There are a number of threads right now about Nobilis, Rebecca Borgstrom, and the "Never Say No" rule and how it's written / interpreted.  Most of those threads are a bit on the negative side... and I want to add something positive today.

If I had created Nobilis, and wanted to use the same rule, I would have written it like this:

QuoteEncouraging Creativity: "Never Say 'No'"
Nobilis is a game that requires the players to think creatively and feel comfortable with their contributions to the story.  Your role is to help create a positive environment for your players, and encourage their contributions.  When a player asks if their character can take a particular course of action, avoid saying "no" to their request.  Here are a few alternatives:
"Yes", if their course of action seems innocuous or interesting.
"How?" if you don't see any way that they can do it.
"You can try!" if it seems possible but unlikely.
"Yes, but there's a catch", if you can think of a good catch.
Each of these adds to the possibilities in your game.  If the suggestion seems impossible, and the player can offer no reasonable explanation for why the action should be successful, remain focused on creating a positive gaming environment.  Suggest an alternative, or encourage the player to keep thinking of a way their action could be accomplished.  These techniques can add to the enjoyment and possibilities of your game. Saying "no" rarely does.

I'd be interested in hearing from both fans and not-so-fans of the game, and what they think of this revision.

Hmm. There are no real changes beyond the tone and the prose style, I'd say. "Positive gaming environment" wouldn't really fit into the original text.

I didn't change it.  I just rewrote it.

Quote from: GrimGentHmm. There are no real changes beyond the tone and the prose style, I'd say. "Positive gaming environment" wouldn't really fit into the original text.

I think it helps to have the text here, though, because there's an important point: when someone proposes something seemingly impossible, you don't just say "yes". You say "How the fuck are you going to do that?"

In my experience, players in that kind of situation will either a) back down, b) come up with an excellent plan, or c) come up with a dumb plan. a) and b) are the gold. As far as c) goes, I see nothing wrong with letting them try and then fail.

Much better.  It's that one word, "avoid".  That's all it would take to stop Monada's Law to stop being ridiculous

Quote from: StuartI'd be interested in hearing from both fans and not-so-fans of the game, and what they think of this revision.

Legible? That's a pretty damn good rewrite to get the gist of it. Maybe you should submit a proposal (to whom now that GoO is dead?) to rewrite the whole damn book?

Quote from: blakkieMaybe you should submit a proposal (to whom now that GoO is dead?) to rewrite the whole damn book?

I probably wouldn't read it then, though, since the prose is a major factor in my fondness for the book and I'm not particularly drawn to RPGs that are written with the objective lucidity of chemistry textbooks...

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonMuch better.  It's that one word, "avoid".  That's all it would take to stop Monada's Law to stop being ridiculous

As opposed to "if you wish" in the original?

Quote from: WarthurI think it helps to have the text here, though, because there's an important point: when someone proposes something seemingly impossible, you don't just say "yes". You say "How the fuck are you going to do that?"

Eh, yes? That's always been the case with Monarda.

Quote from: GrimGentYes? That's always been the case.

I know, but it's been glossed over repeatedly by the Pundit and other detractors of the "Say yes or roll the dice!" attitude, when they say "The players will run amuck! There'll be no challenges!"

The big thing here is that the Monarda Law only holds on the GM. The system can still say "no", and pretty much any competantly-designed RPG system should make impossible things, erm, impossible.

Quote from: WarthurThe big thing here is that the Monarda Law only holds on the GM. The system can still say "no", and pretty much any competantly-designed RPG system should make impossible things, erm, impossible.

Yup. When this was discussed over at RPGnet a while ago, someone remarked that Monarda simply cautions the GM against arbitrarily refusing to let the system handle things. It's designed to handle impossible things, after all.

QuoteI probably wouldn't read it then, though, since the prose is a major factor in my fondness for the book and I'm not particularly drawn to RPGs that are written with the objective lucidity of chemistry textbooks...

To each his own.  I think there are many places to have flowery prose in an RPG rulebook, but if it gets in the way of a reader's comprehension of the actual rules themselves, it's not a good thing.

QuoteLegible? That's a pretty damn good rewrite to get the gist of it. Maybe you should submit a proposal (to whom now that GoO is dead?) to rewrite the whole damn book?

GoO is/was based here in Guelph Ontario.  I could call Mark and see if he wants to meet for coffee and discuss.

Quote from: StuartI think there are many places to have flowery prose in an RPG rulebook, but if it gets in the way of a reader's comprehension of the actual rules themselves, it's not a good thing.

The rules aren't written in character, unlike the gamemastering advice which includes Monarda.

QuoteThe rules aren't written in character, unlike the gamemastering advice which includes Monarda

I'd include "words of guidance to the Hollyhock God" in what I'd consider rules, since they have a very direct effect on how the game is played.  It's telling one of the players (the GM) how to play the game. This is contrasted with description of the setting, characters, and introductory story which add colour to the game, but don't directly affect the gameplay itself.

What I said at the beginning of the Topic:

QuoteIf I had created Nobilis, and wanted to use the same rule, I would have written it like this

Your comment that it's not gussied up enough might be a good one -- particularly if that's part of the appeal for Nobilis fans.  However, if I did decided to write any of the rules "In Character" I'd make sure to have that character make any key points crystal clear to avoid confusion.  After all, why wouldn't Monarda want to make sure the Hollyhock God, vain and ambitious as they are, gets the point?