Who is this guy and why does he think he can tell me how to GM

It seems a lot of people and myself think alike in this context, and it is clear that Theodorable does not have any sort of majority backing in his opinions regarding the topic. But I would like to stress that presumed superiority (in the case of Precipice of War) is a faulty stance. The only real special quality of that roleplay in particular, which allows it any real clout or ability to be used as boast, is in the fact that it is long running one. Many NRPs have what Dinh AaronMk proposes to be unique, it is just that they don't live long enough. As we all agree, keeping a roleplay running isn't really something any one person can control, and depends on many number of things, not least the people involved.

I must say that @Dinh AaronMk's comment does confuse me quite a lot. I cannot presume to fully comprehend what you mean, and it isn't because I have a poor understanding of the english language or am unfamiliar with the terms used. But it seems a bit contradictory.

I am not here to bash any one person, obviously. But I do not want people to be mislead into thinking that NRP requires some sort of superior thinking skill or deductive reasoning superior to anyone else's like what you wrote makes it appear. Any NRP has the ability and potential to become what Precipice of War became if it had a deducated and patient writerbase. And a vast number of people are capable (and have been capable for a long time) of writing PoV perspectives for their nations, and others' nations, in a NRP setting. But whilst Precipice of War had an actual unmeasurable degree of success in running for so long, and establishing a dedicated following, it also gives it its own issues and troubles, namely joining it. Any roleplay is doomed to die, and "finishing" a roleplay is in and of itself a death too. It is just more dignified, and provides satisfaction. Precipice of War is special because it lasted longer than the vast majority of other NRPs, perhaps even any NRP, but I wouldn't amount it to having some form of superior writing within it. That just seems elitist, which is the problem in NRP as a whole.

Can't disappoint Ammokkx by ignoring this one, ei?

So, I'm going to start off with a quip. Numbers don't lie, but interpretations do, unwillingly or not. Why I think the point is utterly missed, I think has been articulated well across the thread so far. This isn't to say there aren't things I acknowledge. In fact, I agree with much of it until it gets into the claims made from the title. I believe there has been a horrible misdiagnosis, even if the factors presented I do think apply to some extent. But they're nothing you don't see across roleplaying in general. "The numbers" based on those factors I find are little different, and if you disagree, it is time to present those numbers so confidently referred to and explain precisely how the factors applied over anything else.

The very premise of this idea is nonsensical and removes the incentive to succeed in lieu of a "functioning narrative." In a narrative based Nation RP--in the equation of deciding battles--you are asking someone to intentionally lose in the interest of story. This forced collectivization can cause resentment or even a tug of war of narrative favoritism in the vein of: "I lost last time, you should lose this time."

This is a serious issue with roleplaying in general, where players in combat situations simply cannot bring themselves to take a hit for the good of story or their own character's development. However, even as this element exists on the guild, there are many others who are advanced to the point of recognizing that this is a primitive way to roleplay, like poorly written self inserts. By thinking this way, you are subverting the very idea of roleplaying, injecting a conventional game into a medium where it simply results in conflict unless that premise was part of the OOC in the first place.

Rest assured, the numbers indicate the amount of stat-based roleplays that kick the bucket is just as bad as narrative-based ones. This is beyond the concept of nations, and the reason goes well beyond what you tried to shoehorn here. It's not that people don't do this, it's the implication that it's unavoidable or standard, and that it supersedes more generic reasons why roleplays tend to fail.

Where you especially lose me is when you insist NRP should be viewed as a game as compared to a story. No. People abandon games as easily and for as fickle reasons as they abandon stories. People can do it both ways and both have their successes and failures. The Guild (and other places I'm sure) tends to err towards the story end, since as already stated, people who want to make a win/lose game out of it can go play Civ and other things. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

Where you especially lose me is when you insist NRP should be viewed as a game as compared to a story. No. People abandon games as easily and for as fickle reasons as they abandon stories. People can do it both ways and both have their successes and failures. The Guild (and other places I'm sure) tends to err towards the story end, since as already stated, people who want to make a win/lose game out of it can go play Civ and other things. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

I've quit videogames for as simple a reason as the fact that I recognized I was no longer in a position where I could win/achieve my goals. Time for another run for that achievement, since this run is busted. Now imagine that I have a roleplaying videogame, where I am expected to put in x amount of time to work on my replies, and I would be doing it for something I have already realized I cannot win, achieve, or otherwise get some sort of (invented or not) victory condition out of, I would be quick to say that sorry guys, I've lost interest in the roleplay, best of luck. And that supersedes NRP like you said, because there are plenty roleplays (narrative or gamey) that have had that happen just from my own experience. And this element of no longer having a victory condition is present even in narrative RPs, because different people have different expectations and goals for themselves, their characters, or the roleplay. Once those goals can no longer be reached or they are so far out of reach that it would take immense amounts of work (and a willing GM to potentially cut you some slack), what is the incentive to keep playing? Players that derive their enjoyment of an RP out of hitting checkmarks and achieving victory conditions will no longer enjoy the RP, and leave.

The thing is that investing time in CIV is nowhere near as exhausting as it is to write a roleplay post. All I have to do is sit there and click buttons. It's no wonder that when a game mechanic gave another player the victory, my enjoyment of the game disappears, because all the work I put into the game thus far can be, or has been nullified by that singular loss. 8(

I must say that @Dinh AaronMk's comment does confuse me quite a lot. I cannot presume to fully comprehend what you mean, and it isn't because I have a poor understanding of the english language or am unfamiliar with the terms used. But it seems a bit contradictory.

I clipped the rest of it for size sake and left this in because it's at least where the mention is. But where bringing up Precipice of War is concerned it's meant as an example and not as proof of superiority. Sort of like how someone might mention some other piece of media - like the aforementioned (I hope) Naked Lunch - as proof or illustration of a concept. In the case of Naked Lunch, being a major piece of American literature that actively defies what people like Joseph Campbell would declare being THE story structure. But in that case I would also named Kerouac's On The Road as being a story that's inherently anti-structure, though far more linear than the fever dream of Naked Lunch.

The case if bringing up Precipice is that at the least it is the longest running example of the general approach I and some of the fellow writers in that RP approach it. Theo claims that the narrative point of NRPs is domination. But an RP like Precipice or off shoots like it or the goal of us that come from it don't often stress political domination. The potential in NRP is much broader, and the scope a person takes on when writing as a nation is considerably broader than in a single character RP; meaning in this case there's more opportunities for purely solo stories than interactive stories.between writers so if someone disappears or fails to post there can at least be progress. And restressing Naked Lunch or On The Road or the even older Japanese novel Tale of Genji you can meander about.

@Dinh AaronMk That does clarify my confusion greatly, but I must say you didn't make it seem like it was an example of something broader, hence my direct response to that particular thing. It could've just been my own fault, of course, but in this case I did re-read it (your post) to make sure I didn't make that particular mistake.

It seems like you just wanted to express what everyone here has been expressing this entire time, using Precipice of War as an example. In that light, it does make sense, and what you said is certainly valid.

As for the mention thing, I am a lazy person, and doing the brackets and @'s is an annoying exercise. No need to be so specific about that, it makes me seem like a horrible person.