The Forge Archives

This doesn't just apply to Capes, but it has come up in relation to Capes, so here are some thoughts of mine...

When playing an rpg, each player has boundaries, lines that we each want the other player (and GM(s)) to respect and not cross.  This is I think a meta-game consideration - it's one that in several ways precedes the ruleset of whatever game we decided to play.  However, a games like Capes or Universalis may see these questions come up more due to their more open ended play experience.

And I firmly believe, I *know*, that while some of us have fewer forbidden areas than others, fewer and more open boundaries, that even the most open and least sensitive person still has *some* boundaries that they would experience hurt, anguish, or suffer were it to be crossed.

So everyone has boundaries, and the sensible thing to do would be to discuss these before playing any game, especially Capes.  Get the forbidden areas discussed up front, and the meta-rules figured out how boundary issues that come up in play will be handled. (It's worth noting, however, that no amount of up front discussion will guarantee that an unforeseen blind spot won't rear its head, necessitating an on the spot in the middle of the game boundary negotiation.)

That's not to say that games (like Capes) could not address such issues within its ruleset and its not to say that doing so would be wrong.  Handling boundary issues can be done by implicit assumption with no discussion (a bad idea in my opinion), by open and frank discussion about what will be done when the issue rears its head in gameplay, and/or by the game being played having rulesets and protocols (whether built-in or added house mods) that explicitly answer these questions ahead of time. (I think it's probably a *good* idea to have a protocol, a known procedure for what one is supposed to do when one has to say to another player or GM that the game is becoming hurtful)

With some reflection, it seems to me that these boundary issues fall into four main categories: Squick, Tone, Ownership, and Consistency.

Squick is the easiest to illustrate. In short, Squick is when someone can't handle a narration or event. For example, four gamers could be playing Capes together, 3 men and one woman.  Unbeknownst to them, perhaps the woman is a rape survivor, or maybe one of the guys was beaten as a boy.

Later, in a piece of the story a rape may be about to occur, or a child may be about to be beaten.

This can make the game extremely uncomfortable for one of the above players, to the point of making the game a hurtful experience.  Of course, you don't have to have a specific history for that to be true - even if none of the players was beaten as a child, one or more of them may simply not be alright with stories that include narrations of violence against children - and their objection is still just as acceptable, just as worthy of our respect.

A Tone violation is when someone signed up to play a general happy, poetic justice type of game and the game turns into a bleak gritty affair.  For example, the Heroes try to save the City, and fail, millions die, and now the game is stained by the horrible tragedy. 

Each player gets to say (preferably at the start): "I am willing to play these Tones, but not *these*."  And should the game be heading in a direction that were to violate this, a correction should be made.

Ownership concerns are present in the vast majority of rpg's, though not necessarily all.  Most gamers (although this may not be true for the Capes slice of gamers) want to have absolute, non contested ownership over  some piece of the story.  For "players" it is ownership over their character, the sole ability to determine that character's choices, behaviours, actions, morals, etc.  This to them is ownership.  For "GMs" it is ownership over everything else - the world, the NPCs, everything.

Of course, in a game like Capes everybody are GMs, contesting over the right to narrate.  No GM in Capes has any ownership not earned through battle.

In *some* Capes game, a level of ownership of certain characters is present via "spotlight" characters - and I believe this rule is here to serve a base need of the rpg player to have at least one thing he owns, one thing no one else can have.

Now, how the spotlight rule is executed differs from game to game - I don't think it is part of the core Capes game - so its implementation varies.  But the core idea behind it is the concept of Ownership.

Personally, I think the best spotlight rule, if one were to have a spotlight rule at all, would be something like:
"Each player is allowed to create or choose one spotlight character. Additional spotlight character may be chosen for 1 story token each (or freely?).  There are two limitations on spotlight characters:
1) Only the owning player can introduce or bring in the character, and likewise only the owning player has access to using that character's resources and abilities.
2) If another non-owning player narrates an action, unwritten trait, behaviour, or other choice, impulse, or feeling of the spotlight character that is *not* due to external causes (like a mind ray, or poor lighting) that part of the narration may be summarily vetoed by the player that owns that spotlight character."

Such a rule would prevent narrations (and Goals) that purports, for example, to demonstrate the clumsiness of a character.  It would NOT prevent narrations of the character stumbling because of external factors, such as poor lighting, being drugged or sleepy - or because the character in question has Clumsy or something similar as an Ability listed on his sheet.

Now perhaps many of you do not play with an ownership rule of any kind - maybe each and every character can be picked up by any player with no restriction in your games.  If so, than it seems you may not have any aspects of Ownership in your game - and if all your players are happy with it, more power to you.

On the other hand, I know some number of Capes player *do* use some version of the spotlight rules, so Ownership is an important issue for some of you.  It is for me too.

The final kind of boundary is Consistency.  A glaring example of this is if we know that the character Fred Wilkins is allergic to shellfish from last session when he was forced to eat some by the villain, this session he should not be seen to be enjoying shellfish in the VIP party scene without good reason.

Perhaps it's not really Fred, but someone disguised as Fred.  Perhaps the scene is taking place on a holodeck and none of it is real.  But without intentionally meaning one of those two things to happen, were I to challenge the narrating player with "by the way, remember that Fred is allergic to shellfish" the other player is then forced to either retract or modify the inconsistent bit ("Shellfish? Sorry, I mean the VIP party is serving *caviar*) or affirm that he intended what is occurring to occur and that by the end of the scene he will explain how the apparent contradiction is not in fact a problem.
("Fred is actually dreaming - a fact Fred doesn't know, Sindyr, so keep playing him as though he believes everything is real - unless of course *he* notices the shellfish contradiction")

I think those four things - Squick, Tone, Ownership, and Consistency - represent the bulk of the metagame issues that could come up that one should be prepared for.

Just my $.05 (inflation)

Quote from: Sindyr on March 21, 2006, 09:17:17 AM
And I firmly believe, I *know*, that while some of us have fewer forbidden areas than others, fewer and more open boundaries, that even the most open and least sensitive person still has *some* boundaries that they would experience hurt, anguish, or suffer were it to be crossed.

Yep!  Go suffering!  Suffering rocks, and facing the prospect of suffering with the tools to address it and examine it rocks even harder.

But then you've got this whole post that follows it which is all about avoiding all that good stuff ... so I'm confused.

It seems like we've got two different points of view here.

• "Okay, these are the places that have been safely paved, and if we drive our car on the pavement everything will go smoothly, so let's set up walls around the pavement to make sure we don't drive off of it unintentionally."
• "Okay, these are the places that have been safely paved.  We've got a monster 4x4 off-road vehicle, and we want to go drive over some rocks.  So let's put up some signs that say 'Off-road area this way!' so that we know how to get off the pavement as quickly as possible."

So when you say (for instance):

Quote from: Sindyr on March 21, 2006, 09:17:17 AM
So everyone has boundaries, and the sensible thing to do would be to discuss these before playing any game, especially Capes.

It sounds to me like you have an unstated subtext ... that the sensible thing to do would be to discuss these areas in order to avoid them.  You shouldn't assume everyone agrees with that subtext, because they don't.  So how 'bout we make it explicit, 'kay?

Yup.  In fact there are many folks I know who would go so far as to say the entire purpose of roleplaying is to check out those rocks.  There've been many discussions about how to handle various areas delicately (lines and veils) and so forth, but I'd say that while there may be some variation in degree on how you approach the rocks...the rocks are where the purpose is.

Avoiding the rocks to me = why am I bothering to play this?

I could just read a book to get the same effect...or play a video game.

But if I'm going to take the time to actually play an RPG with other human beings...I better come away from the session with something more than I went in with.  Greater insight into myself.  Greater insight into my friends. A closer bond...that sort of thing.  And that doesn't require being all dark and moody and angsty either.  I've accomplished those things playing Toon.  But it does require heading off-road and spending some time navigating the rocks.

Driving on the the pavement is like playing Monopoly but never bothering to collect the rent you're owed.

To clear up some confusion...

The above essay was a collection and organization of thoughts about meta-game boundaries and understandings, especially as related to Capes.  It was especially in reference to all players agreeing to the basic underlying assumptions - and possibly to having protocols for resolving assumptions found to be in conflict later, after the game has started.

But many of the observations could present boundary concerns from more than one direction.

My standard example is if a player expects to join a particular Capes group, and finds the play, narration, and storyline depressing, gritty, neanderthalic, etc, he may find himself in a Tone violation situation. He may want to play a four-color upbeat game instead.

It's just a true that if a fan of brutal realism joins a Capes group with players that play a four-color sort of game, they may object to his adding elements of graphic violence or negativity to the four-color toned game they have been playing.  In this case the gritty player may find himself in a Tone violation situation.

In neither case is it anyone's fault, and in neither case is the gaming group obligated to change it's permitted tone for the new player.  Each gaming group should fee free to serve the needs of it's players, and what works for one gaming group does not necessarily work for another.  It doesn't mean either group is wrong, it just means that the players in each group have different needs and are gathering to tell different kinds of stories.

Hope that helps.  Most of the essay above was me thinking through what possible boundaries players may have in Capes or any RPG, what kinds of limitations that we want our gaming group to observe.

Of course, the formation of a gaming group is a process of a group of people finding each other that have similar needs.

After all, RPGing is supposed to be fun, and if people aren't having fun, whether its because the game isn't gritty enough, or because its *too* gritty, then people will drop out of the game to find one that *is* fun.

Quote from: Sindyr on March 21, 2006, 10:06:06 PM
In neither case is it anyone's fault, and in neither case is the gaming group obligated to change it's permitted tone for the new player.

The "gaming group" doesn't set the tone for the game.  The gaming group is an abstract.  Individual members create the tone, by bringing their individual intentions to the table and thrashing out how to combine them.  Capes has rules for how to thrash that out.  Those rules make disagreements fun.

Say you've got Anne, Barry and Cindy there happily playing a grit-free four color campaign, and Doyle joins up with a desire to tell stories like Frank Miller.  Now what you have here is a creative difference.  Three people (individually) want one thing, and a fourth wants another.  The players are not in agreement.  They will pull the game in different directions.

This is good for the game.  It is something to be actively cultivated.

Doyle will create conflicts like "Goal:  Show that real superheroes wear kevlar, not spandex" and "Goal:  Disabuse Major Victory of his naive and simplistic world-view."  Those conflicts rock!  They rock so hard.  They will create good, engaging, dynamic play.

If they wrongly assume that such creative differences will hurt the game then Anne, Barry and Cindy will work to make Doyle conform, so that these issues can't come up during play.  They will, in short, screw themselves and their game.

And given that concept you could have the others beginning to soften the dark hero's world view with corresponding goals like :
"Goal: Show that the End doesn't necessarily justify the Means"

I like the idea. The characters would grow dynamically as "people". Character growth through narrative evolution, one of the great strengths of Capes.

Going to a Con this weekend will have to give it a try ;)

Quote from: TonyLB on March 22, 2006, 08:29:03 AM

Quote from: Sindyr on March 21, 2006, 10:06:06 PM
In neither case is it anyone's fault, and in neither case is the gaming group obligated to change it's permitted tone for the new player.

The "gaming group" doesn't set the tone for the game.  The gaming group is an abstract.  Individual members create the tone, by bringing their individual intentions to the table and thrashing out how to combine them.  Capes has rules for how to thrash that out.  Those rules make disagreements fun.

I think it's important to recognize that what is fun for one person can be hell for another.

If 3 people gather to game, and they want to play in a four-color story, especially if that is explained to a potential new group joinee, than it is obviously highly inappropriate for him to try to highjack the group choice to NOT partake of a gritty story.  If the original 3 players set that as how they want to play, and simply do not want to open the door for gritty realism, than we should all repsect their choice.

Saying that players do NOT have the right to choose to have boundaries in the games they play is bizarre and strange.  For example, 4 people play ping pong together, and enjoy it. However, none of them can utilize "spin" moves - moves that purposefully but spin on the ball to make it harder for people to return the volley.

So they agree to ban the use of spin tactics from their games of ping pong.  Later on a fifth person joins them.  They explain that one of the house rules is no spin maneuvers.  This new person has four choices:

1) Choose to join the game and respect their house rules. He may ask them what if he teaches them how to spin, would they open it up, but if they say no thank you, he accepts it, stay and plays without spin.
2) Choose not to join that group and instead find people that play the way he does.  All the same, he bears the group he didn't join no ill will and does not judge them.
3) Tell them how stupid and how weak they are, and how they are lacking as human beings, and how they should play the *real* game the way he does.  People who do this are so high on themselves that in being intolerant of other they show that it is they who are severely lacking in the evolution department.  Get a clue.
4) Join, and continue to use spin until they kick him out, and *then* run his mouth off at them.

I have no respect for anyone who commits 3 or 4 - no decent human could respect someone who does 3 or 4.

The correct choice is of course, 1 or 2.

Given that, a group can choose:
-a single tone for their group.  All new members must conform to that tone.
-each member goes for the tone they like, and the issue is settled in game by the rules of Capes.

Unless one is type 3 or 4 above, one will not put down either choice above.

And another matter - ALL groups have boundaries.  Proof: How long would ANY Capes group, no matter how permissive, allow a player to keep telling stories that cross Squick boundaries, like rapes, child molestation, and other highly inappropriate things?

People who think their game play doesn't have boundaries simply have blind spots.  These type of people tend to have intolerances since they cannot see that they are not fundamentally different from others, that they have simply different boundaries, not NO boundaries.

I do not know if any of the intolerant types are actually present - I cannot say with any certainty that anyone I have read fits that description.  I hope no one here does.

I only present it for illustrative purposes, and for people to identify themselves in whatever camp they find best describes them.  Whether they admit it publically or privately is up to them.

I will admit publically to be in the camp of *tolerant* people.  I think people should game in whatever way they find fun.  I do not judge people for whatever way they wish to play - I just want them to have fun.  And I hope they they wish me the same.

It's sort of like when I find a nail coming up from a floor board and I don't have a hammer handy.  I might grab a shoe and pound that nail back down.

The shoe is not the intended tool for the job - the person who made it did not make it to be used that way.

Am I wrong for using it as a hammer?  Not wrong, just inventive.

And that's something that people here on these forums should be able to identify with. Hopefully, people can rise above the impulse to be judgemental and look down on the fellow that uses his tools in ways that fit his needs, even if the maker of the tools did not so intend.

Who needs intolerance and judgementalism? Better yet to simply say, "Different strokes for different folks and mean it.

QuoteSo they agree to ban the use of spin tactics from their games of ping pong.  Later on a fifth person joins them.  They explain that one of the house rules is no spin maneuvers.  This new person has four choices:

1) Choose to join the game and respect their house rules. He may ask them what if he teaches them how to spin, would they open it up, but if they say no thank you, he accepts it, stay and plays without spin.
2) Choose not to join that group and instead find people that play the way he does.  All the same, he bears the group he didn't join no ill will and does not judge them.
3) Tell them how stupid and how weak they are, and how they are lacking as human beings, and how they should play the *real* game the way he does.  People who do this are so high on themselves that in being intolerant of other they show that it is they who are severely lacking in the evolution department.  Get a clue.
4) Join, and continue to use spin until they kick him out, and *then* run his mouth off at them.

I have no respect for anyone who commits 3 or 4 - no decent human could respect someone who does 3 or 4.

The correct choice is of course, 1 or 2.

You missed out option 5

5. Teach them the techniques involved in the use of spin and the ways to deal with spin in the game. Expanding their understanding of the game and developing their abilities and learning new skills.

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 10:24:31 AM
If 3 people gather to game, and they want to play in a four-color story, especially if that is explained to a potential new group joinee, than it is obviously highly inappropriate for him to try to highjack the group choice to NOT partake of a gritty story.  If the original 3 players set that as how they want to play, and simply do not want to open the door for gritty realism, than we should all repsect their choice.

Why is that any more valid than saying, instead, "If the new player wants to play a gritty story then we should all respect that choice"?

Quote from: Tuxboy on March 22, 2006, 10:39:18 AM

QuoteSo they agree to ban the use of spin tactics from their games of ping pong.  Later on a fifth person joins them.  They explain that one of the house rules is no spin maneuvers.  This new person has four choices:

1) Choose to join the game and respect their house rules. He may ask them what if he teaches them how to spin, would they open it up, but if they say no thank you, he accepts it, stay and plays without spin.
2) Choose not to join that group and instead find people that play the way he does.  All the same, he bears the group he didn't join no ill will and does not judge them.
3) Tell them how stupid and how weak they are, and how they are lacking as human beings, and how they should play the *real* game the way he does.  People who do this are so high on themselves that in being intolerant of other they show that it is they who are severely lacking in the evolution department.  Get a clue.
4) Join, and continue to use spin until they kick him out, and *then* run his mouth off at them.

I have no respect for anyone who commits 3 or 4 - no decent human could respect someone who does 3 or 4.

The correct choice is of course, 1 or 2.

You missed out option 5

5. Teach them the techniques involved in the use of spin and the ways to deal with spin in the game. Expanding their understanding of the game and developing their abilities and learning new skills.

I didn't miss it - it was part of option 1 above, see it?

QuoteHe may ask them what if he teaches them how to spin, would they open it up, but if they say no thank you, he accepts it, stay and plays without spin.

The question is not whether he offers to show them how to do it, the question is how does he react if they do not *want* to have spin be a part of it - accepting or jedgementally.

QuoteI didn't miss it - it was part of option 1 above, see it?

I saw it, but rather than rejecting it out of hand I added an option where they accepted the new experience...or is that not an option?

Quote from: TonyLB on March 22, 2006, 10:49:10 AM

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 10:24:31 AM
If 3 people gather to game, and they want to play in a four-color story, especially if that is explained to a potential new group joinee, than it is obviously highly inappropriate for him to try to highjack the group choice to NOT partake of a gritty story.  If the original 3 players set that as how they want to play, and simply do not want to open the door for gritty realism, than we should all repsect their choice.

Why is that any more valid than saying, instead, "If the new player wants to play a gritty story then we should all respect that choice"?

Because he is joining an established group.  They *do* respect his right to choose how to play, but that does not mean they have make their pre-existing group open to his preferred tone.

Imagine a group of friends that get together for SciFi/Fantasy movie night, once a week.  The underlying assumption, perhaps explicitly stated, is that the movie that will be watched will be fantasy or scifi in nature.

If a new member joins, he can ask if he could bring a Western for the group to watch.  But it would be extremely bad form to insist upon it.  The founding purpose of the group is otherwise.

Perhaps an example using Capes might be that a Capes gaming group wants to play a Hard SciFi game, no magic, no esp, just hard realistic science.

If a new member joins that group, it would not be appropriate for the new member to attempt to bring in his eleven ranger Drizzt Do'Urden with lightning bolts and fireballs aplenty.

In neither case is either group saying Westerns are bad or the Fantasy gaming is bad.  All they are saying is that the purpose of their group does not include those options.  The Western movie watcher is free to find another group, as is the Fantasy gamer.  But while it is fine for either individual to ask to be considered, it is obviously arrogant and egoistic for either individual to expect either group to change to suit them.

Every individual should be allowed to find or create groups of like minded people.  Heck, if someone came to your Capes group and insisted you all play d20 AD&D, I would assume you would find the person rude.

Don't you think?

Quote from: Tuxboy on March 22, 2006, 11:42:38 AM

QuoteI didn't miss it - it was part of option 1 above, see it?

I saw it, but rather than rejecting it out of hand I added an option where they accepted the new experience...or is that not an option?

The question I was asking is that *assuming* for the sake of argument that the group is not interested in changing, how can someone who wants them to change react, and which kind of reaction are acceptable?

So if the group was willing to change, the questions would not even get asked.

If I come to your Capes game and say lets play D&D and you all agree, there is no problem.

My question was exploring what happens when I want you all to play D&D and you all want to keep playing Capes.  What *I* do after you tell me, no thanks, we want to stay with Capes.

The four reactions are all possible, but reacting as #3 or #4 marks me as not a very nice person I think.  So I wouldn't do that.  Hopefully no one here would.

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 11:54:22 AM
Because he is joining an established group.  They *do* respect his right to choose how to play, but that does not mean they have make their pre-existing group open to his preferred tone.

So it's seniority?  Well, that sounds wrong-headed to me but let's explore it.  Anne, Barry and Cindy have played three sessions.  Doyle joins the game, and wants to change the tone.  A+B+C all say "No, Doyle, you can't play any of your gritty stuff.  You're new to the group."  And Doyle, because he's either a saint or a pushover, goes along with it.

How long is it before Doyle gets a voice?  How long does he have to just accept what the others want before he gets to have an equal say in the group?  One session?  Three sessions?  Nine sessions?  Never?  At what point does he get to say "Okay, we're no longer 'A+B+C, oh and Doyle's visiting' ...  we're A+B+C+D, and that's a new group.  What sort of game does that group want?"

Quote from: TonyLB on March 22, 2006, 12:20:33 PM

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 11:54:22 AM
Because he is joining an established group.  They *do* respect his right to choose how to play, but that does not mean they have make their pre-existing group open to his preferred tone.

So it's seniority?  Well, that sounds wrong-headed to me but let's explore it.  Anne, Barry and Cindy have played three sessions.  Doyle joins the game, and wants to change the tone.  A+B+C all say "No, Doyle, you can't play any of your gritty stuff.  You're new to the group."  And Doyle, because he's either a saint or a pushover, goes along with it.

I believe he goes along with it because its the only rational choice, if he want to play with A+B+C.  He is always welcome to start his own group or find a more like minded group.

QuoteHow long is it before Doyle gets a voice?  How long does he have to just accept what the others want before he gets to have an equal say in the group?  One session?  Three sessions?  Nine sessions?  Never?  At what point does he get to say "Okay, we're no longer 'A+B+C, oh and Doyle's visiting ...  we're A+B+C+D, and that's a new group.  What sort of game does that group want?"

He needs to accept all conditions in effect when he joins the group until such time as everyone is agreed to change it.

If a group is formed to watch SciFi, he never has the right to demand them to start watching some Westerns.  He can ask every so often.  But he can't push.  They may decide to throw him a bone a watch a Western, or they may decide to remain true to the original idea of watching only SciFi when the group gets together.

He decide to stay with the group, find another or start his own.  But at no point does the group owe him Westerns.

Now if he doesn't get his Western he may well leave the group.  The the other members of the group want him to stay badly enough, they may let him pick a Western or make another compromise.  Or they may without being judged politely inform him that he can come or go as he likes, but the purpose of this group is watching SciFi and that all this group wants to watch when they get together.

And that's perfectly fine.

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 12:51:38 PM
Or they may without being judged politely inform him that he can come or go as he likes, but the purpose of this group is watching SciFi and that all this group wants to watch when they get together.

But ... they'd be mistaken, right?  Because Doyle is part of that group.  So clearly "The Group" is conflicted.  Its members don't, universally, want to watch SciFi (or play four-color).  It is made up of people with different opinions, different voices. 

Unless, of course, you're saying that Doyle never becomes a member of the group.  Is that what you're saying?

Or are you saying that it is possible for "The Group" to want something, even when individual members of the group actually want something completely different?

Sindyr, there's a brilliant essay by Meguey Baker that you should read (http://www.lumpley.com/fairgame/comment.php?entry=32) (on her blog "Fair Game") that takes on a lot of these questions. Basically she divides styles of play into two philosophies, "Nobody Gets Hurt" -- which I suspect is your preference -- and "I Will Not Abandon You [i.e., even if we hurt each other]."

That said, I'd suggest you're thinkin' way too hard about this. Go find some folks and play! In real life, a little patience and openness to other people's ideas can keep a group humming despite, or perhaps because of, creative tensions that look completely irreconcilable in theory.

Quote from: TonyLB on March 22, 2006, 12:58:36 PM

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 12:51:38 PM
Or they may without being judged politely inform him that he can come or go as he likes, but the purpose of this group is watching SciFi and that all this group wants to watch when they get together.

But ... they'd be mistaken, right?  Because Doyle is part of that group.  So clearly "The Group" is conflicted.  Its members don't, universally, want to watch SciFi (or play four-color).  It is made up of people with different opinions, different voices. 

Unless, of course, you're saying that Doyle never becomes a member of the group.  Is that what you're saying?

Or are you saying that it is possible for "The Group" to want something, even when individual members of the group actually want something completely different?

No I think what I am saying makes sense.  Let me try to break it down.

Group wants to play Capes.

Doyle asks to join Group - group tells him that its a Capes playing Group.  He asks is they would consider playing D&D - they say not at this time.  Doyle joins anyways.

By the act of joining, Doyle is accepting the groups pre-existing rules, purposes, etc.  It would be irrational for him to join, and then immediately pull out his D&D character sheet and try to play D&D with them.

Now lets say that later on Brad (another founding member of the Capes Group) gets tired of Capes (sacrilege!) and remembers that Doyle wanted to play D&D at first.  Brad may ask the group, "You know, I am tired of Capes for now - lets play that game Doyle likes, D&D"

Now perhaps Doyle loves Capes at this point.  He no longer wants to play D&D.  And perhaps the other members want to keep playing Capes as well. This means that Brad has two options - take a break from the group or keep playing Capes.

What if Doyle still wants to play D&D?  Now two members of the group want to play D&D.  Supposing the rest of the group wants to keep playing Capes under the original purpose, they can.  Now Brad and Doyle have choices to make: stay and play Capes? Split off and play D&D? Its up to them.

When you join a group you implicitly agree to the basic tenets of the group - or else, you haven't really joined. Any member including you can leave at any time to seek their bliss elsewhere, but you really can never demand a group change to serve you.  All you can do is find a better group.

You can ask a group to consider a change, but if members of the group choose to continue along the current way of doing things, one cannot fault them.  Nor can they fault you if you find your fulfilment lies elsewhere.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on March 22, 2006, 01:01:56 PM
Sindyr, there's a brilliant essay by Meguey Baker that you should read (http://www.lumpley.com/fairgame/comment.php?entry=32) (on her blog "Fair Game") that takes on a lot of these questions. Basically she divides styles of play into two philosophies, "Nobody Gets Hurt" -- which I suspect is your preference -- and "I Will Not Abandon You [i.e., even if we hurt each other]."

That said, I'd suggest you're thinkin' way too hard about this. Go find some folks and play! In real life, a little patience and openness to other people's ideas can keep a group humming despite, or perhaps because of, creative tensions that look completely irreconcilable in theory.

I will check it out.

I desperately want to play this game!!  I just don't have anyone local yet to play with - but I continue looking.

And while I wait, all I can do is think about the rules, styles, and all other things Capes. (grin)

Maybe I'm a teensy weensy bit obsessive.

Maybe. (grin)

Read it.

O my god!  Good essay.

I am definitely a NGH player - I like exploring around the boundaries of what's *comfortable* - ie as a GM I like to take people OUT of their comfort zones - but I am committed  to not taking them to a hurtful place.

One example:  One of my past players was a shy type - more of a follower than a leader.  So I gave her a leadership role in the game - which she (with some in game persuading) accepted.  But I never abandoned her, and always had an eye on her comfort level, ready to step in with help should any real anxiety surface.

I suspect most of the other players here are IWNAY players.  And my fundamental point is that okay if all the other players are also IWNAY players.  Like Meguey says, it's when you mix NGH players with IWNAY players that you get trouble.

But I also think its perfectly acceptable for a NGH Capes player to seek out other NGH Capes players - and to limit membership in their game to other NGH types.

Mind you, there are variants of both of the above.  One of my favorite subtypes of NGH is best stated in a response on Meguey's thread:

Quote...I've seen and participated in To The Pain, too. This deal is basically a variant on Nobody Gets Hurt - I will push you, maybe past your boundaries, but I will back off when you tell me to. In return, you will only tell me to back off when it hurts, not just when it's hard.

That's basically the way I intend to play Capes.

Good catch.

One other point - I wonder if even IWNAY players will withdraw, lash out, or otherwise disengage if pushed far enough.  It's hard for me to believe that even a IWNAY player has no limits.

I mean, the kinds of things I would imagine that a IWNAY player would find inappropriate I could never do - but I *could* imagine what they are.

Or do you really think a IWNAY player exists that has no limits or boundaries at all?

I can't imagine such a thing.

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 01:17:34 PM
When you join a group you implicitly agree to the basic tenets of the group - or else, you haven't really joined.

Are you saying that the only way to resolve conflicts and continue together as a group is to reach consensus?

That, in short, differences of opinion will inherently (indeed, by definition) fracture the group?

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 01:34:10 PM
But I also think its perfectly acceptable for a NGH Capes player to seek out other NGH Capes players - and to limit membership in their game to other NGH types.

LOL!  "NGH Capes."  Heh....

That's right up there with playing "Strong-willed My Life with Master" or "Vegetarian All Flesh Must be Eaten."  Which is to say, sure, you can try it but the rules system is going to fight you tooth and nail every step of the way, so why?

In all seriousness, why not go play Primetime Adventures?  It'll suit you to a tee.

Quote from: TonyLB on March 22, 2006, 01:36:02 PM

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 01:17:34 PM
When you join a group you implicitly agree to the basic tenets of the group - or else, you haven't really joined.

Are you saying that the only way to resolve conflicts and continue together as a group is to reach consensus?

That, in short, differences of opinion will inherently (indeed, by definition) fracture the group?

I am saying that *unresolvable* differences of opinion will fracture the group.

Quote from: TonyLB on March 22, 2006, 01:41:55 PM

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 01:34:10 PM
But I also think its perfectly acceptable for a NGH Capes player to seek out other NGH Capes players - and to limit membership in their game to other NGH types.

LOL!  "NGH Capes."  Heh....

I am glad to have brought joy into your day.  Even among the unique (such as Forgers) I tend to be unique. ;)

QuoteThat's right up there with playing "Strong-willed My Life with Master" or "Vegetarian All Flesh Must be Eaten."  Which is to say, sure, you can try it but the rules system is going to fight you tooth and nail every step of the way, so why?

You sound like the shoemaker upset that I am using the wrong kind of shoes - when for me, they are what I choose. ;)

But there are (at least) 2 specific reasons which I have said  a few times before:
1) I like the idea of a competitive storytelling game.  NGH is NOT equal to disliking competition.
2) I actually like poking at the boundaries of my comfort zone - I don't mind being uncomfortable from time to time as long as I can call a halt if the boundary gets crossed from uncomfortable to anguished.

NGH play is simply the choice to respect another players boundaries.  There is no reason for it to be incompatible with Capes - although I quite understand that you, Tony, are passionately committed to IWNAY play and perhaps do not want NGH players to enjoy your game?  Or maybe you just can't see how a competitive NGH player *could* enjoy your game.

But I *can* see how to enjoy your game, and I look forward to it.

QuoteIn all seriousness, why not go play Primetime Adventures?  It'll suit you to a tee.

I don't know the game you are recommending so I can't say if this is in jest or seriousness.  I have never heard of Primetime Adventures - although I own over a hundred rpgs...

In any case, even if PA is some kind of real and interesting game, it make Capes no less interesting to me, so I am afraid you may have to be reigned to some NGH'ers playing it.

Sindyr,

I don't think Tony's saying that your style or preferences of play aren't perfectly valid or good ways to play.  As the designer, he's pointing out that he didn't design the game to support that style of play and probably even designed parts of the game to specifically discourage that kind of play.  Having played the game a bit now, I certainly agree with him.  My advice...  Play the game the way the designer intended.  It works that way.  You'll spend a whole lot of time and energy trying to cut and patch the game to satisfy another style when you'd be better off just finding a game that supports the style you want.  Trying to play Capes in a manner it wasn't designed to support is like trying to drive a nail with a screwdriver.  Sure you can do it but it'd be easier to just find a hammer.

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 01:49:03 PM
I am saying that *unresolvable* differences of opinion will fracture the group.

Your reasoning is in danger of getting circular here, depending on how you define "resolve."  Like, if you said "An issue is resolved if people can continue without fracturing the group."  Let's avoid that, shall we?

Are you saying that a group who cannot reach consensus (everybody agrees on what is right and what is wrong) on an important issue must fracture (or, perhaps, already is fractured, and not a group at all)?

Quote from: TonyLB on March 22, 2006, 01:41:55 PM

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 01:34:10 PM
But I also think its perfectly acceptable for a NGH Capes player to seek out other NGH Capes players - and to limit membership in their game to other NGH types.

LOL!  "NGH Capes."  Heh....

That's right up there with playing "Strong-willed My Life with Master" or "Vegetarian All Flesh Must be Eaten."  Which is to say, sure, you can try it but the rules system is going to fight you tooth and nail every step of the way, so why?

I'm a bit confused by this assertion.  The rules allow for IWNAY play, definitely even encourage it...  But I wouldn't say it's as integral as your response implies.  That is to say raping children is not to Capes as eating humans is to All Flesh.  That may be an extreme example, but it's a pretty sure-fire way to get a rise out of someone.  And I don't intend it at all facetiously.  Now if you're talking about NGH as applied to Tone or other factors (as defined by Sindyr), then I see your point.  Capes doesn't enforce consistency strongly, nor does it force any given player to adhere to a particular tone.  Where I disagree is in regards to the Boundaries.  I do see that Capes would readily stand to award pushing the other players' buttons, but I don't think it's implicitly necessary to the game to shove them out of the psychological comfort zones.  However, I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong.  Do you have some thoughts on this?  Am I completely in the wrong?  I admit to not having played much of the game so far, but my reading of it and limited experience didn't indicate this being the case.

Garg

Quote from: Garg on March 22, 2006, 03:57:48 PM
I do see that Capes would readily stand to award pushing the other players' buttons, but I don't think it's implicitly necessary to the game to shove them out of the psychological comfort zones.

I'm not sure I get the distinction you're talking about here.  You push someone's buttons to get a response, you get rewarded.  You push the buttons harder to get a more passionate response, you get rewarded more.  Where's the line between "He's pushing my buttons" and "He's pushing me beyond my comfort zone"?

To my mind, a good Capes goal should always have at least one player respond "Oh hell no!  That is totally unacceptable to me!"  That's how you know you've got a conflict worth discussing.  Now I'm not an expert on "Nobody Gets Hurt" play-style, but isn't that the moment where the original proposer of the Goal would say "Oh, well if you feel that way about it then I'll back off"?

Quote from: TonyLB on March 22, 2006, 04:13:15 PM
To my mind, a good Capes goal should always have at least one player respond "Oh hell no!  That is totally unacceptable to me!"  That's how you know you've got a conflict worth discussing.  Now I'm not an expert on "Nobody Gets Hurt" play-style, but isn't that the moment where the original proposer of the Goal would say "Oh, well if you feel that way about it then I'll back off"?

No.  The original proposer of the Goal backs off if someone tells them that it is hurtful or couses them anguish.

Garg seems to get my fundamental point...

Capes can have limits and still be Capes, even if you as a player are completely disallowed from bringing up the rape of children as a way to push another player's buttons, you will (hopefully) find another more creative way to do it.

Quote from: TonyLB on March 22, 2006, 03:17:42 PM

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 01:49:03 PM
I am saying that *unresolvable* differences of opinion will fracture the group.

Your reasoning is in danger of getting circular here, depending on how you define "resolve."  Like, if you said "An issue is resolved if people can continue without fracturing the group."  Let's avoid that, shall we?

Are you saying that a group who cannot reach consensus (everybody agrees on what is right and what is wrong) on an important issue must fracture (or, perhaps, already is fractured, and not a group at all)?

Almost.  I am saying that if people in a group cannot agree what to play or how to play, if for example Bill wants to play D&D and Al, Chad, and Dave want to play Capes, and none of them are willing to budge or entertain a compromise, than I cannot conceive a way in which they will continue to stay together as a group.  In fact, what will in all likelihood occur is that Bill will go off to find a group willing to play D&D.

But as long as you have at least two members of a group with completely and 100% incompatible goals, those two members will not be in the same group with each other for long - therefor, fracture.

Heck, even in Capes when two people have incompatible storylines, they agree on the meta-level that the Capes mechanics is the proper way to resolves the dispute.  That's why they are playing Capes.  In if they have a house rule that says no children as victims, then they agree on that to override whatever else happens in Capes.

But if three people agree that under no circumstances should violence EVER be permitted in a storyline, and a fourth person brings it up - unless the three change their minds or the fourth relents, you are most likely looking at a group fracture.

Not sure how this help the discussion about boundaries and limits, NGH vs IWNAY, and how it all can work with Capes, but I hope that answers your question.

And if it seems somewhat circular it probably because we may be running into a definition issue, which leads to a tautology.  Unless you are asking something completely different?

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 04:18:14 PM
No.  The original proposer of the Goal backs off if someone tells them that it is hurtful or couses them anguish.

Okay.  You think it's easy, fine.  Tell me, how do you draw that line?

Suppose I can threaten "Goal:  Kid Wonder is captured and tortured by Jester" and that's fine ... it makes you really uncomfortable, but that's good and earns me resources, so the more you yell about it the more I should stick to my guns.  But I can't threaten "Goal:  Kid Wonder is raped and killed by Jester" because that makes you "really uncomfortable plus one," which would earn me even more resources (because you'd fight against the goal even harder) but now it's bad and I'm supposed to back off?

How do you draw that line?

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 01:58:29 PM

QuoteIn all seriousness, why not go play Primetime Adventures?  It'll suit you to a tee.

I don't know the game you are recommending so I can't say if this is in jest or seriousness.  I have never heard of Primetime Adventures - although I own over a hundred rpgs...

In any case, even if PA is some kind of real and interesting game, it make Capes no less interesting to me, so I am afraid you may have to be reigned to some NGH'ers playing it.

As an aside that is totally not intended to threadjack or derail the topic (which is important, I think), Primetime Adventures is totally real and totally interesting.  You should check it out (http://www.dog-eared-designs.com/games.html).  It creates great games in a very different way from the great game stuff you'll get from Capes.  Assuming you can find some players, I mean.  I hope you do, because I think that when you do get to play it a few times, you'll find that a lot of your concerns about it will turn out to be less of a big deal than they seem now. 

It's really pretty easy for your fellow players to tell the difference between "Oh no, that sucks, I'm totally staking debt to keep that from happening," and "Oh no, that sucks, not only are you not getting any Story Tokens for that from me but I'm also not sure I like you anymore, Steve."  They'll rapidly find out that it's in their best interests to keep you happy because that's what earns them the resources.

Quote from: Gaerik on March 22, 2006, 02:39:19 PM
Sindyr,

I don't think Tony's saying that your style or preferences of play aren't perfectly valid or good ways to play.  As the designer, he's pointing out that he didn't design the game to support that style of play and probably even designed parts of the game to specifically discourage that kind of play.  Having played the game a bit now, I certainly agree with him.  My advice...  Play the game the way the designer intended.  It works that way.  You'll spend a whole lot of time and energy trying to cut and patch the game to satisfy another style when you'd be better off just finding a game that supports the style you want.  Trying to play Capes in a manner it wasn't designed to support is like trying to drive a nail with a screwdriver.  Sure you can do it but it'd be easier to just find a hammer.

Tony may have built Capes to be played IWNAY, but it can certainly be played NGH.

If I found a game that does what Capes does and was more NGH compatible, I would certainly look at it.

But after checking out Capes, buying it, reading it, exploring it...  I guess I have to give Tony more credit than that.  Capes has a LOT of things going for it.  Add some TtP or NGH house mods and Capes *still* has a LOT going for it.

Capes is not a one trick pony - it's much more sophisticated than that - perhaps even more sophisticated than its creator suspects.

Capes was built from a IWNAY stance, but Tony built the game well - maybe too well - it does not seem to lose any appeal as a majorly intriguing game simply because a few limits get added.

Now perhaps the IWNAY crowd is unhappy at the prospect of NGH or TtP folks gaining enjoyment out of "their" signature game - perhaps using Capes in a NGH or TtP style "offends" IWNAY purists.

But that's a different issue, and not my problem.  All I care about is can I have fun playing Capes NGH or TtP without IWNAY?  The answer seems to be a clear yes.

Why does that bother some folks?  Unless its just a case of "not in *my* backyard you won't."

Quote from: TonyLB on March 22, 2006, 04:33:15 PM

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 04:18:14 PM
No.  The original proposer of the Goal backs off if someone tells them that it is hurtful or couses them anguish.

Okay.  You think it's easy, fine.  Tell me, how do you draw that line?

Suppose I can threaten "Goal:  Kid Wonder is captured and tortured by Jester" and that's fine ... it makes you really uncomfortable, but that's good and earns me resources, so the more you yell about it the more I should stick to my guns.  But I can't threaten "Goal:  Kid Wonder is raped and killed by Jester" because that makes you "really uncomfortable plus one," which would earn me even more resources (because you'd fight against the goal even harder) but now it's bad and I'm supposed to back off?

How do you draw that line?

You listen to and trust the other players to only "tap out" not when it gets hard, but when it gets hurtful. Plus you have some discussion *before* gaming as to limits to set - like no heroes get raped, tortured, or killed, etc. Doesn't mean you can't push the other players' buttons, just means you can't push *those* buttons.

Now, if you can't trust your fellow players to be honest about what is hard and what is hurtful, then maybe playing NGH/TtP is not for you, in the same way that playing IWNAY is not for me.

To each their own is my philosphy.

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 04:28:00 PM
Almost.  I am saying that if people in a group cannot agree what to play or how to play, if for example Bill wants to play D&D and Al, Chad, and Dave want to play Capes, and none of them are willing to budge or entertain a compromise, than I cannot conceive a way in which they will continue to stay together as a group. 

Lots and lots of ways.  Here's some examples:

• Bill still wants to play D&D, but accepts that the matter will be decided by majority vote.  He keeps working on Chad, who he thinks is bordering on undecided.  He also looks at getting Evan, a die-hard D&D player to join the group.  He never gives up his desire to play D&D, even though it never happens.
• Hosting duties rotate among players each week.  When Al, Chad and Dave are hosting, the group plays Capes.  When Bill is hosting, the group plays D&D.  Everyone is cool with this.  The group stays together
• High roller on a d6 determines the game played, every session.  Three out of four sessions are Capes, one out of four is D&D.

... and on and on.  None of these involves telling Bill that he needs to agree with what the rest of the group wants.

Consensus is one method of resolving conflicts.  It is not, to my mind, a particularly strong one.  It tends to silence some people in order to serve others.  Capes operates best when you throw consensus right out the freakin' window.  'kay?

Quote from: Matthew Glover on March 22, 2006, 04:33:55 PM
As an aside that is totally not intended to threadjack or derail the topic (which is important, I think), Primetime Adventures is totally real and totally interesting.  You should check it out (http://www.dog-eared-designs.com/games.html).  It creates great games in a very different way from the great game stuff you'll get from Capes.  Assuming you can find some players, I mean.  I hope you do, because I think that when you do get to play it a few times, you'll find that a lot of your concerns about it will turn out to be less of a big deal than they seem now.

I just went and looked at it - PTA seems cool, tried to order it - and no, it is back ordered. :(

One thing I noticed though is that PTA requires a GM - Capes doesn't.  Doesn't mean I wont play/run PTA and love it, just means that Capes is still necessary and viable for me.

QuoteIt's really pretty easy for your fellow players to tell the difference between "Oh no, that sucks, I'm totally staking debt to keep that from happening," and "Oh no, that sucks, not only are you not getting any Story Tokens for that from me but I'm also not sure I like you anymore, Steve."  They'll rapidly find out that it's in their best interests to keep you happy because that's what earns them the resources.

You kind of are making my point.  All I want to do is create a house rule or protocol to semiformally handle the second case.  Seems simple eneough.

Of course I will play Capes vanilla first, before I alter it or add house rules.

Quote from: TonyLB on March 22, 2006, 04:42:52 PM

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 04:28:00 PM
Almost.  I am saying that if people in a group cannot agree what to play or how to play, if for example Bill wants to play D&D and Al, Chad, and Dave want to play Capes, and none of them are willing to budge or entertain a compromise, than I cannot conceive a way in which they will continue to stay together as a group. 

Lots and lots of ways.  Here's some examples: <snip>

None of those ways work unless the participants agree on using them. If you have that agreement, fine, problem solved.  If you don't, you still have a problem.  That's all I am saying.

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 04:35:17 PM
But that's a different issue, and not my problem.  All I care about is can I have fun playing Capes NGH or TtP without IWNAY?  The answer seems to be a clear yes.

That's your answer.  Very few people (and, I think, none who have actually played the game) have agreed with you.  That may not worry you, but it worries me.  I'd rather not see you get hurt (and possibly angry) because you're so dead-set on using Capes that you ignore the fact that the rules are going to gore you.

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 04:35:17 PM
Why does that bother some folks?  Unless its just a case of "not in *my* backyard you won't."

If I manufactured circular saws, and somebody said "Hey, I'm going to use this to drive nails!  I'll just hold the nail and move the spinning blade near it until the teeth drive that nail right into the wall," I would be concerned.  I would say "This tool is likely to do things other than what you're planning ... like cut your fingers clean off."

Hearing the person in question say "No, no, don't worry about it!  I've never actually started the circular saw up, but I've examined the structure of it very carefully.  I'm quite sure that it will work for this task" doesn't make me feel more comfortable.  On the contrary, it convinces me that the person is sufficiently confused that they will actually try this thing without the slightest worry.

Nobody here is trying to convince you this is a bad idea this because it will hurt us.  We're trying to convince you it's a bad idea because it will hurt you.

I will add: if two or more members have diametrically opposed positions, and cannot or choose to not work out a compromise, then assuming one side does not give in, you will have a group fracture where each subgroup leaves to pursue it's own needs.  This is natural and acceptable.

Quote from: TonyLB on March 22, 2006, 04:53:20 PM

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 04:35:17 PM
Why does that bother some folks?  Unless its just a case of "not in *my* backyard you won't."

If I manufactured circular saws, and somebody said "Hey, I'm going to use this to drive nails!  I'll just hold the nail and move the spinning blade near it until the teeth drive that nail right into the wall," I would be concerned.  I would say "This tool is likely to do things other than what you're planning ... like cut your fingers clean off."

Hearing the person in question say "No, no, don't worry about it!  I've never actually started the circular saw up, but I've examined the structure of it very carefully.  I'm quite sure that it will work for this task" doesn't make me feel more comfortable.  On the contrary, it convinces me that the person is sufficiently confused that they will actually try this thing without the slightest worry.

Nobody here is trying to convince you this is a bad idea this because it will hurt us.  We're trying to convince you it's a bad idea because it will hurt you.

I hear you.  I am taking my own risks.  If I am wrong, and I get hurt, I will blame no one but myself.  I am not opposed to taking certain risks that seem to me to be worth it, mind you.

Capes is such a risk.  Maybe it just won't work to play Capes NGH or TtP - I and others think it *will*, but say we are wrong.

I personally absolve each and everyone of you from responsibility if and when I discover that this game it too unsafe to play NGH/TtP no matter what house rules one applies.

But even though they told Columbus he would sail of the edge of the earth, he felt *compelled* to try  - because, what if? What if?

What if Capes *can* be played just as competitively and fun even while respecting certain limits?

Well, that would certainly be something.

If I fall over the edge of the earth, I fall.  I guess to *me*, that's the bravery which others have alluded I do not posses.

I dare to try.

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 04:51:10 PM
None of those ways work unless the participants agree on using them. If you have that agreement, fine, problem solved.  If you don't, you still have a problem.  That's all I am saying.

I'm pointing out that there are ways of resolving conflicts that do not generate consensus and do not need it.  Your response seems (to me) to be saying "But that's conflict N.  Sure, they can resolve conflict N by means that don't generate consensus.  That just proves my point!  Because how did they resolve conflict N-1 about what rules they would use to resolve conflict N?"

And now, what ... I'm supposed to argue this whole thing again about conflict N-1?  How about if I point out "Hey, maybe they took a vote that decided that the game hosting would rotate among people ... and Al still thinks that his idea of 'whoever brings the pizza decides the game' was the better idea, and advocates for it"?

Why do I get the strongest feeling that you would then argue "Well, yeah, but that just proves my point!  Because how did they resolve conflict N-2 about what rules (i.e. voting) they would use to resolve conflict N-1?"

You started this post by saying (or at least strongly implying) that people needed to come to a consensus on boundaries for Tone, Ownership ... all that jazz.  Do you still hold to that, or have you changed your mind?  'cuz if you've decided that there are other ways to resolve it that work fine then we're in agreement and I can stop worrying at this.

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 04:59:40 PM
But even though they told Columbus he would sail of the edge of the earth, he felt *compelled* to try  - because, what if? What if?

Uh ... quick history correction here.  People didn't tell Columbus the world was flat.  Everybody at the time knew the world was round.  Where they disagreed with him was about its circumference.

Columbus asserted, with utter certainty, that the world was so small that he had enough supplies to sail across the Atlantic ocean and reach India.  Other people told him "Sir!  Your calculations are in error!  India, she is more than twice as far from Spain as your calculations indicate!  Surely you will run out of supplies in the middle of your journey, and unless by sheer luck there happens to be yet-uncharted land in the middle of the ocean from which to resupply then you and all your crew will die a most painful and ignominious death."

Quote from: TonyLB on March 22, 2006, 04:13:15 PM
I'm not sure I get the distinction you're talking about here.  You push someone's buttons to get a response, you get rewarded.  You push the buttons harder to get a more passionate response, you get rewarded more.  Where's the line between "He's pushing my buttons" and "He's pushing me beyond my comfort zone"?

To my mind, a good Capes goal should always have at least one player respond "Oh hell no!  That is totally unacceptable to me!"  That's how you know you've got a conflict worth discussing.  Now I'm not an expert on "Nobody Gets Hurt" play-style, but isn't that the moment where the original proposer of the Goal would say "Oh, well if you feel that way about it then I'll back off"?

Honestly, I can't say I'm an expert on NGH or IWNAY or whatever either.  However, I don't see how agreeing not to include rape or child abuse in your narration is crippling to Capes play.

My regular gaming crew isn't as theory-inclined as myself, and certainly hasn't been for the greater span of its rather long existence, so I don't have anyone to reality check me on where we fall in all the labelling.  So this is my understanding applied to my experience - without a net, as it were:
The majority of players I know actually fall toward the IWNAY side, though if they get pushed "too hard" they may request a breather or break into tears (or something in-between), depending on who they were.  I mean, per my reading of the essay, breaking into tears or needing a moment to compose qualifies as "reacting" and, assuming they return to the game and play on, still counts for IWNAY.  Is that incorrect?

In response to Tony's question about where one draws the line: It's a good question.  I'd say that isn't something you answer for everyone.  Like how a collection of players chooses to alter the rules of a game for themselves, the state of boundary-crossing and what counts as what is something that has to be tooled individually.  It's a weak response, I admit.  I wish I had a better one.

Players will go for whatever is rewarded, but if you're with a group of people who are all on the same page, how does that prevent the game from working?  Gamers are a tinkering breed, by and large.  We modify games to suit our particular interests and needs.  I hardly need to say that here.  Sure, some games skew to some styles, but that's never stopped people from drifting games to suit their needs.

There are questions about drawing a line between crossable and uncrossable boundaries, similarly: How do you draw the line between IWNAY play and abusive play?  How do you distinguish between TtP and NGH?  If I know there's a topic that will hurt another player emotionally (not just push their buttons, but really hurt them), and I don't bring that topic up after they've had a hard day, does that one instance of restraint make my play NGH or just a moment of being nice?  Where's the line between the two?

If Sindyr's reacting to the feedback and still intent on playing, maybe he's moving toward an IWNAY mindset.  I really doubt every single person posting that this may not be the game for him started out with that mentality.  Maybe more than one gamer will find in Capes the opportunity to move into a different style of play.  Or at least, find out that they need to be more honest about what they need out of a game.

Garg

Oh, and as a possibly more "in line with Capes" option, it seems like the best way to circumvent issues like this would be to A) communicate and B) fail to dive in on the Conflicts with such issues.  If the other players can't abuse your Achilles' Heel for Story Tokens, then they'll probably stop poking at it.

Just a thought.

Garg

Quote from: Garg on March 23, 2006, 04:50:29 AM
Oh, and as a possibly more "in line with Capes" option, it seems like the best way to circumvent issues like this would be to A) communicate and B) fail to dive in on the Conflicts with such issues.  If the other players can't abuse your Achilles' Heel for Story Tokens, then they'll probably stop poking at it.

This is exactly how you deal with issues that you aren't interested in being a part of the game in Capes.  You simply ignore those goals.  In fact, I would go so far as to tell the player who wants to put it down, "I will never invest a single resource in that Goal.  You may win it but you won't get anything for it."  If you do that, then the other player would be stupid to continue putting those kinds of Goals on the table.  It's a waste of his action.

QuoteWhat if Capes *can* be played just as competitively and fun even while respecting certain limits?

Well, that would certainly be something.

If I fall over the edge of the earth, I fall.  I guess to *me*, that's the bravery which others have alluded I do not posses.

I dare to try.

I don't feel that whether or not it can be played in a NGH manner or not is the issue anymore, its the constant circular arguement over the philosphy of boundaries and group dynamic that seems to be the major issue now.

Here is a radical idea:

Sindyr gets a group together, plays the game in a NGH manner and starts a thread from actual play examples to discuss the success or failure of the experiment. That way we will have some concrete empirical evidence to base the discussion on. I think this will be a much more constructive use of everyone's time than what seems to be a constant downward spiralling theoretical agruement, which seems to be becoming increasingly destructive.

So what does everyone think? It seems to me this is a situation that will never be resolved until actual play occurs so best to leave it until it does...

"Blessed are the cheesemakers"

Quote from: TonyLB on March 22, 2006, 04:33:15 PM

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 04:18:14 PM
No.  The original proposer of the Goal backs off if someone tells them that it is hurtful or couses them anguish.

Okay.  You think it's easy, fine.  Tell me, how do you draw that line?

You draw it where the game stops being fun for someone.

It's like wrestling with your buddies.  You both try your damnedest to pin the other guy or make him submit, but you don't intentionally set out to cause lasting harm.  You're still "fighting", but you're not gouging eyes or bending fingers back until they break.

J

Quote from: TonyLB on March 22, 2006, 05:10:53 PM

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 04:51:10 PM
None of those ways work unless the participants agree on using them. If you have that agreement, fine, problem solved.  If you don't, you still have a problem.  That's all I am saying.

I'm pointing out that there are ways of resolving conflicts that do not generate consensus and do not need it.  Your response seems (to me) to be saying "But that's conflict N.  Sure, they can resolve conflict N by means that don't generate consensus.  That just proves my point!  Because how did they resolve conflict N-1 about what rules they would use to resolve conflict N?"

Let me try to break this down.  Gaming groups are voluntary.  One can partake in a particular gaming Group A if one chooses (assuming the gaming group has an opening and they aren't against you joining).

If a conflict or disagreement surfaces, there are two mutually exclusive possibilities: Either they find some means to resolve it (through negotiation, or mechanics like Capes rules, or majority vote or someting else) or they do not ultimately resolve it to everyone's satisfaction.

The second path can easily happen if one or more members have an overriding goal or need that they feel cannot be compromised on.  Tone can be one example of this.

If, for example, three members of the group want to play a four-color game and are 100% committed to that, unwilling to have any significant stories or story elements that are gritty or dark, then no method of dispute resolution will get them to accept another member's gritty input.  It doesn't matter that Capes has rules that would let them fight it out - those three members are flatly stating an overarching non-compromisable absolute premise.

Now, given the above example, 3 group members that are committed to the four color stories and ONLY the four color stories, and given that the fourth member was informed about this hard limit when joining, what are the fourth member's options?

You should take explicit note that given the above facts, the new fourth member does not have any room for persuasion, and while he can suggest rotation (3 games four-color, 1 game gritty) he certainly cannot force the other three to partake of the gritty game if they refuse.

Given the situation as it stands, he has the original four options I posted so long ago:

1) Choose to join the game and respect their house rules. He may ask them what if he persuades them, would they open it up, but if they say no thank you, he accepts it, stay and plays without grittiness.
2) Choose not to join that group and instead find people that play the way he does.  All the same, he bears the group he didn't join no ill will and does not judge them.
3) Tell them how stupid and how weak they are, and how they are lacking as human beings, and how they should play the *real* game the way he does.  People who do this are so high on themselves that in being intolerant of other they show that it is they who are severely lacking in the evolution department.  Get a clue.
4) Join, and use gritty narrations until they kick him out, and *then* run his mouth off at them.

I have no respect for anyone who commits 3 or 4 - no decent human could respect someone who does 3 or 4.

The correct choice is of course, 1 or 2.

As long as the three original members hold true to their "absolutely no grit" position, all the above is accurate.

Now, lets go on to the SECOND question...
Perhaps after some time has passed, one of the three members changes his mind and is fully pro-grit - or instead, maybe one of the three founding members leaves and is replaced by a friend of the grit loving fourth.  The two remaining anti-grit members are still just as anti grit as they ever were.

Now the subject of gritty stories gets raised again. If the two anti-grit members stick to their anti-grit guns, and the two pro grit members stick to theirs, the *same* four options occur above, and still only 1 or 2 make sense.

What does this all mean?

If members of a group have *fundamental* non persuadable positions that are fundamentally opposed than the only cure, in fact, the only possible healthy result, is a group fracture.  If within a group some people absolutely want to do A and others absolutely want to do B, and if A and B are fundamentally opposed and incompatible, than the group will have to split into two smaller groups - the A's and B's - with any members of the original group not absolutely committed to A or B picking which of the 2 new groups to join, if any.

Ultimately, I guess my basic point is really simple, though somehow we get bogged down in semantic quibbles.

The truth is if one has certain needs and wants, one should be expected to pursue them.  However, one should never expect another person to sacrifice *their* pursuit of happiness for our own.

In practice, this clearly means that if a Capes group is a group that by choice only plays four-color games, and a fourth member want to join that likes gritty games, it would be immoral for:

• -the fourth member to require that the other three change their style of play at all to suit his needs (although he can *ask*)
• the fourth member to play in ways that are considered inappropriate by the other three.
• the fourth member to attack or belittle the other three for refusing to sacrifice their needs for him
• the three members to attack or belittle the fourth for being unwilling to abandon gritty play
• the three members to refuse to let the fourth play given that the fourth does *not* introduce gritty play
• the three members to refuse to allow the fourth to *ask* them to reconsider once every so often (not all the time)
• the three members to require the fourth to join or requires him not to leave if the fourth determines that this group is not for him.

Instead, the only moral course must include one or more of the following:

• the fourth member may never demand that the other three change their style of play at all to suit his needs, although he can *ask* from time to time (but not badger)
• the fourth member does not play in ways that are considered inappropriate by the other three.
• the fourth member does not attack or belittle the other three.
• the three members do not exclude, attack, or belittle the fourth for liking gritty play or occasionally revisiting the issue.
• the three members never require the fourth to stay in the group if he ever feels his path to fun or happiness lies elsewhere.

Anything else would be uncivilised and wrong.

Do we disagree?

Quote from: TonyLB on March 22, 2006, 05:17:07 PM

Quote from: Sindyr on March 22, 2006, 04:59:40 PM
But even though they told Columbus he would sail of the edge of the earth, he felt *compelled* to try  - because, what if? What if?

Uh ... quick history correction here.  People didn't tell Columbus the world was flat.  Everybody at the time knew the world was round.  Where they disagreed with him was about its circumference.

Columbus asserted, with utter certainty, that the world was so small that he had enough supplies to sail across the Atlantic ocean and reach India.  Other people told him "Sir!  Your calculations are in error!  India, she is more than twice as far from Spain as your calculations indicate!  Surely you will run out of supplies in the middle of your journey, and unless by sheer luck there happens to be yet-uncharted land in the middle of the ocean from which to resupply then you and all your crew will die a most painful and ignominious death."

Tony...  you got it.  I was just trying to illustrate a point, and this historical quibble does not reduce at all the point I was making, but I certainly yield that your knowledge of history is probably greater than my own.  My skills focus more on math, science, philosophy, computers, and systems.

Please consider the section rewritten with a more historically accurate anecdote of someone who dared to try to accomplish something everyone else told him was impossible - and in the process did indeed accomplish something wonderful and amazing.

Thanks.

Quote from: Garg on March 23, 2006, 04:50:29 AM
Oh, and as a possibly more "in line with Capes" option, it seems like the best way to circumvent issues like this would be to A) communicate and B) fail to dive in on the Conflicts with such issues.  If the other players can't abuse your Achilles' Heel for Story Tokens, then they'll probably stop poking at it.

Just a thought.

Garg

A very good though.  If I was a real life rape victim, and I made it clear in no uncertain terms that rape could not be a part of any story I (or my character Mistress Wind) participated in, that rape was a absolute boundary for me, if someone still brought it up with Goal: Mistress Wind is raped by Mr Evil, I would not spend any story tokens to stop it.  I would probably pickup the notecard, tear it into little pieces, and throw it at the offender, I would let him know how he transgressed by saying something like "You are a little turd of a human being, aren't you" and I would physically disrupt any attempt to continue on with that goal. And from then on until I received an abject apology, I would have nothing but utter hostility toward the offender.  And assuming the other players are decent human beings, I can't imagine the offender would be in the group for much longer unless he sincerely offered a humble apology.

Assuming there wasn't some weird miscommunication, like he never knew rape was such a limit for me and I thought he did.

But rest assured, (laugh) he would get no story tokens from me. ;)

Quote from: Tuxboy on March 24, 2006, 09:00:45 AM

QuoteWhat if Capes *can* be played just as competitively and fun even while respecting certain limits?

Well, that would certainly be something.

If I fall over the edge of the earth, I fall.  I guess to *me*, that's the bravery which others have alluded I do not posses.

I dare to try.

I don't feel that whether or not it can be played in a NGH manner or not is the issue anymore, its the constant circular argument over the philosophy of boundaries and group dynamic that seems to be the major issue now.

Here is a radical idea:

Sindyr gets a group together, plays the game in a NGH manner and starts a thread from actual play examples to discuss the success or failure of the experiment. That way we will have some concrete empirical evidence to base the discussion on. I think this will be a much more constructive use of everyone's time than what seems to be a constant downward spiralling theoretical argument, which seems to be becoming increasingly destructive.

So what does everyone think? It seems to me this is a situation that will never be resolved until actual play occurs so best to leave it until it does...

"Blessed are the cheesemakers"

Just so you know, I am trying very hard to get a Capes game going i this area - it is being very hard to find players.

My plan is to play 3-4 vanilla as-written Capes games, as the control set, then to start trying different variants such as NGH.

I will definitely let everyone know if and when this happens what the results were.

In the meanwhile, however, I will continue to engage in Capes discussion, not avoid it, because right know this is all the Capes goodness I can get. :(

QuoteIn the meanwhile, however, I will continue to engage in Capes discussion, not avoid it, because right know this is all the Capes goodness I can get. :(

No issue with you continuing to have Capes discussions, but this particular reflective discussion seems to be counter-productive in the way it is spiralling and repeating with no possible end in sight until actual play occurs. If anything it could be seen as pushing the boundaries of many people here rather than actually helping people's understanding of Capes, which in itself is ironic on a base level.

It could even be argued that this discussion belongs in the RPG Theory forum rather than here as it currently is nothing but conjecture and is addressing issues of group dynamic, the moral imperative, and the social contract in gaming rather than concrete issues with Capes mechanics and actual play.

I can see that point, Tuxboy.  Perhaps the whole issue of Capes NGH/TtP vs. Capes IWNAY play is more of a theory post - course it's also a Capes post.  I guess it could fit either place.

Of course the irony here as you observe is I am engaged in this discussion in a very IWNAY way...  as long as people keep responding, keep wanting to converse, and/or keep asking me questions, I feel both interested and obligated to reply.

It *is* a delicious irony.