The Forge Archives

There's been a fair amount of talk here, recently, about how important it is to some people that their character is inviolate ... that nobody else can get inside of the skin, and make things happen.  A fair amount of hyperbole has been employed, indicating that any other course will be the downfall of western civilization, and so on and so forth ... but in the end, the answer always seems to come down to "I don't want my character to be vulnerable!  It makes me feel very uncomfortable."

To which I can only reply "Okay ... I felt uncomfortable the first time too.  You won't get over that discomfort by avoiding the situation."  Like taking the training wheels off your bike, or opening your eyes underwater, surrendering some control over your character is a scary step that opens up spectacular new horizons.

When your character is inviolable you cannot defend it, any more than you can defend the stars.  There is no adversity against which it needs defending.  Nobody can possibly harm the soul of the character in any way, and so you (the player) cannot stand up for the soul of the character in any way.  That is why you find so many pimply teens who will eagerly explain their character's Staff of the Arch-Uber-Hyper-Magi, but who cannot for the life of them tell you who the character loves, or what he believes.  Quite simply, they worked for the Staff.  They, the players, were involved and invested in gaining and defending it.  They didn't work for the character's loves or beliefs ... and so they aren't invested.  They do not care, any more than they care about his height or his hair color or any other thing that they get for free.

By comparison, I can tell you volumes about what every one of my Capes characters believes, and who they love, and why they do what they do ... because I've had to fight tooth and nail to defend my assertion that they think that way.  The other players, my worthy and beloved adversaries, have given me an incomparable opportunity:  they have let me work to define my character.  They have made me fight to prove that Zak is hopeful, they have made me defend the claim that Vanessa is heartless, they have made me prove that Gangbuster will never give in.  And because I have worked at these things, they are more real to me.  They are not just words on paper, or notions in my head, they are the actual outcomes of my actual efforts, tested and solid.

This is not just a matter of preference.  I reject the argument that people who want to avoid ever facing this discomfort are just as good as those who embrace it.  They're not.  Knowing that you can handle playing a vulnerable character expands your horizons.  You get to do all the things you did back when you thought you were too weak to defend your character, and a whole bunch of new things as well.  You get to do more.  Learning to do this makes you a better player.

I am saddened when I see people elevate their discomfort and, yes, fear to the level of a philosophy.  It is an elaborate defense mechanism, and the only thing it does is to prevent them from growing and developing as people and as gamers. 

The inviolable character is like Dumbo's magic feather, Linus's security blanket.  It is the magic token people count on to keep them safe, because they don't believe they have the power to be safe themselves.  It is the mark of someone who has yet to come to grips with how strong he or she can be.  It is the mark of a child.  I firmly believe that gamers benefit when they summon their courage and face the world without it.

I know that what I am going to add will astound most of you - and will probably astonish Tony the most.

I couldn't disagree more with the "opinion" stated in the first post on this thread.

Long before Capes I have been familiar with the type of person who's method of teaching someone to swim is to throw them into the ocean.  People who think they know what's best for everyone else.  People who think that if it's right for them, it's right for everyone.   Truthfully, those people sicken me a little.

These people may have been exposed to brutal disillusionment at some point in their past.  Perhaps they have become too afraid to enjoy good escapist fun because when they return to real life, they fear that they will be too defenseless to endure it.

At the root of it, I do think fear is somehow involved.  No, not my fear, the fear at the root of those that try to coerce and bully people who make different choices than they do.  The fear that maybe, just maybe, one is not better than everyone else, merely different.

People who think that there is only one right way to be, that it is more important to conform to this assumed standard than it is to have fun in a game - well, it's clear to me - and hopefully others - that something is sadly amiss when someone tries to push a philosophical agenda and devalues the main goal we have for playing a game - to have fun.

I am not going to tell anyone how to enjoy their life, or how best to live it.  I can tell you what works best for me, but I cannot tell you what works best for you.  For example, I might say that I find belief in the supernatural including theism (Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, etc) to be irrational, and that I think that rational behavior has a better chance long term from affording one success and happiness in life.

I may even be able to prove that believing in god is irrational.  But what I cannot do is prove that one is wrong for doing so.  No one can.

There's a spectrum that runs from tolerant/compassionate to intolerant/judgemental.  Most people tend to cluster near one end or another.

Those that cluster near intolerant/judgmental seem to me to be defective and/or damaged human beings.  They seem to be broken and/or hurt, and in need of help.

Unfortunately, these same people seem also to be lashing out, coercing and bullying anyone that shines a light onto their symptoms.

Ultimately, that is all that is going on here, I believe.  Anyways that's my opinion.  I think it takes a special kind of openness, a special kind of courage to accept that other people's ways are not our own and that that in and of itself is not wrong.

Again, ultimately, the only relevant questions are, what are your results, and are you happy with them?

Well, the most recent time I played Capes, we permitted each player to fully own their characters, to be the sole author of what their characters thinks, values, chooses.  And we accomplished the goal.  We all had a lot of fun.

I don't know why anyone would find that a bad thing - unless their goal considers the fun we have irrelevant to some other, perhaps less laudable goal that they have for me.

Well, I will choose my own goals.  Don't blame your disappointment on me if my choices are different from the ones you would have me make. Instead, re-examine whether or not it is even valid to try to usurp other people's rights in such a way.

It isn't.

Hey Tony,

I've some thoughts on this.  A lot of which stem from discussions with my wife.  My wife has a lot of problems with Capes, one of them being this issue.  But I think her issue with it is different from that of Sindyr or the other "security blanket" types.  See if she creates a character she percieves as, "heartless" then she is already from that very moment of creation looking forward to the day when the character shows compassion.  So, you see, she's not interested in defending  the "heartless" characteristic of the character, she's interested in finding the moment of compassion.  To her, thowing down the Goal: X displays compassion for Y, feels forced.  She doesn't want to fight it because she's invested in that potential moment of compassion, but she doesn't want it to be forced out of her either.  It's not fear.  It's a sense of akwardness.

For example, in our Dogs game she had no problem with the Stakes being set as, "her character comes to distrust her fellow dogs." Because things were already a little wonky between the Dogs and the town in general seemed to be about disunity and a ton of other little factors that meant for her, "Yes, now is the time this may or may not come to pass."  But the shockingly untimed confrontational way this kind of stuff can come out of the blue in Capes just doesn't work for her.

Now, me, on the other hand.  My character concepts are fixed.  If I percieve my character as being, "a moody bastard" by god that's how he is and nothing will ever change that.  The only way my character is going to change is if another player says, "God damnit, Jesse, it's time your character shows a little sensativity!" and throws out a goal of somekind and yes, I will fight that fucker tooth and nail.  But I'm also cool with losing for two reasons:

1) Nothing in Capes is permanent.  Just because my character, in this situation, at this moment, has a moment of sensativity, doesn't mean he's on a path of permanent change.  It can be written off, by me, as a "moment of weakness."

2) This is exactly how it works in comics.  Character change in comics is always HIGHLY local to the specific situation and rarely sweeping in nature.  There are no "first steps down a longer path" in comics, only flash-in-the-pan moments of revelation.  I never want to pick up a Batman comic and discover that somehow Batman has become a sensative, well adjusted individual who treats his fellow Gotham vigilantes like equals.  But!  If a story is all about how Batman treats Robin badly, then I'll relish the moment when Batman realizes, "Oh god, I've treated Robin so badly and now he's in danger because of it."  So long as Batman goes back to treating Robin badly in the next story or at least a few stories down the line. :)

Jesse

Quote from: jburneko on April 24, 2006, 04:00:04 PM
For example, in our Dogs game she had no problem with the Stakes being set as, "her character comes to distrust her fellow dogs." Because things were already a little wonky between the Dogs and the town in general seemed to be about disunity and a ton of other little factors that meant for her, "Yes, now is the time this may or may not come to pass."  But the shockingly untimed confrontational way this kind of stuff can come out of the blue in Capes just doesn't work for her.

Honestly?  I'm with your wife on this.  Capes mechanics don't regulate issues of pacing and story evolution.  Lots of other stuff it does well, this it doesn't.  So, basically, the pacing is going to be resolved outside of the rules, because the rules don't pattern it.

And, just to be clear:  I have no objections to people who know that they can play inviolate or vulnerable and choose to play inviolate for whatever reason.  If you know that the magic feather is just a feather, but it's a jaunty feather, who's gonna object?  I got no objection to a spiffy looking feather, just to the delusional reliance on it.

Quote from: Sindyr on April 23, 2006, 02:43:07 PM
I couldn't disagree more with the "opinion" stated in the first post on this thread.

Y'know what really made me laugh about that whole post?  You said that ... but then you didn't disagree with anything I said.  Instead you pulled out Standard Diatribe #5, and ran through it with gusto.  And, yeah, I get that you're emotionally invested, but ... see if you were actually disagreeing with me then your counter-argument would make sense in the context of my opinion.

But, hey, let's try a fun and revelatory exercise!  Everyone, pretend that I'd argued one of the following:

• "RPGs are more fun when you play with hot, home-cooked snacks ... but some people are just too afraid to try cooking things at home.  Those people are being silly."
• "Sex is more fun between partners who know and respect each other, but some people let their fear of commitment keep them from discovering that.  Those people are being childish."
• "Capes play works perfectly well without physical violence, but some people fear that if they don't get to lash their players with a cat-o'-nine-tails they won't be able to make a good story.  Those people are clinging to whippings out of fear of the unknown."

... now the fun part.  Go back and read Sindyr's rebuttal (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19597.msg205536#msg205536).  Isn't that a pointed, passionate rebuttal of whichever position you chose?  Of any position?

Sindyr is running an absolutely generic objection script.  It doesn't object to any particular opinion.  It objects to the concept of having an opinion.  It objects, across the board, to any value judgment on human behavior.  It is a bunch of hot air wrapped around a core message of "Shut up!  You aren't allowed to have an opinion!  Only I am allowed to have an opinion!"

Isn't that a hoot?  It'd be sort of interesting to go back through his objections in other threads, and see how many of them boil down to exactly the same thing.

[cross posted with Tony]


Sindyr, your rant has so absolutely nothing to do with anything Tony just said that I wonder if you even bothered to read what he wrote...if so you clearly fumbled your Reading Comprehension skill check.

Tony is saying the following:

If your character has a strongly held belief, that belief is worth fighting for.
If you, as the player, are never able to fight for that belief, then you, as a player, are never able to demonstrate that your character believes it to be worth fighting for.
Therefore, other players who force you to fight for your beliefs are actually performing a service by allowing you to demonstrate how strongly your character cares about that belief.

Anyone can write "believes violence is never the solution" on their character sheet.  But unless some other player is challenging you to ante up to that belief..."even now?"..."even in THIS situation?"..."What about NOW?" then that character trait is just so much word salad completely lacking meaning or depth.  In most games its the GM whose job it is to provide that level of challenge.  In Capes et.al. any player can take on that role.  

Any basic writing class will tell you that its better to SHOW your character's belief than tell them.  That's what Capes does.  It forces you to show.  It forces you to ante up and put your money where your mouth is.  How far are you the player willing to go to prove that the character believes "violence is never the solution"...This Far?  Will you go That far?  

This has nothing to do with bullying or any other such nonsense.  Its what any good GM should be doing anyway. That's the GMs job...create conflicts that the player's care about. To do that you find out what the player cares most about their character and then you try to take that away.  That's called good GMing.

Not doing that is just creating pages of rambling, non dramatically interesting narrative.  At best its masturbatory interactive day dreaming.  At worst its pissing around with zilchplay.  Either way it might be fun...but its not quality roleplaying.  And no...that's not being judgemental in the sense of intolerant.  Its being judgemental in the sense of discriminating.  Unfortuneatly, certain folks have forgotten that being discriminating is a GOOD thing.

Capes puts some fairly straight jacketed mechanics around these issues. This 1) eliminates the need for a GM, 2) makes the rules as arbitrary (in the true definition of that word as unbiased) as possible, and 3) makes a game with actual strategy to it.   One can debate how effectively these mechanics accomplish this.  One can discuss whether there aren't other better ways of accomplishing it.  But one can't say that its some form of bullying.

Tony's point is that insisting on a security blanket is actually doing YOURSELF a diservice.  Instead of protecting what you care most about your relagating what should be the most important Trait of your character to meaningless divel and obscurity.  Nobody cares about the words written on your character sheet.  What they care about is how you demonstrate those words in actual play.  And the only way you can meaningfully demonstrate those words in actual play is if someone forces you to fight for them.  If noone can force you to fight for them then you can never demonstrate them in a meaningful dramatically interesting fashion.  If you can't demonstrate them in a meaningful dramatically interesting fashion...then they're pointless garbage that no one will care about.

What Capes does differently than most games is that it doesn't let you hide behind the character.  It forces you to defend those beliefs not just by representing how badly your character wants to defend them...but by representing how badly you the player wants to defend them on behalf of your character.  In otherwords, it takes things to the meta level.

Now some people may have a personal preference for defending their character's beliefs from behind the character's own eyes, rather than as a player pulling the character's strings.  I think that's where folks find the rules the most jarring...it isn't my character Dudley DoGooder who fights for his belief that "violence is never the answer"...its me the player who fights for my belief that "Dudley believes violence is never the answer".  Its a mental shift that takes some getting used to.

Here's the kicker though...its ALWAYS me the player who fights for my belief in Dudley's belief...regardless of what game I'm playing from the most strictly actor stance old school RPG to the deepist immersionist LARP.  Its ALWAYS me the player doing the fighting.  Some folks like to fool themselves with such meaningless nonsense as "that's what my character would do" but the reality is characters are fiction, people are real.  Capes doesn't let you hide.  Capes forces one to come face to face with the fact that its you the player fighting for the character not the character fighting for themself.

Ralph,

To be fair, it's possible to threaten or question a character's world philosophy without playing puppet master with the character.  However, when you combine totally external adversity with taboo adversity THEN you have a problem.  Sure, it's easy to "never resort to violence," if rape, torture and murder are off the table.

Jesse

OK, I see that neither of you guys are getting it (or that I am posting in a language significantly different than either of your are reading).  Will try to find some time tomorrow to address that.

Before I do, I will ask that any sincere dicusser re read what I wrote.  I spent a significant amount of time and effort on it.

Frankly, I am wondering if those who, 47 rounds later, claim to still not get it are either suffering from a blind spot and they *can't* get it, or are simplying lying/using debate tactics in a non sincere attempt at college debate, not discussion.

We will see.

I am pretty sure that Tony is probably suffering from one of the 2 issues above, but Valamir - do you not see what I am saying? At all?  Not asking you if you agree with it mind you, just asking if I have completely failed to communicate my position and why I hold that position?

Thanks

Quote from: TonyLB on April 24, 2006, 04:47:35 PM

Quote from: Sindyr on April 23, 2006, 02:43:07 PM
I couldn't disagree more with the "opinion" stated in the first post on this thread.

Y'know what really made me laugh about that whole post?  You said that ... but then you didn't disagree with anything I said.  Instead you pulled out Standard Diatribe #5, and ran through it with gusto.  And, yeah, I get that you're emotionally invested, but ... see if you were actually disagreeing with me then your counter-argument would make sense in the context of my opinion.

But, hey, let's try a fun and revelatory exercise!  Everyone, pretend that I'd argued one of the following:

• "RPGs are more fun when you play with hot, home-cooked snacks ... but some people are just too afraid to try cooking things at home.  Those people are being silly."
• "Sex is more fun between partners who know and respect each other, but some people let their fear of commitment keep them from discovering that.  Those people are being childish."
• "Capes play works perfectly well without physical violence, but some people fear that if they don't get to lash their players with a cat-o'-nine-tails they won't be able to make a good story.  Those people are clinging to whippings out of fear of the unknown."

... now the fun part.  Go back and read Sindyr's rebuttal (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19597.msg205536#msg205536).  Isn't that a pointed, passionate rebuttal of whichever position you chose?  Of any position?

Sindyr is running an absolutely generic objection script.  It doesn't object to any particular opinion.  It objects to the concept of having an opinion.  It objects, across the board, to any value judgment on human behavior.  It is a bunch of hot air wrapped around a core message of "Shut up!  You aren't allowed to have an opinion!  Only I am allowed to have an opinion!"

Isn't that a hoot?  It'd be sort of interesting to go back through his objections in other threads, and see how many of them boil down to exactly the same thing.

All the above basically boils to you saying to me "Sindyr, I don't get it.", as far as I can see.

To which I have to ask, do you want to? Are you even trying? At all?

This one's to Sindyr.

From pretty much day one of you coming to Muse of Fire Forums, you've essentially challenged the fundamentals of Capes gameplay.  You've gotten under the skin of a lot of people here, including myself.  You've done this and generated page after page of debate, comments, and the occasional impassioned speech. 

Thanks!  Makes for great reading.

You've made people uncomfortable by challenging what they think is an excellent system and even way of thinking, enough to speak out and make their point of view heard.  And even though people have made you uncomfortable in the process, enough to get quite vocal, you've come back, again and again, to post more.  Because no matter what, conflict is interesting.  Personal beliefs being tested are interesting.

Don't you see?  Interpersonal conflict regarding personal opinion, personal beliefs, generates interesting dialogue!  And interesting, challenging, maybe even uncomfortable dialogue is FUN.  Otherwise we'd be ecstatic about taking about weather conditions all day, and this entire conflict on the boards wouldn't exist! 

Therefore, when you roleplay, which is dialogue and funny shaped dice (or cards, or nothing) there is fun to be had in challenging your belief structure.  You rattle the cage a little, get out of the comfort zone,  and you have your beliefs survive and thrive.

You're doing this right now.  You talk about avoiding anything having to do with pushing your personal boundaries, yet you keep posting here, where those personal boundaries are getting pushed!  And you're pushing back! 

This is either irony or a breakthrough.  I can't tell which. 

Hello Sindyr,

Let's say there's an activity.  It doesn't matter what it is.  And let's say a person engaged in the activity says that they enjoy doing it.  Let's also say that no outside people are in anyway harmed by this activity.

Okay, now I say, "This activity is a form of illness."

Do you see the difference between these two attempts at counter argument:

Counter Argument 1: "You're not allowed to say this activity is an illness."
Counter Argument 2: "That activity isn't an illness because of reason X, Y and Z."  Where X, Y and Z are none of the things I've already stipulated above.

I think most of use are looking for Counter Argument 2 and you keep giving us Counter Argument 1.

Jesse

Sindyr,

Your argument, no matter how much time you have put into it, boils down to "don't you dare say anything bad about my father's alcoholism because I love him and you're really the one with the problem for being so judgemental of him!"

There are problems and behaviors in this world that one can not simply dance around with bunnies and butterflies, chanting "everybody is just great and we're all so different {love!}". Turtling behind the concept of character inviobility, behind the idea that allowing anyone to alter or have a say about your character can not possibly be any fun and is -- IS -- game-breaking and destructive is one of those problems that has nothing to do with preference and choices.

Yes, some people do not find the vulnerable choice to be fun. No argument. But some people, in fact (given human nature) most people, use that as an excuse. It is an easy out, an easy dodge to avoid something they don't want to have to deal with, not because they know it won't be fun but because they suspect or feel it will not be and thus regardless of whether or not that avoidance is rational or based on honest experience with it. Those are the people Tony is obviously taking issue with.

My kids use a similar trick to this at the dinner table all the time:
~ "Eww. That looks gross. I don't like it."
~ "You haven't even tried any yet. Try some and see if you like it."
~ "No! It's gross and icky! I won't eat ANY because I don't like it!"

Adults get very good milage out of this trick as well, they just tend to hide the poor logic better. So I am sorry if you consider me to be a broken, damaged human being lashing out and in need of help when I make them eat their vegetables and argue their verbal "I don't like it" trickery is nonsense, or that my doing so is the equivalent of "throwing someone who can't swim into the ocean". I call that fucking ridiculous and pretty poor logic to boot.

Now, maybe you can provide a reasoned argument regarding why character inviobility is a good thing in play with specific examples of why it is a good thing, rather than the standard Western "Everybody's OK but judgement is not" hyperbolic argument above, and any attendant defense of that argument (particularly: everyone else simply has to read it a few more times and they will understand its truth).

Because, really, seriously, I AGREE that for some people character-ownership is an important component of the fun and that calling nonsense about their not finding it fun to be narrow-minded. It is the various presented arguments against character-ownership, however, that display not "I do not find that fun" but "I am terrified at the mere suggestion" where I agree fully with Tony's sentiments and statements.

QuoteValamir - do you not see what I am saying? At all?  Not asking you if you agree with it mind you, just asking if I have completely failed to communicate my position and why I hold that position?

I'll post only because you asked me to.

I see what you're saying in the sense that I understand the gramatical structure of your sentences and comprehend the sentiment that you're expressing, yes.

What I don't see is how that has anything at all to do with anything Tony (or subsequently I) wrote.  Because fact is, it doesn't.  

Nothing Tony wrote equates to bullying.  Nothing he wrote equates to intolerance.  In the world of logical arguement we call that a strawman.  Tony said "A", you pretend he said "B" and then you launch into a passionate rebuttal of "B".

We're pretty adept at catching that and calling people out on it around here.


But I'll tell you what...Glendover made the most profound observation of this entire thread.

Consider Tony's initial post in this thread to be the forum equivelent of slapping down a "prove my point" goal...just look to what lengths you're willing to go to to make sure he doesn't win that goal.  Look at how many other people are jumping in to roll up or roll down one side or the other.  Why are you participating in this thread?  Why are you vested enough to spend "a significant amount of time and effort" on it?  

Because the goal strikes at something important to you.  Important enough to get you involved.  AND in so doing you get to demonstrate your own personal world view.  By making this thread Tony has essentially given you the arena in which to show everybody else exactly where you stand.  Can you see how without this challenge there would be no opportunity for you to get on your soapbox?  Or rather, you could...but there would be no audience and no one would care.

If Tony simply said "Sindyr has his own thing and I'm not going to tell him what works best for him" then you would have no opportunity to explain what actually works best for you.  By challenging you, he's given you the opportunity to express your point of view in a way and to an audience that otherwise would not have been available to you.

Can you see how Capes works EXACTLY the same way?  If the other players simply allow you to have your safe zone without challenging you, that's not helping you...that's denying you the opportunity to express yourself.

My saying "you're wrong" isn't a personal attack or a horrible affront.  Its giving you the oportunity to say "no I'm right and here's why".  Being safe and "non-judgemental" and being unwilling to say "you're wrong"  isn't respecting your opinion.  Its denying you the opportunity to express it by being completely indifferent to it.  

Indifference is a far far worse thing than disagreement.  Not caring about your important thing is a far far worse thing than trying to take your important thing away.  Trying to take your important thing away allows you to make a statement about that important thing which we will all hear.  That's not hurting you or being disrespectful to your wishes.  That's HELPING you by saying...yes...that thing is important to us too and we want to hear what you have to say about it...and here's a dramatically interesting situation for you to say it in.


Can you see where I'm going here?

Sindyr, I've also kept an eye on all these discussions all this time, and want to give my view on what's happening, and why I think it falls on you to break the cycle.

Both sides have been talking past each other of essentially different things. I guess we're doing this because the whole dialogue started with this fundamental new exciting revelation wrt roleplaying in Capes that we think you don't get. And people stick to explaining that. And what you're arguing may be related, but is not core to that issue, so we're not engaging with discussing that. If you really want more to discuss what you're saying, separate it completely from the original context.

Here, in this thread, I think Tony tried to do this whole discussion a great favor by regrounding it straight to the original issue with a completely fresh start, and even not directly addressing to you (because other peoples need this revelation, too).

Now, in all those almost a dozen threads, many many people (myself included) have tried to disclose this original issue to you, but I've never seen you really take it into consideration. Please, do try to consider it without any preconceptions, try to think what "getting unsafe" could give someone (if not you), and state that you do understand what we're trying to say.

After that you can say "Yes, I agree that getting unsafe has these benefits, but don't you agree that in this situation X, with these factors Y contributing, the bad effects outweigh the benefits", and I'm sure people will discuss with you much more constructively.

OK guys, I think I have found a way to express my position clearly, and it's one that is a lot more general than just relating to Authorship (what Tony spins as a "security blanket") so I have split it off into its own thread:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19614.0

I think you will find within the distilled essence of what has been occuring not just on this thread, but on this forum that has been bothering me.

Thanks.

Over on the thread just mentioned (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19614.msg205735#msg205735), Sindyr asked a question that is (to my eyes) an attempt to clarify the issues on this thread.  Or maybe it's a rhetorical question and the answer was supposed to be "Oh, no, of course there's no justification for such stuff!"  Whatever.  I'm giving my justification.

Quote from: Sindyr on April 25, 2006, 01:35:46 PM
I created an authorship mod. We employed it in our game.  Everyone was happy, and everyone had fun.

If a group of like-minded people want to play a variant of Capes that includes this rule, and if they are relatively certain that playing with this variant will be much more fun than playing without it, then in what way is anyone entitled to fault these players for so doing?  In what way is anyone entitled to claim that their own style of play is in anyway superior to the way my group plays?

Well, I can do a whole bunch of interesting things that you refuse to even attempt.  Whether that makes me a better roleplayer than you is a fascinating and difficult question.

Suppose we hold all other factors equal:  We assume that I am exactly as good as you are at playing with inviolate characters.  No better, no worse.  I think that it's clear (but hey, who knows?) that in that case I would be the superior roleplayer.  I can do everything you can do plus all that other stuff.  Unless you value that other stuff at precisely zero (which is a separate claim, if you want to make it) then that pretty much gives me the advantage.

Now it's virtually impossible to hold all other factors equal, of course.  Am I better than you at playing with inviolate characters?  Who knows?

But, really, who cares?  Because there are two cases where I can hold all other factors equal:  Myself before I try to play vulnerable characters and myself after I try it.  If we assume that my skill at playing inviolate characters stays exactly the same (again, a point that might merit debate) then I am a better roleplayer after expanding my horizons than I was before doing so.  I've improved.

So I worry that you're missing a crucial point here:  I'm not saying that, if you cling to the notion of inviolate characters, you'll be an inferior roleplayer when compared with me.  I'm saying that you'll be an inferior roleplayer when compared with what you could be.

Tony,

I also think it is interesting to note that you didn't mention anything really about preferences.  If you can play skillfully with both vulnerable and inviolate characters but prefer inviolate characters, that's not better or worse than preferring the other method of play.  It's just your preference.  However, in order to have a preference you have to acknowledge (and have experienced) both modes of play.  Otherwise your preference is just ignorance.

Quote from: TonyLB on April 25, 2006, 02:53:48 PM
Well, I can do a whole bunch of interesting things that you refuse to even attempt.  Whether that makes me a better roleplayer than you is a fascinating and difficult question.

I think "better" is like taste, an opinion.  I would argue that we are talking about perhaps, versatility.

QuoteBut, really, who cares?  Because there are two cases where I can hold all other factors equal:  Myself before I try to play vulnerable characters and myself after I try it.  If we assume that my skill at playing inviolate characters stays exactly the same (again, a point that might merit debate) then I am a better roleplayer after expanding my horizons than I was before doing so.  I've improved.

So I worry that you're missing a crucial point here:  I'm not saying that, if you cling to the notion of inviolate characters, you'll be an inferior roleplayer when compared with me.  I'm saying that you'll be an inferior roleplayer when compared with what you could be.

I think that the crux of the mistake that I perceive you to be making.  Inferior is the wrong word, with entirely the wrong denotations and connotations.

Is someone who can play golf well inferior to some who can play golf *and* tennis well?  Of course not.  Perhaps if they were to play tennis badly, then you could say that their tennis skill was inferior, but you certainly can't say that they as a person are inferior.

Perhaps if we just adjust the language to something more appropriate we will come to a meeting of the minds.  Any of the below I find acceptable and probably true:

If I do not enjoy playing Capes without inviolate characters, my ability to play Capes will not be as versatile as if I did.
-or-
If I do not play Capes without inviolate characters, I will not have experienced as much of Capes as a could have.
-or-
If I do not enjoy playing Capes without inviolate characters, I will not be find as many kinds of fulfillment in Capes as if I did.

If any one of those three things are your point, then I understand, and agree.

But I don't consider someone an inferior sportsman just because he plays fewer games than he could.  Narrowly focused does not equate to inferior, and widely focused doesn't not equate to superior.

It only equates to versatility.

Are we on the same page now?

Nope.

Someone who can play golf and tennis is, cetera paribus, a better athlete than someone who can only play golf.

Didn't I basically say that already?

Quote from: Gaerik on April 25, 2006, 03:10:35 PMHowever, in order to have a preference you have to acknowledge (and have experienced) both modes of play.  Otherwise your preference is just ignorance.

That's incorrect - and a common fallacy.  If you were right, then one could not decide to not have children until one had experienced having children.

Burning one's hand on a hot stove is not the only way to learn not to do that.

I have acknowleged many different ways to play - but I myself do not necessarily have to try or experience them in order to know if they are for me or not.

I have never played football.  Given my aversion to pain, sweat, and exhaustion, as well as several other factors, I do not think it necessary for me to go experience football before I conclude that it isn't for me.

Even if I wanted to, neither I nor you have the time to go and try to experience everything we have ever considered.  Sometimes we are forced into making educated guesses based on the limited resources of time we possess.

It is merely the intelligent thing to do to weigh the benefit of even pursuing actual experience of something before comitting the time and energy to do so. 

For me, giving football a try would be a bad investment.  And the same may be true of playing Capes without an authorship rule.

Quote from: Sindyr on April 25, 2006, 03:19:11 PM
But I don't consider someone an inferior sportsman just because he plays fewer games than he could.  Narrowly focused does not equate to inferior, and widely focused doesn't not equate to superior.

Just because you don't consider it to be true, doesn't make it not so.  If I can play every sport you can play at an equal skill level plus 3 more that you can't play at all, then objectively (or as close to objectively as you're going to get) I'm a better athlete than you.

Cross posted with Tony...

Quote from: TonyLB on April 25, 2006, 03:23:24 PM
Nope.

Someone who can play golf and tennis is, cetera paribus, a better athlete than someone who can only play golf.

Didn't I basically say that already?

What if the person who plays golf and tennis plays them both badly, and the person who plays only tennis plays incredible well?

Or, more to the point, what if both people can play both games equally well, and the only difference is that one of them enjoys tennis and gold, and the other one, who can play both, only enjoys golf?

Is the person who doesn't enjoy tennis (although he can play it) inferior to the one that does?

Quote from: Gaerik on April 25, 2006, 03:28:03 PM

Quote from: Sindyr on April 25, 2006, 03:19:11 PM
But I don't consider someone an inferior sportsman just because he plays fewer games than he could.  Narrowly focused does not equate to inferior, and widely focused doesn't not equate to superior.

Just because you don't consider it to be true, doesn't make it not so.  If I can play every sport you can play at an equal skill level plus 3 more that you can't play at all, then objectively (or as close to objectively as you're going to get) I'm a better athlete than you.

Cross posted with Tony...

That completely and utterly depends on how we define athlete.  If the definition of athlete includes sportmanship and attitude, and if you happen to be a bad sport where I am a good sport and fun to play with and against, then even if you play more games than I do, I may be the better athlete.

This is why it is innapropriate to use terms like inferior and superior, because it always hides "according to what standard?"

The only way in which a person is a better athlete than someone else by knwoing how to play more games is only by defining what makes a better athlete thusly, which is circular.

If a different standard or criteria is used to value how good an athlete one is, than simply knowing how many games two different people can play will not help you determine who is the better athlete.

Quote from: Sindyr on April 25, 2006, 03:30:03 PM
What if the person who plays golf and tennis plays them both badly, and the person who plays only tennis plays incredible well?

Cetera paribus is latin for "all other things being equal."  Does that sound like all other things are equal?

Quote from: Sindyr on April 25, 2006, 03:30:03 PMOr, more to the point, what if both people can play both games equally well, and the only difference is that one of them enjoys tennis and gold, and the other one, who can play both, only enjoys golf?

Then we're not talking about a person who can play tennis and golf vs. a person who can only play golf, are we?

Quote from: Sindyr on April 25, 2006, 03:26:53 PM
Burning one's hand on a hot stove is not the only way to learn not to do that.

We aren't even talking about the same thing here.  Of course you don't have to burn yourself on a hot stove to learn that it's hot.  It's not even remotely like what I was talking about.  Let me give an example...

You:  I prefer Peach Pie to Apple Pie.
Me:  Have you even eaten Apple Pie?
You:  No.  But I've seen people eat Apple Pie and it doesn't look good.  I prefer Peach.

Thus far in the conversation your preference is just plain ignorance.

Your football example above is closer to what I'm saying.  At least in it you are basing your preference on some relevant experience.  You don't like pain.  You don't like to sweat.  You don't like physical exhaustion.  You don't like some of the components of football, so you don't like football.  Fine.  I still think it's bullshit but that's up to you.  At least it's based on some experience.  I don't like any of those things either but I still like football because the activity is more than the sum of its component parts.

I think we have drifted far of the topic of this thread and are now actually discussion the topic of the other thread - perhaps we should do so over there?

Quote from: TonyLB on April 25, 2006, 03:39:41 PM

Quote from: Sindyr on April 25, 2006, 03:30:03 PM
What if the person who plays golf and tennis plays them both badly, and the person who plays only tennis plays incredible well?

Cetera paribus is latin for "all other things being equal."  Does that sound like all other things are equal?

Did I say I spoke latin? I know a few phrases, but certainly not all.

Quote

Quote from: Sindyr on April 25, 2006, 03:30:03 PMOr, more to the point, what if both people can play both games equally well, and the only difference is that one of them enjoys tennis and gold, and the other one, who can play both, only enjoys golf?

Then we're not talking about a person who can play tennis and golf vs. a person who can only play golf, are we?

No we are not.  We are talking about someone who could choose to do something, and doesn't, because its not fun.

Wasn't that always what we were talking about?

replying to the questions here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19614.0
because it is more on topic there.

Thanks

Quote from: Sindyr on April 25, 2006, 03:44:53 PM
No we are not.  We are talking about someone who could choose to do something, and doesn't, because its not fun.

Wasn't that always what we were talking about?

No, it wasn't.  You originally asked:

Quote from: Sindyr on April 25, 2006, 03:19:11 PM
Is someone who can play golf well inferior to some who can play golf *and* tennis well?

My answer remains:  Yes, all other things (including skill at golf, sportsmanship and sex appeal) being equal, someone who can play golf and tennis is a better athlete than someone who can only play golf.

Likewise, all other things being equal, someone who can play inviolate and vulnerable characters is a better roleplayer than someone who can only play inviolate.

The idea presented in this thread was a major breakthrough in my Capes gameplayer. Previous to it the conflicts were boring. "So and so beats up so and so." "So and so extracts information from so and so." It was fun, to be sure, and even when I was playing at that "level."

This last weekend I ran Capes at a convention, and was playing Quentin Quadro, boy genius. My friend Bob (ubergeek2012) was playing Xixtan, a huge, terrifying robot, and I saw that he had a whole lot of debt tokens on Pride and Fear. So what conflict did I play?

Goal: Quentin Quadro terrifies Xixtan.

I sat on a nice pile of story tokens after that, *and* Bob got to "prove" that Xixtan was a huge, unflappable badass. Everyone wins, and it was way better than "Quentin Quadro fights Xixtan."

Thank God for you, Bret. Exactly. A real-life example of what we're talking about: It's more fun this way -- try it!.

My personal experience I keep citing in this discussion involves people (Tony, primarily) doing this to me, and, darn it, I'll cite it again, because the discussion needs more Actual Play:

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on December 12, 2005, 03:36:48 PM....in the last two sessions, I've had both my spotlight characters change at least in part against my will. I'd been steering Minerva for a descent into doomed villainy and self-destruction -- and then Tony threw a time-manipulator character at her who tried to steal that destiny, and won. Conversely, I'd been steering Kettridge towards becoming a solid, good guy, and Tony & Eric basically used the mechanics to say, "Really? 'Cause he still seems like a domineering jerk to us," in particular when (Tony? Eric? I forget) put out a Goal for Kettridge, "Tell his superiors the whole truth" -- which meant, by its very introduction into play, that Kettridge was lying by omission about something important, which hadn't been my intent at all -- followed in this most recent session by a flurry of goals like "Kettridge: convince Zak the destruction of his homeworld was for the greater good," "Zak: Prove Kettridge's actions are all part of a selfish conspiracy against the team," and "Kettridge: Convince himself he's telling the truth."

And in each of these cases, with each of these characters, I had a stomach-flipping moment of, "Wait! That's not what my character's like!" For some of the Kettridge conflicts, I actually went so far as to ask what the rules for vetoing the introduction of a conflict were (we never use them). But, in each case, I came to the point where I decided to trust my fellow players and take their suggestions and run with them -- and the result was much, much richer than anything I'd have imagined by myself.

There were even moments where I poured in enough resources to win a couple of these conflicts -- and then deliberately narrated them to leave open the possibility that Kettridge was a traitor, after all. There were also moments where I fought desperately but just didn't have the resources, so someone else got to narrate a crucial turning point for my character. And it was okay. In fact, it was great.

I feel like Keanu Reeves in The Matrix (the first one, obviously), staring at the little kid warping a spoon without touching it and being told, "The important thing is to remember that there is no spoon."

There is no 'my character'. There is only the character I bring to the table for all of us to play with.

Quote from: Bret Gillan on April 25, 2006, 04:04:05 PM
The idea presented in this thread was a major breakthrough in my Capes gameplayer. Previous to it the conflicts were boring. "So and so beats up so and so." "So and so extracts information from so and so." It was fun, to be sure, and even when I was playing at that "level."

This last weekend I ran Capes at a convention, and was playing Quentin Quadro, boy genius. My friend Bob (ubergeek2012) was playing Xixtan, a huge, terrifying robot, and I saw that he had a whole lot of debt tokens on Pride and Fear. So what conflict did I play?

Goal: Quentin Quadro terrifies Xixtan.

I sat on a nice pile of story tokens after that, *and* Bob got to "prove" that Xixtan was a huge, unflappable badass. Everyone wins, and it was way better than "Quentin Quadro fights Xixtan."

Actually, this is one of my objections to not having the Authorship rule - it makes engaging your other player trivial and no challenge at all.   Too obvious for me.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on April 25, 2006, 04:15:36 PM
There is no 'my character'. There is only the character I bring to the table for all of us to play with.

The problem is, if there is no 'my character' than there is also no character I care about.

A problem that the authorship rule neatly solves for me and my group.

However, I am specifically NOT suggesting that people who enjoy having no 'my character' change a thing.

[quote author=Sindyr link=topic=19597.msg205786#msg205786 date=1145996209
Actually, this is one of my objections to not having the Authorship rule - it makes engaging your other player trivial and no challenge at all.   Too obvious for me.

Quote

Hi Sindyr! I'm not sure what you mean by this. What was trivial? This was a pretty big struggle.

To weigh in on the whole thing,  I'm going to combine the concepts here.  The person who learns to play golf and tennis equally well and then decides they prefer golf is a superior person to the one who learns to play golf well and rejects tennis but has only tried it once or twice but hasn't put in the time and effort to truly experience and learn the game thuroughly.

I offer my friend Tyler who is an aethist as an example.  In my mind he is a superior aethist than most aethists because, despite his own displeasure has put in the effort to read: The Bible, The Koran, The Book of Mormon, The Bagahvagita, and a few other religious texts, cover-to-cover.

He is also the superior literary critic because, despite his own displeasure, he has put in the time and effort to read almost every great book ever written no matter how dry and boring and counter to his own tastes.

And more importantly, he has approached all of these with the intent to understand and grasp what makes these things great despite his own distaste for them.  And he has not given up until he has achieved that understanding.  And in some cases his displeasure changed to pleasure because in his effort he had an epiphany moment that altered his preferences.  That moment came only because he struggled through pages and pages and hours and hours of pain and displeasure and discovered that his displeasured stemed not from the work itself but because of an assumption or fault of his own that was holding him back from enjoying what was presented to him.

Do you want to be a healthier roleplayer?  Eat those vegetables you think are disgusting.  Eat them frequently and cooked a variety of ways and soon you may discover you've aquired the taste.  But until you've tried all the dishes and truly examined and experimented with those vegetables, don't tell us you don't like them.

Jesse

It's easy to get you to care about a goal if I am allowed to push your buttons.  Without the authorship rule, all I have to put down is:
Goal: You hero does X, where X is something that inflames you, like, has sex with a man. or cries like a baby, or beats his mother, etc.

It is relatively more difficult to come up with goals that draw in other players to getting engaged if one is denied obvious things like the above.  When you cannot take the easy road of threatening the image of the character they fancy, you are forced into spending more thought on it - what does the player sitting accross from me want?  And how can I dangle that in front of him?

I like that extra required thought.

Oh. Uh... okay. That's cool. Though I actually find that what I'm doing when I'm creating goals like the one I mentioned, or the goal that a totally newbie Capes player put down (Quentin Quadro learns his lesson - totally awesome, since I was playing him as a mad scientist with no sense of consequences) requires some thought.

Quote from: Sindyr on April 25, 2006, 04:27:31 PM
It's easy to get you to care about a goal if I am allowed to push your buttons.  Without the authorship rule, all I have to put down is:
Goal: You hero does X, where X is something that inflames you, like, has sex with a man. or cries like a baby, or beats his mother, etc.

If someone I played with was being an asshat and laying down goals like that, they wouldn't get invited back. Not to mention you can veto goals like that.

I find it interesting that "has sex with a man" is something you think of as an inflaming goal, but I that's probably not worth getting into.

Quoteyou are forced into spending more thought on it - what does the player sitting accross from me want?  And how can I dangle that in front of him?

I like that extra required thought.

Uh, as do I. You can do those things in the kind of play I'm talking about. In fact, I've found that it *encourages* that extra required thought to make the characters vulnerable to such goals.

Sindyr, I gotta say something, and Tony can tell me if I'm being out of line here, but I've been away from this forum for awhile and I come back and I'm greeted by a strange reply from you that seems to imply that my mode of play is "easier" than yours and that it doesn't have the "extra required thought" that yours does. Then I scroll down and you seem to be demanding that people not judge your opinions. Is passive-aggressively insinuating that my play is inferior to yours the way that you get people to respect your opinions? Because it's not working for me, and that's after being exposed to you for less than an hour.

Quote from: jburneko on April 25, 2006, 04:24:39 PM
To weigh in on the whole thing,  I'm going to combine the concepts here.  The person who learns to play golf and tennis equally well and then decides they prefer golf is a superior person to the one who learns to play golf well and rejects tennis but has only tried it once or twice but hasn't put in the time and effort to truly experience and learn the game thuroughly.

If I may rephrase slightly, someone may have a gift for golf and a natural disability to play tennis.  Perhaps it is enough to say:
The person who tries his best to play golf and tennis and then decides they prefer golf pursues games better to the one who learns to play golf well and rejects tennis but has only tried it once or twice but hasn't put in the time and effort to truly experience and learn the game thuroughly.

However, even that is not true - will explain why below.

QuoteI offer my friend Tyler who is an aethist as an example.  In my mind he is a superior aethist than most aethists because, despite his own displeasure has put in the effort to read: The Bible, The Koran, The Book of Mormon, The Bagahvagita, and a few other religious texts, cover-to-cover.

QuoteDo you want to be a healthier roleplayer?  Eat those vegetables you think are disgusting.  Eat them frequently and cooked a variety of ways and soon you may discover you've aquired the taste.  But until you've tried all the dishes and truly examined and experimented with those vegetables, don't tell us you don't like them.Jesse

First of all, I think it obvious that if one tried apples and finds one doesn't like them, it is not at all incumbent on one to try any other apple dishes.

More importantly, we are forgetting that in real life time is limited.

You can't try eveything - you don't have time.

I am an atheist.  I spent around 5 years investigating all things religious.  I had many and long discussions with Jehovah's Witnesses, Harvest Christian's, Protestants, and more.  I visited around a dozen churches in the areas, many several times.  I read all kinds of books, some that were suggested to me, and some that I found on my own.  I spent years questioning myself, my spirituality, and my reason.

At the end of that time, I felt I had pursued all needed ideas, thoughts, points of view, etc enough to conclude that atheism (or choosing to not believe in god, note: not at all the same thing as the positive belief that there is no god) is the rational way.

But let me tell you, there is no end to epople telling me "have you read this book? have you talked to this minister?  have you explored this religion or sect?"

One cannot spend unlimited time, energy, and resources on every matter, even one as important as faith.  One must judge for oneself how much needs to be invested versus the likelihood of getting a different result than the one we expect.

I am a fairly intelligent person (even if I can't type for beans, heh heh).  I am smart enough to know not to try 37 apple dishes if I know I hate apples.  Will I miss one that I *might* like?  Perhaps.  Is it worth trying them all, both in times of time and energy and in terms of repetitively experience that horrid apple taste on the of chance that it is "possible" that one of the dishes might appeal? Probably not.

Besides, I know I like pears.  It makes far more sense to try additional pear dishes that I probably *will* like than to spend time looking for a probably non existant apple dish, and experiencing that horrid apple taste each time.

Quote from: Sindyr on April 25, 2006, 04:42:45 PMBesides, I know I like pears.  It makes far more sense to try additional pear dishes that I probably *will* like than to spend time looking for a probably non existant apple dish, and experiencing that horrid apple taste each time.

If I liked pears so much, I would post on a pear forum. I would not go onto an apple pie forum and belabor the point that if you substitute apples for pears, all of the apple pie recipes taste much better to me.

I also wouldn't get extremely defensive about people calling me on it--particularly the person who wrote the apple pie recipe book that the forum is devoted to.

But that's just me.

Quote from: Sindyr on April 25, 2006, 04:16:49 PM
Actually, this is one of my objections to not having the Authorship rule - it makes engaging your other player trivial and no challenge at all.   Too obvious for me.

Well that's a new one on me ... "Capes supports its intended style of play too well!  It makes it so easy to create passionate, engaging conflicts that I don't feel like I'm working hard enough!"

First, a public appeal: Let's please stop talking about pears, golf, and comparative religion -- I understand the value of metaphor and analogy, but I think at this point the analogies have caused us to veer way the heck away from actual incidences of play.

Now, substantively:

Quote from: Sindyr on April 25, 2006, 04:19:17 PM

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on April 25, 2006, 04:15:36 PM
There is no 'my character'. There is only the character I bring to the table for all of us to play with.

The problem is, if there is no 'my character' than there is also no character I care about.

There isn't? I think I have to be misunderstanding you.

You don't watch movies or read books and care about their characters, which are not under your control? You don't play RPGs and care about your friends' PCs and the NPCs, which are not under your control?

Heck, actors manage to care intensely about the characters they play while having very little control over what the scriptwriters and directors do with those characters -- far less control than you have over a character in Capes.

Sindyr, can I ask you to post about moments in your own personal roleplaying experience that were most meaningful or enjoyable for you? And maybe that's a separate thread, but if you can show us a few cases where you had a lot of fun playing an "inviolate" character, and how that degree of protection contributed to your fun, that will advance my understanding of your argument a lot further.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on April 25, 2006, 05:57:15 PM

Quote from: Sindyr on April 25, 2006, 04:19:17 PM

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on April 25, 2006, 04:15:36 PM
There is no 'my character'. There is only the character I bring to the table for all of us to play with.

The problem is, if there is no 'my character' than there is also no character I care about.

There isn't? I think I have to be misunderstanding you.

You don't watch movies or read books and care about their characters, which are not under your control?

I won't speak for Sindyr, but I'll speak for myself.

Yes!

I hardly EVER watch movies or read books and care about the characters as much as I care about my RPG characters - and the exceptions only come when the creators are much, much better than I am.  Mostly, I watch TV or movies either for the visuals (like Fifth Element) or plot surprises (like Doctor Who) or because my wife is watching (like House).

These days, I write far more than I read.  Having a character that strives for what what I say he should strive for, even when events says he shouldn't, is just so cool.

Now I can hear the wheels in Tony's head turning.  "That's great!  The fact that you VALUE that control that much, means that you'll fight for it all the harder!"

Now I understand that the conflicts that challenge that value are not intended to actually damage it.  They're intended to pook it, get me to fight back, and let me win.  I understand that.  The thing is... I won't win them all, and every time I lose one, the value of that character to me drops a peg.  Will I still enjoy playing?  Sure.  Especially if I'm hanging out with fun people like Tony. 

(I was going to post a metaphor here, but it would just distract.  )

Quote from: Vaxalon on April 25, 2006, 08:02:24 PM
The thing is... I won't win them all, and every time I lose one, the value of that character to me drops a peg.

Quick request for clarification:  This is your experience of actual play, or this is your untested hypothesis?

Quote from: Vaxalon on April 25, 2006, 08:02:24 PMNow I understand that the conflicts that challenge that value are not intended to actually damage it.  They're intended to pook it, get me to fight back, and let me win. ...

Well -- no, not always

QuoteThe thing is... I won't win them all, and every time I lose one, the value of that character to me drops a peg.

Always? Usually? Have you ever had an experience (playing Capes or something else, now) where your character got utterly defeated on something that mattered to you, personally, as a player, and your response was not, "oh darn," but "wow, that was much cooler than what I was originally trying to do"?

Because that's what my experience I keep citing (a few posts back, now) was like. In fact, looking back, all my favorite moments in roleplaying came when someone else contributed something to the game that I hadn't expected, couldn't control, and which impelled me to radically change who my character was.

I've played Capes a grand total of five times.  Twice with Tony, three times without.

I'm going to leave the two games played with Tony out because Tony's a riot to play with no matter WHAT the game is.  I have no doubt playing with him could make GURPS enjoyable for me.

In the three games I played where Tony wasn't involved, my characters quickly seemed to become flatter, more distant, and out of focus as the game progressed.  Two of those three games were IRC games, though, and that may have had something to do with it, but the same thing happened when I played around the table with my wife, her best friend, and her best friend's daughter.  Everything just seemed to sink into the table.

My characters get defeated on a regular basis.  I'm a GM on a fairly regular basis.  But *I* don't get defeated.

There's a difference.  When the stakes are "Doctor Trinity's spine gets snapped" is a defeat for the character, and one I can relish because Doctor Trinity, as a villain, was always intended to be defeated.  Even if he was a hero, that's still fine, because it gives him the chance to come back from his adversity and triumph in spite of it.  "Doctor Trinity's ego gets crushed" is also a defeat for the character. 

When the stakes are "Doctor Trinity is revealed to be a faker and an idiot" (not "...is made into an idiot") that's a defeat for me.  It's kind of like a retcon.

Do you see the difference?

Quote from: Vaxalon on April 26, 2006, 09:23:14 AM
When the stakes are "Doctor Trinity is revealed to be a faker and an idiot" (not "...is made into an idiot") that's a defeat for me.  It's kind of like a retcon.

Do you see the difference?

I totally see the difference.  No question.

You know the word that's coming next, right?

But, I'll posit that there's another difference between two types of conflicts, which often gets conflated with this, but which isn't really the same thing at all.  The difference is between a conflict where, at the end of it, you don't feel you got to have a fair amount of input (based on whatever you think is "fair") and a conflict where you do feel that you got to have a fair amount of input, and where you've come to understand more about the arguments on the opposing side.

So, for instance, in D&D:  If the GM says "Okay, a bunch of goblins attack!  Roll initiative!" then we have a system in place that lets me have my say (with me thews!) in what the outcome of that conflict will be.  By the end of it, even if I lose, I probably feel like I gave as good as I got, and I know with some precision why it is that the GM thinks it's reasonable for the goblins to beat me ("Dude!  They had a goblin shaman!  We rate shamans now.")

Compare and contrast that with the same situation in D&D where the GM says "Okay, a bunch of goblins attack!  You guys are all captured," ... or even "A bunch of goblins attack!  You guys slaughter them."  In those situations I have not had my say.  I didn't get to contribute.  I also didn't get a chance to be convinced by the GM of the coolness of losing.  That cheeses me off, irrespective of the outcome.

Still with me?  I will eventually return to the main point.  We're headed back now.

In D&D there is no mechanic for the GM to say "Okay, she's an evil temptress and your paladin is young.  Does he hold out, or do they violate his vows of chastity with abandon?" and then let me have my say.  You can do it, but you get zero system support ... largely you talk with the GM, and maybe he actually listens to you, but maybe he just pays lip-service to what you're saying, then does whatever he wants anyway.  It is a markedly different type of conflict from the goblins, for that very reason.  I find it very difficult to conceive of losing such a conflict in D&D in a way that would make me feel assured that I'd gotten a fair amount of input, but lost anyway.

In Capes though, I get that experience all the time.  Someone proposes something like the Doc Trinity example you posted, and I dump a whole mess of my resources into it, and other people dump theirs.  Eventually I'm sitting there looking at the balance of power, and looking at my own remaining resources, and I say to myself "Y'know what?  I've said my piece.  I could keep jumping on this, and maybe even win it, but the process of playing this out has shown me the arguments for Doc Trinity being a liar and a fraud.  I can work with that ... particularly if I collect a huge whopping bribe of resources for letting it happen."

Now that's me.  Other people are different.  I'm interested to know, Fred, where you stand on this one.  There's lots of reasonable positions I could imagine for you ... maybe you feel that "fair" input into your own character is absolute, or maybe you feel that your input isn't absolute but the process let you down, or maybe you agree intellectually that authorship should be shared but you just can't get behind it emotionally, or maybe, or maybe ... blah, blah, blah.  Lots of possibilities.  How do you feel about it?

Quote from: Vaxalon on April 26, 2006, 09:23:14 AM
When the stakes are "Doctor Trinity is revealed to be a faker and an idiot" (not "...is made into an idiot") that's a defeat for me.  It's kind of like a retcon.

Except (as has been pointed out in other threads) you can't make anything stick in Capes. So you're perfectly free to take the Story Tokens you got for being beaten on that goal and use them to win:

Goal: Dr. Trinity clears his name and reputation
or maybe
Event: An imposter is revealed!
or even
Goal: ...but it was all part of my Master Plan!

Jeff, absolutely! And it's very in keeping with comic books.

Fred, I remember reading about the game where you played Doctor Trinity, and that was clearly not satisfying for you, so that's a good example of "people changing my character in ways I didn't agree to can suck."

As I recall, the thing that really annoyed Fred was someone else narrating their character casually snapping Trinity's spine and tossing him into the deepest part of the Pacific. Clearly, that marred Fred's concept of Trinity as a powerful, aloof manipulator.

But -- looking at Sindyr now -- wouldn't the spine-snapping count as "external" adversity and thus be permissible under your Authorship Rule? I can see the clear, bright line in theory between "this is external, it only affects my character from the outside, I don't need to be able to veto it" and "this is internal, it is about how my character feels and thinks and who he is, and I need to have a veto." But in practice, any "external" thing your character truly cares about is going to reflect on who he or she is internally. E.g. if your concept is of a smooth supervillain, and somebody snaps himlike a twig and bodyslams him into the Pacific, well, your concept just took as big a hit as if somebody makes him cry; if your concept is of a supernaturally lucky and charming superhero (Lucky Charm, right?), then losing "Goal: Lucky Charm impresses everybody" is as bad as losing "Goal: Make Lucky Charm snivel and whine."

You don't really even need to have a Capes-style Goal system to see this effect in play. If you have a D&D character, and your concept is "my guy is a cool, brooding, angsty hero," but all the other players at the table think the character, as you portray him, is a whiny dork, then -- guess what -- your character is a whiny dork. If your concept is "my character is charming, smooth, and witty," and none of the other players at the table ever laughs at the jokes you tell through his mouth, then -- guess what -- your character is not witty.

"The character" is not some inviolate concept in your head. "The character" only becomes real when you share it with other people -- and I'm not just talking RPG characters here: It's true of your characters even if you're writing a novel, because the whole point of a novel is to be read by somebody else. Other people's reactions to that character help define who he or she really is, which will never be exactly what you imagined.

And that's a good thing! If your character concept wasn't that great, everyone's lack of enthusiasm tells you so, and you can try to make it better, or try another one. If your character concept was cool but could be even cooler -- and what is perfect when first created? -- then the things everyone else pushes you to do with the character tells you what you could do to realize the full potential of your idea. And when you embrace other people's input, even (especially) the criticisms that are hard for you to take, you can create something far greater than what you could have done on your own.

This is is what I mean by

QuoteThere is no 'my character'. There is only the character I bring to the table for all of us to play with.

I'm not talking about Capes here. I am talking about every roleplaying game ever. I am talking about every artistic activity from acting to writing.

Why are we trying to do this roleplaying thing in the first place? Because there is something tremendously rewarding about saying, "hey, here's my cool idea" -- for a character, for a scene, for a crazy combat move, whatever -- and having a whole bunch of people sitting around the table with you say, "yeah! cool!" Otherwise you might as well be alone in your room, daydreaming. The other people's reaction is the point. Why not play a game that acknowledges that?

Quote from: drnuncheon on April 26, 2006, 10:03:53 AMExcept (as has been pointed out in other threads) you can't make anything stick in Capes. So you're perfectly free to take the Story Tokens you got for being beaten on that goal and use them to win:

Goal: Dr. Trinity clears his name and reputation
or maybe
Event: An imposter is revealed!
or even
Goal: ...but it was all part of my Master Plan!

F'real. In the example Sydney cites above, I'm imagining Dr. Trinity pulling himself out of the ocean, dragging his legs behind him, hatred and a thirst for vengeance carved into his face. Now that's hardcore!

Great post, Sydney.  It is so true, but it flies in the face of our egos as role players.  We all like to think we are mavericks, free spirits, etc., but the dirty little secret we all harbor is that we, like all the other people on the planet, care what other people think of us and what other people think of our efforts.  We prove this in the fact that we choose to express our creativity in groups instead of in solitude.  Writers write not only to write but to be read.  Role players role play not only to talk but to be heard.

One of the things I love about Capes is that it is so hard to feign interest while playing.  I'm not sure why this is true, but it is.  When people are impressed, it shows.  When they aren't, it shows too.  And the fact that you inevitably fail to be impressive with frequency makes it all the sweeter when you hit one out of the park.  The stark reality of your failures make your successes real as well.

QuoteSindyr, I gotta say something, and Tony can tell me if I'm being out of line here, but I've been away from this forum for awhile and I come back and I'm greeted by a strange reply from you that seems to imply that my mode of play is "easier" than yours and that it doesn't have the "extra required thought" that yours does. Then I scroll down and you seem to be demanding that people not judge your opinions. Is passive-aggressively insinuating that my play is inferior to yours the way that you get people to respect your opinions? Because it's not working for me, and that's after being exposed to you for less than an hour.

Bret, I wouldn't let it bother you...Sindyr has a tedency to use judgemental language like "neanderthal", "anarchy", and "barbaric" to describe styles of play with which he doesn't agree.

Its base irony given his stance on judgementalism, but doesn't stop it being amusing...at least to me ;)

I am reminded of a famous issue of Fantastic Four.

At the time, there had recently been an issue of X-Men in which Doctor Doom behaved in a way that the writer of Fantastic Four found to be out of character. Doctor Doom is a Fantastic Four villain, not an X-Men villain, so there is some sort of an ownership issue there.

So the writer of Fantastic Four wrote in a scene in which Doctor Doom is reviewing his Doombots. One of the Doombots is revealed to be the "Doctor Doom" from the X-Men issue and is summarily destroyed by Doctor Doom for not acting properly in that issue.

Quote from: dunlaing on April 27, 2006, 12:57:21 PM
I am reminded of a famous issue of Fantastic Four.

At the time, there had recently been an issue of X-Men in which Doctor Doom behaved in a way that the writer of Fantastic Four found to be out of character. Doctor Doom is a Fantastic Four villain, not an X-Men villain, so there is some sort of an ownership issue there.

So the writer of Fantastic Four wrote in a scene in which Doctor Doom is reviewing his Doombots. One of the Doombots is revealed to be the "Doctor Doom" from the X-Men issue and is summarily destroyed by Doctor Doom for not acting properly in that issue.

That's fantastic.  The author was playing Capes and didn't even know it.

Yes, but is this due to the comic book being like Capes, or Capes being like the comic book?

Please don't necromance for trivia, Fred.  If you'd like to split off a thread to discuss this topic, feel free, otherwise let the dead rest in peace.

Sorry.  I didn't check the date, I just trusted the "New" icon on the front page.   I'll look more closely in the future; evidently there may be a bug there.