Fellas, all the empowerment a player needs, is total contorl over his character and the equipment he already has. Don't fuck with freedom of choice, and you need no stinkin' hand-holding "let's work together in peace and harmony" nonsense.

If you don't know what I mean, visit this forge thread:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=21227.15

Wherein I recap a convention session and am being asked how I could GM so rockingly cool. When I explained, they said it is wrong because:

QuotePutting the GM on some sort of throne helps nothing.  It destroys any kind of open communication about the game.  [...]  It's a collaborative effort to have a good time.

Insert flowers, and hippie music...

But the players, who even posted in the thread were really lovin' it. PE is rubbish, if applied to every discussion, like it happened there. Some people are Forge-brain damaged. They cannot even grok regular adventure gaming anymore...

Quote from: YamoSo you're clinging to basic snobbery, then? "To know my tastes is to love them?" Those poor saps are only doing what they're doing because they haven't tried your (right) way yet?

WTF?  It is snobbery for me to note, and yes this is just antidotal evidence from me by itself, that many people respond quite positively to the general concept of 'player empowerment' in a gaming environment.  That is how game developers actually test their products to improve it and get it ready to sell. Get people to play with different variations and see what the results are.

It is pretty clear where Hunter Thompson would point if asked to identify the source of said bacon smell on this one. :pundit:

First I'll say I don't like shortening things down to a couple of words like 'player empowerment', which is why I try to put brackets around it.  It is way too broad, carries a lot of baggage, and people take it lots of different ways. But it's late and I'm short on words, so it'll have to do for now. Bedtime after this post.

Quote from: SettembriniFellas, all the empowerment a player needs, is total contorl over his character and the equipment he already has. Don't fuck with freedom of choice, and you need no stinkin' hand-holding "let's work together in peace and harmony" nonsense.

Here is the the problem I've found with what I think I'm hearing you say above.  Identifying what is character and what is setting breaks down.  Because the line blurs and bleeds. A lot.

Gear they don't have yet? Part of what defines a character is abilities, including abilities to construct gear.  Gear they already have? Well where did they get it from?

Then you have character's influence on things outside of them, and potential influence coming back in.

The setting heavily influences the choices of a character, and to ignore those influences you end up with things like anachronisms. Likewise a character should influence the world they are in, if they can't that's classic railroad.

A character that centred around doing something in a situation that just doesn't exist in the setting? It would be like a trap centric rogue in a trapless world. Nearly pointless.

So the upshot is that without real input and influence on the setting what ends up happening is that the player can get boxed in on the character.  This even happens in PC to PC influence sometimes.

Total character control implies either substantial setting control or a pathological situation.

Quote from: SettembriniInsert flowers, and hippie music...

It's not the flowers or the music that's attractive.

It's the fantastic sex.

Quote from: SettembriniPE is rubbish, if applied to every discussion, like it happened there.

Anything is rubbish if applied to every discussion.

blakkie, I totally don't know what you are talking about.

EDIT: I don't understand it.

Quote from: Settembriniblakkie, I totally don't know what you are talking about.

It is late, sorry.  Short version:

Total character control requires substantial control of the setting.  Total setting control requires substantial control of the character. To try operate as though they aren't linked thusly results in a pathological disjoint between the character and it's environment.

QuoteTotal character control requires substantial control of the setting.  

Either you are talking bullshit, or something totally out of my area of experience.
Let's say, I have a traveller character. I can say anything he does (character control), w/o changing the way the imperium is organized (setting), no?

Quote from: SettembriniLet's say, I have a traveller character. I can say anything he does (character control), w/o changing the way the imperium is organized (setting), no?

What if you declare that he is the head of the Imperium, and that he initiates a 'reorg' or just desolves the Imperium and trades off some choice planets to the Hive Federation for a Diet Pepsi, a pack of Luckys, and a Light Sabre?

QuoteWhat if declare that he is the head of the Imperium, and that he initiates a 'reorg' or just desolves the Imperium and trades off some choice planets to the Hive Federation for a Diet Pepsi and a pack of Luckys?

Well you do know character creation rules? And you are not in control of the characters "story", but in control of his actions! You can state anything he DOES. As in "I buy a newspaper; I shoot at the  other guy."
Your statement is really bewildering me, we, clearly are talking about different things.

Quote from: SettembriniWell you do know character creation rules?

Oh now you're stepping all over my character?  Come see the repression inherent in the system!   Actually I haven't the first clue about Traveller character creation rules.     So they don't have any ultra reet character creation optional rules in there?

QuoteYou can state anything he DOES. As in "I buy a newspaper; I shoot at the  other guy."

But what if there is no newspaper?   <----- The really important part, the rest of my post is just so much drivel to ignore.

QuoteYour statement is really bewildering me, we, clearly are talking about different things.

It is because the example you set up wasn't something personally I could fill out that well. So I went way the hell over the top.  Including tossing in a Star Wars reference. :eek:

Quote from: SettembriniWell you do know character creation rules? And you are not in control of the characters "story", but in control of his actions! You can state anything he DOES. As in "I buy a newspaper; I shoot at the  other guy."
Your statement is really bewildering me, we, clearly are talking about different things.

Actual, total control of every detail of the character also means controlling their circumstances.

Actual, total control of the setting also requires controlling the circumstances of the character.

Simple.

Quote from: SpikeIf 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.

Well, not really: I would argue that at that point you aren't playing any game at all anymore, but instead telling a story to the rest of the group. In that respect, Nobilis is no different from D&D.

Besides, ignoring the players from the start would be akward when they already know that their characters should by rights be capable of the things they have suggested. It would be like telling a warrior in D&D just as a battle is beginning that all her armour and weapons were stolen a while back but you didn't mention it earlier because it didn't seem important at the time, or telling a wizard that he has quite inexplicably and without any warning forgotten all his spells... Pull off stunts like that once or twice without a really good reason, and soon you won't have a group left. As Settembrini just said, it's about control over the character, and in Nob the characters can rather easily control the setting.

QuoteActual, total control of every detail of the character also means controlling their circumstances.

That's sophism. You roll up a character, and there he is. And then you can go ahead and control his actions. Simple.

QuoteBut what if there is no newspaper?

Than the GM says:

"No, there isn't any"
"Why?"
"It's sold out, smash hit, with your faces and the burning mayor on it."
"I go to the library."
"You find one, and can read the newspaper there. Although it's definitely more heavily used than the others, seems to be a popular issue."

Very simple. I call it roleplaying games, let me tell you about it:

"The GM tells the players about the surrounding world. Then the players can  state the actions of their characters. The GM says how the world reacts to the stated action."

EDIT: Newspapers are obviously an artifact of the world, not the character. You have control about his ACTIONS not his surroundings. That's the whole fun: affect your surrounding through clever action.

There is no newspaper anywhere.....and let's step away from Traveller to the hypothetical game Offices & Overtime.

Player: I buy a newspaper.
GM: Nope, there isn't one.
Player: No problem. I have this totally bizatch Newspaper Finding skill, so I go out and find one. *picks up dice*
GM: No. There are no newspapers in this world. They were never invented.
Player: But my background says I had a newspaper route growing up. See, it says right here.  Plus my Newspaper Finding skill. And I wanted to fill out a resume this session to apply for a newspaper editor's job for my next level up. That's why I wanted the paper.
GM: Tough noogies, Paper Boi.

Why should there be a modern game world without newspapers? Your example is well, violating the basic assumptions about regular RPGs: Present a believable, plausible world.

I see your linguistic point, but it is irrelevant, isn't it?