Spying

[HHAYD]

>_> How about leaving things to appropriate uses? Battles can be won by pure force. Spying cannot. And so, spying can have impenetrable defense quite easily. Hence, although my minor nation is actually able to be waltzed in on by anyone, in CNRP its locked up tighter than fort knox.

Yeah right.

That means many people won't bother to RP defenses since they know that an IG odd would instantly get past through their defenses. Battles can also be won through surprises.

[LeVentNoir]

That means many people won't bother to RP defenses since they know that an IG odd would instantly get past through their defenses. Battles can also be won through surprises.

Thats plain stupid. I will leave it to others to say why battle odds should not determine RP battles. Main one, they are not fixed.

[Sargun II]

Number two, you have to declare war on somebody to see them.

[Uberstein]

So, those are just RP Obstacles. Work around them. And also all are under RP'd. Military style border defenses have little to no effect on civilians, threat level IG takes into account readiness, and weather is never RPd.

One IG roll, the Rp should go ahead whatever the outcome, and I expect good Rpers would be able to adapt to any happening.

Also, do not like barons idea, For example, IG shows you have 90% chance of blowing up a nuke.

Under barons odds, thats (0.9)^5 = 0.59049

More realistically, a 70% chance. 0.7^5 = 0.16807 and the chance of doing any spying is pretty much nil. Baron, you would kill off RP spies.

Well look, the guy who has a large nation and lots of spies doesn't like the system that reduces his chance of victory.

What happened to your cries for game balance that you made in the merger thread? I would think that you would want to create a system where both sides have a chance of winning, not a "let the biggest man win" system.

Some of us have smaller nations, and I don't like the idea of being forced to lose with no RP.

I REFUSE to recognize a single dice roll deciding whether or not you get into my most secure areas. It's stupid, it's powergaming, and it will drive away smaller nations from RPing because they can't win with your rule sets.

Edited June 9, 2009 by BaronUberstein

[Michael McBride]

Well look, the guy who has a large nation and lots of spies doesn't like the system that reduces his chance of victory.

What happened to your cries for game balance that you made in the merger thread? I would think that you would want to create a system where both sides have a chance of winning, not a "let the biggest man win" system.

Some of us have smaller nations, and I don't like the idea of being forced to lose with no RP.

I REFUSE to recognize a single dice roll deciding whether or not you get into my most secure areas. It's stupid, it's powergaming, and it will drive away smaller nations from RPing because they can't win with your rule sets.

I disagree vehemently with the bolded portion. You laid out a system of dice roles that would only give a larger nation a 16% chance (with 70% odds) of completing their objective... and then you come back and say you won't accept any dice role. !@#$%^&*. It's one or the other, Baron. I have no problem with RPs, but especially with spying, I want to know what the outcome is going to be first, especially so the other side can't throw something in the way at the last moment to stop me. Using IG odds is fair, especially with a five step system. There needs to be good RP with it, as I've said all along, but there is no reason that IG odds can't be used as a decision whether or not something works, especially where there is only a 2% chance to 16% chance that something will actually work all the way through anyways.

Kevz, you haven't argued against not using odds, you've argued against using good RP in CNRP. All those factors are definitely something that should be taken into account when spying on someone, but if the dice roll said that you got in, you can use those factors to get into the nation. I'm not saying if the dice roll said you won you can just be like "My spies get across your border." No. There needs to be a well thought out RP to go along with it. Our IG stats don't take into account crime or poverty either, does that mean we shouldn't use them as an accurate barometer for CNRP?

I challenge the "don't use IG stats" people to explain to me a reason why not to use them. Basically, the two arguments thus far have been "If we use IG stats, there won't be good RP" which has been refuted numerous times and "I don't want to use them" which is just stupid. Explain to me a real reason, and then I might start considering your point of view.

[Subtleknifewielder]

I disagree vehemently with the bolded portion. You laid out a system of dice roles that would only give a larger nation a 16% chance (with 70% odds) of completing their objective... and then you come back and say you won't accept any dice role. !@#$%^&*. It's one or the other, Baron. I have no problem with RPs, but especially with spying, I want to know what the outcome is going to be first, especially so the other side can't throw something in the way at the last moment to stop me. Using IG odds is fair, especially with a five step system. There needs to be good RP with it, as I've said all along, but there is no reason that IG odds can't be used as a decision whether or not something works, especially where there is only a 2% chance to 16% chance that something will actually work all the way through anyways.

No, he said he wouldn't accept a single roll of the dice. Learn to read, please.

Kevz, you haven't argued against not using odds, you've argued against using good RP in CNRP. All those factors are definitely something that should be taken into account when spying on someone, but if the dice roll said that you got in, you can use those factors to get into the nation. I'm not saying if the dice roll said you won you can just be like "My spies get across your border." No. There needs to be a well thought out RP to go along with it. Our IG stats don't take into account crime or poverty either, does that mean we shouldn't use them as an accurate barometer for CNRP?

Again...what is the motivation for this RP, and RP'ing the inteligence defenses, if it's still determined by a roll of the dice? What happens if the person does indeed simply say, "My spies get across your border?" Even if he doesn't, it's not much of a motivation for the defender to RP defenses if no matter what, the outcome is determined by a roll of the dice. This is role-playing, not an RPG.

I challenge the "don't use IG stats" people to explain to me a reason why not to use them. Basically, the two arguments thus far have been "If we use IG stats, there won't be good RP" which has been refuted numerous times and "I don't want to use them" which is just stupid. Explain to me a real reason, and then I might start considering your point of view.

It is hardly as simple as "if we use ingame stats, there won't be good RP." no one is saying that. Some of the more hardcore RP'ers will still do it. However, there will be no motivation for the rest to use good RP if we continue to say it's all in the roll of the dice.

Get that through your head.

[hawk11]

Y'know subtle, I routinely find myself tuning out to whatever you say because of your routine use of phrases such as "learn to read," and "get it through your head."

[King Kevz]

Kevz, you haven't argued against not using odds, you've argued against using good RP in CNRP. All those factors are definitely something that should be taken into account when spying on someone, but if the dice roll said that you got in, you can use those factors to get into the nation. I'm not saying if the dice roll said you won you can just be like "My spies get across your border." No. There needs to be a well thought out RP to go along with it. Our IG stats don't take into account crime or poverty either, does that mean we shouldn't use them as an accurate barometer for CNRP?

I challenge the "don't use IG stats" people to explain to me a reason why not to use them. Basically, the two arguments thus far have been "If we use IG stats, there won't be good RP" which has been refuted numerous times and "I don't want to use them" which is just stupid. Explain to me a real reason, and then I might start considering your point of view.

Subtle explained it pretty well. The reason I disagree with the idea of using rolls is that whilst it allows the person to spy do as much or as little rp as they want the person who is trying to stop the spier knows that they have to let him win regardless as he won by a roll. That means the stats have won over RP which I disagree with.

[Michael McBride]

Subtle explained it pretty well. The reason I disagree with the idea of using rolls is that whilst it allows the person to spy do as much or as little rp as they want the person who is trying to stop the spier knows that they have to let him win regardless as he won by a roll. That means the stats have won over RP which I disagree with.

Again, has been refuted numerous times. If the person doesn't want to put in the time and effort to make it a good RP, either nullify the RP or stop them and the rest of the community should back you.

[Subtleknifewielder]

Y'know subtle, I routinely find myself tuning out to whatever you say because of your routine use of phrases such as "learn to read," and "get it through your head."

If I say it again and again, it's because people may look at my arguments, but no one seems to take the time to actually listen to what I have to say.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Subtleknifewielder

[Michael McBride]

Y'know subtle, I routinely find myself tuning out to whatever you say because of your routine use of phrases such as "learn to read," and "get it through your head."

As do I. Continue to insult me and I'll bring it up with the mods. Your bias is not becoming of a GM.

No, he said he wouldn't accept a single roll of the dice. Learn to read, please.

Learn English, please. Saying that you won't accept a single role of the dice can mean two things, it can mean that he won't accept any roles of the dice (as in, not a single one shall be done) or it can mean that he won't accept just one. I took it one way, you took it another. Don't insult me because you disagree with me.

Again...what is the motivation for this RP, and RP'ing the inteligence defenses, if it's still determined by a roll of the dice? What happens if the person does indeed simply say, "My spies get across your border?" Even if he doesn't, it's not much of a motivation for the defender to RP defenses if no matter what, the outcome is determined by a roll of the dice. This is role-playing, not an RPG.

It is hardly as simple as "if we use ingame stats, there won't be good RP." no one is saying that. Some of the more hardcore RP'ers will still do it. However, there will be no motivation for the rest to use good RP if we continue to say it's all in the roll of the dice.

Get that through your head.

You get this through your head. Simply because you are GM does not give you the right to insult other players who disagree with you. This is not the first time you have done this to me, and I am already quite sick of it. Your attitude is appalling for a GM, especially for someone who is supposed to be unbiased when making decisions such as these. So go $%&@ yourself, first off.

Secondly, as I said before, if the person does not do the RP well, or tries to use one line things to do it, then the RP should either be invalidated or you (as a player, not a GM) can stop them and the rest of the community should back you up. If someone can't figure out a way around the defenses, then it doesn't matter what the dice said, they don't get through. However, if they can find a way and the dice said they did, then you can't stop them. The dice is there as a way for people not to !@#$%* and moan because someone got around their defenses. It's a stopguard for people throwing up things at the last minute that weren't there before so people can't get in. It's to promote fairer RP, not take it away.

[King Kevz]

Again, has been refuted numerous times. If the person doesn't want to put in the time and effort to make it a good RP, either nullify the RP or stop them and the rest of the community should back you.

But you can't do that as the spier has got the odds to successfully infiltrate my nation according to the IG stats he or she has. For me to turn around and so um no you havn't RP'd well enough would be the same as me saying no to a war becuase I don't think the RP was good enough. If you have it based on a stats roll then by the rules they can and will succed but make it RP fully based then you pit the RP skills of both players against each other equally.

[hawk11]

If I say it again and again, it's because people may look at my arguments, but no one seems to take the time to actually listen to what I have to say.

However, being short about it only weakens your credibility. There's no need to be banging shoes over something as trivial as this.

[Michael McBride]

But you can't do that as the spier has got the odds to successfully infiltrate my nation according to the IG stats he or she has. For me to turn around and so um no you havn't RP'd well enough would be the same as me saying no to a war becuase I don't think the RP was good enough. If you have it based on a stats roll then by the rules they can and will succed but make it RP fully based then you pit the RP skills of both players against each other equally.

Except making it fully RP based poses a myriad of problems as well. Multiple times I've seen people put together a supposedly "impenetrable" system, and then when someone actually takes the to RP well enough to get around it, they get all butthurt and suddenly throw in a random guard walking around at that exact moment or something stupid like that to catch the person so their system stays intact. With the dice roll, someone wouldn't be allowed to pull something like that. That's the purpose for it in my mind.

Let's look at what constitutes "good RP". You outlined much of it earlier. Tactics, stealth, creativity, ingenuity, etc. Just because someone has higher odds doesn't mean they should win however. Let's use war as an example. If a stronger nation is simply posting one line responses, and a weaker nation is posting paragraphs detailing how they are flanking the enemy, sent one plane full of soldiers behind enemy lines, etc, who is probably going to win that war? In my mind, it's mostly likely the weaker nation. If a nation with less spy odds has RP'd their defenses so well that 1) they are feasible and 2) the stronger nation, regardless of what the dice said, cannot find a way to get in, it doesn't matter what the dice say at that point.

Does that make my point clearer?

[King Kevz]

Except making it fully RP based poses a myriad of problems as well. Multiple times I've seen people put together a supposedly "impenetrable" system, and then when someone actually takes the to RP well enough to get around it, they get all butthurt and suddenly throw in a random guard walking around at that exact moment or something stupid like that to catch the person so their system stays intact. With the dice roll, someone wouldn't be allowed to pull something like that. That's the purpose for it in my mind.

Let's look at what constitutes "good RP". You outlined much of it earlier. Tactics, stealth, creativity, ingenuity, etc. Just because someone has higher odds doesn't mean they should win however. Let's use war as an example. If a stronger nation is simply posting one line responses, and a weaker nation is posting paragraphs detailing how they are flanking the enemy, sent one plane full of soldiers behind enemy lines, etc, who is probably going to win that war? In my mind, it's mostly likely the weaker nation. If a nation with less spy odds has RP'd their defenses so well that 1) they are feasible and 2) the stronger nation, regardless of what the dice said, cannot find a way to get in, it doesn't matter what the dice say at that point.

Does that make my point clearer?

It does I think I mis read what you said earlier. I was thinking you were saying that odds meant they always won rather than them having to RP it and the odds keeping random stuff out of the RP that can screw stuff up however, I still fear people may complain OOC anyway.

One other problem with stats is that it limits those that want to spy to those that have them ingame which I kind of disagree with as many nations can't have spies IG which makes little sense in RP as it isn't that hard to train a spy. Maybe those without spies IG have restircted technology for spies but they shouldn't be limited to not being able to spy.

[Lynneth]

Solution:

RP, then roll if the RP succeeded.

[King Kevz]

Solution:

RP, then roll if the RP succeeded.

Doesn't work unfortunally. If the RP is written out and the spier makes it through then he is through roll or no roll.

[hawk11]

Doesn't work unfortunally. If the RP is written out and the spier makes it through then he is through roll or no roll.

Solution: refuse to roll if the RP does not address the specific defenses already presented by the defender.

[Michael McBride]

It does I think I mis read what you said earlier. I was thinking you were saying that odds meant they always won rather than them having to RP it and the odds keeping random stuff out of the RP that can screw stuff up however, I still fear people may complain OOC anyway.

One other problem with stats is that it limits those that want to spy to those that have them ingame which I kind of disagree with as many nations can't have spies IG which makes little sense in RP as it isn't that hard to train a spy. Maybe those without spies IG have restircted technology for spies but they shouldn't be limited to not being able to spy.

I'd agree with the fact that it isn't hard to train a spy, but I think it's very hard to train a good spy. You can set up any schmuck on the border with some high powered binoculars and he can technically be called a spy. It takes skill, charisma, intelligence, and a whole host of other things to be a good spy.

While not having IG spies is a detriment to other nations, it's just like any other IG stat like technology or infrastructure. I don't have as much technology as the big guys here, so therefore I cannot have as cool or advanced weapons, which would mean in a war I'd be at a disadvantage technologically. Should I have their technology but not the means to maintain it? My main point is that I think we should be consistent as far as how we use IG stats, not pick and choose the ones we like and discard the ones we don't.

[King Kevz]

Solution: refuse to roll if the RP does not address the specific defenses already presented by the defender.

I guess that could work. The way I see it and I think its how Pravus sees it is that both sides roleplay the spying attempt and if some random event gets thrown in by one or the other party then a roll is made to see if that succeds or affects the attempt.

[Spock]

If I say it again and again, it's because people may look at my arguments, but no one seems to take the time to actually listen to what I have to say.

Or you could tone down the attitude.

Like all of you should.

[King Kevz]

I'd agree with the fact that it isn't hard to train a spy, but I think it's very hard to train a good spy. You can set up any schmuck on the border with some high powered binoculars and he can technically be called a spy. It takes skill, charisma, intelligence, and a whole host of other things to be a good spy.

While not having IG spies is a detriment to other nations, it's just like any other IG stat like technology or infrastructure. I don't have as much technology as the big guys here, so therefore I cannot have as cool or advanced weapons, which would mean in a war I'd be at a disadvantage technologically. Should I have their technology but not the means to maintain it? My main point is that I think we should be consistent as far as how we use IG stats, not pick and choose the ones we like and discard the ones we don't.

The difference I see here is that you have lesser technology but you at least have technology to use with spies that isn't the case. But I do see your point.

[hawk11]

I guess that could work. The way I see it and I think its how Pravus sees it is that both sides roleplay the spying attempt and if some random event gets thrown in by one or the other party then a roll is made to see if that succeds or affects the attempt.

Also a good idea.

[Michael McBride]

I guess that could work. The way I see it and I think its how Pravus sees it is that both sides roleplay the spying attempt and if some random event gets thrown in by one or the other party then a roll is made to see if that succeds or affects the attempt.

Add this to Baron's five step system and we might just have something that works.

[King Kevz]

Add this to Baron's five step system and we might just have something that works.

I agree.