Four-color rules?

[Glendower]

All right.  I'll bite my tongue and offer something in the "help" rather than "hinder" vein.

Some House Rule Suggestions:

ALL Events or Goals must be approved by all players present.  If one player opposes the played goal or event, the player must try choose a different event or goal.  (this is an expansion of the Veto rules for events and certain goals)

One player at the start of the game is chosen to be "Capes Master" or CM.  The CM is the only player responsible for adding Goals or Events, and starts each scene with story tokens equalling the number of players present.  All players must use the "And then..." mechanic when narrating their action, the CM ALWAYS has the last word when resolving conflicts.

In the CM vein again, the CM may request one of the players to play a scene as a "Assistant".  The "Assistant" is allowed to play a villain, and the CM can play an event or Scene on the Assistant's action.  The Assistant cannot add goals of her own, but may roll up other sides of conflict and act appropriately "villainous" so long as it does not violate the "Boundaries" Comics Code.

The CM will approve all characters before they are put in play.  Story tokens earned by the players can be used to bring in additional characters, but that character must be approved by the CM first and cannot be a villain unless the player is made Assistant for the scene.

Only the CM can narrate another player's action.  Players can only narrate their own actions, not the actions or reactions of others. 

*DISCLAIMER*  I don't endorse this stuff.  But I do want to help out.

[drnuncheon]

Goal: Wolverine slaughters the ninja guarding the compound

Under what circumstances would that goal be gloatable by Wolverine's player?

It wouldn't really be - that was my point!  If Wolvy's player wins, he can slaughter the ninjas - in a clean, non-graphic way. (I suggest a nice shot with a silhouette of him and a ninja guard, where all of the action is implied and not explicit.)

Event: Mr. Fantastic recieves word that Doctor Doom is brutally torturing Sue Storm for information.

Is it gloatable?  Note that it is not certain that Dr. Doom IS torturing Sue?

Well, you'd have to narrate it in such a way that the results are not graphic.  And since you'd be able to (under any circumstances I can think of) then no, I'd say that there'd be no gloating on that.

Now, all this is assuming that you are only allowed to gloat if there's no other option - if you have an 'out' to narrate without violating the Code, you have to take it.  Maybe that's a mistaken assumption.

J

[Sindyr]

All right.  I'll bite my tongue and offer something in the "help" rather than "hinder" vein.

Let me say right off the top that I greatly appreciate this, I realize that the goals I am pursuing are not ones you endorse, and that just makes me all the more appreciative for you help.  Just bear in mind that even if I don't use 100% of the suggestions, I am grateful that you took the time and energy to make them, especially since you do not endorse the validity of the goal, but are nonetheless trying to be helpful

Some House Rule Suggestions:

ALL Events or Goals must be approved by all players present.  If one player opposes the played goal or event, the player must try choose a different event or goal.  (this is an expansion of the Veto rules for events and certain goals)

This idea is seemingly severe, but elegant in its simplicity - as you say, it is an expansion of the rule already covering Events.  After playing vanilla Capes a bit, this may be well worth a session or two of playtesting.

On the other hand, this doesn't prevent graphic or gritty narrations.  Still, intriguing idea, would like to see the effect of this on play.

One player at the start of the game is chosen to be "Capes Master" or CM.  The CM is the only player responsible for adding Goals or Events, and starts each scene with story tokens equalling the number of players present.  All players must use the "And then..." mechanic when narrating their action, the CM ALWAYS has the last word when resolving conflicts.

In the CM vein again, the CM may request one of the players to play a scene as a "Assistant".  The "Assistant" is allowed to play a villain, and the CM can play an event or Scene on the Assistant's action.  The Assistant cannot add goals of her own, but may roll up other sides of conflict and act appropriately "villainous" so long as it does not violate the "Boundaries" Comics Code.

The CM will approve all characters before they are put in play.  Story tokens earned by the players can be used to bring in additional characters, but that character must be approved by the CM first and cannot be a villain unless the player is made Assistant for the scene.

Only the CM can narrate another player's action.  Players can only narrate their own actions, not the actions or reactions of others. 

*DISCLAIMER*  I don't endorse this stuff.  But I do want to help out.

I just want to make clear how much I appreciate it.

I like the vein you are going in with the idea of a Capes Master - and this idea of yours has made me think of something.

Instead of a CM, what if there was a Keeper of the Code - an individual selected to make especially sure that the rules are followed, the Comic's Code doesn't get broken, and any House rules and mods are obeyed.

In effect, this individual is the "standards guy" who approves the comic for release to the general public.

If anyone has an issue, for example with a scene getting a little too bloody or violent, they ask him to step in.

His adjudication should not be based on his own personal whim, but based on the previously discussed game contract.  It is further his job to keep the contract, to produce it when asked, and to make all decisions in the light of this contract.

The only time he can be overruled is if all of the other players disagree with his ruling.

And his power does not extend to creating narration for other players, only to vetoing narration, Conflicts, etc.

If asked, from time to time, he will bring up the Game Contract and lead a discussion if it needs to be amended or altered.

In order to amend or alter the Game Contract, any changes must be approved by no fewer than the full group minus one, or if the group has only 3 in it, the vote to alter the GC must be approved by all.

Typically the Keeper would start as the person responsible for organizing the initial game.  Before the first game, everyone discusses what should go into the GC.  It is likely that the organizer has a prewritten initial Game Contract under which the group came together.  He will present that, almost as a fait accompli, and ask if there are any additions or alterations that should be made.  He will also note that the Contract can also be altered later, should the need arise.

A sample Game Contract could be something like the below:

Game Contract for:
Capes, Tuesday nights
Participants: Hal Judd(Keeper of the Code), Beth Young, Kyle Fenton, Mary Elder, John Thurman

• The game is Capes.  The rules are to be interpreted consistent with their use and discussion on the official forums, except where modified below
• The Spotlight Character rules are to be used, a limit of 3 Spotlight Characters per player.  Each SC can only be Authored by the owning player - that is, any narrations of actions, choices, or other aspects deemed internal to the character can be vetoed if not made by the owning player.
• The Game Tone is four-color comics, with all that entails.  This includes (but is not limited to) the following:


• No torture, no rape, no brutality, no maiming or mutilation, etc, and no hint of any of those either.
• No extended (past one scene) physical suffering.
• No pervasively depressing and/or bleak scene elements
• No significant non-fleeting (one scene) success for the villains.
• No significant non-fleeting (one scene) defeat for heroes unless the defeat is personal and approved by the owner of the character.
Anything that contravenes the four-color tone is not Gloatable.

• The Comic's Code *is* Gloatable.  The Comic's Code for this game is [insert CC here]
• The game and overall narrative must be internally consistent.  Any continuity issues should be overseen by the Keeper and vetoed as necessary.
• Other narrative limitations are: [include other limitations here]
• The Keeper is responsible for making sure that no violations of the above codes occurs, in letter or in Spirit.  He can unilaterally veto any narration, Goal, or other play that he judges in violation.  He can be overruled if all the other players disagree.  Likewise, if all the other players feel that *he* is violating the GC, they can unanimously veto *his* narration.
• At any point this GC can be altered or amended with a successful vote of consensus minus one, or if the gaming group is only 3, consensus.The same procedure is used to remove the current sitting Keeper, or install a new one if the old one abdicates.
• Any player can bring up questions or opinions about the GC, or call for a vote relating to the GC, at any time.
• Any player is free to permanently leave the group at any time.  Any player may be expelled from the group with a vote of consensus minus one.

So - what do you think?  It's still rough, but maybe this idea has legs?

[Glendower]

I like the game contract in the general sense that you're designing an explicit social contract.  By spelling out the "lines and veils" (this is a Ron Edwards-ism, if I use references it's not stealing, it's research!), you keep the comfort level from going to a not fun place. 

I can think of a dozen different situations in any RPG where something like this would have been useful, and where I or someone else inadvertantly insulted/upset/angered another player and turned the whole environment into a poisonous wasteland.  Bad memories. 

I think that it would be effective to achieve your specific goals.  I'm certain there will be hiccups and a learning curve, but the Keeper idea to keep the goals and events in line does achieve most of what you're looking for.  By putting someone in a position of slightly more authority, you can torpedo objectionable events/goals and keep the tone in the right level.  You've got some check and balances in place to even move the Keeper position around, which is very democratic of you. *smile*

Again, the disclaimer (for anyone jumping into the thread from this point onwards) that I don't agree with this personally.  That aside, I still want to help out.