Quote from: blakkieGM: 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.

As an aside, this little scenario is actually plausible  in Nob since it's theoretically possible for newspapers to be Excruciated at any moment, at which point they would cease to have ever been even as memories or ideas except for the PCs and others like them... That's not something any GM wants to use for a casual bit of player-bashing, though, since constantly adjusting the setting to the changes would take an awfully lot of effort.

Quote from: SettembriniWhy 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.

GM: This an alternate world, newpapers were never invented.
Player: What? Are there books?
GM: Yes. But no periodicals of any sort.
Player: I find that rather implausible.
GM: Who's deciding on the setting here? Me, that's who!

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

'Newspaper' is just a placeholder. It can be pretty much anything.

See you are making an assumption about the GM-player communication and give and take that Luke purposefully put in specific rules for. First the player and the GM hash out the setting and character up front to figure out the major parts where they connect. Eliminating most furture incompatibility issues. Both between the PC and the setting and between the player's and GM's expectations and intentions.

Then during play if any small detail comes up that they can't quite see eye to eye on, or if there is some sort of barrier in the way of the player's intended PC actions, they go to the dice to decide.  With a high preference for testing a character skill to make the determination. 'Say yes or roll.'

Of course there could be other ways of a game system making those determinations.  Like a pregenerated map as I mentioned.  But the concept is basically the same.

Well, more Power to luke and all burning subsystems. But the problem that it adresses has never been one in sixteen years of gaming for me.

Wanna know why? Because when we say:"Let's play traveller." Everybody has the same assumptions. And in doubt, the GM makes the call. Always worked for us, and always will. I've never played with a crappy a GM as you supposed, and I doubt he'll be functional a being enough to use a burn-like system.

And the argument we are having is the one about player empowerment: Don't want it don't need it. You tried to "prove" that I needed it. And thats just wrong.

QuoteThen during play if any small detail comes up that they can't quite see eye to eye on, or if there is some sort of barrier in the way of the player's intended PC actions, they go to the dice to decide.

What kind of shitty GMs do you happen to know?
WTF, the GM always KNOWS what is most plausible, he's living and breathing the world. Something strange happened to gaming I suppose...

QuoteWTF, the GM always KNOWS what is most plausible, he's living and breathing the world.

Really?  Why?  Because you have choosen to define it that way?  What about the players, aren't they living and breathing the world too?

QuoteI've never played with a crappy a GM as you supposed...

Where did I suppose that?

QuoteAnd the argument we are having is the one about player empowerment: Don't want it don't need it. You tried to "prove" that I needed it.

Huh?

QuoteBecause you have choosen to define it that way?  

Yepp, and because he has read all the background info, and has read/written/defined the adventure.

QuoteWhat about the players, aren't they living and breathing the world too?

No, they are living and breathing their characters.

And because in games I like, stuff is DEFINED beforehand! There are challenges, there are rules there is plausability. How could I for example, influence Greyhawk in the Age of Worms Campaign? Only through the ACTIONS of my character (18th Level Cleric of Wee Jaas, btw.).

Quote from: SettembriniYepp, and because he has read all the background info, and has read/written/defined the adventure.

So why didn't anyone else read the background info? Actually they must have or there wouldn't be the collective understanding of what 'traveller' means. How about help define the adventure? Why not that?

QuoteNo, they are living and breathing their characters.

But as we've already gone over the character isn't independant from the setting.  Plus why don't they get to/want to live and breath the setting too? That's what I get from that engaged word that gets tossed around from time to time.

Quote from: blakkieIt 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.

So after insulting every mainstream gamer by comparing them to medieval ignorants, you are now retreating into semantics and arguing that we can't know what the roles are?

We know what the roles are, thank you very much. Gamers have had little trouble figuring out where player power ends and GM power begins for a good thirty or so years now.

The fact that you personally want to play some kind of different game than the RPG, and wish others would too, doesn't make it so.

RPGPundit

QuoteSo why didn't anyone else read the background info?

Because they are not the GM.

QuoteActually the must have or there wouldn't be the collective understanding of what 'traveller' means.

Or have it told by them through the GM, Actual Play or novels and actual communication as in: "Traveller is Hard SF, very much like the movie outland mixed with Dune". Background info means especially the info for the current adventure.

QuoteHow about help define the adventure? Why not that?

Because there would be no challenge, if the plaers knew the answer/motivations/puzzles.

You can, obviously, have games like that. But they are not Adventure RPGs anymore, and therefore, especially for their lack of challenge, suspense and character centered nature, totally lame to me. The challenges in TRPGs as well as its suspense is totally different.

Quote from: SettembriniBecause they are not the GM.

Or have it told by them through the GM, Actual Play or novels and actual communication as in: "Traveller is Hard SF, very much like the movie outland mixed with Dune". Background info means especially the info for the current adventure.

And if they happened to have read it instead of getting it 2nd hand? Or had a desire for something extra to be added or tweaked that the other players were ok with?

QuoteBecause there would be no challenge, if the plaers knew the answer/motivations/puzzles.

Helping define the adventure doesn't mean authoring all the individual details.  Plus since dice help to trigger branches, then you really don't know how it's going to turn out anyway. Surely you haven't found that the GM always knew all of the possible solutions? Or knew which one the players would choose.

QuoteYou can, obviously, have games like that. But they are not Adventure RPGs anymore, and therefore, especially for their lack of challenge, suspense and character centered nature, totally lame to me. The challenges in TRPGs as well as its suspense is totally different.

Whoa. Back the train up. Lack of challenge???  Lack of suspense???  Lack of character centered???  Aye-karumba! You seem to have a very off picture of what is being suggested.

No, character centered they are. And this, I totally un-dig.
Tell me, for fuck's sake what "Player Empowerment" you envision for the Age of Worms Campaign?

EDIT: Go, read my actual play of Rifts, Tell me where "PE" is needed. Shut the fuck up about friggin' theoretical stuff and do it the forge way: THEORY ONLY WITH ACTUAL PLAY. Wherein Actual means Actual.

BTW I Know there is challenge in TRPGs. but not the challenge I like.

Quote from: SettembriniShut the fuck up about friggin' theoretical stuff and do it the forge way: THEORY ONLY WITH ACTUAL PLAY. Wherein Actual means Actual.

I mentioned before I really have nothing to do with The Forge, but perhaps I didn't mention it to you.  So exactly how does that format work?  Is it a block thingy like in that thread?  Are there particular entries that need to be or are expected to be filled out?  You can't ask someone about their past actual actual gaming experiences?

I'll do up a full response later. Right now my response to swearing and yelling wouldn't be the most constructive.

Quote from: GrimGentWell, 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.

I don't know why you keep running up to Noblis again... anyway, we can both agree that absolute railroading is bad GMing, and barely qualifies as gaming (if indeed at all). The fact that it is possible for a GM/Hollyhock god to STILL railroad, even Noblis (despite Monarda) OR take a fighters weapons and armor away in D&D shows that shitty GM/HG's  are essentially teh same, rules be damned.

Thus, you have presented the straw man.  Very well, that fucker is dead, well and truly shredded, I wince at the brutality which you inflicted upon his poor benighted, defenceless self. Alas, I knew him not, for he was thine, not mine.


Because I HAVE played with GM's, regardless of system who have pulled shit like this. Sometimes its a misguided attempt to set up a challenge, sometimes its asshattery of the highest order. And no rule is going to stop that. That is my point, the very core of my arguement. A rule who's only purpose is to prevent bad play is worth less than the ink used to write it.

:pundit:

Quote from: SpikeA rule who's only purpose is to prevent bad play is worth less than the ink used to write it.

I was with you up until here.

Preventing bad play is a worthy goal, and lots of meaningful rules in games that I would not want to do without can be pointed at as having the purpose of "preventing bad play".

QuoteI'll do up a full response later. Right now my response to swearing and yelling wouldn't be the most constructive.

What I'm suggesting was: Do back up your statements with actual play examples. When I'm TYPING LIKE THIS. I'm not yelling, but emphasizing. I might stick to bold letters in the future.