| |
|
Wow. I thought I’d be lucky to get a single response. After all the enthusiasm I am now (cautiously) very excited about doing this!
The Nobilist is indeed a great place for further discussion of the mechanics and themes. I’d forgotten all about it, you reminded me of my spending nights in the computer labs reading the archives back when it was on… Nocturne? Anyway, as I recall chancel.org was also really well done, though that’s sadly gone I think. I’m trying to collate some other links just now that will help with character creation and setting.
I know what Quants is saying, but I’m not sure what a Nobilis game would be like without shades of grey. As pointed out above, it’s not a dungeon bash, it’s not even primarily about careful, linear investigative stuff, it’s basically about being individuals whose actions have enormous, open-ended consequences, within a society of those individuals, where that society is under threat – and where that society is sort of representative of, well, everything in creation.
[As a sidepoint, there are plenty of excellent games, I’m thinking of Aberrant particularly, where you can do quite complex things with the setting, examining larger themes and character loyalties, but you can equally well have a four-colour mega-powered supervillain smash ‘em-up; I’m not sure Nobilis could be satisfying played that way however.]
That said, pulling it back again, it’s basically just about playing at being that individual. Not being sure what the level of response would be, I don’t have an initial plot or setting worked out, but the ideas I do have are so far focusing on the very, very small, and gradually helping the characters explore the possibilities and responsibilities of the role. The “slim version” sounds like it ties in with my own thoughts generally though.
The basic system, each character has four basic attributes, there’s one central, diceless system for action resolution, is actually elegantly simple. The complications come in the endless possibilities for how those attributes are used, and numerous small rules that are really tied to the setting, which could be gradually introduced. Though, given the amount of work I think it might involve, the more people who have access to the book and have a passing familiarity with the setting, cuts down on the amount of explanation the person running it needs to do. We’d need to have a basic run-through of the main concepts as we set it up, but the best guide to the further depths of the game is going to be the book itself.
Timeline wise, I was thinking about spending December discussing the format and settling on players, and if we decide to go ahead start working on characters, Imperators, chancels, and having a bit of a think about what the players want to explore with the game. Then we’d have a bit of a break over the holiday period, where there would be plenty of disruption anyway, before starting the game proper in the new year, plus that gives me time to track down the LARP supplement to see if that gives me any further ideas.
Is that too long? Will people lose interest if we don’t start ASAP? I think Nobilis really benefits from time invested in setting it up, even more so than other games, and giving the players a chance to get comfortable with the idea of their characters. I think using a separate thread to discuss the different aspects of setting it up could be fruitful, as it means the history and identity of the character group is more collaborative. I don’t know if that sounds a little too “loose” or democratic compared to most traditional roleplaying, but I don’t mind spending time working on the setting in more detail and rules-wise once people start making suggestions for what they want and once they’ve agreed on a basic sort of “identity” for, say, the chancel (where you live, basically). Anyway, any thoughts on that? Brimming with ideas here but want to make sure I’m not charging off in the wrong direction. |
|
|
.