"Modern New Age Mythic Game": RPG design by formula

[eyebeams]

"to a certain extent, you are correct. Certainly if a DM wished to he could re-engineer these games from the bottom-up to remove all of the setting-gerrymandering that forces the players into corners. However, at a certain point doing so means you aren't really playing the original RPG anymore."

Actually, Im absolutely correct. That somebody might be hashing out the same idea at somebody else's table means nothing. If an RPG offers a few dozen archetypal roles, it's done enough to support a lifetime of play.

Of course, the irony is that Vampire is the only tabletop RPG to viably move to a format (LARP) where you *do* sometimes have to worry about similarity in different (networked) games. Funny, that.

"Also, from a practical perspective, doing so means that you might as well just be playing a different game. "

There's plenty of variation as it stands -- enough for a few thousand players to maintain a community for over a decade and to reinvent itself.

"There's still the whole angelic hierarchy"

There is no angelic hierarchy in Nobilis.

"and Lord Entropy and all the rest"

Sure, there's the Locust Court. Again, this is getting absurd. Real people have laws too. Fantasy kingdoms have laws.

";and the players are caught in a situation where they still have to create artificial ties to each other that justifies their presence in a group."

As opposed to an adventuring party? Adventuring parties that band together to fight goblins and an Imperator's Nobles have a common trait in never having existed.

"To a certain extent, this is no different than a D&D game having a Rogue, a half-elf wizard, a drow cleric and a lizardman barbarian; and using the flimsy "you're all an adventuring party who decide to work together after meeting in a tavern" set-up. This is exactly the sort of thing fans of games like nobilis generally decry about those unartistic "roll-playing" games."

You keep referring to this shadowy mass of fans as if they exist in number and are the Man trying to keep you down. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that e don't care. RSB just finished a game about kung fu comics and I write add-ons for D20 Modern.



'The beef isn't with players having to be a part of a social structure; any game with the slightest degree of simulation will have that: you are part of a kingdom, or starfleet, or a jedi order, or what have you.
The issue is with contrived social groups in game, based not on a desire to simulate real social conditions"

iI didn't know you could read the minds of game designers.

"but to railroad players into contrived co-operation and capacity for independent action. Be it a flimsy hierarchy that forces neo-punk vampires and aristocratic executive vampires to work together;"

Again, that sense of contrivance tells me more about how limited someone's vision of actual social arrangements might be than about the properties of a game.

"or a setting that is contrived to make every player's action accountable to ultra-powerful superiors who make real accomplishments all but impossible,"

I do believe Vampire has had one published adventure -- one -- where you could not affect the antagonist. Even Gehenna has scenarios where the antediluvians can be defeated.

"or a game where you have to create an artificial link between the god of Wrath and the god of Tea-time;"

If you make those characters, you would be obligated to find a connection in any event, just s you would have to do for a party with a mind flayer, pixie and aasimar. Imperatos do not really need to have a common theme, since there are no rules about how Imperators acquire domains, and they may well trade them off and gain and lose them in bets.

"all for the sake of being able to sell more splatbooks or push a writer-directed metaplot,"

Not really. Metaplot is much more burdensome to writers than to players. But I forgot -- you can *read my mind*. This is almost as fun as the guy who claimed that Mage was rewritten for Vampire fans and that there was a vast conspiracy to cover it up.

"or to make an arbitrary structure where beings of incredible power can actually do very little with that power to really change the world or their destiny."

I'll bite: Have you actually read Nobilis? Characters change the basic nature of the visible universe on a pretty regular basis.

In any event, the power to change the setting is a function of the campaign, not the game.
"For a highly viable alternative, consider Amber, where PCs are godlike beings on a similar scale to Nobilis (and a considerably higher scale than most White Wolf games), where they are part of a social structure (the Amberite family), and do have vastly-more-powerful superiors (the elder Amberites), but have the independence of action that allows them to create or dissolve alliances at will, and dare to actually use their power to overcome each other or these uber-elders, as they see fit to attempt. All without losing an iota of playability or potential for adventure; on the contrary, making it a far more playable game than either Nobilis or anything White Wolf has put out. It dares to actually give the PCs great power they can USE, and the freedom to work with or against the social system without a guaranteed death warrant hanging over their head in the form of a contrived deus ex machina hamstringing all their power."

You mean the game where somebody more powerful than you always wins and where much of your power is irrelevant because it doesn't affect the real world?

OK, I'll bite: Have you read Amber?

 

[Nisarg]

In any event, the power to change the setting is a function of the campaign, not the game.
"For a highly viable alternative, consider Amber, where PCs are godlike beings on a similar scale to Nobilis (and a considerably higher scale than most White Wolf games), where they are part of a social structure (the Amberite family), and do have vastly-more-powerful superiors (the elder Amberites), but have the independence of action that allows them to create or dissolve alliances at will, and dare to actually use their power to overcome each other or these uber-elders, as they see fit to attempt. All without losing an iota of playability or potential for adventure; on the contrary, making it a far more playable game than either Nobilis or anything White Wolf has put out. It dares to actually give the PCs great power they can USE, and the freedom to work with or against the social system without a guaranteed death warrant hanging over their head in the form of a contrived deus ex machina hamstringing all their power."

You mean the game where somebody more powerful than you always wins and where much of your power is irrelevant because it doesn't affect the real world?

OK, I'll bite: Have you read Amber?

Have you? Because what you just said isn't even vaguely correct.

Maybe you're thinking of some other game; Amber is the game where you can beat even a very powerful opponent by knowing their weak points and forcing them to fight on that field, rather than their strong points; and where player characters can create or destroy entire universes on a regular basis. They can't affect their own "homeworld" (which to them is "real world" only for that very reason, and because of their prejudice of being born there) with those powers, but that's what makes the homeworld worth fighting about, and they can certainly tear it to pieces in the process of trying to conquer it, if they so wish. They can even destroy the entire "megaverse" with their blood, if they wanted.

Someone in another thread about Nobilis said that the game it is can be described as: "ok, you're gods with unlimited powers, but here are all these limits"; what it could have been is "ok you're gods with unlimited powers... now go nuts". That's what Amber is like as is. The justification for limiting the powers of characters in games that advertise being about "unlimited power" is that if they really had no limit they wouldn't have anything to do. Amber is the rebuttal that proves that to be untrue: give them unlimited power, and they'll quickly direct their own adventure in a way that no contrived mechanics of "co-operative narration" could possibly allow them to do.

Nisarg

 

[eyebeams]

"Have you? Because what you just said isn't even vaguely correct."

It's absolutely correct. In Amber the better caracter always wins and you can't affect the real world, only shadows.

Y'see, I'm merely applying the same arguments you are; you just aren't thrilled with where consistency leads you: the conclusion that by your standards, Amber must suck. If you nevertheless believe it doesn't then your standards don't work.

"Maybe you're thinking of some other game; Amber is the game where you can beat even a very powerful opponent by knowing their weak points and forcing them to fight on that field, rather than their strong points;"

You're making excuses for the system, where the more powerful character wins. Your argument here could be used to redeem any game at all.

"and where player characters can create or destroy entire universes on a regular basis. They can't affect their own "homeworld" (which to them is "real world" only for that very reason, and because of their prejudice of being born there) with those powers, but that's what makes the homeworld"

. . . which you can't effect . . .

"worth fighting about, and they can certainly tear it to pieces in the process of trying to conquer it, if they so wish. They can even destroy the entire "megaverse" with their blood, if they wanted."

This is talking about campaigns, not the game.

"Someone in another thread about Nobilis said that the game it is can be described as: "ok, you're gods with unlimited powers, but here are all these limits"; what it could have been is "ok you're gods with unlimited powers... now go nuts". That's what Amber is like as is. The justification for limiting the powers of characters in games that advertise being about "unlimited power" is that if they really had no limit they wouldn't have anything to do. Amber is the rebuttal that proves that to be untrue: give them unlimited power, and they'll quickly direct their own adventure in a way that no contrived mechanics of "co-operative narration" could possibly allow them to do."

No -- you have the different contrivance of niche protection that literally prevents your character from ever surpassing someone, wheras in Nobilis you can expend effort to counter this. Amber's shadows are less important than the real world, while in Nobilis, many worlds matter.

Of course, they're both fine games, but any game can be hit by spurious arguments. With Nobilis and Amber the arguments are equall spurious for virtually the same reason.

 

[Nisarg]

Yes, nobilis has a bean-counter system where you can beat an opponent by putting miracle points into your stats.
Amber, on the other hand, requires you to be cunning. But within the boundaries of cunning, anyone can beat anyone in amber.

Some shadows in amber are important enough to wage wars over, and some shadow-dwellers (ie. normal humans) in Amber are capable of killing amberites.

The difference between the arguments you are applying about Amber and the ones I'm applying about Nobilis is admittedly rather small, it rests on that one tiny detail: that my arguments are factual.

Nisarg

 

[eyebeams]

Yes, nobilis has a bean-counter system where you can beat an opponent by putting miracle points into your stats.
Amber, on the other hand, requires you to be cunning. But within the boundaries of cunning, anyone can beat anyone in amber.

Some shadows in amber are important enough to wage wars over, and some shadow-dwellers (ie. normal humans) in Amber are capable of killing amberites.

The difference between the arguments you are applying about Amber and the ones I'm applying about Nobilis is admittedly rather small, it rests on that one tiny detail: that my arguments are factual.

Nisarg

Mine are more factual, since they discuss the actual game system. No matter how you spin it, the fact remains that Amber's system inherently contradicts the premise of your objections by enforcing an unsurmountable hierarchy of power in its task resolution, and that it's setting arbitrarily restricts what characters can do just as much as Nobilis'.

You kep using this word, "cunning," as if it's a special property of Amber and not just a copout for a game system that you like, but is inconsistent with you arguments in virtually every way. Cunning can be used to seize the advantage in any game; yours counter doesn't apply to Amber in particular and holds no force but your strained sentiment. In fact, Eric Wujcik himself has said that Amber's game play is meant to make use of non-mechanical cleverness found in every RPG.

When the designer of the game says the thing you think makes the game the exception is no exception at all, your position ain't that hot.

 

[Nisarg]

You kep using this word, "cunning," as if it's a special property of Amber and not just a copout for a game system that you like, but is inconsistent with you arguments in virtually every way. Cunning can be used to seize the advantage in any game; yours counter doesn't apply to Amber in particular and holds no force but your strained sentiment. In fact, Eric Wujcik himself has said that Amber's game play is meant to make use of non-mechanical cleverness found in every RPG.

When the designer of the game says the thing you think makes the game the exception is no exception at all, your position ain't that hot.

LOL sort of like when the designers of the game you say isn't pretentious keeps making consistently pretentious statements?

Anyways, that Erick said that is being taken somewhat out of context. What makes Amber completely unique is that cunning, wit, treachery, etc are ALL you can rely on. In any other game, you roll, you get a natural 20, and it doesn't matter how well or badly you played the idea, it works because of the roll.
In nobilis you can go up against the power of warfare, and beat him in it because you spend enough miracle points.

In amber, you fight benedict head on, you WILL lose. However, you figure out how to cheat, how to break that rule by putting benedict in a position where he cannot use his massive combat skills in any meaningful way, and you've killed him. But not through ANY KIND OF MECHANICAL INTERVENTION. No rolling your intelligence or dexterity, no miracle points, no dice pool, no action points, no flipping a coin, no random encounter. Just you, in the purest show of survival of the fittest ever made in an RPG.

That, sir, is why Amber is a truely innovative and intelligent RPG; where as nobilis or vampire are just tedious and not particularly original at all. When it comes down to it, vampire is still using the same basic concept as good old Gary Gygax rolled out in the early 70s, just with a veneer of pseudo-intelectuality (but deep down its still all dice, stats, rolls); and nobilis is setting-wise a rip-off of the (by now) old White Wolf formula, while system-wise it is a dull beancounter affair that never keyed into the only REAL reason to have a diceless game: to create a situation where only role-playing, not resource-management or luck, would determine the course of events.

Amber may really be the ONLY RPG to ever be truely innovative, as it actually breaks the mold that deep down, every other RPG has in some form or another as its skeletal game structure, the mold of D&D.

Nisarg

 

[GMSkarka]

That, sir, is why Amber is a truely innovative and intelligent RPG; where as nobilis or vampire are just tedious and not particularly original at all.

"My favorite R0XX0RZ and your favorite 5UXX0RZ! I WIN!"

 

[reanjr]

I tried to read the article, found it exceedingly boring (and rated it accordingly), and didn't know what was the point. (And I don't know Nobilis, Vampire, and else).

You're missing out. If you were familiar with Mage, Vampire, Werewolf, Changeling, Wraith, Mummy, Hunter, or any others I'm missing, you would have had an amusing read.

I'd like to add In Nomine to the list.

 

[eyebeams]

LOL sort of like when the designers of the game you say isn't pretentious keeps making consistently pretentious statements?

You keep saying this like it's a fact, without citing any actual texts.

Anyways, that Erick said that is being taken somewhat out of context.

No, not really. He said he was codifying what folks do in any RPG. You don't like hearing it because it undercuts your argument.

What makes Amber completely unique is that cunning, wit, treachery, etc are ALL you can rely on. In any other game, you roll, you get a natural 20, and it doesn't matter how well or badly you played the idea, it works because of the roll.

No that's not true in the slightest. You win by shuffling through your stats to find one that you got nicely buffed in auction. This can be done in an entirely witless fashion. Other games that use randomization also involve strategic thinking in that you weigh your chances with different strategies. What you are projecting onto the game are elements external to it. That is not an argument for the game. It's an argument for what you perceive as your own cleverness running the thing.

In nobilis you can go up against the power of warfare, and beat him in it because you spend enough miracle points.

Sure -- if the Power of Warfare makes no effort to protect himself. Or if he gets Nettled. Basically, you must rely on his inattention or avoid direct confrontation.

In amber, you fight benedict head on, you WILL lose. However, you figure out how to cheat, how to break that rule by putting benedict in a position where he cannot use his massive combat skills in any meaningful way, and you've killed him. But not through ANY KIND OF MECHANICAL INTERVENTION. No rolling your intelligence or dexterity, no miracle points, no dice pool, no action points, no flipping a coin, no random encounter. Just you, in the purest show of survival of the fittest ever made in an RPG.

Sure. In Amber, the rules aither prevent you from ever defeating someone superior or you have to abandon the rules. Yep -- sure speaks to the system there.

That, sir, is why Amber is a truely innovative and intelligent RPG; where as nobilis or vampire are just tedious and not particularly original at all. When it comes down to it, vampire is still using the same basic concept as good old Gary Gygax rolled out in the early 70s, just with a veneer of pseudo-intelectuality (but deep down its still all dice, stats, rolls); and nobilis is setting-wise a rip-off of the (by now) old White Wolf formula, while system-wise it is a dull beancounter affair that never keyed into the only REAL reason to have a diceless game: to create a situation where only role-playing, not resource-management or luck, would determine the course of events.

Except that Amber's author disagrees with you and considers Amber's elements to be common to every game. As for the basic structure of RPGs -- Amber uses it as well with its core stats. Over the Edge deviates from the standard far more than Amber does. Nobilis doesn't really resemble the World of Darkness, given that there are no splats and the rules are completely different. You just dislike it because you read something about it on RPG.net.

I'm beginning to think that your knowledge of games lacks a little breadth.

Amber may really be the ONLY RPG to ever be truely innovative, as it actually breaks the mold that deep down, every other RPG has in some form or another as its skeletal game structure, the mold of D&D.

What a delightfully pretentious statement. I mean, buy the actual definition of the word pretentious, rather than your invented definition.

 

[Nisarg]

Except that Amber's author disagrees with you and considers Amber's elements to be common to every game.

The fact that Erick Wujcik isn't the type of guy who goes around screaming from the rooftops about how his game is the most brilliant thing since sliced bread, unlike mr. Rein·Hagen, doesn't mean that Mr.Wujcik actually has a far better claim to merit making such a statement.

Perhaps you are so unaccustomed to humility as to mistake it for weakness, just as you appear to mistake pseudo-intellectual prattling for actual intellectuality.

I'm beginning to think that your knowledge of games lacks a little breadth.

Ah, and here is the part of the thread where Eyebeams is losing the argument so he drags himself down to the gutter of personal attacks on his opponent's intelligence or education...

Nisarg