There's been a request for people to point out the benefits of Nobilis over on another thread, but that one (by OP request) isn't about Nobilis, so I figured I'd bring the discussion into its own thread.

Quote from: TonyLBOh!  You wanted a sales pitch on the merits of Nobilis?  No problem.

Nobilis has a dead simple diceless system that lets everyone immediately get on the same page about what a character can do easily, and exactly how much effort (and investment of resources) it takes to achieve very specific levels of effect.  This lets players (and the GM!) know with great precision what they're "buying for their money" when they undertake an action, and that in turn keeps rules arguments to a minimum (in most games I've played, I've seen no rules arguments at all, which is nice).

The restriction system is extremely hot stuff, making the character creation process (and its balancing of limitations against power) only the beginning of a longer process that involves actually expressing the character through the play of the game.  The impact of replacing "You're hunted by Viper, 14 <, take 10 points right now to make your character with" with "You want to be hunted by Viper?  Cool.  You'll get a miracle point every time they attack you," is hard to overstate ... it makes players actively interested in expressing both the good and the bad of their characters, and turns character flaws into something that drives collaborative play, rather than something that makes people adversarial.

And, of course, for people who want to make statements about abstracts, Nobilis gives the brilliant conceit that the abstracts (Jealousy, Friendship, etc., etc.) are actual physical quantities, tied directly to the character.  That makes it dead simple to tell stories that powerfully address those issues, while still maintaining an immersion in the character.  You don't need to metagame to make the story be about Duty.  Your character knows full well that the story is (and must be!) about Duty.  It's a nice bridge between what might, otherwise, be opposed goals.

How's that?  Does that give you some sense of the appeal of the system (at least to me)?

You're a brave man Tony, it was good knowing you.

Maybe we should start a Nobilis sub-forum here.  It's such a popular topic of discussion. :11zblink:

Quote from: StuartMaybe we should start a Nobilis sub-forum here.  It's such a popular topic of discussion. :11zblink:

Blue Rose also gets a lot of attention here, more than anywhere outside it's dedicated fora I suspect.

What I honestly like about Nobilis*:

• Exceptionally high, possibly company bankrupting, production values
• It's the game the author wanted to make
• The fans really like it, to the point of becoming evangelists
• The online promotion of the game is very well done
• Very noteworthy game: like it or hate it, people seem unable to ignore it

* AKA: Praise for a game I've never actually seen

I love the 'take points when bad crap comes up.' Granted, Nobilis wasn't the first to do it -- I've liked the same concept in Torg, Mutants and Masterminds 2, and other games.

I also love the scope and majesty of the game, the writing, the many funny bits, and a diceless system that doesn't feel arbitrary or pointless. It's also one of the few truly pretty games I own.

I like the ballistics. The hardcover adds to the impact heft quite nicely and the square shape is a vast improvement over the lacklustre aerodynamics of the usual book shape. Having rules that could take out players in a single strike (and not hit the innocent bystander) are a big boon for diceless gaming.

If Nobilis is written like Rebecca's Blog, then I also like that the game is written in a way that some people just can't seem to get enough of.

Here's Eric Burns' post on Hitherby Dragons. Eric Burns could be thought of as the Webcomic Pundit.  Eric likes Rebecca's writing.  A lot.

Quote from: WebsnarkI understand the legend of Salieri, staring askance at Mozart, whether those stories are true or not. I understand the yearning desire to be the defining artist of a generation, and being forced to watch someone else become that because they're just so damn good. So I'll smile, and tell you all to read Hitherby Dragons. But if, ten years from now, Rebecca Borgstrom lies stricken with consumption, eyes closed and dictating words of transcendent beauty to me that I then type into my word processor, an evil smile on my face....

Without any malice intended, I simply don't understand why her writing receives such praise.  I'm not saying it's bad, but comparing her to Mozart?  Really???

And I ask this not out of scorn for her or her work, but rather to figure out what it is about her writing people like so much.  I'm not so proud that I wouldn't acknowledge she's on to something, but for the life of me I don't know what it is.

:11zblink:

I'm not exactly rollin' with the literati, but this looks like some pretty standard stream of consciousness to me. Lots of imagination, not enough technique -- typically (post-)modern.

The edition most people know (the Big White Book (BWB)), is the 2nd edition. It was originally released in a much smaller "flowery" 1st edition. The main differences between the two, apart from the obvious production values, is the rule book is full of explanation and examples to help players and GMs understand the game.

I always find that process odd, its like someone telling a joke which no one gets, and then is followed by an hour of explanation during which the meaning of the joke is revealed and everyone can laugh in their new comfortable knowledge.

Rebecca's writing attracts praise and scorn in turns because it is primarily mind-bending. That is, it's about concepts that almost, but not quite, defy sense, or are simply really really creative.

For me, the bits that really grab me are the ones that make a certain dramatic sense but are very refreshing and new. My favorite one:

Once, a man was so well-loved that he set the fields ablaze and the peasants didn't mind.
He killed all the animals, and gave his folk dust to eat, and they didn't mind.
He dirtied the water with blood from his wars, and they didn't mind.
Then they tortured him slowly to death on the Stone Wheel, and when his heirs asked the peasants why, they said, "We thought he liked that sort of thing."

Is she a great writer? I dunno. Do I like everything in Nobilis? No. Do I find Nobilis playable? Eh, sorta.

But I find it entertaining, and that's enough.

QuoteOnce, a man was so well-loved that he set the fields ablaze and the peasants didn't mind. He killed all the animals, and gave his folk dust to eat, and they didn't mind. He dirtied the water with blood from his wars, and they didn't mind. Then they tortured him slowly to death on the Stone Wheel, and when his heirs asked the peasants why, they said, "We thought he liked that sort of thing."

I'm just not feeling it.  What other writers do you like?  Is her work similar to someone elses?

Quote from: StuartI'm just not feeling it.  What other writers do you like?  Is her work similar to someone elses?

Actually, she reminds me quite a bit of such Finnish authors as Leena Krohn and Maarit Verronen...

Reminds me a bit of Piers Anthony...

Eric Burns (Websnark) singled out this particular story for praise:

QuoteTake "At the Cherry Tree", a hitherby from last week. It takes a bit of folklore, a bit of Americana. Something we all own, culturally -- the "cannot tell a lie" story of George Washington. And it makes it....

...it makes it horrific, and beautiful, all at once. You understand the price of lying, the price of murder, the price of emptiness. You understand....

There are cherry trees behind his house. He goes to them, still with liquor on his breath, and there he sees the dryad. She is curled and straight: her body upright, but her hair wound round her in gentle curls and knots. It forms bark, and leaves, and flowers. It gives her more branches than her outthrust arms. Her teeth are wooden.

"George," she says. It is a minimal acknowledgment. She does not give much time to George.
"Dance for me," he says. It is rude, but he is a child, and he is drunk.
"There is sun," says the dryad. "There is soil. Leave me in peace, child. I am content."
"Dance," insists George.
"You are nothing," she says.
"I'm more than you."
So George goes to the shed, and he finds an axe, and he takes it out.

You see, don't you? Read the entries if you don't. Read them all, but measure them out. You'd get drunk on too many at once. Measure your consumption or pay for it in the morning.

A Spell for Chameleon was published in 1977, the first of the Xanth novels, and still very popular with young adults in the 80s and 90s.  It features "wild oats" which are literally sown as part of a young man's sexual maturation.  These oats, if I remember correctly, are destroyed in the story.

Again, I'm not saying her writing is poor, not at all, I'm just a bit surprised at the intensity of the praise some people afford her.

I don't want to take her down a notch.  I want to understand the appeal.  Maybe it's simpler than I think.

The setting is vast in scope, potentially intricate in detail (depending on how much the players want to "zoom in" on a particular bit of it), and pushes all the buttons that, say, The Sandman pushed. In fact, I'd say that Nobilis is like the Sandman roleplaying game, with all the baggage which goes with that - a keen understanding of myth, striking imagery, bags of ideas, but also the occasional dash of extreme pretentiousness.