While We Wait: Boredom Strikes Back

[Tee Kay]

Eh, historical plausibility be damned!

*flees back to Forum Games*

 

[nutranurse]

Yeah, isn't fun all that matters? It's not as if we're in some super academic setting.

edit: Besides, it's the internet--the absolute worst place to have any kind of debate ever. This includes althist debates. I don't even know why people get so invested in them.

 

[Abaddon]

Thats why I loved Imago's first NES. He didn't try to create an alt-hist. He simply gave us an interesting map, and allowed us to play from that point onwards. How it got there didn't really matter. It was one of the most enjoyable NES i've ever played.

He's doing it again in #2, and already it has an insane amount of character development by everyone since there is a blank page, for everyone to go crazy on. Tons of stories, newspaper clips, etc, you name it! It might not be "beautiful" to the purist, but by-god its fun!

 

[Daftpanzer]

You're all elitists as far as I'm concerned

 

[Starlife]

In my opinion, Starlife, the interest of your premise is hindered by its implausibility, and choosing one that wasn't so implausible would be more likely to yield good results in any game that it was used for. How can the players accurately judge how they should act when their position is almost inconceivable? You stand to end up with a game where it is unlikely that there will be fair and consistent play, because the players have differing perceptions of what the world is like, precisely because the inconsistency of the idea undermines the capability of the players to imagine the scenario.

Some people, I know, don't mind when they do something and then the other players go, "But wait, such and such in the timeline indicates that that's impossible," and then you argue it out between you, and find that it's impossible to come to a conclusion because it comes down to a flaw in the premise, but I for one find it intensely annoying to see a game collapse into an argument like that. Clearly there are other ways of preserving consistency, such as strict boardgamelike rules - and no-one denies that games like Risk are implausible, but they are internally consistent and fun - but I myself think that the best and most imaginative way of preserving consistency for the sake of the game, and the most enjoyable way of being creative as well as having a coherent narrative, is to make the althist plausible in the first place.

Anyway, that's my opinion on implausible althists: they run the sizable risk of being continually misunderstood throughout the entire game by all the players if the players have no way of determining precisely how they stand in relation to each other. Your althist, then, would be better if it were more plausible.

We agree to disagree, good sir. I thank you for your words nonetheless. I know what my friends want and how we play PBEM games - and trust me - historical accuracy is not important. I am going for fantasy history, not alternate history. Please: 1. Read this thread thoroughly, and 2. See Space 1889.

I also think your plot, aside from its implausibility, suffers from lack of motivation. Why on earth would the Romans want to colonise America even if they could? This is a crucial feature of any setting. Not having this is like, for instance, not knowing about colonists to America in the 18th century often being of religious minorities, or not knowing that Australia was a penal colony, or not realising that certain movements of people were caused by overpopulation or unemployment (features that were not particularly prevalent in most of the Roman Empire as far as I can remember). I feel you lack depth in your story, and you could do with more depth even if the motivations were just as absurd as the rest of your althist.

Cough! Because: The Romans aren't colonizing. The intention from the beginning of my premise was not that they wanted to, or even focusing on that - it was asking people here for suggestions on how to make NA cultures more organized/advanced upon European arrival in the colonial era. I don't want to be rude here, but if you had read my previous comments you would know that I am not concerned about Romans - and I am not going after that concept at all. You haven't even read my 'althist', yet you comment on it now. There are no Romans involved, and I provided motivation for Chinese colonists. I may be ridiculous and wanting historical fantasy, but I'm not stupid (at least, not that stupid...). I know that motivation is needed to colonize.

Anyway, I hope as diatribes go that isn't completely unhelpful. Really, though, Starlife, the thing is that if you put things up for people to advise you on, you can expect their honest opinions and their best advice. Given that, in many cases, our honest opinions and best advice is that implausible althists should be made plausible, you shouldn't object when that's what you hear in reply. No-one wants to sabotage or rubbish your efforts, but rather to help you make the best of them, and so, clearly, if we think that the way to do that is through plausibility, then of course we're going to say so, and it wouldn't really be our soundest and most honest advice if we gave you recommendations, but nevertheless ignored the main problem with your althist.

I hear you. I am fine with people saying that, and I respect your opinion. But we have been over this many times in this conversation, and I have specifically said that strict plausibility is not in the cards. Dachs' words and manner are clearly different, though. He isn't giving his 'best advice' or his 'soundest and most honest advice'.

Everyone else, though, has. So when you say 'we', I wonder who you refer to.

 

[Shadowbound]

Everyone else, though, has. So when you say 'we', I wonder who you refer to.

Hey, how's it going?

 

[Starlife]

He isn't giving his 'best advice' or his 'soundest and most honest advice'.

Everyone else, though, has. So when you say 'we', I wonder who you refer to.

Hey, how's it going?

Really, Shadowbound? So you are admitting now anything you have posted in this thread has not been honest and sound advice? An interesting admission. Perhaps I should agree with you.

 

[das]

Dachs' words and manner are clearly different, though. He isn't giving his 'best
advice' or his 'soundest and most honest advice'.

Without getting any further into this mess (more than enough people fanning the flames on both sides as it is), he did give you his 'honest opinion' though, didn't he?

Actually, I'm going to go ahead and say that what you're doing is still alternate history (what does "fantasy history" even mean?), just soft alternate history without heavy concerns for realism. That's... hardly unprecedented here. It's just seldom discussed like this. Whether or not you actually have them, you do certainly seem to have some historical pretensions, what with bothering to try and chart out Roman colonisation and its influence, as well as the various native tribes.

EDIT: That being said, Dachs, this is WWW, not the Alternate History thread. No real standards to uphold here, that's kind of the point.

 

[spryllino]

Dachs is giving you his soundest advice, Starlife, but more pithily and argumentatively than I like to. I think I said much the same thing but more elaborately than he did.

Also, what das said.

 

[Starlife]

Without getting any further into this mess (more than enough people fanning the flames on both sides as it is), he did give you his 'honest opinion' though, didn't he?

Actually, I'm going to go ahead and say that what you're doing is still alternate history (what does "fantasy history" even mean?), just soft alternate history without heavy concerns for realism. That's... hardly unprecedented here. It's just seldom discussed like this. Whether or not you actually have them, you do certainly seem to have some historical pretensions, what with bothering to try and chart out Roman colonisation and its influence, as well as the various native tribes.

Fantasy history means that fantastic elements might be present - i.e. magical, sci-fi, other.

Also, not Roman. Chinese.

Right. So if I think someone shouldn't be posting something, I should go around being the police of the forum, telling them they are crap and that they shouldn't post that. You're right. That is his honest opinion. How could I possibly question it?

I give up. You guys are all right. I'm wrong.

EDIT: Thanks, spryllino. I figured as much.

 

[Shadowbound]

Really, Shadowbound? So you are admitting now anything you have posted in this thread has not been honest and sound advice? An interesting admission. Perhaps I should agree with you.

That's an interesting leap. I simply know how giving you advice turns out, so I didn't bother.

 

[Adrogans]

Eh, historical plausibility be damned!

*flees back to Forum Games*

Often this is how I feel, but sadly it seems to be not only do you not need plausibility but now everyone plays their nation as if its just one long joke.

 

[spryllino]

Yeah, because that "ewwwww" was totally a judgment on the plausibility of the scenario and not how interesting, novel, or aesthetically pleasing it was. Because all of my opinions on all alternate history or historical fiction ever relate to plausibility. Clearly. Take Gladiator and Spartacus: Blood and Sand - neither is historically accurate or plausible in any meaningful way, but Gladiator is a good, interesting, and well done movie, whereas Spartacus: Blood and Sand is cheap gorn/softcore series on a subject that's been beaten to death with a paper-thin veneer of ancient history. Even an alternate history of a subject that's been overdone is worth looking at if the execution is good, like Fatherland.

And yeah, sure, quick-and-dirty crap for PBEM games or pencil-and-paper NES-equivalents is just fine; I've run plenty of the latter. But I wouldn't put the setting up here and ask for ideas or feedback or oooh oooh look at this. If it's supposed to be quick-and-dirty crap, keep it that way. So shut up about this elitism garbage, because I'm sick and tired of it.

These are mostly good, honest, points; there's more to this post than just rubbishing your althist, Starlife.

 

[das]

Fantasy history means that fantastic elements might be present - i.e. magical, sci-fi, other.

Are they present here, though?

Also, not Roman. Chinese.

Honestly, I lost track of your trail of thought. I'm fairly sure it started with the Romans.

Right. So if I think someone shouldn't be posting something, I should go around being the police of the forum, telling them they are crap and that they shouldn't post that. You're right. That is his honest opinion. How could I possibly question it?

I give up. You guys are all right. I'm wrong.

Frankly, if this is going to be your attitude, then yes.

I get that the regulars can be a bit antagonistic, but you're really being needlessly confrontational throughout this yourself. Which just leads to a vicious cycle of everyone getting more and more frustrated at each other. At which point I am forced to acknowledge that yeah, posting it here in the first place might have been a mistake. It's more of a Forum Games thing, don't you think?

 

[Starlife]

Yes. You're right. I told you you are right.

 

[Dachs]

Yeah, das, I kinda got that this wasn't going to be held to particularly rigorous standards awhile ago. Speaking of the althist thread, your absence from it makes me sad.

How can you tell him its not suitable for here, and also deny elitism?

I didn't tell him it's not suitable for here. He's the one who told me to leave. You and Starlife seem to enjoy making stuff up about what I post. I didn't say who could or should post things in this thread, and what could or should be posted in it; I didn't say that the entire NES community was unhelpful; I didn't say that his scenario has to be historically accurate...

I mean, could we at least discuss what I actually did say instead of making wonderful speeches harassing me about things that I didn't?

You prove my point quite nicely. Thanks, pal, for your hospitality. I think I am a much different PBEM GM than you. I don't consider my games quick-and-dirty. They tend to last for years, actually, and my friends and myself will not get involved in one unless we are entirely interested in doing so.

And for the record, people here were extremely helpful in giving me feedback, new ideas, and even entirely new settings for my PBEM. OK, so you mentioned a best-selling series of (overrated in my opinion) novels, and a good movie. But I am making a PBEM game. So any helpful suggestions from the community here came from people acknowledging that simple fact, and thus putting forward new ideas. Also, my aim was not to include the Romans in the way that such a scenario has been 'beaten to death' - my aim was to make Native Americans more advanced by the time Europeans arrived. My final decision to use the Chinese came about through conversation with people on this board. I am not looking for anything unique or to write some amazing (overrated) novel. So helpful comments engaged the subject at hand, and they were extremely useful.

Yours were not. So, even if you do have 20,000 posts+ (I'm sure every single one is such wonderful quality and represents your time very well spent), it is not reason to call your entire fellow NES community unhelpful, or dictate who can post what in this thread. I am not seeking ooohs and ahhhs, but rather concrete tips, suggestions, or new ideas. Which I received plenty of.

I'm not afraid to ask for suggestions, you see, rather than post a little essay in here and then get hostile when someone refutes it. I guess I have a little bit more respect for people here.

...

Right, so you create a setting that's deliberately supposed to be implausible. Fine, I say. Have your implausible setting. Do it in an interesting way and people who like that sort of thing will have loads of fun. Great.

Then you decide to bring it up here, asking for feedback. Also fine. I give my feedback, that I'm not interested, and highlight the portion that I'm specifically quite unhappy about, namely, a situation key to the premise, something that, if it were changed, would kind of submarine the whole idea. That's all I did, and I attempted to do it in a relatively laconic way. (I'd also like to point out how silly it is to ask for feedback when you've already stated it's not supposed to be particularly plausible. I mean, what exactly were you going for, then? Obviously, you found some of it. But at that point, what was I supposed to think, that you wanted yes-men or something? "Give me feedback and historical context, but not too much, because this is supposed to be just for fun.")

For my trouble, I get called an "elitist" because you apparently assume that I don't like the historical accuracy or lack thereof of the setting. You know, because every time somebody says that they don't like one of your ideas, throwing back ill-considered insults is a good way to do business. So then I say that I'm not an elitist, and this is why, and get...whatever the hell the thing I just quoted is.

What's with all of the personal comments, most of which are based either on superficial or blatantly incorrect information? Do you have a hair trigger temper, or something? I mean, the fact that I mentioned famous movies and books wasn't because I expected you to make a famous movie or book, or else I would ignore whatever you turned out (I mean, if that were the case, what the hell would I be doing here?), it was because it was a freaking analogy and I was comparing things to other things that everybody knows about. Cause that's how analogies work.

Did you assume that me calling whatever it is that you're doing "quick and dirty" was an insult? Cause, you know, if I'm saying that I did that sort of thing too (even if, apparently, I didn't put as much Backbreaking Work into it as you do), it's probably not an insult, otherwise I'd kinda be insulting myself. Okay, so you're devoting an awful lot of effort to this thing and to keeping it plausible in some ways, but not others. It's not quick and dirty, just dirty. p) Wonderful. Great. It's still something that doesn't seem very interesting to me, even if other people are interested (more power to them!). And if you don't particularly like the very limited feedback I gave, well, I've got the same opinion of the equally limited feedback you're giving me on the things that I come up with. Doesn't mean I'll tell you to go "shoo", or insult you, like you did to me. Kiss and make up?

Christ, can't do anything here without some drama.

 

[das]

Yes. You're right. I told you you are right.

No, really. I've been thinking about this. It's not supposed to be a proper alternate history so you can't put it in the Alternate History thread. It's not supposed to be a NES, as such, so you can't put it in the new NES development thread. So you put it in WWW, but this is honestly not the sort of stuff we usually put in WWW either (EDIT: I think, I can't be completely sure as I haven't been watching it all that closely for some time), so obviously people got confused and agitated.

Just trying to understand why this happened, really, personalities aside.

 

[Dachs]

so obviously people got confused and agitated.

Am I calm? I'm ****ing ZEN!

 

[Adrogans]

I think it wasn't so much that he wanted feedback on the concept as he wanted to know what we thought would be results/effects of xyz 'implausible situation.' If that is what he wanted then he didn't word the request well. Not really sure where it should have been placed though.

 

[Starlife]

No, I honestly understood you the first time, das. No worries.

@Dachs/Shadowbound:

There is a difference between giving feedback, and saying 'Ewwwww' or 'You have ruined a completely good system.' Those two things are called spam, and provide no useful advice or way to make things better. Feedback is discourse. That is not discourse.

g'day