Powerblocking?

[Andrew Cooper]

Hans,

Your example with Player 1 and Player 2 are perfectly acceptable according to the rules.  It takes a does take a bit of a shift in how you think games should normally work.  You can probably do a search of this forum for several threads on this exact subject.

There is a way to get the kind of effect you are wanting.  Let's say you, playing a hero, don't want Major Evil to escape during the scene.  During the first turn around the table, plop down "Goal: Major Evil escapes."  Now Major Evil's player cannot narrate him escaping until the Conflict is decided.  After this, don't ever actually claim a side to the Conflict.  Roll on the side opposite Major Evil, if he claims a side but don't ever actually claim it.  If you continue to win without claiming a side the Conflict never leaves the table and Major Evil can't escape.  Once the end of the scene is in sight, then claim the side and try to win.  If you win, the scene ends with Major Evil getting captured.  If not, he gets away.

Note that this doesn't keep anyone from narrating Major Evil escaping from prison first thing in the next scene unless you plop down "Goal: Major Evil escapes from prison." before they can do so.

[Vaxalon]

Actually, it's impossible to put down a goal before Major Evil's player gets a chance to narrate him out of prison, because he can introduce his character before you can lay down your goal... but yeah, you can keep him from escaping for ONE scene, if you're willing to spend the resources you need to enforce it, and have a little luck with the dice.

[TonyLB]

The semantics here are very important.  "Goal: Major Evil escapes" keeps Major Evil's character from narrating an escape until it has been resolved.  "Goal: Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil escaping" doesn't keep Major Evil from narrating an escape.  It keeps Spandex from preventing Major Evil's escape.

No, actually.  The "Not Yet" rule applies to anything that would fulfill or definitely make impossible the Goal.  So if the Goal is "Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil escaping" then Major Evil may neither be definitely captured (fulfilling the Goal) not definitely escape (invalidating the Goal).  He's got to hang around in that "About to escape, any second now" state of indeterminacy until the conflict resolves.

The classic example of this is "Event:  Bomb ticks down to 00:00:01."  You can't defuse the bomb before the last second.  It's not possible.  You can only increase your odds of that last-second defuse, which can only happen when the Event resolves.

[TonyLB]

Player 1: "Haha, i win the Goal: Major Evil Escapes!  Captain Spandex grabs Major Evil by the arms and puts the cuffs on him.  'Major Evil, you are going to jail for your crimes, you scumbag.  Take him away, officers!' "
Player 2: "Ok, that conflict over?  As part of this other conflict, Major Evil will use power X.  Major Evil knocks the police out and escapes anyway."

In your circle of friends you play with I have to assume this doesn't happen, because I would think it would be intolerable.

But ... this exact kind of thing happens in comic books all the time.  The problem of revolving door prisons is legendary.  What kind of a world would it be where Bizarro couldn't break out of Star Labs at will to rain down confused havoc on the people of Metropolis?

What you earn for having fought the good fight is not that the world is safe forever.  It is that the world was saved that one time.  You won that fight.  As Mr. Incredible says "I feel like the maid!  I just cleaned here!  Can we keep it clean for five minutes?"

Now you also get Inspirations, and if you want to roll those consistently into conflicts pertaining to keeping the villain in prison then you can make it a big deal.  But that's your choice.  You can just as easily say that those Inspirations go into conflicts about how Captain Spandex looks much cooler than Major Evil on the 11 o'clock news.  When you spend those Inspirations, that is when we find out what the conflict mean in terms of changing the plot in future:  unless it was a very, very big conflict it can't keep him in prison and prove that you were the tougher fighter and make you look better on the news and keep the city safe ... but the Inspirations can be spent toward one (maybe two) of those long-term effects, and then that's what the conflict did to the continuing world.

[Hans]

The problem of revolving door prisons is legendary.  What kind of a world would it be where Bizarro couldn't break out of Star Labs at will to rain down confused havoc on the people of Metropolis

I understand this, Tony.  That is why I said earlier (I think) that between scenes anything could happen.  My concern was not that Bizarro could escape with impunity from Star Labs.  My concern was that you could never get him into Star Labs in the first place.  Gaerik's example, though, helped me to see how a preventative goal would work given what everyone is telling me.  Thanks Gaerik!  I had not thought of the idea of leaving a side unclaimed, but still rolling to keep it winning.  That is a good trick.  The bottom line is that the results of a goal CAN be trivialized within the same scene, so if you really don't want that to happen you have to do your darndest to make sure the goal's resolution coincides with the scene ending.  Then, while everything can change between scenes, at least the end of the scene (the last page of the comic, as it were) shows Bizarro being dragged off to Star Labs.

The way I thought you could keep Major Evil escaping in the scene is not the way you actually would do it.  Its harder, but still conceivable.  I thought you would claim and resolve the goal as quickly as possible.  But actually, the idea is to keep the goal from resolving as long as possible, preferably to the very end of the scene.  In fact, under my original idea, I would virtually guarantee that I couldn't keep Major Evil from escaping, because as soon as I resolve the goal, Major Evil's player can narrate anything they want, and I can't play the goal again.

This leaves me with two questions on vetos:

* Would "Goal:Major Evil Escapes" be vetoable by the player of Major Evil? (my guess is yes)
* Who can veto "Goal: Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil from escaping"; Spandex's player, Evil's player, or both?  (I have no idea)

Wow, I love this game.  I haven't thought this hard about a game since I first learned how to play Squad Leader back in 1981.  I need to find more players!  Anyone want to come to Hamilton, Ontario for a game? :)

[TonyLB]

* Would "Goal:Major Evil Escapes" be vetoable by the player of Major Evil? (my guess is yes)

Correct.  I will point out, however, that having Major Evil veto this is, in fact, a benefit to Captain Spandex's player.  He's just learned something about how Major Evil's player thinks (specifically "I will not bother to pursue this goal, which means you will never, ever, get Story Tokens out of me by presenting it.")  The veto is a communication tool to help people find conflicts that they'll both be stoked about contesting over, not an authoritative tool to prevent certain types of conflicts from being played.

* Who can veto "Goal: Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil from escaping"; Spandex's player, Evil's player, or both?  (I have no idea)

Only Captain Spandex.  This is why the veto can never be an authoritative tool, because this little (deliberate!) choice of wording can revise intent to be unvetoable.

Note, however, that the two goals ("Major Evil Escapes" and "Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil from escaping") are very different if Lycra, the boy sidekick, is also playing and wants to show himself the equal of his spotlight-hogging mentor.  Lycra would fight against Major Evil in the "Major Evil Escapes" conflict.  However, in the "Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil (and gets all the credit!)" conflict (reworded for clarity of interpretation) Lycra is pretty likely to side with Evil against the showboating Captain Spandex.

[Hans]

* Would "Goal:Major Evil Escapes" be vetoable by the player of Major Evil? (my guess is yes)

Correct.  I will point out, however, that having Major Evil veto this is, in fact, a benefit to Captain Spandex's player.  He's just learned something about how Major Evil's player thinks (specifically "I will not bother to pursue this goal, which means you will never, ever, get Story Tokens out of me by presenting it.")  The veto is a communication tool to help people find conflicts that they'll both be stoked about contesting over, not an authoritative tool to prevent certain types of conflicts from being played.

* Who can veto "Goal: Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil from escaping"; Spandex's player, Evil's player, or both?  (I have no idea)

Only Captain Spandex.  This is why the veto can never be an authoritative tool, because this little (deliberate!) choice of wording can revise intent to be unvetoable.

Note, however, that the two goals ("Major Evil Escapes" and "Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil from escaping") are very different if Lycra, the boy sidekick, is also playing and wants to show himself the equal of his spotlight-hogging mentor.  Lycra would fight against Major Evil in the "Major Evil Escapes" conflict.  However, in the "Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil (and gets all the credit!)" conflict (reworded for clarity of interpretation) Lycra is pretty likely to side with Evil against the showboating Captain Spandex.

Thanks, Tony and everyone else, my questions are fully answered. 

Sorry to Ben for hijacking his thread.