Remove ads

Nations of Steel and Sabre

Reader mode
Time to roll some dice!

That went well.
Pirx threw 1 6-faced dice. Reason: Russian Economy Total: 5
5 5
Pirx threw 1 6-faced dice. Reason: Ashanti Economy Total: 5
5 5
Pirx threw 1 3-faced dice. Reason: Ashanti Magic Quest Phase 2 Total: 2
2 2
 
Last edited:
Remove ads
Reminder: When you're feeling salty
  • Threadmarks
    • OK so from the latest Discord-consuming argument it's become kind of clear that there might be a fundamental disconnect on how different people in the game view what the point of the game is. I'm not at all qualified on telling people what they should like, but, like, I feel some people have gotten their wires crossed on what NGs are usually like.

    So if you look back a bit, Horizons of Tomorrow was the first game we ever played on GSR, and it was a game where the collective player base managed to make WWI an order of magnitude worse than it was in real life which ends in most of Western Europe pretty much disintegrating as states. This is not entirely abnormal.

    It also doesn't preclude roleplaying and internal development! People did tones of interesting internal events in that game that gave the world a lot of interesting character even as it burned down! It was pretty great!

    Having actual war and diplomacy and intrigue and what not does not preclude and internal events. In fact, it strengthens it--this is NG, the whole point is playing as nations, and war and diplomacy and intrigue have been important parts of what happens to a nation's character for forever. If you're being invaded, that doesn't mean you can't do internal events--literally the opposite. You can write about the new waves of patriotic inspiration that come about from being at war, about how the national psyche and arts/culture are being affected by the amount of blood and death on the frontlines, about how women on the homefront are taking up economic roles usually meant for men as the men go to war, about how your citizenry is dealing with bombing and rationing and what not with a stuff upper lip, and many, many more things like that. The existence of war is not an impediment to developing one's nation.

    And if you lose--well, so what? It's just a game. People do lose, and that's OK. Again, you can write about how your people are reacting to the loss, how it's reduced the popularity of your government, etc. Hell, even if you lose your nation and don't want to switch, it's entirely possible to play as a government in exile and write about the struggles of emigres, etc.

    Now, people are also complaining about not having modern social values. I mean... yes? This is a historical game--of course not everyone is going to have modern enlightened beliefs, that's the whole point of roleplaying as people from this era. If you want to have your own people be liberal and enlightened and all, the game is letting you, and that's already a massive divergence from the NG standards, where trying to move too far out of real life cultural attitudes tends to get your government toppled. It's OK for you to want to be modern and liberal and enlightened--we've already made concessions to allow you to do that, albeit with the restraints that would naturally come from such things (like, for instance, "you can't be a stable democracy if you're fundamentally a minority rule state with no national unity"). What's not OK is you being pissy when other people don't do that, because other people came into these games to actually roleplay historically and not to just turn everything into a liberal utopia with Elizabethan clothing. We--by which I mean most NG players--came into this game expecting not to have to do that, and it's kind of annoying when a couple of people keep bugging us for being horrible people for it.

    So in conclusion--we're trying to accommodate you here already, even though the kind of thing you're asking for is already pretty out of the ordinary and a small minority by the standards of NG. We're happy to accommodate you, but it's kind of unfair to ask us to transform the entire premise of the NG to just fit your tastes. Quite frankly, that's not what a majority of the people here came here for.

    Like, just think--you don't want to stop playing as your modern liberal enlightened nation, right? Well, I don't want to stop playing as Cromwell meets Decades of Darkness, Tenfold doesn't want to stop playing as sea-monsters from the deep, Deku doesn't want to stop playing as snake god, Aze doesn't want to stop playing as an absolute monarch trying to crush the latent democratic feelings of his populace, Wade doesn't want to stop playing as a bloody alligator-man slave revolt, and so forth. We are willing to--and want to--try to accommodate you, but it means that you have to accommodate us as well. And accommodating us means that you have to recognize that, yes, this is indeed an NG, and the normal NG things that happen in NG are probably going to have to happen here.
     
    Last edited:
  • Threadmarks
    • ChineseDrone said:
    So if you look back a bit, Horizons of Tomorrow is a game where the collective player base managed to make WWI an order of magnitude worse than it was in real life which ends in most of Western Europe pretty much disintegrating as states. This is not entirely abnormal.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    I would like to state for the record I am completely innocent of any instigating events surrounding the outbreak of war, and accusations to the contrary or mention of a "Red Emperor" are vicious, vicious lies.
     
    Eh, to be honest my problems aren't really the morality stuff or whatever. If we're talking about overarching problems in an OOC sense, I suppose it's that the expectations imbued by the OOC were never realized in the actual game, from relationships to the sudden events that occurred ('And then suddenly Iceland-Denmark was the predominant naval power of Europe', as the obvious example). Which probably wasn't helped since it felt like the game started in a vacuum even with the backstory laid out. It's not like a conventional game where generally speaking you know who the big dogs are and where you stand in the power structure; everyone was basically still feeling things out and having to make it up as they went along (Why did the USE only make NATO at the start o the game and not before, when clearly the powers involved would have been amicable to it).

    On the original note, sure you can say that everyone should be allowed to play how they want to play, but the game so far has proven that the most successful powers are the ones who act in the manner that C.Drone has voiced his support for. Perhaps it could have been otherwise if Ace's strategy as the USE held up, but we'll never know, and this is the reality of the game. So understandably the people who aren't entirely gearing their nations around 'fuck you got mine', area bit frustrated.

    I have my other problems, but that doesn't look to be the main argument so I'll keep them to myself.
     
    Azecreth said:
    Eh, to be honest my problems aren't really the morality stuff or whatever. If we're talking about overarching problems in an OOC sense, I suppose it's that the expectations imbued by the OOC were never realized in the actual game, from relationships to the sudden events that occurred ('And then suddenly Iceland-Denmark was the predominant naval power of Europe', as the obvious example). Which probably wasn't helped since it felt like the game started in a vacuum even with the backstory laid out. It's not like a conventional game where generally speaking you know who the big dogs are and where you stand in the power structure; everyone was basically still feeling things out and having to make it up as they went along (Why did the USE only make NATO at the start o the game and not before, when clearly the powers involved would have been amicable to it).

    On the original note, sure you can say that everyone should be allowed to play how they want to play, but the game so far has proven that the most successful powers are the ones who act in the manner that C.Drone has voiced his support for. Perhaps it could have been otherwise if Ace's strategy as the USE held up, but we'll never know, and this is the reality of the game. So understandably the people who aren't entirely gearing their nations around 'fuck you got mine', area bit frustrated.

    I have my other problems, but that doesn't look to be the main argument so I'll keep them to myself.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Please PM me. We would like to fix your problem, but none of the GM team were sure what you were referring to.
     
    Azecreth said:
    On the original note, sure you can say that everyone should be allowed to play how they want to play, but the game so far has proven that the most successful powers are the ones who act in the manner that C.Drone has voiced his support for.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    To be fair, I think that the main reason why this has happened is because the same things that NG uses as protection against powergaming (historical plausibility) are also the things that we use as protection against people trying to suddenly give their nations unrealistic cultural standards, because that's generally basically been a form of powergaming. If we want to allow the latter, we also basically have the allow the former. I can't see a convincing argument for why we should allow a random 17th century autocracy turn into a magical superdemocracy but prohibit Skuld and Arkyn from getting hitched
     
    ChineseDrone said:
    Having actual war and diplomacy and intrigue and what not does not preclude and internal events.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    While I doubt this was aimed at me I have stated that I dislike backstabbing all the time, I feel I should note that part of this is because of a significant misunderstanding and understand part of it is also the way this RP started. There were some accusations of other people betraying people and the RP started off so fast so there was never really a chance to establish any sort of goals, priorities, or "sides."

    There is of course a time and a place for backstabbing, in the last game Ace did the huge dramatic betrayal because Germany had wronged him before or if this was a Game of Thrones RP it would be expected.

    Theravis said:
    Please PM me. We would like to fix your problem, but none of the GM team were sure what you were referring to.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Part of it is how we came into this with blank slates, no pacts, no treaties, for the first turn nobody even had a trade agreement. The normal natural alliances never developed over time and now we are getting whiplash of sudden turns and major events. Without any kind of update those of us not in the loop are constantly caught off guard.
     
    ChineseDrone said:
    To be fair, I think that the main reason why this has happened is because the same things that NG uses as protection against powergaming (historical plausibility) are also the things that we use as protection against people trying to suddenly give their nations unrealistic cultural standards, because that's generally basically been a form of powergaming. If we want to allow the latter, we also basically have the allow the former. I can't see a convincing argument for why we should allow a random 17th century autocracy turn into a magical superdemocracy but prohibit Skuld and Arkyn from getting hitched
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    ... thirty years of reforms, education and cultural development. I explained my reasons. I literally can show you roots for half of the developments in 17nth century thought-Hell, in 17nth century Swedish thought- (Constititionalism, free trade, high premium on education, the accptance of binding international law) or in the strong cooperation with Grantville elements and the rather republican Dutch.
    I played Sweden as slowly reforming and evolving into a semi-constitutional , rule of Law , 'moralistic' nation since LSS. The Monarch, even if he is nominally approved ny the Riksdag and advised by the Council of State elected by them, is still the top executive for life, almost unoppisable sve for budgetary issues or if deemed mentally or psychologically unfit to rule.
    So, no, Sweden is not a modern democracy. Rather, it us a constitutional monarchy based on Swedish institutions reformed with knowledge of later politic models.
    And opposition to chattel slavery or life peonage? As old as Christianity.. and not out of character for a scandinavian kingdom before the 'fad of Absolutism" swept over from continental Europe.
    Its literally a development over 30 years IN GAME.
     
    Last edited:
    @Theravis

    Within regards to the ideas presented in the Discord before it was shut down, I'm opposed to the first and ambivalent to the second.

    "Everybody gets transported into a blank earth" might well tank my interest in the game. It's just so sudden and jarring of a change in theme and gameplay, where all the military and political concerns get waved away in favor of "well, I guess we'll see who can colonize the most square kilometers in a year".

    The "new continents" idea might be interesting, albeit I personally probably wouldn't have much of a stake in it. I've been playing Spain as having been burned by the loss of all their colonial holdings, and now focused on Europe to the exclusion of all else. Not to mention I'm not really too interested in a colonization race. So, if you do it I won't complain, although I might voice concerns about putting too much emphasis on these "new frontiers" that everyone not involved with them will be put at a significant disadvantage.
     
    Last edited:
    Actually, @Theravis , there's something that always bugged me. Naglfar was supposed to be a bunch of refugees, but.... How the heck did a bunch of refugees deploy a nuke, and if they could, why didn't they win the conflict in Sweden?

    Not asking out of salt, just really confused.
     
    Blackout said:
    @Theravis

    Within regards to the ideas presented in the Discord before it was shut down, I'm opposed to the first and ambivalent to the second.

    "Everybody gets transported into a blank earth" might well tank my interest in the game. It's just so sudden and jarring of a change in theme and gameplay, where all the military and political concerns get waved away in favor of "well, I guess we'll see who can colonize the most square kilometers in a year".

    The "new continents" idea might be interesting, albeit I personally probably wouldn't have much of a stake in it. I've been playing Spain as having been burned by the loss of all their colonial holdings, and now focused on Europe to the exclusion of all else. Not to mention I'm not really too interested in a colonization race. So, if you do it I won't complain, although I might voice concerns about putting too much emphasis on these "new frontiers" that everyone not involved with them will be put at a significant disadvantage.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I wasn't around on the Discord when those were happens, so apologies (@Theravis) if I'm misrepresenting or misunderstanding this idea, but I pretty much agree with Blackout. Both "blank earth" and "new continents magically appear" would make a completely different game, and TBH I don't think I'll be interested in either. I like this game as it is - it's geopolitics with a side dish of wacky, and if CalUn loses a war to Oceania and gets obliterated, so what?
     
    @Desdendelle
    Unrelated to anything, I really do have no idea what....I'm assuming CalU sent Brass a Chapter/Verse to look up, but I have no idea what the reference is.
     
    PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT​
    I have 2 major announcements. Bearing in mind the events of last night, my GM's and I had a long discussion on what to do with this game, and reached two conclusions.

    First of all: @Sailor Midgard
    While there's no personal enmity between us, I can safely say that a lot of the salt in this game has come either from you or people interacting with you. As a result, we've voting to remove you. My apologies, but hopefully this will be best for everyone.

    Second: @TenfoldShields.
    Your handling of the crisis has been... well, about as well as can be expected. However, your national spells are getting to be fairly disruptive and if I don't allow technological nukes, why should I allow magical ones? Therefore, I'm instituting a law that requires any spell costing 10+ dots to have a special approval and in-story reason. I will redo your entire complement of heroes and spells for you if needed, since I know in large part you were just overwhelmed by the number of points you had to spend.

    Edit: This is not a nerf to Nagalfar. I'm just reallocating the spells they currently have.

    While other changes may or may not be forthcoming, I have no intention of cancelling the game, and we'll see how things develop before I shift anything else.
     
    Last edited:
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top