[Capes] Players and Villains

[LordSmerf]

Perhaps some limit such that you can only roll your "free" die using Powers, but not Attitudes, or perhaps you can only roll 3's or lower...  Basically you can still roll your opponent down, but you can not roll your own up very well/often...  That is a pretty fragmentary, but i see what you are saying, but i feel that the limit based on Debt Staked is so elegant and so appropriate that it just has to be worked in...  But that's just me...

Thomas

[Sydney Freedberg]

Effects, as a whole, seemed to be doing a lot more to hinder the game than to drive it....Now it is a short but (I think) important step from that to saying that there are no freebie dice... that to roll a die you need to add a Stake to the Complication.

I'm with you on Effects; they've never quite gelled and, while such a bold step wouldn't have occurred to me, I think you're right: Kill 'em.

{EDIT: The only one I really enjoyed was "reversal," where a foe's powers backfire, and that can just be a suggested way of describing their defeat.}

As for freebie dice vs. "must stake to roll" -- mechanically the difference is between "the maximum # of dice you can have on a Complication = 1 + Stakes" vs. "maximum # of dice = Stakes." The effect of this difference is huge....

And though I'm a bit torn, I think the "low pressure" complication based entirely on a "free first die" is necessary in the system -- unless somebody can come up with a different way to represent the things that go (often comedically) to hell because the heroes don't care: the smashed artwork in the museum fight, the stray cats running into laser blasts in the alley battle, the fat bureaucrats scrambling with singed trousers in the office battle.

[Bill_White]

I wanted to interject something that may be at this point an unwarranted digression, since I see that the conversation has turned to a slightly different issue than the original question in this thread, which had to do with how to appropriately reward (and thereby motivate) players for good villainous play.  But let me throw it out here anyway, since I've been following the development of Capes with a great deal of interest and have been wishing that I had something to contribute.

I finally had a chance to make up a couple of characters, and as I was doing that it occurred to me that each element of the character description has a textual parallel in the comic book: Capes "Powers" are comic-book powers (i.e., the typical defining element for a superhero:  "he's got the proportionate speed and agility of a spider," "he's super-strong and invulnerable," "she's got a magic lasso."), "Attitudes" are sort of like comic-book "speech balloons" ("Must...keep...going"; "Oh no!  I can't let anyone see me like this!") and Tropes are (if you squint) like sound effects (but also like catchphrases and recurring "figures" or images:  "Snikt!" "It's clobbering time!" "Look!  Up in the sky!").  This is what Tony intended, and it works nicely.

So maybe players who do a good job with villains could receive other comic book textual element analogs, like (wait for it) editorial captions.

Think about it...it's a way of giving out scene-framing and other GM-like powers in a limited sort of way (which I get the sense is what Tony is after).  A player with a caption might be allowed to add it to a frame before it's been described; more powerful captions might have game effects like letting a player introduce his hero to the scene, and so forth.

Meanwhile... [sets up a mini-scene somewhere else];
Earlier... [ditto, and also moves it somewhen else]
Suddenly... [forces a surprise entrance or occurrence]
TO BE CONTINUED! [sets up a cliffhanger by ending the scene]
* As seen in issue #X [requires a reference to an earlier game-session]
[/list:u]

Similarly, a player could be given "Layout" authority, like "Splash Page" and (even better) "Two-Page Spread," each of which might have some funky mechanical effect that I can't imagine right now; something to do with shuffling complications around, perhaps.  Note that I have no idea what that means.

I realize this is a different tack than that implied by the notion of "Prominence," but I'm not sure how helpful that mechanic would be; sure, it adds structure to scene-setting, but it's another damn thing to keep track of every time.  Of course, I haven't done any playtesting, so my opinion is admittedly not terribly well-informed.

But as I understand it, the players start the game by establishing what's going on on page one after the Editor has given them a hint about what's going to happen with the cover.  So

Capes already ties the Editor to comic-book conventions (no pun intended).  So maybe formalizing the Editor's scene-framing authority by grounding it in comic-book conventions as well is a good way of using the mechanics to reinforce the genre.

Then, by letting players partake of that authority by giving them specific sorts of captions ("You want a 'Meanwhile, back at the Citadel...' or an 'As seen in Issue #1', Joe?"), the feel of a comic book is pressed into service as a player-rewarding game-mechanic.

In any event, I'm taken with this little game and I hope I get the chance to play it for real soon.

Bill

[TonyLB]

I certainly have a soft spot for flashbacks and "meanwhile, elsewhere" scenes.  I'd been planning to write up rules for how to call for them when creating a new scene, but the possibility of breaking to them in the middle of a combat is intriguing.

I must admit that, just having decided to remove Effects and their laundry-list of special case rules, I'm more in the market for a single rule with many powerful interpretations than I am for a mass of individual rules that each only do one thing.  I'm trying to figure out a rule that would do that for this idea, but I haven't got anything yet... maybe later.

[Sydney Freedberg]

I'm more in the market for a single rule with many powerful interpretations than I am for a mass of individual rules that each only do one thing... .

Bill's suggestion is a great one, though, and I bet there's a way to implement all the kinds of "Captions" he suggested as different variatons of the same mechanic.

(Uh, what is that mechanic, you ask? I don't know yet...).

[LordSmerf]

I have an idea!  I know, i know, everyone is shocked.  All Complications start with a single "neutral" die on them.  This die can be rolled by anyone.  Once it reaches six the Complication Resolves unless there is a second die.  More dice come from Staking, so basically no one can control a Complication without Stakes, you can spend on one, and try to get it resolved and replaced, but you can not Control it.  If a "neutral" Complication resolves it provides no Inspiration and is replaced by the Editor.

What this boils down to is:
-New Complications start with a single neutral die.
-Anyone can roll that die (abiding by all the same restriction of rolling other dice).
-No one controls a neutral Complication so you always get to narrate your Final Frame.
-Neutral Complications resolve if they are valued at 6 at the beginning and end of a turn.
-Neutral Complications provide no Victory Points.
-Staking on a Complication lets you place your own die on the Complication.  The neutral side never resolves if there is a Staked die in play.  This means that being the only one Staked will provide eventual victory.
-Complications only Resolve in your favor if you have a higher die value showing than anyone else.  If the highest die is neutral and anyone has Staked the Complication does not Resolve.  This means that the neutral die can be used to delay, but not defeat.

How does that sound.  Looking at it it reads a little cumbersome.  On the other hand, the idea seems simple in my mind, and it could possibly solve the Stake for dice and still have incidental stuff...

Thomas

[TonyLB]

Oh, no question.  I like the idea.  I'm just revving up the old mental engines, and hoping that everyone else is doing the same.

We had a really fun discussion of Inspirations and flashbacks, back in the day... Gawd, a month and a half ago.  Have to get this system finished, or I'll become an old man fumbling with my dice.  Heh.

EDIT:  Crossposted with Thomas.

[TonyLB]

Thomas, I grasp what you are saying in terms of the game (i.e. the dice and the 3x5 cards).  I do not grasp what it would imply for the story.

If you have a neutral Bystanders Complication, and it resolves neutral, how would that be described?

[LordSmerf]

Good question.  The Editor describes the ultimate outcome (which will be tied to whatever replaces the Complication.  What does this mean?  It means that neither the Heroes nor the Villains really went out of their way to mess with the Bystanders.  Sure you get to describe things by Frames when you roll neutral dice, but the outcome is the Editors, and moreover it shows a lack of concern.

In fact, i would be tempted to say (shooting from the hip here) that neutral Complications do not Resolve so much as fade to the background.  In comics you will see bystanders, but they take care of themselves.  The Bystanders are neither slaughtered, nor do they escape, they just fade out of focus.  They are not important to the conflict at hand.

One of the big advantages to this is that things will fade out (have almost no effect on the Story) if no Player cares enough to Stake on it.  I think that this is a good thing.

Thomas

[TonyLB]

Nod, nod.  I see what you mean.

My initial thought was "There isn't really any difference between the Bystanders saving themselves and the hero saving them," but that's just poppycock (love that word).  The difference is huge.  Mechanically it's the difference between working off some debt and getting an Inspiration or... not.  Story-wise it's a question of whether the hero takes responsibility for the situation.

Ah... and it actually makes it more possible for the players to decide what they care about or don't care about.  I've noticed that there is never, ever, a single Bystander Complication that the heroes don't go gonzo-crazy trying to control.  Because they feel the genre obligates them to.  But with this rule they can control it or not, and they're not having the whole "toasted orphan" effect looming over them if they decide they'd rather duke it out than play shepherd to a bunch of bawling civilians.

AND (as my eyes start to glint and I start speaking more rapidly and forcefully) this makes it scary when the villain Stake on a Complication, but not instantly scary, because the neutral die can provide a nice little buffer.

But... heh... okay, first off I'm really liking this now that you've explained it.  A lot.  It is very elegant and simple (even if describing the differences between the current system and this one is complicated), and I see a lot of potential flexibility.  Particularly, it might do a lot to solve all-villain or all-hero play and non-conflict scenes.

Now let's make it address the following points:

[*]A hero raising the neutral die from 2 to 5 (say) needs to have different consequences than a villain doing the same thing.  Not sure how, but this is critical.  The heroes need to be able to "fight the villains" in the Complication without investing Debt.  It's the right to play without caring again.[*]For non-conflict play (and generally) I feel like there should be some way that a Complication can resolve Neutrally even when someone is Staked on it.  Peter Parker wanting to talk to Mary Jane but not quite able to summon the nerve is an example of the sort of story element I'm looking to represent.[/list:u]

[Doug Ruff]

Crikey, take the evening off and this thread explodes!

Tony, thanks for the PM, villain creation makes more sense now. Must have a chat with you about villainous Drives sometime, but I don't want to add another topic to this thread!

Re: Complications resolving. I'm not convinced that Complications should default to 'neutral' resolution if the heroes & villains don't act. Otherwise they sorta cease to be complications, right?

IMHO, complications should be announced with a 'this is what will happen if you don't do something'. It could be as horrific as 'the orphans will burn' or as banal as 'The opportunity to talk to Mary Jane passes.'

And yes, bystanders are a tough Complication. I'd rate them as Duty 3. You see, I think that complications should directly reference Drives.

We've already got Debt staked on complications, and the debt is assigned to individual Drives, so, some suggestions:

* Every Complication has a Drive and a Rating. For example, 'Orphans in Danger' is Duty 3, 'Dr. Malevolent's cat is ill' is Love 1. Higher rating complications cost more resources (Inspiration Points?) to play. For example, a villain needs at least 3 Inspiration points to threaten those kids.

* The maximum number of dice on each side of a Complication is equal to its rating. So 3 dice for the orphans, 1 die for Mr Fluffydeath the cat.

* In the case of the orphans, the 3 dice are ordered (die 1, die 2, die 3). If your Duty drive is only 1, you can only roll the first die. This effectively replaces the passion mechanic.

* If you use a power to affect a complication, you must place your debt against the related Drive. Dr. Malvolent must place Debt against Love if he is using a power to help Mr. Fluffydeath; the heroes must indebt their Duty to save the orphans.

* This debt is automatically staked; heroes can go overboard with their powers, but if they lose the Complication, they are in trouble!

* Editor can 'Murphy' any single die each turn. This should always be rolled against the side who is controlling the complication.

By the way, this thread is getting quite complicated now. Would it be worth splitting it? I'm thinking that we could have separate threads for Villain Creation and mechanics, Complication resolution, Story mechanics (prominence, editorial captions).

Anyway, this game gets cooler every time - can't wait for the next installment!

Regards

Doug

[TonyLB]

I've PMed Clinton to ask whether it's an appropriate time to set up a Capes Forum.  If and when that comes through then I'll certainly have a bunch of threads to quote-split into it from this single thread.  In the meantime, though, I'd rather not clutter up Indie Game Design too much.


Now... I could be misreading this, but it feels like we have a division of Thomas encouraging bottom-up story, Doug encouraging top-down story, and me in the middle saying "I want both!"

So here's what I want from each.

Editor defined and driven Complications draw players in.  In playtest I have observed that players start out reluctant to Stake debt.  Then they get excited to be "fighting the villains".  As they achieve things, and see that they can exert a lot of control over the flow of events, they loosen up and get excited about Staking debt.  Without an Editor-controlled structure that they can bounce off of I feel that folks would stall at that initial stage of reluctance.

Player defined and driven Stakes let the players tell their heroes story.  To take the Bystanders Example, I've seen a lot of Bystanders in a few games I've run.  I've seen people stake a lot of different drives on Bystanders (Duty, Love and Hope, specifically).  And it makes for a very different story, depending on what they stake.  If they stake Duty then they start narrating things like "This is my job, this is what I do, make sure supervillains don't destroy mid-town... it's my gift, my curse".  It tends to make the hero lonely.  If they stake Hope then they start describing the fearful faces, the children cheering when the hero wins the day, and generally linking the hero to crowd reaction.  It makes the hero a vital part (indeed, almost a pawn) of the community.  And that huge thematic difference is just from what Drive they choose to Stake off of.

The current system balances and encourages these things, but imperfectly.  It draws people in using the unstaked Complications, then encourages them to turn that initial excitement into their own personal story by giving them control of what they Stake on it.  But there's some awkwardness.

Doug, you've got some solid recommendations that can help provide Editor-driven Adventure structure for the players to bounce off of, if we can figure out how to do it without sacrificing player-driven Moral story.  Thomas, you've got solid recommendations for helping player-driven Moral story if we can figure out how to do it without sacrificing Editor-driven Adventure structure.

So if I seem to be cherry-picking, taking just an element here or there rather than accepting the entire coherent viewpoints that you're espousing, that's why.

[LordSmerf]

This is quick and dirty, hopefully i can expand upon this later...

The Editor has Adventure Story control, as things stand, through a couple of methods:

1. The Editor creates the Villains, not the players.  This means that the Editor has influence over the story since he is the one who decides what is important to the antagonists, what Drives them.
2. The Editor frames scenes.  Yes, using Inspirations you can make some changes, but if the Editor frames a scene in the bank, you do not get to act as if the scene takes place at that romantic restaurant.
3. Per my proposal (in its current confused state) the Editor also gets to replace neutral Complications that no one Stakes on.  This means that the Editor will probably continue to contribute Complications to play throughout the scene.  Hopefully a couple of these Complications will be interesting enough for either a Hero or a Villain to grab hold of them.

There is a lot more to consider, i just wanted to point out where i see the Editor having Control as things stand...

Thomas

[TonyLB]

No question.  My concern is that the Editor's Adventure structure ceases to be a benefit to the players if it doesn't give them immediate opportunities to go out and control the world.

So I'm still hung up on the question:  How is a hero moving a neutral die from 2 to 5 different from a villain doing the same?  I wish I had a good answer to that, because I think the rest will fall into place very nicely.

[LordSmerf]

I believe that mechanically there is no difference, but that narratively there is a huge difference.  Remember, you get to narrate those Frames.  That means that ideas will be generated, and "cool stuff" will happen.  Perhaps a clause that the Editor controls the neutral die, so that if it is highest, the Editor controls the Complication...?  That would give the Editor Final Frame authority.  Basically this seems to put the Editor on very similar footing in terms of narrative control as the rest of the players.  I can see that being a bad thing or a good thing, or some combination of the two...  I will have to think about it a little more...

Thomas