[Capes] Players and Villains

[Doug Ruff]

Hi again,

I was going to post this in the most recent Actual Play thread for Capes, but I realised that I was really going on about mechanics again, so I'm going to post it here instead.

(here is that other thread, by the way. And thank y'all for releasing the extra character and opponent writeups.)

One thing that wasn't clear to me before, but is clear from the thread, is that all of the 'supporting cast' are mechanically equal to the Heroes and Villains. The lawyer example (Dorian) illustrates this. He's got Powers, Attitudes and Tropes (and Drives), and at the same level as any hero or villain on the 'roster.'

I have a bit of a problem buying into this (but wouldn't mind being persuaded.) My main problem is that, if an 'Extra' can do whatever a Hero can do, why have Heroes?

I know that there is an implicit 'power scale'. Dorian the lawyer isn't able to break the laws of physics or brush aside certain-death situations. But what if he uses his 'Legal knowledge - 3' Power to threaten a Villain with an injunction? Would this have the same end effect as a 'Hyperbeam Plasma Cannon - 3' Power?

I feel that this is a bit of a Catch-22 question. If the powers are functionally equivalent, Heroes aren't special. If they aren't, then the Heroes may not balance with each other or the Villains.

(I'm wondering whether my approach here is a bit too Sim, but I don't want to open up a GNS debate on top of everything else!)

Can anyone help me get over my mild aversion to this style of play?

Regards,

Doug

[LordSmerf]

Doug,

This may help (or not).  You are right: there is not a mechanical difference between heroes and everyone else.  And looking at things from an effectiveness stand point (what can i do that mundanes can not?) indicates that you are no more effective than anyone else.  So how do we work this out?  Social Contract: the story is not about the mundanes, it is about the Heroes.  While mechanically there is nothing all that special about the heroes, by playing you are stating your willingness to buy into the idea that narratively your heroes have extraordinary abilities.  So while the mechanics allow the lawyer to stop the Villain with a Level 3 Injunction power just as easily as you could stop him with your Level 3 Hyperbeam Plasma Cannon power, the lawyer will not stop the Villain with his Legal Knowledge power.  Not because the rules disallow such things, but because the story is not about the lawyer.

And while i can see where it might be problematic, i see this as a huge advantage to the system.  What if i want to abstract the system out a bit?  I want to adress the Premise (Power is fun, but do you deserve it?) with a slightly different emphasis: my game is about genius scientists.  They have "Powers" like Expert hacking skills, and Needs no sleep.  Or what if i want a hero who stops villains with legal injunctions?  I like Capes because it is so incredibly flexible, even if you decide to step away from the Superheros thing...

Though there might be some consideration for un-Powered (in the Capes mechanical sense) characters who do not have Drives to accrue Debt into...  Dorian might have been one of those if such rules were worked up.

Oh, one other thing: whether we go with the idea of a neutral die or not i believe that it is important (read: really, really important) that there is some way in which the environment can oppose people (without a character being involved).  For instance, Ratman wants to pick the lock on a door...  Do we just assume he succeeds?  That works.  Hmm...  Perhaps i need to think on this some more.

Thomas

[TonyLB]

As the Prominence/Actions-per-turn system has increasingly erased the trivial differences between Powers and Attitudes, and leaving only the fundamental ones, I've been mulling this topic quite a bit.

How do you represent mundane skills?  You call them a "Skill" and instead of accruing Debt they Block like Attitudes.

Or, to go even further into G.U.M.my territory (Grand Unified Mechanic)... abilities are classified mechanically by two factors:

[*]Do they Block, or do they generate Debt?[*]Are they "activate with an action-turn" or "activate in response to a bad roll"?[/list:u]And that, really, is all that matters to the system.

I can envision super-powered Tropes like Invulnerability costing Debt Tokens and not Blocking.  I can imagine NPCs with all skills who could never generate moral debt.  I can imagine madmen whose attitudes are so extreme that they constantly create moral quandaries just by talking, and because their Attitudes never block you just can't shut them up.

I don't know how much of this one wants to dump onto starting players in terms of choices... the current "3/4/5 across Powers/Attitudes/Tropes" works quite nicely for most heroes.  But for NPCs and for advanced heroes perhaps the more general, more challenging character creation is in order.

[LordSmerf]

Or, to go even further into G.U.M.my territory (Grand Unified Mechanic)... abilities are classified mechanically by two factors:

[*]Do they Block, or do they generate Debt?[*]Are they "activate with an action-turn" or "activate in response to a bad roll"?[/list:u]And that, really, is all that matters to the system.

Hey, you gave me an idea...  Make the first question optional all the time instead of at character generation.  Using something Blocks it, you can take a point of Debt to unblock something.  As to the second, dump the distinction altogether.  Allow people to roll it when they want to.  Want to roll actively? Fine.  Want to roll reactively with that same ability? No problem...

Thomas

[TonyLB]

You absolutely could do that, but I think that breaking the inherent connection between superpowers and Debt undercuts the addressing of Premise.

EDIT:  For player heroes specifically.  NPCs... they'll always be addressing Premise in their relationship to the player heroes, so I'm less worried about them.

[Doug Ruff]

Wow, lots more ideas!

Thomas: I like the way the current mechanics balance between all the Heroes and Villains, I also agree this this makes genre-shifting painless. It's just the Hero/'normal' difference that bugs me.

I agree that having 'Powers' as a 'supers' only category would go a long way towards resolving this. It would also allow 'secret identity' rules - if you are in your secret identity you can't use Powers unless you can narrate a way of using them secretly.

Tony/Thomas: yes, I can see unification here. How about we just have Traits? A 'normal' trait allows you to do something, a 'super' trait allows you to do it better. I'd also suggest that the numbers don't even have to be 3/4/5...

The risk here is that we end up with too many different rolling mechanisms, as an attempt to Simulate each power or trait. Perhaps it's time to look at the basic die-rolling mechanics again.

So far, current or proposed rules have included:

- 'Bumping' a die
- 'Rolling up' and 'Rolling down'
- Levels of Power etc, that limit which numbers can be re-rolled
- Multiple dice
- Neutral or 'Murphy' dice
- Debt
- Staking
- 'Blocking' an ability, either as a cost or as an attack (Massive Overkill).
- Inspiration (bonus from previous conflicts)
- Prominence (IIRC, as a possible limit to the number of actions available per turn)

Can anyone think of some more? I'm thinking we should get all the building blocks in one pile, and then see if we can turn them into a 'pretty'.

If this is too much of a step backwards for everyone, then please shout at me about it!

Cheers,

Doug

[TonyLB]

The "Pretty" version I'm currently working on writing up goes like this:

[*]At the beginning of a turn you go around the table, each character may (if their player so chooses) "claim" one Complication their side controls.  The player physically pulls the 3x5 card in front of the character sheet.
[*]When it comes to your turn, you may claim a Complication already claimed by one of your team-mates if your Prominence is higher.
[*]The middle of the Turn is broken down into action-rounds.
[*]In the first action-round you go around the table (starting with the Editor, going clockwise... or whatever)  Every character takes one (1) action (using an ability that is pre-scripted in the character to cost an Action-Turn to activate).
[*]Anyone can interrupt these actions at any time with an appropriate reaction (using an ability that is pre-scripted in the character to only act reactively).  They can then only reroll the die that was just rolled.
[*]For either actions or reactions, if the thing they used is superheroic then they take a Debt Token.  
[*]If it's not superheroic then they block it.
[*]For round N (where N>1), you do the same thing, but only characters with Prominence N or higher get to act.
[*]When you've done rounds equal to the highest Prominence present the middle of the turn is over.
[*]At the end of the turn, anyone who has a 3x5 card claimed, and whose side still controls it, Resolves and replaces it.
[*]The person who claimed the Complication automatically gets the Inspiration generated.  Even if somebody else was instrumental in winning the Complication, they are the ones who claimed it... if their comrades didn't want them taking it there were a dozen and three ways to prevent them during the Action-turns just past.
[/list:u]I think this makes the sequence of play much cleaner.  You do your bit, then you look to your left and watch the next guy do his bit.


Re:  "Normals".  I like the idea of Skills (blocking version of Powers) for normals, because it means that the normals are equally likely to beat the heroes in small scenes, but that they'll run out of stamina in long scenes (where the heroes can call upon Powers time after time).  It means that the heroic victory is a direct game-mechanical consequence of their moral depth, rather than their exposure to cosmic rays.

[LordSmerf]

[... snip]Re: Drives and staking thereof, At the moment, the players have to place Debt against their Drives to use a power, and can then stake this Debt. Why not make this a single process? If the player starts with a counter for each point in their Drives, and they have to 'stake' a counter every time they use a power, you avoid this initial hesitancy.

This requires a complete reversal, counters are now good to have. If a character runs out of tokens for a Drive, then they have to go 'overdrawn' to use this Drive to use a power then they literally lost their sense of Hope, Justice etc. as this Drive has 'failed them' in previous conflicts.

I think this is a more natural way of approaching the issue, it feels more 'right' to me but it would have a major knock-on effect for the rest of the mechanics. What do the rest of you think?

Regards,

Doug

I wanted to revisit this.  Now, mechanically this generate a small number of minor differences.  Conceptually this is a big shift in ideas.  Overall i think that this would be a good thing to do, but i will try to break down the pros and cons objectively.

Pros:
-Conceptually simpler: i want more of this, but i have to risk it to get more.  Accumulation and then spending for effects is easier to understand for most people than a combination of accumulation (to do stuff) and then trying to dump it.

Cons:
-Staking dynamics change, significantly.  Possibly for the better, but definately different.
-The "Feel" changes: you no longer feel that you are "racking up Debt" when you use Powers, instead you are just spending a resource.

Thomas

[TonyLB]

If using a Power and Staking a Debt are the same action then the players cannot just play around with their powers without Staking Debt.  

This is a deal-breaker for me, plain and simple.  

I've tried to explain why here, here and here.  If there's still confusion about why I feel that way I guess I could try explaining it again.  

But I'm more interested to know why you guys feel that the choice of when and how to Stake, or whether to Stake at all, should be constrained.  Can you explain in a way that doesn't assume that only Staked Complications are important?

[Doug Ruff]

For what it's worth, there is still the opportunity to go into Debt using this variant - and I think it allows the 'turning' rules I was keen on earlier.

If you've got no tokens against a Drive, but you need to use it, you can still 'overdraw' and gain a token. If you succeed, you get the token back as a 'freebie' but don't get any other bonuses.

If you lose, a Crisis of Faith ensues. This gives some mechanical penalty to the character, and this penalty remains until a 'Crisis Scene' has been played out (maybe this is where the bartender and lawyer 'antagonists' come into the game!)

The Crisis Scene cannot be initiated until the present conflict is wound up (all complications resolved)

During the Crisis Scene no superpowers can be used. If the Hero 'defeats' the scene, they get the whole of their Drive replenished. If not, they lose the Drive, and it is replaced with a 'Dark' Drive (e.g. Justice -> Vengeance).

The joy (I think) of this is that the Hero never has to go overdrawn and precipitate a Crisis, but they are likely to want to for Narrative reasons (either for the Crisis Scene itself, or because they care enough about another conflict to go Overdrawn.)

Of course, the only way to return the Dark Drive back to a heroic drive is to make the Dark Drive go overdrawn - the other Heroes can 'challenge' their backsliding colleague (this could by any appropriate means, from counselling to clobberin').

Any takers?

Regards,

Doug

EDIT: Yet another crosspost - I wasn't trying to ignore Tony's plea for Powers being separate form Staking. But what if the G.U.M. allowed for powers to be used without expending tokens? If a token was only spent (and therefore Staked) when the complication was important, thereby giving a bonus? Just a thought...

[LordSmerf]

If using a Power and Staking a Debt are the same action then the players cannot just play around with their powers without Staking Debt.  

[...snip...]

But I'm more interested to know why you guys feel that the choice of when and how to Stake, or whether to Stake at all, should be constrained.  Can you explain in a way that doesn't assume that only Staked Complications are important?

First, i should have edited more carefully on my quote of Doug.  What i specifically support is the idea that instead of Accumulating Debt, i believe that the system would be better off if you Spend Faith (or something).  It is simpler to grasp conceptually.  Basically you get Faith Tokens equal to your Drive and you spend them instead of gaining Debt.  When you get to 0 Tokens you must Overdraw yourself to use that Drive again...

NOTE: I may have a subconcious ulterior motive on this one.  After some more thought on the subject i believe that this kind of system supports the idea of Staking providing dice for rolling...

As to Doug's expansion on how that would play out... it could work, i need to think about it some more.

EDIT: Crossposted with Doug.  Oh, oh, oh!  I may have it!  Using a resource spending system (instead of the current Debt accumulation system), or perhaps not...  Anyway, complications start out as the current rules suggest one die for each side at 1 or Inspiration Value.  You may Stake a token (not one used to activate a Power, a brand new one) to add another die to your side.  Every time you Stake on a Complication you get more powerful there.  Stakes are double or nothing, if you win you get back double your Stake, if you lose your Stake disappears.

Thomas

[TonyLB]

So... you can either be morally invested or use your superpowers?  But doing one takes away from doing the other?

[Doug Ruff]

Tony,

Re: Staking.

I'll address this in a separate post rather than edit again.

I don't think that Staking is in itself a necessary function of the game, it's the Drives themselves that are important.

However, it serves a useful narrative purpose, in that it allows a way of measuring the 'morale' of a character. Successful Staking makes a character more effective; losing can leave them heavily Overdrawn.

It also allows a character to say 'this is important to me, for personal reasons.'

What I don't like about staking is that there is no requirement for consistency. I can stake three tokens on rescuing a child 'because I believe in their future' (Hope) but I can refuse to stake anything the next time a child is in danger. Do Heroes suffer from 'compassion fatigue?'

In this way, exemplars work a lot better than Drives. They are much more personal. Perhaps Drives should be more like Spiritual attributes in TRoS?

Example of a 'personalised' set of Drives.

Duty - to people who cannot fight for themselves
Hope - to be accepted by society for what I am
Love - the girl who doesn't notice me
Justice - bullies must be sttod up to
Truth - what is the origin of my powers?

This Hero is going to 'Stake' (push their limits) for bystanders (Duty) but maybe not for other supers (who can stick up for themselves). He may not be pumped up about following a mook back to his hideout (Truth), but what if the hideout is also a lab similar to the one where he was 'created'?

Regards,

Doug

PS Arrrgh, more cross-posting!!!! I'm just going to post this and then catch up, sorry.

[Ron Edwards]

For pete's sake.

New topics and new threads, people. Sorry Tony, do it my way, 'K?

Best,
Ron

[Doug Ruff]

Maybe if I'm quick I can avoid cross-posting AGAIN.

Thomas,

Re: staking for extra dice. I like the way you can 'push' with your Drives this way. However, this could get a bit 'munchkin' if you stake heavily and are not contested.

How about this variant: the winner of a complication gets ll the tokens staked on it. If no-one stakes against me, I just get my tokens back. If I'm staked against, the risk is greater, but so are the rewards.

This also makes staking a 'zero-sum' game. If you add the Crisis rules, it also means that the only way to increase the total number of tokens in the game is to trigger a Crisis!

Doug

EDIT: I can't believe I just cross-posted RON. (Sorry, Ron!) I agree that we need new topics. Tony, do you want to do the honours?