Was thinking of ways to add house rules and mods to encourage four color play; especially that heroes generally triumph over villains, and thought of this:
Villains have some kind of limitation on the spending of Story Token. Heroes do not.
The limitation could be:
- Villains don't get to spend any tokens
- Villains have to spend 2 tokens to get the effect of one
- Villains can only spend X number of tokens per scene, or per page.
Note: I am not suggesting putting any extra limits on their debt, or their ability to stake and/or split.
However, it would seem trivially easy to disadvantage the villain compared to the hero - so for games that want heroes to have the edge, this or something like it should work.
So why would someone want to play a villain? To get story tokens, of course - they can still *get* them just as efficiently - and tokens *are* transferrable to any hero character you own. :D
Cool?
Looks like a pretty sketchy idea. For a start, how do you define "Villain"?
When they're mechanically equivalent you're free to define them any way you want. Eddie and you don't have to agree on whether Grathor the Sub-Terran is a misunderstand hero of the underworld or a megalomaniacal villain. But once there is a mechanical effect, the two of you have to agree on that. So what's your definition?
Quote from: TonyLB on April 03, 2006, 10:21:04 PM
Looks like a pretty sketchy idea. For a start, how do you define "Villain"?
When they're mechanically equivalent you're free to define them any way you want. Eddie and you don't have to agree on whether Grathor the Sub-Terran is a misunderstand hero of the underworld or a megalomaniacal villain. But once there is a mechanical effect, the two of you have to agree on that. So what's your definition?
To take this a step further, some of the best parts of the old "four color" era was when the villain and heroes have to work together to prevent a goal from a more evil, more nasty Villain. Think of the times Dr. Doom and Mr. Fantastic have to have an "uneasy alliance" in order to defeat some other black hat. Is Dr. Doom transformed into a hero? At what point? How does that affect the scene? And what happens when goal x is resolved, and the two have their "sudden but inevitable betrayal?"
I guess my thought is that the idea makes things a little needlessly complicated. Why tie yourself in knots when you already have a Comics Code and Gloating rules in place to encourage the old four color, heroic activity?
I think the premise is overly complicated and totally unnecessary...as Glendower says:
QuoteWhy tie yourself in knots when you already have a Comics Code and Gloating rules in place to encourage the old four color, heroic activity?
I was actually looking for more of a mechanical critique...
Given that we have a clear way to distinguish Heroes from Villains, and
Given that we want Villains to be threatening, but overal less effective than Heroes
Then, does some kind of rule limiting the Villains use of story tokens accomplish this mechanically, or is there some other better way to do this?
Also, are story tokens spent by players or by characters? I thought story tokens were a player resource. Are you trying to define players as heroes or villains?
What if a player is running a villain and wants to spend a story token to bring in a hero? Is he allowed? After that point, can he spend tokens because he has a hero under his control?
What if a player is running a hero and spends a story token to bring in a villain? Is he no longer allowed to spend tokens?
Hmmm very good questions... let me think on them...
OK, perhaps one announces at the beginning of the scene whether you will be Hero or Villain aligned. One you choose your side, you must play by all the limitations of that side.
Now, given the above, one can enforce a karmic balance simply by limiting how many (if any) Story Tokens a Villain can spend.
Hopefully by doing this, Villain play will be seen not as a way to create stories in and of itself, but more as a way to provide antagonists for the Heroes and get rewarded for it (story tokens.)
However, when you want to spend those story tokens freely, you want to be Hero aligned.
I am assuming that Hero aligned and Villain aligned play have differing limits, which ultimately wind up with Hero Aligned play being about creating narrations that fight injustice, hate, intolerance, and promote peace, love, and compassion.
Villain type play creates narrations that do the opposite.
Maybe there would be some way to tie in the Drives - Hero aligned play aims to further success for Justice, Love, Hope, Truth, and Duty; Villain aligned play aims to futher success for Obsession, Pride, Power, Love, and Fear.
Interesting.
Quote from: Sindyr on April 03, 2006, 09:13:03 PMVillains have some kind of limitation on the spending of Story Token. Heroes do not.
In the immortal words of that kid in the disturbingly short green pants: "Holy bad idea, Batman!"
I think that this would actually make it harder for the villain to get Story Tokens. Why? Because you get story tokens by generating opposition. You push the hero, forcing him to use his powers to get debt, and to stake debt on the conflicts to win - then when he does win you get the debt as story tokens.
By removing or crippling part of their arsenal, the villains won't be able to push as hard, the heroes won't rack up as much debt, and the player of the villains won't get as many story tokens out of the deal.
J
Why would I want to play a "villain" at all if the houserules are going to tie my hands behind my back? Why wouldn't I just play a "hero" who does stuff that your "hero" will oppose?
It seems to me that pulling the teeth out of the conflicts will take all the struggle out of the game. It's like entering a race, but only if the other team has to drag anchors behind them. What's the point? I just think that the thrill of a too easily won victory wouldn't satisfy me at all.
The problem I see is that what you seem to want to accomplish and what this rule will actually accomplish are not the same thing. What you want is for the heroes to win in the end. What you accomplish is hamstringing the effectiveness of players who control villains. I bold the word "players" because you do not mess with villain characters in the slightest with this sort of rule. You only mess with the player.
There are all kinds of ways I can never once play a villain character and yet cause all sorts of doom, gloom, destruction, and villainous victory. The easiest of these is to play a heroic character and then constantly narrate his failure.
There are two things you can do to help play the sort of game you are describing:
1. Write a good comics code.
2. Play with other people who want to see the heroes win in the end.
I doubt very seriously that there is any sort of house rule that will be more effective.
Well, just because the villains can't spend as many tokens as the heroes will not mean that it will be easy...
Another idea that comes to me (and I am just spitballing here) is reverse gloating -
Have certain Boundary conditions. When those boundary conditions are about to be threatened (like the villain winning a significant victory) their die gets turned to a "1" BUT they do not get a story token out of it - because Boundaries are presumably not only want you do not want crossed, but you also do not want the story continually coming anywhere near.
Quite possibly the offender loses a token (if he has any) or the offended gain a token, or both.
In fact, that may be a key idea for a mod - some mechanic that prevents certain states of affairs and punishes, not rewards players who activate them.
Whereas Comic's Codes and Gloating rules tend to be Attractors (as in they tend to reward play that bumps up close to the Code) Boundary rules would be Repulsors (and tend to discourage play near their boundaries.)
Kaleidoscopic!
Quote from: Sindyr on April 04, 2006, 07:38:23 PM
Have certain Boundary conditions. When those boundary conditions are about to be threatened (like the villain winning a significant victory) their die gets turned to a "1" BUT they do not get a story token out of it
So the villain can't even com
near to winning a significant victory, and he gets punished if he does?
Let me provide you with a simpler set of rules:
The good guy flips a coin.
Heads, he wins, and gets to narrate how he wins.
Tails, he flips again.
Not very satisfying as a game, eh? Makes you ask yourself...why bother? Hell, I could sit around and actively roll
down my side of a conflict. It wouldn't matter, the good guys are going to win no matter what. There'd be absolutely no reason for me to care. There's no reason to get invested, and that would absolutely kill a Capes game, because Capes is all about getting invested in the story.
J
I don't think most of that has anything to do with what I said. Don't have any time this moment to write more now, maybe later.
QuoteSo the villain can't even com near to winning a significant victory, and he gets punished if he does?
Let me provide you with a simpler set of rules:
The good guy flips a coin.
Heads, he wins, and gets to narrate how he wins.
Tails, he flips again.
Not very satisfying as a game, eh? Makes you ask yourself...why bother? Hell, I could sit around and actively roll down my side of a conflict. It wouldn't matter, the good guys are going to win no matter what. There'd be absolutely no reason for me to care. There's no reason to get invested, and that would absolutely kill a Capes game, because Capes is all about getting invested in the story.
Excellently made point...cuts straight to the chase...and I agree whole-heartedly.
QuoteI don't think most of that has anything to do with what I said.
It is the distillation of what you said, the pure and refined end result of a game where only one side can ever win. It may not be what you meant, but is certainly what your mechanic boils down to.
QuoteI was actually looking for more of a mechanical critique...
{snip}
Then, does some kind of rule limiting the Villains use of story tokens accomplish this mechanically, or is there some other better way to do this?
A mechanical critique?...it is an ugly, cumbersome, and totally unnecessary mechanic that will actively discourage anyone from playing "villians" as it is no longer fun or economically viable to do so. It tears the heart out of the game.
As for a better way:
QuoteThere are two things you can do to help play the sort of game you are describing:
1. Write a good comics code.
2. Play with other people who want to see the heroes win in the end.
I doubt very seriously that there is any sort of house rule that will be more effective.
A well-written Comics Code will restrict the villians ability to win quite nicely, there is no need to further restrict people's ability to play villians by penalising them for doing so.
Mechanically it would hurt the game more than help it so, it seems that the majority of posters think, its a bad idea...a really bad idea.
Then I posit you this:
I am looking for a way to add the following boundaries/limits to the game, all of which support the Four-Color Tone:
- No torture, no rape, no brutality, no maiming or mutilation, etc, and no hint of any of those either. In other words, in this game, this stuff doesn't happen, and the spectre of it doesn't even ever occur.
- No extended (past one scene) physical suffering
- The atmosphere is not one of brutal reality, is not depressing and/or bleak, but one of hope, possibility for good, and a deep faith in the hearts of the ordinary man on the street that good triumphs and evil fails - somehow. (Obviously, the villains do not share this faith - they are deluded.)
- The heroes eventually defeat the villains, the villains are not able to achieve any significant success. The villains may achieve temporary success, but every temporary success yields failure in short order.
- Likewise, the heroes may suffer temporary defeat, but each temporary defeat yields triumph sooner rather than later
- The reverse is not true - a villains defeat does not engender later victory, and a heroes victory does not engender later defeat.
- The heroes are generally more effective than the villains - not in every action, but overall in average.
- The villains are ultimately doomed if they do not reform
OK, starting with the above list, how do you use the existing mechanics to accomplish the above goals? You can do some of them halfway, but as far as I can see, to accomplish them as stated requires mods - addon rules. Right?
Quote from: Sindyr on April 05, 2006, 09:15:12 AM
I am looking for a way to add the following boundaries/limits to the game, all of which support the Four-Color Tone:
Here's something very important that I think you're overlooking:
No rules will stop me if I want to ruin the "Four-Color Tone" of your game. It doesn't matter how strict or punishing you make them - if I'm determined to do it, I
will do it, and the only way you can stop me is by not playing with me at all. You can say "if the villain wins, the player loses all of his Inspirations and Story Tokens". That's fine. I'll spend them all in the course of winning, so I'll lose nothing - and you'll lose everything.
Now that we have that established, maybe you can let go of the idea that game rules can protect you from problem players - because they can't.
The way to get a real, lasting, authentic "four-color tone" is to have a group of people that all
want a four-color tone - and then trust them to do it. In the words of Douglas Adams,
DON'T PANIC! When somebody does something that looks like it's not four-color at first, instead of shooting them down, run with it. That's what Capes is all about. Since everyone's a GM as well as a player, you have to let go of the death-grip you have on theme, character, and creative control. You have to have some level of trust for the other people you are playing the game with.
J
Quote from: drnuncheon on April 05, 2006, 09:58:12 AM
You have to have some level of trust for the other people you are playing the game with.
And if you don't have trust, no amount of rules will stop that player from destroying your four color world. Or be so insulted by your lack-of-trust rules to be turned off from gaming in that environment.
I don't think they're necessary mechanics to get what you want done. I've already mentioned why, and other people have given better reasons why they aren't a good plan. We've even suggested alternatives to this. What more are you looking for from future posts?
I'm going to look at this from a different angle. Heaven knows we've covered all the angles that explain why it won't work. Here's why it shouldn't work.
Sindyr: You want a Four Color story. You want the heroes to win, and villainy to suffer, and just generally good stuff to happen. You want the world you are telling about to be the kind of world where that kind of thing happens. You want a world where a benevolent God is watching behind the scenes, prepared at every moment to defend the innocent and uplift the righteous.
I think it is fair to say, given how many times you've come back to the point here on the forums that you want that very, very, very much.
That is passion. Passion is important. When you work to make that virtuous world a reality, you act with passion.
Why are you trying to waste all of that by spending your passion before the game? You're spending all that passion talking to us. You're spending all that passion trying to build rules to make any striving in the game itself meaningless. When you get to the game there won't be anything left to be passionate about.
Instead, take that passion to the game. Go into the game and strive to create the world you want so much. Play a hero and show people that the world you are all creating is a good place, that the innocent are protected and the virtuous are uplifted. Show them that crime doesn't pay and that justice always triumphs. Show them that it is that way not because it had to be, but rather because you made it that way. Show them that the world is good because it has heroes like you.
I believe, firmly, that there is a benevolent force that protects the innocent and uplifts the virtuous. That force is us. We do it.
QuoteI believe, firmly, that there is a benevolent force that protects the innocent and uplifts the virtuous. That force is us. We do it.
And Tony you are in very good company, to quote two of them:
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing ... Albert Einstein:
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing ... Edmund Burke
Couldn't agree more...
Hmm... feels like the original intent of this thread was lost along the way...
I am looking for a way to promote four color play and limit play which is not four color.
This is because I wish this to be *hardcoded*. For example, in a four color game, *no one* uses torture, or even thinks about it or threatens to. The spectre doesn't come up.
If a goal about torture hits the table, its already too late. Torture at least as a threat or atmosphere has entered the game.
This thread is for exploring ways to promote four color play and limit that which is not. The existing rules are not sufficient. Under the existing rules, one can create Goal: Mr. Evil tortures Stacy -or- Goal: Mr. Evil threatens to torture Stacy. Either way, it takes only one player to bring it in, and no rule under Capes can prevent this.
How do you stop those Goals from even hitting the table is the real question?
Now if you are aghast and freaked out by the idea of a rule that has the possibility of placing a limitation that affects far far less than 1% of the creatable goals, then maybe you are more brittle than I, at least about limits.
But if you can, even hypothetically, get over that and consider, *given* we want to find a way of preventing certain types of narrations and Conflicts (such as any that mention or touch on torture), *how* do we do this?
For Capes as it stands has no way to do this as far as I can see.
Thanks to everyone who helps works on this, especially those of you who may choose never to use such a rule for *their* but don't wig out and actually help me figure this out for *my* play.
Thanks.
Well, I think it's pretty hard to get anything better (and less disrupting) than a flat out contract between players that states what is allowable and what is not.
Now, even this will probably disrupt the game a bit. Vanilla Capes goes to great lengths to contain no hard limits whatsoever, and this "daunting freedom" actually ends up fostering a safe, warm, atmosphere (of exceeding yourself and facing also the harder things). Hard limiting rules, on the other hand, may elicit old dysfunctional player behaviour of creatively and maliciously bending the rules, leading into hurt (just because gamers ferally hate limiting rules). It's really subtle, but I think also core to almost all the arguments between you and the others.
However, if you do absolutely need it, I think that accompanied by otherwise fostering the good mood, this simple rule would be best.
I don't know what four-color books you've read, but villains threaten to do nasty stuff in the comics all the time. They just fail, often at the last moment. That's why gloating works so well. The villains always lose if they go for the big gloatable conflicts. Does that mean that torture might get close to happening? Maybe. But it won't. I can feel comfortable knowing that they will fail, as a player. The character, who doesn't exist, doesn't know that. But you do. Why be squicked by something that you know can't happen...ever? It's like Bond strapped down to the table with the laser approaching. It's exciting, but I KNOW Bond will NEVER get sliced in half.
If the Code does its job, the villains will lose because they gloated down all the conflicts, the heroes will win. And the world will be safe from torture, mutilation, and rape (and planet explosion, conquering, etc.) forever, because it can't happen. I just find it hard to believe that such a world is all that dark. Do you really think the innuendo will be that unbearable?
QuoteNow if you are aghast and freaked out by the idea of a rule that has the possibility of placing a limitation that affects far far less than 1% of the creatable goals, then maybe you are more brittle than I, at least about limits.
But your rule/mechanic didn't affect far, far less than 1% of the creatable goals, it affected EVERYTHING a "villain" did...that's 100% in the mathematics where I come from ;)
It was a textbox example of taking a sledgehammer to crack a egg.
QuoteBut if you can, even hypothetically, get over that and consider, *given* we want to find a way of preventing certain types of narrations and Conflicts (such as any that mention or touch on torture), *how* do we do this?
For Capes as it stands has no way to do this as far as I can see.
Hypothetically, agree it with the players beforehand and sanction any player that breaks that social contract during play. If the group can't be trusted to do this after it was agreed then why would you be playing with this bunch of sociopaths?
This seems to be a trust issue for you, you don't seem to trust anyone not too infringe preagreed boundaries during play, so need a rigid framework in place.
I'm interested to know how would you deal with this situation in a more traditional RPG environment, which was even less structure governing player behaviour?
QuoteThanks to everyone who helps works on this, especially those of you who may choose never to use such a rule for *their* but don't wig out and actually help me figure this out for *my* play.
*L* I'm not sure that disagreeing with you and pointing out the ways your mechanic could negatively impact the game can be characterised as "wigging out".
I think the issue here is that no-one else sees the need for a rigid rules framework to govern this so are not invested in trying to build one. I think we are all more than willing to discuss any mechanism you come up with to do this for "your" game, the impact on play and the knock-on effects of the mechanic based on our experience with the system, but the no "wigging out" rule works both ways. You can't "wig out" if we tell you what works in every other game of Capes ever played just because it doesn't fit your perceptions of play, bearing in mind you still having played a game yet.
Does that sound fair? :)
You could use the http://www.onceuponadime.com/hist/comicscode.htm (http://real%20comics%20code)
Quote from: Kintara on April 06, 2006, 05:25:15 AM
You could use the http://www.onceuponadime.com/hist/comicscode.htm (http://real%20comics%20code)
Oops, the Real Comics Code. (http://www.onceuponadime.com/hist/comicscode.htm)
I was thinking abotu torture on my drive in to work this morning (how's that for an opener?) and I began to wonder about all sorts of tangential topics, like what qualifies as "torture" for pushing Sindyr's buttons. For example, is this OK?
"Ha HA, Captain Dauntless - the device I have you strapped into is my remarkable PAIN INDUCER! When I activate it, it will bathe you in an unspecified energy field of KirbyDots(tm) that will make you grit your teeth in heroic determination!"
I mean, I think that's pretty inoffensive, and if that's OK then the problem can probably be solved with a single line in the Comics Code:
No Graphic Violence
That one should do exactly what Sindyr wants, because you won't even be able to gloat on it - at least, I can't think of a goal offhand that couldn't be narrated without a graphic depiction of violence (unless it specifies graphic violence in the goal itself, which would obviously never happen anyway thanks to the code).
J
Quote from: Eetu on April 06, 2006, 04:48:14 AM
Well, I think it's pretty hard to get anything better (and less disrupting) than a flat out contract between players that states what is allowable and what is not.
Now, even this will probably disrupt the game a bit. Vanilla Capes goes to great lengths to contain no hard limits whatsoever, and this "daunting freedom" actually ends up fostering a safe, warm, atmosphere (of exceeding yourself and facing also the harder things). Hard limiting rules, on the other hand, may elicit old dysfunctional player behaviour of creatively and maliciously bending the rules, leading into hurt (just because gamers ferally hate limiting rules). It's really subtle, but I think also core to almost all the arguments between you and the others.
However, if you do absolutely need it, I think that accompanied by otherwise fostering the good mood, this simple rule would be best.
Then the next question is how to word that contract. I am nto opposed to using a contract in the place of mods to the mechanics, but I am also not opposed to considering a mechnical solution either.
Quote from: Kintara on April 06, 2006, 05:20:32 AMIf the Code does its job, the villains will lose because they gloated down all the conflicts, the heroes will win. And the world will be safe from torture, mutilation, and rape (and planet explosion, conquering, etc.) forever, because it can't happen. I just find it hard to believe that such a world is all that dark. Do you really think the innuendo will be that unbearable?
If the gloating rules prevent rape, then you are basically rewarding the player who gets Stacy Scott naked, strapped to the table legs wide with a mechanical pentration device poised to enter her.
Unless of course you define rape more loosely - but my point remains - gloating rules *encourage* players getting you up to the edge. That is *great* for some things, and *terrible* for others.
I stand by the idea that there needs to be a way to say "you are not allowed to cross this line AND you are not rewarded for threatening to"
Makes perfect sense to me that you should have BOTH kinds of rules - ones that encourage boundary play for some issues and ones that discourage boundary play for others.
Quote from: drnuncheon on April 06, 2006, 09:15:03 AM
No Graphic Violence
That one should do exactly what Sindyr wants, because you won't even be able to gloat on it - at least, I can't think of a goal offhand that couldn't be narrated without a graphic depiction of violence (unless it specifies graphic violence in the goal itself, which would obviously never happen anyway thanks to the code).
Nice try, J. And a fun idea, I think.
Quote
No torture, no rape, no brutality, no maiming or mutilation, etc, and no hint of any of those either. In other words, in this game, this stuff doesn't happen, and the spectre of it doesn't even ever occur.
(emphasis mine)
then the code line above doesn't really help with the bolded part. It just makes what can be gloated on a bit confusing.
For example:
Goal: Wolverine slaughters the ninja guarding the compound
Under what circumstances would that goal be gloatable by Wolverine's player? Nothing requires that the goal's resolution be narrated graphically; we could just be treated to the sight of all kinds of ninja bodies lying around the place, while Lady Mariko's father is yelling into his walkie talkie for his guards to respond. On the other hand, it could be narrated with sound effects, blood splatters, heads flying off shoulders, etc.
Wolverine is a bad example, though, as he is from the '80's four-colour ethic of comics, as the real-life comics code was rapidly losing its authority. So here is a more old-school one:
Event: Mr. Fantastic recieves word that Doctor Doom is brutally torturing Sue Storm for information.
Is it gloatable? Note that it is not certain that Dr. Doom IS torturing Sue? Doom could be taking her out to Latveria's finest restaurants for all we know. The word could be coming from some enemy of Dr. Doom, would be well served if the FF were to show up and start trashing Doom's place. However, you could also narrate as Reed opening up a package and finding a finger with Sue's wedding ring on it, still oozing blood.
I would argue that from the perspective of old-school four-colour (say, Lee/Kirby era), the only one of Sindyr's laundry list that is really inappropriate is rape. Maiming, mutilation, torture, brutality, etc. were all commonly THREATENED in four-colour comics; they just never really happened. Pretty much every trap on Apokolips would constitute the threat of one of those things. "I have saved you from the whirling sawblades of mutiliation, Mr. Miracle, because I would rather you face...the boiling acid pits! MWAHAHAHAHAHA" This is where the Capes Comics Code comes in; these are EXACTLY the things that four-colour villains gloat over in the comics all the time.
Now that I think about it, even rape was not completely taboo...certainly the threat of it was implied in the old Wonder Woman comics, although those were pre-code. And how often do we hear things like "Aha, I like my women to have fire! But you WILL bend to my wishes...eventually."
The acceptablity is not really which of these things is threatened, but the style in which it is threatened. Dr. Doom could threaten to torture Reed Richards to make him reveal secrets about the negative zone; he could threaten to zap him with an elaborate Kirby-esque bit of weird science equipment, or he could threaten to pull Reed's teeth out one by one without anesthetic (assuming you can pull Reed's teeth out, and his gums wouldn't just stretch). Both are torture. Having the line "No Torture" in the CC will prevent both from ACTUALLY happening, but the one is within the style, the other isn't.
Style of narration is something that absolutely cannot be mechanically enforced...it can only come about through people wanting it to come about. Moreover, it requires people to actually know what you are talking about; if I want "Lee/Kirby four-colour, ala Fantastic Four", a person who has never read Lee/Kirby comics could not possibly understand what I want, I will have to be more explicit and guide them to it, or pick a sub-genre of comics they ARE familiar with and interested in.
Quote from: Kintara on April 06, 2006, 05:25:15 AM
You could use the http://www.onceuponadime.com/hist/comicscode.htm (http://real%20comics%20code)
Again, no use of the Comics Code mechanic in Capes suffices because it
drives and
encourages player to often return to the boundary.
Quote from: drnuncheon on April 06, 2006, 09:15:03 AM
I was thinking abotu torture on my drive in to work this morning (how's that for an opener?) and I began to wonder about all sorts of tangential topics, like what qualifies as "torture" for pushing Sindyr's buttons. For example, is this OK?
"Ha HA, Captain Dauntless - the device I have you strapped into is my remarkable PAIN INDUCER! When I activate it, it will bathe you in an unspecified energy field of KirbyDots(tm) that will make you grit your teeth in heroic determination!"
I mean, I think that's pretty inoffensive, and if that's OK then the problem can probably be solved with a single line in the Comics Code:
No Graphic Violence
That one should do exactly what Sindyr wants, because you won't even be able to gloat on it - at least, I can't think of a goal offhand that couldn't be narrated without a graphic depiction of violence (unless it specifies graphic violence in the goal itself, which would obviously never happen anyway thanks to the code).
J
J - I like your approach. Enduring pain in a four color comic way is not an issue.
*Perhaps* a Comics Code of "No graphic violence, tramua, suffering, or pain" might cover it. But maybe that would be better as a Rule that could NOT be Gloated on than a Code. I do not want to reward people for threatening to break that one.
We may be getting somewhere here.
Quote from: Tuxboy on April 06, 2006, 05:21:14 AM
QuoteNow if you are aghast and freaked out by the idea of a rule that has the possibility of placing a limitation that affects far far less than 1% of the creatable goals, then maybe you are more brittle than I, at least about limits.
But your rule/mechanic didn't affect far, far less than 1% of the creatable goals, it affected EVERYTHING a "villain" did...that's 100% in the mathematics where I come from ;)
The 1% was in (I think) the section about not allowing people to tell stories that touch on torture - I was not (I hope) claiming that the mechanic idea was a one percenter. Sorry if I was unclear or misspoke.
QuoteQuoteBut if you can, even hypothetically, get over that and consider, *given* we want to find a way of preventing certain types of narrations and Conflicts (such as any that mention or touch on torture), *how* do we do this?
For Capes as it stands has no way to do this as far as I can see.
Hypothetically, agree it with the players beforehand and sanction any player that breaks that social contract during play. If the group can't be trusted to do this after it was agreed then why would you be playing with this bunch of sociopaths?
This seems to be a trust issue for you, you don't seem to trust anyone not too infringe preagreed boundaries during play, so need a rigid framework in place.
I'm interested to know how would you deal with this situation in a more traditional RPG environment, which was even less structure governing player behaviour?
1) I think the question of "why codify" is the same as "why not just play let's pretend without any rules at all" - namely, that rules can be useful in guiding play. I don't think I need to spend a lot of time explaining why codification of important prinicples and goals is important.
2) In a more traditional RPG environment I am usually the GM, and I talk about the limits of the gamespace with my player before the game. I don't need to worry about one of them breaking the limits because as the GM I can stop them.
QuoteQuoteThanks to everyone who helps works on this, especially those of you who may choose never to use such a rule for *their* but don't wig out and actually help me figure this out for *my* play.
I think the issue here is that no-one else sees the need for a rigid rules framework to govern this so are not invested in trying to build one. I think we are all more than willing to discuss any mechanism you come up with to do this for "your" game, the impact on play and the knock-on effects of the mechanic based on our experience with the system, but the no "wigging out" rule works both ways. You can't "wig out" if we tell you what works in every other game of Capes ever played just because it doesn't fit your perceptions of play, bearing in mind you still having played a game yet.
Does that sound fair? :)
I think it is more accurate and a sign of wisdom not to say thing like "no one sees the need..." Perhaps it is better to say what *you* see or don't see and not speak for everyone else who may be posting, lurking, or who may read this months from now.
As to the other, the only thing that would make *me* wig out is people telling me that I have to play in ways that are not fun and I need to be willing to endure anxiety and trauma to play a game. Or, to say the same thing another way, people attacking me for trying to explore utilizing the majesty of Capes with some minor tinkerings to make it safer.
I guess I do not equate "safer" to "bad".
Quote from: Sindyr on April 06, 2006, 11:04:26 AM
I stand by the idea that there needs to be a way to say "you are not allowed to cross this line AND you are not rewarded for threatening to"
Assuming that you have all agreed, up front, as to the tone and style of comics you are shooting for with this Capes session (in this case, Four-colour ala Lee/Kirby), then there is a way, Sindyr. I say "Man, this whole bondage/rape thing you've got going...does nothing for me, and moreover I can't imagine what four-colour comics you have been reading that that works with. You've been reading to much Hentai and watching to much freaky weird anime, man. Get with the program or don't come back next time."
Quote from: Sindyr on April 06, 2006, 11:04:26 AM
Makes perfect sense to me that you should have BOTH kinds of rules - ones that encourage boundary play for some issues and ones that discourage boundary play for others.
I can see why you say this, but I am convinced that rules that PREVENT boundary play are impossible. However, I will suggest that removing the gloating rule altogether, or allowing gloating only on certain elements of the Comics Code and not others would at least not encourage villains to indulge in this kind of play. Here is my example pseudo-comics code for you.
Ultra Safe Comics Code: The following items are prohibited by the comics code, and are NOT GLOATABLE.
- No torture, no rape, no brutality, no maiming or mutilation, etc, and no hint of any of those either.
- No extended (past one scene) physical suffering.
- No prevasively depressing and/or bleak scene elements
- No significant success for the villains.
- No significant defeat for heroes.
In addition, all elements of the Comics Code from the Capes rules are available and are gloatable.
Again, this PREVENTS nothing, but at least it clearly lists what you want from the game, and does not reward attempting to do these things.
Personally, I wouldn't touch the code above with a ten-foot pole. First, I think it would lead to very drab play, especially from the villains. Secondly, I think it is almost completely unecessary; if I really need to spell out exactly what I mean by "four-colour" to someone I am playing with in this detail, I probably should not be trying to play "four-colour" style Capes with them in the first place. But, hey, I'm not playing with you, so what do I care? Give it a go, and tell us what happens.
Oops, got the quote tags a bit off in the above post, sorry. I think you can tell which is new and which is old.
EDIT: Fixed, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood moderator.
Quote from: Sindyr on April 06, 2006, 11:18:04 AMI think it is more accurate and a sign of wisdom not to say thing like "no one sees the need..." Perhaps it is better to say what *you* see or don't see and not speak for everyone else who may be posting, lurking, or who may read this months from now.
I'm going to make a recommendation to all those who think Sindyr's wrong: Stop posting to this thread to try to educate him.
He has made the purpose of the thread clear (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19312.msg202994#msg202994) (albeit recently): He wants like-minded people, who agree with his goals and believe that the rules he is proposing will help him achieve them, to comment and help him refine.
Let's leave this thread to those people. Maybe a lively discussion will erupt once people are freed of the hovering presence of nay-sayers. Or maybe there will be a silence in which one can hear the gentle call of the crickets. The only way to find out is to let it happen.
Sindyr: Is that what you would like for the thread?
Quote1) I think the question of "why codify" is the same as "why not just play let's pretend without any rules at all" - namely, that rules can be useful in guiding play. I don't think I need to spend a lot of time explaining why codification of important prinicples and goals is important.
Not sure what relevance this has to my comments.
Quote2) In a more traditional RPG environment I am usually the GM, and I talk about the limits of the gamespace with my player before the game. I don't need to worry about one of them breaking the limits because as the GM I can stop them.
And how do you stop them? And why can't you and the others players do the same on a pre-agreed set of boundaries in a Capes game?
QuoteI think it is more accurate and a sign of wisdom not to say thing like "no one sees the need..." Perhaps it is better to say what *you* see or don't see and not speak for everyone else who may be posting, lurking, or who may read this months from now.
Normally i would agree with you but based solely the responses in this thread, and the numerous others on this subject, there seems to be little or no doubt that on the subject of introducing a additional mechanic to control tone you would appear to be in a very vocal minority of one ;)
QuoteAs to the other, the only thing that would make *me* wig out is people telling me that I have to play in ways that are not fun and I need to be willing to endure anxiety and trauma to play a game. Or, to say the same thing another way, people attacking me for trying to explore utilizing the majesty of Capes with some minor tinkerings to make it safer.
I guess I do not equate "safer" to "bad".
I don't recall anyone suggesting that you be forced to endure trauma and anxiety in a game, or indeed anyone attacking you for wanting to introduce additional mechanics.
There has been a great many requests for you to explain why you think it is necessary to go beyond the social contract to control game content, and this is mostly because, at least to me and I feel form rereading the posts many others, you have not given a compelling reason other than because you want to or that you think it might possibly be required as the social contract is not, in your opinion, strong enough to do the job. This of course has caused a great deal of frustration in experienced Capes players that have seen it work in practice.
As I have said before I think the forum would be more than will to discuss your proposed changes and additional mechanics, but you must be aware that if there is a fault with any proposal then this group will find it, no matter who suggested it, and will not be slow in coming forward to point out the issues.
On a personal point it does sadden me that you feel that you are becoming the target for personal attacks because of your quest, but I do not believe that has been anyone's intent at anytime. I think again stems from the levels of frustration that an untested theory versus solid factual evidence discussion will always generate, especially if beliefs are heavily entrenched.
Sorry Tony our posts crassed there
I figured there would be a certain amount of "cross-post" no-man's-land. It's the nature of the medium.
Quote from: Hans on April 06, 2006, 11:05:29 AMGoal: Wolverine slaughters the ninja guarding the compound
Under what circumstances would that goal be gloatable by Wolverine's player? Nothing requires that the goal's resolution be narrated graphically; we could just be treated to the sight of all kinds of ninja bodies lying around the place, while Lady Mariko's father is yelling into his walkie talkie for his guards to respond. On the other hand, it could be narrated with sound effects, blood splatters, heads flying off shoulders, etc.
I think that's an excellent observation. Ultimately, in a lot of four color comics, we don't know whether the mooks are dead or knocked out. And even if they are dead, we know that a) the hero did not make them suffer b) the hero had no other functional way and c) the narrator did not make us have to dwell on the happening. Pow! Smash! Blam! The mooks are down, and no longer important to the story. This is fine.
QuoteEvent: Mr. Fantastic receives word that Doctor Doom is brutally torturing Sue Storm for information.
This is a great concrete example of why a simple Comic Code of No Torture is not enough to make certain that the spectre of torture does not arise.
In a four color world, I would prefer to see:
Event: Mr. Fantastic receives word that Doctor Doom is interrogating Sue Storm for information.
Serves the same function, but more four-color.
QuoteThe acceptability is not really which of these things is threatened, but the style in which it is threatened. Dr. Doom could threaten to torture Reed Richards to make him reveal secrets about the negative zone; he could threaten to zap him with an elaborate Kirby-esque bit of weird science equipment, or he could threaten to pull Reed's teeth out one by one without anesthetic (assuming you can pull Reed's teeth out, and his gums wouldn't just stretch). Both are torture. Having the line "No Torture" in the CC will prevent both from ACTUALLY happening, but the one is within the style, the other isn't.
Upon review, I think I mostly agree with you. It deals with is the narration creating in our minds gruesome, grisly, brutal, etc images. If Sue Storm is in a chair that has spring loaded blades ready to cuisinart her, even if it never happens, the image of her so sliced has been fostered on us and the damage is done.
If she is in a chair being exposed to energy from the Negative Dimension, it may be a different thing.
Of course, one *could* be just as brutal with the above - one could narrate her spasming muscles, her agonised howls, her pleading for mercy, her broken spirit, her asking the baddie to please for the love of god just kill her - it's not just about the situation the hero is in, but how graphically that situation in handled.
On the other hand, Sue Storm saying through clenched teeth "I... will... never... help... you..." is classic and probably not going to tweak anyone.
QuoteStyle of narration is something that absolutely cannot be mechanically enforced
That is true in one sense - mechanics affect resolution cannot promote four color play if the concept of four color play is not understood by all players to start with. However, there are two important exceptions:
1) A rule of "No graphic, brutal, or explicit violence, trauma, suffering, rape, or other such narration or imagery, stated or implied." is a simple one to help codify the game's stance. Whether you consider this a mechanic I cannot say, but I think it's smart to codify most fundamental principles that are not obvious to a random player joining the game for the first time - without of course going overboard into trying to get too legalese in writing it.
2) The system and mechanics can (of course) and does affect play style. If, for example, I want to adjust the game so that pursuing villainous goals is less effective than pursuing heroic goals, that will have a direct effect on the style of play. Ultimately, ALL systems and mechanics exist to channel play in one way or another.
Quote from: Hans on April 06, 2006, 11:27:45 AM
Quote from: Sindyr on April 06, 2006, 11:04:26 AM
Makes perfect sense to me that you should have BOTH kinds of rules - ones that encourage boundary play for some issues and ones that discourage boundary play for others.
I can see why you say this, but I am convinced that rules that PREVENT boundary play are impossible. However, I will suggest that removing the gloating rule altogether, or allowing gloating only on certain elements of the Comics Code and not others would at least not encourage villains to indulge in this kind of play. Here is my example pseudo-comics code for you.
This is exactly the help I was looking for, thank you. I added a few minor tweaks below:
Four-Color Comics Code: The following items are prohibited by the comics code, and are NOT GLOATABLE.
- No torture, no rape, no brutality, no maiming or mutilation, etc, and no hint of any of those either.
- No extended (past one scene) physical suffering.
- No pervasively depressing and/or bleak scene elements
- No significant non-fleeting (one scene) success for the villains.
- No significant non-fleeting (one scene) defeat for heroes unless the defeat is personal and approved by the owner of the character.
In addition, all elements of the Comics Code from the Capes rules are available and are gloatable.
Again, thank you - I am surprised, shocked, and grateful for some of the first major assistance in formulating an approach in detail to codifying this.
QuoteAgain, this PREVENTS nothing, but at least it clearly lists what you want from the game, and does not reward attempting to do these things.
Well, I don't know how one can claim that it prevents nothing. Unless you are also saying that ANY rule prevents nothing - including all those in Capes. But inasmuch as the Capes rules are followed, so will the above be followed. And if people are ignoring the rules, whether they are the above ones or the fundamental Capes ones in defiance of the group contract, you have a problem. The good things about having rules like Capes and like the above is you know clearly when someone *is* breaking the rules and can deal with it on that basis.
So I think it prevents a good deal.
Quote from: TonyLB on April 06, 2006, 11:45:04 AMHe has made the purpose of the thread clear (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19312.msg202994#msg202994) (albeit recently): He wants like-minded people, who agree with his goals and believe that the rules he is proposing will help him achieve them, to comment and help him refine.
Let's leave this thread to those people. Maybe a lively discussion will erupt once people are freed of the hovering presence of nay-sayers. Or maybe there will be a silence in which one can hear the gentle call of the crickets. The only way to find out is to let it happen.
Sindyr: Is that what you would like for the thread?
Close, but not exactly.
What I would like for this thread is a discussion of how to achieve the stated goals. I do not require that anyone who assists me be in *favor* of those goals, I only ask that ythe postings help refine and accomplish those goals.
For example, I may be an atheist, but I am able to engage in discussions about Christianity helpfully with my friends even though I do not subscribe to those beliefs.
Likewise, some of the folks who have stated that they do not agree with my stated goals have nevertheless been very helpful - and I think there is no truer sign of a flexible, evolved person than one who can put aside their disagreement with a question to nonetheless help those who feel the question is important find an answer that helps them.
Thank you to those of you who have helped even in spite of your personal valuation of the goals.
Quote from: Tuxboy on April 06, 2006, 11:59:35 AM
Quote2) In a more traditional RPG environment I am usually the GM, and I talk about the limits of the gamespace with my player before the game. I don't need to worry about one of them breaking the limits because as the GM I can stop them.
And how do you stop them? And why can't you and the others players do the same on a pre-agreed set of boundaries in a Capes game?
For example, if I am running a game of Four Color Champions, and a player decides he wants to torture a baddie for info (not threaten, or intimidate, but start pulling fingernails) I tell the player "if you do this, your character will be become a villain, and since as I said at the beginning I am only GMing for heroic players, your character will become an NPC and you will have to generate another character if you want to continue playing in the game. Is this what you want?"
I cannot issue the above statement in a shared GM environment like Capes, without a codified rule to back that up, a rule I can point to and say "see, this is not allowed and you should have known it was not allowed" in the same way as someone who tries to spend debt in the same way as story tokens can be curtailed - by pointing to the rules.
QuoteAs I have said before I think the forum would be more than will to discuss your proposed changes and additional mechanics, but you must be aware that if there is a fault with any proposal then this group will find it, no matter who suggested it, and will not be slow in coming forward to point out the issues.
On a personal point it does sadden me that you feel that you are becoming the target for personal attacks because of your quest, but I do not believe that has been anyone's intent at anytime. I think again stems from the levels of frustration that an untested theory versus solid factual evidence discussion will always generate, especially if beliefs are heavily entrenched.
Even on an indie game forum I am in the minority - and I also feel a little safer when in the minority, as opposed to when I am in the majority and I wonder whether I am the victim of "group-think".
Anyways, while not pleasant, I am somewhat use to not being popular - and if popularity was my goal, I would act differently.
I *am* going to experiment with vanilla Capes before doing much to it, however, the logic seems impeccable:
If one wants to define, control or limit play, one codifies this into rules. This is why Capes exists, and why the Comics Code exists.
I am simply extending that reason slightly to include some narrative boundary rules that do not incentivize the way CC's do. I am not sure why several folks seem so opposed to coded narrative limits - almost like they think its ok to have these limits
as long as they remain unspoken and unenforceable.I like getting things out into the open and into the light, and to say "Here it is. Like anything else, we may need to add to it as we go along, but we have a working set of rules and we have them in black and white."
I still cannot see how this is a bad thing, especially since Capes, and ALL rpg's are the results of that very same stance.
All right. I'll bite my tongue and offer something in the "help" rather than "hinder" vein.
Some House Rule Suggestions:
ALL Events or Goals must be approved by all players present. If one player opposes the played goal or event, the player must try choose a different event or goal. (this is an expansion of the Veto rules for events and certain goals)
One player at the start of the game is chosen to be "Capes Master" or CM. The CM is the only player responsible for adding Goals or Events, and starts each scene with story tokens equalling the number of players present. All players must use the "And then..." mechanic when narrating their action, the CM ALWAYS has the last word when resolving conflicts.
In the CM vein again, the CM may request one of the players to play a scene as a "Assistant". The "Assistant" is allowed to play a villain, and the CM can play an event or Scene on the Assistant's action. The Assistant cannot add goals of her own, but may roll up other sides of conflict and act appropriately "villainous" so long as it does not violate the "Boundaries" Comics Code.
The CM will approve all characters before they are put in play. Story tokens earned by the players can be used to bring in additional characters, but that character must be approved by the CM first and cannot be a villain unless the player is made Assistant for the scene.
Only the CM can narrate another player's action. Players can only narrate their own actions, not the actions or reactions of others.
*DISCLAIMER* I don't endorse this stuff. But I do want to help out.
Quote from: Hans on April 06, 2006, 11:05:29 AM
Goal: Wolverine slaughters the ninja guarding the compound
Under what circumstances would that goal be gloatable by Wolverine's player?
It wouldn't really be - that was my point! If Wolvy's player wins, he can slaughter the ninjas - in a clean, non-graphic way. (I suggest a nice shot with a silhouette of him and a ninja guard, where all of the action is implied and not explicit.)
QuoteEvent: Mr. Fantastic recieves word that Doctor Doom is brutally torturing Sue Storm for information.
Is it gloatable? Note that it is not certain that Dr. Doom IS torturing Sue?
Well, you'd have to narrate it in such a way that the results are not graphic. And since you'd be able to (under any circumstances I can think of) then no, I'd say that there'd be no gloating on that.
Now, all this is assuming that you are only allowed to gloat if there's no other option - if you have an 'out' to narrate without violating the Code, you have to take it. Maybe that's a mistaken assumption.
J
Quote from: Glendower on April 06, 2006, 01:51:46 PM
All right. I'll bite my tongue and offer something in the "help" rather than "hinder" vein.
Let me say right off the top that I greatly appreciate this, I realize that the goals I am pursuing are not ones you endorse, and that just makes me all the more appreciative for you help. Just bear in mind that even if I don't use 100% of the suggestions, I am grateful that you took the time and energy to make them, especially since you do not endorse the validity of the goal, but are nonetheless trying to be helpful
QuoteSome House Rule Suggestions:
ALL Events or Goals must be approved by all players present. If one player opposes the played goal or event, the player must try choose a different event or goal. (this is an expansion of the Veto rules for events and certain goals)
This idea is seemingly severe, but elegant in its simplicity - as you say, it is an expansion of the rule already covering Events. After playing vanilla Capes a bit, this may be well worth a session or two of playtesting.
On the other hand, this doesn't prevent graphic or gritty narrations. Still, intriguing idea, would like to see the effect of this on play.
QuoteOne player at the start of the game is chosen to be "Capes Master" or CM. The CM is the only player responsible for adding Goals or Events, and starts each scene with story tokens equalling the number of players present. All players must use the "And then..." mechanic when narrating their action, the CM ALWAYS has the last word when resolving conflicts.
In the CM vein again, the CM may request one of the players to play a scene as a "Assistant". The "Assistant" is allowed to play a villain, and the CM can play an event or Scene on the Assistant's action. The Assistant cannot add goals of her own, but may roll up other sides of conflict and act appropriately "villainous" so long as it does not violate the "Boundaries" Comics Code.
The CM will approve all characters before they are put in play. Story tokens earned by the players can be used to bring in additional characters, but that character must be approved by the CM first and cannot be a villain unless the player is made Assistant for the scene.
Only the CM can narrate another player's action. Players can only narrate their own actions, not the actions or reactions of others.
*DISCLAIMER* I don't endorse this stuff. But I do want to help out.
I just want to make clear how much I appreciate it.
I like the vein you are going in with the idea of a Capes Master - and this idea of yours has made me think of something.
Instead of a CM, what if there was a Keeper of the Code - an individual selected to make especially sure that the rules are followed, the Comic's Code doesn't get broken, and any House rules and mods are obeyed.
In effect, this individual is the "standards guy" who approves the comic for release to the general public.
If anyone has an issue, for example with a scene getting a little too bloody or violent, they ask him to step in.
His adjudication should not be based on his own personal whim, but based on the previously discussed game contract. It is further his job to keep the contract, to produce it when asked, and to make all decisions in the light of this contract.
The only time he can be overruled is if all of the other players disagree with his ruling.
And his power does not extend to creating narration for other players, only to vetoing narration, Conflicts, etc.
If asked, from time to time, he will bring up the Game Contract and lead a discussion if it needs to be amended or altered.
In order to amend or alter the Game Contract, any changes must be approved by no fewer than the full group minus one, or if the group has only 3 in it, the vote to alter the GC must be approved by all.
Typically the Keeper would start as the person responsible for organizing the initial game. Before the first game, everyone discusses what should go into the GC. It is likely that the organizer has a prewritten initial Game Contract under which the group came together. He will present that, almost as a fait accompli, and ask if there are any additions or alterations that should be made. He will also note that the Contract can also be altered later, should the need arise.
A sample Game Contract could be something like the below:
Game Contract for:
Capes, Tuesday nights
Participants: Hal Judd(Keeper of the Code), Beth Young, Kyle Fenton, Mary Elder, John Thurman
- The game is Capes. The rules are to be interpreted consistent with their use and discussion on the official forums, except where modified below
- The Spotlight Character rules are to be used, a limit of 3 Spotlight Characters per player. Each SC can only be Authored by the owning player - that is, any narrations of actions, choices, or other aspects deemed internal to the character can be vetoed if not made by the owning player.
- The Game Tone is four-color comics, with all that entails. This includes (but is not limited to) the following:
- No torture, no rape, no brutality, no maiming or mutilation, etc, and no hint of any of those either.
- No extended (past one scene) physical suffering.
- No pervasively depressing and/or bleak scene elements
- No significant non-fleeting (one scene) success for the villains.
- No significant non-fleeting (one scene) defeat for heroes unless the defeat is personal and approved by the owner of the character.
Anything that contravenes the four-color tone is not Gloatable.
- The Comic's Code *is* Gloatable. The Comic's Code for this game is [insert CC here]
- The game and overall narrative must be internally consistent. Any continuity issues should be overseen by the Keeper and vetoed as necessary.
- Other narrative limitations are: [include other limitations here]
- The Keeper is responsible for making sure that no violations of the above codes occurs, in letter or in Spirit. He can unilaterally veto any narration, Goal, or other play that he judges in violation. He can be overruled if all the other players disagree. Likewise, if all the other players feel that *he* is violating the GC, they can unanimously veto *his* narration.
- At any point this GC can be altered or amended with a successful vote of consensus minus one, or if the gaming group is only 3, consensus.The same procedure is used to remove the current sitting Keeper, or install a new one if the old one abdicates.
- Any player can bring up questions or opinions about the GC, or call for a vote relating to the GC, at any time.
- Any player is free to permanently leave the group at any time. Any player may be expelled from the group with a vote of consensus minus one.
So - what do you think? It's still rough, but maybe this idea has legs?
I like the game contract in the general sense that you're designing an explicit social contract. By spelling out the "lines and veils" (this is a Ron Edwards-ism, if I use references it's not stealing, it's research!), you keep the comfort level from going to a not fun place.
I can think of a dozen different situations in any RPG where something like this would have been useful, and where I or someone else inadvertantly insulted/upset/angered another player and turned the whole environment into a poisonous wasteland. Bad memories.
I think that it would be effective to achieve your specific goals. I'm certain there will be hiccups and a learning curve, but the Keeper idea to keep the goals and events in line does achieve most of what you're looking for. By putting someone in a position of slightly more authority, you can torpedo objectionable events/goals and keep the tone in the right level. You've got some check and balances in place to even move the Keeper position around, which is very democratic of you. *smile*
Again, the disclaimer (for anyone jumping into the thread from this point onwards) that I don't agree with this personally. That aside, I still want to help out.