Boundaries and the meta-game - and Capes

[Tuxboy]

What if Capes *can* be played just as competitively and fun even while respecting certain limits?

Well, that would certainly be something.

If I fall over the edge of the earth, I fall.  I guess to *me*, that's the bravery which others have alluded I do not posses.

I dare to try.

I don't feel that whether or not it can be played in a NGH manner or not is the issue anymore, its the constant circular arguement over the philosphy of boundaries and group dynamic that seems to be the major issue now.

Here is a radical idea:

Sindyr gets a group together, plays the game in a NGH manner and starts a thread from actual play examples to discuss the success or failure of the experiment. That way we will have some concrete empirical evidence to base the discussion on. I think this will be a much more constructive use of everyone's time than what seems to be a constant downward spiralling theoretical agruement, which seems to be becoming increasingly destructive.

So what does everyone think? It seems to me this is a situation that will never be resolved until actual play occurs so best to leave it until it does...

"Blessed are the cheesemakers"

[drnuncheon]

No.  The original proposer of the Goal backs off if someone tells them that it is hurtful or couses them anguish.

Okay.  You think it's easy, fine.  Tell me, how do you draw that line?

You draw it where the game stops being fun for someone.

It's like wrestling with your buddies.  You both try your damnedest to pin the other guy or make him submit, but you don't intentionally set out to cause lasting harm.  You're still "fighting", but you're not gouging eyes or bending fingers back until they break.

J

[Sindyr]

None of those ways work unless the participants agree on using them. If you have that agreement, fine, problem solved.  If you don't, you still have a problem.  That's all I am saying.

I'm pointing out that there are ways of resolving conflicts that do not generate consensus and do not need it.  Your response seems (to me) to be saying "But that's conflict N.  Sure, they can resolve conflict N by means that don't generate consensus.  That just proves my point!  Because how did they resolve conflict N-1 about what rules they would use to resolve conflict N?"

Let me try to break this down.  Gaming groups are voluntary.  One can partake in a particular gaming Group A if one chooses (assuming the gaming group has an opening and they aren't against you joining).

If a conflict or disagreement surfaces, there are two mutually exclusive possibilities: Either they find some means to resolve it (through negotiation, or mechanics like Capes rules, or majority vote or someting else) or they do not ultimately resolve it to everyone's satisfaction.

The second path can easily happen if one or more members have an overriding goal or need that they feel cannot be compromised on.  Tone can be one example of this.

If, for example, three members of the group want to play a four-color game and are 100% committed to that, unwilling to have any significant stories or story elements that are gritty or dark, then no method of dispute resolution will get them to accept another member's gritty input.  It doesn't matter that Capes has rules that would let them fight it out - those three members are flatly stating an overarching non-compromisable absolute premise.

Now, given the above example, 3 group members that are committed to the four color stories and ONLY the four color stories, and given that the fourth member was informed about this hard limit when joining, what are the fourth member's options?

You should take explicit note that given the above facts, the new fourth member does not have any room for persuasion, and while he can suggest rotation (3 games four-color, 1 game gritty) he certainly cannot force the other three to partake of the gritty game if they refuse.

Given the situation as it stands, he has the original four options I posted so long ago:

1) Choose to join the game and respect their house rules. He may ask them what if he persuades them, would they open it up, but if they say no thank you, he accepts it, stay and plays without grittiness.
2) Choose not to join that group and instead find people that play the way he does.  All the same, he bears the group he didn't join no ill will and does not judge them.
3) Tell them how stupid and how weak they are, and how they are lacking as human beings, and how they should play the *real* game the way he does.  People who do this are so high on themselves that in being intolerant of other they show that it is they who are severely lacking in the evolution department.  Get a clue.
4) Join, and use gritty narrations until they kick him out, and *then* run his mouth off at them.

I have no respect for anyone who commits 3 or 4 - no decent human could respect someone who does 3 or 4.

The correct choice is of course, 1 or 2.

As long as the three original members hold true to their "absolutely no grit" position, all the above is accurate.

Now, lets go on to the SECOND question...
Perhaps after some time has passed, one of the three members changes his mind and is fully pro-grit - or instead, maybe one of the three founding members leaves and is replaced by a friend of the grit loving fourth.  The two remaining anti-grit members are still just as anti grit as they ever were.

Now the subject of gritty stories gets raised again. If the two anti-grit members stick to their anti-grit guns, and the two pro grit members stick to theirs, the *same* four options occur above, and still only 1 or 2 make sense.

What does this all mean?

If members of a group have *fundamental* non persuadable positions that are fundamentally opposed than the only cure, in fact, the only possible healthy result, is a group fracture.  If within a group some people absolutely want to do A and others absolutely want to do B, and if A and B are fundamentally opposed and incompatible, than the group will have to split into two smaller groups - the A's and B's - with any members of the original group not absolutely committed to A or B picking which of the 2 new groups to join, if any.

Ultimately, I guess my basic point is really simple, though somehow we get bogged down in semantic quibbles.

The truth is if one has certain needs and wants, one should be expected to pursue them.  However, one should never expect another person to sacrifice *their* pursuit of happiness for our own.

In practice, this clearly means that if a Capes group is a group that by choice only plays four-color games, and a fourth member want to join that likes gritty games, it would be immoral for:

• -the fourth member to require that the other three change their style of play at all to suit his needs (although he can *ask*)
• the fourth member to play in ways that are considered inappropriate by the other three.
• the fourth member to attack or belittle the other three for refusing to sacrifice their needs for him
• the three members to attack or belittle the fourth for being unwilling to abandon gritty play
• the three members to refuse to let the fourth play given that the fourth does *not* introduce gritty play
• the three members to refuse to allow the fourth to *ask* them to reconsider once every so often (not all the time)
• the three members to require the fourth to join or requires him not to leave if the fourth determines that this group is not for him.

Instead, the only moral course must include one or more of the following:

• the fourth member may never demand that the other three change their style of play at all to suit his needs, although he can *ask* from time to time (but not badger)
• the fourth member does not play in ways that are considered inappropriate by the other three.
• the fourth member does not attack or belittle the other three.
• the three members do not exclude, attack, or belittle the fourth for liking gritty play or occasionally revisiting the issue.
• the three members never require the fourth to stay in the group if he ever feels his path to fun or happiness lies elsewhere.

Anything else would be uncivilised and wrong.

Do we disagree?

[Sindyr]

But even though they told Columbus he would sail of the edge of the earth, he felt *compelled* to try  - because, what if? What if?

Uh ... quick history correction here.  People didn't tell Columbus the world was flat.  Everybody at the time knew the world was round.  Where they disagreed with him was about its circumference.

Columbus asserted, with utter certainty, that the world was so small that he had enough supplies to sail across the Atlantic ocean and reach India.  Other people told him "Sir!  Your calculations are in error!  India, she is more than twice as far from Spain as your calculations indicate!  Surely you will run out of supplies in the middle of your journey, and unless by sheer luck there happens to be yet-uncharted land in the middle of the ocean from which to resupply then you and all your crew will die a most painful and ignominious death."

Tony...  you got it.  I was just trying to illustrate a point, and this historical quibble does not reduce at all the point I was making, but I certainly yield that your knowledge of history is probably greater than my own.  My skills focus more on math, science, philosophy, computers, and systems.

Please consider the section rewritten with a more historically accurate anecdote of someone who dared to try to accomplish something everyone else told him was impossible - and in the process did indeed accomplish something wonderful and amazing.

Thanks.

[Sindyr]

Oh, and as a possibly more "in line with Capes" option, it seems like the best way to circumvent issues like this would be to A) communicate and B) fail to dive in on the Conflicts with such issues.  If the other players can't abuse your Achilles' Heel for Story Tokens, then they'll probably stop poking at it.

Just a thought.

Garg

A very good though.  If I was a real life rape victim, and I made it clear in no uncertain terms that rape could not be a part of any story I (or my character Mistress Wind) participated in, that rape was a absolute boundary for me, if someone still brought it up with Goal: Mistress Wind is raped by Mr Evil, I would not spend any story tokens to stop it.  I would probably pickup the notecard, tear it into little pieces, and throw it at the offender, I would let him know how he transgressed by saying something like "You are a little turd of a human being, aren't you" and I would physically disrupt any attempt to continue on with that goal. And from then on until I received an abject apology, I would have nothing but utter hostility toward the offender.  And assuming the other players are decent human beings, I can't imagine the offender would be in the group for much longer unless he sincerely offered a humble apology.

Assuming there wasn't some weird miscommunication, like he never knew rape was such a limit for me and I thought he did.

But rest assured, (laugh) he would get no story tokens from me. ;)

[Sindyr]

What if Capes *can* be played just as competitively and fun even while respecting certain limits?

Well, that would certainly be something.

If I fall over the edge of the earth, I fall.  I guess to *me*, that's the bravery which others have alluded I do not posses.

I dare to try.

I don't feel that whether or not it can be played in a NGH manner or not is the issue anymore, its the constant circular argument over the philosophy of boundaries and group dynamic that seems to be the major issue now.

Here is a radical idea:

Sindyr gets a group together, plays the game in a NGH manner and starts a thread from actual play examples to discuss the success or failure of the experiment. That way we will have some concrete empirical evidence to base the discussion on. I think this will be a much more constructive use of everyone's time than what seems to be a constant downward spiralling theoretical argument, which seems to be becoming increasingly destructive.

So what does everyone think? It seems to me this is a situation that will never be resolved until actual play occurs so best to leave it until it does...

"Blessed are the cheesemakers"

Just so you know, I am trying very hard to get a Capes game going i this area - it is being very hard to find players.

My plan is to play 3-4 vanilla as-written Capes games, as the control set, then to start trying different variants such as NGH.

I will definitely let everyone know if and when this happens what the results were.

In the meanwhile, however, I will continue to engage in Capes discussion, not avoid it, because right know this is all the Capes goodness I can get. :(

[Tuxboy]

In the meanwhile, however, I will continue to engage in Capes discussion, not avoid it, because right know this is all the Capes goodness I can get. :(

No issue with you continuing to have Capes discussions, but this particular reflective discussion seems to be counter-productive in the way it is spiralling and repeating with no possible end in sight until actual play occurs. If anything it could be seen as pushing the boundaries of many people here rather than actually helping people's understanding of Capes, which in itself is ironic on a base level.

It could even be argued that this discussion belongs in the RPG Theory forum rather than here as it currently is nothing but conjecture and is addressing issues of group dynamic, the moral imperative, and the social contract in gaming rather than concrete issues with Capes mechanics and actual play.

[Sindyr]

I can see that point, Tuxboy.  Perhaps the whole issue of Capes NGH/TtP vs. Capes IWNAY play is more of a theory post - course it's also a Capes post.  I guess it could fit either place.

Of course the irony here as you observe is I am engaged in this discussion in a very IWNAY way...  as long as people keep responding, keep wanting to converse, and/or keep asking me questions, I feel both interested and obligated to reply.

It *is* a delicious irony.