The Forge Archives

In [Capes] Takes some getting used to (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=161017#161017), Andrew raised the following solid general question:

Quote from: GaerikOkay, I've been following this Capes thing very closely because I'm interested in the game.  I'm going to ask a question below that might be a stupid question and could very easily be taken as snide.  I'm prefacing the question by saying that snideness is not my intent.  I'm genuinely interested in getting "inside" Tony's head as a designer and understanding the "whys and wherefores" of his design decisions.  Now that this little disclaimer is out of the way...

If anyone can narrate the effects of a Conflict away with no effort whatsoever, why does Capes have Conflicts at all?  Why isn't the whole System simply freeform?  What is there in the System that makes me want to engage in a Conflict?  I understand about Story Tokens and some of the "rewards" for winning Conflicts but do these rewards actually have some sort of lasting effect that makes it worth my while to get them?  I'm just not understanding why there is a Conflict system at all if Free Narration is so powerful in the game and would really like to hear the reasoning behind it.

Actually, there's a little confusion building up between Free Narration and just plain Narration.  So let me clear that up, first:

• Free Narration:  The period between the end a Claims at the start of a Page, and the first Action.  During this period, players may narrate out of turn.
  
• Narration:  In Free Narration, using an Ability (to Act or React), spending an Inspiration, creating a Conflict or due to the "And Then" rule, players are called upon to Narrate.  The only limits the rules place on that narration are those of the Not Yet rule and Ability-inclusion.  This is narration with great freedom, but not (technically) Free Narration.[/list:u]I think that the power you're referring to is about Narration, rather than Free Narration specifically.  Is that right?

Tony,

Yes.  As I've only read the Playtest rules and followed the threads here, my terminology-fu is probably very weak.  Still, I believe you have parsed my meaning correctly.  I'm referencing the same Narration that others have been concerned about being disruptive to the SIS.

See, I thought the issue there was over abuse of free narration (outside the conflict system.) Never got a clarification.

Larry:  It seemed like Ralph's question to answer.  I'm still not sure which element he's actually concerned about.  But now at least I know what to address in this thread.


Okay.  This gets a little involved, so I hope you'll bear with me if I dispense it in small chunks, and ask for feedback at each stage, to make sure I'm not miscommunicating.

Because of the huge amounts of narrative power, getting the chance to do the first narration isn't that big a deal.  Yeah, yeah, you can blow up the world, but the next guy can just put it back.  What really makes a difference is who gets to do the last narration, because it can incorporate, twist and override everything that came before it.

When you have control of a Conflict, you get the following advantages:

• Nobody but you gets final word on narration about that Conflict.
• Every time somebody tries to take it over and fails, you get another chance to Narrate that final word ("And Then" rule).
• Nobody can do something that would make it implausible in the SiS for you to have the final word on the subject ("Not Yet" rule).[/list:u]Actually Resolving that conflict is just the last in a long sequence of those Final Words, and the only one which (itself) isn't subject to the "Not Yet" rule.
  
  So the ability to resolve a Conflict is of comparatively small value.  Yes, you get to narrate what happens, but (as you've rightly pointed out) once the Conflict is gone there's nothing directly stopping someone from jumping in to narrate yet another Final Word.  Indirectly?  I'll discuss that in a bit.
  
  What is hugely valuable is the state of controlling a Conflict.  Because that makes you the gate-keeper of what stays important in the SiS and what goes in but immediately gets twisted, supplanted or otherwise turned from the purpose of the player who introduced it.
  
  Holler if that doesn't make sense, because everything that follows depends upon it.

So it would seem that the maximum advantage would be gained by controlling one side of a conflict but never resolving it, because as soon as it is resolved, the advantage of controlling it disappears.

Ah....   I think I see.  So resolving the Conflict is not where the power lies.  It's in controlling the Conflict while it is still on the table because while it is there you can invoke the Not Yet rule (I think that's the one) that keeps people from doing things to it with Narration and not paying for it.

That's interesting.  I'm going to have to think about that for a while.

Not just "Not Yet" but also "And Then..." because the "And Then..." rule specifically gives you the power to use your narration to immediately nullify whatever it is that the actor or reactor has done.

Okay, it looks like people understand the benefit of outstanding Conflicts (though I'm always open to follow-up questions).  I'm going to move on to Inspirations.

Inspirations have a direct benefit upon control of a Conflict.  When you resolve a Conflict you get the ability to better control later Conflicts without investing your limited Actions.

If Player A resolves a Conflict, narrates her Final Word, and Player B immediately narrates a post-script that undercuts what she was trying to achieve then they are back to needing a Conflict again.  That Conflict is an obvious candidate for the Inspirations Player A won on the previous Conflict.  If they are spent then Player B ends up in as bad a position as he was before the conflict was resolved.

But that situation is, in fact, a rarity.  Why?  Because if Player B really wants to be narrating exactly that Conflict, he doesn't want to do it in unrestricted narration.  He wants to be able to enforce his own Final Word on what is happening.  So it's ever so much more efficient to take Control of the Conflict himself, rather than to let you resolve it and then go futzing around in narration for the short time it will take you to slap an identical Conflict on him.

What happens far more often is that Player B realizes that the Conflict-as-stated isn't exactly what he's actually worried about.  Fictional example:

Quote from: Fiction!Bulk is fighting Chrome Surfer.  They are working on a Conflict "Who wins the fight?"  Bulk keeps going hand-to-hand, because... he's Bulk.  Chrome Surfer flies around on his surf-board, and blasts Bulk with cosmic rays.

Somewhere along the line, Bulk's player realizes that he doesn't really care who wins the battle.  What matters to him is that this battle is showing which of them is physically stronger, and he really wants Bulk to be the strongest thing in the game.

So he creates "Who is stronger?" as a Conflict.  Then he stops working toward winning "Who wins the fight," and redirects his energies.

Now the fascinating bit occurs when Chrome Surfer resolves "Who wins the fight."  Because now he's got an Inspiration from having beaten Bulk.  Does he spend it on "Who is stronger?"  Or does he keep it to spend on something else later?  Well, that is largely a matter of whether he feels strongly that Chrome Surfer should be stronger than Bulk.  If not, he probably saves the Inspiration for something he does care about.  

But if Chrome's player does care about the issue of strength, he probably spends the Inspiration, and then the balance of power has simply migrated from one Conflict to the next.  Bulk has not gained any advantage by shifting the discussion, and that is right and proper, because it turns out that the "Who wins the fight" thing was all about strength in the first place, only nobody realized it at the time.


Does that explain when you would want to resolve a conflict as clearly as my previous post explained when you would want not to?

No, it doesn't; because after the inspirations are spent and the conflicts are won, nothing has changed.  Let's say Bulk wins the conflict that states "Bulk is stronger than Chrome."  He narrates the outcome, and "Proves" he's stronger.  Let's say he gets an inspiration out of it.

Later on, he spends that inspiration on a conflict, "Bulk is stronger than Beetleman."  Makes sense, right?  Let's say for the moment that things go badly for Bulk, and he loses that conflict, and doesn't get any inspiration out of it.

Later on, Bulk is being played by a new player, with no story tokens.  Bulk and Chrome meet again.   They are back on even terms, now.  The "bulk is stronger than chrome" goal is long forgotten, and it is as if nothing has happened between them.  

Unless Chrome's player takes the initiative to honor the earlier accomplished goal, totally outside the rules system, and treat Bulk as if he's stronger than Chrome, then the entire conflict has proven nothing.  Bulk spent resources and turns to prove that he's stronger than Chrome, but he's not.  They're back to square one.

That is probably the main issue I have with Capes. Not because it is divorced from causality - all kinds of reasons for Chrome now being stronger than Bulk can be invented. My problem is that the resources spent in that initial conflict to determine who was stronger were completely wasted.

Actually, wasted is the wrong term because the resources were never really worth much to begin with in terms of effecting the future course of play. All you can effect in Capes is the present and the past history of play. The future is an open void where all past effort evaporates into whisps of nothing.

Inspirations provide, as in Fred's example, only a minor particle of effect upon that vast void.

Not to say that my preference for having an effect on future actions makes Capes broken, only that it can be incredibly infuriating if that's not a style of play that you enjoy.

-Chris

Tony,

I see what you are saying but I also see what Chris and Frank (?) are saying too and I agree with their observations.  From what you've said thus far, it seems to me that it is always better to leave the Conflict open if you control it as it provides you control over the SIS in that area.

In the Bulk vs the Surfer example, if Bulk resolves the Conflict and takes his Inspiration, all Surfer has to do is wait a couple of turns until Bulk spends that Inspiration to reopen the Conflict on a even footing again.  Whereas, if Bulk simply keeps the Conflict open while he controls it, he's effectively "stronger" than the Surfer.

As an aside...
Are you going to be at GenCon and are you planning on running a game of Capes.  I'd love to play just to see how it all works.

Quote from: VaxalonNo, it doesn't; because after the inspirations are spent and the conflicts are won, nothing has changed.

What an odd concern.  Why should anything change?  I'm not being rhetorical or anything here... Fred and Chris, you both think it's important, and you're smart fellows.  So I'd like to know what you know.

If the Hulk trounces the Thing in episode #76, and the writers decide to have them start from square one and duke it out again in episode #82... well, if everyone cares about the conflict and enjoys playing it out, is there a problem?

It's not a problem if people like that style of play... but there are comic book fans who would HOWL in protest if a battle that was won last week is lost this week, without a good reason being presented.

In "Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering" he identifies seven styles of play.  An individual player can engage in all of them in his career, but he usually has a few favorites.

One of mine is "powergamer".  I like being able to take little bits and pieces and add them to my character sheet, and feel that he is growing, at least in some small way, as a result of play.  Capes is completely unsupportive of this style of play.  Any benefits that accrue, whether to the character (inspirations) or to the player (story tokens) are entirely ephemeral.

That's why I came up with the "goal in, goal out" house rule.  I'm still refining that, but I think it will add a significant level of play for players like me.

Quote from: GaerikAre you going to be at GenCon and are you planning on running a game of Capes.  I'd love to play just to see how it all works.

I'll be running (and demoing!  Yay demoes!) at DexCon and GenCon.

Quote from: VaxalonIt's not a problem if people like that style of play... but there are comic book fans who would HOWL in protest if a battle that was won last week is lost this week, without a good reason being presented.

Are there?  Who knew....  They must go through a lot of throat lozenges, because that sort of thing happens absolutely all the time.

Anyway, on powergaming:  What are these "bits and pieces" doing for you?  I mean... obviously... they've got to be something more than just scribbles on paper, right?  You can scribble on paper in your spare time.

Are they giving you authority to shape future events?  Making you... I don't know... official gate-keeper over that particular "bit and/or piece"?

Quote from: TonyLBWhat an odd concern. Why should anything change? I'm not being rhetorical or anything here... Fred and Chris, you both think it's important, and you're smart fellows. So I'd like to know what you know.

I'm a Nar monkey. If the choices I make have no weight, no consequences, beyond the moment when I make them then I've got no basis for emotional investment in play. If I've got no emotional investment in play, then play becomes 2-dimensional to me. I'd be better off playing a board or card game.

When my decisions fail to have a tangible effect on future events, the game becomes the sort of silly and unfulfilling fun that Ralph talks about here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15106&start=45).

-Chris

While I'm not a big comic book fan myself, I have several friends who are absolute FIENDS about them, and whenever one of their favorites are turned over to a new writer I get chat messages coming through for weeks afterwards about how the new guy is ruining their favorite character, that he either can do all kinds of things he couldn't before, or worse, can't do things he did easily before.

Some comics fans go through endless discussions of who is stronger than who, who's a meaner fighter, whose powers would win out over whose, and they use as much of the back-continuity as they can remember to back up their statements.  For many, reading the comics is not so much an entertainment in itself, as it is a chance to gather information to use in these discussions, which are the real entertainments for them.

The bit can be pretty small.  In DnD, it's that I have a +2 base attack bonus rather than +3, or I can brew potions when I couldn't before, or I own a magic sword that I didn't before.

Generally speaking, they are statements about the character, though they don't have to be.  They are statements about what the character is capable of.  "Character Advancement" is the general term used for this.

Is it authority over future events?  Yes, to some extent, but it's small.  I don't need to be able to say "Kozmik Ray is the most powerful superhero of all time" to be satisfied.

I'm still working out how, exactly, to implement this in Capes.

This is getting fun!  I still have no idea what you guys think is important about this, but at least we're talking.  I hope to figure it out eventually.  So, a quick reminder:  I'm not asking questions to lure you into a trap, or to set up my own position.  If they sound too ignorant to possibly be straight questions, just assume that I really am that far distant from your viewpoint.

Quote from: C. EdwardsI'm a Nar monkey. If the choices I make have no weight, no consequences, beyond the moment when I make them then I've got no basis for emotional investment in play.

Okay.  Why not?  Isn't making the choices the important thing?

Quote from: VaxalonThe bit can be pretty small.  In DnD, it's that I have a +2 base attack bonus rather than +3, or I can brew potions when I couldn't before, or I own a magic sword that I didn't before.

Generally speaking, they are statements about the character, though they don't have to be.  They are statements about what the character is capable of.  "Character Advancement" is the general term used for this.

Is there a difference between "I now have +2 base attack bonus" and "I now have six less hit points, because an orc bit me on the arm"?

Quote from: TonyLB

Quote from: VaxalonThe bit can be pretty small.  In DnD, it's that I have a +2 base attack bonus rather than +3, or I can brew potions when I couldn't before, or I own a magic sword that I didn't before.

Generally speaking, they are statements about the character, though they don't have to be.  They are statements about what the character is capable of.  "Character Advancement" is the general term used for this.

Is there a difference between "I now have +2 base attack bonus" and "I now have six less hit points, because an orc bit me on the arm"?

A slight one, one of degree, because getting back lost hit points is easier than getting back lost skills.  They aren't qualitatively different.

Let's say that Orc was undead, and that in the process of losing six hit points, it also drains a level, and thus a point from my base attack bonus; this is something that is not as easy to recover.

In the first case, all I have to do to get the hit points back is sleep overnight.  In the second, I will have to either go on some adventures to earn that level again, or maybe quest to find a high-level priest somewhere that can reverse the drain.

That's goal-in goal-out.  1> Orc wins conflict, gives me "Fred is level-drained" fact.  2> Fred wins conflict, uses "Fred finds high level priest" to remove it.

Quote from: C. Edwards

I'm a Nar monkey. If the choices I make have no weight, no consequences, beyond the moment when I make them then I've got no basis for emotional investment in play.

Quote from: TonyLBOkay. Why not? Isn't making the choices the important thing?

The choice itself is important, but without a pattern of what I'm going to call "thematic causality", it has no meaning. Capes is not conducive to creating patterns (a chain, with each link informing the next) of decision/action/consequence because future actions are not dependent on past events or actions.

The Social Contract is the only glue available in Capes that can hold the CA of the group together. I'm not saying Capes needs to be a Narrativistic masterpiece in play. But I don't see the the tools present to help a group with any CA.

-Chris

*edited for clarity

Quote from: TonyLB

Quote from: C. EdwardsI'm a Nar monkey. If the choices I make have no weight, no consequences, beyond the moment when I make them then I've got no basis for emotional investment in play.

Okay.  Why not?  Isn't making the choices the important thing?

No.  Emphatically and most definately no.  Making choices that are unimportant and have no weight is unsatisfying and irritating (to me).  In every game I've played in, if the GM had taken the choices that were important to us, as players, and made them irrelevant, we'd have been outraged and probably would have rebeled.  

I'm a Gamist (mostly) so I'll come at it from that angle.  In D&D the tactical choices are what is *really* important to my group.  I can alter the color of a character's hair and nobody cares.  It isn't important to my players that a certain character be *the best* Fighter in the world or *the strongest*.  What does matter is that if Fred moves his Rogue into a certain position on the board to get that flanking bonus and a Sneak Attack, he'd better be getting it.  

Why? Because he made that decision based on tactical information and that is what is important to us so it had better carry weight.  If I don't give it weight (by applying the appropriate bonus or damage) then I'd better have a reason... like "The creature is undead, Fred.  It's immune to Sneak Attacks but you still get the flanking bonus." or "The creature is immune to flanking... says right here in the rules."  Then it isn't that I've robbed his decision of weight or importance.  It's that he made a poor decision.  As a Gamist, I can live with making a poor decision but if the GM (or the rules or anything else) takes away my ability to make any decisions that matter, I'm going to be pissed and not play.

In Nar it is other decisions that matter, obviously, but I think the sentiment is probably still the same.

Quote from: Vaxalon
Later on, Bulk is being played by a new player, with no story tokens.  Bulk and Chrome meet again.  They are back on even terms, now.  The "bulk is stronger than chrome" goal is long forgotten, and it is as if nothing has happened between them.  

Unless Chrome's player takes the initiative to honor the earlier accomplished goal, totally outside the rules system, and treat Bulk as if he's stronger than Chrome, then the entire conflict has proven nothing.  Bulk spent resources and turns to prove that he's stronger than Chrome, but he's not.  They're back to square one.

Is this something that is not adequately handled by the Spotlight Characters optional rule?

As far as "powergaming," I actually don't see anything in Capes to appeal to the powergamer, since a large part of enjoyment of that play style comes through character advancement. The only things that seem to approximate character advancement are exemplars and, to a lesser extent, accumulated debt. Inspirations are vaguely like character advancement, but as you point out, there's nothing forcing a player to use them for such purpose.

For me, it is good enough that a given character's narrative grows with play. So maybe it could be said that Capes has "freeform" character advancement.

Quote from: GaerikNo.  Emphatically and most definately no.  Making choices that are unimportant and have no weight is unsatisfying and irritating

Sure.  But since when is the importance of something to CA measured in terms of how much it changes the world?  Wouldn't that imply that people playing Nobilis are automatically addressing Premise more successfully than people playing My Life with Master, since their characters are vastly more important and powerful?

Frankly, it seems much more like an issue of distribution of authority than pursuit of creative agenda.  You want to have a certain authority, later on, to shape the SiS... and you want to appeal to your character's actions and accomplishments as the basis for that authority.

What Fred is saying sounds like that to me too.  He's talking about having the authority to say "No, this change is a big change, and if you want to overcome it then you need to gather enough authority to best mine... in other words, you need to earn the right to change this back."

Seriously, I say this without judging.  That's what it looks like to me, and I think that it's a perfectly feasible way to distribute authority, but not the only way.  Am I misunderstanding something here?  And if so, what?

Yes.  Absolutely.  I want to be able to say, "I worked to accomplish this thing, I bought it with resources, and if you want to take it away you have to work at it too."

That makes sense.  As I said, it's quite reasonable to distribute authority based on victory.  A lot of games do it that way.  But not Capes.  Capes distributes authority based on how much you entertain and challenge the other players.

Is this fair?  Probably not.  I'm not sure what "fair" means in this context, and I really don't care.

But I do know that people will learn to pursue what you reward them for doing.  If you reward them for victory then they will learn to pursue victory.  If you reward them for being entertaining then they will learn to pursue being entertaining.

I'm not sure that Capes does as good a job of rewarding being entertaining as you say.  But I haven't played enough, and tried some of the tactics I've though of enough, to say with any degree of certainty.

I know that when I read the rules, I don't feel that being entertaining is what the rules are inviting me to do.

Well, that's where the next section of description comes in.  We've had a lively little discussion of Inspirations.  Let me summarize, and we'll see if we're all on the same page:

• Inspirations provide a mechanism that locally encourages people to fight for a Conflict if they desire that outcome (because they gain no local advantage by letting it lapse and then redeclaring it)
  
• Inspirations do not provide any global, permanent modification of the game-world.[/list:u]Everyone agreed on those points?

Inspirations reward, as I see it, conflicts in which you win by a large margin.  These can be of two varieties:

Conflicts where no debt shows up on either side, but one person rolls on one side, and noone on the other, so that one side gets a 5 or 6 and the other stays at 1.

Conflicts where debt is played more on one side than the other, so that you can take your highest die as an inspiration free of opposition.

Inspirations provide no lasting modification to the gameworld.

Fred, does your silence mean that you agree with the first point I made?  "Inspirations provide a mechanism that locally encourages people to fight for a Conflict if they desire that outcome"  It's sort of important.  It's why you don't just give up and then revise in free narration, which I know is something you've worried about in the past.

I'd prefer to have more evidence that it's understood (before I start building on it) than simply "Nobody jumped up to say 'I disagree'."

I disagree that inspirations provide a mechanism that encourages people to fight for a conflict if they desire that outcome.

If they desire the outcome, they'll fight for it whether they get inspirations or not.

Inspirations, to me, provide a mechanism that encourages people to fight in conflicts where they believe they're the ONLY one who desires an outcome.  You get big inspirations for winning conflicts that have little opposition.  If you win 5,4 to 4,3 you get a 2.  Whee!

I'm not saying that making people fight for a conflict is the only thing Inspirations do.  But they do it (along with many other things) as described in this post (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=161063#161063).  Are you still having trouble understanding that post?

Yes, I disagree with the post you link to, and I think I found the core of that disagreement.

Quote from: that other thread
...if Player B really wants to be narrating exactly that Conflict, he doesn't want to do it in unrestricted narration. He wants to be able to enforce his own Final Word on what is happening.

The reason is that Final Words in a conflict aren't final; they carry no more weight than free narration.

So, this item (the justification for the point you cite, in the same post) doesn't sway you, eh...

Quote from: TonyLBIf Player A resolves a Conflict, narrates her Final Word, and Player B immediately narrates a post-script that undercuts what she was trying to achieve then they are back to needing a Conflict again.  That Conflict is an obvious candidate for the Inspirations Player A won on the previous Conflict.  If they are spent then Player B ends up in as bad a position as he was before the conflict was resolved.

Why is that?  It seemed pretty compelling to me.

It doesn't sway me because player B has no interest in starting another conflict, or even in participating in it.

So you didn't understand this post (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=161031#161031), earlier, where I laid out why it's useful to participate in Conflicts?  Or do you disagree with it?

Fred, you really need to speak up earlier if you're confused, because I hate have to back-track through the points and re-explain them.

No, I believe I understand and agree with that one.  It explains why it's useful to control an existing conflict.

What it doesn't explain is why it's useful to win a conflict.  "Final Word" narration in a conflict has no more authority in the game than any other kind.

It's not in player B's interest to start a new conflict, because as you say, player A has a very applicable inspiration to play, and will likely control the new conflict.

We agree, then, that it is in Player A's interest to start a new Conflict?

Yes; as long as it's on the table, he can control any narration that is related to that topic.

So, apart from costing Player A a move (about which, more later), Player B losing a Conflict and then re-engaging is very nearly a tactical non-action.  It neither gains nor loses him anything in terms of controlling a Conflict on that topic.  Are we agreed there?

That's correct.  Player B, upon losing a conflict, won't create the same one over again.  It can be, however, paradoxically, in player A's interest to re-create the same conflict over again.

Okay, cool.  We understand that (at the minimum) Inspirations remove any local strategy of winning Conflicts by losing them and redeclaring.  Winning Story Tokens by losing, that's another thing.

Now, before I move on to Story Tokens... is anyone other than Fred and myself still following this thread?  Because, if not, we should probably just finish up in private messages.

I'm following along. This is good stuff so far.

I'm following it...except that the line of reasoning seems to assume that Player A will save those Inspirations to smack B with if B dares to restart the same conflict A previously won.  That threat is what gives A's final word a degree of weight.

But what if A spends the Inspiration on something else...doesn't that immediatly open things back up to B restarting the same conflict because its back to being even steven...all of the weight behind A's statement is now gone.

Am I missing something there?

I don't think you're missing anything, no.  If Player A spends the Inspiration somewhere else then they have spent the extra authority they got by winning the Conflict.  A and B are now on level ground again, in terms of authority on that topic.  Now that isn't likely to happen instantly, so the Inspirations still have the local effect I've described (preventing instant rebuffing of the Final Word).  But you're quite right about the long-term pattern.

Inspirations aren't meant to grant permanent authority:  they aren't "you've won this, therefore it should stay forever, or untill greatly challenged."  I recognize that some folks want such a permanent authority, and I think I recognize why (having discussed it, heh... a little... in the past few days).  Inspirations are meant to do something else.

Inspirations are asking the player (roughly) "What one specific causal outcome do you want this achievement to lead to?"  In very many ways, they are asking the player to carefully consider what the meaning of their achievement is.  Example:

Quote from: ExampletronAdam is playing Action Jack.  Bobby is playing Skreeve and Master.  Action Jack has been beaten, stripped of his utility belt and bound in chains.  Poor, oppressed minion Skreeve is assigned to bind Jack's wounds, so he'll be healthy for later torture.  Action Jack wins "Goal:  Convince Skreeve to stand up to his Master."  Adam resolves it with Skreeve insisting that he will stand up for himself, and gains an Inspiration.

Once Conflict is resolved, Bobby narrates that Master comes into the room and Skreeve immediately folds like a house of cards.  Adam chooses not to spend the Inspiration, or indeed even to contest that narration in any way.  Minions are weak like that.  It's no big surprise.

Later, when Action Jack has escaped and is trying to disable the Phlogiston Macro-Nano-Bomb, Master is on the verge of triumph in a "Subjugate the World" Conflict.  Adam pulls out his "Skreeve will stand up for himself" Inspiration at this point, as Skreeve finally gets the nerve to defy the Master openly (thanks to Action Jack's kind words and virtuous example).  

It's just the opening Action Jack needs!  The Master is defeated!  "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"

Does that make the long-term pattern clearer and/or more palatable?

Interesting.  So you're basically taking elements that would have independently defined authority (Traits in Uni, or the enforceable outcome of a die roll in most games) tearing the labels off and converting that situation specific authority into a generic currency that can later be converted back to give authority to something else -- related or unrelated.

The player earns something meaningful, then the game sucks all of the inherent meaning out of what was earned and processes it into concentrated doses of stored power that can then (in "just add water" fashion) be used to recreate meaning at a later time.

Kind of like "mad scientist game design".  Definitely intrigueing

What do you mean by "inherent meaning", above?  Do you mean the meaning of the event, independent of the perceptions of the players about that meaning?

I don't think there's any such thing.  Are we disagreeing, or just miscommunicating?

EDIT:  Same question for "independently defined authority," actually.

Mad Scientist Game Design... apt.

And like a Skeksi drinking the vital essence of a Podperson, it only lasts a very short time.

Well, take your example of Skreeve.  In just about any other game I can think of, Jack convincing Skreeve to stand up for himself would have meaning...it would have the weight of authority behind it.  In Uni Skreeve would probably be given the Trait "Conviced by Jack to Stand up to Master".  In a typical RPG the players would likely expect Jack to Stand up to Master (because that's what the roll said he would do) or expect Master to have a make a roll and get more success than Jack did to over come it.  There is an authority there that this event occured and cannot be ignored.

If I'm understanding Inspiration correctly, in Capes that event has no authority.  The game mechanics don't even recognize that it happened.  At no point in the future will anyone be able to say "hey Jack had convinced Skreeve to stand up for himself" and have that translate into mechanics in any fashion.

Instead, all of the meaning and authority that the event would be given in any other game has been transferred to the currency of Inspiration.  If someone wanted to get a mechanical advantage for Skreeve having been convinced they'd have to then use Inspiration to do it.  But that Inspiration is not tied to specific events.  There is no label on the bottle saying "Inspiration for use with Skreeve".  It can be used for anything at all.

Your explanation conjured up an image for me of some Mad Scientist having used some crazy apparatus to suck all of the meaning out of the event between Jack and Skreeve and then filling a beaker with "distilled essence of authority".

Yes, and, y'know... I like the image.  I think that "distilled essence of authority, apply at whim" is pretty much exactly what the system does.

But I don't think there is any inherent meaning to be sucked out of the bottle.  I think it's all a question of labelling.  I think every system  provides bottles of distilled essence of authority, to be applied at whim.  It's just that some of them put big labels saying "Do not open until XMas," or similar niceties.  

I gather that you think there's something more, from your examples.  So I think we genuinely have a disagreement, not just a misunderstanding.  Neat!

I'll try to respond to the Uni example:  Skreeve might be given a "Convinced" Trait, but that's player choice.  That trait might be relevant to opposing the Master, but that's player choice.  At any stage it could go another way, easily.  And that's not dysfunction, that's the core of gaming.

All of the meaning there, absolutely all of it, is created and maintained by the players.  It's only in their heads, no other place.  And it only comes out by their choices, no other means.  They control it all... in every game.

So if you label a bottle "Deathly poison!" that is just a label.  The label cannot slap somebody.  It cannot stay their hand.  If it stops anyone from opening the bottle and chugging it, that's because they read it, interpreted it, and made a choice.  Likewise, if you label an Trait "Skreeve will defy Master" and I appeal to its authority for that purpose it is only because I read the label, interpreted it, and made a choice.  If I appeal to its authority to say that I have a pleasant dinner with a love interest, it is because I read the label, interpreted it, and made a choice.

Quote from: ValamirYour explanation conjured up an image for me of some Mad Scientist having used some crazy apparatus to suck all of the meaning out of the event between Jack and Skreeve and then filling a beaker with "distilled essence of authority".

Mechanically correct, but I don't see the "loss of meaning" angle. Inspirations are situation specific. There is supposed to be a link between the conflict the inspiration is used to augment and the original conflict from which they were gained. Admittedly, this link can be very tenuous.

Example:
Doc Hero is getting the living snot beaten out of him by Villainator. He thinks back to that one time when The Parrot was beating him at chess, but in the end Doc Hero made a comeback gambit and won. (And saved the resulting inspiration.) Doc Hero spends his Inspiration, takes control of the Conflict, and regains his will to fight.

That's why they're "Inspirations."

But yeah, the victory does get converted into abstract currency for later use.

I think the meaning that's getting sucked out of it is whatever meaning the players might have attributed to it, because there's no imperative to make the use of the inspiration relate to the creation of the inspiration.

The issue is, I think, that only the player who receives the Inspiration is empowered to interpret its meaning. What I think people are objecting to is that the other players have no say over how this Inspiration is brought back into play. To the player who received it, its meaning is entirely under his control and can be brought back into play in whatever way he sees fit. So, it is not true to say the Inspiration is stripped of meaning, instead, only one player at the table has the authority to say what that meaning is.

A lot of the problem I think I am seeing in these multiple discussions here is over control allocation between players. Capes assumes a great deal of trust between players, because ultimately there are no mechanical means of restricting players from doing whatever they like in the game. This is definitely working without a net.

I agree with Brennan that it's a distribution of authority issue.  Which I think makes it distinct from "meaning", but perhaps I'm missing the connection.

For sure, there isn't the idea that the rules system always lends its credibility in part to all players, though not always equally.  For instance, if a D&D mage throws a fireball into a room, anyone has authority to borrow credibility from the rules and describe what happens, though the mage and DM probably have more authority than other players:

QuoteMage: "So it fries those five ogres over there."
GM: "Yeah, but the room is too small to contain the whole explosion, so it's going to expand down the corridor you're in."
Rules Guru:  "Not quite... remember that it expands equally out of all four of the corridors from the room.  So it expands only ten feet into our corridor, not quite scorching our front ranks."

The Capes equivalent is:

QuoteMage: "So it fries those five ogres, but doesn't even touch the princess they're holding.
Other player:  "Funny shaped fireball!"
Mage:  "Because I'm just that good."

Same thing applies to the connections of causailty.  Authority is parcelled out to individuals in small units.  No unit is ever shared between two people.  Example:

Quote from: D&DFighter:  Ah, but they're mummies!  My magic flaming sword will do extra damage, because they're flammable.
GM:  Nah, they aren't very well preserved, and not very old.  More sort of damp swamp mummies.
Fighter:  Hey, it's a really hot sword.  Wouldn't it dry them out on contact?

Quote from: CapesFighter:  Mummies, eh?  I'm spending my "Retrieve Flaming Sword" Inspiration.  The heat of the blade sets their wrappings on fire!