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

What are you claiming, though? You seem to be building a straw man.

I´m not building a straw man. Bouielle said: "attack from unexpected directions". My statements were just an example of criticism you could utter, without resorting to "it´s not roleplaying!"/ "they destroy the hobby!" style arguments.
It was a mental exercise, which happened to have a true core.

So your criticism is: the people I have seen playing Forgey games weren't particularly well-versed in literature?

Nothing to answer there.

As said before, it was a mental exercise. I´m not claiming anything, apart from:
You could build an attack out of that.

Quote from: SettembriniAs said before, it was a mental exercise. I´m not claiming anything, apart from:
You could build an attack out of that.

Not a very good one. Let me see if I can think of something better....

I really should have thought of posting this paragraph before... It's from "Chapter 5: The Essence of Nobilis", which briefly describes all the central concepts of the game.

Quote from: Nobilis, page 45There Are Rules To This Game.
As in any good mystery, detectives can't suddenly produce evidence from thin air. They use the same information given anyone else -- to all the players, if not all the characters. As in any good romance, the characters can't make other people fall in love with them, or smooth away the wrinkles of romantic life. Nor can the characters' players necessarily do it for them. As in any good fantasy adventure, characters have powers and gifts which evolve during play -- but they don't spontaneously mutate into whatever they need at the time. If a fence stumps characters in one story, they shouldn't start flying around in the next!

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.

RPGPundit

Or it could be that you don't understand the rules you're attacking.  Just a remote possibility.

Quote from: MaddmanOr it could be that you don't understand the rules you're attacking.  Just a remote possibility.

Ah yes, "if you can't see the emperor's clothes, you must be an ignoramus/fool/ traitor", etc etc.

The classic refuge of the fashionista and pseudo-academic. "Its not that it sucks donkey balls, its just that anyone who doesn't like it obviously doesn't have the SOPHISTICATION to get it, like I do!!"

Bullshit.  I understand the game (what there is to understand of it). I understand that Borgstrom's writing is atrocious and has been turned by the ignorant cliques into "artistic", that her rules are crap rules that would result in spoiled players that the cliques have turned into "advice for better roleplaying"; that her system is a dull unbearable beancounter system that the cliques have turned into "the vanguard of originality" or such bullshit.

So no, I get Nobilis; I get it more than enough to know how bad it is.

RPGPundit

Okay, so you think that the intention behind Nobilis and the way that it is played means the players have absolute control over anything they can imagine, because of the Monwhatever law.  That if a player says "I build a nuclear bomb out of the chemicals under my sink, the GM has no recourse because hey - always say yes."  If that's what you think, then you are misunderstanding the (I believe) intention of the rules and the way they are used in game.

So let's look at that suggestion - the PC wants to build a nuclear bomb out of stuff under the sink.  Let's consult the Law

Quote"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.

Number one?  Well, I hardly think doing such a thing is innocuous so that doesn't apply.

Number Two - ask the player how they can do it.  Now maybe they're the power of WMDs or something and can use their aspect to do this.  That might fly.  But if they embody athleticism or spam email or whatever, no way.  By asking for an explanation there's an implicit statement that such an explaination may be rejected.

Number Three - Well, it seems impossible to me so no.  Again there's an implicit 'no' in here as well.  If the GM says it's impossible, you can't do it.

Number Four - Yes but with a catch.  If you can think of a catch, then go for it.  Maybe they give it a try and do create a nuclear weapon with common household chemicals, but that's because *someone* *somewhere* has been very naughty, and thousands of bored teenage delnquents are discovering they can do the same thing...  But that puts me more in mind of UA.  Also, if you can't think of an interesting catch, then that would mean that you may say no.

This law IN NO WAY means the players have total free reign.  It means the default assumption is that the players will have good, interesting ideas that will make the game more enjoyable, and they should not be tossed aside out of hand.  It doesn't mean that any idea is accepted automatically.

QuoteNumber Three - Well, it seems impossible to me so no. Again there's an implicit 'no' in here as well. If the GM says it's impossible, you can't do it.

I think everyone is now in agreement that this rule includes an implicit 'no' if players ask to do something stupid.  Ok, "Roll 7 on this d6" is also a 'no'.

I think we also agree that the people taking the "Always say Yes!" "Never say No!" ideas and blather them across the Int0rwebs are misunderstanding the intentions of the game, and possibly common sense.

Finally, I think we are all in agreement that taken outside of the rest of the game, and enthusiasm for making the game work, the rules-as-written here aren't as crystal clear as they could be.  People who enjoy the game have no problem with that though, so at least for that audience -- no harm, no foul.

Now... please make it stop.

This was originally a thread about War Games and Theatre Sports, and has turned into one of about... what... 42 different Borgstrom threads we've got going right now?

Quote from: StuartThis was originally a thread about War Games and Theatre Sports, and has turned into one of about... what... 42 different Borgstrom threads we've got going right now?

And Pundit just started another. Incidentally, as mentioned elsewhere, "Always Say 'Yes'" is sometimes called the Inverse Monarda Law. There's a solid reason why that's not what the book says: it's not practical outside of collaborative storytelling games.

Quote from: MaddmanNumber Three - Well, it seems impossible to me so no.  Again there's an implicit 'no' in here as well.  If the GM says it's impossible, you can't do it.

The players can mix up the chemicals and mess up the kitchen as much as they want. The result will be a massive cleaning bill or possibly a burnt-down building rather than a nuclear bomb, though. Using Aspect will not grant new properties to the mixture.

This is the Swine trying to break theRPGsite.  Bear with us, folks, when they see the impotence of their efforts, they'll slink away back into their holes.

RPGPundit

Quote from: GrimGentThe players can mix up the chemicals and mess up the kitchen as much as they want. The result will be a massive cleaning bill or possibly a burnt-down building rather than a nuclear bomb, though. Using Aspect will not grant new properties to the mixture.

I'll take your word for it, as I'm a rank n00b when it comes to Nobilis.  I'd thought aspect would pretty much let them do what they like if it's related to thier paticular sphere of influence though.  Maybe a power of chemistry?  Or alchemy even?  That seems pretty remote though.

Quote from: RPGPunditThis is the Swine trying to break theRPGsite.  Bear with us, folks, when they see the impotence of their efforts, they'll slink away back into their holes.

RPGPundit

Yes, soon my electro-ray will destroy metropolis.

You make a lot of good points when you aren't blathering about this swine bullshit.  It. does. not. exist.  You do realize that you can just not like Nobilis without constructing it as some sort of conspiracy against gaming, right?