argonian

"Gott erlöse Karl den König, unser'n guten König Karl." says Stanimar, so he doesn't get forum warning points for an anonymous RP comment, as if it matters.

they're just lore places never existed

"Sounds like a worthy hire, sir!" a Daelish servant tells his liege @MadOne.

Cool shit. Question 1 was because I heard Teutons worshipped a literal horse and I wanted to see was I being memed or not lol

this is now an AMA thread what were the religious beliefs of hochmeister gaius marius is it true that he duped minas? what would gaius marius' name be in old marian? what did the teutonic cross represent thoughts on the house of sheffield? what would history have been like if hanseti conquered renatus?

people act like human supremacy doesn't come from ooc attitudes and then they'll go to McDonald's and order a ******* hamburger

I misspoke but yeah the idea is that spawn will have warps to each nation/settlement, which will bring you to a place of the NL's choosing (right outside the capital in most cases, I'd imagine).

There are none though. No spawn points. You can TP to wherever you want. It may be that the staff prohibit fast travel to an inexcusable degree, but they should just justify it here then.

Point was that thin passages are allowed and idk what else would force a dismount. A gate guard doesn't care whether you're on horseback or not.

I don't think those are banned. As long as passage is unrestricted, there's nothing to say how wide it's gotta be AFAIK. The Orenian Ranger fort at Eastfleet has been let stand the entire length of the map because there are no gates there, even though it's literally just the tiniest path surrounded on all sides by a fort. The reason every nation only has builds at the ends of roads is because road-blocking rules stopped them. You're only blocking a road if the road continues on past you after all. They did start making some exceptions to this towards the end of the map, as described in the OP, like by approving Adria for example, and that was a roaring success. So shouldn't we want more settlements to be placed like that? I think it'd be cool and only increase RP if, to get to Aaun from Haense, I had to go through Petra or whatever. Maybe I'll run into some interesting RP there and stick around if I'm not in a hurry. If I'm barred from Petra, I'll take the other road through Adria instead. And so on. Instead of running circuits of some big empty road system where the only way to get anywhere is to take a turn-off which, as you described, may just end up being a 10 min detour to an utter ghost town.

can u make an argonian wojack for me my avi already has the gaping mouth

tf are you getting off your horse for? if there's no person there stopping you, just keep riding. if there is someone there, then gg you've found rp. and like if you hate following endless turn-offs to get to nation capitals, why wouldnt you want capitals to be on the road? the whole reason they're always at the end of long-roads and turn-offs is exactly because they aren't allowed to build on roads. the one time a town was let actually go on a road this map was with adria and it hit like 16% activity.

Yeah I think this is a classic case of keeping a solution to a problem that no longer exists. The whole system that turned roads into some United Nations extranational zone was brought in because with a CT on the map, you'd inevitably have nations that couldn't be reached without going through other nations. So if that other nation had a town on the road, they could starve your nation of activity entirely. All because they won the lottery with new map placement. So it was a sensible rule, even if it brought in negative side-effects. But with an off-map CT, no nation is ever in the way of another since there's no central hub. So you can't starve a nation of activity just by putting shit on the road to them, because people will just warp straight to that nation, or else take a different road. Anyone who's seen the new map can tell that there's no one main road to a place, with everything else being an arduous detour (as with this map), but rather there's always a couple routes of roughly equal length and importance between any two locations. So the issue this system was brought in to solve simply doesn't exist.

insurge if it makes sense to dont ask for permission

yeah one time in axios haense collapsed the mountain pass between themselves and oren during a rebellion n then it had to be dug out again by the interior ministry after the war ended was cute

roads should go through towns because that's how roads naturally develop (discounting modern motorways) and that's what creates the most RP. it's annoying and bad for noobs (and returning players) to have every settlement be at the very end of some turn-off, instead of just on the road where they should be. so that's a no for me. let ppl put their towns, forts, etc. on roads.

In my experience, most people use either the present: "Ezekiel Tarus snaps to attention and offers his officer a flawless salute, barking 'YES SIR'!" or else a conditional like "Ezekiel Tarus would snap to attention ...". A few people here referred to that as being the past tense, but, while I'm not a linguist so I could be very wrong here, I don't think that's what people usually mean by the past tense, like "I went" or "I have gone". There is like a future-in-the-past construction using would, e.g. "He was elected president, and would go on to serve for 4 years before retiring". But that's not really the same thing as "Mike would swing his sword". The latter IMO reads more like the conditional, e.g. "I would go to the shop if it weren't raining so heavily". Actual past tense emotes like "Bob nodded, eyes shifting to the ground in shame" sound fine to me, but an overuse of 'would' where it's not justified sounds horrible. It has places where it absolutely should be used, like when your action is actually conditional -- "Thomas raises/raised his shield to block the strike, and if successful, would lunge for the assailant's chest with his free arm" -- in this case, Thomas won't actually stab the other guy unless a certain condition is met (i.e. he blocks the attack), so 'would' is justified and even necessary here. But "Thomas would raise his shield" is just silly because... well, did he or didn't he? If he did in fact raise his shield, why are you describing it like it's dependent on something else? IMO the root cause here is that people don't want to be accused of powergaming. As new roleplayers, they probably got burnt writing emotes like "Jeff stabs/stabbed Tom" and so they started adding 'would' to everything as the easiest way to avoid getting yelled at. But IMO it just takes a contemplation of what you're actually describing. "Jeff stabs/stabbed Tom" is powergaming because it forces an action on Tom. You've given him no chance to dodge. But "Jeff lunges/lunged at Tom with his blade" is not powergaming, because a lunge is just a lunge and Tom can still block, dodge, etc.

"It's an upside down cross you ******* brainmelts," Stanimar clarifies for all the people blabbing about non-descript fireplaces.

nickrocky

heard a rumour they were going to add an interactable voxel-based environment which you could manipulate through the placement and destruction of "BLOCKS" you can already demo this out if you go to your nation's capital and trade [redacted] for "region perms"