We’re three sessions into a new Nobilis game. First time for most of us (including the GM).

By the end of session 1, 3 of the 4 players had agreed to become nobles. The 4th (me) didn’t want to make that choice. In fact I hesitated so much that the GM agreed with me that refusing to become a noble was the most interesting choice to make. In effect, I split the party.

Session 2, I felt like things got ‘Social Contract-y’.

In group character generation, I’d said that my character (a drug addict) would make the worst possible decisions he could. Part of this was a desire to try out being a trouble-magnet as opposed to the mega control-freaky turtling I’ve sometimes done in the past. Another part of it was a desire to really develop a lot of ties to the Mortal World, because I’ve read in Actual Play reports here that a conflict between Mortal and Noble responsibilities is key to fun play in this setting.

However, in the second session I saw a split start emerging. People were reading rulebooks or tut-tutting my decisions as I got myself into deeper trouble with cops, my parents and some type of drug-dealing demon. On the other hand, ‘all’ I saw the other three players doing was an exploration of setting and colour – they talked to some dog-servants, found out what being a noble meant and then flew up to heaven/the plexpeus to ‘register their designs’.

Their story was heavy on exposition and beauty, while mine was grit and action. It felt like two different energies - and in the month between sessions I had a wiki and a real-time conversation with them about the disparity. That took guts; it was the first time I’d ever ‘complained’ about a RPG situation. And in the end I was assured that there wasn’t a problem.

In Session 3 I saw the same split in behaviour, but this time I felt that we were appreciating each others’ storylines a lot more. By the end, I’d realised the only way to save my character’s mortally sick friend was to bring him to the creature that had wanted to ennoble me in Session 1.

Hopefully that’ll naturally unite the two sides of the party. However, to try and predict the future, two things may happen. 1) “My guy” (sic) has a lot of things he wants to achieve and I suspect he won’t be interested in the Nobilis-y adventures that the GM has set up. This has been the case with all three sessions so far, and I think the GM likes it.

2) There’s a really odd split in the scene framing going on. With me, the GM and I seem to aggressively frame to conflicts. There’s no (what I would consider to be) redundant choices. In the mythic reality of the Nobles, there’s a lot of description of (for instance) a beautiful courtyard with a flight of stairs going down. “Do you go down the stairs?,” the GM asks. After some consultation, the players agree to go down the stairs. Of course, the stairs are the only way out of the courtyard. It seems obvious that you have to go down them to get to the next bit of the adventure.

It’s odd. Two different feels. I’m really curious to see what happens when the two sides combine.

I guess I’m also curious as to whether I’m being a jerk/disruptive player or just confident about what I want. It’s the first time I’ve tried to apply Forge theory to my playing style. I’m aware that I’m probably playing with a different Creative Agenda to about half the rest of the group. But I’m not sure: will this wind up as dysfunctional or will it add a real frisson to the group?

Steve.

Huh...interesting...

Well, just to start off with -- you've picked a very hard row to hoe. Nobilis is all about being a god (or demi-god anyway). Yeah, the grim and gritty Mortal World is important, but it's also about the fantastical places you visit and miraculous things you do.

To put it another way, it's like if you were buddies with the Justice League. They're off saving the world and you're stuck at your job trying to make the rent. They just go off in two completely different directions. Sure, there can be overlap from time to time, but the perspectives are completely different.

This isn't to say that playing a straight mortal is wrong, just that this requires a bit of buy-in from the other players. They need some reason to care about you and your problems or you're going to be sitting around a lot.

You said that your reasons for going this route were a.) to play a trouble-magnet insted of a trouble-avoider and b.) to build closer ties to the Mortal World. (I hope I read your post correctly) Taking that as a base, it's still possible to play a Noble character but retain those priorities.

Want to keep the trouble magnet? That's easy, you want a low Realm score (so you can't turtle up in your Chancel) and probably a low-ish Domain score -- perhaps even a score of 0 which basically puts you at the whim of your Domain with no real control over it. This makes it harder to defend your Estate which the whole purpose of your being. This will ratchet your Aspect and Spirit scores way up, but trying to punch your way out of every fight in Nobilis should be self-defeating at best. You can also get a Bright Warning stuck on your character to tell nearby Excrucians to come over and kick your butt. You might also take Limitations or Restrictions that your foes know about and take advantage of.

The ties to the Mortal World. First off, pick a Domain that has a lot of human potential, a Domain that only exists in the context of Humanity. This is the single most important choice you make in Nobilis. You want to be the Power of Addiction or Bad Choices or Hope rather than Gravity or Water or something. That gets you into the lives of people. You probably want to be a Power of Light or Dark since they actively care about Humanity (for better or worse). And you want Anchors and you want to Love them -- not just because you'll care about the problems they get into, but because that's illegal and Lord Entropy will kick your butt for it (see? more trouble.).

Regarding Anchors -- I've been in games where the Anchors are played by other PCs rather than the GM or the PC playing the Power who "owns" the Anchor. This is really effective. First off, when you interact with Anchors, the other PCs are still in the game and there's less downtime. Second, the Anchors all have distinct and different personalities so they're more interesting. Finally, this gets people thinking about the Mortal World and what's going on.

The GM also has a lot of input on this. If he doesn't put pressure on the PCs through the mortal world, the game will just float up to the mythic. And the game is prefectly playable at this level, it just may not be what you want. Also, I'd give the other PCs a bit of Exploration time. If you became a god tomorrow, you'd probably spend a few months getting off on your power cosmic. It's fun to just run around and cast miracles and talk to spirits and throw pantheon parties and stuff.

I think you've got a good handle on some of the more subtle aspects of the game, but your "weight" on the Creative Agenda is a bit limited. If you bit the bullet and became a Power you could interact with the other PCs on a more even footing and that would let you present the stuff you wanted to focus on in a way that the other PCs would find compelling.

Also, I'm very curious -- what Domains did the other PCs pick? You can tell a lot about a game based on the choices of Estates.

later
Tom

I think it would be very difficult to run a game where one of the characters is mortal and the rest are Nobles. An oddball Noble or a reluctant one would work better IMHO.

The Nobilis setting is big enough and amazing enough that it lends itself very well to exuberant Sim play. When I've tried to run Nobilis in a Narr fashion, I've found it difficult -- part of me wants to just jam on the exotic trappings of the gods and the Chancel. I ended up with sort of an awkward compromise, trying to sketch things quickly and jump right into conflict with the NPC's.

Finally, in rule terms, I think a character with a high Spirit stat (for lots of Anchors) and the Light Touch handicap, and low stats everywhere else, might work well.

Cool ideas, thanks!

We established the game's Colour (at least in the mortal world) as 'documentary', 'homeless' and 'grim'. The Powers in the game are:

Cole - Loss
Nicolai - Lust
Nate - Wheels (he's a war vet with both legs amputated)
Me - Addiction (if I ever get ennobled).

I've also set myself up with lots of potential Anchors and indicated that I'd like a high spirit score. OTOH, I've been leaning towards a high Domain score and low (zero) Aspect, so that I'd be very much on the defensive.

bluegargantua wrote

... this requires a bit of buy-in from the other players. They need some reason to care about you and your problems or you're going to be sitting around a lot.

Tiny lightbulb moment reading this thread about OOC conversation:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11403&highlight=

I might just ask the other players for ideas when my character's off by himself. That way I can get him into more inventive forms of trouble.

Also, from some of the other threads I've read that deal with split groups, using their suggestions might create more investment in what's going on.

Steve.

[EDIT: Next session's in 3 days time.]

To wrap this up: my character became a Noble at the end of Session 4. Now both ‘sides’ of the group are solidly linked.

Most of the session’s events were confined to the Chancel (home base for the Nobles). My character broke in, trying to find someone who could save my sick friend’s life (Loco, who is O.D’ing on a mystical drug). Meanwhile, the existing Nobles were trying to solve a murder and locate a missing artefact.

This made cross-cutting between scenes really exciting. Not only was it a great way for us to get an understanding of the scope of the Chancel, but there was the extra possibility that we’d bump into each other at any time. The GM played this to the max, adding a lot of sub-text to scenes. For instance, at one point (just after I’d been captured) we cut to the Nobles being asked to arrange the execution of an intruder. The other players look at me, grin – then start arranging.

In terms of engagement in each other’s stories, four moments stood out:
1) I solicited advice at one point (during a chase) because I needed some ‘fuel’ to get out of it. I was so focused on jamming with the GM that I didn’t notice whether the others were any more engaged.
2) At one point I asked if I could offer advice to another player about a way they could use their Power. The player said ‘fine’, but then didn’t take the advice (which is no big deal – but I got the impression maybe she felt alienated by the OOC talk).
3) At one point a player walked away during my scene to look at something happening with a computer in the next room.
4) In my first scene, the GM gave two players the role of cops trying to stop my character from escaping. I thought it worked really well; it’s not the first time we’ve done it – although I’ve just realised that so far I haven’t played an NPC in their scenes.

The most effective part of the session came when the Nobles tried to negotiate a hostage settlement with the Spider Ambassadors at the Chancel. This felt like the creepy tone we’d all agreed on at the setup of the game. Everyone was emotionally involved in this scene: the player representing the power of Lust was flirting with the Ambassador; Cole’s player (Power of Loss) was deciding whether to protect an innocent or gain crucial information; I was pointing out the subtext in the scene and showing how much I was enjoying their decisions and roleplaying. And the GM was having fun roleplaying a complicated situation.

System & Excitement

At this session, we were missing Nate’s player (Domain of Wheels) – the only player who knew the rules. So of course for the first time in four sessions we had to use the rules to find out how miracles worked.

I volunteered for the job while the GM kept the spotlight on the other players. For a while this made me feel useful, but then I became awe-struck by the possibilities of the system. I don’t think the other players have quite grokked how much power they have to define what they’re interested in and bring it about. Nobilis seems to encourages pro-activity.


Killing Loco

At the end of the session I found out Loco had died from his mystical O.D. Loco wasn’t an NPC I’d come up with, rather a GM character I’d latched onto and gone out of my way to save over the last three sessions. And the reason I’ve gone out of my way is that the GM has obviously wanted to kill Loco. It’s been a good back-and-forth – and on balance I’m happy that things didn’t turn out for the best.

Afterwards, the GM made sure I felt fine about it. I guess I was a little frustrated – by trying so hard to save him, I’d indicated that Loco was an important NPC to me. On the other hand, I’m curious to see what comes next. In this version of Nobilis, death isn’t a barrier to getting back into the game. And even if Loco is dead, I can use him as a strong motivation for getting revenge.


Positives

I’m really into the game. I’m looking forward to exploring the system. My character has an immense to do list.

I still feel I’ll be far more pro-active – self-generating my plots more than the other players. But that may not last long. I think they’ll flip out when they realise the full extent of what they can do.

I hope we have a stronger group as a result of talking through my initial reservations. Now to see whether the initial splitting up pays off.

Cheers,
Steve

Damn, Steve, now I want to start a Nobilis game again. And no, thats not good. I´d have to GM it and I´m not even sure I´d have the players for it.

(Not to mention the Exalted game I´m currently working on... :/ )
-------------
I find it really interesting that the players, as far as I understand it from your post, aren´t really aware of the power their characters have. How comes that? I mean, I can understand that they haven´t read the book (It´s huge, after all.) but shouldn´t at least the GM know the rules?

Anyway, I really look forward to reading how the game goes on...

Aaron

Nobilis is funny that way. Sometimes players approach it from a Gamist perspective and sort of freeze up, trying to choose the One True Way to handle a problem when there are so many different ways they *could* go...

I'm not sure how to poke them out of this stance. One technique I've tries is the "Jeeves and Wooster" technique, where the response of the Chancelfolk to almost anything the PC's do is respect and appreciation.

Thanks for the thoughts.

I find it really interesting that the players, as far as I understand it from your post, aren´t really aware of the power their characters have. How comes that?

I can understand that they haven´t read the book (It´s huge, after all.) but shouldn´t at least the GM know the rules?