Also, Nobilis isn't a "Forge game". As far as I know, Borgstrom has never even posted over there.

Honestly, if you are wondering how it plays out, why not look at that "Example of Play" which is available from the GoO site?

Perhaps Dogs in the Vineyard or Burning Wheel or whatever is a better example.  

QuoteThey could search all they want, of course, but the bomb isn't going to be there.

That's definitely not the impression I got from any of the discussions, including the comments from the game's author.  Saying "No", or saying "Sure you can try... (but really, no)" are basically the same thing.

Ms. Borgstrom says:

Quote"Would you just stop me if I tried to do cool thing X?"
"Yes."

That's just as bad as a no!

It is more in the spirit of not disdaining players. In short, it's about letting go of the idea that you're there to keep them in line and embracing the ideas that they're there to contribute (just like you are) and that your most important role is supporting them in having fun.

Deciding (as GM) something is utterly stupid and won't work sounds, to me, exactly like stopping them from doing "cool thing X."

Saying:  "You can try!"  and then when they roll a Nat. 20 (or whatever) you say "oooooooh so close", really is just screwing around.  Just say no and keep the game moving along.

To me, it sounds like she wants you to let the players steer the ship.  If they think it would be cool to find a nuclear bomb in the treasure tomb -- why not? (It's nice!!!)

I'm not knocking that style of play for some types of games.  I *am* knocking that style of play for other types of games.

Quote from: StuartDeciding (as GM) something is utterly stupid and won't work sounds, to me, exactly like stopping them from doing "cool thing X."

"Trying to do something cool" and "suddenly deciding that something absolutely inconsistent happens" are two completely different things. Nothing in the game even remotely suggests that the players can dictate reality. You can potentially toss New York into the ocean or transform every blanket in the world into a ravenous monster or discover the reason why Cneph created the universe. You cannot decide to fly despite the fact you've never been able to do so, or to instantly become God, or to teleport at will to Middle Earth to give Frodo a hand, no matter how cool those things might sound to you.

(To quote the Example of Play: "There's improbable, and then there's egregious.")

I think continually using Nobilis as an example of game design patterns is getting in the way of the discussion...

* toss New York into the ocean -- yes
* transform every blanket in the world into a ravenous monster -- yes
* decide to fly -- no

...that doesn't make any sense unless you're familiar with the game.  Which again, I'm not.

Quote"Trying to do something cool" and "suddenly deciding that something absolutely inconsistent happens" are two completely different things.

So it comes down to you, as GM, to decide if something is cool and gets considered, or inconsistent and gets disregarded.  Very reasonable, but not how many other people are reading the same rules I think.

Quote from: StuartI think continually using Nobilis as an example of game design patterns is getting in the way of the discussion...

* toss New York into the ocean -- yes
* transform every blanket in the world into a ravenous monster -- yes
* decide to fly -- no

...that doesn't make any sense unless you're familiar with the game.  Which again, I'm not.

Tossing New York is a possibility if your Aspect attribute is high enough and you are willing to spend some miracle points, as well. Aspect measures the distance between all the physical, mental and social capabilities of a common mortal and those of a miraculous being. It allows you to do anything an ordinary human being might conceivably do, only exaggerated further and further until the actions reach mythic proportions. (A mortal can swallow a pebble. A Noble can swallow a mountain.)

Transforming the blankets is a possibility only if your Domain (Blankets) attribute is high enough (that is, you have been granted dominion over all the blankets in the world); and of course, you must again to be willing and able to expend those miracle points. Or you might do it with a suitable Gift based on the Domain, although that would undoubtedly be one odd Gift to have.

Deciding to fly without an appropriate Gift or the use of a creative Domain miracle... Sorry, not going to happen. With Aspect you could leap across the Atlantic Ocean, but even it doesn't allow you to genuinely fly since human beings simply cannot do that.

QuoteSo it comes down to you, as GM, to decide if something is cool and gets considered, or inconsistent and gets disregarded.  Very reasonable, but not how many other people are reading the same rules I think.

Ah, but you see, the actual rules (and there are rules) are very clear indeed on what is impossible and what isn't. Someone with Aspect 0 isn't going to jump to the moon under his own power, ever; you need the highest possible rank (5, that is) to pull off something like that without spending an amount of miracle points that a starting PC isn't going to have, as well as suffering a grievous wound which cannot be even healed magically. That's why the aforementioned Example is peppered with all the "'Can I do that?' 'Not without MPs, you can't!'" exchanges: there are definite limits to what the PCs can accomplish with their resources. If you act within those limits, go right ahead. If you wish to find a way to circumvent those limits, possibly with some outside help, go right ahead again. But if you want to act as if those limits didn't exist, unfortunately that isn't going to work.

Bluntly: if the difficulty of what you want to attempt is greater than the appropriate attribute by more than four, you won't be able to do that without uttering a Word of Command. That causes the loss of eight miracle points and your highest wound level. If you don't have eight points left or are down to your last level, you can't do it at all. The attribute scale goes from zero to five. The miracle difficulties go from zero to nine, and sometimes higher. The default amount of those precious MPs for each of the four attributes is only five per story (not per session). See the problem?

Hum. Perhaps I should add some helpful linkage:
Nobilis 101: This explains the basic system in some detail (although I've noticed a few very slight inaccuracies).

GoO PDF Downloads: Scroll down to the bottom of the page, and download the Introduction, the Sample, and that "So You've Been EnNobled" pamphlet.

Ash and Chrysanthemum: An old site, long out of date, but still with a few interesting tidbits.

Quote from: StuartPerhaps Dogs in the Vineyard or Burning Wheel or whatever is a better example.

Incidentally, the PCs wouldn't be able to discover nuclear devices in those two games either, as was mentioned in the linked thread: the required technology doesn't exist in the settings, and so once again the bombs are simply not there to be found. By and large, the whole "GM must be the slave of the players and indulge their every whim no matter ridiculous it might seem" attitude that the Pundit has been railing against in his blog and on various threads at this site would appear to be more a gaming myth than anything else.

(Ah, well... I applied for an account at Story Games just so that I could add a comment about that same take on Monarda.)

Something that might come a tad closer to actual narrative control shared with the players is "story hacking" in Code of Unaris, by the way. Each player has her own pool of "hack points": by spending one of those she can change (almost) any word in the last lines of the GM, and for two she can increase or reduce any mentioned amount by half.

GM: "The locked gates are guarded by your old foe Alfric."
Player #1: "Hack 'foe' into 'friend.'"
Player #2: "Hack 'locked' into 'open.'"
GM: "Okay, now the open gates are guarded by your old friend Alfric who waves merrily as you step inside."

There are a few specific terms that cannot be tampered with, though, like the name of the Big Bad Guy in the setting.

Quote from: Settembrini

Adventure Roleplayers can recite  Greyhawk history and can enter into lengthy discussions about the merits of mithril as a building materiel.
Wargame nuts know all about WWII, the Civil War etc. down to unhealthy intricacies of Wehrmacht uniforms.
 

And, boy, those people are boring....

Quote from: StuartCan you think of an example of a game where it is BOTH extremely wargame centric and extremely TheatreSports centric?  I'm having a hard time imagining how that would work -- but maybe someone has a suggestion.

Not to be too self-centered, but have you seen Gnostigmata?  Gnostigmata is a game I've been developing in the past year.  It has a heavy emphasis on improvisation, and is somewhat extreme on the "game" end of things as well, as there are actual winners and losers.  (Although, I have to admit that calling it a "wargame" would be quite a stretch.)  The game is still in beta, but you can download it from the bottom of the Downloads page of my website.

I'm pretty sure that RPGPundit wouldn't even call it an RPG, since it lacks a GM and was pretty heavily influenced by Forge theory.  But, I would say there is Role-playing involved and it is undoubtedly a competitive game.  Now, whether the whole thing works together to produce a good RPG is debatable, of course.  But, my friends and I have had fun playing it.

Quote from: StuartThe "Always say yes" design pattern I'm referring to (and which others have commented on) is the idea that players can add anything to the game narrative and their requests can not be denied by the GM.

...And that little Monarda misconception is topical once again: did you happen to notice the Pundit's latest repost?

Quote from: GrimGentIncidentally, the PCs wouldn't be able to discover nuclear devices in those two games either, as was mentioned in the linked thread: the required technology doesn't exist in the settings, and so once again the bombs are simply not there to be found. By and large, the whole "GM must be the slave of the players and indulge their every whim no matter ridiculous it might seem" attitude that the Pundit has been railing against in his blog and on various threads at this site would appear to be more a gaming myth than anything else.

The fact that you are choosing to ignore the rules of the game or the dictates of the fashionable gaming darlings doesn't mean that they aren't true, it just means that even you realize that the game as they would envision it would be unplayable.

RPGPundit

QuoteAnd, boy, those people are boring....

That might well be, but were is any expert knowledge for the human condition in thematic gamers? I read quite a smattering of literature, and that really makes many thematic gamer´s contirbutions trite and unimaginative.
If I want adult and grown up themes, I want the same level of sophistication. Elsewise it looks only even more like lazymen´s games. Uneducated lazymen.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe fact that you are choosing to ignore the rules of the game or the dictates of the fashionable gaming darlings doesn't mean that they aren't true, it just means that even you realize that the game as they would envision it would be unplayable.

So you are still claiming that if during a game of Dogs in the Vineyard one of the players suddenly declares that his Mormon gunslinger of the Old West is going to leap into a nearby phone booth and turn into Superman, the rules force the GM to go along with it, in the spirit of "Say 'Yes' or Roll the Dice"?

Quote from: SettembriniThat might well be, but where is any expert knowledge for the human condition in thematic gamers? I read quite a smattering of literature, and that really makes many thematic gamers' contributions trite and unimaginative.
If I want adult and grown up themes, I want the same level of sophistication. Elsewise it looks only even more like lazymen´s games. Uneducated lazymen.

Weeellll... I'm sure not every player of Traveller is an expert in physics and astronomy. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I agree that the general level of reading across the entire gamer subculture is not what it could be. But you're straying into rather snobby territory, and it's not actually an argument against the games themselves.

QuoteBut you're straying into rather snobby territory, and it's not actually an argument against the games themselves.

Sure it´s snobby, that was the point. If you have anything to make me change my snobby mind, post a link. I´m interested.