[Capes] Scenes and Characters III (indie-MN)

[Christopher Weeks]

Four members of the Indie-MN group met at our local game shop Sunday and played our third session of Capes.  We've already reported on the first and second sessions.  

I'll start with the raw data as Steve has been formatting the initial posts.

Scene 1 - behind the Chemistry Building
Characters: Walter -- escaped, infected bum from last game, a campus policeman, Scott West -- boy athelete, Jeanine McGregor -- Journalism Student, Thadeus Mitchell -- kiss-up manipulator
(2) Goal: Walter beats up the policeman - Walter hasn't yet mastered his super powers.
(2) Goal: Walter the super-Hobo feels guilty for lashing out and resolves to be one of the good-guys - Walter is a bad boy.
(2) Event: Scott West is transformed into a super-hero - a reaction of sports-medicines, energy from Walter (outside) and an electric short cause Scott to develop super speed.
(3) Goal: Thadeus gets in good with the bum - in a fit of self-abnegation, Walter spurns all attempts to connect with him as a human
(5) Goal: Scott West apprehends Walter - Scott borrows handcuffs from one of the cops and subdues the levitating bum.

Scene 2 - Gamma Complex -- a brand new penal facility for super villains
Characters: Jack Schnell -- villainous hunter cum reporter, The Chameleon -- first contained villain, Bobby Tripe -- mayor's boot, Gamma Complex -- super prison
(2) Goal: Schnell disrupts the proceedings - Schnell, acting as a reporter disrupts the focus of the press conference by asking probing questions about the city's budget.
(2) Goal: Chameleon gets out of jail - Gamma Complex uses mind-control and The Chameleon is too depressed to escape.
(3) Goal: Bobby Tripe takes credit for the containment of villains - Bobby Tripe is discredited, headlines the next day read "Gamma Complex operative, no thanks to the mayor's office"
(4) Goal: Jack Schnell is incarcerated - Schnell is released from capture on a technicality.
(6) Goal: Chameleon kills the hostage - Gamma Complex and tripe save the hapless guard while Schnell tries to help Chameleon.
(6) Goal: Schnell switches his camera for The Chameleon - the switch works and Schnell get the villain as far as the front security checkpoint where a search turns him up.  Schnell is admonished for almost (inadvertantly!) helping a supervillain escape.

Scene 3 - Hero Base
Characters: Point Blank -- hero shootist, The Dark Disciple -- arcane villain turned hero(?), ZOR-DAN -- alien godling, Jeff Stark -- crusading lawyer and exemplar to heroes
(3) Goal: Find out Chameleon's connection to the (superflu) virus - no connection is found
(4) Event: Super arm-wrestling - Point Blank's training pays off and beats alien godliness and arcane cheating

Scene 4 - Dark Disciple's secret underground lair
Characters: Dark Disciple, Samuel Marx -- bio-research scientist, Jack Schnell, Methalzebus - demon of hell
(2) Goal: Dark Disciple enlists evildoers into grand scheme - villains all sign on
(2) Goal: Villains join Dark Disciple in swearing fealty to Methalzebus - demon ends in a pentagram and seems to be DD's bitch
(3) Goal: Schnell gets compensation (from DD) for sll the footwork he's done - Schnell's additional demands are rebuffed by The Dark Disciple
(3) Goal: Marx gets access to knowledge beyond his wildest dreams - Methalzebus transports Marx to hell for further "learning."

And I thought the Superflu was a character at some point, but I can't figure out if and when.

New Characters:

campus rent-a-cop: (Police Crusader)
Crowd control-1, Cuffs-2, Fist-fight-3, Communicate-4
Infectious energy-1, Repeat yourself-2, "Freeze!"-3
Reckless-1, Inspired-2, Judgemental-3, Determined-4, Frustrated-5

Jeanine McGregor, journalism student: (Journalist Spunky kid)
Write-1, Interview-2, Investigate-3, Notice-4
Fast-talk-1, Press pass-2, Pointed question-3, Point out the obvious-4
Decisive-1, Optimistic-2, Childish-3, Reckless-4

Walter the bum: (Godling Ex-victim)
Fight-1, Super-strength-2, Invulnerability-3, Laser Eye-beams-4
Divert large flying objects-1, Reminders of the past-2, Casually overpower mortals-3, Snap without warning-4
Melancholy-1, Confused-2, Untrusting-3, Angry-4

Thadeus Mitchell: (Petty Crook Sychophant)
Connections-1, Streetwise-2, Run-3, Hide-4
Try for the big score-1, Apologize-2, Toady-3, Deceive-4, Wheedle-5
Remorseful-1, Nervous-2, Sly-3

Scott West: (Speedster Hotshot)
Rapid recovery-1, Accelerated reflexes-2, Do many things at once-3, Faster than the laws of physics-4, Super-speed-5
Thrill Junky-1, Escape without a scratch-2, Fast enough to try another plan-3, Move someone out of the way-4
Bored-1, Talkative-2, Unflappable-3

Gamma Complex: (non-character character)
Confuse-1, Trap-2, Surprise-3, Contain-4, Impressive-5
Powerplant-1, Active defences-2, Huge-3, Mind Control-4
Ominous-1, Grim-2, Clean-3

Methalzebus: (Brick/Demon Inhuman)
Read mind-1, Super strength-2, Planar travel-3, Invulnerability-4
Hit 'em with the scenery-1, See the big picture-2, Massive property damage-3, Disregard humanity-4, If it doesn't fit, force it-5
Logical-1, Superior-2, Cold-3

We started with four players and lost one after the first scene.  Our problem player from last time didn't show up.  We're still a new group.  At the same time that we're really starting to learn about one another, we were also losing steam for this game, I think.  I expect that we'll keep it around and pull it out from time to time as a back-up, but it seems that we're now moving on to the next system to try out.  It's kind of interesting to me that right as we were really getting comfortable with it, we were losing our energy for it.  I'm still interested in trying the system with a non-comic genre, but that'll keep for another time.

Previous to this session, we've been playing with reactions to actions and reactions to reactions and so forth.  This time we played that there could be only a single reaction to any action and the chain couldn't continue.  The other way was playable but inferior.  I'm not 100% certain which is right, but I think our consensus was that the new way probably was.

I'd be interested to know some things from other folks that have played a few times.  How long did you sustain a story line?  Did you have an ever-increasing stable of characters?  How did you handle the proliferation of loose-ends?  What, if anything, did you do to facilitate campaign play?

[TonyLB]

Previous to this session, we've been playing with reactions to actions and reactions to reactions and so forth.  This time we played that there could be only a single reaction to any action and the chain couldn't continue.  The other way was playable but inferior.  I'm not 100% certain which is right, but I think our consensus was that the new way probably was.

Any time an initial Ability roll is accepted, every player gets a chance to use a Reaction for a second roll on that same die.

So if you have four players then there could potentially be four reactions to each Action.

I'm not exactly sure whether you're saying that there can only be a single reaction per player (which would be correct) or a single reaction per action (which would be incorrect).  So I can't really judge whether you've gotten it right.

As for how long you sustain a story-line:  Can you clarify the question?  In my experience the proliferation of loose ends is the story-line, constantly leading to to the next thing, and building to climaxes and denouements as guided by the flow of Debt and Story Tokens.  But I suspect that you're asking something different that I don't quite grasp.

[Christopher Weeks]

Our play was pretty unfocussed.  A new scene might or might not have something to do with a previous scene.  We'd often tie it back in some way, but not resolve an outstanding loose end.  So every scene would generate more loose ends than it would tie up.  And eventually it looks like this big mess, rather than a story.  I'm wondering if that's common.  Is it something that we're doing wrong?  It hasn't happened when I've played Universalis and I'm wondering what the difference is.

And thanks for explicating reaction.  We've been doing it wrong, both ways.

[TonyLB]

Hrm... why does the story feel that way.  That's really hard for me to say from the outside.

You declared at least one of these scenes, right?  So you can actually speak with certainty about what you were thinking when you decided on the scene, yes?

So let us in on that.  Which scene did you create, and why?

[Larry L.]

Noteworthy mechanics dilemmas:

From the way Tony describes it, we handled reactions wrong this time. It did speed up play however. We still don't quite seem confortable with the actual "And then..." phrasing.

In the Gamma Complex scene, we realized that Chameleon being removed in the form of a camera by Bobby Tripe would contradict the previously lost goal of "Chameleon escapes jail." So Shane had to come up with a way to narrate the victory of this goal while fulfulling the stated outcome of the previous goal. I think we did this right, although I'm not sure if there's a rule about not introducing conflicts that contradict previous outcomes (non-Comics Code violations).

The last scene was sort of interesting. I can't remember what Chris' initial goal was, but then he realized that there really wasn't much conflict involved -- he wanted the super-villain team to be established. When he introduced his revised goal (Swear fealty to demon) we had a very interesting situation on the table. Essentially each player had introduced the demands of each villain at the bargaining table, so this was effectively a single conflict broken down into four bargaining items. It helped that the Dark Disciple was overdrawn on Pride debt and was very desperate to dump piles into winning.

[Christopher Weeks]

I created the Gamma Complex scene.  Why? Um, I thought our city should have one.  It seemed like a cool way to showcase some returning players and add color.  And not to tie up any loose ends.

I'm OK with it completely being "our bad" if that's how it is, but it remains interesting to me that it hasn't happened as much in my experiences with Universalis -- which is similar in lots of ways.

[Grover]

I think it might be because we started in a sort of unfocused way as well - we basically grabbed the default comics code, made characters and started a scene.  Maybe if we had spent a bit more attention on the comics code, the background, and the spotlight characters, we might have a more focused game.  At this point, I'm still having a blast with the Capes system, but I wouldn't mind trying a different setting.

[TonyLB]

I guess what I'm really fishing for (and what I would have just come out and asked in the first place, if I'd realized) is this:  Are you guys making a concerted effort to win Story Tokens off of each other?

Because that's the mechanism by which I've seen tight, unified, thematic stories emerge most often in Capes.  Character A (played by Player A) leaves Scene 1 with a ton of Hope Debt, and so Player B declares Scene 2 in Character A's neighborhood, where the problem they failed to stop in Scene 1 is now on the verge of hurting the people Character A cares about.

Does that example have any counterpart in your experiences?

[Larry L.]

Are you guys making a concerted effort to win Story Tokens off of each other?

In this session, yes, much more so than in previous sessions.

Chameleon kills the hostage

This was my blatant I'm all outta story tokens now so I'm gonna violate the comics code thing. I even staked on it hoping I could raise the ante. (I think due to crappy dice rolling I only got the gloat points, though.)

I think the last scene greatly focused the villain power structure for any future games. We aren't technically using spotlight characters, but I think there's a sense of ownership of creative agenda each character created. So I started the scene by claiming Dark Disciple, who is Chris' creation. In order to push my creative agenda for my scene, I had to unburden DD of his debt and give a pile of story tokens to Chris, i.e. furthered his own agenda with DD. Then Shane pushed for Jack Schnell to get the job of my own favorite douchebag, Bobby Tripe. So to keep Bobby Tripe in the game I had to fork out some story tokens here too.

Third scene, in the hero base, suprisingly fell flat. I'm thinking the trick in this game is to lead with the villains and force the heroes to follow.

[Shane Street]

I guess what I'm really fishing for (and what I would have just come out and asked in the first place, if I'd realized) is this: Are you guys making a concerted effort to win Story Tokens off of each other?

Because that's the mechanism by which I've seen tight, unified, thematic stories emerge most often in Capes. Character A (played by Player A) leaves Scene 1 with a ton of Hope Debt, and so Player B declares Scene 2 in Character A's neighborhood, where the problem they failed to stop in Scene 1 is now on the verge of hurting the people Character A cares about.

Does that example have any counterpart in your experiences?  

    Not really.  Not like that anyway.  I can see how it would work though.  Our character pool is pretty big, watching for who is in debt and why gets a little difficult.

I think it might be because we started in a sort of unfocused way as well

I agree.

I introduced the Hero Base scene.  I wanted to work with stuff we'd already developed, but I didn't really have a good conflict to start the scene, so it fell flat.  All of a sudden it was time for a scene and I had to do something.  Now I've got a great idea for a scene (hindsight has vision a good bit better than my own....).  Next time we play (in this story or any other) I'll be sure to have something a bit more ready.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Our character pool is pretty big, watching for who is in debt and why gets a little difficult.

Aha. In the time travel game I'm in with Tony, I've called this "the Firefly effect" -- in reference to the very cool and very cancelled Joss Whedon TV show, which had [counts] I think nine recurring characters: The rich ensemble cast was a great attraction, but it also made it hard to focus on particular characters' stories. The ease of creating a new "player character" -- or for that matter a new favorite villain -- in Capes is likewise a great strength, but it also can give you enough rope to hang yourself when you make more characters than you can manage.

In our game (threads here and here) each of us deliberately created two spotlight characters to see what would happen. Tony consistently favored one and really built her up (he took 'till session 3 to introduce his other one); one of the other players really struggled (and has since dropped out); and Eric Sedlacek and I occasionally fumbled but have now found our rhythm, favoring one PC and using the other as a secondary on Tony's model.