: Question Nine posed by Maltropia - "Do you find it easier to interact (IC) with other players whose worldbuilding is more extensive and unique, or harder? Or do you really notice a difference?"[8:22 PM] Vocenae: Q8:Really anything that involves numbers, really. I find it better if you just don't specify because then you get into limitations with what you can do. Statistics, as I said wearlier, bore the hell out of me. I'm also not big on Conlanguages because trying to keep track of so many other words is just not interesting. As for Handwaving, well, yes. Try to make it as understandable as possible and move on, if need be.
[8:22 PM] Gren: Q9: I can't say I have noticed a diference.
[8:22 PM] Ghant: Q9: Easier, because it gives me more ideas for how we may have interacted in the past, and how their worldbuilding concept might affect relations between our nations and characters in the present day.
[8:22 PM] Vocenae: Q8: The more worldbuilding a person has done, if it actually has work put into it to make it interesting and more importantly, consistent, then yeah, it's easier to interact with that player. There is, of course, the whole thing about the more a player has the more you have to learn, but it's much easier to interact with someone who puts in the work as opposed '
ima notGalacticEmpire
'.(edited)
[8:23 PM] Kyrusia: Q9: It is much easier, I find, to roleplay with a player that has both a degree of detail, but is willing to improvise on the scale of individual plots, characters, etc. People often forget that the world in reality is not monolithic, and fall-back on the simplicity of trying to make their fictional ones monolithic.
Avoid making something monolithic. There is always an "exception" that proves the the rule (generalization on a macro-scale).
[8:23 PM] Zark: Q9: That's an interesting question. If they are roleplaying a particularly nuanced species or what have you, interaction might be difficult, but precisely due to that, it becomes far more interesting than otherwise, and if that person is indeed an extensive worldbuilder there are likely a lot of cues you can latch onto for said interactions, thus making it easier. Besides, regardless of the difficulty, it's far more enjoyable to roleplay with someone who knows their shit
[8:23 PM] Kyrusia: So yes. More consistent details, I find easier - and also see them as providing less likelihood to fall into monolithic-esque behaviors.
[8:24 PM] Tilt: Q9. Same as Gren. I'm actually trying to think if this applies moreso in P2TM, because I think I've been spoiled. The only original RPs I've been in (PL and to an extent ES) have been fleshed out by top-class worldbuilders, and so I see that as a necessary background.
[8:24 PM] Tilt: So I guess in a way?
[8:25 PM] Agy: Q9: More extensive worldbuilding is to me more difficult to interact with due to there being so many variables and bits of information to account for to keep to canon. It is a lot more rewarding than just making stuff up on that spot, however.
[8:25 PM] Gren: To be fair, Tigger mostly does ES on his own. I've been fortunate enough to be consulted by him once or twice on some aspect or another, but the world is all his.
[8:25 PM] Swith: Question Ten posed by Ched - "Do you find worldbuilding a setting filled with humans, aliens, fantastical beasts, etc to be more interesting over others?"[8:26 PM] Kyrusia: Q10: I did not leave MT because I found "just humans" boring, but I will say I have come to enjoy greater, diverse concepts when done well. Proper execution plays a lot into this. Some people find it easier than others.(edited)
[8:26 PM] Gren: Q10: Not necessarily, because something that is almost never addressed (at least that I find), but would logically exist in such a setting, is fantastic racism. It just breaks my willing suspension of disbelief.
[8:26 PM] Ghant: Q10: Not sure what the "others" refers to. Do you mean a setting with beings in it more interesting than one without beings?
[8:27 PM] Swith:
Tilt . PL was a beast to worldbuild. We went down to the very physics of the universe itself.
I prefer fantasy and fiction. Real world boxes me in. There's always a player that will pipe up with "That's not how it goes", in P2TM RP. 'Realists' aren't bad. I just try to avoid the quarrel over it.
[8:27 PM] Agy: Q10: Not particularly, I think it depends on how the aliens or fantastic races are designed. I think there's a lot of complexity to cultural interaction within the human race alone and aliens/beasts which do not replicate this interplay make for boring opponents and allies.
[8:27 PM] Zark: Q10: I enjoy Fantasy, Sci-Fantasy and Sci-Fi mostly, so I'd say that's the case, yes
Though a roleplay hardly needs all of that to be unique and interesting.
[8:28 PM] Gren: I'm sorry for being one of those types, Swith. :stuck_out_tongue:
[8:28 PM] Swith: Ghant, I'm taking it to mean, "preferring humans to aliens/monsters/etc." Let me clarify with Ched.
[8:28 PM] Vocenae: Q10: It comes down to how consistent all of the differing things fit together within the setting. If it's all slapdashed together for having MAXIMUM EVERYTHING, then no, I don't find it very interesting because there's no substance or depth to why they're there.. Setting can have more than just humans and in FT, we generally have a good mix of humans and aliens. Humans are easier to RP interacting with, but overall again, so long as it is consistent within itself and not 'lolsentientpotatoes' for the sake of having them, then no it doesn't matter if there is an abundance of different species. Though admittingly, cross genre stuff can be offputting, such as dragons in space.(edited)
m_aye4
[8:28 PM] Ghant: I think having characters, be they humans, aliens or ponies, is great no matter what they are, provided they're developed well and the setting is immersive.
[8:29 PM] Swith: Yes, "preferring humans to other creatures or vice-versa."
[8:30 PM] Agy: Generally yeah I concur with Gren. A lack of fantastic racism and other human nuances in settings with aliens and beasts generally turns me off of them.
[8:30 PM] Zark: For the record, I don't think I've come across many roleplays that have exclusively non-human creatures, nor have I tried to make any; I think a balance works best, or the precious contrast is lost.
[8:30 PM] Ghant: Me personally, I find RPing humans and developing human societies more interesting, if only because my preference is to operate within an MT setting.
[8:30 PM] Ghant: Though I certainly respect a great deal those who take the time to develop non-human races and their respective societies.
[8:31 PM] Kyrusia: It's one reason, in FT, we advise toward "humans with rubber foreheads." It takes a lot to play a "truly alien" character passably and in a fashion that is both interesting and easy to interact with. It's also probably why the human-to-alien ratio in FT, in my personal experience, seems to be 3:2, humans:aliens.
[8:32 PM] Vocenae: ^
[8:32 PM] Swith: Question Eleven posed by Rhodevus - "Have you ever thought that you spent too much time constructing a world/setting to be able to properly RP it? (As in, what you created is too rigid to roleplay properly with others)"[8:32 PM] Agy: Q11: Cant say I have, but I haven't worldbuilt that heavily so it's outside the realm of my experiences
[8:33 PM] Swith: Q11: All. The. Time. That's when I can it as a roleplay, and turn it into a story. (Shameless plug for A&F.)
[8:33 PM] Ghant: Q11: No, because I don't believe that having more lore built up restricts your options. It expands them. Therefore in my mind, the more worldbuilding you've done, the more options you have to write about.
[8:33 PM] Zark: Q11: I rarely worldbuild up to such a point, personally.
[8:34 PM] Sunset: Q11: No, I believe that writing is the key expression of NS RP, so I prefer to worldbuild-through-writing, even if it's just in my news/maintenance thread.
[8:34 PM] Vocenae: Q11: While I personally have never had this problem as I frequently get feedback from other players on things I might feel are too 'dead ended', I have seen this problem many times in FT. More than a few players have come in trying very hard to be the most unique thing in the galaxy, and then end up writing themselves into a corner becaue there's just no possible way to interact on a meaningful level with whatever it is they've made.
[8:34 PM] Kyrusia: Q11: I wouldn't say "due to too much worldbuilding," but I have worldbuilt my way into a box with concepts that I then could not escape.
A previous FT entity I created, the Sciarviat Syndicate, was one such case. It required too much in the way of reliance on the willingness of others to exist. Namely, it was a trans-national, criminal enterprise; while I loved the world I built, it simply did not "fit" into the way most play FT; thus, it didn't work. By its characteristics and nature, I built myself into a box.
I keep it around for the occasional fluff, but have largely cannibalized portions of it for other things, re-working things I loved about it to work well in other worlds.
[8:34 PM] Gren: Re: rubber forehead aliens, I recall watching a cast retrospective for Voyager, and one of the things they said was that they were told that the human characters needed to be played a little '2 dimensionally', so that the alien characters would appear more 3 dimensional.
Q11: Definitely. Antediluvia is a case of that. We spent several weeks worldbuilding it, and then when the RP kicked off, it lasted about a week, and then died.
[8:35 PM] Vocenae: Case in point, someone came up with a faction of holograms that were actually echoes of a long dead civilization that could not act beyond what their original base pattern was capable of doing. That meant that player, while certainly creating something I hadn't seen in FT before, was essentially locked from doing anything with anyone else.
[8:35 PM] Swith: Clarification: Arts & Fiction is a subforum on NS.
Question 12 posed by Maltropia - "When would you defer to other players in creating your world, say, in a roleplay you're running, and how much freedom do you give them - in terms of both their own creations and your comfort zone?"[8:36 PM] Sunset: Q12: Train set analogy; If they are doing as much (or more) work, I'll give them as much (or more) credit and responsibility as well as impact.
[8:36 PM] Gren: Q12: If its something that's generally outside of my competency zone, though I do give them a general framework of what I'd like, but otherwise let them be.
[8:36 PM] Agy: Q12: Depends, generally I give them freedom with certain aspects but the overall premise is generally retained as mine.
[8:36 PM] Kyrusia: Q12: In an RP, especially one set in a world I have created, I tend to work in a pairing of collaboration and contextual clues to provide a general "feeling" of the world. This "feeling" provides the boundaries of an outer-permiter beyond which things begin to diverge from the setting or concept. Even so, it allows my collaborators to fill in the blanks, working within the strictures of that "feeling" (and its themes and motiffs), while not purely railroading them.
[8:36 PM] Ghant: Q12: I defer to other players quite often when it comes to the development of shared / mutual canon. I believe that being flexible and accommodating is a great way to establish a working relationship with worldbuilding partners, and so I like to be inclusive in the worldbuilding process.
[8:37 PM] Vocenae: Q12: That's a case by case basis for me. While I welcome individual interpretations of what things might look like to that player, I prefer to have my things fairly locked down. A player is free to describe the world as they see it through the eyes of a character, but adding or anything should always be cleared by the creator first.
[8:37 PM] Swith: Question Thirteen posed by rhodevus - "For Fantasy (and maybe sci-fi) how detailed should your system of magic be before you consider RPing it? Should it be fully fleshed out? Or have a couple lose ideas that you can develop over the course of an RP/story?" (This goes for nation worldbuilding, also.)[8:37 PM] Agy: Gonna pass on this one
[8:37 PM] Kyrusia: Q13: At the very least, any magical system needs a foundation of core, inviolable (or violable with caveats [preferably dangerous ones]) principles and characteritics. Any setting I have created magic for, however, I have tended to define its nature in pain-staking detail to avoid situations where others have tried to use magic as, well, a "magical cure" to break the boundaries of the setting itself.(edited)
[8:38 PM] Gren: Q13: A converse of Clarke's 3rd Law. Basically, magic that follows scientific themes.(edited)
[8:39 PM] Vocenae: Q13: Well, in FT we generally discourage players from using 'magic'. We typically tell people to disguise it through application of sciency technobabble, as just out and out saying 'yeah I can cast fireballs and have spellbooks typically ends with the player not getting many potential RP partners. As for science itself, if you don't understand something scientificially, then don't be afraid to handwave. Better to handwave than talk out your ass about something you don't know/understand. As for me personally, when working on a setting where actual magic is applicable, well, somewhat. I prefer my magic to be wild and uncontrollable and just a massive unknown, but sometimes you do have to lock certain kinds into certain themes for the sake of consistency within the setting.(edited)
[8:39 PM] Zark: Q13: I concur with Kyrusia, really. Make it as detailed as you will, but at the very least you need the basics down, or it's basically just one of those cheap "magic does anything" settings that nobody likes
[8:39 PM] Ghant: Q13: My best kept secret is that I've at times made vague references to magic and unexplainable occurances in my MT RPs. I tend to keep to loose ideas that can have magic exist in a very hazy cloud of ambiguity. Though if I were RPing in a FanT setting, I might establish it in a stronger fashion appropriate for that setting.
[8:39 PM] Swith: Question Fourteen posed by Eridani Imperium - "How do you deal with the situation where in your world, one race is much more "worldbuilded" than the others?"[8:40 PM] Gren: Q14: Correct it. Either as an OP, or as a player.
[8:41 PM] Zark: Q14: I would try to help the other person flesh out their race to bring it up to a good standard. Granted, this does not necessarily mean that the second person must match the first, but I do believe there should be a balance.
[8:41 PM] Sunset: Q14: Depends. If the player is well-meaning and engaged, I'll encourage them and work with them to do just that, encourage them to worldbuild-through-writing and copy it over to their factbook. If not, I'll make the offer but often its just a question of skill - developing or not caring.
[8:41 PM] Agy: Q14: worldbuild up the other races so interacting with them is just as compelling
[8:41 PM] Ghant: Q14: Since I primarly RP in "human only settings," that's not really an issue for me, although if I were RPing in FanT or FT, I think I would spend more time developing other races if I had them, or encourage others to do so by asking questions about them, which would give other writers a chance to talk about them and maybe think about them more than perhaps they did up to that point.
[8:41 PM] Vocenae: Q14: In a RP situation, you just focus on the more worldbuilt section for the sake of keeping the thread moving forward. If it's just a case of worldbuilding, then yeah, get outside input or seek help from other players. Maybe take a look at why you like the more world built section of your setting and what interests you about it, vs the lesser world built section and see if you are actually interested, or it just seemed like something you added for the sake of adding. If so, try to combine what you like about the lesser world built section into what you have extensively worked on and try to make them merge in a consistent way.(edited)
[8:42 PM] Kyrusia: Q14: I think it's just natural. It can - and should - be avoided, with as much worldbuilding as possible distributed across the world and its contents, but everyone has a preference and everyone knows who the key "actors," as it were, of their world are. There will always be bits "lacking," it's one reason worldbuilding is a never-ending process.
That being said, at the very least, one should work and toy with a given concept until at least its presentation seems equal of quality and characteristic as the others, even if "for the time being," it's backdrop is fairly lax. We all only have limited time, after all.
It also feeds into, "Write what you can keep in your head." Some can keep a lot and it be all functional, even if not worked to the same degree of pain-staking detail; others can't do such to the same degree.
[8:42 PM] Swith: Question Fifteen posed by Eridani Imperium - How much fudging of magical and other rules is acceptable in a established setting? (See: Elder Scrolls, Dragon Age, Mass Effect?)"[8:43 PM] Gren: Q15: No more than is believable.
[8:43 PM] Kyrusia: I do not work in established settings, so I will pass, spare to say it depends on the setting and the fan's view/attachment to such. (See: The Elder Scrolls and its copious amount of lore.)
[8:43 PM] Agy: Q15: As much as your audience will buy and still accept that its that setting
[8:44 PM] Ghant: Since this seems like a P2M question, I'll pass as well.
[8:44 PM] Zark: Q15: I don't tend to do franchise RPing a lot, but I believe that if you intend to do an accurate portrayal of the franchise in question, you should take care not to fudge the laws too greatly, or it becomes moot to have used that franchise in the first place.
[8:44 PM] Vocenae: Q15: If you're working in a setting with established rules and you're playing it straight, then you need to adhere to the rules established by the franchise. For example, if you're playing with Full MEtal Alchemist rules, then you have to play by what the FMA universe has established. You cannot stray from them, otherwise you're just writing bad fanfiction.(edited)
[8:44 PM] Swith: Question Sixteen posed by PM - "Is worldbuilding for P2TM different than worldbuilding for N&I? If so, what are the differences?"[8:45 PM] Agy: Q15: Pass, haven't done enough worldbuilding in N&I
[8:46 PM] Ghant: Q16: Pass, haven't done enough worldbuilding in P2M(edited)
[8:46 PM] Swith: Q16: Yes. In P2TM, you fashion and encapsulated world. All your players will make characters that fit with that encapsulated theme, be it a sandbox multiverse or a set genre like 40K. In N&I, you are creating an encapsulated nation, but it must be able to interact with other encapsulated nations. You have to be a little more open-minded, and willing to tinker with your canon/tech/ect to fit in with a RP you wish to partake in.
[8:47 PM] Kyrusia: Q16: In some ways, no. In others, yes.
I would say the biggest difference is thus... In P2TM - by-in-large - each thread "is its own world." Scrutiny of that world is often, with regards to the community, constrained to that thread. In N&I, one is, by its nature, playing in such a way as their whole IC existence - their country - is under constant scrutiny by the (sub-)community they wish to involve themselves in.
While standards exist in both, in N&I, those standards for specific things are applicable beyond a singular concept for a thread, but push against the player's existential concept in the IC world. Thus, in N&I, there are greater external pressures: one isn't simply trying to get a thread with participants that find the concept the thread is based on acceptable, but trying to get the very nature of a player's IC being to the point a (sub-)community-at-large finds agreeable and interesting across many different threads.
[8:48 PM] Vocenae: Q16: As I am not involved in Multiverse and stick strictly to II and the FT community, I'll have to pass. Though from an outsider persepctive, I'd say the biggest difference comes down to FT having a much clearer and defined community working towards creating a singular universe for players to run around in, vs the many different universes and communities at play within Multiverse.
[8:48 PM] Swith: Question Seventeen posed by Ched - "How safe is it to be inspired by another work or franchise before it starts becoming too similar to it when you're worldbuilding? Like for example, accidentally creating a Imperium of Man or Chaos clone from WH40k?" This is for both N&I and P2TM panelists.
.(edited)[8:50 PM] Swith: Q17: In P2TM, franchise roleplays are common. Just worry about keep integrity when you do it. Don't mix things unless it's intentional (a 'crossover' RP with Star Wars/Star Trek, for example).
[8:50 PM] Agy: Q17: I think it's safe. There is nothing new under the sun and being inspired or straight-up ripping off ideas isn't a bad thing as long as you acknowledge where your ideas come from and execute them well.
[8:50 PM] Zark: Q17: I think the key here is to make sure to put your own personal twist on every concept you borrow. If you take the time to do that, the differences will begin stacking up and you will surely end up with something quite different than the franchise you're inspired by.
[8:50 PM] Sunset: Q:17 We stand on the shoulders of giants.
[8:51 PM] Kyrusia: Q17: I'd say inspiration is fine, especially in the beginning, but players need to take care - in general, especially in N&I - to avoid "ripping" (or "copying and pasting"). One should aim to hit the flavor, but not the facts, in other words.
If I, for example, want to play across from the Imperium of Man, I'll call-up the local wargaming group. I, personally, look for players who do stand on the shoulders of giants, but don't spoon feed me their spittle.
[8:51 PM] Vocenae: Q17: It's fine to pull inspiration from different franchises like 40k, Halo, etc, but you should try as hard as you can to put your own spin on them. If you feel you're getting too close to a concept, find another player and ask them what they think, and be open to advice or being told "Yeah...this is a bit too much like {x}, you need to make some changes. I have a few ideas, maybe try doing this instead?"(edited)
[8:51 PM] Ghant: Q17: I think it's good to draw inspirations from other creative franchises, but you'll definately want it to be yours and have your own stamp on it. Therefore I think maybe drawing a few basic similarities when you're just starting off is good. You'll generally know it when you see it, if your material seems like a "rip" of something else.
[8:51 PM] Sunset: Q17: As an aside...
[8:52 PM] Sunset: I worry that ripping too directly from one franchise or another is a good way to get into OOC conflict with other players who may, or may not, like that particular franchise or your particular spin on it.
[8:53 PM] Swith: Sunset, you'd be surprised how often that happens in P2TM, also, when it comes to character designs.
[8:53 PM] Kyrusia: That is also a sometimes overlooked aspect vis-a-vis ripping. Some people just don't like shit in a gaming way, but are fine with the themes and flavors in different context.
[8:53 PM] Vocenae: ^
[8:53 PM] Swith: Question Eighteen posed Ched - "For N&I, what are some key questions a newcomer to an RP should ask about the game's setting before apping or translating their nation into it? Like what questions should you ask right away so you can properly tinker in the setting?"[8:53 PM] Agy: Q18: Pass, not enough exp up north
[8:54 PM] Kyrusia: Q18: Nation? I'm going to assume you mean "character" unless this is related to regions.
[8:54 PM] Sunset: Swith, as a follower of the saucers and nacelles... Happens to me often enough.
[8:54 PM] Kyrusia: Or do you mean things like the overall settings, like, "NS Earth" or "the [Milky Way] Galaxy"?
[8:54 PM] Swith: I've asked for clarification, Kyru.
[8:55 PM] Ghant: Q18: "What was the leadup to this RP? What can you tell me about any background information?" Those are the sorts of questions I ask, so I understand the context.
[8:55 PM] Swith: @kyru "Clarifying: like the Milky Way as Kyru put it"
[8:57 PM] Kyrusia: Q18: "Yes."
No, but seriously: what comes to mind, any and all. The easiest way to get into the overall tech-settings North of the Wall is to immerse yourself into the community, ask questions, and listen. Read threads, pick-up on the nuances between IC states, and ask about those nuances. You will be amazed by just how much you pick-up by bothering to express interest in general.
[8:57 PM] Vocenae: Q18: Well, if you're transplanting a nation or setting from, say, Multiverse to FT, then it's probably just easier to try to make something built to exist in FT that is separate from what you've built for Multiverse. This really goes for anything that has been built in a different community and being moved to another, or bringing stuff that you made apart from Nationstates into Nationstates, stuff built in a vacuum typically doesn't do well otherwise. There's been several players in FT that have built nations in their own offline universe that port them over and then said nations typically implode from cultureshock, more or less.
[8:57 PM] Swith: Question Ninteen posed by Eridani Imperium - "As the worldbuilder, how would you deal with the issue of a race with the capability of living over a thousand years? As in writing em?"[8:59 PM] Ghant: Q19: Pass :stuck_out_tongue:
[8:59 PM] Agy: Q19: Think about what's important to you. Now think about what you do with things when you realize they aren't important.
Now think about how much more trivial those things would seem if you lived for a thousand years. Consider how boring it would get and how individuals in this race would find meaning over the course of their lives.
Consider how they approach death, so rare and alien to them. Build your characters around strong reactions to certain experiences and almost no reaction to others.
[8:59 PM] Zark: Q19: I think one vital aspect that should be taken into account is how much of our worldview, our customs and our way of thinking is affected by the idea we have of our own mortality, whether directly or indirectly. For a race that long lived, how would they spend their time? Would they be as driven to accomplish their life goals as we do? How would murder be viewed in such a society, when the time robbed is much greater than ours? What about suicide? I think all of these questions, if a little morbid, can provide a good guideline to writing a species with that kind of longevity.
[9:00 PM] Ghant: Actually I take that back. As a reader, one of the things I always found fascinating about the God Emperor of Dune was how living that long affected Leto mentally and emotionally.
[9:00 PM] Kyrusia: Q19: Carefully, or don't.
This, at least for me personally, falls into the range of things where if you're not entirely sure you can pull it off, you might not want to try until you get some time, experience, and practice under your belt. Delving into the nuances of, say, an exceptionally long-lived character can be hard, especially when the player in question by default cannot experience the same trials and tribulations at scale.
In the case of long-lived characters, however, you need to be wary and careful not to turn it into an angst-ridden festival of self-pity and psuedo-reflection. Existential angst happens, and should happen when a multi-hundred year-old character is introspective, but they still - presumably - have a life to live. Namely, though, you'd need to focus on how their lives are impacted - especially if they are surrounded by those who do not share their prolonged senseasence.
[9:01 PM] Vocenae: Q19: The longer your species lives, generally the harder it is to play them. Also what Kyrusia said.
[9:01 PM] Swith: Question Twenty posed by PM - "How important is religion to your worldbuilding?"[9:02 PM] Agy: Q20: As important as any other cultural factor. Religion impacts social, economic, and political events. Give it the consideration it demands and your world will seem that much more realistic and compelling
[9:02 PM] Gren: Q20: Depends on the setting.
[9:02 PM] Ghant: Q20: It's somewhat important for historical reasons in my nation, but otherwise it varies widely depending on the nation in question or the RP setting.
[9:03 PM] Kyrusia: Q20: WEEEEEE!!!!!
Girlish excitement aside: it will depend upon how important religion is to the world you are creating, while also keeping in mind - again - that socities are not monolithic. Even a largely atheistic society will have members within it that have questions or thoughts relating to the supernal. Similarly, in a raw theocracy, some will just not give a shit - even if there are laws requiring one to "give a shit" (as largely unenforceable as they are, in certain ways).
[9:03 PM] Zark: Q20: I often give it a lot of weight when building up a new world or civilization, though not always.
[9:03 PM] Vocenae: Q20: For my nation in FT, it's a secular state so I don't have to worry about it. For other projects however, yeah, it's a pretty much thing to incorporate and I tend to spend a lot of time researching different religions in order to better understand concepts that I might be trying to approach with the religion I am building. For example, long ago I tried something involving Mani wheels, or prayer wheels from Asian religions. So to better understand them I spent a lot of time reading up on them so I could better represent them, or my own take of them.,.(edited)
[9:04 PM] Ghant: Religion is important in my nation's history and has in many ways shaped the way the nation is in the present day. That's probably the case with many nations, whether they're as religious as maybe they once were, or not as much :stuck_out_tongue:
[9:05 PM] Swith: Question Twenty-One posed by PM, missed by the earlier panel due to time - "How do you approach worldbuilding for your nation? Do you start with an element or idea, such as 'I want bionic sophont shrews' and build off that, or do you lay down a frame and add elements. For example, when I initially build a new nation, I use Ponderosa's factbook template in order to fill in pertinent items."(edited)[9:05 PM] Swith: [Note to panelists. Storm here. If I vanish, we've lost power.]
[9:06 PM] Ghant: Q21: I started with a concept for what I thought it would look like, and had some general overarching themes in mind. I looked at various sources for inspiration and melded them with my own unique ideas.
[9:07 PM] Vocenae: Q21: When starting a new nation, I personally start from a geographical aspect and work from there. Such as with planets, I prefer cold, rugged worlds, so I do a little research on the type of environment I want it to have, and then go to town. When it comes to adding things to my nation, it could just be anything that I think is interesting and so long as it fits with my established aesthetic then I'll try to work on it and add my own little spin before incorporating it.(edited)
[9:07 PM] Kyrusia: Q21: Depends upon my mood. Sometimes, if I am struggling to collate ideas but know largely what I want, I will take a more formulaic approach (such as a factbook notes session). Other times, it is simply a free-flow of thought given proto-typical form and then sculpted down to a concrete concept.
Honestly, I tend to worldbuild from individual moments: a scene in a market and a single conversation, how someone might look in a given setting, a broad feeling (or feelings), an aesthetic, etc.
Beyond that, I find worldbuilding with others as a whiteboard being exceptionally fulfilling: talking with those I trust and work-well with, and simply turning the faucet of ideas on and letting them flow.
[9:08 PM] Agy: Q21: I generally start with an interesting element or idea and I build from there. I fill in details as I go, hell to this day I have some nations with basic details still not filled in because I never got around to it.
[9:08 PM] Sunset: Q21: Can I write a post about it? Or is it just something shiny to have for the sake of shiny? If I can't churn out something semi-respectable post-wise and thus story-wise, I should probably skip it. But sometimes don't. <.<
[9:08 PM] Swith: Question Twenty-Two Posed by Eridani Imperium - "Have the panelists ever run into a hard time writing a nation leader's background during worldbuilding? If so,how did they get past it?"(edited)[9:10 PM] Kyrusia: Q22: Waiting until the time was right. For such an important (usually) character, I don't try and force myself. I wait until my muse speaks, then exploit those moments for all they are worth. Otherwise, I may work on characters, settings, or concepts in proximity to them or their lifetime, working backwards from the frame of a character's portrait.
[9:10 PM] Agy: Q22: All the time, building interesting national leaders is hard. I generally make them interesting by figuring out how they would get to power and building a lot of traits and personality around that.
In my countries, very rarely are leaders boring pencil pushers who suck up to their bosses :stuck_out_tongue:
[9:10 PM] Vocenae: Q22: I typically don't define my national leaders, simply because that's an aspect (and given the rather uncommon Nation v Nation interaction that takes place within the FT community) that I don't find interesting. Instead I prefer to create my characters on the fly or with very little backstory from the level of a common, normal person. When I do, I typically let the situation that they have been created for define who they are. Characters that are created and written on impulse tend to be, for me, much more fun and interesting that characters who have been constructed to fill a bullet point list of personal events and archetypes before they've actually been created.(edited)
[9:10 PM] Ghant: Q22: I have, plenty of times, be they elected leaders or monarchs. I eventually got passed it by just thinking about what kinds of people they are in the present, and then backtracking from there into their past to try to figure out an organic character evolution.
[9:10 PM] Swith: Question Twenty-Three posed by Maltropia - "Someone once said "change is inevitable." How do you introduce and write change into an established world and culture?"[9:11 PM] Agy: Q23: I would roleplay major changes out. Make it organic and spontaneous and interesting by collaborating with others.
[9:11 PM] Swith: [20 Minutes remain, panelists]
[9:12 PM] Ghant: Q23: Gradually. I think that change takes time and it's interesting to see an organic evolution from one state to another. It takes time, no doubt, but at thet same time it provides plenty of writing opportunities.
[9:12 PM] Kyrusia: Q23: Depends on the catalyst(s), direction, and "vectors" of the change. Civil disobedience against a poorly-favored policy (catalyst) leading to a civil war by some impoverished group (vector) toward the state's leadership (direction - bottom-to-top), will have different characteristics and impetus than an invading party (vector) being pissed off at some slight (catalyst) and thus invading (direction - out, in).(edited)
[9:12 PM] Sunset: Q23: Randomly and when it's funny. There's nothing like writing a long post and at the end of it the character dies in one of those unpredictable but predictable ways because what I've written just calls for it to happen.
[9:13 PM] Vocenae: Q23: For a nation/setting that is built to RP, change is indeed inevitable. Sometimes it is a slow change where a nation could find itself in a position of prominence due to, say, markets flowing in that nations favor. Other times a nation can change drastically and for the worse if someone say, drops a space elevator onto a crowded city. You have to approach this as organically as any nation could, based on the culture you've created for said nation. Does it freak the hell out, does it go full defense mode and lock everything down? So on and so forth(edited)
[9:13 PM] Swith: Question Twenty-Four posed by Ceneria - "Are there any strategies you would recommend in altering an already-built world in order to allow others to interact with it, most particularly for outside players RPing with a country within a closed-canon region?"(edited)[9:14 PM] Agy: Q24: Pass
[9:15 PM] Ghant: Q24: Santh the other night talked about creating "hooks" that other players can grab on to. Creating various opportunities in your national history or in the present day that other players can interact with. I think that applies both in open and closed worlds, though obvious with closed worlds, there are fewer other writers that you can do that with.
[9:17 PM] Kyrusia: Q24: This can be difficult, as the nature of closed-canon does not necesarily reflect (and often doesn't reflect at all) the same stresses, triggers, and externalities - both IC and OOC - of those from without (and vice versa, for that matter). Someone has to give something at some point, otherwise things are just not going to work.
You can try the "colony" approach, where one party is "disconnected" from its core and exists solely within the canon and continuity of the participatory realm. One can try leaving "hooks," as Ghant described, but as also noted, in some instances, there's simply not a lot of room for such. Otherwise, you may find a circumstance where it simply doesn't work for one reason or another and have to decide for yourself how to handle that.
[9:17 PM] Vocenae: Q24: Well, my advice would be to not, really. Something built outside of established canon typically won't mesh well. You'll always be struggling to adapt what you've built and incorporated into the fabric of your nation into what all these other people have built together. The best you can do in that situation, if you're dead set on keeping your nation and not just building something new that better fits what they've already done is to just listen to any advice being given by the players of that group and resigning yourself to making the changes needed in order to adapt. Hence it's just easier to make something new.
[9:17 PM] Swith: Question Twenty-Five Skip it!(edited)
[9:18 PM] Kyrusia: Repeat question is repeat.
[9:18 PM] Vocenae: ^
[9:18 PM] Ghant: Q25: See question 22 :stuck_out_tongue:
[9:18 PM] Swith: Yes it is. Let me amend that. Was the wrong one.
[9:18 PM] Kyrusia: x]
[9:18 PM] Swith: Question Twenty-Five posed by Ched - "What part of a species or nation's evolution intrigues you the most, and what kind of facts do you add to make it all the more interesting to you?"[9:20 PM] Ghant: Q25: What the nation as a whole has learned about itself throughout its IC existence. Has its past experiences made it more sympathetic towards certain causes, more aware of certain issues? Things of that nature. The so called "national consciousness."
[9:20 PM] Kyrusia: Q25: Honestly? This can vary for me from moment to moment as my creative focus and drive meanders from one aspect to the next. I think having a good history that creates a rationale for their/its mindset, however, is probably one of the most important bits - be it species, nation, or character. You need a chain of causation that produces the end-goal of what your mind's eye is seeing, and it needs to make reasonable sense and be internally self-consistent.(edited)
[9:20 PM] Agy: Q25: Social and class resistance, being a marxist. I love exploring social resistance movements in my nations fiction, and I make them a mainstay of my worldbuilding.
[9:21 PM] Vocenae: Q25: It all depends on what kind of nation I'm building. For Vocenae, it's seeing how changes affect this rather monolithic style nation that really doesn't like things that change beyond it's control. It just varies.
[9:21 PM] Gren: Q25: Its technological innovation.
[9:21 PM] Swith: Q25: physiology, as it plays into my degree. :stuck_out_tongue:
[9:21 PM] Swith: Question Twenty-Six posed by Eridani Imperium - "Seaking of falling space elevators, how do you weave in a world-shaking event into your lore?"[9:22 PM] Agy: Q26: ROLEPLAY IT.
If its that crazy and world-shaking, it'll make for a hell of a game.
[9:22 PM] Gren: Q26: Depends on the event in question. If its a hurricane, you build it up slowly. If its an asteroid, give no warning.
[9:22 PM] Ghant: Q26: Roleplay it in a thread. Build up to it, present it gradually, and then roleplay the consequences and fallout of that world-shaking event.
[9:23 PM] Kyrusia: Q26: I must admit, I am a fan of the "SUDDENLY IT HAPPENED!" and then working backwards from the act in the narrative, exposing the build-up in storytelling after the event itself has occurred, but I admit this doesn't always work - and largely only works in events one desires to exploit the (narrative) element of surprise.(edited)
[9:23 PM] Swith: Q26: usually, it's a footnote in my lore. I craft a bit of history around it, such as how certain groups reacted, or riots. However it's lore. If it's current events, it gets roleplayed out.
[9:23 PM] Vocenae: Q26: For that specific event, it was a planned part of a longer stroyline with the player that caused it. The elevator collapsing was designed as a catalyst for another part of said storyline and how my nation reacted to it. For past events that happen to your nation that you created specifically for it, you explore how said event changes your nation, the repurcussions and so forth. For example, if I was, say Cyrodil, and suddenly Oblivion gates opened up everywhere, I would probably have a abject and very strong hatred for all magic users.(edited)
[9:24 PM] Kyrusia: :flaming_elevator:
[9:24 PM] Swith: Question Twenty-Seven posed by Rhodevus - "What would you say is the strangest thing you have put into your worldbuilding?"(edited)[9:25 PM] Vocenae: Q27: For the IStaR? Probably the concept of a AI using the hardware of her previous incarnations as a body. And being revulsed, as revulsed as an AI can be, that she was essentially wearing her 'sisters' as clothing or a second skin.(edited)
[9:25 PM] Kyrusia: Q27: Probably not the strangest, but it's there: the fact sex workers (Keep it PG-13 people! It can be done!) have a name that translates to, roughly, "Traders Between Silk."
[9:26 PM] Swith: Q27: organic body pillows. They look like stunted intestines, if such things glowed softly and felt like fleece... but they keep you warm, and coo as you snuggle them.
[9:26 PM] Kyrusia: Kill it with :fire:.
[9:26 PM] Gren: Q27: Not me, but Tigger once included a reference to Tunak Tunak Tun and Nightkill setting random fires in Durban during a mission in Excalibur.(edited)
[9:26 PM] Agy: Q27: Hm... Well I'm eventually going to integrate some FT stuff from Swiths world into my PMT nation so... Probably giant farmed floating squids :stuck_out_tongue:
[9:26 PM] Ghant: Q27: The strangest thing I've put into my worldbuilding I think would be the magic and occult references that exist. There can certainly seem to be some Lovecraftian aspects to it, and somehow I've thus far been able to get away with it in Hard MT settings :stuck_out_tongue:
[9:27 PM] Swith: Oh, I forgot about the floating squids! Kyru should kill those with fire, too.
[9:27 PM] Vocenae: Q27: For other projects it can just vary depending on the genre I'm working in. Like earlier today I was working on something that involved royal jelly and the consumption of it, so for me, that felt pretty weird.
[9:27 PM] Kyrusia: has not!locusts the size of VW Buses.
[9:27 PM] Kyrusia: The not!police use them as mounts. :stuck_out_tongue:
[9:28 PM] Vocenae: Q27: I suppose working on designer drugs involving the IStaR is something else I would consider pretty weird, for my stuff.
[9:28 PM] Kyrusia: Needs more Synth.
[9:29 PM] Zark: Q27: I don't know if it properly addresses the question, but I have had to get very creative with the clothing of certain species at times
[9:29 PM] Swith: FINAL QUESTION What's the best piece of advice you can give to someone that has never tried to worldbuild before?[9:29 PM] Kyrusia: FQ: Try.
m_aye2
[9:29 PM] Sunset: Q27: The marsh squids. They have one hole for in, one hole for out, and 'talk' by putting a flute-like instrument in the out-hole and... Well, blowing.(edited)
[9:29 PM] Vocenae: Q28: Don't be afraid to ask for help, and be receptive to both criticism and the need for change if something just isn't working. Bad Ideas can happen, and just because they don't fit with this particular worldbuild, doesn't mean they won't work for another.(edited)
m_aye6
[9:30 PM] Agy: Q28: Go wild. Build first, edit later. Better to be fucking weird as shit than boring and safe(edited)
[9:30 PM] Gren: I agree with Vocenae.(edited)
[9:30 PM] Ghant: Q28: Start with a vision for the setting, and then work on the details from there in order to bring that vision to life!
[9:31 PM] Sunset: Q28: Do both. Build and write; If you can't write what you build it's good to know quickly. If you -love- what you're writing, you'll build more.(edited)
m_aye2
[9:31 PM] Swith: Thank you all for your participation! This wraps up tonight's 9PM panel. Our upcoming schedule is:
Friday, July 14th, 2017
Community Questions and Closing Thoughts (Broad Panel) — 12PM Eastern
They're Here: Modball Panel (Oddball #3) — 8PM Eastern
NS Roleplay Symposium 2017
TOPIC: "Worldbuilding and Related”
TIME: COMPLETED
and worldbuilder.
and worldbuilder.
but most of the RPs I've participated in as of late are slow-moving, so there's quite a bit of time to worldbuild.
".(edited)
