[Capes] Story Tokens: Limits needed?

[TonyLB]

Well, Capes is still in progress, but I can definitely see daylight at the end of the tunnel.  I'm getting a face-to-face campaign set up, writing up a quick-entry scenario for Cons, and I think it may be ready for broader playtesting very soon.  Good things, all.  Still a few questions linger, of course....

In my current thinking, players can introduce and play most any character or phenomenon for a Story Token.  More Story Tokens mean more Prominence for the character.

Where, if anywhere, does one draw the line on giving the players the ability to author the shared-imagined-space?  Specifically, which of these things are okay, which are not, which would require negotiation:

[*]Getting narration rights on another player's hero[*]Getting narration rights on another players Exemplar[*]Getting narration rights on the main villain[*]Getting narration rights on a minion[*]Introducing a "Building Fire" character to a situation where no building is yet on fire[*]Creating a "Heroic Victory in this particular conflict" character, on the spot, with exactly the abilities most applicable to the situation[*]Creating a wholly new version of a known character and saying "This is how they are now"[/list:u]

[GregS]

I'm sorry, I'm a little confused by this.  Are you asking about licensing issues or player to player issues?

If the latter, can you give us an example of a situation in which some of these would occur?

Or maybe I'm just dense.

[TonyLB]

Players can spend Story Tokens in the game to get the right to narrate the actions (and thereby the results, it being that type of a system) for all manner of characters, not just the hero they create to act as their primary vehicle.

So the question is, should there be limits on who they can buy (with Story Tokens) the right to play/narrate.

EDIT:  Example:  In this Actual Play I (as a player) spent a Story Token to play an Exemplar of another player's hero.  Exemplars are folks closely tied to the hero's story (in this case his love interest).  Should he have had the right to veto my taking control of such an important character?

[Sydney Freedberg]

In this Actual Play I (as a player) spent a Story Token to play an Exemplar of another player's hero.  ....Should he have had the right to veto my taking control of such an important character?

Sure -- if he matches your bid in Story Tokens to do it. (Shades of Universalis here; but I wouldn't require him to outbid you, just match, since he invented the Exemplar in the first place). Put your "money" where your mouth is: "If you really loved me, you would spend Story Tokens on me, wouldn't you?"

The one thing I think should be off limits is narrating what somebody else's primary character (hero) does -- including thoughts, feelings, dialogue, etc. This should always be done with the "Frames" technique of "please give me one frame (or two, or three) of your character reacting to X, within my guidelines."

It's okay to have someone else's character fired, punched through a plate glass window, pissed on by a wallaby. But it's not okay to say "and you feel sad." Maybe the hero is angry, not sad. Maybe he's just confused. Maybe he's strangely aroused. But that call has to belong to the hero's creator.

[LordSmerf]

In my current thinking, players can introduce and play most any character or phenomenon for a Story Token.  More Story Tokens mean more Prominence for the character.

Where, if anywhere, does one draw the line on giving the players the ability to author the shared-imagined-space?  Specifically, which of these things are okay, which are not, which would require negotiation:

[*]Getting narration rights on another player's hero[*]Getting narration rights on another players Exemplar[*]Getting narration rights on the main villain[*]Getting narration rights on a minion[*]Introducing a "Building Fire" character to a situation where no building is yet on fire[*]Creating a "Heroic Victory in this particular conflict" character, on the spot, with exactly the abilities most applicable to the situation[*]Creating a wholly new version of a known character and saying "This is how they are now"[/list:u]

Ok, first off i think that creating a character is a seperate cost from introducing a character.  This will tend to decrease the number of new characters (i could create Random Guy, but we already have Tai Chi Grandma and she would work just as well).  This is an advantage for two reasons.  First, there are fewer characters to keep track of which results in a tigher more focused story.  Second, there are fewer breaks to write up a new character.  Sure it only takes about five minutes, but that is five minutes with a player out of circulation (and often a five minute delay before a scene starts).

I think that for control of existing material (Heroes, Villains, Exemplars) that there should be a simple Veto system.  This results in a system that allows constant character swapping if the specific group wants it.  I am not entirely sure that Sydney's proposal for Exemplar control is beneficial since it results in oppurtunities to take control of an Exemplar against the will of the player who generated them simply because they are out of Story Tokens to bid.

So, my thought would be that nothing is off limits unless you say it is off limits.  If such a system is used there needs to be a delegation of who has final authority over each character and what characters (if any) are free for anyone to use on a first come first served basis...

Thomas

[TonyLB]

On the veto, I think that saying a character must be vetoed for the scene rather than a particular player, would result in much less vexation all around.

If I say "I don't think Martha the enticing office-lady really fits in this scene in the exploding munitions factory"... well, people might disagree, but if there's an expectation that I have some "rights" to Martha (i.e. Exemplar) then it's clearly just a difference of artistic opinion.

"I don't think Joe should play Martha in this scene"... that's a whole different statement.  Maybe there should be a conscious expectation that if you let a character into a scene then it's fair game for anyone playing.

[LordSmerf]

Interesting point.  This actually becomes a very difficult (in my opinion) judgement call.  What if Joe just "doesn't get" Martha's character?  What if i know that i disagree with Joe's playing of Martha from previous experience, but know that Kelly can play Martha to a tee?

There is risk in choosing either veto by scene or veto by instance...  I guess the best route is probably, as you suggest, but scene as people will hopefully be able to exercise Social Contract about such things as "Joe, please don't play Martha again..."

Thomas

[TonyLB]

Remember that Joe is also getting indirect reinforcement to play the characters he plays well... if he does a good "Contaminar, the Toxic Emperor" and a lousy "Martha", he may learn quickly that he gets Story Tokens when he goes toxic, and gets nothing when he meddles with love interests beyond his understanding.

[LordSmerf]

So i was going back over a couple of the old Capes threads today and i came to the realization that, wow, it is now to the point where only playtesting can tell...  There is not much more left to discuss theory-wise, pretty much the only thing left to do is play it to see what works and what doesn't...  All i can say is: "Man has it been fun!"

Thomas