Particracy Realism Project

[EEL123]

I won't argue with you there, but I think that realism can be achieved without mandated simulation, and that so far every simulation process designed to simulate a complete world is faulty due to the complexity of the nature.

I wouldn't say that the document is exactly very restrictive. I mean, having a defence budget of 0 to 5% isn't really a massively strict imposition. However, we should remain basically realistic. Of course it's unfeasible that we have a perfect simulation. Given the state of RP now, I think that stricter guidelines - not rules though - would be needed.

[Zanz]

I wouldn't say that the document is exactly very restrictive. I mean, having a defence budget of 0 to 5% isn't really a massively strict imposition. However, we should remain basically realistic. Of course it's unfeasible that we have a perfect simulation. Given the state of RP now, I think that stricter guidelines - not rules though - would be needed.

This is essentially where I'm coming from with this document. The document is not particularly strict; indeed, many nations already fall within its parameters. The idea is to eliminate the outliers, the unrealistic extremes that do nothing but hinder narrative.

With it written down, the idea is that those looking for a bench mark can have access to it and join the "realistic" players and contribute to the narrative. Those that exceed the guidelines can be directed to them and the fact that they were written down a priori gives weight to them; we're not just "making things up as we go."

[EEL123]

This is essentially where I'm coming from with this document.

Yes, I know, but Amazeroth doesn't like it.

[Amazeroth]

I wouldn't say that the document is exactly very restrictive. I mean, having a defence budget of 0 to 5% isn't really a massively strict imposition. However, we should remain basically realistic. Of course it's unfeasible that we have a perfect simulation. Given the state of RP now, I think that stricter guidelines - not rules though - would be needed.

This is essentially where I'm coming from with this document. The document is not particularly strict; indeed, many nations already fall within its parameters. The idea is to eliminate the outliers, the unrealistic extremes that do nothing but hinder narrative.

With it written down, the idea is that those looking for a bench mark can have access to it and join the "realistic" players and contribute to the narrative. Those that exceed the guidelines can be directed to them and the fact that they were written down a priori gives weight to them; we're not just "making things up as we go."

Well, the idea of the defense budget of 0 to 5% is already quite a restriction. Not because there would be many countries having it any other way, but because I, for example, like to play the disastrously poor country where more or less everything is wasted on the military. Also, a consequently minarchist or capitalist country would be able to spend a lot more on defense, because they could cut social spending altogether.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against a document helping people to RP more realistically. What I don't really get is why you think that building a cartel of realistic role-players and allowing them only to RP with each other would be beneficial, when for me the obvious way to go would be just to ask whomever you want to RP with to keep it realistic, or to follow this document.

[EEL123]

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against a document helping people to RP more realistically. What I don't really get is why you think that building a cartel of realistic role-players and allowing them only to RP with each other would be beneficial, when for me the obvious way to go would be just to ask whomever you want to RP with to keep it realistic, or to follow this document.

OK, we can agree there. As I said, we have to be flexible.

Well, the idea of the defense budget of 0 to 5% is already quite a restriction. Not because there would be many countries having it any other way, but because I, for example, like to play the disastrously poor country where more or less everything is wasted on the military. Also, a consequently minarchist or capitalist country would be able to spend a lot more on defense, because they could cut social spending altogether.

From what I remember, if you have a good RP reason for it, you can go nuts. If not, keep within 0 to 5%.

[Mr.Yankees]

EEL123, are you greatly opposed to a large portion of Pax Cynica? I assume you find the rules to be restrictive. How is this document any different?

Now that I got the pretend smart ass comment out of the way, I think the document gets to the core of what most players here would like to see. Unfortunately, RP starts out fine and then somehow, half of the world is bikes but yet everyone survived and rebuilt in 3 months. If people want to use, fine by me. In fact, I would encourage people to do so but I have to echo Amazeroth's prior comments regarding usefulness and the need to create this group.

I say put to a vote, show the mods the result and see if you can get this approved as an optional approach for players in lieu of Rildanor.

[EEL123]

EEL123, are you greatly opposed to a large portion of Pax Cynica? I assume you find the rules to be restrictive. How is this document any different?

This document actually provides something valuable. The Pax Cynica spends much of its time governing all sorts of trivial things, such as how you cannot nominate yourself for the leadership of a leaderless party org and the like.

[Zanz]

Having reread this and the thread I suppose I'll bump it, as I think some of its contents could be of use in the current Zardugal-Deltaria affair and its spawned branches.

Also to clarify some stuff that I think wasn't well explained previously, the "limits" and restrictions that this document seeks to establish are not "hard limits" in that they cannot be circumvented by proper narrative as Amazeroth suggested. They are more akin to guidelines that ought to be followed in the majority of instances but that can be crossed in cases of good RP explaining why and how your nation affords to spend 12% of its GDP on the military, for instance.

[EgeDoruk]

Having reread this and the thread I suppose I'll bump it, as I think some of its contents could be of use in the current Zardugal-Deltaria affair and its spawned branches.

Also to clarify some stuff that I think wasn't well explained previously, the "limits" and restrictions that this document seeks to establish are not "hard limits" in that they cannot be circumvented by proper narrative as Amazeroth suggested. They are more akin to guidelines that ought to be followed in the majority of instances but that can be crossed in cases of good RP explaining why and how your nation affords to spend 12% of its GDP on the military, for instance.

I am running a oligarchic Dranish colony(at least I claim it is) in Saridan, so i really need strong military by my side. This and we are in war, I spend so much money to defense(approximately: %29.78 of my GDP). I was thinking to ask to mods(Probably you) so this is great chance! So for sake of realism, how should I RP? Lower the budget or keep it? Also how should I act like have strong and well equiped army. According to current numbers I should've 745857 active and 559393 reservist troops. I've this budget level for 2.5 years! Before it was (approximately: %3,72 of my GDP).

[EEL123]

You should probably lower it to something less ridiculous. High is fine provided that you've got a strong reason, but a third of your GDP? No way.