Quote from: SpikeBecause I HAVE played with GM's, regardless of system who have pulled shit like this.

Sure, it's not unthinkable that there are daft GMs out there who may occasionally get tired of the whole thing and just state "okay, all of you suffer spontaneous heart attacks and die: game over". I wouldn't play with any of them, and neither would any of the gamers I know. It's probably rare for anyone to want to be nothing more than the GM's obedient little puppet.

The reason why I brought up Nob is that most of the time there's no chance of failure even in the kind of tasks that might require a skill check in other games. Generally, the players are perfectly aware that what they have in mind should work, because the game focuses on the choices made and the consequences that follow. For instance, that Superman example from a few pages back? You can rewind time for the entire world... but it won't affect the other Nobilis who keep on living their lives as usual. Others could very well suffer from your actions: if at that moment another member of your Familia is crossing a street on the other side of the globe, she'll almost inevitably be struck by the flow of traffic as it begins to streak backwards, and you'll certainly inconvenience a large number of influential figures who'd make unpleasant enemies. So yes, you can do it... but there's a catch. A GM who tells you otherwise shows a lamentable lack of imagination and little concern for the rest of the group.

(A little clarification... In addition to whatever other effects the Commencement may have on the Nobilis, they are all "perfected": even at their weakest they remain as capable as common mortals are at their best. In practice, what this means is that every Noble automatically succeeds in any humanly possible task. Of course, the GM is the final arbiter on exactly which actions can be considered "humanly possible", although the chapter on the attributes does provide solid rules on what it takes to perform improbable, impossible and fabled feats.)

Quote from: SettembriniWhat 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.

Probably worth it, capitalisation is generally taken as shouting after all.

Quote from: SettembriniWhat 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.

I'll keep that in mind if you happen to forget to.

To clarify, those questions in the post you were responding to were intended primarily to draw out specific instances of your actual play experience, if they existed fitting that criteria. I'm trying to query to fill in the gaps of my mental picture of where you are coming from. Mostly on longterm gaming, because I think that RIFTS thing gave me some insite on the shortterm.  I really don't want to sift through all the threads in this forum to discover it.  I really don't have the stomach for that.

Truth be told when I'm done in this thread I doubt I'll return to this forum. I like the other one better, where the talk somehow seems to me to be more about games. Because that's why I'm here.

QuoteTruth be told when I'm done in this thread I doubt I'll return to this forum. I like the other one better, where the talk somehow seems to me to be more about games. Because that's why I'm here.

Then let's talk about games.

Quote from: SettembriniThen let's talk about games.

Game discussion?  Actual game discussion?  On an RPG site?  That isn't about Exalted?  ABSURD!

Partially a responce to blakkie's quote, partially my trying to add in my two cents on avoiding problems in games.  As always, YMMV.

Quote from: blakkieA 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.

Much of the situation becomes impossible if the DM/GM/whatever you want to call them clearly informs the players about the world that they will be playing in, and reminds them of this while looking over charecters prior to starting. (and while doing so can pull things from the pc's backgrounds to use in the game if they will add something to it.)

DM: Umm, joe, your char has a lot of trap related abilities...
Joe: Yep, he's the best in the land.
DM: I'm not arguing that, but you do realize that I hate running traps and have pretty much edited them out of the world like I mentioned earlier?
Joe: But I like disarming traps...  and I put the points into the skills...
DM: I know, and I'm not saying that you can't, I'm just letting you know that you aren't going to need to use those skills very often if at all.
Joe: Fair enough, but it's what I want for the charecter.
DM: Ok, just wanted to remind you.

The choices of the DM or the players as a whole will always box the players into a certain range of activity, if I want to put together a social climber charecter who is based off of charisma, and everyone else want a good old fashioned dungeon crawl, I'm going to be fighting for my life along with the others, or I'm going to leave and find a group that is playing what I want to play.  As long as the DM/GM/whatever is up front with me as to what kind of a game/game world he is wanting to run, then I know what I'm getting into and can make an informed choice.  It's kind of like an actor who reads over scripts before figuring out which one(s) they want to act in. They will have some control over the outlook of thier charecter, they are still constrained by the scope of the script/adventure.

THIS forum is supposed to be about trying to design better games and game mechanics. Its NOT supposed to be about what this thread was about, namely semantically debating minutae of theory.  I didn't say anything yet because I understood that there would be some initial resistence to the Landmarks and the concept that it might actually be cool and interesting to make RPG theory appeal to the majority instead of the elite, and I wanted to "let the dogs bark" as it were, so that could be put out of the way.

Meanwhile, if you want to talk about RPGs, go to the main "Roleplaying games" forum.
If you want to talk about how to be a better player, or a better GM, and about actual play in your games, go to the "Actual Play and the Craft of Gameplay" forum.

If you want to talk about GNS, go to the Forge. If Ron Edwards doesn't let people talk about GNS anymore because he's decided its perfect just the way it is, tough for you. Go to RPG.net.

This place is for people brave enough to want to make a whole new kind of theory. A practical one.

RPGPundit

Pundit: I don't know about you but I haven't been talking minutae, I've been declaring in big bold declarative statements what is wrong with the applied theory of 'say yes...et al...'

Quote from: SpikePundit: I don't know about you but I haven't been talking minutae, I've been declaring in big bold declarative statements what is wrong with the applied theory of 'say yes...et al...'

I joined in mostly because this thread appeared to be reinforcing the same misconceptions as some of the comments about the Monarda Law in that "Pistols at Dawn" discussion and its commentary companion. ("...The fuckheaded 'laws' of R. Borgstrom in her unplayable games. I believe the 'You have to say 'yes' or 'yes, but'' rule is her 'monarda law', whatever the fuck that means.") 'Tis somewhat odd to see folks railing against something that bears no resemblance to how the Law actually works.

Poontang, this is practical. It's a GM technique.

Quote from: droogPoontang, this is practical. It's a GM technique.

Witticism aside, I agree. A rule that minimizes GM denial in game is a positive thing. It encourages them to be mindful of what their players say and, to consider if it can be used to add to the tension or fun of the game. It has nothing to do with indulging whiny players asking for things that have no place at the table.

Quote from: SpikePundit: I don't know about you but I haven't been talking minutae, I've been declaring in big bold declarative statements what is wrong with the applied theory of 'say yes...et al...'

Yes, I know, and bally good that; the problem is that this isn't really what this board is envisioned to be... the very fact that we're arguing this rather than just discarding it offhand is part of the effort of the Forge Theorists to try to force the dialogue to take place on THEIR terms.

It shouldn't. This place should be focused on creating new theory and creating new games on OUR terms.

RPGPundit

Quote from: GrimGentI joined in mostly because this thread appeared to be reinforcing the same misconceptions as some of the comments about the Monarda Law in that "Pistols at Dawn" discussion and its commentary companion. ("...The fuckheaded 'laws' of R. Borgstrom in her unplayable games. I believe the 'You have to say 'yes' or 'yes, but'' rule is her 'monarda law', whatever the fuck that means.") 'Tis somewhat odd to see folks railing against something that bears no resemblance to how the Law actually works.

See, now if you feel there is this much confusion about the Monarda Law in the Online Community of Gamers, despite the much discussion and argument from people in the know, like yourself...

Imagine how such Laws are viewed or used at game tables filled with people who don't have access to your wisdom and insight?    

Personally, I could give fuck all about the borgstrom version of this rule. Noblis is a lovely coffee table book, but by no measure a game I would play or (shudder) run.  See comments regarding heavy handedness, then see your arguments back about 'Ianthe's style' to get a clue why this game has little appeal to me.  

My arguments are catagorical.  Rules of this sort are about as effective as real life laws mandating that people be nice to one another. Great, even wonderful sentiment.  Does absolutely NOTHING to make people actually act nice to one another, and very often is perverted to do the exact opposite, being sadistically cruel in teh name of enforcing Niceness.

"roll dice or say "yes"" is a stupid idea because it supposes that gamers are all active. Whereas in fact many are reactive.

Active players will push buttons and pull levers and open doors and talk to stranger NPCs and generally make things happen. Reactive players will wait for something to happen, and then respond to it. Passive players will never do anything at all unless you kick them in the arse. Some reactive players are mistaken for passive players; but they're not passive, they're just reactive players who haven't found anything they're interested in reacting to yet.

"Say "yes" or roll the dice" works well if all your players are active, and imaginative. That's because active players like having all opportunities open. But if your players are reactive, then they're like some guy in a video store, spending two hours there looking at the 10,000 movies and coming out with nothing - there were just too many choices for him.

Any saying or GM guideline that ignores what many gamers are actually like is a stupid one. It'd be as smart as me saying, "feed them all cheetos."

Quote from: JimBobOz"roll dice or say "yes"" is a stupid idea because it supposes that gamers are all active. Whereas in fact many are reactive.

Any saying or GM guideline that ignores what many gamers are actually like is a stupid one. It'd be as smart as me saying, "feed them all cheetos."

It's a dumb idea because it doesn't apply to everyone? Now that's a dumb idea. It's simply a piece of advice that is more than applicable when handling player requests or actions. So you might not need it for every situation, but it's there when you need it.

I consider this a nice piece of advice for reactive players, paraphrased from other sources:
"If things are going too slow, have some thug burst into the scene looking for trouble".

Are you saying this is a bad idea because it ignores all of the active players?