[Capes] Blocking Action and Monologues

[TonyLB]

There are, indeed, plenty of stories in comics that are spirals into tragedy.  Chris Claremonts X-Men, for instance... nasty, nasty stories of characters pushed to (and beyond) the brink of human endurance.  But it would be a grave concern to me if such stories were ever forced upon the players.  

I think that the players should have vast power (within the framework of the actual resolution of the conflicts, as determined by the Adventure rules) to define the Moral outcome of the story, and whether or not it is toward cheerfulness and unity or misery and sacrifice.  People can (and, I imagine, will) choose the type of stories that appeal to them.

What I'm aiming for is a system where the moral story emerges from the adventure, but is not limited to the same outcome.  A story where every battle is lost (decisively) can still carry a message of hope.  A story where the heroes win at every turn can end up making them question everything about themselves.

Mechanically, there is some support for this already, but I'd like to add more.

Already, the Stakes on a Complication are not related to the number of Victory Points being dumped into it.  An event can be tactically minor in the scheme of the alien invasion of earth, but still carry massive weight in the hearts and memories of earth's defenders (because it had high Stakes but low Victory Points).  So heroes can achieve small, even uncontested, victories in the midst of larger defeat, and still come out ahead in terms of how many (and how powerful) Facts they get to define.

This could be made into a stronger phenomenon if villains could be required to match Stakes with the heroes in some situations.  That would allow the heroes to both establish more Facts and to undermine the certainty of the villains (by dumping Debt Tokens onto them).  This would get to the emotional inflexibility of many villains (the obsessions, the megalomania, all that).

For instance:  Perhaps if the heroes have been listening when the villain referenced their own Facts ("I have defeated the champions of nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine worlds!"), and can therefore reference those Facts themself ("I challenge you, at this particularly inconvenient juncture!  Will you decline the chance to defeat your ten thousandth world?") then both the hero and the villain Stake Debt off of the same Fact, and the villain is not permitted to decline.

Heh... funny thought:  The villains should have the same opportunity, right?  If they figure out the heroes Facts then they should be able to force them to Stake by referencing the Fact.  But, a hero can't Stake chips that he doesn't have (and this is somehow different for villains, haven't yet decided how).

The net outcome of that is that a villain can only force a hero into Stakes by using a Fact whose clarity is less than or equal to his current Debt (i.e. a debt he could pay the Stake on).  

Or, in other words, if you're really sure that the brutal murder of your parents is justification for your war on the criminal fraternity (say... a Five point Duty Fact), then even a villain who discovers that about your past can't manipulate your emotions by calling on it... until he's so confused and befuddled you that your Debt in Duty is five points or higher, so that you can pay to Stake on a Fact that important to you.  Which is why the villains are always pausing at the last moment, when they have the heroes on the ropes, to gloat about the one thing that's guaranteed to re-energize the heroes.

I think, though I am not sure, that the safe haven thus provided (where the villains can't get at your big Facts until your debt soars, but you can get at theirs at any time) would be enough to push control of the Moral story firmly into the hands of the players.  What do people think?  Agree?  Disagree?  Unable to follow my meandering trains of thought?

[John Harper]

Yes. Gwen Stacy. That story-arc is amazing. One of the best in comics, I think.

I guess my point was just that people have certain expectations when they think "comic book super heroes" and it usually means "good triumphs over evil." I think it's worth mentioning in the text that Capes doesn't necessarily conform to that expectation.

EDIT: Cross-posted with Tony.

[LordSmerf]

What I'm aiming for is a system where the moral story emerges from the adventure, but is not limited to the same outcome.  A story where every battle is lost (decisively) can still carry a message of hope.  A story where the heroes win at every turn can end up making them question everything about themselves.

This is great.  I really want to see this work...!

The net outcome of that is that a villain can only force a hero into Stakes by using a Fact whose clarity is less than or equal to his current Debt (i.e. a debt he could pay the Stake on).

This is good.  No, i mean this is really, really good.  One thing that i believe could really enhance this is by assigning facts in a way similar to Powers, Attitudes, and Tropes.  In fact you might assign a Fact to each Drive sort of like Exemplars (what makes this Drive important to this character).  This would be especially cool if you could tie the Fact to the Exemplar.

I am a little uncomfortable with the idea Fact generation.  I feel that Facts should be really important to a character and thus should not accumulate quickly (if at all).  Basically, instead of using Fact generation to develop the Moral story use Fact control.  Allow players to change and/or modify the Facts of their characters.

Also, i am not currently comfortable with the idea of "referencing" Facts producing a mechanical bonus...  I would like to see some penalty or something for those occasions when a Fact can be challenged due to high debt though.

I also like the idea that you can force someone to put up Stakes by challenging their Facts...

My opinion in a nut shell: I like what you have about forcing Stakes with Facts, but i would like to see Facts set by players and not developed through play...  A way to raise the value of Facts as you "validate" your worldview would be good though.

Thomas

[LordSmerf]

I was reading over the rules again (i am going to try to get a group together tonight to play...) when i ran into the most recent Stakes stuff:

If your enemies resolve the Complication then you have to take back your own tokens and an equal amount of the enemies tokens (if they bey them on that Complication).

Am i right to be thinking that this means that if you lose a Complication that you have Stakes in that the Villain does not have Stakes in that you simply get your Debt tokens back (you do not get extra debt tokens)?

If this is the case then i like it and i do not like it:

I like it because it makes it such that if the Villain does not Stake then you are safe.  If it does not matter to both of you then it does not really matter all that much if you fail.

On the other hand, it should probably always matter if you fail at something you have Staked on.  Otherwise you generate "safe bets".

Speaking of "safe bets" the current rules seem to allow you to allow you to put Stakes on a Complication that you control and are about to resolve.  This allows for instances in which you have a 7 point lead in a Complication and decide "hey, i need to get rid of some of this debt".  I would recomend that Stakes can only be put forward on Complications that you are currently losing in or on Complications when they are generated, possibly only if they are generated by your opponent...

If i play tonight you will know, i will be sure to put up an Actual Play post...

Thomas

[TonyLB]

First off:  Yes, you're right about what happens when you lose a Stake only you bet on.  But as you've just pointed out, the villains have an incentive to Stake on it when they control it, prior to resolving it.

Heh... on some levels, staking on a Conflict you're clearly about to win is just "gloating".  That's good villainous material there.  I agree that I don't want the system to so heavily encourage gloating that the heroes are compelled to engage in it (the way Champions heroes are compelled, under the undrifted rules, to deliver finishing blows to drive unconscious villains beyond quick recovery).

I've been trying to figure out a good way to limit Stakes to "non-sure bets".  But there are so many ways that a bet can be sure that I'm having a bit of trouble codifying it.  People can have an advantage because of points in the Complication, or because of the tactical situation, or because they just plain have a bigger dice pool than their opposition.

That's complicated: possibly more complicated than I'm capable of addressing.  So I've been exploring some other options.  I think that one way to encourage people to Stake on complications that are going to be contested for a while is to give unresolved Stakes a benefit in the dice-pool side of the rules.

In the ongoing revision (which will see light of day when the rules are coherent and complete again) I've revised the Level 5 "Inspiration" Wonder to read like this:

Level 5: Inspiration.  This Wonder may only be played on a Complication you do not (before playing the Wonder) control.  Everyone on your side (e.g. the Heroic side) receives two dice into their dice pool for each point of Debt they personally have at Stake on the Complication.

I'm not really sure whether two dice per debt token is too much... Certainly if you hit a climactic battle and people have temporarily boosted their Drives to something like 5 or 6, it could become a lot.

[LordSmerf]

I've been trying to figure out a good way to limit Stakes to "non-sure bets".  But there are so many ways that a bet can be sure that I'm having a bit of trouble codifying it.  People can have an advantage because of points in the Complication, or because of the tactical situation, or because they just plain have a bigger dice pool than their opposition.

True, one thing you might do is require Stakes to be put up when a Complication is generated or not at all.  That way there will not be a mechanical incentive to put Stakes up for things you are winning, and there will be an incentive to focus on things that are important to a character (indicated by the fact that those things have Stakes).

That's complicated: possibly more complicated than I'm capable of addressing.  So I've been exploring some other options.  I think that one way to encourage people to Stake on complications that are going to be contested for a while is to give unresolved Stakes a benefit in the dice-pool side of the rules.

I like this idea.  Of course without more play i am not convinced that people need encouragement to Stake on things other than the fact that having high Debt can hurt you.  There is plenty of mechanical incentive to Stake, but more could be useful...

One thing that might encourage Stakes is requiring Stakes instead of Debt.  Want to activate a Power?  It must be done as Stakes.  Want to get an extra Wonder Point?  Stakes.  Basicly you do not get debt until and unless a Complication is resolved...  I like that...

Thomas

[Sydney Freedberg]

... In the ongoing revision (which will see light of day when the rules are coherent and complete again)....

A small-ish request: When you next redo the rules, could you do something about those columns? I find it really hard to follow the flow of text sometimes, especially when columns are really close together (as in the main rules) or when the narrative thread seems to switch back and forth between columns (as in the Jack Chance Facts example).

We now return you to your regularly scheduled substantive discussion...

[TonyLB]

"Do something" about them is a bit vague.

If I set the text to go across the entire screen, my experience is that it's even harder to read.

It's very possible that what I need to do is to add more white space in the form of more pictures and little sidebars, so that the arrangement of the text is more vertical (with only one or two columns of narrative on each horizontal level).  Was this what you meant, or did you have something else in mind?

[John Harper]

Multiple text columns on a web page are not very common (as opposed to print). They can also be tough to read if a column is taller than your display -- you have to scroll down and then back up to pick up the rest of a line. I recommend a single narrow column of text (around 600px, say).

Or let the text flow from one edge of the browser to the other and let the user decide how wide they want the text to be. That's probably a more web-friendly method.

[TonyLB]

I'm certainly making an effort to make it all more readable.

That having been said, I personally like the columns.

I agree that making it single-column, across the entirety of the screen, would be more web-friendly.  But at the moment I spend a lot more time looking at the rules than anyone else does, so I'm going to lean toward my comfort.  When things are finalized I'll reformat it to the most popular layout I can find.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Wow. An entire flurry of posts occasioned by my witless comment. I feel strangely powerful, kind of like the guy who put his beer can down on the "LAUNCH" button...

"...It's very possible that what I need to do is to add more white space in the form of more pictures and little sidebars, so that the arrangement of the text is more vertical (with only one or two columns of narrative on each horizontal level).  Was this what you meant, or did you have something else in mind?

Yeah, that'd probably do it.