The Forge Archives

Independent Game Forums => Muse of Fire Games => Topic started by: Hans on March 30, 2006, 01:01:17 PM

Title: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Hans on March 30, 2006, 01:01:17 PM
From the "Critique my exemplar" thread:

Quote from: Matthew Glover on March 30, 2006, 11:08:25 AM
Goal: Prevent Jerry from doing superhero stuff. 
[snip]
However, this is a weak goal because while it's in play it doesn't stop Jerry.  I think it'd be better done as Goal: Do superhero stuff.

I find this an interesting statement.  I assume that the 2nd goal is really "Goal: Jerry does superhero stuff" and the first is "Goal: Teacher prevents Jerry from doing superhero stuff."

Previous to this moment, I had always considered the following two goals to be fundamentally identical:

1) Goal: X does Y (X can veto)

2) Goal: Z prevents X from doing Y  (Z can veto)

the only difference being who can veto.  By identical I mean that anything that would engender a "Not Yet" with one would engender a "Not Yet" with the other. 

But Matthew seems to think they are not equivalent.  Moreover, he seems to think that 2) above is essentially useless.  It doesn't  prevent X from doing Y while its on the table, and since anything goes after resolution, it doesn't really prevent X from doing Y then either.  Under a comics code or house rule where facts established have some narrative permanence (such as  the CiM code (http://random.average-bear.com/CapesCiM/ComicsCode)or Fred's "Goal in Goal out" (http://random.average-bear.com/Capes/GoalInGoalOut) rule) the distinction would be less important.  But if I understand Matthew, the upshot of what he is saying is that 2) only really prevents someone for during the narration of its resolution.

How do you all play with this issue?  Would you treat 1) and 2) as equivalent, or are they different?  As I ponder the question, I begin to see how the veto rules matter MUCH more than I thought they did, because if Matthew's intepretation is valid, the only way for a preventative goal to really work is for it to be vetoable by the person who is its target.  In other words, the only way to stop somebody from narrating something is for them to agree to be stopped. 
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Matthew Glover on March 30, 2006, 01:41:41 PM
I'm going to wait to comment on this.  I'm glad you brought it up, though.  :)
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Vaxalon on March 30, 2006, 01:45:12 PM
The two goals prevent different things.

The first goal prevents X from doing Y until the goal is resolved.

The second goal prevents Z from preventing X from doing Y until the goal is resolved; but since (mechanically ) Z can't prevent X from doing ANYTHING, anyways, it's a (mechanically) meaningless goal.
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Vaxalon on March 30, 2006, 01:46:44 PM
To be more clear: The two goals are NOT identical in the "not yet" that they allow.

In the first case, a "Not Yet" is triggered if X does Y.

In the second case, a "Not Yet" is NOT triggered if X does Y, but rather if Z tries to prevent it.
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Hans on March 30, 2006, 01:56:39 PM
Quote from: Vaxalon on March 30, 2006, 01:46:44 PM
To be more clear: The two goals are NOT identical in the "not yet" that they allow.

In the first case, a "Not Yet" is triggered if X does Y.

In the second case, a "Not Yet" is NOT triggered if X does Y, but rather if Z tries to prevent it.

So, on the bigger point, Fred, do you think it is true that to prevent someone narrating something you must do so through a goal that they can veto?  If not, can you give an example of a goal that would be functionally equivalent to "Goal: X does Y" that X couldn't veto?
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Sindyr on March 31, 2006, 10:18:54 AM
Quote from: Hans on March 30, 2006, 01:56:39 PM
Quote from: Vaxalon on March 30, 2006, 01:46:44 PM
To be more clear: The two goals are NOT identical in the "not yet" that they allow.

In the first case, a "Not Yet" is triggered if X does Y.

In the second case, a "Not Yet" is NOT triggered if X does Y, but rather if Z tries to prevent it.

So, on the bigger point, Fred, do you think it is true that to prevent someone narrating something you must do so through a goal that they can veto?  If not, can you give an example of a goal that would be functionally equivalent to "Goal: X does Y" that X couldn't veto?

I am very interested in this answer.

At the moment, it seems to be the case that any preventative goal can be vetoed.

What about: Goal:  A way out is not found by Jetboy.

Is that veto-able, as it is merely "Goal: Jetboy does not find a way out" changed into the passive voice?

Is there ANY way to create a goal to prevent Jetboy from escaping that Jetboy's player is not allowed to veto?
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Adam Biltcliffe on March 31, 2006, 10:47:35 AM
Say I'm playing Jetboy, and my buddy Clive is playing Star-man. If there's a goal on the table "Star-man stops Jetboy escaping", and I narrate Jetboy escaping, surely that makes it impossible for Star-man to fulfil the goal? In which case Clive is totally within his rights to say "not yet".

That is, I think a goal "X stops Y doing Z" can prevent Y from doing Z.
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Sindyr on March 31, 2006, 10:50:51 AM
Vaxalon, I am getting confused here - now Adam seems to be making sense - what do you think?
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Sindyr on March 31, 2006, 11:02:04 AM
Goal: Star-man stops Jetboy from escaping.

Result: any narration that would indicate Starman at being successful at stoping Jetboy's escape or at failing to stop Jetboy's escape would be forbidden under the not yet rule.

If Jetboy were to escape, than that invalidates the Goal.  Of course, Jetboy might escape right *after* the goal resolves, but whlie the Goal is on the table, Jetboy can not successfully escape, can he?

This would lead to the conclusion that to prevent person X from doing action Y you simply cretae a Goal like:
Goal:  Your character stops X from doing Y.
and while the Goal is in play, X will not be able to do Y without the Not Yet rule stopping them.

I think this is what Adam is saying.  Vaxalon - does this hold up for you?  Because the logic seems flawless.

Not if *your* point is barring house rules and mods, if the player of X really wants him to do Y, then that player simply waits until the Goal preventing X from doing Y resolves, and then X can do Y.

Is *this* your main point??
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Vaxalon on March 31, 2006, 11:07:38 AM
Okay.

I'm going to sit back and wait for Tony to weigh in on this one.
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Adam Biltcliffe on March 31, 2006, 11:14:58 AM
Ok, I confess that my answer was kind of a cheap way out, because it wasn't exactly addressing the original question. Consider these two goals:

1) Raspberry-ripple-man stops Chocoboy from escaping
2) Raspberry-ripple-man stops Chocoboy from being a hero

Raspberry-ripple-man's player can certainly veto either of these goals, and Chocoboy's player can't veto either of them. Also, while they're in play, Raspberry-ripple-man can't do anything which definitively prevents Chocoboy escaping (in the first case) or being a hero (in the second case). But the restriction on Chocoboy isn't that he can't do those things, it's that he can't take away Raspberry-ripple-man's ability to stop him doing those things. In the case of escaping the two are pretty much identical, because Chocoboy is only going to escape once (assuming that it's implicit in the goal what he's trying to escape from). But 2) doesn't prevent Chocoboy from being a hero, as long as the need for him to be a hero doesn't go away. Say he (heroically) saves a bunch of the hostages, that's fine, as long as there are still hostages left who Ripple can talk him out of going back for. What he can't get away with is resolving the crisis of the moment completely, because that would mean that the need for him to be a hero disappeared before Ripple could try to talk him out of it.

So I think the answer to "is there a goal I can create which X can't veto and which prevents X from doing Y?" is "it depends on what Y is". Like, if Chocoboy's player really wants him to be a hero, maybe you can't stop him doing it that one time, but you can still eventually force him into a situation where Chocoboy has to fight to do what he thinks is right.

Answering Capes questions in the abstract like this seems like tricky stuff. How are we doing with resolving Hans' original concern?
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Sindyr on March 31, 2006, 11:56:47 AM
Very good points.

So, what we are saying now is that:
Goal: X stops Y from doing Z
only stops Y from doing Z when Z is non-repeatable.  If Z can be done multiple times, than doing Z now does not prevent X from being able to stop Y from doing another Z later - and therefor does not qualify for the Not Yet rule.

Of course, if Z is NOT repeatable, than Y doing Z would qualify for the Not Yet rule as once done, X would have lost the option to successfully resolve the Goal.

So if someone throws down a preventative goal in the format of "X stops Y from doing Z" and if that Goal-maker does get specific enough about Z, then Y can continuing doing Z.

Example: Goal: Bif stops Marty from driving the DeLorean.
Marty can continue to drive the DeLorean, only having to stop if the Goal successfully resolves, after which he can immediately start again.

Example: Goal: Bif stops Marty from driving the DeLorean at 88 mph, there by time travelling.
Same as the above.

Example: Goal Bif stops Marty from dricing the DeLorean at 88 mph, and exiting this scene.
Does prevent Marty from doing this?

Perhaps the ONLY preventative Goals that work are those that address specific OOC matters, like scenes, etc?

A quick side question: can a Goal or Event even address OOC stuff?
Goal:  Starman stop's Jetboy from staking debt.

Back to the main point: What about this:
Goal: Starman suppresses all use of Jetboy's powers between Noon and 1pm.

Assuming that it is 12:05PM in the story, how is the above goal handled?  If Jetboy uses a power, that invalidates the Goal, bringing the Not Yet rule out. Or does it?

Perhaps this is a way to stop a character from doing general stuff - by creating a goal whereupon *any* action of type Z invalidates the Goal?
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Hans on March 31, 2006, 01:31:32 PM
Quote from: Adam Biltcliffe on March 31, 2006, 11:14:58 AM
So I think the answer to "is there a goal I can create which X can't veto and which prevents X from doing Y?" is "it depends on what Y is". Like, if Chocoboy's player really wants him to be a hero, maybe you can't stop him doing it that one time, but you can still eventually force him into a situation where Chocoboy has to fight to do what he thinks is right.

Answering Capes questions in the abstract like this seems like tricky stuff. How are we doing with resolving Hans' original concern?

I too would like to see if Tony has anything to say.  However, I realize now that my original question was faulty. I have been thinking about it in terms of pairs of goals that are equivalent in terms of "Not Yet".  But now I see that was dead wrong, after what Fred and others have said.  The real question is "Can you prevent someone from narrating a certain story fact with a Goal they can't veto?"  Put in those terms, the obvious answer is "Of Course!"  Its all a matter of tailoring the Goal to exactly the narration you want to prevent.  All goals prevent some narration, so it is just a question of being specific.

The classic example is the villain escaping.  But the question is, "escaping from what, and what do you want to have happen before the escape?"  So, if A is fighting B inside B's villainous secret hideout, what does the player of A want?  My guess would be for B to be unable to leave the secret hideout before A has captured/arrested/dealt with him.  How to achieve this without giving the player of B the veto?

1) Goal: A prevents B from escaping

I agree with Fred, 1)is poor.  Who knows what escaping means?  B could travel to Tibet and still not technically have "escaped" A's justice.  Doesn't really stop any narration on the part of B's player.

2) Goal: A prevents B from leaving B's secret headquarters

Much better.  As soon as B leaves the secret headquarters, A will not have prevented B from leaving the secret headquarters...hence by logic the "Not Yet" could be invoked.  This was not true of 1) because "escaping" was not specific enough.  (Of course, we can always bring in clones, time warps, etc. but I am assuming a fairly low popcorn throwing threshold).  However, I would argue even better is:

Goal: A captures B and brings him to justice BEFORE B leaves B's secret headquarters.

I would argue that this is the strongest of all, and really keeps B inside that secret headquarters because it says that IF the capture is going to happen, nothing that forces it to be AFTER B leaves the headquares is allowed to be narrated.  The capture might not happen, in which case B can go about his merry way.

So, I guess I have the answer to my questions.  I was being distracted by the whole "pair of goals" thing instead of honing in on exactly what narration I am preventing with the preventative goal.
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Matthew Glover on March 31, 2006, 01:49:39 PM
I just want to touch on this one little thing so as to remove it as an issue.  This is an off-topic aside, and has been covered by other posts earlier.  Not trying to disrupt the thread, which I think is rather important.

Quote
Back to the main point: What about this:
Goal: Starman suppresses all use of Jetboy's powers between Noon and 1pm.

Assuming that it is 12:05PM in the story, how is the above goal handled?  If Jetboy uses a power, that invalidates the Goal, bringing the Not Yet rule out. Or does it?

I just want to make certain that you realize that whether or not Jetboy can use his powers, Jetboy's player can use Jetboy's powered abilities to roll dice.

To clarify how this would work, another scenario.

Goal: Superman uses any of his powers.  Until this resolves, Supes can't use powers.  However I can say "Okay, I'm using  Superstrength [5] to roll down your 5.  My narration:  'Superman grimaces in the shimmery green light from the the Kryptonite, his superhuman strength faltering.  He staggers toward the leaden case, falling on it as it closes.' "  Not Yet isn't violated.
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: drnuncheon on March 31, 2006, 02:12:24 PM
Quote from: Vaxalon on March 30, 2006, 01:46:44 PM
In the second case, a "Not Yet" is NOT triggered if X does Y, but rather if Z tries to prevent it.

Point of order: if Z succeeds in preventing it.  He can try all he wants, but X cannot be prevented from doing Y, and X cannot do Y if it would make it impossible for Z to prevent him from doing it.

Wow, that was tortuous.  It's a little clearer with concrete examples, because there are two classes of things that Y could be - it could be an ongoing action, like whistling, where perfoming it now doesn't mean you can't be stopped later, or it could be a one-time-only action, like destroying the world, where performing it now generally means that it can't be stopped at a later date, barring special circumstances.

So if Y is like whistling, then X can whistle all he wants, and Z can't stop him until the Goal is resolved.  If Y is like destroying the Earth, then X can't actually destroy the Earth until the goal is resolved.  Unless it's a Groundhog Day-style scenario, or Z can do a "replay" jump-back-in-time-for-5-seconds thing, or...well, you get the idea.

J
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Sindyr on March 31, 2006, 02:17:38 PM
Quote from: drnuncheon on March 31, 2006, 02:12:24 PM
So if Y is like whistling, then X can whistle all he wants, and Z can't stop him until the Goal is resolved.  If Y is like destroying the Earth, then X can't actually destroy the Earth until the goal is resolved.  Unless it's a Groundhog Day-style scenario, or Z can do a "replay" jump-back-in-time-for-5-seconds thing, or...well, you get the idea.

J

Goal: John prevents Fred from whistling from noon until 1PM.

If it's currently 5 after twelve, then Fred cannot be narrated whistling without invalidating the goal.

Therefor any narration involving Fred whistling can have the Not Yet rule applied.

Therefor Fred is now blocked from whistling until after the Goal resolves.

Right?
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: drnuncheon on March 31, 2006, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: Sindyr on March 31, 2006, 02:17:38 PM

Goal: John prevents Fred from whistling from noon until 1PM.

If it's currently 5 after twelve, then Fred cannot be narrated whistling without invalidating the goal.

Right.  You've just moved it into "destroy the earth" category - you've made it an activity that causes the Goal to be resolved prematurely.

J
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: TonyLB on March 31, 2006, 02:27:31 PM
Uh ... hold on ... this is so abstract that I'm feeling a little bit at sea here.  What am I supposed to weigh in on?

I'm going to fictionally Actual Play this.  I'm playing Galagon, effete arch-nemesis of the Earth Defense Seven.  His plan has been foiled.  Again.

One of the ED7 creates "Goal:  Galagon escapes."  What outcomes can I get by vetoing?

If I say "Oh, I desperately need Galagon to escape, so I will veto that goal" then I've accomplished nothing.  The person just pops right back and says "Goal:  ED7 captures Galagon before he escapes" and I'm toast.  I can't escape if they still have a chance to capture me before my escape, and they can't capture me before my escape if I escape.  I really can't veto my way to not having to fight in order to escape.  That's not what the veto is for.

If I say "Escape? Uh ... dudes?  Galagon's still got a Thermionic Bomb, and he's a vengeful, self-destructive twit.  Why would he try to escape?" then I've accomplished something.  I've communicated to people that they have misjudged my intentions, and that another goal ("Goal:  Galagon detonates Thermionic Bomb and destroys Tokyo") would be more profitable.  That's what the veto is for.

Does that make things any more clear?  I'm ... a little perplexed by this thread, honestly.  People seem awfully confused in theory by things that I have never seen be more than momentarily confusing in practice, and I'm a little hard-pressed to see what's causing all the hubbub.
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Hans on March 31, 2006, 02:29:36 PM
Quote from: TonyLB on March 31, 2006, 02:27:31 PM
Does that make things any more clear?  I'm ... a little perplexed by this thread, honestly.  People seem awfully confused in theory by things that I have never seen be more than momentarily confusing in practice, and I'm a little hard-pressed to see what's causing all the hubbub.

I have my questions answered, I no longer am confused, especially after your fictional actual play example.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Sindyr on March 31, 2006, 02:32:58 PM
I know this is an abstract thought experiment that may not come up during actual play, but I am curious to see what the limits of Capes are:

If in game it is 3PM, then,

Goal: ED7 prevents Galagon from achieving or experiencing any kind of success, accomplishment, or satisfaction from 3PM until midnight.

Now, until the Goal gets resolved, Galagon cannot be narrated doing anything significant.

Right?
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: TonyLB on March 31, 2006, 02:45:24 PM
Sure looks like you've got the wording tied up tight, yep.  The ED7 are constantly hounding his steps, making the food in his mouth taste of dust and ashes, stealing any little joy or meaning from his life.

CURSE YOU ED7!  I WILL NEVER FORGIVE!
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Sindyr on March 31, 2006, 03:29:37 PM
FYI  - I would probably never play this on ya, just wanted to know if it were doable.

Thanks Tony.
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: TonyLB on March 31, 2006, 06:27:13 PM
I wonder if you caught the subtext:  the subtext is that such a "mega-restricting conflict" in no way restricts me (the player) from playing and succeeding at the game or from using Galagon as a tool to do so.  In fact, it's probably a slight losing move for you, because it makes it much easier for me to create entertaining narration and steal your resources. 

I can still win tons of conflicts and basically beat the pants off of the ED7 in every way that matters.  I just don't do it through the direct agency of Galagon.  I use him as a fictional tool rather than a personal avatar.  So Galagon can't achieve anything ... but public opinion can sway to favor this plucky interstellar underdog, and the ACLU can file restraining orders on the ED7, and all that jazz.

So, Sindyr:  Please do play such a conflict on me.  I've had it done.  It works to my advantage, every single time.
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Sindyr on March 31, 2006, 07:14:57 PM
Pride goeth before a fall....?

Heh heh.

While being ooposed to subtext (grin) cause I like directness, I knew that.

My question was about preventing the fictional character Galagon from being effective, not Tony. ;)

Thanks
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: TonyLB on March 31, 2006, 09:29:11 PM
Yes, you can totally prevent Galagon from being effective from his point of view.  You can't stop Tony from using him effectively as a tool to influence the fiction.

Screw Galagon.  He's fictional.  He doesn't get a say in what happens.
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Sindyr on March 31, 2006, 11:21:37 PM
Perhaps thats enough - he may be fictional, but he bugs me.

*heh* - pulling your leg a bit.
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Andrew Cooper on April 01, 2006, 09:34:59 PM
Quote from: Sindyr on March 31, 2006, 11:21:37 PM
Perhaps thats enough - he may be fictional, but he bugs me.

*heh* - pulling your leg a bit.

No!  Don't be pulling our legs!  That's the reaction you want your characters (especially villains) to have on people.  If he bugs you, then you'll throw down nasty Conflicts to humiliate, shame, beat, mutilate and make his sorry ass miserable.  Then Tony (the player) gets rewarded and the character (or another equally annoying one) uses that reward to piss you off some more so that you'll start the cycle again.  This is how it works.

Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Sindyr on April 02, 2006, 11:59:25 AM
If the game becomes a never ending cycle of putting down a countless supply of annoying and obnoxious villains, that would get tiresome very fast.  Eventually, hopefully, the game would include more depth, such as character evolution.

In fact, character development is quite possibly the cornerstone of good storytelling.  And I see no reason why this cannot occur in Capes just as easily as any other rpg.

You just need more sophistiticated players that instead of always reaching for the stick to get story tokens, they reach for the carrot. :)
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: TonyLB on April 02, 2006, 02:55:13 PM
Quote from: Sindyr on April 02, 2006, 11:59:25 AM
If the game becomes a never ending cycle of putting down a countless supply of annoying and obnoxious villains, that would get tiresome very fast.

I don't see why.  We're doing comic book stories here, right?  If Stan Lee wasn't above hitting Spiderman with a new made-up villain every single issue, why should we be?  And if it worked for him why wouldn't it work for us?
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Sindyr on April 02, 2006, 04:37:00 PM
You know me - I think that any group, if they are having fun, is doing something right (and vice versa).

For me personally, I like to see stories that are serial rather than episodic - where some kind of concrete progress is being made - either by the protagonists better understanding themselves, or coming to grips with their problems.  In the best stories, I find the plot is the *backdrop* for the character growth that slowly occurs.

That's just how I see it.  I think Capes can be used to tell serialized stories that go deeper than the bad guy of the week - I think Capes could be used to make a Buffy, for example.   Sure Buffy had new bad guys all the time, but they were backdrops to the themes and character issues within, most of the time.

So the carrot you can dangle is...  character growth.  I would *love* to pay off someone with story tokens to create conflicts that let me slowly and with purpose grow and develop my character.

So when you see me yawning as we beat yet another bad guy, perhaps you can instead see me waving a wad of story token cash around to create something a little different - something for me to fight for instead of against...

[wink]
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: drnuncheon on April 04, 2006, 04:27:43 PM
Quote from: Sindyr on April 02, 2006, 04:37:00 PMSo the carrot you can dangle is...  character growth.  I would *love* to pay off someone with story tokens to create conflicts that let me slowly and with purpose grow and develop my character.

Simple answer: make those the conflicts you invest the most debt in.  When you win, they get the bribe.

Capes is all about the carrot.

J
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Sindyr on April 04, 2006, 04:43:14 PM
I am *so* on top of that.

The trick in Capes is, I think, growing a thick skin to refuse to invest debt into any conflict type you dont want to see more of. Because if you fight this time, it just teaches the other players that you want more.

So if a player use a conflict to put my good name at risk, or kill my beloved, or any other type of story I *don't* want to see happen again, then I just have to refuse to engage.

When they finally create for me the kind of story options that I like, stake debt like mad to train them what I want them to be doing.
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Matthew Glover on April 04, 2006, 05:20:31 PM
Quote from: Sindyr on April 04, 2006, 04:43:14 PM
The trick in Capes is, I think, growing a thick skin to refuse to invest debt into any conflict type you dont want to see more of. Because if you fight this time, it just teaches the other players that you want more.

Really?  My interpretation was that the "trick" is to (A) fight like hell to prevent the things you don't want to see happen and (B) loosen your grip on the character a little so that you can still enjoy the game it if you lose, knowing that the debt and story tokens you'll get will give you an edge the next time.
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Sindyr on April 04, 2006, 07:48:32 PM
I think that is one way to play, but a more subtle strategy would be to not fight (and therefor lose) a few Conflicts if that causes the other players to not waste their time creating the kinds of conflicts that one will not engage in.

Ultimately, the other players will try to latch onto your hot buttons to try to manipulate you to giving them story tokens.

If you simply refuse to reward them so unless they engage you the way you want to be engaged, you have won the war, even if you have surrendered a few battles along the way.

Getting a player to stake debt is the only effective way to get a LOT of tokens.  YOU have the debt, and you have ABSOLUTE control over it.

So if you want to have a story where the main issue is, say, your parents identity, then simply let it be known that you will fight for those goals, and see if they don't get supplied.

Or, if you are tired of the endless loop of the other players putting your character's girlfriend in jeopardy over and over again, then (and I admit this is hard) don't rescue her.  Or rescue her and then narrate breaking up with her.

Better yet, develop a cavalier attitude.  If other players threaten the life of your hero's girlfriend, have that hero go with "there's more fish in the sea".

Sure, I know that may see unheroic, but this is Capes, and unless you either like the rescue of the week stories your best bet is to let it go.  You let enough of those go, the players will stop putting them at risk.

Remember, the core fact is anytime you fight for control of a conflict, you are *teaching* the other players that you want more conflicts just like this one.

Be careful what you train them to do.

Capes is a brilliant game.
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: TonyLB on April 04, 2006, 09:38:07 PM
This looks achingly similar to what you're saying over in Are abilities *always* available for use? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19286.msg202526#msg202526)  This new topic emerged when you drifted off-topic there, and it's emerging as you drift off-topic here.  My recommendation is the same:  Quote what you want, and make a thread that's actually about your search for a way to drive people away from certain areas of story without rewarding them in the process.
Title: Re: Semantics on goals...important?
Post by: Sindyr on April 04, 2006, 11:29:03 PM
As you noted on the other thread - you are correct that drift has occured.  May start a new topic later, no time to right now.  Thanks.