Squabling Over Color?

[jburneko]

I've been following the Capes discussions fairly closely and the central complaint seems to be that there's no mechanics for controling narrative color.  And quite frankly, it's one of my favorite features of the game.   Here's how I see it:

1) What's REALLY going on and is at stake in the SIS is clearly enumerated on index cards.

2) The mechanics are all about fighting for those stakes.

3) HOW you fight for those stakes is more a less a personal thing, each person contributing what they think is cool.

It seems that all the arguing is over #3, when #3 isn't really that imporatant.  I'm so sick of stuff like this happening:

Me: "Alex grabs Bob's arm and twists it around his back, 'Tell me where Jenny is!!!'"
Some Else: "No WAY, Bob's lightening fast, you'd never get a hold of him like that!!!!"
Me: (Heavy Sigh) "Alright, fine, Alex pulls a gun out and points it at Bob, "Tell me where Jenny is!"

See?  What matters is whether or not Alex finds out where Jenny is?  That's going to be on an index card.  Who the hell cares if Alex twist's Bob's arm or points a gun at his head!?  Neither detracts from Bob's ability to fight to keep Jenny's location a secret.

So what about the fact that even if Alex fails to find out where Jenny is Alex's player can go ahead and start the next scene with Alex discovering where Jenny is.  Doesn't this devalue Bob's victory in the previous scene?  NO.  Because Cape's tracks consequences of conflicts from scene to scene via Inspiration.

So Alex's player starts off the scene with Alex in Jenny's location and throws down the Goal: Rescue Jenny.  Bob's player just plays the inspiration from the previous victory of keeping Jenny's location a secret: "You're too late Alex!!!!  She's gonna die!!!"

Frankly, I'm surprised Ralph has jumped in on this so heavily since I know he understands this.  Wouldn't it be frustrating if in the middle of a Universalis game someone says, "...and then he pulls out a rifle!" and then a bidding war starts over what kind of weapon he's holding?!  Oh my god, what a waste of time!

I've also seen the band analogy raised.  Instruments and Sheet Music provide the rules for making music.  But if you don't like how someone attacks their quarter notes or sustains their whole notes, there's not much you can do but talk about it.   Capes seems to me the same way.  If you don't like the way someone describes their ability use or justifies their scene structure then not much can be done about it via the game itself.  It seems to me that Capes is the fastest way to find out if you're really artistically in tune with your group.  If you really find someone violating your comfort level with what they're contributing then maybe you should consider not playing with them.  Note: I'm not talking about deliberate sabotage but legitemate contribution that just doesn't jive with your personal standards.

Jesse

[Andrew Cooper]

My understanding is that I wouldn't have to play it the way you're describing and that all this isn't about color.  Let's say you throw down the Conflict: Keep Jenny's Location a Secret.  My best tactic in controlling Jenny is to ignore that Conflict and let you win it.  As soon as it iis off the table, I just narrate finding Jenny.

Boom... you throw down the Conflict: Kill Jenny.  I ignore it or let you win.  When it leaves the table I narrate her back.  You then narrate her into an evil twin.  I narrate her back.  You throw down a Conflict that turns her into an evil twin.  I wait for it to go away and narrate her back.

I'm exerting as much control over the game and the SIS as you and not expending any energy or resources at all.  I'm not playing any Conflicts.  I'm not collecting any resources.  I'm just narrating what I want.

[jburneko]

Hmmm...  I see what you're saying.  But that to me falls squarely in the deliberate sabotage category.  That kind of player isn't commited to addressing conflicts at all.  If you're not commited to addressing the conflicts then you're not really playing the game in my opinion.  It's like the unstated assumption in My Life With Master that after character creation the players are commited to caring about their Connections and hating the Master.  If they're not, then they're not really playing the game.  Note: This actually happened to me when I ran My Life with Master.  Nothing in the rules can eforce that commitment, not even the GM.    

I'm not sure such a player would be funcitonal in ANY kind of roleplaying.

Jesse

[Andrew Cooper]

I'm not sure my example would be intentionally breaking the game.  From what I've heard, Capes has been called a very competitive game and my initial impression was that the competition was about over who gets to add what to the SIS.  If the game is competitive then the object is to win.  The breakdown in my example would be over what the competition is about.  The competition is about the Conflicts but the rules allow for you to get what you want without engaging in Conflicts.  My personal opinion is that Conflicts might be of greater interest if you could only add things to the SIS within the context of a Conflict.  Then all those Inspiration and Story Token *really* mean something.

Once again, I reiterate that I'm going solely by reading the Quick Play rules and reading these forums.  I really, really look forward to playing the game at GenCon to get a feel for what it can do.  I'm not going to spring anything like this on my group until I've got a handle on how it works.

[Valamir]

Frankly, I'm surprised Ralph has jumped in on this so heavily since I know he understands this. Wouldn't it be frustrating if in the middle of a Universalis game someone says, "...and then he pulls out a rifle!" and then a bidding war starts over what kind of weapon he's holding?! Oh my god, what a waste of time!

Quite the contrary.  That's EXACTLY what Uni is designed for.

See, if everybody at the table also thinks "oh my god, what a waste of time"...then no bidding war will occur and those tools will sit mildly by themselves, ignored in the corner.

But if you're playing with a bunch of gun heads for whom making sure the rifle is the right model for the year the game is set in is important...then giving them the opportunity to jump in and say "wait...that model wasn't available in 1967, it didn't come out until 1973...so instead it must be this other model."  and have someone else say "Yeah but it probably wouldn't be that other model anyway because standard issue at that time was this other gun entirely..." is exactly what the game is designed to do.  If you couldn't care less, than you concede tha point through Negotiation, the SIS adjusts to incorporate the "proper" model gun and play continues.

If you're playing with a group that mostly feels that such details are a waste of time but there's that one gun head who keeps interrupting to the point its becoming disruptive (where "disruptive" is defined by group consensus through the various game mechanics) than there are ways of dealing with that too.  1 person isn't likely to win many challenges against a group.  That one person is likely to spend way more coins on details the rest of you consider trivial so his relative Wealth will decline, and there's always the Fine mechanic to state in no uncertain terms that the group is tired of it.


Essentially, whether a bidding war breaking out over the type of gun is a waste of time, or time well spent is purely a matter of personal preference.  And when there is a difference of oppinion as to what is important and what's not...that's what the game is designed to do.  Truthfully that's ALL the game is designed to do...is adjucate between players who have different opinions about what is best.

So, I'm not really understanding your source of surprise, since my thoughts on this seem completely consistant with how we designed Uni...

From my perspective you seem to be trivializing color...as if to say "its only color...hardly worth argueing over".  But Color is one of the 5 cornerstones of Exploration.  Argueing over getting color right is no less important (inherently) than argueing over character behavior or appropriate setting detail.  In fact, depending on where you set the 5 dials...Color may be the MOST important thing TO argue about.  

I mean I can see your frustration over Bob and Alex...I may even share it.  But I can also see where for some players/groups on some occassions establishing the proper way for Alex to confront Bobby is crucial to their enjoyment of play.  In fact, for a super heroes game I'd say that will be the default for most players...its not just a matter of whether the Hulk beats Spider-man or Spider-man beats the Hulk.   Its also HOW that happens.  Having it happen "right" is crucial to pastiche play.  And for many people, pastiche play is the whole point of playing a strongly defined genre like supers.

From time to time among perfectly honest, reasonable, non sabotaging players they are going to disagree.  They might disagree on whose interpretation of X is right...or like you...they might diagree on whether interpreting X is even worth bothering with.  Adjucating those disagreements mechanically is 100% what the Uni rules do.

[TonyLB]

So, Ralph, if I may jump in to summarize-as-a-spot-check:

Do you feel that a strength of Universalis is that it lets players define, through their actions and where they choose to spend their resources, what color is important and what color is trivial?


Because, y'know, I think that's a great strength of Capes too.  And it would be ever so nice to find a point of agreement.

[Valamir]

Sure.  Replace color equally with any of the 5 elements of Exploration as desired.  That's pretty much all Uni does.

My concern for (again "concern for", not "criticism of") Capes is that it may not (again "may not" not "doesn't") do enough of that (again "enough" not "any").  By "enough" I mean "sufficient to give players comfort that their contributions will have a degree of permanance and ongoing impact in the game, and aren't all ephemeral"

[Andrew Cooper]

I'm going to stop posting to the Capes threads for a while.  Not because anything is upsetting but because I kinda feel like I'm trying to poke holes in a game I haven't even played yet.  The idea behind the game is intriguing and I want to actually get a session or two under my belt before I go making mountains out of mole hills.  Thanks to Tony and all the others for entertaining my questions and concerns and I'll definately keep following the threads, especially the Actual Play ones.