Jump to content

Kill the techno-babble?


Generalissimo

Kill the techno-babble?  

54 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

The key to my rant, and biggest problem with what is going on, was actually highlighted by what Subtle said. Technobabble is serving, at the moment, as "superior RP". It's making it so that those of us who don't know about all these materials or how they work are suddenly at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to the battle field, because when on attack "Technobabblers" can simply say "Oh, your defense system is not advanced enough/RP'd out enough/you did not explain it enough to stop the X, Y, and Z aspects of my weapon" and while on defense they can say "my X, Y, and Z defenses of my weapon are more than enough to take out your weapon". What it basically comes down to is this: "Technobabblers" use technobabble as a defense to never lose. Anything. They use it to decrease their losses exponentially, or to take minimal losses, while expecting the person they are fighting against to take massive losses and bow before their power. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "Technobabblers" are bad people. I like a great many of you. But what "Technobabblers" do, by and large, is something that I consider bad RP. It is not an RP based off of mutual respect, it is an RP based off of shoving what you want and how you want it down someone else's throat. And that is not good RP.

People keep talking about tech efficiency like it is the goddamn bubonic plague. While I agree that system based SOLELY on tech efficiency would be a bad thing (no one wants to be told "this person has x more tech than you, so then you must take x+y more casualties than he does"), using tech efficiency as a BASE would simplify the current system and, while allowing people to technobabble, would allow those that don't to be on a level playing field.

A scenario, if I may.

Under the current system, Nation X has more tech, and is a "Technobabbler". Nation Y has less tech, and is not. However, Nation Y is a history nut and has a better grasp of defensive tactics, especially for the land they currently reside in. Nation X posts with a massive wall of text about their weapons and how their weapons are the best ever and blah blah blah, and Nation Y responds with reasonable, but less than expected, losses, and an explanation of how their troops positioned on the landscape, using natural or premade defenses that have been constructed, prevented losses from being higher than they were. The most common outcome of this scenario under today's system? Nation X goes bawwwwing to the GMs about how their weapons are far more superior and far more RP'd out and that Nation Y should be forced to take "reasonable losses", a.k.a much higher than posted.

Under a revised system, with tech efficiency as a base for RP, Nation Y would generally take 1.5 losses for every 1 loss inflicted on Nation X. However, because of Nation Y's explanation and RP of natural and man-made defenses, Nation Y's losses are brought down to being on par with Nation X. Under this scenario, Nation X's technobabble has very little influence on the outcome because, I'm sorry, technobabble is not RP.

Technobabble is posting of facts, figures, and technology that from what I've seen, is simply meant to overwhelm the other person with information until they simply give up. It is a bullying tactic, not a method of RP. Use of strategy posted with technobabble is RP, but simply saying "Nation Y's weapons didn't work because of A, B, and C on my weapon" does not count, and should not count, as RP. And unfortunately, that's what this game has come to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' timestamp='1324103376' post='2880377']
I made an ass out of myself before saying that this kind of writing was stupid and EM and others corrected me that I had no basis to judge and I didn't.[/quote]

You have plenty of basis to judge. Military tech spam is !@#$%* writing. When people are supposed to be writing stories about a war, they end up writing a textbook for !@#$%^&* technology. If I wrote a story about a road trip, would you say I was a good writer if 90% of the story was a description of the engine's mechanics?

I agree that you should not ban someone from writing in that style. If that's what you want to do, go for it. But it's still terrible writing. Don't be afraid to call it what it is.

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1324145142' post='2880597']
It's making it so that those of us who don't know about all these materials or how they work are suddenly at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to the battle field, because when on attack "Technobabblers" can simply say "Oh, your defense system is not advanced enough/RP'd out enough/you did not explain it enough to stop the X, Y, and Z aspects of my weapon" and while on defense they can say "my X, Y, and Z defenses of my weapon are more than enough to take out your weapon". [/quote]

And then "let's consult a GM, oh look that's me or my closest ally" or "you can get away with godmoding if you had the right friends."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1324145142' post='2880597']
The key to my rant, and biggest problem with what is going on, was actually highlighted by what Subtle said. Technobabble is serving, at the moment, as "superior RP". It's making it so that those of us who don't know about all these materials or how they work are suddenly at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to the battle field, because when on attack "Technobabblers" can simply say "Oh, your defense system is not advanced enough/RP'd out enough/you did not explain it enough to stop the X, Y, and Z aspects of my weapon" and while on defense they can say "my X, Y, and Z defenses of my weapon are more than enough to take out your weapon". What it basically comes down to is this: "Technobabblers" use technobabble as a defense to never lose. Anything. They use it to decrease their losses exponentially, or to take minimal losses, while expecting the person they are fighting against to take massive losses and bow before their power. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "Technobabblers" are bad people. I like a great many of you. But what "Technobabblers" do, by and large, is something that I consider bad RP. It is not an RP based off of mutual respect, it is an RP based off of shoving what you want and how you want it down someone else's throat. And that is not good RP.

People keep talking about tech efficiency like it is the goddamn bubonic plague. While I agree that system based SOLELY on tech efficiency would be a bad thing (no one wants to be told "this person has x more tech than you, so then you must take x+y more casualties than he does"), using tech efficiency as a BASE would simplify the current system and, while allowing people to technobabble, would allow those that don't to be on a level playing field.

A scenario, if I may.

Under the current system, Nation X has more tech, and is a "Technobabbler". Nation Y has less tech, and is not. However, Nation Y is a history nut and has a better grasp of defensive tactics, especially for the land they currently reside in. Nation X posts with a massive wall of text about their weapons and how their weapons are the best ever and blah blah blah, and Nation Y responds with reasonable, but less than expected, losses, and an explanation of how their troops positioned on the landscape, using natural or premade defenses that have been constructed, prevented losses from being higher than they were. The most common outcome of this scenario under today's system? Nation X goes bawwwwing to the GMs about how their weapons are far more superior and far more RP'd out and that Nation Y should be forced to take "reasonable losses", a.k.a much higher than posted.

Under a revised system, with tech efficiency as a base for RP, Nation Y would generally take 1.5 losses for every 1 loss inflicted on Nation X. However, because of Nation Y's explanation and RP of natural and man-made defenses, Nation Y's losses are brought down to being on par with Nation X. Under this scenario, Nation X's technobabble has very little influence on the outcome because, I'm sorry, technobabble is not RP.

Technobabble is posting of facts, figures, and technology that from what I've seen, is simply meant to overwhelm the other person with information until they simply give up. It is a bullying tactic, not a method of RP. Use of strategy posted with technobabble is RP, but simply saying "Nation Y's weapons didn't work because of A, B, and C on my weapon" does not count, and should not count, as RP. And unfortunately, that's what this game has come to.
[/quote]

Here is where I take issue with that though. First how you fight a war as technology changes also changes. For example the advent of armor meant that the battles on the same terrain of WW I fought in trench warfare became about speed and mobility in WW II. Your not necessarily going to have the same tactics for each war. I bring up China because thats where I have a lot of my expertise in. In 1991 after we demolished Saddam in the Gulf War, China began these huge double digit annual defense budget increases. This was because they had to completely rethink their doctrine based on changes in technology and transform from a quantity force to a quality driven force. I think that you're really only addressing one side of the coin in your rant here, and its really not a fair assessment.

When you just go after offense, but ignore the defense which I think is what you're saying, you're creating an imbalance which makes for bad RP itself as well as bad realism. If for example we take the Korean War, where Kankou was claiming to have tons and tons of tunnels under her nation. Or if you take Cochin's claims of 50 kilo deep under ground border defenses and these huge amass o radars and satellites which no country IRL could afford. You have to address these equally with the systems that are designed to defeat them. If you give unlimited leeway to defenses in air defense systems and bunkers, but restrict developments in offensive weapons thats unfair. I feel like that is what you are saying. I would also point out that I think that using for example 'electronic cover' if you want to call electronic warfare that, is no different than any other form of cover. In my mind it seems like electronic warfare is the biggest area where people are complaining, though I may be wrong about that.

I also think that it'd help if you point out some of this, because I honestly can't think of this type of scenario you are thinking of happening. Because I feel that if the defender doesn't show some respect, as well as the attacker and then cry technobabble, I think thats not respectful either. The attacker has every right to try and develop effective attacking systems, just as the defender has the right to develop effective defensive systems. You can't just take one side of the equation and not tone down the other.

[quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1324146000' post='2880600']
You have plenty of basis to judge. Military tech spam is !@#$%* writing. When people are supposed to be writing stories about a war, they end up writing a textbook for !@#$%^&* technology. If I wrote a story about a road trip, would you say I was a good writer if 90% of the story was a description of the engine's mechanics?

I agree that you should not ban someone from writing in that style. If that's what you want to do, go for it. But it's still terrible writing. Don't be afraid to call it what it is.



And then "let's consult a GM, oh look that's me or my closest ally" or "you can get away with godmoding if you had the right friends."
[/quote]

If there is an issue you go to HK-47. Obviously he's busy with other parts of the board so I try to go to him as little as possible, but on big issues where there is GM conflict I try to do that. Also most of us are pretty friendly with one another on IRC, so friendship is unavoidable, I wouldn't want that any other way though, I prefer a friendly community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1324105688' post='2880398']
Technobabble to me is merely another form of roleplay. I really don't feel comfortable with denying a person their own personal amusement. I've said this loudly in a couple of other places and I'll say it again here, as long as those who are fascinated with advanced technology are willing to sit down and patiently explain it all to me then let's dance.

What is killing CNRP isn't how we RP. I think it is a three part problem.

1st.. The GM position needs to be fixed, badly. I don't at all like what it has turned into. It was supposed to be about mediation and now it is something entirely different. Before anyone blames it all on Triyun, Centurius, and Cochin you ought to think back and try to remember how many crappy decisions past GMs have made to create this current state of affairs.

But essentially the GM position has turned into a position that RPers use as a weapon against others. The GM position should be more about assisting two parties to making some sort of agreement to keep the RP flowing. They should be doing this via mediation and encouraging cooperation.

If people refuse to cooperate then we as a community should be making a decision to scrub them off the map entirely.

2nd.. CNRP is roleplay. I've always been under the impression that Roleplay is two people acting out roles. In order to act out these roles there has to be a certain amount of cooperation to create a good story.. You can't force someone into roleplaying, which means if this is all about creating stories of interest and having fun you must cooperate.

Somewhere along the line we got away from cooperating and gotten on the track of dominating each other completely. This might be fun for some but clearly it isn't getting others to cooperate with making a story of interest.

3rd.. The rules. Get rid of all of them and create a simple set that we can all agree upon.

I keep seeing references to past rules which are no longer in use and current rules which are being used half-heartedly. Rules have come about from a variety of situations that might no longer be pertinent.

Who should enforce the rules? The community. It is a community driven RP, we all have a responsibility to see to it things are done fairly and with respect to others. If someone can't follow our simple rules, be respectful, and work with others to create good readable stories..

Wipe them.
[/quote]
Care to retort to this Triyun? this is quite similar to what Sal is saying, just with less of Sal's trolling.
[quote]If for example we take the Korean War, where Kankou was claiming to have tons and tons of tunnels under her nation. Or if you take Cochin's claims of 50 kilo deep under ground border defenses and these huge amass o radars and satellites which no country IRL could afford. [/quote]
how exactly do you afford to spend what would amount to trillions per year on wars all across the globe? unless you're proposing we actually design a system where economy matters.

Edited by Mogar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1324155627' post='2880674']unless you're proposing we actually design a system where economy matters.[/quote]
From experience, any notion of economy will be shot down as fast as a suggestion is made. It's probably the one suggestion closest to a silver bullet against the vampire that is the impossible military expenditures, yet people go against it then say the RPs are biased, unfair, technoblabble, etc.

Maybe it's time we do make an economic model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mogar,

I won't retort it because TBM and my positions aren't that far apart on a lot of things Mogar, I think he'd actually agree with me on this. He and I have talked about things numerous times over the past few weeks and agree on more than we disagree. I've done exactly what he's asked about doing when someone asks for explanation.

On the first, it was always going to be the case if a war like this broke out that there would be conflict and a perception of bias on one side. I'd venture to say the situation likely would be reversed in perception had EM been a GM instead of me at the time. I would say that after talking to Cochin for three hours the other day, at the end of the day he felt the cap that was placed (when it seems this controversy was started from) was fair so long as it applied to everyone. It did.

On the second, I think that is individual choice. I don't see how to retort this at all, because its not really something to retort. I hardly would be the one to retort it anyway. I play a pretty balanced RP game I think.

Ultimately if one person wants land that another person has they're entitled to take it and it makes for part of the story. It is not the only aspect of a story. I can only speak for myself on how I play, but I balance character and nation RP pretty well. I feel some do not, but I don't think its up to any of us to make a macro judgement on this.

On the third I don't need to retort that either because as TBM can tell you I am in favor of abolishing the current rule set and starting over. I just feel we should finish the big war before we change the rules. What I'm against is saying no technobabble but proposing no alternative to take its place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1324146758' post='2880605']
Here is where I take issue with that though. First how you fight a war as technology changes also changes. For example the advent of armor meant that the battles on the same terrain of WW I fought in trench warfare became about speed and mobility in WW II. Your not necessarily going to have the same tactics for each war. I bring up China because thats where I have a lot of my expertise in. In 1991 after we demolished Saddam in the Gulf War, China began these huge double digit annual defense budget increases. This was because they had to completely rethink their doctrine based on changes in technology and transform from a quantity force to a quality driven force. I think that you're really only addressing one side of the coin in your rant here, and its really not a fair assessment.

When you just go after offense, but ignore the defense which I think is what you're saying, you're creating an imbalance which makes for bad RP itself as well as bad realism. If for example we take the Korean War, where Kankou was claiming to have tons and tons of tunnels under her nation. Or if you take Cochin's claims of 50 kilo deep under ground border defenses and these huge amass o radars and satellites which no country IRL could afford. You have to address these equally with the systems that are designed to defeat them. If you give unlimited leeway to defenses in air defense systems and bunkers, but restrict developments in offensive weapons thats unfair. I feel like that is what you are saying. I would also point out that I think that using for example 'electronic cover' if you want to call electronic warfare that, is no different than any other form of cover. In my mind it seems like electronic warfare is the biggest area where people are complaining, though I may be wrong about that.

I also think that it'd help if you point out some of this, because I honestly can't think of this type of scenario you are thinking of happening. Because I feel that if the defender doesn't show some respect, as well as the attacker and then cry technobabble, I think thats not respectful either. The attacker has every right to try and develop effective attacking systems, just as the defender has the right to develop effective defensive systems. You can't just take one side of the equation and not tone down the other.
[/quote]

Actually, if you did go back and read my ENTIRE argument, I did highlight the problem with technobabble on both attack and defense. Please re-read the first part of my argument, not simply the scenario presented, where I clearly do talk about the problem with technobabble on defense. The scenario that was presented was more to look at a possible solution/new system to combat technobabble, not say that it only happens during attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are we going to go for a full reboot, or just a complete rewrite of the rules? and I never thought I'd actually say this, but if you're going to do this, thanks Triyun, hopefully you can fix the issues it seems far more than just me have with our current system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1324145142' post='2880597']
Use of strategy posted with technobabble is RP...
[/quote]

^ This is something I try to basically do with my war RP.

I'm not sure if I've ever spoken about how long it takes me to make a proper war post, but you'd probably see about ten different tabs open on Firefox, from everything from factbooks, to maps, to wikipedia, to three google searches. In all honesty, I put my time and effort into writing a piece, and if people have questions about my warpost, especially my opponents, I'm going to smooth it over with them. If people consider what I do as technobabble, and consider it bullying, that kind of hurts to hear that, considering the amount of effort I put into it, which could be as much as an hours' worth of time (or more, in a number of cases) writing and/or checking information. If I make war posts that are scattered with technological stuff, I try to make it so that people understand what I'm using for weapons, I will admit that it can be frustrating, but usually all people have to do is copy/paste something, and it'll come up on a Google Search in five seconds.

On that note, I have to agree with what Sarah said, you can't suddenly condemn and completely destroy how somebody else roleplays. Yes, overloading people with lots of information could be considered a bullying tactic by some, and it probably has been used by some to take advantage of less technologically astute members of the community. I can roleplay war both ways, and I feel fairly good at doing it as well, but if I figure an opponent is going to use technobabble, there is not going to be much in the way of character war RP coming from me. I do object to people who technobabble who do little in the way of background work, especially when it comes to terrain and strategy, because you can't ignore that, and you can't ignore those difficulties, but I do object to people putting "technobabblers" into one clump and then objecting completely to how it could be a bullying act, or "the way to win".

I can't conduct war both ways, but for one, I can't say that technobabble is "killing CNRP" (which I think isn't dying anyways, there was much more activity at the beginning of this month then November, November marked a pretty low point in terms of activity, in all honesty), and two, while I think that this "crusade" against technobabble has some merit, I don't think that it means that we should completely dispose of it as a way to RP, because, lets face it, people will RP how they want to RP. But the technobabblers should be willing to put a lot of effort into strategy and looking at what they're up against before doing it, that's all I'm going to say, and they can't get all bent out of shape when people don't know what the hell they're talking about. I'm not pointing fingers here, I'm making a general statement, but if you do technobabble (which I will admit to at some points), you need to be prepared to explain what you did, how you did it, and where you're doing it, et cetera, et cetera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My position on the thing is that technobabble is like salt. Sprinkle a little of it on something, and it has the possibility to make it better. However, when you dump it on a subject, like the latest war, the whole thing just gets disgusting and gives you high blood pressure. Everyone needs to scrape off most of the salt so we can get down to the meat and potatoes.

Edited by KaiserMelech Mikhail
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1324157583' post='2880697']
Actually, if you did go back and read my ENTIRE argument, I did highlight the problem with technobabble on both attack and defense. Please re-read the first part of my argument, not simply the scenario presented, where I clearly do talk about the problem with technobabble on defense. The scenario that was presented was more to look at a possible solution/new system to combat technobabble, not say that it only happens during attack.
[/quote]

I did read your entire argument, and I didn't get that impression.

Anyways, I don't see why you'd be complaining then, because if you note what Cent and I ruled on last time, we said that neither stealth or super radars (but the principle would apply to any two things) would completely nullify the other, and that neither side could claim a huge advantage. Note I'm assuming this view is somewhat based on the current war due to timing.

Edited by Triyun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' timestamp='1324143135' post='2880583']You can't ban a style of writing. People are going to do it whether you want them to or not.[/quote]I’m not trying to outright ban a role-playing style.
I’m attempting to level the playing field.
The man with the most detailed schematics will no longer win by default.
Detailed wars focusing on technology will be possible: not mandatory, not decisive.
Techno-babble role-playing will no longer have preference.

[quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' timestamp='1324143135' post='2880583']Another suggestion I have is that if you dislike the way war is moving in our RP world, start warring yourself to begin to create an influence on how war should be fought.[/quote]I can't fight on a scale relevant to influence CNRP.
CNRP is (somewhat) based on CyberNations and my CyberNation is anemic.
I can’t support aircraft, boats, tanks, or an army more than five thousand.
My forte is naval role-playing but maintaining current rates of growth it’s going to be four/five years until I have anything to play with.

[quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' timestamp='1324143135' post='2880583']. . . as for Generalissimo's argument, aside from citing players who have complained about technobabble, if you don't have some alternative move then the thread is kind of moot.[/quote]Sarah’s absolutely correct, I don’t have an alternative.
In my opening argument I admit the proposal is less than comprehensive.
I’ll go so far as to agree with Evangeline – it’s incredibly short sighted!
It is, however, decisive.
Techno-babble has enough players are disgruntled; that’s reason enough to move against it.
This poll is already 17-6 against techno-babble. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider the following:

If we had some economy system, then people would not have unlimited budgets that they can use to build superweapons and superfortifications like they were average ivan's kalashnikov. everything's free so everybody spends more money than RL usa on every damn military application with little realistic consequence.

Another thing is, I know everybody still hates this, but I'm old so I insist: I liked CNRP better when it was pretty much just a map, without any stats whatsoever. Stats were invented by the original Technobabblers, to justify themselves. Before then it was just narrative stuff that counted. I'd go back to that system (or lack of) in a heartbeat even if it would weaken my nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well personally I think that we need to get away from CN stats, if you have an island nation, you should be able to build ships if you have a bit of RP development. I think perhaps this would put emphasis on activity more than just sitting on swaths of land. Furthermore, I don't think technobabble is preferred in war, however what I would say to that is. If you don't want technobabble in offense, people shouldn't be allowed to build technobabble defense. If you're going to get rid of one thing, you have to get rid of everything. No magic missiles? No magic fortresses.

And as deceive as this poll is, it shows people dislike technobabble. But we all knew that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok hold on...

Not one of us has ever really rped an economy. Why start now? The point of CNRP is to have fun.


I propose less rules, not more. I don't want rules governing my economy. I don't want have to justify every single thing I do with some sort of logical basis. It kills the fun of what we are doing.

This is what I'd like to see happen.
per
1) GM staff is kept around to do the rolls and to assist people with mediating disputes.

If the dispute is unresolvable it goes to a community vote in form of a poll for resolution.


2) Only real hard and fast rule set we need is for technology. Keep the tech scale around and let it be.

Everything else is common sense. But I'd suggest this to you.

If Billy Bob out of the Jonestown Republic of South America is fielding a tank that sprays poison Kool Aid and he is fielding 50,000 of them, well beyond his ability to do so..

Why kill his fun?

Through mediation the simple answer would be to say, "The storyline is more important than a bunch of people raging. If Billy Bob wants to field 50,000 tanks of his current tech level then sort of agreement can be hammered out that levels the playing field in favor of continuing the creative writing process so we can all have some fun."

Maybe get him to agree that if he's going to rp 50k tanks they are all Markus Wilding style tanks. Based on beyond crappy WW1 style equipment.


It's all about getting people to agree to work on a story together through cooperation.

Who gives a damn who is right or wrong?


3) We need to stop calling Technobabble Technobabble. It is hard for some of us to understand yes, but it's what makes some people enjoy their rp.

So I'm going to be a bit more respectful of others and call it AdTech. Advanced Technology Roleplay, or yeah. Adtech.

It's a measure of respect we need to effort into giving each other. Because I absolutely ensure all of you that if I wanted to confuse you worst than the Adtechers do I could do with a post using Roman Legion Era technology and leave everyone scratching there head as to what the hell I'm saying.

It is all in the terminology and presentation. If the adtech style of rper are willing to be patient, work with their rp partners to explain what they are doing, then I have no problem with what they are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' timestamp='1324167305' post='2880762']
Well personally I think that we need to get away from CN stats, if you have an island nation, you should be able to build ships if you have a bit of RP development. I think perhaps this would put emphasis on activity more than just sitting on swaths of land. Furthermore, I don't think technobabble is preferred in war, however what I would say to that is. If you don't want technobabble in offense, people shouldn't be allowed to build technobabble defense. If you're going to get rid of one thing, you have to get rid of everything. No magic missiles? No magic fortresses.

And as deceive as this poll is, it shows people dislike technobabble. But we all knew that.
[/quote]
I think we need to move towards CN statss. We're on the CN forums, and this is CNRP. If you want to develop as an island nation, there is nothing blocking your development of a merchant marine or a coast guard. However, things like naval ships or an air force should be left to people who can field them IG. These things can make or break a war, so it's really not something to throw around just because you want the little guy to feel included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something everyone here needs to realize is we are in CNRP for different reasons and we each want something different out of CNRP. Our interactions define our stories. Our stories create the CNRP world. Should we kill techno-babble? No, it adds to the stories of those who want to write about it. The same goes for political, economic, warfare, etc. Let people RP what they want, it's their enjoyment.

On to the GM System people have been ranting on in this thread. The system of three mediators is a great idea and has worked for a while now. The problem is the precedents each GM had to go off of from the previous group of GM's. At first, we had the creation of tech efficiency and other such "rules". It progressively got worse as future GM's sought to fix those rules. Does this mean we should go back to the days of ships that are 1km long and super-non-detectable stealth aircraft roaming the skies? No, what I am saying is we should not, and do not, need the GM's for every little problem or issue. There is no need to create rules/guidelines that you feel need to be made because of one incident from one person. Talk to said person, if that does not work then go to the GM's. Their primary role should be fellow RPers and their "status" as a GM should not mean you tattle to them every time little Johnny does something you think he should not have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' timestamp='1324172980' post='2880808']
On to the GM System people have been ranting on in this thread. The system of three mediators is a great idea and has worked for a while now. The problem is the precedents each GM had to go off of from the previous group of GM's. At first, we had the creation of tech efficiency and other such "rules".[b] It progressively got worse as future GM's sought to fix those rules. Does this mean we should go back to the days of ships that are 1km long and super-non-detectable stealth aircraft roaming the skies? No, what I am saying is we should not, and do not, need the GM's for every little problem or issue.[/b] There is no need to create rules/guidelines that you feel need to be made because of one incident from one person. Talk to said person, if that does not work then go to the GM's. Their primary role should be fellow RPers and their "status" as a GM should not mean you tattle to them every time little Johnny does something you think he should not have done.
[/quote]

Bolded for emphasis, can't agree enough with this bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...