Of course, Grim, you forget the Lord Entropy still exists as Canon, beyond player Purview... complete with laws and other crap... and is only one of a set of 'higher powers'.

Which is my point: For all their miracle points, PC's still start at the bottom of the totem pole of their 'world'.  Regardless of how they design their Imperator or chancel or whatever: There are always higher order beings ready and able to boss them about and punish them for failure to comply.

Lord Entropy, meet Elminster, Elminster meet Lord Entropy...

Quote from: SpikeOf course, Grim, you forget the Lord Entropy still exists as Canon, beyond player Purview... complete with laws and other crap... and is only one of a set of 'higher powers'.

Entropy isn't invincible, let alone all-powerful. He can be defeated by a Familia of PCs, although it will (and should) take considerable effort and careful planning.

Grim: You are missing the point. I don't think I said Entropy was unbeatable. Elminster has stats too, which means a group of D&D characters should be able to bring him down... if they work together, have a plan, and spend some time getting reasonably good at their respective niches.

The existance of an entire catagory of NPC's like Entropy who seem to exist simply to tell PC's what they can and can't do, and have an order of power specifically above and beyond what any given PC should possess is jarring given the suppossed 'nature' of the game.   If the nature of Noblis is that the players are playing Gods, then let them play 'gods' and not 'Flunkies of Gods.... with the power to grow into Gods of their own someday.'

Starting at the bottom of the pile is the point. I think the game advertises itself as different from others because you play Gods, then winds up... once again, giving you characters who are really just punks on another level of reality.

The 'heroes Journey', while popular, is not the only plot in town.

But of course, your desire to defend Noblis against any perceived critizm has overwhelmed my actual point, which this is not even a sideshow topic for...

To put it back on topic: What happens when some player says 'yeah, but I'd like MY character be be named Entropy!'...

Quote from: SpikeTo put it back on topic: What happens when some player says 'yeah, but I'd like MY character be be named Entropy!'...

Then you just call the head of the Four by another name: the Darkest Lord, the Executioner of Worlds, the Red-Handed Gentleman, Old Bloody... And ask the player why exactly his character is called that, of course.

Besides, Nobles are not gods. They are demigods.

And I might add that the "order of power above and beyond PCs" possessed by Imperators generally means that their attributes can go up to 7 instead of 5; not that they invariably do, just that they can. For example, Lord Entropy has Aspect 3 which can be beaten by a starting character.

But the presence of the higher powers comes down to the potential for meaningful conflicts, again. Imperators are intended to make things interesting and challenging, but they are not the bosses of the PCs: a random angel or devil has no inherent authority over the Nobles from another Familia, although showing courtesy to them is only wise.

I don't like "canon" NPCs.  At all.

I prefer to deal in generalities, leaving more room for the players and the GM to carve out their own part of the world and make it their own.  

A lot of the fun of modern or near-future settings to me has always been imagining what our neck of the woods might be like in this strange new world.

Quote from: J ArcaneI don't like "canon" NPCs.  At all.

I like to build on all the little details provided in the books, so NPCs not only serve as convenient demonstrations of the kind of people who inhabit the world, but also form a foundation for my own additions to the setting. And of course, it would be a tad more difficult to, say, grasp what to do with a version of Pendragon that didn't include any information on Arthur and his knights because that "would limit the imaginations of the players".

Quote from: GrimGentI like to build on all the little details provided in the books, so NPCs not only serve as convenient demonstrations of the kind of people who inhabit the world, but also form a foundation for my own additions to the setting. And of course, it would be a tad more difficult to, say, grasp what to do with a version of Pendragon that didn't include any information on Arthur and his knights because that "would limit the imaginations of the players".

Eh.  With Pendragon, Arthur is just an excuse for what is actually a pretty generic game of medieval chivalry.  You can pretty well ignore the Arthur legends as anything more than inspirational material, and just have fun playing out the story of your own noble family or kingdom.  The game, at least in 4th edition, was expressly designed to be very flexible, and allow you to cover anything from the most fantastical and romanticized, to the most realistic representations of life in the medieval ages.

Quote from: SpikeIts not like superhero names are hugely complex, Spiderman anyone?

On a side note, it puzzled the heck out of me that back in the seventies the German translation called this rather obscure British supervillain/hero ... Spiderman:

I don't actively remember the 70s, but back in the days, Spiderman was called "Die Spinne" -> "The Spider" in Germany. So if that's taken...

And I'd say that Marvel names are at least better than the DC names...

Quote from: SosthenesI don't actively remember the 70s, but back in the days, Spiderman was called "Die Spinne" -> "The Spider" in Germany. So if that's taken...

"Die erstaunliche Spinne".
Peter Parker, "der freundliche Wandkrabbler aus der Nachbarschaft".

"Das sagte Nuff".

Quote from: J ArcaneI don't like "canon" NPCs.  At all.

I prefer to deal in generalities, leaving more room for the players and the GM to carve out their own part of the world and make it their own.  

A lot of the fun of modern or near-future settings to me has always been imagining what our neck of the woods might be like in this strange new world.

Hm.  I'm the opposite.  I don't like generalities.  If you're going to have a setting at all, then include useful, specific stuff in it.  Give me maps; give me NPCs; give me material I can use out of the box.  

If I have to make everything up for myself, then I'll just pass on the book and make up my own setting.  It's not like there aren't millions of better settings out there from books, films, and history.  

That said, I will equally leave a book on the shelf if there are uber-NPCs in it who are there to push the PCs around.

Quote from: jhkimHm.  I'm the opposite.  I don't like generalities.  If you're going to have a setting at all, then include useful, specific stuff in it.  Give me maps; give me NPCs; give me material I can use out of the box.  

If I have to make everything up for myself, then I'll just pass on the book and make up my own setting.  It's not like there aren't millions of better settings out there from books, films, and history.  

That said, I will equally leave a book on the shelf if there are uber-NPCs in it who are there to push the PCs around.

I don't think it takes specific names to make a setting.

Look at Gamma World 4th.  There's discussion of what the world's like, a vague map, and some discussion of some of the factions involved, all purely in generalities of course, what they stand for, what kind of people join them, but no names.

That's what I like.  Give me an idea what the world is like and who's in it, but leave plenty of room for my group to make our own little corner of the world.  

I don't think actual named NPCs are even remotely necessary or interesting.  And it buries a setting if let go to far.  

You wind up with crap like Forgotten Realms, where half the damn book is nothing but NPCs, every last inkeeper in every last podunk village has a full stat block and 40 year history, leaving no room for the DM at all.  Or where every last big mover and shaker has his own fucking book line stretching hundreds of pages.

It's telling to me that the two best selling game series on the planet detail nothing remotely that specific in their corebooks, and that's damn fine by me.

Quote from: J ArcaneI don't think it takes specific names to make a setting.

Look at Gamma World 4th.  There's discussion of what the world's like, a vague map, and some discussion of some of the factions involved, all purely in generalities of course, what they stand for, what kind of people join them, but no names.

That's what I like.  Give me an idea what the world is like and who's in it, but leave plenty of room for my group to make our own little corner of the world.

Well, as I said, tastes differ.  I didn't care for Gamma World, but I am fond of Harn.  Now, I will often make up my own worlds.  If I'm going to make up the details, though, I'll generally start from history or my own ideas, or possibly from an real fiction series, rather than trying to flesh out some RPG creation.  

If I'm going to pay money for an RPG supplement, I want more than generalities.  Generalities I can get for free or make up myself.  If there's a map, I want it to be a nice color map with all the details -- with a scale and features better than what I could do myself.  I want game stats for all the monsters and NPCs and other features.  I want a good index.  And so forth.