TheRPGSite

Ok, here are my recent thoughts on different approaches to RPG design.  Please feel free to discuss, but please avoid using jargon from other RPG theories.  Thanks. :)

* * * * * * * * *

Dungeons & Dragons, designed by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, evolved in the early 1970s from tabletop wargames.  Chainmail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainmail_%28game%29) a medieval miniatures wargame created by Jeff Perren and Gary Gygax, is the direct predecessor of D&D -- the first modern roleplaying game.  Some improvisational storytelling elements were added to the existing wargame rules to make the earliest versions of the game.

Over the years some RPGs have moved further away from RPG's tabletop wargaming roots, and more towards improvisational theatre.

Originally developed by director Keith Johnstone, TheatreSports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatresports) is a form of improvisational theatre which uses the format of a competition for dramatic effect. The television show Whose Line is it Anyway? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whose_Line_is_it_Anyway%3F) uses many games that first appeared in TheatreSports. The content of TheatreSports scenes are often structured games which can double as entertainment and as training excercises. A notable example of a theatre sports game is:

Yes, Let's, in which each improviser in a scene makes a suggestion that is loudly accepted by the others on stage with the words "Yes, Let's". When used as an exercise, this game teaches acceptance of suggestions by other improvisers and the value of a positive attitude on stage.

Another popular Improv theatre rule is to avoid "Blocking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvisational_theatre#Improv_penalties)" -- the practice of refusing another actor's offer or dismissing the traits another actor has assigned you.

The "Always say yes" design pattern adopted by several recent indie RPGs, including Rebecca Borgstrom's Nobilis, is based on these conventions from improv theatre.

Roleplaying games then, can be thought of as being on a spectrum ranging from War Games on one end, and Improvisational Theatre on the other.

Both ends of the spectrum can provide rich immersive experiences, and create entertaining narratives players and audiences.  It's worth recognizing that War games and Improv theatre are very different entities -- which means there is a wide range of games that fall under the "RPG" umbrella.  

Design patterns suitable for a war game, such as dice based resolution mechanics for unit psychology, would not be suitable for a game at the improv theatre end of the spectrum.  Similarly the free-form story creation and narrative empowerment of improv theatre is ill suited for application to a war game.

Since there are games right across the spectrum, up to and including actual war games and TheatreSports themselves, any discussion of RPG theory will tend to focus on a particular section of this spectrum and may not be applicable to all types of games described as "RPGs".

This suggests less time should be spent on developing unified theories of RPGs, and more time spent on making each individual game the best it can be.  It also means recognizing that the various RPGs will have very different play styles -- and that one isn't better than another -- just at a different point on the spectrum.

Quote from: StuartRoleplaying games then, can be thought of as being on a spectrum ranging from War Games on one end, and Improvisational Theatre on the other.

See, again you hand the floor to the Great Satan.

'Oh, thats just a wargame...'

Examining the amdram vs. storyteller divide allows presents an alternative axis for examination - are your favorite bits character interaction or considered shaggy dog story.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss his theory.

Look at it this way, if you create a spectrum where pure make-believe (ie. cops and robbers) is at one end of the spectrum, and completely rules-based abstract games (ie. chess) is at the other; you have wargames next to chess, and you have things like theatresports next to make-believe.

Real RPGs are smack dab in the middle of that spectrum.  Anything that tries to pull RPGs into being a sit-down version of theatresports is trying to create something that isn't an RPG.

RPGPundit

I think you are going to get better results from denying the enemy the moral high ground.

'Thats not a Proper Old Fashioned RPG' is not a statement they must defend against.

'Thats not as pretentious as it could be' is.

Attack from unexpected directions - it keeps people off balance, and reacting instead of driving the discussion!

Note that the White Wolf swine were defeated not by DnD but by something more Worthy! You must somehow imply that your way is somehow More Classier, consigning Them to a ghetto playing their fun but essentially shallow games about endless pretend arguments and mellowdrama.

That's not what I'm accusing them of. I'm accusing them of NOT BEING AN RPG, PERIOD.

So if they're trying to pretend to be an RPG, it definitely does put them on the defensive.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's not what I'm accusing them of. I'm accusing them of NOT BEING AN RPG, PERIOD.

So if they're trying to pretend to be an RPG, it definitely does put them on the defensive.

RPGPundit

I fail to see how helping them convince people that they don't play RPGs, which, lets face it, are dorks pretending to be wizards in their parents basement, and are instead something new, something more, is a good debate tactic.

Because what they're doing isn't "something more", its something less. As in "so less appealing to the average human being that they have to try riding in on the coattails of RPGs in order to sell more books".

Which, considering most RPG sales, is pretty pathetic indeed.

RPGPundit

TheatreSports is still a game, just a very different one than a wargame / boardgame.  It can be entertaining to play (I've studied acting and done some TheatreSports) and even to watch -- but it's not "Theatre" in the same way that a Shakespearean play is.  

Wargames are closely related to other tabletop games with discreet rulesets -- and yes, Chess is definitely one of them.

I'm not suggesting a better/worse judgement of games at any point on the spectrum, and I think even "Classic" RPGs can have slightly different balances.

D&D, the classic RPG, comes in multiple versions: OD&D, AD&D, B/X D&D, BECM D&D, AD&D 2, RC D&D, D&D 3, D&D 3.5, etc

Actually, calling them versions of the same game is a bit misleading -- it's more like multiple games sharing a name and many of the same rules.  If we agree that all versions of D&D are RPGs, then there is a spectrum of RPGs ranging from closer to wargame/boardgame to closer to TheatreSports.

I think how close it gets to either end of the Spectrum while still being considered an RPG is a matter of opinion.  I'm OK with a lot of games under the umbrella term -- as long as people recognize that they're VERY different at the extremes, and rules/advice for one end will not necessarily be relevant to the other.

Taking games at the TheatreSports end of the spectrum and saying "All RPGs should follow this pattern" is simply bad advice for game designers.

Quote from: StuartThe "Always say yes" design pattern adopted by several recent indie RPGs, including Rebecca Borgstrom's Nobilis, is based on these conventions from improv theatre.

Nobilis is considered an indie RPG now, is it? In any case, I sincerely hope that you are not extending its principle of "never saying 'no'" into an OOC player privilege of changing the rules or the setting at will. That particular misconception has turned up in far too many threads on these forums already.

(As someone over at RPGnet pointed out recently, the Monarda Law simply advises the GM against arbitrarily refusing to let the players use the game system.)

QuoteNobilis is considered an indie RPG now, is it?

What -- Nobilis the RPG from Guardians of Order (http://www.guardiansorder.com/games/nobilis/)?  

Yes, of course.  Guardians of Order is (was) based here in Guelph, Ontario (http://www.guardiansorder.com/company/).  GOO is (was) very much an indie company, and thus Nobilis an indie RPG.  

I've never played the game, or even read the rules.  I have seen the "Say yes" design pattern discussed on a few different RPG design boards, and know it's been adopted by other indie games.

Going by Ron Edwards definition of indie, I don't think Nobilis counts.

Of course whether one gives a crap about Edwards's opinions is another matter entirely.

Great opening post, Stuart.  I think Pundit is right in his "smack dab in the middle" assessment insofar as I like games with both wargame and theatrical elements.  Nowadays I tend to stress the wargame part in online discussion simply because the pendulum has swung far the other way.

Quote from: StuartGuardians of Order is (was) based here in Guelph, Ontario (http://www.guardiansorder.com/company/).  GOO is (was) very much an indie company, and thus Nobilis an indie RPG.

The game has had three different publishers over the years, from Pharos Press to Hogshead Publishing to GoO. Actually, Guardians merely continued to reprint the Hogshead edition.

QuoteThe game has had three different publishers over the years, from Pharos Press to Hogshead Publishing to GoO. Actually, Guardians merely continued to reprint the Hogshead edition

I'm not sure what you're trying to say... Pharos Press and Hogshead Publishing sound like indie publishers.  They're not WOTC, White Wolf, or anything close to that level.

Let's try to keep the discussion on track -- it will be more useful for everyone.

Quote from: StuartI'm not sure what you're trying to say... Pharos Press and Hogshead Publishing sound like indie publishers.  They're not WOTC, White Wolf, or anything close to that level.

Ah, so you are going by that definition of indie. Sure, then it qualifies.

Anyway, as I've said before, Nobilis is a rather traditional RPG at heart, especially when compared to various Forge games.

I actually do like Uncle Ron's definition of an indie RPG - one where the person writing the game and making the business decisions about it are the same person.  Thus Nobilis isn't an indie RPG, not the way My Life With Master of Dogs in the Vineyard is.

I don´t see that it´s an axis of exchange. It´s two dimensions of Roleplaying that are perpendicular to another. They don´t influence each other. In our Empires in Arms Games (Wargame) there used to be a lot of impro-theatrics. Pundit is right though, that D&D derived games (Adventure Games, traditional RPGs) also use both dimensions without going to extremes.

QuoteI don´t see that it´s an axis of exchange. It´s two dimensions of Roleplaying that are perpendicular to another. They don´t influence each other. In our Empires in Arms Games (Wargame) there used to be a lot of impro-theatrics. Pundit is right though, that D&D derived games (Adventure Games, traditional RPGs) also use both dimensions without going to extremes.

I've played games of Axis & Allies where there was impro-theatrics. :)

I think there can be roleplaying at both ends of the spectrum.  I think there can be roleplaying in monopoly or chess if the players decide to do it.  Where I think there is an axis is for design patterns that support either the tabletop style of game (eg. Make a morale check to see if your Knights hold their ground) or the Theatre Sports style of game (eg. Don't block other player's suggestions).

I can't imagine the "Always say yes" design pattern being used in a boardgame / wargame.  I also have a hard time imagining Colin Mockery having his improv bogged down with stat checks, dice rolls, etc by Drew Carrey. :)

Can 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.

QuoteCan 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.

D&D;-)

Heh.  Yes, D&D is in the middle -- or possibly a bit closer to the wargaming end depending on how far out you perceive the TheatreSports end to be.  I think it's a very good balance and an excellent model for an effective RPG.

However, I don't think it's VERY TheatreSports centric.  Certainly games like Nobilis, Dogs in the Vineyard, My Life with Mothra, etc etc are much more so.  But in moving in that direction, they're much LESS wargame / boardgame influenced than D&D.

If you take D&D as the centre, you can see games further along in either direction, but I can't think of any that are further along in BOTH directions...

Quote from: SettembriniI don´t see that it´s an axis of exchange. It´s two dimensions of Roleplaying that are perpendicular to another. They don´t influence each other. In our Empires in Arms Games (Wargame) there used to be a lot of impro-theatrics. Pundit is right though, that D&D derived games (Adventure Games, traditional RPGs) also use both dimensions without going to extremes.

There are other influences out there as well.  Exalted in paticular has mechanics that were inspired far more by CCG play than either wargames or improvisational theatre.

I often say that RPGs are their own thing - while they share traits in common with both wargames/board games and theatre games they are different from either.  My favorite analogy is that "It's like a mixture of improv theatre and double entry accounting."  Ever tried explaining RPGs to someone that's never heard of one?  No matter how many analogies you make they still aren't sure what you mean, yet after seeing 5 minutes of a game it all slips into place.  :)

Quote from: StuartTheatreSports is still a game, just a very different one than a wargame / boardgame.  It can be entertaining to play (I've studied acting and done some TheatreSports) and even to watch -- but it's not "Theatre" in the same way that a Shakespearean play is.  

Wargames are closely related to other tabletop games with discreet rulesets -- and yes, Chess is definitely one of them.

I'm not suggesting a better/worse judgement of games at any point on the spectrum, and I think even "Classic" RPGs can have slightly different balances.

D&D, the classic RPG, comes in multiple versions: OD&D, AD&D, B/X D&D, BECM D&D, AD&D 2, RC D&D, D&D 3, D&D 3.5, etc

Actually, calling them versions of the same game is a bit misleading -- it's more like multiple games sharing a name and many of the same rules.  If we agree that all versions of D&D are RPGs, then there is a spectrum of RPGs ranging from closer to wargame/boardgame to closer to TheatreSports.

I think how close it gets to either end of the Spectrum while still being considered an RPG is a matter of opinion.  I'm OK with a lot of games under the umbrella term -- as long as people recognize that they're VERY different at the extremes, and rules/advice for one end will not necessarily be relevant to the other.

Taking games at the TheatreSports end of the spectrum and saying "All RPGs should follow this pattern" is simply bad advice for game designers.

Ok, great.
Now for this theory to be really useful and viable, you need to do two things:

1. Figure out what range of the spectrum is considered a "real" RPG.

2. Figure out how to classify games into one place on the spectrum.

For this, you're going to have to create some criteria.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jrientsGoing by Ron Edwards definition of indie, I don't think Nobilis counts.

Of course whether one gives a crap about Edwards's opinions is another matter entirely.

We don't go by Ron Edwards' definitions of anything around these parts.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartI can't imagine the "Always say yes" design pattern being used in a boardgame / wargame.

Why, exactly? The players would still have to conform to the structure of the respective games, which a fixed board would undoubtedly render less lenient. No soldier on that field of hexes could suddenly pull a bazooka out of his pocket just because someone around the table wished that to happen, not unless he already happened to, say, carry an Amazing Shrinking Just-Add-Water Bazooka.

For an example of someone who isn't following the "never say 'no'" principle in the context of a war game, think of a GM forbidding another player from executing a perfectly by-the-book move because he doesn't want the session to be over too quickly. You see, any game featuring a rigid ruleset with no room for their reinterpretation already follows this same principle: if it's possible according to the rules, then you can do it.

Quote from: RPGPunditWe don't go by Ron Edwards' definitions of anything around these parts.

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

Besides, I thought throwing his definitions back in his face was something of a hobby of yours.

@GrimGent

Your version of "always say yes" is simply saying  the GM needs to say yes when the players want to use one of the rules of the game.  Pretty straight forward, especially in a wargame or boardgame.  I call that "don't cheat".  It has nothing specifically to do with TheatreSports.

I haven't read Nobilis, but that sounds different from what everyone else seems to be discussing.  The "Always say yes" design pattern I'm referring to (and which others have commented on (http://www.xanga.com/RPGpundit/538603577/item.html)) is the idea that players can add anything to the game narrative and their requests can not be denied by the GM.  This is like "Yes, Let's" or "Don't Block" in TheatreSports.

I can't imagine that in a wargame.  It would be exactly like a player announcing that one of his soldiers had a special weapon.  This might even be historically accurate.  In WWI many soldiers brought non-standard weapons with them.  However, for a wargame/boardgame allowing players to do this without the GM/referee/banker saying "no" would be very disruptive.

Quote from: StuartI haven't read Nobilis, but that sounds different from what everyone else seems to be discussing.  The "Always say yes" design pattern I'm referring to (and which others have commented on (http://www.xanga.com/RPGpundit/538603577/item.html)) is the idea that players can add anything to the game narrative and their requests can not be denied by the GM.  This is like "Yes, Let's" or "Don't Block" in TheatreSports.

Its not quite to that extent.  Its more like if there's no reason why not, say yes.  If you don't see how it could happen, tell the player to explain how it could happen.  If you don't think it should be that easy, allow it to work but add a complication.  One should note that in Nobilis the PCs are essentially gods, so 'that's impossible' doesn't really apply.  They can just spend points to change the laws of reality if need be, so it makes sense for that game.

And I'm not an always say yes guy, more like a usually say yes kind of guy.

Quote from: Settembrini

@Attacking from unexpected angles:

I attended a Polaris demo, and it was shocking, how trite and unimaginative most of the contributions of the participants were.
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.
Them Thematics are about the human condition? So where´s the knowledge about literature backing up all those nice little games? Where´s textual analysis, where are the gamers with rocking ideas and witty remarks derived from (un)healthy doses of reading Joyce, Twain, Shakespeare & contemporary literature?

All I see on the respective boards, and all I encountered are fans of movies and tv-shows. Too shallow for me.

When I want fun with pop-culture, Adventure Gaming suits my needs.
When I want fun with history, Wargaming suits my needs.
When I want fun with text, dialogue and the human condition, Thematic Games and Gamers seem to lack on their own playing, field big time.
 

Aye - after years of forge games before there was a name for it an L5R game using published adventures was a breath of fresh air - nice to get away from endless improv arguments and in to something with a bit more thought behind it.

Maybe forgies could market themselves as something to gentle introduce people before they are ready for something thats not skin deep.

Quote from: StuartThe "Always say yes" design pattern I'm referring to (and which others have commented on (http://www.xanga.com/RPGpundit/538603577/item.html)) is the idea that players can add anything to the game narrative and their requests can not be denied by the GM.  This is like "Yes, Let's" or "Don't Block" in TheatreSports.

That sounds more like the Principle of Narrative Truth in Wushu, perhaps, or the players' contributions in Donjon; it's not how Nobilis ("never say 'no'") works, or Dogs in the Vineyard ("say 'yes' or roll the dice") for that matter.

And yes, I'm familiar with those discussions. It's just that what's being discussed isn't Nob. We've dealt with that misconception before, as said.

(The Monarda Law in a nutshell: if a player asks whether her character can attempt some in-game action during play, the GM might want to consider other options than bluntly saying "no".)

Quote from: MaddmanOne should note that in Nobilis the PCs are essentially gods, so 'that's impossible' doesn't really apply.  They can just spend points to change the laws of reality if need be, so it makes sense for that game.

Within limits. When this topic came up a little while over at RPGnet, I mentioned that Nobilis has its "jump rules" just like any other game, but those rules take into account the possibility that someone might conceivably jump to the moon. However, there are many, many things which still remain impossible, and not in the sense that they could be solved with a quick Aspect 7 miracle. Incidentally, pulling a "special weapon" out of thin air without the appropriate Domain or Gift is one of those things.

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. (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=21661#post21661)

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.

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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1654) 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 (http://nobilis.average-bear.com/Nobilis_101.doc): This explains the basic system in some detail (although I've noticed a few very slight inaccuracies).

GoO PDF Downloads (http://www.guardiansorder.com/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 (http://www.chancel.org): An old site, long out of date, but still with a few interesting tidbits.

Quote from: StuartPerhaps Dogs in the Vineyard (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1654) 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 (http://legendaryquest.com).

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 (http://www.xanga.com/RPGpundit/538603577/item.html)) 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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2715)?

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.

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. :D

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?

Quote from: MaddmanI'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.

No, Aspect has nothing to do with the Domains. It measures the distance between all the physical, mental and social abilities of a common mortal and those of a miraculous being, and it allows you to do anything that ordinary human beings can do, only exaggerated further and further until the actions reach mythic proportions. With Aspect, you can potentially jump over continents or juggle cities, since those are ridiculously powerful versions of jumping and juggling. You cannot create something out of thin air or read thoughts, since those have no mundane equivalent. And as a special expection, you cannot make someone fall in love.

Now, the Power of Chemistry would be able to create that nuclear bomb. Actually, any Noble could with some effort transform an instance of their Domain into the bomb: the Power of Cats could do that some unfortunate moggie, for example. The real problem comes with the consequences, since you couldn't actually use the bomb without being dragged before the Locust Court for judgment.