7 hours ago
Individual agency and creative freedom is at an all time low. Nations hold the large majority of IC power and can simply deny you at any step of the journey if they want to. While I don't mind nations holding power/weight over the environment around them, it often means that to accomplish something as an individual you need to push heavily against the tides to get anything remotely going.
The steps to get something remotely going in the world for long as a player usually requires:
1) GM Approval if the idea is questionably outlandish in concept.
2) The approval of the nation who owns said land.
3) The approval of the mappers who will adjust said land for you.
4) Not overlapping too much with other players. (IE: Clinic #5)
You can argue that some of these steps aren't a big deal and I'd agree mostly. But having to go through several channels of approval, one of which can deny you solely based on their IC agenda and there being little to do due to the fact they carry far, far more weight in the world than you. This isn't to say it's being done maliciously, but it can absolutely be a limiting factor towards creative goals. None of these required steps for approval were remotely required in G6 besides the occasional nudge towards a GM to see if things were fine.
I'd like to stress that even though I'm framing it like this in a largely negative light, I don't think nations are explicitly bad; the nations are fine if you enjoy them. It's just that people who don't wish to be under their purview are simply forced to cope with it.
Though, really I actually agree with the sentiment of not freeing up spaces; people put a lot of work into getting their spot in the world and to just rob them of that because it's perceived as inactive or they're just away from the game for a bit would suck. But I do think we'll genuinely run out of reasonable space to slap down new stuff eventually, even with map expansions outside of the big groups we got in D1.
The steps to get something remotely going in the world for long as a player usually requires:
1) GM Approval if the idea is questionably outlandish in concept.
2) The approval of the nation who owns said land.
3) The approval of the mappers who will adjust said land for you.
4) Not overlapping too much with other players. (IE: Clinic #5)
You can argue that some of these steps aren't a big deal and I'd agree mostly. But having to go through several channels of approval, one of which can deny you solely based on their IC agenda and there being little to do due to the fact they carry far, far more weight in the world than you. This isn't to say it's being done maliciously, but it can absolutely be a limiting factor towards creative goals. None of these required steps for approval were remotely required in G6 besides the occasional nudge towards a GM to see if things were fine.
I'd like to stress that even though I'm framing it like this in a largely negative light, I don't think nations are explicitly bad; the nations are fine if you enjoy them. It's just that people who don't wish to be under their purview are simply forced to cope with it.
Though, really I actually agree with the sentiment of not freeing up spaces; people put a lot of work into getting their spot in the world and to just rob them of that because it's perceived as inactive or they're just away from the game for a bit would suck. But I do think we'll genuinely run out of reasonable space to slap down new stuff eventually, even with map expansions outside of the big groups we got in D1.
![[-]](https://neus-projects.net/forums/images/collapse.png)
