Turn based RP

[Simple]

People of Taijitu~

it has come to my attention that OZ is about to be overwhelmed with map updates on territory expansions and new countries arriving and all, I'm trying to think of a way to take some of that burden off o him. so what would you guys think of making territory expansion turn based?? hear me out:

a few countries are allowed to expand and "move their pieces on he board" during the course of a week, the council votes on them.. the roleplay council can decide the general outline for the rules but i think you guys get the idea.

of course writing stories about your country would still be allowed, but as with treaties, weekly expansions should have their own topic-pagey thing.
i Will make a point to PM everyone so they all have a say on this matter.


what do you think everyone?

[Bustos]

Since RP time is fluid and everyone's activity on the forums is different due to various RL issues and events, I dont think this is plausible.

[Mor'os]

Precisely what he said. Lack of turns is one of the wonders of RP, along with the great power of customization.

[Zimmerwald]

Neither do I.  The most turn-based action I would have is during a war.  If you launch an attack, you must wait for your opponent to respond before pressing the attack.  That sort of thing.

[Anniane]

A turn based system would greatly diminish the fun and flexibility of RP. Taking turns is something that can be done without having rules about it in general.

[Eluvatar]

I do not want a turn-based system, sorry.

[Myroria]

Nor do I. That only works in things like the Civilization series.

[Xyrael]

My only reason for voting "Nay" is much similar to Bustos, but also there may be an agreement between the two nations at dispute upon the timeframe, and upon objectives, etc. Restricting to a turn based move makes it so that people are forced to log on to write their expansion, which may be prewritten, which means repliers may have to write lengthy responses, and should the "turn" be over what can they do? Maybe I'm not thinking about it right, but Oz has shown in the past that he is dedicated to cartography. Perhaps, instead, he could take on an apprentice?

[Simple]

yaaa an apprentice sounds like a good idea, bu how do we decide who gets it? and (heh) if oz is even interested in any of this.

[Herald_Collier]

I agree with G-C on this one, guys. War would be the only thing I can see as making sense when applying a turn-based system.

[Talmann]

Sorry, man. RP can't be stiff. That's what makes it RP. Someone can come in rapidly and destroy you. Removing that ability kills RP and makes this more boardgame-ish.

[Of The US]

besides most RP'rs already use a partial turn based thing they wait for thier opponents response but up until then they may post multiple times about what is going on and what the troop strength and stuff is so im against it

[Ranholn]

if anyone wants to do turn based, Anyone got Civ 4

[Feniexia]

No...if somebody gets inactive, we will have much problems....
Turn-based colonization should not be. Sorry, but RP needs to be fluid. Except to what G-C said. Turn-based war is ok and makes sense.

[Vygar]

Personally, I think a turn-based RP system (as one person already pointed out) would only work if two RPers were in conflict with each other, such as in a war situation. In any other scenario -again, as has already been pointed out - it would simply restrict the flow & fluidity of the RP.

Another point already raised (that I also agree with) is if RL circumstances cause one of the parties involved with the RP to become inactive for an indefinite period of time. This could lead to a lot of confusion & problems, which could possibley even lead to said RP being abandoned.

Just my thoughts on the matter. I know most of the points I've mentioned have already been identified by other users, but those are the points that came to mind for me. ^^;