I went to the Capes FAQ page looking for this, and did not find it.
Here's what I can come up with off the top of my head. Can anyone confirm or deny, or add things I have not mentioned?
-Taking an extra action for one character you are playing. Can be done only after each character has had their normal turns, near page's end.
-Bringing in a new character to play alongside your existing one. Can be done at any time(?) However many characters you have, each one gets one action, on your turn, in any order.
-Taking an extra Claim - can only be done during the Claiming phase.
-(?) Getting another reaction roll?
-(?) Using a used up Ability? (A power you have already used this page, a non-powered ability you have used this scene)
The above two aren't canon, but the text does say:
QuoteOne of the resources a player can acquire in the game is a pile of Story Tokens. These allow the player to take more control of the turn order. In most situations where each player gets to do something once (i.e. gets a turn) a Story Token can be spent to do it again. In this way, Story Tokens give increased authorship.
I am not saying necessarily that the above two are good *strategy*, just that that are kind of implied by the above quote.
What do you guys think? Anything else you can do with tokens that I left out?
Should this list be added to the FAQ?
Quote from: Sindyr on September 27, 2006, 02:32:49 PM
-Taking an extra action for one character you are playing. Can be done only after each character has had their normal turns, near page's end.
-Bringing in a new character to play alongside your existing one. Can be done at any time(?) However many characters you have, each one gets one action, on your turn, in any order.
-Taking an extra Claim - can only be done during the Claiming phase.
-(?) Getting another reaction roll?
-(?) Using a used up Ability? (A power you have already used this page, a non-powered ability you have used this scene)
...Should this list be added to the FAQ?
I think the full list would be:
* Buying more characters at the beginning of a scene. Page 18, grey box about scenes.
* Making extra claims at the beginning of a page. Page 18, grey box about pages.
* Making extra conflicts at the beginning of a page. Page 18, grey box about pages. (This one is subtle, and I missed it the first 100 times or so I read the box).
* Taking extra actions after everyone has taken their free action for a page. Page 24, third paragraph.
I would guess that any of the other uses you suggest (reactions, unlocking a power) would be house rules. The implication in the section of the rules you mention doesn't seem strong enough to me to suggest they are intended.
As to adding to the FAQ, my general guideline on that has been to wait a while until Tony answers, and if Tony doesn't say anything, assume the answer given by someone else was correct and add it in. So feel free to add this thread, as soon as you think the answer is authoritative. I personally never treat my own answers as authoritative because a) thats biased as all get out and b) I've been known to be horribly, horribly wrong.
Doesn't stop me from answering though. I think there is a pathology there, somewhere.
OK, sounds good. My one point of concern is that I was pretty sure that I saw somewhere (probably on this forum) that you can bring in an extra character with a story token *at any time*, not just at the beginning of the scene.
Anyone else have a similar memory?
By the way, slightly off topic - has anyone used story token in a way that makes them more powerful - or at least, more dependable? I was struck by the fact that a fellow player used 2 story tokens for 2 extra turns, spent debt, rolled horribly, and got nothing really for his debt and lost story tokens.
Has anyone every considered giving story tokens some kind of absolute use, in addition? Something like: spend a story token and:
-raise one die by 2 (1?) - up to six (five?)
-lower an opponents die by the same amount
-raise one die to a 4 (or 5?)
-lower one die to a 3 (or 2?)
-other ideas?
Quote from: Sindyr on September 27, 2006, 03:35:12 PM
OK, sounds good. My one point of concern is that I was pretty sure that I saw somewhere (probably on this forum) that you can bring in an extra character with a story token *at any time*, not just at the beginning of the scene.
Anyone else have a similar memory?
It was probably me who said it, and I'm pretty sure I was wrong. I used to play it that way myself. However, the text on page 20 seems pretty clear that you pay story tokens for characters at the beginning of the scene, and this kind of activity is only mentioned at that point.
Hmm, that changes things a great deal - and to my mind, not for the better.
I thought be able to threaten to bring in a new character spontaneously, off the cuff, was making for good, exciting gameplay - also, if that isn't allowed, than that is de facto disallowing characters to join running scenes - something that may be narratively desired.
For example, having Lucky Charm appear in the scene on page 5, instead of page 1, is potentially more ineteresting that having a rule that all characters must be in place from page 1 on.
Furthermore, I imagine that characters join the scene in mid-scene all the time in comic books. Why not in Capes?
Okay, I dunno where I got this, but for some reason I was under the impression that you could spend a story token to bring in other characters at the beginning of a page.
Here are some posts I found:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19102.0
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=21266.0
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=14385.0
Looks like the from-the-mouth-of-Tony way is to allow new characters to be brought in at the start of each page.
Still not sure if my group *may* haouse rule being able to bring in a new character *anytime* - or not.
Found in the erratta:
Jump right in, the water's fine (credit to Jay Loomis):
p. 22: "A player may spend a Story Token at this time to add a new Conflict" should read "A player may spend
a Story Token at this time to add a new Conflict or character".
<the time so referenced is immediately before or after the Claiming phase at the beginning of the page, before anyone has taken their actions.>
Quote from: TonyLB on February 17, 2005, 05:14:34 PM
Cool! Something else for the errata!
You can bring them in at the beginning of any Page. Not, however, in the middle of a page. There are some strategies that got used doing that in play-testing that disrupt the flow of play pretty brutally, so it got removed as an option.
Tony - could you be more specific. I am thinking about asking the group I game with to houserule that a token can be used to bring in a character any time, so long as it's not in the middle of someone's action. What are the disruptive downsides to this that are not present when you let them only bring in characters at the start of the page?
I think it would make buying additional actions with Story Tokens unnecessary, since bringing in another character would always benefit the player more (the character, and his additional action, stay on the table in the following pages). This in turn would probably increase the general number of characters in the scenes, possibly up to a point when managing them would become unwieldy, and important individual characters would get less spotlight time in relation to others. What's more, it would be possible to bring fresh, debtless character with all non-powered abilities unchecked at any time, so effectively players would be able to re-roll fives at the expense of a Story Token, without concerning themselves with resources left to individual characters. Also, there would be some initiative issues with bringing new characters after the starting phase of a page.
Quote-raise one die by 2 (1?) - up to six (five?)
In a way, this can be done by buying additional action with ST and using it to increase the Inspiration with an ability.
Quote from: Sindyr on September 27, 2006, 05:54:20 PM
Found in the erratta:
Jump right in, the water's fine (credit to Jay Loomis):
p. 22: "A player may spend a Story Token at this time to add a new Conflict" should read "A player may spend
a Story Token at this time to add a new Conflict or character".
Doh! Errata...I ALWAYS check the errata! Well, not always, I guess, since I missed this one. Good catch.
Quote from: Sindyr on September 27, 2006, 05:58:12 PM
Tony - could you be more specific. I am thinking about asking the group I game with to houserule that a token can be used to bring in a character any time, so long as it's not in the middle of someone's action. What are the disruptive downsides to this that are not present when you let them only bring in characters at the start of the page?
In most circumstances, if you are allowed to bring in a new character and take their action by spending story tokens then that's more cost-effective than spending a story token to take another action with an existing character. So that would drive people to have more and more (and more!) characters when the action gets hot and heavy, which is precisely the time that you don't want things getting cluttered up with a thousand clamoring voices in the story.
Now, potentially, you could say "Well, after the beginning of the page, spending a story token doesn't get you a free action. You'd need to spend two ... one to bring the character in, and one to give them an action." That's reduces the incentive to bring more characters in during a heated conflict. But, though reduced, the incentive is still a very real one since that new character can come in with clean debt and no check-offs, when your existing characters are starting to suffer in both departments. Again, I don't think that during the heavy action of a hotly contested conflict is the right time to be cluttering the head-space in that way.
Make sense?
Yeah, pretty much.
There is also an allure to the idea that bringing in a new character to save your bacon can't be completely reactive if you can only do it at the start of the page. So at the start of each page ya gotta ask yourself - with what I see happening, should I bring in another char?
The only downside is I am wondering if tactically this will encourage people to do this *more* - since for *one* story token you get an extra action for all the remaining scenes - instead of spending a story token for an extra action at the end of the turn.
I mean, I would say about half of the scenes I have participated in wound up with me wanting more actions, and spending story tokens. If I simply spend the token at the start of the scene, I will have an extra action every page for the whole scene.
Hmmm. Seems a very obvious strategy, only ameliorated by the idea that everyone will probably do it once one person does. And since you can bring in an existing character, with debt pre-set and spendable; or a brand new on the spot created chaarater with no debt and lots of space.
Plus with two characters, you could have as much as 6-10 dice on one side of a conflict.
Sounds fun to explore.
hey, I just had an idea for a fun (I hope) mod! How 'bout if you could spend a token to bring in a new char at the beginning of a page after the first. . .but ONLY if you had not brought any characters in on the scene already and ONLY once per scene? Or, perhaps even better: You could pay a story token at the beginning of a scene. . .but hold the character in reserve until the page where you're ready for his/her entrance. Sure, you wouldn't get the actions you could've from the previous page, but you WOULD get greater narrative flexibility in introing the character, and you'd have a fresh, un-debted and un-checked character to use.
But I haven't gotten to play the game yet, so there may be a dozen reasons this isn't a good idea. Might be worth a thought though.
Peace,
-Joel
Quote from: Hans on September 27, 2006, 03:09:08 PM
* Making extra conflicts at the beginning of a page. Page 18, grey box about pages. (This one is subtle, and I missed it the first 100 times or so I read the box).
Tony, can I get confirmation? A story token can be used to create a conflict before anyone takes their turn that page? I am only asking because it seems an odd rule.
Quote from: Sindyr on September 27, 2006, 02:32:49 PM
-(?) Getting another reaction roll?
-(?) Using a used up Ability? (A power you have already used this page, a non-powered ability you have used this scene)
OK, I pretty sure that the above two things are not canon in the book, unless you consider them to be implies by the text that states: "In most situations where each player gets to do something once (i.e. gets a turn) a Story Token can be spent to do it again."
If our group *did* permit people to spend a story token to get another reaction roll or to use a used up Ability (A power you have already used this page, a non-powered ability you have used this scene) would that be particularly unbalancing or make the game significantly different or less fun/playable?
The main tactical shift this allows is if you only have one "5" ability, and have already used it this page, then all the extra turns in the world will not help you - you can't use it again this page. However, if you could spend a story token to use that ability again (in addition to the token for the extra turn, if needed) that would potentially permit you to roll down an opponents die where according to the standard rules you can't.
However. this may be fairly insignificant since you will probably be wanting to roll up your low dice more than you would want to roll down theirs. Still, being able to spend a story token to refresh a used Ability does mean that you can't run out of powers to use while you still have Story Tokens.
Is this a bad thing, or does it fundamentally shift gameplay?
I do assume that letting someone spend an action token to get a second reaction roll would not significantly alter gameplay when they could have spent that token for a whole new turn - except that on a whole new turn, their opponent gets a free chance (well, one that doesn't costs STs) to react. If one's reacts, one's opponent successfully reacts, then I can spend a ST to react again, and again, etc - if my opponent has no story tokens then they are screwed. Might slightly shift some subtle tactics.
What do you think, guys?
Quote from: Sindyr on September 29, 2006, 04:45:15 PM
-(?) Getting another reaction roll?
-(?) Using a used up Ability? (A power you have already used this page, a non-powered ability you have used this scene)
Thinking about it some more, unless anyone disagrees, my gut is telling me that allowing the two above uses for story tokens is consonant with the base idea behind story tokens, and while not supported in black and white in the text; would probably make for a good house mod. I will recommend it to my group(s).
I will also recommend, unless Tony says otherwise, that the use of a Story Token to introduce a new conflict at the beginning of a page before players take actions is a strange inclusion that was probably not intended. Therefor I shall recommend that STs not be allowed to be used thusly. (Unless/until Tony says he *did* intend that usage.)
Quote from: Sindyr on September 29, 2006, 04:33:25 PM
Tony, can I get confirmation? A story token can be used to create a conflict before anyone takes their turn that page? I am only asking because it seems an odd rule.
I am confirming this rule. A story token can be used to create a conflict before, during or after the claims phase.
Not only does this allow you to create a conflict that everyone can immediately claim sides on (the usual tactic) it also allows you to create a conflict that nobody can claim sides on without spending STs (by doing so after the claiming phase) or to systematically screw the people who claim before you by creating the conflict after their free claim, but before yours, and claiming a side.
OK, thanks for the confirmation.
QuoteQuote from: Sindyr on September 29, 2006, 01:45:15 PM
-(?) Getting another reaction roll?
-(?) Using a used up Ability? (A power you have already used this page, a non-powered ability you have used this scene)
Thinking about it some more, unless anyone disagrees, my gut is telling me that allowing the two above uses for story tokens is consonant with the base idea behind story tokens, and while not supported in black and white in the text; would probably make for a good house mod. I will recommend it to my group(s).
Firstly, I think this will fundamentally skew the resource balance toward story tokens which I think is a bad thing as resource balance is a very important part of the game design.
Secondly, allowing the unlocking a used unpowered ability strikes me as a very broken and unbalancing house rule no matter what method is used to unlock the ability. It has the same effect as using a powered ability without taking the debt for its use, it is pretty much the same as saying "You can use a story token to roll on any die that isn't a 6 without using an ability" as that is what the mechanical effect is.
My opinion, but they are your house rules.
I appreciate the feedback, and think I pretty much agree - let's assume that spending a ST to use a used-up resource again is out.
I *am* tempted, though, to permit the other use - an extra reaction - because to my gut that does not seem horribly unbalanced. Any thoughts?
There is a downside to spending a ST for an extra action: everybody else has a free shot at reacting.
If you allow spending a ST for an extra reaction, though, other players also have to spend STs to react to it. I think this again increases the power on Story Tokens.
Also, in a practical, around-the-table way the rule about buying reactions directly will shut other players out for longer periods of time. Right now, if two folks get into an ST-war over a conflict, I get to occasionally stick my input in edge-wise as a reaction to their actions. If that same war goes to pure reactions then I just get to sit back and spectate until they're done.
That might mean that you get something done in five minutes rather than ten, and that would be good. But it would be five minutes I'm completely shut out of, instead of ten where I get a chance for input every minute or so, and that's something to consider.
Hmm.
Let me look at the two methods for combatting a good roll by an opponent:
1) An extra action
-occurs at the end of turn, giving people no chance to use their free action to deal with your extra action's consequences
-gives you up to 2 chances to roll on the dice, gives each other player up to one chance to roll on it (if you are rolling up, you get two chances to get a six)
-has immense flexibility as you can spend that action on any action you like
-makes a another whole turn happen
-gives up the option for using debt - staking, splitting, schisming, etc.
-significant potential downside. Example: four players, three are united to try to see you not succeed in a conflict. You spend a ST for an extra action. You roll up your die, keep the result. one person rolls down your die. You try to roll it back up, and suceed. Two more people try to roll it down. You got 2 chances to roll it up versus their 3 to roll it down. Therefor, spending the ST was quite probably a thing that hurt you more than helped. I don't like this.
2) An extra reaction
-occurs before the next person's turn/action
-gives you one chance to roll a die not selected by you but by another player
-gives one no other abilities or options or flexibility, unlike an extra action would.
-potentially speeds up story token wars
-potential downside of giving one person more "play" opportunity, without giving anyone else anymore. In my game reactions however go very fast - probably only 30-45 seconds each. So we are only talking about 30-45 seconds per token spent thusly.
-potential upside of faster play. A full play turn seems to take much more - say 3-5 minutes, making that from 5 to 10 times as much time.
-potential upside of spending a token gets you and only you something tactical. With an extra action, your opponents gain a benefit, potentially (as illustrated above) greater than yours. With an extra reaction, you gain someting and your oppoents gain nothing.
-potential upside of remaining more true to the description of story tokens in the text: In most situations where each player gets to do something once (i.e. gets a turn) a Story Token can be spent to do it again. (page 17)
One other note. My group handles actions and reactions thusly:
The person who's turn it is takes an action. If he rolls his dice and keeps it, the chance for first reaction goes to the person on his left. He can either pass or choose to react. Whether or not that person reacts, the person to their left gets the next chance for reaction. This continues around the table.
When it comes back to the person who made the original action, they then get a reaction chance. And then the opportunity for reaction to *their* roll passes to the left again. Each person gets only one reaction, but they can "save" their reaction to react later in the cycle. However, once you get X passes in a row, where X is the number of players, even if people have saved reactions (have previosuly passed their reaction oppourtunity) the time for reactions is over.
Example: (leaving out the narrative text, debt spending, and character descriptions for clarity)
Adam, Bob, Charlie, and Debra are playing. It's is Adam's turn.
Adam: I am rolling up this die (points at a die showing a 1 on a conflict he has claimed) - woot! A 4! I keep it.
Bob: I pass my reaction. We are tied on this conflict, and I don't mind it going another page, as that will let Debra claim the side you are claiming now - and I can tell she wants to! I don't mind her winning - but I don't think I am going to like what you would narrate - so I leave the tie in place.
Charlie: I pass as well.
Debra: Well, I actually kinda wanted to steal your claim next page - or let Bob win - so I *will* react down on that... lol, a five again.
Adam: I am still winning, so... pass.
Bob: Sigh - I react - a four!
Charlie: Pass
Debra: I have already used my reaction, so I must pass.
Adam: Hmm - if I pass, Bob will have to pass - and that will be four passes in a row and end this action. So I will react to my own dice - a three! Grrr.... I keep the four.
Bob: Pass - since I have no reactions left...
Charlie: I till have an unused reaction - I could mess with you all. ;) But, pass.
Debra: I too must pass since I have no unused reactions.
Adam: Grrr... same, that's four passes, ending both the action and the page.
That's how we handle the structure of reactions - each person has one chance to react beginning with the person to the left of the original action. Once everyone passes in a row, the reactions are done.
Here's how the above example could be different if Adam had some story tokens and used them token for an extra reaction:
Adam: Hmm - if I pass, Bob will have to pass - and that will be four passes in a row and end this action. So I will react to my own dice - a three! Grrr.... I keep the four.
Bob: Pass - since I have no reactions left...
Charlie: I till have an unused reaction - I could mess with you all. ;) But, pass.
Debra: I too must pass since I have no unused reactions.
Adam: I have no more free reactions so I pass - which would normally end the reactions phase, *but* I am spending a story token for another reaction! Bang zowie - a five!
Bob: Damnit - no tokens here, and no freereactions left, so pass.
Charlie - hmm - I still have a free reaction - and now it's payback time for what you did to me last page! Rolling that die down - a two!
Debra: Wow! Thanks! No tokens here. Pass.
Adam: You rotten fink - I knew you would make good on your revenge! heh heh. Ah well. Pass.
Bob: Pass - still no tokens here.
Charlie: Pass.
Debra: That's four passes - are we done?
Adam: Nope - Spending *another* story token (grrr) - tha two is now a... four! (sigh) - well, I am out of tokens, so that's that.
Bob: Pass, of course,
Charlie: Pass.
Debra: Pass
Adam: .. and pass, turn over!
This seems highly workable to me. Especially since if someone uses a token to get another reaction, you can still use your free reaction after, assuming that you haven't already used it up.
Sound good?
Your reaction procedure has the acting player giving an opportunity to react after all the other players, where the book has the acting player getting first chance at a reaction (pg 40). Did you do that purposefully to give the acting player a chance at having the "last word," so to speak?
As you pointed out, spending a ST for an extra action has a significant potential downside, though whether or not people choose to react to your action depends on a lot of factors (limited usage of Abilities, accrued Debt, narrative concerns about this particular goal's effect on the story, strategic concerns about this particular goal's effect on resources, things like that) so I submit that the actual downside is probably less than it might seem, especially as the page number gets higher and blockable abilities get used up.
Extra Action: With each subsequent ST spent, you get your action and reaction, where other players each get a reaction. I'm fine with this. If you really want to win, you're going to have to fight for it and accrue Debt for it. Either the other players will eventually decide the cost (in Debt) is too high to keep fighting you, or you'll decide the cost is too high and give up, or you'll run out of Story Tokens. I also like that this preserves the established Action + Reactions procedure set up in the rules-as-written and is inclusive to every player (as I think Tony mentioned earlier).
Extra Reaction: With each subsequent ST spent, you get your reaction, where other players get nothing. In order to effectively fight the spending player, you have to dump Story Tokens. I think this exaggerates the value of STs too much, throwing the ST/Debt/Inspiration economy out of whack. At the same time, I don't like the way it elongates the Action + Reactions cycle. I think this has the potential to significantly change the way the game plays.
I understand that this may appeal to somebody who wants to move from this (with four players):
Nearing the end of the page...
ST Action + 4 Reactions
ST Action + 4 Reactions
ST Action + 4 Reactions
ST Action + 4 Reactions
To this:
Nearing the end of the page...
ST Action + 4 Reactions + 4 ST Reactions from player A + 4 ST Reactions from player B
I really don't like what that does to the value of Story Tokens, though. And inflating the value of STs could lead to more gloatfests. Who wants that? :D
Oh, and I almost forgot. In your example, you suggest four players, with three of them ganging up against the fourth. Man, in that case, just take your Story Tokens and lie down. If all the other players are that strongly against whatever you're proposing, rewriting the rules so you can more easily fight them is a losing proposition, even if you do win the conflict.
Quote from: Matthew Glover on October 05, 2006, 04:36:18 PM
Your reaction procedure has the acting player giving an opportunity to react after all the other players, where the book has the acting player getting first chance at a reaction (pg 40). Did you do that purposefully to give the acting player a chance at having the "last word," so to speak?
Sortof... but I don't think there's a big functional difference - after all if he rolls, accepts, and wants to react to his own rolls, then he probably did not do that well and other people may not pass for now until he reacts, after which they can react anyways.
In our game, pass your chance to react does NOT mean losing your chance to react as long as someone else reacts before it gets back to you again. Only if *everyone* passes in a row is the reaction phase over. And as soon as someone does react, you need another string of unbroken passes to end it. Of course, as people use up their reactions you will get longer unbroken strings of passing.
Mostly the reason I have the original actor reacting last is just that he just *acted* - lets give everyone else a chance to react, and *then* he can go again.
QuoteExtra Reaction: With each subsequent ST spent, you get your reaction, where other players get nothing. In order to effectively fight the spending player, you have to dump Story Tokens. I think this exaggerates the value of STs too much, throwing the ST/Debt/Inspiration economy out of whack. At the same time, I don't like the way it elongates the Action + Reactions cycle. I think this has the potential to significantly change the way the game plays.
I understand that this may appeal to somebody who wants to move from this (with four players):
Nearing the end of the page...
ST Action + 4 Reactions
ST Action + 4 Reactions
ST Action + 4 Reactions
ST Action + 4 Reactions
To this:
Nearing the end of the page...
ST Action + 4 Reactions + 4 ST Reactions from player A + 4 ST Reactions from player B
Well, it does give another use for STs, which makes them a little better, but using them to React can in many ways I think sacrifice much of their potency. To me, it seems balanced - and the upside complelling. YMMV.
QuoteI really don't like what that does to the value of Story Tokens, though. And inflating the value of STs could lead to more gloatfests. Who wants that? :D
I have other ideas to control that... (grin)
QuoteOh, and I almost forgot. In your example, you suggest four players, with three of them ganging up against the fourth. Man, in that case, just take your Story Tokens and lie down. If all the other players are that strongly against whatever you're proposing, rewriting the rules so you can more easily fight them is a losing proposition, even if you do win the conflict.
I was hoping someone would bring that up - it another reason actually supporting my idea, because it illustrates that sometimes even thought you *could* spend a ST for an extra reaction, choosing to lose and rake in the new STs can be a better choice.
OK, here is the integrated list, as far as I can see:
Exhaustive list of all official uses for Story Tokens:
- Taking an extra action for one character you are playing. Can be done only after each character has had their normal turns, near page's end.
- Bringing in a new character to play alongside your existing one. Can be at the start of any page. However many characters you have, each one gets one action, on your turn, in any order.However, it's still just one reaction per player.
- Taking an extra Claim - can only be done during the Claiming phase.
- Creating a new Conflict any time at the beginning of a page, before everyone's turn. (before, during, or after Claiming.)
To the above list, our group will probably add one more thing via a house rule:
- Taking an exra reaction when you have already used your one free reaction.