[Capes] Bluffing

[TonyLB]

Eventually I figure that somebody would (as you recommend) decide to resolve the situation in an inobvious way that didn't break the Comics Code.  Might be a lot of gloating and moralizing before that happened, though.

[Doug Ruff]

For what it's worth, I don't think that any of this prevents the Code being broken if the players and GM agree to it. There are times when the group may decide that it would be cool to see a Hero unmasked, and damn the Code!

I think what springs from this (and excuse me if I'm stating the obvious here) is that the Code is nothing more than a contract between the GM and players about what can and can't happen in the SIS - and that contract is negotiable in Actual Play.

BTW, it may be an idea to 'state the obvious' in the rules, or even to explicitly encourage the group to agree their own Code before the game.

Heh, perhaps you could have a 'click-and-lock' code for different comic genres...

[TonyLB]

I definitely think that the Code should be exlicit.

I also think, for what it's worth, that it should not be open to negotiation during a session.  Between sessions, sure.  But during a session people are going to be basing their behaviors on it.  Changing it means pulling the carpet out from under their feet, on some level.

And I think that should be supported with the authority of the rules, because people are unlikely to voice that type of concern.  "Hey, I was counting on the idea that my hero couldn't be killed!" sounds so very whiny in my head, even if it is a perfectly reasonable statement.

Do you foresee situations where the need to amend the Code would be so pressing that passing up a single session would be a grave loss?

[LordSmerf]

If you want to make the Code explicit then i highly recommend that you provide some very specific and useful guidelines for what is in the Code and what is almost, but not quite, in the code.  For example: i think that either Zip or the Specter could have been unmasked, but i was fighting to keep Specter hidden and i was somewhat uncomfortable unmasking Zip without explicit permission (which i did not request).  I was not sure if unmasking Zip would violate the Code or not.

One thing to note is that often the code violaitons are hard to anticipate.  If we had had a "Gray Ghost will not give in to despair" clause in our Code then one of the most powerful parts of the last session (Gray Ghost giving into despair, of course) would not have happened.  Whether that is good or bad, i can not really say.

Thomas

[Doug Ruff]

Do you foresee situations where the need to amend the Code would be so pressing that passing up a single session would be a grave loss?

No, not really. I'm thinking more that there may be times when one of the group comes up with a really great idea for resolving an Event, everyone wants it to happen, but it's against the pre-arranged Code.

For example, if the Code says "Heroes will never be unmasked", but during Play someone suggests that a Villain or supporting character, who is about to die, gets to see the Hero for who they really are.

Or, Hero death. Heroes don't die very often in the comics, which implies that "Heroes never die" is part of the Code. But sometimes, very rarely, a Hero does die. Handled correctly, it's a momentous event.

This doesn't mean that the Code should be changed every session, or that there should be Events every session that break the Code - they should be 'the exceptions that prove the rule'.

I just think that the Code should be less important than Telling a Great Story. If the Story is enhanced by introducing an Event that breaks the Code, and everyone agrees to it - I say, let it happen.

[TonyLB]

Yeah, I get what you're saying.  But the ability of the Code to not turn into a tool of Player Discomfort (as above) is based on its objective nature.

For instance, to turn Thomas's example of Gray Ghost's surrender on its head:  If I had the notion that we had a Comic Code, and that it was malleable, I would have called upon the group to add a clause saying that the Specter couldn't force an admission of defeat, and had to Gloat instead.  I really didn't want to face that failure, and it's really good that I did.

So, one thing we can do is to give people really good examples of how to tightly write these things.  For instance, "Anybody who discovers the hero's secret identity must be slated for removal from the story or memory erasure by the end of the session" would probably work better than "Nobody discovers the secret identity".

Beyond that, are there ways to accomplish both goals?

[LordSmerf]

Yeah, I get what you're saying.  But the ability of the Code to not turn into a tool of Player Discomfort (as above) is based on its objective nature.

Now that is one tough nut to crack.  I really, really like the idea of making some sort of explicity Code (verbalizing the Social Contract as it were).  On the other hand I do not see a way to do it that does not (at least) strongly encourage the use of said Code to avoid Player Discomfort.  How do you decide if Character Death is actually bad or if it is just Discomfort?

Oh, here is an idea: What if each character had an Issue (or something), and nothing could happen that prevented them from resolving that Issue.  So, if Gray Ghost must "Find faith in the common man."  Then dying before he gets the chance would violate the Code and admitting defeat would not...

Hmmm...  That is rather subjective, and perhaps not very useful as it stands.  I guess I will leave it in case it sparks a great solution from someone else.  As it stands I do not really have a useful solution to the problem...

Thomas