In Why have Conflicts at all? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=161112#161112)...
Quote from: C. EdwardsThe 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.
That sounds fair. If you want it, and Capes doesn't support it, then that would explain your objection.
So what's "thematic causality"? I'd love to discuss whether or not Capes supports it, but I'd sort of need to know what it is, first.
No game mechanically supports "thematic causality," it seems to me. That's always a player call. Say in D&D, you slay the dragon. The GM declares it revived without any obvious cause. There's nothing in the mechanics to stop him.
That's the same in any game. Why? Because mechanics do not deal with interpreted content. They deal with plugged-in numbers. They can never provide creative content, and therefore, cannot provide thematic continuity.
A game could have a soft rule that says, "You cannot undo..." But that's still open to interpretation.
The issue comes up more in Capes because it's a game where all players have that power of input. In traditional, GM-based games, only the GM does.
Christian: Bingo. You nailed it.
The tricky part is that Universalis does have a mechanism for keeping this causality in place. If one player tries to "undo" something with narration, then the other players can challenge, and bring previous events to bear as Facts (and extra dice) to win the challenge and block the undo.
Some people are arguing that Capes should have this kind of mechanic, too. It most certainly could have such a thing. Vax's "goal-in, goal-out" is a fine example*. But should Capes have such a rule? That depends very, very much on what kind of play you're after.
* FULL DISCLOSURE: I personally prefer a "goal-in, goal-out" system, and I will probably use such a thing when we play Capes. I'm participating in all of these discussions on the side of "leave things alone" because I don't agree with the assumption that the Uni way is better, nor that Capes is less-good without it.
You guys are talking as if you know what Thematic Causality means when Chris says it. Is this terminology that he's defined and used in other threads?
Nah, I'm just guessing :)
Actually, I read the thread this came from, so I had an impression of what this was aiming for.
I might be wrong, of course.
Quote from: xenopulseNo game mechanically supports "thematic causality," it seems to me. That's always a player call. Say in D&D, you slay the dragon. The GM declares it revived without any obvious cause. There's nothing in the mechanics to stop him.
In a well run Dungeons and Dragons game, the DM has to use the same mechanics the players do. If the dragon is revived, then (as a player) I had better be able to track down who cast the resurrection/wish/whatever or there'll be hell to pay with that DM.
The same is not true of Capes.
MODERATOR HAT: ON
When and if Chris chooses to explain what he means by Thematic Causality then there will be a foundation to have a discussion about it.
If your name is not Chris Edwards, please stop posting to this thread until that time. Feel free, however, to split off new threads on different subjects.
Thank you for your patience.
My name isn't Chris Edwards. But, I game with him a lot. Anyway, Chris is in Ecuador, and I haven't heard from him in a couple of days. When that happens, it usually means he's off in the mountains someplace and can't get to the internet cafe. So, my guess is that it could be a little while before he gets back to this.
That said, if you want a little "thematic causailty" theory to chew on until Chris gets back with the official "What Chris Thinks" version, here's what it usually boils down to in our games:
The importance of a choice depends on what happens down the road. The actual act of making the choice right now is not such a big deal. Say you've got a choice whether or not to kill a guy. If you just kill him and that's that, then the choice was no big deal. It existed basically to show off howe awesome your character is. On the other hand, if your killing him causes your wife to go nutso in a fit of remorse, give all your worldly posessions to the good will, and commit suicide a month later, then you have "thematic causality."
A while back I ran this Arthurian Vampire pool game. At one point, Chris's character killed one of my NPCs, this weird gnome / leprechuan thing. It wasn't a thematic moment. It just showed that Chris's character was One Bad Mother... Don't Mess With Him.
In contrast, in the Wierd West Supers pool game, Lxndr's character Jeremy had a series of escalating conflicts that eventually resulted in Jeremy killing his own father. That's the difference between some random choice and thematic causality.
Quote from: PaganiniAnyway, Chris is in Ecuador, and I haven't heard from him in a couple of days. When that happens, it usually means he's off in the mountains someplace and can't get to the internet cafe.
Nate, I returned from Ecuador a couple of weeks ago. I
was off in the mountains though, on the second annual Wild Turkey Camping Trip. Also, good example of what I'm talking about in regards to thematic causality.
Quote from: TonyLBSo what's "thematic causality"? I'd love to discuss whether or not Capes supports it, but I'd sort of need to know what it is, first.
The chain of decision/action/consequence produces meaning and expectation.
I'm playing a character. I make a decision, have my character take the appropriate action, and that action produces consequences in the SIS. Those consequences will shape my next decision. And so on.
Not only does each link of decision/action/consequence inform the next, but as the chain grows so does the meaning of the character's collective actions. Patterns start to form, emergent themes become noticeable, and a framework for the further addressing of Premise is built. It's important to note that this is a feedback loop. Current actions increase the meaning of past actions when this chain of thematic causality is kept intact.
Once we've started to build this chain it gives form to player expectations in regards to actions and possible outcomes in the SIS. Expectations are formed when we have patterns of meaning. Patterns of meaning are formed by a series of links of decision/action/consequence.
Players can then base their decisions not only on the weight of past actions and consequences, but on the likelihood of particular future outcomes. This allows them to make decisions that are likely to lead to consequences they consider properly dramatic or are reinforcing of the meaning created through past actions.
Does that clarify the nature of thematic causality? Do you think that Capes offers support for its creation?
-Chris
Hell, yes, to both!
Nice clarification. And yes, I think Capes delivers this in spades. I'm sort of surprised that you don't think so, but... well, that's what makes discussion fun. Do you want to elaborate your position first, or should I?
Well, to put it simply, Capes depends on the Social Contract level for the structure and limits that I feel should be inherent to the game itself.
I don't believe Capes contributes in any way to thematic causality. There's no enforcement of causality period. At best you have discreet, individual links, but no chain. Like you said in the Why have conflicts at all? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15129&start=45) thread, you don't see any inherent meaning in a particular outcome or action. So it's not surprising that Capes doesn't help assign any meaning to particular outcomes or actions.
Even The Pool, with its character traits and how they effect resolution, has more structure capable of creating thematic causality.
This is not to say that I think Capes has to support any particular thing, but I do think that it needs to support something. That, or make it absolutely clear in the text what is required from the players in regards to Social Contract, getting on the same page, etc., for "fun" play. If you don't, I think you're leaving people that buy Capes to either swim or sink.
-Chris
Okay, I think I see the source of dispute: You feel that there must be structure and limits, in order for one link of thematic causality to connect to the next?
Whereas I say "Hey, you can create any link you want, and it's connected to the previous one because you tell me it is," which (as I've argued in the thread you referenced) is all that's happening in any other game anyway.
Have I got the distinction correct?
Not really.
I also say "Hey, you can create any link you want, and it's connected to the previous one because you tell me it is," but after that I say "Then why do I need this game that's not contributing in any way to that process?", because I know that's not all that is happening in any other game.
Sure, Social Contract is the big umbrella that the rest of System falls under, but there's a reason people buy games. Games define limits, create structures for decision making, and basically take care of the hard work of communicating the nature of the experience that playing the game will create.
We can do that on the fly, all by ourselves, without assistance, but it's often time consuming and possibly frustratingly difficult. So why buy a game that doesn't take care of that stuff so that we can get on with an enjoyable play experience?
I'm not saying that Capes doesn't, or won't, appeal to people. Tastes certainly differ. But I think it behooves you to understand what Capes does and does not support. Saying things like "..and it's connected to the previous one because you tell me it is", as an argument for how Capes supports causality doesn't sound to me like you fully understand what a variety of people have been saying.
I think Capes has great potential, a lot of other people do to and that's why there has been so much debate regarding how the game plays. You certainly don't have to change the game in order to please anybody, but I think at the very least you should consider including some optional "house rules" that people will come up with to fill the holes they perceive. It's that much less work that will be placed upon others with similar agendas when they buy the game.
-Chris
Chris,
Could you give me a concrete example of how other games support this causality? That'll help me understand better what you think is missing here. I'm just not seeing how a concluded scene in Capes is different from a concluded scene in D&D with regards to the future consequences of that scene, mechanically speaking.
Thanks.
I think there are a couple of answers to that. The first boils down to the standard expectation that player have that mechanically generated outcomes will be enforced. The rules say "if a character wants to persuade an NPC to do something, they must make a Persuasion Check vs the NPCs Will subject to the following modifiers..." If the player makes the roll, the expectation is that the NPC has been persuaded and will act accordingly. We all know that there is wiggle room in the enforceability of rules...house rules, fudging, on the fly rulings, etc. But the default assumption is that once a thing is decided by mechanics it now "exists" and must be accounted for in future play.
Secondly you have all of the accumulated tradition of play. Is it possible in D&D for the DM to spontaneously start doing wacky and wild things like have been suggested may occur in Capes...technically, yes. But traditionally...that doesn't happen (at least not with a DM who's going to be asked to DM a second time). There's a foundation of "how things are done" with traditional play that enables players to trust the DM that they've vested with great power and feel reassured that he's not going to abuse it. There's text in the rules telling the DM not to abuse it and decades of "how a good DM acts" to back that up.
That's the difference between granting a DM "unlimited narrative power" and granting a player in Capes "unlimited narrative power". Just because the rules of D&D don't give players any mechanically enforceable authority over the DM's whim...there's a whole support net of tradition and "good DMing guidelines" to rely on. So there are PLENTY of contraints on a DM's actions. Most of them just aren't defined by game rules.
In Capes (as well as many other more experimental RPG designs...especially those of the GMless variety) all of that traditional support net of "we can trust him to do the right thing because he's a good DM" is gone. Uni replaced it with the ability of every player to act as "continuity cop" and relies on the group dynamic to be mutually self sustaining.
I earlier came down on the side that Capes replaced it with nothing, but my new understanding of Inspiration suggests that perhaps its not "nothing" after all...perhaps one can say that Capes replaced it with Inspiration. Although without more actual play evidence I won't attempt to speculate further as to how effective Inspiration is at maintaining causality.
Quote from: ValamirThat's the difference between granting a DM "unlimited narrative power" and granting a player in Capes "unlimited narrative power".
I see no difference whatsoever. We're talking about
system here. Every RPG (except Uni, I think) has the same expectations about behavior when it comes to what the "authority figure" may narrate. Sorcerer, Trollbabe, PTA, Dogs in the Vineyard... all of them. I see no reason why it isn't reasonable to distribute that expectation along with the narration authority normally restricted to a single GM.
The difference that I see is that Capes calls attention to the fact that traditional games have no safety net in place for the narration of the authority figure, other than social contract and long-standing habits.
Why is it a non-issue in those games, but a big hurdle for Capes? I don't think it is. The fact that some people find it problematic speaks volumes about play preferences, IMO. Perhaps the illusion of the safey net is just as good as the real thing?
Its a BIG difference John. And not one that's restricted to play preference. Its such a big difference that its something that designers NEED to acknowledge and account for. I'm in no way saying that new ground can't or shouldn't be broken...but I am saying that a designer needs to approach that new ground with eyes wide open. Cavalierly dismissing it as "no different than any other game" and "just personal preference" is not only wrong, its also not very constructive.
How is it different?
Because its NOT simply social contract in D&D...I made that very clear I thought in my last post. There are RULES that are expected to apply to the GM. The DM has to roll to-hit same as everyone else. Monster abilities and toughness and what monsters are suitable to be thrown against what level parties are laid out in some detail. The DM is expected to abide by them. Heck in 3e there is even a Challenge Rating formula and players would rightly consider their DM to be playing wrong if he strays too far from that formula without good reason.
The existance of rules establish a normative position against which everything else can be judged. THIS is how powerful a monster is supposed to be, THIS is how powerful a spell is supposed to be, HERE are the effects of a magic sword, THIS is what things are supposed to cost, THIS this the benefit I get from a feat. Sure, DM's have a HUGE amount of authority to ALTER those things. But they aren't altering them in a vacuum. They aren't inventing on the fly out of whole cloth. There are pages and pages and pages of standards that players expect the DM to adhere to. When the DM chooses not to adhere to them it is a notable exception and one that DMs typically must eventually justify to satisfy their players...but nearly all such differences will start from the default and change from there. Loads of guidelines act to shape and inform all DM decisions in ways that go well beyond social contract and preferences. There's alot of STUFF to rely on.
Other games work similarly. Most super hero games provide information on the lifting capacity of a given hero. That information can then be refered to as a guideline for whether VillainX can lift a train and throw it at the heroes or not. If the answer is not but the GM chooses to do so anyway, players have definite ammunition in the form of accepted principles to demand the GM come up with an acceptable justification for this otherwise in appropriate action. Capes offers no such guidelines and therefor no leverage for other players. There is thus a HUGE difference in the players ability to narrate in Capes vs. a GMs ability to narrate in most games.
To some extent the Comics Code in Capes might help fulfill some of that role. But its hard to image a Code that encompasses the volume of stuff contained within the covers of most game books in terms of applying guidelines to what is and isn"t considered appropriate.
Further, in a traditional GM centric game you have only 1 player who has to be trustworthy. That player has to shoulder the responsibility of managing the game appropriately and dealing with all manner of issues. In a GM-less / GM-distributed game you have many players who now have to be ready, willing, and able to shoulder the responsibility of managing the game. And even if they are all ready, willing, and able to do so, it doesn't make their efforts automatically compatable.
Note: I'm not saying thats a BAD thing. After all, I helped design a game that does just that. But one HAS to recognize that it is an inherently different environment with its own unique set of issues and problems. And those issues don't go away simply by ignoring them or pretending they don't exist.
I will note that after extensive discussion here, I now accept that Capes may actually deal with those issues better than I'd initially concluded. Inspiration and how it works may be the piece that I was missing in my earlier analysis. I say "may" because its such a radically different approach (for which I award all kinds of bonus points) its beyond my ability to speculate on how well it will actually address these issues in play without substantially more data.
But I did want to note that any claim that there is no difference whatsoever between a DM's narrative power in a traditional game and player narrative power in Capes is really not at all accurate. The differences are there and need to be accounted for one way or another in the design.
In D&D, having an 18 Strength says something about your character. Having a 6 Charisma says something about your character. Being a Wizard says something about your character. Being an elf says something about your character. Having your Lawful Good Paladin use his 18 Strength to smack the mayor says something about your character.
Those things I listed above are all potential sources of rules-enforced causality, thematic or otherwise. They vary little in this regard from, say, the traits in HeroQuest or components in Universalis.
The use of such elements and their surrounding rules sets guarantee that threads of continuity will be woven through play. If a character's actions are counter to his Alignment, there are potential enforceable consequences. If I want to woo the barmaid with a 6 Charisma I have expectations of likely outcomes to base my decision upon. The basic results of such an attempt is hardwired into the game and will inform further interactions with at least that particular barmaid.
In no way do I think that these elements and rules are enough, on their own, to manufacture this thematic causality I've been talking about. It does require player buy-in. But the rules of these games do help in a great way when it comes to producing the patterns of meaning and expectation that I referred to.
I don't see elements in Capes that assist the players in that regard. Inspiration seems to only serve that purpose if you don't spend it. All the work of creating a chain of thematic causality falls on the players because the system isn't carrying a reasonable share of the weight.
At this point I've pretty much explained myself to the extent that I'm willing to for someone else's benefit. Do you have any other questions about my stance, Tony?
-Chris
Values. Values. Values.
That's what I'm seeing. Rolled out again and again and again in these threads. The things so-and-so values, as a gamer, represented as having some intrinsic, even concrete value beyond a given social contract.
These two things are equivalent:
Quote from: Example A"I seduce the barmaid."
"No, you don't."
"Why not?"
"Because your Charisma value is 6."
"Oh. Okay."
Quote from: Example B"I seduce the barmaid."
"No, you don't."
"Why not?"
"Because we just had a conflict called 'Seduce the Barmaid' and Jerry won it, not you. He seduced her. You didn't."
"Oh. Okay."
The thing that is different in these examples is
what is valued. In one case, it's an ability score. In another, it's the result of a recent system outcome and narration.
In NEITHER case does the system bind anyone to acceptance or rejection of the new SIS.
In BOTH cases, the value may not be accepted. And the matter must go to negotiation. In D&D, I can appeal to a pseudo-system, game text, "logic," bribes of candy, or whatever.
Quote from: Example A, revisited
"But shouldn't I get to roll for it?"
"Sure. Roll at -6 because she doesn't like elves."
"She doesn't? Why not?"
"Because she's from Kargol."
"She is? Where is that?"
"Over the mountains."
and on, and on...
The only way that exchange can even happen is if the player values the same things the GM is placing value in. The player has chosen to value the numbers of the game system (in other words, accepting that a score of 6 is poor)
as well as the free narration of the GM about what's what. The fact that the GM can invent the barmaid's origin doesn't seem like an abuse of power because the player is plugged in to the same value system.
The player can choose to rebel against whatever value system his is presented with. "How come you get to say where she's from?" Players always have this option. In any game.
Chris said this:
Quote from: C. EdwardsIn D&D, having an 18 Strength says something about your character. Having a 6 Charisma says something about your character. Being a Wizard says something about your character. Being an elf says something about your character. Having your Lawful Good Paladin use his 18 Strength to smack the mayor says something about your character.
Why? Because the players agree that those things have value. If they don't agree, then not only do the traits say nothing, the players are not playing the same game.
In Capes, jumping over a tall building says something about your character. Repelling the alien armada says something about your character. Having the trait "Faster than lightning" says something about your character.
Why? Because the players agree that those things have value. Just like every other RPG.
Narration and consequences of outcomes in Capes are just as binding, just as fluid, just as valued, and just as causal as those of any other game.
Hey, maybe I'm just missing the point.
I can do all this stuff without buying a game. I just like the ground work and basis for negotiation to be laid out for all the participants to see. I appreciate a system for negotiating credibility to be built into the game that doesn't resemble a bear pit, nor assumed to be pre-existing among the participants. I want the seeds for creating dependable causality to be inherent to the game. I like a framework and rules to help me and my friends experience better play than we might otherwise be able to.
Basically, I buy games so that I don't have to start from scratch every time I feel like roleplaying.
I don't think that I've concealed the fact that all my statements regarding Capes stem from my particular play preferences. Tony has repeatedly asked for my opinion, and that of others, and so I've given it to him.
Values? Hell yeah they're values, and I value games that lend something to the play experience beyond a well stuctured resolution system. Which, besides the extremely cool Click & Lock system, is all the support that Capes lends to play. That's nothing to sneeze at, but I don't think that it's enough either.
-Chris
Quote from: C. EdwardsAt this point I've pretty much explained myself to the extent that I'm willing to for someone else's benefit. Do you have any other questions about my stance, Tony?
I'm pretty sure I've got it... sure enough to start talking about how my stance differs, without even summarizing it back at you. So... y'know... if I've got it terribly wrong then I apologize, but it's a legitimate misunderstanding. What I understand you saying is very reasonable.
But I really do think that my earlier question about whether you need
restrictions is still valid. Restrictions and fruitful constraints do a good job of patterning behavior, but they are only one of several tools to do that. Capes patterns player behavior through reward mechanisms much more than it does through restrictions. That's just as powerful a tool, if a more subtle one.
Suppose, for instance, you want a game where elves have a certain martial style: they like bows and long-swords. There are two ways to do it: First, you can say "If you play an Elf you
must spend your first two weapons proficiencies on longsword and bow." Or you can say "Elves get +1 to hit with longsword or bow."
In my experience
either rule results in low-level elves having identical weapons-sets. Of course, if the idea of an elf with an axe is an absolute affront to your aesthetics then that second rule isn't strong enough: "An Elf
could take any weapon... even a war maul!" But if an exception is excusable then the reward-based pattern is plenty strong.
Does that make sense
in this context? If so then I can talk about how you can apply it to thematic causality.
QuoteThe thing that is different in these examples is what is valued. In one case, it's an ability score. In another, it's the result of a recent system outcome and narration.
In NEITHER case does the system bind anyone to acceptance or rejection of the new SIS.
In BOTH cases, the value may not be accepted. And the matter must go to negotiation. In D&D, I can appeal to a pseudo-system, game text, "logic," bribes of candy, or whatever.
John, in your quest to prove that there is no difference you keep missing the elephant in the middle of the living room.
There is a HUGE difference between Example A and Example B and its NOT one that can be summarily dismissed as being merely different values.
In Example A Charisma of 6 is a fact that exists in the game. Its existed since the character was created. Every player in the game knows exactly what Charisma of 6 means both in terms of direct game mechanic effect and relative comparison. There are rules in the book to illustrate how to interpret Charisma 6. There are Dragon magazine articles on how to interpret Charisma 6. There is a history of how this particular play group interprets Charisma 6. The player knows in advance what having a Charisma of 6 means to his chance to seduce the barmaid and this factor applies each and every time he chooses to do so. There may well be some interpretation to be made...perhaps this barmaid has a thing for low Charisma guys, but the existance of a) a stat called Charisma that governs these things, and b) a specific score for this specific character in that specific stat will inform all of these situations.
In Example B "Jerry won the competition" is a fact that just occured moments ago. It doesn't have any history. It doesn't have any guidelines. It doesn't have any illustrated game effects. Most differently of all it doesn't apply to every single attempt by that character to seduce barmaids...just this particular one for however long players remember there was a competition about it.
What is the key difference?
Example A relies on statements that have already been established as fact, already accepted by the players, and already incorporated into the SIS. The character has had a Charisma of 6 since he was 1st level and everyone knows what that means.
Example B relies on statements that has not been established as fact and which are being presented for the first time to be accepted on the fly at that time. Players have had no time ascertain their appropriateness or judge what sort of effect it should have and no procedures for adjucating it if they disagree.
The newly established fact is not that Jerry had seduced the barmaid, but that his seduction would have an impact on the other character's ability to seduce the barmaid. This is different because in example A, all players are already primed to accept that having a low charisma would affect the situation.
Again I'm not saying that one way is better or worse or right or wrong.
I AM saying they are different and that designers need to be aware of and account for that difference.
I don't think there is any way to dispute that. They ARE fundamentally different. They are created in different ways, they are presented in play in different ways, they are intepreted in different ways, and they are applied in different ways. The fact that you can write them up in parallel formatting doesn't change that. You claim the two are equivalent. I say flat out, you are wrong. And the issue is not one of values...the issue is one of process. They may both be narrative statements made by a person with authority, but the process behind HOW they are made is completely different...in dramatic ways.
But this is getting pretty tangental since we're not really even about Capes any more.
Quote from: ValamirOther games work similarly. Most super hero games provide information on the lifting capacity of a given hero. That information can then be refered to as a guideline for whether VillainX can lift a train and throw it at the heroes or not. If the answer is not but the GM chooses to do so anyway, players have definite ammunition in the form of accepted principles to demand the GM come up with an acceptable justification for this otherwise in appropriate action. Capes offers no such guidelines and therefor no leverage for other players. There is thus a HUGE difference in the players ability to narrate in Capes vs. a GMs ability to narrate in most games.
Does this explain why all the other super hero games that I've played are utterly unsatisfying -- because they are essentially D&D in spandex?
If so, I am glad that someone has finally gotten rid of those "guidelines." At least in the superhero genre, Capes works amazingly well.
Tony,
Of course it makes sense. My concern is that the rewards seem transient, that they don't lend themselves to having effects lasting enough to promote thematic causality.
I'm also concerned about the behavior required to gain a reward. Some of it seems contrary to the play experience you want to promote.
Really though, at this stage, I need to play Capes some more. With all the discussion I've got a much better grasp of the issues I want to watch for during play.
-Chris
Could well be Larry, I couldn't say without knowing what you found unsatisfying. But again the point of my last few points is only to illustrate that the process on how players arrive at deciding what happens is quite different between the two. Not to say that the "other way" is better (or worse).
Think about the statement "and then VillainX picks up the locomotive and hurls it at the heroes." Now consider the process those games used to arrive at that final statement vs. the process Capes would use. I don't mean the specifics of what dice were rolled, but the mental activity that went into the decision. Can we agree that they were very very different in their approach to determining what was and wasn't acceptable to say and how that was decided?
The key take away here is for designers to recognize that difference, decide how they want it to impact the play experience, and write rules to accomplish that taking into account those differences.
Chris: Which rewards are you looking at? There are a lot of layers of interlocking reward systems in Capes. I don't know quite how to respond to your concerns that the "rewards" are transient and reward the wrong behavior until I know which things you're referring to.
Ralph: I'm trying to grok your long, many-exampled post. It sounds (to me) like you're saying that one approach encourages players to appeal to precedent (Dragon magazine articles, past decisions of the same sort, etc.) and the other approach... uh... encourages players to appeal to the game-mechanic for authority, maybe? You sort of talked a lot more about the first approach than the second. Am I close to understanding what you're saying?
Quote from: TonyLBChris: Which rewards are you looking at? There are a lot of layers of interlocking reward systems in Capes. I don't know quite how to respond to your concerns that the "rewards" are transient and reward the wrong behavior until I know which things you're referring to.
Fred mentioned a couple examples in the various threads. That's one reason why I need to play more. I need to explore those interlocking rewards systems and the behaviors they promote. I've got to say though, the little play I've done, and some of the reports of others, doesn't leave me especially hopeful. I'd be ecstatic discover that my arguments were completely unfounded. I'm addicted to clicky locky thingies.
-Chris
Hmmm. Wow. This is a tricky one to untangle, ain't it?
I pretty much disagree with your entire post in response to mine, Ralph. The whole friggin' thing. I mean, I won't even stipulate this much:
Quote from: ValamirCharisma of 6 is a fact that exists in the game.
Nope. No it isn't. I disagree 100%. The fact that you see the two examples as totally different processes makes me realize that we are not in the same room with regards to the underlying theory here.
We've hit a big brick wall. I'm gonna let Tony run with it and see if he can make some headway.
Quote from: ValamirAgain I'm not saying that one way is better or worse or right or wrong.
I AM saying they are different and that designers need to be aware of and account for that difference.
...
But this is getting pretty tangental since we're not really even about Capes any more.
Well, can we safely say there seem to be two schools of thought on the matter?
This is really interesting; I don't know that this issue is covered by the Big Model or any of that stuff. Maybe all y'all game designer types wanna explore this in the general in the theory forum.
Are we in
terra incognita here in terms of Theory and terminology?
Was "thematic causality" coined for sake of this discussion, Chris? It seems like a good enough working term.
Quote from: MiskatonicWas "thematic causality" coined for sake of this discussion, Chris? It seems like a good enough working term.
Yes, I made it up in response to a query from Tony. It was an attempt to label the process I was describing.
-Chris
This is a highly interesting topic, so I support moving it to the Theory forum.
I don't think it's all about one GM or many, though that aggravates the differences.
It seems to me we're talking about accepting facts and mechanisms at different stages of a game. By adopting Charisma 6 and all its implications, we're establishing expectancy at the social contract level that this will be adhered to. In Capes, maybe that establishing of facts happens during play instead of during contract negotiation, which leads to less reliable expectnacy and more spontaneous creativity.
So--more adopting of mechanisms, facts and rules at the social contract level=higher level of reliable expectancy of in-game events. The flipside is that in that case, there's less room for creative interpretation and spontaneity, because those things are already set in stone.
Now that I understand, Christian! I fully agree with that.
Is that what you meant, Ralph? If so... great! We're actually coming to terms.
It sounds to me like Chris is looking for a game which encourages past events, and their associated meanings, to be relevant to present and future events (and theirs). I think that Capes can support this, but it doesn't explicitly do so - it's up to the players to do that, and more importantly, it's not that difficult for a player to deliberately choose not to.
Christ on a pogo stick.
Xenopulse, Jinx, that's all I've been saying. Well, that and that there is specific agenda that those mechanisms support.
Also, I don't believe that instituting constraints effects the level of spontaneity and creative interpretation. When you're working under constraints you have to get creative.
-Chris
Some folks have suggested this merits wider discussion in RPG-Theory. I agree. I've created the thread Meaning in the beginning, middle and end (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15173).