Numbers Don't Lie, Why Narrative Nation RP's are Doomed to Fail
by Theodorable
by Theodorable
Let's begin with the understanding that the word fail must be identified within the first paragraph of this article, and that it's definition will almost understandably be argued or shot down. "Why, my roleplay didn't fail, I had tons of fun," will almost certainly be one of the preliminary responses, though it too remains an incorrect caricature of the definition of fail. Were we applying the definition of fun to whether a particular Nation Roleplay failed or succeeded, one could say that after a single IC post detailing a nation or faction's backstory could ultimately dictate that a roleplay failed or succeeded. Did you have fun posting that preliminary epilogue-esque post? Of course you did. Victory lap, right?
Nation Roleplay's are unique in that they require both a broad stroke while also maintaining the necessity of not just ushering in well defined characters but most often a multitude of characters that can fully represent and flesh out the nation--which is the principal actor of any Nation Roleplay. In this sense, the state becomes the character and it's various personality instead representing it's many flaws and strengths. This alone lends credence to the hypothesis that a Nation Roleplay, from its very genesis, is often doomed to failure on the basis of its heightened complexity and longer set up. Not are there only props, blocking and rehearsals to be had--there are multiple stages that must be managed and seamlessly handled.
This is not the sole focus of this article though, but rather a precursor on setting up the primary argument--the preface--that reveals a functioning Nation Roleplay that requires every player be their own GM of their own internal world. The question falls succinctly on the players then, which flavor is preferable? This is subjective and should not be argued either way. The question instead is this: In representing millions, sometimes billions of fictional citizens, which systems better suits both the story, the players and ultimately the gameplay? The choices are binary: A Narrative driven games--where mechanics are based on the collective whims of the player, a GM whose responsibilities are more author than mediator and based more discussion and Stat or Mechanic based Nation RP, where players' actions, limitations and ambitions are dictated solely by the restrictions (or lack thereof) of the ascribed game mechanics. These range from the basic, antiquated but still revered World in Revolution game where a single GM manages the limited one or two action per turn game and dictates the rules thus, to more intricate almost tabletop esque games where intricate mechanics are handled with a fine tooth comb. The former are doomed to failure for two reasons: the inability of equal behavior based on subjective GM'ing and the requirement of continued narrative cohesion.
The initial and most glaring problem of narrative based Nation RP's is that each player exists completely at the whims or favoritism of the GM, or Game Master. Were he a childhood friend, a legitimate argument could be made that events that pertain to your nation or civilization have a tinge of preference to them. Or worse, were you so unfortunate to have a bad experience with the GM, you may find yourself treated unfairly by the curator of the game--or excluded from joining entirely. This sets the stage for an unequal start, which is not gamebreaking in and of itself--as nations do not begin their worldly journey from the same positions in the real world, or most fictional worlds--but rather gamebreaking in the sense that not every one is given the fair shake. A GM whose ideals are based on his own opinions and considerations, cannot, based on the purview of the human condition, give every nation a fair shake, as it were.
The second failure of narrative based RP's is the over dependence on a continued narrative cohesion. Battles are often decided by gentleman's agreement between the participating players. 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." Mechanic based RP's are black and white, assuming they are designed competently, and the functional requirements implemented are strategy and many other times luck (usually via online die roll or through the assistance of Random.org).
History has shown that the eventuality is one of two options: the narrative is driven by mob rule, where 51% of the players dictate what happens to the other 49%, or that the GM himself becomes the puppet master, manipulating either covertly or entirely in view of all the players which nations may succeed and which have failed. This, in it's entirety, are why narrative Nation RP's will also fall apart.
Nation Roleplay's are unique in that they require both a broad stroke while also maintaining the necessity of not just ushering in well defined characters but most often a multitude of characters that can fully represent and flesh out the nation--which is the principal actor of any Nation Roleplay. In this sense, the state becomes the character and it's various personality instead representing it's many flaws and strengths. This alone lends credence to the hypothesis that a Nation Roleplay, from its very genesis, is often doomed to failure on the basis of its heightened complexity and longer set up. Not are there only props, blocking and rehearsals to be had--there are multiple stages that must be managed and seamlessly handled.
This is not the sole focus of this article though, but rather a precursor on setting up the primary argument--the preface--that reveals a functioning Nation Roleplay that requires every player be their own GM of their own internal world. The question falls succinctly on the players then, which flavor is preferable? This is subjective and should not be argued either way. The question instead is this: In representing millions, sometimes billions of fictional citizens, which systems better suits both the story, the players and ultimately the gameplay? The choices are binary: A Narrative driven games--where mechanics are based on the collective whims of the player, a GM whose responsibilities are more author than mediator and based more discussion and Stat or Mechanic based Nation RP, where players' actions, limitations and ambitions are dictated solely by the restrictions (or lack thereof) of the ascribed game mechanics. These range from the basic, antiquated but still revered World in Revolution game where a single GM manages the limited one or two action per turn game and dictates the rules thus, to more intricate almost tabletop esque games where intricate mechanics are handled with a fine tooth comb. The former are doomed to failure for two reasons: the inability of equal behavior based on subjective GM'ing and the requirement of continued narrative cohesion.
The initial and most glaring problem of narrative based Nation RP's is that each player exists completely at the whims or favoritism of the GM, or Game Master. Were he a childhood friend, a legitimate argument could be made that events that pertain to your nation or civilization have a tinge of preference to them. Or worse, were you so unfortunate to have a bad experience with the GM, you may find yourself treated unfairly by the curator of the game--or excluded from joining entirely. This sets the stage for an unequal start, which is not gamebreaking in and of itself--as nations do not begin their worldly journey from the same positions in the real world, or most fictional worlds--but rather gamebreaking in the sense that not every one is given the fair shake. A GM whose ideals are based on his own opinions and considerations, cannot, based on the purview of the human condition, give every nation a fair shake, as it were.
The second failure of narrative based RP's is the over dependence on a continued narrative cohesion. Battles are often decided by gentleman's agreement between the participating players. 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." Mechanic based RP's are black and white, assuming they are designed competently, and the functional requirements implemented are strategy and many other times luck (usually via online die roll or through the assistance of Random.org).
History has shown that the eventuality is one of two options: the narrative is driven by mob rule, where 51% of the players dictate what happens to the other 49%, or that the GM himself becomes the puppet master, manipulating either covertly or entirely in view of all the players which nations may succeed and which have failed. This, in it's entirety, are why narrative Nation RP's will also fall apart.
2x Like
2x Laugh
1x Thank
2x Laugh
1x Thank
