The Forge Archives

Quote from: LordSmerf

Quote from: Doug Ruff[... snip]Re: Drives and staking thereof, At the moment, the players have to place Debt against their Drives to use a power, and can then stake this Debt. Why not make this a single process? If the player starts with a counter for each point in their Drives, and they have to 'stake' a counter every time they use a power, you avoid this initial hesitancy.

This requires a complete reversal, counters are now good to have. If a character runs out of tokens for a Drive, then they have to go 'overdrawn' to use this Drive to use a power then they literally lost their sense of Hope, Justice etc. as this Drive has 'failed them' in previous conflicts.

I think this is a more natural way of approaching the issue, it feels more 'right' to me but it would have a major knock-on effect for the rest of the mechanics. What do the rest of you think?

Regards,

Doug

I wanted to revisit this.  Now, mechanically this generate a small number of minor differences.  Conceptually this is a big shift in ideas.  Overall i think that this would be a good thing to do, but i will try to break down the pros and cons objectively.

Pros:
-Conceptually simpler: i want more of this, but i have to risk it to get more.  Accumulation and then spending for effects is easier to understand for most people than a combination of accumulation (to do stuff) and then trying to dump it.

Cons:
-Staking dynamics change, significantly.  Possibly for the better, but definately different.
-The "Feel" changes: you no longer feel that you are "racking up Debt" when you use Powers, instead you are just spending a resource.

Thomas

I'm still waiting on a clarification of whether this means that people can be morally invested (i.e. Staked) or use their Powers, but not a lot of both at the same time.

EDIT:  Actually, I'm waiting for that clarification from Thomas.  Doug has made it clear that he thinks Staking can be a direct consequence of Power-use.  I disagree, but I think I understand where he's coming from.

Sorry, i wanted to wait for a new thread before proceeding.

The short answer is "yes".  The basic idea here is that you use your Drives for two seperate purposes:

1. Activate Powers - Powers are good because you can continually reuse them.
2. Moral Investment - Spend Drives to indicate narrative importance.

Now, first thing: This is definately a systemic and thematic departure from Capes as it has been presented.  The major change is that while previously you accumulated Debt through Powers use and then worked that Debt off through Complications, you now split your resources between the two.  This may in fact break the system that drives the Premise forward.

That said, i think this is an elegant solution to a number of problems that produces a single problem in return.  Now that problem must be overcome, and i do not really know how to do it at the moment.  Since that problem is possibly a deal-breaker the proposal may have to be shelved no matter how elegant i think it is...

Anyway, to restate my position.  You can use your Drives to Stake, you can use your Drives to activate Powers.  You can do both with Drives, but each point spent on one is one less point you can spend on the other.  One no longer feeds into the other...

Thomas

Well cool.  I think we both understand what the other one is thinking.  Go Forge!

Which is to say... yeah, I got nothin' either.  I'm thinking about it though!

OK, here goes.

I'd originally suggested that Staking could be a direct consequence of Power-use. When I did this I hadn't considered Tony's previous posts about wanting 'stake-free' Power use, so it wasn't a viable option.

However, the current system requires a Debt token to be placed against a Drive for each use of a Power. Too many Debt tokens virtually require a player to start Staking, the only difference is that the player has some choice over when to Stake and on which Complication.

Whichever way you look at it, the player is 'spending' a resource every time they use a power; Staking is a means of getting the resource back.

I think that the only simple way to allow 'risk-free' Power use is to remove the Debt requirement for Power use, and find another way of limiting Power use (I have one or two, if you are interested.)

Also, if there is a way to allow a player to directly use a Drive to affect play (instead of using the Drive as 'fuel' for a Power), then this also allows direct Staking of the Drives - because the player can only use a Drive by establishing a personal 'stake' in the outcome of the Complication.

Is this a way forward?

Regards,

Doug

Hard to say whether it's a way forward until I know what your destination is, but it certainly sounds like a cogent summary of where we are, and of the mathematical inter-relation between Debt and resource management.

Now personally I'll admit that I like the current Debt mechanic, because it makes the double resource management very obvious.  You want Debt (so that you can reap the tactical benefits of Staking it) but you also want to get rid of Debt (so that you have more "room" in your Drives to use more Powers).  It encourages people not to stand still and hoard their resources, but rather to constantly borrow and spend, borrow and spend.

But I've disarded plenty of ideas that I liked when better ones came along.  I'm very much interested in your other thoughts for how to... well, limit is the wrong word, because Debt is meant to encourage power use... for how to link Power use into the Premise.

Thanks Tony, you're too kind...

I like the 'borrow and spend' cycle as well, it seems to simulate the emotional 'highs and lows' that give a Hero added character.

I think this can still be achieved by plonking it directly onto Drives, the main trick is to make players want to commit their Drives.

Giving them a mechanical bonus for using drives is one obvious method; however this doesn't have ot be the only way. In the scary cross-posting monster that was the last thread, I suggested mechanics for 'Crisis of Faith'. This would be a whole section of the rules that:

(a) offered some cool (IMHO) story opportunities, and
(b) could only be accessed if a player was willing to spend their Drives (and risk losing them.)


As for Powers: I quite like the idea that Powers should be less limited than other abilities (this goes back to making Heroes 'special'.) But there has to be a balancing factor to prevent abuse.

This got me thinking about why most comic-book heroes don't use their powers all the time. Usually, this isn't just about 'resource', it's about not attracting attention. Excessive power use attracts a lot of attention, most of it unwelcome. It can also harm the people around the hero.

So how about this: a Hero can use a Power whenever they want, and this will give them a significant advantage towards controlling a Complication (much better than it does now.) However, the Hero also gets a point of 'Heat' each time they use a power. Villains (or GM) can spend 'Heat' to do various nasty things to the Hero, such as kidnap a relation, find out about the Hero's secret ID, or introduce that Villain into a scene.

This mechanic encourages Heroes to use their Powers sparingly and appropriately; if you start chucking your powers around indiscriminately, expect to pay the Price later. If you spend a lot of time in your secret ID, and only use powers for the things that really matter, the Villains are going to have a much harder time sticking it to you.

(Note: There is some resemblance here to Scarlet Wake, but my real inspiration for this would have to be the Dungeoneer card game, where players collect 'peril points' which the other players can use to stitch them up.)

I'm not sure whether this accurately addresses the Premise that you are looking for, but it's a way of integrating Powers with some of the other game elements, like Villain Prominence.

Regards,

Doug

Is the "Crisis of Faith" mechanic likely to be attractive to people who aren't consciously playing narrativist?  It seems like it might crop up against some pretty heavy resistance from people with even vestigial "my guy" syndrome.  

I think the mechanical bonus could be pretty important in overcoming this.  It will also encourage people to Stake their Drives and actually try to win the Stakes (a move that takes them radically further from a Crisis of Faith).  Were you still thinking of dice-splitting as the mechanics?


I'm naturally concerned about how these ideas can be used to support Premise, rather than undermine it.  In particular, I don't see how powers can be abused (game-mechanically).  Are you worried that people will use their super-powers too much?

Personally, I don't think there's any upper limit to how much I'd like to see heroes using their powers.  Power is Fun.  Says so right there on the front page.  

So, for my opinion, I'd say they should be using their heat-vision to get their steaks done at the last minute, and flying around the world because they can, and all that jazz.  As long as they're also dealing with the "but do you deserve it" half of the Premise, life is sweet and only gets sweeter the more they use their powers.

Tony,

Crisis of Faith vs. 'my guy': Depends how you play it. In the original suggested version, winning the Crisis gets you all of your Drive back, so there's a pretty good reason for triggering it.

Bonuses: If we are OK with Powers and Drives both being 'something extra' then there needs to be a substantial reward for using them. For me the two most 'unbalanced' mechanics are extra turns, and extra dice - these are major edges to have.

So, I'd consider spending Drives to gain extra actions, and Powers to gain extra dice (this means that a superpowered individual is going to have a huge advantage against a normal - 2 dice vs 1 die is no contest in the long term - is this reasonable?)

Quote from: TonyLBPersonally, I don't think there's any upper limit to how much I'd like to see heroes using their powers. Power is Fun. Says so right there on the front page.

So, for my opinion, I'd say they should be using their heat-vision to get their steaks done at the last minute, and flying around the world because they can, and all that jazz. As long as they're also dealing with the "but do you deserve it" half of the Premise, life is sweet and only gets sweeter the more they use their powers.

Then I guess that Heroes shoudn't gain Heat for 'deserving' use of powers. However, if Heroes start using their powers in conflicts, or start making blatant use of their powers (I think there is a difference between flying around the world at high altitude, and flying down the high street in full view of half the town), then I think Heat is more apropriate.

However, this may still be against your preferred style of play, If so, then ditch the Heat mechanic, but Powers would then need to be brought back in line with other abilities (and this brings us back to whether Debt and Staking should be an automatic consequence of power use, or whether another limiting factor is needed.)

Regards,

Doug

What can the player do with Heat points?  What makes them fun to have?

Gosh, I leave you guys alone for a few days while I'm without web access and you (1) take apart the mechanics and strew the parts all over the floor (2) get pulled over by Officer Edwards for driving over the post limit. I'm laughing as I write this, but of course these are the problems you WANT to have, because they show high excitement.

Quote from: TonyLBI'd say they should be using their heat-vision to get their steaks done at the last minute....

Applause. Yes, Doug's "Heat" mechanic where flashy Power use can get you in trouble makes the most sense in terms of realistic tactical choices (Simulationism, I guess), but not in terms of dramatic moral choices (Narrativism). It's clear Tony wants this game to be about the latter not the former.

Per example:

Quote from: TonyLB, in 'Conversation is Combat,'There's a lovely little conversation implied right there in the Attitudes for the characters, actually. Wise's low (i.e. early) attitudes are things like Smooth and Nostalgic, and his high (i.e. later) ones are Sarcastic and Cynical....

And here's a cool aspect of the roll & reroll mechanic that I've not applauded yet, so let me do so now: Because you don't want to tap high-level traits when a low-level one will work, people start out using their 1 and 2 traits to reroll dice and then are forced up to their 4 and 5 traits. Again, this escalation makes no sense in terms of real-world tactics (to paraphrase a defector from Soviet military intelligence, if you have an axe, don't start the fight by punching your enemy -- hit him with the axe) but lots of sense in terms of dramatics.

Quote from: Sydney FreedbergApplause. Yes, Doug's "Heat" mechanic where flashy Power use can get you in trouble makes the most sense in terms of realistic tactical choices (Simulationism, I guess), but not in terms of dramatic moral choices (Narrativism). It's clear Tony wants this game to be about the latter not the former.

That's a very good point, Sydney. It also makes me wonder how many of the 'problems' with the rules are actually just a matter of conflicting paradigms between the most frequent posters to this thread.

(Ok, I admit it, maybe it's just my failure to engage with the Premise. For example, there is no concept of a 'secret identity' in the main rules. Instead of trying to introduce a mechanic for this, I should be asking first "is Capes about hiding who you are?")

So, looking at this from a different direction (which is hopefully closer to Tony's!)

Powers are fun, therefore the players should feel free to use them whenever they can, without feeling that they are racking up a 'bill' that has to be paid later. Unfortunately, that's what the Debt system does.

Staking is a neat way of making this Debt go away, but it's not guaranteed - IMHO, racking up Debt makes a Hero more vulnerable. Which means that players may be reluctant to use Powers for 'trivial' tasks.

(I'm prepared to consider play-test evidence to the contrary, however - this is a theoretical analysis only.)

So the real question is: how do we encourage players to use Powers without worrying about the consequences (Debt), but without making them too powerful and breaking the game?

At the moment, Attitudes and Tropes are 'blocked' when used, but Powers are controlled by Debt. At the end of a Scene, the Attitudes and Tropes 'refresh' (they are unblocked.) This means that it is a lot less 'painful' to spend them.

So, what if Powers were blocked after use? That steak needs cooking? Sure, use your heat-vision; you'll get it back when the Complication resolves.

This gets rid of any caution requirement, and frees up Drives for another function. (This could be for extra dice, extra actions, to unblock an ability without having to wait for it to 'refresh' - I'm not gong to worry about this too much for now.) The point being that Drives can now be staked directly and independently of any power expenditure - this also means that 'normals' can now use Drives without needing Powers to spend them on.

This must be Rule Candidate #342 by now.. is it any better than the last #341?

Regards,

Doug

Actually, I always thought that Powers were much less painful to spend than Attitudes.  When you spend an Attitude you limit your future options in the scene (often crucially).  

When you spend a Power, by contrast, you get Debt Tokens, which are a resource you desperately need to earn anyway.  Often I've seen Powers used where Attitudes would be more natural, simply because people had spent all their Debt and were desperate to earn more.

Quote from: Doug RuffFor example, there is no concept of a 'secret identity' in the main rules. Instead of trying to introduce a mechanic for this, I should be asking first "is Capes about hiding who you are?"

Whoops... forgot to field this one.  Basic answer:  What is your heroes Truth Drive?  If it is two or three then you will benefit tremendously from deciding that you have to handle things in a discreet manner in order to hide the truth of your secret identity.  Stake some debt, split your dice, use lots of powers to own the Complication and replenish your debt at the same time.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

Are there things about secret identities that you feel are better treated by a more compulsory method (i.e. "Do this or else" as opposed to "Do this and benefit")?  I can certainly see it being more Immersive (since there is a certain disconnect inherent in "My character feels he is forced to do this but I, the player, feel I want him to be forced to do it").

Quote from: TonyLBAre there things about secret identities that you feel are better treated by a more compulsory method (i.e. "Do this or else" as opposed to "Do this and benefit")?

Only if this is a basic Premise of the game.... and from what I've read so far it isn't.  Which is why my mentioning it several times is an example of my failure to connect with the Premise, and with your intentions for the game.

Of course, it could be a Premise for the character, but as you've said already, that's a function of the Truth Drive.

Regards,

Doug

Quote from: Doug...an example of my failure to connect with the Premise....

Not failure. At worst "fruitful misunderstanding," but more reasonably "having your own idea." If you really like this concept, maybe you need to go write up Secret Identity: A Game of Super-Power and Consequences. I know that one of my discarded suggestions from a previous Capes thread (about people being defined as heroes vs. villains by whether they risk themselves or others for their goals) is something I want to work into My Eventual Game.