While I cannot objectively fill out the form, there is an issue of precedence I feel I must comment on. [b]Free Form[/b] Nation RP is absolutely abysmal and I'll tell you why.

There are two types of players: There are [b]Story Tellers[/b]; they wish to create a genuine universe, with characters, and plots and a story line that sees nations rise and fall. The second are the [b]Gamers[/b]; they are roleplayers who want to [i]win[/i] the game. When you have both of these in one group, neither are appeased and there is generated a conflict that ruins the game for both. Without concrete mechanics the Gamers do not understand how certain events can transpire one way when in their hand everything fell into line. The Story Tellers on the other hand are often on the losing side as of conflicts as the Gamers push as far as they can.

Concrete mechanics allow for legitimate equilibrium on the board. If I have 20 Gold; I can buy "X of Unit Y" and invade you. It's black and white, there's no argument that can be generated against it. In a free form environment it changes to "Raises an Army of X amount of troop at Y caliber." and there's a six page long discussion of the feasibility and logistics and the guy getting invaded is upset because it's happening too quick. Numbers don't lie. Bottom line.

Secondly, I'll say that most Nation RP's seem to get stuck. They are afraid to move forward to keep things fresh. I think an excellent Nation RP idea that has not happened would be an abbreviated geopolitical one that covers a large swathe of time. Would it not be interesting to see within 20 pages of RP your nation evolve from the Ancient Period to the Modern period and perhaps even beyond?

I'd like to give some criticism to the opinions in regard to mathematical and chance based ideas:

[quote]6. As an implemented feature, absolutely not under any circumstance. There have been instances where others and myself have used coin flips or dice throws to determine RP outcomes, but only in such a case where both parties wanted the outcome to be truly random. - the usage of chance wasn't mandatory. Making chance mandatory makes it an obstacle to writing.[/quote]

This person didn't really give any reasoning, except proved their bias in the last sentence. They are against chance, though I for some odd reason feel that they have gambled with chance in [b]real life[/b] and won before. Chance is objective. The [i]writing[/i] that they infer it is an obstacle to is not, which is why dice/coin flips and mathematics work much better -- they always tell the truth.

[quote]6. No, I'm terrible with dices, they simply hate me.[/quote]

A lack of reasoning here, but bad personal experience has led the person to prefer Free Form, where maybe others can hold their hand. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. You can't be upset when you roll the dice.

[quote]6. Dice take your control away far too much in my opinion. There's having an element of randomness and uncertainty and then there's complete restriction of what you want to do and simply having to do what a number tells you to.[/quote]

This one started off so well! He presents a strawman argument when he comes from "Dice can give an element of randomness .. But then there's complete restriction of what you want to do and simply having to do what a number tells you to." I've never felt that having dice incorporated into a RP turned the players in mindless drones.