Oftentimes I will receive a telegram from a new nation asking the following: How do I play this game? or perhaps How do I win at this game? and even the typical what is there to do in this game? All valid questions, of course. Regardless of how glib these questions may be, their sense of bewilderment continues to fascinate me, not really in the sense of how they appear clueless (we all probably asked these questions ourselves when we first joined this game) but it fascinates me because the more I play this game, the less I really feel qualified to answer them. Its weird. When I first became the delegate of TEP in 2009 I would write little talking points on how to play the game, which faction to join that may be of interest to the individual, etc. Nowadays, however, Im not entirely sure, partially because of how the game has changed for me, but also because my own personal opinions and experiences shouldnt be used as a metric for how to play the game. And even so, theyll pick the area they feel interests them the most. But I wonder. Are there gameplayers more suited for roleplaying, and are there roleplayers more suited for gameplaying? After careful thought, based on my own opinions and experiences, based on some historical NS knowledge, and drawing up some scenarios in the game, I truly do think the mindsets between roleplaying and gameplaying are quite different. Like, strikingly different. But even so, their goals are the same, and that is where we have level ground.Ill do the best I can to explain my above hypothesis by first delving into common traits of a roleplayer and common traits of a gameplayer. Ill then lead into some challenges between the two groups followed by a short section which explains their similarities. Ill then end with ideas I have to bridge that gap, which in my opinion is widening at an alarming rate. Please bear in mind that the conclusions I draw are based on my observations and I in no way claim that the solutions I posit will have any kind of an effect (Im also sick right now and hopped up on some medication). But, thats what these lectures are, after all a lecturer attempting to formulate a statement based on their own experiences. So be it.
A Gameplayer
Gameplayers are those who tend to play NationStates with an interregional flair. That is, they are more interested in how the regions interact with one another and even as singular entities (in relation to the regions around them), through delegations and diplomacies, the raiding / defending game, voting in the WA, and even on various summits and accords held by regions throughout the course of the year. The choosiest of gameplayers will almost always have an opinion on any type of gameplayer occurrence, and will speak as if their opinion and thoughts should hold equal weight in any region. Thats not to say theyll be pushy about it, but thats just how they play the game they see it from the perspective of a region. Its not that someone couped, its that the region in which they couped in could be in trouble or in need of assistance and we should find a way to fight back (well contact the natives when we can). Its not enough if a region one has no part in has delegate elections theyve already picked the candidate they would want to win even though theyve not been in that region for a long time or at all. They are, in short, very preoccupied with how regions behave with one another. And, therefore, theyre preoccupied with how their home region(s) interact and behave on the same footing as other regions.
But they tend to be more preoccupied with the self; that is, the player behind the nation how they are seen in the world around them and the image they project. How they are perceived by others, especially in their own circles, is rather important. Should anything come around to threaten that, they will fight it with determination. But in general, gameplay fights, more so now than in years past, are taken very personally. And in that comes the drama thats become rather prevalent in the current climate of gameplay. Thats not to say gameplayers are selfish individuals the play to win mentality is no different than playing any other game, and its truly treated as a game. But theyre a different breed than that. See, when their goals align with one another in a group, it can merit extremely positive results. Thats when the perceived selfishness wanes and the comradely and cooperation shine through. Its why some of the best communities in the game are comprised of gameplayers. Because, again, they tend to take things personally, and in doing so forge extremely close alliances that can be powerful and demonstrate the fun aspects of this style of play. As things are taken personally, sometimes, not all the time, but sometimes close alliances can deteriorate in the span of an evening. Its why I think some gameplayers get so overwhelmed that they must retire, sometimes opting for elaborate retirement posts only to return and work their way back into the fold again. Its an emotionally-invested way of playing the game, and therefore it can be emotionally-draining, too. To get too caught up in the drama is to play a toxic game.
It is to that end that often the most revered gameplayers are those who have learned to speak less, not more. They hold their tongue or are very formal with their speech when they must voice an opinion. They are careful to refrain from slander and tend to focus on the problem at hand rather than the individuals. In that way, theyre often seen as visionary and, perhaps in this day and age, forward-thinking. In doing so, they foster this appreciation for their opinions and maintain their typically calm and oftentimes philosophical demeanor. Its like anything else the nations, or, speaking as a gameplayer, people who carry themselves well often attract other people who look to their steadfastness for guidance and even at times approval.
A Roleplayer
If gameplayers are interregional, roleplayers are intraregional, but often to the point where the region itself doesnt really interest them as far as the regional page is concerned, except for maybe posting some RP information in the World Factbook Entry. Instead of checking on various regions throughout the day, they may just limit themselves to answering issues, as some roleplayers stick to their nations stats as a metric for how adept they may be at defending themselves, the likes. That is, theyre more concerned with the nation and how nations, especially nations in their region, act with one another. Yes, I know, there are many roleplayers who simply roleplay without much care as to where the nation is located, but ask around even those who roleplay on the main forums will usually stick with roleplaying other nations in their region, because they know that nation more than others. Look at NS Sports sure they will host Olympics which include many, many roleplaying nations, but they will also prefer to roleplay various sports with nations in their region, or align themselves by region.
Its not so much the prize in roleplay, but the journey there that matters the most. In other words, its not really a game. Roleplaying, at least from what Ive participated in, isnt so much winning or losing, and its not even something like conquering an enemy. The better roleplayers in my opinion will tell you it is how the roleplay grows. The character development between both their characters and the characters in the region, controlled by other players, is more important than winning a war. Thats not to say they dont care who wins a war, but the thing thats different than gameplay is there will often be a lot of table talk to get there, referred to as out-of-character discussion. In that way, the outcome may sometimes, perhaps rarely, be agreed upon before such interaction, but at least if something is roleplayed out, it will be after asking some questions about the nation, their weapons, for instance, and tactics, etc. Perhaps theyll hold a summit to buoy support for their side, forge trade agreements to lock the nation out of economic benefits. Heck, some of the most interesting roleplays Ive been involved in didnt start out with any sort of premise. Vekaiyu hosting a ball eventually led to a war with Dveria, for instance. It happens. But there is a particular self-focus here too, though its different. Everyone likes to showcase their nation, after all. There are threads in and around the main forums and RP circles that allow nations to discuss their cultures, leaders, what-if scenarios, etc. Like gameplay, it is a perceived selfishness thats not always there, but if were honest with ourselves, wed like to see our nation and some of the characters in it showcased a bit. Like how gameplayers will put in their signatures when they were a delegate or their titles, roleplayers will sometimes link their current roleplays in their signature, or character bios, or whatever.
But whereas gameplay tends to be more personal, roleplaying in my opinion isnt. Its actually very taboo to let out-of-character grudges come out in-character, because ultimately were weaving the stories for characters we happen to control but have no basis of influencing. In time, if roleplayed correctly, one can almost already know how their character will react, and it may go against their best wishes, but it is proper and right for them to follow the emotions of the character and not of the writer. So if a nation happens to go to war with another nation, or attempts to assassinate a leader, its not supposed to be taken personally, because were operating through our characters but our characters and the nations they live in are in no way designed to be a reflection of ourselves.
Can We Build Off That?
A long-retired roleplayer / gameplayer Kandarin onced asked me if I play the game out-of-character, or in-character one night. That is to say, do I play as a different, independent person when I gameplay (IC), or do I play the game as myself (OOC). I told him something along the lines of of course I play the game out-of-character and was a bit shocked when he explained that there are many people who gameplayed in-character. Over the years Ive tried to completely understand what that means, but for people who play this game on both sides of the coin, it becomes rather trivial to grasp.
If one reads the writings from gameplayers very early in NS, what does one find? They find the gameplayers speaking in almost extremist tendencies, sometimes even with exaggerated philosophies. They find them adding little stories to their actions, and perhaps even sensationalize it in the older news posts. Its not like someone was on a spy mission per-se, but the way in which they spied is, well, sensationalized. Its almost as if these players behave as characters. Almost as if theyre playing the game in-character. In short, theyve detached themselves from the game who they are is not in any way meant to be a reflection of how they act in the game. Fast-forward today and I dont really see many gameplayers who play the game in-character. An attack on them is an attack on their person, and that goes for any type of interaction. Even any gameplay plots, no matter how silly or ridiculous as they many seem, are to be taken with utmost seriousness and condemnations should be dished out accordingly. Im reminded of what happened in TSP during the Milo coup, when he and some roleplayers along a few gameplayers (to help them with the game mechanic stuff) couped the region. Did you notice the way in which they did that? It was done so like a story, with its own theme and various nations acting as exaggerated entities, which is why I think it gave the gameplay community fits when it did happen it wasnt typical. But to a roleplayer, thats a story. To a gameplayer, thats life or death. To some roleplayers, couping a region could be considered as a journey and the fun is in the journey not necessarily the outcome. To a gameplayer, a failed coup is career suicide. I should note, however, that this is how I perceive it and in no way am I speaking on Milos behalf, as I was not a part of that (though that coup did birth the Free Press News Service, so theres that).
But its not just roleplayers coming in and supposedly making a mess of things. Gameplay, specifically the raid / defend game, encroaches on the territory of roleplayers. The raids and defenses typically pour into founderless roleplay regions. In short, it takes their region with characters and nations and maps and makes it into a battlefield. So? Why dont they just refound another region? Well, because perhaps that region holds a lot of historical significance. Perhaps some roleplayers retired and may return. Or perhaps it just means they may need to retcon some history because the new region will be different. Perhaps they just dont want to. Either way, its a perception that gameplayers tend to pour themselves into other aspects of the game and step over other aspects of the game. A similar argument became a hot topic when the recently-modded and gameplay-savvy Mallorea and Riva forged a proposal to liberate Haven, a founderless RP region that had a password to protect it, but said password was eventually removed. This even invoked the wrath of the mentors, which spoke out against Mall, who had cited evidence from a native of Haven suggesting they were involved in the Milograd coup. The proposal failed to reach quorum, but ignited a period of hostilities between the roleplay and gameplay community, which in my estimation has recovered a little bit since the start of this 2.5 years ago, but still remains a point of contention. I dont mean to be picking on the Milograd / Mall stuff, but its an example. I could have used a similar example for the formation of The Security Council, for instance.
But heres the thing: whos right? Perhaps it doesnt need to be a question of right or wrong, but a question of how to react to it.
A Keystone is Found
You may believe roleplayers and gameplayers have different ways of operating in this game, but really, they operate under the exact same pretenses: trust and respect. They both yearn for it and want to surround themselves with people they trust and respect, or at the very least have the opportunity to gain those two things. Gameplay alliances are heavily based on trust and respect. Those who have obtained the two qualities will often be privy to much different interregional information, while those who have lost it will find themselves ignored or looked upon with skepticism. Roleplaying circles are heavily based on trust and respect. No one wants to roleplay with someone who will godmod or kill off other peoples characters theyd rather roleplay with people who they can trust and if they put another character in a precarious situation will allow the other roleplayer with a chance to figure out how they get out of it.
Bridging the Gap
In order for there to be any semblance of healing and understanding between the two, the two factions need to reciprocate that trust and respect to one another. But this isnt as easy at face-value at least. Bridging the gap will require gameplayers to respect the whims and desires of roleplayers. Theyll need to trust roleplayers that their ability to storyweave and operate is not an affront against the gameplayers; rather, thats simply how they play the game in-character (of which some gameplayers, but not many, play the game today). Likewise, roleplayers will have to respect the manner in which gameplayers play the game. They think interregionally, they want to build communities and at times use these communities to affect other regions in the game. Theyll need to trust that if (and when) these players turn their regions into battlegrounds that theyll eventually leave and let them operate back to their own devices.
Theyll need to understand they play this game differently, but are in it for the same goals.
Easier said than done, I know. Notice I dont propose us changing any facet of how we gameplay or roleplay, but rather I believe greater communication between the two groups is key. Were not two groups playing in a vacuum we play this game together just with different pretenses. Bridging the gap, if it is so desired, and I believe it is desired because we share this game together, will require this understanding. Furthermore, I personally believe the two groups could learn from one another. Gameplayers could operate more in-character, for instance, or continue to be a cesspool of drama. Roleplayers on NS should learn the basics of gameplay, otherwise they could just roleplay on some other forum and be done with it. The trouble is that due to how differently we play the game and the difficulties of the past make it tough to initiate this conversation. But its a very important one to have, and in my opinion could make this game more fun for both sides in the long run.
One of the ideas we had for this fair was to discuss roleplaying and gameplaying relations in an attempt to forge a discussion between the two groups. Perhaps a good place to start is this lecture, but its not to be viewed as a correct-all, nor will it be. I like to think Im a roleplayer and a gameplayer, but my way of thinking is far from perfect. I am certain there are others in this game who have better concepts and could speak more plainly than I who would be very good at carrying on discussion. But even if not, I like to think of this lecture as a means to initiate discussion and not end it. Because, after all, the best roleplays and best best gameplay groups seem to be fun in an almost endless sense. And hav