Quote from: jrientsWho is "we"?  Last I checked around here we did the whole "everyone is entitled to their own opinion (no matter how stupid)" thing.

By "we" I mean the forum by policy.  Anyone here can use Edwards' or anyone else's definitions of anything as much as they want, they just can't clamour for that being the "official" definition.  Thus the definition of "indie" being used here need not be Edwards', and the forum will in no way support those who use his definition, nor suppress those who don't.

RPGPundit

There's a reason I labeled it Edwards's definition and not the definition.

I'm by no means claiming authority because Ron made the definition.  I happen to like it and think its useful.

Quote from: SettembriniI attended a Polaris demo, and it was shocking, how trite and unimaginative most of the contributions of the participants were.

This is something that concerns me about the creation of more theatric games (for lack of a better term).  Plenty of people (most?) who want to sit down to a roleplaying game are either not talented enough or not comfortable enough with getting deeply into character and engaging in what amounts to improv theater.  Does that just mean that some games are simply made for a more specialised audience?

My particular concern on this matter centers around a game that I started writing 7 or 8 years ago.  My work on it comes and goes in spurts, partly because I think, as it is currently written, it will prove a very difficult game to play.  It's a story-telling game with strong roleplaying elements, where the assembled players essentially portray the roles of a group of people telling and listening to an unfolding story.  It may sound a lot like The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, but it's really a lot more like Diplomacy.  The key problem that causes me to shelve the project periodically is the degree of improvisation and creativity that I suspect is needed to make the game really -- and consistently -- fun.

One of the keys to the success of bog-standard D&D is that it can be played mechanistically if the players aren't feeling inspired, or it can be played theatrically if they are.  I know that in my early days of RPG-ing, my groups did both depending on our mood and energy.

!i!

Hum. That bit about players adding to the narrative just reminded me of something. You do realize that Nobilis doesn't feature metagame mechanics or techniques of any kind, and that the only way for the players to actually affect the setting during play is through the current abilities of their characters? There are no Hero/Drama/Fate Points, or Dramatic Editing, or what have you.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThis is something that concerns me about the creation of more theatric games (for lack of a better term).  Plenty of people (most?) who want to sit down to a roleplaying game are either not talented enough or not comfortable enough with getting deeply into character and engaging in what amounts to improv theater.

Nah - they are probably looking for something that endless basically contextless arguments can't provide.

I mean, theres are reason almost every show turns in to soap opera after three seasons: Its easy.

Quote from: GrimGentHum. That bit about players adding to the narrative just reminded me of something. You do realize that Nobilis doesn't feature metagame mechanics or techniques of any kind, and that the only way for the players to actually affect the setting during play is through the current abilities of their characters? There are no Hero/Drama/Fate Points, or Dramatic Editing, or what have you.

Your attempted apologetics for the Borgstromosity will get you nowhere.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYour attempted apologetics for the Borgstromosity will get you nowhere.

There's nothing apologetic about that. Nobilis simply doesn't have any means for the players to control the world of the game except by the actions of the PCs. Before actual play, they create the Chancel... which then becomes part of the setting controlled by the GM; and they create the Imperator... who then becomes a major NPC, again controlled by the GM. During actual play, at best the players may request the GM to work some of their chosen Restrictions into the current events so that they might have a chance to regain those precious miracle points. They can't add anything to a scene unless their characters explicitly have the power to make it so.

@GrimGent

Can you quote the "Monarda Law" text for us.  Everywhere I look online everyone else seems to describe it very simply as: "Never say 'no,'" or "say yes or roll the dice."

The only places it's given a different expanded definition seems to be your posts on other forums.

I haven't read the book, so I don't know what it actually says, but a lot of people seem to think it's general advice telling GMs to "Never say 'no'" when a player wants to add something to the narrative.

Quote from: StuartCan you quote the "Monarda Law" text for us.

Yup: I've cited the text in an earlier thread and even linked to it in Pundit's blog commentary. Here.

Oh, and another thing... Sometimes people claim that the rules of the game are written in character. That's not actually true. What Nob does have spread throughout the book are nine chapters of GM advice under the collective title of "How to Be a Hollyhock God", purportedly a series of lectures by Ianthe Falls-Short, the Marchessa of Debate and one of the major NPCs. The Monarda Law is in the first of those.

QuoteThe Monarda Law: "Never Say 'No'"
If you wish to make sure that you do not slip and accidentally place your established story over the fun of the players in the game, a strict adherence to the Monarda Law shall save your soul from peril. Its application is simple. When a player asks you, "Can I do X?" -- where "I" means their character and "X" is some course of action -- use one of the four useful answers below.

"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 enjoyment and possibilities to your game. Saying "no" rarely does.

I maintain this is adapted from the Improvisational Theatre tradition.

QuoteYou do realize that Nobilis doesn't feature metagame mechanics or techniques of any kind, and that the only way for the players to actually affect the setting during play is through the current abilities of their characters?

Like I said, I've never read the game.  You're suggesting this design pattern is being applied to other games more broadly than it was intended.

Quote from: StuartLike I said, I've never read the game.  You're suggesting this design pattern is being applied to other games more broadly than it was intended.

Yes. At times it seems as if the principle has been taken up as a sort of a grand and revolutionary agenda, when in fact it's something that has been going on with accommodating GMs ever since earliest days of D&D. Whether or not its roots lead back to Improv has nothing in specific to do with the group dynamics in Nobilis; again, as said, under its quirks lies a traditional RPG rather than some avant-garde experiment in power structures.

Whether Nobilis is the flagship of the TheatreSports Style Forge-Indie RPGs, or an unwilling and misunderstood traditional game, I'll leave for people more familiar with the game to decide. There are definitely games that have adopted the "avant-garde experiment in power structures" approach, and the "never say no / always say yes" philosophy is definitely present in the sense the players have greater control over the narrative itself.

I think the point I'd like to stress most in my original theory is that there is a wide range of RPGs, and the rules that support styles at one end of the spectrum may not be applicable to the other games under the broad "RPG" umbrella.

"Always say yes" works for some games.  Greater limits on the actions characters can take works for other games.

Quote from: Stuart"Always say yes" works for some games.  Greater limits on the actions characters can take works for other games.

Possibly. On the other hand, I can't really see any good reason not to use the Monarda Law with other games as well, especially since I've GMed by pretty much the same principle for a good long while now, more than a decade before even hearing about Nob. Sure, it's always possible to try anything, but both the players and the PCs know that anything utterly stupid quite plainly will not work, and so they in all likelihood won't go out of their way to, say, search for nuclear bombs in medieval treasuries (to use the example from an old thread on these forums). They could search all they want, of course, but the bomb isn't going to be there.

Quote from: StuartThis is like "Yes, Let's" or "Don't Block" in TheatreSports

And then, unlike DnD with its rules for physical stuff and freeform roleplaying, forge games add rules specifically intended to block and railroad players when engaging in improv.

The rules are just an excuse to prevent the players from taking the story in directions the GM doesn't like.

Bloody Rollplayers. Talk about missing the point.

Ah well. I guess it's a useful crutch for people who arn't creative enough to do proper improv.