[Capes] Social resolution mechanics

[statisticaltomfoolery]

Now, for what it's worth, I think that this sort of "Don't catch the snitch yet" philosophy mixes well with my earlier notion that a scene's Victory Target should grow slightly higher every time somebody Stakes Debt on a Complication.

I think it'd an appealing bit of design, that the more the heroes and villains have at stake, the more important and longer the scene, but I think it'll go nowhere if the VP total can increase whenever debt is staked. You're likely to get into runaway debt scenarios, where both sides have a decent chance of winning, and feel almost forced to stake a little more just to keep the scene going. I'd expect that you'd have lots of scenes end only when  one side is completely tapped out.

Maybe, in the scene framing part, you can have where the basic situation is described, and then pre-emptively,. people can stake debt to build complications, and the number of debt staked at the outset results in the fixed length of the scene.  This gets a bit of what of you identified earlier, without the game balance issues, and with a neat feel that villains are always putting their reputation on the line with every crime they do.

I'd still argue that holding a strong thematic approach to spillover is the best way to do this:  very good storytelling players won't be hindered by this at all; and because (at least in my head), the person resolving gets to pick what the bonus that they get has, they can always choose to keep on picking bonuses that spill over immediately, or pick up bonuses that relate to more character and long-term goals. You just say: "It has to make some sort of sense" (which is about the strictness the Silverstar example follows), and let the players work within that. But, allowing them the property of picking up the complication and adding it to their possessions is a cool thing, as well as giving them the control of when to pull those bonuses out.  Make it spill over too rapidly, or too nonsensical, and it'll just seem like another numbers mechanic.

[statisticaltomfoolery]

(deleted, double post)

[TonyLB]

Statistical:  Real good point on how extending the Victory Target can undermine precisely the type of closure I was talking about.  I'm going to have to think about it... don't want to emulate the five-hour end-game of card games like Munchkin.

On taking bonuses later:  I think that in a feedback system like this, players don't face a hard choice between "Do I take an immediate bonus, or one that will help me later in the game?"  

At least as I've got it currently imagined, it's "Do I delay taking Bonus X in order to get Bonus Y instead, or do I just take Bonus X, use it, and thereby earn Bonus Y as well?"

I think my long term goal is something like "Of course I take Bonus X.  Now what sort of scene and story should I create using Bonus X, in order to try to build events toward the point where I will get Bonus Y?"

[statisticaltomfoolery]

Ah, well I agree: the goal should be to constantly facilitate the narrative. I just think the difference is that I'm wary of bonuses flipping over immediately is right: I think there's appeal to having a scene (or issue) wind down, and then using a few spare bonuses to figure out where to go next. I don't think a system which encourages players to hold for a long time is what you want either.

Plus, having the player disincentivized from taking Bonus Y, which is the cool arc they really want, and instead trying to figure out how to get there through Bonuses X, A, D, and F means that the burden is on them: while if they take Bonus Y, it's then communicated that they want something cool to happen with the Grey Hand, and lets all players pick up and work out the intermediate steps.

[TonyLB]

Okay, but... what do you imagine the intermediate steps should be?

Or, to put it more pointedly, if everyone knows that what the player wants is to have a cool scene with the Grey Hand, why not make that the next scene?

[statisticaltomfoolery]

Okay, but... what do you imagine the intermediate steps should be?

Or, to put it more pointedly, if everyone knows that what the player wants is to have a cool scene with the Grey Hand, why not make that the next scene?

Sometimes it's the next scene, and sometimes it's not. Maybe it's because the hero has just put together that a crucial part of his background has to relate to the Grey Hand, but he's too busy saving the world right now, and he'll get to that in downtime. Maybe they're a third-party interloper or mysterious party in the current scene, and the player thinks they're cool, but doesn't need for it to happen right now.

Maybe the person playing Spidey doesn't feel in the mood to have the scene with the argument with MJ right now, but wants to get around to it next session.

Maybe the gadgeteer just got an idea for a neat invention, and when he gets some time to tinker, wants to funnel it into that.

I think there are a great many reasons to not want to start everything that results from a complication right now.

Having these bonuses encourages players to do scene framing as well: they look at the bonuses they haven't used, figure out what's interesting to pursue, and go ahead and start something.

Also, on a purely mechanical level, if every complication results in another complication, then how do the complications ever decrease?

You could also find advancement right in here: these bonuses...heck, what about Inspirations? make a character more powerful: they're better able to respond to threats, whether it's a supply of friends and allies, gadgets and gear, or just personal motivation, they're at a distinct advantage versus other heroes and villains. A villain with a powerful secret lair you just create as normal, but give him a few Inspirations which are:

Pit of Sharks Trap +1
Enclosed Crushing Room +3
Neverending Maze of Hallways +4

and there you go: as the heroes get close to his Secret Lair, suddenly he's at an advantage.

[TonyLB]

On the mechanical question:  Yeah, I see what you mean.  The value of complications can decrease, but their number will proliferate until the table is covered in snowdrifts of 3x5" cards.  Probably not a good thing.

So what else would they be spent on, save for new Complications?

Maybe you could burn them for downtime Scenes.  Spend an N-point Inspiration to have a scene that runs for N turns.  The hero also gets a payment of 2N extra dice for his pool... though I can't figure out whether to distribute that as 2 dice every turn, or as a lump sum payment at the beginning.

[LordSmerf]

Perhaps if i lay out my thinking on all this it will become clear why i support the idea of all Complications ending with a Scene.

The source material is Comic Books, comic books are inherently episodic.  That means that it is highly desireable that "ok, glad that is all taken care of" moments occur.  At the same time Comic Books also (usually) have two other things: An overal Moral story (which is present all the time, regardless of what is going on) and an Arc Story ("Danger in the Shadows" "Part 1 of 3", that type of thing).  The Moral Story is a type of Issue that is either never resolved, or if it is resolved is immediately brought back up in one form or another.  The Arc Story is almost always completely resolved at the end of the Arc.  Perhaps you have new characters or new villains or new what-have-you, but by and large all of that stuff is taken care of.

Now since i view each Session as a single issue of whatever comic monthly/weekly the story is about the Story Arcs can have a defined length at the beginning of the first Session of that Arc so we do not need a mechanic for them.

However i believe it is important to differntiate between quick actions (Spider Man beats up Doc Oc, saves the people from the burning building, but is not able to save the school bus with the bomb in it) and long term issues (Peter Parker loves MJ, but is having problems dealing with that and being a hero).

Two reasons for this:

1. That building will burn down soon, that gives the burning building a sense of urgency.  If you are allowed to carry it over until after you achieve Victory in this fight (or whatever) then there is no reason to deal with it right now other than the -1 Wonder Level penalty...  This seems like a horrible thing; you do not want players to ever feel that they can just deal with it later because if they do feel that way then the tough decisions are gone...  Baically i want the villain to be able to set that building on fire as a distraction...

2. I have not problem with "do not catch the snitch yet" play.  It basically forces you to think somewhat ahead, you can not allow the villain to get too far ahead in any Complication you care about saving, especially if you are Staked on it.  If you do then you run the risk of not being able to Resolve that Complication in your favor.  I think that forcing this kind of decision making in play really drives the Premise forward.

Scene Extension: Perhaps a (very) high level Wonder that does not contribute any dice to Victory...  Basicly you can extend the scene, but there is a huge cost to doing it, and it is definately not something that you would be doing anyway.

So what else would [Inspirations] be spent on, save for new Complications?

Personally i think that they should be spent strictly on dice bonuses (activated during the Monologue phase) like Powers or Attitudes except that these bonuses only work once.  Here is how i would do it:

Whenever a Complication that has any amount of Debt Staked is Resolved in your favor note down the total amount of Debt Staked as a bonus to be used later.

You may activate this bonus during the Monologue phase of a Conflict in order to get a number of Dice equal to twice the Debt that was Staked.  Example: Silver Star earlier defeated Smogzilla and won with control of the "Entangling Electrical Wires" Complication which had 1 Debt (from the Opposition) on it.  Silver Star's player takes the card and makes a "+1" note.  Later on Silver Star runs into Smogzilla again and activates the "Entangling Electrical Wires +1" bonus for 2 extra dice saying: "The smell of the rubber used to insulate those wires is very distinctive, Silver Star's enhanced senses allow her to track Smogzilla entirely by smell now."  The "Entangling Electrical Wires +1" card is now eliminated.

Does that make sense?  By using Staked Complications only we ensure that not all Complications provide a bonus.  By providing a simple dice bonus we make the useful, but not overpowering.  I am not sure whether the nature of the bonus should be decided when you Win it or when you use it though...

Thomas

[Sydney Freedberg]

Perhaps if i lay out my thinking on all this it will become clear why i support the idea of all Complications ending with a Scene. The source material is Comic Books, comic books are inherently episodic.  That means that it is highly desireable that "ok, glad that is all taken care of" moments occur.  At the same time Comic Books also (usually) have two other things: An overal Moral story (which is present all the time, regardless of what is going on) and an Arc Story ("Danger in the Shadows" "Part 1 of 3", that type of thing).  The Moral Story is a type of Issue that is either never resolved, or if it is resolved is immediately brought back up in one form or another.  The Arc Story is almost always completely resolved at the end of the Arc.

Darn it. He's right, I'm wrong. Complications and Issues do need to be different. (Though they can still operate on essentially the same mechanics, except for one's open-endedness).

[statisticaltomfoolery]

Perhaps if i lay out my thinking on all this it will become clear why i support the idea of all Complications ending with a Scene. The source material is Comic Books, comic books are inherently episodic.  That means that it is highly desireable that "ok, glad that is all taken care of" moments occur.  At the same time Comic Books also (usually) have two other things: An overal Moral story (which is present all the time, regardless of what is going on) and an Arc Story ("Danger in the Shadows" "Part 1 of 3", that type of thing).  The Moral Story is a type of Issue that is either never resolved, or if it is resolved is immediately brought back up in one form or another.  The Arc Story is almost always completely resolved at the end of the Arc.

Darn it. He's right, I'm wrong. Complications and Issues do need to be different. (Though they can still operate on essentially the same mechanics, except for one's open-endedness).

I'm not sure of this it all: I think the holding Inspirations mechanic can account for this, without needing to differentiate between complications and issues.

Let's say the overall arching moral issue is how to be responsible to the ones you love while also being responsible to the world: when the editor resolves complications, he can use them to get bonuses that will apply to the scenes when this comes up: if that burning building collapses and the hero has to spend time helping with the rescue effort, the editor can take that as: "Let building collapse +2", and then use that to start off an advantage in the scene where the hero has to explain to his son why he couldn't make it to the baseball game. If the hero keeps on throwing all his weight into short-term tactical gains, he's going to be at a disadvantage when it comes to the father/son dynamic. This applies to arc Issues as well: the bank robbers may not be able to point a finger back to who hired him: it could be a middleman who's already dead, there could be mind erasure involved, or any other number of things: if the heroes don't devote bonuses to getting information which will help resolve the arc issues, they'll be stuck being more reactionary to the plot (A lot of how that theoretical example works also depends on how people get to control the theme and content of their bonuses, and as yet untackled issue).

[TonyLB]

In terms of how effectively players address challenges, I think that what Statistical recommends (which I'm going to dub "Serial Complications") is roughly equivalent to Complications and Issues.  There are some quibbling differences, but I think they both get the same job done.  A hero who addresses purely tactical issues will find themselves hamstrung in emotional/informational ones, and vice versa.

But two things haven't been mentioned yet, and since they're two things that incline me fairly seriously toward including Issues, I figure it's worth bringing them up.

First:  Victory Points and Targets.  Issues bind victory points to them in a way that Serial Complications do not.  

In Serial Complications, each of the small sub-complications will be resolved, and its VPs will go into the appropriate heroic or villainous total.  That's irrevocable.  From there you start with a largely clean VP slate (yes, the bonus for how much you beat your opponent by, but not the matched amounts that people spent against each other contesting the complication).

An Issue, on the other hand, just holds the Control values as they rise and rise and rise.  I've seen one of these hot-button Complications in one scene in my playtest game attract thirty points of total Control.  Over the course of a game I would imagine that Control totals of 50 or more would not be unusual.

That's easily the difference between winning and losing a session.

That encourages a build-up that I really like:  Sure, you missed your date with Katie-Sue (lost control of Issue at 10-9, but prevented it from resolving), but you managed to convince her to give you a second chance (regained control at 20-22, but couldn't resolve it yourself), and now everything is riding on making it to the multiplex in time!


Second:  There is a contrary effect with Debt.  Issues are the "interest free credit consolidation loan" of the system.  They hold your Debt, but the Debt doesn't impede you in any way as long as the Issue isn't resolved against you.  So there is a lot of incentive to start an Issue (to shuck Debt) but only a little incentive to resolve the Issue in your favor (in order to reduce the risk of losing big-time).

My intuition is that this factor will encourage players to stay as close as they can to a tie in their Issues, throughout the game.  Maybe lag a little bit behind, systematically, spending only as much as they have to in order to be close enough to recover with a mighty effort if the Issue is in danger of being Resolved.


And I think that, together, the two factors I cited can become a solution to the problem of making the climax of the moral story and the climax of the adventure story happen together.  

Issues will become magnets for both Debt and VPs.  Their resolution will likely be delayed until they are the critical "win or lose" factor remaining in the game.  Therefore the Victory of the game will frequently go to the side that successfully resolves whatever has emerged through play as the major thematic Issue of the game.

And I really like that.

[TonyLB]

Does that make sense?  By using Staked Complications only we ensure that not all Complications provide a bonus.

Yes, but... well, that means that if you don't Stake on a Complication then there's no way it can hurt you.  You can't gain more Debt, and your opponent can't gain a bonus.

Seems to me that makes it a little hard to represent a conflict between wanting to do the practical thing and wanting to follow your heart.

How about if an opponent can only get a bonus when there isn't an opposing Stake?  That way the loser either gains Debt or has a bonus used against them later, but not both.

At first blush it seems to me that this would lead to more meaningful choices for the players:  Say the building is burning, and I'm staked in that.  Scarlet Skiier is also about to get away, but I don't really have any moral feelings about that.  

If I save the building and lose the Skiier then my conscience will be clear, but he'll have an advantage over me next time we meet.  

If I snag the skiier but innocents suffer then I'll have the tactical advantage, but I'll have trouble sleeping at night.

[LordSmerf]

Does that make sense?  By using Staked Complications only we ensure that not all Complications provide a bonus.

Yes, but... well, that means that if you don't Stake on a Complication then there's no way it can hurt you.  You can't gain more Debt, and your opponent can't gain a bonus.

Seems to me that makes it a little hard to represent a conflict between wanting to do the practical thing and wanting to follow your heart.

How about if an opponent can only get a bonus when there isn't an opposing Stake?  That way the loser either gains Debt or has a bonus used against them later, but not both.

At first blush it seems to me that this would lead to more meaningful choices for the players:  Say the building is burning, and I'm staked in that.  Scarlet Skiier is also about to get away, but I don't really have any moral feelings about that.  

If I save the building and lose the Skiier then my conscience will be clear, but he'll have an advantage over me next time we meet.  

If I snag the skiier but innocents suffer then I'll have the tactical advantage, but I'll have trouble sleeping at night.

I like this.  I would definately approve of this system.

One note, i do not feel that Issues should provide VPs toward your total.  Reason being you run the risk of having an Issue resolved and immediately reaching your Session Target.  I do like the idea of an Issue being a huge Debt bank.  I see this basicly being something that you might be clearly winning, but not Resolving it until you have put as much Debt into it as you are allowed...

Thomas

[Sydney Freedberg]

....The source material is Comic Books, comic books are inherently episodic....

Darn it. He's right, I'm wrong. Complications and Issues do need to be different.

I'm not sure of this it all...

Hmmm. Maybe you're right and I'm wrong about him being right and me being wrong.

But I think that TonyLB's idea for Issues as VP sinks and debt consolidators (as far as I understand it) sounds really neat.

The key question -- and I don't think we've answered this explicitly -- is, is there any need for different rules mechanics for Issues vs. Complications except the distinction "Complications automatically end at the end of the scene, Issues end when someone deliberately ends them?" I don't think so. So except for the "when it ends" condition, otherwise they can use the exact same rules (including the ability for an Issue to act as a Hindrance or Aid -- key bit, that) to produce different effects, which has a certain elegant economy.

Also, while I'm on a Chinese Cultural Revolution-streak of "comradely self-criticism," I suggested a while back that Issues/Complications could have different scales somehow, so that rolling over X success into a big complication (say Scale 5) would produce only X/5 success, but rolling over X success into a small complication (say Scale 2) would produce X/2. But on second thought, this is just wrong -- it's pure Sim thinking (specifically Purist for Sim, I think). In stories, especially superhero stories, a very small scale scene, e.g. the protagonist saves a puppy and a little girl hugs him and restores his sense of hope in the world, can produce huge impact downstream; conversely, a hero who saves the world five times over might still not be able to impress his girlfriend.

EDIT: In other words, all conflicts are on the same "scale." Their weight in the story depends entirely on the importance the protagonists (and their creators, the players in this case) attach to them, which means in this system Debt.

[Marhault]

Okay.  First things first, a disclaimer:  The way this thread moves, in the time it takes me to write this post, it'll probably wind up crossposting with about 20 other posts.  Some of what I'm going to say may've been stated, accepted, rejected, and restated by the time I finish saying it.  Or not.  If I misinterpret anything, it's probably because the actions is fast and furious on this game, and I may have missed something.

Next, a question.  I'm not sure what "Issues" are supposed to represent.  Are they supposed to be complications, only for the Moral, or are they intended as continuations (whether direct or otherwise) of Adventure complications?  It seems to me that there's room for both, but they would need to be handled separately.

For the rest of this post, I'll assume that "Issues" are intended to be a part of the Moral, and "Serial Complications" are intended to be part of the Adventure.  I think they're two separate ideas that are being confused as one.

The source material is Comic Books, comic books are inherently episodic. That means that it is highly desireable that "ok, glad that is all taken care of" moments occur. At the same time Comic Books also (usually) have two other things: An overal Moral story (which is present all the time, regardless of what is going on) and an Arc Story ("Danger in the Shadows" "Part 1 of 3", that type of thing). The Moral Story is a type of Issue that is either never resolved, or if it is resolved is immediately brought back up in one form or another. The Arc Story is almost always completely resolved at the end of the Arc. Perhaps you have new characters or new villains or new what-have-you, but by and large all of that stuff is taken care of.

One note, i do not feel that Issues should provide VPs toward your total.  Reason being you run the risk of having an Issue resolved and immediately reaching your Session Target.

I agree with Thomas on both of these points.  The thing about these Issues is that they're going to last for a long time.  More than one session at least.  Some of them may be quickly resolved, but most will be on the order of Peter Parker's love affair with Mary Jane, or Tony Stark's battle with alcoholism.  (or, for something on the other side of the comics world, Oliver Queen's on-again-off-again relationship with Dinah Lance)

That encourages a build-up that I really like: Sure, you missed your date with Katie-Sue (lost control of Issue at 10-9, but prevented it from resolving), but you managed to convince her to give you a second chance (regained control at 20-22, but couldn't resolve it yourself)

Which is exactly the way I would expect Issues to play out.  Back and forth, only being resolved when the Player or Editor (or, more likely, both) think it's time.  Or when one of them runs out of points to spend on it.

The other key thing about Issues is that they shouldn't draw strength from Powers, or resolved Complications (not usually, anyway) or any of that.  These things should work off of debt.

Here's how I think Issues should work (with a few details left out for the time being):

PCs have a limited number of ongoing Issues.  Each Issue is linked to a Drive. (The number and type of Issues being determined by the characters values in said Drives).

At the beginning of a scene, the Player requests to address a particular issue (probably even requesting the scene itself, between battles, everybody gets to request 1 scene, or somesuch), then he spends debt from the appropriate Drive to get control in the Issue.  (Control in this case might be dice to roll for points, or might translate directly into points on the Issue.)

The Editor collaborates with the player(s) to role-play the scene in accordance with the points going into the Issues.

Example:  Scarlet Scarab defends the weak and downtrodden in her neighborhood, a downtrodden slum in Angel City.  Her primary Drives are Hope (3) for which the Exemplar is Richie, a small boy with whom Scarab works as a volunteer in a neighborhood enrichment program (in her secret identity, of course), and Love (3) for which the Exemplar is Daniel Simmons, the director of the same neighborhood enrichment program.

After a big fight with the henchmen of the local crimelord, Arken, SS finds herself in need to work off some debt.  She requests a scene at program headquarters, trying to help Daniel get through a pile of grant paperwork.  SS and Daniel flirt, and she impresses him with her understanding of the governments grant program.  She makes her exit on a high note, a mysterious comment which leaves him wanting more.  Scarlet Scarab's player takes control of the Relationship with Daniel Simmons Issue (21-19).

All is not Heavenly wine and roses for Scarlet Scarab, however.  The Editor frames the next scene, right after her evening with Daniel, she runs into Richie on the street.  She asks him what he's doing out this late at night, worried that he may have fallen in with one of Arken's gangs.  Richie acts defensive, and points out that she's not really that concerned about him, She only uses him and the rest of the neighborhood to get closer to Daniel.  Richie saw her leave the project headquarters, and suspects they were having a rendezvous.  "You never really cared about us, so why don't you just bug off!"  Richie walks away, and rejoins the gang of young toughs he's hanging with.  SS feels the people she cares about fall further into Arken's grasp.  The Improve State of Neighborhood Issue falls further into the Editor's sway (44-39).

This method solves two problems.  It gives the PCs a way to get out of debt while furthering the story, and it addresses the game's premise as stated - by using the debts incurred during the battle as a positive resource, the hero shows himself to be worthy of his superpowers.  Players get a choice about what plot points they want their characters to further.  One thing is, I don't know where the Editor's points would come from that he throws in against the Player.