Human Roleplay Switches

[Orion]

catch me replying all over the place so i can keep shit straight ahhhh

- The history was confusing and too explanatory to be narrowed down.
Making a whole new world history (ie: hundreds and thousands of years before the current time period) would be even more confusing. Using real world history both keeps it easy to google if someone has questions about something before our timeline and BoB's split from each other. Want to know how racism will affect your character depending on where the world stood at the time? An easy google search can help you answer that question.

Definitely, but we'd have to void out a ton of history to fit our time span in, which leads to plenty of confusion and references that are made(that can't be made). For example, animal RP seems to have WWII characters. For human roleplay, we'd have to cancel that out and say something different. There'd be some explanation to do and moderation to keep care of. Also, but if we're going to have mutations / abilities, then there will be a whole new type of racism and problems to arise. Racism in roleplay is sadly not played out often.

- Lack of more *viable* explanation. There really was no middle option. (Contrary to previous)
Perhaps if the history wasn't squished all together within 20 years- 20 years after a nuclear meltdown and the world would still be mostly inhabitable and humans just barely struggling to survive, much less slaughtering each other.

Agreed. A lot of this has to do with the fact of trying not to erase years worth of development and history.

- World building was done, but it was often left unexplained.
Then the solution is to explain it, not get rid of it completely and scrap it for another. The problem for some people (and myself) is that there isn't enough explanation, there aren't enough questions answered. Or the questions were answered but weren't written down cohesively.

I'd disagree. Why'd try something we already have done if it didn't work the first time? Truly, a failed schematic won't thrive.

- The world itself was hard to navigate around. Sticking the world in the real world presented a challenge and limited us entirely, along with adding a bunch of unnecessary rules and precautions that were not needed. This is why the history, along with liquid time, was honestly a mess in my total opinion. Though it may seem small, it created many of problems.
Alright so, I think we may have misunderstood each other when I said 'no' to a custom map. You have the current map, yes, real world part of Europe zoomed in. The territories, biomes, countries- they can all be changed how we see fit. A blank map of the real world can become a custom map.

Even so, things can become confusing in such a way.

i completely disagree with scrapping blackfall and griffingate ngl. theres too much potential with both of them! too much that can still be put into and growth that we can explore. could they use some tweaking? of course, theres always room for improvement especially in this case where their creation seems a bit rushed and thrown together within a few weeks. this can very well be fixed through building off of each other though, like we had in the discord! we had all enjoyed the idea of staying in the european area because it compromised with people wanting partial islands and others wanting there to still be a continental area. or when impy mentioned the cold war and jabber and musey bounced off of that and so on and so forth

Regarding Griffingate/Blackfall, I don't think they have to be scrapped! They can easily fit into the new world, perhaps with a little change to the history and the way things have progressed. I've read the guides for both of them and it feels like a little too much was done behind-the-scenes, and they both seem like very well thought-out groups, just difficult to understand and jump into. I think once the new groups have been picked, and a little tidying up of the guides are done, Griffingate and Blackfall can stay and thrive.

Don't worry, I won't scrap them completely if they're voted upon. Their history shall remain. I'd rather have something with more interest of the community as a group and if these two groups aren't that, I am content.

i DO believe a third group would b a wonderful idea. dont want to stick to two extremes? thats what the third group could be for. theres your middle man to interfere with griff + black, and so many plots could come from that. temp alliances to take one group down or several other scenarios

Agreed agreed.

personally the main issue i see here though is excitement getting to everyone and the rush to get all their ideas out at once. there should be more communication between staff and its members especially because from what ive seen some issues/concerns arent being addressed or outright ignored when confronted with. i would love to contribute to reforming the human game, and working with everyone else on the site to do so as well but not when i feel like some of my concerns wont be taken into consideration or be completely disregarded

I'm trying to communicate as well, so I apologize.

Worldbuilding will definitely need to be a priority, I feel like we should move away from real-world maps and more toward something more fantasy or mythical, which allows for more development of the land, and what can be found there etc. The post apocalyptic idea can still work out, maybe that's why there's no one there and these groups have slowly come together to rebuild and thrive once more. We can come together to make some sort of universe that is ideally similar to our Earth, because it's familiar to us. I think we can start with all the groups on one land mass, as that'll make things easier.

I've thought about this too. There's a lot of limitations either way, but I feel as if a map of our own design would do us more good than bad.

Picking groups is also important, because I think it ties directly into worldbuilding, as in once we've chosen our main, frontboard groups, we can draft up a map of the 'world' showing where everyone is and how far they are from each other, which will help with relations and inter-board plotting. The reason why I think we need to pick groups early on is that most of them will already have a territory that was contrived, so we can build off of that territory in creating the world map.

Highkey agreeing. Based on groups, we can then build our map appropriately. Another thing to point out is that if Europe stays, we'd then have to limit territory options and I do not want to do that.

i agree with the two responses above mine. as i've said before, worldbuilding is a process and rushing it will only lead to disastrous effects. starting a world from scratch will take so much longer than taking what we already have and improving it further with a cohesive history - and i like the current concept of postap. i don't think mystics are ever going to suit my long-term fancy. personal preferences. something more fantasy-related, to me at least, is good to read in a novel, but takes even longer to explain - not to mention fantasy in roleplay can open up a lot of plotholes that end up getting deus-ex-machina'd, which bugs me a little. evem harry potter had a lot of plotholes, much as i loved the series..

i think, with some time and effort (which will always be required anyway to build a new world), we can make the human board flourish! to me, i'd prefer we just really improve the history first - how the war came, why it came, when it was set, and how far back it happened in relation to the current rp time, taking into consideration realism. there's a really good thing we have already that holds a lot of promise and potential, we just need the time and opportunity to bring it to that potential, and we're all very willing to help bring it there!

<333 thank you

i agree that worldbuilding needs to come first before group conception. if you build groups first that could not, for example, possibly exist in the same universe, then it's going to be a big struggle to build a world around it and have it be cohesive. it would be a turn off, to me, for a world to just magically have groups that shouldn't exist at the same time and just have it be explained by "magic" or any other similar effect. a world is as important as the groups in it. if we already have a cohesive world that works, it will set a guide for future new groups to know how to go about making their own - not to mention all groups will be following more or less the same timeline of events, and there will be a lot of opportunity here! an established world.

Mmmhm agreed. Though we did this the opposite way in animal roleplay and things seemed to go smoothly, as opposed to the current human rp which went this way.

speaking of established world, i'm more of a fan of using the earth we have now as a guideline for locations. for example, the current map that we have is good, i like it! the two settlements are not too close nor too far. the difference between animal rp and human rp is that animal rp can have a set territory to themselves, and be happy with an established border. humans don't. humans are prone to moving constantly if the need requires it, and only those who are on fertile land will stay put - but even then, those on fertile land will have to expand their territories if their population grows and they find that the current land they have is not enough to support them. humans are also prone to claiming another plot of land as their own if they find one that has resources they want - case and point, countries being colonized. this opens up a lot of opportunity of conflict between the clans. in animal rp, fighting for territory doesn't really happen, even before i never really see it work, so i think animal rp should not be used as a guideline for how human rp should be.

I actually planned to move borders here and there + update the map when needed. I love seeing the movement of countries/factions/groups as a whole, so this would be a pleasure to do tbh. Absolutely would love it.

Also, animals do fight for territory. Marking their territory(remembering Warriors tbh), territorial animals such as wolves, etc etc. Lions are really a prime example because of their pride for this, as they do have plenty of fights and challenges out in the wild with territory.

if they were solely set in islands, it will provide a really big restriction to a lot of movements a nation can make (and have made in the past). additionally, it removes the possibility if neutral land between two locations - neutral land that can be used by unofficial groups, that can be fought over, and that's too many roleplaying opportunities missed. how will nations expand their borders? additionally, if all the lands are taken and a new group is introduced, how will we plop down a new island without saying it magically appeared? however, having a mix of mainland AND islands (europe) will be a good mix, providing everyone with what they might need. islands? got them. continents? got them. pre-established culture and history? google, or history books. and it's personally more interesting for me to see how humanity evolves from that culture.

We would have continents and islands off to the side, but our main priority would be the continents/countries being on the mainland UNLESS they're specified as being on an island. Even so, fighting for territory would still pertain for them. Real life example of owning such and such(oil, mining, and stuff not native) business in another country that thrives. Challenges are not necessarily a bad thing when it comes to roleplay and it allows our characters to thrive.

additionally, providing an established map allows people to be more familiar with a location, as well as distances between them. liquid time is not that big of an issue here. i promise it won't take a year to move from blackfall to griff! it would probably take less than a month, even. also also, we have races that we are familiar with - races with established cultures and appearances, and all of those existing in europe in some form or another. if we make a new world from scratch, it'll be harder because we come up with a new world, how it works, what are its laws of gravity, physics (we can't just say earth-like because that's a big no-no in worldbuilding), and then when we'vr established the world, we start with the creatures living in it - namely, where they came from, how they got seperated, what their races are, what their cultures are, why x y and z, what's their history, and each time someone asks another question, that's another thing you have to make from scratch. worldbuilding takes years. i've been worldbuilding for months and i haven't even written the story yet, and i'm not even close to being done. making a world from scratch requires a lot of time, a lot, and frankly that's time we can't afford -
that's months if not years of creation.  whereas, if you use the real world postap, you can look up what happened during the industrial revolution, world war 1, stone age, reinassance, it's all one tap away.

It may be one tap away but it's not necessarily the best way to do it. It'll come off as lazy and will end bad like it did the first time, sadly. I am all up for taking longer than needed to get this up and running.

and personally, to me, i love the world we have now. does it need more work? definitely! does it have a lot of plotholes? yes! can it be fixed without being rewritten completely? absolutely. am i willing to give the time to help make it happen? hell yeah! i'm all for helping make the human world better! a lot of people here are too, and can already see the potential it has. we just need the go-ahead to make it happen.

Like I said before, I'm all up for taking my time.

I'm going to agree that starting from scratch probably isn't ideal for the roleplay. A lot of high-fantasy roleplays on sites tend to ground themselves in either a familiar setting ( fandoms, D&D-style ) or use the real world, so using the real world would make it feel more tangible.

I do see that, but I feel as if there's a complication in doing so like I've stated many times before.

The main issue for me is that nothing is explained? The cataclysm which caused the world to change isn't clearly stated anywhere as far as I'm aware. There's no explanation to why mutants exist, or how they were made. Are there any dangers unique to the world and the world after it's collapse? When did production of certain items? Has everything fallen into ruin, where does technology be at now? A lot of these are left extremely vague so it's really hard to work out where a character would fit in the world.

And that is my fault for not explaining it well enough within the guide.

Using an alternative timeline is also good because most people are familiar with european history and resources on recent history is easily available. If you'd like to have the cold war actually kick off and have that cause a nuclear winter, that would work.

I haven't thought of that before, but even so, I still see that as a potential hurdle to get across along the way and clears up plenty of current things.

If the game is going to move towards being mystics, I'd want a D&D style combat system to be implemented for balance. It would work regardless, D&D is a good system for any sort of combat. A main issue is that if left without "meaningful" restrictions, powers can easily spiral out of control. There's also the small issue that a world with powers would be very different from the one that we know, so how magic affects society would have to be addressed too.

How would you suggest doing this?

Real world maps can be custom maps.

You can have a group of people from Turkey, they can speak Turkish and be entirely from that country but call them Turkish and they won’t know what you’re talking about. Because their country/group is named something else— their biome is something else because of the nuclear war or whatever else turned the world from a developing technology to dust.

Another example would be the fact that Blackfall is in Russia right now- we could turn Russia into a 130+ degree desert where no life can form and Siberian tigers are forced into extinction or they migrate and find food sources elsewhere— in France’s streets.

It all comes down to what destroyed the world in the first place and how long ago it was.

The thing with worldbuilding is that it’s completely customizable to those who are creating it!

I hope that cleared up why I’m leaning towards European-based a little more since I’m not sure I really did that in the first place.

I do see your point. Though there would be some complications there, as someone may assume that Russia is still in it's cold territory rather than something like a nuclear desert. Instead, a custom map will lay out things to the point where it's understood.


Some final words on my part,

I am VERY hesitant, as you can see, with the situation towards the European map and the post-apocalyptic setting. While post-apocalyptic is fixable, the map part is not exactly up to standard. The reason why I'm so hesitant? It failed the first time. Yes, there was involvement here and there, but ultimately the plots died down and no one felt included within the roleplay, along with people being left confused. Partially due to little to no interest while discussing that was left to about three of us which was my fault also. Even so, not an excuse.

As a site and team, a failed schematic is really not an option to delve into again because it will sadly fail again. Trust me, I'd love to, but it just will not work. Making the same mistakes over and over again will produce the same results. We will do what the members agree with as long as we can create something new and involving the something of our own design. Really, it's an apology on my part, but I feel as if there's no way we can revert back to the same world build we have going on right now.