Context.

I'm in a fandom RPG, and everyone seems to have joined on because they love some particular aspect about the fandom and not it as a whole. The GM appears to be trying to emulate the gameplay rather then the story of the series and refuses to listen to the players who appear to be clamoring for story and characters rather then gameplay.

Rant.

Why the hell can't you listen to your players when you're running a game? Why are we only allowed to have fun within ze designated area? Why are you trying to drag us through your plot like we're sheep moving from a new pen, then dumping us in a box of literal sand and telling us to make our own fun? Why are you trying to simulate a videogame we've all played rather then give us the feeling of the world and building on the lore? And most importantly, why are you trying to force your players into your plot rather then the other way round? Already we're having people talk back to the GM and refuse to follow your instructions, and instead of letting this kind of thing go you're pushing back against your OWN DAMN PLAYERS.

And this is meant to be the first of many RPs with maybe six players and two GMs, and two players already want to throw in the towel.

Gonna be fun.

I've been a RPer for over a decade now and here are a couple that come to mind.

The Deserter

RPer A makes a RP request thread (of a certain fandom, idea, etc) for RPer B to express interest and the two start plotting. After sharing ideas, the two agree to finally start what seems to be a promising RP. RPer A writes an good quality over quantity, starter and awaits excitingly for RPer B to reply so the RP can officially start. And so A waits and waits and waits before finally messaging B who either flat out ignores him or says how they are too busy at the moment to reply even though it's been close to a week since A started the RP.

More to the point; What is the purpose of expressing interest (whether you are the GM or the partner) in a RP only to never carry through? I'm mainly talking about 1/1 as if your partner drops out, your RP is done if you cannot replace them. It's just so frustrating and I've encountered it time after time again and again site to site. I'm currently dealing with it now, and while I'm open minded to my partners' personal life, I find it a bit rude and terribly frustrating that our RP has been sitting for almost 4 days untouched even after my partner gave promises to reply soon. I get sometimes stuff happens or come sup where we can only post from our phones, and how hard it can be to give a good quality post, I truly get that. However, that isn't an excuse to never reply to the RP. (In the events it's your only means of RPing for the time being, that is.) It's even MORE aggravating when they give you every excuse in the book yet you can clearly seem them online, replying to all their other RPs... like why? When your muse is so high for a certain type of RP and you finally have found a partner that in turn, doesn't deliver, it is the worst ever. It's like a little kid knowing they got the bike they've always wanted, but can't have it till their birthday that is months away. It's mental torture because it's so close yet so far away! I've always loved when a partner goes 3+ days without posting and either comes back to say "Sorry, I was away" or how they lacked a muse. That's all fine, but PLEASE tell me! It's just out of respect to tell your partner that you will be away for several days while if it is lack of muse, let's talk about it in the OOC. Instead I'm stuck sitting, wondering if my partner has dropped the RP or not.

Filler Writing

Quality over quantity writing are both needed, but the player must handle them correctly. I'm someone who would much rather read a single, detailed paragraph of my partner's characters POV rather than 3 broken up paragraphs that focus's on small talk of side character activates, and meaningless chatter because that's when it becomes filler writing and I view it as an excuse to make it seem like you put a lot of thought into your reply when really, you just wasted my time going on an on about how your characters sister was busy making the breakfast that morning.

That being said, I can enjoy quantity just as much as quality, but give me something good to read. Side characters are much needed to help progress a story, but instead of merely writing that Susie, your characters sister, was making breakfast that morning; maybe have Susie interact with other characters?

"Susie, Tom's sister, was busy making the breakfast as he walked down the stairs. Pots and pans boiling with yummy aroma's filled his nostrils as she greeted him with a smile and glass of orange juice. "Hey there, funny face. How did you sleep?" The brunette asked as she continued flipping the flapjacks. Susie was always one for cooking, something Tom was thankful for as he wasn't much of a cook."

No only did I clarify that Susie enjoyed cooking, but I was able to have Tom reflect on the matter while also mentioning how their surroundings smelled and giving slight insight on to Susie's looks via her hair. I didn't go on about how she was wearing an red dress under an kitchen apron because in the long run, it didn't matter and that's when it can become filler, to me at least. I know some writers and readers very much enjoy getting every detail down, but I can assure you someone like me will start to fall asleep if you devote a whole section to talk about Susie's looks and how her eyes were like "orbs of blue"

The last thing I need to comment on in regards to this matter is don't let posting length hold you back. If someone gives you a good quality post of 3 paragraphs, but you honestly only feel the need to write one that would do it justice - That's OK! As is taking the reins to reply with 3 paragraphs to your partner's single paragraph in hopes of moving the story. Too many times (good quality or not) do I see writers getting in the habit of "I give what I get" and that's when your RP starts getting into trouble. Giving good single quality posts is fine, but that's all your RP is going to be - Short replies mainly of your characters POV. Don't be afraid to write other actions or state other ideas while also writing as other characters! Trust me, I love when someone really captures their characters thoughts and feelings, but if that's all you're giving me, Tom and Susie are still going to be in the kitchen 10 replies later because all you've done is wrote POV instead of trying to move the story along thus causing a standstill.

I feel better now.

that feel when you have so much inspirations to RP, then you feel dead creatively.

I don't like it when people obsess over katanas and don't give European longswords or any other non Asian blade a shot. Seriously Asians aren't the only great warriors and it's ignorant to think so

I don't like it when people obsess over katanas and don't give European longswords or any other non Asian blade a shot. Seriously Asians aren't the only great warriors and it's ignorant to think so

But "science" has proven that samurai can kill vikings in all combat instances! Nevermind the fact that those tested weren't even half the weapons that either one of them used and that they pit a single elite feudal commander up against a single standard military unit! Samurai, Ninjas, and Shaolin are the best and the only Asian warriors to ever exist in history! Mongols, Chinese knights, and Korean sailors are mere Hollywood inventions that were all inferior in every way! Japan conquered all of Asia during the medieval times because they were so unequalled in war!

<Snipped quote by Weird Tales>

But "science" has proven that samurai can kill vikings in all combat instances! Nevermind the fact that those tested weren't even half the weapons that either one of them used and that they pit a single elite feudal commander up against a single standard military unit! Samurai, Ninjas, and Shaolin are the best and the only Asian warriors to ever exist in history! Mongols, Chinese knights, and Korean sailors are mere Hollywood inventions that were all inferior in every way! Japan conquered all of Asia during the medieval times because they were so unequalled in war!

are you joking around or being serious? Using a viking in a fight against a samurai is unbalanced and unfair, a knight is a way better comparison.

Not one statement there was serious as far as I can tell. O.O

<Snipped quote by Weird Tales>

But "science" has proven that samurai can kill vikings in all combat instances! Nevermind the fact that those tested weren't even half the weapons that either one of them used and that they pit a single elite feudal commander up against a single standard military unit! Samurai, Ninjas, and Shaolin are the best and the only Asian warriors to ever exist in history! Mongols, Chinese knights, and Korean sailors are mere Hollywood inventions that were all inferior in every way! Japan conquered all of Asia during the medieval times because they were so unequalled in war!

Preach it, brother! We shall strike like darting dragons with pure Nippon steel teeth and cut asunder the feeble armors of all that oppose us!

Hint: Yeah, Sombrero's not being serious at all. I think he's talking about Deadliest Warrior, where pseudo-science (if it's even that) was used to determine that a Viking would lose to a Samurai in a 1v1 fight. The katana was shown on that episode to be unable to do any significant damage to chainmail... because that's not what Japanese swords are designed to cut. And apparently Vikings don't use bows, but instead hurl super huge spears or something.

I forget the details, but the TL;DR is that Sombrero was joking and Deadliest Warrior is really, really silly. Extraordinarily silly. Great warriors and great fighting techniques came about all over the world.

<Snipped quote by Sombrero>

are you joking around or being serious? Using a viking in a fight against a samurai is unbalanced and unfair, a knight is a way better comparison.

I'm not joking one bit! Ignore any heathenous hobbits that may tell you otherwise! Japan is literally the best country in the world, politically, economically, culturally, and socially, and there is literally no evidence to refute that. The country is well known for its far-reaching and progressive, peaceful history. They have an indomitable military, unequalled toilets, and I live my life by the Bushido code, which I follow 100%.

Really, though, I am.

<Snipped quote by Weird Tales>

I'm not joking one bit! Ignore any heathenous hobbits that may tell you otherwise! Japan is literally the best country in the world, politically, economically, culturally, and socially, and there is literally no evidence to refute that. The country is well known for its far-reaching and progressive, peaceful history. They have an indomitable military, unequalled toilets, and I live my life by the Bushido code, which I follow 100%.

Really, though, I am.

Except of its aging status.

The Japs need to get some babies goin.

I don't like it when people obsess over katanas and don't give European longswords or any other non Asian blade a shot. Seriously Asians aren't the only great warriors and it's ignorant to think so

Guilty of this, although I am starting to look at European Armings/Hand-and-a-halves for primary weapons now. Simply put, thanks to Anime, Katanas have far more exposure than European Swords (therefore easier to find pictures of). That being said-- In real life situation I'd prefer a European Sword over a Katana.

<Snipped quote by Sombrero>

Except of its aging status.

The Japs need to get some babies goin.

There's a few... Interesting rants about why this isn't happening in the comments of GaijinGoomba's video about simdates.

Guilty of this, although I am starting to look at European Armings/Hand-and-a-halves for primary weapons now. Simply put, thanks to Anime, Katanas have far more exposure than European Swords (therefore easier to find pictures of). That being said-- In real life situation I'd prefer a European Sword over a Katana.

Something feels really off about this whole thing. I mean, one of the biggest katana movies on this side of the pond was Highlander, but only 9 years later, the definitive movie about actual Highlanders came out, and Braveheart wielded a Claymore. It smells a bit like the illuminati prefers European swords to me, which must mean that Katanas are better sheerly from a moral standpoint. Katana wielders obviously would have a resistance towards this obvious subliminal messaging...

<Snipped quote by VKAllen>

There's a few... Interesting rants about why this isn't happening in the comments of GaijinGoomba's video about simdates.

<Snipped quote by VKAllen>

Something feels really off about this whole thing. I mean, one of the biggest katana movies on this side of the pond was Highlander, but only 9 years later, the definitive movie about actual Highlanders came out, and Braveheart wielded a Claymore. It smells a bit like the illuminati prefers European swords to me, which must mean that Katanas are better sheerly from a moral standpoint. Katana wielders obviously would have a resistance towards this obvious subliminal messaging...

#2spooky4me
#2honorabru4u
#3swag5dis

Something feels really off about this whole thing. I mean, one of the biggest katana movies on this side of the pond was Highlander, but only 9 years later, the definitive movie about actual Highlanders came out, and Braveheart wielded a Claymore. It smells a bit like the illuminati prefers European swords to me, which must mean that Katanas are better sheerly from a moral standpoint. Katana wielders obviously would have a resistance towards this obvious subliminal messaging...

There's also the Crusades between 1096 to 1487. They were fought with European Weapons as well and is considered to be aligned with (grossly assuming) God.

The flip side of Katanas would also be the cursed sword Masamune.

<Snipped quote by Sombrero>
There's also the Crusades between 1096 to 1487. They were fought with European Weapons as well and is considered to be aligned with (grossly assuming) God.

Well, it was kinda sorta about pope feuds, vengeful Byzantines, and landgrabbing, but you'd have a hard time convincing any of the psychos who fought for the Christians that it was about anything other than redemption and righteous, holy vengeance. It was aligned with mobs and madness, for the most part.

Back on topic:
I really, really, hate Varg Vikernes.

Something feels really off about this whole thing. I mean, one of the biggest katana movies on this side of the pond was Highlander, but only 9 years later, the definitive movie about actual Highlanders came out, and Braveheart wielded a Claymore. It smells a bit like the illuminati prefers European swords to me, which must mean that Katanas are better sheerly from a moral standpoint. Katana wielders obviously would have a resistance towards this obvious subliminal messaging...

Tell me you're joking about that, swear that you are, or I will end you using facts and mildly harsh wording.

<Snipped quote by Sombrero>

Tell me you're joking about that, swear that you are, or I will end you using facts and mildly harsh wording.

Ask your typical 'Murican/Non-UK Native to name a movie about Scottish people. Your response will either be Goldfinger or Braveheart, unfortunately. It is about as historically accurate as Inglorious Bastards *RERAILMENT* Varg Vikernes' vision of medieval Europe, but I meant that it was definitive regarding the portrayal of Scotts, not actually a definitive source of Scottish history.

On the topic of weapons, armor and the VS between who has the better armaments. Weapons and Armor don't mean squat if the wielder isn't well versed in their use. Assuming you have two masters of their craft, meeting on neutral ground with all the weapons they'd normally use. That's what i call a scripted encounter. Where it's nigh impossible for such an instance to happen.

Science advanced each countries technology to match the opponents they would typically face. While some armies where highly successful with fewer advances in technology they also had great tactics and favorable circumstances. In the real world, rarely does anything ever work according to Plan A. By the time they win they're using Plan D or H.

Katanas. HAHAHA! They are not super weapons. They're made of earth found metals. They're not alien nor supernatural, and they do have limitations. Katanas are piercing and slashing weapons. Worn as a sign of social status and far to expensive for most common soldiers to even purchase. This is nothing new to any common soldier, European soldiers fighting for kings had basic weapons, maybe a woodcutting axe, or a hammer. Sometimes a shield or buckler. Any high ranking soldier had access to better arms and gear, this has always been the truth. If I was paid more I'd buy lifesaving gear. Proper swords, some good armor. A shield that's not made from a table.

Japanese armor was well built to withstand piercing and slashing. From Katanas. And every armor has it's weakness, and professional soldiers knew how to exploit those weaknesses.

There's no clear winner with regard to who has the better gear. Experienced masters would try and exploit any weaknesses they can find, and if the other is killed it's because the other utilized their skills quicker.

That's my rant. I'm no weapons expert but there are clear things one can see just by stepping back and looking. And I am aware of many different weapons and armor. Each will be made for a specific purpose, against enemies a country usually faces. And trying to force an encounter between two fictional soldiers who've never would have met in a real world setting would net so many variables that it's become nearly impossible to judge without bias.

There's no clear winner with regard to who has the better gear.

I don't think there's ever really a 'winner'. There are so many billions of variables that swords and martial arts tend to balance each other out. Training helps, but when it comes down to it, 1v1 fights are a mere roll of the dice between two sets of odds. Sometimes people have drastically better odds, but two people who are really good at what they're doing, even when they're using drastically different things, is like comparing apples to oranges. Yes, some are better at their martial art than others, and that's slightly more measurable, but comparing two martial arts that have endured the test of time in order to definitively tell which one is better is kind of, well, not super plausible. There is never any guarantee that someone or something will kick ass, it's a matter of luck, fitness, (which is so impossible to measure on its own that I don't even know how D.W. can even claim to try without making asses of themselves,) skills, and so on and so forth, all the way down to the weather. All anyone can really say is that practice helps.

Katanas. HAHAHA! They are not super weapons. They're made of earth found metals. They're not alien nor supernatural, and they do have limitations. Katanas are piercing and slashing weapons. Worn as a sign of social status and far to expensive for most common soldiers to even purchase. This is nothing new to any common soldier, European soldiers fighting for kings had basic weapons, maybe a woodcutting axe, or a hammer. Sometimes a shield or buckler. Any high ranking soldier had access to better arms and gear, this has always been the truth. If I was paid more I'd buy lifesaving gear. Proper swords, some good armor. A shield that's not made from a table.

Okay, so, let me clear something up: swords weren't super duper expensive in Europe. You're right about swords being a status symbol, but it's not because they were super expensive.

The first thing to remember when you talk about medieval weapons of war is most of these weapons are derived from a tool used for another purpose. A warhammer is derived from the common hammer; a spear could be used for hunting, as could a bow and arrow; a battleaxe is derived from the more common woodcutting axe. Daggers and knives could be used for more than killing, as could slings, and a shield is really just a means of protecting yourself from injury.

But a sword? A sword has one purpose, and that purpose is to take life away from other humans.

Swords weren't especially expensive, as I said. A regular footsoldier or a peasant in the medieval era could get his hands on one. The real question is whether or not he could waltz around town wearing one without being eyeballed weirdly. After all, what's some jumped up peasant doing with a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill? Shouldn't that right belong to knights? To wealthy men?

Weapons in general weren't all that uncommon. Actual usable spears, axes, shields, and, yes, swords weren't far from the hands of any army. Armor was the tougher thing to get your hands on, at least in the early medieval era. Vikings wearing chainmail were much rarer than Vikings wearing little to no armor. Footsoldiers throughout a lot of medieval history would be considered fortunate to have a gambeson or some padded cloth with metal rivets underneath. You can be darned sure, though, that a proper footsoldier would probably have a spear and a dagger thrust into his hands, or maybe a shield and something to whack someone with.

Training helps, but when it comes down to it, 1v1 fights are a mere roll of the dice between two sets of odds. Sometimes people have drastically better odds, but two people who are really good at what they're doing, even when they're using drastically different things, is like comparing apples to oranges. Yes, some are better at their martial art than others, and that's slightly more measurable, but comparing two martial arts that have endured the test of time in order to definitively tell which one is better is kind of, well, not super plausible.

This is very true, and I think it's worth mentioning that medieval warfare was centered around the siege because battles could result in a loss. You only fought battles if you were pretty damned sure you could win.

1v1 fights, I think, are much the same. You don't want to fight someone of near to equal skill because even an untrained fighter could kill you with a bit of luck. You want to have every advantage possible when fighting someone.

That said, some equipment is outright better than other equipment... in certain situations. I'd rather have a warhammer or mace than a battle axe if I'm fighting a guy wearing plate armor, for instance. I'd rather have a saber than a shortsword if I'm going into a 1v1 duel between two guys wearing little to no armor. And I think if I was witnessing a knight in plate armor go up against a samurai in medieval Japanese armor, I'd much rather bet my money on the guy in plate armor because it's designed to deflect weapons like the katana.

But if you took that same knight and samurai and put them in a hot environment where they had to take their armor off, I'd wager the samurai would have a much better chance than before of beating the knight.