Quote from: RPGPunditIts iteration in Nobilis is, I'll admit, vastly more fucked up than in DiTV, since there its taken as a LAW, rather than just the very very strongly worded GM-advice of DiTV.

Heh: that's just Ianthe talking. Her style can admittedly be a little high-flown at times.

(By way of explanation, one of the quirks of the game is that the chapters on running it are written as though they were a series of lessons by Ianthe Falls-Short, the Marchessa of Debate and one of the major NPCs. Incidentally, that also explains the arch tone of the earlier excerpt.)

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that it's bad advice, per se.

I personally reject the notion that it's a rule or a law that the GM of any game is bound to follow. GMs are often arbitrators of game rules, but are never themselves subject to them, or else they cease to be GMs on the basic level.

The Monarda Law might not suit every game or group out there, but like dicelessness it does fit in with Nob. After all, the idea is that during the Commencement, when you are transformed into a Noble, you lose all doubt and hesitation about your abilities. You might still worry about the consequences or whether your actions are justified, but you always know exactly what you are capable of: exert yourself that much and you can lift Mount Rushmore, do this and every teardrop in the world turns into a pearl. It's only when some other supernatural agency becomes involved that things turn more uncertain.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadWhat makes you think I am talking about GNS? I'm a disciple of the old "threefold model", and am comfortable using those terms despite that they have been inherited and jimmied around into GNS theory.

I don't accept that the playstyles are necessarily exclusive, either, and have argued to point vocifously on other forums. So it's a bit ironic that someone's picking a fight with me on the exclusivity of the poles.

I could explain more precisely what my "gaming philosophy" is, but I think that for most forumites, that was useful shorthand. Do you really not understand what I mean, or are you trying to make a point about GNS with which I don't necessarily disagree?

My apologies, I made the presumption you were using GNS terminology. These days, when someone says "G" or "S" that is usually what they are talking about...

I'm glad you get my point though...


RPGPundit

A bit late getting back in:

As this is the 'working theory' portion of the board let's pull back from discussion of actual wording and 'other people'... I know, I brought those up...



While context wise the 'Monarda Law' works in Noblis because of the default power level. It is more than a bit heavy handed, but most of Noblis is heavy handed as well.

In the Burning wheel it is treated more like advice to keep the game running smooth.  

There is a fundamental difference between a game rule and a peice of GM advice however.  While it is 'Rule Zero' that the Game Rules are subject to actual play (though it seems some designers refuse to acknowledge it) making 'advice' into rules is inviting abuse from less mature players.

The Pundit, for that matter Spike (me), is a strong proponent of GM authority over the Game, to include the rules.  Sure, following this advice informally can make you a better GM, but being 'forced' to follow it isn't the answer.  Visions of Gaming Police standing over the table with guns at teh GM's head now...

The GM is the referee, the umpire of the Baseball game of RPGing. He's also the Commissioner.  The game writer is the guy that invented the game 100+ years ago (naismith? Or was that basketball...oh well).  Over the years the rules of baseball have changed from what was written.  It was the GM's of baseball that changed them.  If the inventor had written in some inflexible, unworkable bit of authority I'm sure it would have been the first thing to go. Make sense?



Now for Spike's Theory of 'Saying Yes' :

In the parts of the book reserved for GM advice: When presented with an unexpected question from a player, or one that poses a challenge to the GM, rather than simply announce a Yes or No to the player, the GM should carefully consider if 1) there is a good Roleplaying challenge that can come from it  or 2) if game play can be made smoother and more fun with a quick answer.

If the answer to 1 is yes, then the GM should present his answer as a challenge to the players.  If the answer to 2 is yes, then the GM can provide a yes or no as needed to keep the game moving, rather than draw out a long exchange to buy a pack of cigarettes from the local corner store.



What'cha think?:cool:

Quote from: SpikeWhile context wise the 'Monarda Law' works in Noblis because of the default power level. It is more than a bit heavy handed, but most of Noblis is heavy handed as well.

"Heavy-handed?" Not the word I'd use, but ah well... The Law ties in with the other ways in which Nob encourages all the players to participate in generating the setting, such as creating their Chancel and their Imperator together as part of chargen. Still, there's a reason why it isn't located in, say, the chapter on conflict resolution: it was never intended to be part of the game mechanics.

Anyway, I've run RPGs according to that same guideline ever since the early nineties, although it's not something that I'd have thought to codify into an actual rule. It would seem to have more to do with the GM's attitude and the expectations of the group than the power level.

Quote from: GrimGent"Heavy-handed?" Not the word I'd use, but ah well... The Law ties in with the other ways in which Nob encourages all the players to participate in generating the setting, such as creating their Chancel and their Imperator together as part of chargen. Still, there's a reason why it isn't located in, say, the chapter on conflict resolution: it was never intended to be part of the game mechanics.

One would argue that chosing to call it a law IS heavy handed, by default.  :pundit:

Quote from: SpikeOne would argue that chosing to call it a law IS heavy handed, by default.  :pundit:

...Except that the appellation is no more serious than dubbing the GM "the Hollyhock God" because of his ambition to craft a world. The Law is simply an optional safeguard against railroading when the rest of the group has no interest in being led by the nose, nothing more: the book stresses time after time that everyone is entitled to have fun during a game. Abide by it, and the events will unfold naturally from the actions of the characters rather than from any script written in advance.

(If the players want to be railroaded, that's another matter altogether, and perfectly acceptable.)

Quote from: GrimGent...Except that the appellation is no more serious than dubbing the GM "the Hollyhock God" because of his ambition to craft a world.

Again, I claimed Noblis was heavy handed across the board, so using a noblis 'God' as a counter argument is sort of silly.

As for the rest of your post: Consider this, the long running argument in general is not the rightness or wrongness of any one rule, it is about the entire concept of improving game play by writing rules to prevent 'bad play'.

If I wanted to, I could be a Hollyhock God that was a serious Railroader. Nothing in the rules will prevent that because I could simply ignore them or cheat around them. You COULD argue that if I did it enough I would not be playing Noblis anymore.

Remember rule zero: the game as played at the table does not have to resemble the game as written.  Its MY game once I sit down at the table, on either side of the screen, and how I play it is more objectively right than anything the writer wanted to set down.

You can't outrule 'bad play'. Rules do not create 'good play'. Facilitate, certainly.  But the Monarda Law, or "Say yes or roll' rule is about as stiff as wet toilet paper when it comes to stopping a freighttrain running the rails.

What they can do, and DO do is provide advice. They also give a tool to asshat players who want to bitch about not getting things handed to them.

Pick your poison.

Player: Can I have an Atom bomb?
DM: Hmm. That's pretty weird for D&D... Yes or roll the dice... hmm... which to choose... let's go with roll the dice.
*roll*
Player: Awesome a 6!
DM: Ooooooh so close! Better luck next time.
Player: What?! I got a 6 man -- it was a six-sided dice and I rolled a six.
DM: Yeah... you need to roll a 7 to find an Atom bomb in this game.

Quote from: RPGPunditIn either case, the Landmarks make it plain that people vastly prefer the conventional GM-Player balance of power, and that therefore these kinds of arguments are pointless.

Yes, pointless given that the Landmarks are a hobbled together collection of logic fallacies. For example this above is a classic argumentum ad populum, but even the premise of majority preference required more to get there. :pundit:


As to whether 'say yes or roll the dice' is stupid I think it should be kept in mind that 'roll the dice' represents the game system as a whole.  This can include, at least in my mind, checking predetermined details that includes things like checking the map or the setting information. So for a game that assumes a setting more predetermined in a canned adventure or precreated by the GM the wording would be best changed to reflect that assumption.  So taking that text into context of the whole system should have it make a lot more sense for you.

Or at least that's the way I read it, but then I'm not the author.

Quote from: StuartPlayer: Can I have an Atom bomb?

*GM stops the game*

GM: What the fuck is wrong with you?

Player: But..   wait.  You're supposed to say yes or roll dice!

GM: Right.  And you're supposed to play this game.  Not some other idiotic bullshit you just made up.  Are you playing this game?

Player: Okay.  Then, I want a +10 sword.  I take it off the dead guy we killed.

(Return to start, until player actually plays the fucking game).

Actually it is specifically addressed on page 262 in the Dispute and Disagreement section of the small Die of Fate chapter. For those without the book the Die of Fate dice mechanic is sort of like the Supreme Court in that it is the catchall at the end of the system that hears very, very small percetange of the total cases in the system.

The specific text reads:

   The dispute must be surrounding something reasonable and feasible within the game context. A player cannot make a stand for beam weaponry in the Duke's toilet and hope to get a DoF roll.


So chalk one more up for 'missing context'.

P.S. Oh, and it is a '1' not a '6' on the DoF is a determination in favour of the player's request.

Quote(Return to start, until player actually plays the fucking game).

Player: Okay. Then, I want a +10 sword. I take it off the dead guy we killed.
GM: What the FUCK?! What the FUCK is wrong with you?!!?!
Player: Uh, dude -- you need to chill out.
GM: Fuck Chad, FUCK -- you need to start playing the FUCKING GAME!
Player: Well you said we could say what our charcter --
GM: FUCK!?>!@!!!  It has to be part of THIS GAME! Not some OTHER GAME!! FUCK!!?!
Player: Ok, ok -- he finds a +5 sword.
GM: HOLY FUCKING FUCK CHAD!!@!!!@! Are you kidding me?  What the FUCK kind of game are you playing???
Player: +4?
GM: Chad...
Player: 3?
GM: I swear to god Chad...
Player: What?! What do you want me to say??!?!
GM: Do you really think you'd find a magic sword in an empty room?  Think Chad, THINK!
Player: Um, ok, ok -- he, uh, he finds... nothing?
GM: and...?
Player: And he...uh... he thinks about his feelings?
GM: Okay good.  See -- that wasn't so hard, and you'll feel more empowered because I didn't say no to your suggestion.
Player: Yeah, that's really awesome. wow - is it that time already?  Jeez, I better get going...

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen*GM stops the game*

GM: What the fuck is wrong with you?

Didn't see the word no in there either.
Coulda used a dopeslap though. :pimpdahoe: