Just purchased the Capes and am about 1/2 through my first reading of the system, thought I would pop in and ask a few questions and check in on a few concepts.
1) When creating a hero using the freeform method, can you create a character with 3 Attitudes, 5 Styles, and 3 Skills and 1 Power? Must a character have either Powers or Skills, but not both? Why?
2) Your side of a conflict has one die showing a one. You have two debt you want to Stake and Split. Are you simply not allowed to Split a die showing a one? Is that explicitly stated in the rulebook? (Or would the die split into a "1" die and a temp "0" die? Still very useful for rolling)
3) Some styles are "powered" and some aren't. What does this mean? How are "powered" styles treated differently from non-powered ones?
4) Must exemplars be unfulfilling and unhappy? For example, with a Love Drive of 5, say, I have an Exemplar of Lila Howard. Can she not be just a happy good part of my character's life, without a downside apart from the normal work any relationship entails?
5) If the above answer is negative, why would I want to even take any exemplar's? How does that help me win conflicts and get story tokens and inspirations? For that matter, this Free Conflict that endlessly repeats seems depressingly banal. It's like every tv show where the protagonist keeps trying to impress the girl, but never actually makes any headway - its frustratin and boring. I like to see - nay, I demand (grin) character growth whereby the characters don't keep going around the same loop over and over again.
OK< that's it for right now - let me know.
6) Comic's Codes, since they reward players that bring them close to being contravened with Gloted Story Tokens, are more of an incentive to bring the story to the brink of the Code being broken.
If one has a Comic's Code that innocents may not be killed, that actually incentivizes players bringing innocents as close to being killed as possible, as often as possible, correct?
If one wanted to put a limit of narration *wihout* incentivizing it, say you didn't want innocents to be killed, and you also didn't want players to be putting innocents in jeopardy just to get Gloat Story Tokens, One could merely have a House Rule that says some Comics Codes must be Gloated but not rewarded with tokens.
Perhaps something like:
Comics Code: "no innocents can be killed through the action, innaction, success, or failure of the heros." This Code can be Gloated, but does not reward Story Token's when that happens.
Or else, player's would have an incentive to put innocents in danger all the time for the tokens, right?
Why would you want to do that? Threatening harm to innocents is a standard Superhero trope.
It's just a for instance. The main point I was making is that Comic Codes actually encourage players to try to pursue that which they forbid, so if they was some behaviour or type or other story limits that you wanted to set but *didnt* want people pursuing, you would have to de-incentivize them by not allowing token rewards for gloating on those ones.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 11, 2006, 09:30:06 PM
1) When creating a hero using the freeform method, can you create a character with 3 Attitudes, 5 Styles, and 3 Skills and 1 Power? Must a character have either Powers or Skills, but not both?
That's correct. Powers or skills. Not both. Per p. 72, "A character may have up to twelve abilities in three categories: Attitudes, Styles and either Powers (for super-beings) or Skills (for mundane characters)."
Quote from: Sindyr on March 11, 2006, 09:30:06 PMWhy?
Because them's the rules.
If you want to engage me in a discussion along the lines of "Why did you design it this way, rather than some other way," then that's a different discussion from the one where I explain what the rules
are.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 11, 2006, 09:30:06 PM2) Your side of a conflict has one die showing a one. You have two debt you want to Stake and Split. Are you simply not allowed to Split a die showing a one?
That is correct. You cannot split that die into two dice with the same total because there is no such thing as a die showing a zero total.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 11, 2006, 09:30:06 PM3) Some styles are "powered" and some aren't. What does this mean? How are "powered" styles treated differently from non-powered ones?
Powered styles generated debt (as per powers). Non-powered styles check off (as per attitudes or skills).
Quote from: Sindyr on March 11, 2006, 09:30:06 PM4) Must exemplars be unfulfilling and unhappy? For example, with a Love Drive of 5, say, I have an Exemplar of Lila Howard. Can she not be just a happy good part of my character's life, without a downside apart from the normal work any relationship entails?
As per p. 75 "There must be a 'root conflict' in the relationship between the character and her Exemplar. This is some fundamental way in which they are forever at odds." Whether that means the relationship is (on the whole) unfulfilling and unhappy is up to you. But there's got to be adversity there.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 11, 2006, 09:30:06 PM5) If the above answer is negative, why would I want to even take any exemplar's? How does that help me win conflicts and get story tokens and inspirations?
It gives other players the opportunity to play your Exemplar in order to drive the story directly at the conflicts that you find most interesting and important. That helps you (and them) to earn more resources.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 11, 2006, 09:30:06 PMFor that matter, this Free Conflict that endlessly repeats seems depressingly banal.
So noted.
FYI, please don't be upset with me as I go through the process of learning and questioning the game. Two factors may lead you to think I am attacking you or your work:
1) The parts of your system design that I understand and that I like I will tend not to mention because since I understand and like them, there not much to say that wouldn't be me gushing or preaching to the converted - and also, since time is always precious, I tend to focus my time on areas where I feel work needs to be done - either because I don't understand the area, or do understand it, don't like it, and want to give some critiquing. Therefor even if I love 90% of the system, mostly you will witness me questioning the other 10%, which may lead you to the impression that I do NOT like the system, which would not be true. But during the learning process you will definitely see me spending the most of my postings on questions on what I don't understand or comments on what I don't currently like. Just know that the fact I am engaged in the conversation means that I find the system as a whole worth investing a whole lot of my time and energy into, and I am just trying to iron the bumpy bits.
2) I am not what many would call tactful. Logical, rational, even open-minded - but also blunt, direct, contrary, and even sometimes a little sharp. But I *am* sincere about getting the most out of this interesting approach to rpg's. I apologise if my manner and style of going about the ironing out the bumpy bits grates or seems too confrontational. I would not be posting questions and differences of opinions if I wasn't respectful of everyone's else's thoughts and opinions - I would just keep it to myself.
Perhaps some of you will wish that I had a little less respect and little more quietly keeping stuff to myself. (grin).
Now, some more questions:
When you make a freeform character, is there a rule controlling how many Styles are powered and how many are blocked?
If I want to make a character that has 3 Powers, 5 non powered Styles, and 4 Attitudes, can I? Or 3 Powers, 5 Powered Styles and 4 Attitudes? Or any combination thereof?
Or must characters (made with the freeform system) with Powers have a max of 2 Styles non powered and a max of 3 Styles powered, as the Click and Lock system would cause?
Of course characters without any Powers, that only have mundane skills, would never have Styles that are powered, right?
Also, non_powered character cannot have debt, right? Therefor they can never stake and split, right? Therefor in general, I cannot look forward to receiving story token when all the other characters are mundanes?
Finally, what to prevent me from taking a mundane Click and Lock left side piece and saying that each non powered skill/style listed is actually a super skill/style - that this character IS a super, it's just his skills and styles that are abnormally or supernaturally effective?
Thanks!!
:)
Quote from: TonyLB on March 12, 2006, 12:21:46 AM
Quote from: Sindyr on March 11, 2006, 09:30:06 PM
1) When creating a hero using the freeform method, can you create a character with 3 Attitudes, 5 Styles, and 3 Skills and 1 Power? Must a character have either Powers or Skills, but not both?
That's correct. Powers or skills. Not both. Per p. 72, "A character may have up to twelve abilities in three categories: Attitudes, Styles and either Powers (for super-beings) or Skills (for mundane characters)."
Quote from: Sindyr on March 11, 2006, 09:30:06 PMWhy?
Because them's the rules.
If you want to engage me in a discussion along the lines of "Why did you design it this way, rather than some other way," then that's a different discussion from the one where I explain what the rules are.
Actually, although it *is* a side topic to my quest to understand the "what" of the rules, I would be interested in hearing why you designed the system to have characters have either powers or skills but not both. I have some guesses, but would like to know your thinking as your were designing this piece of the game...
More questions:
When does a Page end and a new Page begin? Is it when all players have used their free actions and do not care (or are unable) to pay for other actions?
Also, if Alice, Ben, Charlie and Dave are done Claiming in this page, Alice uses her free action, then Ben uses his, can Charlie Pass, not use his free action, but use it later before the page is declared ended? Or does he simply lose his chance at a free action if he passes?
And when does a Scene end and a new Scene begin? Is it when all existing Conflicts have been ended and the table is free of notecards?
Finally, Inspirations, Debt, and Story Tokens are the main resources that are won and lost. For each of those three, which are ties to the character and which are tied to the player of the character?
For example, if while playing Captain Good I get a 5 Inspiration, 3 Debt, and 4 Story Tokens.
I am pretty sure the 3 Debt is tied to the Captain, but if in the next Scene I play Tess Trueheart, do I while playing that character have access to the above won 5 Inspiration or 4 Story Tokens? What if someone else in the same scene in which I play Tess is now playing the Captain? Who in this *new* scene controls the Debt, the Inspiration, and the Story Tokens won last Scene when I was playing Captain Good?
Awaiting anxiously your responses to all of the questions asked so far.
PS. Just finished the PDF - the strategy section was awesome.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 12, 2006, 01:21:07 PM
Actually, although it *is* a side topic to my quest to understand the "what" of the rules, I would be interested in hearing why you designed the system to have characters have either powers or skills but not both. I have some guesses, but would like to know your thinking as your were designing this piece of the game...
Cool beans! I've made a thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19027.0) for that discussion, and other things people want to quiz me on about the whole "Why?" side of things.
Thanks Tony!
Btw, I just confirmed that Insipirations and Story Tokens do indeed stick with the player, not character, and that debt of course sticks with the character - so maybe the best way to get Story Tokens is to play disposable characters that you dont mind getting debt with? ;)
Tony - if you have the time, I would *really* appreciate getting your responses to my above 2 or 3 posts of questions. Thanks!
PS. Reading the OOC and IC threads of the NecroNazis on RPGNet - very interesting and informative.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 12, 2006, 10:01:35 AM
FYI, please don't be upset with me as I go through the process of learning and questioning the game.
I'm not. It seems to me that you're trying to understand the rules as a system, and to model its workings in your brain. That's cool. It can be sort of hard for me to respond to that tack sometimes (just because the rules are sufficiently holistic that it's hard to pull one thing out and look at it alone) and that makes me defensive. But I certainly don't take it as an attack. It's just a way of learning, and I want to help with that.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 12, 2006, 10:01:35 AMWhen you make a freeform character, is there a rule controlling how many Styles are powered and how many are blocked?
Nope. You can do all sorts of combinations. Not all of them work well, but they're legal within the rules. I talk a little bit about the balance of debt-generating and check-off abilities in the Why thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19027.0). Suffice to say that it's awful hard to do much better than the distribution that the click-and-locks give you.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 12, 2006, 10:01:35 AMIf I want to make a character that has 3 Powers, 5 non powered Styles, and 4 Attitudes, can I? Or 3 Powers, 5 Powered Styles and 4 Attitudes? Or any combination thereof?
Yep. It's street legal. I wouldn't recommend it, but it's not against the rules.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 12, 2006, 10:01:35 AMOf course characters without any Powers, that only have mundane skills, would never have Styles that are powered, right?
Huh. I never thought about that one. Not having thought about it, I can answer somewhat certainly "That's gonna make for some wierd rates of debt-flow, which will probably feedback to the disadvantage of the player of that character ... which is to say that I think it's a bad idea from a strategy point of view." Whether I think it's enough of an issue to code it into the rules? That's a higher standard. I'll have to ponder.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 12, 2006, 10:01:35 AMAlso, non_powered character cannot have debt, right? Therefor they can never stake and split, right? Therefor in general, I cannot look forward to receiving story token when all the other characters are mundanes?
Yep. I'm in very nearly that exact situation in a game I'm playing PBP. The one player currently running a powered player is saying (quite literally) "Ah! So it's time for you all to wine and dine me in hopes that I'll give up story tokens, right?" And we're all nodding, because she's exactly right.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 12, 2006, 10:01:35 AMFinally, what to prevent me from taking a mundane Click and Lock left side piece and saying that each non powered skill/style listed is actually a super skill/style - that this character IS a super, it's just his skills and styles that are abnormally or supernaturally effective?
Nothing at all. Also, note, the Shoveller's "power" of "Mighty Shovelling: 5" is no more inherently
effective than any ditch-diggers "Shovel: 5." What's most important is that the Shoveller generates debt. It's the debt that makes him more effective, not (directly) whether his shovelling is super-powered or not. Though, of course, re-using that 5 ability over and over is pretty keen too.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 12, 2006, 08:13:16 PM
Btw, I just confirmed that Insipirations and Story Tokens do indeed stick with the player, not character, and that debt of course sticks with the character - so maybe the best way to get Story Tokens is to play disposable characters that you dont mind getting debt with? ;)
Absolutely. If you can run a different disposable villain in every scene, and make each new one
interesting enough to attract story tokens then you are rockin'.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 12, 2006, 06:01:15 PM
When does a Page end and a new Page begin? Is it when all players have used their free actions and do not care (or are unable) to pay for other actions?
Yep!
Quote from: Sindyr on March 12, 2006, 06:01:15 PMAlso, if Alice, Ben, Charlie and Dave are done Claiming in this page, Alice uses her free action, then Ben uses his, can Charlie Pass, not use his free action, but use it later before the page is declared ended? Or does he simply lose his chance at a free action if he passes?
Nope. As a result I've almost never seen anyone pass. Those free actions are ... y'know ... free! But you can't save 'em, so you gotta use 'em.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 12, 2006, 06:01:15 PMAnd when does a Scene end and a new Scene begin? Is it when all existing Conflicts have been ended and the table is free of notecards?
Yep. If people insist on making new conflicts with their actions then they can force the scene to last until people get
really pissed off at them.
At convention games (particularly those with a fixed schedule) I occasionally institute "Sudden Death Overtime" ... a page where everyone gets as many free claims (going around the circle) as it takes to claim all sides of all conflicts, no new conflicts may be created during the page, and any tied conflicts at the end of the page are assumed deadlocked (a loss for both sides). So that closes a scene at the end of that page, in case you really,
really just need to get the scene done with.
Quote from: TonyLB on March 12, 2006, 08:18:25 PM
Quote from: Sindyr on March 12, 2006, 10:01:35 AMOf course characters without any Powers, that only have mundane skills, would never have Styles that are powered, right?
Huh. I never thought about that one. Not having thought about it, I can answer somewhat certainly "That's gonna make for some weird rates of debt-flow, which will probably feedback to the disadvantage of the player of that character ... which is to say that I think it's a bad idea from a strategy point of view." Whether I think it's enough of an issue to code it into the rules? That's a higher standard. I'll have to ponder.
I don't see any reason this wouldn't be perfectly reasonable.
Quote
Blade Lord
Martial Arts Swordman and Cinematic Villain
Abilities
3 Hanzo Sword
2 Agility
1 Spiritual Corruption
Styles
1 Leaping Attack (P)
2 Clouding the Mind (P)
5 The Shadow Step Slice (P)
4 Whispering Influence (P)
3 Every-Way Thrust (P)
Attitudes
1 Furious
3 Calm
2 Zen
4 Centered
Mechanically, its indistinguishable from a character who's taken five Powers and three unpowered Styles. Absolutely indistinguishable. It also makes sense for the character, in that the things he carries / skills he possesses are much less important to him than the way he uses them together.
Strategically, he might have a slight issue with generating Debt at the beginning of a Scene, but the more Conflicts are on the table at once, the better he does, since he can use his Styles once a Page each. He may end up "overpowering" a few rolls (using a Trait that's rated higher than the die roll being affected), but he has a good chunk of options there.
If it were 3 Abilities, 4 Styles, and 5 Attitudes, I might be more concerned, since that's a character who'll burn out his ability to respond in a Scene fairly quickly (once rolls start hitting 5's), but the ability to grab Debt early in a Scene won't be affected. Using the Powers he has in Reactions will spike that Debt early, and then he can use that Debt to do late splitting he re-rolls with unPowered Traits.
Its perhaps not wholly efficient, but it is interesting.
Quote from: TonyLB on March 12, 2006, 08:27:19 PM
Quote from: Sindyr on March 12, 2006, 06:01:15 PMAnd when does a Scene end and a new Scene begin? Is it when all existing Conflicts have been ended and the table is free of notecards?
Yep. If people insist on making new conflicts with their actions then they can force the scene to last until people get really pissed off at them.
At convention games (particularly those with a fixed schedule) I occasionally institute "Sudden Death Overtime" ... a page where everyone gets as many free claims (going around the circle) as it takes to claim all sides of all conflicts, no new conflicts may be created during the page, and any tied conflicts at the end of the page are assumed deadlocked (a loss for both sides). So that closes a scene at the end of that page, in case you really, really just need to get the scene done with.
Perhaps as a possible house rule for groups that are concerned about never ending scenes:
> Any player at anytime during a page may anounce that the next page is the final one for the scene with Sudden Death Overtime. This can only be done on or after the 4th (or 3rd, 5th, wathever) page of the Scene.
Checking:
Any powered ability can be used multiple times per page. Any "blocked" ability can only be used once per scene.
Is that correct? I think something above is wrong, but I am not sure which or how.
PS. A powered ability = a power or a powered style. A blocked ability = a skill, an attitude, or a non powered style.
Quote from: TonyLB on March 12, 2006, 12:21:46 AM
Quote from: Sindyr on March 11, 2006, 09:30:06 PM4) Must exemplars be unfulfilling and unhappy? For example, with a Love Drive of 5, say, I have an Exemplar of Lila Howard. Can she not be just a happy good part of my character's life, without a downside apart from the normal work any relationship entails?
As per p. 75 "There must be a 'root conflict' in the relationship between the character and her Exemplar. This is some fundamental way in which they are forever at odds." Whether that means the relationship is (on the whole) unfulfilling and unhappy is up to you. But there's got to be adversity there.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 11, 2006, 09:30:06 PM5) If the above answer is negative, why would I want to even take any exemplar's? How does that help me win conflicts and get story tokens and inspirations?
It gives other players the opportunity to play your Exemplar in order to drive the story directly at the conflicts that you find most interesting and important. That helps you (and them) to earn more resources.
Could you have a Love Exampler set up as:
Mary Jane and I are totally into each other, BUT sometimes we lose ourselves in each other and lose touch with things we should be attending to,
-or-
Mary Jane and I love each other deeply and have lots of great sex, BUT our inability to keep our hands off of each other leads us to having sex at innapropriate times and places.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 12, 2006, 08:53:07 PM
Any powered ability can be used multiple times per page. Any "blocked" ability can only be used once per scene.
Powers abilities may be used once per page (so multiple times per scene). Non-powered abilities may only be used once per scene.
Otherwise, yeah, if you had a level five power it would be the only one you ever needed.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 12, 2006, 09:10:00 PM
Could you have a Love Exampler set up as:
Mary Jane and I are totally into each other, BUT sometimes we lose ourselves in each other and lose touch with things we should be attending to,
-or-
Mary Jane and I love each other deeply and have lots of great sex, BUT our inability to keep our hands off of each other leads us to having sex at innapropriate times and places.
Yes, you can have that as a root conflict. Whatever works for you as a conflict.
Quote from: Zamiel on March 12, 2006, 08:37:14 PM
If it were 3 Abilities, 4 Styles, and 5 Attitudes, I might be more concerned, since that's a character who'll burn out his ability to respond in a Scene fairly quickly (once rolls start hitting 5's), but the ability to grab Debt early in a Scene won't be affected. Using the Powers he has in Reactions will spike that Debt early, and then he can use that Debt to do late splitting he re-rolls with unPowered Traits.
That's the direction I start worrying about, yep! Of course, you can go
much further in that direction: like someone who has 3 Abilities, 2 unpowered styles, 2 powered styles and 5 attitudes. That's 10 unpowered abilities and 2 powered ones, which makes the debt-flow very different.
QuoteCould you have a Love Exampler set up as:
Mary Jane and I are totally into each other, BUT sometimes we lose ourselves in each other and lose touch with things we should be attending to,
-or-
Mary Jane and I love each other deeply and have lots of great sex, BUT our inability to keep our hands off of each other leads us to having sex at innapropriate times and places.
Am I alone in wanting to create a villian and dangle Mary Jane off a building? *VBEG*
Wow. Talk about an inappropriate time and place!
Quote from: TonyLB on March 13, 2006, 03:24:53 PM
Wow. Talk about an inappropriate time and place!
"Excuse me, Mister Goblin, but couldn't you have waited until we were distangled first?"
"How else could I have got you to come along?"
[Alexander introduces "Goal: Goblin begins appearing sexually desirable to Mary Jane." Forget that killing her bit, I want Peter's player to actually throw me some Story Tokens here.]
Quote from: Zamiel on March 13, 2006, 03:31:04 PM
[Alexander introduces "Goal: Goblin begins appearing sexually desirable to Mary Jane." Forget that killing her bit, I want Peter's player to actually throw me some Story Tokens here.]
Ummm... Why would Peter's player care? As soon as the Goal is accomplished the next narrator can say "MJ wakes up from a very weird dream..."
Goals have no lasting effect apart from house rules that say they do, right? (I am impervious to popcorn)
Quote from: Sindyr on March 13, 2006, 07:00:23 PM
[Ummm... Why would Peter's player care? As soon as the Goal is accomplished the next narrator can say "MJ wakes up from a very weird dream..."
Goals have no lasting effect apart from house rules that say they do, right? (I am impervious to popcorn)
Sure, they could. But having established it in a previous Conflict, the next narrator is likely to just pick it up and run with it,
especially if Peter's player cared enough to make their sexual relationship their key Drive issue.
No one can make you care about your characters. Of course, if you don't, then there's no reason for you to be playing the game at all, and you'd be politely invited to go do something useful like give the group pedicures or go pick-up sacks of Krystals while the
rest of us actually have fun playing a game.
What you're suggesting is akin to saying, "Sure, I'll play Monopoly, but I don't give a crap how much money I have, its all dumb anyway, because its play money." A very fine way of being disinvited from returning to a game in which I'm playing.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 13, 2006, 07:00:23 PM
Goals have no lasting effect apart from house rules that say they do, right? (I am impervious to popcorn)
Well, there's Inspirations, right? Are you counting those into this equation?
Quote from: Sindyr on March 13, 2006, 07:00:23 PM
(I am impervious to popcorn)
If you're impervious to popcorn, then gaming can quickly become lonely. It's all social contract stuff, and if you break the contract you break the game.
Quote[Alexander introduces "Goal: Goblin begins appearing sexually desirable to Mary Jane." Forget that killing her bit, I want Peter's player to actually throw me some Story Tokens here.]
*LOL* Genius!!!
QuoteWhy would Peter's player care?
Because you made it his Exemplar...that's the whole point of that mechanic.
QuoteAs soon as the Goal is accomplished the next narrator can say "MJ wakes up from a very weird dream..."
As Zamiel says the next narrator is likely to just pick it up and run with it, and even if the dream is narrated, there is nothing to stop someone narrating reoccurring dreams as the Conflict: "MJ succumbs to the mind control device" is introduced
Quote from: Tuxboy on March 14, 2006, 06:03:01 AM
As Zamiel says the next narrator is likely to just pick it up and run with it, and even if the dream is narrated, there is nothing to stop someone narrating reoccurring dreams as the Conflict: "MJ succumbs to the mind control device" is introduced
Oh, I don't know ... She's already attracted to a guy that dresses up like a big bug and kisses upside down in the rain. Is finding the Goblin attractive
that big a stretch? Maybe she's secretly obsessed with powerful men with violent streaks because of her abusive father ...
(Yes, I spend too much time thinking about such things.)
QuoteMaybe she's secretly obsessed with powerful men with violent streaks because of her abusive father ...
True...she does have a history of dating unstable and unsuitable men...
Quote from: Glendower on March 13, 2006, 11:51:42 PM
Quote from: Sindyr on March 13, 2006, 07:00:23 PM
(I am impervious to popcorn)
If you're impervious to popcorn, then gaming can quickly become lonely. It's all social contract stuff, and if you break the contract you break the game.
If someone's taken MJ and made her fall for Goblin, then the social contract has already been broken. Inasmuch as they are impervious to popcorn, so am I.
While on this subject, apart from popcorn, what's to prevent a player making my spotlight character, the one I am currently playing (say, Spiderman) fall in love with Harry Osbourne? By using and Event or Goal or some such?
Quote from: Sindyr on March 14, 2006, 07:35:00 AM
If someone's taken MJ and made her fall for Goblin, then the social contract has already been broken.
I don't see it that way. They made a goal. They gave you a fair chance to stop them. You didn't do it. They must want it more than you. Where has the social contract been broken here?
Quote from: Sindyr on March 14, 2006, 07:40:04 AM
While on this subject, apart from popcorn, what's to prevent a player making my spotlight character, the one I am currently playing (say, Spiderman) fall in love with Harry Osbourne? By using and Event or Goal or some such?
Oh, hey! That's a good one!
What prevents it?
You prevent it. You see that Goal put on the table, and you draw in a sharp, determined hiss of breath, and you start looking to your Debt, Inspirations and Story Tokens to see what sort of support you can put together in order to send that horrible atrocity flaming into the abyss from which it came.
But if you're asking "What external force will protect me from this outcome if I don't prevent it myself?" then the answer is "Absolutely nothing." If you don't want Harry and Peter to make their loft apartment into a mid-town love-nest then you have to stop it. This is (to my mind) exactly the same as the notion that if you don't want Doctor Sinister to destroy the United Nations and declare the beginning of the Sinister Empire of America then you have to stop it. The system doesn't fight for you. It gives you the tools to fight for yourself.
Does that make sense?
Quote from: Sindyr on March 13, 2006, 07:00:23 PM
Quote from: Zamiel on March 13, 2006, 03:31:04 PM
[Alexander introduces "Goal: Goblin begins appearing sexually desirable to Mary Jane." Forget that killing her bit, I want Peter's player to actually throw me some Story Tokens here.]
Ummm... Why would Peter's player care? As soon as the Goal is accomplished the next narrator can say "MJ wakes up from a very weird dream..."
Goals have no lasting effect apart from house rules that say they do, right? (I am impervious to popcorn)
Tony already said something about this, but as a player who had the EXACT same concern and expressed it on this forum at some point in the past, I wanted to address it with my new found understanding of Capes.
One of the temptations, I think, of new people reading the Capes rules (I am one of them) is to look at Capes primarily as a GAME. This is fine, as Capes is a fun game all by itself, I think, and there is so much tactical complexity to it that for the first few sessions its hard to think about anything else but the rules and how they work.
But, after the rules start becoming familiar to you, and you start internalizing them, the whole ROLE-PLAYING thing starts coming back in. Its not enough just to knock down buildings and fire laser beams out of your eyes and make campy "Biff" "Pow" noises. It happened around the third time I played for me. You start to want to care about what happens, and to make other people care as well.
Thats where the Goal above becomes important. Sure, the moment the goal resolves, you can narrate it away. But that isn't enough. If you are playing a game about Spiderman and M.J., then hopefully you CARE about what happens to them. So for MJ to get the hots for the Goblin is...icky. Its creepy. Its just plain wrong. Even if you can narrate it away the bad taste will stick in your mouth. Its something you can't let happen at all! So you are going to fight to control it, and make it go away before it comes to fruition. More importantly, you can narrate something about the Goblin. Why is it so important to the Goblin that M.J. should find him attractive? It was a Goal, not an Event. What twist and kink in the Goblin's psychology is at play?
Capes is a fun game, but its even more fun when you use it tell meaningful stories, and not just stream of consciousness ramblings. Doing that, I think, requires discipline.
In order to consider a character to be *mine* and to therefor emotionally invested in what happens to it, I need to have authoritative say over what that character tries to do and things like the character's likes, dislikes, moral compass, etc.
I mean, at the opening of the scene, each player chooses a character to play. There are also in many games Spotlight Heroes that are reserved and can only be played by their creator.
What is the meaning of choosing to play my Captain Good character? What is the meaning of having that character by my spotlight character? **What is the meaning of having that character be in any way *mine* if I do not have authoritative say over his motives, choices, and such?**
In short, if my spotlight character is Spierman/Peter Parker, how is it that any other player should be allowed to usurp the choices and values I choose for my character?
I submit that if I create a spotlight character, other players may be allowed to make events and problems and conflicts befall him, but if they ever under any circumstances narrate behaviour or choices for my character, that because it IS my character, I can VETO.
Therefor, it is wrong (and breaking the social contract) for another player to say "Goal: Captain Good is sexually attracted to Mr. Evil" as that is MY choice - but if they instead wish to set a goal of "Goal: Mr Evil is sexually attracted to Captain Good and tries to convert the Capt.", that is fine.
When saying "this is my character" the "my" has to mean something, or else you are just saying "this is *a* character.
I don't know about you, but I am much more interested in stories involving *my* character.
The same could be true of Exemplar's under certain circumstances.
IE. Captain Good, a spolight character of mine, has as a Love Exemplar Nicole Frank. I may also take Nicole Frank as a second Spotlight character. Or maybe, with a non shared, non spotlight exemplar, the character to whom it is exemplared to can be assumed to have behaviour/action veto power.
All this means is that another player, should he narrate or use either character in a scene, would be subject to my veto if he narrated any behaviours or actions I felt incompatible with my vision of those characters. He would not have to worry about my veto with anything he does *to* with (that's what tokens and such are for) but he can be veto'ed with anything he does *with* them.
Of course, this assumes no mind rays or similiar trumping plot devices. :)
The answer to that one is simplicity itself...the character ISN'T yours and therefore everything you wrote above is some nice musings but has nothing whatsoever to do with playing Capes.
In Capes, if you want it, fight for it. Put your money where your mouth is, step on up and proove how much you think you ought to control what Spiderman feels.
Capes gives you nothing for free. You don't get to have all powerful mastery over Spidey's feelings simply because your name is at the top of the character sheet. Capes doesn't care. If you want to direct Spidey's feelings on a certain thing you have to put on the gloves and battle it out in a no holds barred cage match of dice rolling brutality with every other player who wants to direct Spidey's feelings on that thing.
Eventually, you'll lose. Selecting which conflicts you're willing to lose and which you aren't is pretty much the primary overarching strategy of Capes play. But there are no conflicts you just win automatically because Spidey is your character...that's some other game.
Its pretty radical*. There aren't that many games that go there. But I can say from my experience with Universalis its really damn liberating.
* in fact, I'd go so far to say that the game would have been more consistant in its radical message if there were no "Spotlight Character" language at all. It strikes me that it must have been a moment of weakness.
At the beginning of a scene each player is supposed to choose a character...
Why? Does having chosen a character give you some ability that not having chosen a charater would not?
From the book, on the Scene page, page 20
Quote
Players choose characters in order. The scene creator chooses
the first character, and then other players do so proceeding
clockwise. If someone has chosen a character you want to play
before it gets to your turn then you are out of luck.
Out of luck in what way? What do you get to do that someone who did not get to choose the character does not get to do?
Quote from: Sindyr on March 14, 2006, 08:44:08 PM
Why? Does having chosen a character give you some ability that not having chosen a charater would not?
Choosing that character gives you access to all of their abilities. It gives you joint rights to declare the free Exemplar conflicts for any of that character's Exemplars who are in the scene (such rights shared with the player who chose that Exemplar). It gives you access to the character's debt pools.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 14, 2006, 05:30:45 PM
In order to consider a character to be *mine* and to therefor emotionally invested in what happens to it, I need to have authoritative say over what that character tries to do and things like the character's likes, dislikes, moral compass, etc.
You say that's true for you. I'll take your word for it.
It's not true for me. It's not true for lots of people I play with. My experience indicates that it's not true for pretty much any random person that I pick out of a crowd at a convention and sit down at a demo table. When I tell them that their character is at risk of (for instance) becoming a cross-dresser they engage with the struggle and emotionally invest in the character
more, not less.
I play Major Victory a lot at conventions. Major Victory is everyone's punching bag. He's so self-righteous. I've lost dozens (perhaps hundreds) of conflicts like "Goal: Major Victory's pedophiliac fantasies are revealed," and "Goal: Major Victory becomes a psychotic mega-villain," and "Goal: Major Victory becomes Iron Brain's willing minion."
I have zero problem owning Major Victory, identifying with him and being emotionally invested in what happens to him. By God, when I get to play him he's
my character, and nobody's going to mess with him without a stiff fight!
So ... is a player who adds such goals breaking the social contract when
I'm playing Major Victory? Or only when
you're playing him?
Quote from: TonyLB on March 14, 2006, 11:49:52 PM
I play Major Victory a lot at conventions. Major Victory is everyone's punching bag. He's so self-righteous. I've lost dozens (perhaps hundreds) of conflicts like "Goal: Major Victory's pedophiliac fantasies are revealed," and "Goal: Major Victory becomes a psychotic mega-villain," and "Goal: Major Victory becomes Iron Brain's willing minion."
In my opinion, the relative non-tangibility of things established by Conflicts really
enables this style of play. Just because Major Victory's had his paedophillic fantasies revealed this Scene, they can be narrated away as the result of mind control, a horrible momentary aberration, or even as a dream in nearly the next breath. Just as the Comics Code frees the villains to be played like villains should be, the impermanence of Conflict resolution means that its perfectly alright to engage the other
Players at this kind of level, because its extremely easy to wipe it out.
I've found that my Players and myself actually have Signature Characters but probably invest way more time into thinking about and playing with the Nemesis, Exemplars, and just the raft of other characters that have entered the character library than our Signatures. Its not that we aren't invested in our Signatures, on the contrary, we're playing an Avatar game, so our Signatures are alternate "us," its just that there's so much else to do, and the fact Characters get played by multiple people actually enhances the investment in the setting itself as a character, in a sense. The story becomes palpable in a way where solitary play-focus on a single character seldom does.
(My biggest problem is letting go of the "my Players" verbiage. I'm a Player just like anyone else at this point. Hard to shake after years and years of being the only one willing to GM, which might explain part of why I'm so taken with
Capes.)
Please stop, take an actual moment (or four) and consider what I am about to say as if hearing it for the first time, with a new and open mind.
To qualify as a role-playing game, the bare minimum is that it must be a game in which you play roles. Capes does hit that minimum.
But to qualify for what I think is a *real* roleplaying game, not just technically, but actually, it must do more than that. To be a true roleplaying game, a player must be allowed to *play* his character, to make his decisions, to be the sole controlling force behind his behaviors and actions. (not including mind control, et al.) He must be allowed to sink into a character and wrap the character around himself, wearing him like a favorite suit of clothes, that the player alone is permitted to wear.
Just about every gamer I meet also seems to want this. It is like an implicit contract - an RPG'er hears that so and so is running a game, they know that if they join that game, it may be sci-fi or mystery, may be d20 or indie, may be crunchier or more free flowing, but the one thing that we all expect from a RPG is the ability to not just play roles, but to choose one particular role or character to invest in more than the others, to have authoritative internal control over that character such that this character is OURS, not just from a point of view of resources, but ours to *play* - that is, to ACT - that no one else can tell us what our character thinks, likes, attempts, and only *we* are in the pilot seat for that character.
By your words above, Capes is not intended to be such a game.
Choosing a character in Capes, according to what you seem to be syaing, is a matter of choosing what resources you will have access to, in terms of abilities, etc. You seem to have explicitly stated that if I choose to "play" Captain Good (although apparently, in your game, I do not play him, I play his resources), any of the other players can narrate actions for him limited only by my ability to defend him. If I am playing with 3 other players who each think it appropriate that Captain Good deck a mouthy NPC and I, the so-called player of that char, think otherwise, it is unlikely that I will be able to prevent a Goal from being accomplished that has my Capt decking the NPC - no matter how out of character and how much a violation of my so-called char I think that is. (All Comic Codes aside)
And no matter how well I play and strategize, given the resources at our disposal, the sheer fact of the matter is that 3 players that want a goal accomplished can outspend a lone player that doesn't want the goal done.
And this is where I think we part company. You feel, I intuit, that if three out of four players want something, that it should happen, regardless of any other consideration. I don't go that far - I believe that a special circumstance must exist. I believe that the implicit contract needs to be honored - that players should be allowed characters that are truly theirs, and that this means while anything can happen to that character externally (even mind control rays where appropriate) that the owning player, and only the owning player, gets to have absolute authority and control over what the character chooses to think and do. It seems that Capes throws out this basic principle.
And again, if I know that anyone at the table can put words in *my* hero's mouth that I can't veto; if anyone at the table can don my hero's form while I am still wearing it, if any other player can simply and easily trod all over my relationship with that character – than I will quite simply not *have* a relationship with that character.
I play characters in RPG's not just to tell a story, but to tell the specific story of the character I am playing. If I have to share ownership of the character, then I have two choices: unwisely continue to emotionally invest in the character – and reap the grief I deserve for doing so when my vision for the character gets repeatedly violated – or *don't* emotionally invest in any character, and play the game from an emotional distance.
Not emotionally investing in the game causes two related problems. First, a game I am not invested in is a game I don't greatly care if I continue playing. A "shrug" game. Second, without being invested in the game and its world, I will feel no attachment to any Goal or Event happening or being prevented – without being invested, I don't really care what happens. This leads to boredom, which leads to me as a player trying to find something interesting yet emotionally safe to do, which can lead to either bizarre surreal games or constantly pushing the game into places that the other players don't like – all for the sake of boredom.
So, yes, this all makes Capes even more revolutionary and interesting thereby. But while I maintain a keen interest in all games strange and different, I don't necessarily want to play them – or even find them playable as RPGs.
So now the question for me is where to go from here? By removing the traditional and expected authority a player has over his character you seem to have gutted the fundamental RPG player contract. While this creates an interesting thought experiment, it is not an actual RPG except in the technical sense.
Having heard of a couple successful groups playing Capes, I submit that the authoritative control a player has over his character is rarely threatened in practice, apparently because that right is so implicit that even though Capes does not appear to support it, most people still play as though it did.
So, if most people are still obeying the implicit RPG player contract, does the game even need to have explicit protections?
Oh, yes. Without question.
All it takes in one person with an agenda to start tromping all over the implicit contract. One player that puts down "Goal: Captain Good is having a bad day and maims the next guy who annoys him" or "Goal: Captain Good realizes his love for cows and starts having sex with them". (yes, I know, hyperbole, but it illustrates a very real point)
If Capes is truly intended to be a system that encourages us to tell stories that make the players want to engage, having veto power over your character's actions does not prevent Capes from achieving that goal – it simply prevents (pun intended) character assassination.
The only reason to NOT give me, the player of Capt Good, the ability to veto someone else's narration for Capt. Good's actions or choices, is if you truly believe that anyone at the table has an equal right to decide what my character does, and all that matters is player resources.
If that's what you truly believe, than you also truly believe that apart from characters being a source of resources, no player should consider any character especially theirs.
And if true and if played this way, this ultimately makes Capes *not* an RPG.
I look forward to everyone's response to this, especially Tony's.
Hopefully responses that are more than just flat denials, responses that tackle the issues I raise in a thoughtful and engaging way.
Again, the fact I just spent a couple of hours writing and editing this post certifies my investment and respect for Capes, its author, and the others in this forum. I am excited to see how much time, energy, and thought is put into considering and replying to the issues that I have raised.
Thanks.
PS. A easy fix for the above issues would probably be a simple house rule:
>Any narration of an action, behavior, thought, or choice of a character can be veto'ed by that character's player (or owner in the case of Spotlight characters), assuming the character is free and not under external control.
Perhaps those who respond to the above post might also address if they think the above house rule is detrimental or beneficial to Capes, and why.
Okay, in all seriousness ... I need some
help with framing a response that is not, at least in part, a flat denial. Here's the specific section I've got issues with:
Quote from: Sindyr on March 15, 2006, 10:00:11 AM
Having heard of a couple successful groups playing Capes, I submit that the authoritative control a player has over his character is rarely threatened in practice, apparently because that right is so implicit that even though Capes does not appear to support it, most people still play as though it did.
Sindyr: I see a syllogism of three statements here:
- Hypothesis #1: Everybody must avoid having their control over their character undercut, in order to have fun
- Known fact: People play Capes, and have fun doing so
- Hypothesis #2: When people play Capes and have fun they do not introduce conflicts that would undercut another player's control of their character
You think that Hypothesis #1 is an axiom. It's absolutely, observably true for all people. Therefore you feel confident in saying that Hypothesis #2 is proven ... it follows logically from your axiom, plus the known facts. You believe that you know how people are playing, because it is (in your mind) impossible that they should be doing anything else.
But here's the thing: I know, from experience, that Hypothesis #2 isn't true. I've tested it in actual play many times. People undercut each other's control over their characters
all the time and they have a ball doing it. So I, in turn, feel confident saying that Hypothesis #1 must not be absolutely true for all people. No matter how strong and elegant the theory, it has to yield in the face of repeated evidence to the contrary.
You haven't seen any of that evidence, so I don't expect you to have drawn the same conclusions. At the same time, I'm not going to try to erase my memory so that I can be properly open to the possibility that the things I've
already seen can not, in fact, ever happen.
So how do we have a fruitful discussion here?
Well, I am not sure how to continue... here are some ideas, which may or may not be mutually possible:
1) We agree for the sake of discussion, that having players have absolute authority of the internal state of the character is important. We agree to disagree if that's important to just one person in this whole world (me) or to most, or some where in between.
2) Perhaps the experience in playing capes without the above control is fun for some AND is not roleplaying in the normal sense? Perhaps Capes as written is a competitive storytelling game, but NOT a roleplaying game (except in a minimalist sense)?
3) Perhaps while not gainsaying the fun some number of people have playing Capes qua Capes, we find a way to broaden the potential people having fun with it by meeting the RP players' needs and expectations while still including those already having fun with it?
4) Perhaps we discuss way to maximize serving the needs of both camps without doing either a disservice?
5) Perhaps we discuss what sort of house rule, possibly the one I mentioned at the end of my post, would best accomplish the goals of including people who want to truly own a character, while still leaving the majority of play and strategy in Capes untouched.
6) Alternatively, perhaps we discuss how and why Capes would be irretrievably broken were we to make such a change.
Just some ideas, off the top of my head.
I'll just note that proper construction of the Comics Code could address a lot of your problems, Sindyr.
The idea of "spotlight" characters is the first step. Extend that outward until the Code says what you want it to say, and protects what you want it to protect. Then, instead of narrating MJ falling for Goblin, Goblin's player will have to gloat instead of winning the conflict. "Ha ha! The hypno-ray is controlling her mind, and soon she'll lead Spider-Man into my trap!"
The exact question of whether Capes is an RPG, and who gets to define the latter term and its taxonomy, isn't really all that relevant. (I think Tony's heard it often enough, too.) I had the same reaction when I first heard about it, honestly - "The hell? No GM? You don't have your own character? This ain't no RPG!" Once I figured it out, though, it all made sense. (And people lie when they say Capes is a GM-less game. Capes is a game where everybody is the GM.)
J
Quote from: Sindyr on March 15, 2006, 10:00:11 AM
And if true and if played this way, this ultimately makes Capes *not* an RPG.
Hi Sindyr:
First, let me say that your concerns are exactly the concerns I have heard expressed by others who have played the game. I have had several people tell me they thought Capes was ok, but it isn't really an RPG.
And from your definitions in your post, I will say I agree with you. Based on your definitions, Capse is not an RPG. I don't completely agree with your definitions, but that doesn't really matter, because they are not, I think, statements of fact (although you occasionally state them as facts). Rather, they are asethetic judgements about what you enjoy and don't enjoy about RPG's. Based on them, I agree with you 100% that what you say you want from PLAYING an RPG is NOT to be found in Capes.
But, let me add a twist here. You describe very well the enjoyment you get from PLAYING what you term "real" RPG's. I, in fact, get much the same enjoyment from playing them as you do. But here is another question that I think is far more relevant to Capes; what pleasure do you get from GM'ing games? Assuming you have been a GM and continue to occasionally GM, I must assume you enjoy it. Why? I don't know what your answer will be, so I will answer this for myself. For me, the enjoyment of being a GM is in the creation of storys and story elements that thrill, excite, scare or otherwise engage the people I am playing with. For me, the best moment as a GM is when someone at the table says "COOL!" and their eyes light up. That is the thrill. Also, another question; as a GM, do you feel emotionally involved in the story? For me, I really can't stand GM'ing unless I am emotionally involved. Whats the point unless you feel some attachment to the characters in the story? But the emotional involvement is the emotional involvement of a writer telling a story, not an actor playing a character. Again, another question; as a GM, you don't have complete control over what the PLAYERS do with their characters. Does this bother you? Does it matter? For me, its part of the fun of being a GM. I may have a particular vision of what the players are going to do, but sometimes the most enjoyment comes from the surprises the players bring.
Why do I ask this? Here is why. I think Tony (God that strides the earth that he is) has done a disservice to his game by saying that it is a game without a GM. I think he is dead wrong. Capes is a RPG without players. Or rather, all the players are GM's; I will henceforth refer to them as GMplayers, and what they do GMplaying.
I suggest to you that to understand what people find enjoyable about Capes, you are better served to think of it from a GM, not a player, perspective. The best description I have for what GMplaying Capes is like is that it is like a group of writers sitting around a table, writing a comic book as they go. Each writer has MORE control over one or more characters, but no writer has complete control.
Moreover, Capes, more than any other RPG I have played, is overtly a GAME. It allows for clear competition between the player-GM's, and allows them to win or lose. This is not to say that GMplayers do not cooperate with each other; they cooperate all the time. But they cooperate like players in a game of Diplomacy, not like players in a game of D&D.
Therefore, there are two layers of enjoyment to Capes, neither of which really bears any similarity to the enjoyment gained from playing a "real" RPG. First, there is the GAME enjoyment, of winning, reaping story tokens and inspirations, and bragging rights, from the other GMplayers. Secondly, and more importantly, there is the STORY enjoyment, the GM enjoyment, which comes from wowing your fellow GMplayers with exciting, dramatic, funny, scary, sad, or otherwise enjoyable story elements you introduce, and them saying "COOL!"
Does this make sense? I really think it is absolutely crucial to think of Capes as a playerless, not a GM-less. I think that Capes, at its core, is a game for GM's to play with each other. The more experienced the GM's the more fun the game will be. I have some actual play experience to back this up. The most fun I have had with Capes was at a table where all the other GMplayers were highly experienced GM's in other games. It is NOT a game for people who have never GM'ed and who aren't really interested in doing so.
I recommend to you the following course of action: get a few friends together, preferably a few friends with a lot of GM experience, and play three sessions of the game as written. I suggest three because it takes about three sessions to start internalizing the rules and reach the Story/GM level of enjoyment I describe above. My hope, since I personally love the game, and because I would hate for you to feel like you wasted $10, is that you will find It is fun for DIFFERENT reasons than the reasons you find playing a "real" RPG fun.
And if you are ever anywhere near the Greater Toronto Area, let me know, and we can GMplay together!
Hans
Quote from: drnuncheon on March 15, 2006, 11:04:27 AM
(And people lie when they say Capes is a GM-less game. Capes is a game where everybody is the GM.)
&*&#$*&#$#&$#! You beat me by seconds to this, you cad! I was going to make this fantastic point, first (see above) and you stole it from me! You are dead to me!
:)
This is a critical and I think extremely important point.
Capes *is* a playerless game where everybody is the GM.
I think that is the nut of it. Whether one allows for a playerless game to be considered an RPG or not is left to taste, I suppose.
I guess I am used to achieving one of two pieces of enjoyment from playing RPGs:
1) The largely effort free ability to play one character, have absolute authority over what that character thinks and attempt (the internals), and to try to pursue that character's storyline in conformity with what I want that character to pursue.
2) The largely work intensive ability to be the GM, who accepts input from all players but ultimately the absolute and sole authority in all matters that are not related to character volition. Being a GM is mush like being a god, with my personal goal to use my godlike powers to create a multithreaded interwoven reality within which the players can explore being the characters they chose to portray. As GM and as the sole creator, I am able to achieve all that I can in Capes, without having to worry about competing or being challenged by anybody else.
So what that means is that if I want to GM, I don't *want* to share creative control. I want to pursue the Vision I have for the world, plot hooks, etc - I want to run with it.
If I want to play and have someone *else* GM, I want to be able to focus on my character and "own" that character completely. This means only I get to direct the internal thoughts, choices, motivations, and actions of *my* character.
So, as written, Capes is a playerless game, with each participant a GM vying with all the other GM's for control of the direction of the story and the events and happenings therein.
It seems to me, that with a small change, Capes could be made into a game that would support a multi GM format while still allowing each person to play a character the way I described. That rule change could be:
>Any narration of an action, behavior, thought, or choice of a character can be veto'ed by that character's player (or owner in the case of Spotlight characters), assuming the character is free and not under external control.
I would ask again, perhaps such a house rule would best accomplish the goals of including people who want to truly own a character, while still leaving the majority of play and strategy in Capes untouched - or would Capes would be irretrievably broken were we to make such a change?
Quote from: Sindyr on March 15, 2006, 10:48:02 AM
4) Perhaps we discuss way to maximize serving the needs of both camps without doing either a disservice?
But ... I don't
want to serve both camps. I want to take people who think they can only enjoy a game where their character is an invincible tower of ultimate authority, and show them that they can have a different kind of fun without that tower. To do that I want to actively undermine your ability to construct the tower. Here's a dialogue:
QuoteYou: You're selling food? Great, I'm starved.
Me: Well good! I've got a spectacular food here. I find it delicious, and I hope you will too!
You: That doesn't look like french fries.
Me: It's not. It's sushi. It's yummy. Want to try some?
You: Absolutely! I love new taste sensations. But I really, really enjoy french fries.
Me: That's great. You might find you like this too, and then you'd really, really enjoy two foods. Wouldn't that be cool?
You: How about if we fry it? It would be more like french fries then.
Me: I ... suppose it would.
You: Oh, and that looks like fish. Is it fish? There's no fish in french fries. Can we make it with potatoes instead?
Me: Well, I suppose you could make fried potato sushi, if you really wanted to. But you haven't even tried the normal sushi.
You: Yeah, but if you made fried potato sushi you'd be serving both camps: people who like sushi and people who like french fries.
Me: But ... I don't want to serve both camps. I want to introduce people to sushi. It's yummy in a different way. To introduce you to that, I want to actively avoid frying it.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 15, 2006, 12:08:37 PM
I would ask again, perhaps such a house rule would best accomplish the goals of including people who want to truly own a character, while still leaving the majority of play and strategy in Capes untouched - or would Capes would be irretrievably broken were we to make such a change?
Well ... you're taking the one thing that (apparently) another player cares most about and saying that the game
won't be about conflicts involving that.
The "majority of play and strategy in Capes" is about finding things that the other players care about, and making conflicts involving that. Check out pp. 132-133. It says (essentially) "Find the soft points in another player, and try to jab 'em with a sharp stick. He'll defend himself by standing up for the things he finds important, and you'll all profit from the drama, moral statements and fun that ensue." I don't know that you can say that, and add the rider "... except don't touch that huge, gaping, marshmallow-like underbelly that he's curled around protectively." I think that once you start having fun poking at the other players it's going to be hard to overlook a soft spot as big as that.
I think, in fact, that adding the rule will not change the strategy of Capes much at all. Rather, I think the strategy and game-play of Capes will quickly conspire to grind your house rule into dust. People will find ways around it ... mind control rays, alien possession, dream sequences ... whatever it takes. The folks who really
get the way that Capes plays will find ways within the rules to jab you in that soft spot.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 15, 2006, 12:08:37 PM
I would ask again, perhaps such a house rule would best accomplish the goals of including people who want to truly own a character, while still leaving the majority of play and strategy in Capes untouched - or would Capes would be irretrievably broken were we to make such a change?
It might be enjoyable, but I'm not sure it would be Capes. I fear that by trying to insert into Capes the feel of what you called earlier a "real" RPG, you will undercut what many of us that enjoy Capes find the truly enjoyable part, and just make it an overcomplicated "real" RPG. I fear that after making these changes, you will still be dissapointed, and find that you would rather have played some other super-hero RPG (perhaps With Great Power? I don't know enough about it). But I really don't know. I am not personally interested in trying them, but thats just me. I recommend that you play the game with some friends as written a few times, and then play it with your proposed changes a few times, and see which you enjoy more. Then, let us know!
I feel like a drug pusher for saying this again, but here it goes...
*queue trippy psychadelic music and strange multicoloured liquid pattern swirling behind Hans's head, camera begins swirling around drunkenly*
"Hey man, try it...you'll love it, man...just one puff, man, its wild!"
*turn off music and effects*
As an aside, I remember very clearly and earlier thread here http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16641.msg187327#msg187327 (I still haven't figured out how to hide the URL behind text), Fred Wolke said "for this game, actual play is all." At the time, I thought, "What a rude jerk!" (sorry Fred, its true). And yet now I find myself saying the exact same thing, albeit in a more long winded fashion. Fred may or may not be a rude jerk (sorry Fred :) ), but he was certainly wise in the ways of Capes.
Quote from: TonyLB on March 15, 2006, 12:31:11 PM
Quote from: Sindyr on March 15, 2006, 10:48:02 AM
4) Perhaps we discuss way to maximize serving the needs of both camps without doing either a disservice?
But ... I don't want to serve both camps. I want to take people who think they can only enjoy a game where their character is an invincible tower of ultimate authority, and show them that they can have a different kind of fun without that tower. To do that I want to actively undermine your ability to construct the tower. Here's a dialogue:
Fair enough - I can appreciate that you don't want to help me achieve a goal in conflict with your goal of making people choose to accept Capes as is or not at all, but of course I will still give it a go.
I think your analogy was an innacurate straw man, although I am sure you meant it sincerely.
Perhaps a better analogy would have been a recipe with ten ingrediants, one of which the customer is allergic to. They ask you to substitute a different ingrediant, and you reply that if they want this food it must be taken as is, with no substitutions. Which leaves the customer who is allergic to that one ingrediant out in the cold, but there it is.
I am not sure where the tower image came from, but I will respectfully ask you to accept that I am not one the people you described, "people who think they can only enjoy a game where their character is an invincible tower of ultimate authority".
I am instead a person in search of a game with certain bare minimum requirements that Capes seems almost to meet. One of which is respect for the ownership of a character.
If I go looking to find a sport to play, someone may try to shoehorn me into playing tennis, despite the fact that I repeatedly tell them I don't want to run around the court that much. What would be more helpful is someone suggesting Ping Pong - works almost the same way without all the running arround.
I want to achieve one of two things from any rpg I play: ownership of a character or being the sole GM. Could I have fun playing a game that doesn't have either? Possibly. Would I have more fun playing the game that has at least one? In all likelihood, yes.
If you remove both of the above two things from a game, than it is radically different from a traditional rpg. That's good for thought provoking discussion. But in terms of having fun, *I* require at least one of those two things in order to have as much fun as possible.
Now it seems that with the addition of that one simple rule, Capes can achieve character ownership. What I am hearing, Tony, is that you don't like that because you don't want people to have that option - you want to force them to have none of Capes or to have Capes unchanged.
I guess I don't see why you would be so committed to trying to convert people. If I was in the position of defending a similar cherished aspect of a gaming system, I would probably say:
1) You can play it that way
2) The proposed rule doesn't break the mechanics
3) IMHO, it *does* break the spirirt of my vision of the game, and this is why...
4) But if that's how you want to play, and you and your gaming group is having fun, more power to you.
Or maybe I have it wrong. Maybe the very nature of the game is about one player trying to hurt another, and competing to see who can be the msot successful. But the way I hope Capes really is, is an economy of storytelling where each player attempts to create compelling storylines that entice the other players to participate, so that those players do the same for us.
Instead of "let's see how we can threaten to screw over another player by threatening their exemplar once again (yawn)" it can be "Let's create a threat to the very fabric of our existance, and give the other player an opportunity to shine and show that he IS the protector of the people." Instead of burning down their headquarters, perhaps we tantalize them with odd unexplained observances that draw them in to a deep mystery. Perhaps instead of trying to infect the superhero with a rare blood disease that doesn't kill them but leaves them mute, perhaps their sister is about to get married, and the brother in law to be is in trouble with the wrong kind of people.
Perhaps instead of attacking each other, we open doors for each other to aspire to greatness?
The central question that the game asks: "Power is fun, but do you deserve it?" can apply not only to the characters, but to the players. The power to narrate, usually reserved to a single authority, a single GM, is awesome, and is fun. Does each player deserve to be a GM?
If I had a fellow player that was focussed on aggressive PvP play, I would be tempted to answer in the negative.
Creating stories and conflicts that the other players care about, giving them a chance to accomplish something amazing or heroic, is what you should get rewarded with story tokens for.
Torturing another player by repeated abuse of threatening their "soft spots" is unimaginative, petty, mean, and proves that they should never, ever, be given the power of narration, unless the receiver of this abuse is secretly a masochist.
Unfortuntely Capes is wide open to being used to abuse other players. If we can build in protections to curb the abuse of this power, then it can really shine. Then stories can be about more than PvP.
It is the difference between a knockdown barroom brawl and competitive dance. I would rather see Capes be the latter - and would prefer to engage in Capes play on that level.
People who choose former play Capes like its checkers or poker, but *not* like a roleplaying game.
I am not sure what else we can say about this. I will continue to explore if Capes is suitable for competitive yet non abusive gaming. I think, with a few changes, it may be. I hope I can feel free to ask future questions regarding mechanics - both about the mechanics as written, and also about the effect of hypothetical variant house rule mechanics.
Thanks for being as involved and available as you all are. This has been helpful.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 15, 2006, 01:51:44 PM
Torturing another player by repeated abuse of threatening their "soft spots" is unimaginative, petty, mean, and proves that they should never, ever, be given the power of narration, unless the receiver of this abuse is secretly a masochist.
Now that's just not true. Figuring out just the right way to torture people requires a lot of imagination. I'll totally cop to "mean" (though I prefer "cruel," as it's less ambiguous). I don't even know where you get petty from. I think it was just to complete the set.
As to the "should never ever" bit ... why would you want to stop people from poking your soft spots? They're doing you a favor. You want to help your character rise above adversity? You need the adversity first. I think you know that. I mean ... right before the torture quote above, you wrote:
Quote from: Sindyr on March 15, 2006, 01:51:44 PMCreating stories and conflicts that the other players care about, giving them a chance to accomplish something amazing or heroic, is what you should get rewarded with story tokens for.
That's what the Capes rules
do. They reward you for creating charged adversity, and then giving the other players a chance to overcome it.
It's weird, its like I completely agree with you and completely disagree with you at the same time.
I think it a wonderful thing to hang a nice shiny thing just out of reach, forcing the person who wants the new shiny bauble to work for it.
I think its a mean and worthless act to take away shiny thing that they already have, and make them work to get it back.
Not just in gaming - with any creative works, any sort of fictions I am entirely unimpressed by the story arc that goes a) the protagonist loses something/something he loves is put in jeopardy b) protagonists suffers and works mighty hard c) protagonist succeeds in fixing the problem, leaving us all exactly where we started.
I prefer a) protagonists gets an idea for a way to make things better in some way b) protagonists works hard c) protagonist succeeds, and now things are different from where we started. The protagonist has a shiny new thing - a love interest he didn't have before, Mr Evil Behind Bars, a new power, a third world despot overthrown... ultimately in *this* sort of story, something new was gained - its not about something lost restored.
I despise the over use of storylines in which the protagonist continually fights but rarely makes any forward progress.
A new supervillain to be defeated is one thing. Fighting the same villain over and over again, even though you have successfully imprisoned him half a dozen times - I dont find that fun, no matter how true to comic books it is - I find it frustrating.
On the other hand, a new super villain that helps an old one escape jail, and by the end of the story not only is the old one back in jail but the new one is in jail now too - thats a net plus from where the story started.
Make sense?
Quote from: Sindyr on March 15, 2006, 01:51:44 PM
"let's see how we can threaten to screw over another player by threatening their exemplar once again (yawn)"
Wow. I don't know if you intended it or not, but this is
very telling. The difference between you and Tony is (from what I can see):
You: "Oh, no...you're screwing my character, that means you are screwing
me."
Tony: "Yeah! Screw with my character, because that's where the interesting stuff is!"
Here's a secret: if you don't want people to screw with your character's relationship,
don't make your girlfriend an exemplar. Taking an exemplar is waving a big red flag in front of the charging story bull. It's saying, "
OVER HERE! THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO TELL STORIES ABOUT!"
Quoteit can be "Let's create a threat to the very fabric of our existence, and give the other player an opportunity to shine and show that he IS the protector of the people."
I hope I'm not being dense, but I don't see how stock
Capes wouldn't do that. If that's the kind of story you like, than the other players will get rewarded for putting your character in those kinds of situations. You will see the goal, you will stake debt, you will fight hard, you will win, and they will get story tokens for it.
J
Quote
I am instead a person in search of a game with certain bare minimum requirements that Capes seems almost to meet. One of which is respect for the ownership of a character.
Quote
Sindyr, I'm just going to throw this out there as food for thought...feel free to respond or not as the mood takes you.
Is it possible that you don't really have these bare minimum requirements? You just think you do?
i.e. you've got a certain way of playing that you're used to...you know how to do it, you know how to think about it when you do it, you're good at it, you enjoy being good at it...and because of this you have an established comfort zone...a comfort zone of the familiar. So is it possible you're mistaking habit for preference to some degree?
I ask because, in the end, the vast majority of people I've encountered who've all said nearly verbatim what you've said in this thread (all of your remarks on the nature of RPGs so far fall into the "yup, heard that one a thousand times" category I'm afraid) if they stuck it out and journeyed outside of that comfort zone have been ecstatic about what they've found there and established whole new comfort zones to play in. Maybe that's not you...but perhaps its worth thinking about.
Capes (and quite a few other games at the Forge, but Capes moreso than many) is pretty unapologetic about throwing players completely out of their comfort zone and into a whole new world of opportunity.
Alot of players initially react with understandable fear to that opportunity. Understandable because time is precious and time to play RPGs in often more precious yet...why risk wasting that precious time on something that could suck horribly when you have ole reliable that works pretty well (at least most of the time). But given the shear number of regular posters to the Forge who overcame that reluctance and now are happy they did so, the track record would seem to indicate its a risk worth taking.
Quote from: drnuncheon on March 15, 2006, 04:46:26 PM
Here's a secret: if you don't want people to screw with your character's relationship, don't make your girlfriend an exemplar. Taking an exemplar is waving a big red flag in front of the charging story bull. It's saying, "OVER HERE! THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO TELL STORIES ABOUT!"
I guess than what I really want is the ability to set a REVERSE exemplar - to be able to set stuff I *don't* want them to screw with.
Although, I wouldn't mind them kidnapping her a couple of times - actually, all I want to to have no actual harm come to my hcar's love interest and to have no one but me decide what she is going to do in any given scene - or at least have veto power if someone else decides something I feel is innaproprite.
That's it
Quote from: Sindyr on March 15, 2006, 05:40:39 PM
I guess than what I really want is the ability to set a REVERSE exemplar - to be able to set stuff I *don't* want them to screw with.
Although, I wouldn't mind them kidnapping her a couple of times - actually, all I want to to have no actual harm come to my hcar's love interest and to have no one but me decide what she is going to do in any given scene - or at least have veto power if someone else decides something I feel is innaproprite.
*gets up on a soapbox*
The problem I'm having here is that protecting your exemplars doesn't happen in what you call "traditional" roleplaying. If you write about your "dearest sister" or "lady love" in your character history, her attitudes, decisions and fate are decided by the omnipotent "God" GM. He can in fact kill her off or have her end up with the bad guy or do all sorts of terrible things to her. And there's JACK you can do about it, unless the GM deems you can do something about it (being God and all).
However, in Capes, you can, if you like, say "heck no, I'm not letting her go off with that football team/clown/used car salesman!" and stake against the goal/event/whatever.
Here's the piece I find interesting. You said that for you to have fun, you either need to have complete control over your character, or a central voice of absolute authority. So either complete control, or no control at all. This is my inference here, but you want all the responsibility, or none of it. Since Capes hands the keys to the kingdom to everyone, I imagine that makes it not a very comfortable place for you. Everyone has responsibility, but it's shared. Heck, it's contested. It's dynamic. I admit that's dangerous, like everyone having the big red button, but there's something you've dismissed. the "popcorn tossing" piece that is so essential to not just roleplaying, but social interaction of any sort.
It's the Social Contract. If Chuck to your left decides to create the event "Jonny Neutron (your noble hero) kills, rapes, and eats the bystanders", you can turn to him and say "Chuck, what are you doing?". That's the popcorn tossing piece you're ignoring here. That piece of social contract stuff. That little discussion beforehand where you say, "hey, I'm all for freedom of expression, but rape, pedophillia, harm to animals, blasphemy to my God or Gods or spiritual framework, these things are pretty much off limits to me, and I will walk if they are included." And people respect those borders, or they're not your friends and you shouldn't play with them.
I've had friends who have been victimized, and find stuff about rape to be completely off limits. And we discussed that and made damn sure it didn't come up at all in the game. This is about fun, not about therapy. I don't have a psychologist license for THAT kind of roleplaying.
I'm trying to say that if you roleplay with people you like and trust, and whom you've had the frank discussion of issues that you are 100% against discussing , you don't get garbage events or goals. You don't get stuff that offends you. You get the epic events that make a game great.
Just because Capes gives you the POWER, doesn't mean that you can abuse it. Great power, great responsibility. It applies to the Players as well as the little click and lock paper tools they use. If someone has the ability to hurt you, but doesn't, that builds trust. Trust is a cornerstone to friendship, and a cornerstone to great games.
*steps off of soapbox*
Valamir/Ralph -
At the moment I cannot participate in a game of Capes (or any rpg) because I do not currently have a gaming group and do not have the time to form you yet - but will be doing so at some point in the future.
I think one of three things *must* be the case.
Either
A> Capes is not a rpg, albeit a lot of fun in its own right, as a competitive storytelling game. If this is true, it will probably not fill the need I have to play a character or run a game. It may be a groovy fun time, but I admit to being addicted to actual RPGs, in either the capacity of GM or PC. Note: I am not saying Capes isn't a fun game, but it may well not fill the same need that playing RPGs fills for me.
-or-
B> Capes *can* fill the same need if a few small proposed changes are made in support of player owned characters
-or-
C> Capes can, as written, with no changes fulfill the needs that either being a GM or being a PC serves when I play RPGs.
I *think* what you are actually asserting is A.
If what you are asserting is C however, then I am not sure how that jives with the massively negative reaction I have to neither being allowed to own a PC nor being allowed to be the sole director. I can give up one of those two goals - Capes as written seems to ask me to give up both?
So maybe Capes is a fun storytelling game that is not a RPG (except in the technical sense.) Maybe I would have a blast playing Capes that way. But I would still have to find an RPG also to fill one of my two needs above.
RIght?
Jon/Glendower...
The biggest thing I would prefer to protect is the integrity of choice of any characters I possess.
So while someone may be able to make something befall my character, they could never make my chatracter do anything or act in any way that I did not approve of.
That's not absolute control, that's just basic ownership. I get to chose whether or not someone's else's narration of what my character does and how he acts gets veto'ed.
Pretty Simple, and not at all unbalancing, I would think.
The only other piece I guess would be protecting owned characters from dying or otherwise being severely maimed - such as limb loss, power loss, trauma.
I suppose all of the above (except death, and even death) can be cured by narration as well.
What would y'all think of a player that narrated the death of his character only to bring him back in by surprise weeks later?
I think that would be cool. In other words, the character never really died, he just seemed to die to all around.
Or he really died, but comic books have a revolving door to the afterlife.
Sindyr,
Here's where I think the crux of the argument lies:
Quote from: Sindyr
I want to achieve one of two things from any rpg I play: ownership of a character or being the sole GM. Could I have fun playing a game that doesn't have either? Possibly. Would I have more fun playing the game that has at least one? In all likelihood, yes.
So, based on your intuition, complete character ownership generates more fun. However, what I think people are telling you (at least what I'm about to tell you) is that complete character ownership ends up not being that big a deal, and you get all sorts of (not readily apparent without actually playing) cool things by sacrificing it. In the following, I'll try to elaborate a bit, and allay fears:
First, getting your ownership overwritten (or any other sort of crap) in free narration: isn't really a problem in actual play.
Why doesn't it cause problems: Because playing Capes you very soon develop a very healthy respect for the power of others, and particularly the balance of power. Free narration is like a mini-world where everyone has nukes. You launch one with malicious intent, the whole game goes down in flames as the cycle of retaliation starts. On the other hand, if someone accidentally steps on someone else's toes, natural negotiation ensues, where either the narration is pulled, or the offended party starts to see cool consequences in the narration actually happening.
What does it give: Lots of room to maneuver to set up interesting scenes and conflicts.
Second, forcing stuff down your character's and your throat via goals and events:
Why doesn't it cause problems: You get a fair chance to fight it. And having lost a fair chance to fight, it turns out, doesn't make you mad, or lessen your emotional engagement with the character. Instead:
What does it give: Actually, losing a fair fight over what your character does creates a cool feeling of "wow, I fought that with tooth and nail but still lost, that's just beautifully cruel". Also, it makes the character surprising, "real", to even yourself. "I guess my character really wasn't like I first envisioned them". It gives theme, meaning, and actually enforces the emotional bond. You fought a hard battle in the trenches alongside your character. That's what makes you closer, not having total command over them.
It's all actually really core Capes. Fight about the things that are important to you, and you will generate emotion, insight, meaning, empathy and engagement.
QuoteI want to achieve one of two things from any rpg I play: ownership of a character or being the sole GM.
Lets be realistic...complete ownership of a character in a "real" RPG is an illusion spun by your GM. A good GM will be poke, prod, and lead your character into situations you might never consider, forcing you to make decisions about. Similarly the control of a sole GM is not absolute, a good GM will use the behaviour and reactions of their players to develop plot and conflicts on the fly.
RPGs whether traditional or otherwise are a co-operative medium, they live or die on the group dynamic and the social interaction between the participants. It is just as likely in a traditional RPG that one person's actions will negatively effect your character as it is in Capes, in fact it is considerably more disruptive in a traditional setting as there are no mechanics for you to defend your character with.
I think one of the main points here is that the winning and losing of conflicts in Capes will develop the character, adding layers to the original concept. They may not be the layers you would have chosen, but they encourage roleplaying in a more freeform and developmental manner than a traditional RPG would, in fact in my opinion Capes is closer to the original roots of the roleplaying game than the majority of the traditional games out there.
It pretty much boils down to a simple matter of taste, you either like it or not...
Quote from: Sindyr on March 15, 2006, 09:08:05 PM
A> Capes is not a rpg, albeit a lot of fun in its own right, as a competitive storytelling game. If this is true, it will probably not fill the need I have to play a character or run a game. It may be a groovy fun time, but I admit to being addicted to actual RPGs, in either the capacity of GM or PC. Note: I am not saying Capes isn't a fun game, but it may well not fill the same need that playing RPGs fills for me.
I *think* what you are actually asserting is A.
Actually, no. I categorically deny any definition of RPGs that relegates games like Capes or Universalis to some "not-RPG" status. Because despite protestations that these are innocent categories made to make the definition more precise, the reality is its intentional ghettoization.
Rather I firmly believe that "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. "
In other words...such definitions of RPGs are based on dogma and founded on nothing more substantial than tradition and limited experience, where the reality of what an RPG is or can be goes far beyond what you currently expect.
That doesn't make them less of an RPG, that just means your current limited definition is inadequate to capture them.
Quote
C> Capes can, as written, with no changes fulfill the needs that either being a GM or being a PC serves when I play RPGs.
If what you are asserting is C however, then I am not sure how that jives with the massively negative reaction I have to neither being allowed to own a PC nor being allowed to be the sole director. I can give up one of those two goals - Capes as written seems to ask me to give up both?
Permit me to be a bit more blunt in my assertion than, for clarity of meaning.
I'm suggesting the possibility that your "massively negative reaction" is just smoke. An irrational fear based on being faced with something that rocks your fundamental presumption about what an RPG is supposed to look like...much like my reaction the first time someone put pineapple on my pizza.
That you're looking to make rules modifications to protect yourself from a bogeyman that doesn't really exist because you haven't yet been able to imagine how you could find this other way fun. So you are focused on makeing this "other way" look more like your "comfortable way".
I'm suggesting you might try turning your back on that "comfortable way" for a while and embracing the "other way" with full on eagerness and excitement. I'm suggesting this because I've encountered literally TONS of people who say the exact same things you have about what you
think you enjoy most about roleplaying (really to the point where I wonder who wrote the original text book that keeps getting religiously parroted ad nauseum) but in the end discovered they were actually mistaken...and now have discovered other ways to roleplay that they enjoy just as much (and occasionally more) than what they'd been used to before.
So what I'm asserting then is D:
D: Hey I just discovered a whole new world of roleplaying that doesn't look anything like what I usually call roleplaying but which I can now not only see is TOTALLY roleplaying but which is way more fun than I ever thought it could be. I still like to play RPGs like the ones I'm most used to, but now I'm really eager to run out and try all of these other RPGs that are radically different to see what other fantastically fun ways of roleplaying I've been missing all these years.
That's the goal we have for everyone who comes to the Forge...this is an indie-game advocacy site after all. But you're never going to get there by just reading about the games and philosophizing about them on line. You've got to actually roll up your sleeves and dive into play (honestly and open-mindedly) to see if its true or not.
So its not a question of "Maybe I would have a blast playing Capes that way. But I would still have to find an RPG also to fill one of my two needs above.
"...its a question of "Maybe I would have a blast playing Capes that way, and I might enjoy it way more than the way I've always played before". Or you may not...but I recommend going into it being open to that possibility or else you're really just sabotaging yourself.
I can say that since as written Capes seems to be about highly competitive GMing - ie, GvG, I am dubious that this completely different style of game would answer my needs to play or GM in with *some* (not all) of the conventional trappings (like limited PC protection). I am however not closed to the idea.
As I have said before, I do not currently have a gaming group. Capes is motivating me to take steps to rectify that. Once I do, I plan to:
Run it intensively as written the way Tony wants me to, and really get a visceral feel of the play experience a la TLB. I also play as a player to pull out all the stops and use everything I can to test the limits of the system, to see how far it can go before it breaks - that is, becomes either an unpleasant experience to me or becomes and experience which, however pleasant, is not the kind of fun I am looking for. I will scour and re scour these forums for all the devious and "nasty" strategies I can use against my fellow player to completely play Capes as well as I can - and I will be informing my fellow players how I am doing this, so that they use the same actions against me so that I can see what a game where one is both the attacker and the attacked feels like.
I am guessing this will take around 2-4 intense 4-5 hour sessions (one a week). During this period, I will be creating characters and stories that I will not feel devastated if they are defeated, abused, etc... for self protection as I travel rapidly through this new unknown territory.
Then I will examine the results of this experiment, and note things that do not seem to be working for me (should anything seem that way) and come up with house rules to address these issues. I will have to ask myself, is being a GM in a GvG environment fulfilling my rpg needs? Is "playing" a PC under the Capes rules fulfilling my rpg needs? Is Capes as a whole fulfilling my rpg needs? If the answer to those questions is no, then I will need the fruits of my discussions here to figure out how to fix this so that at least one of those questions becomes a "yes".
Ultimately, one of three things is true. Vis-a-vis my personal rpg needs, either Capes as it stands will be fine as is, or Capes with a few mods will do the trick, or Capes qua Capes is fundamentally unable to serve me in this fashion.
I have seen so much good in Capes that I tend to strongly believe that the third option is not true. What I don't know (although I have my guesses) is which of the first two will turn out to be the case.
And of course, should it turn out to be the middle one (Capes with a few mods will do the trick) the next round of investigations becomes about answering what mods would be the minimum to make it work for me.
So I am just covering all my bases. If I start out suggesting that perhaps I will need to mod Capes to make it work for me, know that I am NOT closed to the possibility that Capes as is will be fine for me - in fact I plan to give that a good shot.
And if I spend a lot of time here discussing what the effect of different mods would be, it does not mean that I won't still try Capes un modded, but just that I want to pre-figure possible mods so that they are ready for implementation if and when they are needed.
Some people have concluded that I am anti Capes - and sure, on the very surface perhaps that's the first impression one gets.
But scratch the surface and you will see someone very committed to investigating and trying out Capes, vanilla, modded, everything. Someone who passionately wants to see Capes work for him, in some form or another. Someone who keeps at it on these boards even when certain posters have begun to make him feel unwelcome, and who just takes it in stride, shrugs, and gets back to business. Someone who, instead of staying with Capes light, bought both the download *and* the book.
This doesn't sound like a person who is anti Capes to me.
Thanks to you and all the others who continue the conversation. I appreciate your intent, and am willing to try most anything rpg related at least once, thoroughly.
Quote from: Eetu on March 16, 2006, 05:03:44 AM
Sindyr,
Here's where I think the crux of the argument lies:
Quote from: Sindyr
I want to achieve one of two things from any rpg I play: ownership of a character or being the sole GM. Could I have fun playing a game that doesn't have either? Possibly. Would I have more fun playing the game that has at least one? In all likelihood, yes.
So, based on your intuition, complete character ownership generates more fun. However, what I think people are telling you (at least what I'm about to tell you) is that complete character ownership ends up not being that big a deal, and you get all sorts of (not readily apparent without actually playing) cool things by sacrificing it. In the following, I'll try to elaborate a bit, and allay fears:
First, getting your ownership overwritten (or any other sort of crap) in free narration: isn't really a problem in actual play.
Why doesn't it cause problems: Because playing Capes you very soon develop a very healthy respect for the power of others, and particularly the balance of power. Free narration is like a mini-world where everyone has nukes. You launch one with malicious intent, the whole game goes down in flames as the cycle of retaliation starts. On the other hand, if someone accidentally steps on someone else's toes, natural negotiation ensues, where either the narration is pulled, or the offended party starts to see cool consequences in the narration actually happening.
What does it give: Lots of room to maneuver to set up interesting scenes and conflicts.
Maybe this is a key limiter and equalizer in Capes.
Everyone has nukes.
If another player wants to create and achieve Goals that abuse my character, and I feel that this abuse is not good story material, I can always bring out the nukes and create increasing defcon states to back up how serious I am.
What this forces the other player to do, if he wasn't already, is involve my character in ways I find appropriate to his continuing story - to throw down Goals that I *want* my character engaged in.
Goals I don't want my character to even engage in at all:
Goal: Captain Good...
...is defeated by a little girl who has no special significance.
...decides of his own free will to turn evil.
...despite being a paragon of grace, becomes foolishly clumsy, again for no good reason.
...switches sexual orientation
...witnesses a horrific violation of an innocent, and cannot prevent it.
...acts cruelly (or stupidly, or something other out of character way) for no good reason.
So if I pull out the nuke, I can cause the other player to need to modify his Goals, perhaps in the following ways:
Goal: Captain Good...
...is defeated by a little girl who
seems to have no special significance.
...turns evil
while being mentally dominated by the Dominator. (Defeating this goal means that Capt Good shrugs off Dominator's powers)
...despite being a paragon of grace, becomes foolishly clumsy,
because he has been secretly drugged...switches sexual orientation
again, the Dominator's work...witnesses a
simple, quick crime, and cannot prevent it.
...acts cruelly
towards a friend because he knows his enemy is watching to decide who to kidnapIs that what you had in mind?
My only reservation is, if all the other players "gang up" in wanting to be entertained by abusing my character, they will not be happy with repeated threats of nukage to make them stop - they will begin to get resentful that I am standing in the way of their entertainment at my expense.
Sort of like if someone had stood up for the romans condemned in the amphitheatre, the howling crowd would not have been happy to have its lurid fun curtailed.
But perhaps I just nuke anyways, and if anyone has a problem with my character be unavailable for humiliation and abuse, screw 'em?
Quote from: Sindyr on March 17, 2006, 11:01:17 AM
I am guessing this will take around 2-4 intense 4-5 hour sessions (one a week). During this period, I will be creating characters and stories that I will not feel devastated if they are defeated, abused, etc... for self protection as I travel rapidly through this new unknown territory.
For reference, it took me three sessions of 4-5 hours to get to the point where I wasn't constantly thinking about the rules, and could loosen up a bit. After five sessions, I felt like I had really internalized the rules, and no longer had to ask questions like "Is this legal under the rules?" or "What was that rule again?" but instead could ask questions like "What would be cool to have happen right now, and how can I get there?" However, if I had had the SAME group of players every session (instead of having to teach a new group almost every time) I might have internalized the rules even faster.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 17, 2006, 11:25:27 AM
Is that what you had in mind?
Something like that. Though, for understanding the not apparent benefits of doing it this way, the following may work better:
Goal: Captain Good...
...is defeated by a little girl who has no special significance. Consequence: Captain Good has a crisis of faith in his abilities. Maybe someone else was involved behind the scenes intent on just that?
...decides of his own free will to turn evil. Consequence: he has to have some reasons for it. What are they? Is it just temporary, is it necessary for some as-yet-untold desperate personal cause? Maybe Captain Good just wasn't as good as you thought him to be?
...despite being a paragon of grace, becomes foolishly clumsy, again for no good reason. Consequence: Bah, there's always some reason. If nothing else, maybe he isn't always a paragon of grace? For my mind, dented heroes beat squeeky clean heroes in interestingness. Particularly if I didn't at first know they had faults.
...switches sexual orientation Consequence: Whoa! I never would have thought he would! Now I gotta find out why..
etc, these being given as ways the aggressor might
possibly make you see the cool consequence possible. And if they can't, they either relent or trust in their vision more than yours, and what eventually comes out either vindicates them or increases group tension.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 17, 2006, 11:25:27 AM
My only reservation is, if all the other players "gang up" in wanting to be entertained by abusing my character, they will not be happy with repeated threats of nukage to make them stop - they will begin to get resentful that I am standing in the way of their entertainment at my expense.
But perhaps I just nuke anyways, and if anyone has a problem with my character be unavailable for humiliation and abuse, screw 'em?
Capes doesn't really work well in groups that don't respect each player a decent amount. I don't think any RPG will work for a player everone else molests on the player level. Now, if they just molest a character and the player is grooving it, that's completely different, and something Capes does better than most games,
particularly because it sometimes forces you to let go of being an absolute commander of your character.
Well, whatever it takes for certainty. :)
Another thought that just occurred to me: Perhaps a limiting factor for me is that a story can be well written, complex, and compelling, and I can still utterly fail to enjoy it at all.
Stories for me are escapism - escape from a world where it usually seems that the bad guys are just as likely as the good guys to succeed.
Therefor, when I enjoy fiction, be it movies, tv, books, or gaming, there must be a bias toward the virtuous and the good. I don't like tragedy, despair, bleakness. I don't like gritty sin city style stuff. I like poetic justice, hope, empathy, compassion, moral evolution, and karma. Positive progress and ascension, not static running in place!
So perhaps while some players of Capes are fulfilled by creating any complex and interesting story, I would actually experience mental anguish at some stories, and boredom at others.
Does this mean Capes is not for me because it equally values any kind of story? Or do I simply nuke or create rule mods to give protection so that the stories do not become ones that I loathe?
It will be intersting to see how this turns out.
Quote from: Eetu on March 17, 2006, 12:16:18 PM
Goal: Captain Good...
...is defeated by a little girl who has no special significance. Consequence: Captain Good has a crisis of faith in his abilities. Maybe someone else was involved behind the scenes intent on just that?
...decides of his own free will to turn evil. Consequence: he has to have some reasons for it. What are they? Is it just temporary, is it necessary for some as-yet-untold desperate personal cause? Maybe Captain Good just wasn't as good as you thought him to be?
...despite being a paragon of grace, becomes foolishly clumsy, again for no good reason. Consequence: Bah, there's always some reason. If nothing else, maybe he isn't always a paragon of grace? For my mind, dented heroes beat squeaky clean heroes in interestingness. Particularly if I didn't at first know they had faults.
...switches sexual orientation Consequence: Whoa! I never would have thought he would! Now I gotta find out why..
etc, these being given as ways the aggressor might possibly make you see the cool consequence possible. And if they can't, they either relent or trust in their vision more than yours, and what eventually comes out either vindicates them or increases group tension.
I guess to alleviate my worries, I am saying that if the aggressor (as you call him) comes up with a Goal like on of the above, it would go along way to reducing my nukage if
in the Goal itself was the reason for the abberant actions or storylines, even if none of the characters know it.
If someone is going to try to make my Captain Good act like a buffoon and klutz, they need to tell me *why* in story terms this is happening before I will sign off on it. Leaving the "why" of it unspecified will make me extremely uncomfortable, and lead to my nukage.
To continue here are your examples and how I would react at the gaming table:
Goal: Captain Good...
...is defeated by a little girl who has no special significance. Consequence: Captain Good has a crisis of faith in his abilities. Maybe someone else was involved behind the scenes intent on just that?
>Reaction: Eetu - *I*, the player, need to know how and why this could happen, and that has to be written as part of the Goal, for future reference. It alright for my character to not know why or what's going on, but I as a fellow writer on this story need the info. At the very least, I would require the word "seems" somewhere in there. "seems to be defeated" or "seems to have no special significance."
...decides of his own free will to turn evil. Consequence: he has to have some reasons for it. What are they? Is it just temporary, is it necessary for some as-yet-untold desperate personal cause? Maybe Captain Good just wasn't as good as you thought him to be?
>Reaction: Eetu - I take Captain Good storyline personally. To protect that storyline, I the writer most invested in that character need to have some idea of what is behind this. As Captain Good's player, I can tell you that Captain good not being as good as I thought him to be would be completely unacceptable. I refuse to permit or engage in any storyline that even posits as a possibility that Captain Good would become evil in and of his own accord. I am not even willing to have a Goal conflict battle with you on this subject, I am just flatly unwilling to entertain it. Turn your own hero evil if you like - I may even partake of *that* conflict in an effort to keep your hero good - but don't threaten to turn the storyline of my character into something completely unacceptable.
Feel free, however, to have the main villain try to coerce and cajole him into becoming evil. As long as it can never really happen.
...despite being a paragon of grace, becomes foolishly clumsy, again for no good reason. Consequence: Bah, there's always some reason. If nothing else, maybe he isn't always a paragon of grace? For my mind, dented heroes beat squeeky clean heroes in interestingness. Particularly if I didn't at first know they had faults.
>Reaction: Eetu - there's gotta be some reason, unless you are just tweaking my character to have fun attacking me personal in front of others - what is it? Are you challenging my concept for my character? Then negotiate with me why you think I should be open to changing it, and accept it if I do not wish to do so. Perhaps being a paragon of grace is a core concept for me. Perhaps not. Let's talk.
...switches sexual orientation Consequence: Whoa! I never would have thought he would! Now I gotta find out why..
>Reaction: Eetu - I don't want to find out why later - I want to find out before the Goal hits the table, because if I do not approve, if I would become personally distressed at this turn of my character's storyline, then it is not worth it. Perhaps you could choose some external reason for this apprent change - such as our favorite villain, the dominator - or because due to a transporter malfunction, Captain Good is changing from a he to a she! You would still have to check in with me about changing the gender of my character, but I might be more open to that than to changing from heterosexual to homosexual.
Eetu - some good thoughts, I hope that I have communicated well the plusses and minuses I find in your approach. Thank you for the feedback.
.... but but, actually leaving the reason unspecified gives YOU (also the other players) more room and leverage to make the reason interesting and good, actually focus the game on it, build up on a resolution, and make the reason something is happening the actual interesting thing, not just that it happened.
If you force a negotiation and decision on the spot of the act, you close all those tantalizing doors, and the act suddenly loses the depth that was possible for it. Not to speak of the fact that being forced to give an explanation on the spot often results in the most obvious, easy to think of, and therefore flat explanation being used.
Aside from that, I think we've come to another important point, that I've sort of been skirting around previously, because I didn't think it actually was central to what we were discussing before: to fully enjoy Capes, you have to change perspective with regards to your character. You can, and will still be really emotionally engaged with them, but you shouldn't think of them as /you/, you shouldn't equate yourself with your character. The character is not your avatar or agent in the imagined world, but a separate entity from yourself, not totally under your control.
For me personally, starting to play with Forge games, that was quite a heavy hit to take at first. And I've seen games skirt real damage when people don't realize it and take things that happen to their characters personally.
And yes, that's a real fork in the road, where you really lose something if you choose to take it, and maybe you don't want to do it always. But, also, as I've already tried to tell, going along with that change of viewpoint does also open up whole new, exciting vistas of roleplaying.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 17, 2006, 12:18:24 PM
So perhaps while some players of Capes are fulfilled by creating any complex and interesting story, I would actually experience mental anguish at some stories, and boredom at others.
That happens no matter what game you play. The people you play with are the most important part of the game. They should be a) your friends, b) available and willing to play, and c) aware of your boundaries and what you want to do and don't want to do. If they don't have these three pieces, then yeah, mental anguish/boredom ahoy.
Though System does Matter (thank you Forge speak) so to the people. In my opinion, people matter more.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 17, 2006, 11:25:27 AM
My only reservation is, if all the other players "gang up" in wanting to be entertained by abusing my character, they will not be happy with repeated threats of nukage to make them stop - they will begin to get resentful that I am standing in the way of their entertainment at my expense.
This is where the "nuke" comes out - clearly you want something different out of the game than they do, so the best thing to do is to seek it elsewhere.
I understand a lot of your nervousness, because I've been in the same place. Sometimes with a character there are things you want to have challenged and changed, and things you don't (because changing them would mean changing the things you find fun about playing the character.) Whenever you play a character you have to worry about the GM changing the fun things instead of the things you want to have challenged.
Here's the thing:
Capes is not a magic bullet to fix that. It may help, because everyone has equal power (instead of the GM/player power imbalance in traditional games) but the only real cure is communication. You have to make sure everyone in your group knows what the others are after and is willing to give that to them. And maybe that means that the first few times you play with a certain group, you choose your characters and situations more carefully - just like there's stuff you wouldn't tell someone on a first date.
I do take your points, but they also sometimes worry me.
I mean, given what you said:
QuoteThe character is not your avatar or agent in the imagined world
this means that (I imagine) I will not be investing emotionally in that character - because its not safe. But if I emotionally disconnect from each and every character, what left to enjoy?
The only thing left I guess would be connecting with the story itself - but that is also an unsafe proposition because other people's footprints will be all over them...
I worry, I'll admit. But maybe when I try this, it will be as good and as safe and fulfilling as many have said it will be. I certainly hope so.
One thing I really do like about what you said is that by leaving the explanation open, more interesting and still safe and acceptable explanations can come forth later instead of a prenegotiated one before it even occurs. I get that.
If there was only some way to ensure that, to make it safe to trust one's fellow player, especially since the game's very nature encourages competition. If it gets no holds barred, who's to say that leaving the explanation till later won't be used against one? Now that would be a circumstance I don't ever care to experience - it would make me want to throw something a lot heavier than popcorn.
Can you see where I am coming from?
I guess the question is how do you find safety in such a competitive game without at least some rules to set some limits on what we can do to each other? Reminds me of the naive conservatives that push for a free market free of all limitations and oversight, and then they wonder how enron or microsoft happens.
How can you make the game safe enough, either in terms of character storyline or in terms of overall storyline, to make it seem worth invest so heavily emotionally speaking in it? What assurances can we give the prospective player that the storyline that emerges won't cause anguish as suddenly his recreation that he uses to escape from reality becomes an attack just as bad as he experiences in real life and on the news, but even more vicious?
For people to have fun they need to feel *some* element of safety. They need to feel that either certain actions cannot be done because the rules don't allow it or that they have a way even if outnumbered to protect their most vulnerable places.
Because being in a game where I feel traumatized is not my idea of fun.
Now, maybe the answer as someone said above is nukes. Maybe I can afford to allow the storyline to cross into dangerous territory if I make plain that I will unilaterally nuke and devastate anyone and everything that goes too far or does not permit to bring it back in the near future.
But I sure would like not to have to socially threaten and coerce my fellow gamers, because that's how bad things get started, like physical assault - either them on me or vice versa. All it takes is two people neither of which are willing to back down for infinite escalation to occur.
Which makes me think, isn't it essentially stupid to *not* have rules setting limits within the game to make sure it never goes that far?
When people get emotionally invested in SIS, and a red flag issue comes up, such as one player wanting the City to be destroyed and another player who cannot bear that, the Capes rules be damned, it quite possibly or even likely that one or both sides simply cannot mentally and emotionally permit such an event to pass, regardless of story tokens, abilities, or whatnot.
All I am trying to do is address that piece of the complexity of shared storytelling. Either their is a safety net, or there may be great danger, not just within the story, but between the actual players as relationships get damaged and real interpersonal conflict spirals out of control.
In a perfect world, this would not be an issue. Your fellow players and you could rationally work things out.
In the real world, things can take an unexpected turn for the unpleasant, and perfectly amicable people can begin to hate each other.
All potentially because they were given insufficient protection of their needs, and were simply and naively asked to work it out amidst projectile popcorn.
It's a little more complex than that.
Quote from: drnuncheon on March 17, 2006, 02:48:06 PM
I understand a lot of your nervousness, because I've been in the same place. Sometimes with a character there are things you want to have challenged and changed, and things you don't (because changing them would mean changing the things you find fun about playing the character.) Whenever you play a character you have to worry about the GM changing the fun things instead of the things you want to have challenged.
I think that their are two categories: things that one NEEDS to have happen or have avoided and things that one WANTS to have happen or have avoided.
I may want my character to defeat the bad guy, but I NEED him not to be maimed or killed by the bad guy. I may want my char to not be impotent to stop a murder or a theft, but I NEED him NOT to be impotent to stop a rape or torture.
Simarly, I may want the protagonists to be successful, but at the end of an arc I NEED them to be successfull. I may want to avoid an unpleasant scene or setback, but the overall story itself I NEED to be not unpleasant or depressing.
The WANT categories I think are rife for other players throwing goals on.
The NEED categories I think should be respected by all, and no player, no matter how in the minority, should have their NEEDs overrun.
Obviously, the best thing to do is gets from each player what their needs are before starting play, and write them in as house rules (not comic's codes, which actually encourages almost-conflicts). However, it is unlikely that such a pre written list will be guaranteed to be comprehensive.
What you are saying is to have some trust that players will respect each other's boundaries, and if they don't, leave the group.
What's wrong with inverting the trust issue? Let's trust that players won't veto something as crossing a boundary that they NEED to protect unless it really does. If you believe that someone is lying and using this as a tactic, leave the group.
If we have to have trust as part of the equation, lets give each other the ability to protect ourselves and *then* trust we will not abuse it.
This seems even better than simply trusting that we will not have to protect ourselves.
Again, I must say that this conversation is helping refine the central issues here, for which I am grateful.
Maybe a simple House rule that explicitly permits any player to
Quote from: Sindyr on March 17, 2006, 03:15:27 PM
Obviously, the best thing to do is gets from each player what their needs are before starting play, and write them in as house rules (not comic's codes, which actually encourages almost-conflicts).
Actually, the Code is the best thing, because then you know that
no matter what, it won't happen.
For example: In your Code you have "Characters will not be raped or tortured." Because of this,
no matter what, your character will never be helpless to prevent a rape or a torture. If the bad guy "wins", the conflict gets rolled back and you get another go at it.
Now, you may be afraid of a situation where, since it's in the code and gives tokens for gloating, people put characters in potential rape or torture situations often. That's the time for communication. That's when you say, "Jeez, that's getting old, why don't you come up with something more original" or some such - the same way you would if your normal GM used the same plot over and over again.
QuoteHowever, it is unlikely that such a pre written list will be guaranteed to be comprehensive.
That's true. I always think it's best to have it as a living document, that you can discuss and change between sessions.
QuoteIf we have to have trust as part of the equation, lets give each other the ability to protect ourselves and *then* trust we will not abuse it.
Mostly because I'm a rules minimalist - I'd rather not have a rule for something until and unless there's a problem that requires it. Otherwise you'll be there all night thinking of "oh, this bad thing could happen, we need a rule to stop it". I'm also the kind of person who looks at a rule that says "You can't do X" and says "But why not?" and then starts thinking about situations in which I might want to do X and it'd be perfectly fine.
The other thing is, I game with a couple of groups of people. The group I play
Capes with is the group I implicitly trust. I'm not worried about my wife or our other player trying to abuse me, so its probably easier for me to see less need for that sort of thing.
J
Yeah, the comic's code will keep it from happening. But if I don't want to experience not only rape as part of the storyline but even the spectre of rape, than the comics code may not be the way to go.
And I was playing with my girlfriend and my best friend then I wouldn't worry to much about it. I instead will be going to a game store to find some strangers to help me try out this game.
Maybe this game is best played with good friends?
But to play with complete strangers, perhaps just a few extra rules - not too many, just a couple - might make it possible in relative safety.
Just a thought.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 17, 2006, 03:02:21 PM
If there was only some way to ensure that, to make it safe to trust one's fellow player, especially since the game's very nature encourages competition. If it gets no holds barred, who's to say that leaving the explanation till later won't be used against one? Now that would be a circumstance I don't ever care to experience - it would make me want to throw something a lot heavier than popcorn.
The game encourages competition, but /not/ vicious competition on the story level. Competition mostly, primarily stays on the resource economy level, and there it's actually very beneficial to be sensitive to what the other players want to engage with, and what not. So competition actually mostly encourages story safety and satisfyability for all.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 17, 2006, 03:15:27 PM
What's wrong with inverting the trust issue? Let's trust that players won't veto something as crossing a boundary that they NEED to protect unless it really does. If you believe that someone is lying and using this as a tactic, leave the group.
In practice, with experienced Capes players, there will probably be no noticeable difference in play regardless of which rule is in effect. What goes will be decided in negotiation. However, particularly for people new to Capes, and with experience in "traditional" games, coming in from the known, "safe" side may result in stopping short and not seeing the potential on the other side. i.e. vetoing stuff that they actually could deal with, and that would create good play, because they /think/ they couldn't or wouldn't want to deal with it.
So, beginning Capes play, it's actually good to feel just a little bit unsafe, to go well over the border, chart the foreign land, and maybe even get hurt to find out where the /real/ border is, maybe push it a bit farther than where they previously thought it was.
Quote from: Eetu on March 17, 2006, 04:31:23 PM
So, beginning Capes play, it's actually good to feel just a little bit unsafe, to go well over the border, chart the foreign land, and maybe even get hurt to find out where the /real/ border is, maybe push it a bit farther than where they previously thought it was.
I have said that I will give it a shot, but I will say again: feeling unsafe and getting hurt is not cool with me, I loathe it, I hate it, its awful.
So, if you and others like it I will not stand i your way - but if I decide its just not fun, please don't expect me to lay down at the sacrificial altar.
Just off the top of my head
Quote from: Sindyr on March 17, 2006, 05:15:52 PM
I have said that I will give it a shot, but I will say again: feeling unsafe and getting hurt is not cool with me, I loathe it, I hate it, its awful.
LOL. Man, you're gonna get hammered by any player who is willing to make themselves unsafe.
Hammered. I can only offer my sympathies in advance.
I mean, seriously ... here's a player (we'll call him George) who wants to feel safe and avoid getting hurt. And then there's a player (we'll call him Tony, because he's me!) who wants to be unsafe and to put important stuff out there for people to try to take away from him. And then there's Carl, who gets to choose which character to gun for.
QuoteGeorge: Those bank robbers look pretty serious. I'm narrating, and I say that they don't have any hostages. All the innocent bystanders have been cleared from the building. I'll introduce "Goal: Raptor looks good on television capturing villains." I don't really care about Raptor, so if it goes wrong that's okay with me.
Tony: Major Victory glares at the bank and the robbers inside. "By the pendulous patriotic paunch of Andrew Jackson! It burns my blood to see these criminals trying to make off with the hard-earned money of the people of Steadfast City! Wait! What's that I spy? Ace reporter Trudy Trueheart is sneaking into the bank in search of front-page-worthy photos! I'm torn between my loving admiration of her spunk and moxie and my deep concern for her safety! The only thing to do is to rescue her from her own reckless nature! Surely that will make her love me the way I love her!" I create "Goal: Show Trudy Trueheart that I am the man of her dreams by rescuing her from peril!"
Carl: Oh ... you can't think that I'm leaving that alone. You want to lose that one, don't you?
Tony: Lose it! Madness! Trudy means everything to me. I've got two points of Love Debt that says that Iron Brain will never lay a finger on Trudy.
Carl: Oh yeah? I've got three points of Pride Debt that says that Iron Brain will be the one who rescues Trudy from peril and shows her that he's the man of her dreams.
Tony: See her in thrall to my archnemesis? Never!
Carl: Big words. Somehow I doubt you'll be able to back them up. Trudy will be Iron Brain's love-slave.
Tony: You FIEND! He's a brain in a cybernetic jar! What's he even going to do with a woman like Trudy?
Carl: Oh, they have attachments for everything these days.
Tony: Oh that's just WRONG! You will never succeed! I won't allow it!
This seems so incredibly obvious to me. George isn't offering Carl any opportunity to make an impact on anything he cares about. Tony is offering Carl the chance to totally undermine Trudy's character and MV's pride, both of which Tony cares about intensely, if only Carl can win the conflict. If you were Carl, which of the two would pique your interest?
Tony - I think having you in my game would *make* me safe - everyone would go after you!
(heh heh)
Wasn't sure if you were still following what may seem to you to be either my annoying criticisms or my complete dedication to self-protection.
I feel grateful to see that you seem to be continuing to follow my postings even after all my doubts.
When it comes to stories, or really anything in my life, I do it seriously, intensely, and with full commitment. I couldn't help tell a story of heroes and villains without really caring about the story, the world, and what goes on. It's fun, exhilarating, but not just a light-hearted goof.
For example, a villain may purposefully put a hero into the position where the only way the hero can save his love interest is to torture the villain into revealing the location of the victim.
The villain knows that if the hero stoops to torturing him, the hero may save his love but on a deeper level, the hero's morality is defeated, and the hero becomes a villain. On the other hand, if the hero does not torture the villain, than the hero will have to live with the fact that he let his love die because his morality was more important. For the villain, it's a win-win.
This is a scene I would love to see played out, BUT a few things must be true.
The player of the hero should not have the decision made for him whether he chooses to torture the villain or not. Or at least if someone else makes the decision, he should be allowed to veto, nuke or something if he totally disagrees.
No matter what happens, the love interest of the player's hero will not die, again unless the player accepts this story point. However, the hero must still be portrayed as if he believes she is in immanent danger. But whatever happens, whether saved by luck or cunning, the love interest cannot die.
I love these sorts of scene, emotionally charged. But I *live* these stories, and cannot abide to live through a story in which my hero is forced to villainy by someone else's choice, nor a story where making the right decision (not to torture) actually causes innocents to be harmed.
In this case, if I were controlling the hero, I would reluctantly refrain from torturing the villain - although I would try every other thing - even asking for help from the Dominator (see above) to save my hero's love.
If that all failed, then my hero would be devastated by thinking that he caused the death of his loved one by refusing to stop to villainy... but only for a short while until he found out that he got lucky, and that his love still lives.
Then maybe the hero has a conversation with his love about whether they stay together given the risks...
*That's* a good story IMO. The story of a my hero torturing a villain, or the story of my hero's love being killed by a villain are not. Threatened, yes, but killed, no.
I never want to see a good story or any recreational activity turn into something that causes me anguish.
Hope that makes sense to you.
I guess it's all about need versus want. I am happy to fight for what I want, but I won't fight for what I need - I will simply take it.
The good news is that I think there is much I have to offer Capes within the boundaries of what I want, even if what I need is completely off limits.
QuoteGeorge: Those bank robbers look pretty serious. I'm narrating, and I say that they don't have any hostages. All the innocent bystanders have been cleared from the building. I'll introduce "Goal: Raptor looks good on television capturing villains." I don't really care about Raptor, so if it goes wrong that's okay with me.
FYI: I don't mind the robbers taking hostages, or innocent bystanders being put seemingly at risk. I mention this because I think you had me as George. I also don't mind throwing down goals that threaten what *other* players hold dear, if that is what they want from me. What I don't want is (for example) someone narrating how my hero opens fire on the villains, placing the hostages at risk. I also don't want there to be any actually chance that anyone will be truly maimed or killed, nor that the villains do not ultimately get their comeuppance.
I just want it to be a good story with a happy ending. (grin)
So if you relish me playing "Goal: The villain soundly beats and leaves unconscious Major Victory", than I will. I will also offer to withdraw that Goal if it doesn't appeal to you. I may also try to play "Event: the police arrive... and are found to be in league with the villains", with permission.
I appreciate the dramatic tension. I appreciate that putting heroes and innocents in apparent danger or risk of some kind or another drives the story. But that doesn't mean that the *players* can't know that somehow by the end everything will work out for the best.
I am not trying to make boring stories, I am simply trying to create a safety net for the players (not the characters) as to what happens with the story.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 17, 2006, 06:55:34 PM
Tony - I think having you in my game would *make* me safe - everyone would go after you!
Well, yeah. That's what I was saying. Now, after a few scenes, how many story tokens do you think you'll have? How many story tokens will I have?
Quote from: Sindyr on March 17, 2006, 06:55:34 PM
The player of the hero should not have the decision made for him whether he chooses to torture the villain or not. Or at least if someone else makes the decision, he should be allowed to veto, nuke or something if he totally disagrees.
No matter what happens, the love interest of the player's hero will not die, again unless the player accepts this story point. However, the hero must still be portrayed as if he believes she is in immanent danger. But whatever happens, whether saved by luck or cunning, the love interest cannot die.
So what's left as a goal for the villain's player to pursue? She can't make you torture her. And she can't make you pay for not torturing her. What impact does she get to have?
Tony -
that's a helluva good question. I am going to have to ponder this a bit. Will reply asap - prolly tomorrow.
Quote from: TonyLB on March 17, 2006, 07:57:37 PM
So what's left as a goal for the villain's player to pursue? She can't make you torture her. And she can't make you pay for not torturing her. What impact does she get to have?
OK, let me ask a few questions about the intent of what you asked.
When you say what's left as a goal, do you mean:
1) <story creation-wise> Why would the villain's player create for the hero this storyline when she knows she will not be able to either make the hero fall or make him suffer the loss of his love?
2) <mechanic-wise> Why would the villain's player create for the hero this storyline/group of Goals because she thinks she will not be able to get story tokens off of the hero's player because ultimately, she can't threaten either of two terrible things, so why would he stake debt?
3) <mechanic instance> Or are you asking, given the fact that she cannot lay down a Goal forcing either of the two verboten acts (hero falls or love interest dies) what actual specific Goal(s) would it make sense for her to lay down in it's place?
Those are all interesting questions, and some have easier answers than others, but instead of going off in three separate directions at once, could you (at least to start with) help me understand more specifically in what way you are asking "What impact does she get to have?"? Then I can begin to address what you asked instead of what I think you may have meant with that question.
I'm asking questions #1 and #2. I know the answer to #3: if George uses vetoes and such to build a situation where Carl can't have an impact then Carl won't try a different goal on George at all. Carl will go to Tony, who's left lots of room for an adversary to play. And then, if things don't change, Carl and Tony will accumulate more story tokens and resources, and they'll be running the story of their characters, and George will be 90% spectator.
Oh man, and I just realized (glancing back over the thread) that I crossed my wires on Major Victory's patriotic line. It's the pendulous paunch of William Taft, of course.
Andrew Jackson (as Ben Lehman so memorably informed me) will rise again to send evil on a new trail of tears.
You gotta get these things right.
Quote from: TonyLB on March 18, 2006, 02:01:58 PM
I'm asking questions #1 and #2. I know the answer to #3: if George uses vetoes and such to build a situation where Carl can't have an impact then Carl won't try a different goal on George at all. Carl will go to Tony, who's left lots of room for an adversary to play. And then, if things don't change, Carl and Tony will accumulate more story tokens and resources, and they'll be running the story of their characters, and George will be 90% spectator.
OK, I have a *different* answer for number three, but lets focus on what you asked.
Quote1) <story creation-wise> Why would the villain's player create for the hero this storyline when she knows she will not be able to either make the hero fall or make him suffer the loss of his love?
The answer to this questions depends on the motivations and story goals of the villain's player.
-If she wants to tell a tale where the villain succeeds at really hurting the hero (by making him fall or killing his love) then obviously, she would be blocked. If I was the hero's player, I would *not* be interested in exploring the that storyline at the actual risk of such a devastating loss.
-If she want to tell a tale with the hero's character believes he is at risk for one of those two nasty possibilities, but the hero's player knows there really is no such risk, then I as the hero's player would go along with it.
Basically, if she wants to create a story with elements of risk for the *hero* (not the player of the hero) than she would be willing to create this storyline which has that. On the other hand, if she (the player of the villain) really wants to tell a tale of the fall or the failure of the hero to save his love, then I don't WANT her to do that.
So, story-wise, the answer to what impact she get to have is she gets help write a story, embrace her creativity, and really express herself, within just a few limitations. Freedom does not mean without limitation of anykind. We are not free to kill one another in real life, but we are nonetheless considered free as a whole.
Quote2) <mechanic-wise> Why would the villain's player create for the hero this storyline/group of Goals because she thinks she will not be able to get story tokens off of the hero's player because ultimately, she can't threaten either of two terrible things, so why would he stake debt?
To my way of think, this and this alone is the crux, the fly in the ointment of what I might like to do. Because story token are the game mechanic incentive for getting people to create for us the stories we want, right?
To help answer this questions, let me pose to you a slightly off topic, but I think related, question.
If at the beginning of the scene two of the three players choose ordinary, non super characters to play, and I am the lone super, why would I create for either of the other two players storylines that would suit them? After all, as non supers, they cannot acquire and stake debt so I have no hope of gaining tokens from them. For that matter, if the rest of the players are playing non supers, and I am the lone super, what's the point in my continuing at all? Mechanically, the goal of the game is acquisition of story tokens, and to a lesser degree, inspirations - but mainly tokens.
Side unrelated question: What would happen if all abilities were super powers? Or if normal abilities could only be used once, but cost debt?
Anyways, the answer of some of the above will help me better answer #2 for you.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 18, 2006, 06:12:57 PM
The answer to this questions depends on the motivations and story goals of the villain's player.
-If she wants to tell a tale where the villain succeeds at really hurting the hero (by making him fall or killing his love) then obviously, she would be blocked. If I was the hero's player, I would *not* be interested in exploring the that storyline at the actual risk of such a devastating loss.
-If she want to tell a tale with the hero's character believes he is at risk for one of those two nasty possibilities, but the hero's player knows there really is no such risk, then I as the hero's player would go along with it.
It seems to me that you are saying the following: "If she wants to tell the villain's story, and try to gain success for her character at the expense of mine, that's not cool. If she wants to support
my story, and try to gain success for my character at the expense of hers, that's acceptable."
There's a certain asymmetry there that might seem natural to you after years of "The villains are played by the GM, who isn't like other players," but which looks ... well ... a little strange when all the players are equals. Yes?
Quote from: Sindyr on March 18, 2006, 06:12:57 PMTo my way of think, this and this alone is the crux, the fly in the ointment of what I might like to do. Because story token are the game mechanic incentive for getting people to create for us the stories we want, right?
Well, that and inspirations. They aren't unequal resources. There's a natural concentration, in talking about the game, on the techniques for getting Story Tokens. This is because Inspirations flow from the type of play (seeking success, rejecting failure) that we're all familiar with already. Story Tokens take some learning, and so we talk about them more. That doesn't make them more important, just more famous.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 18, 2006, 06:12:57 PM
If at the beginning of the scene two of the three players choose ordinary, non super characters to play, and I am the lone super, why would I create for either of the other two players storylines that would suit them?
You wouldn't. You'd create conflicts you can win, and press home your massive advantage (debt will, in the long term, guarantee victory over normals) to quickly accumulate massive Inspirations.
I am going to write two separate replies - one re: what's in it for the villain's player storywise, and one re: how can a villain's player get tokens without being allowed to threaten the actual accomplishment of terrible, unallowable things. This post deals with the former, the post that deals with the latter will come later today.
Quote from: TonyLB on March 18, 2006, 10:40:59 PM
Quote from: Sindyr on March 18, 2006, 06:12:57 PM
The answer to this questions depends on the motivations and story goals of the villain's player.
-If she wants to tell a tale where the villain succeeds at really hurting the hero (by making him fall or killing his love) then obviously, she would be blocked. If I was the hero's player, I would *not* be interested in exploring the that storyline at the actual risk of such a devastating loss.
-If she want to tell a tale with the hero's character believes he is at risk for one of those two nasty possibilities, but the hero's player knows there really is no such risk, then I as the hero's player would go along with it.
It seems to me that you are saying the following: "If she wants to tell the villain's story, and try to gain success for her character at the expense of mine, that's not cool. If she wants to support my story, and try to gain success for my character at the expense of hers, that's acceptable."
There's a certain asymmetry there that might seem natural to you after years of "The villains are played by the GM, who isn't like other players," but which looks ... well ... a little strange when all the players are equals. Yes?
I see what you mean, but I may not be being clear about the intentionality of this.
I cannot partake of a story where the villains have any real success, innocents suffer significant loss, or the good aren't ultimately rewarded and the villains aren't ultimately punished. If I can't even passively watch that stuff on TV, than I sure as heck can't partake actively in the creation of that kind of story.
This is a hard limit for me.
So if a player wants to tell a pro-villain story, then that player will not want to play with me, nor will I want to play with her.
On the other hand, if a player want to *use* a villain as a foil, both to help me tell the tale of my hero and to amass story tokens, then she can rest assured that I will be doing the same for her - creating my *own* villain for her to explore storywise with her hero as *I* amass story tokens.
Now if you want to argue that in any game I would partake of, villains are second class citizens that have built-in failure at the story level and therefor players need encouragement to bring them into play, perhaps something could be done like "if no Villain is on the scene, one may be introduced by any player for free. Additional villains cost one story token each, as normal", or "At the conclusion of a scene, any player who played a Villain and did not play a Hero gets a two story token reward" or something similar.
But let me make no mistake about it. Without preparation and token-less negotiation, I do not want any of the following to happen in a story I am partaking of:
-Torture, rape, other extreme acts done by Hero's or to Mundanes.
-Significant non-fleeting defeat of a Hero - including emotional..
-Villains achieving significant success that is more than fleeting.
-In general and overall, evil to prosper, good to fail.
-Significant non-fleeting character loss, corruption, or overriding against the owning player's character concept
Such as:
>The Hero is made to look stupid, ineffectual, or unwise in a way that contradicts that Hero's player's character conception.
>The Hero is made to act in ways the Hero's player finds significantly at odds with that Hero's player's character conception.
A Goal like: The Villains defeat the Heroes is NOT prevented by the above. Neither is the Goal: The Villains take over the City. Even the Goal: The Villains make the Heroes Look Bad is not stopped - after all, the Villains aren't making the Heroes less powerful or actually clumsy - the Villains are just employing a cunning plan to make it *seem* like the Heroes don't have what it takes - when in fact they really do.
All the above guarantees is that should the Villains accomplish either goal, the effects with be fleeting, and by accomplishing the Goal the Villains will actually reap very little reward - in fact, the will most likely be sowing the seeds of their own defeat.
So maybe the Villains take over the City for a day before the Heroes save the day and put down the Villains. Maybe the Villains try to engineer a loss of faith in the super team by secretly hitting them with an invisible Clumsiness Ray when the Heroes show up to foil a bank robbery - which is later discovered, fixed, and told to the public.
I won't hide it. When I bring to the table a group of players to play this game, I will be telling them what my limits are and asking them for *their* limits as well.
Then I expect us to stay within those limits. So if a player suddenly wants her Villain to have equal success and story line effectiveness as the Heroes, she will be disappointed. But if she is willing to play the villain as a method to let the Heroes get their storyline told, as well as a nice source of story tokens for her, then she can in turn expect us to play the villain for her so that she gets her time to shine with her Hero as well.
Make sense?
Quote from: Sindyr on March 19, 2006, 10:23:43 AM
So if a player suddenly wants her Villain to have equal success and story line effectiveness as the Heroes, she will be disappointed. But if she is willing to play the villain as a method to let the Heroes get their storyline told, as well as a nice source of story tokens for her, then she can in turn expect us to play the villain for her so that she gets her time to shine with her Hero as well.
Make sense?
Let me try to wrap my head around what you want. You want a happy ending, every time, without fail or possibility of failure. Oh sure, there'll be little stumbles along the way, but at no point will there be a doubt in your mind that all will go well in the end.
I'm going to use an anology here. You want to play "catch" with your friends. They throw the ball at you, so that you can easily catch it. If you fumble and drop, no harm, no foul, just pick it up and throw it back. You fumbling is their fault as much as yours, they need to throw the ball so that you can more easily catch it.
Hey, catch is fun. Go catch. It's not for everyone, though.
But Capes is about Baseball. It's about winning the game. It's about stealing third and hitting that ball out of the park, so that no one can find it. It's about challeging the other players and getting them to take risks, risks that could mean winning big or losing big.
Baseball is fun. Go Baseball. It's not for everyone, though.
I sense a conflict here that might not be easily fixed. You are asking for a lot of hefty restrictions on your gaming group, you are asking for no element of risk at all. I hope you can find a group that wants to play catch.
Quote from: TonyLB on March 17, 2006, 07:57:37 PM
So what's left as a goal for the villain's player to pursue? She can't make you torture her. And she can't make you pay for not torturing her. What impact does she get to have?
I already addressed the story impact above, so now it's time for me to address the mechanical side of this:
Quote from: Sindyr on March 18, 2006, 09:49:55 AM
2) <mechanic-wise> Why would the villain's player create for the hero this storyline/group of Goals because she thinks she will not be able to get story tokens off of the hero's player because ultimately, she can't threaten either of two terrible things, so why would he stake debt?
So, given that the basic Capes mechanic is to encourage others to write stories for us by paying them with story tokens, just how is the villain's player encouraged to write such a story:
Example:
QuoteFor example, a villain may purposefully put a hero into the position where the only way the hero can save his love interest is to torture the villain into revealing the location of the victim.
The villain knows that if the hero stoops to torturing him, the hero may save his love but on a deeper level, the hero's morality is defeated, and the hero becomes a villain. On the other hand, if the hero does not torture the villain, than the hero will have to live with the fact that he let his love die because his morality was more important. For the villain, it's a win-win.
This is a scene I would love to see played out, BUT a few things must be true.
The player of the hero should not have the decision made for him whether he chooses to torture the villain or not. Or at least if someone else makes the decision, he should be allowed to veto, nuke or something if he totally disagrees.
No matter what happens, the love interest of the player's hero will not die, again unless the player accepts this story point. However, the hero must still be portrayed as if he believes she is in immanent danger. But whatever happens, whether saved by luck or cunning, the love interest cannot die.
So, the question boils essentially boils down to, how can we incentivize a player to create such a story for the hero, while protecting the hero and his player from the villain's player taking it too far?
I have two thoughts about this.
The first and more obvious thought is for the villain to create a goal that does not cause either of the two nasty outcomes to occur, but is still something that the hero is willing to fight over.
For example: Goal: Hero actually considers torturing Villain to save his love. Or contrarily, Goal: Hero doesn't even pause in choosing the Villain over his love.
Let's look at this one, Goal: Hero is unable to save his love. If the Hero fails to prevent this Goal, then he will not be able to save his love. She still won't, can't die - but she will be saved by luck or some other reason, and NOT by the actions of the Hero. I personally, would fight for the prevention of this goal, to be able to narrate how my Hero himself, with his own cunning and power, saved his love *despite* the machinations of the Villain.
Just because the player of the Villain cannot either corrupt the Hero nor kill his Love doesn't mean that the player can't threaten other things of value to the Hero's player.
It does mean that the Villain's player has to be *smarter*, has to know his target audience better. It's easy and no test of Capes skill to put the love interest of a Hero in jeopardy. Yawn. It's more subtle, challenging, and frankly *clever* to find out that the player sitting across from you is a liberal and hates the whole red state thing, and then to build a plot where the villains are in collusion with the conservatives of the City and are tyring to get them elected.
Even when certain things are completely prohibited, the storyline can still go in countless divergent directions. If you learn to know the other players well enough, you can still come up with threats within the boundaries of what's allowed that impel them to stake debt and reward you with story tokens.
Again, as a story teller and listener, there are certain stories that I NEED to avoid (or need to have happen), and other ones that I WANT to avoid (or want to have happen). The ones I NEED I have to prevent from having any chance of happening. That still leaves a nigh infinite number of things I want - and would be happy to stake debt on.
It's the job of the other players to figure out what that is - and I will actively help them if they wish. After all, I have no problems with paying people story tokens to tell the story I want to hear, and in return I do the same for them.
Another secondary option would be to have some "Cross the line" house rule - that when a player feels that the turn the story has taken has "Crossed the Line" and is now instead of being fun a source of pain and anguish for him (the player, not the character) he has some method to punish the player who made this happen - For example, (and ONLY an example off the top of my head):
Crossing the Line: when a player feels that the turn the story has taken has "Crossed the Line" and is now instead of being fun a source of pain and anguish for him (the player, not the character), he may invoke this rule against the player that caused this state of affairs. If he offending player does not relent, rolling back and removing the offending piece of the story, then the offending player receives the following detriments:
-He loses all inspirations and story tokens.
-He is ineligible for receiving inspirations or story tokens for the remainder of this play session.
-The character(s) he is playing are removed from play for the remainder of this session plus 2 more.
-He receives 3 Black Marks. A Black Mark can be invoked by any player other than the one that invoked the Crossing the Line in which it was generated. By invoking the Black Mark the player can turn all the dice involved in a Goal the Marked player created to any number he chooses. If the Marked player would receive story tokens because of another player invoking his Black Mark, he does not. Invoking a Black Mark usesit up.
>Note: Invoking the Crossing the Line rule capriciously, or as a tactic, is considered extremely bad form, and any player who invokes the Crossing the Line rule where another acceptable option exists should be shunned by the other players from all future games. If, however, the invocation of the Crossing the Line is sincere and needed to prevent mental anguish, it should be upheld and the above steps taken.
>Note: If one player invokes the Crossing the Line rule on another player, and the other player relents, changing the narration into one that does not Cross the Line, the relenting player does keep any story tokens and/or inspirations normally earned in the process.
>Note: this house rule accomplishes something that the Comics Code and the Gloating rules do not: it prevents players from crossing the line and making hurtful stories without rewarding them for threatening to do so.
So, if the above Crossing the Line disincentive is used as a house rule, it would represent the "nuke" one could, if forced into it, pull it as a last resort. A player that did so too often would simply be kicked out of the group. A player that forced someone else to invoke it too often would simply leave the group as he would always be at a disadvantage.
So there are two way to make the mechanics of the game support *some* limits in what can be narrated while still leaving plenty open for exploration and story token rewards.
Either
1) Get more creative in coming up with goals that threaten what the other players WANT, but not what they NEED, or
2) Give the players a safety net so that when the game takes a turn for the hurtful they have recourse apart from being forced out of the game.
Or both.
I think the above 2 options sufficiently explain how can we incentivize a player to create compelling stories for the hero, while protecting the hero and his player from the villain's player taking it too far?
Quote from: Glendower on March 19, 2006, 11:58:38 AM
Quote from: Sindyr on March 19, 2006, 10:23:43 AM
So if a player suddenly wants her Villain to have equal success and story line effectiveness as the Heroes, she will be disappointed. But if she is willing to play the villain as a method to let the Heroes get their storyline told, as well as a nice source of story tokens for her, then she can in turn expect us to play the villain for her so that she gets her time to shine with her Hero as well.
Make sense?
Let me try to wrap my head around what you want. You want a happy ending, every time, without fail or possibility of failure. Oh sure, there'll be little stumbles along the way, but at no point will there be a doubt in your mind that all will go well in the end.
There will be plenty of doubts:
-What will we have to go through before the day is saved?
-How will we defeat the baddies?
-Will my Hero be instrumental in this?
-How will the story of my Hero progress? Just because the villains can't destroy the City, that doesn't mean that the Hero won't struggle to become more than he is - to find and keep love, to do good, etc
If you are saying that I know from the beginning that the overall story will never end tragically, that's true.
I think some people have to have a chance at suffering real pain to be able to enjoy the pleasure of victory.
I am not bound by that limitation. I take pleasure at the unfolding of a good tale itself.
If you require the threat of pain to enjoy victory, than I wish you well during the periods of pain you will inevitably experience, just as sincerely as you wished me luck in finding people to play catch with. (grin)
Ultimately, a storyteller invests much more of himself into the creation of a story than you or I ever invest into any sport.
I respect that.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 19, 2006, 10:23:43 AMI cannot partake of a story where the villains have any real success, innocents suffer significant loss, or the good aren't ultimately rewarded and the villains aren't ultimately punished. If I can't even passively watch that stuff on TV, than I sure as heck can't partake actively in the creation of that kind of story.
This is a hard limit for me.
Okay then. That's interesting. Let me put my reply as clearly as I can.
Do. Not. Play. Capes.
Capes rewards a specific kind of bravery which you do not possess. It rewards you for embracing the possibility of big failure, and fighting battles you may not win.
If you really
can't do those things then Capes is exactly the wrong game for you. You will constantly be denied the rewards of the system, because you can't do the things that would let you reach them. It will make you miserable, and to the extent that your friends don't share your limits, it will make you angry at your friends.
There is no amount of house-ruling that will fix this problem for you. What you say you can't do is the core of Capes play. You're not going to root it out.
I hear good things about Exalted. Also, some modes of cooperative play in Amber would do a good job of playing to your strengths rather than your weaknesses.
Quote from: TonyLB on March 19, 2006, 02:47:16 PM
Capes rewards a specific kind of bravery which you do not possess. It rewards you for embracing the possibility of big failure, and fighting battles you may not win.
I am sorry, this was such a personal ad hominem attack coming out of nowhere that it drowned out the rest of what you wrote.
I will ignore the attack and simply say that I have I think demonstrated how Capes can be used to create a storyline within certain boundaries.
Now I understand how you, as the creator, may get tweaked by the idea of someone playing your game in a safe way, because you do not want them to be safe - why, I have no idea.
Take solace in the fact that I will, in all likelihood, be enjoying the heck out of Capes, even if you don't get to tell me exactly how to do it. :)
Like I said, I will do you a favor and ignore that uncharacteristic personal attack, and continue to treat you as a decent fellow and creator of a very intriguing game.
I look forward to my continued explorations of Capes, and will keep you (and everyone else) apprised of my discoveries and questions.
Bravery forsooth, lol.
Thanks, in any case, for your past help as well as your future help.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 19, 2006, 03:12:43 PM
I am sorry, this was such a personal ad hominem attack coming out of nowhere that it drowned out the rest of what you wrote.
Uh ... I was repeating what
you said. It wasn't meant as an attack.
Are you saying that you
can get excited about fighting a big battle that you may well lose? Because you were saying that you couldn't. So how else am I supposed to interpret that?
I *can* get excited about fighting a big battle that I can lose.
I thought I was clear. I as a story creator have NEEDS and WANTS. Even if I insist that we all respect each others NEEDS to the point of not allowing the story to cross those boundaries, I can still get excited about fighting for my WANTS.
For example, I may WANT to make this new side character my hero's latest sexual conquest. I may pursue it vigorously. I may not be victorious if the other players wish it not to be so - of they may get story tokens off of me by allowing me to be successful after staking debt.
Alternatively, I may WANT my hero to be instrumental in saving the city - but he still may well lose the battle. My hero may be defeated - but I NEED the city not to be defeated - at least not in a non-fleeting way. So maybe the elder gods step in, defeat the villains themselves, and then publicly inform me that I owe them one - or publicly tell me that here was nothing I could have done differently.
Either way, I was defeated in this big battle that I as a player cared enough to strive to win.
What I was trying to illustrate is that there are a nigh infinite possible Goals that cold be created in which I care greatly about vigorously pursuing that still don't cross the line into something that would be hurtful is failed.
And this I think is the proof that Capes and I could be an excellent match - albeit with a house mod or two.
I have to admit I don't feel guilty about proposing mods - since I have seen so many people here that either use some kind of mod themselves or open discuss mods.
I think the question for me is, can the game be modded to respect the needs of the players to have their boundaries respected while still having tons of play opportunities remain?
And I think the answer seems to be yes.
Well, you have fun with that.
Are we done with this thread?
A tone of questions of mine have been answered, and when I come up with more questions, ideas, house rules and mods, I can start new threads. For example, its probably true that the idea of what happens when someone Crosses the Line with their narration probably deserves its own thread, but that can wait for another day.
If you are asking if you have answered all the questions I presented herin, I think you more or less have. Anything else I need to ask, discuss, or present can go in a new thread if that helps.
What I need more than anything is actual play experience. Hopefully I will find some.
QuoteI cannot partake of a story where the villains have any real success, innocents suffer significant loss, or the good aren't ultimately rewarded and the villains aren't ultimately punished. If I can't even passively watch that stuff on TV, than I sure as heck can't partake actively in the creation of that kind of story.
This is a hard limit for me.
At the risk of reopening this can of worms I have to ask...Do you even bother rolling dice when you game? If so why? If the end result is already decided, even if it is in a "Deus Ex Machina" the elder gods save the world kind of way, why are you even playing? You might as well play through the scripts of you favorite movies week after week.
If never failing in anything important is that crucial to your enjoyment then as Tony says, DON'T play Capes, it is not the game for you. Power must be earned and your boundaries do not allow for you to earn any, and never will in any group of gamers I have ever gamed with or seen gaming. On the otherhand cooperative storytelling does seem to fit your boundaries and requirements perfectly.
Hey, Tuxboy, Sindyr's said that he's done here. Plus, your tone is particularly combative. Plus you're asking a question that Sindyr has already answered (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19021.msg200422#msg200422).
I don't particularly want to break out my Moderator-voice this early in the morning. Let's just not go there, okay?
I will respond to tuxboy privately in order to let this thread go... ;)
NP Tony :)