The Nobilis Thread

[Grinner]

Nobilis is such a cool game. I think it's high time it had its own thread. (Checking the archive, I see that it already has. Oh well.) So! Discuss anything and everything Nobilis here.

For those who don't know about it, Nobilis is a diceless RPG written by Jenna Moran. Nobilis is centered around these beings called Nobles, or alternately Powers. They used to be mortal, but they were forced to undergo apotheosis when these gods called Imperators stuck a pieces of their souls into them. Bound to their respective Imperators, they now defend reality against invaders called Excrucians.

I'll get us started. The second edition of Nobilis had a supplement called "A Society of Flowers" planned. Two portions of it were released, one of which detailed the practices of Alchemy and High Summoning. How difficult do you think these books would be to adapt to the third edition, particularly the Alchemy and High Summoning parts?

I swear I saw Jenna write about it once, but I can't remember where or what she wrote.

[The Rose Dragon]

I keep wondering if I should get Third Edition, but while the setting sounds kind of cool (in that inscrutable Jenna K. Moran fashion), I am not that fond of diceless systems, and a lot of players aren't that fond of it compared to Second Edition, which is much less readily available.

[JeenLeen]

I've never played this system, but the idea of a diceless system sounds interesting. Can someone tell me something about how things get resolved as characters interact with the world, each other, and enemies? Are there attributes/characteristics that are compared, or, more basically, what takes the place of dice or how are dice not needed?

[Grinner]

I've never played this system, but the idea of a diceless system sounds interesting. Can someone tell me something about how things get resolved as characters interact with the world, each other, and enemies? Are there attributes/characteristics that are compared, or, more basically, what takes the place of dice or how are dice not needed?

In short, you buy attributes using character points. These attributes alone allow you a certain degree of competence, but when you want to do something beyond your normal abilities, you can spend MP (They're like action points) to temporarily boost your abilities. As you play, you can earn these points back.

The question is not "How high is the DC here?" but "How badly do I want to succeed here?".

[The Rose Dragon]

Most diceless systems operate on the same principle. Aside from your traits, you have a dramatic resource that fluctuates as you play the game, whether to avoid an undesirable fate, reach a desirable one that is beyond your usual capabilities, or as a result of actions that restore that resource. The gameplay depends on two things: how well you manage your resources, and what you are maximally capable of when you blow all your resources on a life-or-death situation.

[Grinner]

I keep wondering if I should get Third Edition, but while the setting sounds kind of cool (in that inscrutable Jenna K. Moran fashion), I am not that fond of diceless systems, and a lot of players aren't that fond of it compared to Second Edition, which is much less readily available.

3e is different. It adds a bunch of new systems for statting out mortals, developing characters, and fighting miracles. It also replaces a couple of attributes, perhaps for the best.

Personally, I think it would make for an amazing Call of Cthulhu-style game. Think about it. Make a mortal character, unveil the lies of Prosaic Reality, and risk everything for a glimpse at Lord Entropy, who will quickly pluck your brain from your skull and leave it to sit in hellfire for an eternity or two.

Edit: I think the reason why 2e seems popular is that 3e feels incomplete. I think there's a lot of information on Excrucians and Creation at large missing from the 3e core book. Sure, there's a bunch of bells and whistles, and they add a lot of interesting mechanics to the game. The problem is that there's not much in the way of context. It's hard to think of anything to do.

I don't know. It's been so long since I read the 2e book, but it definitely feels like that one was more complete.

[Geostationary]

I'll get us started. The second edition of Nobilis had a supplement called "A Society of Flowers" planned. Two portions of it were released, one of which detailed the practices of Alchemy and High Summoning. How difficult do you think these books would be to adapt to the third edition, particularly the Alchemy and High Summoning parts?

I've actually more or less ported Alchemy directly into 3e, using the Triumph rules for Dynamic Nobilis in the place of normal resolution (part because I can't find the tabletop resolution, and part because I think they go well with the general ideas behind Alchemy as a stat). I've not looked too closely at High Summoning, but I imagine it'd be pretty straightforward. You could use some Afflictions to model the unpredictability and whatnot.


I keep wondering if I should get Third Edition, but while the setting sounds kind of cool (in that inscrutable Jenna K. Moran fashion), I am not that fond of diceless systems, and a lot of players aren't that fond of it compared to Second Edition, which is much less readily available.

Depends on what you mean about 3e. Mechanically, it's near universally agreed to be superior from what I've seen. Fluffwise, the whole art fiasco turned some people off along with the general art direction. People also missed the absence of an example of play and some of the detail provided in the second edition, though most that I have seen agree that the factions (Hell and the Dark in particular) have better, more sympathetic write-ups- for example, Hell is now about unconditional universal love (and the corruption that can bring- it's still Hell after all) rather than a philosophical focus on Corruption alone.

I personally prefer the third edition, but the 2nd edition is still an excellent resource that can be pretty cool in conjunction with 3e, and people's Creation vary wildly no matter what edition you use. I can also say that 3e's system is pretty solid and works well in my experience of running it.

Also, here's a link to the last thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=246147) for posterity.

[The_Snark]

Edit: I think the reason why 2e seems popular is that 3e feels incomplete. I think there's a lot of information on Excrucians and Creation at large missing from the 3e core book. Sure, there's a bunch of bells and whistles, and they add a lot of interesting mechanics to the game. The problem is that there's not much in the way of context. It's hard to think of anything to do.

I don't know. It's been so long since I read the 2e book, but it definitely feels like that one was more complete.

I'm always a little nonplussed when I hear people say that, because I don't recall it that way. Flipping through my copy, I don't see a whole lot more setting info: you've got the description of Lord Entropy, the basic summary of mythic world vs. prosaic, Heaven, Hell, a few quick blurbs on alternate worlds... The setting was always sketched out in broad terms, without much in the way of specifics. As for the latter point, that of context and figuring out what to do... yes. More on that in a bit.

Personally, I like 3e a lot. (Disclaimer: I've never played 2e, except for a single game that never made it all the way through character creation, but I do own the book.) The 2e book is cool, but it's oddly laid out and difficult to grok at times. 3e contains most of the same concepts, but it's much more, well, scrutable. The rules are definitely better; many aspects of the setting have been clarified or just plain improved (such as Hell); and I enjoy the tone of the writing, which oscillates between majestic and absurd.

But hearkening back to what you said above: the thing the 3e book lacks that the 2e book had in spades is prep material. No sample campaign or scenario, no example of play, no chapter devoted to coming up with stories and being a Hollyhock God. So it's easy for a new person to look at it and go, "that's cool, but what do I do? What's the default premise?" And that's tricky because there isn't one, really. You're a god, and you pursue your own story. That's it. (Also there's a war for existence going on, that'll probably be important at some point.) 2e is fundamentally the same open-ended game, but it talks a lot more about what you (as a player or Hollyhock God) can do with it.

[Grinner]

*snip*

Well put, but I'm going to stand by what I said.

I agree that the flow of the book is more coherent, and the rules more clearly delineate the abilities of any given Noble. What it lacks, as you said, is the prep material: campaigns, plot hooks, etc. But it's also missing something else. One thing I've learned in the last year is the importance of fluff. Yes, the important stuff is still there: the factions, The Council of Four, Prosaic vs Mythic Reality, a few Chancels, and some miscellaneous descriptions. These things only serve to set the stage. The thing that's missing is the minor details.

Details, so long as they provoke thought, are useful. No, I don't need to know that Power's underwear size, but yes, I think it's interesting that a Noble named Adeleye with Treasure 5 maintains a vast network of spies. It's not just the examples of play or the sample campaigns. 2e had a great number of these asides that served no purpose other than to expound upon the setting. My strongest memory of 2e is sitting in a beach house, reading through the Domain descriptions. I came to the Domain 5 example, which described a Power of Caves. This Noble was physically weak, but she could spawn entire labyrinths at a moment's notice and fill them with all manner of alien ecologies.

I'll not contest that 3e is better mechanically, but it feels empty to me*.

*I should point out that I don't actually play Nobilis. I think about it sometimes, but for one reason or another, I restrain myself to dreaming.

[BWR]

What (s)he said. My favorite was the Power of Blankets. Haven't picked up 3e yet, and don't know if I will. Since I don't play the game (hard to find players that want to try it here), I'm limited to reading it for fun. And I have said other places, the 2e book was worth the price on flavor text alone.

[Grinner]

I've actually more or less ported Alchemy directly into 3e, using the Triumph rules for Dynamic Nobilis in the place of normal resolution (part because I can't find the tabletop resolution, and part because I think they go well with the general ideas behind Alchemy as a stat). I've not looked too closely at High Summoning, but I imagine it'd be pretty straightforward. You could use some Afflictions to model the unpredictability and whatnot.

What's Dynamic Nobilis?

Anyway, it seems that in 3e, the attributes operate on the same zero to five scale, but the actual score is de-emphasized over the action the PC is attempting. I guess that makes it easier to focus on how the attribute interacts with the game, but that also leaves a lot of work in fleshing out the Difficulties to do...

[Geostationary]

What's Dynamic Nobilis?

Anyway, it seems that in 3e, the attributes operate on the same zero to five scale, but the actual score is de-emphasized over the action the PC is attempting. I guess that makes it easier to focus on how the attribute interacts with the game, but that also leaves a lot of work in fleshing out the Difficulties to do...

Dynamic Nobilis is a name for the ruleset introduced in the 2e "The Game of Powers" supplament for LARP. It uses a combination of the core mechanic along with a scale of Failure to Triumph based on MP expenditure, amongst other things. Beyond that and what's in the peculiar book, I can't say much more because I've been unsuccessful in locating a digital copy.

As for attributes, not really. 3e actually defines them more rigorously than 2e (it's much clearer what level of Aspect a given action is now) and includes some modifications to how Domain functions (that are reflected in Persona) that work much nicer and allow you to do things that weren't technically RAW in 2e (introduction of animations/summons, replacing Changes with Motions). Persona and Treasure are just all-around better than Realm and Spirit, though you can still get Realm as a secondary Estate. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're getting at, as I don't really see there being much of a difference in regards to using Attributes between editions.

I should point out that I don't actually play Nobilis. I think about it sometimes, but for one reason or another, I restrain myself to dreaming.Saddening! You should try, as it's really a fun game to play or run! I understand RPG.net is a good place to go look if you're interested in finding a game online.

[Grinner]

As for attributes, not really. 3e actually defines them more rigorously than 2e (it's much clearer what level of Aspect a given action is now) and includes some modifications to how Domain functions (that are reflected in Persona) that work much nicer and allow you to do things that weren't technically RAW in 2e (introduction of animations/summons, replacing Changes with Motions). Persona and Treasure are just all-around better than Realm and Spirit, though you can still get Realm as a secondary Estate. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're getting at, as I don't really see there being much of a difference in regards to using Attributes between editions.

I don't think there is much difference in the usage of attributes. In fact, I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head, in so many words. The addition of the Difficulty Charts more clearly defines what a given miracle can accomplish. In doing so, the charts absorb much of what the Attribute descriptions used to do (That is, they used to tell what a player could accomplish with a miracle, but in vaguer, more confusing terms).

Basically, "properly" porting Alchemy and High Summoning would mean writing Difficulty Charts for them, and that prospect frightens me. Jenna, having written the thing, probably has better ideas than any of us of how to do it, but she's probably too busy with Chuubo stuff to bother.

What is Chuubo's Magical Wishing Engine anyway? Is it just a new setting, or is it a game unto itself?

[Longes]

Nobilis sounds pretty interesting, but I never got to playing it :smallfrown: And neither did I play "Amber diceless roleplayining game".

[Geostationary]

I don't think there is much difference in the usage of attributes. In fact, I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head, in so many words. The addition of the Difficulty Charts more clearly defines what a given miracle can accomplish. In doing so, the charts absorb much of what the Attribute descriptions used to do (That is, they used to tell what a player could accomplish with a miracle, but in vaguer, more confusing terms).

Basically, "properly" porting Alchemy and High Summoning would mean writing Difficulty Charts for them, and that prospect frightens me. Jenna, having written the thing, probably has better ideas than any of us of how to do it, but she's probably too busy with Chuubo stuff to bother.

The difficulty charts have always existed in some form or another, though the attributes have always had mildly mystifying descriptions made plain in either the heading or charts at the end.

With Alchemy, I use the Dynamic Nobilis charts at the end (it's fairly well defined what different levels of Alchemy do- it mostly ups the expected effect of the wonder and how many flowers you can stick into one), in part because I couldn't find the normal resolution and it appeals to me that paying more MP makes a better Wonder, rather than the traditional "pay for the effect and get exactly that". It also lets you get away with Impudent Alchemy in tabletop play, for those times where you need something that only vaguely resembles what you were going for.

High Summoning is more complicated, but now you have me pondering how to convert it formally to 3e. Consider yourself warned.


What is Chuubo's Magical Wishing Engine anyway? Is it just a new setting, or is it a game unto itself?

Yes. Chuubo's Marvelous Wish-Granting Engine takes place after a non-canon (for Nobilis) apocalypse where the Sun died and Creation and the Lands Beyond drowned. It's based on the core system of Nobilis, but it contains expanded mortal action rules and the development of Projects into a new advancement system that's pretty cool. I'm giving a mediocre description at best, so I'll just link you to the Kickstarter page (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1710667762/the-chuubos-marvelous-wish-granting-engine-rpg). It's pretty sweet.

[Grinner]

*alchemy*

Good thoughts. If I do end up doing anything, I'll probably stick to 3e conventions anyway. :smallredface:


High Summoning is more complicated, but now you have me pondering how to convert it formally to 3e. Consider yourself warned.

I eagerly await your opinion.


Yes. Chuubo's Marvelous Wish-Granting Engine takes place after a non-canon (for Nobilis) apocalypse where the Sun died and Creation and the Lands Beyond drowned. It's based on the core system of Nobilis, but it contains expanded mortal action rules and the development of Projects into a new advancement system that's pretty cool. I'm giving a mediocre description at best, so I'll just link you to the Kickstarter page (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1710667762/the-chuubos-marvelous-wish-granting-engine-rpg). It's pretty sweet.

I get the feeling Moran doesn't place much faith in the concept of canon. :smallwink: Or straight answers, for that matter.