Hero's Code of Conduct

[dunlaing]

Yep.  And all my reasoning for why the rule isn't necessary still applies, too.  But, honestly, I think Andrew said it best:

The truth is that I could probably not use the Non-gloatable elements though. We've never once had to veto anything once the specifics of genre, tone and scope were established before play. They don't really hurt anything by being in the Code but they probably aren't neccessary either. Not if you are playing with good players who aren't trying to disrupt the game.

Either you've got players on the same page, in which case the non-gloatable goals become merely an inert representation/reminder of what page that is, or you have people with differing visions, in which case the non-gloatable goals are a means for one side to unilaterally silence their opposition.

Isn't it at least possible that you've got players who all want to be on the same page, but don't know what page that is because no one's made it explicit yet?

I mean, I would be willing to play a four-color supers game a la the Superfriends. I'd also be willing to play a more action oriented but still lighthearted game a la Justice League Unlimited. If I get together with my friends and say "Let's play Capes" they don't know yet which one I want to play.

I know the history of your argument with Sindyr, but I don't think I was talking about the same thing. I'm not suggesting rules like "No mention of Captain Fonebone losing his courage" as a non-gloatable, but more something like "We're playing Superfriends, so no mention of anything which would get us kicked off Saturday Morning network TV." I just think sometimes it wouldn't hurt to write some of those things down (particularly now that I'm older and have gaming groups that meet more erratically, making it harder to remember ground rules). An attempt to get people to agree to being on the same page and a reminder of which page that is for the future.

[Sindyr]

I'm not suggesting rules like "No mention of Captain Fonebone losing his courage" as a non-gloatable, but more something like "We're playing Superfriends, so no mention of anything which would get us kicked off Saturday Morning network TV." I just think sometimes it wouldn't hurt to write some of those things down (particularly now that I'm older and have gaming groups that meet more erratically, making it harder to remember ground rules). An attempt to get people to agree to being on the same page and a reminder of which page that is for the future.

Yes, this has nothing to do with the idea of inviolate characters, which is a seperate idea that I do also believe has a time and place to be used fruitfully. (An idea I call either "Authority" or "Ownership"

This is about the S, L and T limitations in "SALT". (Squick, Authority, Logic, and Tone).  Any game can have some limits as to what level of Squick they will tolerate; how much abuse of Logic, continuity, and consistency they are willing to endure before the storyline approaches chaos; and what kinds of Tone are appropriate or desired.

I think one of the above posters made a good point when he said that some groups can negotiatie S, L and T without having a written rule.  I think I made a good point when I said some player and groups would want a written record of these parameters in black and white to either to back us up when someone breaks these rules and needs to be called on it or even more simply as a reminder to all of us where the line is so we call all be sure not to cross it.

I personally feel that having written rules curtails more arguments that it creates. That's why Capes itself has pages and pages of them after all.

I think the elephant in the room that no one is talking about is that certain people feel (or at least seem to be acting) that to put ANY outside and formal limitation on Capes is some sort of betrayal of the spirit of Capes and of it's author's vision.

My perspective is different - Capes is collection of X rules.  Making a *slightly* drifted Capes with X+1 rules is neither blaspemy nor forbidden, and may indeed be unavoidably required to accomplish certain goals.  It certainly does not fundamentally break Capes.  It just makes "Capes + 1 rule" a little different.  To me, that's not the end of the world - but the beginning of a new one.

[Hans]

Sindyr, I don't really agree with you, but thank you for teaching me this new word, "squick", even though I could have lived a lifetime without knowing about its icky derivation.

[Sindyr]

Heh, I didn't coin it, I must admit. ;)

[LemmingLord]

We've already talked about how continuity is not Capes focus.  While players a, b and c may agree to a comic's code for playing one day for one session; the events may or may not have occured the next time they play; and if there is a player d, you've created an entirely different dynamic and, I would argue, a different universe. 

The spirit that capes seems to embody is to say that each participant has an equal chance to affect the story; and so to force a new player to follow old rules disrupts that equal chance.

It might be nice to talk about how people have dealt with adding/losing players and having inviolatile CAMPAIGNS.

If I play capes with my friends Austin and Ryan one week and we establish a given comics code and tell a great story; I feel that means squat when it comes to the next time when Austin has to work late and we add Stephan to the game...  This is a game, not a pyramid scheme!  The first people to play the game can't have more power than those that follow; the events and rules established on January 1 by one set of players shouldn't dictate the events and rules established in February by another set of players...

This does create a continuity nightmare; but then, that seems in keeping with both the theme Tony's going for AND the theme of superhero comics in general.  Each person who plays capes should fight not only for their side of conflicts, but should also fight tooth and nail for their limitations in the comics code.  If they aren't willing to fight for it, they probably don't care all that much about the rule and it shouldn't be a rule! 

I see the point I heard earlier that you may want to play with one comic's code one week (with a superfriends flavor) and another set another week (with a Dark Knight flavor); it occurs to me, though, that if you REALLY want continuity, you probably want to stay playing with the same players and hope they don't have mood swings...  Or I guess you could just play with yourself ;), but even then if you don't write things down you're going to end up different each time you play. 

[Sindyr]

I envision for my games the same group of people playing every week.

[Tuxboy]

Coming late to the discussion as I've been on holiday I'd just like to add a comment:

Every time we sit down to play Capes, whether it is with the same group or not, we have what we have come to call an "Editorial Meeting". We use this to discuss tone for the session and the tone dictates the sets of characters we use, kind of like playing a different comic title per tone. This way we don't get gritty characters in a four colour setting or vice versa...