The Forge Archives

In [Capes] Takes some getting used to (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15090), Ralph wrote:

Quote from: ValamirTony. What do you perceive the purpose of the narration to be?

• To express your personal creative input (i.e. "because you want to"), and
  
• To attempt to sway the later choices of other players.[/list:u]Why is it important to sway the choices of other players?  Because, if you view the game purely as an attempt to win whatever conflicts other people toss at you then you are going to lose, and badly.  Over and over again.  Strange, but true.
  
  The system rewards players who make other players care about Conflicts, win or lose.  There are relatively few mechanical ways to do that.  You mostly do it through narration, and through appreciating the narration of others, so as to understand what their creative priorities are and better target them.
  
  If people are consistently addressing issues that they don't care about... then yeah, you've got a problem.  But it's not a problem that the game system caused.  It would have been with you in any game system.  Capes just makes it screamingly obvious from the moment you start playing.
  
  

  QuoteOn the surface, without playing, I have to concur with the notion that omnipotence renders even the most dramatic narrations trivial.

  Isn't omnipotent narration the default state for the GM in almost every other RPG ever created?  Do you think GM narrations are all trivial, or is there a difference?

Yes, but he's not in a competitive state with the other players, or rather, if he is, it's considered a pathological state.

Well, obviously I am not Tony, but there is one thing, that strikes me about the narration rules in Capes: it is very comic-y!

Someone (was it James or Fred?) over in the other thread mentioned that the narration is inconsequential. That is true (in my eyes) from the rules part. It does not really influence the way the conflict will turn out (ecept see below). But this is so very much like comics are! The hero and the villain clobber it out over pages and pages. Lot of poundings, lots of collateral damage. But nothing of this usually matters very much in the end. So Spiderman might take some heavy beating from Doc Oc but still win in the end. And all the "Spiderman gets thrown through 10 Walls, hit in the face 15 times etc." is forgotten afterwards because he won (the conflict). So Capes brilliantly captures exactly this feature of comics: nothing is decided until it is. Until it is the combattants can basically do anything to each other and their surroundings. And then the other guy always comes back (which is even a rule in Capes).

So the narration is indeed inconsequential. It only (well, if I say only, I mean greatly) influences the way people feel about the conflict (as Tony has already pointed out). Spiderman could just punch Doc Oc in the face and win the conflict. Booooring! So they throw each other around and stuff. Tension rises, Color ensues, people get invested into the outcome. And I think that is the point of the narration rules. Well, it's my take, at least.

Fred:  I don't see how competitive vs. not has any bearing on whether the narration is important vs. trivial.  Can you explain what you think the impact is?

Narration suffers under incredibly constraining rules so as to  directly appeal to the source that makes narrations the most concrete thing it can ever be.

Credibility.

Those incredibly constraining rules are the judgements of each participant. Harsh stuff. All judgements backed up by system (story points). Even harsher!

Or am I wrong and "A bunch of constricting rules back me up on this statement...there, you have to give me credibility!!!!111!!!" actually works now? And that's how you get cred?

Okay... the difference between a gamemaster's mostly unrestrained narration, and a Capes player's mostly unrestrained narration, is that the gamemaster is not (generally speaking) attempting to use his narration to gain an advantage over the players.

Indeed, a good gamemaster uses it to empower the players, to give structure to the game and present meaningful choices to the players.

A Capes player has no intrinsic responsibility to give structure to the game, and in the competitive environment, has a vested interest in limiting the number of people who are involved in a particular conflict.

Conflicts (generally) have two sides in Capes.  (splitting off a third side is an option, but one that can only be done on my turn, and which has costs that being on the first or second side doesn't entail)  It is to a player's advantage to keep conflicts that he is involved in, limited to just himself and one opponent, or even none at all.  If someone else elbows into the conflict on the side I'm on, they'll either bleed off story tokens if I lose, or threaten to claim-jump if it looks like I'll win.

(Side tactics note: It has struck me that if a scene isn't interesting to me, I can create side conflicts that noone else is interested in, roll up one side, and generate inspirations in the 3-5 range for myself while everyone else has their conflicts)

For this reason, it is to my advantage to use my narration competitively, to elbow other characters away from conflicts that I have my eye on, whether to win or to lose.  If I am going to win it, I want to be alone in that victory so that I can narrate the resolution and gain the inspirations.  If I am going to lose it, I want to be alone in losing it so that I can get the story tokens.

Quote from: TonyLBIn [Capes] Takes some getting used to (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15090), Ralph wrote:

Quote from: ValamirTony. What do you perceive the purpose of the narration to be?

• To express your personal creative input (i.e. "because you want to"), and
  
• To attempt to sway the later choices of other players.[/list:u]Why is it important to sway the choices of other players?  Because, if you view the game purely as an attempt to win whatever conflicts other people toss at you then you are going to lose, and badly.  Over and over again.  Strange, but true.

Super.  So given that as a goal, we can then analyse whether or not the rules as written currently actually assist players in doing that, serve no function other than to get out of the way, or actually impede players from doing that.  Since I don't have any actual play experience I'll try to keep to making general observations and inquiries to those who do.

Expressing creative input seems to me to have 2 facets.  First is the raw ability to express it.  Second is the much more important ability to have it recognized, accepted, and appreciated by the other players.  Clearly the rules currently handle facet one in spades.  You can't get a much higher ability to express creative input than the nearly omnipotent ability to narrate anything.

Where does the game facilitate the second facet?  From my perspective one measures recognition / acceptance / appreciation partly from social cues but also largely from the eagerness with with the other players adopt that input and incorporate it into their own narration.  The way this gets accomplished is for the narrating player to use their authority to narrate in a way that the other players will enjoy.

In a traditional GMed game, the GM is the gatekeeper for the group's enjoyment.  If a player's narration is "out of bounds" the GM has the authority to rein it in.  In a game like Universalis the potential for Challenge, Complication, or even Fines keep players voluntarily within bounds because they know the game has mechanisms to herd them back.  The nice feature of Uni (I think) is that players are free to push the envelope of acceptance to discover where the other players will be motivated to set those boundaries.

However, in Capes there are no boundaries and no one empowered to set any.  The only thing a player can do (seemingly) is to simply override the other players narration by changing everything back.   Since player A didn't take player B's wishes into account when narrating the event, player B sees no need to take player A's wishes into account when reversing it.  Some players, like Jame's in the other thread, might feel an obligation to "play right" and not do this, but this just leaves such players at the mercy of those who don't.

There are many ways to set boundaries.  Some are negatively reinforced "no I veto that".  Some are positively reinforced "Wow I really liked that, here's a bonus".  Some are negotiated "Hey, instead of that how about this other thing." "Ok, but only if something something as well" "cool, lets do that then".

In the absence of such, I expect the most likely result from a mixed group of players is anarchy.  Perhaps Capes would benefit from a positive reinforcing mechanism like Fan Mail from PTA or Gift Dice from TSOY.


Or perhaps various situational modifiers can be treated like temporary abilities that can be called on for future conflicts.  For instance the narration "Throw the Hulk in the East River" might automatically create the temporary attribute of "Under Water in East River" for the Hulk.  The Hulk can then use that attribute like any other to roll up or down a conflict (putting out a fire with a big tidal wave of water or something like that).

This ties in with your second bullet of swaying the other players with the narration.  By setting them up with attributes they like, they'll be more likely to be led in the direction you want to guide them.  If you want the Hulk in the river for a reason...tempt the player with a bonus attribute.  A creative player can think of many ways to use being in the river in a suitably comic book heroic fashion...and will thus have some motivation to stay there (at least until the attribte is used).  The attribute then becomes a voluntarily accepted fence keeping the player where you put them.  Without it, being in the river or out means nothing...so there's nothing to suggest a player would stay there.

Quote
The system rewards players who make other players care about Conflicts, win or lose.  There are relatively few mechanical ways to do that.  You mostly do it through narration, and through appreciating the narration of others, so as to understand what their creative priorities are and better target them.

Admirable, but I'm not certain the system accomplishes that.  See most folks have their own images in their head.  And the first reaction of most folks when someone narrates something different that violates that image is to reject it.  With a little reflection, however, they can come to appreciate it and realize its an even better image than the one they had.  In Uni, for example, I can (through the Challenge mechanic) reject your image...but it costs me.  I then have to take the time to evaluate exactly how badly I want to reject your image...or...if on reflection...I can actually incorporate your image into mine and still get what I want without having to spend any resources.  Capes currently doesn't require that reflection period.  It costs nothing to reject your image and replace with mine, and nothing for you to reject mine and replace with yours.  There's no cost (other than the deteriorating quality of game causality) to encourage me to accept what you say no matter how prettily you say it.

I speculate that the majority of times that you'll find people accepting others narration is not because they learn to appreciate it...but because they simply don't care enough to reject it.  So the only stuff that sticks becomes the stuff nobody cares enough about to bother changing back while the important stuff gets the Twilight Zone treatment.

QuoteIf people are consistently addressing issues that they don't care about... then yeah, you've got a problem.  But it's not a problem that the game system caused.  It would have been with you in any game system.  Capes just makes it screamingly obvious from the moment you start playing.

I'm not sure that's accurate.  It doesn't require a tremendously dysfunctional group to wind up in the situation.  If the group is a total bunch of goobers...then sure...no system will help.  But if the group is a perfectly normal collection of people who will occassionally disagree and need something to lean on to help them arbitrate then just about every system helps with that.  Having a GM arbitrate may very well be a crutch.  Perhaps even an antiquated solution that is no longer required...but it worked.  I fear with Capes that you've removed the crutch without replacing it with anything else.  Uni (which I keep bringing up only through obvious familiarity) removed the crutch of the GM too...but it replaced it with several other support mechanisms.  You've taken a key support away and not given an alternative...so yes...to that extent it is a problem the game system caused.  

QuoteOn the surface, without playing, I have to concur with the notion that omnipotence renders even the most dramatic narrations trivial.

Isn't omnipotent narration the default state for the GM in almost every other RPG ever created?  Do you think GM narrations are all trivial, or is there a difference?[/quote]

The difference I would see (and which others have already noted) is that ideally the GM is a "referee".  His sole reward for play is to acknowledged as a "Great GM" by his players.  The rules will often also provide guidelines and text that outline recommended limits to the GMs power which the GM will typically abide by.  If the Fireball is said to have a 30 foot radius...most GMs won't arbitrarily announce that this one only has a 10 foot radius so the magic user missed half of the orcs.  Capes has no rules for anything other than the mechanism to win and claim conflicts.  The rest is up to player imagination...but imagination without contraint.

Quote from: ValamirPerhaps Capes would benefit from a positive reinforcing mechanism like Fan Mail from PTA or Gift Dice from TSOY.

In addition to Story Tokens, you mean?

Quote

QuoteIsn't omnipotent narration the default state for the GM in almost every other RPG ever created?  Do you think GM narrations are all trivial, or is there a difference?

The difference I would see (and which others have already noted) is that ideally the GM is a "referee".  His sole reward for play is to acknowledged as a "Great GM" by his players.  The rules will often also provide guidelines and text that outline recommended limits to the GMs power which the GM will typically abide by.  If the Fireball is said to have a 30 foot radius...most GMs won't arbitrarily announce that this one only has a 10 foot radius so the magic user missed half of the orcs.

If I read this correctly, this is all about motivation.  Adherence to the recommended limits is just a tool to secure your goal ("Great GM" status).

Yes, you could make a Fireball distribute party favors instead of damage, but it would in no way benefit your goal in the game, so you don't.  Problem solved.  Is that what you're saying?

QuoteCapes has no rules for anything other than the mechanism to win and claim conflicts.  The rest is up to player imagination...but imagination without contraint.

And now I'm confused again.  Capes provides people motivation to tailor their narration in ways that are interesting and engaging to the other players.  Which I think is what you're describing as the only real formative influence on GM narration as well.  So why is further constraint necessary in this case, but not in the case of the GM?

And what does any of this have to do with whether the narration is important or trivial?  How does narration become more trivial based on the motivation of the person narrating it?

Quote from: TonyLB

Quote from: ValamirPerhaps Capes would benefit from a positive reinforcing mechanism like Fan Mail from PTA or Gift Dice from TSOY.

In addition to Story Tokens, you mean?

Again, hard to comment conclusively without actual play, but if I understand the rules right, Story Tokens 1) aren't rewarded until after a goal resolves, 2) only if debt was staked by the winner, and 3) only to opposition.  I don't know how frequently goals resolve without debt having been staked in practice, so I can't speak to #2.  But for #1...generally rewards are most effective when they are granted in close proximity to the event that earned them and for #3 sometimes the person you want to reward would be on your own "side".  Also, something I'm not clear on...if there is only 1 player who opposed you do they automatically get all of the story tokens...even if the awarding player thought the job they did opposing was poor?

All of which is to say that I'm a bit fuzzy on how effective a positive reinforcing tool Story Tokens are in practice.

QuoteIf I read this correctly, this is all about motivation.  Adherence to the recommended limits is just a tool to secure your goal ("Great GM" status).
Yes, you could make a Fireball distribute party favors instead of damage, but it would in no way benefit your goal in the game, so you don't.  Problem solved.  Is that what you're saying?

But it does benefit your goal in the game.  You've set the players up in competition with each other.  So my goal as a player is to win...to beat you.  You've created an RPG that has alot of board game like elements...but board games are built around constraints.  In Chess I can move my bishop anywhere I want EXCEPT that 1) it has to be diagonally, 2) I can't pass through any other pieces, 3) I have to stop when I enter a space with an opponent's piece, and 4) that opponents piece is eliminated and my turn is over.  So freedom...PLUS...contraints.  That's what enables competition to function.

Just like Chess wouldn't be worth playing if on the first turn I could pick up my rook and knock over your king and declare myself the winner...so omnipotent narration without contraint winds up being trivial.

In a way you've designed Capes with a built in meta level premise.  "Given absolutely power as a player what would you do with it".  I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who once said "if you want to judge a man's character, give him a little bit of power and see what he does with it".  

So in that sense, Capes is a great social experiment.  I can see a room full of players being given omnipotent narration power while men in white coats observe them from behind mirrors to see which of them, like James, exercise restraint, which go into crazy chaos mode, and which pretend to play it straight and then pull out the abusive narration tricks at strategically effective times.  Great commentary on the nature of man...but is that the best way to design a game?

QuoteCapes has no rules for anything other than the mechanism to win and claim conflicts.  The rest is up to player imagination...but imagination without contraint.

QuoteAnd now I'm confused again.  Capes provides people motivation to tailor their narration in ways that are interesting and engaging to the other players.

Ok...what ways?  How does the game reward me for making my narration interesting?  How does it punish me if I don't?  


I'm not sure you can successfully have a game where you expect players to be "out for blood" AND expect them to rely on Bill and Ted's advice to "be excellent to each other" to guide their choices.  Out for blood means out for blood.  Expecting them to just play nice with each and not narrate stupid stuff seems pretty incompatible to me.  

QuoteWhich I think is what you're describing as the only real formative influence on GM narration as well.  So why is further constraint necessary in this case, but not in the case of the GM?

I'm not sure I follow you Tony.  It IS required in the case of the GM.  I thought that was clear in my examples.  There's a reason why rules give limits for how much damage a Fireball does.  There's a reason why rules give explanations of the standards the GM should use when adjucating results.  One could easily argue that all RPG rules are nothing BUT additional contraints on what the GM can say.  No GM in the history of traditional roleplaying has ever had the sort of omnipotent ability to narrate that you've given players in Capes...ever.  The rule book has always served the role of "court of appeals" for players to turn to if the GM's narration gets too squirrely.  In Uni the Challenge and Complication mechanics serve as teh "court of appeals".  What serves as the court of appeals in Capes?

QuoteAnd what does any of this have to do with whether the narration is important or trivial?  How does narration become more trivial based on the motivation of the person narrating it?

My character is a 98 pound weakling.  I narrate picking up the Hulk, spinning him around on my hand and tossing him into the sun.  The Hulk's player narrates him jumping off of the sun, landing on my head back on Earth and driving me down through the planet so I come up in China.

Those are pretty amazing feats of super powered badosity...except that the fact that alls I had to do to accomplish it was say it and it happened, and all the other player had to do was say something else...niether of us had to work for it.  Neither had to demonstrate our creative mastery by achieveing our goals within a set of constraints.  

Its basic psychology.  If I have to work for it, I appreciate getting it more.  Simply saying anything I want isn't work...there's nothing to appreciate.  Its trivial.

I'm personally a bit worried by the claim that free narration making other players care about conflicts is vital to the game.  If that really is the case, isn't there the risk that the game will become solved, with whichever player is the best persuader winning all the conflicts every time?

The problem, I think, is that the conflicts in Capes aren't necessarily meant for resolving actual conflicts between players!  This is because by even starting one you're actually doing the other players a favour - by giving them a chance to get involved and use the rule system - as opposed to just free-narrating whatever controversial thing you wanted to do, in which case nobody could have stopped you.  

The exception is if you throw a Goal on another player as an attack, but that slows down both of you which might not be worth it.  After all, if you create the Goal of "destroying the villains' underground base", then you will take several turns to play it out, in which time the other heroes have destroyed the villain's space station, moon base, oil rig and submarine because they - not using conflicts - only took one turn per destruction.

(And yes, the villains can rebuild those bases instantly but, as far as I can tell, they can do the same with the Goal-destroyed underground base.  As soon as the Goal is resolved and the card is off the table they can free-narrate the base right back again.)

Looking at it from subtractive theory, Capes doesn't subtract anything from the game experience unless the players want it to, which means it's "DWYL-or-maybe-not".  Since the objective is to cut the sucky bits out of DWYL, how it plays is going to depend on how well the players identify what needs to be subtracted..

Quote from: Valamir...if I understand the rules right, Story Tokens 1) aren't rewarded until after a goal resolves, 2) only if debt was staked by the winner, and 3) only to opposition.  I don't know how frequently goals resolve without debt having been staked in practice, so I can't speak to #2.  But for #1...generally rewards are most effective when they are granted in close proximity to the event that earned them and for #3 sometimes the person you want to reward would be on your own "side".  Also, something I'm not clear on...if there is only 1 player who opposed you do they automatically get all of the story tokens...even if the awarding player thought the job they did opposing was poor?

I believe you understand the rules correctly here.

Quote from: hyphz...the villains can rebuild those bases instantly but, as far as I can tell, they can do the same with the Goal-destroyed underground base.  As soon as the Goal is resolved and the card is off the table they can free-narrate the base right back again.

You are correct on this.

In the online game I'm setting up, I'm proposing a house rule:

"What a goal creates, only a goal can destroy, and vice versa."

Quote from: ValamirAll of which is to say that I'm a bit fuzzy on how effective a positive reinforcing tool Story Tokens are in practice.

Yeah, you are.  But let's take this one item at a time, okay?  Grant me, for the moment, that Story Tokens work exactly as I've said they do:

• You only get them by providing adversity to other players, expressed by contesting a Conflict
  
• You only get them when the other players care about that adversity, find it interesting and find it challenging
  
• You only get them when you let the other players get what they care about in-game (in short, when your character loses)
  
• You want them, always[/list:u]If you grant all those things (which I'm prepared to explain, but later) I hope that you will see that, taken together, they address the issues you've been raising about constraint and freedom.
  
  Specifically:  Yes, any narration that has no bearing on either (a) earning Story Tokens or (b) winning a Conflict is trivial.  Worse, it's counter-productive.  It bleeds interest away from what you're doing, and lets other people swoop in and take the Story Tokens you would otherwise have earned.  Then you're marginalized (as well you should be!) until you figure out how to attract the interest of the other players again.
  
  It is no different from a GM describing the tribal customs of goblins, when all the players want to do is to kill them as quickly as possible.  It has no bearing on your goal of convincing the other players you're a "Great GM."  Indeed, it will work directly against that goal.  So you don't do it.  Why would you?
  
  Similarly, why would you decide that your 98 pound weakling can throw the Hulk into the sun?  Well, here are a few good reasons:
  • You have a story you want to tell about why that is possible
    
  • There is a conflict it has bearing on ("Goal:  Prove Hulk Stronger than little man!"), in which case of course constraints abound
    
  • You hope that this will make some other player or players more interested in adversity that you are providing them, so as to earn you Story Tokens[/list:u]That last one is tricky, but essential.  Probably half the decisions I make about narration are motivated by that factor.  Worthy of an example.

    QuoteKid Virtue has introduced "Goal:  Decide who is team leader."
    
    Intergalactic is an all-powerful member of the team.  His player wants to make Kid Virtue care more about the conflict he's introduced.  So he throws the Hulk into the sun.  This is (mechanically) on the "Goal:  Hulk more powerful than Intergalactic" Conflict.  But it also shows exactly the kind of leader that Intergalactic would be (i.e. a heartless, amoral, destructive one).  So it's having indirect effects on the "Team Leader" conflict as well.
    
    If Kid Virtue's player was considering making an argument along the lines of "Leadership shouldn't be about just power, but about how you use that power," he is now much more likely to go with that argument.  The conflict is now more interesting, both to him and to Intergalactic's player.
    
    The narration has helped to draw the battle-lines clearly and compellingly.  That directly serves the goals of Intergalactic's player, and also makes for a good story.

    Set aside your speculation about how the system might work for a moment.  This is how the system does work, in every single one of the dozens of sessions I've played.  Do you see how the Story Token reward mechanic informs and shapes all of that, without need for additional constraints?

Quote from: TonyLB

Quote from: ValamirAll of which is to say that I'm a bit fuzzy on how effective a positive reinforcing tool Story Tokens are in practice.

Yeah, you are.  But let's take this one item at a time, okay?  Grant me, for the moment, that Story Tokens work exactly as I've said they do:

• You only get them by providing adversity to other players, expressed by contesting a Conflict
  
• You only get them when the other players care about that adversity, find it interesting and find it challenging
  
• You only get them when you let the other players get what they care about in-game (in short, when your character loses)
  
• You want them, always[/list:u]If you grant all those things (which I'm prepared to explain, but later) I hope that you will see that, taken together, they address the issues you've been raising about constraint and freedom.

Well, lets talk about that a bit.  It seems like you're assuming alot.  For instance:

1) you're assuming that someone else has declared a goal that they absolutely want to win.  This is much different from a goal where the player who created it might not have a vested interest in either outcome but just wants to "see what happens".

2) They have to want to win it because they have to be willing to stake debt on it.  Staking debt helps them win it by allowing them to split dice, and once staked its essential that the win in order to avoid backlash.  So you have to have either a goal where the player REALLY wants to win and is using Debt strategically to help them do that, or one where they're just trying to get rid of debt and now are motivated to want to win.  Either way, no debt means no story tokens, means your reinforcing mechanism is completely absent from that goal.

3) There has to be more than one party opposing the goal.  If I'm the only one opposing it, than I get the story tokens regardless of how interesting my involvement was (or am I wrong on that?).  So again...the motivating factor is lessoned.

4) What happens when an ally of the player provides token opposition and then the player decides to award the ally all of the Story Tokens for game strategy reasons.  I provided the opposition, I provided good opposition.  I worked my ass off to give you a great interesting fight.  But you go ahead and award the Story Tokens to your friend who did only the minimum necessary to qualify for them, and he does the same for you.  

This probably won't "break" the game because the Story Tokens are themselves an interesting effective game resource like Supply Centers in Diplomacy to be conquered and captured by fair means or foul.  But it would appear to lesson their suitability as a reward / motivating factor.  In fact several of your examples in previous threads seem to imply that swooping in with superior tactical play to swipe a bunch of Story Tokens out from under someone elses nose is a laudable game strategy.  I agree that it seems like a lot of fun...but it definitely changes your ability to think of them like a reward earned for appreciated play.  They seem to become a reward earned for tactically smart play.



[Intergalactic example]

That's a great example of how a player self motivated to create sensible logical conflict (like yourself) would proceed.  Its examples like that that make ME really excited about Capes.  The problem (potential for problem) is there is nothing (I can see) that motivates players to play in a sensible logical manner like you just did in the example.

Lets twist around your example a bit.  Lets not have Intergalactic be an "all powerful" hero whose abilities everyone understands to be on par with the Hulk (so that descriptions of the battling each other appear sensible).  Lets replace Intergalactic with Little Stevie the 12 year old non super powered paper boy.

I'm playing Little Stevie and I'm feeling kind of punchy.  So I create a goal "Prove Little Stevie is stronger than the Hulk".  Now this is the point where most super hero games would simply veto it.  It would be impossible for Little Stevie to ever best the Hulk in a feat of strength period.  But Capes doesn't have such contraints.  So I activate my "Really Thick Glasses" attribute to roll up Little Stevie's side of the Conflict. I succeed with a 5 and narrate 12 year old Stevie hurling the Hulk into the Sun.

"Really Thick Glasses"?  What the hell does eyewear have to do with throwing the Hulk into the sun?  Who knows...I don't need to care because I don't need to justify the attribute I use.  Its up to the winner of the conflict to retro fit any attribute I care to use.  Wait till you see what I narrate when I activate Little Stevie's 10-speed bike.  Of course it can travel light speed.  Alls I have to do is make my d6 roll and narrate whatever I want.  Then when you win the conflict you're stuck coming up with some explanation for it.  I also have a toad in my pocket and I've memorized all of the stats for all of the players on my little league team (according to attributes on my home made "Paper Boy" Click and Lock.  Who knew that reciting those stats backwards would open a tear in the space time continuum...but I can narrate that because there's absolutely nothing in Capes requiring my narration to be even moderately reasonable.

Neither side has any debt assigned, so there are no Story Tokens at stake.  I couldn't care whether I win or lose this conflict because Little Stevie was just some throw away character I created to screw with the Hulk, and there's absolutely nothing another player can do to stop me except waste Story Tokens to veto...since I can say outrageous things for free and you can only stop me with a Token...that's a losing exchange right there.  In fact, the "out for blood" aspect of the game is pretty much motivating me to INTENTIONALLY try to draw a veto so I gain story power on a relative number of Tokens basis.


No other RPG comes to mind where a player can do this AND get away with it with impunity.  In any traditional game the GM would simply say "No that's stupid Ralph, it doesn't happen, you lose your turn for being a dick.  Tony what are you doing".  In Universalis the other players would collectively say the same thing, and with Challenge and Fines conspire to keep me dirt poor and ineffective until I agreed to play nice.  

Other than suck it up and take it and plot some way of reversing all of my sillyness on your turn...how does Capes handle this.  What rules are in place that can be called upon to prevent this behavior?  What rules are in place to reward me for not engaging in this behavior?  

In another game simply relying on the players to be mature and play nice with each other might work.  But once you inject the game with board game sensibilities that arguement goes out the window.  All is fair in a board game (unless specifically prohibited by the rules)

QuoteIntergalactic is an all-powerful member of the team.  His player wants to make Kid Virtue care more about the conflict he's introduced.  So he throws the Hulk into the sun.  This is (mechanically) on the "Goal:  Hulk more powerful than Intergalactic" Conflict.  But it also shows exactly the kind of leader that Intergalactic would be (i.e. a heartless, amoral, destructive one).  So it's having indirect effects on the "Team Leader" conflict as well.

If Kid Virtue's player was considering making an argument along the lines of "Leadership shouldn't be about just power, but about how you use that power," he is now much more likely to go with that argument.  The conflict is now more interesting, both to him and to Intergalactic's player.

The narration has helped to draw the battle-lines clearly and compellingly.  That directly serves the goals of Intergalactic's player, and also makes for a good story.

I actually disagree with your conclusion.  Its a great example.  But the narration didn't do squat to help draw the battle lines.   Kid Virtue's player is no more motivated to not support Intergalactic than he was before.  It plays out that way in the transcript because that's the context you chose to present it in.  But in actual play when the playe of Kid is deciding which side of the conflict to roll for or against...nothing in Intergalactics action has any bearing on which is the best choice from a tactical perspective.



By comparison, let me suggest two simple rules that change that:
1) Any use of an attribute to roll a die up or down is subject to the acceptance of the other players by majority vote based on how well the acting player can justify its appropriateness.
2) Any narration can create a temporary situational attribute that can be used to roll a conflict up or down subject to group approval as above.

NOW watch what happens.  Intergalactic's player throws the Hulk into the Sun and creates the temporary attribute "Intergalactic Demonstrates his amoral qualities".  Then Kid Virtue may well be motivated to call upon that attribute to roll for his "Decide Group Leader" Goal.  His motivation is that its an attribute that won't be blocked and whose use doesn't generate debt.  Its a freebie, so why not use it.  And do to the need to justify its use, it would have to be used in a way that the other players find consistant with the Kid being confronted by Intergalactic's amorality.

On the other hand if the Temporary Attribute was "Intergalactic demonstrates his superior fighting prowess" the justification takes on a different tone all together.

But now, the two events are tied together mechanically.

That's a throw away example, I'm not suggesting you go with those rules, but I'm trying to illustrate the difference between having the narration have both contraints (peer approval) and reinforcement (freebie attribute to use) vs. open narration with no mechanical impact.

QuoteSet aside your speculation about how the system might work for a moment.  This is how the system does work, in every single one of the dozens of sessions I've played.  Do you see how the Story Token reward mechanic informs and shapes all of that, without need for additional constraints?

I understand completely that this is how the system has worked for YOU.  You know exactly how its supposed to work and are voluntarily keeping yourself within bounds.  But I submitt that you may be experiencing a key reason why outside playtest is even more important than internal.  Vax and James's experience (on the surface) seem far more likely to represent what actual play will look like much of the time for the average gamer than your play experience because you know the game far better than anyone, have a vested interest in displaying it in its best light, and may be too close to the project to see this as a problem.


On the other hand, it might not be a problem at all.  Maybe Vax's play experiences are, in fact, the aberration and yours much more typical of how new gamers would act.  I don't know, that's why I tried to frame the discussion as questions rather than criticisms.  So the last questions I'll leave you with for this post are:

"why not have some contraints"  What does the game gain from having narration be completely open and boundaryless that it would lose from having limitations on what can be narrated...and why is that more valuable.  and secondly...

"from a business stand point where perception is often as important as reality, is that benefit worth having to have this discussion, or is this something that perhaps would be an example of where discretion is the better part of valor and make a concession to gamer expectation" [that's not a trick question, BTW, I have no predetermined answer I think would be right for you in asking]

Let me see if I'm correctly interpreting your points:[list=a]

• Story Tokens don't reinforce quality play, because there is nothing in the system that provides a meaningful landscape of subjective choices, and
  
• Narration doesn't provide a meaningful landscape of subjective choices, because there is nothing in the system that reinforces quality play[/list:o]Is that about where you stand?  Have I missed something?

Quote from: ValamirI understand completely that this is how the system has worked for YOU.  You know exactly how its supposed to work and are voluntarily keeping yourself within bounds.  But I submitt that you may be experiencing a key reason why outside playtest is even more important than internal.  Vax and James's experience (on the surface) seem far more likely to represent what actual play will look like much of the time for the average gamer than your play experience because you know the game far better than anyone, have a vested interest in displaying it in its best light, and may be too close to the project to see this as a problem.

Let me toss in some actual play experiences of my own. I am, admittedly, still feeling my way around the system. I also played my first couple of sessions of this with Tony himself, so I have a pretty good idea of how he plays the game.

I have run into this "unlimited" free narration issue in both games I played on my own. Each time, someone contributed narration that seemed to stick or didn't make a lot of sense. Some of the players had extremely negative reactions to the narration, openly grousing that they didn't like how another player was using a power in the narration. This didn't stop play from proceeding the way Tony generally describes it, but it had a significant impact on the SIS. I think everyone had a hard time visualizing what was going on, and several times characters ended up in what seemed like seperate scenes during the same page, bouncing back and forth between conflicts that were becoming farther and farther apart spacially. This did break the suspension of disbelief a bit, and we had a pretty difficult time retrofitting all of these actions into our SIS.

Now, this didn't really happen when I was playing with Tony. Both of the games I tried were short games with no prospects of long-term play, so the players were not that invested in their characters. Honestly, the 9-year-old kid we were playing with in one session was far more constructive in his input than the two other older players. Now some of this might be accountable to my tastes, but I do think it is something that can legitimately be brought up for Capes, and that might need a second rules look. If we had a strong comics code and had discussed what type of story we were after from the outset (which we didn't do, each session being a sort of one-shot knockoff), these problems might have been alleviated. As it was, game play wasn't too satisfying for several players.

I preface this with "I haven't played Capes."  But my comments are NOT directly aimed at Capes but instead at the issue of unrestricted narration rights.

The question has been asked why unrestricted GM narration isn't trivial while unrestricted narration on the part of any player at any time is?  The answer is simple, at least it seems to me.  The GM's narration isn't trivial because it CAN'T be immediately un-narrated out of existence.  If the GM narrates something or gives the nod to another player's narration, it becomes a fixture of SIS.  Unrestricted narration rights by all players makes narration trivial because anything and everything can immediately be undone by anyone at their whim.  Nothing is a true fixture of the SIS.

With the right group, unrestricted narration rights probably works great.  But I can see problems arising if you are playing something like a Convention game where your ability to pick and choose the right players is hampered.  Personally, I would be more comfortable with some sort of mechanic that gave some cement to narrated elements of the SIS in play.  I don't think I'd like my SIS to be in that much of a state of flux that unrestricted narration could create.

Quote from: TonyLBLet me see if I'm correctly interpreting your points:[list=a]

• Story Tokens don't reinforce quality play, because there is nothing in the system that provides a meaningful landscape of subjective choices, and
  
• Narration doesn't provide a meaningful landscape of subjective choices, because there is nothing in the system that reinforces quality play[/list:o]Is that about where you stand?  Have I missed something?

Honestly I don't know.  I'm having trouble parsing your summary.


If I were to attempt to summarize my points myself I'd say something like:

1) Since gaining Story Tokens seems to have a very strong tactical element, I'm unsure how effective they are at motivating desired behavior.  They are clearly a reward, but they are not purely a behavioral reward.  They seem to reward clever gamesmanship as much (more?) as catering to the desires of your fellow players.

2) As a general rule there are some very good reasons for players to have the ability to appeal to a higher authority.  In games without a GM and without a book full of details situational rules that higher authority is typically found in some combination of the other players, and / or a game resource, and / or very specific rules that limit a player's choice of actions (like the Violence vs. Villainy choice in MLwM).  Such appeals are not necessary just for dysfunctional groups (they often won't work anyway with dysfunctional groups) but rather to get functional groups smoothly through points of disagreement without disrupting play.

My position is a) Capes is hard to learn, b) Capes is not broken. I have seen the mechanisms Tony descibes in action. Works like a charm.

I have noticed in a lot of the play examples where people are experiencing problems, there is no Comics Code in effect. As Doug pointed out, (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15090&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15) the Comics Code is effectively the only written social contract. I'd suggest that the Comics Code is not optional. Simple things like "You can't kill innocents," and "You can't destroy the world," remove a lot of the more offensive possibilities.

Ralph, the game pays you (in Story Tokens) for letting the other player win the conflict he cares about. How do you know he cares about it? Because he just risked taking double Debt to split the die. Does that explain the economy better?

The paper boy example would probably fail, because non-supers don't get Debt to stake. So any super could trounce his goals if he cared enough to do so.

It seems like a lot of these issues are coming down to "Well somebody could do such and such..." Sure, but they don't. Why would they do something goofy like that? Is that really the story they are interested in telling? (I suppose.) Are the other players also interested in telling that story? (Doubtful.)

(We are all clear here that the game is not about my guy clobberin' your guy, right? )

Winning in Capes means telling the story you want to tell. You can only tell the story you want if the other players do not strongly object. If you go burning your bridges with irritating narration, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

I wanna see how this game plays with non-gamers. I'm starting to suspect a lot of this is ingrained gamer think.

Quote from: GaerikThe question has been asked why unrestricted GM narration isn't trivial while unrestricted narration on the part of any player at any time is?  The answer is simple, at least it seems to me.  The GM's narration isn't trivial because it CAN'T be immediately un-narrated out of existence.  If the GM narrates something or gives the nod to another player's narration, it becomes a fixture of SIS.

Interesting.  Would that imply that in a game with a (potentially) all-powerful GM, the narration of a player is trivial, until ratified by the GM?

Ralph:  Cool.  Pardon my human weakness, but I find that much easier to parse than the longer posts.

I agree in part with #1:  The behavior being motivated is more complex than simply catering to the desires of the other players.  You are being motivated to game the system, as you said.

But, as you've also noted, the decisions of other players are a part of that system.  I'll add that there is mechanical feedback showing the state of each player's mind at most steps.

• What conflicts is Player A interested in?  Look where his Debt is staked, and you know.
  
• How much does he want to win it?  Well, is he spending Story Tokens on it?  Inspirations?
  
• What manner of conflict, if created, would secure his interest?  What Drives has he got Debt sitting on?[/list:u]Given that these things are objectively on the table, I don't think it's possible to draw a sharp dichotomy between "strategic thinking" and "creative/interpersonal thinking."  Do you disagree?
  
  
  I think we're both in agreement that the Conflict system is an attempt to directly address #2, yes?  The ability to define any Conflict, and then use it by way of the Not-Yet rule provides what I like to call "put up or shut up" authority.  You can apply an absolute constraint, and it gives you opportunities, but it costs you something (i.e. your action).  You do it only when (a) it's likely to earn more than it costs or (b) the narrative control is worth the resource-loss.
  
  Before I start going on about the differences between our opinions of Conflicts as a constraint tool, can you tell me whether you also think we're both in agreement on the above point?

Quote from: MiskatonicSimple things like "You can't kill innocents," and "You can't destroy the world," remove a lot of the more offensive possibilities.

I think this is very true.  When we started our time-travel game, we had an interesting little chat about this.  Went roughly like this:

Quote from: Chrysalis Actual PlayMe:  So, killing innocents is against our Comics Code, right?
Eric:  I don't think so.  Should it be?
Me:  Errr... okay, I guess not, if you'd rather not.  I can adapt to that.
Sydney:  But we can't destroy the entire time-space continuum.
Me:  Well, why not?  It's not that big a step beyond letting an innocent die.
Sydney:  But... but where would we tell the story after that?
Eric:  I'm sure we'd figure something out.
Me:  But we can't kill spotlight characters, right?
Sydney:  Oh no!  Of course not!
Eric:  That would just be wrong.
Me:  Whereas destroying the universe is good clean fun, because we can always get it back.  Got it!

It was quite enlightening.  I would (myself) have wrongly assumed that innocents were protected.  That could have led to some very uncomfortable moments (possibly even hard feelings) when I was disabused of that notion.

So we're playing with a Comics Code that has almost nothing in it.  But we're not playing without a Comics Code.  There's no ambiguity about what is allowed and what isn't.  I know that my character very much can be scooped up by a temporal portal and whisked off to the paleozoic, without anyone so much as asking a "by your leave."

Quote from: TonyLBGiven that these things are objectively on the table, I don't think it's possible to draw a sharp dichotomy between "strategic thinking" and "creative/interpersonal thinking."  Do you disagree?

Not sure.  Let me try a slightly different angle.

Premise:  Narration that is reasonable and sensible is preferable to narration that is absurd or ridiculous (for group social contract definitions of those words).

The Story Token mechanic does a very good job of making me as a player interested in the same conflicts that you as a player are interested in...that's where the debt is, so that's where the Story Tokens are to be had.

Therefor, I'm motivated to get involved in that conflict as the opposition and rely on your desire to win to generate Story Coins for me...granted and agreed.

By opposition this means I take a stab at rolling up the other side of the conflict or rolling down your side and when I do so I get to take a turn narrating.

What then are the factors you see in the game that will influence me to choose reasonable and sensible narration over absurd and ridiculous narration?

Now comes the more important question.  I've started with the extreme case (absurd and ridiculous)  because its easier to illustrate, but the real day to day practical application comes not when I'm being a dick with my narration, but when my image of what is going on is so different from yours that what appears reasonable and sensible to me (based on my honest image) appears absurd and ridiculous to you (based on your honest image).  So here we have 2 fair minded, quality players, both committed to mutual enjoyment in the game who have a disagreement on that narration...how does Capes resolve that disagreement in a manner that doesn't alienate you given your distaste for what I narrated?  

Currently what I've heard is that you're stuck with it...tough noogies.  But I find that disatisfying because you had no ability to do anything about it.  Its my turn, you can't stop me from rolling on that conflict.  The best you can do (it would seem) is hope that someone else gets involved on the opposing side that you can award the Story Tokens to instead of me as a way of expressing your disatisfaction with my narration after the fact.

This situation is exasperated if I don't really care about the goal or the narration but just jumped in as a way to snag some easy Story Tokens and gave only a moment's thought to putting together my narration.  That seems to be a perfectly reasonable action for me to take...the game seems to encourage that sort of tactical thinking.  But again, there's no way for you as a player to express your malcontent with whatever I came up with.

Quote
I think we're both in agreement that the Conflict system is an attempt to directly address #2, yes?  The ability to define any Conflict, and then use it by way of the Not-Yet rule provides what I like to call "put up or shut up" authority.  You can apply an absolute constraint, and it gives you opportunities, but it costs you something (i.e. your action).  You do it only when (a) it's likely to earn more than it costs or (b) the narrative control is worth the resource-loss.

Well, I can see where its an attempt to do that, but I don't think its a very complete one.  First, the only right of appeal having defined the issue as a conflict gives me is right to prevent the stated goal from occuring until the conflict is resolved, and the ability to fight for the right to resolve it.  But what it doesn't address is the interrim steps.  The rules still don't grant me any ability to appeal to a higher authority over your specific narration


Second it requires me to have a preconceived notion of where I want the ability to appeal and to have had the forsight to define that as a Conflict in advance.  It doesn't give me any ability to react to something you come up with out of the blue that isn't contained within a Conflict.  So yes I could create a Goal for the Hulk that says "The Hulk doesn't get knocked around by anyone"  That would prevent another player from narrating tossing the Hulk into the Sun because he's prevented from resolving the goal (an effective use of contraint).  But that doesn't help me if the absurd ridiculous thing the other player came up with, was something that doesn't fall within the purview of that goal.  Further it means that I'd need to have 2-3 goals like this EVERY single scene just to protect the hulk from being violated in a manner I deem unappropriate.

So, I don't really think the Conflict system (as I understand it) does a particularly good job of addressing #2.  There is only one specific point in the game where it serves as a court of appeals and that is the prohibition of resolving a goal through narration.  That's the only set of circumstances where I have any recourse if you say something I don't like.  

I think of a game like Polaris where 1 player represents the character and the one across from him represents the opposition.  The two other players (called the moons) serve as a modest form of court of appeals.  They have certain aspects of the game over which they have authority (for that particular player/antagonist) including the ability to judge when a trait is appropriate to call upon.

Quote from: ValamirNow comes the more important question.  I've started with the extreme case (absurd and ridiculous)  because its easier to illustrate, but the real day to day practical application comes not when I'm being a dick with my narration, but when my image of what is going on is so different from yours that what appears reasonable and sensible to me (based on my honest image) appears absurd and ridiculous to you (based on your honest image).  So here we have 2 fair minded, quality players, both committed to mutual enjoyment in the game who have a disagreement on that narration.

Sure!  It wouldn't be a group activity if everybody thought the same way.

My question in return is this:  Why does it matter that they're doing something that you disagree with?

Now I know... I know... that you can't give a general answer for that.  There is no general answer.  But I would argue that there is always a specific answer.  And that if you can figure out what that specific answer is, in this specific case, your game-play will be much the better for it.

See, for reference, [Capes] The power of explicit conflicts (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14588) which is about precisely this issue.

QuoteCurrently what I've heard is that you're stuck with it...tough noogies.

If you can't figure out what you're actually worried about then yes the answer is tough noogies.  Because if you have any other out, you'll use it before taking a good, hard look inside of your own head and figuring out what, specifically, you're upset about.

Does that make sense?

Do you feel that there are actually situations where players cannot agree on a contribution to the game, but where no specific personal agendas of any sort are at stake?

Quote from: MiskatonicI'd suggest that the Comics Code is not optional. Simple things like "You can't kill innocents," and "You can't destroy the world," remove a lot of the more offensive possibilities.

I am coming to believe that a properly set up comics code is important.

Tony, when you run your ongoing game, do you have a comics code?

Yeah, I posted about it up here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=160779#160779).  It doesn't have very much in it, but we all know that there isn't very much in it, so that's cool.

Yeah, I loved that thread.  I had it in mind when I wrote above that I could use a conflict for a preconceived defense the way you did to prevent human slaughter.  BUT having that ability DIDN'T help with the initial slaughter of humans...because it wasn't in play yet.  Instead of narrating just a few deaths the other player could have narrated that he killed every single human in a 20 mile radius.  By the time it got back to your turn...it would have been too late for your defensive conflict to matter.

That's why I suggested earlier the possibility of reaction conflicts.  The very first time he says "I'm killing  a bunch of humans" you say "lets make that a Conflict".  That way there is no occassion where he can narrate something you're completely against without recourse.  If your completely against it you can always make it a Conflict (in reaction) and stake however much debt as you want to make it stick.

A rule change that simple would go miles towards addressing all of the concerns that have been raised about unlimited omnipotent narration...because it would no longer be unlimited.  It would be limited by the degree of tolerance your fellow players have before turning it into a Conflict.

Boom...some weenie decides his 98 pound weakling is going to hurl the Hulk into the sun?  Nope...that just became a conflict.  Now there's a chance to prevent it from happening altogether.  There's a recourse in the system beyond "suck it up and take it".

I think this is completely in line with the whole Put up or Shut up mentality.  It provides an opportunity for a player to decide to Put Up where before his only option was to shut up.


As for your second point, about figuring out exactly what I'm worried about.  In many cases what I'd be worried about is some narration being so horrendously stupid that it makes me grit my teeth and fail my Suspension of Disbelief check.  Like any of a half a dozen scenes from the movie Starship Troopers that made me wonder if the writers had two brain cells to rub together.  It only takes a couple of incidents of shear absurdity to ruin a movie.  It only takes a couple of incidents of shear absurdity to ruin a game session.

When you say "if you have any other out, you'll use it" I'd love more examples of what those other outs are...because its those other outs that I'm suggesting Capes might be missing.

QuoteDo you feel that there are actually situations where players cannot agree on a contribution to the game, but where no specific personal agendas of any sort are at stake?

Not at all.  But you made it pretty clear In this post (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=160681#160681) that players aren't allowed to work out their disagreements on a contribution.  That a player doesn't have the right to say "hey that sucks, come up with something different" and even if they tried they've got nothing to pack it up with stronger than "pretty please".

99.9% of the sitatuions I'd have a problem with could absolutely be resolved...that's been my whole point, that Capes doesn't offer any mechanism for this to happen.  Even if every single other player at the table though my narration was way over the top there's nothing they can do to stop me other than simply walk away from the table and not play with me any more.

People keep mentioning the Comic Code...does it have any teeth to it?  If part of the code was "you must restrict all of your narration to activities that are actually within the realm of probability for the characters being narrated for"...is there any mechanics to enforce that on some one who chooses to ignore it?

Quote from: ValamirAs for your second point, about figuring out exactly what I'm worried about.  In many cases what I'd be worried about is some narration being so horrendously stupid that it makes me grit my teeth and fail my Suspension of Disbelief check.

Out of interest:  In this hypothetical, does the player narrating set out to do something horrendously stupid?  Or are they trying to do their best?

QuoteWhen you say "if you have any other out, you'll use it" I'd love more examples of what those other outs are...because its those other outs that I'm suggesting Capes might be missing.

• Appeal to a game master
  
• Appeal to realism
  
• Appeal to consensus
  
• Appeal to "a good story"
  
• Immediate reactive conflicts
  
• Vetoing narration[/list:u]Yes, Capes is missing those, by design.
  
  

  Quote... players aren't allowed to work out their disagreements on a contribution.  That a player doesn't have the right to say "hey that sucks, come up with something different" and even if they tried they've got nothing to pack it up with stronger than "pretty please".

  Quite right.  I mis-worded my question.  Let me try again:  "Do you feel that there is any situation where you, all on your own, cannot be comfortable with another player's contribution, and where you have no specific personal agenda involved?"
  
  

  QuotePeople keep mentioning the Comic Code...does it have any teeth to it?  If part of the code was "you must restrict all of your narration to activities that are actually within the realm of probability for the characters being narrated for"...is there any mechanics to enforce that on some one who chooses to ignore it?

  No.

The comics code is basically a codified, formalized (that is, structural) "pretty please" that the players agree to ahead of time.

Quote from: TonyLBInteresting.  Would that imply that in a game with a (potentially) all-powerful GM, the narration of a player is trivial, until ratified by the GM?

I would say yes.  It might not seem that way most of the time because most group employing an "all-powerful" GM also play by the rule that the player's narration stands unless the GM objects.  Silence means approval.  Until the GM implicitly or explicitly gives approval, the player's attempted addition to the SIS can be undone by the GM.

Now the interesting thing here is that GM (as we know) isn't a person but a collection of tasks.  Which means that the rules/mechanics of the game can be the ratifier and that player input to the SIS is trivial until ratified by the mechanics.  I think Universalis would fall into this category as there are mechanical ways for the system to veto the narration.

Sorry if I wandered there.  Just sort of talking to myself. :)

No, it's not a diversion, I think, that's very germaine.

Capes is far more GMless than even GMless games like Universalis.

Tony, -- or maybe Ralph, since he asked the question:

Is this thread concerned with all narration in Capes or just free narration outside the Conflict system?

Quote from: TonyLBOut of interest:  In this hypothetical, does the player narrating set out to do something horrendously stupid?  Or are they trying to do their best?

Ralph already answered that. I get the feeling you aren't reading through his posts. It's a Forge truism that you can't stop an abusive player, and should not try. So, no, the player does not set out to do something horrendous in this example.

Happens anyhow. All the time. In fact, if there isn't a mechanism to inform players that they should be careful, then they make more mistakes of this sort. In fact, the advantage of such rules, really, is that you rarely have to use them, and they improve everyone's play.

Now, this is the point in your rhetoric where you say, "Well, if the person is doing their best, then you should just accept that, and move on." At least you've said this a couple of times before, or things to that effect. Well, that's akin to playing in a band, and not being allowed to tell another player when his playing stinks, or even give him suggestions on how to do better.

Would you think it unreasonable to not want to be in a band that had such a rule? Consider that, very often, when you inform the player of what they've done, they do change their minds. So they really do want to hear the criticism. But sometimes it happens that two well intentioned players can't come to an agreement on what makes sense. What then?

Ah, that's right, it's never happened to you, so it'll never happen to anyone else. This is simply not true. And even if it were, some players still would prefer to know that there was a court that they could go to. In any case, if they never had to go to it, then what would be the detriment to having it?

I mean, if they never have to use the rule according to you, then why not put it in? Just in case? Anyhow, as I've said, having such a rule is informative. Rules are like the law - some wiseguy named Holmes (no, not me, the supreme court justice) said that the law is the great teacher.

It is very reasonable in a group activity to have group standards. This is why you have the comics code, no? So that the standard gets stated up front. But the way you have it, it's like having a law, but no police to bring potential infractions before the court, and no court to hear the cases.

When playing games like this, people do have disagreements. As Ralph said, they do not neccessarily occur because people mean to do harm, but because they are human and make mistakes. Or because two players have different POVs on some subject. If there is no way to iron this out when it comes up, then you're asking for critical breakdowns to occur. By which I mean events that can cause a game like this to cease being played permenantly.

Less immediately detrimental, you tell some players that they can be careless in their narration. Why not inform them otherwise?

QuoteYes, Capes is missing those, by design.

Is it that you don't want the narration to be fettered in any way by the group standard? Or just that all of the methods mentioned cause problems with other parts of the gameplay?

Quote"Do you feel that there is any situation where you, all on your own, cannot be comfortable with another player's contribution, and where you have no specific personal agenda involved?"

All people have an agenda all of the time. Even if it's just "to enjoy a game that has narration in it that makes sense to me." Ralph, Fred, myself; we're bad people because we have standards? And would like merely to have some way to express them during the game?


I will now relate an annecdote. There once were two designers named Mike and Ralph who were hacking their way through very much the same sorts of rules questions. Interestingly, they were of the opinion that far, far more rules were needed to control the flow of a game sans a GM. So they put out this huge 200 page volume of rules, and got some playtesters. All of the playtesters all told Mike and Ralph the same things, "It's too heavy, most of these rules aren't neccessary!" To which Mike and Ralph replied, "No it's not, you're just not seeing how it's supposed to be played!"

Well, Mike and Ralph were stubborn sunsabitches, and kept arguing and arguing and arguing that they'd got it right on the first time through. Til one day, they tried playing the game using some of the suggestions that the playtesters had come up with. And, lo, they understood what the playtesters were talking about. Ralph went and rewrote the game, and got it down to 86 itsy bitsy pages of rules that really accomplished the goals of the design in a way that satisfied not only their playtesters, but themselves as well.

Hey, who knows, maybe you're just smarter than all of us. But, in the case that you're actually like us, consider what I've said, and get back a couple of months of development time that you'll never get back otherwise. Just sayin'.

Mike

Holy crap, Mike. That reads like a very snide post. How's about I give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you're not being a jerk? Cuz I really don't think you mean to be.

But damn! "Rhetoric"? Tony disagrees with you and Ralph. That's not rhetoric. That's him stating his position.

And good lord, there's this:

QuoteRalph, Fred, myself; we're bad people because we have standards? And would like merely to have some way to express them during the game?

NO ONE is saying you are bad people. We are disagreeing with you. That's it, brother. I happen to think that you (and the others) are mighty fine people indeed. I'm sure Tony does too.

The cutesy story about how Mike and Ralph designed their game the right way just makes me shake my head. I mean, seriously.

Can we turn this thing down, like, 4 whole notches before moving forward?

Erm... the word "rhetoric" has some negative connotations sometimes, but it can also mean "using language persuasively" which is, I think, the sense Mike is using it here.

Quote from: Mike HolmesNow, this is the point in your rhetoric where you say, "Well, if the person is doing their best, then you should just accept that, and move on." At least you've said this a couple of times before, or things to that effect. Well, that's akin to playing in a band, and not being allowed to tell another player when his playing stinks, or even give him suggestions on how to do better.

Actually, this is the bit in my rhetoric where I say "If someone else is doing their best then maybe you need to consider the possibility that their idea is better than yours, and try to figure out why you're all upset about such a cool idea."

Sometimes a contribution is genuinely without merit.  But most of the time it's really cool, but poorly understood.  If your first instinct is to say "Oh, that's lame, therefore it's got to be stopped" then you'll never get to "That sounds lame... therefore I've probably misunderstood it, and need to think harder."

I'm glad you said that, Tony. It gets right to the heart of an aspect of Universalis that I have found hard to articulate. Several people have brought it up on the Forge before -- the idea of Uni having a kind of "alpha male" vibe going on. And I don't mean that in a derogatory way at all.

I played Universalis with a pool of regular players that was 75% female. And yet the game still had this kind of masculine vibe. I think I get it now.

In Uni, the core assumption is that everything can be challenged. Any idea might have to defend itself at any time, or be tossed aside. This is the Challenge mechanic. If I'm willing to throw in my coins, I am in a position to judge and police everything another player says during the game. My play experiences with this mechanic have been overwhelmingly positive and I think it's a fine piece of work.

But it's just... well, it's very yang. It's aggressive. Dominant. We all tell a story together, but we can fight each other tooth and nail to keep our own vision intact when we want to. It's the yang side of things.

Capes is the yin. It has a totally different core assumption. In Capes, every idea is accepted by default. It's open and receptive -- even passive in a strange way -- and asks players to shift their own perceptions rather than try to dominate.

And so we talk past each other in this discussion. "Capes is yin!" "Why can't it be yang?"

I think this is such a deep-down core feeling that it just seems "obvious" to do it one way or the other. And so we start making value judgements. Dominance is bad. Passivity is wrong. And so on.

What's obvious to me now is that these are two poles of the same issue. They each have their merits and they will not work for everyone. Maybe if we can at least stipulate that there is a yin side, and it's appealing to some players, AND that Tony is clearly going for this goal in Capes -- then maybe we can talk constructively about how it's achieving that goal and where/how to add in some yang elements for those that want them.

Couple of responses immediately come to mind with that John.  There've been several threads about the Yanginess of Uni and can accept and even endorse that.  But to suggest that Capes is Yin...that seems abit of a stretch to me.  When every aspect of the game promotes pure unadulterated competition...when Tony agrees that you can't play Capes unless you're "out for blood"...that doesn't sound very Yin to me.  

Tony's Actual Play posts are about as far from passive as one can conceive of.  Its far more "fight each other tooth and nail" than Uni is.

So, to use the Yin and Yang idea you've brought up...my concern is (and its only a concern at this point, as I've tried to emphasize several times) that Capes is, in fact, a very Yang game using a very Yin rules set.  


But even allowing that a Yin rules set can be made to work.  Allowing that there are those for whom restraints aren't necessary because they're all about the Yin vibe as players anyway...a few posts up you criticised me for speculating that the market for Capes might be pretty narrow.  But then you turn around and say that Capes is a Yin game and requires Yin sensibilities to play it.  I'm reasonably certain that Yin gamers are in a distinct minority in this hobby...so that would seem to confirm the speculation that you earlier criticised.

Quote from: TonyLBSometimes a contribution is genuinely without merit.  But most of the time it's really cool, but poorly understood.  If your first instinct is to say "Oh, that's lame, therefore it's got to be stopped" then you'll never get to "That sounds lame... therefore I've probably misunderstood it, and need to think harder."

See, this is the part that causes me to make the snarky response. Your assumption is that we must be being unreasonable. That our "first instinct" is to jump all over people. And that we really just don't take the time to think very hard about these things. That if we just were a little nicer and more thoughtful that there would never be a problem. Well, that doesn't describe myself, Fred, or Ralph all of whom I've seen in action in actual play. All three of us (and others who have joined us in objecting) are actually quite thoughtful and considerate players.

We're not talking about pandering to assholes. We're talking about two rational people on each end of the problem needing a way to arbitrate when they disagree.

You keep trivializing the problem by implying that it's a bad attitude on our part. This is saying that System Doesn't Matter, that it just depends on having players with the right attitude, and all will be well. Don't blame the design, blame the people playing for the problems that they have in play.

It's an easy pit to fall into - as I've indicated, I did it, and Ralph did it. And I've seen lots of others do it, too.

Now that doesn't mean that we're right and that you have to change the design or anything. You may well decide that it's just fine the way it is. But just realize that you may be making a game that doesn't appeal to some group of players. I can't say how large it is (though I suspect it's very large), so you'll have to judge for yourself if it's just three uppity folks making trouble.

But just consider that we're three uppity folks who have decided to take the time to give you feedback. Not because we want to put your game down, but because we believe it has lots of potential, and we think that there's a problem.

So, could you please just give us the benefit of a doubt here that we're not just being unreasonable? Try to understand the problem from our POV, perhaps?

Mike

Ralph, not to go all Alex Trebek on you, but would any of that have been difficult to phrase as a question?

I believe that you're in this to try to understand the positions of others.  I think that when you post things that (like the above post) look like "No, you're wrong!  Here's why!", you are in fact hoping that somebody will come back and say "I recognize what you're saying, but I still think I'm right, for the following reasons..." and give you useful information that may even sway your opinion.  Am I correct in that?

If I am correct then I'm a bit confused about your choice of tone.  While I have no trouble translating this:

Quote from: ValamirTony's Actual Play posts are about as far from passive as one can conceive of. Its far more "fight each other tooth and nail" than Uni is.

... into this:

Quote from: Tony rewritingTony's Actual Play posts seem very competitive.  I'm sure you are taking that into account in your theory that the game is Yin, but can you please elaborate on the seeming contradiction?

... some people might.  I'm sure that you've taken that into account, in choosing to post as you have, but can you please elaborate on why the statement/rebuttal style works better for you than question/answer?

Who knows... the differences in how we post in this thread might even shed some light on the differences in how we play RPGs.

Edit: Deleted.

I think I understand (and agree) where Tony is coming from, and I think I understand where the critics are coming from too.

Man, a session of gameplay would be enlightening. I don't know that IRC is the ideal way to do that, but it might get everyone on the same page.

Quote from: Mike HolmesSo, could you please just give us the benefit of a doubt here that we're not just being unreasonable? Try to understand the problem from our POV, perhaps?

Mike, I'm very sorry that I came across as attacking you guys personally, or your style of play generally.  That was not my intent.

I think that I do see the problem from your POV.  But I could very well be mistaken.  How about if I summarize what I see your position as being, and you can tell me whether I've got it right.  Sound good?

Mike's Position, as seen by Tony

System Matters.  Problems arise in a game, and the system either helps the players in dealing with them, or it does not.

One of the problems that comes up is when players are narrating at cross-purposes.  Capes has no adequate way to address that.  Players can (and will) address the problem, but the lack of System support will make it much harder.  And that's silly, because it's quite possible to change the system in such a way that it will help them address this problem.

Tony's responses have been unhelpful, because he is continually arguing that there is no such problem:  whether because Capes has an adequate way to address it, or because the problem doesn't arise.  His constant switching between those two defenses is a clear indication that neither defense is actually accurate.  The problem does arise, and Capes does not deal with it.

Mike, Fred and Ralph have quite reasonably and helpfully offered solutions to this known problem.  But because Tony denies the existence of the problem, he questions the motives of the people offering solutions.  He argues that only unreasonable, "bad" players would get into the problem in the first place, thus unfairly slandering the very people who are trying to help him, rather than facing the fact that other people have perfectly reasonable styles of play that differ from his.

This inability to adapt will do substantial damage to his game in the marketplace, because it will restrict its appeal to precisely those people who have his exact style of play.  A system that is more robustly tested and adapted for suiting multiple styles of play would make him more money, and have more of a positive impact on the gaming world at large.


Have I missed anything?  Misunderstood anything?

Since Mike seems to be doing a much better job of handling these sorts of situations, I'm going to let him answer this.

Quote from: Miskatonic
Man, a session of gameplay would be enlightening. I don't know that IRC is the ideal way to do that, but it might get everyone on the same page.

Actually, I think IRC is an EXCELLENT way to get actual play information, relative to this discussion.

1> You can log everything that's said

2> With a weakened social contract, you can see what would happen among a FTF group that didn't have the kind of strong social contracts that we here at the Forge are used to.

Hey Tony, I'm going to try and make this my last post for this latest series of threads because I think my repeated attempts to highlight the issue might be giving the impression that I'm dissing the game.  I'm not (and niether is Mike).  I think Capes is REALLY cool, and to whatever extent Uni may have influenced its design...thats super keen.

So I'll just try and illustrate why I perceive that there MAY be an issue here that you're not seeing.

I've played a TON of Universalis...much of that with new players.  And I've read a lot of actual play posts for Uni...many by first time players giving it a shot (several of which are in the Actual Play forum here).  If there's one trend that I've noticed is that many (very many) of those initial play posts describe very silly, very chaotic, very "all over the place" games -- often to the point of being nonsensical.  The initial conclusion of many of those reports was that the game was "A hell of alot of fun but strangely unsatisfying".

In all of those fun-but-unsatisfying games the clearest trend that I've identified was a decided lack of using Uni's steering and breaking mechanisms.  The first aspects of the game people latch on to is the ability to Create Components and then spend Coins to have them do anything they want.  Often those concepts are enough to keep them busy for the first session and the players go a little crazy stretching the limits and taking those rules out for a test drive.  But the steering mechanisms are much more subtle...more advanced techniques that are only figured out after a couple of sessions.

Interrupting and Taking Control of a Component is not often a part of the first game (or for some groups they are but for more belligerant "screw with your friends" kind of reasons).  People hesitate to Challenge and Complications are almost always engineered by the person whose turn it is.  

With experience comes advanced techniques like:  using an Interrupt to just briefly insert a small item into another player's turn to help guide narration,  Taking Control of a Component at the right time to force the other player to work with you on establishing events rather than narrating unilaterally, Initiating Complications on other players turns in reaction to what they are doing (done right this provides a pretty fine level of influence), and of course knowing when to Challenge and how to Negotiate for those things that are important to you.  Further players learn to define Traits for Components that go beyond the obvious ones into the realm of using Traits to provide guidance for how a character behaves...things other players will then have to account for in their narration.

Now I'm not suggesting Capes needs anything near this degree of "interfere with someone elses turn" capability by any means.  I offer this as background to make the following point.

New players to Uni don't know how to do any of those things.  Because they are not doing those things the narrations of the players tend to be highly unrestrained.  People say anything, narrate anything, create anything because no one is using the tools to suggest otherwise.  The end result of just about every actual play post I've read or demo to new players I've done (that didn't emphasize those tools) is that play is chaotic, bizarre, silly, and inconsistant.  Fun...but ultimately unsatisfying.

Once players start to use the Uni control techniques to subtly steer play and mechanically signal each other where they want play to go...the silliness and chaos go away and some really deep, cool, and interesting stories develop.  Much of the time the tools don't even need to be used, because just knowing that they could be serves to guide players actions.


That's the trend I've noticed in Universalis.  Play without constraints being imposed by the other players -- get nutty, wacky, silly games that are fun but not very fulfilling.  Play with the other players providing some mechanically enforceable contraints...much higher ratio of producing equally fun but much less silly and much more fulfilling games.  That doesn't mean you don't get the Really Unusual extremely creative stuff in play like you've indicated you want in Capes, however.  I think the best examples of Uni actual play prove that pretty decidedly.


So when I see players like Fred and James and Brennan indicate that their games were a little too wacky; and while fun weren't very fulfilling...and I hear in the discussions that Capes has virtually no ability for other players to provide any mechanically enforceable constraints...I feel like I understand the issue pretty intimately.  Because its the EXACT same thing that happens time and time again with Uni.

The difference is that Uni does provide those mechanically enforceable contraints and once players learn to use them they can keep their games from devolving into chaos (if they want to, sometimes chaos is fun).  Since Capes DOESN'T provide any such tools, my worry is that for the majority of players out there (gamer or non gamer I don't think matters because it hasn't with Uni) they'll be stuck in wacky, silly, fun-but-unsatisfying mode with no tools to help them get out.


That's why I raise it as an issue and a concern.  Maybe that problem won't materialize and I'm projecting issues that don't apply to Capes.  Maybe you're perfectly happy with wacky silly fun games and feel no need to have more "serious" play.  But that's where I'm coming from.  That's why I felt like sharing some of the "wisdom" my experience with 3 years of Uni play has provided.

Ultimately, of course, its your game...I won't feel you "screwed it up" regardless.  I just wanted to bring it to your attention.  For what ever reason we seem to have difficulty in communicating with each other, so these threads wound up going around and around much more than they really needed to.

But that's what I wanted to convey...I think I've explained it as clearly as I'm able, and I think you've heard what I'm saying now, so my job here at this point is done unless you have some further points you want to discuss.

Thanks Ralph.  I would add that in the games that I have played, the dynamic was a little different, in that I recognized that the chaos was a definite possibility, and held back from it rather than let the game devolve... and it was unsatisfying in a different way.

Wow, cool!  I think I knew all of that stuff about your position, but I didn't have the emotional context that your history provides.  It makes it much easier to read... I went back to a few old posts and I could easily (in hindsight) say "Ah, yes, so this paragraph is the meat of what he's saying, while this one is just an example to make things clear."  Thanks!

I'm tempted to jump on the bandwagon, and explain my own emotional context on this.  But that'll take some time to get clear in my own head.

Tony, your understanding of our position seems pretty clear from the post you gave summarizing it. But I was pretty sure you were smart enough to understand it, that you did understand it. But you still haven't addressed the position. Other than, previously, to be dismissive (or at least seem that way).

Also, note that if you think that Ralph is just projecting, consider that it's not Ralph's opinion, or mine for that matter, that matter here. It's Fred's. His play of the game is at least one independent verification of what we're talking about. Fred didn't know how Ralph or I "felt" about it. So this is not just a projection on our parts, but Ralph and I observing actual data of the problematic phenomenon in question.

Only one data point, yes. But worth considering.

Mike

Okay, Mike, can I ask you to summarize my position, as you see it?  Because I suspect that we have a disconnect, but I can't see quite where it's happening.

Apollogies for the briefness, but I think we've been over this. It seems to me that your position is:

OK, I see what you guys are saying, but it's just not a problem in actual play if you are just try to accept the play of the other players.

Mike

Wow... that's... that's wearying, is what it is.

I don't see how a reasonable, intelligent person could support that position as stated.  Do you?

You seem to be saying that either 1> Mike's description doesn't adequately describe your position or 2> You're not a reasonable, intelligent person.

I doubt 2 is accurate.

QuoteI don't see how a reasonable, intelligent person could support that position as stated. Do you?

This threatens to put me in an untennable position. I now either have to say that you are stupid and unreasonable, or I have to say that I have not tried to understand your argument, or am arguing disingenously.

None of this is true, however. If your position is otherwise than I've stated it, then perhaps I've simply misunderstood. I'm willing to try to understand your point, if you're willing to try to make it again (or point me to what I've missed).

Mike

Actually, you don't have to say either of those things.  The question was "Do you see how a reasonable, intelligent person could support that position as stated?"

If you can answer "Yes," then you don't have to make the other choice.  Your summary is your best understanding of my argument, an argument that you think a reasonable person could make.  You respect my opinion, have tried to understand it within the bounds of that respect, and this is the result.  That would be fine.  I'd be thrilled and relieved.  We could talk about how we've miscommunicated, and move forward.

But if you can't answer "Yes"... if you see on the face of it that the summary you gave was the argument of an idiot, then yeah you're in an untenable position.  But I didn't put you there.  I just pointed it out.

Mike might be trying to say this:  "I must be misunderstanding your position, because you seem to feel that the position I stated is an irrational one."

Yes, Fred, that's the important part. I've very willing to forget the rest of the subtext of this discussion.

Mike

Mike, it's not subtext.  It's text.

What I think about your summary is secondary.  What do you think about your summary of my position?  Is it a rational, reasonable position?

Currently, I think the position indicated by the summary is incorrect (FWIW), but I now think that it must not be your position because you seem to think that it's irrational. Since I think you are rational, and would only proffer a position that you feel is rational, it must not be your position.

So I'm waiting for your correction to my misunderstanding of your position.

QuoteWhat I think about your summary is secondary.

Well, actually at this point it's the only thing that I'm interested in. That is, whether the summary is correct, and, if not, how so.


Mike

I think Mike is trying to be polite, and not say that he thinks it is an irrational position.  

Tony, you seem to be trying to force him into admitting it, but that can't be right, because that would be rude, and I've never known you to act that way.

(edited for increased politeness)

Quote from: VaxalonI think Mike is trying to be polite, and not say that he thinks it is an irrational position.  

No, to be quite clear, I don't haven't stated or implied any position as to the rationality of the position stated in the summary, and don't really care.

I do believe that Tony is rational, and have never implied anything else. If by your definition of rational that means that he only makes rational arguments, well, then I must think that the position I stated is rational, because I attributed it to Tony. In point of fact, I do think it's a rational argument (though incorrect).

I just fail to see how any of this matters to the subject at hand.

Mike

So the answer to Tony's question upthread is "Yes"?

(I agree that it's something of a diversion)

Quote from: VaxalonSo the answer to Tony's question upthread is "Yes"?

(I agree that it's something of a diversion)

Sure, if it'll get the discussion going, fine.

Mike

Oh good!  That's a relief.

Anyway, there are many particulars where my position is more elaborate than your summary, but I'll start small.

First, I do see the theoretical potential for people to do all of these crazy things.  But I consider it very much like the theoretical possibility that a person could drive their car into Central Park and start mowing down joggers.  Yes, it could happen:  there are no physical barriers.  But there is no recognizable reward for the crazy-driver, and many recognizable down-sides.  As such, despite the thousands upon thousands of drivers who circle Central Park every day, such events are rare almost to vanishing.

In the same way, I think that a lot of the examples that have been put forth ignore the constant influence of the reward system in Capes.  Theoretically, someone could violate it willfully, but why would they?  It seems that all of the examples I've heard of heavily dysfunctional play assume a player who is wilfully working exactly counter to every reward mechanism in the game.

And that's without even getting into second-order effects of the reward mechanism (which is to say the ways in which your expectation that other players are working according to the reward system allows you to make decisions that play into their desire for reward).

Does that help to explain why I think my position is a little bit more nuanced than just "It doesn't cause problems if you figure out a way to make it not be a problem"?

I'm not convinced that the styles of play we don't like are discouraged by the reward system.  I think the reason that you haven't seen them is that you've played with courteous players who aren't terribly interested in exploring that kind of play.

Quote from: TonyLBIn the same way, I think that a lot of the examples that have been put forth ignore the constant influence of the reward system in Capes.  Theoretically, someone could violate it willfully, but why would they?  It seems that all of the examples I've heard of heavily dysfunctional play assume a player who is wilfully working exactly counter to every reward mechanism in the game.

But we keep saying over and over that this is not what we're talking about.

Mike: It's about misunderstandings between players who are reasonable.
Tony: But players are reasonable.
Mike: Yes, but they still have problems.
Tony: But why would players be unreasonable?

Please, ignore the example of the bastard who drives off into central park. We're not talking about him. As I've pointed out earlier in the thread, it's a Forge Axiom that you can't stop an abusive player and should not try. This is NOT what we're talking about.

What we're talking about is people with two rational but irreconcilable differences. It's not a crazy person driving off into central park. It's a person driving into central park and not realizing that it's a place where we've agreed not to drive, if I have to use the analogy. In RPGs where to drive is not always clearly marked.

For example, when making the comics code, the subject of blood and gore does not come up. Then in play, a player narrates a horrifically blood scene, reminiscent to him of some of the stuff from Spawn. The other player says, "Agh, these characters are heroes, they don't disembowel people!" The other player responds, "Well, sure they do in stuff like Spawn and Lobo!"

"Well, can we tone it down, please; I'm not enjoying this."

"Er, I don't want to have to stick to the darn four color conventions. I want some blood!"

This sort of thing happens in these games a lot. Probably a lame example, but it's one of those things that you don't try to remember because they're ugly moments that you just want to get by and continue playing.

How rare is this? Well, again, I think it's rarer when you have a rule that says that people can so something about their disagreements. That is, such a rule tells players that they ought to be looking out for the needs of the other player to some extent. In Universalis, challenges are somewhat rare, but that's in part because the rule exists to tell people that they might be challenged.

In similar games that I've played without such rules, some players are not informed that they have to care about what the other players think, that they should just go off on whatever peregrinations that they like, and this they do, often to the detriment of the game. The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen actually thrives on this sort of play, but still has a mechanism for trying to ensure quality (voting for the best narration at the end).

QuoteAnd that's without even getting into second-order effects of the reward mechanism (which is to say the ways in which your expectation that other players are working according to the reward system allows you to make decisions that play into their desire for reward).

This latter portion is an addition to your previous comments it seems to me. In any case, this is precisely what Ralph has been submitting as possibly how the game does solve this problem.

Would you elaborate on how you think that works? Does it sorta reach back to the social level of play saying to the player that if they don't try to cater somewhat to the other players that they'll be getting fewer rewards? Is that it (sorry if this is what your parenthetical is trying to say, but it's a rather torturous sentence)?

Mike

Quote from: Mike HolmesIn RPGs where to drive is not always clearly marked.

Well, Mike, I think it's fairer to say "In some RPGs, where to drive is not always clearly marked."  And I'll totally agree with that.

You seem to argue (though I hate to put words in your mouth) that there is no mechanism in Capes that keeps people "on the road," as it were.  I disagree.  I went to great pains to introduce precisely such a mechanism.  It is subtle, and I grant that it may not be obvious from reading the book, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

I'm not trying to ignore the problem, or say that only crazy people fall into it.  I'm claiming that I've addressed the problem through the rules, and that for players who learn the rules well enough to see what they need to do in order to get rewarded by the system, the rules provide sufficient guidance.

QuoteFor example, when making the comics code, the subject of blood and gore does not come up. Then in play, a player narrates a horrifically blood scene, reminiscent to him of some of the stuff from Spawn. The other player says, "Agh, these characters are heroes, they don't disembowel people!" The other player responds, "Well, sure they do in stuff like Spawn and Lobo!"

"Well, can we tone it down, please; I'm not enjoying this."

"Er, I don't want to have to stick to the darn four color conventions. I want some blood!"

I think I had this actual play experience (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14588).  The game did not shatter.


Now, on second- (and higher-) order responses... You're very close to what I'm saying.  I think that many of the deeper responses in Capes provide mechanical structure to what is traditionally considered social play.  So it's not so much that the rules count on people to pursue the social level of play selflessly... they parallel the social level with game mechanics, so that pursuing it is a mechanically rewarded winning strategy.  I'm not sure which of those two you were saying, and didn't want confusion.

I'll pick one example, because doing all of them would require a lecture hall atmosphere that would make for hard reading.  So let's talk about Debt.

You always accumulate Debt.  You can try to minimize it, but doing so quickly cuts into your effectiveness (by disincenting you to React).  So, if you wish to play an effective character you need to be concerned about Debt Management.  Specifically, you need to occasionally find and/or create Conflicts where you can Stake Debt, in order to get rid of it.

Staking on a Conflict does two things directly:  One, it vastly increases your chances of winning it.  Two, it vastly increases your mechanical motivation to win it.  Losing a conflict you've Staked on screws your Debt Management, and requires much more work later to manage.

Therefore, what people generally do is to find a Conflict that they as players, already really want to win, and to express their player interest through the morality of their characters.

So that's the first-order reward mechanic.  What's the second-order effect?  Well, you as a player know that everybody else at the table wants, on occasion, to Stake their Debt.  You know, moreover, that if they do Stake their Debt against you on a Conflict you're already heavily involved in opposing then there are two possible outcomes, from your point of view:[list=1]

• They win, in which case you probably get Story Tokens.
• They lose, in which case they now have much more Debt, which makes the likelihood of their later Staking Debt on your Conflicts much higher.[/list:o]So (1) is an unalloyed good for all sides.  One side gets victory, the other side gets Story Tokens.  (2) is a contingent good... it is an increase in the long-term probability of (1).  Together, they say "Getting another player to Stake Debt, on absolutely any side of a Conflict you're heavily invested in is a good thing."
  
  So... you're already out there doing stuff.  You're rolling dice, and contesting conflicts and all that.  Those are sunk costs.  You've already spent those resources.  
  
  If another player chooses to Stake their debt on your Conflict, that turns your sunk costs (the effort you've already made) into prepayment on being heavily involved in a Staked Conflict.  You want that.  That makes your resources go twice as far... they do what you originally intended, and then they also go toward capitalizing on the Debt.
  
  But there isn't enough Debt to go around.  Not all Conflicts will end with Debt Staked on them.  Some will end with tons of Debt Staked on them.  This is because of two things:[list=1]
• Players cannot generally hope to win all Conflicts on the table, and therefore will not Stake on everything, lest they lose half or more, and end up in worse case than when they started.
  
• As mentioned above, players are mechanically encouraged to Stake on those conflicts where their personal interest already lies.  And some Conflicts are, let's be honest, dead boring.  Even when every conflict is exciting and provocative, some are more provocative than others.[/list:o]So, as a player, you are confronted with a problem:  There is a scarce resource (other people's Debt) and you want to influence the spending of it as much as possible toward you.  Other players want to do exactly the same thing.  You are all competing for the same pool of scarce resources.  You are, in a very formalized and literal sense, competing for their attention and interest, because you understand that attracting their interest has a direct correlation to attracting the resources you need.
  
  
  So there's one of the second-order reward mechanisms that I think stop experienced players from narrating gobbledy-gook.  Quite simply, you're a salesman.  Salesmen who spout gibberish, or abuse their customers, quickly find that other, better salesmen take the customers away from them.
  
  Does that make sense?  Is it something you had already considered, or is it a new (to you) take on the situation?

Tony, maybe it would help to do an example of a scene from beginning to end with a "typical" number of conflicts in play, players staking debt, conflicts going unstaked, people rolling up and rolling down, the various narrations that happen, players earning inspiration, players spending inspiration previously earned.  Pretty much a whole scene as it might happen with all of the mechanics detail and associated commentary to illustrate the first and second tier mechanics you've mentioned.

That way you could be sure everyone was on the same mechanical page and instead of talking ephemerals we can say "in X's conflict against Y, when B said "blah"...what if he'd have said "blah blah" instead" and there'd be a full context to refer to.

I think that would be a pretty good thread (when you have the time to write a big thorough example like that up), and likely more productive than this one has become.

Quote from: TonyLB

Quote from: Mike HolmesIn RPGs where to drive is not always clearly marked.

Well, Mike, I think it's fairer to say "In some RPGs, where to drive is not always clearly marked."  And I'll totally agree with that.

I don't see the difference in the two statements.

Quote

QuoteFor example, when making the comics code, the subject of blood and gore does not come up. Then in play, a player narrates a horrifically blood scene, reminiscent to him of some of the stuff from Spawn. The other player says, "Agh, these characters are heroes, they don't disembowel people!" The other player responds, "Well, sure they do in stuff like Spawn and Lobo!"

"Well, can we tone it down, please; I'm not enjoying this."

"Er, I don't want to have to stick to the darn four color conventions. I want some blood!"

I think I had this actual play experience (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14588).  The game did not shatter.

But I've had this sort of experience and the game has shattered. We can't rely on our own anecdotal evidence as there are too few data points to look at.

Instead, could we stick to the arguments for why it will, or will not have the problem?

QuoteNow, on second- (and higher-) order responses... You're very close to what I'm saying.  I think that many of the deeper responses in Capes provide mechanical structure to what is traditionally considered social play.

Well, acutally I'm not aware of anything called "social play." I don't know what you're talking about here. The social contract informs play, as do all of the other levels simultaneously. IOW, all play is social play (although there may be dysfuncitonal play that's called anti-social play I suppose).  

QuoteSo it's not so much that the rules count on people to pursue the social level of play selflessly... they parallel the social level with game mechanics, so that pursuing it is a mechanically rewarded winning strategy.  I'm not sure which of those two you were saying, and didn't want confusion.

It was probably a bad question.

Let my try again. What is the primary player motive in giving out rewards? Whatever the answer, why is this the case?

QuoteTherefore, what people generally do is to find a Conflict that they as players, already really want to win, and to express their player interest through the morality of their characters.

How does this follow from what you've said before? There seems to be a logical leap here that might really help us understand what you're talking about if you could make it more clear. I see that players want to manage their debt, meaning they want to win Conflicts...but how does that make them only seek out certain conflicts? Why not try to win every conflict. Or, if that's not feasible, why not try to win the first you come across?

Let's strip away all of the color of the game. Say that we play with no narration whatsoever. What, then, mechanically makes me want to win one conflict vs. another?

QuoteTogether, they say "Getting another player to Stake Debt, on absolutely any side of a Conflict you're heavily invested in is a good thing."

So, in order to get them to do this, you want to make it a conflict that's interesting to the player?

There seems to be a contradiction (but it's probably just my understanding). How can you make a player want to stake debt, if his primary motivation is only doing so in cases where he can win?

QuoteSo, as a player, you are confronted with a problem:  There is a scarce resource (other people's Debt) and you want to influence the spending of it as much as possible toward you.  Other players want to do exactly the same thing.  You are all competing for the same pool of scarce resources.  You are, in a very formalized and literal sense, competing for their attention and interest, because you understand that attracting their interest has a direct correlation to attracting the resources you need.

But why put resources into anything but the best bet, mechanically?

So

QuoteSo there's one of the second-order reward mechanisms that I think stop experienced players from narrating gobbledy-gook.  Quite simply, you're a salesman.  Salesmen who spout gibberish, or abuse their customers, quickly find that other, better salesmen take the customers away from them.

Seems to me that the mechanical "Value" of a conflict is based on how much is invested in it, no? Let's say that we have two conflicts. One is, not so much gobbledy-gook, but just not something that you're all that interested in, but he puts in a large investment. The second is a conflict in which you think is interesting, but which has a smaller investment made in it. Which will the player back, typically?


This is me probably still not getting the interaction of how these all work in play, so I'm ready to be corrected and to understand the issues better. But right now it seems like you have a classic case of GNS incoherence. There's a gamism mechanic, but a presumption of players who want "good story." That is, you seem to presume that in driving for a good story, that players will use the system the way that you envision it, and use it yourself in play. But what if all that happens is that players grasp on to the gamism? What if all they become concerned about is how the dice fall and who "wins"?

How does your system inform the player that the narrative itself is valuable?

Mike

This thread is getting too convoluted for me (at least) to respond to more than a fraction of the open topics in a single post.  It's time for it to spawn little thread-lets.  I am closing it.  Topics that people want to still discuss should be split out into separate threads, each of which includes one (1) clearly stated question.