I have been able to beseech and cajole 2 other folks into giving it a shot, Saturday the 8th at noon at a local gaming store!
Looking forward to it!
I assume it would be very uncool to shoot either of them a copy of the pdf as they have not paid.
I can teach them what they need to know, and I will email them links to the swf demo at the company website.
But I'm psyched!!
Actual Play!!
Woot!!!
Quote from: Sindyr on March 29, 2006, 09:15:26 PM
I assume it would be very uncool to shoot either of them a copy of the pdf as they have not paid.
These people are members of your playing group. I insist you send them a copy of the PDF. The copyright notice is explicitly written to give you that right. Enjoy!
Cool...and good luck with that first game ;)
Now I just wish it wasn't a week and a half away - but I should just be happy its happening. :)
Great! Some advice, based on reading lots of other people's Actual Play:
You're the guy who organized the game; you're the guy who's on fire with enthusiasm. You're not "the GM," because there isn't one, but you are the guy the others will look to -- so you need to lead by example.
What does that mean? My best sense is that it means
DO know the rules. (Try playing out a scene by yourself before you go to the game store, and use Tony's excellent flash tutorial on the website).
DO have a strong sense of the tone of the superhero story you want to play -- Batman animated series (dark and brooding) or Batman the 60s TV show (camp and silly), for example -- and get the other players to buy-in.
DO take the first turn and establish some strong, clear conflict people can react to -- at one quick-start game I played with Tony, he took the character of Magneto from X-Men, described the White House in smouldering ruins, and immediately placed out the goal, "kill the president on live TV." You can get subtle later. (Note that having a particular tone in mind really makes it easier to figure out what this BANG! starting conflict should be).
BUT DON'T spend more than five minutes creating characters.* Tell people the tone you're shooting for, give them the click-and-locks, and have them choose something quick from their gut-instinct of what appeals to them; then GO!
In short: If you try to play Capes with zero preparation time, you won't have as much fun as you should, because you'll flail around on those first turns -- but if you spend more than five minutes on preparation, you won't have as much fun as you should, either, because you'll have created stuff that gets in the way.
Note that you have already broken these rules by making up characters and posting them on this board. I would encourage you not to use those characters in the actual game: Use what you make up in that first five minutes poring over the click-and-locks with everybody else. This is not GURPS! This is not D20! This is a game where going with your gut instinct is a much, much more powerful tactic than sitting back and calculating: It rewards passion, intensity, and excitement.
More advice, if you want to hear it...
1.) Get two items that are easily passed around but blatantly visible and different from each other to use as Page/Turn markers. I use two different colored Koosh Balls. The person who started the Page gets and keeps the Blue Koosh. The Red Koosh gets passed to whoevers turn it is. When the Red Koosh gets back to the Blue Koosh, the Page is over. Do end of Page stuff. Makes it easy to keep track.
2.) Get a metric shit-ton of Debt/Story Token markers, different colored d6's, 3x5 cards and pencils. It really makes things go easier. I suggest using Poker chips for Debt and Story Tokens.
3.) Play the guy that everyone loves to hate for the first scene and then absolutely play him to the hilt. Pull no punches. If the other players make hero types, play the nastiest, most ungodly awful villain you can dream up. Make them hate him. If one of the other players picks a villain character first, then play a really, really obnoxious hero that everyone reacts to in a negative way. Tony's Major Victory character is someone like this. If the other players look at you and say, "I really hate that guy." then you're a success. They're invested in opposing him/her.
4.) You've mentioned all sorts of house rules you're working on. Those are cool and I'd love to see them. Don't use them for this first game. Play it as written. You don't have any experience with the game yet. Check it out and see how it actually works in practice. It might even help you develop those house rules you were considering.
Quote from: TonyLB on March 29, 2006, 09:23:30 PM
Quote from: Sindyr on March 29, 2006, 09:15:26 PM
I assume it would be very uncool to shoot either of them a copy of the pdf as they have not paid.
These people are members of your playing group. I insist you send them a copy of the PDF. The copyright notice is explicitly written to give you that right. Enjoy!
Oh, how very excellent! Thank you, Tony, will do.
Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on March 30, 2006, 09:46:33 AM
Great! Some advice, based on reading lots of other people's Actual Play:
You're the guy who organized the game; you're the guy who's on fire with enthusiasm. You're not "the GM," because there isn't one, but you are the guy the others will look to -- so you need to lead by example.
What does that mean? My best sense is that it means
DO know the rules. (Try playing out a scene by yourself before you go to the game store, and use Tony's excellent flash tutorial on the website).
I have run through that flash tutorial over a dozen times and will do so again. Tony, FYI, it was that Flash tutorial more than anything that nabbed me.
QuoteDO have a strong sense of the tone of the superhero story you want to play -- Batman animated series (dark and brooding) or Batman the 60s TV show (camp and silly), for example -- and get the other players to buy-in.
I have already discussed tone with the other players - the specs are four-color, not gritty, generally upbeat.
QuoteDO take the first turn and establish some strong, clear conflict people can react to -- at one quick-start game I played with Tony, he took the character of Magneto from X-Men, described the White House in smouldering ruins, and immediately placed out the goal, "kill the president on live TV." You can get subtle later. (Note that having a particular tone in mind really makes it easier to figure out what this BANG! starting conflict should be).
Good idea. I should plan out the first turn and assume that I will be setting the first scene. Great thought.
QuoteBUT DON'T spend more than five minutes creating characters.* Tell people the tone you're shooting for, give them the click-and-locks, and have them choose something quick from their gut-instinct of what appeals to them; then GO!
How does one "give them the click and locks" at a table with no internet if one does not have the vinyl thingies that Tony sells? The two options are really pass the book around and have them choose their click modules from it, and have them write it down (or help them write it down) or help people create from scratch.
Will probably do the former, since I want them grabbing and going, not agonizing over what they should create.
QuoteIn short: If you try to play Capes with zero preparation time, you won't have as much fun as you should, because you'll flail around on those first turns -- but if you spend more than five minutes on preparation, you won't have as much fun as you should, either, because you'll have created stuff that gets in the way.
Note that you have already broken these rules by making up characters and posting them on this board. I would encourage you not to use those characters in the actual game: Use what you make up in that first five minutes poring over the click-and-locks with everybody else. This is not GURPS! This is not D20! This is a game where going with your gut instinct is a much, much more powerful tactic than sitting back and calculating: It rewards passion, intensity, and excitement.
I take your point - but I also can't not prethink things - it's my nature to plan and think ahead. What I *will* do is not commit anything to paper for the hero I will play - already thinking of a music-based hero.
Thanks for the tips!
QuoteI take your point - but I also can't not prethink things - it's my nature to plan and think ahead. What I *will* do is not commit anything to paper for the hero I will play - already thinking of a music-based hero.
Plan as much as you want, in all the detail you can think of. Get your music-based hero down in all the detail you care to record, and when you get to the session, put it aside and think of a new hero.
Quote from: Gaerik on March 30, 2006, 11:47:53 AM
More advice, if you want to hear it...
1.) Get two items that are easily passed around but blatantly visible and different from each other to use as Page/Turn markers. I use two different colored Koosh Balls. The person who started the Page gets and keeps the Blue Koosh. The Red Koosh gets passed to whoevers turn it is. When the Red Koosh gets back to the Blue Koosh, the Page is over. Do end of Page stuff. Makes it easy to keep track.
Good idea - will get something.
Quote2.) Get a metric shit-ton of Debt/Story Token markers, different colored d6's, 3x5 cards and pencils. It really makes things go easier. I suggest using Poker chips for Debt and Story Tokens.
Got 'em. I got both sticky post-it 3x5's and normal notecard 3x5's.
Quote3.) Play the guy that everyone loves to hate for the first scene and then absolutely play him to the hilt. Pull no punches. If the other players make hero types, play the nastiest, most ungodly awful villain you can dream up. Make them hate him. If one of the other players picks a villain character first, then play a really, really obnoxious hero that everyone reacts to in a negative way. Tony's Major Victory character is someone like this. If the other players look at you and say, "I really hate that guy." then you're a success. They're invested in opposing him/her.
This will be a challenge for me - I don't tend to play villains unless I am the GM. Will do my best - but given the tone of the game and my own sensitivities - the villain I bring will probably be the most
dastardly but not nasty. Obnoxious is fun - although I almost want to create an obnoxious hero (not my spotlight one) that is the hero the others want to outshine...
Quote4.) You've mentioned all sorts of house rules you're working on. Those are cool and I'd love to see them. Don't use them for this first game. Play it as written. You don't have any experience with the game yet. Check it out and see how it actually works in practice. It might even help you develop those house rules you were considering.
I agree, as I have been saying, I intend to get several vanilla Capes session under my belt before getting creative. The only 3 exceptions are:
a) The Spotlight Rule will be used.
b) The tone of the game is preset.
c) I do not want anyone at my gaming table to have their personal vulnerabilities exploited in such a way as to cause them harm or significant anxiety.
However, I will be not employing any additional rules to enforce b or c - will enforce those through the social contract.
Thanks. :)
Quote from: Adam Biltcliffe on March 31, 2006, 10:43:02 AM
QuoteI take your point - but I also can't not prethink things - it's my nature to plan and think ahead. What I *will* do is not commit anything to paper for the hero I will play - already thinking of a music-based hero.
Plan as much as you want, in all the detail you can think of. Get your music-based hero down in all the detail you care to record, and when you get to the session, put it aside and think of a new hero.
I can try, but the honest truth is, I can put aside all the characters I want, the character that I will be thinking about the most is the character I will be playing that day. In other words, if I *know* that I will not be playing a particular character that day, than I wont be thinking of him either.
I can't not think about what I will be doing then. :/
But thanks for the advice.
Quote from: Sindyr on March 31, 2006, 10:35:38 AMHow does one "give them the click and locks" at a table with no internet if one does not have the vinyl thingies that Tony sells?
Printer + Scissors = disposable click & locks!
Go to the downloads portion of Tony's website (specifically http://www.museoffire.com/Games/Downloads/ClickSheets.pdf), save the PDF file of the click-and-locks, print it out (maybe twice), and then cut them out.
(Just cut 'em out as rectangles; don't worry about making the little projecting bits under "Styles" able to interlock -- you'll go crazy, and people will get the idea without your doing that).
It's not reusable, and it's not as low-effort as Tony's awesome laminated click-and-locks, but it's free.
And it's just for that first game: Once people get over their hang up that "character generation" is a big deal, they'll be merrily scribbling away on scratch paper. I personally made most of my non-spotlight characters for the campaign with Tony and Eric on a spare notepad propped against the steering wheel of my car while I waited in the back-up of traffic turning right onto Memorial Bridge out of DC into northern Virginia. Most days, trafffic was just bad enough that this pause was a great enforcer of the "five minutes of prep, no more, no less" guideline.
One piece of advice... don't use scissors. Exacto knives are the way to go, far more control if you want the click and locks to ... click and lock.
Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on March 31, 2006, 11:11:25 AM
(Just cut 'em out as rectangles; don't worry about making the little projecting bits under "Styles" able to interlock -- you'll go crazy, and people will get the idea without your doing that).
I only cut out the projecting bits on one side (I forget which one), and then we used gluesticks to, er...stick & lock?
J
Quote from: Gaerik on March 30, 2006, 11:47:53 AM
3.) Play the guy that everyone loves to hate for the first scene and then absolutely play him to the hilt. Pull no punches. If the other players make hero types, play the nastiest, most ungodly awful villain you can dream up. Make them hate him. If one of the other players picks a villain character first, then play a really, really obnoxious hero that everyone reacts to in a negative way. Tony's Major Victory character is someone like this. If the other players look at you and say, "I really hate that guy." then you're a success. They're invested in opposing him/her.
What should I pre-create for jump starting the game with a bunch of newbies (complete newbies, even less exposed than myself)?
Should I create a villain or two, some major plot elements, a back story, etc? And then fram the first scene around introducing elements leading into that stuff?
I should have *something* prepared to jump start the process...
Quote from: Sindyr on April 01, 2006, 07:28:46 PM
I should have *something* prepared to jump start the process...
Why? I'm not saying you can't but it isn't necessary either. In fact, until you see what kinds of characters the other players make, it'll be hard to plan anything to jumpstart the process. This isn't Champions or Mutants and Masterminds, where you create a situation or plot and then try to hook the characters into it. If you plan to let the other players make characters there, then just wait and see what they make and then make something guaranteed to really make them say, "That guy really sucks. Let's pummel him."
The other option is to do what I've done once here at home and Tony did at GenCon. He had a whole mess of related premade characters and we chose characters from that stack. This is difficult but can be effective when teaching the game. The problem is you have to make every character uber cool so that someone goes, "I've GOT to play that guy!" Tony's Hyperion (I think that's her name) who had the collective consciousness of a whole race inside her head, is a good example of this kind of character to me. The fact that the voices of the 30 elders of that race were another character that someone else could play added a lot of coolness to the mix also.
Quote from: Gaerik on April 01, 2006, 09:29:25 PM
Quote from: Sindyr on April 01, 2006, 07:28:46 PM
I should have *something* prepared to jump start the process...
Why? I'm not saying you can't but it isn't necessary either. In fact, until you see what kinds of characters the other players make, it'll be hard to plan anything to jumpstart the process. This isn't Champions or Mutants and Masterminds, where you create a situation or plot and then try to hook the characters into it. If you plan to let the other players make characters there, then just wait and see what they make and then make something guaranteed to really make them say, "That guy really sucks. Let's pummel him."
My only fear is that being a relative newb myself (not having yet *played* the game but having discussed it a lot) I worry that if I do not prepare we may wind up sitting around a table with no one instigating any action or play, and that things will stall.
Maybe I will precreate some generic villainy stuff that can be plugged into most any situation, figure out how I will farme the first scene, and roll with it from there...
Three days and counting - and I've got my Koosh balls. ;)
Now to cut out all those paper click and locks...
So Sindyr, how did it go?
OK, (Deep breath...)
While not bad per se, it seemed unsatisfying to all of us 5 players. We all had fun, but each person seemed to feel something was lacking...
I have been trying to put my finger on it (which is why I haven't posted) and have not yet really been able to do that, so I will post instead some of my vague impressions, scattershot, and hope a complete picture emerges.
First, the good: there were moments of crazy fun. One guy played a homeless guy named Mitch the Twitch, and we had a lot of fun with him.
We ran two scenes. The first started in an (mostly) abandoned warehouse with humming equipment doing something. I threw down an Event of "The machines overload and explode"
The characters were:
Mitch the Twitch (Homeless mortal)
Mr Jones (a spook mortal)
Mr. Machismo (a super villain)
Marduk (another villain)
CyberJohnny (a superhero)
This was one long ass scene as we tried out the game for the first time. The scene took around 2.5 hours. Many people threw down goals, like Mitch escapes!, Mitch find a place to stay, Marduk gets the mind control device, CyberJohnny gets and destroys the Mind Control Device, etc.
As we ran through this scene, different questions and actions brought up different rules: alliance, claims, debt, story tokens.
The 2 villains found that staking and splitting debt seemed to be not as useful. We tried that, but had a couple of unlucky rolls - which leads me to my first comment.
Unlucky rolls seem to have far too significant effect.
If both villains try to roll up a dice and suck out, and the other side has already been claimed, then that's it, baby.
Perhaps a house rule that no conflict can be claimed for its first two pages.
Even worse are when someone rolls a six - and certain people were having some luck there. It got frustrating.
We villains staked a lot of debt on one particular conflict and were defeated, getting back double our debt and becoming WAY overdrawn.
However at the end of the scene we had the basics of capes mostly down.
One thing everyone complained of right away is with people dropping conflicts every so often, the scene went on and on and on, with no end in sight. Everyone agreed that a rule saying that on page four not only Events could be vetoed but also Goals. This way, if people did not want the scene to drag on, they could just veto all additional conflicts.
The second scene was in an alleyway. Everyone changed characters. This time the major players were:
Lucky Charm - a super hero
An Evil space supervillain trying to destroy city hall
another gadget hero played by a different guy who spent a story token to also bring in his mortal sidekick
a catwoman like mimic supervillain
another mimic supervillain
This scene progressed more quickly, about an hour, during which city hall got destroyed (but everyone evacuated in time, no loss of life) and the spaceship was prevented from beaming up the Malignite Ore under the City Hall.
During this scene, I wrote up a goal: Lucky Charm saves "Catwoman-mimic" from embarrassing herself - thinking that this would involve the player of that character. I rolled a few times, and got me a six on my side of the conflict. Then I waited, planning to let her have the victory without a fight once she staked and split. But she never did, although others were doing that with other goals on the table. So I shrugged, claimed my side, and walked away with a decent inspiration - but my winning this goal seemed to upset the player, despite my initial hands off period.
We also had an issue that within the scene there seemed to be 2 disparate scenes going on - one in the initial alleyway, and one over and near city hall. Perhaps when the player put out the goal "So-and-so destroys City Hall" I should have told him that City Hall was not the scene. What wound up happening is that people got more and more creative and the logic got more and more tenuous how their characters abilities could be used on goals on the table that weren't really physically close to them.
Also, it was noted that everyone was using the thinnest of excuses in finding ways to use the abilities we had left - trying to find some way to apply "surveillance" for example to escape a headlock. Several times people played the ability and had to be prodded into adding any narration at all.
Likewise some players narrated stuff, but did not take any actions on their turn, such as writing conflicts or using abilities - but this made sense as several of them did not have any abilities left, especially in the first scene.
I should add that all but one were experienced GMs in their own right.
A few of them found the Capes rules cumbersome and overly complex - I did not have that issue. We all agreed however that the whole affair, the storyline that emerged in both scenes seemed wild, unpredictable, and chaotic. Also, the two scenes did not seem to have anything in common - like two completely separate comic books.
Oh, we did decide to employ inspiration combining under the rule that 2 insps combine into 1 insps 1 higher than the highest Insp used - max of level 5. A lot of people had level 1 Insps and they seemed useless. In any case, this house rule did not seem to cause any problems.
I think (in addition, or perhaps, complementary, to the above) there was also a problem about trying to find one's purpose. Capes is not about playing a character, and everyone got that. But several people approached Capes from a GMing point of view, and found that the unstoppable chaos destroyed that idea - I could see in their eyes the thought that if this was a traditional rpg that the GM, as the sole ultimate power, could just wade in and make things right.
So that was that. One player had a bad time and she probably won't play again, one player said he absolutely would (and so would I) and the other two seemed up for it but with some hesitancy in their voice.
Having played a game of this I think I have internalized 80% of the rules at this point, and hopefully the next session would go better, but it would be hard to say. I think I am up for trying it again, if I can get another session planned and people committed.
But I have to say that my first exposure of the actual play left me somewhat disappointed.
Now before everyone jumps on me and says I did it wrong, let me say:
Maybe I did it wrong. Maybe this was the "burn in" and things will get better.
But I do want to raise another possibility. Maybe Capes is NOT an rpg per se. Maybe its really a strategic competitive resource game (fighting for control of Conflicts and/or amassing story tokens) with a dressing or veneer of rpg flavor. Maybe you can't have a combination competitive strategy game and rpg without the former overwhelming the latter.
I want to experience another Capes game or two before deciding if the above is true or false, but its a thought.
So that was my first Capes experience.
Out of interest, who brought Passion to the table, and what was it about?
You talk about a lot of other stuff, but I can't twig out the answer to that question from your post.
QuoteBut I have to say that my first exposure of the actual play left me somewhat disappointed.
Now before everyone jumps on me and says I did it wrong, let me say:
Maybe I did it wrong. Maybe this was the "burn in" and things will get better.
But I do want to raise another possibility. Maybe Capes is NOT an rpg per se. Maybe its really a strategic competitive resource game (fighting for control of Conflicts and/or amassing story tokens) with a dressing or veneer of rpg flavor. Maybe you can't have a combination competitive strategy game and rpg without the former overwhelming the latter.
I want to experience another Capes game or two before deciding if the above is true or false, but its a thought.
So that was my first Capes experience.
I think the last sentence sums it up...it was a first...it takes a while to get into a Capes "headspace". I've had some great experiences and some bad ones, pretty much depends the other players I've found. I wouldn't be too discouraged...
QuoteAlso, the two scenes did not seem to have anything in common - like two completely separate comic books.
Did anyone, in particular the person that narrated the beginning of the second scene, try and make a connection between the two scenes or was the whole thing left up in the air?
The fact that none of the characters from the first scene appear in the second would also increase that feeling of a disconnect.
QuoteDuring this scene, I wrote up a goal: Lucky Charm saves "Catwoman-mimic" from embarrassing herself - thinking that this would involve the player of that character. I rolled a few times, and got me a six on my side of the conflict. Then I waited, planning to let her have the victory without a fight once she staked and split. But she never did, although others were doing that with other goals on the table. So I shrugged, claimed my side, and walked away with a decent inspiration - but my winning this goal seemed to upset the player, despite my initial hands off period.
Did the player articulate why they were upset? Was it the loss of the conflict or what was narrated that caused the reaction? Did they not understand that this could be claimed? If it bothered them that much why didn't they roll against it?
QuoteOut of interest, who brought Passion to the table, and what was it about?
Very good point...
Did you try and drive a plot along and involve the others? Or did everyone just wait for someone else to make the first move?
I'm not trying to say "you did it wrong," exactly. More like, I see some problems in the way your group approached the game. Problems that understandably arose from an unfamiliarity with the techniques required to get really satisfying play from Capes. Here's what I see:
You emphasized to your players that Capes isn't about playing a character. I think this may have been a mistake. It's kinda true, but also kinda misleading. One facet of Capes is
all about being invested in a character's story. You have to really care about what happens in order have the drive to stake everything to get what you want.
You also emphasized that each person is more like a GM. This is also quite true, but to a player whose primary experience is with traditional games this may be a harmful idea. If you go into a Capes game expecting to have the sort of control that a GM has, you're going to be savagely disabused of that notion pretty quickly. I think that it may be painful to have to try to figure out exactly what your role is while you play,
especially if you came into the game with preconceptions or confusion about your role.
In my experience, I don't discuss this sort of stuff with people before I play with them. I just show them the game like any other rpg and then encourage them to expand on their narration. There's typically a little bit of "I can do that?" but it's always been positive.
Stuff that contributed to your broken story experience: The things I noted above probably didn't help, but I think the thing with nobody playing a character for more than one scene was a big factor. You said that the two scenes didn't have anything in common. If even one or two of you had played characters from the first scene, you would have instantly had a thread of a storyline without any particular effort. If you
don't have reoccurring characters, then
somebody has to do some work to tie the scenes together in some other fashion.
An idea somebody suggested that I liked very much was to start out by having everybody make up Spotlight characters. Even if you're not using the Spotlight house rule, make up the guys that the comic is going to be about. Make up your X-Men or your Avengers or JLA or your Batman/Robin/Joker/Catwoman. Whatever. There's something to be said for just jumping in with both feet and seeing where you go, but much of the time, you go nowhere. If you have some main characters at the beginning, you'll be more likely to get a story you like.
You mentioned that the storylines within scenes played out wildly and chaotically. This is part of the burning-in period that you mentioned. People get weirded out by having a lot of freedom to go in whatever direction they want. They go all over the place just because they can. After a while, they realize that going in every which way isn't really very fun, isn't really very satisfying, and isn't at all a good way to earn Story Tokens. They settle down and work together to roleplay a story.
You indicated that it didn't feel like a roleplaying game, more like a "strategic competitive resource game" with a rpg dressing, etc. Again, I'd say that this is because people weren't investing in their characters or in the story. This is a feedback loop. I think this is probably why people weren't bothering to narrate their ability use well (or at all), and using abilities in ways that were narratively obnoxious. Nobody was putting any work into creating a cohesive storyline, so nobody felt any impetus to maintain the cohesiveness by adding positively to the story.
Some particular bits that I want to address specifically:
Quote from: Sindyr on April 12, 2006, 09:03:30 AM
The 2 villains found that staking and splitting debt seemed to be not as useful. We tried that, but had a couple of unlucky rolls - which leads me to my first comment.
Unlucky rolls seem to have far too significant effect.
If both villains try to roll up a dice and suck out, and the other side has already been claimed, then that's it, baby.
Perhaps a house rule that no conflict can be claimed for its first two pages.
If you'd all had more Story Tokens to spend on extra actions, do you think this would have been less of a problem?
Quote
Even worse are when someone rolls a six - and certain people were having some luck there. It got frustrating.
We villains staked a lot of debt on one particular conflict and were defeated, getting back double our debt and becoming WAY overdrawn.
Did you get many Story Tokens for it?
Quote
During this scene, I wrote up a goal: Lucky Charm saves "Catwoman-mimic" from embarrassing herself - thinking that this would involve the player of that character. I rolled a few times, and got me a six on my side of the conflict. Then I waited, planning to let her have the victory without a fight once she staked and split. But she never did, although others were doing that with other goals on the table. So I shrugged, claimed my side, and walked away with a decent inspiration - but my winning this goal seemed to upset the player, despite my initial hands off period.
This sounds really weird. You drop this conflict, spend several actions to roll up to a six, she doesn't touch the opposing side, then gets upset when it resolves in your favor? Did she have the debt and Story Tokens necessary to roll up her side higher than your six? Was she intimidated because in Scene 1 she saw villains staking and splitting and still losing? Also, is this the person that had a bad experience and will not play again? I'd really like to see that split off into another thread and addressed in detail. One thing I rabidly want to avoid is somebody playing and hating Capes. In my D&D-centric environment, one person spreading bad vibes could completely kill my chances of spreading indie games.
Quote
Perhaps when the player put out the goal "So-and-so destroys City Hall" I should have told him that City Hall was not the scene. What wound up happening is that people got more and more creative and the logic got more and more tenuous how their characters abilities could be used on goals on the table that weren't really physically close to them.
Also, it was noted that everyone was using the thinnest of excuses in finding ways to use the abilities we had left - trying to find some way to apply "surveillance" for example to escape a headlock. Several times people played the ability and had to be prodded into adding any narration at all.
Were people having fun with this? In my experience, sometimes players will do something that actually decreases their enjoyment of the game
just because the rules allow them to do it. Was there any inquiry as to
why someone was putting down a conflict that didn't seem germane to the scene? Or
why someone was reluctant to narrate the use of their ability?
Quote
Likewise some players narrated stuff, but did not take any actions on their turn, such as writing conflicts or using abilities - but this made sense as several of them did not have any abilities left, especially in the first scene.
I think this may actually be against the rules. I don't think you get to narrate unless you use an ability or create a conflict.
Quote
A few of them found the Capes rules cumbersome and overly complex
This is pretty common, I wouldn't worry about it.
Quote
Oh, we did decide to employ inspiration combining under the rule that 2 insps combine into 1 insps 1 higher than the highest Insp used - max of level 5. A lot of people had level 1 Insps and they seemed useless. In any case, this house rule did not seem to cause any problems.
I figured that it would work okay, but I'm curious about how you handled the narrative aspects of this? Did you drop the lower Insp and just bump the higher one?
Quote from: Matthew Glover on April 12, 2006, 11:40:01 AM
One thing I rabidly want to avoid is somebody playing and hating Capes. In my D&D-centric environment, one person spreading bad vibes could completely kill my chances of spreading indie games.
Well Capes is a big step in some ways. It seems like it pays off on stuff you dont know you want. However for it to pay off it has to pay off as a gestalt. I picture 5 guys making a house of cards using marbles. Dont you all have to kinda work to keep it up? Normally, people prefer throwing marbles. :)
Maybe to get people to work together to build stuff with slippery marbles, you need to try something in-between the two. Maybe playing catch with marbles first is a good idea. Instead of playing Capes without mentioning all the stuff you dont dare mention too soon, what about that other stack of Indie games you showed me? Maybe if everybody player DonJon first, where they get used to dealing with "I can get stuff I want" and then maybe mix in the WatchDog one where they get used to storytelling in a serious environment. Then maybe port WatchDog (or whatever it was called) to a Sci-Fi setting so you can keep the serious tones and the religion but mix in Sci Fi and a few fantastic abilities (Powers). In fact, maybe something inspired by Dune (where religion and science are big, a serious tone exists, but Powers also exist).
Maybe after some iterations of other stuff, you can get players (like me) realizing they might sometimes want something else.
Maybe another idea is to have players port over a character from ANY game they've ever played in any setting, as well as a couple exemplars from that setting. Then you could try running a universe-hopping time-hopping multiverse style game, only you wont have to use Rifts or GURPS. :) If players brought in characters they already care about, but clone and seperate them from their original campaign, maybe they can get behind the characters enough to want to make a story. Then again, maybe that would be too wild a setting to get people to calm down. Still, maybe getting people to port over characters might get them interested. I dunno.
Lewis
Quote from: Tuxboy on April 12, 2006, 10:49:56 AM
QuoteAlso, the two scenes did not seem to have anything in common - like two completely separate comic books.
Did anyone, in particular the person that narrated the beginning of the second scene, try and make a connection between the two scenes or was the whole thing left up in the air?
The fact that none of the characters from the first scene appear in the second would also increase that feeling of a disconnect.Quote
Nope - the person who narrated the 2nd scene did not try to make a connection. And since none of the characters were the same, that didn't help.
QuoteQuoteDuring this scene, I wrote up a goal: Lucky Charm saves "Catwoman-mimic" from embarrassing herself - thinking that this would involve the player of that character. I rolled a few times, and got me a six on my side of the conflict. Then I waited, planning to let her have the victory without a fight once she staked and split. But she never did, although others were doing that with other goals on the table. So I shrugged, claimed my side, and walked away with a decent inspiration - but my winning this goal seemed to upset the player, despite my initial hands off period.
Did the player articulate why they were upset? Was it the loss of the conflict or what was narrated that caused the reaction? Did they not understand that this could be claimed? If it bothered them that much why didn't they roll against it?
They were not being communicative - they were putting a good face on it and trying to be a good sport, but obviously unhappy. So I can't answer some of those questions.
Quote from: TonyLB on April 12, 2006, 10:47:14 AM
Out of interest, who brought Passion to the table, and what was it about?
You talk about a lot of other stuff, but I can't twig out the answer to that question from your post.
We brought to the table a desire to play a superhero rpg and the capes rules, open minds, and enthusiasm to find a new way to do it.
Is more than that required?
Quote from: Tuxboy on April 12, 2006, 10:53:32 AM
QuoteOut of interest, who brought Passion to the table, and what was it about?
Very good point...
Did you try and drive a plot along and involve the others? Or did everyone just wait for someone else to make the first move?
In as much as one person at a table of 5 with all having equal GM power, yes, I did try.
Quote from: Matthew Glover on April 12, 2006, 11:40:01 AM
Some particular bits that I want to address specifically:
Quote from: Sindyr on April 12, 2006, 09:03:30 AM
The 2 villains found that staking and splitting debt seemed to be not as useful. We tried that, but had a couple of unlucky rolls - which leads me to my first comment.
Unlucky rolls seem to have far too significant effect.
If both villains try to roll up a dice and suck out, and the other side has already been claimed, then that's it, baby.
Perhaps a house rule that no conflict can be claimed for its first two pages.
If you'd all had more Story Tokens to spend on extra actions, do you think this would have been less of a problem?
Perhaps - part of the issue is I think that two of the 5 characters were mortals and could not create token attractive goals I think. On the other hand, this may just be growing pains - once we figure out how to play this may not be a big issue.
QuoteQuote
Even worse are when someone rolls a six - and certain people were having some luck there. It got frustrating.
We villains staked a lot of debt on one particular conflict and were defeated, getting back double our debt and becoming WAY overdrawn.
Did you get many Story Tokens for it?
I got like one I think - but got 4-6 debt - but that conflict was one one which we oversplit as a test - but even so we had two villains trying hard to keep a goal from happening, they got lucky and got a six, we split our dice but neither of us had story tokens so each of us tried to roll up our side on the action on our turn, but I rolled a one and so did he, so thats that.
A complex thought - instead of rolling a six sider roll 3 six sided dice and take the middle one.
This yields (mid 3d6):
number to hit or better
1 7.41% 100.00%
2 18.52% 92.59%
3 24.07% 74.07%
4 24.07% 50.00%
5 18.52% 25.93%
6 7.41% 7.41%
So you have a 7% chance of rolling a 1 or a 6, and 48% of the time you will roll a 3 or a 4,
instead of the normal 1d6:
number to hit or better
1 0.17% 1.00%
2 0.17% 0.83%
3 0.17% 0.67%
4 0.17% 0.50%
5 0.17% 0.33%
6 0.17% 0.17%
So you have a 17% chance of rolling a 1 or a 6, and 33% of the time you will roll a 3 or a 4,
Ultimately 3d6 take middle will be more strongly clustered and will help smooth out freak luck - is this good? Even if it is good, is Capes complicated enough without adding this variant?
QuoteQuote
During this scene, I wrote up a goal: Lucky Charm saves "Catwoman-mimic" from embarrassing herself - thinking that this would involve the player of that character. I rolled a few times, and got me a six on my side of the conflict. Then I waited, planning to let her have the victory without a fight once she staked and split. But she never did, although others were doing that with other goals on the table. So I shrugged, claimed my side, and walked away with a decent inspiration - but my winning this goal seemed to upset the player, despite my initial hands off period.
This sounds really weird. You drop this conflict, spend several actions to roll up to a six, she doesn't touch the opposing side, then gets upset when it resolves in your favor? Did she have the debt and Story Tokens necessary to roll up her side higher than your six? Was she intimidated because in Scene 1 she saw villains staking and splitting and still losing? Also, is this the person that had a bad experience and will not play again? I'd really like to see that split off into another thread and addressed in detail. One thing I rabidly want to avoid is somebody playing and hating Capes. In my D&D-centric environment, one person spreading bad vibes could completely kill my chances of spreading indie games.
I purposefully refrained from claiming my side of that conflict to give her a chance to generate debt and stake it - she never did. I think not everyone got that debt is a tool that must be used somewhat frequently - that you WANT debt - at least some - to be able to win conflicts. And yes, this is that person - I don't think she either grokked the competitive nature of the game or perhaps she did and didn't like it.
Perhaps it would be useful for newbies like we were to say directly, "Now Debbie, I have rolled up a six. If you want to win the right to narrate the outcome of this goal, as I think you do, you will need to either get lucky, or better yet, get some debt, use that debt to split your die into 2, and then roll them up so that your total is higher. Make sense?"
QuoteQuote
Perhaps when the player put out the goal "So-and-so destroys City Hall" I should have told him that City Hall was not the scene. What wound up happening is that people got more and more creative and the logic got more and more tenuous how their characters abilities could be used on goals on the table that weren't really physically close to them.
Also, it was noted that everyone was using the thinnest of excuses in finding ways to use the abilities we had left - trying to find some way to apply "surveillance" for example to escape a headlock. Several times people played the ability and had to be prodded into adding any narration at all.
Were people having fun with this? In my experience, sometimes players will do something that actually decreases their enjoyment of the game just because the rules allow them to do it. Was there any inquiry as to why someone was putting down a conflict that didn't seem germane to the scene? Or why someone was reluctant to narrate the use of their ability?
We all found waiting for other people not fun. Example - turn passes to Fred, and now we all wait as he figures out what Conflict to write. He takes a min or two, and people get bored and we lose the thread of the action.
Or turn passes to Fred, he looks at the Conflicts on the table, and spend a minute or two how he can use Charming to impact the scene in such a way to let him roll on Destroy Mind Control Device.
Seemed to be a lot of waiting we were doing.
QuoteQuote
Likewise some players narrated stuff, but did not take any actions on their turn, such as writing conflicts or using abilities - but this made sense as several of them did not have any abilities left, especially in the first scene.
I think this may actually be against the rules. I don't think you get to narrate unless you use an ability or create a conflict.
I can't say - but maybe denying letting people who do not write a conflict or use an ability any chance at narration may speed things up. On the other hand, people who were not using abilities or had none left cause they were mortal still seemed to be able to add to the story with their narration even if they couldn't affect the dice.
Quote
Quote
Oh, we did decide to employ inspiration combining under the rule that 2 insps combine into 1 insps 1 higher than the highest Insp used - max of level 5. A lot of people had level 1 Insps and they seemed useless. In any case, this house rule did not seem to cause any problems.
I figured that it would work okay, but I'm curious about how you handled the narrative aspects of this? Did you drop the lower Insp and just bump the higher one?
We did drop the lower Insp and bump the higher, but we also did not worry about narrative justification for using Insps - too much else was going on to be overly retentive about them. We let people use Insps as freely as Tokens in that Insps were used as generic Insps given to players to be used any way narratively they wished.
Quote from: Sindyr on April 12, 2006, 08:44:35 PM
I got like one I think - but got 4-6 debt - but that conflict was one one which we oversplit as a test - but even so we had two villains trying hard to keep a goal from happening, they got lucky and got a six, we split our dice but neither of us had story tokens so each of us tried to roll up our side on the action on our turn, but I rolled a one and so did he, so thats that.
Six times?
Your action, your reaction, his reaction ... then his action, his reaction, your reaction. Six rolls available, if you wanted them.
You got ones on all of those? Shit man, that
is bad luck. Still and all, sometimes the dice just tell you it's your day to get kicked to the curb.
Quote from: Sindyr on April 12, 2006, 07:50:25 PM
We brought to the table a desire to play a superhero rpg and the capes rules, open minds, and enthusiasm to find a new way to do it.
Is more than that required?
'course. We've been telling you that for weeks now. I've lost count of the number of people who have told you that the game
runs on the willingness of players to passionately invest in it.
So who got excited about a goal? Who got personally, visibly, passionately invested in making it go their way? Who brought the passion?
Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?
Quote from: TonyLB on April 13, 2006, 12:07:35 AM
Quote from: Sindyr on April 12, 2006, 08:44:35 PM
I got like one I think - but got 4-6 debt - but that conflict was one one which we oversplit as a test - but even so we had two villains trying hard to keep a goal from happening, they got lucky and got a six, we split our dice but neither of us had story tokens so each of us tried to roll up our side on the action on our turn, but I rolled a one and so did he, so thats that.
Six times?
Your action, your reaction, his reaction ... then his action, his reaction, your reaction. Six rolls available, if you wanted them.
You got ones on all of those? Shit man, that is bad luck. Still and all, sometimes the dice just tell you it's your day to get kicked to the curb.
First of all - a point of clarification. On my action, I roll up a 1, and get another 1, which I accept. At this point people can React - are you telling me *I* can react to me
own roll? Whether or not anyone else reacts? We had been playing that the original actor cannot react on his own roll - and that would have probably made a significant difference. (Four rolls versus two) - In fact if this is true each play can roll twice if he so chooses on his die on his turn if he is willing to spend the Abilities.
Secondly, no matter how many actions you have, we all know that once someone rolls a six, unless they split it, that six is untouchable. So rolling them down is not an option.
Question: I assume it is illegal to roll a die, split the die, and *then* react? I assume that actions and any reaction must happen all together, that once an action is taken and a die is rolled, the only further thing that can be done is reactions, until everyone who wants to react has, and
then things like staking, splitting, and using Insps can be done?
I mean, say I on my turn roll up a 1 to a 2. I React (to my own roll, if allowable) and roll it up to a 4. Jim Reacts and rolls it down to a 1. Fred Reacts and rolls it up to a 4.
I am assuming that, for example, after Jim's Reaction but before Fred's, I can't use an Inspiration, or stake and split. Once an Action has been used to roll a die, the only thing that any player can do is use Reactions until all players that want to use Reactions have. *Then* I may stake, split, use Insps, right? (I could have also done any of those *before* my Action as well, right?)
Quote from: TonyLB on April 13, 2006, 12:09:49 AM
Quote from: Sindyr on April 12, 2006, 07:50:25 PM
We brought to the table a desire to play a superhero rpg and the capes rules, open minds, and enthusiasm to find a new way to do it.
Is more than that required?
'course. We've been telling you that for weeks now. I've lost count of the number of people who have told you that the game runs on the willingness of players to passionately invest in it.
So who got excited about a goal? Who got personally, visibly, passionately invested in making it go their way? Who brought the passion?
Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?
How do you
make the other players do that?
Or maybe what you are saying is I should tell the other players that if they didn't have fun, the game author says it is their fault for not being passionate enough.
Quote from: Sindyr on April 13, 2006, 09:24:22 AM
How do you make the other players do that?
Or maybe what you are saying is I should tell the other players that if they didn't have fun, the game author says it is their fault for not being passionate enough.
While playing
Capes, getting another player excited is your
job. Not "your" as in you, Sindyr. "Your" as in "any person playing the game ever." That's what
Capes is
about. That's how you earn Story Tokens. That's the
only way to earn Story Tokens. You have to pay attention to what they think is cool about their own characters and play to that. Drop conflicts that they can't ignore, make them fight hard for them, then let them
win. That's how you make them passionate.
The flipside is that they have to start out caring about their characters at least a little bit. If they aren't engaged, they can just ignore any conflict you drop, and then nobody has fun.
Quote from: Sindyr on April 13, 2006, 09:24:22 AM
How do you make the other players do that?
You can't force it...but you can encourage it.
Lead by example. Get excited yourself. If you're running the demo, play the villain. Be melodramatic and nasty. Make people want to stop you.
Don't hold back. Don't set up your goals to be "nice" to people. Don't say "Lucky Charm saves Catwoman-mimic from embarassing herself". Instead, throw down "Lucky Charm embarasses Catwoman-mimic". Or "Catwoman-mimic is sent to prison." Use your knowledge of the player to come up with something that they really don't want to see happen - and make a goal based on
that, because that's what's going to make them go "What? Like hell you will!" and start dumping resources on the conflict so they can win it.
On the same note, use clear and concrete goals early on. Save the abstract stuff, the blocking goals, and all that crazy stuff for later, once you all understand the system.
Some players might need coaching with the rules. If Catwoman-mimic isn't staking/splitting/whatever, call her attention to the goal. "Hey, are you really going to let me embarass you? I know I have a 6, and you can't beat that with one die, but remember you can get a second die by splitting..."
Keep things moving. If you're running the demo, act as quickly as possible on your turn to keep the pace up. If you have to sit and think about what conflict to put down, then you don't have anything you're excited enough about to make playing it interesting, so look for a die to roll instead. (Tell your players this, too.)
Remember that the trait you use just has to be worked into the narration somehow - it doesn't have to be central to your action. (Check out the demo, where the character uses Super-Speed while trying to convince someone.) Fred doesn't have to destroy the Mind Control Device by direct virtue of his charm. He could say something like this:
Oculon sends a power blast into the heart of the mind control machine, destroying the capacitor crystal - and then catches Sally as she collapses after suddenly being freed from its effects. 'You're free now," he says with a charming smile. "I'll be back to check on you as soon as Dr. Mesmero is defeated."J
Quote from: Matthew Glover on April 13, 2006, 10:05:27 AM
The flipside is that they have to start out caring about their characters at least a little bit. If they aren't engaged, they can just ignore any conflict you drop, and then nobody has fun.
I think this was happening with a few.
Also, I dropped a Goal: Lucky Charm looks amazing saving the day. I don't recall if anyone stepped up to make getting that goal a challenge - and I was willing and ready to hand out some story tokens on that one.
Quote from: drnuncheon on April 13, 2006, 10:38:11 AM
Quote from: Sindyr on April 13, 2006, 09:24:22 AM
How do you make the other players do that?
You can't force it...but you can encourage it.
Lead by example. Get excited yourself. If you're running the demo, play the villain. Be melodramatic and nasty. Make people want to stop you.
I think this will happen more as we get more play under our belt and have to spend less time figuring out how to play the game itself.
On the other hand, I don't play a villain really well - my hearts not in it - that was probably a mistake I made, but I probably had to make given it was the kick off game.
Does anyone have any answer to my question about can you react to your own die roll on your own action? This is pretty important to know if it is the case.
Also, does anyone have any opinion on how game breaking it is to simplify Insps by allowing their use to be independent of what situation cretaed them?
Thanks
Quote from: Sindyr on April 13, 2006, 10:59:08 AM
Does anyone have any answer to my question about can you react to your own die roll on your own action? This is pretty important to know if it is the case.
You absolutely can - check out the demo and the examples of play. You always get the option to react to your rolls first.
QuoteAlso, does anyone have any opinion on how game breaking it is to simplify Insps by allowing their use to be independent of what situation cretaed them?
About as game breaking (IMO) as leaving the traits empty and just using the numbers - that is to say, mechanically it would not really change anything, but it'd be really boring.
J
Quote from: Sindyr on April 13, 2006, 10:59:08 AM
Does anyone have any answer to my question about can you react to your own die roll on your own action? This is pretty important to know if it is the case.
Also, does anyone have any opinion on how game breaking it is to simplify Insps by allowing their use to be independent of what situation cretaed them?
Oh, right. Yes, when you act, you get the opportunity to react first, then everybody else in order. If you accept your roll, of course. If you don't accept that initial roll,
nobody get to react.
And you can spend Inspirations, stake Debt, and split dice
before or
after but not
during the action-reactions chain.
I wouldn't consider removing the narrative implications from Inspirations to be game-breaking at all. I do, however, think that keeping those narrative hooks will help to build tighter storylines by tying the past events to the present.
QuoteAlso, I dropped a Goal: Lucky Charm looks amazing saving the day. I don't recall if anyone stepped up to make getting that goal a challenge - and I was willing and ready to hand out some story tokens on that one.
When you drop a goal that is important to you, but not to anybody else, go ahead and stake some debt on it. Say "Nobody's going to oppose me on that? Wow, I guess I'll win some free Inspirations, get rid of some of my Debt, and
all the Story Tokens will just go away. I can't believe that none of you guys want those Story Tokens." Also go ahead and comment on the stuff that they're laying down. If they drop a conflict involving your character that you're just not interested in, say "I dunno, that's really not grabbing me. You want to change that to 'Goal: Lucky Charm gets the girl'? I would totally stake debt on
that."
Quote from: Sindyr on April 13, 2006, 10:59:08 AM
On the other hand, I don't play a villain really well - my hearts not in it - that was probably a mistake I made, but I probably had to make given it was the kick off game.
The energy of the game comes from opposition. I actually find villains easier to narrate because in the comics, the villains tend to get all the cool lines anyway.
You have to want things in Capes. You have to want things enough to fight for them and other people have to be willing to threaten those things and make you earn them. That dynamic is what makes the game work.
Quote from: Sindyr on April 13, 2006, 10:59:08 AM
Also, does anyone have any opinion on how game breaking it is to simplify Insps by allowing their use to be independent of what situation cretaed them?
Handwaving the inspiration connection is a lost opportunity for narrative flavor. If you have an inspiration "Captain Invincible bravely fought the lizard-men" and you want to succeed at "Lava Boy has a nice time on his date with Betsy" is just plonking down the inspiration as fun as narrating, "'My God,' Lava Boy thinks to himself. 'The team faces all kinds of super-powered threats without flinching every day, and here I am scared to death to be around a pretty girl.' He swallows the lump in his throat and puts his arm around Betsy's shoulders. She smiles back at him."? I know which one I like better.
Narration isn't always easy. I know I can draw a blank. But I choose to see that as a challenge rather than a burden. Some of the hardest narrations produce some of the best story elements.
Quote from: drnuncheon on April 13, 2006, 11:17:57 AM
Quote from: Sindyr on April 13, 2006, 10:59:08 AM
Does anyone have any answer to my question about can you react to your own die roll on your own action? This is pretty important to know if it is the case.
You absolutely can - check out the demo and the examples of play. You always get the option to react to your rolls first.
OK, next question: I thought I read that people did not have to react in order.
Example, people are sitting in this order: Me, Evan, Nigel, Sally, Curt.
My turn, I try to roll up my 1 and get a 2.
Question: Can I pass my React to let other react before me, and React after them?
Or say I do React, and roll up the 2 to a 4. If Evan chooses not to react, then Nigel reacts the 4 to a 2, Sally reacts the 2 to a 5, Curt reacts the 5 to a 1 - can Evan, having initially passed his option to React now choose to exercise a Reaction?
If so, if you *can* pass your reaction and simply take it later after everyone else, what's to prevent people wanting to react but not wanting to react first? Whats to prevent the reaction phase from becoming crawn out as people try to out-wait each other in order to the last person to roll the die?
Quote from: Matthew Glover on April 13, 2006, 11:22:28 AM
When you drop a goal that is important to you, but not to anybody else, go ahead and stake some debt on it. Say "Nobody's going to oppose me on that? Wow, I guess I'll win some free Inspirations, get rid of some of my Debt, and all the Story Tokens will just go away. I can't believe that none of you guys want those Story Tokens." Also go ahead and comment on the stuff that they're laying down. If they drop a conflict involving your character that you're just not interested in, say "I dunno, that's really not grabbing me. You want to change that to 'Goal: Lucky Charm gets the girl'? I would totally stake debt on that."
That's brilliant. Perhaps that is the key to getting this Capes thing going. Will explore that more fully with the group.
Quote from: Eric Sedlacek on April 13, 2006, 11:24:45 AM
Quote from: Sindyr on April 13, 2006, 10:59:08 AM
On the other hand, I don't play a villain really well - my hearts not in it - that was probably a mistake I made, but I probably had to make given it was the kick off game.
The energy of the game comes from opposition. I actually find villains easier to narrate because in the comics, the villains tend to get all the cool lines anyway.
You have to want things in Capes. You have to want things enough to fight for them and other people have to be willing to threaten those things and make you earn them. That dynamic is what makes the game work.
I think one thing that was lost as we tried to grope with learning the rules is that factor. Every conflict created should be either because you think someone else really is invested in its outcome or because you are.
When I played "Goal: Lucky Charm looks awesome saving the day" that was a goal I cared a LOT about winning. I think I need to convey to the other players that they need to directly address with their conflicts either their own gaming needs or that of someone elses - or else we are just going through the motions - which is OK the first game when you are trying to get your feet underneath you and understand Capes play, but is not sustaining.
QuoteQuote from: Sindyr on April 13, 2006, 10:59:08 AM
Also, does anyone have any opinion on how game breaking it is to simplify Insps by allowing their use to be independent of what situation cretaed them?
Handwaving the inspiration connection is a lost opportunity for narrative flavor. If you have an inspiration "Captain Invincible bravely fought the lizard-men" and you want to succeed at "Lava Boy has a nice time on his date with Betsy" is just plonking down the inspiration as fun as narrating, "'My God,' Lava Boy thinks to himself. 'The team faces all kinds of super-powered threats without flinching every day, and here I am scared to death to be around a pretty girl.' He swallows the lump in his throat and puts his arm around Betsy's shoulders. She smiles back at him."? I know which one I like better.
Narration isn't always easy. I know I can draw a blank. But I choose to see that as a challenge rather than a burden. Some of the hardest narrations produce some of the best story elements.
Point taken - the downside comes from when the complexity becomes a burden and time gets lost either trying to come up with narrations or bookkeeping the Insps.
Perhaps as the basic Capes mechanics become second nature, we shall bring back in the narrative aspects of Insps.
Quote from: Sindyr on April 13, 2006, 11:47:28 AM
Question: Can I pass my React to let other react before me, and React after them?
Yes. Once you say pass, you can react to a die roll afterwards. It then proceeds in order around the table, with people choosing to react or not react.
On page 40:
"The acting player has first chance at a Reaction, and then the opportunity passes around the table clockwise, as many times
as needed. If a player foregoes their right to React at first they may still React later, after other players. But once they React
they cannot React again. "
Quote from: Glendower on April 13, 2006, 12:02:15 PM
Quote from: Sindyr on April 13, 2006, 11:47:28 AM
Question: Can I pass my React to let other react before me, and React after them?
Yes. Once you say pass, you can react to a die roll afterwards. It then proceeds in order around the table, with people choosing to react or not react.
On page 40:
"The acting player has first chance at a Reaction, and then the opportunity passes around the table clockwise, as many times
as needed. If a player foregoes their right to React at first they may still React later, after other players. But once they React
they cannot React again. "
If so, if you *can* pass your reaction and simply take it later after everyone else, what's to prevent people wanting to react but not wanting to react first? Whats to prevent the reaction phase from becoming drawn out as people try to out-wait each other in order to the last person to roll the die?
Quote from: Sindyr on April 13, 2006, 11:47:28 AM
If so, if you *can* pass your reaction and simply take it later after everyone else, what's to prevent people wanting to react but not wanting to react first? Whats to prevent the reaction phase from becoming crawn out as people try to out-wait each other in order to the last person to roll the die?
I'd say if you go full circle without a reaction, it's time to move on. For courtesy, I'd do it something like this:
Alex: OK, I rolled a 3...I'm not going to react. Betty?
Betty: Pass.
Carl: Not yet.
Dave: Pass.
Emily: Nope.
Alex: So nobody wants to react? Last chance...OK, it stays at a 3. Betty, its your turn.
J
Quote from: Sindyr on April 13, 2006, 11:55:26 AM
Point taken - the downside comes from when the complexity becomes a burden and time gets lost either trying to come up with narrations or bookkeeping the Insps.
Perhaps as the basic Capes mechanics become second nature, we shall bring back in the narrative aspects of Insps.
I'm not sure why time would be "lost". I guess it's a difference of opinion, but I think time would be "well spent" trying to come up with narrations or bookkeeping the Inspirations. Those decisions on narration are an important part of play.
I look at Inspirations as a log of successes and the occasional defeat. Jotting down "Saved Hostages" followed by a number doesn't take that much time, does it? Inspirations provide that crucial link between what has happened before and what has hapened next. The same link that you said you lacked when going from one scene to the next. Without inspiration narration used to connect, you will continue to have this problem.
Quote from: Sindyr on April 13, 2006, 12:14:09 PM
If so, if you *can* pass your reaction and simply take it later after everyone else, what's to prevent people wanting to react but not wanting to react first? Whats to prevent the reaction phase from becoming drawn out as people try to out-wait each other in order to the last person to roll the die?
Good question. Mechanically speaking, nothing. Though if someone pulled that kind of nonsense, I'd probably ask them to cut it out. You're talking about the equivalent of not rolling dice in monopoly, but thinking about rolling dice, waiting for people to either forfeit or bribe you with property to hurry the hell up and Roll! That's also not against the rules, but also makes for a poor game.
Quote from: drnuncheon on April 13, 2006, 12:23:16 PM
I'd say if you go full circle without a reaction, it's time to move on. For courtesy, I'd do it something like this:
Alex: OK, I rolled a 3...I'm not going to react. Betty?
Betty: Pass.
Carl: Not yet.
Dave: Pass.
Emily: Nope.
Alex: So nobody wants to react? Last chance...OK, it stays at a 3. Betty, its your turn.
J
This is the way we have always done it, except without the "last chance" bit. We start around the circle. If EVERYONE passes, then we move on. If at least one person reacts, then we go around the circle again of those that have not yet reacted. Essentially, if anyone reacts, it cancels all "passes" and frees people up to react or pass again (if they have not already reacted).
It adds a lot of gaming into reactions for everyone as you try to gauge whether someone else will react or not to decide whether you pass or react yourself, because if you guess wrong you are liable to lose your chance to react. I have to say that I pretty much thought this WAS the rule on reaction, but I might have just read it in.
We do it the same way that Hans does. We do spending Story Tokens for extra actions the same way. On your turn you can pass, but if everybody passes, you lose your chance.
Quote from: Matthew Glover on April 13, 2006, 01:21:59 PM
We do it the same way that Hans does. We do spending Story Tokens for extra actions the same way. On your turn you can pass, but if everybody passes, you lose your chance.
Everybody passes = next (whatever) is very doable. Thanks, I was thinking along similar lines.
Perhaps this should be added to the official rules?
Quote from: Sindyr on April 13, 2006, 09:24:22 AM
How do you make the other players do that?
Uh ... did I say you should?
I mean, you
should if you can manage it, because (as people rightly point out) doing so can get you a lot of Story Tokens. But I was asking whether there was a player, even one, who brought that passion to the table. To my mind,
one player with passion is enough to jump-start the game, if they are willing to put themselves on the line.
Now if you intend to ask, all incredulous and resentful, "How could I
possibly assure that at least one player brings passion to the table?" then I would recommend that you examine that question
very carefully. I think the answer may be staring you in the face.
Several players brought enthusiasm to the table, and lots of it. That should suffice.
Well then why are you balking at answering this question? Sounds like you should have plenty of examples of players who got passionate about goals, and invested in fighting off all opposition. Tell us about them!
"passionate" is a superlative word and I do not employ it often. Using it is like leaving oneself a loophole, a way to say "yeah, but since you had problems, you must not have been (supebolded) *passionate*, you know, not really" - in other words, self-serving circular logic of proving oneself right by jiggering the semantics and definitions.
What I can tell you is that:
1) I was invested in winning the Lucky Charm is Awesome conflict.
2) I tried to dangle the Lucky Charm Saves Catwoman-mimic from embarrassing herself to get that player to invest.
3) There was a The Mind Control Device gets destroyed that at least 3 of us were fighting over.
4) There was a City Hall gets Destroyed that at least 3 of us were fighting over.
Mind you, we were under the impression that we could not react during our own action - it changes things a lot if you can.
There were also other goals that were of medium interest such as Mitch the Twitch finds a place to stay.
Does this answer your question?
No, but it lets me ask more specific questions. I'm not asking you to defend your experience, I just want you to tell the story, for Pete's sake.
So let's start with item #1: You were really invested in the Lucky Charm is Awesome conflict. Cool! What did you say? What did you do? How did you shove Lucky Charm's potential awesomeness right out there in the other people's faces and make sure they got a good whiff?
Quote from: Sindyr on April 13, 2006, 03:00:13 PM
What I can tell you is that:
1) I was invested in winning the Lucky Charm is Awesome conflict.
That's good. But the best goals are obviously the ones where you and someone else are both invested - on opposite sides. I don't particularly have any reason to oppose you on that goal. Now if you slap down "Lucky Charm shows up Dr. N and gets all the credit"...well now.
Quote2) I tried to dangle the Lucky Charm Saves Catwoman-mimic from embarrassing herself to get that player to invest.
Hmm. This might be a player thing. An inexperienced player might think "Gee, if I win, and he wants Lucky to save my character, and I'm opposing him, that must mean my character embarasses herself. I don't want that to happen." Like I suggested in a previous post, I'd go for the clear-cut goals and only slowly introduce them to the idea that you're actually fighting over narrative control.
(When you think about it, you could actually have something where a player is fighting to have their character fail, and someone else is fighting to narrate them succeeding - even though in the game-world their characters are doing the exact opposite!)
J
Quote from: drnuncheon on April 13, 2006, 03:19:46 PM
Quote from: Sindyr on April 13, 2006, 03:00:13 PM
What I can tell you is that:
1) I was invested in winning the Lucky Charm is Awesome conflict.
That's good. But the best goals are obviously the ones where you and someone else are both invested - on opposite sides. I don't particularly have any reason to oppose you on that goal. Now if you slap down "Lucky Charm shows up Dr. N and gets all the credit"...well now.
I thought that even if I put out my own goal that I am obviously interested in winning, over players should be drawn to that like moths to a flame knowing the story tokens they can get? In other words, they don't have to care whether or not Lucky Charm looks awesome, they just need to realize that *I* do, and that they can profit from that.
QuoteQuote2) I tried to dangle the Lucky Charm Saves Catwoman-mimic from embarrassing herself to get that player to invest.
Hmm. This might be a player thing. An inexperienced player might think "Gee, if I win, and he wants Lucky to save my character, and I'm opposing him, that must mean my character embarasses herself. I don't want that to happen." Like I suggested in a previous post, I'd go for the clear-cut goals and only slowly introduce them to the idea that you're actually fighting over narrative control.
(When you think about it, you could actually have something where a player is fighting to have their character fail, and someone else is fighting to narrate them succeeding - even though in the game-world their characters are doing the exact opposite!)
J
Interesting - perhaps she didn't quite yet get the fact that should she win that conflict, the narration of it is up to her. So winning the "Goal: Lucky Charm help Catwoman-mimic from embarassing herself" means that you can narrate LC succeeding at getting Catwoman-mimic to not embarass herself, you can narrate LC failing to prevent Catwoman-mimic from embarassing herself, and you can narrate
Catwoman-mimic not even embarrassing herself to begin with.Maybe the player did not realize the third result was an option.
I assume that all goals "X does Y (to Z)" can be resolved by the successful conflict winner in having X succeed at doing Y, having X fail at doing Y because X fails, or having X fail at doing Y because Y is not possible.
Example: Goal: Lucky Charm rescues Supergirl from Mr Machismo.
A player who wins the conflict could narrate Supergirl failing to be rescued, and therefor captured by Mr Machismo; but could also be narrated (should the winner so choose) as Supergirl not requiring rescue as she defeated Mrachismo herself, making Lucky's rescue of her impossible because the opportunity has vanished.
Make sense?
Now that I look at it again, I think I might understand why your player didn't jump on "Lucky Charm Saves Catwoman-mimic from embarrassing herself". I'm going to be jumping to some conclusions here, but I think they're on target. If I were playing Catwoman, I think that goal would probably piss me off too. The way its phrased is like "Catwoman is going to embarass herself! Luckily,
Lucky Charm is here to save her from her own stupidness!"
If you're not accustomed to exactly how much freedom you get in narrating resolution, it could look like there were only two options: You win and you narrate Lucky Charm saving stupid Catwoman from embarassing herself.
She wins, and has to narrate Lucky Charm
failing and has to narrate
embarassing herself. If that was her interpretation, and I'm starting to think that it
must have been, I see why she clammed up and wouldn't touch that goal. By dropping that goal, you establish that Catwoman is some bumbling dork who's going to make a fool of herself if big strong Lucky Charm doesn't step in and saaaaaave her.
Just to be sure, I ran this scenario past my wife. "You're playing a character named this, he's playing character named that. He drops this conflict. What would you do?" I asked.
Quote
Gouge his eyes out with a spoon, pretend conflict was never dropped.
Not only do I find it condescending, he's introducing a goal where whether I win or lose, I look like an idiot.
Either I lose the conflict, and I fuck up, letting him play gallant... or if I win, I get to fuck up spectacularly, anyhow.
Either way, the eventuality is already set. I am a fucking idiot.
Just so you know, my wife
has played Capes several times, in addition to having to listen to me talk about it all the time.
Bah, cross-posted with above. My point still stands, though. I expect that at least part of why your player wants to never play Capes again is because you dropped that conflict.
Makes sense - she didn't realize that there was a third conflict - narrate in such a way that there is no embrassment to save her from.
Let's take this back a step.
I am sitting at the table, trying to figure out a way to motivate the player to get involved. I think about dropping the goal "Catwoman-mimic embarrasses herself" but I realize that I can't, because the player of that character can veto the goal, right?
So I think how can I reword that so that it is not vetoable, but threatens the same result.
And that is how I came up with "Lucky Charm saves Catwoman-mimic from embarassing herself."
So the problem here is that the player didn't know (and neither apparently does your wife) that the winner of the conflict is only bound to narrate the success or failure of the goal. She is not restricted in anyway from narrating why Lucky charm failed at the goal - and one valid reason to narrate is because Catwoman-mimic did nothing to embarass herself, therefor there was nothing for LC to save her from.
This is probably an important point for Capes players to learn - the ONLY constriction on what a player may narrate after winning a goal conflict is that it must address either the success or failure of the subject character act achieving that goal. How it plays out is entirely in the narrators hands.
Right?
Quote from: Sindyr on April 13, 2006, 03:30:55 PM
I thought that even if I put out my own goal that I am obviously interested in winning, over players should be drawn to that like moths to a flame knowing the story tokens they can get? In other words, they don't have to care whether or not Lucky Charm looks awesome, they just need to realize that *I* do, and that they can profit from that.
True enough -
in the absence of other goals. But you have to remember that your goal is competing with the other goals out there for the attention (and resources) of the other players. Every time my turn comes up, I have to decide: am I going to spend my actions on stopping Lucky from looking good? Am I going to spend it on trying to win "City Hall gets destroyed"? Or am I going to throw down a goal of my own?
QuoteI assume that all goals "X does Y (to Z)" can be resolved by the successful conflict winner in having X succeed at doing Y, having X fail at doing Y because X fails, or having X fail at doing Y because Y is not possible.
Pretty much, yeah. I mean, even if I'm a hero, if I think it'd be more interesting to have City Hall get destroyed, I can narrate that if I win the conflict.
J
Quote from: Sindyr on April 13, 2006, 04:35:36 PM"Catwoman-mimic embarrasses herself" but I realize that I can't, because the player of that character can veto the goal, right?
Right. You might have tried it anyway, though, to see what kind of reaction you got. Maybe she'd let it stand, after all. (I would. I might even go for the 'my character embarasses himself' side.)
Quote
So I think how can I reword that so that it is not vetoable, but threatens the same result.
And that is how I came up with "Lucky Charm saves Catwoman-mimic from embarassing herself."
I have to agree, the wording on that is...eh. It sounds more like it's about your character than hers. Now that kind of thing might work out if the characters had some kind of long-standing rivalry or something, where it was a sort of 'counting coup' kind of thing ("I saved your ass, but we both know you messed up...score 1 for me!") and it would probably work with a player like Tony (of course, so would "Major Glory embarasses himself", I suspect).
I wonder what her reaction (and Mrs. Glover's reaction) would be to "Lucky Charms embarasses Catwoman"? She can't veto it, so you're clear there. But it's clearly drawing a line in the sand:
I am on this side and
I am going to embarass you - unless
you do something about it. Instant conflict.
QuoteThis is probably an important point for Capes players to learn - the ONLY constriction on what a player may narrate after winning a goal conflict is that it must address either the success or failure of the subject character act achieving that goal. How it plays out is entirely in the narrators hands.
Right?
You got it.
J
Quote from: Sindyr on April 13, 2006, 04:35:36 PM
This is probably an important point for Capes players to learn - the ONLY constriction on what a player may narrate after winning a goal conflict is that it must address either the success or failure of the subject character act achieving that goal. How it plays out is entirely in the narrators hands.
Right?
I think it's probably more important for players to learn how to construct conflicts that other players will want to persue. Even if she
had known the other option, just dropping that goal has already had an effect. You added to the fiction a possibility that her character would embarass herself unless she was saved by Big Strong Hero Guy. I expect she found that savagely offensive and deprotagonizing.
Quote
I am sitting at the table, trying to figure out a way to motivate the player to get involved. I think about dropping the goal "Catwoman-mimic embarrasses herself" but I realize that I can't, because the player of that character can veto the goal, right?
I think you realized that she
would veto that, because she didn't want any chance of that happening. You knew it was something she would oppose violently, so you restructured it, forcing her to face it, hoping to use that opposition to get her to engage. It backfired, though, because she saw it as you not just forcing her to engage, but forcing that element into the fiction, win or lose, and it made her
disengage.
My question is why you forced such a negative conflict rather than one that would have
positively engaged her?
Goal: Catwoman-mimic proves she's cooler than everyone else
Or
Event: Someone is proven to be cooler than everyone else
This way you get both the carrot ("look what I get if I win!") and the stick ("look what they might do to me if they win"), as opposed to simply beating them over the head with the stick ("Goal: Don't be embarassed" or "Event: Someone is embarassed").
Quote from: drnuncheon on April 13, 2006, 04:52:12 PM
I wonder what her reaction (and Mrs. Glover's reaction) would be to "Lucky Charms embarasses Catwoman"? She can't veto it, so you're clear there. But it's clearly drawing a line in the sand: I am on this side and I am going to embarass you - unless you do something about it. Instant conflict.
She says:
Quote
That's way less condescending, and while it would get the same sort of reaction from MY catgirl (ie, I'll make life HELL for you from here on out, no matter how good or innocuous your intentions in the future), that wouldn't make me scratch the PLAYER'S eyes out.
It's the ridiculous implication and condescending nature of a lot of male gamers that piss off women who would probably truly enjoy games.
And when even your conflicts and plot devices insinuate that the chick's going to fuck up and be incompetent, you have serious reasons why most women roll their eyes at gamer dudes.
Which is pretty much about what I expected.
Quote from: drnuncheon on April 13, 2006, 04:37:24 PM
Quote from: Sindyr on April 13, 2006, 03:30:55 PM
I thought that even if I put out my own goal that I am obviously interested in winning, over players should be drawn to that like moths to a flame knowing the story tokens they can get? In other words, they don't have to care whether or not Lucky Charm looks awesome, they just need to realize that *I* do, and that they can profit from that.
True enough - in the absence of other goals. But you have to remember that your goal is competing with the other goals out there for the attention (and resources) of the other players. Every time my turn comes up, I have to decide: am I going to spend my actions on stopping Lucky from looking good? Am I going to spend it on trying to win "City Hall gets destroyed"? Or am I going to throw down a goal of my own?
Well, even if no one bites, worse case scenario - I can clear debt if I like, I can get some Insps, and most of all, I can narrate how *awesome* Lucky Charm looks. ;)
Quote from: Matthew Glover on April 13, 2006, 05:13:11 PM
She says:
Quote
That's way less condescending, and while it would get the same sort of reaction from MY catgirl (ie, I'll make life HELL for you from here on out, no matter how good or innocuous your intentions in the future), that wouldn't make me scratch the PLAYER'S eyes out.
And that's exactly what I'd be looking for, because that means we're going to be giving each other lots of story tokens...
J
Quote from: drnuncheon on April 13, 2006, 04:52:12 PM
I wonder what her reaction (and Mrs. Glover's reaction) would be to "Lucky Charms embarasses Catwoman"? She can't veto it, so you're clear there. But it's clearly drawing a line in the sand: I am on this side and I am going to embarass you - unless you do something about it. Instant conflict.
Well I didn't want Lucky Charm to be hurting Catwoman - helping would be fine, but I didn't want LC to become her character's outright enemy.
Actually, the horrible truth is that even though I am apparently right about the goal I made not fencing her in, instead of taking the via negativa I should have done the reverse.
I should have put down the goal "Catwoman looks awesome!" or, if the player vetoes that, "Lucky Charm notices how awesome Catwoman looks!"
Damn! And triple Damn!
Let this be a lesson to me and everyone else - before trying to motivate someone with a hindering or negative goal, try enticing them with an enabling or positive one.
Thanks to all the posts above pointing this out.
Grrr....
Quote from: Matthew Glover on April 13, 2006, 05:13:11 PM
It's the ridiculous implication and condescending nature of a lot of male gamers that piss off women who would probably truly enjoy games.
FYI, Lucky Charm is always trying to rescue everyone and smooth things over - man or woman. He's a bit pro-noid. He's a hero, but many other characters would liekly find him somewhat annoying.
Which is I think another way to earn story tokens....
Personally, I find that sort of macho and machismo stuff repellent - but it can make for interesting characters.
Quote from: Sindyr on April 13, 2006, 05:21:28 PM
Let this be a lesson to me and everyone else - before trying to motivate someone with a hindering or negative goal, try enticing them with an enabling or positive one.
It's not as clear-cut as that, as you can tell from many of Tony's past posts. I think he'd get more motivated by "Major Glory embarasses himself" than he would by "Major Glory impresses the crowd". (Unless, of course, he was impressing the crowd in his narration and you put it down to block him.) That's the sort of thing that gets him going.
You might be more motivated by a goal that says "Lucky Charms - how's he look? He looks GOOD."
Another player might be more motivated by plot-centered goals - they don't care whether their character gets dropped into a sewer or that Lucky gets the credit, as long as they prevent City Hall from being blown up.
All of this is part of the skill of reading the player. What do they want? And how can I get them to pay me in Story Tokens to get it?
QuoteI am sitting at the table, trying to figure out a way to motivate the player to get involved. I think about dropping the goal "Catwoman-mimic embarrasses herself" but I realize that I can't, because the player of that character can veto the goal, right?
So I think how can I reword that so that it is not vetoable, but threatens the same result.
And that is how I came up with "Lucky Charm saves Catwoman-mimic from embarassing herself."
Just out of interest did you ever consider "Goal: Catwoman-mimic saves Lucky Charm from embarrassing himself."?
Now there is a conflict that everyone could invest in, especially if Lucky Charm was being played as an insufferable egomaniac...I think everyone would want to narrate that one...I know I would (starts counting the debt) ;)
Quote from: Tuxboy on April 14, 2006, 04:59:34 AM
QuoteI am sitting at the table, trying to figure out a way to motivate the player to get involved. I think about dropping the goal "Catwoman-mimic embarrasses herself" but I realize that I can't, because the player of that character can veto the goal, right?
So I think how can I reword that so that it is not vetoable, but threatens the same result.
And that is how I came up with "Lucky Charm saves Catwoman-mimic from embarassing herself."
Just out of interest did you ever consider "Goal: Catwoman-mimic saves Lucky Charm from embarrassing himself."?
Now there is a conflict that everyone could invest in, especially if Lucky Charm was being played as an insufferable egomaniac...I think everyone would want to narrate that one...I know I would (starts counting the debt) ;)
No I didn't - that would have conflicted with my story goals (vis-a-vis LC looking AWESOME)... now if someone *else* put that goal down *I* would have jumped all over it.
What someone else pointed out is that I should have gone with "Goal: Catwoman-mimic looks AWESOME" or, if the player vetoes that, "Lucky Charm notices how awesome Catwoman looks!"
*Then* I could have gotten the player to engage in a positive way, instead of giving her a negative to fight. (And one that requires a certain degree of sophisticated Capes understanding at that)
Quote from: Sindyr on April 14, 2006, 09:22:01 AM
No I didn't - that would have conflicted with my story goals (vis-a-vis LC looking AWESOME)... now if someone *else* put that goal down *I* would have jumped all over it.
I don't get it. Why would a long period of time in which Lucky Charms could
not conceivably be embarrassed (by the Not Yet rule) run counter to your goals of Lucky Charm being awesome? I'd think that would play right into your hands, just as would goals like "Lucky Charm makes a mistake," "The public doesn't approve of Lucky Charm" and "Someone proves they're better than Lucky Charm."
1) I already had the Goal down "Lucky Charm looks AWESOME" - it would be unwise for we to create a second goal I needed to be invested in while that one was in play - for goals I care about winning, the fewer I need to fight for in any one turn, the better I can get them won.
2) My goal (small g) as a player was to play a conflict that I would want to let the other player win. One that makes my character look bad does not qualify.
3) I personally get more invested when I am I fighting for a positive as opposed to fighting against a positive. So while I would get deeply invested in winning "LC looks AWESOME" I may well ignore the goal "LC looks like a TOOL" as well as tune out any narration of its eventual resolution, and instead play as if that goal and its resolution had never occurred.
I can use selective blindness and selective amnesia when I must - a quite useful tool in this game I would imagine.
Nevertheless, there are plenty of ways to motivate me to give you story tokens - you just have to care what conflicts I want to be involved in - which is pretty much the key to Capes, isn't it? Discovering what kinds of conflicts each player is motivated to try to win?
"against a positive" should read "against a negative"
Quote1) I already had the Goal down "Lucky Charm looks AWESOME" - it would be unwise for we to create a second goal I needed to be invested in while that one was in play - for goals I care about winning, the fewer I need to fight for in any one turn, the better I can get them won.
Out of interest, did anyone other than you invest in "Lucky Charm looks AWESOME"? Doesn't strike me as an ideal conflict to draw others in...ok you might get people wanting to contest it if LC was behaving like "a tool" but if he wasn't I'm not sure people unfamiliar with the system would pick up on it.
Maybe "Goal: Lucky Charm impresses everyone with his AWESOMENESS" would have worked better to draw in the other players...
... or "Lucky Charm is so AWESOME that everyone (even you!) agrees that he's the best super-hero ever."
QuoteNevertheless, there are plenty of ways to motivate me to give you story tokens - you just have to care what conflicts I want to be involved in - which is pretty much the key to Capes, isn't it? Discovering what kinds of conflicts each player is motivated to try to win?
But in this case you were essentially "demo"ing the game to people, and under those circumstances it might have been better to subsume your "wants/needs" and try to generate the same degree of enthusiasm in the other players that you have expressed in your previous postings. It is one of the reasons that the "demo"er is best off taking the part of the villain initially, as this encourages the others to enter clear-cut conflicts against them.
In games with an experienced group your point is definately valid, but in a group that is as yet unconvinced by the game then there is a risk that overplaying our own "wants/needs" will conflict with the "wants/needs" of the other players and could drive them away as it seems it did with the the player of Catwoman-mimic.
Quote... or "Lucky Charm is so AWESOME that everyone (even you!) agrees that he's the best super-hero ever."
*LOL* especially like the "(even you!)"
Seems like a good example of Tony's button-pushing prowess...
As I understand it, people create goals for one of three reasons:
1) to win - in order to get Insps, clear debt, and narratively resolve something in the story
2) to lose - in order to get story tokens
3) to prevent something from occuring for a while, regardless of whether you win or lose (preventative goals).
When I created the goal "Lucky Charm looks awesome", my motivation was neither #2 nor #3.
Given that one creates a goal for reason #1, it behooves one to not have other players drawn into it - in fact, it may be wise strategy to instead create a goal for them to be drawn into so that they don't interfere with one unilaterally resolving the goal you really want to win.
Long story short, as far as I can see, if one can arrange, manipulate, or otherwise get people to not engage in the goals you want to win, you will have a much better chance at winning them, and achieving the outcome that was the reason you wanted to win it in the first place.
Is this obvious, or is there a strategic reason why I would want to have players drawn into a goal that I want to win?
QuoteIs this obvious, or is there a strategic reason why I would want to have players drawn into a goal that I want to win?
Seems reasonable, but my point is that you were trying to encourage people to come back and play Capes again, therefore, maybe, winning wasn't of paramount importance in this case.
Quote from: Tuxboy on April 14, 2006, 11:44:03 AM
QuoteNevertheless, there are plenty of ways to motivate me to give you story tokens - you just have to care what conflicts I want to be involved in - which is pretty much the key to Capes, isn't it? Discovering what kinds of conflicts each player is motivated to try to win?
But in this case you were essentially "demo"ing the game to people, and under those circumstances it might have been better to subsume your "wants/needs" and try to generate the same degree of enthusiasm in the other players that you have expressed in your previous postings. It is one of the reasons that the "demo"er is best off taking the part of the villain initially, as this encourages the others to enter clear-cut conflicts against them.
In games with an experienced group your point is definately valid, but in a group that is as yet unconvinced by the game then there is a risk that overplaying our own "wants/needs" will conflict with the "wants/needs" of the other players and could drive them away as it seems it did with the the player of Catwoman-mimic.
Sorry, I was not clear. the section above is adressed to Tony (who is experienced) not to my gaming group. The section you quote is taken somewhat out of context. The relevant past of that post was:
Quote3) I personally get more invested when I am I fighting for a positive as opposed to fighting against a positive. So while I would get deeply invested in winning "LC looks AWESOME" I may well ignore the goal "LC looks like a TOOL" as well as tune out any narration of its eventual resolution, and instead play as if that goal and its resolution had never occurred.
I can use selective blindness and selective amnesia when I must - a quite useful tool in this game I would imagine.
Nevertheless, there are plenty of ways to motivate me to give you story tokens - you just have to care what conflicts I want to be involved in - which is pretty much the key to Capes, isn't it? Discovering what kinds of conflicts each player is motivated to try to win?
So the context was:
A) I like trying to win positive goals and don't like being pushed into trying to win negative goals
B) To deal with someone who consistantly threatens negative consequences I can electively and selectively ignore and forget the offending goal and its fallout
C) However, do not assume that B means that I refuse to get involved and participate - nothing could be further from the truth. I am just *selective* about what I choose to care about - which is my right as a player.
The part you quoted was in essence part C above, but taken without A and B it loses the meaning I was giving to it.
My basic point is as a player, I choose to get involved in the conflicts that matter to me, and I choose to stay away from that which I wish to discourage.
This is *not* about the Capes group I played in. That was about me answering Tony's question about what kind of goals I want to see on the table in general.
By the way:
Second session scheduled with most of the first session people likely to be there, this Sunday.Here we go again - but with more knowledge and experience.
Woot.
Quote from: Tuxboy on April 14, 2006, 11:54:52 AM
QuoteIs this obvious, or is there a strategic reason why I would want to have players drawn into a goal that I want to win?
Seems reasonable, but my point is that you were trying to encourage people to come back and play Capes again, therefore, maybe, winning wasn't of paramount importance in this case.
Well, my first priority wasn't to make sure everyone loved the game, my first priority was to see what
I thought of the game after actual play. You need to remember that I am not a convert yet, I am still too green.
After playing for a session, I and everyone else now ask the big question - should we try it again.
Before playing (and even now) I am not able to sincerely tell them that I have no doubt that this game is what they should be playing. All I can do Is try the game out and allow others to do the same with me.
Now in 5 to 10 session, perhaps I
will be a convert, and at that point when I run a game for newbies I won't be at all focussed on my questions and will instead be focussed on trying to sell them capes. Right now, I am more in their camp of asking the question(s).
Quote from: Sindyr on April 14, 2006, 11:49:24 AM
Is this obvious, or is there a strategic reason why I would want to have players drawn into a goal that I want to win?
Well, here's the thing: it pays to be able to adapt.
Yes, you can go in with the intent of getting inspirations ... and then if you win then you succeed, but if you lose (which can happen ... remember how easy it is for even a casual opponent to roll a 6 by luck) then you fail.
If you go in with the intent of having an interesting and engaged conflict ... well, then, if you win then you succed (Inspirations!) and if you lose you succeed (Story Tokens!) There's no losing.
So what's the benefit of pursuing only one possible goal to the exclusion of all others when you can pursue everything at once?
Quote from: TonyLB on April 14, 2006, 02:31:22 PM
So what's the benefit of pursuing only one possible goal to the exclusion of all others when you can pursue everything at once?
That only works if you want everything all at once.
Tell a general going into battle that he will succeed no matter what the outcome, just so long as he counts defeat and victory both as successes, and he will not be bale to argue with you, because you have defined yourself (using undefeatable circular reasoning) into winning the debate.
The part I disagree with is that one should find equal value in all possible outcomes regardless of circumstance.
If one *doesn't* find equal value, then one will want to strive for the outcome that ones values most.
Which means doing thing to hinder those that wold block that outcome, and using all your resources to help that outcome come about.
So again I say, if you want to win a goal, if narrating the resolution is more important than any number of story tokens, then you *will* want other people to NOT be involved in that goal.
If you don't care too much about the goal, but think that losing it to someone else can net you tokens, then you will want to play differently.
Either you want to win the conflict, or you want to lose it, or you are ambivalent.
Trying to win it plays differently from trying to lose it. And if you don't care then where's *your* passion?
Quote from: Sindyr on April 14, 2006, 03:42:07 PM
Trying to win it plays differently from trying to lose it.
I disagree. Even when you're playing to lose, Capes rewards you for pushing as hard as you can.
Let's presume you're a villain, and you have a goal that you (the player) want to lose on.
If it's a Gloatable goal, then you want to play to win - because that lets you turn down a die and get a story token. The longer you keep the Goal alive, the more Story Tokens you're going to get for it. (And of course you'll get some when you finally lose, too.)
If it's not a Gloatable goal, then you
still want to play as hard as possible. The tougher you make it fo the other side to win, the mode Debt they're going to be staking, and the more Debt they stake, the more Story Tokens you have a chance at when you lose. If you deliberately "throw" the goal, then you're cheating yourself out of Story Tokens.
Sure, you might accidentally win - but that's OK, because now the hero has double debt, which means that when one of you puts down some kind of followup conflict, they're going to have a lot more Debt to stake
and he's going to have a vested interest in beating you at the rematch.
J
Assuming that its a non gloatable conflict, then I disagree that accidental victories are good.
You want to make them stake as many tokens as you can - you want them to win, but you also want to maximize the tokens you get when you win.
Giving them back double their debt is not helpful to you. I have found it extremely easy to generate debt any time I want - so it's not like they need help their. And you run the real risk that you will cause them to stop playing that character because of how overloaded it is with debt.
So you can make the most of it, but anytime you *win* a conflict that your really wanted story tokens out of, and whose narrative resolution is not all that important to you, then I think we really must admit that that is a failure.
Quote
Giving them back double their debt is not helpful to you. I have found it extremely easy to generate debt any time I want - so it's not like they need help their. And you run the real risk that you will cause them to stop playing that character because of how overloaded it is with debt.
Nah, I disagree. Look: There are two conflicts on the table. You don't really care about either of them. Steve cares about them both deeply. Steve has four debt staked on one of them, and the other is tied. You spend a Story Token for an extra turn and stake some of your Debt and you roll up and control the goal so you get to resolve it. You narrate it
painfully, making Steve really regret losing it. He gets back eight Debt, and a few Story Tokens.
Top of the next page, Steve is badly overdrawn on Debt so he has to roll down his highest die on the remaining goal that he really cares about. Now he's desperate to get rid of all that Debt and after that horrible loss he's even more desperate to win the goal that's left. He dumps all the Debt just to get it off his guy and spend his Story Tokens rolling up his dice to make damn sure he wins this one. Even if you wanted to win this goal, you'll have a tough time because of all the resources he has now, so you don't fight too hard. When the page resolves, you've gotten rid of your Debt, you've raked in
twice as many Story Tokens as you would have, and Steve spent the Tokens you gave him. AND Steve was dealt a resounding blow, yet managed to overcome it and finish with a triumphant victory, so he's
happy about what you did.
Quote
So you can make the most of it, but anytime you *win* a conflict that your really wanted story tokens out of, and whose narrative resolution is not all that important to you, then I think we really must admit that that is a failure.
No way. If you win it, it's a
tool that you use in order to farm
more Story Tokens later.
Quote from: Matthew Glover on April 14, 2006, 06:12:32 PM
Quote
Giving them back double their debt is not helpful to you. I have found it extremely easy to generate debt any time I want - so it's not like they need help their. And you run the real risk that you will cause them to stop playing that character because of how overloaded it is with debt.
Nah, I disagree. Look: There are two conflicts on the table. You don't really care about either of them. Steve cares about them both deeply. Steve has four debt staked on one of them, and the other is tied. You spend a Story Token for an extra turn and stake some of your Debt and you roll up and control the goal so you get to resolve it. You narrate it painfully, making Steve really regret losing it. He gets back eight Debt, and a few Story Tokens.
Top of the next page, Steve is badly overdrawn on Debt so he has to roll down his highest die on the remaining goal that he really cares about. Now he's desperate to get rid of all that Debt and after that horrible loss he's even more desperate to win the goal that's left. He dumps all the Debt just to get it off his guy and spend his Story Tokens rolling up his dice to make damn sure he wins this one. Even if you wanted to win this goal, you'll have a tough time because of all the resources he has now, so you don't fight too hard. When the page resolves, you've gotten rid of your Debt, you've raked in twice as many Story Tokens as you would have, and Steve spent the Tokens you gave him. AND Steve was dealt a resounding blow, yet managed to overcome it and finish with a triumphant victory, so he's happy about what you did.
Quote
So you can make the most of it, but anytime you *win* a conflict that your really wanted story tokens out of, and whose narrative resolution is not all that important to you, then I think we really must admit that that is a failure.
No way. If you win it, it's a tool that you use in order to farm more Story Tokens later.
IF it always works out that way, you would be right.
I am just not sure at all that it always works out that way.
And if that is the case, then my original assertion stands.
Perhaps it is a case of the bird in the hand being worth more than two in the bush, if you see my point.