Just an odd rules question.
Say that a player is using the Robot powerset, and making heavy use of the "Massive Property Damage" Style. Could I set out a "Goal: Massive Property Damage" and effectively prevent the Robot from using that Style until that conflict resolves?
yrs--
--Ben
Um... you know, I just finished reading the rules and I don't remember anything keeping you from doing it. In fact, if a character has the Power, "Razor Sharp Claws" I could see you plopping down a Conflict that said "Goal: Wolverine uses his razor sharp claws" and keep him from narrating anything with his claws until it was resolved.
Weird...
Yeah, but you could easily counter with:
"Robot-man attempts to cause Massive Property Damage, but stumbles into a scyscraper instead of laying waste to the city as planned. The building is rocked from the impact, and shudders ominously."
or:
"Wolverine's Razor Sharp Claws fail to deploy as he attacks, causing him to lash out even stronger than he intended, due to an atavistic reaction to the shock of it."
...I think.
Andrew M. has the right of it... most practical goals block off some specific uses, but leave a panoply of more creative ways to narrate the power. While you can theoretically write "Goal: Massive Property Damage as an idea, memory, concept or action has any bearing, relevance or influence, direct or indirect over the course of events," (and thereby, I think, kill off most any sort of narration by the Not Yet rule) most people don't.
Yeah, the only time I can conceive of actually doing something like you describe is if someone is being a total dick in free narration. Then I would block 1 power, I'd go for blocking the whole damn character.
Goal: Captain Spandex uses any of his powers in any way ?
Is this something that actually happened, Jack? Or are you worried and borrowing trouble? Or, alternately, are you stepping up to provide the folks on the forum with a fun challenge to work out, so that everyone can applaud and marvel at the grace and artistry with which they handle it?
I'm sort of hoping for that third one, I have to admit. But mainly I think the discussion will be more fun if we're all on the same page.
More of the third. It struck me as the logical extension of what the first poster was talking about.
Coooool! Challenge time, everyone. Jack has posted a beautiful broad-spectrum Preventative Goal (and I agree it's the logical extension of the first poster's comments). Let's see some entertaining notions for how you would narrate the game-mechanical use of a Power anyway.
Hell, I did this VOLUNTARILY in the game that's going right now. I had one of my villains Reverend Eden summon Lucifer through a portal and one of the other player's slapped down, Goal: Send Lucifer Back Through The Portal. It succeeded and massively hosed Lucifer in the process. He ended up with 11 debt on his undifferenciated drive stack.
So, I decided he was totally stripped of his powers by the process. So no when I use "Invulnerable" I describe him arrogantly taking a blow from an enemy and then acting totally shocked when he starts to bleed.
Jesse
QuoteGoal: Captain Spandex uses any of his powers in any way ?
Seems pretty synonymous with:
Goal: You get to narrate anything interesting at all.
And if anyone was silly enough to write down either of those on an index card I'd probably respond by handing that player their hat.
I think that Andrew gave a good response to Ben's initial rules dilemma. Being that blocking the implied effect of a power does not block the narrative ability of the player to use the power. I don't see the logical extension that Jack and Tony see. What I do see is the question "What if I'm playing with a total dick? Will Capes solve that problem?"
But maybe that's just me.
-Eric
I'm with Eric on this one. There's not any way to block someone from using the Power to get to roll the dice. You can always narrate the character TRYING to use the Power but being unsuccessful and still roll the die. My initial read on the problem was what Eric describes. What if I somehow get stuck playing with a total dick? Can Capes provide ways to curtail the lone idiot at the table? I think using Powerblocking is an excellent example of how to do so. It doesn't rob the player from the ability to play but it makes him have to come up with something interesting in order to do so. Of course, if he's still a dick after that, just quit playing with him.
What Andrew (Gaerik) just said. Use your powers in ways that are meaningless, but let you narrate why you end up rolling the die anyway. "Captain Spandex winds up to use his Thunder Punch, but realizes that violence is not the answer, and convinces the bank robbers to turn themselves over to the police."
Would you actually accept that as a use of a power? I don't have the rules at hand but it seems to me that Captain Spendex thinking about it and doing something else wouldn't reasonably count as using the power.
In one recent session with Tony -- who, y'know, is presumably the world's leading authority on the interpretation of Capes rules -- I realized I had a character with nothing but combat powers who was in the middle of a debate scene where violence was totally inappropriate. (For the moment). I boggled for a moment and then realized: Use the powers metaphorically.
In my case, I had the character, who had the "Shootist" powerset from the click-and-locks, speak in gawdawful inarticulate gunfire metaphors, e.g. I use "Ricochet" and the character says something like, "y'know, sometimes we all make mistakes, where we aim for one goal but everything we throw at it bounces off and does terrible damage somewhere else...." Etc. etc. ad infinitum ad nauseam.
This was a silly example, but you could do it seriously. I had a villainness whose level 5 power was "Cause pain" against whom Tony laid down a preventative goal "Hurt my character in any away." So I simply had my villain cause emotional pain to herself, because she's so damn full of misery and self-loathing, and let that power her towards victory anyway.
Also, on a simpler note: Where exactly do the rules appoint anybody to "accept" that narration?
Given the conspicuous absence of a formal referee (in other games often the GM) there are two ways of viewing the player relation to the rules:
- The rules are a communal resource, and all uses of them are subject to community oversight. Any vagueness (and "You must include X in your narration" is, unfortunately, too vague) are referred to the community.
- The rules are individual resources. Any vagueness can be resolved by each individual as they see fit.
If you're going with the first way then my answer is "Yeah, me personally, I'd accept that narration." If you're going with the second way then the answer is "Me? What have I got to do with it? Does the guy
narrating it think that's sufficient?"
I honestly don't think one is better than the other. The second one is a lot easier (for me) but requires a lot of trust in the other players. Plus, it's obviously easier for me because nobody's ever called me on whether my use of the rules was correct. So I don't have to feel in any way that I'm competing for authority over the rules.
I do know that at GenCon while playing with Tony that I had The Ravager II simply remember Major Victory using his powers in a previous encounter and that counted as using my (MV) powers for the roll. All the rules say is that you have to "include" the power in your narration. How it is included isn't mentioned at all.
In any game where Tony is a participant, his authority as creator of the game, and his good-natured, infectious enthusiasm tends to make a very "anything goes" atmosphere as far as accepting narration goes.
But when it comes right down to it, there's no mechanism for enforcing the rule that says that you have to include the power you used in your narration.
I can recall having a short conversation with Tony in the first game I played that went something like this (and I'm paraphrasing, probably terribly):
Me: "Bleah. I just can't think of any narration for this, and my '5' is the only power I can use."
Tony: "It doesn't have to be explicit. Like, if your power were 'throw things' your character could throw his weight around, throw up, throw his back out... whatever."
Me: "Okay...."
*long pause*
Me: "I still can't think of anything. 'Laser Blast' isn't exactly a broad metaphor."
At this point in the game, NOONE has the *authority* to say, "Well, Fred, if you can't think of anything else, then it's James's turn." They can SUGGEST that I pass to the next person.
There's a lot of authority in Capes that devolves eventually on group consensus, and the people who can lead or shape that consensus have a lot of power in shaping how the game as a whole turns out. Just like in any other RPG, but moreso.
Seems to me that part of this problem is an equivocation between a character using a power and a player using a power. Nothing can stop a player from using a power (although now that I say it, I'm imagining a game of meta-Capes :). The only constraint that a conflict like 'Goal: X uses a power' imposes is that when a player provides narration for their use of a power, that player needs to feel that the power was mentioned appropriately in the narration, and that the character does not use it.
I'm trying to imagine what the circumstances would be in which that was an appropriate goal to place. The main one that springs to mind is when a villian or hero is the subject of some sort of suppression beam. In that case, the narration is simple - the hero struggles to use his power, only to have it foiled by the beam.
Really, this seems similar to the whole 'What if your guy gets locked in jail' question. The only constraints on narration are aesthetic constraints (which are valid constraints - consider the 'Laser Blast' example). If someone is such a skilled narrator that they can put down conflicts like 'Your character is in any way better than totally pathetic' and they make sense and are cool, then sit back and enjoy the show. If they're using narration which is dorky and doesn't make sense, then don't play with them (It's worth pointing out that this is a continuum, and not a discrete measure - I'm happy to tolerate some level of dorkiness in narration, but if someone is trying to disrupt my play that much, I'm not interested in playing).
Sorry to open up what might be an old thread, but this is really bugging me...
Isn't "Powerblocking" part and parcel of the genre? The way to accommodate it narratively has been given, so that's not a problem, provided everyone knows it.
Isn't strapping Superman to a block of Kryptonite exactly this? Goal - stop Superman using any of his powers. I'm straining to think of other examples and failing, but they must abound.
Sam.
Usually players voluntarily stop using their own powers when they start carrying too much debt, and use (say) Kryptonite (or a hiccup of their metabolism or sun-spots or the having been out of the water for too long) as an excuse.
Quote from: Mandacaru on November 20, 2005, 01:55:37 PM
Isn't "Powerblocking" part and parcel of the genre? The way to accommodate it narratively has been given, so that's not a problem, provided everyone knows it.
Isn't strapping Superman to a block of Kryptonite exactly this? Goal - stop Superman using any of his powers. I'm straining to think of other examples and failing, but they must abound.
There's nothing wrong with narrating a hunk kryptonite and introducing "Goal: Superman regains use of his powers". This would prevent a narration of Superman's powers working until the goal is resolved, but it most decidedly does not prevent Superman's player from using, for example, Superman's flight power as an action on his next turn. The narration could be "Superman tries to fly but crashes to the ground in a heap."
A goal can block anything narrative but absolutely nothing mechanical.
Quote from: TheCzech on November 21, 2005, 04:22:20 PM
A goal can block anything narrative but absolutely nothing mechanical.
An excellent way of summing it up.
Here is a question related to this thread, at least tangentially.
The rules say that when a goal is made for a character, the player of that character can veto it (pg 29). So with:
Goal: Captain Spandex uses his powers in any way.
How is this preventative? If the player of Captain Spandex is uninterested, he can veto it. And if the player finds it interesting, then it either is not preventing him from doing something he wants to do, or its more interesting than what he wanted to do. At best I would call this a distracting goal, not a preventative goal. In fact, I have to say that the discussion of preventative goals on page 126 doesn't seem to take the veto power into account.
It seems to me a better preventative goal would be:
Goal: Major Evil prevents Captain Spandex from using his powers in any way.
In this case, Captain Spandex can't veto, I think. Until the goal resolves, Captain Spandex can do whatever he wants, but if it resolves against Captain Spandex, while his player can still use the traits on his sheet, the player cannot narrate Captain Spandex using his powers in any way, one assumes, until another Goal resovles, such as:
Goal: Captain Spandex regains use of his powers
Am I missing something? Am I over reading the veto power?
Based on the above, from the discussion on page 126 on preventative goals, to prevent the villain escaping, you can't make:
Goal: Major Evil escapes
without a veto, but you can make:
Goal: Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil escaping
and this achieves the same purpose. Its a semantic difference, but it seems important to me.
Quote from: Hans on November 23, 2005, 10:05:20 AM
The rules say that when a goal is made for a character, the player of that character can veto it (pg 29).
Man, I wish you could edit.
I guess this is the big question that this thread has raised for me: is it possible to make a Goal that has no character associated with it? Someone mentioned a goal "Massive Property Damage". But it seems there is always an implied character, i.e. "The Hulk causes Massive Property Damage". Can you have a goal without at least an implied character? The very word "goal" to me makes this unlikely. As a corrollary, do people, in actual play, usually make explicit whose goal each goal is, or is implying the character usually sufficient?
I'm afraid I am trying to hijack this thread, but I still think this refers to powerblocking.
Quote from: Hans on November 23, 2005, 10:05:20 AM
Goal: Major Evil prevents Captain Spandex from using his powers in any way.
In this case, Captain Spandex can't veto, I think. Until the goal resolves, Captain Spandex can do whatever he wants, but if it resolves against Captain Spandex, while his player can still use the traits on his sheet, the player cannot narrate Captain Spandex using his powers in any way, one assumes, until another Goal resovles, such as:
Goal: Captain Spandex regains use of his powers
Am I missing something? Am I over reading the veto power?
The problem with your example is that Goal: Major Evil prevents Captain Spandex from using his powers in any way. being resolved doesn't put any limitations on Spandex in any way whatsoever. Major Evil's player can resolve the goal and on Spandex's next turn his player can narrate whatever he wants. Goals that have been resolved no longer affect play mechanically in any way. It only affect play mechanically while it is in play.
Quote from: Hans on November 23, 2005, 10:05:20 AM
Based on the above, from the discussion on page 126 on preventative goals, to prevent the villain escaping, you can't make:
Goal: Major Evil escapes
without a veto, but you can make:
Goal: Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil escaping
and this achieves the same purpose. Its a semantic difference, but it seems important to me.
The semantics here are very important. "Goal: Major Evil escapes" keeps Major Evil's character from narrating an escape until it has been resolved. "Goal: Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil escaping" doesn't keep Major Evil from narrating an escape. It keeps Spandex from preventing Major Evil's escape.
I'll leave the question of vetos to Tony. I'm unsure of them.
Quote from: Gaerik on November 23, 2005, 11:26:44 AM
The problem with your example is that Goal: Major Evil prevents Captain Spandex from using his powers in any way. being resolved doesn't put any limitations on Spandex in any way whatsoever. Major Evil's player can resolve the goal and on Spandex's next turn his player can narrate whatever he wants. Goals that have been resolved no longer affect play mechanically in any way. It only affect play mechanically while it is in play.
I think I understand what you are saying here, but it doesn't seem right to me. My understanding is the exact opposite of yours (and probably wrong). Don't the outcome of goals and events have to be taken into account in future narration? In the case above, Major Evil has succceeded in preventing Spandex from using his powers. I don't see how he can use them until some new goal or event resolves that allows him to. I don't mean that the player can't use his powers and abilities; the player can always use the values on the sheet. What I mean is that the narration can't show Spandex actually using his powers.
It would be the same as having a goal: Steal all the gold in fort knox, and resolve it so that your villain steals all the gold, and then have another player immediately narrate your capture and the gold being taken from you. What was the point in having the goal in the first place? Do you have to phrase every goal as something like "Successfully steal all the gold in fort knox with no possibility of capture"? Even with a goal like that, it seems that from what you are saying the minute you are done speaking someone else can snatch your hard-earned victory right out from under you.
I know this might not be a written rule, but it would seem to me to be an important element of a fairly coherent story, and necessary to making goals a meaningful thing.
Quote from: Gaerik on November 23, 2005, 11:26:44 AM
The semantics here are very important. "Goal: Major Evil escapes" keeps Major Evil's character from narrating an escape until it has been resolved. "Goal: Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil escaping" doesn't keep Major Evil from narrating an escape. It keeps Spandex from preventing Major Evil's escape.
I'll leave the question of vetos to Tony. I'm unsure of them.
Again, I disagree, but am likely wrong. If Major Evil's player narrates Spandex escaping, how could the Goal ever come to fruition? You can't decide the end of the goal before the goal is resolved. I suppose technically you are correct, in that Major Evil could narrate some form of escape - getting out of the HQ, but still not out of the state, getting out of the state but still not off the planet, etc. But he hasn't ESCAPED until the goal is resolved. Besides, from what you said above, if Spandex's player resolves the goal: Major Evil escapes in his favour and narrates the capture of Major Evil, from what you said above, the minute Spandex's player stops talking Major Evil could go ahead and narrate Evil escaping anyway.
I have only played once, so I'm probably missing something, as I have in the past.
Hans, you're making the incorrect assumption that after a conflict has been cleared off the table, that it has any further effect on the game.
A cleared conflict has only three lingering effects, and those only last until they are spent:
1> Story tokens
2> Inspirations
3> Debt
And none of them retain any 'ghost' of the conflict that originally spawned them...
UNLESS
The players involved think it's cool to do so.
Quote from: Vaxalon on November 24, 2005, 10:01:31 AM
Hans, you're making the incorrect assumption that after a conflict has been cleared off the table, that it has any further effect on the game...[snip] UNLESS The players involved think it's cool to do so.
Huh! *sound of Hans's perceptions being shifted 180 degress, sort of a ZING kind of sound*
My experience is so lacking in this game; I am worried that my inexperience is the reason this all seems so wrong to me. Please forgive me if I am missing something very obvious. I am so very fascinated by this game, though, that I really want to understand.
Vaxalon, you have played this game more than I have, so your understanding of the rules is superior to mine. But my gut reaction to this is that it stinks.
Player 1: "Haha, i win the Goal: Major Evil Escapes! Captain Spandex grabs Major Evil by the arms and puts the cuffs on him. 'Major Evil, you are going to jail for your crimes, you scumbag. Take him away, officers!' "
Player 2: "Ok, that conflict over? As part of this other conflict, Major Evil will use power X. Major Evil knocks the police out and escapes anyway."
In your circle of friends you play with I have to assume this doesn't happen, because I would think it would be intolerable. Wouldn't you all be throwing things at Player 2 for being, at a minimum, a bad sport? Moreover, how does this jibe with, from page 29, the statement that you cannot "attempt the same Goal in the same scene"? This seems the heart of the discussion on pagd 129 regarding narration rules...what can you narrate if you are on the losing side of a conflict.
In the above example, I recognize that the player of Major Evil, if the scene was still ongoing, could continue using Major Evil's powers and abilities to affect ongoing conflicts. He may still have henchmen around, his influence might linger in other ways, he might have mental control powers he can still use from the back of the police cruiser, his evil taints those around him, a clone/robot Major Evil arrives, who knows? But it seems to me that during the course of a scene, the narrative outcome of a goal or event should be part of the "facts" of the scene unless changed by another goal or event. I'm not sure how the Goal: Major Evil Escapes can be considered preventative unless that is the case. It certainly doesn't prevent Major Evil escaping, so what is it preventing? It would be better to call it a delaying goal.
Moreover, even if my original understanding was correct, I'm still not certain how Goal: Major Evil Escapes, can be considered preventative if the player playing Major Evil could just veto it. Its only preventative if the player playing Major Evil thinks its interesting; he or she is still in the drivers seat.
I'm just going to be quiet now, and not risk letting my lack of experience in the game make any more of a fool of me than it already has. :) I won't expect any more answers until I have played some more and can speak from actual play.
For this game, Actual Play is all. You can't get it from the book.
Yes, for the most part, that kind of thing doesn't happen.
If it does, you're playing with asshats and you should find a new group.
Hans,
Your example with Player 1 and Player 2 are perfectly acceptable according to the rules. It takes a does take a bit of a shift in how you think games should normally work. You can probably do a search of this forum for several threads on this exact subject.
There is a way to get the kind of effect you are wanting. Let's say you, playing a hero, don't want Major Evil to escape during the scene. During the first turn around the table, plop down "Goal: Major Evil escapes." Now Major Evil's player cannot narrate him escaping until the Conflict is decided. After this, don't ever actually claim a side to the Conflict. Roll on the side opposite Major Evil, if he claims a side but don't ever actually claim it. If you continue to win without claiming a side the Conflict never leaves the table and Major Evil can't escape. Once the end of the scene is in sight, then claim the side and try to win. If you win, the scene ends with Major Evil getting captured. If not, he gets away.
Note that this doesn't keep anyone from narrating Major Evil escaping from prison first thing in the next scene unless you plop down "Goal: Major Evil escapes from prison." before they can do so.
Actually, it's impossible to put down a goal before Major Evil's player gets a chance to narrate him out of prison, because he can introduce his character before you can lay down your goal... but yeah, you can keep him from escaping for ONE scene, if you're willing to spend the resources you need to enforce it, and have a little luck with the dice.
Quote from: Gaerik on November 23, 2005, 11:26:44 AMThe semantics here are very important. "Goal: Major Evil escapes" keeps Major Evil's character from narrating an escape until it has been resolved. "Goal: Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil escaping" doesn't keep Major Evil from narrating an escape. It keeps Spandex from preventing Major Evil's escape.
No, actually. The "Not Yet" rule applies to anything that would fulfill
or definitely make impossible the Goal. So if the Goal is "Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil escaping" then Major Evil may neither be definitely captured (fulfilling the Goal) not definitely escape (invalidating the Goal). He's got to hang around in that "About to escape,
any second now" state of indeterminacy until the conflict resolves.
The classic example of this is "Event: Bomb ticks down to 00:00:01." You
can't defuse the bomb before the last second. It's not possible. You can only increase your odds of that last-second defuse, which can only happen when the Event resolves.
Quote from: Hans on November 24, 2005, 12:40:20 PM
Player 1: "Haha, i win the Goal: Major Evil Escapes! Captain Spandex grabs Major Evil by the arms and puts the cuffs on him. 'Major Evil, you are going to jail for your crimes, you scumbag. Take him away, officers!' "
Player 2: "Ok, that conflict over? As part of this other conflict, Major Evil will use power X. Major Evil knocks the police out and escapes anyway."
In your circle of friends you play with I have to assume this doesn't happen, because I would think it would be intolerable.
But ... this exact kind of thing happens in comic books
all the time. The problem of revolving door prisons is legendary. What kind of a world would it be where Bizarro couldn't break out of Star Labs at will to rain down confused havoc on the people of Metropolis?
What you earn for having fought the good fight is not that the world is safe forever. It is that the world was saved
that one time. You won that fight. As Mr. Incredible says "I feel like the maid! I just cleaned here! Can we keep it clean for five minutes?"
Now you also get Inspirations, and if you want to roll those consistently into conflicts pertaining to keeping the villain in prison then you can make it a big deal. But that's your choice. You can just as easily say that those Inspirations go into conflicts about how Captain Spandex looks much cooler than Major Evil on the 11 o'clock news. When you spend those Inspirations,
that is when we find out what the conflict mean in terms of changing the plot in future: unless it was a very, very big conflict it can't keep him in prison
and prove that you were the tougher fighter
and make you look better on the news
and keep the city safe ... but the Inspirations can be spent toward one (maybe two) of those long-term effects, and then that's what the conflict did to the continuing world.
Quote from: TonyLB on November 27, 2005, 11:11:54 AM
The problem of revolving door prisons is legendary. What kind of a world would it be where Bizarro couldn't break out of Star Labs at will to rain down confused havoc on the people of Metropolis
I understand this, Tony. That is why I said earlier (I think) that between scenes anything could happen. My concern was not that Bizarro could escape with impunity from Star Labs. My concern was that you could never get him into Star Labs in the first place. Gaerik's example, though, helped me to see how a preventative goal would work given what everyone is telling me. Thanks Gaerik! I had not thought of the idea of leaving a side unclaimed, but still rolling to keep it winning. That is a good trick. The bottom line is that the results of a goal CAN be trivialized within the same scene, so if you really don't want that to happen you have to do your darndest to make sure the goal's resolution coincides with the scene ending. Then, while everything can change between scenes, at least the end of the scene (the last page of the comic, as it were) shows Bizarro being dragged off to Star Labs.
The way I thought you could keep Major Evil escaping in the scene is not the way you actually would do it. Its harder, but still conceivable. I thought you would claim and resolve the goal as quickly as possible. But actually, the idea is to keep the goal from resolving as long as possible, preferably to the very end of the scene. In fact, under my original idea, I would virtually guarantee that I couldn't keep Major Evil from escaping, because as soon as I resolve the goal, Major Evil's player can narrate anything they want, and I can't play the goal again.
This leaves me with two questions on vetos:
* Would "Goal:Major Evil Escapes" be vetoable by the player of Major Evil? (my guess is yes)
* Who can veto "Goal: Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil from escaping"; Spandex's player, Evil's player, or both? (I have no idea)
Wow, I love this game. I haven't thought this hard about a game since I first learned how to play Squad Leader back in 1981. I need to find more players! Anyone want to come to Hamilton, Ontario for a game? :)
Quote from: Hans on November 27, 2005, 01:35:31 PM
* Would "Goal:Major Evil Escapes" be vetoable by the player of Major Evil? (my guess is yes)
Correct. I will point out, however, that having Major Evil veto this is, in fact, a
benefit to Captain Spandex's player. He's just learned something about how Major Evil's player thinks (specifically "I will not bother to pursue this goal, which means you will never, ever, get Story Tokens out of me by presenting it.") The veto is a communication tool to help people find conflicts that they'll both be stoked about contesting over, not an authoritative tool to prevent certain types of conflicts from being played.
Quote from: Hans on November 27, 2005, 01:35:31 PM* Who can veto "Goal: Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil from escaping"; Spandex's player, Evil's player, or both? (I have no idea)
Only Captain Spandex. This is why the veto can never be an authoritative tool, because this little (deliberate!) choice of wording can revise intent to be unvetoable.
Note, however, that the two goals ("Major Evil Escapes" and "Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil from escaping") are
very different if Lycra, the boy sidekick, is also playing and wants to show himself the equal of his spotlight-hogging mentor. Lycra would fight
against Major Evil in the "Major Evil Escapes" conflict. However, in the "Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil (and gets all the credit!)" conflict (reworded for clarity of interpretation) Lycra is pretty likely to side with Evil
against the showboating Captain Spandex.
Quote from: TonyLB on November 27, 2005, 04:06:03 PM
Quote from: Hans on November 27, 2005, 01:35:31 PM
* Would "Goal:Major Evil Escapes" be vetoable by the player of Major Evil? (my guess is yes)
Correct. I will point out, however, that having Major Evil veto this is, in fact, a benefit to Captain Spandex's player. He's just learned something about how Major Evil's player thinks (specifically "I will not bother to pursue this goal, which means you will never, ever, get Story Tokens out of me by presenting it.") The veto is a communication tool to help people find conflicts that they'll both be stoked about contesting over, not an authoritative tool to prevent certain types of conflicts from being played.
Quote from: Hans on November 27, 2005, 01:35:31 PM* Who can veto "Goal: Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil from escaping"; Spandex's player, Evil's player, or both? (I have no idea)
Only Captain Spandex. This is why the veto can never be an authoritative tool, because this little (deliberate!) choice of wording can revise intent to be unvetoable.
Note, however, that the two goals ("Major Evil Escapes" and "Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil from escaping") are very different if Lycra, the boy sidekick, is also playing and wants to show himself the equal of his spotlight-hogging mentor. Lycra would fight against Major Evil in the "Major Evil Escapes" conflict. However, in the "Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil (and gets all the credit!)" conflict (reworded for clarity of interpretation) Lycra is pretty likely to side with Evil against the showboating Captain Spandex.
Thanks, Tony and everyone else, my questions are fully answered.
Sorry to Ben for hijacking his thread.